The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

July 25, 2023 R47633

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF
July 25, 2023
Appropriations in the 117th Congress
Elena H. Humphreys
National attention to municipal water infrastructure has stemmed from, among other things,
Analyst in Environmental
water infrastructure damage from extreme weather events (e.g., hurricanes and drought);
Policy
detection of elevated lead levels in tap water; and the need to repair or replace aging water

infrastructure. In many communities, drinking water distribution, wastewater collection, and
treatment systems may require repair or replacement to maintain levels of service and comply

with water treatment and quality requirements. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) periodically reports on the capital cost of wastewater and drinking water infrastructure needs. EPA’s 2016 report on
wastewater estimates that the nation’s wastewater treatment facilities will need $271 billion over 20 years to meet federal
water quality objectives. EPA’s 2023 report on drinking water indicates that public water systems need to invest $625 billion
in infrastructure improvements over 20 years to ensure the provision of safe drinking water.
Recent congressional attention to drinking water and wastewater infrastructure issues and associated financial challenges for
communities has yielded increased appropriations in recent years for several financial assistance programs administered by
EPA. These programs include the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (DWSRF) programs, established under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
respectively. In both SRF programs, EPA makes grants to states to capitalize a state revolving loan fund, and states
(including Puerto Rico) are authorized to use the CWSRF or the DWSRF to provide primarily subsidized loans to publicly
owned treatment works (and other eligible recipients) or eligible public water systems, respectively. In addition, the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) provided emergency supplemental appropriations for the SRF
programs. Also, the 117th Congress reestablished the practice of funding water infrastructure projects directly through
community project funding/congressionally directed spending (CPF/CDS) items, commonly referred to as earmarks.
The practice of earmarking a portion of an EPA account for specific wastewater treatment and other water quality projects
began with the FY1989 appropriations. After the FY2010 appropriations measure, the practice of earmarking stopped until
the 117th Congress. The 117th Congress used a different approach for providing funds to CDS/CPF items. Instead of providing
a separate appropriation for earmarks, portions of the CWSRF and DWSRF appropriations were dedicated to earmarks. Over
$2.3 billion of the $21.7 billion FY2022 and FY2023 SRF appropriations—including IIJA supplemental appropriations—was
reserved for CPF/CDS items. The funds reserved for CPF/CDS are distributed directly to recipients, instead of to states’ SRF
programs. Thus, the reservation of funds effectively decreases the total amount available for allotment as state capitalization
grants and the amount available for set-aside from SRF appropriations for tribal water infrastructure grants.
The reservation of CPF/CDS from the SRF appropriations in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103) and
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328) resulted in changes in the total amount of water infrastructure
funding—as CPF/CDS and through the SRF capitalization grant—going to projects in states, relative to if the SRF
appropriations were distributed entirely via the SRF programs. While some states received more funding due to CPF/CDS
items, other states received less in water infrastructure funding as a result of this practice. The effect of reserving funds for
CPF/CDS items from regular appropriations on state SRF programs has been mitigated in part by IIJA supplemental
appropriations for the SRFs.
Funds earmarked for water infrastructure projects increased from FY2022 to FY2023. Earmarked funds were dedicated to an
increased number of projects; the average amount provided per project also increased. For FY2022, Congress provided funds
for 485 projects, at an average amount of $1.7 million per project. For FY2023, 715 projects received an average of $2.0
million per project. Not all states and territories received earmarked funds. For both FY2022 and FY2023, Congress did not
earmark funds for projects in Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia or for
Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and Guam.
The practice of providing CPF/CDS for water infrastructure projects from SRF appropriations shifts the process of who
decides which water infrastructure projects will receive funding from state program officials to Members of Congress.
Whether CPF/CDS are provided at all or as a separate appropriation or set-aside from future SRF appropriations remains to
be seen.
Congressional Research Service

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Introduction
National attention to municipal water infrastructure has stemmed from circumstances and events
such as water infrastructure damage from extreme weather events (e.g., hurricanes and drought);
detection of elevated lead levels in tap water in various older cities and schools; and the need to
repair or replace aging water infrastructure. In many communities, drinking water distribution,
wastewater collection, and treatment systems may require repair or replacement to maintain
levels of service and comply with water treatment requirements.1 An overarching issue is deferral,
for a range of reasons, of local investment in water infrastructure.
A group of private-sector engineers and others report that much of the nation’s water
infrastructure is deteriorating, threatening public health and/or water quality objectives, and
increasing operations and maintenance costs.2 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
periodically reports on the capital cost of wastewater and drinking water infrastructure needs.
EPA’s 2016 report on wastewater estimates that the nation’s wastewater treatment facilities will
need $271 billion over 20 years to meet federal water quality objectives.3 EPA’s 2023 report on
drinking water indicates that public water systems need to invest $625 billion in infrastructure
improvements over 20 years to ensure the provision of safe drinking water.4
Nationwide, communities of varying characteristics may face financial challenges as they manage
the need to repair or replace aging water infrastructure.5 Most wastewater and drinking water
systems provide service to smaller communities. According to EPA’s 2016 wastewater needs
report, approximately 15,000 systems provide wastewater services to 238.2 million people.6 Of
these systems, nearly 12,000 (80%) serve communities with populations of fewer than 10,000
individuals.7 As of March 2023, EPA’s database indicated that nearly 50,000 drinking water
systems in the United States regularly serve 25 or more of the same individuals.8 These systems
provide tap water to approximately 312.7 million people.9 Nearly 40,000 (80%) of these
community drinking water systems are relatively small, serving 3,300 or fewer people.10 These
small systems have a narrow rate base from which to finance wastewater or drinking water
infrastructure improvements.

1 See, for example, American Water Works Association (AWWA), Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water
Infrastructure Challenge, 2012, https://www.awwa.org/Portals/0/AWWA/ETS/Resources/BuriedNoLonger2012.pdf?
ver=2020-09-21-095318-407.
2 See American Society of Civil Engineers, 2021 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, 2021,
https://infrastructurereportcard.org/. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Things Local Officials Should
Know about Sustainable Water Infrastructure, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-water-infrastructure/things-local-
officials-should-know-about-sustainable-water.
3 EPA, Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) Report to Congress—2012, 2016, https://www.epa.gov/cwns. EPA is
in the process of preparing an updated wastewater needs report. See https://www.epa.gov/cwns.
4 EPA, 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment, April 2023, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/
documents/2023-04/Final_DWINSA%20Public%20Factsheet%204.4.23.pdf.
5 AWWA, “Buried No Longer,” p. 14 and p. 3.
6 EPA, Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) Report to Congress—2012, 2016, https://www.epa.gov/cwns.
7 Ibid.
8 From EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information Systems Water System Summary report at https://ofmpub.epa.gov/
apex/sfdw/f?p=108:21:::NO:RP,RIR::. The search parameters were community water systems.
9 Ibid.
10 Water System Summary. The search parameters were community water systems and serving 3,300 persons or less.
Congressional Research Service

1

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

In addition, cities may face declining populations and declining utility revenues from which
utilities can finance water infrastructure repairs.11 Larger community water systems and publicly
owned treatment works have larger rate bases from which to finance infrastructure projects
needed to maintain levels of service. Leaks from aging water infrastructure may cause revenue
losses in drinking water systems, or may contribute to groundwater contamination in wastewater
systems. Communities may be challenged to protect water supplies, respond to contamination
incidents, and afford projects to repair or replace aging water infrastructure.
In the 117th Congress, several acts provided appropriations for several financial assistance
programs administered by EPA. These programs include the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) programs, established under
the Clean Water Act (CWA)12 and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),13 respectively. In
addition, the 117th Congress reestablished the practice of providing funds directly to communities
for water infrastructure projects through community project funding/congressionally directed
spending (CPF/CDS) items, commonly referred to as earmarks.
Stakeholders have raised concerns with the way funds were earmarked for water infrastructure
projects.14 The FY2022 and FY2023 annual appropriations acts dedicated part of the CWSRF and
DWSRF appropriations to earmarks. This diverges from the way that earmarks were previously
provided. In appropriations acts from FY1989 to FY2010, earmarked funds for water
infrastructure projects were provided separately from SRF appropriations, though within the same
EPA account. Earmarked funds are available to communities directly, instead of through either the
state-administered CWSRF or DWSRF programs. The distribution of the earmarks among the
states differs from the distribution of funds under the SRF programs. The practice of reserving
part of SRF appropriations for earmarks and the distribution of those earmarks among the states
has garnered interest, given that this practice changes the overall distribution of available water
infrastructure funds. As the 118th Congress considers annual appropriations bills, calculating the
effect of this practice on the amount of water infrastructure funds available by state provides
information to policymakers during their deliberations, especially given continued concerns about
water infrastructure needs and affordability.
This report discusses the key federal financial assistance programs for municipal water
infrastructure and analyzes trends in changes to these programs over time. It provides a brief
history of the practice of earmarking federal funding for water infrastructure projects. It also
analyzes the effect of the 117th Congress’s CPF/CDS items on SRFs, and discusses issues and
options regarding this practice.

11 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Water Infrastructure: Information on Selected Midsize and Large
Cities with Declining Populations, GAO-16-785, October 17, 2016, https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/679783.pdf.
12 The statutory name for the Clean Water Act is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, codified at 33
U.S.C. §§1231-1387. The current act took much of its current form after enactment of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500), which established the Title II construction grants program (although
prior versions of the act had authorized some degree of grants assistance since 1956).
13 SDWA is codified generally at 42 U.S.C. §§300f-300j.
14 Letter from J. Alan Roberson, Association of State Drinking Water Administrators Executive Director, to U.S. House
Committee on Appropriations and U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, November 10, 2022,
https://www.asdwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ASDWA-Appropriations-Earmarks-Letter-11102022-Final.pdf.
Letter from Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities to U.S. House Committee on Appropriations and U.S.
Senate Committee on Appropriations, May 26, 2022, https://www.cifanet.org/_files/ugd/
ce9ad4_ac2901ac5cfc4b0c83912825530adb0e.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

2

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

State Revolving Fund (SRF) Programs
The CWSRF and the DWSRF programs are the principal federal programs that help support
wastewater and drinking water infrastructure. The CWSRF provides financial assistance for
wastewater (e.g., sewer and stormwater) infrastructure projects to publicly owned treatment
works and other eligible recipients.15 The DWSRF provides assistance to public water systems,
which may be publicly or privately owned.16 In both SRF programs, EPA makes grants to states to
capitalize a state revolving loan fund. Each state is required to provide a 20% match of its annual
capitalization grant. States are authorized to use the CWSRF or the DWSRF to provide primarily
subsidized loans to publicly owned treatment works (and other eligible recipients) or eligible
public water systems, respectively. CWSRF financial assistance is available generally for projects
needed for constructing or upgrading (and planning and designing) publicly owned treatment
works, among a range of other purposes. DWSRF financial assistance is available for statutorily
specified expenditures and those that EPA has determined, through guidance, will facilitate
SDWA compliance or significantly further the act’s health protection objectives.
All 50 states and Puerto Rico implement their own SRF programs.17 EPA allots CWSRF funds
among states based on a CWA statutory formula, which provides a minimum share of 0.5% to
each state and has effectively been in place since the beginning of the program in 1987.18 In
contrast, SDWA directs EPA to distribute DWSRF funds among the states based on the results of
the most recent quadrennial needs survey, with each state receiving a minimum 1% of the
available funds.19
Both the CWA and SDWA provide for federal oversight of the state programs. For example, states
are required to establish priority lists called Intended Use Plans (IUPs) that identify the projects
that will receive SRF assistance in that year. More specifically, the CWA requires states to use
capitalization grants first to assure compliance with enforceable deadlines, goals, and
requirements of the CWA, including municipal compliance;20 and SDWA requires each state to
give funding priority to projects that
• address the most serious human health risks,
• are necessary to ensure compliance, and
• assist systems most in need on a per-household basis according to state
affordability criteria.21

15 33 U.S.C. §§1381-1387.
16 42 U.S.C. §300j-12.
17 The CWA and SDWA require EPA to provide direct grants to the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Indian tribes for wastewater and
drinking water infrastructure improvements (33 U.S.C. §1362 and §1377; 42 U.S.C. 300j-12(i) and (j)). The funding
for the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and Indian tribes is part of the SRF appropriations to EPA.
18 For more information on the CWA allotment formula, see CRS Report R47474, Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Allotment Formula: Background and Options, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
19 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(a)(1)(D). SDWA directs or authorizes EPA to set aside amounts of the DWSRF appropriation for
various program purposes before allotting the remaining funds among the states. EPA calculates the amount available
for allotment among the states after deducting amounts reserved for tribal grants, unregulated contaminant monitoring,
health effects studies, and oversight of American iron and steel requirements.
20 33 U.S.C. §1296.
21 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(b)(3).
Congressional Research Service

3

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

States are required to publish these lists and solicit public comment.22 EPA is required to review
the state IUPs to confirm statutory and regulatory compliance. In addition, both the CWA and
SDWA require states to report specific information to EPA regarding the implementation of their
respective SRF programs. In particular, states are required to submit to EPA an annual report on
the CWSRF and a biennial report on the DWSRF. Both statutes require EPA to annually review
states’ implementation activities and periodically audit state programs.23 EPA annually publishes
information on activities for both programs.24
Changes to EPA Financial Assistance Programs
Over time, the federal role in supporting municipal water infrastructure has changed. Prior to
1987, a grant program in CWA Title II provided funding for the construction of wastewater
treatment facilities and related objectives. The Water Quality Act of 1987 phased out the Title II
construction grants program and authorized the CWSRF program and appropriations to capitalize
state revolving loan funds.25 The SDWA Amendments of 1996 authorized a complementary
program for drinking water infrastructure, the DWSRF.26 Prior to 1996, there was no federal
financial assistance program for municipal drinking water infrastructure.27
Since the establishment of the CWSRF in 1987 and of the DWSRF in 1996, several acts have
amended the CWA and SDWA to increase flexibilities and/or add new requirements to these
programs. In general, these changes reflect an interest in allowing states to provide financial
assistance for a wider range of project types or to provide other types of financial assistance than
subsidized loans, the traditional financing mechanism of these programs. Among these changes,
several have pertained to states’ use of “additional subsidization.” The authority and requirement
for states to provide additional subsidization has been one of the primary instruments that
Congress has used to address the affordability of municipal water infrastructure. Such assistance
may include principal or other loan forgiveness; grants; negative interest loans; and buying,
refinancing, or restructuring debt, which can make infrastructure projects affordable.28
Since the DWSRF was established in 1996, SDWA has authorized states to use up to 30% of their
DWSRF capitalization grants for additional subsidization. America’s Water Infrastructure Act
(AWIA; P.L. 115-270) increased this proportion to 35% while conditionally requiring states to use
at least 6% of their capitalization grants for these purposes. In 2014, Congress amended the CWA
adding similar authority for states to provide additional subsidization, but not requiring it. IIJA

22 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(b)(3)(B); 33 U.S.C. §1386(c).
23 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(g)(4); 33 U.S.C. §1386. As initially established, the DWSRF authorized states to provide
additional subsidization to certain communities. In 2014, similar provisions were added to the CWSRF by the Water
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-121).
24 For example, EPA collects data annually from the SRF programs to document program progress and account for the
use of federal funds through the National Information Management System reports, available at the respective EPA
websites: https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/clean-water-state-revolving-fund-cwsrf-national-information-management-
system-reports and https://www.epa.gov/dwsrf/drinking-water-state-revolving-fund-national-information-management-
system-reports.
25 P.L. 100-4, the Water Quality Act of 1987, authorized $18 billion over nine years for sewage treatment plant
construction, through a combination of the Title II grants program and a new revolving loan fund program in CWA
Title VI (33 U.S.C. §§1381-1387).
26 P.L. 104-182.
27 For more details, see CRS Report 96-647, Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations, by
Jonathan L. Ramseur and Mary Tiemann.
28 33 U.S.C. §1383(i); 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(d). In addition, states can use CWSRF grants to provide additional
subsidization for specific types of infrastructure projects, including those that address water or energy efficiency.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 11 link to page 12 The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

amended the DWSRF and CWSRF additional subsidization provisions to conditionally require
states to use 12% of their DWSRF capitalization grants and 10% of their CWSRF capitalization
grants for these subsidies.29
Further, annual appropriations acts have also directed states to use minimum percentages of their
capitalization grants for additional subsidization. For example, IIJA supplemental appropriations
require states to use 49% of their SRF capitalization grant amount as 100% principal forgiveness
or grants, or a combination of these. For the IIJA emergency supplemental appropriations for
projects to address emerging contaminants, states are required to use 100% of their capitalization
grants as principal forgiveness or grants. In EPA memoranda from 2022 and 2023, the agency
clarified its interpretation that the appropriations acts’ additional subsidization percentages are
additive to the SDWA additional subsidization statutory floor of 12% for the DWSRF and the
CWA floor of 10% for the CWSRF.30
These statutory revisions and funding directives reflect an increased interest in providing
additional subsidies beyond subsidized loans to communities that may be challenged to afford
water infrastructure projects. Yet, some states observe that, even with revisions to authority and/or
requirements to provide increased additional subsidization from the SRFs, requests for such
assistance outpace amounts available.31
Appropriations for the SRF Programs
Figure 1 and Figure 2 provide appropriations for the CWSRF and the DWSRF, respectively.32
Appropriations for the SRFs and other water infrastructure programs are provided within an EPA
account, which is currently called the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account. From
FY2000 through FY2009, annual appropriations averaged about $1.1 billion for the CWSRF and
about $833 million for the DWSRF. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L.
111-5) provided in FY2009 $4.0 billion for the CWSRF and $2.0 billion for the DWSRF, in
addition to the regular FY2009 appropriations.33 In nominal dollars (i.e., not adjusted for

29 P.L. 117-58, §50102 and §50210.
30 EPA, FY 2022 DWSRF Base Allotment Availability, May 2022, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-
05/FY%202022%20DWSRF%20Base%20Allotment%20Availability.pdf. EPA, FY 2022 CWSRF Base Allotment
Availability, May 2022, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/
FY%202022%20CWSRF%20Base%20Allotment%20Availability.pdf. EPA, FY 2023 Clean Water State Revolving
Fund Base Allotment Availability, March 2023, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/fy2023-cwsrf-
base-allotment.pdf. EPA, FY 2023 Allotments for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund based on the Seventh
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment, May 2023, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/
2023-04/Final_FY23%20DWSRF%20Allotment%20Memo%20and%20Attachments_April%202023.pdf.
31 For example, California’s FY2022 DWSRF IUP states that demand for additional subsidization “exceeds the $108
million in principal forgiveness available from the FFY [Federal Fiscal Year] 2022 DWSRF Base Program and General
Supplemental capitalization grants,” and its FY2022 CWSRF IUP states that requests for additional subsidization
“exceeds the $95 million in principal forgiveness available from the FFY 2022 CWSRF Base Program and General
Supplemental capitalization grants.” California State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB), State of California
Clean Water State Revolving Fund FY2022 Intended Use Plan, October 3, 2022, p. 84,
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/docs/2022/cwsrf-iup-sfy2022-23-final.pdf.
SWRCB, State of California Drinking Water State Revolving Fund FY2022 Intended Use Plan, October 3, 2022, p. 96,
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/docs/2022/dwsrf-iup-sfy2022-23-final.pdf.
32 Note that FY1989 and FY1990 appropriations acts included appropriations for the CWA Title II Construction Grant
Program that predated the CWSRF program. For more information about the transition from the CWA Title II
Construction Grant Program to the CWSRF, see CRS Report R47474, Clean Water State Revolving Fund Allotment
Formula: Background and Options, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
33 For more information about the SRF appropriations in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 11 link to page 12 The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

inflation), the annual appropriations for the SRF programs—especially for the CWSRF—
increased after ARRA. Between FY2010 and FY2021, annual appropriations averaged about $1.6
billion for the CWSRF and about $1.0 billion for the DWSRF. Appropriations for these programs
remained relatively consistent until FY2022.
In the 117th Congress, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) Division J
provided five fiscal years of emergency supplemental appropriations for the CWSRF and
DWSRF.34 For the CWSRF, IIJA included $11.7 billion for FY2022 through FY2026 and an
additional $1.0 billion total for this time period to address emerging contaminants. For a
breakdown of CWSRF funding by fiscal year, see Figure 1. For the DWSRF, IIJA included $11.7
billion for FY2022 through FY2026, as well as an additional $15 billion total for this time period
for lead service-line replacement projects and associated activities and an additional $4.0 billion
total for this time period to address emerging contaminants. For a breakdown of DWSRF funding
by fiscal year, see Figure 2. Prior to allotting the funds among the states, IIJA authorizes EPA to
reserve certain percentages for EPA administration and for oversight by EPA’s Office of Inspector
General.35 Further, the annual appropriations acts provided regular appropriations for the SRF
programs. These annual appropriations acts included CPF/CDS items for municipal water
infrastructure projects.

111-5), see CRS Report R46464, EPA Water Infrastructure Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009, by Jonathan L. Ramseur and Elena H. Humphreys.
34 See CRS Report R46892, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA): Drinking Water and Wastewater
Infrastructure, by Elena H. Humphreys and Jonathan L. Ramseur for more details.
35 For additional details, see Table 1 of CRS Report R46892, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA): Drinking
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, by Elena H. Humphreys and Jonathan L. Ramseur.
Congressional Research Service

6

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Figure 1. Appropriations for Clean Water State Revolving Fund

Source: Prepared by CRS using information from annual appropriations acts, committee reports, and
explanatory statements presented in the Congressional Record. Amounts reflect applicable rescissions and
supplemental appropriations, including $4.0 bil ion in P.L. 111-5 and $52.5 mil ion in P.L. 116-20. “Real” or 2020
dol ars calculated from Office of Management of Budget, Table 10.1, “Gross Domestic Product and Deflators
Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–2026,” at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/. The deflator
values used for FY2023 through FY2026 are estimates.
Notes: “ARRA” denotes supplemental appropriations provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (P.L. 111-5). “IIJA” denotes supplemental appropriations provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act (P.L. 117-58). “EC” denotes CWSRF supplemental appropriations dedicated to projects to address emerging
contaminants. General Program or “GP” denotes supplemental appropriations provided to the CWSRF for the
range of statutory eligibilities. The funding levels for FY2024 through FY2026 are likely to change, reflecting
funding for the CWSRF through annual appropriations (FY2024-FY2026).
Congressional Research Service

7

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Figure 2. Appropriations for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

Source: Prepared by CRS using information from annual appropriations acts, committee reports, and
explanatory statements presented in the Congressional Record. Amounts reflect applicable rescissions and
supplemental appropriations, including $2.0 bil ion in P.L. 111-5, $100 mil ion in P.L. 114-254, and $296.1 mil ion
in P.L. 116-20. “Real” or 2020 dol ars calculated from Office of Management of Budget, Table 10.1, “Gross
Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–2026,” at https://www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/historical-tables/. The deflator values used for FY2023 through FY2026 are estimates.
Notes: “ARRA” denotes supplemental appropriations provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (P.L. 111-5). “IIJA” denotes supplemental appropriations provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act (P.L. 117-58). “EC” denotes DWSRF supplemental appropriations dedicated to projects to address emerging
contaminants. General Program or “GP” denotes supplemental appropriations provided through the DWSRF for
the range of statutory eligibilities. “LSL” denotes supplemental appropriations provided to the DWSRF for lead
service-line (LSL) replacement projects and related activities. The funding levels for FY2024 through FY2026 are
likely to change, reflecting funding for the DWSRF through annual appropriations (FY2024-FY2026).
History of Water Infrastructure Project Earmarks
The practice of earmarking a portion of an EPA account for specific wastewater treatment and
other water quality projects began with the FY1989 appropriations. In FY1989, FY1990, and
FY1991, earmarked funds were provided solely for projects that Congress had authorized in the
Water Quality Act of 1987.36 Beginning in FY1992, Congress also earmarked funds for a number

36 P.L. 100-404, P.L. 101-144, and P.L. 101-507 provided funding for P.L. 100-4 §510, §512, §513, or §515. These
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 32 The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

of projects not specifically authorized in the Clean Water Act or the 1987 CWA amendments.37
Further, from FY1989 to FY1994, earmarked funds were provided to wastewater treatment
projects. In the FY1995 appropriations act, two drinking water projects were provided earmarked
funds.38 As such, through the process of earmarking, Congress provided grants for drinking water
system projects, which were not available before the establishment of the DWSRF in 1996.
Appendix B contains details about the number of projects that received earmarked funding and
total funding earmarked to water infrastructure projects as well as SRF appropriations.
Support of earmarks and their purposes has changed over time. In the 110th Congress (2007-
2008), the House and Senate codified earmark disclosure requirements into their respective
chamber rules with the stated intention of bringing more transparency to the earmarking
process.39 In FY2007, Congress applied a one-year moratorium on earmarks in all appropriations
bills.40 For the next three years, special project grants appeared in appropriations bills—including
EPA’s—but in FY2011, no funding was earmarked for congressional water infrastructure projects.
In the 112th Congress (2011-2012), the House and Senate began what has been referred to as an
“earmark moratorium” or “earmark ban.”41 The House extended the ban on earmarks under the
Republican Conference rules, and the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee
announced a moratorium on earmarks for FY2011 and FY2012.42 The earmark disclosure rules in
both the House and Senate have remained in place. The moratorium on congressional earmarks
continued until the 117th Congress.
From FY1989 to FY2010, appropriation acts provided a separate appropriation to the CWSRF in
addition to funds for water infrastructure project grants. Similarly, from FY1997 to FY2010,
appropriations acts provided a separate appropriation for the DWSRF. Both SRF appropriations
and earmarks were provided within the same account as the water infrastructure project grants.
With the reestablishment of earmarks, the 117th Congress used a different approach for providing
funds to CPF/CDS items. Instead of providing a separate appropriation for earmarks within an
account, portions of the CWSRF and DWSRF appropriations were set aside for earmarks. The
funds reserved for CPF/CDS are distributed directly to recipients, instead of to states’ SRF

sections authorized grants to Boston, to provide secondary treatment of wastewater and improve the environmental
quality of Boston Harbor; San Diego, to remedy discharges of untreated sewage from Tijuana, Mexico; Des Moines, a
sewage treatment plant project; and Oakwood Beach, NY, for relocation of natural gas facilities related to two sewage
treatment facilities.
37 P.L. 102-139.
38 H.Rept. 103-715.
39 In Senate rules, the phrase congressionally directed spending item is used in place of earmark. For the purposes of
this report, the terms are used interchangeably. The Senate included its rule in the Honest Leadership and Open
Government Act of 2007, which became law on September 14, 2007 (§521 of P.L. 110-81, 121 Stat.760). See rule XXI
of the Rules of the House of Representatives. While no formal definition of community project funding has been
provided, the report uses this phrase interchangeably with earmarks.
40 “Byrd-Obey Announce FY 2007 Plan,” press release, December 11, 2006.
41 For more information on the earmark moratorium, see CRS Report R45429, Lifting the Earmark Moratorium:
Frequently Asked Questions, by Megan S. Lynch.
42 U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, “Committee Announces Earmark Moratorium,” press release, February 1,
2011, https://web.archive.org/web/20110203075236/http:/appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&
id=188dc791-4b0d-459e-b8d9-4ede5ca299e7; and U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, “Senate Appropriations
Committee Announces Extension of Earmark Moratorium,” press release, February 2, 2012, https://web.archive.org/
web/20120214222505/http:/appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=3883059e-7a0c-496e-8d51-
440aa7c2d57c. The Rules of the House Republican Conference for the 112th Congress (2011-2012) included a standing
order labeled Earmark Moratorium that stated, “It is the policy of the House Republican Conference that no Member
shall request a congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit, as such terms have been described in
the Rules of the House.”
Congressional Research Service

9

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

programs. Thus, the reservation of funds effectively decreases the total amount available for
allotment as state capitalization grants.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103) sets aside for CPF/CDS
• 27% ($443.6 million) of the FY2022 CWSRF appropriation and
• 35% ($397.8 million) of the FY2022 DWSRF appropriation.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328) sets aside for CPF/CDS
• 53% ($863.1 million) of the FY2023 CWSRF appropriation and
• 54% ($609.3 million) of the FY2023 DWSRF appropriation.
In the 118th Congress, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations have solicited
Member requests for such items for FY2024.43
Earmarks in the 117th Congress
In the 117th Congress, the appropriations committees issued guidance for Members to follow
when submitting requests for CPF in the House or for CDS in the Senate. In both chambers, the
committees agreed to limit the amount of CPF/CDS to no more than 1% of discretionary
spending. In the House, the Committee on Appropriations issued general guidance for Members
to request CPF, including that the requests be aligned with existing requirements under House
rules.44 The House Committee on Appropriations included new requirements such as prohibiting
funding recipients that were “for-profit” entities, limiting the number of CPF requests to 10, and
expanding certain transparency requirements.45 These expanded requirements included that
Members confirm that they and their immediate family had no interest in the project. In addition,
the Committee required Members to provide information on CPF requests online, and
demonstrate community support for the request.46 The relevant subcommittees issued additional
specific guidance. For the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
Members could submit requests for specific accounts, such as the EPA’s STAG account. The
subcommittee required CPF to meet certain conditions, namely that these projects are otherwise
eligible for the CWSRF or DWSRF and that CPF recipients provide a minimum cost share of
20%. Through this guidance, the subcommittee noted that it would look “favorably upon requests
for projects that are listed on a state’s most recent Intended Use Plan.”47 The committee
announced that it would require the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit

43 U.S. House Committee on Appropriations, “Fiscal Year 2024 Member Request Guidance,”
https://appropriations.house.gov/fiscal-year-2024-member-request-guidance. U.S. Senate Committee on
Appropriations, “FY 2024 Appropriations Requests and Congressionally Directed Spending,”
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/fy-2024-appropriations-requests-and-congressionally-directed-spending.
44 See CRS Report R46722, Community Project Funding: House Rules and Committee Protocols, by Megan S. Lynch
for details on specific House Rules.
45 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, “DeLauro Announces Community Project Funding in Fiscal
Year 2022,” 117th Cong., 1st sess., February 26, 2021, https://democrats-appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/
delauro-announces-community-project-funding-in-fiscal-year-2022.
46 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, “DeLauro Announces Community Project Funding in Fiscal
Year 2022,” 117th Cong., 1st sess., February 26, 2021, https://democrats-appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/
delauro-announces-community-project-funding-in-fiscal-year-2022.
47 U.S. House Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, “Fiscal Year 2022
Member Project Request Guide,” https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/
FY22%20Interior%20Community%20Project%20Request%20Guide.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

10

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

selected items and report to Congress.48 Similar requirements were included for Member requests
of CPF for FY2023 appropriations.49
The Senate Committee on Appropriations considered CDS requests for specified agencies and
accounts, including the EPA’s STAG account.50 The committee included a number of
requirements to limit certain earmark practices or prohibit earmarking projects for certain entities,
such as “for-profit” entities. These include existing earmark disclosure requirements such as
prohibiting a vote on a motion to proceed to consider a measure or a vote on adoption of a
conference report, unless the chair of the committee or the majority leader (or designee) certifies
that a complete list of earmarks and the name of each Senator requesting each earmark is
available on a publicly accessible congressional website in a searchable form at least 48 hours
before the vote.51 As in the House, the committee also included additional new measures such as
requiring GAO to audit selected items and report to Congress.52 These requirements remained in
place when the committee received CDS requests as a part of deliberations on the FY2023
appropriations measure.53
GAO Audit of CPF/CDS
The joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 requires GAO to audit
CPF/CDS. The joint explanatory statement identified that the intent of the GAO audit of CPF/CDS is to inform
the consideration of such funding in future years.54 GAO is directed to review a selection of CPF/CDS across
agencies and subcommittees to determine whether recipients spent the CPF/CDS or had a plan to do so, and to
assess whether the funds were used for the purposes originally identified. GAO was also required to assess
whether the federal agencies administering CPF/CDS had “sufficient processes” for monitoring expenditures. For
FY2023, GAO is similarly required to audit CPF/CDS through direction provided the joint explanatory statement
accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023.55
The amount of earmarked funds for water infrastructure projects increased between FY2022 and
FY2023. In addition, earmarked funds were dedicated to an increased number of projects; at the

48 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, “DeLauro Announces Community Project Funding in Fiscal
Year 2022,” 117th Cong., 1st sess., February 26, 2021, https://democrats-appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/
delauro-announces-community-project-funding-in-fiscal-year-2022.
49 U.S. House Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, “Fiscal Year 2023
Member Project Request Guide,” https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/
FY23%20Interior%2C%20Environment%2C%20and%20Related%20Agencies%20Member%20Project%20Instruction
s.pdf. For FY2023, Representatives could submit 15 requests.
50 U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, “FY2022 Appropriations Requests: General Guidance,” April 26, 2021,
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/fy-2022-appropriations-requests-and-congressionally-directed-spending. See
also U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, “Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
Congressionally Directed Spending, Eligible Agencies and Account,” https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/
media/doc/InteriorCDS.pdf.
51 Senate Rule XLIV. For more information, see CRS Report RS22867, Earmark Disclosure Rules in the Senate:
Member and Committee Requirements, by Megan S. Lynch.
52 U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, “Leahy Announces Restoration of the Power of the Purse: Reforms for a
Return to Congressionally Directed Spending in Fiscal Year 2022,” April 26, 2021,
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/majority/-leahy-announces-restoration-of-the-power-of-the-purse-reforms-
for-a-return-to-congressionally-directed-spending-in-fiscal-year-2022.
53 U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, “FY 2023 Appropriations Requests and Congressionally Directed
Spending,” https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/fy-2023-appropriations-requests-and-congressionally-directed-
spending.
54 “Explanatory Statement Accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022,” Proceedings and Debate of the
117th Congress, Second Session, Congressional Record, vol. 168 (March 9, 2022), p. H2925.
55 “Explanatory Statement Accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023,” Proceedings and Debate of the
117th Congress, Second Session, Congressional Record, vol. 168 (December 20, 2022), p. S9210.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 34 link to page 36 The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

same time, the average amount provided per project also increased. For FY2022, Congress
provided funds for 485 projects, at an average amount of $1.7 million per project. For FY2023,
715 projects received an average of $2.0 million per project.
Not all states and territories received earmarked funds. For both FY2022 and FY2023, Congress
did not earmark funds for projects in Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming,
and the District of Columbia or for Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and Guam. Of states and
territories receiving earmarked funds, these funds were not evenly distributed. Some states and
territories received a higher proportion than others. Table C-1 and Table C-2 provide the total
EPA STAG account CPF/CDS for projects by state or territory for FY2022 and FY2023,
respectively.
Effect on Amounts Available for Water
Infrastructure Projects
This section analyzes the effect of earmarking a portion of the regular SRF appropriation for
CPF/CDS on the amount of water infrastructure funds available by state. First, it looks at the
amount available by state narrowly from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 117-
103), and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-328). Then, the report considers
how the IIJA supplemental appropriations for the SRFs interacts with the effect of earmarking a
portion of the regular SRF appropriations for CPF/CDS.
In the 117th Congress, the process of earmarking funds from the regular appropriations for the
CWSRF and DWSRF effectively reduced the amount available for state SRF capitalization grants
as well as the amounts set aside for grants to tribes and territories. The funds for CPF/CDS items
support water infrastructure projects, so the total amount available for water infrastructure
projects from annual appropriations acts remains the same, though the CPF/CDS amounts are
distributed directly to recipients rather than through SRF programs.
The effect of this reduction in funding available for SRFs is spread by formula among the states,
as EPA uses either a statutory formula or the latest drinking water infrastructure needs survey to
determine state allotments of CWSRF and DWSRF capitalization grants, respectively. The
method of distribution of CPF/CDS items depends, in part, on which CPF/CDS projects Members
request, selection criteria from the appropriation committees, inclusion in the joint explanatory
statement, and other factors and considerations, which may not be publicly available.
Through analyzing the distribution of CPF/CDS together with the reduction in state SRF
allotments, this report identifies the differences in the distribution of federal water infrastructure
funding among the states compared to the SRF allotment methods of the CWA and SDWA. For
some states, the amount of water infrastructure funding—as CPF/CDS and through the SRF
capitalization grant—may have increased. As stated above, the 117th Congress provided no
CPF/CDS for water infrastructure projects in some states, territories, and for tribes. As such, these
entities received smaller grant amounts in regular appropriations during the 117th Congress than if
CPF/CDS were not reserved.
The magnitude of the effect of shifting a portion of the SRF appropriations from being distributed
via the SRFs to being distributed as earmarks can be presented in several ways. The effect can be
assessed by comparing differences in nominal values among states, by examining the different
funding amounts states received with the addition of CPF/CDS with a hypothetical scenario in
which state received only SRF capitalization grants where CPF/CDS funding was not reserved.
While some states received more funding due to CPF/CDS items, other states received less water
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 17 The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

infrastructure funding from annual appropriations acts as a result of this practice (compared to the
hypothetical scenario without CPF/CDS). Table 1 provides the average and median nominal
differences in water infrastructure funds availability associated with this practice.
Table 1. Regular Appropriations Water Infrastructure Funding Difference Due to
CPF/CDS
(in millions of dollars)

Average
Median
States, Territories, and Tribes
Change
Change
Clean Water

P.L. 117-103
Less Funding: 29 states, the District of Columbia, American
-$4.7
-$3.2
Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, tribes
More Funding: 22 states, U.S. Virgin Islands
+$7.0
+$4.3
P.L. 117-328
Less Funding: 28 states, the District of Columbia, territories,
-$7.2
-$4.3
tribes
More Funding: 23 states
+$10.5
+8.0
Drinking Water

P.L. 117-103
Less Funding: 33 states, the District of Columbia, territories,
-$4.2
-$3.9
tribes
More Funding: 18 states
+$9.0
+$3.9
P.L. 117-328
Less Funding: 25 states, the District of Columbia, territories,
-$6.9
-$6.0
tribes
More Funding: 26 states
+$8.2
+$6.6
Source: Calculated by CRS from the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103) and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328), Clean
Water Act (CWA) formula found in 33 U.S.C. §1285(c)(3) as modified by EPA, and DWSRF formula based on
the latest drinking water infrastructure needs survey, authorized by 42 U.S.C. §300j–12(a)(1)(D).
Notes: Under both the CWSRF and DWSRF, Puerto Rico operates state revolving funds, and thus is considered
a state for the purposes of these programs. In 1995, three districts of the U.S.-administered United Nations
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, which previously had been eligible for CWA funds, became sovereign states
by adopting a Compact of Free Association. As of FY1999, the Trust Territory, which had been receiving
0.1295% of available funds, was no longer eligible for grants under the CWA. EPA made an administrative
adjustment to allotment totals for all other recipients for FY2000 and onward to reflect this change.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103)
As discussed above, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103) sets aside 27% of
the CWSRF appropriation for CPF/CDS. Due to this practice, 29 states (including Puerto Rico),
the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the tribes
received less in clean water infrastructure funding, as compared to if states received CWSRF
capitalization grants and CPF/CDS were not reserved.56 Setting aside part of the CWSRF
appropriation for CPF/CDS reduced by 27% the amount of P.L. 117-103 clean water
infrastructure funding available for the states, territories, and tribes that received no earmarks. For
16 of the states that received earmarks, the amount of CPF/CDS allotted to those states did not
compensate for the 27% reduction in the amount available. As such, these states received less in

56 Under the CWSRF, Puerto Rico operates a state revolving fund, and thus is considered a state for the purposes of this
program.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 19 The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

CPF/CDS and CWSRF capitalization grants than if CPF/CDS were not reserved from the
CWSRF appropriation.
The total amount of the funding shifted from states, territories, and tribes that received less
funding to the 22 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands that received more was $160.3 million. On
average, the entities received $4.7 million less in clean water infrastructure funding, while the 22
states and the U.S. Virgin Islands received approximately $7.0 million more.57 For context, the
average FY2022 CWSRF state capitalization grant or territorial or tribal grant amount was $20.9
million. Figure 3 provides the decrease or increase in the amounts available by state, territory, or
for the tribes, as compared to distributing the FY2022 CWSRF appropriation without reserving
CPF/CDS.

