Planning for Sustainability-Handbook for Water Utilities
Planning for Sustainability-Handbook for Water Utilities
In September 2010, EPA released the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Infrastructure Sustainability Policy which described EPA’s overall vision and priorities for ensuring the long term sustainability of water infrastructure and communities throughout the nation. The following handbook for water utilities is an EPA effort to focus on the project development phase to create cost-effective, resource efficient, community-specific projects satisfying all stakeholders. This guide is written with a focus on long term solutions which incorporate planning for sustainability considerations. Utility benefits include minimizing costs, maximizing results of investments, improving our analysis of alternatives, engendering greater community support, and ensuring successful financial strategies. The handbook should be used for strategic planning, capital planning, system-wide planning for regulatory requirements, specific infrastructure project planning, and long-range integrated water resource planning. You can expect typical processes (identifying goals, setting objectives, assessing alternatives, and developing financial strategies) in conjunction with an ongoing asset management program. Read on for details and examples to aid in planning for sustainability.
Memo Making Business Cases Not Mandatory
Memo Making Business Cases Not Mandatory
A memo to the CWSRF Chiefs to change to the CWSRF SPR Guidance in 2017, to inform you of a change to the 2012 document that states will no longer be required to establish a “business case” for GPR projects. Originally states were encouraged to exercise due diligence through this requirement; now outdated, states can use the guidance document and their best judgement upon the project eligibility of the GPR provision.
Statement of Policy (Sustainability Policy)
Statement of Policy (Sustainability Policy)
This document provides a Statement of Policy to EPA Regions, States and the general public on how EPA intends to exercise its discretion regarding sustainability. It is sectioned into the following: promoting planning processes that support sustainability, encouraging community sustainability, promoting sustainable water and wastewater systems, targeting SRF assistance, and measuring success. Some highlights include: evaluating barriers to access funding for small and disadvantaged communities, the EPA promising to create a “Best Practices” guide including case studies and lessons learned- from the state pilots and other state SRF programs, and working with industry to develop a methodology to help utilities benchmark their performance based on the attributes and associated best practices and metrics.
Maryland EPA Sustainable Communities Report
Maryland EPA Sustainable Communities Pilot Project Report
Maryland has made efforts to revise its project priority system (how it ranks and then prioritizes projects eligible for CWSRF). It aligns with several goals and actions being advanced at the national level, including those of the HUD‐DOT‐EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities. CWSRF assistance is now based on these values: public health and water quality; smart growth and sustainability; targeting investments to key watersheds; and cost‐effectiveness. MDE is emphasizing support of cost‐effective infrastructure investments through its revised Integrated Project Priority System (IPSS). Applicants’ project area must be withing a Priority Funding Area (PFA), areas in which state and local governments want to encourage and support economic development and new growth, and consistent with the County Water and Sewerage Plan. This project report includes considerations such as encouraging updating existing infrastructure, improving decentralized system management, and improving coordinated -and long term- infrastructure planning.
New York EPA SRF Sustainability Report
New York EPA SRF Sustainbaility Pilot Project Report
In 2008, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) estimates the repairing replacing and updating of New York’s wastewater infrastructure to be $36.2 billion over the next two decades. After receiving ARRA funding, the states’ CWC partnership has since raised awareness surrounding New York wastewater infrastructure. A stakeholder engagement advisory team recommends providing incentives for more sustainable projects, such as technical assistance, training, and pre-planning grants. The following report offers a review of the current state of New York’s SRF in respect to the state and the nation’s increased focus on energy efficiency, smart growth, and asset management whilst maintaining water quality. Overall, recommendations surround improving outreach and technical assistance, focusing on wastewater regionalization (without sprawl across local governments), and fairness of infrastructure funding across municipalities. For New York CWSRF eligibility, the Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Act of 2010 is a vehicle for addressing the concerts brought in this report.
California Sustainability Plan for CWSRF
California Sustainability Plan for CWSRF
This report focuses primarily on ways in which the California CWSRF program -despite currently being able to efficiently process applications for funding- might attract more applicants with sustainable projects “…by better coordination with existing statewide sustainability initiatives, strategic outreach efforts, and incentives”. The following major ongoing initiatives in California are proposed to have room for growth in sustainability: The California Strategic Growth Council, California State Planning Priorities, California Water Plan, California Regional Blueprints and Sustainable Communities Strategies, and Integration of CWSRF Program With State Planning Activities. These are followed with suggestions for incorporating sustainable practices across California CWSRF applicants (for example, supporting existing communities by focusing on repairs and upgrades to existing infrastructure). The current state of the given 11 sustainability goals are then summarized, alongside implementation opportunities and examples of policies and best practices from other states. After analysis, rather than increasing requirements to discourage less-sustainable applicants from applying, the DFA plans to reduce administrative hurdles, reaching out to sustainably-minded communities to increase their participation in CWSRF opportunities for funding.
Utilization of Additional Subsidization Report
Utilization of Additional Subsidization Report
A report to Congress, on the utilization of additional subsidization to ARRA SRF programs year 2010. Find data summarized and analyzed by median household income, the populations served by loans receiving additional subsidization, and the dispersion of these loans by type. The following conclusions come from each state given the flexibility to fund projects based on the public health needs of their state. Transmissions and Distribution was the category with the most projects receiving additional subsidization. Traditionally, 86% of finances have gone to “construction” which includes treatment, transmission & distribution, storage, and source categories. Most FY 2010 loans and additional subsidization recipients fell under the 51-100% range of community Median Household Income (MHI) in respect to state MHI. This means that 75% of loans were made to communities below or equal to the their state MHI. States are thus prioritizing additional subsidization consistent with congressional direction. The majority (58%) of CWSRF loans with additional subsidization served less than 10,000 people. We infer smaller populations more likely to lack the capabilities of larger assistance recipients. Compare Drinking water with Clean Water subsidies and appropriation amounts, for year 2010. In addition to summary analysis, all recipients, communities, population served, and type of assistance are listed.
Environmental Benefits Report of GPR Projects
Environmental Benefits Report of GPR Projects
Environmentally innovative projects under the ARRA GPR provision have not previously been included in the EPA’s previous reports. This was due to significant project variances within these categories, which could not objectively be measured. This summary report provides an overview of the data collection efforts, assumptions and methodologies, research limitations, and results found in the comprehensive report. Subcategories under the three categories for sustainable improvement have been made, spread to project managers, and used to facilitate quantifiable environmental benefit analysis. On average, each energy efficiency project is estimated to save 4 million gallons of water, water efficiency projects save over $1 million per year, and each green infrastructure project to reduce stormwater runoff by 22 million gallons. Projects vary vastly by size and type, and are hard to draw generalizations or absolute conclusions from, but are vaguely useful to determine benefits of work done and facilitate future funding priorities.
GPR Crosswalk Table
GPR Crosswalk Table
Under the GPR topics: Green infrastructure, Energy efficiency, Water efficiency, and Environmentally innovative, follow a table visual to determine eligibility. The following are included: whether a business case is required, what is “categorically eligible” and CWSRF GPR Ineligible examples. Section down in columns between 212, 319, and 320 plans of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Q+A on GPR and Additional Subsidy Requirements for SRF
Q+A on GPR and Additional Subsidy Requirements for SRF
A memorandum on the additional subsidization of Green Project Reserve provisions and the requirements for GPR in SRF programs, answers to questions previously posed for both the CWSRF and DWSRF programs are addressed. Wondering about the time frame for meeting additional subsidy requirements? Wonder if IUP must indicate which projects will receive additional subsidy, or whether the subsidy requirement for a project can be split between fiscal years? What documentation is required for proof of meeting additional subsidy expectations? Rather, must funding for GPR projects come directly from the capitalization grant? Read for questions answered, to date 2013.
