Event ID:
943837
Event Started:
7/16/2008 12:47:59 PM ET
Please standby for realtime caption text.
Good Day.And welcome to this afternoon's Iowa's sponsored by the EPA Watershed Academy and OWOW. The title of today's webcast is Clean Water State Revolving Fund. I am an intern working on OWOW's communication team. Allow me to cover a few housekeeping details. These are important as participation in the seminar is filled to capacity. The materials have been reviewed by EPA staff for technical accuracy. However, these speakers organizations are their own and do not reflect those of BP a pig in a commercial enterprise, product, or anything is mentioned it does not mean that EPA enforces them. Participants are dissipating into ways, about happen if you are participating by phone, and for those of you participating by phone be required that you mute your phone during the seminar. We have several question and answer breaks in which you can take your phone all of mute and ask questions. We have a about a purchase patient today both online and on the phone. we have a lot of participation.
The other half is participating by streaming when you registered you were linked to this web address. This website also has additional information including an abstract of today's registration and did -- button, these links are archived. Also on the left-hand side is the on-line feedback form. We hope you'll all filled out at the end of the seminar.
Please join us on slide one of today's presentation. By now you should have clicked on the GoTo seminar button and you will be on slide one. Note the navigation buttons at the top of the page. Allow me to quickly run through some of these know. To submit questions during the seminar click the question showing a question mark, you don't have to wait to submit a question. In fact, we encourage you to submit them in advance. If you experienced technical difficulties with the artist's dream anytime you may use the question mark button to alert us. Please include a telephone number and a technician will help you. If you would like to applique -- use the closed-captioned feature, click the CC button, you must have IE 5.5 or higher. The speakers will know each -- the speakers will announce each slide when the advance.
Please monitor your noise levels during the question and answer time. At this time, please, mute your phone. Everybody is on so I think we are ready to proceed.
Please move to slide number to.
At some point, we face the question, how do we pay for this? Most realize there are not enough grant funds. The Clean Water state revolving fund is in large flexible and untapped source of funding. It provides over $5 billion each year for traditional storm water and waste-water projects as well as $200 million for nonpoint source projects such as land conservation, an agricultural best management practices and cleanup of contaminated sites. Join us to hear more about how you can access the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to protect your watershed.
Let's meet our speakers. Our first speaker is Stephanie VonFeck and an environmental protection specialist and got USEPA revolving fund branch. She focuses on environmental quality for the office of the waste water management did she co-authored the papers, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which explores new ways the program can express water quality challenges and the United States. She has spent her career working at the local and federal level me helping states meet their challenges.
Are second speaker is Patti Cale-Finnegan and she works for the Iowa DNR. They recently revamped their SRF program to address problems such as manure management, in addition to supporting funding for Drinkwater facilities. Prior to that, she worked for the Iowa Association of municipal utilities and telecommunications services. Not that I have introduced our speakers, let's get started. Stephanie, take it away.
Thank you, for that kind introduction. As Macon said the Clean Water state revolving fund is a very powerful financing tool and everyone who is in a vault and watershed protection should know of it and the opportunities available. I hope after this web cast it will join your other tools for watershed protection and result in more projects being implemented to prevent and a big water pollution.
On slide it two he will see the main messages. First, funding is available for a surprisingly wide range of watershed projects. The loans provide a substantial subsidy and there is a you both for not for profit watershed groups they can access funding, influence funding decisions, as well as help states fund important projects.
If you go to the next slide, the agenda for today has three parts. First we would like to give a short introduction to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund so that we are on the same page. Part two will go through some ideas and innovations from the paper, tapping the untapped potential of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. And part three will end with a discussion of Iowa's program and how they reorganized their program.
On slide five you will see a graphic depicting the Clean Water State Revolving Fund which are essentially water quality banks there is one in each state as well as Puerto Rico. In the upper left-hand corner you will see that the seed money comes from the Environmental Protection Agency as well as state governments. These are used in low interest loans primarily for reusable waste-water treatment, nonpoint source projects and estuaries. As you can see in the right towards the middle, loans are prepaid and they are held at the state level to be loaned again and again for water quality projects. In the lower left-hand area Chiusi that some states issue bonds and replace them through the program and this allows them to double, triple, or quadruple the money available for projects when demand exceeds the base finance available for the program.
On slide six we provide some basic statistics on how big the program is and what it can do. Communities of all sizes have benefited from CWSRF funding all over the program. All states fund waste water projects and 40 state fund gunpoint Swiss projects. The total in 2007 was $5.3 billion. The majority of those funds have gone for waste water collection and treatment products to the tune of 5.12 billion a total of almost 60 billion over the life of the program. Nonpoint source projects had $2.6 billion over the life of the program.
Estuary protection projects are not identified because they eat their identifying Waste Water or nonpoint source projects. In the next section we will highlight some additional projects that are having to do with estuary of 30.
On site seven we explain who can receive assistance. However, this includes communities, utilities, individuals, citizens groups, nonprofit organizations and businesses. They have three basic funding authorities on slide seven.
Section 212, Section 319, and Section 320 they encompass a very broad array of watershed projects Section 212, which is only a page long, it's weird this reside and it also addresses publicly owned storm water and we are looking at funding principle land fills with bleaching collection systems under this authority. The Section 319 allows us to find the implementation of nonpoint source management plans. These are plants developed and approved by EPA in every state as well as Puerto Rico.
Section 320 is the broadest funding available to the CWSRF, under this authority they can develop and implement the National plans developed for the 28 National estuary programs. These are not limited to Section 212 or nonpoint source. They encompass both and anything else the plan identifies as necessary for protection of the National estuaries.
On slide nine we talk about how the CWSRF provides assistance. The majority of the assistance has been distributed in the form of loans so that is what I will address in this section. They are provided to both public and private entities. Interest rates range from zero to market rate interest. And they are generally paid over 20 years.
On slide ten you will see that there must be a dedicated source of payment. The important thing to remember is that the payments to not have to come from the project itself. Indeed, state watershed groups have been very creative in identifying alternative sources of repayment for nonpoint source projects that don't have an easily identified source. For instance nature organization accuses a part of their program to retire a debt from the SRF program that they had used to conserve land. We will see more examples of this later.
All prepayment must return to the SRF program, including principal and interest. Repayment start one year after the interest is completed. This is an additional subsidy because they may be a period of several years where prepayments are not required. This program does not require a Project Match. And, indeed, there are no national level funding limits for projects. Some states have established funding limits to enable them to spread the resources -- projects across this state, however, the resources are available in many states to fund 100% of the projects that come in for funding.
Will the SRF be available in the future?
Yes. It is revolving it is maturing over 25 years and prepayments from earlier bonds represent 25% of the fund assets and that is growing.
Let's talk about the subsidy provided by the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. In 2007, if you compared the interest rate identified by the blue line on slide 12, that is the interest rate, compared that to the green line which is the market rate. That is the Bond buyer, 20 year general obligation index. But many communities as well as nonpoint source projects, with not receive such a low rate. So the subsidy is probably higher than this. But it tracks about half of will be considered a base market rate. In 2007, a community would save 80% by financing its project with the typical 20 year bond from the SRF at a 2.1% interest rate instead of using commercial financing at an average rate of 4.3%.
Slide 13. What we are trying to show here is the equivalent of Receiving and low interest clean water SRF long. If you look at a market rate of five per cent which we are approaching now and a 2% SRF phone for a million-dollar project that is equivalent to a 240,000 grant and a 760,000 telephone at the market rate.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund is a state-run program and the states and Puerto Rico to most of the on the ground to work. They select the priorities and select projects. They develop annual intended use plans that inform the public as well as EPA how the funds are going to be used. They provide financing to each individual project and oversee the project and collect the repayments. EPA provides oversight and promotes efficient and effective use of these funds.
That is a very brief introduction to the SP one. At this point on slide 15 we are available for questions.
Thank you, Stephanie. We will pause here briefly to take some questions. We will begin with those submitted on-line. Just a reminder you can submit questions on line by clicking on the question mark button at the top of the slides page.
We have a question from Kelly in D.C., can you give some examples about how far worse have come up with prepayment money from non source projects -- how borrowers came up with repayment money.
They sometimes generate income to repay the loans. Sometimes the farmer's income is used to repay the loan or to rehabilitate a failing septic tank whereby the home owners use that to repay the loan. In other examples, some of which I will get into later, I don't want to cover them prematurely, you may have a utility District feet, taxes, you might look to sponsorship by an economic development authority or economic development district because many of these might have a dual purpose. What we are encouraging is for folks not just to focus on the project itself but the broader context in which the project is taking place in the watershed, where are your potential sponsors, all the way from the local to the state level. With private organizations, businesses, and so on. I will get into a couple of innovative ideas in the next section.
Car next question is from Patti in Virginia, she asks, what are some typical types of non source practices funded with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund?
It is a very broad a way of projects actually. They range from crop, an agricultural BMPs, such as direct feed to reduce sediment runoff, or renew our containment and calibrated spreaders or repairing or upgrading failing septic tanks. Streambank restoration, title or an easement of land to buffer surface water, to protect drinking water sources. Revitalization, if you basically think of any of the Capitol nonpoint source projects that are probably implementing a plan. You have to go back to your state plan to see what might be eligible. We will go to a number of these projects later in the presentation and give examples on how the SRF has been used. The examples we provide are simply the tip of the iceberg they do not encompass everything that can be done.
Thank you.
Our next question is from Sally in Wyoming, she would like to know, why hasn't the Clean Water State Revolving Fund been used more for nonpoint source projects?
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund really broke ground when it was established. And it moved from deconstructions grants program which only funded waste water into primarily a low interest loan program that funds all of the different projects that I mentioned, waste water, storm water, nonpoint source and estuaries. At first there was a requirement that wastewater treatment plant be addressed and that was satisfied early in the program. Soon after that the state started exploring on what could be done under this new area of nonpoint source and in 1996 the states and EPA negotiated a funding framework that set the stage for how not wait source projects could be queued and funded in thought SRF program. Since then we have seen a steady increase in the amount of money that they dedicate to these projects. , and we will talk about that later on and the Web cast. It is an evolution. It started out with small steps and it has grown. You have to remember that the SRF is funding a wide range of water quality projects. The most expensive ones are the waste-water treatment projects as well as the sea -- as well as CSO projects. So we look at the wide array of projects and try to establish what their projects are. This is done in state specific nonpoint source projects or other programs. So the SRF is definitely not the sole actor. More and more states are using it when appropriate when they have loans for nonpoint source projects and I think we will continue to see an evolution be like I said earlier, 40 of the 50 programs moved in this direction because it makes sense for them.
Thank you our next question is from Steve in New Mexico, he would like to know, how can I find out about my state's program?
That is very easy, we have a website here at EPA that is provided as a link to this website. Just in case that is not easily accessible, it is www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance, and on their you will click on the SRF and find the state contacts. You want to contact those folks and find out about their program and what they are planning to fund and what they have a history of the funding and approach them with the projects that you have in mind. They are the primary decision makers on these loans.
We have a question from Stephanie in Maryland, can a state like a River Basin Commission use a Clean Water SRF for source water protection efforts or other initiatives?
That is a very specific question, let me read that. Okay, it went away. Let's see, from what I remember, yes, the SRF can make loans to interstate agencies that meet the definition in the Clean Water Act. If you are further interested in this, please contact me after the Web cast. But that is an eligible loan recipients. And Of course, once you have the eligibility established you look at the type of project. You are talking about source water protection activities. Generally these overlap very closely with nonpoint source projects identified in a state's planned to the extent that that is true, then I think you have something worth pursuing. Please contact me after the Web cast and I can provide more information.
Our next question is from Nancy and Idaho, are Clean Water SRF given to private individuals for failing septic systems?
Yes. Private individuals can and to receive loans from Clean Water SRF across the country to up date their failing septic systems. Some states have limitations in their state authorizing legislation or their state constitution that limit federal -- public funding for private entities. Some have overcome that by working through the years which is an innovation that I will be talking about in the next section -- they have been working intermediaries through.
We have a question from Christine in California, how to overcome problems with SRF MPF, and dedicated repayment?
I can think up a number of issues associated with land acquisition that would be up to the state to really figure out how they are going to handle it. One is, how is the land going to be managed after its acquired? The state would probably want to think along the lines of a perpetual housekeeper, if you will. This is very useful if a Parks Department gets involved in overseeing and maintaining the land that has been purchased for water quality purposes. A number of the states that did that, they have put in place deke restrictions to make sure that the land is managed in a way that protect water quality. One is you can't mow the poison ivy because they want it research in the most natural states possible. Perhaps we can explore more offline. The applicants ability to demonstrate a source of repayment. It is not easy and I am not here to say that it is. But when you have a project in mind looking at it in a strategic management type of play where you are looking in the context in which the project takes place and for the revenue sources are it is helpful. A lot of states like to see particularly the land conservation projects that represent the investment of the number of different entities, businesses, and conservation organizations, private grant funding organizations and so on.
Thank you. It looks like we have time from a question from the phone lines. At this time if anyone would like to ask a question over the phone, please, unmute yourself and give us your name and organization. Are there any questions?
No response.
Okay if there are no questions at this time we will be moving on to the next section of the presentation which is going to be on a slide 17, Stephanie, take it away.
Thank you for all of the good questions.
After 20 years of success we were wondering what more we could do to address water quality and how we could augment the system provided by the Clean Water SRF.
If you move to the next slide, slide 18, we began working with our state partners through the work group to get their recommendations on the challenges facing them and the types of projects approaching them for funding. They made recommendations and as a result we developed a draft white paper titled Clean Water State Revolving Fund: tapping the untapped potential. We want to raise the tide by providing more assistance through funding in the patient and we want to address persistent and emerging quality issues. In the paper we work with the existing authority with and the Clean Water SRF program. We ask Congress for no additional authority nor is there any discussion for additional federal funding for the program. We want to fully utilize what is already provided in the program to raise the tide and direct the money and the other assistance to the most useful water quality projects.
The draft is out for comment and I have the e-mail addresses of all of the folks who registered to the Web cast. I will send you a copy for your comments. What we're looking for you is ideas, what did we miss? Sent me the examples are not comprehensive, they represent longstanding funding practices as well as an annualized and innovative ideas that are authorized. They are eligible but we know that we have not captured it all. We are looking for ideas from you, examples of how you will or have already used the Clean Water SRF program.
If you turn to slide 19 the sections of our financial innovations, Program eligibility is an effective planning and our reach. During this web cast we can all be covered the first two sections. I will go light on the finance section and encourage you to read the paper. There is so much in there already and we are encouraging you to think creatively and help us proposed new ideas.
Let's move into financial innovations, the SRF is authorized to provide six types of financial assistance and most of it has been provided in the terms of low interest loans, and we will also buy or refinance local debt. The SRF guarantees or insurance local debt and provide security for SRF revenue and allows the states to actually issue bonds. We can provide guarantees for loans issued by some state revolving fund as well as an interest. I want to highlight guarantees here because he won't get into it further. Guarantees are an insurance for local debt. They are ways to provide enhanced credit so that communities who enter the market with bonds receive a better interest rate. This is one way of providing an equal subsidy to communities without having to dedicate liquid SRF resources. This has not been explored to date but we see this as a very powerful financing innovations that could be used in conjunction with communities and particularly the utilities. That is all I was a about that for the moment given the audience is watershed groups and I think this will resonate more.
Again, I want to highlight that the ideas in the paper are intended to raised the tide and raise the amount of assistance so that there is more assistance to spread among more projects.
If you will move to slide 21 we will start with the first of three ideas we will put to you today. One is loans to an intermediary. This is a situation where a local government or watershed group takes its loan from the state's SRF program and service as an intermediary and passes that along to one or more of the watershed protection projects. They can decide when they defied that SRF blown up whether it will be and the form of loans or grants. Regardless, the intermediary is there to repaid the loan to the state and this has been brought to the already too fond septic tank upgrades and agricultural best management practices.
Another example is partnering with a bank. And this is a very simple idea where the SRF places monies into a CD at a low interest rate and the bank passes on the difference between what they would have paid them, the market rate and the low interest rate paid and they pass that on to eligible projects. This is generally again septic tanks and agricultural BMPs. This works well, the community is comparable with their local bank. It has been a very good way to deliver funding to the needed projects.
On slide 22 you will see a diagram on how Massachusetts structured their septic tank program. They provided a 0% loan to communities as capital for a local septic tank repair of loan program. The community makes low interest loans to homeowners and each of them repays the loan to the community. Those proceeds are then used by the committee thank you repaint the SRF loan. And this situation the phone fees can cover Community and its expenses -- the loan fees can cover community expenses. This shows how the watershed groups serving as an intermediary right not only implement the watershed protection projects that you have in mind but also served as a business opportunity, if you will. I hesitate to call it that because you're basically providing a service to the community. But it would be a very powerful " to move into.
Slide 23 includes a map of state that have used a conduit for financing. Loans through intermediaries and banks. This allows states with limited staff to get funding to important projects. But projects that are small and very numerous. Many states have limited staff to administer such a program so this does help the SRF get the funding to the small but needed projects.
On slide 24 we have the sponsorship and this came out of Ohio which has been a hotbed of innovation. And what they do right there is they identified the water quality priorities, what do they want to find cracks and they set themselves to how to figure out how to provide the funding for that project. That is a good question to ask because it resulted in a lot of useful innovation from Ohio.
In this situation they were tackling the problem that somebody asked about, where is the repayment source for some of these Section 319 source projects? And they decided to pare that with waste-water treatment projects. The utility essentially sponsors a nonpoint source project in exchange for a parable interest rate loan from the SRF program. This is being done in Ohio, Oregon, Indiana, South Dakota, and a few others. The nonpoint source project constructs the land to preserve water quality and the community repays the interest on the entire SRF loan.
This is an example of how the projects, the nonpoint source projects themselves do not necessarily need to be the source of the repayment period.
If we move to slide 25, we have a diagram on how this works. The community and the non point source partner enter into an agreement and the SRF provides funding for both projects, they provide for both the waste water treatment plant improvement and the watershed projects, the nonpoint source projects. Often these are purchased land easement type projects. In step three the Community moves the share of funding associated with the nonpoint source projects over to that project. They go ahead and complete their own wastewater project and the community repaints the SRF loan. -- the community repays the SRF loan. They even it is that we'll better than they would have done had they just received their normal Clean Water SRF loan.
And the last one that I will share with you today is the creative use of fees, think of these as mortgage loan closing fees. They are held outside of the SRF and a portion of them, bond program and come, is very flexible and can be used for water quality purposes. We have thought of the number of ways. This is no means an all-inclusive list. They have been used for incentive grants for targeted projects. We think they can be guarantees for green infrastructure and other innovative technology and also purchase performance insurance for cleaner technologies. I have heard that communities have had enough money to do what ever water quality project is necessary, they can do it once but it is a bit of a risk based on that financial limitation. I think if there were more guarantees or insurance of performance we would see more willingness to explore innovative technologies. These could also be used for technical assistance grants, planning grants, particularly useful for small communities. They have also been used as grants to hardship MITI's to lead the project costs.
Moving to slide 27, these are three of the things that we cover in the paper. Many of the others are extremely powerful and again have the potential to double and triple the amount of assistance provided by the Clean Water SRF as a whole.
What is the rule for watershed groups? I can think of three. This is on slide 28.
Access funding, get the SRF loan, or serve as an intermediary. Influence decision, sure your watershed plans and comment on the priority system in the annual intended use plan. Be a broker. Who is more perfectly situated then watershed groups to bring water quality projects to the SRF to implement watershed plans? And also to bring the SRF program to those important projects. That type of growth would help states with limited staff reached out to where you think the money would be most useful be used.
If you move it to the next page, page 29, we will talk about the for funding of parties and burst like to read you some principles. First I would like to be to use some principles to decide what is eligible for funding. Because certainly we have not seen everything that there is to see. There are always new ideas being presented. All of the examples in the paper are final decisions and are available. And we use those examples to illustrate how these principles help result in determinations of what we can find and what we can't fund. Let's start with our first authority, Section 212, the principles is that the projects must be consistent with the definition provided in the Clean Water Act of Section 212. This gets us to publicly owned waste water treatment and also addresses storm water and municipal liquid waste. We are looking at that to help us reach municipal landfills reach eight collection system that need some water quality work done. All Section 212 must be publicly owned and must serve a public service. One thing I want to point out is the principal about protecting water quality. And the reason it is not here is because our waste water treatment plant projects may have need for funding for projects that may not be related to water quality such as security. That has become a much more of an issue with our waste water treatment plants.
Moving to slide 30 people begin with the principles for the nonpoint source authorities. All projects that are eligible here support a component of the Section 319 nonpoint source management plan or the ninth element watershed plans required by that program. Again some states limit funding to private or they decided to use an intermediary to deal with that issue. Projects that are eligible are not specifically required by a draft or final permit. Otherwise if they are, we can't consider them in nonpoint source.
If you go to slide 31, these are limited to capital costs, it includes concrete equipment as you might expect and also banned easements and the title for plans, trees, and reforestation. There must be a direct water quality benefit to non Point Shores project and the only fund the part that prevents water pollution. If you are trying to put a green fruit on a building or a parking garage, the SRF would fund the green roof expenses and the structural support, but not the building itself. Also with ground water contamination, soil contamination, but we don't fund the redevelopment of the site. One innovation that was introduced about eight years ago in the SRF was the principle that there could be poised for solutions to nonpoint source problems. I will call your attention to these later.
On slide 32 we get into the final authority that the SRF has, the most broad of all of them that encompasses waste water, storm water, and nonpoint source projects as well as other estuary projects identified in the comprehensive management plan. Again, the projects can be public or private the bond pit and eligible costs are limited to capital costs. Kim must be a direct benefit to the water quality and we only bond portions of the project that from the date water quality issues. The part that is scary useful to me is that it is only the -- it is the only way that SRF can reach probably owned projects. One of the innovations that we have discovered in really looking at the program and what more can be achieved with the existing authority is addressed on slide 33.
The SRF has the authority to develop and implement estuary plant under Section 320, and we thought that was limited to the study area of the plan. However, the definition allows for a broader geographical scope. And consequently with working with the estuary program here at EPA and our general consul we were able to identify that the CCPMs can apply to the entire watershed, so projects to of the watershed can use his authority -- threw out the watershed can use this authority.
On a slide 35 PC and its list of all of the eligible projects and I used these examples so you can see this and we will start with waste water on slide 36. Obviously it provides assistance for the collection and treatment of municipal waste water. What you will see here with Section 212 and Section 320 is a description of how all the various authorities available can be mixed and matched for different projects. I will do this with the other types of project discussed today. So to get to the slide, if you are using the Section 212 authority throughout the country, projects, publicly owned waste water treatment works are eligible. If you are implementing a Section 320 plant the map and you may also use privately owned Community waste-water treatment works.
Moving to slide 37, storm water, this is an area of interest. The storm water program is actively moving forward folks are trying to implement their storm water programs. The SRF can be utilized to find traditional pipe, storage, and treatment systems. They must be public under Section 212 or public or private under a National estuary plant. If you are not in a national estuary watershed, it is important to note that the nonpoint source authority to get to privately owned projects is available if the projects go beyond what is required by the NPDES permit.
They also have to do with the green the storm water, infrastructure, and the to ocean basins -- And infiltration basins and wetland protection.
Green and infrastructure, that is important to the invisible as will be there is a way to help another and the right of ways is generally the location of the green infrastructure. So in the extent that you are purchasing land for right of ways, that land can overlap with where you are putting a waste water collection projects. This would be a very intriguing opportunity for the folks in the waste water world.
Under the estuary authority, Section 320, we can get to privately regulated storm water projects and this includes storm water shelters to protect permitted operations from the storm water exposure and low impact development practices that reduce storm water discharge that require a permit. One of our more flexible authorities.
On slide 39 we moved into an example up with the SRF loan was combined with a Section 319 non source grand. They were repaid by the Water Department revenues and they were used to build 45 wing guard in cells as well as vegetated swales.
If you will move to slide for the, we will discuss one of the ways the SRF can address climate change. We will discuss three of them here. Third we will be referencing projects that are done for water quality purposes but also have benefits. With water conservation and we use these are eligible under the several authorities that you see on the slide. Before a POTW you can fund projects to reduce water use water meters and plumbing devices. They must be publicly owned which is a bit of a challenge. However, if you are implementing an edge to replant those could be privately owned as well.
Waste water treatment of to and including water quality sufficient to meet drinking water standards is already eligible and after words distribution lines to support a planned recycling uses including piping it to a customer. As well as equipment to reuse the effluent. All of that would need to be publicly owned. However, if you are implementing a national estuary plan, both the distribution lines could go on to private property and the equipment could be privately owned.
An example on slide 41 up water conservation occurred in a shy -- in Cheyenne, Wyoming. This conserves water by not making additional water from the stores water for outdoor use and extends to wife of the water treatment facility -- extend the life of the water treatment facility. And it extends the life by reducing the treatment burden on the water facilities.
Moving to more rural conservation, capital projects by nonpoint source destructors is eligible and pricey this is irrigation for farmers. The last thing talks about incentive programs, clearly this would be applicable to both rural and urban water users.
On slide 43 using example of the irrigation project financed with the SRF program as well as the nonpoint source grant program. Whereby the irrigation district received funding and provide it to the farmers and the watershed to move from wasteful to drip irrigation practices and to concede the difference in the sediment flows that resulted in this project.
Moving to slide 44 and energy conservation, 20 to 30% of the energy bill is associated with POTWs. With power consumption by POTWs we have always fun did energy-efficient palms and what not -- efficient pumps and what not. But we also thought that the prorata share of capital costs of offset publicly owned clean energy facilities can provide power to the POTW. So 20% of the cost could be funded to the program. Power consumption by eight POTW is also eligible where they put in a wind or methane captured from digesters. All of this can be done at privately owned treatment works.
Here's an example on page 45 of a project in New Jersey were a loan was used to use solar panels which resulted in a savings of $150,000 per year.
Moving to page 46, the centralized waste water systems these are eligible under a number of authorities. There used to upgrade or replace failing septic tanks. We realize that using the principle that there might be a source solution to a nonpoint source problem, that it is appropriate to assume that the privately owned, that collect the affluent would be eligible.
Moving to page 47 is another example in order to ensure that septic tanks are maintained, the solution was to build a bio solids facility, it serves 8,000 homes and has results, resulted in improved maintenance by the homeowners in that district.
Moving to slide 48, Land Conservation for water quality purposes is eligible including those to protect drinking water. We have seen these take place and well protected areas or surface water protection areas or land purchase and easement for boppers.
Example on page 49 it is a land purchase and California with a Nature conservancy's used a SRF loan along with other financing sources to purchase land that was in immediate past of either perpent encroachment or inured converging. This protected a branch that would have increased sedimentation and storm water run off and threaten to impair coastal and aquatic Resources.
Moving to a contaminated site on page 50, the water quality portion of those projects are eligible for SRF funding.
Page 51. Animal feeding operations that are not regulated as point sources and called CAFOs are available for funding, typically manure containment and Kellogg --and spreaders. Usually we try to make beneficial use of stock that is no longer under control of CAFOs. If you wanted to collect the manure and put it in a digester or even a useful project for urban uses.
On page 52 we have ideas for how to use CAFOs and they can use these things that might have made them CAFOs for instance, ends and bridges. The loan recipients is no longer CAFOs at the time of the binding commitment. They would not be a source of pollution and would be eligible for funding.
Under our best rate protection authority again the only way we can get to privately owned related projects, CAFOs are eligible.
Our final example is on page 54, atmospheric deposition, mercury and nitrogen are recognized as contributors to water by the impairment and things that prevent the in the tins of these, and those are eligible. Again, I want to emphasize that these are simply examples. The list could go on and on but we don't have time for more today. Please be aware that there is a lot of President all ready for other types of projects, what and protection and restoration projects so please Contact your States to talk about the areas that are important to you.
The main message is is that SRF is available for a wide a rate of watershed projects. They provide a substantial subsidy and not for-profit watershed groups can access funding, influent funding decisions and help states fund important projects by serving as a broker. Now we will move to slide 57 and questions. Again, after this web cast I would welcome your comments and questions on the paper, helping us to identify emerging issues that we did not consider print and examples on how the SRF has or could help with your projects.
Thank you, Stephanie. We will again paused briefly to take some questions. We will begin with those submitted on-line. You can submit questions online at any time by clicking on the question mark button.
Our first question is from Shelly in Utah, the Utah division of water quality has tried to make loans with Home owners' associations and watershed groups but they have to have a the ability to sign for debt for the association and assess fees for debt repayment. Many of these groups are not able to incur debt for associations or organizations, swale conservation groups, and so on. How did these groups provide collateral for the loan?
That's an excellent question. Obviously I wonder why they are legally on able to incur debt. Is that something that they established when they were established? Is that something that could be changed? For instance, home owners' associations to assess fees to the home owners which would be a very likely source of repayment for let's say, storm water projects or septic tanks or buffers. I would look at whether that aspect of it could be changed. I think that that's probably the most direct way of providing collateral for loans however looking outside that particular home owners Association to the over all context of the project, maybe there is an over all -- over all fees that could be accessed from the municipality for repayment sources. I would be happy to explore these specific situations with you after the Web cast.
Our next question is from Judy and Florida, you mentioned that the Clean Water SRF can find energy and [ Indiscernible ], it is methane from landfills eligible for funding?
Thank you, it is very interesting that you ask that. We discovered that the land fill collections are played sources by the Clean Water act. So that put some difficulty in to the program because we had been funding them as nonpoint source projects. So we looked at Section 212 which deals with liquid municipal waste it and most of the land bills and I think all of the land fills that we've funded work Municipal landfills. We made a determination and we included it in the paper that landfills could be funded under our Section 212 of 30. Section 212 also includes the word power. they could be funded under our Section Section 212 authority. You're looking at methane from landfills could be eligible, we are moving in that direction as well.
Our next question is from Thomas in Maine. Where can I get more information about projects available for Clean Water SRF financing?
That is a great question, the paper includes a number of innovative ideas as well. And I will be the milling that to you. Also our web site includes facts sheet on eligible projects. And that again is www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance. You can also contact for state offices and the contacts are on that website. They will be happy to talk to about the water quality priorities and what they have set up for projects.
Thank you.
I have another question from the Online a submission and that is from Joe week in Montana. How much money is available for funding?
Annual leave funding has trended upward we are now zero funding over 5 billion nationwide. That will eventually reach a plateau. And depending on funding decisions, a subsidy decisions as well as other factors and the future, as they start to decline. But suffice to say in the last few years it has risen to over $5 billion per year. And we would expect something similar to that in the next few years.
Okay. At this time. If anyone would like to ask a question over the phone, we have time for one question. Please unmute yourself. Are there any questions from the full space?
This is Alaina from Region 4. I have a question on whether or not the Clean Water SRF could be used for reducing nitrates and ammonia for an animal feeding operation and technologies that could help a state reduced nitrates and ammonia on animal feeding operations.
Before I answer, I was exploring this the other day with the estuary program. Are there technologies that are specific to nitrate and ammonia that to not capture of Bosporus?
I am not sure about that, I cannot answer that question.
Generally nutrient reduction is addressed by all of the nonpoint source projects. But to the extent that they are projects to implement that plan that are eligible, AFOs are a nonpoint source of pollution, we have funded manure containment and calibrated manure spreaders. So those are eligible. If you have something particular to nitrogen not addressed in the Section 319, there is the opportunity to look at the comprehensive comprehensive management planned developed for the estuaries. Because they are also concerned about nitrogen because of the problem when it hits the saltwater. I have also seen where the other areas have addressed nitrogen, because of concerns over being a drinking water source. So indeed. One of the other of the plans, the Section 319 or the Section 320 plans are probably coined to reach what you are talking about.
Thank you, Stephanie.
At this time I would like to ask everyone to move with me to cite a number of 58 and you will see the next section will cover Iowa's Clean Water SRF program and how they organized it to address watershed priorities.
Please move with me to slide Number 59, our next Web cast will be on July 23rd, next Wednesday from 1:00 to 3:00 Eastern. It is titled Green Streets: From Gray funnels to Green sponges. Please visit our web site for more information. At this time we will move on to our next presentation Patti, I will ask thank you on meet yourself and take it away -- unmute yourself and take it away.
Are we set?
Yes, we are good to go.
Okay, thank you.
We are starting on page 60 and my name is Patti Cale-Finnegan and I want to thank EPA for participating in the Web cast today and Stephanie gave a great overview of the possible uses of the Clean Water SRF and I learn something every time I hear her speak about it or delve into the white paper. But I will tell you about is Iowa's experience in bringing some of the possibilities in and the possible uses of the SRF in reality. And I want to emphasize people we start that this is only our experience. Every state is different and really the beauty of SRF is the flexibility that states have been using it to meet their particular needs. We have learned and borrowed ideas from other states as we put our programs together. I hope our experience is helpful to you as you expand the possibilities in the Clean Water SRF.
If you want to move to slide 61, this is an illustration of where we were in our state before fiscal year 2003. All of our Clean Water SRF systems went to municipal waste water and sewer projects.
The next slide, 62, this is where we are today. Now only 54% of our assistance goes directly into waste water and sewer construction project. We now also provide planning and design assistance for those projects. 0% money to get them started. So between those two uses we still get a total of about 75% of our funds into waste water and sewer. But the other 25% is now going into nonpoint source projects and that includes, storm water, manure management, and soil erosion and water quality projects. And somehow I left off on a site systems but that is the remaining 2% and if you move to the next slide, 63.
How did we get to where we are today?
First of all, we had a need. Sometimes they are how to some of them a card to pin down by 75% of our water pollution problems come from nonpoint sources. We have several grant programs but the dollars are limited and they get used up very quickly every year. So as people looked around for a new dollars they started looking at the SRF.
The next slide, Number 64, about that time in 2002 Iowa's SRF was underutilized, so we had available funds that could be allocated to expand the program and address nonpoint sources. This process that we have gone through has been a joint effort of many stakeholder groups and the DNR. And I think we are fortunate that we have a very active and interested stakeholder community and they are very instrumental in moving the SRF.
Next slide, at Number 65, as Stephanie explained that Clean Water Act's allows this to be used for nonpoint source projects. However, when our state about was written back in Iowa in the '80s, it only included publicly owned wastewater facilities. So for us to be able to do it nonpoint source and fund private powers it took a code change and we did that in 2002.
Next slide, 66. Once our state law was changed then the DNR prepared and Mr. Wills that provided more details about eligible -- they prepared more rules that provided more details about eligible rules. And we established for a separate programs that would target different nonpoint source needs and audiences. At that point, that DNR managers realized that courts may be the new programs and overseen a SRF expansion would take a full-time person and that is when I was hired. I am not an engineer or a technician. My job is program court nation. That is my skill set. I to policy development, communication, contacting, anything that gets thrown in there. And I tell people sometimes in liberal arts degree can be useful.
The next slide is number 67. With new types of farmers and new programs we needed new ideas. DNR could not do this alone. So on the financing side, the Iowa Finance Authority took on a much more active role. Previously when we were just making loans to public facilities their participation was mainly limited to issuing bonds for the programs. But their expertise and their efficiency and their new approaches have really been crucial to making this new nonpoint source assistance work. In the past, we did 20 or 30 loans through our Clean Water SRF program every year, mostly to cities. Now we are doing probably more than 500 small ones every year and many of them are to private borrowers. So that is a whole different approach than just making loans to cities. With their help we have set up a deposit approach which Stephanie mentioned. Which means that our SRF program does not make direct loans to the private power is. They are provided to local lenders. This takes away the risk of the SRF in dealing with the small private loans. And DNR recognize that we are not the best vehicle for delivering some of these programs. The freeze, we are from the DNR and we are here to help you does not work with all audiences. So we developed a network to develop their different strengths and they promoted and deliver all the various programs that we are doing.
Next slide, of number 68. All of our programs have to tracks for approval. The first is a project or a technical track. We require an environmental agency to review the project and that it is properly designed and construction done that constructed to carry out the water close of the project plan and which agency in all the theories by the program or the type of the project. And I will go to those in a battle bit.
The second is the financing. Someone has to make sure that the loan can be prepaid so for private borrowers, the lender plays that role. Somebody asked a question earlier about how private bar wars are qualified and that varies by the kind of project. A lot of our private loans are animal feeding operations. It is means that the plan there already has on that land so they just add on to other loans from that bar were Dr. Borrower.
We use a link deposit approach, the SRF places the deposit for the loan amount and that bank. We charge a 0% interest on our deposits. So we are basically subsidizing the interest rate. But that deposit does not provide any security for the loan. Again, the lender is taking the risk with that loan. And that is a huge advantage for the SRF because we can't because we are a revolving fund. We can't allow a default so we are not taking the risk. Another advantage is that they can work with their regular lenders and often they know the finances inside and out.
The next slide is Number 69 and like I said the cost of funds is zero. So the lender can charge a maximum of 3% interest to cover their costs. Currently we are not charging any administrative feet -- fees. Every year reestablish a funding amount for each of these programs and so far they have been first-come first-served. We have been able to find all eligible applications up to this point. Another advantage with nonpoint source loans is that they can be used in conjunction with any other state or federal cost share or grants. So if they can get a 25 or 50 per cent grant, they can finance the remaining cost to the loan. It helps projects get done faster.
The next slide is Number 78. This is a screen shot of our online system -- the next slide is number 70. And this coordinate's all of the nonpoint source financing. Lenders can sign up to participate and the environmental agencies go in and approve the project which authorizes funding to be released and fund transfers can be approved on line. So with 500 loans per year, this Web site and system has been a great toll in keeping it organized.
The next slide is Number 71. I would like to go through each of our nonpoint source programs and explain how they were set up and our progress on them so far. You can see by the dates that we have faced them in over several years in time.
The next slide is Number 72. We started by dressing on-site septic systems. We have estimated that Iowa has about 100,000 in adequate septic systems and some work before any modern treatment methods were available. Some is just a septic tank and some discharge raw sewage into a ditch. And this was a really big public health problem that we were trying to address.
The next upside down rockslide is Number 73. If we created this to help home owners in these areas. If it is an incorporated city, it is not eligible because we would fill with in city limits the municipality should be providing the treatment. And this program sanitary and provide this and they work with them to improve and inspect it. We have a participation agreement with counties that lay out the guidelines so that we can ensure that this is delivered consistently and standards and operations are the same throughout the state.
Next slide, Number 74. As you can see this as seen a very steady growth. We anticipate that we'll continue because we have a law going into effect this year or next year were at the time of sale the septic system has to be inspected. So we are going to see continued growth in this program.
Next slide, Number 75. Our next targeted area has been a soil erosion on agricultural land. Sediment has the number one potent. And this is just across the state I thought it was interesting because of the severe flooding we've had in Iowa. The first one is the participation on June 8th and the second map translates back to soil loss, and some indicates all the way up to 7 tons per acre.
The next slide, Number 76. With that need, the local water protection program started in 2004. We turned to the Iowa Department of Agricultural and land stewardship to do this program. They know more about working with farmers than we do. So we contacted with them for a full-time staff person. He then works closely with the 100 water and Conservation districts and the staff at the local level to implement the program. This slide lists all the different types of practices that we are funding through the program. And in most cases the NRCS and technicians design the project and provide cost estimates and the applicant takes the estimate to the lender to get the loan approval.
Next slide, Number 77. This program has taken off like a rocket. Which is a sign of the level of interest and the demand in this area. It has been a great tool for financing applicant's share of projects when they get cost share. And you can see about 75% of them are getting some kind of cost share. Interesting though, the ones that are refusing loans only exist in a culture that has been accustomed to getting grants and cost shares. Some told us that they were tired of waiting for cost shares and the loans allow them to complete their projects quickly instead of having to spacing out over a number of years. So that is an interesting result for that program.
Next slide is number 78. Our third program is a grab bag but it illustrates well, Stephanie's discussion of the broad availability is. So our general nonpoint source program tries to address water quality needs that are not covered by the other programs. We have done well and we have projects in the pipeline for all of these is that are listed in the slide. Typically what will happen is a group will approach us with a project idea. It is something that we have not done before, we check to make sure its eligible and we are following any other applicable environmental regulation and we work out who will review and approve the project from a technical standpoint and help with the financial and arrangements.
The next slide is Number 79. This program actually has the highest loan volume, probably because of the Iowa natural Heritage foundation. Just like in California, we are providing funds for the purchase of land for water quality protection. And Iowa has very little publicly owned land sold the loan program has provided a tool for the Heritage Foundation to acquire ecologically sensitive properties. And the way this work is that they buy high priority projects -- or properties when they come onto the market. State and federal agencies can't always act that quickly. So this region it gives them the time and the flexibility that they need to pull together to repurchase the land for public protection and use. And our newest venture is a $10 million project over the next few years to acquire the wetlands around the state owned lakes that provide water quality protection to those lakes.
The next slide is number 80. Last but not least, we are targeting the manure management particularly with open feed lots. Under 1,000 animal units are considered nonpoint sources which makes them eligible. And this makes it a great tool with our DNR in area for gaining compliance. Our field staff, when they go look at a producer it to look at a problem, they can tell them not only what they have to do but give them new tools and assistance to help solve those problems.
The next slide is Number 81 pick it list the types of items that we can finance to this program. And it has given us another tool for compliance. Most of the open feed lots or animal feeding operations that we Finance are not required by the state to have a manure management plan. But as a condition of the loan we are requiring that. That gives us a real higher-quality, a higher compliance and more comprehensive approach with those operations that we don't have the authority to require otherwise. And we will finance the plan and cost for that manure management plan if they want to.
The next slide is Number 82. We don't finance new animal feeding operations but we will cover the cost of replacing an existing one if it needs to be moved for water quality protection. Boston October we changed our rules to make deep bedded buildings eligible appeared where it confines that only the animals but also serves as storage for the manure. They could be in many different kind of buildings, we find about 90% of the cost of those buildings because as Stephanie said, there are items included in that project cost that are not water quality related. We won't finance those but we can finance most of the cost.
The next slide, Number 82.
This averages about $250,000. That is a high-cost item. This is driving our perform well in this program for the past year. Most of those higher cost projects also have environmental quality and incentive program grants from the Department of agriculture. Otherwise there are high cost and it makes them more affordable.
Until last month we were delivering this program through a state financing agency called the Iowa Agricultural Development Authority with DNR providing approval but we transfer the program to the Iowa Department of Agriculture and we are promoting it now with the local water protection program. We feel like it is more efficient and less confusing for the farmers who are often using both programs to have just one process instead of two separate programs. And it's also providing us with an administrative cost savings to do it that way.
The next slide is Number 84. I have given you an overview of where we have come from and where we are and now we're thinking, where do we go from here? For now our nonpoint source programs have nowhere to go but up. We started in 2003 and the plant less than $1 million this past fiscal year that ended June 30th we dispersed more than $18 million. And for this coming fiscal year be set aside $33 million.
Next slide.Camera tickly, by the end of this year we have loaned about $70 million. There were those even at DNR that doubted when we started whether anyone would borrow money for a nonpoint source project. We have demonstrated that the SRF is useful. A SRF loan is ready when you are. You don't have to wait to see if you can qualify for cost share and so on. It's ready now. And with the range of opportunities within the SRF nonpoint source program, our program has been, if you have a water quality project, we have a loan for you.
I'd really appreciate the opportunity to talk today and we have come in a long way in Iowa since we have been using SRF for nonpoint sources. I have to with it have had a lot of fun over the last few years. It was challenging but also a very exciting to come up with new uses to be created and put to cut the programs and packages. And we have succeeded in turning our Clean Water SRF from an underutilized program to a Wall funded and while he -- well funded and well utilized. We have to think about where will nonpoint source come in when we think about the water quality needs across the state caulks were the highest priority projects? Do we target SRF loans, how does that work? And then also looking at borrowers, what kind of water Paul Dunlap quality practices are people able to take loans for and why? We are looking at the Iowa University ecology department on why some have taken loans and why haven't they take a loan to us to understand our borrowers themselves.
We anticipate over the next year we will get input from our wonderful stakeholders and put together new prior to systems and program guidelines. With the goal of if we get to the point that we don't have enough money to fund everything, how do we target our SRF money to the highest priority uses to get the biggest bang for our dollar. If so filing with the help of all of our stakeholders and our partners, we have learned that the SRF can be a great tool for watershed protection. And I think we are going to continue to learn how to best use that tool as we move forward with that program. I think we are to the question part. And I would be happy to answer any questions that he might have today. And I think my contact information is also there. Give me a call or send me an e-mail and I would be happy to share any details with you about our program. So thank you they much.
Thank you, Patti.
Let me draw your attention when you cannot obtain the contact information for the speakers today, if you are online click on the whole line button and you will be directed to the homepage with the speakers address and phone numbers.
Please move with me to slide number 88, here are the link to the resources and the feedback.
On the left-side there is a link button that has additional information, you should also see a feedback button. Please take a minute to fill out the feedback form.
Now we will move to questions and our first question is for Patti and it comes from Jennifer in the Wisconsin, what was the reaction of POTWs to these Program changes?
I think again it's important to note that we were in a somewhat different situation than many states. The that were fully utilizing their SRF funds for publicly owned treatment works. We had money to spare so we have not had really any negative response from our municipal customers for the program. In fact, part of the expansion of the SRF program including the nonpoint source has spent a lot more out reach and streamlining of our program to make it more attractive to the publicly owned treatment works, cities and counties and so on. One of the things that we have done to try to make the program more user-friendly is made to all of the environmental reviews for our projects now in house. We have a special staff their assigned to that. That is one of the barriers that people sought to using the SRF program. So I would say that we were lucky in getting these nonpoint source programs started up without having to really point nonpoint source and point sources in competition with each other. That is what I hope we can to moving forward, is that yes, we are going to have to throw them all into the same pot to make sure the highest priority projects come out. But we can also continue to expand our funding. And we don't want to set up that competition if we can help it.
Thank you. Our next question is from Jack in Oregon. Was it hard or extension done at expensive to change the program?
Thank you, it has been a about the fund. Our administrative costs have increased quite a bit. And the way that we are finding those administrative costs is through the 4% of the allowed to take out of the federal capitalization grant. The rest of that goes into the loan fund. And we also charged fees on our point source loans. As we started our nonpoint source programs, we felt it was important to keep the cost of borrowing it down as low as we could because it was a voluntary practice. These are things that people don't have to do. We want to make sure that the loan terms were attractive. So we have not charged any fees on our nonpoint source loans. Really we are subsidizing that out of our brands, art EPA money and using our loan fees to support the public loans. As we kind of take a look at our priority system is one of the things that we talked about, and I would be interested to see if other states have done this, to continue to target that 0% interest money and a zero fees and arrangements to the highest priority projects. We might be able to find a lower priority projects but perhaps that is where fees come in.
Thank you. Our next question is from Shelly in Utah, we have found that individuals that apply for on-site waste water loans cannot secure the loan so we provided grants for those on-site insistence that cause a human help threat. Do you have the ability to make grants when loans are not secured?
We have not done grants directly to home owners for that purpose. We have a different way of approaching that. And Stephanie mentioned that the non program income that comes all of fees that are charged. We have used, we are in the third year of using our non program and come to fund utility management organization to. These are regional entities that can work with clusters of homes to help them get the appropriate waste water treatment. For example, this year we are giving about $270,000 worth of grants to six different organizations in different parts of our state. They then can work with, I usually six to ten different small communities, homeowners associations, or ever the need is in their area. They can then apply for grants and get the engineering studies done and move them along to getting a project done. That is where we have put our grant money more towards getting, building up the management capabilities that is often lacking in a small rural area.
Our next question is from Barry and of Vermont, can you give an example of a lake restoration project?
Yeah, we have a large lake in North Central, Iowa, called clear lake. There has been some state money that has gone into restoration there. And the tourism is very dependent on the water quality and the water quality has serious impairment. So we are really part of a whole package of funding that has gone into the lake restoration efforts there and it is being used as a last resort to his release to fill in gaps and other funding is that that area has been able to receive. So our project that we will be funding, the piece of the total effort is some dredging activity to remove sediment from the lake that contain high levels of phosphorous and as those sediments get stirred up, it impacts the clarity of the lake and so on. That is our peace. And other agencies and state appropriations have gone in to watershed protection work to reduce the Senate going into the lake. There has been some wetland restoration work. They even be moved carp that stir up the sediment. Our goal is keeping the project moving toward and they may be able to have the loan repaid but barring that, the cities and counties along that they have pledged general obligation bonds for that.
Thank you. We have one more question for you, Patti, this comes from [ Indiscernible ] in California. When involving other agencies, does DNR provide a admin funding to those agencies for review, approval and working with the locals with the SRF financing? If not, what are there incentives for working with DNR on the program?
We do provide administrative funding. We have contracts and we pay for staff that are dedicated to this program. Because you are right, other agencies can't take on new programs like this for free. So we recognize this and we do find that. With the county sanitarian, we don't provide funding for them because working with the whole order to certify and inspect new septic systems, that is part of their job. So we don't have to reimburse on that. But with other dogs we do provide administrative support for that.
Thank you.
The next question is for Stephanie from the night chill in the York when considering a loan is the -- when considering alone is there any advantage to using green infrastructure?
That is a good question, each state establishes its own the system and as Patti of the did too, the closer states get to using all of their funding resources, the more important the priority system becomes. The more it is relied upon between projects that will receive assistance and those that don't some include additional points for projects that they would like, such as Green systems. It does give them a better chance to compete by providing those extra points. If they determine that green infrastructure is something that they want, providing more points is a good idea. I would think that if something better, perhaps if we could populate this criteria, is looking applicant removal compared to the cost of projects to look at the most affected project to find.
Thank you our next question is also for Stephanie and it comes from California. Can a single SRF, a single contract, be given to a public entity for public and private taping, such as connections to POTWs as long as they identified both authorities when it is given or designee to be kept separate?
-- or does it need to be kept separate?
That is a good question on efficiency because one phone is easier to make them too. I think it would lend itself to one owned but I must caution you that when finding a private piping, examples whereby you are solving a nonpoint source problem, you need to make sure that it is eligible. So that would be a complicating factor in that one.
Okay we do have another question and this comes from Peter and of their land, it does speak to provide any funding other then loans -- does Clean Water SRF provide any funding other than bonds?
They talked about a six funding authorities available to the SRF and the two that could be explored is guarantees for local debt and insurance for local debt. This is a situation where the community goes to the bond market with a guarantee in their pocket and the result is getting to be much more credit for these resulting in a much better interest rate. This allows the SRF to use their liquid resources for other of low interest loans. If you are asking about grants from the SRF program, we do not have the authority to either do principal forgiveness or grants directly. I did give the example for buy and loan to an intermediary, and that person, who ever, if they have the resources to repay the loan from some of the revenue, could move it down to other projects and not require a payment. But the intermediary for need to prepay the loan.
Thank you. It does look like we are running up to the hour. So I do apologize for those participating on the phone lines. We are not free to have time to take questions from you. I to encourage you to talk to our speakers.
This does include today's Web cast. On behalf of the entire EPA watershed Web cast team, I would like to thank Stephanie VonFeck and Patti Cale-Finnegan for their help in this Web cast.
And thank you to all of you. This is Megan, signing off. Have a great day, everyone.
[ event concluded ]
Actions