57 The median value of the decrease in funds available by state, by territory, or for tribes was $3.2 million, and the
median value of the increase was $4.3 million.
Congressional Research Service

14

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Figure 3. Change in P.L. 117-103 Clean Water Infrastructure Funds

Source: CRS from the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022
(P.L. 117-103) and CWA formula found in 33 U.S.C. §1285(c)(3) as modified by EPA.
Notes: These figures identify the change in available P.L. 117-103 clean water infrastructure funds as a result of
the reservation of funds for CPF/CDS and distribution of CPF/CDS, compared to a hypothetical scenario
wherein CPF/CDS was not reserved. State abbreviations are listed. For territories, “AS” denotes American
Samoa, “GU” denotes Guam, “MP” denotes Northern Mariana Islands, and “VI” denotes U.S. Virgin Islands.
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 21 The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

P.L. 117-103 set aside 35% of the DWSRF appropriation for CPF/CDS. Due to the reservation of
funds for CPF/CDS, 33 states (including Puerto Rico), the District of Columbia, the territories,
and tribes received less in drinking water infrastructure funding, as compared to if CPF/CDS was
not reserved.58 As authorized by SDWA, EPA reserved approximately $13 million from the
FY2022 appropriation for unregulated contaminants water system monitoring, drinking water
contaminant health effect studies, and American iron and steel oversight prior to allotting the
DWSRF appropriation among the states.59 Accordingly, the amount available for allotment as
DWSRF capitalization grants was further reduced. Setting aside 35% of the DWSRF
appropriation for CPF/CDS resulted in a 36% reduction in the amount of available drinking water
infrastructure funds for the states, territories, and tribes that received no earmarks. For 20 of the
states that received earmarks, the amount of CPF/CDS allotted to those states did not compensate
for the 36% reduction in the amount available for DWSRF capitalization grants.
The total amount of funding shifted from the states, territories, and tribes that received less to the
18 states that received more was $162.8 million. On average, the reduction by state, territory, or
tribes was approximately $4.2 million, while the average increase for the 18 states amounted to
$9.0 million.60 For context, the average FY2022 DWSRF state capitalization grant or territorial or
tribal grant amount was $12.5 million. Figure 4 provides the decrease or increase in the amounts
available by state, territory, or for the tribes, as compared to distributing the FY2022 DWSRF
appropriation without reserving CPF/CDS.

58 Under the DWSRF, Puerto Rico operates a state revolving fund, and thus is considered a state for the purposes of this
program.
59 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(o) and 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(n).
60 The median value of the decrease in funds available by state, by territory, or for tribes was $3.9 million, and the
median value of the increase was $3.9 million.
Congressional Research Service

16

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Figure 4. Change in P.L. 117-103 Drinking Water Infrastructure Funds

Source: CRS, from the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022
(P.L. 117-103) and DWSRF formula based on the latest drinking water infrastructure needs survey, authorized by
42 U.S.C. §300j–12(a)(1)(D).
Notes: These figures identify the change in available P.L. 117-103 drinking water infrastructure funds as a result
of the reservation of funds for CPF/CDS and distribution of CPF/CDS, compared to a hypothetical scenario
wherein CPF/CDS was not reserved. State abbreviations are listed. For territories, “AS” denotes American
Samoa, “GU” denotes Guam, “MP” denotes Northern Mariana Islands, and “VI” denotes U.S. Virgin Islands.
Congressional Research Service

17

link to page 23 The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328)
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328) set aside 53% of the CWSRF
appropriations for CPF/CDS items. Due to this practice, 28 states (including Puerto Rico), the
District of Columbia, the territories, and tribes received less in clean water infrastructure funding,
as compared to if states received CWSRF capitalization grants and CPF/CDS were not reserved.61
Setting aside part of the CWSRF appropriation for CPF/CDS reduced by 53% the amount of
available P.L. 117-328 clean water infrastructure funds for the states, territories, and tribes that
received no earmarks. For 21 states and the Northern Mariana Islands, which received earmarks,
the CPF/CDS was less than the 53% reduction in the amount available, and as such, these states
received less than if CPF/CDS was not reserved from the CWSRF appropriation.
For clean water infrastructure funding, the total amount of shift in funding from the states,
territories, and tribes that received less to the 23 states that received more is $243.2 million. On
average, the 28 states, the District of Columbia, tribes, and territories received $7.2 million less in
clean water infrastructure funding.62 On average, the remaining 23 states received approximately
$10.5 million more in clean water infrastructure funding.63 The average FY2023 CWSRF state
capitalization grant or territorial or tribal grant amount was $13.6 million. Figure 5 provides the
decrease or increase in the amounts available by state, territory, or for the tribes, as compared to
distributing the FY2023 CWSRF appropriation without reserving CPF/CDS.

61 Under the CWSRF, Puerto Rico operates a state revolving fund and is considered a state for the purposes of this
program.
62 The median value of the decrease in funds was $4.3 million.
63 The median value of the increase in funds was $8.0 million.
Congressional Research Service

18

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Figure 5. Change in P.L. 117-328 Clean Water Infrastructure Funds

Source: Calculated by CRS from the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328) and CWA formula found in 33 U.S.C. §1285(c)(3) as modified by EPA.
Notes: These figures identify the change in available P.L. 117-328 clean water infrastructure funds as a result of
the reservation of funds for CPF/CDS and distribution of CPF/CDS, compared to a hypothetical scenario
wherein CPF/CDS was not reserved. State abbreviations are listed. For territories, “AS” denotes American
Samoa, “GU” denotes Guam, “MP” denotes Northern Mariana Islands, and “VI” denotes U.S. Virgin Islands.
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 25 The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

The practice of funding CPF/CDS items from FY2023 DWSRF appropriation resulted in less
water infrastructure funding for 25 states (including Puerto Rico), the District of Columbia, the
territories, and tribes than if the DWSRF appropriation was distributed according to SDWA
Section 1452.64 Similar to FY2022, EPA reserved $12.7 for unregulated contaminant monitoring,
drinking water contaminant health effect studies, and American iron and steel oversight prior to
allotting the FY2023 DWSRF appropriation among the states as capitalization grants.65 Setting
aside 54% of the DWSRF appropriation for CPF/CDS resulted in a 55% reduction in the amount
of available drinking water infrastructure funds for the states, territories, and tribes that received
no earmarks. For those states that received earmarks, 16 states did not receive enough CPF/CDS
to compensate for the 55% reduction in the amount of drinking water infrastructure funding
available.
The total amount of the shift in funding from the states, territories, and tribes that received less to
the states that received more is $212.5 million. On average, the 25 states, the District of
Columbia, the territories, and tribes received nearly $6.9 million less in drinking water
infrastructure funding.66 On average, the remaining 26 states received approximately $8.2 million
more in drinking water infrastructure funding.67 For context, the average FY2023 DWSRF state
capitalization grant or territorial or tribal grant amount was $8.8 million. Figure 6 provides the
decrease or increase in the amounts available by state, territory, or for the tribes, as compared to
distributing the FY2023 DWSRF appropriation without reserving CPF/CDS.

64 Under the DWSRF, Puerto Rico operates a state revolving fund, and thus is considered a state for the purposes of this
program.
65 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(o) and 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(n).
66 The median value of the decrease in funds was $5.96 million.
67 The median value of the increase in funds was $6.63 million.
Congressional Research Service

20

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Figure 6. Change in P.L. 117-328 Drinking Water Infrastructure Funds

Source: Calculated by CRS from the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328) and DWSRF formula based on the latest drinking water infrastructure
needs survey, authorized by 42 U.S.C. §300j–12(a)(1)(D).
Notes: These figures identify the change in available P.L. 117-328 drinking water infrastructure funds as a result
of the reservation of funds for CPF/CDS and distribution of CPF/CDS, compared to a hypothetical scenario
wherein CPF/CDS was not reserved. State abbreviations are listed. For territories, “AS” denotes American
Samoa, “GU” denotes Guam, “MP” denotes Northern Mariana Islands, and “VI” denotes U.S. Virgin Islands.
Congressional Research Service

21

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

IIJA Supplemental Appropriations
As discussed above, IIJA provided the SRF programs with emergency supplemental
appropriations, which are in addition to the regular appropriations from P.L. 117-103 and P.L.
117-328. For FY2022 and FY2023, the addition of IIJA supplemental appropriations for the SRFs
increases the amount provided to states as SRF capitalization grants. No CPF/CDS were reserved
from the IIJA emergency supplemental appropriations for the SRF programs. Accordingly, the
effect of reserving funds for CPF/CDS items from regular appropriations on state SRF programs
is affected by these IIJA appropriations.
An assessment of this effect is complicated. There are different ways of considering the IIJA
supplemental appropriations, and tradeoffs exist when choosing an analytical approach to
consider such appropriations. Some of the IIJA supplemental appropriations for the SRFs are
dedicated for specific project types, such as those to address emerging contaminants or lead
service-line replacement projects, and the size of the IIJA appropriations dedicated to specific
project types also varies. For FY2022 to FY2026, the IIJA CWSRF supplemental appropriations
available for the full range of CWA eligibilities total $11.73 billion. Similarly, for the DWSRF,
IIJA provides a total of $11.73 billion from FY2022 to FY2026 for the full range of DWSRF
eligibilities. For FY2022 through FY2026, IIJA supplemental appropriations dedicated to specific
project types are $15.0 billion total for the DWSRF for lead service-line replacement projects, a
total of $4.0 billion for the DWSRF for projects to address emerging contaminants, and a total of
$1.0 billion for the CWSRF for projects to address emerging contaminants. In addition, some
portions of these funds are allocated under different allotment formulas than those used for the
SRFs.68 As these differences make state and fiscal year comparisons more complicated, one
analytical approach is to focus only on the IIJA supplemental appropriations dedicated to the
general SRF programs.69
This approach examines how the IIJA appropriations for the SRF general programs interact with
the effect of earmarking part of the regular SRF appropriations for CPF/CDS. Looking only at the
IIJA SRF appropriations for the SRF general programs, may not recognize the scale of the IIJA
SRF supplemental appropriations dedicated to lead service-line replacement and emerging
contaminants. States typically use the IIJA SRF appropriations dedicated to specific project types
to fund water infrastructure projects.
For FY2022, IIJA provided $1.9 billion for each of the CWSRF and the DWSRF. After
considering these IIJA appropriations, the same states including Puerto Rico, territories, and the
tribes received less in water infrastructure funding than they would have if the IIJA and regular
appropriations were distributed via the SRF programs. The effect of the practice of reserving
funds for CPF/CDS items from the CWSRF and DWSRF P.L. 117-103 appropriations is
mitigated by IIJA. For example, the states, territories, and the tribes that received no earmarks for
clean water infrastructure projects received 13% less in clean water infrastructure funding after
considering the FY2022 IIJA supplemental appropriation for the CWSRF general program. For
drinking water infrastructure, the states, territories, and tribes that received no earmarks for

68 EPA allotted the FY2023 IIJA supplemental appropriation for lead service-line replacement projects using each
state’s proportional share of lead service-line replacement need estimates as provided by the 7th Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment. For more information, see EPA, 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs
Survey and Assessment, April 2023, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-04/
Final_DWINSA%20Public%20Factsheet%204.4.23.pdf.
69 For FY2022 through FY2026, IIJA provides $11.7 billion total for each of DWSRF and CWSRF programs for the
full range of eligibilities under SDWA and the CWA, respectively.
Congressional Research Service

22

link to page 27 The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

projects received 14% less in drinking water infrastructure funding after considering the FY2022
IIJA supplemental appropriation for the DWSRF general program.
In FY2023, an increased portion of the P.L. 117-328 SRF appropriations went to CPF/CDS items
(i.e., 53% of the CWSRF appropriation and 54% of the DWSRF appropriation). This was offset
by IIJA FY2023 supplemental appropriations, which were $300 million higher for each of the
SRFs than in FY2022. The states, territories, and the tribes that received no earmarks for clean
water infrastructure projects received approximately 13% less in clean water infrastructure
funding after considering the FY2022 IIJA supplemental appropriation for the CWSRF general
program. For drinking water infrastructure funding, the states, territories, and tribes that received
no earmarks received approximately 19% less in available drinking water infrastructure funding
after considering the FY2023 IIJA supplemental appropriations for the DWSRF general program.
As shown in Table 2, the overall effect of the practice of reserving funds for CPF/CDS items
from SRF appropriations is partially offset as the IIJA appropriations for the SRF general
programs increase the amount provided to states as capitalization grants.
Table 2. Reduction in Available Water Infrastructure Funding for States, Territories,
and Tribes with No Earmarks
States
Regular Appropriation
With IIJA
Clean Water

FY2022
-27%
-13%
FY2023
-53%
-13%
Drinking Water

FY2022
-36%
-14%
FY2023
-55%
-19%
Source: Calculated by CRS from the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103), the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328), the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), Clean Water Act formula found in 33 U.S.C. §1285(c)(3) as
modified by EPA, and DWSRF formula based on the latest drinking water infrastructure needs survey, authorized
by 42 U.S.C. §300j–12(a)(1)(D).
Observations and Options
The 117th Congress’s approach to funding the CPF/CDS items is different from the manner in
which Congress provided earmarks for water infrastructure projects in the past. The current
approach redirects part of the SRF appropriation to fund water infrastructure projects outside of
the SRF framework. As regular appropriations for the SRF programs remained level from
FY2021 to FY2023, this practice of earmarking funds for projects meant that states received
smaller SRF capitalization grants from annually appropriated funds. By fiscal year, however, the
total appropriations provided to the SRFs from both regular appropriations and IIJA supplemental
appropriations in the 117th Congress outpaced the nominal value of SRF appropriations provided
in earlier years; thus, the effect of earmarking on the regular SRF appropriations for CPF/CDS
items is partially mitigated due to the scale of supplemental appropriations from IIJA.
Several questions and observations emerge after analyzing the practice of reserving a portion of
the regular SRF appropriations for CPF/CDS. One question regards the determination of funding
Congressional Research Service

23

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

levels for the SRF programs and CPF/CDS. An assessment of the historical appropriations for the
SRF programs indicates that from FY2018-FY2023 funding levels for the SRF programs were
relatively stable. The addition of CPF/CDS reservation resulted in a reduction in water
infrastructure funding for states with no CPF/CDS, as compared to a hypothetical situation where
no CPF/CDS were reserved and the appropriations were distributed in accordance with the SRF
programs. This practice may create an incentive to request earmarks, as not doing so reduces the
amount of water infrastructure funding provided to projects within a state. Also, the amount of
CPF/CDS also matters, as some states received less CPF/CDS than the SRF reduction as a result
of the practice. A primary observation is that the IIJA supplemental appropriations for the SRF
general programs appear to partially mitigate the effect of this practice on state SRF programs, by
providing supplemental funds to states, territories, and tribes.
This approach to earmark funding for water infrastructure projects presents several tradeoffs that
Congress may consider. For example, the practice of providing CPF/CDS for water infrastructure
projects from SRF appropriations alters the process of who decides which water infrastructure
projects will receive funding, shifting the direct decisionmaking regarding a particular project
from state program officials to Members of Congress. Members of Congress may want to direct
funding to a project in a specific community for a number of reasons. In some cases, a
community may have been unsuccessful in seeking state approval to fund a project under an SRF
subsidized loan or additional subsidization, or other program. Further, Members may wish a more
direct role given considerations regarding the timing of water infrastructure projects. For some,
the cost of a project financed through a state loan could be deemed unacceptably high, because
repaying the loan would result in increased user fees that may be challenging for ratepayers. In
addition, Members may want to directly assist communities that may be challenged in applying
for SRF assistance or may lack the capacity to do so. Some stakeholders have raised concerns
about the state’s role in developing the intended use plan (IUP) to receive SRF assistance,
particularly additional subsidization, and whether states are effectively able to identify projects in
communities that may struggle to apply to the SRFs.70
The reestablishment of the practice of earmarking coincides with congressional interest in water
infrastructure affordability. Earmarking funds for specific projects is potentially another
mechanism by which Congress assists communities by reducing the cost of water infrastructure
projects. The degree to which earmarking is being used for this objective is unknown. One
question for policymakers may regard the characteristics of communities receiving earmarked
funding, such as their financial demographics. To receive CPF/CDS, communities are required to
provide a minimum cost share based on the CWA and SDWA provisions for the SRF programs.71
These statutes require states to deposit a 20% match of their capitalization grants. Therefore,
CPF/CDS recipients are generally required to provide a cost share of 20%.72 By comparison,
unless they receive additional subsidization, most communities that receive SRF assistance are
required to repay 100% of the funded project cost. For the IIJA supplemental appropriations for
the SRFs, however, states are required to dedicate 49% to 100% of their capitalization grant
amount to additional subsidization.

70 Letter from Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Chairwoman of House Committee on Oversight, and Rep. Bennie Thompson,
Chairman of House Committee on Homeland Security, to Honorable Tate Reeves, Governor of Mississippi, October
17, 2022, https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2022-10-
17.CBM%20BGT%20to%20Reeves-MS%20re%20Jackson%20Water%20Crisis.pdf.
71 33 U.S.C. §1382(b)(2); 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(e).
72 “Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022,” House, Congressional Record,
vol. 168 (March 9, 2022), p. H2492.
Congressional Research Service

24

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

To address concerns of transparency, the 117th Congress added a number of requirements to
CPF/CDS items such as online disclosures and auditing of selected projects by GAO. The
guidance from the appropriations committees does not include requirements for CPF/CDS
projects to be on a state’s IUP, though the House subcommittee guidance favored requests that
were on a state’s IUP. Under the CWSRF programs, states are required to prioritize projects for
CWA compliance. Under the DWSRF programs, states are required to prioritize drinking water
projects that address the most serious human health risks, are necessary to ensure compliance, and
assist systems most in need on a per-household basis according to state affordability criteria.
Further, the distribution of state SRF capitalization grant allotments is determined either by CWA
formula,73 or based on each state’s drinking water capital infrastructure need.
One result of earmarking a portion of the regular SRF appropriations for CPF/CDS items is that
less water infrastructure funding is subject to statutory oversight and transparency requirements
for the SRFs, such as EPA review of state IUPs, periodic audits of state SRF programs, and state
annual reports for the CWSRF or biennial reports for the DWSRF. However, the scale of IIJA
supplemental appropriations for the SRFs means that the effect of this outcome is mitigated by
the supplemental funding available for state oversight. Further, the requirements for GAO to audit
a sample of projects selected for CPF/CDS is an added transparency measure, as no parallel GAO
auditing requirement is in the CWA and SDWA statutory provisions for the SRFs.
The preceding discussion identifies some of the issues under debate regarding broader water
infrastructure needs as well as concerns related to CPF/CDS items. The 118th Congress appears to
be considering continuing to provide funds directly to projects through CPF/CDS.74 Whether
those funds are provided as a separate appropriation or set-aside from the SRF appropriation
remains to be seen. The 118th Congress may choose to limit CPF/CDS items, stop the practice,
increase funding for CPF/CDS items, or change the manner in which funds are provided for these
projects. Further, authorizing committees with jurisdiction over the SRF programs may wish to
hold oversight hearings or engage in other oversight activities related to the practice and any
potential impacts among stakeholders. Taken together, the reestablishment of earmarks, revisions
to SRF programs intended to address affordability, and increased appropriations for the SRF
programs are emblematic of continuing congressional interest in municipal water infrastructure
funding.

73 For more information on the history of the CWSRF allotment formula, see CRS Report R47474, Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Allotment Formula: Background and Options, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
74 U.S. House Committee on Appropriations, “Fiscal Year 2024 Member Request Guidance,”
https://appropriations.house.gov/fiscal-year-2024-member-request-guidance. U.S. Senate Committee on
Appropriations, “FY 2024 Appropriations Requests and Congressionally Directed Spending,”
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/fy-2024-appropriations-requests-and-congressionally-directed-spending.
Congressional Research Service

25

link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 34 link to page 34 link to page 36 link to page 34 link to page 36 link to page 38 link to page 38 link to page 40 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 44 The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Appendix A. Appendixes Outline
Appendix B includes a summary table (Table B-1) of earmarked funds for water infrastructure
projects by fiscal year. The dollars included in Table B-1 are not adjusted for inflation. The table
also provides the number of water infrastructure projects funded from the earmarks. It also
provides the appropriations for the CWSRF and DWSRF by fiscal year.
Appendix C includes Table C-1 and Table C-2. Table C-1 provides (1) the amount of
earmarked funds by state or territory; (2) each state’s, territory’s, and the tribal allotment of the
SRF appropriations available for capitalization grants from the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2022 (P.L. 117-103); and (3) hypothetical amounts of the SRF appropriations for each state,
territory, and the tribal allotment if CPF/CDS were not reserved from SRF appropriations from
P.L. 117-103. Table C-2 provides (1) the amount of earmarked funds by state or territory; (2)
each state’s, territory’s, and the tribal allotment of the SRF appropriations available for
capitalization grants from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328); and (3)
hypothetical amounts of the SRF appropriations for each state, territory, and the tribal allotment if
CPF/CDS were not reserved from P.L. 117-328.
Appendix D provides two tables for clean water infrastructure funding allotments. Table D-1
covers FY2022, and Table D-2 covers FY2023. Within each table, there are eight columns. The
second column shows the amount of CPF/CDS by state and by territory for that fiscal year. The
third column provides each state’s, territorial, or tribal allotment of the regular CWSRF
appropriation without including the portion of the CWSRF appropriation going to the CPF/CDS.
The fourth column includes each state’s, each territory’s, or the tribal share of that fiscal year’s
IIJA supplemental appropriation for the CWSRF general program. The fifth column provides the
sum of each state’s, each territory’s, or the tribal share of the CWSRF appropriations from that
fiscal year’s regular appropriations act and from that fiscal year’s IIJA supplemental
appropriation, and CPF/CDS. The sixth column provides each state’s, territory’s, or the tribal
share of that fiscal year’s regular and IIJA appropriations for the CWSRF in a hypothetical
scenario where the CPF/CDS was not reserved from the regular CWSRF appropriation. The
seventh column provides the difference between the fifth and the sixth columns, thereby showing
difference due to the reservation and distribution of CPF/CDS from the CWSRF appropriations.
The eighth column provides this difference represented as a percent of the hypothetical allotment
of that year’s regular and IIJA CWSRF appropriations. Note that IIJA supplemental
appropriations dedicated for emerging contaminants projects are not included.
Appendix E provides two tables for drinking water infrastructure funding percentages. Table E-1
covers FY2022, and Table E-2 covers FY2023. Within each table, there are eight columns. The
second column shows the amount of CPF/CDS by state and by territory for that fiscal year. The
third column provides each state’s, territorial, or the tribal allotment of the regular DWSRF
appropriation without including CPF/CDS. The fourth column includes each state’s, each
territory’s, or the tribal share of that fiscal year’s IIJA supplemental appropriation for the DWSRF
general program. The fifth column provides the sum of each state’s, each territory’s, or tribal
share of that fiscal year’s regular appropriations act and that fiscal year’s IIJA supplemental
appropriation for the DWSRF, and CPF/CDS. The sixth column provides each state’s, territory’s,
or the tribal share of that fiscal year’s regular and IIJA appropriations for the DWSRF in a
hypothetical scenario where the CPF/CDS was not reserved from the regular DWSRF
appropriation. The seventh column provides the difference between the fifth and the sixth
columns, thereby showing the difference due to the reservation and distribution of CPF/CDS from
the DWSRF appropriations. The eighth column provides this difference represented as a percent
of the hypothetical allotment of that fiscal year’s regular and IIJA DWSRF appropriations. Note
Congressional Research Service

26

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

that IIJA supplemental appropriations dedicated for emerging contaminants projects and lead
service-line replacement projects are not included.
Congressional Research Service

27

link to page 33 link to page 33 The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Appendix B. Water Infrastructure Project Grants
Table B-1. Water Infrastructure Project Grants Designated
in EPA Appropriations Acts
(not adjusted for inflation, in millions)
Total
Earmarked
Funds for
# of
Project
Available for CWSRF
Available for DWSRF
Fiscal Year
Projects
Grants
Capitalization Grants
Capitalization Grants
1989
4
$68
$941
—
1990
4
$53
$967
—
1991
2
$36
$2,048
—
1992
8
$435
$1,949
—
1993
13
$556
$1,928
—
1994
9
$558
$1,218
—
1995
46
$834
$1,235
—
1996
20
$307
$2,074
—
1997
21
$301
$625
$1,275
1998
42
$393
$1,350
$725
1999
82
$402
$1,350
$775
2000
143
$395
$1,345
$820
2001
244
$466
$1,350
$825
2002
339
$459
$1,350
$850
2003
491
$413
$1,341
$845
2004
520
$425
$1,342
$845
2005
669
$402
$1,091
$843
2006
259
$289
$887
$838
2007
2
$84
$1,084
$838
2008
282
$177
$689
$829
2009
303
$184
$4,689a
$2,829a
2010
319
$187
$2,100
$1,387
2011
—
—
$1,522
$963
2012
—
—
$1,467
$918
2013
—
—
$1,376
$861
2014
—
—
$1,449
$907
2015
—
—
$1,449
$907
2016
—
—
$1,394
$863
2017
—
—
$1,394
$963
2018
—
—
$1,694
$1,163
Congressional Research Service

28

link to page 33 link to page 33 link to page 33 link to page 33 The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Total
Earmarked
Funds for
# of
Project
Available for CWSRF
Available for DWSRF
Fiscal Year
Projects
Grants
Capitalization Grants
Capitalization Grants
2019
—
—
$1,694
$1,164
2020
—
—
$1,639
$1,126
2021
—
—
$1,639
$1,126
2022
485
$841
$3,195b
$6,430b
2023
715
$1,472
$3,200b
$6,519b
Source: Compilation by CRS of water infrastructure project grants in the VA/HUD appropriations acts for
FY1989-FY2005; the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2006; the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (Division F); the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009; the Interior,
Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010; the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022; and
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023.
a. 2009 includes appropriations from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-
5) and the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8).
b. These amounts include the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) supplemental
appropriations for the SRF general programs, as well as those dedicated to specific project types (i.e.,
emerging contaminants and lead service lines), and the amount of regular appropriations available for SRF
capitalization grants.
Congressional Research Service

29

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Appendix C. CPF/CDS Items and SRF
Capitalization Grants by State
Table C-1. P.L. 117-103 Clean Water (CW) and Drinking Water (DW) Earmarks and
SRF Capitalization Grants
in thousands of dollars
Hypothetical
Hypothetical
Actual
CWSRF
Actual
DWSRF
CW
CWSRF
Capitalization
DW
DWSRF
Capitalization
Earmarked
Capitalization
Grant w/out
Earmarked Capitalization
Grant w/out
Funds
Grant
CPF/CDS
Funds
Grant
CPF/CDS

AL
$700
$13,069
$17,930
$480
$15,106
$23,506
AK
$20,110
$6,995
$9,597
$7,280
$7,008
$10,905
AZ
$3,000
$7,894
$10,830
$2,990
$12,603
$19,611
AR
—
$7,646
$10,490
—
$10,543
$16,406
CA
$26,760
$83,589
$114,681
$37,146
$61,819
$96,194
CO
$3,580
$9,349
$12,827
$3,541
$13,846
$21,545
CT
$6,510
$14,318
$19,644
$7,652
$7,008
$10,905
DE
$6,000
$5,738
$7,872
—
$7,008
$10,905
DC
—
$5,738
$7,872
—
$7,008
$10,905
FL
$30,411
$39,452
$54,127
$10,000
$27,585
$42,924
GA
$13,430
$19,761
$27,111
$1,600
$16,513
$25,695
HI
—
$9,052
$12,419
—
$7,008
$10,905
ID
—
$5,738
$7,872
—
$7,008
$10,905
IL
$14,555
$52,859
$72,521
$15,598
$26,439
$41,141
IN
—
$28,167
$38,644
—
$10,711
$16,667
IA
$5,200
$15,818
$21,702
$600
$11,101
$17,274
KS
$3,000
$10,550
$14,474
—
$8,130
$12,651
KY
$5,930
$14,875
$20,408
$1,793
$11,547
$17,968
LA
$10,500
$12,848
$17,627
—
$10,489
$16,322
ME
$15,060
$9,047
$12,412
$2,800
$7,008
$10,905
MD
$6,070
$28,268
$38,783
$3,700
$12,837
$19,975
MA
$8,941
$39,682
$54,442
$15,450
$16,260
$25,302
MI
$22,735
$50,254
$68,947
$13,680
$17,202
$26,767
MN
$12,335
$21,482
$29,473
$3,305
$10,697
$16,645
MS
—
$10,530
$14,447
$8,770
$7,544
$11,739
MO
—
$32,400
$44,452
$3,647
$12,354
$19,224
MT
—
$5,738
$7,872
—
$7,008
$10,905
NE
$3,500
$5,978
$8,202
—
$7,008
$10,905
Congressional Research Service

30

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Hypothetical
Hypothetical
Actual
CWSRF
Actual
DWSRF
CW
CWSRF
Capitalization
DW
DWSRF
Capitalization
Earmarked
Capitalization
Grant w/out
Earmarked Capitalization
Grant w/out
Funds
Grant
CPF/CDS
Funds
Grant
CPF/CDS

NV
$12,300
$5,738
$7,872
$4,295
$8,123
$12,640
NH
$6,561
$11,680
$16,025
$2,348
$7,008
$10,905
NJ
$7,875
$47,760
$65,525
$8,637
$11,960
$18,611
NM
—
$5,738
$7,872
$200
$7,008
$10,905
NY
$28,025
$129,000
$176,984
$31,980
$28,618
$44,531
NC
$4,865
$21,093
$28,939
$9,146
$21,520
$33,487
ND
—
$5,738
$7,872
—
$7,008
$10,905
OH
$25,338
$65,796
$90,270
$9,488
$17,624
$27,424
OK
$11,000
$9,443
$12,955
$27,300
$9,935
$15,460
OR
$20,428
$13,203
$18,114
$6,457
$9,220
$14,347
PA
$6,236
$46,296
$63,517
$4,180
$21,577
$33,575
PR
—
$15,244
$20,914
—
$7,008
$10,905
RI
$1,875
$7,848
$10,767
$11,645
$7,008
$10,905
SC
$2,500
$11,973
$16,427
$8,000
$9,075
$14,121
SD
—
$5,738
$7,872
—
$7,008
$10,905
TN
—
$16,978
$23,293
$4,496
$12,172
$18,940
TX
$15,621
$53,419
$73,289
$14,471
$54,911
$85,445
UT
$3,500
$6,158
$8,449
$4,500
$7,008
$10,905
VT
$7,884
$5,738
$7,872
$560
$7,008
$10,905
VA
$8,054
$23,919
$32,816
$17,740
$11,434
$17,792
WA
$17,545
$20,325
$27,885
$14,845
$15,655
$24,360
WV
$39,978
$18,219
$24,996
$68,563
$7,008
$10,905
WI
$2,448
$31,597
$43,350
$8,882
$11,943
$18,584
WY
—
$5,738
$7,872
—
$7,008
$10,905

AS
—
$6,346
$8,706
—
$2,640
$4,108
GU
—
$4,591
$6,299
—
$2,454
$3,819
MP
—
$2,949
$4,046
—
$2,066
$3,215
VI
$3,280
$3,683
$5,053
—
$3,351
$5,214
Tribes
—
$23,904
$32,795
—
$14,566
$22,666
Total
$443,639
$1,192,687
$1,636,326
$397,766
$715,322
$1,113,088
Source: Calculated by CRS from the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103), statutory formula found in Clean Water Act Section 205 (33 U.S.C.
§1285(c)(3)), and an allotment formula based on the latest drinking water infrastructure needs survey, authorized
by SDWA Section 1452(a)(1)(D) (42 U.S.C. §300j–12(a)(1)(D)).
Congressional Research Service

31

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Notes: Due to rounding, numbers may not total. Under both the CWSRF and DWSRF, Puerto Rico operates
state revolving funds, and thus is considered a state for the purposes of these programs.
Table C-2. P.L. 117-328 Clean Water (CW) and Drinking Water (DW) Earmarks and
SRF Capitalization Grants
in thousands of dollars
Hypothetical
Hypothetical
Actual
CWSRF
Actual
DWSRF

CW
CWSRF
Capitalization
DW
DWSRF
Capitalization
Earmarked Capitalization
Grant w/out
Earmarked Capitalization
Grant w/out
Funds
Grant
CPF/CDS
Funds
Grant
CPF/CDS
AL
$7,000
$8,473
$17,931
$1,800
$8,719
$19,256
AK
$55,520
$4,535
$9,597
$8,162
$4,938
$10,906
AZ
$12,602
$5,118
$10,831
$14,867
$8,638
$19,078
AR
$4,660
$4,957
$10,490
$15,050
$5,912
$13,057
CA
$74,949
$54,191
$114,679
$74,512
$53,272
$117,654
CO
$2,454
$6,061
$12,826
$13,194
$8,650
$19,104
CT
$9,225
$9,282
$19,643
$7,863
$4,938
$10,906
DE
$10,560
$3,720
$7,872
$1,800
$4,938
$10,906
DC
—
$3,720
$7,872
—
$4,938
$10,906
FL
$51,772
$25,576
$54,124
$12,693
$17,820
$39,357
GA
$29,398
$12,811
$27,111
$6,436
$13,389
$29,570
HI
$4,199
$5,868
$12,418
$2,160
$4,938
$10,906
ID
$4,560
$3,720
$7,872
—
$4,938
$10,906
IL
$22,548
$34,269
$72,520
$25,470
$14,985
$33,095
IN
—
$18,261
$38,644
—
$8,473
$18,713
IA
$6,000
$10,255
$21,702
—
$7,424
$16,396
KS
$21,100
$6,839
$14,473
$10,000
$5,507
$12,163
KY
$12,899
$9,644
$20,409
$11,328
$6,012
$13,278
LA
$10,000
$8,329
$17,626
$4,430
$6,741
$14,888
ME
$25,829
$5,865
$12,412
$6,084
$4,938
$10,906
MD
$10,819
$18,326
$38,782
$5,845
$10,260
$22,660
MA
$19,766
$25,726
$54,442
$14,601
$10,602
$23,415
MI
$32,926
$32,580
$68,946
$25,797
$11,267
$24,884
MN
$12,380
$13,927
$29,472
$17,573
$7,470
$16,498
MS
$23,000
$6,827
$14,447
$18,626
$6,184
$13,658
MO
$17,401
$21,005
$44,451
$22,240
$8,039
$17,755
MT
—
$3,720
$7,872
—
$4,938
$10,906
NE
—
$3,876
$8,202
—
$4,938
$10,906
NV
$18,270
$3,720
$7,872
$16,107
$5,120
$11,308
NH
$9,935
$7,572
$16,024
$6,453
$4,938
$10,906
Congressional Research Service

32

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Hypothetical
Hypothetical
Actual
CWSRF
Actual
DWSRF

CW
CWSRF
Capitalization
DW
DWSRF
Capitalization
Earmarked Capitalization
Grant w/out
Earmarked Capitalization
Grant w/out
Funds
Grant
CPF/CDS
Funds
Grant
CPF/CDS
NJ
$28,127
$30,963
$65,524
$30,896
$8,766
$19,360
NM
$13,952
$3,720
$7,872
$4,065
$4,938
$10,906
NY
$63,646
$83,628
$176,974
$46,518
$23,065
$50,940
NC
$17,286
$13,675
$28,939
$9,047
$13,607
$30,052
ND
—
$3,720
$7,872
—
$4,938
$10,906
OH
$36,335
$42,656
$90,269
$11,429
$11,151
$24,628
OK
$10,936
$6,122
$12,955
$32,203
$7,177
$15,851
OR
$15,953
$8,559
$18,113
$20,522
$7,428
$16,405
PA
$28,517
$30,014
$63,516
$5,040
$16,290
$35,977
PR
—
$9,883
$20,914
—
$4,938
$10,906
RI
$10,828
$5,088
$10,767
$5,000
$4,938
$10,906
SC
$19,523
$7,762
$16,426
$9,900
$6,172
$13,631
SD
—
$3,720
$7,872
—
$4,938
$10,906
TN
$4,123
$11,007
$23,293
$5,800
$8,312
$18,358
TX
$36,402
$34,632
$73,288
$4,500
$39,369
$86,949
UT
$12,500
$3,992
$8,448
$11,877
$4,938
$10,906
VT
$1,920
$3,720
$7,872
$3,685
$4,938
$10,906
VA
$6,760
$15,507
$32,816
$6,453
$6,973
$15,400
WA
$16,055
$13,177
$27,885
$15,168
$11,307
$24,972
WV
$25,139
$11,812
$24,997
$29,609
$4,938
$10,906
WI
$4,423
$20,484
$43,348
$14,453
$8,455
$18,673
WY
—
$3,720
$7,872
—
$4,938
$10,906

AS
—
$4,119
$8,717
—
$1,424
$3,145
GU
—
$2,980
$6,306
—
$2,000
$4,417
MP
$911
$1,914
$4,050
—
$2,183
$4,821
VI
—
$2,390
$5,058
—
$1,800
$3,975
Tribes
—
$15,515
$32,833
—
$10,332
$22,819
Total
$863,109
$773,252
$1,636,361
$609,256
$504,117
$1,113,373
Source: Compiled by CRS from the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328), statutory formula found in Clean Water Act Section 205 (33 U.S.C. §1285(c)(3)), and
an allotment formula based on the latest drinking water infrastructure needs survey, authorized by SDWA
Section 1452(a)(1)(D) (42 U.S.C. §300j–12(a)(1)(D)).
Notes: Due to rounding, numbers may not total. Under both the CWSRF and DWSRF, Puerto Rico operates
state revolving funds, and thus is considered a state for the purposes of these programs.

Congressional Research Service

33

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Appendix D. Clean Water Infrastructure Funding
Table D-1. FY2022 Clean Water (CW) Infrastructure Allotments
in thousands

Actual
Hypothetical
FY22 CW
FY22 CWSRF
Difference
Difference as
P.L. 117-103
FY22 IIJA
Funds
Allotments
Between
a Percent of
P.L. 117-103
CWSRF
CWSRF GP
(P.L. 117-
w/out
Actual and
Hypothetical
CPF/CDS
Allotments
Allotments
103 +IIJA)
CPF/CDS
Hypothetical
Allotment

AK
$20,110
$6,995
$10,652
$37,757
$20,264
$17,493
86%
AL
$700
$13,069
$19,901
$33,670
$37,860
-$4,190
-11%
AR
—
$7,646
$11,642
$19,288
$22,150
-$2,862
-13%
AZ
$3,000
$7,894
$12,021
$22,915
$22,868
$47
0%
CA
$26,760
$83,589
$127,290
$237,639
$242,151
-$4,512
-2%
CO
$3,580
$9,349
$14,236
$27,165
$27,083
$82
0%
CT
$6,510
$14,318
$21,804
$42,632
$41,478
$1,154
3%
DC
—
$5,738
$8,738
$14,476
$16,623
-$2,147
-13%
DE
$6,000
$5,738
$8,738
$20,476
$16,623
$3,853
23%
FL
$30,411
$39,452
$60,077
$129,940
$114,289
$15,650
14%
GA
$13,430
$19,761
$30,092
$63,283
$57,246
$6,037
11%
HI
—
$9,052
$13,785
$22,837
$26,223
-$3,386
-13%
IA
$5,200
$15,818
$24,088
$45,106
$45,824
-$718
-2%
ID
—
$5,738
$8,738
$14,476
$16,623
-$2,147
-13%
IL
$14,555
$52,859
$80,494
$147,908
$153,129
-$5,221
-3%
IN
—
$28,167
$42,893
$71,060
$81,598
-$10,538
-13%
KS
$3,000
$10,550
$16,065
$29,615
$30,563
-$948
-3%
KY
$5,930
$14,875
$22,652
$43,457
$43,092
$365
1%
LA
$10,500
$12,848
$19,565
$42,913
$37,220
$5,693
15%
MA
$8,941
$39,682
$60,428
$109,051
$114,956
-$5,905
-5%
MD
$6,070
$28,268
$43,046
$77,384
$81,890
-$4,506
-6%
ME
$15,060
$9,047
$13,777
$37,884
$26,208
$11,676
45%
MI
$22,735
$50,254
$76,528
$149,517
$145,582
$3,935
3%
MN
$12,335
$21,482
$32,713
$66,530
$62,232
$4,298
7%
MO
—
$32,400
$49,339
$81,739
$93,860
-$12,121
-13%
MS
—
$10,530
$16,035
$26,565
$30,505
-$3,940
-13%
MT
—
$5,738
$8,738
$14,476
$16,623
-$2,147
-13%
NC
$4,865
$21,093
$32,122
$58,080
$61,105
-$3,025
-5%
ND
—
$5,738
$8,738
$14,476
$16,623
-$2,147
-13%
Congressional Research Service

34

link to page 30 The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Actual
Hypothetical
FY22 CW
FY22 CWSRF
Difference
Difference as
P.L. 117-103
FY22 IIJA
Funds
Allotments
Between
a Percent of
P.L. 117-103
CWSRF
CWSRF GP
(P.L. 117-
w/out
Actual and
Hypothetical
CPF/CDS
Allotments
Allotments
103 +IIJA)
CPF/CDS
Hypothetical
Allotment

NE
$3,500
$5,978
$9,103
$18,581
$17,318
$1,263
7%
NH
$6,561
$11,680
$17,786
$36,027
$33,836
$2,191
6%
NJ
$7,875
$47,760
$72,730
$128,365
$138,357
-$9,992
-7%
NM
—
$5,738
$8,738
$14,476
$16,623
-$2,147
-13%
NV
$12,300
$5,738
$8,738
$26,776
$16,623
$10,153
61%
NY
$28,025
$129,000
$196,443
$353,468
$373,703
-$20,236
-5%
OH
$25,338
$65,796
$100,195
$191,329
$190,606
$723
0%
OK
$11,000
$9,443
$14,379
$34,822
$27,356
$7,466
27%
OR
$20,428
$13,203
$20,106
$53,737
$38,248
$15,489
40%
PA
$6,236
$46,296
$70,500
$123,032
$134,116
-$11,084
-8%
PR
—
$15,244
$23,214
$38,458
$44,161
-$5,703
-13%
RI
$1,875
$7,848
$11,950
$21,673
$22,735
-$1,062
-5%
SC
$2,500
$11,973
$18,233
$32,706
$34,685
-$1,979
-6%
SD
—
$5,738
$8,738
$14,476
$16,623
-$2,147
-13%
TN
—
$16,978
$25,855
$42,833
$49,184
-$6,351
-13%
TX
$15,621
$53,419
$81,347
$150,387
$154,751
-$4,364
-3%
UT
$3,500
$6,158
$9,378
$19,036
$17,839
$1,197
7%
VA
$8,054
$23,919
$36,424
$68,397
$69,292
-$895
-1%
VT
$7,884
$5,738
$8,738
$22,360
$16,623
$5,737
35%
WA
$17,545
$20,325
$30,951
$68,821
$58,880
$9,941
17%
WI
$2,448
$31,597
$48,116
$82,161
$91,534
-$9,373
-10%
WV
$39,978
$18,219
$27,745
$85,942
$52,779
$33,163
63%
WY
—
$5,738
$8,738
$14,476
$16,623
-$2,147
-13%

AS
—
$6,346
$9,997
$16,343
$18,384
-$2,041
-11%
GU
—
$4,591
$7,234
$11,825
$13,300
-$1,475
-11%
MP
—
$2,949
$4,646
$7,595
$8,543
-$948
-11%
VI
$3,280
$3,683
$5,802
$12,765
$10,669
$2,096
20%
Tribes
—
$23,904
$38,040
$61,944
$69,248
-$7,304
-11%
Total
$443,639
$1,192,687
$1,818,799
$3,455,125
$3,455,125
—
—
Source: Calculated by CRS from the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103), the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), and Clean
Water Act formula found in 33 U.S.C. §1285(c)(3)), as modified by EPA.
Notes: Under the CWSRF, Puerto Rico operates a state revolving fund, and thus is considered a state for the
purposes of these programs. See Appendix A for a discussion of each column.
Congressional Research Service

35

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Table D-2. FY2023 Clean Water (CW) Infrastructure Allotments
in thousands
P.L. 117-
FY23 IIJA
Actual FY23
Hypothetical
Difference
Difference as
P.L. 117-
328
CWSRF
CW Funds
FY23 CWSRF
Between
a Percent of
328
CWSRF
GP
(P.L. 117-328
Allotments w/out
Actual and
Hypothetical
CPF/CDS
Allotment Allotments
+IIJA)
CPF/CDS
Hypothetical
Allotment

AL
$7,000
$8,473
$23,543
$39,016
$41,492
-$2,476
-6%
AK
$55,520
$4,535
$12,601
$72,656
$22,208
$50,448
227%
AR
$4,660
$4,957
$13,773
$23,390
$24,274
-$884
-4%
AZ
$12,602
$5,118
$14,221
$31,941
$25,063
$6,879
27%
CA
$74,949
$54,191
$150,581
$279,721
$265,373
$14,348
5%
CO
$2,454
$6,061
$16,842
$25,357
$29,681
-$4,324
-15%
CT
$9,225
$9,282
$25,793
$44,300
$45,454
-$1,154
-3%
DC
—
$3,720
$10,336
$14,056
$18,217
-$4,161
-23%
DE
$10,560
$3,720
$10,336
$24,616
$18,217
$6,399
35%
FL
$51,772
$25,576
$71,070
$148,418
$125,246
$23,173
19%
GA
$29,398
$12,811
$35,598
$77,807
$62,735
$15,072
24%
HI
$4,199
$5,868
$16,307
$26,374
$28,736
-$2,362
-8%
IA
$6,000
$10,255
$28,495
$44,750
$50,219
-$5,469
-11%
ID
$4,560
$3,720
$10,336
$18,616
$18,217
$399
2%
IL
$22,548
$34,269
$95,222
$152,039
$167,815
-$15,776
-9%
IN
—
$18,261
$50,741
$69,002
$89,424
-$20,422
-23%
KS
$21,100
$6,839
$19,005
$46,944
$33,491
$13,453
40%
KY
$12,899
$9,644
$26,797
$49,340
$47,227
$2,113
4%
LA
$10,000
$8,329
$23,145
$41,474
$40,787
$687
2%
MA
$19,766
$25,726
$71,484
$116,976
$125,980
-$9,004
-7%
MD
$10,819
$18,326
$50,922
$80,067
$89,742
-$9,675
-11%
ME
$25,829
$5,865
$16,298
$47,992
$28,721
$19,272
67%
MI
$32,926
$32,580
$90,530
$156,036
$159,544
-$3,508
-2%
MN
$12,380
$13,927
$38,698
$65,005
$68,200
-$3,195
-5%
MO
$17,401
$21,005
$58,367
$96,773
$102,861
-$6,088
-6%
MS
$23,000
$6,827
$18,969
$48,796
$33,432
$15,364
46%
MT
—
$3,720
$10,336
$14,056
$18,217
-$4,161
-23%
NC
$17,286
$13,675
$37,999
$68,960
$66,966
$1,993
3%
ND
—
$3,720
$10,336
$14,056
$18,217
-$4,161
-23%
NE
—
$3,876
$10,769
$14,645
$18,981
-$4,336
-23%
NH
$9,935
$7,572
$21,040
$38,547
$37,080
$1,467
4%
NJ
$28,127
$30,963
$86,038
$145,128
$151,626
-$6,498
-4%
NM
$13,952
$3,720
$10,336
$28,008
$18,217
$9,791
54%
Congressional Research Service

36

link to page 30 The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

P.L. 117-
FY23 IIJA
Actual FY23
Hypothetical
Difference
Difference as
P.L. 117-
328
CWSRF
CW Funds
FY23 CWSRF
Between
a Percent of
328
CWSRF
GP
(P.L. 117-328
Allotments w/out
Actual and
Hypothetical
CPF/CDS
Allotment Allotments
+IIJA)
CPF/CDS
Hypothetical
Allotment

NV
$18,270
$3,720
$10,336
$32,326
$18,217
$14,109
77%
NY
$63,646
$83,628
$232,392
$379,666
$409,526
-$29,860
-7%
OH
$36,335
$42,656
$118,528
$197,519
$208,886
-$11,367
-5%
OK
$10,936
$6,122
$17,010
$34,068
$29,979
$4,089
14%
OR
$15,953
$8,559
$23,784
$48,296
$41,913
$6,383
15%
PA
$28,517
$30,014
$83,400
$141,931
$146,979
-$5,047
-3%
PR
—
$9,883
$27,461
$37,344
$48,397
-$11,053
-23%
RI
$10,828
$5,088
$14,137
$30,053
$24,916
$5,137
21%
SC
$19,523
$7,762
$21,569
$48,854
$38,010
$10,844
29%
SD
—
$3,720
$10,336
$14,056
$18,217
-$4,161
-23%
TN
$4,123
$11,007
$30,585
$45,715
$53,901
-$8,186
-15%
TX
$36,402
$34,632
$96,232
$167,266
$169,593
-$2,327
-1%
UT
$12,500
$3,992
$11,094
$27,586
$19,549
$8,037
41%
VA
$6,760
$15,507
$43,089
$65,356
$75,938
-$10,582
-14%
VT
$1,920
$3,720
$10,336
$15,976
$18,217
-$2,241
-12%
WA
$16,055
$13,177
$36,614
$65,846
$64,528
$1,318
2%
WI
$4,423
$20,484
$56,920
$81,827
$100,310
-$18,483
-18%
WV
$25,139
$11,812
$32,821
$69,772
$57,843
$11,929
21%
WY
—
$3,720
$10,336
$14,056
$18,217
-$4,161
-23%

AS
—
$4,119
$11,691
$15,810
$20,171
-$4,361
-22%
GU
—
$2,980
$8,459
$11,439
$14,593
-$3,154
-22%
MP
$911
$1,914
$5,434
$8,259
$9,373
-$1,114
-12%
VI
—
$2,390
$6,785
$9,175
$11,704
-$2,529
-22%
Tribes
—
$15,515
$44,040
$59,555
$75,977
-$16,422
-22%
Total
$863,109
$773,252
$2,150,253
$3,786,614
$3,786,614
—
—
Source: Calculated by CRS from the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328), the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), and Clean
Water Act formula found in 33 U.S.C. §1285(c)(3), as modified by EPA.
Notes: Under the CWSRF, Puerto Rico operates a state revolving fund, and thus is considered a state for the
purposes of these programs. See Appendix A for a discussion of each column.
Congressional Research Service

37

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Appendix E. Drinking Water Infrastructure Funding
Table E-1. FY2022 Drinking Water (DW) Infrastructure Allotments
in thousands
Actual
Hypothetical
FY22 DW
FY22 DWSRF
Difference
Difference as
P.L.117-
P.L. 117-103
FY22 IIJA
Funds (P.L.
Allotments
Between
a Percent of
103
DWSRF
DWSRF GP
117-
w/out
Actual and
Hypothetical
CPF/CDS
Allotments
Allotments
103+IIJA)
CPF/CDS
Hypothetical
Allotment

AL
$480
$15,106
$38,787
$54,373
$62,305
-$7,932
-13%
AK
$7,280
$7,008
$17,992
$32,280
$28,905
$3,375
12%
AR
—
$10,543
$27,070
$37,613
$43,485
-$5,872
-14%
AZ
$2,990
$12,603
$32,359
$47,952
$51,982
-$4,030
-8%
CA
$37,146
$61,819
$158,733
$257,698
$254,975
$2,723
1%
CO
$3,541
$13,846
$35,550
$52,937
$57,108
-$4,171
-7%
CT
$7,652
$7,008
$17,992
$32,652
$28,905
$3,748
13%
DC
—
$7,008
$17,992
$25,000
$28,905
-$3,905
-14%
DE
—
$7,008
$17,992
$25,000
$28,905
-$3,905
-14%
FL
$10,000
$27,585
$70,829
$108,414
$113,775
-$5,361
-5%
GA
$1,600
$16,513
$42,400
$60,513
$68,108
-$7,595
-11%
HI
—
$7,008
$17,992
$25,000
$28,905
-$3,905
-14%
IA
$600
$11,101
$28,504
$40,205
$45,786
-$5,581
-12%
ID
—
$7,008
$17,992
$25,000
$28,905
-$3,905
-14%
IL
$15,598
$26,439
$67,885
$109,922
$109,049
$874
1%
IN
—
$10,711
$27,502
$38,213
$44,178
-$5,965
-14%
KS
—
$8,130
$20,875
$29,005
$33,532
-$4,527
-14%
KY
$1,793
$11,547
$29,649
$42,989
$47,626
-$4,637
-10%
LA
—
$10,489
$26,930
$37,419
$43,262
-$5,843
-14%
MA
$15,450
$16,260
$41,750
$73,460
$67,065
$6,395
10%
MD
$3,700
$12,837
$32,960
$49,497
$52,947
-$3,450
-7%
ME
$2,800
$7,008
$17,992
$27,800
$28,905
-$1,105
-4%
MI
$13,680
$17,202
$44,168
$75,050
$70,950
$4,100
6%
MN
$3,305
$10,697
$27,465
$41,467
$44,120
-$2,653
-6%
MO
$3,647
$12,354
$31,720
$47,721
$50,955
-$3,234
-6%
MS
$8,770
$7,544
$19,368
$35,682
$31,115
$4,567
15%
MT
—
$7,008
$17,992
$25,000
$28,905
-$3,905
-14%
NC
$9,146
$21,520
$55,254
$85,920
$88,760
-$2,840
-3%
ND
—
$7,008
$17,992
$25,000
$28,905
-$3,905
-14%
NE
—
$7,008
$17,992
$25,000
$28,905
-$3,905
-14%
Congressional Research Service

38

link to page 30 The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Actual
Hypothetical
FY22 DW
FY22 DWSRF
Difference
Difference as
P.L.117-
P.L. 117-103
FY22 IIJA
Funds (P.L.
Allotments
Between
a Percent of
103
DWSRF
DWSRF GP
117-
w/out
Actual and
Hypothetical
CPF/CDS
Allotments
Allotments
103+IIJA)
CPF/CDS
Hypothetical
Allotment

NH
$2,348
$7,008
$17,992
$27,348
$28,905
-$1,557
-5%
NJ
$8,637
$11,960
$30,708
$51,305
$49,329
$1,976
4%
NM
$200
$7,008
$17,992
$25,200
$28,905
-$3,705
-13%
NV
$4,295
$8,123
$20,857
$33,275
$33,504
-$229
-1%
NY
$31,980
$28,618
$73,481
$134,079
$118,036
$16,043
14%
OH
$9,488
$17,624
$45,251
$72,363
$72,691
-$328
0%
OK
$27,300
$9,935
$25,508
$62,743
$40,977
$21,766
53%
OR
$6,457
$9,220
$23,673
$39,350
$38,028
$1,322
3%
PA
$4,180
$21,577
$55,403
$81,160
$88,995
-$7,835
-9%
PR
—
$7,008
$17,992
$25,000
$28,905
-$3,905
-14%
RI
$11,645
$7,008
$17,992
$36,645
$28,905
$7,740
27%
SC
$8,000
$9,075
$23,302
$40,377
$37,430
$2,947
8%
SD
—
$7,008
$17,992
$25,000
$28,905
-$3,905
-14%
TN
$4,496
$12,172
$31,253
$47,921
$50,204
-$2,283
-5%
TX
$14,471
$54,911
$140,993
$210,375
$226,482
-$16,108
-7%
UT
$4,500
$7,008
$17,992
$29,500
$28,905
$595
2%
VA
$17,740
$11,434
$29,357
$58,531
$47,160
$11,371
24%
VT
$560
$7,008
$17,992
$25,560
$28,905
-$3,345
-12%
WA
$14,845
$15,655
$40,196
$70,696
$64,570
$6,126
9%
WI
$8,882
$11,943
$30,666
$51,491
$49,259
$2,232
5%
WV
$68,563
$7,008
$17,992
$93,563
$28,905
$64,659
224%
WY
—
$7,008
$17,992
$25,000
$28,905
-$3,905
-14%

AS
—
$2,640
$6,778
$9,418
$10,889
-$1,471
-14%
GU
—
$2,454
$6,301
$8,755
$10,122
-$1,367
-14%
MP
—
$2,066
$5,305
$7,371
$8,521
-$1,150
-13%
VI
—
$3,351
$8,605
$11,956
$13,821
-$1,865
-13%
Tribes
—
$14,566
$38,040
$52,606
$60,078
-$7,472
-12%
Total
$397,766
$715,322
$1,837,283
$2,950,371
$2,950,371
—
—
Source: Calculated by CRS from the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103), the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), and DWSRF
formula based on the latest drinking water infrastructure needs survey, authorized by 42 U.S.C. §300j–
12(a)(1)(D).
Notes: Under the DWSRF, Puerto Rico operates a state revolving fund, and thus is considered a state for the
purposes of these programs. See Appendix A for a discussion of each column.

Congressional Research Service

39

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Table E-2. FY2023 Drinking Water (DW) Infrastructure Allotments
in thousands
Hypothetical
Actual
FY23
P.L. 117-
FY23 IIJA
FY23 DW
DWSRF
Difference
Difference as a
328
DWSRF
Funds
Allotments
Between
Percent of
P.L. 117-328
DWSRF
GP
(P.L. 117-
w/out
Actual and
Hypothetical
CPF/CDS
Allotments Allotments 328+IIJA)
CPF/CDS
Hypothetical
Allotment

AL
$1,800
$8,719
$37,177
$47,696
$56,433
-$8,737
-15%
AK
$8,162
$4,938
$21,055
$34,155
$31,961
$2,194
7%
AR
$15,050
$5,912
$25,209
$46,171
$38,265
$7,906
21%
AZ
$14,867
$8,638
$36,833
$60,338
$55,909
$4,429
8%
CA
$74,512
$53,272
$227,150
$354,934
$344,801
$10,133
3%
CO
$13,194
$8,650
$36,884
$58,728
$55,987
$2,741
5%
CT
$7,863
$4,938
$21,055
$33,856
$31,961
$1,895
6%
DC
—
$4,938
$21,055
$25,993
$31,961
-$5,968
-19%
DE
$1,800
$4,938
$21,055
$27,793
$31,961
-$4,168
-13%
FL
$12,693
$17,820
$75,982
$106,495
$115,339
-$8,844
-8%
GA
$6,436
$13,389
$57,090
$76,915
$86,660
-$9,745
-11%
HI
$2,160
$4,938
$21,055
$28,153
$31,961
-$3,808
-12%
IA
—
$7,424
$31,656
$39,080
$48,052
-$8,972
-19%
ID
—
$4,938
$21,055
$25,993
$31,961
-$5,968
-19%
IL
$25,470
$14,985
$63,895
$104,350
$96,990
$7,360
8%
IN
—
$8,473
$36,128
$44,601
$54,841
-$10,240
-19%
KS
$10,000
$5,507
$23,482
$38,989
$35,644
$3,345
9%
KY
$11,328
$6,012
$25,633
$42,973
$38,912
$4,061
10%
LA
$4,430
$6,741
$28,744
$39,915
$43,631
-$3,716
-9%
MA
$14,601
$10,602
$45,206
$70,409
$68,621
$1,788
3%
MD
$5,845
$10,260
$43,747
$59,852
$66,407
-$6,555
-10%
ME
$6,084
$4,938
$21,055
$32,077
$31,961
$116
0%
MI
$25,797
$11,267
$48,042
$85,106
$72,925
$12,181
17%
MN
$17,573
$7,470
$31,850
$56,893
$48,349
$8,544
18%
MO
$22,240
$8,039
$34,278
$64,557
$52,032
$12,525
24%
MS
$18,626
$6,184
$26,368
$51,178
$40,026
$11,153
28%
MT
—
$4,938
$21,055
$25,993
$31,961
-$5,968
-19%
NC
$9,047
$13,607
$58,021
$80,675
$88,071
-$7,396
-8%
ND
—
$4,938
$21,055
$25,993
$31,961
-$5,968
-19%
NE
—
$4,938
$21,055
$25,993
$31,961
-$5,968
-19%
NH
$6,453
$4,938
$21,055
$32,446
$31,961
$485
2%
NJ
$30,896
$8,766
$37,376
$77,038
$56,738
$20,301
36%
Congressional Research Service

40

link to page 30 The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Hypothetical
Actual
FY23
P.L. 117-
FY23 IIJA
FY23 DW
DWSRF
Difference
Difference as a
328
DWSRF
Funds
Allotments
Between
Percent of
P.L. 117-328
DWSRF
GP
(P.L. 117-
w/out
Actual and
Hypothetical
CPF/CDS
Allotments Allotments 328+IIJA)
CPF/CDS
Hypothetical
Allotment

NM
$4,065
$4,938
$21,055
$30,058
$31,961
-$1,903
-6%
NV
$16,107
$5,120
$21,830
$43,057
$33,139
$9,918
30%
NY
$46,518
$23,065
$98,347
$167,930
$149,287
$18,642
12%
OH
$11,429
$11,151
$47,547
$70,127
$72,174
-$2,048
-3%
OK
$32,203
$7,177
$30,602
$69,982
$46,453
$23,529
51%
OR
$20,522
$7,428
$31,672
$59,622
$48,077
$11,545
24%
PA
$5,040
$16,290
$69,462
$90,792
$105,436
-$14,644
-14%
PR
—
$4,938
$21,055
$25,993
$31,961
-$5,968
-19%
RI
$5,000
$4,938
$21,055
$30,993
$31,961
-$968
-3%
SC
$9,900
$6,172
$26,316
$42,388
$39,948
$2,440
6%
SD
—
$4,938
$21,055
$25,993
$31,961
-$5,968
-19%
TN
$5,800
$8,312
$35,443
$49,555
$53,799
-$4,244
-8%
TX
$4,500
$39,369
$167,867
$211,736
$254,814
-$43,078
-17%
UT
$11,877
$4,938
$21,055
$37,870
$31,961
$5,909
18%
VA
$6,453
$6,973
$29,732
$43,158
$45,132
-$1,974
-4%
VT
$3,685
$4,938
$21,055
$29,678
$31,961
-$2,283
-7%
WA
$15,168
$11,307
$48,214
$74,689
$73,184
$1,505
2%
WI
$14,453
$8,455
$36,053
$58,961
$54,725
$4,236
8%
WV
$29,609
$4,938
$21,055
$55,602
$31,961
$23,641
74%
WY
—
$4,938
$21,055
$25,993
$31,961
-$5,968
-19%

AS
—
$1,424
$6,073
$7,497
$9,217
-$1,720
-19%
GU
—
$2,000
$8,528
$10,528
$12,945
-$2,417
-19%
MP
—
$2,183
$9,307
$11,490
$14,129
-$2,639
-19%
VI
—
$1,800
$7,674
$9,474
$11,650
-$2,176
-19%
Tribes
—
$10,332
$44,040
$54,372
$66,873
-$12,501
-19%
Total
$609,256
$504,117
$2,149,503
$3,262,876
$3,262,876
—
—
Source: Calculated by CRS from the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328), the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), and DWSRF
formula based on the latest drinking water infrastructure needs survey, authorized by 42 U.S.C. §300j–
12(a)(1)(D).
Notes: Under the DWSRF, Puerto Rico operates a state revolving fund, and thus is considered a state for the
purposes of these programs. See Appendix A for a discussion of each column.

Congressional Research Service

41

The Role of Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress

Author Information

Elena H. Humphreys

Analyst in Environmental Policy

Acknowledgments
Amber Hope Wilhelm, Visual Information Specialist, provided graphics support for this report. Michael M.
McCarthy, CRS Office of Publishing Editor, provided formatting and editorial support.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47633 · VERSION 1 · NEW
42

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Jul. 25, 2023

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Environmental Policy

Appropriations

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON