Water Infrastructure Needs and Investment : Review and Analysis of Key Issues

Water Infrastructure Needs and Investment:
Review and Analysis of Key Issues
Updated November 24, 2008
Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Mary Tiemann
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Water Infrastructure Needs and Investment:
Review and Analysis of Key Issues
Policymakers are giving increased attention to issues associated with financing
and investing in the nation’s drinking water and wastewater treatment systems, which
take in water, treat it, and distribute it to households and other customers, and later
collect, treat, and discharge water after use. The renewed attention is due to a
combination of factors. These include financial impacts on communities of meeting
existing and anticipated regulatory requirements, the need to repair and replace
existing infrastructure, concerns about paying for security-related projects, and
proposals to stimulate U.S. economic activity by building and rebuilding the nation’s
The federal government has a long history of involvement with wastewater and
drinking water systems, with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) having the
most significant role, both in terms of regulation and funding. The U.S. Department
of Agriculture also plays an important role in rural communities through its water and
wastewater loan and grant programs. These programs have been popular; however,
states, local communities, and others have asserted that various program gaps and
limitations may be diminishing their potential effectiveness. They also point to the
emergence of new infrastructure needs and issues.
A number of interest groups and coalitions have issued reports on infrastructure
funding needs and related policy issues, as have EPA and the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO). They present a range of estimates and scenarios of future investment
costs and gaps between current spending and future costs. EPA and CBO, in
particular, caution that projections of future costs are highly uncertain, and that
funding gaps are not inevitable. Increased investment, sought by many stakeholders,
is one way to shrink the spending gaps, but so, too, are other strategies such as asset
management, more efficient pricing, and better technology.
Congressional interest in these issues has grown for some time and continued
in the 110th Congress. In each of the past four Congresses, House and Senate
committees acted on legislation to reauthorize and modify infrastructure financing
programs in the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, but no bills were
enacted. The Bush Administration has addressed water infrastructure in a number of
general ways, but did not offer legislative proposals of its own. EPA’s principal
initiative has been to support strategies intended to ensure that infrastructure
investment needs are met in an efficient, timely, and equitable manner.
This report identifies a number of issues that have received attention in
connection with water infrastructure investment. It begins with a review of federal
involvement, describes the debate about needs, and then examines key issues,
including what is the nature of the problems to be solved; who will pay, and what is
the federal role; and questions about mechanisms for delivering federal support,
including state-by-state allotment of federal funds. Congressional and Administration
activity on these issues from the 107th to the 110th Congresses also is reviewed.

In troduction ......................................................1
Background: History of Federal Involvement............................4
Wastewater ...................................................4
Drinking Water...............................................6
USDA Assistance Programs....................................11
Context for the Water Infrastructure Debate: Investment Needs.............11
EPA Needs Surveys...........................................12
Drinking Water Needs.....................................12
Wastewater Needs........................................13
CBO’s Report on Future Investment..............................14
EPA’s Gap Analysis Report.....................................15
Issues ..........................................................17
Priorities: What Are the Problems to Be Solved?....................18
Infrastructure Replacement.................................18
Security ................................................19
Funding Other Priorities...................................21
The Federal Role.............................................23
Delivering Federal Support.....................................25
Administrative Entity......................................25
The Type of Assistance Provided: Grants and Loans.............26
Federal Funds for Private Infrastructure Systems................27
Other Federal Tax Issues...................................28
Federal Cross-Cutting Requirements..........................29
Set-Asides ..............................................30
Allotment of Funds and Congressionally Directed
Project Grants........................................31
Research on New Technologies..................................32
Congressional and Administration Activity,
107th to 110th Congresses...................................34
Congressional Activities...................................34
Administration Activities...................................36
Conclusions .................................................38
List of Tables
Table 1. Key Features of the Clean Water and Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund Programs.................................10
Table 2. Estimated Costs for Water Infrastructure.......................17

Water Infrastructure Needs and Investment:
Review and Analysis of Key Issues
Drinking water and wastewater treatment systems treat and safeguard the
nation’s water resources. Drinking water utilities have the task of supplying safe
potable water to customers in both the proper quantity and quality. Wastewater
utilities operate facilities that clean the flow of used water from a community. The
federal government has had significant involvement with these systems for many
years, both through setting standards to protect public health and the environment and
through funding to assist them in meeting standards. While funding of water
infrastructure programs has been addressed annually through the congressional
appropriations process, authorizing legislation affecting policy and program issues
was last enacted in 1996 (for drinking water infrastructure) and 1987 (for wastewater1
infrastructure). More recently, water infrastructure issues have been receiving
increased attention by policymakers and legislators. The renewed attention is due to
a combination of several factors.
!Meeting Regulatory Requirements. Financial impacts of meeting
regulatory requirements — some new, some long-standing — are a
continuing issue for many communities. In the case of drinking
water systems, the most pressing rules are new, either recently issued
or pending, as the result of standard-setting by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to implement the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1996. (Many of these rulemakings were initiated
under amendments passed in 1986.) These rules impose new or
stricter drinking water limits on numerous contaminants, including
arsenic, radioactive contaminants, and microbials and disinfection
byproducts, among others. For wastewater systems, principal
regulatory requirements mandated by the Clean Water Act have not
changed since 1972, and the majority of communities have achieved
or are in the process of achieving compliance. The newer issue for
wastewater systems is the cost of controls and practices to manage
what are termed wet weather pollution problems, such as urban
stormwater runoff and overflows from municipal sewers. These

1 This report focuses on drinking water systems that take in water, treat it, monitor it, and
distribute it to households and other customers, and wastewater systems that collect, treat,
and typically discharge water after use. It does not address infrastructure related to water
supply systems that generally are part of larger multi-purpose projects for irrigation, flood
control, power supply and recreation that typically are built or assisted by the Bureau of
Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

requirements are old in the sense that most wastewater utilities have
not addressed long-standing wet weather problems, but they also are
new because in many communities, specific measures are only now
being identified.
!Financing Infrastructure Repair or Replacement. A more recent
focus by stakeholders is on the need to repair and replace
infrastructure that has been in place for decades and will soon fail,
many believe. According to the American Water Works Association
(AWWA), “We stand at the dawn of the replacement era ...
replacement needs are large and on the way. There will be a
growing conflict between the need to replace worn-out infrastructure
and the need to invest in compliance with new regulatory
standards.”2 Over the long term, these stakeholders say, a higher
level of investment than is occurring today is required. For both
wastewater and drinking water systems, a key concern is that EPA’s
funding programs, the largest sources of federal assistance, do not,
in the main, support repair and replacement; their focus is upgrades
and new construction needed to achieve wastewater and drinking
water standards.
!Security. Beyond the traditional infrastructure needs related to
regulatory compliance and system repair and expansion, the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, generated new investment needs for
drinking water and wastewater systems. The national costs of
addressing water and wastewater security needs have not been
quantified; however, the AWWA estimated that municipal water
systems would have to spend more than $1.6 billion just to ensure
control of access to critical water system assets.3 This estimate does
not include the capital costs of upgrades to address vulnerabilities
that water system managers have identified in vulnerability
assessments, or the costs facing wastewater systems and smaller
drinking water systems. Although EPA has identified a range of
security measures that are eligible for funding through traditional
infrastructure assistance programs, competition already is severe for
these funds, which are primarily used for projects needed to meet
regulatory requirements.
!Problems That Do Not Fit Existing Solutions. For some, an
interest in water infrastructure legislation derives from concern that
traditional federal programs and financing approaches do not fit well
with some current types of needs. Points at issue vary, but the
common thread is that certain needs are not being well met by
programmatic solutions that now exist. In some cases (metropolitan

2 American Water Works Association, Dawn of the Replacement Era, Reinvesting in
Drinking Water Infrastructure, May 2001, p. 5. (Hereafter cited as AWWA Report.)
3 American Water Works Association, Protecting Our Water: Drinking Water Security in
American After 9/11, Executive Summary, 2003.

drinking water systems, for example), there is a perception that
EPA’s programs are more geared to aiding small systems than large
ones. In other cases, the concern is how to fund types of projects
that include mixed elements (e.g., developing new community water
supplies and treating that water, especially in rural areas) that do not
meet traditional program definitions, or are seemingly spread across
jurisdictions of multiple federal agencies. Still others believe that
expanding program eligibility to include water conservation projects
could reduce overall needs for capital investment. Another concern
arises in small, dispersed communities where on-site treatment
systems may be preferable to centralized facilities; however on-site
treatment generally is not eligible for federal aid. At issue for
Congress is whether to modify existing programs to address such
needs, or to address them in legislation individually and case-by-
case. 4
!Other Legislative Models and Activity. Legislative approaches for
other types of infrastructure — especially surface transportation and
aviation — have suggested possible models for water infrastructure
financing. The federal highway and mass transit and aviation
programs are supported by trust funds derived from fees and taxes
paid by users of those systems and facilities. Some proponents of
water infrastructure spending, concerned about a gap between needs
and available funds, believe that an initiative based on a federal
water trust fund would conceptually be a logical follow-on to the
surface transportation and aviation programs. According to that
view, passage of those measures could give momentum to enacting
new budget authority for water infrastructure spending, as well.
Still, differences are apparent, especially the fact that, unlike surface
transportation and aviation, there is no comparable dedicated trust
fund for water infrastructure, or easily identifiable revenue source
for a trust fund. While surface transportation and aviation may offer
ideas and momentum, they also may be imperfect models for water,
unless dedicated revenue sources for a water trust fund can be
!Changed Dynamics at the Federal Level about “Who Should
and Can Pay.” For many years, a focus on federal deficit reduction
restrained the federal government from making major new
investments in water infrastructure or other new programs. Early in
this decade, forecasts of budgetary surplus encouraged a variety of
interests to advocate increasing the federal commitment to water
infrastructure. But, beginning in 2001, estimates of surplus changed
to large federal deficits, especially associated with spending on the
nation’s heightened priorities of defense and homeland security

4 For background, see CRS Report RL30478, Federally Supported Water Supply and
Wastewater Treatment Programs, by Betsy A. Cody, Claudia Copeland, Mary Tiemann,
Nicole T. Carter and Jeffrey A. Zinn.

following the September 11 terrorist attacks. By mid-2007, the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and others observed that the
federal budgetary situation was improving, but CBO cautioned that
the United States continues to face severe long-term budgetary
challenges. Throughout this period, the nation’s fiscal environment
has severely constrained arguments by proponents of greater federal
investment and larger federal expenditures for water infrastructure.
By mid-2008, conditions encouraging more federal investment in
infrastructure facilities (water, transportation, and other types)
appeared to emerge — not due to a strengthened U.S. economy, but
rather as a result of a widespread economic slowdown, which led
many to advocate infrastructure spending as one component of
programs to stimulate economic activity and create jobs. While
many academic and government studies have found that the impact
of infrastructure spending on economic activity is modest and long
in coming, pressure for economic stimulus has combined with the
issues described above (and discussed in this report) to draw greater
attention to infrastructure investment.
This report identifies a number of issues receiving attention in connection with
water infrastructure. It begins with a brief review of federal involvement, describes
the debate about funding needs, and then examines key issues, including what is the
nature of the problems to be solved; who will pay, and what is the federal role; and
questions about mechanisms for delivering federal support, including state-by-state
allotment. Recent congressional and Administration activity on these issues also is
Background: History of Federal Involvement
The federal government has a lengthy history of involvement with wastewater
and drinking water systems. The history of financial assistance is longer for
wastewater than for drinking water, however. EPA has the most significant role,
both in terms of regulation and funding.
The Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 (P.L. 80-845) was the first
comprehensive statement of federal interest in clean water programs. While it
contained no federally required goals, limits, or even guidelines, it started the trickle
of federal aid to municipal wastewater treatment authorities that grew in subsequent
years. It established a grant program to assist localities with planning and design
work, and authorized loans for treatment plant construction, capped at $250,000 or
one-third of construction costs, whichever was less. With each successive statute in
the 1950s and 1960s, federal assistance to municipal treatment agencies increased.
A construction grant program replaced the loan program; the amount of authorized
funding went up; the percentage of total costs covered by federal funds was raised;
and the types of project costs deemed grant-eligible were expanded.

In the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500,
popularly known as the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Congress totally
revised the existing federal clean water law, including with regard to wastewater
systems. At the time, there was widespread recognition of water quality problems
nationwide and frustration over the slow pace of industrial and municipal cleanup
efforts under existing programs. In the 1972 law, Congress strengthened the federal
role in clean water and established national standards for treatment, mandating that
all publicly owned treatment works achieve a minimum of secondary treatment
(defined in EPA regulations as removing 85% of incoming wastes), or more stringent
treatment where necessary to meet local water quality standards, and set a July 1,
1977, deadline for meeting secondary treatment. A number of new conditions were
attached to projects constructed with grants. In exchange, federal funds increased
dramatically. The federal share was raised from 55% to 75%, and annual
authorizations were $5 billion in FY1973, $6 billion in FY1974, and $7 billion in
In 1977, the grant program was reauthorized through FY1982; annual
authorizations were $5 billion for each of the last four years covered by that act (P.L.
95-217). Some restrictions were imposed, including requirements that states set
aside a portion of funds for innovative and alternative technology projects and for
projects in rural areas. In addition, the types of eligible projects were limited in order
to focus use of federal funds on projects with environmental benefits in preference
to projects aiding community growth. When the program was again reauthorized in
1981 (P.L. 97-117), Congress and the Administration agreed to significant
restrictions, out of concern that the program’s wide scope was not properly focused
on key goals. Budgetary pressures and a desire to reduce federal spending also were
concerns. Annual authorizations under this act were $2.4 billion, the federal share
was reduced to 55%, and project eligibilities were limited further.
The 1972 law required a “needs survey” every two years to adjust the statutory
allotment formula by which grant funds were divided among the states. In this
survey, EPA compiles state data to estimate capital costs for water quality projects
and other activities eligible for support under the Clean Water Act. From an initial
estimate of $63 billion in 1973, the survey figure went to a high of $342 billion in
1974, dropped to $96 billion in 1976, rose to $106 billion in 1978, $120 billion in
1980, declined to $80 billion in 1990, was assessed at $139.5 billion in 1996, and
rose to $181.2 billion in 2000, the most recent survey. Inconsistencies and variations
have been ascribed to several factors, including the lack of precision with which
needs for some project categories could be assessed (especially in the early years) and
the desire of state estimators to use the needs survey as a way of keeping their share
of the federal allotment as high as possible.5 However, EPA believes that recent
surveys produce credible data, because of the requirement that needs must be
justified by project-specific documentation.
By the mid-1980s there was considerable policy debate between Congress and
the Administration over the future of the construction grants program and, in

5 For discussion of several of these factors, see Water Pollution Control Federation (now,
the Water Environment Federation), The Clean Water Act with Amendments, 1982, p. 14.

particular, the appropriate federal role. Through FY1984, Congress had appropriated
nearly $41 billion under this program, representing the largest nonmilitary public
works programs since the Interstate Highway System. The grants program was a
target of the Reagan Administration’s budget cutters, who sought to redirect budget
priorities and establish what they viewed as the appropriate governmental roles in a
number of domestic policy areas, including water pollution control. Thus, for
budgetary reasons and the belief that the backlog of wastewater projects identified
in 1972 had largely been completed, the Reagan Administration sought a phase-out
of the act’s construction grants program by 1990. Many states and localities, which
continued to support the act’s water quality goals and programs, did support the idea
of phasing out the grants program, since many were critical of what they viewed as
burdensome rules and regulations that accompanied the receipt of federal grant
money. However, they sought a longer transition and ample flexibility to set up long-
term financing to promote state and local self-sufficiency.
Congress’s response to this debate was contained in 1987 amendments to the
act (P.L. 100-4). It authorized $18 billion over a nine-year period for sewage
treatment plant construction, through a combination of the traditional grant program
and a new State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds (SRF) program. Under
the new program, federal capitalization grants would be provided as seed money for
state-administered loans to build sewage treatment plants and, eventually, other water
quality projects. Cities, in turn, would repay loans to the state, enabling a phaseout
of federal involvement while the state built up a source of capital for future
investments. Allotment of the SRF capitalization grants among states continues to
be governed by a statutory formula, which Congress revised in 1987 (see discussion
below, “Allotment of Funds”). Under the amendments, the SRF program was phased
in beginning in FY1989 and entirely replaced the previous grant program in FY1991.
The intention was that states would have greater flexibility to set priorities and
administer funding, while federal aid would end after FY1994.
Municipalities have made substantial progress towards meeting the goals and
requirements of the act, yet state water quality reports continue to indicate that
discharges from wastewater treatment plants are a significant source of water quality
impairments nationwide. In the 2000 National Water Quality Inventory report, states
reported that municipal wastewater treatment plants contribute to water quality
impairments of rivers, streams and lakes and are the most widespread source of
pollution affecting estuarine waters. The authorizations provided in the 1987
amendments expired in FY1994, but pressure to extend federal funding has
continued, in part because estimated needs remain so high. Thus, Congress has
continued to appropriate funds, and the anticipated shift to full state responsibility
has not yet occurred. Through FY2008, Congress has appropriated $78.3 billion in
Clean Water Act assistance, including $26.2 billion in SRF capitalization grants.
Drinking Water
Public water systems are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
of 1974 (P.L. 93-523), as amended (42 U.S.C. 300f-300j). Congress enacted the
SDWA after nationwide studies of community water systems revealed widespread
water quality problems and health risks resulting from poor operating procedures,
inadequate facilities, and uneven management of public water supplies in

communities of all sizes. The 1974 law gave EPA substantial discretionary authority
to regulate contaminants that occur in public drinking water supplies, and authorized
EPA to delegate primary implementation and enforcement authority for the Public
Water System Supervision program to the states.
SDWA drinking water regulations apply to more than 158,000 public water
systems (both privately and publicly owned systems) that provide piped water for
human consumption to at least 15 service connections or that regularly serve at least
25 people. Of these systems, 52,837 are community water systems (CWSs) that
serve residential populations year-round. (Roughly 15% of community systems are
investor-owned.) All federal regulations apply to these systems. More than 19,100
water systems are non-transient, non-community water systems (NTNCWSs), such
as schools or factories, that have their own water supply and serve the same people
for more than six months but not year-round. Most drinking water requirements
apply to these systems.6
In contrast to the 40-plus years of federal support for financing municipal
wastewater treatment facilities, Congress relatively recently, in 1996, established a
program under SDWA to help public water systems finance projects needed to
comply with federal drinking water regulations. Funding support for drinking water
only occurred more recently for several reasons. Until the 1980s, the number of
drinking water regulations was fairly small, and public water systems often did not
need to make large investments in treatment technologies to meet those regulations.
Relatedly, good quality drinking water traditionally had been available to many
communities at relatively low cost. By comparison, essentially all communities have
had to construct or upgrade sewage treatment facilities to meet the requirements of
the 1972 Clean Water Act. In addition, when the SDWA was first enacted, few
expected that the number of small, less economical water systems would continue to
Over time, drinking water circumstances have changed as communities have
grown, and commercial, industrial, agricultural, and residential land-uses have
become more concentrated, thus resulting in more contaminants reaching drinking
water sources. Moreover, as the number of federal drinking water standards and
related monitoring requirements have increased, many communities have found that
their water may not have been as good as once thought and that additional treatment
was needed to meet the new standards and protect public health. From 1986 to 1996,
for example, the number of regulated drinking water contaminants grew from 23 to
83. EPA and the states began expressing greater concern that many of the nation’s
community water systems (44,000, or 83% of all CWSs, of which were small) were
likely to lack the financial capacity to meet the rising costs of complying with SDWA

6 Another 86,210 systems are transient non-community water systems (TNCWSs) (e.g.,
campgrounds and gas stations) that provide their own water to transitory customers.
TNCWSs generally are required to comply only with regulations for contaminants that pose
immediate health risks (such as microbial contaminants), with the proviso that systems that
use surface water sources must also comply with filtration and disinfection regulations.

Congress responded to these concerns with the 1996 SDWA Amendments (P.L.

104-182), which established a drinking water state revolving loan fund (DWSRF)

program to help public water systems finance projects needed to comply with SDWA
regulations and to further the public health protection objectives of the act. This
program, patterned after the Clean Water Act SRF, authorizes EPA to make grants
to states to capitalize DWSRFs, which states then use to make loans to water
systems. States are required to match 20% of their federal capitalization grant, and
must make available 15% of their grant for loan assistance to small systems.
Communities repay loans into the fund, thus making resources available for projects
in other communities. Eligible projects include installation and replacement of
treatment facilities, distribution systems, and certain storage facilities. Projects to
replace aging infrastructure are eligible if they are needed to maintain compliance or
to further public health protection goals.
Public water systems eligible to receive DWSRF assistance include community
water systems (whether publicly or privately owned) and not-for-profit
noncommunity water systems. The law generally prohibits states from providing
DWSRF assistance to systems that lack the capacity to comply with the act or that
are in significant noncompliance with SDWA requirements, unless these systems
meet certain conditions to return to compliance. (Although the law authorizes
assistance to privately owned community water systems, some states have laws or
policies that preclude privately owned utilities from receiving DWSRF assistance.)
Appropriations for the program were authorized at $599 million for FY1994,
and $1 billion annually for FY1995 through FY2003. Although the funding authority
for the DWSRF program has expired, Congress continues to appropriate funds.
Through FY2008, Congress has provided $10.3 billion for this program.
Congress added several new features to the DWSRF program to reflect
experience gained under the Clean Water Act program and differences between the
drinking water and wastewater industries. A key difference in the DWSRF is that
privately owned as well as publicly owned systems are eligible for funding. Another
distinction is that states may use up to 30% of their DWSRF grant to provide
additional assistance, such as forgiveness of loan principal or negative interest rate
loans, to help economically disadvantaged communities.7
Paralleling the Clean Water Act, the SDWA requires EPA to assess the capital
improvement needs of eligible public water systems. Needs surveys must be
prepared every four years. In contrast to the CWA, which includes a statutory
allotment formula for SRF capitalization grants, EPA must distribute DWSRF funds
among the states based on the results of the latest survey. Eligible systems include
roughly 55,000 public and private community water systems and 21,400 not-for-
profit noncommunity water systems. (See Table 1 for a comparison of key features
of the clean water and drinking water SRF programs.)

7 For more information, see CRS Report RS22037, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund:
Program Overview and Issues, by Mary Tiemann.

EPA conducted its third survey of capital improvement needs for public water
systems in 2003.8 Based on this survey, EPA estimates that systems need to invest
$276.8 billion in drinking water infrastructure improvements over 20 years to comply
with drinking water regulations and to ensure the provision of safe water. This
amount exceeds the 2001 needs survey estimate of $150.9 billion ($165.5 billion in
2003 dollars) by more than 60%. EPA attributed this increase to several factors, such
as the inclusion in the latest survey of $1 billion in security-related needs, as well as
funds needed for compliance with several new and pending regulations. Also, water
systems improved their assessment of needs for infrastructure rehabilitation and
replacement in 2003, which EPA determined had been under-reported in previous
surveys. With the number of regulated drinking water contaminants now exceeding

90, and with more rules pending, these needs are expected to continue to grow.

Consequently, stakeholders continue to press Congress to reauthorize and increase
appropriations for this program.

8 Environmental Protection Agency, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and
Assessment: Third Report to Congress, June 2005. EPA 816-R-05-001. Available online
at [http://www.epa.gov/safewater/needs.html].

Table 1. Key Features of the Clean Water and Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund Programs
Clean Water SRFDrinking Water SRF
Year authorized19871996
Authorization$8.4 billion (FY1989-1994)$9.4 billion (FY1994-2003)
Appropriations$26.2 billion$10.3 billion
through FY2008
Cumulative$55.0 billion$13.9 billion
assistance (federal
and state) through
Eligible uses ofLoans, refinance, insurance,Loans, refinance, insurance,
fund (types ofguarantee, purchase debt,guarantee, purchase debt, security
assistance)security for leveraging, 4%for leveraging
grant for administration
Loan termsInterest between 0% andInterest between 0% and market
market rate; 20-year terms;rate; 20-year terms; 30-year terms
longer terms allowedand subsidized loans (principal
administratively in someforgiveness) for economically
statesdisadvantaged systems
Eligible systemsMunicipalities,Publicly and privately owned
intermunicipal, interstate, orcommunity and nonprofit, non-
state agencycommunity drinking water systems
Eligible projectsProjects for wastewaterProjects to upgrade/replace drinking
treatment plants; qualifiedwater source, treatment, storage,
nonpoint source and estuarytransmission and distribution
improvement projects
Ineligible projects Operation and MaintenanceDams, reservoirs (unless for
(O&M)finished water), water rights (unless
purchase through consolidation),
Set-asidesNoYes: up to 31% of grant (for
administering DWSRF, public
water system supervision, source
water protection, capacity
development, operator certification
DisadvantagedNoYes: up to 30% of grant (principal
assistanceforgiveness), 30-year repayment
Transfers betweenaYes: up to 33% of cleanYes: up to 33% of DWSRF
SRFswater SRF capitalizationcapitalization grant amount
grant amount
Source: CRS, adapted from EPA Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program Report to Congress,
Office of Water, EPA 918-R-03-009, May 2003.
a. Although SDWA statutory provision expired in FY2001, Congress has approved transfers in
subsequent appropriations laws.

USDA Assistance Programs
While EPA administers the largest federal water infrastructure assistance
programs, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) also provides funding. It
administers grant and loan programs available to communities with populations of
10,000 or less, thus benefitting small communities, many of which have had
problems obtaining assistance through the CWA and SDWA loan programs. Many
small towns have limited financial, technical and legal resources, and have
encountered difficulties in qualifying for and repaying loans. They often lack
opportunities for economies of scale or an industrial tax base, and thus face the
prospect of high per capita user fees to repay a loan for the full cost of a sewage
treatment or drinking water project.
USDA’s grant and loan programs are authorized by the Rural Development Act
of 1972, as amended (7 U.S.C. § 1926). The purpose of these USDA programs is to
provide basic amenities, alleviate health hazards, and promote the orderly growth of
the nation’s rural areas by meeting the need for new and improved rural water and
waste disposal facilities. Loans and grants are made for projects needed to meet
health or sanitary standards, including clean water standards and Safe Drinking Water
Act requirements. In recent years, USDA officials have increased their coordination
with state clean water and drinking water officials in administering their programs.
They have done this both to better meet health and environmental goals and to
minimize program redundancies and/or inconsistencies. For FY2008, Congress
appropriated $535.4 million for USDA’s water and waste disposal grant and loan
programs, about $16 million less than in FY2007.9
Context for the Water Infrastructure Debate:
Investment Needs
Some of the factors that have led to increased attention to water infrastructure
reflect long-standing concerns (for example, how cities will meet regulatory
requirements), while others are more recent (such as, new analyses of broader
funding needs, including maintenance and repair of older systems). A number of
interest groups — many with long-standing involvement, as well as new groups and
coalitions — have assisted in bringing attention to these issues. Among them are the
Water Infrastructure Network (WIN), a coalition of 29 state, municipal,
environmental, professional, and labor groups organized in 1999, and the H2O
Coalition, organized in 2001, consisting of the National Association of Water
Companies, the Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association, and

9 In addition to providing support through these EPA and USDA programs, Congress is
increasingly being asked to provide direct authorizations for individual projects developed
by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. A key practical difference between these projects and EPA and USDA programs
is that with individual project authorizations, there is no predictable assistance, or assurance
of funding once a project is authorized. (For more discussion, see CRS Report RL30478,
Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs, by Betsy A. Cody,
Claudia Copeland, Mary Tiemann, Nicole T. Carter, and Jeffrey A. Zinn.)

the National Council for Public-Private Partnerships. Two WIN reports on funding
needs and policy have received considerable attention, and the H2O Coalition has
responded to some issues in the WIN reports. In April 2000, WIN issued a report
estimating a $24.7 billion average annual investment gap for the next 20 years for
municipal wastewater and drinking water systems to address new problems and
system deterioration.10 Over the 20-year period, according to WIN’s analysis, $940
billion is required for wastewater and drinking water investments, and more than $1
trillion in O&M spending is required. A second WIN report, issued in 2001,
recommended a multibillion dollar investment program in water infrastructure.11
EPA Needs Surveys
EPA’s contribution to the debate over needs is primarily its wastewater and
drinking water needs surveys. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to assess
the capital improvement needs of eligible public water systems every four years
thereafter. Concurrently, and in consultation with the Indian Health Service and
Indian tribes, EPA must assess needs for drinking water treatment facilities to serve
Indian tribes. Similarly, the Clean Water Act requires EPA, in cooperation with
states, to report biennially to Congress on the cost of construction of all needed
publicly owned wastewater treatment works in the United States (in reality, the clean
water needs survey is done every four years).
Drinking Water Needs. The most recent drinking water needs survey,
conducted in 2003 and issued in June 2005, covers the period from 2003 through
2023. As noted above, the survey indicates that systems need to invest $276.8 billion
in drinking water infrastructure improvements over 20 years to comply with drinking
water regulations and to ensure the provision of safe water. This amount exceeds the

2001 needs survey estimate of $165.5 billion (in 2003 dollars) by more than 60%.

The 2003 survey includes funds needed for compliance with several recent
regulations (including the revised arsenic and radium rules) and pending rules for
radon and other contaminants. It also identified $1 billion in security-related needs.
Also, water systems made efforts to improve reporting of needs for infrastructure
rehabilitation and replacement, which EPA determined had been under-reported in
the previous surveys.
Of the total national need of $276.8 billion, $160.5 billion (60%) is currently
needed to ensure the provision of safe drinking water. EPA notes that a “current
need” typically involves installing, upgrading, or replacing infrastructure to allow a
system to continue to deliver safe drinking water and that systems with current needs
are usually not in violation of a drinking water standard. EPA reports that, although
all of the infrastructure projects in the needs assessment promote the health
objectives of the act, $45.1 billion (16%) of the total is attributable to SDWA

10 Water Infrastructure Network, Clean & Safe Water for the 21st Century, A Renewed
National Commitment to Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, April 2000. (Published
estimates used in this CRS report were adjusted by CRS to 2001 dollars.)
11 Water Infrastructure Network, Recommendations for Clean and Safe Water in the 21st
Century, February 2001. (Hereafter cited as WIN Recommendations.)

regulations, while $237 billion (84%) represents nonregulatory costs (e.g., routine
replacement of basic infrastructure).12
Wastewater Needs. The most recent wastewater survey, conducted in 2004
and issued in 2008, estimates that $202.5 billion is needed for projects and activities13
eligible for Clean Water Act assistance. This estimate includes $134.4 billion for
wastewater treatment and collection systems ($10.5 billion more than the previous
report), $54.8 billion for combined sewer overflow corrections ($1.5 billion less than
the previous estimate), $9 billion for stormwater management ($2.8 billion more than
the previous estimate), and $4.3 billion to build systems to distribute recycled water
(a new category in this report). The total is 8.6% larger than needs reported in the
previous survey, four years earlier. The increases are due to several factors,
according to EPA: needs for rehabilitation of aging infrastructure, facility
improvements to meet more protective water quality standards and, in some cases,
providing additional treatment capacity for handling wet-weather flows. Needs for
small communities (under 10,000 population) represented about 9% of the total.
The clean water needs survey does not separately identify needs for Alaskan
Native villages, and only a few states report needs for Indian tribes. More
comprehensive estimates are made by the Indian Health Service (IHS) of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, which operates a Sanitation Facilities
Construction program pursuant to the Indian Sanitation Facilities Act (P.L. 86-121).
IHS estimated that, as of the end of FY2005, more than140,000 American Indian and
Alaska Native (AI/AN) homes needed sanitation facilities, including over 36,000
homes that needed potable water. The total needing safe water improvements is
about 12% of all AI/AN homes, compared with about 1% of all U.S. homes,
according to IHS. The backlog of documented Indian sanitation facility projects as
of the end of FY2005 totaled more than $2 billion, with those projects considered by
the IHS to be economically and managerially feasible totaling $990 million.14
Expressed as average annual costs, the EPA needs surveys estimate $13.8 billion
for drinking water systems and $10.1 billion for wastewater systems. EPA
acknowledges that needs estimates generally have been conservatively biased. First,
all reported needs in both surveys must be documented with project-specific
information. Second, needs that are ineligible for SRF funding are not reflected;
thus, in the drinking water survey, needs for fire flow, dams, and untreated reservoirs
are omitted. Neither EPA survey explicitly accounts for infrastructure needs due to
population increases, since growth-related projects are not eligible for EPA funding.
The wastewater needs survey does not include information about privately owned
facilities or facilities that serve privately owned industrial facilities, military

12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and
Assessment: Third Report to Congress, June 2005.
13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004, Report to
Congress, Washington, January 2008, 1 vol., available at [http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/
cwns/2004rtc/toc.htm] .
14 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service, “FY2007 Budget
Requests, Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees; Sanitation Facilities
Construction,” February 2006, p. IHF-11.

installations, national parks or other federal facilities, as they are not eligible for
funding under the clean water SRF program. Finally, neither survey accounts for
financing costs associated with utility borrowing to pay for capital investment.
Despite various challenges and limitations, needs estimates have improved with
experience. For the most recent drinking water needs survey, for example, EPA
reported that state and water system efforts to correct past problems with significant
under-reporting of needs appear to have been successful.15
CBO’s Report on Future Investment
A 2002 report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) also contributes to the
discussion about investment needs.16 In that report, CBO presented two scenarios of
future needs for capital investment and O&M costs, a low-cost case and a high-cost
case. The two scenarios span the most likely possibilities that could occur, according
to CBO, and present a range of estimates for each, reflecting the limited information
available about existing water infrastructure. For example, CBO said, there is no
accessible inventory of the age and condition of pipes (which account for the majority
of both drinking water and wastewater systems’ assets). As such, a shortage of data
compounds the general analytic problem of making 20-year estimates of what would
happen under current and currently anticipated trends.
CBO estimated that for the years 2000 to 2019, annual costs for investment will
range between $11.6 billion and $20.1 billion for drinking water systems, and
between $13.0 billion and $20.9 billion for wastewater systems, or between $24.6
billion and $41.0 billion for water and wastewater combined (in 2001 dollars).
Additionally, CBO estimated that annual costs over the period for O&M, which are
not eligible for federal aid, will range between $25.7 billion and $31.8 billion for
drinking water and $20.3 billion to $25.2 billion for wastewater systems, or between
$46.0 and $57.0 billion for water and wastewater combined.
The principal differences in costs under CBO’s two scenarios reflect different
assumptions about several factors: (1) the rate at which drinking water pipes will be
replaced, (2) savings that may be associated with improved efficiency (e.g., demand
management to reduce peak usage, consolidation of systems to achieve economies
of scale, labor productivity), (3) the costs to wastewater utilities for controlling
combined sewer overflows, and (4) the repayment period on borrowed funds.17
CBO estimated that, for both types of systems, the difference between current
capital spending (approximately $22 billion by all levels of government in 1999) and
future costs — what some call an investment funding gap — would be $3.0 billion
annually in the low-cost scenario and $19.4 billion in the high-cost case. Together,
the future costs under the low-cost scenario (which CBO believes is reasonable,
given the uncertainty about the condition of existing infrastructure, prospects for

15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and
Assessment: Third Report to Congress, June 2005, p. 5.
16 U.S. Congressional Budget Office, Future Investment in Drinking Water and Wastewater
Infrastructure, November 2002, 58 p. (Hereafter cited as CBO 2002.)
17 Ibid., pp. 18-22.

improved efficiency, and assumptions about borrowing) represent growth of 14%
from 1999 levels, while under the high-cost case, the estimated increases represent
growth of about 90%.
CBO also examined estimates in WIN’s 2000 report, because of the public
attention that it has received. CBO’s analysis shows approximately an $18.6 billion
difference between current spending and WIN’s estimate of future annual costs, and
is thus close to CBO’s high-cost case. Investing at either the level in WIN’s report
or the CBO high-cost scenario would require nearly a doubling of current annual
spending levels. WIN’s single point estimate of annual investment needs for
drinking water and wastewater ($40 billion) is similar to CBO’s high-cost case
estimate. In contrast, CBO’s low-cost case estimate is $15.7 billion less than that in
the WIN report (see Table 2), because of differences in assumptions concerning the
timeline for replacing drinking water pipes, savings from efficiency, and borrowing
Overall, in examining the 2000 WIN report, CBO was critical of a number of
analytic aspects. In particular, while WIN includes financing costs in its analysis,
WIN’s estimates of total capital investment needs do not reflect “costs as financed.”
Costs as financed conveys the full costs of investments made out of funds on hand
during the period analyzed and the debt service (principal and interest) paid in those
years on new and prior investments that were financed through borrowing. Costs as
financed are a kind of moving average that smooths out year-to-year changes in
investment volume. In contrast, WIN’s 2000 report includes total debt service on
new investments from 2000 to 2019, regardless of when those payments occur, rather
than the debt service actually paid during the period (on both pre-2000 and new
investments). The difference is important, according to CBO, because utilities’ past
investments financed from 1980 to 1999 and still being paid off from 2000 to 2019
are smaller than the investments projected to be financed during the latter period.
WIN’s approach to estimating investment needs (capital plus financing) results in
approximately a 20% over-estimate, according to CBO.18
EPA’s Gap Analysis Report
In addition to the needs surveys, in 2002 EPA issued a study, called the Gap
Analysis, assessing the difference between current spending and total funding needs19
for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Using data from the needs
surveys and updated information, the Gap Analysis estimated total needs for drinking
water and clean water (capital investment plus financing costs, and operation and
maintenance (O&M)) from 2000-2019, as well as the projected gap between current
spending and needs. This report examined a range of estimates, based on two
scenarios: a low-end estimate assuming a 3% annual real growth in revenues (an

18 Ibid., p. 19.
19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Clean Water and Drinking Water
Infrastructure Gap Analysis, September 2002, EPA 816-R-02-020, 50 p.

increase in user rates and equivalent increase in customer growth) and a high-end
estimate assuming no growth in water utility systems’ revenues.20
Using these two scenarios, the Gap Analysis estimates a 20-year investment gap
between current spending levels and capital investment needs for wastewater and
drinking water combined between $66 billion and $224 billion (in 2001 dollars). In
addition, it estimates a 20-year gap in spending for O&M between $10 billion and
$409 billion. Under EPA’s analysis, the estimated average annual gap between
current spending and investment needs is between $1.6 billion and $23.1 billion, and
the average annual O&M gap is between $0.3 billion and $36.3 billion, depending
on the scenario. Compared with estimates of baseline expenditures, EPA’s
projections imply an average annual increase in costs over the 20-year period that
ranges from 2.8% to 85.8% for capital investment and O&M combined.
A January 2003 CBO report examined estimates in the 2002 CBO report and in
EPA’s Gap Analysis.21 As shown in Table 2, the differences between EPA’s and
CBO’s projections of total investment costs are not especially significant: both
EPA’s and CBO’s high-end estimates ($46.5 billion and $41 billion, respectively)
reflect a near doubling of baseline investment costs through 2019. WIN’s 2000
estimate ($40 billion) has a similar implication. EPA’s and CBO’s low-end
investment estimates ($25 and $24.6 billion, respectively) reflect less than a 15%
increase in costs through 2019. Differences between EPA’s and CBO’s investment
estimates are explained by differences in assumptions, such as the potential for
efficiency savings and different time profiles for replacement of drinking water pipes.
For most factors, CBO believes that a strong case cannot be made for the choice of
one agency’s estimates over the other, so long as the differences are recognized.
Greater differences are apparent between CBO’s and EPA’s high-end scenario
estimates for O&M ($57 billion and $82 billion, respectively). According to CBO,
that difference stems from EPA’s adopting the unrealistic assumption that drinking
water infrastructure is replaced in large quantities early in the 20-year period, rather
than being replaced more evenly throughout the span, with high O&M costs
throughout the period as a by-product of the early increase in capital stock. In WIN’s
report, O&M annual cost estimates are closer to CBO’s high-end scenario than to
Table 2 summarizes estimates from the 2000 WIN report, the 2002 CBO report,
and EPA’s Gap Analysis on average annual costs for water infrastructure (wastewater
and drinking water combined) and the potential average annual increase above
current spending levels that would be required to achieve such expenditures.

20 For each scenario in the Gap Analysis, EPA presents a range of estimates and a point
estimate within each range. For simplification, CRS refers to these point estimates, but
readers should consult the EPA report for full discussion.
21 U.S. Congressional Budget Agency, Future Spending on Water Infrastructure: A
Comparison of Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental
Protection Agency, letter report, January 2003, 14 p.

Table 2. Estimated Costs for Water Infrastructure
(billions of dollars)
CBO 2002EPA gap analysis
WIN Low - end High- end Low -end High- end
Average annual cost 2000-2019
— Investment40.3a24.641.025.046.5
— O&M52.646.
Average annual cost above baseline spending (gap) 2000-2019
— Investment18.6a3.019.41.623.1
— O&M11.
Source: CRS.
a. The $40.3 billion and $18.3 billion in this table reflect CBO’s re-estimate of investment needs in
the WIN 2000 report. CBO re-estimated the WIN information to reflect investment costs as
financed, in order to give comparability with CBO’s and EPAs analyses.
While estimates of funding needs have become one focal point for discussion,
some argue that trying to focus on precise needs estimates is not as important as
recognizing the general need. For example, CBO’s reports and EPA’s Gap Analysis
caution that projections of future costs associated with water infrastructure are highly
uncertain and could lie outside of the ranges that they present. Different assumptions22
could increase or decrease the results. CBO explained this point in its 2003 report.
Because available data are limited, the agencies must use many assumptions to
develop their projections, and the 20-year projection window provides ample
opportunity for unforeseen developments to influence costs. Data limitations
make it impossible for the agencies to know even baseline investment costs with
As is evident from their analyses of various investment scenarios, CBO and
EPA believe that funding gaps are not inevitable, if other steps are taken. Both
emphasize that funding gaps occur only if capital and O&M spending remains
unchanged from present levels. Future spending and other measures that systems23
could adopt to reduce both types of costs, such as asset management processes,
could significantly alter estimates of future needs. How a gap would be filled raises
a number of other issues. Whether water infrastructure needs over the next 20 years
are $200 billion or $1 trillion, they are potentially very large, and the federal
government is unlikely to provide 100% of the amount. Questions at issue include

22 Ibid., p. 1.
23 Asset management is a planning approach for conducting integrated assessments of future
capital and operating needs to ensure that investments are made efficiently.

what is the precise problem to be solved; who will pay, and what is the federal role
in that process; and how to deliver federal support.
Priorities: What Are the Problems to Be Solved?
Defining the scope of the water infrastructure problem is a key issue. As
described previously, traditionally the CWA and SDWA have assisted projects
needed to upgrade and improve wastewater and drinking water systems for
compliance with federal standards. There still are significant needs for those core
projects: for example, the 2003 clean water needs survey reports that more than one-
half of the $171 billion in total treatment needs are for projects to correct overflows
from existing municipal sewers, particularly sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs).24 The
EPA estimates that, of the $276.8 billion in drinking water needs, $45 billion (16%)
is required for water systems to comply with regulations. However, these needs are
expected to increase as the number of SDWA standards grows. Relatedly, $165
billion (60%) of total needs is for projects that water utilities consider a high priority
for ensuring the continued delivery of safe drinking water.
Infrastructure Replacement. While not disregarding needs for compliance-
related projects, stakeholders also are focusing on the problem of projects that have
not traditionally been eligible under federal aid programs — major repair and
replacement of existing systems. Currently, federal funds may be used for projects
that involve minor system repairs (such as correcting leaky pipes that allow
infiltration or inflow of groundwater into sewer lines) but may not be used for major
rehabilitation, or extensive repair of existing sewers that are collapsing or are
structurally unsound. In many cities, systems that currently meet standards and
provide adequate service are, according to advocacy groups, reaching the end of their
service-life and will require substantial investment in the near future. The American
Water Works Association’s 2001 report focused solely on the need to reinvest in
aging drinking water infrastructure. It estimates that nationally over the next 30
years, $250 billion may be required to replace worn out facilities and systems.
The replacement problem is occurring not because of neglect or failure to do
routine maintenance, AWWA and others say, but because water infrastructure
facilities and pipes installed decades ago are now wearing out. Most pipes were
installed and paid for by past generations in response to population growth and
economic development booms of the 1890s, World War I, 1920s, and post-World
War II. The oldest cast iron pipes, dating from the late 1800s, have an average useful
life of about 120 years, while pipes installed after World War II have an average life
of 75 years. The useful life of pipe varies considerably, based on such factors as soil
conditions, materials used, and character of the water flowing through it. Also, pipe
deteriorates more rapidly later in the life cycle than initially. AWWA says,
“Replacement of pipes installed from the late 1800s to the 1950s is now hard upon
us, and replacement of pipes installed in the latter half of the 20th Century will

24 SSOs are releases of raw sewage from sanitary sewer collections systems before the
wastewater reaches the treatment plant. These discharges are a major type of wet weather

dominate the remainder of the 21st century.”25 Treatment plant assets are more short-
lived than pipes, with typical service lives of 15 to 50 years. Thus, many that were
built in response to environmental standards in the 1970s and 1980s also will begin
to be due for replacement in a few years.
This concern over infrastructure deterioration recalls an earlier period when
infrastructure was a hotly debated topic. In the 1980s, there was much debate among
policymakers about an infrastructure funding gap and the need for federal solutions
to the perceived problem that America’s public facilities were wearing out faster than
they were being replaced. Some said that, because of declining public investment,
America’s infrastructure was in ruins. Analysts proposed strategies for planning,
financing, and managing investments to address decay of the nation’s public works
infrastructure.26 After a period of publicity and attention, debate about an
“infrastructure crisis” waned. Congress did not enact legislation creating substantially
new federal approaches to infrastructure but did reauthorize funding for several
existing programs, including wastewater.
Today, analysts may differ over whether an infrastructure crisis did, in fact, exist
then and whether local officials made choices sufficient to defer the issue for a later
day. In the end, this earlier infrastructure debate resulted in little obvious action and
without the breakdowns some had warned of. However, the current concerns may
reflect a new situation: AWWA says that the replacement problem being debated
today is not that utilities are faced with making up for a historical gap in the level of
replacement funding. Rather, it is that utilities must ramp up budgets to prevent a
replacement gap from developing in the near future; that is, to avoid getting behind.
Security. With the exception of the latest EPA drinking water needs survey,
none of the investment needs reports discussed previously (WIN report, or those by
CBO and EPA) accounts for increased security-related needs that utilities have begun
to identify. In its 2002 report, CBO said:
Because water systems are still developing estimates of the costs for increasing
security in the wake of the September 11 attacks, the estimates do not include
those expenses — but preliminary reports suggest that security costs will be27
relatively small compared with the other costs for investment in infrastructure.
One partial estimate for wastewater systems reported that, among large wastewater
utilities, operators identified $135 million in security-related needs for the period
2002-2006, with approximately one-quarter of those reporting saying that their needs
exceed $1 million.28

25 AWWA Report, p. 11.
26 See, for example, Pat Choate and Susan Walter, America in Ruins. Council of State
Planning Agencies, 1981, 97 p.; and Roger J. Vaughan and Robert Pollard, Rebuilding
America, Planning and Managing Public Works in the 1980s,Council of State Planning
Agencies,1984, Vol. 1, 182 p.
27 CBO 2002, p. x.
28 Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, The AMSA 2002 Financial Survey, 2003,

Although poorly quantified and potentially small relative to overall
infrastructure needs, the costs of addressing security concerns for drinking water
systems are expected to be significant. The Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2002
(P.L. 107-188) required all community water systems serving more than 3,300
persons to assess their vulnerabilities to terrorist attack or other intentional acts to
disrupt the provision of safe and reliable drinking water supplies. Having done so,
many of these systems now are taking, or planning to take, steps to improve the
security of their facilities and to protect sources of drinking water. The AWWA has
estimated that the roughly 8,400 community water systems covered by the
Bioterrorism Act would have to spend more than $1.6 billion just to implement the
most basic steps needed to improve security (such as better controlling access to
facilities with fences, locks, perimeter lights, and alarms at critical locations). This
estimate does not include the capital costs of upgrades to address vulnerabilities
identified in vulnerability assessments, such as hardening pumping stations, chemical
storage buildings, transmission mains, adding redundant infrastructure, or relocating
pipelines of facilities. Efforts to estimate costs have been hampered by the fact that
the security measures needed for utilities are very site-specific. However, the
AWWA estimates that, nationwide, community water systems will need to invest
billions of dollars to address identified vulnerabilities.29
The total security need estimated from the 2003 drinking water needs survey is
$1 billion. According to EPA, the survey provides only a partial estimate of security
needs, as it was done while water systems were expanding their security evaluation
and planning efforts. Many water systems had completed vulnerability assessments
and corrective action plans, but they frequently lacked cost estimates for making
security improvements. EPA expects that such needs will be reported more
thoroughly in future assessments.30
To cover the costs of making security improvements, some water utilities have
imposed rate increases or reallocated existing resources. However, many others have
been increasing rates to pay for projects needed to comply with new regulations, but
had not contemplated the need for additional resources to address security concerns.
Asserting that homeland security is primarily a federal responsibility, and that the
needs are large, some individual communities and water associations have
approached Congress in search of assistance.31 In the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act,
Congress authorized funding for FY2002 through FY2005 for EPA to provide
financial assistance to drinking water systems for several purposes, including making
basic security enhancements, but no funding was provided. EPA has identified
numerous security improvements that are eligible for funding through the drinking

28 (...continued)
p. 79.
29 Statement of Howard Neukrug on behalf of the American Water Works Association, in:
U.S. House, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Waterth
Resources and the Environment, Aging Water Supply Infrastructure, Hearing, 108nd
Congress, 2 session, April 28, 2004 (108-63), p. 61.
30 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and
Assessment: Third Report to Congress, June 2005, pp. 10-11.
31 Ibid.

water and clean water state revolving fund programs,32 and infrastructure bills in the
108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses specified that projects to improve security were
eligible for assistance under the clean water and drinking water state revolving funds.
However, these funds are used primarily to comply with Safe Drinking Water Act
and Clean Water Act requirements, and it is uncertain how readily these funds might
become available for security measures.33
Funding Other Priorities. Wastewater SRF funding is used for construction
of publicly owned municipal wastewater treatment plants, implementing state
nonpoint pollution management programs, and developing and implementing
management plans under the National Estuary Program (CWA, Section 320).34
Drinking water SRFs may provide assistance for expenditures that will facilitate
compliance with national drinking water regulations or that will “significantly further
the health protection objectives” of the Safe Drinking Water Act. There are many
proposals for expanding the scope of activities eligible for SRF funding, in addition
to meeting major replacement and security-related needs, raising numerous tradeoff
questions for policymakers.
Past legislative proposals (such as H.R. 720 and S. 3500 in the 110th Congressth
and S. 1400 in the 109 Congress) would have added a number of new types of
projects to those already eligible for SRF assistance: water conservation; water reuse,
reclamation, or recycling; measures to increase facility security; and implementation
of source water protection plans, for example. The rationale for using federal
assistance is that investments in some of these approaches could reduce overall needs
for capital investment. All, arguably, could benefit water quality protection and
improvement, as do traditional infrastructure investments, and supporting them
through the popular mechanism of SRFs would help ensure comparatively secure
funding. But expanding the scope of eligibility also arguably dilutes the current
focus of these programs, at a time when traditional needs remain high. This tension
already exists with the wide range of set-asides authorized under the drinking water
SRF, where, in addition to funding infrastructure projects, states may reserve up to

31% of their federal capitalization grant for a range of other purposes. For example,

states may use up to 10% of their grant to implement wellhead protection programs
and another 10% to fund local source water protection initiatives. (See discussion
below of set-asides, under “Delivering Federal Support.”)

32 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Use of the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund to Implement Security Measures at Publicly Owned Treatment Works,” at
[http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/security.pdf]; and “Use of the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to Implement Security Measures at Public Water Systems,”
EPA-816-F-02-040, at [http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/pdfs/security-fs.pdf].
33 For more information on drinking water security issues and funding, see CRS Report
RL31294, Safeguarding the Nation’s Drinking Water: EPA and Congressional Actions, by
Mary Tiemann. Also see CRS Report RL32189, Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the
Water Infrastructure Sector, by Claudia Copeland.
34 According to EPA, 37 clean water SRF programs have funded more than 6,100 nonpoint
source pollution control projects, providing $2.1 billion in SRF funding since 1990. No
estuary projects have been funded through the SRF.

Many argue that greater investment in managing nonpoint sources of water
pollution would especially benefit public health and water quality. According to state
data compiled by EPA, polluted runoff is the major source of water quality problems
in the United States. Water quality survey data indicate that 40% of surveyed U.S.
waterbodies are impaired by pollution (meaning that waters fail to meet applicable
standards) and that surface runoff from diffuse areas such as farm and ranch land,
construction sites, and mining and timber operations is the chief cause of
impairments, while municipal point sources contribute a much smaller percentage of
water quality impairments to most waters.35 The possible cost of practices and
measures to address the nonpoint pollution problems has not been comprehensively
documented. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that investments in nonpoint pollution
abatement (e.g., grants for nonpoint pollution management projects under the Clean
Water Act, technical and financial assistance to farmers through USDA, Safe
Drinking Water Act grants to protect sources of drinking water) could have equal or
greater environmental benefit than investments in water infrastructure. For example,
New York City is funding an extensive watershed protection program, including
areas far from the metropolitan area, in an effort to avoid the need to build a filtration
plant that would cost the city several billion dollars.
Growing populations in many areas of the country are placing increasing
demands on water supplies and wastewater treatment facilities. Yet, even without
new growth, many people in existing small and rural communities do not have access
to public sewers or water supply and, thus, are using alternative systems to help them
comply with environmental laws and to solve public health problems. Local officials
face a challenge of striking a balance between ensuring that water and wastewater
services are affordable, but also providing sufficient revenue for system needs. To
deliver these services, they often face challenges arising from economic, geographic,
and technological impediments. Outside of EPA’s and USDA’s traditional programs,
it appears that Congress is increasingly being asked to authorize direct financial and
technical assistance for developing or treating water, including rural water supply
projects to be built and largely funded by the Bureau of Reclamation of the
Department of the Interior, water recycling projects built and partially funded by the
Bureau, and pilot programs for water supply and wastewater treatment projects
funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. To yet another group of stakeholders,
these, too, reflect priority problems in need of legislative attention and federal
solutions. Indeed, the 109th Congress passed legislation (P.L. 109-451) authorizing
the Bureau of Reclamation to establish a program for design and construction of rural
water supply projects in 13 Reclamation states in the West.
Policymakers face decisions about priorities and tradeoffs, since spending
decisions often are essentially a zero-sum game: that is, what priority should be given
to traditional infrastructure projects needed to comply with standards, versus the
emerging problem of infrastructure replacement, versus nonpoint pollution
management or other competing activities also having environmental benefits? Since
not all can be supported, do some have greater priority than others? What should the
federal government support? Should eligibility for SRF funding be expanded to

35 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, National Water Quality
Inventory, 2000 Report, August 2002, EPA 841-R-02-001, 207 p.

include less traditional activities? Is there clearly a federal role for some or all
activities, or is a larger federal role justified for some than for others?
The Federal Role
Many stakeholders are seeking substantially increased federal spending on water
infrastructure for reasons described in this report. Among groups involved in water
infrastructure (states, cities, equipment manufacturers, the construction industry), a
long-standing issue is the gap between funding needs and available resources from
federal, state, and local sources.
Data compiled by EPA demonstrate that federal capitalization grants are the
largest, but not the only, source of monies in the SRFs. For example, cumulatively
from 1996 through 2005, drinking water SRFs have had $11.3 billion in funds
available for projects. Of the total, $6.6 billion was provided by capitalization grants,
while the remainder — more than $5 billion — came from state match contributions,
leveraged bonds, principal repayments, and interest earnings. Likewise, cumulatively
from 1988 through 2006, clean water SRFs have had $53 billion in funds available.
Slightly less than half ($24 billion) has come from federal capitalization grants, while
the remainder similarly derived from state matching funds, leveraged bonds, principal
repayments, and interest earnings. In addition, state assistance outside of the SRF
programs is an important source of total funds available for water infrastructure. For
example, from FY1991 through FY2000, states made about $13.5 billion available
for drinking water and wastewater projects under state-sponsored grant and loan
programs and by selling general obligation and revenue bonds.36
Local government officials estimate that, on average, ratepayers currently pay
about 90% of the total cost to build their drinking water and wastewater systems
(through direct local financing or loan repayments to SRFs); federal funds provide
the remainder.37 (Small rural systems depend more on government aid than do large
systems.) According to the National League of Cities, these capital costs, plus
operations and maintenance for which localities also are responsible, total about $60
billion annually for drinking water and wastewater systems.38 Cities also say that
they have been raising water and sewer rates to accommodate increases in operating
and maintenance costs, which have risen 6% above inflation annually.39 Municipal
officials contend that increased local fees and taxes alone cannot solve all funding
problems. This is true, they say, both with respect to costs of meeting future needs

36 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Water Infrastructure: Information on Federal
and State Financial Assistance, November 2001, GAO-02-134, p. 18 (formerly the General
Accounting Office).
37 U.S. House, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and the Environment, Meeting Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructurethst
Needs, Hearing, 105 Congress, 1 session, April 23, 1997 (105-18). p. 307.
38 Statement of Bruce Tobey on behalf of the National League of Cities on Water and
Wastewater Infrastructure Needs in: U.S. House, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment, Waterthst
Infrastructure Needs, Hearing, 107 Congress, 1 session, March 28, 2001 (107-8), p. 131.
39 Ibid., p. 132.

(e.g., new treatment requirements) and costs of reinvesting in aging infrastructure.
Water and wastewater officials acknowledge that they will continue to cover the
majority of water infrastructure needs, but believe that doing so presents a significant
challenge in keeping water affordable. This is especially true in small cities, rural
areas, and cities with shrinking populations and/or local economies where a possible
doubling or tripling of water and sewer rates to meet all needs could be required. If
some such cities are unable to finance replacement or improvement of their water
infrastructure, declining service levels, violations of water quality requirements, and
threats to public health and the environment could occur, officials say.40
Assertions about financial impacts and affordability are at the heart of many
stakeholders’ efforts seeking greater federal support. The Water Infrastructure
Network, for example, says that local sources alone cannot be expected to meet the
challenge of large water and sewer needs, and that the benefits of federal help accrue
to the nation as a whole, since water moves across political boundaries. Moreover,
WIN argues that clean and safe water is no less a national priority than are national
defense, an adequate system of interstate highways, or a safe and efficient aviation
system. Highways and aviation currently “enjoy sustainable, long-term federal grant
programs,” supported by trust fund revenues, while water infrastructure does not.41
In its 2001 report, WIN recommended a five-year, $57 billion authorization above
current funding for loans, grants, loan subsidies and credit assistance to capitalize
state-administered grant and loan programs which it believes would cover about one-
half of the estimated five-year capital funding shortfall. WIN estimated that, even
with that additional investment, average household water and sewer rates would
increase over the next 20 years, but in WIN’s projections, average rate increases
would be 100%, compared with 123% without such a boost in federal support.42
Some analysts dispute the view that federal funding solutions are essential to
meeting future investment needs. According to this view, funding problems are in
many cases due to the failure of local communities to assign a high priority to water
and wastewater services and result in failure to set local water rates and other user
charges at levels that cover capital and operating expenditures. This is especially true
in the case of municipally or publicly owned utility systems which, unlike investor-
owned systems, often do not support the full cost of service through rates. Publicly
owned systems predominate in the wastewater industry (constituting more than 95%).
In the drinking water industry, approximately 33% of public water systems are
privately owned; however, most of these systems are small, serving roughly 15% of
the U.S. population. The H2O Coalition, another group in the water infrastructure
debate, believes that it is not possible to state with any confidence what is
unaffordable to customers and therefore what the magnitude of government support
should be, because few utilities have done detailed long-term needs projections and

40 Water Infrastructure Network, “Commonly Asked Questions and Answers about the WIN
Report,” Water Infrastructure Now, May 5, 2001, p. 5. (Hereafter cited as WIN Questions
and Answers.)
41 WIN Recommendations, p. 3.
42 WIN Questions and Answers, p. 3.

analyzed ways of addressing these needs through rates.43 “Rate shocks” which result
from large rate increases can be managed to a degree, analysts say, by financing,
ratemaking, and conservation strategies. They argue that if water services continue
to be subsidized by federal funds, subsidies should not reward utilities’ inefficiency,
but should be used strategically and equitably.44 Some advocate using needs-based
subsidies to help low-income households by providing direct payment assistance or
funding a lifeline rate.
CBO has repeatedly argued that federal spending programs to support water
infrastructure (direct project grants and SRF capitalization grants, as well as credit
subsidies in the form of loans, loan guarantees, and tax preferences) can have a
number of unintended consequences. In a February 2005 report (one of a regular
biennial series) on the budgetary implications of policy choices, one of the policy
options that CBO presents is a phaseout of federal capitalization grants for SRFs over
a three-year transition period. CBO cites several economic rationales for doing so.
For example, grants may encourage inefficient decisions about water infrastructure
by allowing states to lend money at below-market interest rates, in turn reducing
incentives for local governments to find less costly ways to control water pollution
and provide safe drinking water. Also, federal contributions may not result in
increased total investment if they are merely replacing funding that state and local
sources would otherwise have provided.45
In its 2001 report, WIN recommended initially doubling federal support for
water infrastructure, and increasing it by 500% after five years. Others, including the
H2O Coalition, doubt that increased federal support of that magnitude is necessary or
appropriate. Even if policymakers agree that there is a federal role, significant
questions remain about defining that role and agreeing on priorities.
Delivering Federal Support
The question of how federal financial support is delivered to water infrastructure
projects involves several issues, including the state-level mechanism for
administering funding, composition of aid (loans and grants), and assistance for
private as well as public entities. Related issues are impacts of other federal
requirements, use of set-asides, and how funds are allotted to states.
Administrative Entity. Financial aid provided through the clean water and
drinking water SRFs is administered by state-level agencies designated in agreements
signed by EPA and individual states. Many evolved from the agencies that
previously administered the Clean Water Act construction grant program that
preceded the SRF program. In many states, SRFs are managed by the state

43 “Comparison of Recommendations of the WIN and the H2O Coalition,” February 16,

2001, see [http://www.nawc.org/issues/issues-h.html].

44 Statement of Janice Beecher on behalf of the National Association of Water Companies,
in: U.S. House, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Waterthst
Resources and the Environment, Water Infrastructure Needs, Hearing, 107 Congress, 1
session, March 28, 2001 (107-8), p. 55.
45 U.S. Congressional Budget Office, Budget Options, February 2005, p. 104.

environmental agency or branches of that agency responsible for implementing the
CWA and the SDWA. In other states, they are managed by separate financing
authorities or offices. About 30 states currently administer the two SRF programs
jointly; the remainder administer parallel SRF programs. State officials say that,
where administration of the two is not joined, there are good reasons for maintaining
the separation. Section 302 of the 1996 SDWA amendments included a provision
allowing states to transfer a portion (up to 33%) of a capitalization grant between the
two programs to give states funding flexibility. That original authority expired in
FY2001, but Congress has continued to extend it through annual appropriations acts
since FY2002. Since 1999, 13 states and Puerto Rico have used this provision to
transfer funds between their clean water and drinking water SRF programs.
In its 2001 report, WIN recommended that the SRF concept be replaced with an
alternative mechanism called State Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Financing
Authorities which would work with state clean water and drinking water programs
but would handle the infrastructure banking aspects for both. WIN says that this
would be highly efficient, enabling a single state agency to determine priorities and
appropriate financial assistance instruments. Most state officials now involved with
the two SRF programs object to this proposal, believing that it would de-construct
what exists and is working well now. It would also substitute a new organizational
entity for that which individual states have determined works best for them, including
the 20 states that prefer separate SRF programs. Also, by giving decisionmaking
authority to a new entity, the WIN concept would shift authority from existing state
agencies. WIN supporters believe that differences between their proposal and the
views of state program officials are not vast, but many state officials disagree.
The Type of Assistance Provided: Grants and Loans. One issue that
divides the stakeholder groups is whether to provide assistance through grants, as
well as loans, with cities and the WIN group favoring a significant place for grants,
and most states and the H2O Coalition favoring loans in preference to grants.
Both SRF programs authorize states to make loans at or below market interest
rates, including zero interest loans. However, for several years, both small and large
cities have urged Congress to explicitly authorize water infrastructure grants, in
addition to loans, to provide flexible assistance best suited for particular community
and state needs. Thus, the drinking water SRF, enacted nine years after the clean
water SRF program, allows up to 30% of capitalization grants to be used to provide
loan subsidies to disadvantaged communities. Grants that do not require repayment
obviously are preferred by communities. For example, some small communities that
lack an industrial tax base or means to benefit from economies of scale find it
difficult to repay a loan for 100% of the cost of water infrastructure projects. Some
larger cities also seek grants, on the basis that water infrastructure is just one of
numerous costly capital needs that they must meet, and a partial subsidy in the form
of a grant would help make those costs more affordable for ratepayers.
Small and disadvantaged communities’ financing problems also have been
addressed by permitting a longer loan repayment period. By spreading out
repayment, communities can reduce the amounts due on an annual basis, thus
lessening the amount of rate increases needed to finance the repayment (although
total financing costs over the life of the loan may be higher). Under both SRF

programs, annual principal and interest repayments begin one year after project
completion and are to be fully amortized 20 years after project completion. Under
the drinking water SRF, however, states may allow economically disadvantaged
communities up to 30 years to repay loans. The Clean Water Act does not currently
permit 30-year repayments, but House Appropriations Committee report language
accompanying EPA’s FY1998 appropriations bill (P.L. 105-175) encouraged EPA
to allow states to issue bonds allowing for clean water SRFs with repayment terms
of greater than 20 years. Consequently, EPA has allowed a few states (e.g.,
Massachusetts, West Virginia, Maryland) to issue 30-year clean water SRF loans.
Many state officials are reluctant to use a portion of the SRF to award grants,
principally because, to the extent that part of the SRF is used for making grants, the
corpus of the loan fund and its ability to be a self-sustained long-term source of
funding are diminished. States acknowledge that a loan “buy down,” in the form of
granting forgiveness of a portion of the SRF loan principal, can be a useful option for
dealing with disadvantaged communities. However, many states prefer to limit the
use of grants as much as possible and would oppose being obliged to make grants.
State water quality officials who previously administered the Clean Water Act’s
construction grant program and others (including CBO) believe that grants can
undermine efficient investments by leading to substitution of federal funds for state
and local funds, rather than augmenting state and local investment, and distort
decisions about preventive maintenance, treatment technology, and excess capacity.
According to EPA, states are being conservative in using the principal forgiveness
authority under the drinking water SRF: since 1996, only 16 states have done so, and
assistance provided with principal forgiveness has totaled less than 3% of all drinking
water SRF assistance since that time.
Members of the H2O Coalition favor limited and targeted federal assistance, so
that utilities are encouraged to attain and maintain business-like operations. If federal
assistance is provided, the Coalition, like many state officials, advocates that it
should be primarily in the form of low-interest or zero-interest loans. The Coalition
supports assistance for low-income families to supplement their water and sewer
bills, where necessary, either paid to the low-income families or directly to the utility.
Some loan forgiveness (as under the drinking water SRF) or grants (with at least 50%
local cost share) are options that the Coalition supports in rare cases, and only so long
as assistance produces long-term solutions and ensures that federal monies are used
cost-effectively. Except in cases where virtually all of a utility’s customers are
impoverished, assistance for low-income households should be favored over grants,
this group says. According to the Coalition, grants or loans with substantial
forgiveness subsidize all customers’ rates, even those that are able to afford the full
cost of service, and therefore are not an efficient use of scarce federal assistance.46
Federal Funds for Private Infrastructure Systems. Currently under the
drinking water SRF program, eligible loan recipients include community water
systems, both publicly and privately owned, and not-for-profit noncommunity water
systems (e.g., schools with their own water supply). Eligible loan recipients for

46 H2O Coalition, “What is the Water Infrastructure Problem and What are the Solutions?”
Issue Paper, February 26, 2001, pp. 7-11.

wastewater SRFs are any municipality, intermunicipal, interstate or state agency, but
not privately owned utilities. A number of stakeholders advocate that SRF funds be
made available to privately owned wastewater systems, as well. This would “level
the playing field” between the two programs, it is argued, and also would encourage
public-private partnerships and privatization.
Another issue involving the private sector arises from the Internal Revenue
Code. Under federal tax law, certain activities financed by the issuance of state and
local bonds have a special status because the interest earned is exempt from federal
income taxation. Tax-exempt financing enables state and local governments to
borrow at a lower interest rate than either private business or the federal government
must pay on taxable debt. In general, tax-exempt status applies to activities broadly
defined as having public purpose. Some specific activities considered to have both
public and private purposes are eligible for tax-exempt financing. However, these
public/private activities are subject to a cap that limits the volume of private activity
bonds (PABs) state and local governments may issue annually. PABs for water
infrastructure are subject to the volume cap, and tax-exempt financing can be done
if the project is able to secure an allocation from the volume cap.
Because private water bonds compete under this cap with other private bond
uses such as housing, industrial development, and student loans, some groups favor
legislation that would exempt all PABs for water and sewage facilities from the
volume cap. The President’s FY2009 budget request included a proposal to exempt
PABs used to finance drinking water and wastewater infrastructure from the PAB
unified state volume cap, in order to provide states and communities greater access
to PABs to help finance water infrastructure needs. A bill to authorize such a change
(H.R. 6194) was introduced in the 110th Congress. Similar legislation has been
introduced in the past (e.g., H.R. 1708 in the 109th Congress). Current law provides
such an exemption for government-owned and operated solid waste disposal
facilities. Opponents argue that restrictions on tax-exempt financing should be
maintained, because of the costs to the federal government, in terms of income tax
revenues foregone. Similarly, some opponents say that the bonds represent an
inefficient allocation of capital, favoring some projects over others, and increase the
cost of financing traditional governmental activities. Also in the 110th Congress,
H.R. 1959 was introduced to permit interest on federally guaranteed USDA water,
wastewater, and essential community facilities loans to be tax exempt. (For more
information, see CRS Report RL31457, Private Activity Bonds: An Introduction, by
Steven Maguire.)
Other Federal Tax Issues. A second federal tax issue related to the Internal
Revenue Code concerns arbitrage. If proceeds of tax-exempt bonds issued by state
and local governments in connection with SRF programs are invested in securities
that pay a higher yield than the yield on the bonds, the earnings are termed arbitrage
profits. Unchecked, state and local governments could substitute arbitrage earnings
for a substantial portion of their own citizens’ tax effort. Thus, Congress has decided
that such arbitrage should be limited, and that tax-exempt bond proceeds must be
used quickly to pay contractors for the construction of the capital facilities for which
the bonds were issued. Federal tax law requires that bond proceeds be spent out
during a specified period; if not, the arbitrage earnings must be rebated to the U.S.

Treasury. (For information, see CRS Report RL30638, Tax-Exempt Bonds: A
Description of State and Local Government Debt, by Steven Maguire.)
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) places arbitrage restrictions on SRF
reserves. In the case of the SRFs, this issue can arise when governments use SRF
monies to borrow funds at tax-exempt rates in order to issue municipal bonds and
then invest the funds received from the issues in higher earning taxable securities.
The process of using federal capitalization grants and state matching funds as
collateral to borrow in the public bond market so as to increase the pool of available
funds for project lending is termed leveraging. It is used by more than one-half of
states, according to EPA. EPA’s Environmental Finance Advisory Board has
expressed concern that the interpretation of the IRS arbitrage limitations reduces the
amount of funds potentially available for infrastructure projects because it requires
the yield on invested reserves to be no greater than the bond maturity rate, and it has
urged EPA to support amending the Internal Revenue Code to provide that monies
contributed to SRFs be freed from arbitrage earnings restrictions.47
Many states urge that amounts used as reserves to secure bonds for SRF projects
be exempted from the arbitrage rebate rules so that any interest earnings could be
used for additional investment in water infrastructure projects. The Council of
Infrastructure Financing Authorities, which represents most of the SRF organizations,
has estimated that if arbitrage restrictions were lifted, SRFs could earn an additional
$100 to $200 million annually on their funds. If these earnings were used as reserves
to secure additional bonds, they could provide an additional $200 to $400 million
annual investment in infrastructure projects. However, others respond that without
the existing arbitrage rule, state and local governments could issue tax-exempt bonds
solely for the purpose of gaining arbitrage profits, at the expense of greater revenue
losses to the federal government and ultimately higher interest rates on bonds whose
proceeds actually are used for the acquisition or construction of capital facilities.48
The 109th Congress considered this issue. In P.L. 109-115 (providing FY2006
appropriations for the Treasury Department), Congress directed the Secretary of the
Treasury to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
providing a legal basis for applying arbitrage bond regulations to the reserve funds
held by the clean water and drinking water SRFs, which generally contain
replacement proceeds (from loan repayments) but not bond proceeds.49
Federal Cross-Cutting Requirements. Under both SRF programs, a
number of federal authorities, executive orders, and government-wide policies apply

47 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Finance Advisory Board,
“Arbitrage Relief Would Increase Funds Available to Meet Critical Water and Sewer
Funding Needs,” May 7, 2006, 3 p.
48 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Program, Report to Congress, EPA 918-R-03-009, May 2003, p. 95.
49 Conference Report to accompany H.R. 3058, Making Appropriations for the Departments
of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District
of Columbia, and Independent Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2006,
H.Rept. 109-307, November 18, 2005, p. 207.

to projects and activities receiving federal financial assistance, independent of
program-specific statutory requirements, and many stakeholders favor repealing their
applicability to water infrastructure projects. These include environmental laws (e.g.,
Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act), social legislation (e.g., Age Discrimination
Act, Civil Rights Act), and economic and miscellaneous laws (Davis-Bacon Act,
Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, and
procurement prohibitions under environmental laws and Executive Order 11738).
These federal cross-cutting requirements apply only to projects funded directly by the
federal capitalization grants, but not to SRF activity made from loan repayments,
interest earned, or other state monies contained in the SRF.
In addition, the clean water SRF attaches 16 specific statutory requirements to
activities funded directly by federal capitalization grants that are carryover
(“equivalency”) requirements from the prior construction grant program (e.g.,
specific project evaluation requirements).
Under both SRF programs, projects financed with funds directly made available
by federal capitalization grants are subject to Environmental Impact Statement
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. Projects funded by other
monies in the SRF also must undergo an environmental review; however, a state may
select its own method for conducting environmental reviews, if approved by EPA.
Many stakeholders believe that these other federal cross-cutting requirements
are burdensome and costly and, in many cases, only ancillary to benefits of water
infrastructure projects. One particularly contentious issue is compliance with the
Davis-Bacon Act which requires, among other things, that not less than the locally
prevailing wage be paid to workers employed, under contract, on federal construction
work “to which the United States or the District of Columbia is a party.” Critics of
Davis-Bacon say that it unnecessarily increases public construction costs and
hampers competition (with respect to small and minority-owned businesses).
Supporters say that the law helps stabilize the local construction industry by
preventing competition from firms that could undercut local wages, and perhaps
working conditions, and thus compete unfairly with local contractors.
Congress has added Davis-Bacon prevailing wage provisions to more than 50
separate program statutes, including the Clean Water Act and generally to the Safe
Drinking Water Act. However, the applicability of Davis-Bacon to the clean water
SRF expired in FY1994, when the authorizations in P.L. 100-4 expired. Further,
since the drinking water SRF program was established in 1996, EPA has interpreted
the SDWA to not require applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act to all construction
projects supported by SRFs. (For information, see CRS Report RL31491,
Davis-Bacon Act Coverage and the State Revolving Fund Program Under the Clean
Water Act, by William G. Whittaker.) Inclusion of its requirements in the CWA and
SDWA SRF programs has been controversial, and that controversy was a prominent
reason that no water infrastructure financing legislation has been enacted recently.
Set-Asides. The utility of set-asides that allow for using a portion of SRF
capitalization grants for program purposes other than directly constructing
infrastructure is likely to be debated. Under the clean water SRF, a state must reserve
the greater of 1% of its capitalization grant or $100,000 each year to carry out

specified planning requirements under the CWA. Under the drinking water SRF, a
state may use up to 31% of its capitalization grant for specified SDWA programs
including supervision of public water systems, operator certification, compliance
capacity development, and state and local source water protection initiatives (some
uses require a 50% state match).
Reserving a large amount of funds, even for related implementation activities,
necessarily limits the funds available to the state for assisting infrastructure projects.
Also, several of the set-aside activities have their own funding authority; thus, a
concern for states is that Congress may rely on the SRF to fund other SDWA
requirements instead of providing the authorized appropriations, and the overall
funding for drinking water activities may be diminished. Drinking water program
officials acknowledge this problem, but many believe that set-asides are a useful
means of ensuring that monies will be available for activities that might otherwise
not have a secure source of funds. Because states have some flexibility, in fact, few
are using the full amount that could be reserved under the set-asides. According to
EPA, only a few states have used the full 31% that the law allows, and the average
amount reserved by all states since 1996 is 16%.
Many state clean water program officials have a different view of mandatory set-
asides, based on experience administering the previous construction grant program
which for a time required states to reserve a portion of federal funds for specified
types of projects. Because of problems in spending those set-aside funds (e.g.,
finding beneficial projects on which to spend all the required reserved funds) and
extensive oversight by EPA, many of them now oppose the reservation of core funds
(especially mandatory set-asides), except for covering SRF administrative costs.
A separate issue relates to set-asides for administration. Under both the CWA
and SDWA programs, states may reserve up to 4% of their federal capitalization
grants annually for the reasonable costs of administering the SRF. As the SRFs have
developed and loan portfolios have grown, many states argue that an amount equal
to 4% of the allotment is insufficient for administering the program. This problem
is exacerbated by the fact that congressional appropriations of capitalization grants
generally have remained steady (and for the clean water SRF, actually have been
reduced nearly 50% since FY2004). Many states impose fees on borrowers, which
has the effect of increasing costs for the borrower. Thus, an issue of concern to many
is increasing the amount that states are allowed to reserve for administrative
Allotment of Funds and Congressionally Directed Project Grants.
Another issue of interest is how federal funds are allocated among the states.
Capitalization grants for clean water SRFs are allotted according to a state-by-state
formula in the Clean Water Act. It is a complex formulation consisting basically of
two elements, state population and capital needs for wastewater projects. Because
the allocation formula has not been revised since 1987, yet needs and population
have changed, the issue of state-by-state distribution of federal funds is likely to be
an important topic when legislation is considered. In contrast, capitalization grants
for drinking water SRFs are allotted by EPA based on the proportional share of each
state’s needs identified in the most recent national drinking water needs survey, not
according to a statutory allotment formula. (For information, see CRS Report

RL31073, Allocation of Wastewater Treatment Assistance: Formula and Other
Changes, by Claudia Copeland.) Among the questions likely to be discussed are,
should a single formula apply to both programs? Should allocation follow from a
statutory or administrative formula? Do EPA’s needs surveys provide an accurate
basis for state-by-state distribution? If programs are expanded to include eligibility
for new activities, such as pollution prevention and watershed protection, how should
they be reflected in state-by-state allocations? Crafting an allotment formula has
been one of the most controversial issues debated during past reauthorizations of the
Clean Water Act. The dollars involved are significant, and considerations of
“winner” and “loser” states bear heavily on discussions of alternative formulations.
A related issue is whether a portion of federal water infrastructure funds will
continue to be allocated in the form of congressionally directed appropriations for
specified communities’ projects, which have become increasingly prominent and are
often referred to as earmarks. In recent years, congressional appropriators have
dedicated a significant portion of annual water infrastructure assistance as grants for
specific communities, both small and large. The federal share of costs under these
grants is 55%. For example, for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161), Congress appropriated $689
million for clean water SRF capitalization grants, $829 million for drinking water
SRF grants, and $177 million in earmarked grants for 282 listed projects.
Appropriations directed by Congress for identified projects enable legislators to assist
communities otherwise unable to fully qualify for state-administered programs, or
those seeking a grant rather than a loan that must be repaid. State officials that
administer the SRF programs oppose these types of grants because such
congressional actions deny states the ability to determine priority for project funding.
(For information, see CRS Report RL32201, Water Infrastructure Projects
Designated in EPA Appropriations: Trends and Policy Implications, by Claudia
Research on New Technologies
The basic technologies used by communities to meet wastewater and drinking
water needs have changed little for several decades, in part because utility officials
often favor using conventional, familiar systems and technologies. This is particularly
the case in the wastewater sector where regulatory requirements have been relatively
static for years. Although this has long been true in the drinking water sector as well,
the situation is changing as new regulations are requiring many public water systems
to apply new technologies.
EPA’s revised drinking water standard for arsenic has drawn particular attention
to the need for research on treatment technologies that are affordable and suitable for
small water systems. In the conference report for the Consolidated Appropriations
Act for FY2005 (P.L. 108-447), Congress expressed concern that many small
communities, especially rural communities in the West, will not be able to afford to
comply with the arsenic rule and that it could pose a large financial hardship on these
communities.50 Congress has provided funding specifically for research on cost-
effective arsenic removal technologies for small systems.

50 H.Rept. 108-792, to accompany H.R. 4818, p. 1567.

However, overall federal support for research and development (R&D) of new
drinking water and wastewater technologies is limited. While much of EPA’s
drinking water research is focused on health effects studies, the identification of
feasible treatment technologies is a central component of EPA’s drinking water
standard setting process, and technology research has received support. However,
EPA’s water research budget often has fallen short of its regulatory needs, and
consequently, competition for available funding has been considerable.51
According to the Water Infrastructure Network, technology R&D is supported
at the federal level mainly by programs of EPA’s Office of Research and
Development and EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program.
Also, Congress has directed that EPA provide appropriated funds to nonprofit
research foundations including the Water Environment Research Foundation ($3
million in FY2006 and $3.9 million in FY2005) and the American Water Works
Association Research Foundation ($1 million in FY2006 and $4.9 million in
FY2005). The ETV Program began in 1995 to verify the performance of innovative
technology developed by the private sector and to accelerate the entrance of new
technologies in all media. In the water and drinking water areas, technologies have
been verified for a number of packaged drinking water systems especially needed for
small community water supplies. Pilots also are underway to evaluate source water
protection technologies and urban wet weather flow control technologies. In its 2001
report, WIN recommended that Congress authorize $250 million annually for a new
Institute of Technology and Management Excellence to support the development and
use of innovative technologies that would reduce the cost of meeting drinking water
and clean water requirements and replacing water infrastructure.52
The CBO also has noted that one option to increase federal support for water
infrastructure would be increased federal spending on R&D that could reduce water
systems’ costs and improve efficiency, such as technical R&D into new pipe
materials, construction and maintenance methods, and treatment technologies.
Economic principles suggest that federal involvement may be appropriate to increase
cost-effectiveness when other entities, such as private firms and state governments
that may fund R&D for water systems, do not have adequate incentive to consider the
spillover benefits that would accrue from a national perspective as a result of research
investments. Increased federal support of technical R&D could take the form of
additional research projects managed by EPA, larger federal grants to private
organizations, or both.53
In the past, Congress has attempted to advance new and innovative technologies
in other ways, in addition to R&D activities. Beginning with the 1977 amendments
to the Clean Water Act, Congress authorized specific incentives for such
technologies, in particular by increasing the federal share under the construction grant
program for innovative and alternative technology projects that reuse or recycle

51 See, for example, the GAO report, Drinking Water Research: Better Planning Needed to
Link Needs and Resources, GAO/RCED-99-273, September 1999, 30 p.
52 Water Infrastructure Network, Recommendations for Clean and Safe Water in the 21st
Century, pp. 11-12.
53 CBO 2002, pp. 33-34.

wastewater and sludge, reduce costs, or save energy consumption. The act also
provided for 100% modification or replacement of innovative or alternative systems
in the event of technological failure or significantly increased operating costs, as a
safety measure to reduce the potential uncertainty of using risky or unproven
wastewater treatment technologies.
The federal funding bonus and the potential for full replacement if a wastewater
system failed were seen by states and cities as significant incentives for using
technologies other than conventional treatment systems. However, these incentives
were funded as set-asides from construction grants. These set-asides were not
universally popular among state officials at the time, and they were not extended
when the clean water SRF program was created. In 1989, EPA estimated that,
compared with conventional treatment processes, for every dollar invested in
designing and constructing an innovative project, 40 cents was saved over the life of
the facility. Many now believe, however, that under the clean water SRF program,
without the incentive of bonus funds or 100% replacement grants, few communities
are constructing projects that utilize unproven or unfamiliar technology.
The Safe Drinking Water Act has no such incentives, but regulatory pressures
and population growth are forcing both water and wastewater utilities to assess the
potential of alternative treatment technologies. In this regard, issues for congressional
consideration could include possible financial incentives or regulatory incentives
(such as allowing some additional compliance flexibility) for use of innovative
technology, as well as increased federal support for technology R&D.
Congressional and Administration Activity,
107th to 110th Congresses
Momentum in Congress to consider the issues discussed in this report has grown
since the 107th Congress, partly in response to urgings of stakeholder groups. During
this period, the Administration has promoted a number of steps to ensure that
investment needs are met in an efficient, timely, and equitable manner.
Congressional Activities. House and Senate committees held oversight
hearings on water infrastructure financing issues during the first session of the 107th
Congress, and in the second session, the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee approved H.R. 3930, a bill authorizing $20 billion in clean water SRF
assistance for five years. No committee report was filed. The Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee reported legislation authorizing $35 billion in total
funding over five years for the clean water and drinking water SRF programs (S.
1961, S.Rept. 107-228). No further action occurred on either bill, in large part due
to controversies over provisions in both bills to apply requirements of the Davis-
Bacon Act to SRF-funded water infrastructure projects (discussed above) and also
over CWA grant allocation formulas in the two measures.
Attention to these issues resumed in the 108th Congress. First, in July 2003, the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment approved H.R. 1560, legislation similar to H.R. 3930, the bill approved
by that committee in 2002. H.R. 1560 would have authorized $20 billion for the
clean water SRF program for FY2004-FY2008. It included several provisions

intended to benefit economically disadvantaged and small communities, such as
allowing extended loan repayments (30 years, rather than 20) and additional
subsidies, including principal forgiveness and negative interest loans, for
communities that meet a state’s affordability criteria. It also included provisions to
require communities to plan for capital replacement needs and to develop and
implement an asset management plan for the repair and maintenance of infrastructure
that is being financed. The Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee
continued to examine infrastructure issues and, in April 2004, held a hearing on
aging water supply infrastructure.54
In October 2004, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
reported S. 2550 (S.Rept. 108-386), authorizing $41.25 billion over five years,
including $20 billion for the clean water SRF program and $15 billion for the
drinking water SRF program. The bill included a new formula for state-by-state
allocation of clean water SRF grants, and expansion of the types of projects and
activities eligible for clean water SRF grants. It would have directed states to reserve
a portion of their annual clean water and drinking water SRF capitalization grants for
making grants to eligible communities, and further would have required EPA to
establish a grant program to help small water systems comply with drinking water
regulations. (For discussion, see CRS Report RL32503, Water Infrastructure
Financing Legislation: Comparison of S. 2550 and H.R. 1560, by Claudia Copeland
and Mary Tiemann.) No further action occurred on either bill. Once again, the issue
of the applicability of the prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act to
SRF-funded projects affected consideration of the legislation, but criticism also
included objection by some states to funding allocation formulas in the bills and
opposition by the Administration to funding levels.
During the 109th Congress, the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee reported a water infrastructure financing bill, S. 1400 (S. Rept 109-186).
Similar to S. 2550 in the 108th Congress, this bill would have extended both SRF
programs (authorizing $20 billion over five years for the clean water SRF program
and $15 billion drinking water SRF). It would have revised and updated the CWA
formula for state-by-state allocation of SRF monies and would have specified that the
prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act would apply to all projects
financed from an SRF. It also would have directed the EPA to establish grant
programs for small or economically disadvantaged communities for critical drinking
water and water quality projects; authorized loans to small systems for
preconstruction, short-term, and small-project costs; and directed the EPA to
establish a demonstration program to promote new technologies and approaches to
water quality and water supply management. No further action occurred on this bill.
Water infrastructure financing also received consideration in the 110th Congress,
but, again, no legislation was enacted.55 In March 2007, the House passed H.R. 720,

54 U.S. House, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water
Resources and the Environment, Aging Water Supply Infrastructure, Hearing, 108thnd
Congress, 2 session, April 28, 2004 (108-63), p. 78.
55 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33800, Water Quality Issues in the 110th

the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007. It was substantially similar to legislation
that the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Water Resources and
Environment Subcommittee approved in the 108th Congress (H.R. 1560, described
above). It would have authorized $14 billion for the clean water SRF program for
FY2008-FY2011. It included several provisions intended to benefit economically
disadvantaged and small communities, such as allowing extended loan repayments
(30 years, rather than 20) and additional subsidies (e.g., principal forgiveness and
negative interest loans) for communities that meet a state’s affordability criteria. H.R.
720 included provisions to require communities to plan for capital replacement needs
and to develop and implement an asset management plan for the repair and
maintenance of infrastructure that is being financed.
In September 2008, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
approved S. 3617 (S.Rept. 110-509), the Water Infrastructure Financing Act, similar
to the measure that the committee approved in the 109th Congress (S. 1400). S. 3500
would have authorized $20 billion for grants to capitalize the Clean Water Act SRF
program and $15 billion for Safe Drinking Water Act SRF capitalization grants
through FY2012. The bill would have expanded eligibility for clean water SRF
assistance, including, for example, projects that implement stormwater management,
water conservation or efficiency projects, and water and wastewater reuse and
recycling projects. S. 3500 included a number of provisions to make the clean water
and drinking water SRF programs more parallel, such as allowing SRF assistance to
be used by private as well as public wastewater treatment systems. It also included
several provisions to benefit small or economically disadvantaged communities, such
as through new technical assistance and more generous loan terms.
Administration Activities. Throughout this period, the Bush Administration
has addressed water infrastructure in a number of general ways, but has not offered
legislative proposals of its own. The Administration opposed the SRF authorization
levels proposed in bills in recent Congresses, saying that those levels exceed the
Administration’s targets for federal investment in water infrastructure and do not
support the President’s priorities of defense and homeland security. The debate was
joined in the presentation of the President’s annual budget request, where the
Administration identified a federal capitalization target of $6.8 billion for the clean
water SRF program for 2004 through 2011, supported by annual appropriations of
$730 million. The Administration also said that it supports annual appropriations of
$850 million for the drinking water SRF program through FY2018.56 That amount
of total funding, EPA officials said, combined with state matching, loan repayments,
and other resources, would enable the clean water SRF to eventually revolve at $3.4

55 (...continued)
Congress: Oversight and Implementation, by Claudia Copeland, and CRS Report RL34201,
Safe Drinking Water Act: Selected Regulatory and Legislative Issues, by Mary Tiemann.
56 In FY2007, the President requested $688 million for clean water SRF capitalization grants
and $842 million for drinking water SRF grants; Congress appropriated $1.1 billion and
$838 million, respectively. In FY2008, the President’s budget requested $688 million for
clean water SRF grants and $843 million for drinking water SRF grants; Congress
appropriated $689 million and $829 million for the two programs, respectively. For
additional information, see CRS Report 96-647, Water Infrastructure Financing: History
of EPA Appropriations, by Claudia Copeland.

billion annually and the drinking water SRF to revolve at $1.2 billion annually and
be self-sustaining in the long run.57
The Bush Administration argued that funding needs are not solely the
responsibility of the federal government, and that actions on the part of local
governments are also required to help close the gap. Stakeholder groups concur, at
least to the extent of agreeing that the problem is not solely the responsibility of any
single level of government or entity, and that all must act to find solutions. But many
stakeholders have argued that the level of federal investment endorsed by the
Administration is insufficient to maintain investment levels in water infrastructure
that are needed to achieve the nation’s goals for safe and healthy water.
While saying that federal and state funding can help water utilities meet future
needs, EPA’s principal water infrastructure initiative has been to support other types
of responses to these issues. In particular, since 2003 EPA has promoted strategies
that it terms the Four Pillars of Sustainable Infrastructure.58 The Four Pillars are:
!Better Management. EPA believes that better management practices
like asset management, environmental management systems,
consolidation, and public-private partnerships can offer significant
savings for water utilities. Asset management is an inventory-based
approach to planning, based on condition and risk, to assess future
capital and operating needs. Regionalization or consolidation can in
some cases enable utilities to achieve savings (and compliance) by
combining physical and institutional assets and/or managerial and
technical support.
!Full-Cost Pricing. Ensuring that sufficient revenues are in place to
support the costs of doing business is key to constructing, operating,
and maintaining infrastructure and can encourage efficient water use.
!Efficient Water Use. The need for costly infrastructure can be
reduced by better management of water use. Options include
metering, water reuse, water-saving appliances, water-saving
landscaping techniques, and public education.
!Watershed Approaches to Protection. This pillar centers on the
concept that, in addressing infrastructure needs for water supply and
water quality, it is important to look more broadly at water resources
in a coordinated way, to ensure that actions achieve the greatest
benefit on a watershed-wide basis.

57 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, FY2006 Justification of Appropriations, Estimates
for the Committee on Appropriations, February 2005, p. STAG-68; FY2004 Justification of
Appropriations, February 2003, p. SA-37.
58 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sustainable Water Infrastructure for the 21st
Century. See [http://www.epa.gov/waterinfrastructure/].

EPA has pursued a Sustainable Infrastructure Leadership Initiative in
partnership with water utilities to promote the Four Pillars. The purpose of the
initiative is to identify new and better ways of doing business in the water and
wastewater industries and promote them widely, and thus ensure sustainability of
water systems. For example, EPA has worked to encourage utility rate structures that
lead to full cost pricing and will support water metering and other conservation
measures. EPA also encourages consumers to use water-efficient products (e.g.,
residential bathroom products), with the intent of reducing national water and
wastewater infrastructure needs by reducing projected water demand and wastewater
flow, thus allowing deferral or downsizing of capital projects.
The preceding discussion identifies a number of issues that Congress, the
Administration, and stakeholders continue to debate regarding water infrastructure
needs and concerns. Many of the issues already are the subject of advocates’
recommendations and policy positions. Only recently, however, have some begun
to address the long term challenge of actually paying for the larger financial
commitment that many of them seek and, in particular, of identifying alternatives to
finance a larger, sustained federal role. Some may wish to fund a larger amount of
federal spending for water infrastructure entirely out of general revenues in the U.S.
Treasury, but that faces substantial hurdles and competition with many other
government priorities. Thus, several questions arise: if a substantial financing gap
exists that cannot be met by improved efficiencies or local revenue enhancement, and
if a larger federal financial role is determined to be appropriate, where would that
money come from? Are there alternative revenue sources that could be identified to
support increased federal involvement?
Some analytic work has already been done on these questions, including
research by academics and interest groups.59 EPA has contributed analysis in various
ways, including a study requested by Congress in the mid-1990s that examined
financial mechanisms to enhance the capability of governments to fund mandated
environmental goals.60 In addition, the EPA’s Environmental Finance Advisory
Board has developed various publications, including A Guidebook of Financial
Tools, which provides a comprehensive review of financing mechanisms, and related
tools that may help communities pay for environmental projects and lower
compliance costs.61
Environmental advocates generally are less engaged in debates about water
infrastructure than groups representing states, cities, and those involved in

59 For example, see Clean Water Council, America’s Environmental Infrastructure: A Water
and Wastewater Investment Study, 1990, 46 p.
60 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Alternative Funding Study: Water Quality Fees
and Debt Financing Issues, Final Report to Congress, June 1996, 99 p.
61 Environmental Financial Advisory Board and Environmental Finance Center Network,
A Guidebook of Financial Tools: Paying for Sustainable Environmental Systems, April 1999
revision. This and other publications by the Environmental Finance Advisory Board are
available online at [http://www.epa.gov/efinpage/].

constructing facilities. However, some now argue that increased federal investment
is needed to fix water quality problems caused by discharges of untreated and
inadequately treated sewage and that “the federal government should greatly increase
its contribution to water infrastructure needs through a clean water trust fund,” which
they call the best long-term source of sewage treatment funding.62
Among the options under discussion are various types of water-related fees that
could be dedicated to water infrastructure and other water quality projects, including
one based on water withdrawals or use, permit fees, effluent fees, chemical feedstock
fees, and environmentally “green” product fees. Each such option has economic and
equity impacts, spillover effects, and questions about administration that need
thorough assessment. In June 2005, a House Transportation and Infrastructure
subcommittee held hearings on alternative means to fund water infrastructure
projects in the future. At one hearing, witnesses discussed creating a national clean
water trust fund that would conceptually be similar to trust funds that exist for
highway and aviation projects. Witnesses and subcommittee members discussed
difficulties in identifying potential revenue sources for such a trust fund that would
be deemed fair and equitable. A second hearing addressed other financing options,
such as expanded use of tax-exempt private activity bonds, and more efficient
management techniques, such as asset management programs and sustainable
infrastructure initiatives. In the 109th Congress, legislation was introduced to
establish a $7.5 billion federal trust fund for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
This bill, H.R. 4560, contemplated a system of user fees to create the fund, but the
source of revenue was not specified. No further action occurred on this bill, and
finding consensus on the revenues to support such a large spending increase is a
challenge that has eluded proponents so far.
Beyond discussion of trust funds or similar mechanisms, increased
public/private partnerships are advocated by some, and other options also may merit
exploration. As difficult as it may be for policymakers to resolve the many
infrastructure financing issues, such as those discussed in this report, resolving how
to pay for water infrastructure is no less a challenge.

62 Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Integrity Project, Swimming in
Sewage, February 2004, pp. 57-58.