The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

May 15, 2024 R48066

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in
May 15, 2024
the 118th Congress
Elena H. Humphreys
The condition of the nation’s drinking water and wastewater systems continues to garner
Analyst in Environmental
congressional attention. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) periodically reports
Policy
on the capital cost of wastewater and drinking water infrastructure needs. EPA’s 2024 report on

Deleted: ehumphreys@crs.loc.gov
wastewater estimates found that the nation’s wastewater treatment facilities will need $630.1
billion (in 2022 dollars) over 20 years to meet federal water quality objectives. EPA’s 2023

Deleted: For a copy of the full report, please
report on drinking water indicates that public water systems need to invest $625 billion (in 2021
call 7-5700 or visit www.crs.gov.
dollars) in infrastructure improvements over 20 years to ensure the provision of safe drinking water. In response to an
optional survey of selected water systems by the Department of Health and Human Services, these systems reported that an
average of 20% of their customers missed water payments, and that, as a result, these systems assert they may be challenged
to support operations, maintenance, and capital improvements.
To assist with local water infrastructure projects, Congress has authorized several federal financial assistance programs, and
it has provided regular, and, in some cases, supplemental appropriations for several of these programs. Among these are the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), authorized by the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF), authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Under both SRF programs, EPA receives
appropriations and allots the funding as grants to the states (including Puerto Rico). Each state uses its federal grant to
capitalize revolving loan funds to support local water infrastructure projects. The District of Columbia (DC), territories, and
tribes do not operate revolving loan funds but receive allotments from CWSRF and DWSRF appropriations.
The 117th Congress increased funding for the state revolving funds (SRFs) through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58). The IIJA provides five fiscal years of emergency supplemental appropriations for the SRFs,
Deleted: P.L. 117-58
representing a substantial increase over recent regular appropriations for these programs. Also, the 117th Congress
reestablished the process of providing funding directly for specific water infrastructure projects through community project
funding/congressionally directed spending (CPF/CDS) items, commonly known as earmarks.
In the 118th Congress, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42) provides regular appropriations for the SRFs,
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
and continues CPF/CDS. Just as in the 117th Congress, the act reserves a portion of each SRF appropriation for CPF/CDS
items rather than providing a separate appropriation for CPF/CDS. The act dedicates just over half ($1.41 billion) of the
combined SRF regular appropriations ($2.76 billion) to 1,022 drinking water and wastewater project earmarks. The
reservation of funds for earmarks effectively reduces SRF regular appropriations. The effect of this reduction in available
SRF funding is distributed uniformly among states, as EPA uses either a statutory formula or the latest drinking water
infrastructure needs survey to determine state allotments of CWSRF and DWSRF grants, respectively.
In both the 117th and 118th Congresses, some states and territories did not receive any earmarked funds. For FY2024,
Congress did not earmark funds for any projects in Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Guam. Among the states and territories that received earmarked funds, those
funds were not evenly distributed. It is unclear how these selections were made.
The reservation of CPF/CDS from the SRF appropriations in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42)
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
resulted in changes in the distribution of water infrastructure funding—as CPF/CDS and through the SRF capitalization
grant—going to projects in states, territories, and tribes, relative to a hypothetical scenario in which the SRF appropriations
were distributed entirely via the SRF programs. How much more or less each state, territory, and tribe received, given the
presence of these earmarks, varies relative to what they would have received if the SRF appropriations were distributed
entirely via the SRF programs. The effect of reserving funds for CPF/CDS items from regular appropriations on state SRF
programs has been offset in part by IIJA supplemental appropriations for the SRFs.
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 this funding from state program officials to Members of Congress.
Also, through the joint explanatory statement, the appropriations committees provide direction to EPA regarding the
timeliness of CPF/CDS administration, and direct EPA to propose a legislative structure to allow for state administration of
CPF/CDS. Whether CPF/CDS continues to be provided, as a separate appropriation or set-aside within SRF appropriations,
and any changes to the administration of these items remains to be seen.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 28 link to page 29 link to page 31 link to page 33 link to page 35 The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

Appendixes
Appendix A. Appendix Outline ..................................................................................................... 24
Deleted: Error! Hyperlink reference not
Appendix B. Water Infrastructure Project Grants .......................................................................... 25
valid.Author Contact Information 3333
Appendix C. CPF/CDS Items and SRF Capitalization Grants ...................................................... 27
Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 5.99"
Appendix D. Clean Water Infrastructure Funding ......................................................................... 29
Deleted: Author Contact
Appendix E. Drinking Water Infrastructure Funding .................................................................... 31
Information 3333

Deleted: 33
Contacts
Deleted: ¶
Author Information
Contents
33
¶
Introduction 1¶
State Revolving Fund (SRF) Programs 2¶
Types of SRF Assistance 3¶
Statutory Additional Subsidization 4¶
Appropriations Acts and Additional
Subsidization 4¶
Appropriations for the SRF Programs 5¶
Earmarks 8¶
FY2024 CPF/CDS 10¶
House CPF Guidance 10¶
Senate CDS Guidance 11¶
CPF/CDS Items 11¶
Effect of Earmarks on Amounts Available
for Water Infrastructure Projects 13¶
Clean Water Infrastructure Funding
Changes 14¶
Drinking Water Infrastructure Funding
Changes 17¶
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 19¶
Concluding Observations 20¶
¶
Figures¶
Figure 1. Appropriations for the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) 7¶
Figure 2. Appropriations for the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) 8¶
Figure 3. Change in P.L. 118-42 Clean
Water Infrastructure Funds 16¶
Figure 4. Change in P.L. 118-42 Drinking
Water Infrastructure Funds 18¶
¶
Tables¶
Table 1. 117th Congress and 118th
Congress: State Revolving Fund (SRF)
Appropriations 10¶
...
Congressional Research Service

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

Introduction
The condition of the nation’s wastewater and drinking water infrastructure systems continues to
garner attention. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) periodically reports on the
capital cost of wastewater and drinking water infrastructure needs. EPA’s 2024 report on
wastewater infrastructure needs estimates that the nation’s wastewater infrastructure, which
includes stormwater systems, will need $630.1 billion over 20 years to meet federal water quality
objectives.1 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.2 In response to an optional survey of selected water systems by the Department of
Health and Human Services, these systems reported that an average of 20% of their customers fell
behind on water payments in 2022, and that, as a result, such systems assert they may be
challenged to support operations, maintenance, and capital improvements.3 Given these findings,
interest continues in the costs of projects needed for these systems to comply with federal
requirements and maintain levels of service, as well as concerns over the affordability of such
projects for communities.
To assist with local water infrastructure projects, Congress has authorized several federal
financial assistance programs, and has provided regular, and, in some cases, supplemental
appropriations for some of these programs.4 Among these are the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund (CWSRF), authorized by the Clean Water Act (CWA),5 and the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF), authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).6 Under both
SRF programs, EPA receives appropriations and allots the funding by formula as grants to the
states (including Puerto Rico). Each state uses its federal grant to capitalize revolving loan funds
Deleted: P.L. 117-58
to support local water infrastructure projects.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
The 117th Congress provided increased supplemental funding for these state revolving funds
(SRFs) through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58). IIJA provided five
Deleted: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/
fiscal years of emergency supplemental appropriations for the SRFs, representing a substantial
documents/2024-05/2022-cwns-report-to-
increase over recent regular appropriations for these programs. The 117th Congress also
congress.pdf
reestablished the process (which had been discontinued in 2011) of providing funding directly for
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Deleted: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/

documents/2023-09/
1 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2022 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) Report to
Seventh%20DWINSA_September2023_Final
Congress, April 2024, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-05/2022-cwns-report-to-congress.pdf.
.pdf
Estimates provided in 2022 dollars.
2 EPA, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: Seventh Report to Congress, September
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
2023, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-09/Seventh%20DWINSA_September2023_Final.pdf.
Estimates provided in 2021 dollars.
Deleted: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/
3 The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Community Services, Understanding Water
default/files/documents/ocs/
Affordability Across Contexts: LIHWAP Water Utility Affordability Survey Report, February 2024,
LIHWAP%20Survey%20Report%20v5.pdf
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocs/LIHWAP%20Survey%20Report%20v5.pdf.
4 Congress also has authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, within the Department of Defense, and the Bureau
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
of Reclamation, within the Department of the Interior, to address certain municipal water infrastructure. Further,
Deleted: Federally Supported Projects and
Congress has authorized rural development programs for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Rural
Utilities Service. These authorities are not discussed in this report. See CRS Report R46471, Federally Supported
Programs for Wastewater, Drinking Water,
Projects and Programs for Wastewater, Drinking Water, and Water Supply Infrastructure, coordinated by Jonathan L.
and Water Supply Infrastructure
Ramseur, for details on these and other programs.
5 The statutory name for the Clean Water Act is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, codified at 33
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
U.S.C. §§1231-1387.
Deleted: P.L. 93-523
6 Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (SDWA; P.L. 93-523), enacted December 16, 1974. SDWA is codified at 42 U.S.C.
§§300f-300j.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Congressional Research Service

1

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

specific water infrastructure projects through community project funding/congressionally directed
spending (CPF/CDS) items, commonly known as earmarks.
In the 118th Congress, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42) provides regular
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
appropriations for the SRFs, and continues CPF/CDS. Just as with appropriations acts in the 117th
Congress, the FY2024 act reserves a portion of each SRF appropriation for CPF/CDS items rather
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
than providing a separate appropriation for CPF/CDS. As such, reserving funds for CPF/CDS
effectively reduces the amount of SRF regular appropriations allocated to the SRF programs.
Also, through report language, the appropriations committees provide direction to EPA regarding
the timeliness of CPF/CDS administration, and direct EPA to propose a legislative structure to
allow for state administration of CPF/CDS.
Dedicating a portion of each SRF appropriation to CPF/CDS raises several considerations for
Congress, particularly in light of the committees’ direction to EPA for a proposal for state
administration of CPF/CDS. A key consideration is how this practice changes the distribution of
water infrastructure funds among the states. Other considerations may involve who determines
which projects receive funding and the financial characteristics of communities that receive
funding. Other questions may regard the details of EPA’s proposal for CPF/CDS administration.
This report begins with an overview of the SRFs, the key federal financial assistance programs
for municipal water infrastructure, and provides a brief discussion on the practice of earmarking
federal funding for water infrastructure projects. It also analyzes the effect of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42) CPF/CDS items on SRFs, and it discusses issues and
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
options regarding this practice.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
State Revolving Fund (SRF) Programs
The principal federal programs that help support wastewater and drinking water infrastructure are
the CWSRF and the DWSRF programs, respectively. The CWSRF provides financial assistance
for wastewater (e.g., sewer and stormwater) infrastructure projects to publicly owned treatment
works and other eligible recipients.7 The DWSRF provides assistance to public water systems,
which may be publicly or privately owned.8 In both SRF programs, EPA makes grants to states to
capitalize state revolving loan funds. Each state is required to provide a 20% match of its annual
capitalization grant.
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, including stormwater infrastructure.9 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.10

7 33 U.S.C. §§1381-1387. 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 (P.L. 100-4) phased out the Title
Deleted: P.L. 100-4
II construction grants program and authorized the CWSRF program and appropriations to capitalize state revolving
loan funds.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
8 42 U.S.C. §300j-12. For more information about the DWSRF, see CRS Report R47935, Changes to the Drinking
Deleted: Changes to the Drinking Water
Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Program, by Elena H. Humphreys.
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Program
9 33 U.S.C. §1383(c).
10 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(b)(3).
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Congressional Research Service

2

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

All 50 states and Puerto Rico implement their own SRF programs.11 For the CWSRF, EPA allots
the appropriation among states based on a CWA statutory formula, which provides a minimum
share of 0.5% to each state.12 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 of 1% of the available funds.13
Both the CWA and SDWA provide for federal oversight of the state programs. For example, states
are required to establish 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;14 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.15
States are required to publish their IUPs and solicit public comment.16 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.17 EPA annually publishes
information on activities for both programs.18
Types of SRF Assistance
Under the SRF programs, states primarily provide subsidized loans to support community water
infrastructure projects. States also provide “additional subsidization.” Such assistance may

11 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
Deleted: Clean Water State Revolving Fund
drinking water infrastructure improvements (33 U.S.C. §§1362 and 1377; 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(i) and (j)) using funding
Allotment Formula: Background and Options
from the SRF appropriations to EPA.
12 For more information on the CWA allotment formula, see CRS Report R47474, Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Allotment Formula: Background and Options, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
13 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(a)(1)(D). SDWA directs or authorizes EPA to set aside amounts of the DWSRF appropriation for
Deleted: Drinking Water Infrastructure
various program purposes before allotting the remaining funds among the states. EPA calculates the amount available
Needs: Background and Issues for Congress
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. For more information about the drinking
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
water infrastructure needs survey and assessments, see CRS Report R47878, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Elena H. Humphreys.
Deleted: https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/clean-
14 33 U.S.C. §1296.
water-state-revolving-fund-cwsrf-national-
15 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(b)(3).
information-management-system-reports
16 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(b)(3)(B); 33 U.S.C. §1386(c).
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
17 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(g)(4); 33 U.S.C. §1386.
18
Deleted: https://www.epa.gov/dwsrf/
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
drinking-water-state-revolving-fund-national-
websites: https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/clean-water-state-revolving-fund-cwsrf-national-information-management-
information-management-system-reports
system-reports and https://www.epa.gov/dwsrf/drinking-water-state-revolving-fund-national-information-management-
system-reports.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Congressional Research Service

3

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

include principal or other loan forgiveness; grants; negative interest loans; and buying,
refinancing, or restructuring debt, which can help make infrastructure projects more affordable.19
In addition to subsidized loans, the authority or requirement to provide additional subsidization
has been one of the primary instruments that Congress has used to address the affordability of
water infrastructure projects. Additional subsidization may occur through the authorities of the
underlying statute or through requirements in appropriations acts.
Statutory Additional Subsidization
When the CWA first established the CWSRF in 1987, the act did not include the authority to
provide additional subsidization.20 In 2014, Congress amended the CWA, adding authority for
states to provide additional subsidization, but not requiring it. In 2021, IIJA amended the CWA to
require states to use 10% of their CWSRF capitalization grants for additional subsidization,
provided sufficient applications.21
Since SDWA established the DWSRF in 1996, the act has authorized states to use up to 30% of
their DWSRF capitalization grants for additional subsidization.22 America’s Water Infrastructure
Act of 2018 (AWIA; P.L. 115-270) increased this proportion to 35% while conditionally requiring
Deleted: P.L. 115-270
states to use at least 6% of their capitalization grants for these purposes. In 2021, IIJA amended
SDWA to increase the minimum percentage that states were required to use for additional
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
subsidization to 12%. SDWA requires that states provide this additional subsidization to
disadvantaged communities only.23
Appropriations Acts and Additional Subsidization
Annual appropriations acts have also directed states to use minimum percentages of their
capitalization grants for additional subsidization. For example, the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42) directs states to dedicate 10% of their CWSRF capitalization grant and
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
14% of their DWSRF capitalization grant for additional subsidization. The regular appropriations
acts have not required states to provide these mandatory percentages of additional subsidization
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
to specific entities, such as disadvantaged communities. Thus, pursuant to the scope of these
directives, states can provide additional subsidization to communities regardless of their financial
situation or other characteristics.
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. IIJA

19 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, or
stormwater.
20 Prior to 1987, a grant program in CWA Title II provided funding for the construction of wastewater treatment
Deleted: P.L. 100-4
facilities and related objectives. The Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-4) phased out the Title II construction grants
program and authorized the CWSRF program and appropriations to capitalize state revolving loan funds.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
21 P.L. 117-58, §50102 and §50210.
Deleted: P.L. 117-58
22 The SDWA Amendments of 1996 (P.L. 104-182) authorized a complementary program for drinking water
infrastructure, the DWSRF. Prior to 1996, there was no federal financial assistance program for municipal drinking
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
water infrastructure.
Deleted: P.L. 104-182
23 SDWA §1452(d)(3) defines a disadvantaged community as the service area of a public water system that meets state-
established affordability criteria.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 12 The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

appropriations require that states provide additional subsidization to disadvantaged communities
only.
In an EPA memorandum from 2024, 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.24
These statutory revisions and funding directives reflect an increased interest in providing
additional funding support beyond subsidized loans to communities that may be challenged to
afford water infrastructure projects or, under the CWSRF, for certain types of projects. Yet some
states observe that, even with revisions to authority and/or requirements to provide increased
additional subsidization from the SRFs, requests in their state for such assistance outpace
Deleted: Figure 1
amounts available,25 though this may not be the case for all states. Dedicating more of existing
resources to additional subsidization may affect the sustainability of state SRFs. Additional
Formatted: Font: Bold
subsidization is not repaid into the SRFs, reducing the amount that would revolve back to state
Deleted: Figure 2
SRFs to be available for assistance for future projects.26
Formatted: Font: Bold
Appropriations for the SRF Programs
Deleted: P.L. 111-5
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Figure 1 and Figure 2 show appropriations over time for the CWSRF and the DWSRF,
respectively.27 Appropriations for the SRFs and other water infrastructure programs are provided
Deleted: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/
within EPA’s State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account.28 From FY2000 through
documents/2024-04/fy24-joint-srf-allotments-
FY2009, annual appropriations averaged about $1.1 billion for the CWSRF and about $833
memorandum.pdf
million for the DWSRF. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5)
provided $4.0 billion for the CWSRF and $2.0 billion for the DWSRF in FY2009, in addition to
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
the regular FY2009 appropriations.29 In nominal dollars (i.e., not adjusted for inflation), the
Deleted: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/
annual appropriations for the SRF programs—especially for the CWSRF—increased after ARRA.
water_issues/programs/grants_loans/docs/
Between FY2010 and FY2021, annual appropriations averaged about $1.6 billion for the CWSRF
2023/2023-24-cwsrf-iup.pdf
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Deleted: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/

24 EPA, Fiscal Year 2024 Allotments for the State Revolving Fund Provisions of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and
water_issues/programs/grants_loans/srf/docs/
Base Program Funding, Washington, DC, April 3, 2024, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/fy24-
2023/2023-24-dwsrf-iup.pdf
joint-srf-allotments-memorandum.pdf.
25 For example, California’s FY2023 DWSRF IUP states that the demand for additional subsidization “exceeds the
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
$137.4 million in principal forgiveness available from the FFY [Federal Fiscal Year] 2023 DWSRF Base Program and
Deleted: Changes to the Drinking Water
General Supplemental capitalization grants,” and its FY2023 CWSRF IUP states that requests for additional
subsidization “exceeds the $94.7 million in principal forgiveness available from the FFY 2023 CWSRF Base Program
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Program
and General Supplemental capitalization grants.” California State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB), State of
California Clean Water State Revolving Fund FY2023 Intended Use Plan, September 6, 2023, p. 89,
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/docs/2023/2023-24-cwsrf-iup.pdf.
Deleted: Clean Water State Revolving Fund
SWRCB, State of California Drinking Water State Revolving Fund FY2023 Intended Use Plan, July 18, 2023, p. 91,
Allotment Formula: Background and Options
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/srf/docs/2023/2023-24-dwsrf-iup.pdf.
26 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R47935, Changes to the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Program, by Elena H. Humphreys.
Deleted: P.L. 111-5
27 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
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Construction Grant Program to the CWSRF, see CRS Report R47474, Clean Water State Revolving Fund Allotment
Formula: Background and Options, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
Deleted: EPA Water Infrastructure Funding
28 The name of this account has changed over time.
in the American Recovery and Reinvestment
29 For more information about the SRF appropriations in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L.
Act of 2009
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.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 12 The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

and about $1.0 billion for the DWSRF. Appropriations for these programs remained relatively
consistent until FY2022.
In the 117th Congress, IIJA Division J provided five fiscal years of emergency supplemental
appropriations for the CWSRF and DWSRF.30 IIJA authorizes EPA to reserve certain percentages
for EPA administration and for oversight by EPA’s Office of Inspector General, prior to allotting
the funds among the states.31 Further, the annual appropriations acts provide regular
appropriations for the SRF programs. These annual appropriations acts include CPF/CDS items
for municipal water infrastructure projects.
For the CWSRF, IIJA included $11.7 billion total for FY2022 through FY2026. It also included
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.
Formatted: Font: Bold
For the DWSRF, IIJA included $11.7 billion total for FY2022 through FY2026. It also included
Deleted: Figure 1
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.
Deleted: Figure 2
Formatted: Font: Bold
Deleted: Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act (IIJA): Drinking Water and Wastewater
Infrastructure
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Deleted: Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
30 See CRS Report R46892, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA): Drinking Water and Wastewater
Act (IIJA): Drinking Water and Wastewater
Infrastructure, by Elena H. Humphreys and Jonathan L. Ramseur, for more details.
Infrastructure…
31 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.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Congressional Research Service

6

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

Figure 1. Appropriations for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
(in nominal and real dollars)

Source: Prepared by CRS using information from annual appropriations acts, committee reports, and
explanatory statements presented in the Congressional Record.
Notes: Amounts reflect applicable rescissions and supplemental appropriations, including $4.0 bil ion in P.L. 111-
Deleted: P.L. 111-5
5 and $52.5 mil ion in P.L. 116-20. “Real” or 2023 dol ars calculated from Office of Management and Budget,
Table 10.1, “Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–2026,”
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/. The deflator values used for FY2024 through FY2026 are
estimates. “ARRA” denotes supplemental appropriations provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Deleted: P.L. 116-20
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
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
contaminants. General Program, or “GP,” denotes supplemental appropriations provided to the CWSRF for the
range of statutory eligibilities. “CPF/CDS” denotes the portion of CWSRF appropriations dedicated to
Deleted: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
community project funding/congressionally directed spending. The funding levels for FY2025 and FY2026 are
historical-tables/
likely to change, reflecting funding for the CWSRF through annual appropriations.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Deleted: P.L. 111-5
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Deleted: P.L. 117-58
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Congressional Research Service

7

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

Figure 2. Appropriations for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
(in nominal and real dollars)

Source: Prepared by CRS using information from annual appropriations acts, committee reports, and
explanatory statements presented in the Congressional Record.
Notes: Amounts reflect applicable rescissions and supplemental appropriations, including $4.0 bil ion in P.L. 111-
Deleted: P.L. 111-5
5 and $52.5 mil ion in P.L. 116-20. “Real” or 2023 dol ars calculated from Office of Management and Budget,
Table 10.1, “Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–2026,”
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/. The deflator values used for FY2024 through FY2026 are
estimates. “ARRA” denotes supplemental appropriations provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Deleted: P.L. 116-20
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
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
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
Deleted: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
lead service line (LSL) replacement projects and related activities. “CPF/CDS” denotes the portion of DWSRF
historical-tables/
appropriations dedicated to community project funding/congressionally directed spending. The funding levels for
FY2025 and FY2026 are likely to change, reflecting funding for the DWSRF through annual appropriations.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Deleted: P.L. 111-5
Earmarks
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
The practice of earmarking a portion of an EPA account for specific wastewater treatment and
Deleted: P.L. 117-58
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
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Water Quality Act of 1987. Beginning in FY1992, Congress also earmarked funds for a number
of projects not specifically authorized in the Clean Water Act or the 1987 CWA amendments.32
Deleted: P.L. 102-139

32 P.L. 102-139.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 29 link to page 14 link to page 14 The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

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.33 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.34 In FY2007, Congress applied a one-year moratorium on earmarks in all appropriations
bills.35 For the next three years, special project grants appeared in appropriations acts—including
those providing funding to EPA—but in FY2011, Congress did not provide earmarks 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.”36 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
FY2012.37 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, appropriations acts provided a separate appropriation to the CWSRF in
addition to funds earmarked for water infrastructure project grants. Similarly, from FY1997 to
FY2010, appropriations acts provided earmarks for drinking water projects and a separate
appropriation for the DWSRF. Both SRF appropriations and earmarks were provided within the
same appropriations account.
With the reestablishment of earmarks in FY2022, Congress has 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
Deleted: Table 1
earmarks. The funds reserved for CPF/CDS are distributed directly to recipients, instead of to
Formatted: Font: Bold
states’ SRF programs. Thus, the reservation of funds effectively decreases the total amount
available for allotment as state capitalization grants. In the first session of the 118th Congress, the
Deleted: P.L. 110-81
number of earmarks and funding amounts dedicated to earmarks were higher than those provided
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
in the first session of the 117th Congress. Table 1 provides specific details for each appropriations
act.
Deleted: Lifting the Earmark Moratorium:
Frequently Asked Questions

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
33 H.Rept. 103-715.
34 In Senate rules, the phrase congressionally directed spending item is used in place of earmark. For the purposes of
Deleted: https://web.archive.org/web/
this report, the terms are used interchangeably. The Senate included its rule in the Honest Leadership and Open
20110203075236/http:/
Government Act of 2007, which became law on September 14, 2007 (§521 of P.L. 110-81, 121 Stat.760). See rule XXI
appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=
of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
news.view&id=188dc791-4b0d-459e-b8d9-
35 “Byrd-Obey Announce FY 2007 Plan,” press release, December 11, 2006.
36
4ede5ca299e7
For more information on the earmark moratorium, see CRS Report R45429, Lifting the Earmark Moratorium:
Frequently Asked Questions, by Megan S. Lynch.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
37 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&
Deleted: https://web.archive.org/web/
id=188dc791-4b0d-459e-b8d9-4ede5ca299e7; and U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, “Senate Appropriations
20120214222505/http:/
Committee Announces Extension of Earmark Moratorium,” press release, February 2, 2012, https://web.archive.org/
appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=
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
news.view&id=3883059e-7a0c-496e-8d51-
order labeled Earmark Moratorium that stated, “It is the policy of the House Republican Conference that no Member
440aa7c2d57c
shall request a congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit, as such terms have been described in
the Rules of the House.”
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Congressional Research Service

9

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

Table 1. 117th Congress and 118th Congress: State Revolving Fund (SRF)
Appropriations
Deleted: P.L. 117-103
(in millions of dollars, not adjusted for inflation)
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Amount
Deleted: P.L. 117-328
Amount of
Remaining for

Total SRF Appropriation
CPF/CDS
SRF Programs
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Clean Water

Deleted: P.L. 118-42
P.L. 117-103
$1,638.9
$443.6 (27%)
$1,195.3 (73%)
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
P.L. 117-328
$1,638.9
$863.1 (53%)
$775.8 (47%)
Deleted: P.L. 117-103
P.L. 118-42
$1,638.9
$787.7 (48%)
$851.2 (52%)
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Drinking Water

Deleted: P.L. 117-328
P.L. 117-103
$1,126.1
$397.8 (35%)
$728.3 (65%)
P.L. 117-328
$1,126.1
$609.3 (54%)
$516.8 (46%)
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
P.L. 118-42
$1,126.1
$631.7 (56%)
$494.4 (44%)
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
Source: Compiled by CRS from P.L. 117-103, P.L. 117-328, and P.L. 118-42.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Notes: Dol ar amounts are nominal (not adjusted for inflation). CPF/CDS stands for community project
Deleted: P.L. 117-103
funding/congressionally directed spending, also known as earmarks.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
FY2024 CPF/CDS
Deleted: P.L. 117-328
During the development of the FY2024 appropriations bills, the appropriations committees issued
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
guidance for Members when submitting requests for CPF in the House or for CDS in the Senate.
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
Both chambers’ guidance limited the amount of CPF/CDS to a percentage of discretionary
spending. The House Committee on Appropriations limited the amount of CPF to no more than
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
0.5%, while the Senate Committee on Appropriations’ limit for CDS was no more than 1.0%.38 As
Deleted: https://appropriations.house.gov/
in the 117th Congress, both House and Senate committees require the U.S. Government
sites/republicans.appropriations.house.gov/
Accountability Office (GAO) to audit selected CPF/CDS items and report to Congress.39
files/
FY24%20Comunity%20Project%20Funding
House CPF Guidance
%20Guidance.pdf
For FY2024 CPF requests, the House Committee on Appropriations issued general guidance that
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
continued many of the requirements added by the 117th Congress. These include requiring that the
requests be aligned with existing requirements under House rules,40 and prohibiting funding
Deleted: https://www.appropriations.senate.g
recipients that are “for-profit” entities.41 Similar to guidance in the 117th Congress, Members in
ov/imo/media/doc/
FY2024%20Appropriations%20Requests%20

General%20Guidance.pdf
38 U.S. House Committee on Appropriations, “Guidance for Community Project Funding,”
https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/republicans.appropriations.house.gov/files/
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
FY24%20Comunity%20Project%20Funding%20Guidance.pdf. U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, “General
Deleted: Community Project Funding: House
Guidance on Fiscal Year 2024 Appropriations Requests,” https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
FY2024%20Appropriations%20Requests%20General%20Guidance.pdf.
Rules and Committee Protocols
39 U.S. House Committee on Appropriations, “Guidance for Community Project Funding.” U.S. Senate Committee on
Appropriations, “
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
General Guidance on Fiscal Year 2024 Appropriations Requests.”
40 See CRS Report R46722, Community Project Funding: House Rules and Committee Protocols, by Megan S. Lynch
Deleted: https://appropriations.house.gov/
for details on specific House Rules.
sites/republicans.appropriations.house.gov/
41 U.S. House Committee on Appropriations, “Guidance for Community Project Funding,”
files/
...
https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/republicans.appropriations.house.gov/files/
FY24%20Comunity%20Project%20Funding%20Guidance.pdf.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Congressional Research Service

10

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

the 118th Congress had to publicly certify that they and their immediate family have no financial
interest in the requested project, provide information on CPF requests online, and demonstrate
evidence of community support for the request. In addition, for FY2024, the House Committee
required Members to demonstrate a “federal nexus” for each project request.42 The House
Committee on Appropriations increased the number of CPF requests that Members could submit
from 10 to 15.43
The relevant subcommittees issued additional specific guidance. For the Subcommittee on
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Members could submit FY2024 CPF requests for
EPA’s STAG account only.44 Members could rank their CPF requests.45 CPF were required 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%.46
Senate CDS Guidance
For FY2024, the Senate Committee on Appropriations accepted CDS requests for specified
agencies and accounts, including but not exclusively EPA’s STAG account.47 The committee
continued requirements from the 117th Congress 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 are available on a publicly accessible congressional website in a
searchable form at least 48 hours before the vote.48 As in the House, the Senate Committee on
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
Appropriations required Members to certify that neither they nor their immediate family have a
financial interest in the project.49
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Deleted: https://democrats-
CPF/CDS Items
appropriations.house.gov/news/press-
P.L. 118-42 dedicates just over half (i.e., $1.41 billion) of the combined SRF regular
releases/delauro-announces-community-
appropriations (i.e., $2.76 billion) to 1,022 drinking water and wastewater project earmarks. This
project-funding-in-fiscal-year-2022
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

42 U.S. House Committee on Appropriations, “Guidance for Community Project Funding.” Regarding “federal nexus,”
Deleted: https://appropriations.house.gov/
the Committee’s guidance states that “it will only fund projects that are tied to a federal authorization law.”
sites/republicans.appropriations.house.gov/
43 U.S. House Committee on Appropriations, “Guidance for Community Project Funding.” U.S. Congress, House
files/
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-
FY24%20Interior,%20Environment,%20and
community-project-funding-in-fiscal-year-2022.
%20Related%20Agencies%20Guidance.pdf
44 U.S. House Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, “Fiscal Year 2024
Member Project Request Guide,” https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/republicans.appropriations.house.gov/files/
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
FY24%20Interior,%20Environment,%20and%20Related%20Agencies%20Guidance.pdf.
Deleted: https://www.appropriations.senate.g
45 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
ov/imo/media/doc/
Procedures for Receiving Members’ Programmatic, Language, and Community Project Funding Submissions for
Consideration of the FY2024 Appropriations Bill, Dear Colleague Letter, 118th Cong., 1st sess., February 28, 2023.
FY2024%20Appropriations%20Requests%20
46 U.S. House Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, “Fiscal Year 2024
General%20Guidance.pdf
Member Project Request Guide.”
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
47 U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, “General Guidance on Fiscal Year 2024 Appropriations Requests,”
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
Deleted: Earmark Disclosure Rules in the
FY2024%20Appropriations%20Requests%20General%20Guidance.pdf.
Senate: Member and Committee
48 Senate Rule XLIV. For more information, see CRS Report RS22867, Earmark Disclosure Rules in the Senate:
Requirements
Member and Committee Requirements, by Megan S. Lynch.
49 U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, “General Guidance on Fiscal Year 2024 Appropriations Requests.”
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 31 link to page 31 The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

represents an increase in the number of earmarked projects compared with the 117th Congress.
Specifically, P.L. 118-42 dedicates $787.7 million to 552 wastewater infrastructure projects, and
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
$631.7 million to 470 drinking water infrastructure projects. These 1,022 projects received on
average $1.4 million, which represents a decrease compared with the average amount provided by
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
the 117th Congress. Table 2 provides statistics for the earmarks provided by recent appropriations
Deleted: Table 2
acts.
Formatted: Font: Bold
Table 2. Summary of Water Infrastructure Earmarks in Recent Appropriations Acts
(in millions of dollars, not adjusted for inflation)
Public Law
Number of CPF/CDS
Average CPF/CDS Amount
P.L. 117-103
485 projects
$1.7
Deleted: P.L. 117-103
P.L. 117-328
715 projects
$2.0
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
P.L. 118-42
1,022 projects
$1.4
Deleted: P.L. 117-328
Source: Compiled from the joint explanatory statements accompanying P.L. 117-103, P.L. 117-328, and P.L. 118-
42.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Notes: Dol ar amounts are nominal (not adjusted for inflation). CPF/CDS stands for community project
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
funding/congressionally directed spending, also known as earmarks.
Table C-1 provides the total EPA STAG account CPF/CDS for projects by state or territory for
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
FY2024. From publicly available data, the number of CPF/CDS requests that met the committees’
Deleted: P.L. 117-103
criteria is not clear. Accordingly, it is unclear if all CPF/CDS requests that met the criteria
received funding in FY2024, or if some portion of projects that met the committees’ criteria for
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
requested CPF/CDS was not funded. As such, summary statistics regarding the distribution of
Deleted: P.L. 117-328
CPF/CDS among the states may not reflect prioritization, but provides data regarding CPF/CDS
distribution. For example, 45% of the total amount of wastewater CPF/CDS were allocated to
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
projects in 10 of the 47 states that received CPF/CDS. For drinking water CPF/CDS, 46% of the
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
total amount of drinking water CPF/CDS were allocated to projects in 10 of the 45 states that
received CPF/CDS. Among these 10 states, two (Alaska and Nebraska) receive the statutory
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
minimum DWSRF capitalization grant allotment.
Formatted: Font: Bold
In addition, the amount of CPF/CDS dedicated to specific projects varies. The difference between
Deleted: Table C-1
the amounts of CPF/CDS dedicated to individual projects likely depends on the specific amount
of CPF/CDS that a Member requested for each project. For wastewater, funding for CPF/CDS
projects ranged from $23.6 million for a project in South Dakota to $80,000 for a project in
Nebraska. Among the 10 projects that received the largest wastewater earmarks, the average
amount provided was $9.7 million. For the 10 projects that received the smallest CPF/CDS, the
average amount provided was $141,000. Of the $787.7 million in wastewater earmarks, $437.9
million originated from Representatives’ requests, $295.1 million originated from Senators’
requests, and $54.6 million originated from requests made jointly by House and Senate
Members.50
Among the CPF/CDS amounts provided to specific drinking water projects, funding for
CPF/CDS projects ranged from $12 million for a project in Arkansas to $72,000 for a project in
Nebraska. Among the 10 drinking water projects that received the largest earmarks, the average
amount provided was $7.1 million. For the 10 drinking water projects that received the smallest
earmarks, the average amount provided was $174,000. Of the $631.7 million in drinking water
CPF/CDS, $383.3 million originated from Representatives’ requests, $192.9 million originated

50 Numbers may not total due to rounding.
Congressional Research Service

12

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

from Senators’ requests, and $55.4 million originated from requests made jointly by House and
Senate Members.51
Not all states received earmarked funds. For FY2024, Congress did not earmark any funds for
projects in Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Puerto Rico; based on publicly available data,
it appears that Members did not submit CPF/CDS requests for projects in these areas.52 Further,
Congress did not provide earmarks to the District of Columbia, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, or Guam. (Of these areas, only the U.S. Virgin Islands received earmarks in the 117th
Congress.) Members of Congress requested earmarks for tribal projects associated with a specific
state.53 Congress did not set aside CPF/CDS funds specifically for tribes.
Effect of Earmarks on Amounts Available for Water
Infrastructure Projects
This section analyzes the effects 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 only at the
amount available by state from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42). Then,
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
the section 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.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
The 118th Congress continued the process established in the 117th Congress of earmarking funds
from the regular appropriations for the CWSRF and DWSRF.54 This process effectively reduces
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 the FY2024 appropriations act
remains the same, though the CPF/CDS amounts are distributed directly to recipients rather than
through SRF programs. A key difference between state SRFs and CPF/CDS is who decides which
projects to fund. For the CPF/CDS amount, Congress determines directly which projects receive
funding instead of the states via the SRFs.
The effect of this reduction in SRF funding is distributed uniformly among state SRFs, as EPA
uses either a statutory formula or the latest drinking water infrastructure needs survey to
Deleted: https://appropriations.house.gov/
determine state allotments of CWSRF and DWSRF capitalization grants, respectively. The
sites/evo-subsites/republicans-
distribution of CPF/CDS depends, in part, on which CPF/CDS projects Members request, which
appropriations.house.gov/files/

FY%202024%20House%20CPF%20Request
51 Numbers may not total due to rounding.
s%202023-04-27%20%28430pm%29.xlsx
52 House Committee on Appropriations, “FY24 House CPF requests,” https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/evo-
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
subsites/republicans-appropriations.house.gov/files/FY%202024%20House%20CPF%20Requests%202023-04-
27%20%28430pm%29.xlsx. Senate Committee on Appropriations, “Congressionally Directed Spending Requests
Deleted: https://www.appropriations.senate.g
FY2024,” https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/congressionally-directed-spending-requests-fy2024-chart.
ov/congressionally-directed-spending-
53 For example, six projects (i.e., Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan for Wastewater Treatment Plant;
requests-fy2024-chart
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation for Wastewater Infrastructure Upgrades; Shoalwater Bay
Indian Tribe for Water and Wastewater System Upgrades; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan for Water
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Treatment Plant Project; Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation for Inchelium Community Water System
Upgrade Project; Skokomish Tribe for Waterline Extension) received CPF/CDS requested by Members.
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
54 P.L. 118-42 authorizes EPA to reserve an additional $13.3 million from FY2024 CWSRF and DWSRF state
capitalization grants for the administration of CPF/CDS items. EPA is not authorized to obligate the $13.3 million
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
without written confirmation by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. For CPF/CDS administration,
EPA’s FY2024 allotment memorandum indicates that the agency will reserve (pending confirmation) $6.1 million of
Deleted: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/
the FY2024 DWSRF appropriation and $7.2 million of the CWSRF appropriation for this purpose. EPA, Fiscal Year
documents/2024-04/fy24-joint-srf-allotments-
2024 Allotments for the State Revolving Fund Provisions of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Base Program
memorandum.pdf
Funding, Washington, DC, April 3, 2024, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/fy24-joint-srf-
allotments-memorandum.pdf.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 31 link to page 31 The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

projects meet the selection criteria from the appropriation committees, and which projects are
ultimately selected for inclusion in the joint explanatory statement. It may also depend on other
factors and considerations that are not publicly available.
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. For example, the
effect can be assessed by comparing the different nominal funding amounts states received with
the addition of CPF/CDS to a hypothetical scenario in which states received only SRF
capitalization grants and CPF/CDS funding was not reserved. Figure 3 and Figure 4 present
Deleted: Figure 3
these comparisons. While some states received more funding due to CPF/CDS items, other states
received less water infrastructure funding from annual appropriations acts as a result of this
Formatted: Font: Bold
practice (compared with the hypothetical scenario without CPF/CDS). Table 3 provides the
Deleted: Figure 4
average and median nominal differences in water infrastructure funds availability associated with
this practice, as compared with a hypothetical scenario in which CPF/CDS was not reserved from
Formatted: Font: Bold
the SRF appropriations. It also provides the average actual amounts of SRF grants and CPF/CDS
Formatted: Font: Bold
dedicated to states.
Deleted: Table 3
Table 3. Regular FY2024 Appropriations Water Infrastructure Funding Difference
Due to CPF/CDS
(in millions of dollars)
Average
Average
Amount of
Average
Median
P.L. 118-42
States, Territories, and Tribes
SRF Grant
CPF/CDS
Change
Change
Deleted: P.L. 118-42

Actual
Compared with
Hypothetical
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Clean
Less Funding: 26 states, the District
$18.2
$12.1
-$6.9
-$4.0
Water
of Columbia, territories, tribes
More Funding: 25 states
$10.3
$18.5
+$8.8
+5.9
Drinking
Less Funding: 25 states, the District
$8.7
$5.6
-$6.0
-$6.0
Water
of Columbia, territories, tribes
More Funding: 26 states
$7.9
$17.6
+$7.1
+$6.1
Source: Calculated by CRS from the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42), Clean Water Act (CWA) formula found in 33 U.S.C. §1285(c)(3) as
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
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).
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Notes: “Compared with Hypothetical” denotes the change in nominal funding amounts that states received with
the addition of CPF/CDS compared with a hypothetical scenario in which states received only SRF capitalization
grants and CPF/CDS funding was not reserved. 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.
Clean Water Infrastructure Funding Changes
Formatted: Font: Bold
Figure 3 provides the decrease or increase in the amounts available by state, territory, or for
Deleted: Figure 3
tribes, as compared with the hypothetical scenario of distributing the FY2024 CWSRF
Formatted: Font: Bold
appropriation without reserving CPF/CDS. As identified in Table C-1, four states (including
Deleted: Table C-1
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 31 link to page 31 The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

Puerto Rico), DC, three territories, and the tribes did not receive earmarks in P.L. 118-42. The
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
CWSRF appropriation set-aside for CPF/CDS reduced by 48% the total amount of funding for
these entities.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Results were mixed for states that received earmarks. For instance, 22 of the 47 states (and the
Northern Mariana Islands) that received earmarks in FY2024 received less in combined
CPF/CDS and CWSRF capitalization grants relative to a hypothetical scenario in which
CPF/CDS was not reserved from the CWSRF appropriation.
The FY2024 CPF/CDS process resulted in a funding shift of $220.6 million from the states,
territories, and tribes that received less funding to the 25 states that received more. The former
entities each received, on average, $6.9 million less in clean water infrastructure funding, while
the latter 25 states each received, on average, approximately $8.8 million more.55 For context, the
average FY2024 CWSRF state capitalization grant or territorial or tribal grant amount was $14.8
million. This comparison does not include state capitalization grants from the IIJA supplemental
appropriations, which are discussed below. Table C-1 provides state-by-state comparisons.
Deleted: Table C-1
Formatted: Font: Bold

55 The median value of the decrease in funds available by state, by territory, or for tribes was $4.0 million, and the
median value of the increase was $5.9 million.
Congressional Research Service

15

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

Figure 3. Change in P.L. 118-42 Clean Water Infrastructure Funds
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Source: Calculated by CRS from the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42) and CWA formula found in 33 U.S.C. §1285(c)(3) as modified by EPA.
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
Notes: These figures identify the change in available P.L. 118-42 clean water infrastructure funds as a result of
the reservation of funds for CPF/CDS and distribution of CPF/CDS, compared with a hypothetical scenario in
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
which 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.
Deleted: P.L. 118-42

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Congressional Research Service

16

link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 31 link to page 31 link to page 31 link to page 31 The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

Drinking Water Infrastructure Funding Changes
Figure 4 provides the decrease or increase in the amounts available by state, territory, or for the
Deleted: Figure 4
tribes, as compared with distributing the FY2023 DWSRF appropriation without reserving
CPF/CDS. As required by P.L. 118-42, EPA reserved $12.0 million from the FY2024 DWSRF
Formatted: Font: Bold
appropriation for unregulated contaminants water system monitoring. As authorized by SDWA,
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
EPA can reserve additional amounts for American iron and steel oversight prior to allotting the
DWSRF appropriation among the states.56 Accordingly, the amount available for allotment as
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
DWSRF capitalization grants was reduced further than just by the CPF/CDS amounts.
As identified in Table C-1, six states (including Puerto Rico), DC, three territories, and the tribes
Formatted: Font: Bold
did not receive earmarks in P.L. 118-42. The DWSRF appropriation set-aside for CPF/CDS
reduced by 57% the total amount of funding for these entities.
Deleted: Table C-1

Results were mixed for states that received earmarks. For instance, 19 of the 45 states (and the
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
Northern Mariana Islands) that received earmarks in FY2024 received less in combined
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
CPF/CDS and DWSRF grants relative to a hypothetical scenario in which CPF/CDS was not
reserved from the DWSRF appropriation.
The FY2024 CPF/CDS process resulted in a funding shift of $185.3 million from the states,
territories, and tribes that received less funding to the 26 states that received more. The average
reduction for each state, territory, or tribes was approximately $6.0 million, while the average
increase for each of the 26 states that received more amounted to $7.1 million.57 For context, the
average FY2024 DWSRF state capitalization grant or territorial or tribal grant amount was $8.3
million. Table C-1 provides state-by-state comparisons. This comparison does not include state
Formatted: Font: Bold
capitalization grants from the IIJA supplemental appropriations, which are discussed below.
Deleted: Table C-1

56 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(a)(4)(F). Under 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(n), EPA is also authorized to reserve a portion of the
DWSRF appropriation for health effects studies. EPA’s FY2024 allotment memorandum does not indicate that EPA
plans to use this set-aside.
57 The median value of the decrease in funds available by state, by territory, or for tribes was $6.0 million, and the
median value of the increase was $6.1 million.
Congressional Research Service

17

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

Figure 4. Change in P.L. 118-42 Drinking Water Infrastructure Funds
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Source: Calculated by CRS from the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42) and DWSRF formula based on the latest drinking water infrastructure
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
needs survey, authorized by 42 U.S.C. §300j–12(a)(1)(D).
Notes: These figures identify the change in available P.L. 118-42 drinking water infrastructure funds as a result of
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
the reservation of funds for CPF/CDS and the distribution of CPF/CDS, compared with a hypothetical scenario
in which CPF/CDS was not reserved. State abbreviations are listed. For territories, “AS” denotes American
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
Samoa, “GU” denotes Guam, “MP” denotes Northern Mariana Islands, and “VI” denotes U.S. Virgin Islands.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 24 link to page 24 The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
For FY2024, IIJA provided the SRF programs with emergency supplemental appropriations,
which are additional to the regular FY2024 appropriations provided by P.L. 118-42. No CPF/CDS
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
funding was reserved from the IIJA SRF appropriations. Accordingly, the effect of reserving
funds for CPF/CDS items from FY2024 regular appropriations on state SRF programs is partially
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
offset by these IIJA appropriations.
An assessment of this effect is complicated. Different ways of considering the IIJA supplemental
appropriations lead to different tradeoffs, which create challenges when choosing an analytical
approach. For example, 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. In addition to
these “general” IIJA SRF appropriations, 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. Some of these appropriations are allocated under different allotment
formulas than those used for the general SRF programs.58 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.59
The approach of focusing on only the IIJA appropriations for the full range of SRF eligibilities
presents tradeoffs. It does not recognize the scale of IIJA SRF appropriations dedicated to specific
projects. For example, for FY2024, IIJA provides $2.4 billion each to the CWSRF and DWSRF
for the full range of eligible projects, and it provides an additional $3.8 billion for the DWSRF
dedicated to specific project types (i.e., projects for emerging contaminants and lead service line
replacement) and $250 million for the CWSRF specifically for emerging contaminant projects.
An approach that does not consider the $3.8 billion in supplemental DWSRF appropriations and
$250 million in supplemental CWSRF appropriations would understate the offsetting effect of the
IIJA appropriations, as states will use this funding to support those specific projects. Regarding
the costs of these projects, EPA’s needs survey estimates that the costs to replace lead service
lines would range from $50 billion to $80 billion (in 2021 dollars). By comparison, EPA
estimated that $420.8 billion (in 2021 dollars) is needed for drinking water transmission and
distribution infrastructure projects.60
As discussed above, IIJA provides $2.4 billion each for the CWSRF and DWSRF for FY2024.
Table 4 indicates that the overall effect of the practice of reserving funds for CPF/CDS items
Deleted: Table 4
Formatted: Font: Bold

Deleted: Lead Service Lines (LSLs)
58 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
Replacement: Funding Developments
Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment. For more information, see CRS Report R47717, Lead Service Lines
(LSLs) Replacement: Funding Developments, by Elena H. Humphreys.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
59 For FY2022 through FY2026, IIJA provides $11.7 billion total for each of DWSRF and CWSRF programs for the
Deleted: Drinking Water Infrastructure
full range of eligibilities under SDWA and the CWA, respectively.
Needs: Background and Issues for Congress
60 For more information about EPA’s needs surveys, see CRS Report R47878, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Elena H. Humphreys.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Congressional Research Service

19

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

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 4. Percent Reduction in Water Infrastructure Funding Provided by Formula for
States, Territories, and Tribes with No CPF/CDS

Regular Appropriation
With IIJA
Clean Water

FY2022
-27%
-13%
FY2023
-53%
-13%
FY2024
-48%
-20%
Drinking Water

FY2022
-36%
-14%
FY2023
-55%
-19%
FY2024
-56%
-18%
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
Deleted: P.L. 117-103
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42), the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; 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
Deleted: P.L. 117-328
the latest drinking water infrastructure needs survey, authorized by 42 U.S.C. §300j–12(a)(1)(D).
Notes: “CPF/CDS” means community project funding/congressionally directed spending. “With IIJA” includes
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
the IIJA SRF appropriations dedicated to the ful range of eligible projects and does not consider the IIJA
supplemental appropriations for the SRFs dedicated to specific project types (such as emerging contaminant and
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
lead service line replacement projects).
Deleted: P.L. 117-58
Overall, state SRFs received more funding in FY2024 than FY2023. IIJA SRF supplemental
appropriations are $201 million higher for FY2024 than in FY2023 ($2.4 billion vs. $2.2 billion).
When combined with the regular appropriations, the increase in IIJA appropriations means that
state SRF programs will receive 9% more in CWSRF funding in FY2024 than in FY2023, and
they will receive 6% more in DWSRF funding.
Concluding Observations
The practice of earmarking funds from the SRF appropriation raises several considerations,
particularly in light of the magnitude of the needs. Adjusted for inflation, drinking water systems
are estimated to need $32.7 billion annually for infrastructure improvements, and wastewater
infrastructure needs are estimated at $32.9 billion annually.61 Considering this context, some
questions may arise regarding the role of earmarks in supporting congressional priorities.
A primary difference between the CPF/CDS and the SRF frameworks is who decides which
projects receive funding, and how the distribution of funding among the states is determined.
Under the SRF programs, the distribution of state SRF capitalization grant allotments is either

61 CRS adjusted estimates from EPA’s wastewater and drinking water infrastructure needs survey to 2023 dollars
calculated from Office of Management of Budget, Table 10.1, “Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the
Historical Tables: 1940–2026.”
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 33 link to page 33 link to page 35 link to page 35 The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

determined by CWA formula62 or based on each state’s drinking water capital infrastructure need.
In addition, states develop intended use plans (IUP) that contain priority lists of projects that the
state expects to fund with that year’s capitalization grant. EPA reviews these lists to ensure that
the projects on a state’s IUP comply with the statutory priorities. For example, SDWA requires
states to prioritize projects that address the most serious human health risks, projects that are
needed to comply with federal drinking water regulations, and projects that assist the most
disadvantaged systems.63 A question for policymakers may be whether similar priorities to those
under the SRF programs were considered during the CPF/CDS selection process.
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 through the SRF framework or other applicable programs. 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. In
addition, some stakeholders have raised concerns about the state’s role in developing the 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.64 Aside from the
reasons listed above, earmarks may also go to projects for other reasons, and/or earmarks may
play a role in a broader context.
The combination of annual appropriations and IIJA SRF funds have increased the total amount of
water infrastructure funding for all states as compared with before IIJA. An incentive may exist
for states and communities to request CPF/CDS, as not doing so reduces the amount of water
infrastructure funding available for projects within a state. This raises the question of how the
total and project-specific funding levels for CPF/CDS are determined. SRF appropriation levels
have generally remained level since about FY2018, while the amount that Congress has dedicated
to CPF/CDS increased between FY2022 and FY2023 and remained level between FY2023 and
FY2024. The amount of CPF/CDS allotted to some states did not compensate for the reductions
in SRF grants arising from all CPF/CDS items. In certain states, the CPF/CDS state allotment
resulted in increases over 100% compared with a scenario without CPF/CDS (see Table D-1 and
Formatted: Font: Bold
Table E-1). IIJA SRF appropriations partially offset this effect, and states, territories, and tribes
will receive more SRF funding in FY2024 than in FY2023.
Deleted: Table D-1
Another question for policymakers may involve the characteristics of the communities that
Deleted: Table E-1
receive CPF/CDS. Based on available data, the specific characteristics, such as financial
Formatted: Font: Bold
demographics, of communities receiving earmarks are not clear, as there are no requirements or
reporting mechanisms to record such data. CPF/CDS recipients are required to provide a
minimum cost share of 20% based on the CWA and SDWA provisions for the SRF programs.65
Deleted: Clean Water State Revolving Fund
The remaining costs of projects are directly covered by CPF/CDS, making these projects more
Allotment Formula: Background and Options
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Deleted: https://oversightdemocrats.house.go
62 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.
v/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-
63 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(b)(3).
oversight.house.gov/files/2022-10-
64 Letter from Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Chairwoman of House Committee on Oversight, and Rep. Bennie Thompson,
17.CBM%20BGT%20to%20Reeves-
Chairman of House Committee on Homeland Security, to Honorable Tate Reeves, Governor of Mississippi, October
MS%20re%20Jackson%20Water%20Crisis.p
17, 2022, https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-oversight.house.gov/files/2022-10-
df
17.CBM%20BGT%20to%20Reeves-MS%20re%20Jackson%20Water%20Crisis.pdf.
65 33 U.S.C. §1382(b)(2); 42 U.S.C. §300j-12(e).
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Congressional Research Service

21

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

affordable for communities.66 By contrast, most communities that receive SRF assistance are
required to repay 100% of the funded project cost, although some communities may receive
additional subsidization. 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. Therefore, some SRF loans may not have to be fully repaid; these loans may be
subsidized or forgiven.67
As in the 117th Congress, the committees required certain oversight and transparency
requirements for CPF/CDS items, such as online disclosures and auditing of selected projects by
GAO. Some stakeholders have noted challenges identifying specific projects or the characteristics
of the communities served by those projects.68 Relatedly, GAO’s audit of FY2022 CPF/CDS
provides certain information regarding the types of projects and entities that received CPF/CDS
funding.69 For FY2023, GAO presented an assessment of CPF/CDS administered by each federal
agency rather than for EPA specifically.70
The administration of FY2022 and FY2023 CPF/CDS garnered congressional attention during the
development of FY2024 appropriations. The House Committee on Appropriations identified its
frustrations with the timeliness of EPA’s administration of FY2022 and FY2023 CPF/CDS.71 The
Senate Committee on Appropriations stated its frustration with EPA’s “delayed engagement” on
“potential solutions to help resolve” a backlog of CDS projects.72 The joint explanatory statement
accompanying P.L. 118-42 directs EPA to identify ways, aside from increases in staffing, to
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
improve the timeliness and efficacy of CPF/CDS administration, including proposed legislative
text to allow states, instead of EPA, to elect to administer CPF/CDS.73
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Pursuant to the CWA and SDWA, the SRFs authorize states to provide technical assistance to
communities that may lack the capacity to apply for SRF financial assistance. In contrast, the
direct funding approach of CPF/CDS does not include technical assistance for communities. This
difference may raise concerns about the relative efficiency of providing funding directly to
projects through CPF/CDS versus through the state-administered SRF programs. Should EPA’s
proposal to improve CPF/CDS administration include more programmatic elements, such as
technical assistance, another question may involve the degree to which CPF/CDS administration
Deleted: Changes to the Drinking Water
begins to resemble an authorized federal assistance program as compared with direct funding.
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Program
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Deleted: https://www.policyinnovation.org/

66
blog/who-benefits-from-state-revolving-fund-
“Explanatory Statement Accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022,” House, Congressional Record,
vol. 168 (March 9, 2022), p. H2492.
earmarks
67 For a discussion of how states’ use of additional subsidization has changed under the DWSRF, see CRS Report
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
R47935, Changes to the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Program, by Elena H. Humphreys.
68 Environmental Policy Innovation Center, “Who Benefits from State Revolving Fund Earmarks?” February 27, 2023,
Deleted: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-
https://www.policyinnovation.org/blog/who-benefits-from-state-revolving-fund-earmarks.
105903.pdf
69 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Tracking the Funds: Specific Fiscal Year 2022 Provisions for
Environmental Protection Agency, GAO-22-105903, September 2022, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105903.pdf.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
70 GAO, Tracking the Funds: Specific FY 2023 Provisions for Federal Agencies, GAO-23-106561, September 2023,
Deleted: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106561.
23-106561
71 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024, report to
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
accompany H.R. 4821, 118th Cong., 1st sess., July 24, 2023, H.Rept. 118-155, p. 73.
72 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Deleted: Wastewater and Drinking Water:
Agencies, Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024, report to accompany
Committee Deadlines for EPA’s
S.2605, 118th Cong., 1st sess., July 27, 2023, S.Rept. 118-83, p. 101.
Administration of “Earmarks”
73 See CRS Insight IN12345, Wastewater and Drinking Water: Committee Deadlines for EPA’s Administration of
“Earmarks”, by Elena H. Humphreys, for more details.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Congressional Research Service

22

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations are accepting requests for CPF/CDS for
FY2025.74 Whether those funds are provided as a separate appropriation or as a set-aside from the
SRF appropriation remains to be seen. For FY2025, Congress may choose to limit CPF/CDS
items, stop the practice of providing CPF/CDS altogether, 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, or related to EPA’s proposal to address CPF/CDS administration.
Specific to earmarks, a consideration for authorizing committees could involve the role of
CPF/CDS in supporting statutory policy objectives such as prioritizing needed projects and/or
supporting lower-income communities. Taken together, the reestablishment of earmarks, revisions
to SRF programs intended to address affordability for communities, and increased appropriations
for the SRF programs are emblematic of ongoing congressional interest in municipal water
infrastructure funding.
Deleted: https://appropriations.house.gov/
member-requests/fiscal-year-2025-member-
request-guidance
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

74
Deleted: https://www.appropriations.senate.g
U.S. House Committee on Appropriations, “Fiscal Year 2025 Member Request
Guidance,” https://appropriations.house.gov/member-requests/fiscal-year-2025-member-request-guidance. U.S. Senate
ov/fy-2025-appropriations-requests-and-
Committee on Appropriations, “FY 2025 Appropriations Requests and Congressionally Directed
congressionally-directed-spending
Spending,” https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/fy-2025-appropriations-requests-and-congressionally-directed-
spending.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Congressional Research Service

23

link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 29 link to page 31 link to page 31 link to page 31 link to page 33 link to page 33 link to page 33 link to page 35 link to page 35 link to page 35 The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

Appendix A. Appendix Outline
Appendix B includes a summary table (Table B-1) of earmarked funds for water infrastructure
Deleted: Table B-1
projects by fiscal year. The dollar amounts included in Table B-1 are not adjusted for inflation.
The table also identifies the number of water infrastructure projects funded from the earmarks and
Formatted: Font: Bold
the appropriations for the CWSRF and DWSRF by fiscal year.
Deleted: Table B-1
Appendix C includes Table C-1, which identifies (1) the amount of earmarked funds by entity
Formatted: Font: Bold
(state, territory, DC, and the tribes); (2) each entity’s allotment of the SRF appropriations
available for capitalization grants from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42);
Formatted: Font: Bold
and (3) hypothetical amounts of the SRF appropriations for each entity if CPF/CDS were not
Deleted: Table C-1
reserved from SRF appropriations from P.L. 118-42.
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
Appendix D contains Table D-1, which has eight columns. The second column shows the
amount of CPF/CDS by entity (state, territory, DC, and the tribes) for FY2024. The third column
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
shows each entity’s allotment of the FY2024 regular CWSRF appropriation without including the
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
portion of the CWSRF appropriation going to the CPF/CDS. The fourth column includes each
entity’s share of FY2024 IIJA supplemental appropriation for the CWSRF general program.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
The fifth column identifies the sum of each entity’s share of the CWSRF appropriations from the
Formatted: Font: Bold
FY2024 regular appropriations act and from the FY2024 IIJA supplemental appropriation, and
Deleted: Table D-1
CPF/CDS. The sixth column identifies each entity’s share of FY2024 regular and IIJA
appropriations for the CWSRF in a hypothetical scenario in which the CPF/CDS is not reserved
from the regular CWSRF appropriation.
The seventh column identifies the difference between the fifth and the sixth columns, thereby
showing the difference due to the reservation and distribution of CPF/CDS from the CWSRF
appropriations. The eighth column shows this difference represented as a percent of the
hypothetical allotment of FY2024 regular and IIJA CWSRF appropriations. Note that IIJA
supplemental appropriations dedicated for emerging contaminants projects are not included.
Appendix E contains Table E-1, which has eight columns. The second column shows the amount
Formatted: Font: Bold
of CPF/CDS by entity (state, territory, DC, and the tribes) for FY2024. The third column
identifies each entity’s allotment of the FY2024 regular DWSRF appropriation without including
Deleted: Table E-1
CPF/CDS. The fourth column includes each entity’s share of the FY2024 IIJA supplemental
appropriation for the DWSRF general program.
The fifth column identifies the sum of each entity’s tribal share of the FY2024 regular
appropriations act and the FY2024 IIJA supplemental appropriation for the DWSRF, and
CPF/CDS. The sixth column identifies each entity’s share of FY2024 regular and IIJA
appropriations for the DWSRF in a hypothetical scenario in which the CPF/CDS is not reserved
from the regular DWSRF appropriation.
The seventh column identifies 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 shows this difference represented as a percent of the
hypothetical allotment of FY2024 regular and IIJA DWSRF appropriations. Note that IIJA
supplemental appropriations dedicated for emerging contaminants projects and lead service line
replacement projects are not included.

Congressional Research Service

24

link to page 30 link to page 30 The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

Appendix B. Water Infrastructure Project Grants
Table B-1. Water Infrastructure Project Grants Designated
in EPA Appropriations Acts, FY1989-FY2024
(in millions of dollars, not adjusted for inflation)
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

25

link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th 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
2024
1,022
$1,419
$3,479b
$6,697b
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; the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023; and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024.
a. FY2009 includes appropriations from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L.
Deleted: P.L. 111-5
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
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
appropriations for the SRF general programs, as wel as those dedicated to specific project types (i.e.,
emerging contaminants and lead service lines), and the amount of regular appropriations available for SRF
Deleted: P.L. 111-8
capitalization grants.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Deleted: P.L. 117-58
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Congressional Research Service

26

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

Appendix C. CPF/CDS Items and SRF
Capitalization Grants
Table C-1. P.L. 118-42 Clean Water (CW) and Drinking Water (DW) Earmarks and
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
SRF Capitalization Grants
(in thousands of dollars)
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
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

AK
$7,697
$4,935
$9,554
$23,200
$4,661
$10,848
AL
$13,000
$9,221
$17,852
$14,779
$8,229
$19,153
AR
$21,500
$5,394
$10,443
$13,000
$5,580
$12,987
AS
—
$4,481
$8,675
—
$1,344
$3,128
AZ
$3,770
$5,570
$10,783
$16,949
$8,153
$18,976
CA
$54,499
$58,976
$114,177
$55,115
$50,283
$117,034
CO
$4,260
$6,596
$12,770
$15,024
$8,164
$19,002
CT
$10,721
$10,102
$19,557
$5,160
$4,661
$10,848
DC
—
$4,048
$7,837
—
$4,661
$10,848
DE
$6,225
$4,048
$7,837
—
$4,661
$10,848
FL
$33,751
$27,835
$53,888
$15,615
$16,819
$39,146
GA
$19,206
$13,942
$26,991
$8,993
$12,637
$29,413
GU
—
$3,242
$6,276
—
$1,888
$4,394
HI
$4,835
$6,387
$12,365
$6,805
$4,661
$10,848
IA
$3,750
$11,160
$21,606
$5,500
$7,007
$16,309
ID
$6,751
$4,048
$7,837
$5,500
$4,661
$10,848
IL
$19,727
$37,295
$72,202
$26,897
$14,143
$32,918
IN
$1,920
$19,873
$38,474
$960
$7,997
$18,613
KS
$2,469
$7,443
$14,410
$2,879
$5,198
$12,098
KY
$14,710
$10,495
$20,318
$15,300
$5,674
$13,206
LA
$3,400
$9,065
$17,550
$14,518
$6,363
$14,810
MA
$21,267
$27,997
$54,202
$16,258
$10,006
$23,289
MD
$13,835
$19,944
$38,611
$6,801
$9,683
$22,537
ME
$44,666
$6,383
$12,357
$14,547
$4,661
$10,848
MI
$30,410
$35,457
$68,644
$24,168
$10,634
$24,751
MN
$19,928
$15,156
$29,342
$18,181
$7,050
$16,409
MO
$2,000
$22,860
$44,257
$1,000
$7,588
$17,661
MP
$1,920
$2,083
$4,033
$960
$2,060
$4,795
Congressional Research Service

27

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th 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

MS
$28,398
$7,429
$14,382
$16,122
$5,837
$13,586
MT
—
$4,048
$7,837
—
$4,661
$10,848
NC
$16,598
$14,882
$28,811
$7,718
$12,843
$29,892
ND
—
$4,048
$7,837
—
$4,661
$10,848
NE
$10,590
$4,218
$8,166
$18,315
$4,661
$10,848
NH
$3,955
$8,241
$15,954
$1,500
$4,661
$10,848
NJ
$29,598
$33,697
$65,237
$14,311
$8,273
$19,255
NM
$7,189
$4,048
$7,837
$6,545
$4,661
$10,848
NV
$16,917
$4,048
$7,837
$3,395
$4,832
$11,247
NY
$51,350
$91,023
$176,219
$49,301
$21,769
$50,667
OH
$43,454
$46,422
$89,872
$32,386
$10,525
$24,497
OK
$12,149
$6,662
$12,898
$8,125
$6,774
$15,767
OR
$20,080
$9,315
$18,034
$11,855
$7,011
$16,318
PA
$16,877
$32,664
$63,237
$22,707
$15,375
$35,785
PR
—
$10,755
$20,821
—
$4,661
$10,848
RI
$10,866
$5,537
$10,720
$2,100
$4,661
$10,848
SC
$14,740
$8,448
$16,355
$20,015
$5,825
$13,558
SD
$23,600
$4,048
$7,837
—
$4,661
$10,848
TN
$1,000
$11,979
$23,191
$8,763
$7,846
$18,262
Tribes
—
$16,880
$32,679
—
$9,767
$22,733
TX
$29,992
$37,690
$72,967
$13,975
$37,157
$86,483
UT
$750
$4,345
$8,412
$15,878
$4,661
$10,848
VA
$15,464
$16,876
$32,672
$11,169
$6,581
$15,317
VI
—
$2,601
$5,035
—
$1,699
$3,954
VT
$4,080
$4,048
$7,837
$5,835
$4,661
$10,848
WA
$32,389
$14,340
$27,762
$13,296
$10,672
$24,839
WI
$8,630
$22,293
$43,159
$13,320
$7,980
$18,573
WV
$22,772
$12,855
$24,887
$6,922
$4,661
$10,848
WY
—
$4,048
$7,837
—
$4,661
$10,848
Source: Calculated by CRS from the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42), statutory formula found in Clean Water Act Section 205 (33 U.S.C.
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
§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)).
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
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

28

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

Appendix D. Clean Water Infrastructure Funding
Table D-1. FY2024 Clean Water (CW) Infrastructure Allotments
(in thousands of dollars)
Hypothetical
Actual
FY2024
FY2024
CWSRF
Difference
Difference as
P.L. 118-42
IIJA FY2024
CW Funds
Allotments
Between
a Percent of
P.L. 118-42
CWSRF
CWSRF GP
(P.L. 118-
w/out
Actual and
Hypothetical
CPF/CDS
Cap Grant
Cap Grant
42 + IIJA)
CPF/CDS
Hypothetical
Allotment

AK
$7,697
$4,935
$13,748
$26,380
$23,302
$3,078
13%
AL
$13,000
$9,221
$25,686
$47,907
$43,538
$4,369
10%
AR
$21,500
$5,394
$15,027
$41,921
$25,470
$16,451
65%
AS
—
$4,481
$12,758
$17,239
$21,433
-$4,194
-20%
AZ
$3,770
$5,570
$15,515
$24,855
$26,298
-$1,444
-5%
CA
$54,499
$58,976
$164,290
$277,765
$278,467
-$701
0%
CO
$4,260
$6,596
$18,375
$29,231
$31,145
-$1,914
-6%
CT
$10,721
$10,102
$28,141
$48,964
$47,698
$1,265
3%
DC
—
$4,048
$11,277
$15,325
$19,114
-$3,789
-20%
DE
$6,225
$4,048
$11,277
$21,550
$19,114
$2,436
13%
FL
$33,751
$27,835
$77,540
$139,126
$131,428
$7,698
6%
GA
$19,206
$13,942
$38,839
$71,987
$65,830
$6,156
9%
GU
—
$3,242
$9,231
$12,473
$15,507
-$3,034
-20%
HI
$4,835
$6,387
$17,791
$29,013
$30,156
-$1,143
-4%
IA
$3,750
$11,160
$31,090
$46,000
$52,696
-$6,696
-13%
ID
$6,751
$4,048
$11,277
$22,076
$19,114
$2,962
15%
IL
$19,727
$37,295
$103,891
$160,913
$176,093
-$15,180
-9%
IN
$1,920
$19,873
$55,361
$77,154
$93,835
-$16,681
-18%
KS
$2,469
$7,443
$20,735
$30,647
$35,145
-$4,498
-13%
KY
$14,710
$10,495
$29,236
$54,441
$49,554
$4,887
10%
LA
$3,400
$9,065
$25,252
$37,717
$42,802
-$5,085
-12%
MA
$21,267
$27,997
$77,992
$127,256
$132,194
-$4,938
-4%
MD
$13,835
$19,944
$55,558
$89,337
$94,169
-$4,832
-5%
ME
$44,666
$6,383
$17,782
$68,831
$30,139
$38,691
128%
MI
$30,410
$35,457
$98,772
$164,639
$167,416
-$2,777
-2%
MN
$19,928
$15,156
$42,221
$77,305
$71,563
$5,742
8%
MO
$2,000
$22,860
$63,680
$88,540
$107,937
-$19,397
-18%
MP
$1,920
$2,083
$5,930
$9,933
$9,963
-$30
0%
MS
$28,398
$7,429
$20,696
$56,523
$35,078
$21,445
61%
Congressional Research Service

29

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

Hypothetical
Actual
FY2024
FY2024
CWSRF
Difference
Difference as
P.L. 118-42
IIJA FY2024
CW Funds
Allotments
Between
a Percent of
P.L. 118-42
CWSRF
CWSRF GP
(P.L. 118-
w/out
Actual and
Hypothetical
CPF/CDS
Cap Grant
Cap Grant
42 + IIJA)
CPF/CDS
Hypothetical
Allotment

MT
—
$4,048
$11,277
$15,325
$19,114
-$3,789
-20%
NC
$16,598
$14,882
$41,458
$72,938
$70,269
$2,668
4%
ND
—
$4,048
$11,277
$15,325
$19,114
-$3,789
-20%
NE
$10,590
$4,218
$11,749
$26,557
$19,915
$6,642
33%
NH
$3,955
$8,241
$22,956
$35,152
$38,910
-$3,758
-10%
NJ
$29,598
$33,697
$93,870
$157,165
$159,107
-$1,942
-1%
NM
$7,189
$4,048
$11,277
$22,514
$19,114
$3,400
18%
NV
$16,917
$4,048
$11,277
$32,242
$19,114
$13,128
69%
NY
$51,350
$91,023
$253,548
$395,921
$429,767
-$33,846
-8%
OH
$43,454
$46,422
$129,319
$219,195
$219,191
$4
0%
OK
$12,149
$6,662
$18,559
$37,370
$31,457
$5,913
19%
OR
$20,080
$9,315
$25,950
$55,345
$43,984
$11,361
26%
PA
$16,877
$32,664
$90,993
$140,534
$154,230
-$13,696
-9%
PR
—
$10,755
$29,961
$40,716
$50,782
-$10,066
-20%
RI
$10,866
$5,537
$15,424
$31,827
$26,144
$5,683
22%
SC
$14,740
$8,448
$23,533
$46,721
$39,888
$6,833
17%
SD
$23,600
$4,048
$11,277
$38,925
$19,114
$19,811
104%
TN
$1,000
$11,979
$33,370
$46,349
$56,561
-$10,212
-18%
Tribes
—
$16,880
$48,060
$64,940
$80,739
-$15,799
-20%
TX
$29,992
$37,690
$104,993
$172,675
$177,960
-$5,285
-3%
UT
$750
$4,345
$12,104
$17,199
$20,516
-$3,317
-16%
VA
$15,464
$16,876
$47,011
$79,351
$79,683
-$332
0%
VI
—
$2,601
$7,405
$10,006
$12,440
-$2,434
-20%
VT
$4,080
$4,048
$11,277
$19,405
$19,114
$291
2%
WA
$32,389
$14,340
$39,948
$86,677
$67,710
$18,967
28%
WI
$8,630
$22,293
$62,102
$93,025
$105,261
-$12,236
-12%
WV
$22,772
$12,855
$35,809
$71,436
$60,696
$10,740
18%
WY
—
$4,048
$11,277
$15,325
$19,114
-$3,789
-20%
Source: Calculated by CRS from the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42), the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58), and Clean
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
Water Act formula found in 33 U.S.C. §1285(c)(3)), as modified by EPA.
Notes: “IIJA FY2024 CWSRF GP Cap Grant” includes the IIJA supplemental appropriations for the CWSRF
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
general program, only. It does not include the IIJA FY2024 CWSRF appropriation dedicated to emerging
contaminant projects.
Deleted: P.L. 117-58
Congressional Research Service

30

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

Appendix E. Drinking Water Infrastructure Funding
Table E-1. FY2024 Drinking Water (DW) Infrastructure Allotments
(in thousands of dollars)
P.L. 118-
IIJA
Hypothetical
42
FY2024
FY24 DWSRF
Difference
Difference as
P.L. 118-
DWSRF
DWSRF
Actual FY24
Allotments
Between
a Percent of
42
Cap
GP Cap
DW Funds (P.L.
w/out
Actual and
Hypothetical
CPF/CDS
Grant
Grant
118-42 +IIJA)
CPF/CDS
Hypothetical
Allotment

AK
$23,200
$4,661
$22,985
$50,846
$33,833
$17,013
50%
AL
$14,779
$8,229
$40,585
$63,593
$59,738
$3,855
6%
AR
$13,000
$5,580
$27,520
$46,100
$40,507
$5,593
14%
AS
—
$1,344
$6,630
$7,974
$9,758
-$1,784
-18%
AZ
$16,949
$8,153
$40,210
$65,312
$59,186
$6,126
10%
CA
$55,115
$50,283
$247,974
$353,372
$365,008
-$11,636
-3%
CO
$15,024
$8,164
$40,265
$63,453
$59,267
$4,187
7%
CT
$5,160
$4,661
$22,985
$32,806
$33,833
-$1,028
-3%
DC
—
$4,661
$22,985
$27,646
$33,833
-$6,187
-18%
DE
—
$4,661
$22,985
$27,646
$33,833
-$6,187
-18%
FL
$15,615
$16,819
$82,948
$115,382
$122,094
-$6,712
-5%
GA
$8,993
$12,637
$62,323
$83,953
$91,736
-$7,783
-8%
GU
—
$1,888
$9,309
$11,197
$13,703
-$2,506
-18%
HI
$6,805
$4,661
$22,985
$34,451
$33,833
$618
2%
IA
$5,500
$7,007
$34,558
$47,065
$50,867
-$3,802
-7%
ID
$5,500
$4,661
$22,985
$33,146
$33,833
-$687
-2%
IL
$26,897
$14,143
$69,753
$110,793
$102,671
$8,123
8%
IN
$960
$7,997
$39,439
$48,396
$58,052
-$9,656
-17%
KS
$2,879
$5,198
$25,634
$33,711
$37,732
-$4,021
-11%
KY
$15,300
$5,674
$27,982
$48,956
$41,188
$7,768
19%
LA
$14,518
$6,363
$31,379
$52,260
$46,189
$6,071
13%
MA
$16,258
$10,006
$49,350
$75,614
$72,639
$2,975
4%
MD
$6,801
$9,683
$47,757
$64,241
$70,294
-$6,053
-9%
ME
$14,547
$4,661
$22,985
$42,193
$33,833
$8,360
25%
MI
$24,168
$10,634
$52,446
$87,248
$77,197
$10,052
13%
MN
$18,181
$7,050
$34,769
$60,000
$51,178
$8,822
17%
MO
$1,000
$7,588
$37,421
$46,009
$55,082
-$9,073
-16%
MP
$960
$2,060
$10,160
$13,180
$14,955
-$1,775
-12%
MS
$16,122
$5,837
$28,785
$50,744
$42,371
$8,373
20%
MT
—
$4,661
$22,985
$27,646
$33,833
-$6,187
-18%
Congressional Research Service

31

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

P.L. 118-
IIJA
Hypothetical
42
FY2024
FY24 DWSRF
Difference
Difference as
P.L. 118-
DWSRF
DWSRF
Actual FY24
Allotments
Between
a Percent of
42
Cap
GP Cap
DW Funds (P.L.
w/out
Actual and
Hypothetical
CPF/CDS
Grant
Grant
118-42 +IIJA)
CPF/CDS
Hypothetical
Allotment

NC
$7,718
$12,843
$63,340
$83,901
$93,232
-$9,331
-10%
ND
—
$4,661
$22,985
$27,646
$33,833
-$6,187
-18%
NE
$18,315
$4,661
$22,985
$45,961
$33,833
$12,127
36%
NH
$1,500
$4,661
$22,985
$29,146
$33,833
-$4,687
-14%
NJ
$14,311
$8,273
$40,803
$63,387
$60,058
$3,329
6%
NM
$6,545
$4,661
$22,985
$34,191
$33,833
$357
1%
NV
$3,395
$4,832
$23,831
$32,058
$35,078
-$3,020
-9%
NY
$49,301
$21,769
$107,363
$178,433
$158,030
$20,402
13%
OH
$32,386
$10,525
$51,905
$94,816
$76,402
$18,414
24%
OK
$8,125
$6,774
$33,407
$48,306
$49,174
-$868
-2%
OR
$11,855
$7,011
$34,575
$53,441
$50,893
$2,548
5%
PA
$22,707
$15,375
$75,829
$113,911
$111,614
$2,297
2%
PR
—
$4,661
$22,985
$27,646
$33,833
-$6,187
-18%
RI
$2,100
$4,661
$22,985
$29,746
$33,833
-$4,087
-12%
SC
$20,015
$5,825
$28,728
$54,568
$42,286
$12,282
29%
SD
—
$4,661
$22,985
$27,646
$33,833
-$6,187
-18%
TN
$8,763
$7,846
$38,692
$55,301
$56,954
-$1,653
-3%
Tribes
—
$9,767
$48,060
$57,827
$70,793
-$12,966
-18%
TX
$13,975
$37,157
$183,256
$234,388
$269,739
-$35,351
-13%
UT
$15,878
$4,661
$22,985
$43,524
$33,833
$9,690
29%
VA
$11,169
$6,581
$32,458
$50,208
$47,775
$2,432
5%
VI
—
$1,699
$8,378
$10,077
$12,332
-$2,255
-18%
VT
$5,835
$4,661
$22,985
$33,481
$33,833
-$352
-1%
WA
$13,296
$10,672
$52,634
$76,602
$77,473
-$871
-1%
WI
$13,320
$7,980
$39,358
$60,658
$57,931
$2,726
5%
WV
$6,922
$4,661
$22,985
$34,568
$33,833
$735
2%
WY
—
$4,661
$22,985
$27,646
$33,833
-$6,187
-18%
Source: Calculated by CRS from the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42), the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58), and
Deleted: P.L. 118-42
DWSRF formula based on the latest drinking water infrastructure needs survey, authorized by 42 U.S.C. §300j–
12(a)(1)(D).
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Notes: Under the DWSRF, Puerto Rico operates a state revolving fund, and thus is considered a state for the
purposes of this program. “IIJA FY2024 DWSRF GP Cap Grant” includes the IIJA supplemental appropriations
Deleted: P.L. 117-58
for the DWSRF general program, only. It does not include IIJA FY2024 DWSRF appropriations dedicated to
specific project types (i.e., emerging contaminants and lead service lines).
Congressional Research Service

32

The Role of Earmarks in SRF Appropriations in the 118th Congress

Formatted
Author Information
Deleted: Author Contact Information

Elena H. Humphreys

Analyst in Environmental Policy

Deleted: ehumphreys@crs.loc.gov

Deleted: ,
Acknowledgments
Deleted: 7-2054
Amber Hope Wilhelm, Visual Information Specialist, provided graphics support for this report.
Krista J. Faries, Publications 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.

Deleted: 1
Deleted: NEW
Deleted: ¶
Congressional Research Service
33
Congressional Research Service
R48066 · VERSION 1 · NEW
33

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

May. 15, 2024

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Environmental Policy

Appropriations

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON