Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
Advancing Environmental Justice
The mission of ASDWA’s environmental justice strategy is to advance health equity by identifying barriers within the drinking water sector and developing achievable and sustainable solutions for providing safe, reliable drinking water to all communities. Expand the sections to learn more about ASDWA’s two focus areas for addressing the unique needs of different communities.
Focus Area 1: Engaging and working with small, disadvantaged community public water systems to identify their unique needs and to support finding sustainable solutions.
Focus Area 2: Engaging and working with large systems to ensure the disadvantaged communities within their larger urban center’s needs are being addressed and drinking water benefits are being distributed equitably throughout their community.
A New Era for the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
With the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), state DWSRF programs across the country are receiving significant increases in federal funding for drinking water infrastructure. BIL has specific requirements for state programs distributing these funds, including a 49% subsidy requirement in the form of grants, principal forgiveness, or negative interest rate loans for communities deemed disadvantaged. The SDWA leaves defining what constitutes a “disadvantaged community” (DAC) up to the state DWSRF programs. In response to the release of BIL, EPA issued a memorandum: Implementation of the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Provisions on March 8, 2022. Among other things, the memo spelled out the Agency’s expectations for states to evaluate and revise, as needed, their DWSRF DAC definitions.
ASDWA saw the value in collecting and disseminating knowledge between the states regarding their work to evaluate and revise their DAC definitions. This white paper is the culmination of those discussions and includes an analysis of the changes made by states to their DAC definitions after the passage of BIL. It also includes 10 case studies of DWSRF programs that modified either their DAC definitions or their affordability criteria to better meet the needs of their communities. ASDWA intends for state staff to use this document as they work to analyze the viability of their current DAC definitions and affordability criteria, modify these parameters, or continue to evaluate their new definitions.
Download ASDWA's White Paper
The Biden-Harris Administration’s Justice40 Initiative and the incredible funding provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to assist disadvantaged communities have put a new emphasis on addressing environmental justice in regard to drinking water. State drinking water programs have a long and successful history of providing funding and technical assistance to their disadvantaged water systems. States work to identify and implement creative and innovative solutions that consider all opportunities for providing funding and assistance to the communities that need it most. ASDWA intends for this webpage to serve as a central source for activities and actions states have taken to address environmental justice within their drinking water programs. This page will continue to grow and evolve as EPA and the states work to tackle these complex issues. We encourage you to check back regularly for updates.
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, states are responsible for defining what constitutes a disadvantaged community. These definitions are used to make determinations and help prioritize the funds for drinking water infrastructure that are distributed to communities and water systems through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs. The passing of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and its requirements for providing funding to these communities has prompted many states to evaluate and redefine what constitutes a disadvantaged community.
The table below provides the text definition that each state uses, along with the link to where that definition can be found (Intended Use Plans, regulations, statute, or policy). Additionally, we’ve provided links to each state’s Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program and any additional environmental justice resources available. Users can search by term. For example, searching for “population” will limit definitions to only those that include that term. This table can be sorted by column and exported.
ASDWA staff worked with states to ensure that this data is up to date, but it should be noted that many states are currently in the process of updating their definitions. The date below denotes when the full table was last reviewed. Specific definitions that have been updated since that date will be flagged within the definition in the table. Any state staff that would like to update the information included within this table, please contact Stephanie Schlea at sschlea@asdwa.org.
Table last reviewed fully: December 2022
| State | Text Definition/IUP Priority Criteria | Where is the Definition? | Link to SRF Program | Link to State EJ Resources | Date last confirmed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | The Department expects to allocate principal forgiveness to projects in communities determined to be disadvantaged based on the following criteria: small (less than 10,000) communities, assessment of financial records, ratio of annual average water bill to median household income (MHHI) and utilization of the Justice40 Mapping Tool. | IUP | Alabama SRF Program | 11/29/2022 | |
| Alaska | A utility is considered disadvantaged if it meets one or more of the following criteria: A utility is considered disadvantaged if it meets one or more of the following criteria: 1. Median Household Income (MHI) is less than the state average MHI that is currently published by the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis. For privately owned water systems, the MHI is based on the community in which the utility is located; OR 2. Rate of unemployment is above the state average unemployment rate that is currently published by the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis. For privately owned water systems, the unemployment rate is based on the community in which the utility is located. 3. Rate of unemployment is above the state average unemployment rate that is currently published by the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis. For privately owned water systems, the unemployment rate is based on the community in which the utility is located. | IUP | Alaska SRF Program | 11/2022 | |
| Arizona | The Board may designate an applicant as a Disadvantaged Community if the applicant satisfies one of the following: 1. The community is a designated “colonia” community through the federal government, OR 2. The community received 60 or more Local Fiscal Capacity points on the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) project priority list (PPL.) “Colonia” is defined in 42 USC 1479(f)(8), which reads: (8) “Colonia” defined: For purposes of this subsection, the term “colonia” means any identifiable community that— (A) is in the State of Arizona, California, New Mexico, or Texas; (B) is in the area of the United States within 150 miles of the border between the United States and Mexico, except that the term does not include any standard metropolitan statistical area that has a population exceeding 1,000,000; (C) is determined to be a colonia on the basis of objective criteria, including lack of potable water supply, lack of adequate sewage systems, and lack of decent, safe, and sanitary housing; and (D) was in existence as a colonia before November 28, 1990. Local fiscal capacity is composed of 3 factors: MHI, user fee index (residential user fees, rates and charges for 7,500 gallons/month, multiplied by 12 months, divided by MHI), and indebtedness index (debt per connection/MHI; debt per connection is existing debt plus estimated cost of project/number of connections to system). | IUP | Arizona SRF Program | 11/11/2022 | |
| Arkansas | In Arkansas, a disadvantaged community has been defined as any community: • The current utility rates or proposed utility rates for 4,000 gallons of water on an annual basis is at least 1.5% of the Median Household Income (MHI) for the project area; or • If 51% of the customers who benefit from a project are either low or moderate income as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developments’ Community Block Grant (CDBG) Program; and have 1.25% of Median Household Income. Project area MHI is the average of the most recent three years of available data on the ACS five-year estimates provided by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) | IUP | Arkansas Water Development Division | 11/11/2022 | |
| California | CA’s definition for disadvantage and severely disadvantage are as follows: “Small Disadvantaged Community” means a community with a population no more than 10,000 persons and with a combined MHI less than 80 percent of the statewide MHI. “Small Non-Disadvantaged Community” means a community with a population no more than 10,000 persons and with a combined MHI greater than or equal to 80 percent of the statewide MHI. For the purposes of DWSRF funding, “Disadvantaged Community” means the entire service area of a Community Water System, or a community therein, in which the Median Household Income (MHI) is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual MHI. “Expanded Small Disadvantaged Community” or “Expanded Small DAC” means a Disadvantaged Community with a population more than 10,000 persons but no more than 20,000 persons, or more than 3,300 service connections but no more than 6,600 service connections. “Medium Disadvantaged Community” or “Medium DAC” means a Disadvantaged Community with a population more than 20,000 but no more than100,000 people, or more than 6,600 service connections but no more than 30,000 connections. .“Small Disadvantaged Community” or “Small DAC” means a Disadvantaged Community with a population no more than 10,000 persons, or no more than 3,300 service connections. “Small Severely Disadvantaged Community” or “Small SDAC” means a community with a population no more than 10,000 persons, or no more than 3,300 service connections, and whose MHI is less than 60 percent of the statewide average MHI | IUP | California State Water Resources Control Board | Environmental Justice | State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General | 11/11/2022 |
| Colorado | The State of Colorado uses a combination of primary and secondary factors in identifying a DAC. The primary factors taken into account are community median household income (MHI) equal to or less than 80% of the state MHI. The second primary factor is that the community median home value (MHV) is less than 100% of the state MHV. The final primary factor is that the county's 24-month unemployment average is greater than the state average plus 1% OR the loss in the number of jobs in the county over a 10-year period. Colorado also will look at secondary factors. The first is that the community is located in a county where the MHI is equal to or less than 80% of the state MHI. Secondly, the community or system shows a decline in population over a 10-year period. The third factor is the community's total assessed value per household is less than the median Colorado municipality's. The fourth factor is that the community's current and projected debt per tap to median home value is more than the median Colorado municipality. The final secondary factor is that the revenue per tap to MHI necessary to cover operations and depreciation for a system must be greater than the median Colorado municipality or the revenue per tap to MHI necessary to achieve 110% coverage ratio for the approved SRF loan. For the purposes of Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding only: To qualify, a prospective borrower needs a minimum of 3 points. Disadvantaged communities are defined by having a population of 10,000 or less and by meeting certain primary, or a combination of primary and secondary factors. Primary factors are community MHI (less than or equal to 80% state MHI), community median home value (MHV) (MHV less than 100% of state MHV), and county 24-month unemployment rate OR country 10-year job change (unemployment rate greater than state plus one percent or loss of total jobs in 10-year period). Secondary factors are county MHI (less than or equal to 80% state MHI), 10-year change in population (lost population over a 10-year period), assessed value/household (less than the median CO municipality), current and project system debt per tap to MHV (current and projected system debt per tap to MHV is greater than that of the median CO municipality), and system full-cost per tap to MHI OR required revenue per tap to MHI (full cost or require revenue is greater than median CO municipality). Disadvantaged communities are classified as either Category 1 or Category 2. If a community meets any one of the three scenarios above, the community is a Category 1. If, at the time of loan application review, a community’s Current and Projected System Debt to Median Home Value (MHV) and Required Revenue per Tap to Median Household Income (MHI) are greater than the median municipality, the applicant will be recommended to be a Category 2. Additional detail can be found in CO's IUP. • The prospective borrower's project removes lead or emerging contaminants to reduce drinking water health risks (1 Point). • A prospective borrower's service area includes a minority population of at least 25% (1 Point). • Greater than 35% of the households in a prospective borrower's service area have incomes that are less than or equal to two times the poverty level income (current poverty income = $27,750 x 2 = $55,500) (1 Point). • Greater than 30% of the households in the prospective borrower's service area are housing burdened (1 Point). • Combined annual sewer and drinking water costs per household exceed 1.35% of MHI (1 Point). • Prospective borrower's MHI is less than the State MHI (1 Point). • Prospective borrower's service area has population loss over five years. Or, the service area has growth that is lower than the State's growth over five years (1 Point). • Job loss: 1) County job loss over 10-years; and 2) Counties with >= 7.1% unemployment (1 Point). • 55% or more of the population in the prospective borrower's service area includes 1) within 2 x poverty income; and 2) is 65 or older. Combine 1 & 2 to get the total (1 Point). Notes: • "Minority" generally means a person who is a lawful permanent resident of the U.S., and who is Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, Alaskan Native, or member of other such groups. • Poverty income level is generally defined as $27,750 for a family of four (2 x $27,750 = $55,500). • Housing burden is generally defined as housing costs exceeding 30% of income. Housing costs include rent or mortgage, as well as other related expenses. • MHI = Median Household Income General Note: Criteria 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10 use benchmarks that are updated annually. | Policy | Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment | Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment - Environmental Justice | 11/11/2022 |
| Connecticut | DRAFT: “Disadvantaged Community” is defined as any census tract with a SVI Socioeconomic score of .5000 or above or otherwise meets the affordability criteria in Section III. Such designation shall be applied to a DWSRF project by the project’s applicant through provision of population calculations for anticipated beneficiaries per the proposed project. This designation applies should a PWS have a project serving one or more qualifying communities during the year in which they enter into a DWSRF financial assistance agreement with the State or at any point within the previous 3 years. III. Affordability Criteria: A community PWS shall be eligible for loan subsidization under this HEDCAP if the following is satisfied: A. A portion of the PWS’s project provides tangible benefits to community residents located in areas of a Connecticut municipality with a Social Vulnerability Index Socioeconomic score of 0.5000 or higher. This score will be determined using the most recent SVI score calculated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. B. If the PWS serves less than 1,000 people and it does not meet the affordability criteria in subsection A, an income survey may be conducted to include each residential rate payer for the purpose of determining the MHI of residential rate payers. The PWS will qualify as a disadvantaged community if: 1. the outcome of the survey shows that the rate payers’ MHI is less than 80% of the Connecticut statewide MHI as determined by the results of the US Census Bureau’s latest American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate, or; 2. the average annual residential rate payers’ water bill equals or exceeds 1% of the rate payers’ MHI B. “Distressed Municipality” means a distressed municipality as defined in Connecticut General Statute 32-9p(b) | IUP | Connecticut DWSRF Program | Connecticut Environmental Justice Program Overview | 11/11/2022 |
| Delaware | 1. Meets the Affordability Criteria; or 2. Is identified by EPA EJScreen tool at 90% (USA) percentile or higher for Environmental Justice Indexes or for “Low Income” under the Socioeconomic Indexes; or 3. Is identified as disadvantaged by the White House Climate and Economic Screening Tool; or 4. Is underserved. Affordability Criteria – Income Data – 1.5 percent of MHI will be considered affordable for a single wastewater or drinking water residential user rates; 3.0 percent of MHI will be considered affordable for combined wastewater and drinking water residential user rates. Delaware’s affordability criteria accounts for existing system costs relative to Operations and Maintenance (O&M) and Capital, as well as proposed project O&M and Capital costs as a function of MHI (1.5 percent water or wastewater, 3.0 percent if both services are provided) for the project area. MHI is based on the most recent census data for the municipality or county. DWSRF loan applicants whose MHI is not representative of the census data may be required to provide documentation to obtain principal forgiveness or additional subsidization. Documentation will be in the form of a representative income survey of the majority of the residents of the project area. • Meets the Affordability Criteria; or • Is identified by EPA EJScreen tool at 90% (USA) percentile or higher for Environmental Justice Indexes or for “Low Income” under the Socioeconomic Indexes; or • Is identified as disadvantaged by the White House Climate and Economic Screening Tool; or • Is underserved | IUP | Delaware DWSRF Program | Deleware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control - Environmental Justice | 11/11/2022 |
| Florida | Qualifying financially disadvantaged community water systems will compete for available principal forgiveness funds based on priority score. The principal forgiveness percentage received by projects will be determined using a linear equation that includes MHI and population of the service area as the variables. Projects with service area populations of less than 10,000 will get preference for the grant funds. That is, if there are grant funds available after the projects with small service areas have all been funded, the projects with large service areas will compete for the remaining grant funds based on priority score. Areas will compete for the remaining grant funds based on priority score. | Statute | Florida DWSRF Program | 11/11/2022 | |
| Georgia | The Georgia Environmental Finance Authority’s affordability criteria is used to award principal forgiveness to Georgia's most disadvantaged communities. The criteria include median household income (MHI), unemployment percent, percentage not in the labor force, poverty rate, percentage on Social Security, percentage on Supplemental Security Income (SI), percentage with cash public assistance, percentage with Supplemental. Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), age dependency ratio, and population trend from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2018 American Community Survey. The borrower's data is categorized in 25, 50, and 175 percentiles. | IUP | Georgia Environmental Finance Authority | 11/18/2022 | |
| Hawaii | A DAC is currently defined as a public water system’s community with an affordability score of 30 or greater (out of 100), based on the DWSRF Priority Scoring Model and as demonstrated in the 2021 Hawaii Water Rates Dashboard and Hawaii 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates by Census Tracts & Legislative Districts. Scoring Model include poverty level, user fees (proposed annual average residential fees/area MHI), and unemployment. | IUP | Hawaii DWSRF Program | 11/18/2022 | |
| Idaho | To initially qualify for a disadvantaged loan, a loan applicant must have an annual cost of drinking water service for residential customers that exceeds 2.0% of the median household income. The annual cost includes all operating, maintenance, replacement, and debt service costs, both for the existing system and upgrades being financed with state debt. If the applicant's service area is not within the boundaries of a municipality, the applicant may use census data for the county in which it is located, or may use a DEQ-approved income survey (which details the community's median household income). If user rates fall between 1.50% and 2.00% of median household income, principal forgiveness will be considered and DEQ will verify that: The most recent census reports a decline in population for the community during the recent five year reporting period; Unemployment exceeds 2.6% the statewide average, as posted on the Idaho Department of Labor's website. | Regulation | Idaho DWSRF Program | 11/18/2022 | |
| Illinois | A Disadvantaged Community is a public water supply owned by a local government unit or not-for-profit water corporation that qualifies for either the Small Community Rate or Hardship Rate as defined in Section 662.210. A Small Community Rate is a public water supply with a service population less than 25,000 that also meets any of the following 3 criteria: MHI less than state MHI; unemployment rate higher than state rate; or annual user charge is greater than 1% of community MHI. A Hardship Rate is a PWS with a service area of less than 10,000 that meets any of the following 3 criteria: MHI below 70% of state MHI; unemployment rate is at least 3% greater than state rate; or PWS annual user charge is greater than 1.5% of community MHI. Hardship rate: PWS with a service area of less than 10,000 that meets any of the following 3 criteria: MHI below 70% of state MHI; unemployment rate is at least 3% greater than state rate; or PWS annual user charge is greater than 1.5% of community MHI. | Regulation | Illinois DWSRF Program | Illinois Environmental Protection Agency - Environmental Justice | 11/18/2022 |
| Indiana | The Authority defines a Disadvantaged Community as an eligible Participant that meets one of the following criteria: 1) A project area with an MHI below 80% of the State MHI, as established by 2016-2020 American Community Five Year Survey; 2) Projects that have a positive, direct impact on a census tract(s), or other targeted project area, which has an MHI below 80% of the State MHI may also receive Additional Subsidization; 3) An estimated post project user rate greater than $45.00 per month; 4) An average annual residential post project user rate that would exceed one (1%) percent of the Participant’s Median Household Income (MHI). 5) Schools that serve 50% or greater number of kids that qualify to receive free and reduced meals. Applicable to the Indiana Lead in Public Schools and Childcare program. | IUP | Indiana Finance Authority | 11/18/2022 | |
| Iowa | Community public water systems serving populations that contain a majority (51 percent) of Low to Moderate Income (LMI) persons will be considered disadvantaged for the purpose of receiving a lower interest rate on an extended term loan. This criterion does not apply to any other DWSRF assistance such as additional subsidization. Low to moderate income is defined as 80 percent of the median household income in the county or state (whichever is higher) using the most recent federal census or income survey data. Privately owned community public water systems will be considered eligible for disadvantaged community status if an income survey indicates that the service area meets the LMI criteria Rural water systems will be considered eligible for disadvantaged community status if an income survey indicates that the area benefiting from the improvements meets the LMI criteria. Income surveys must be done according to the protocol specified by the Community Development Block Grant program. The interest rate on extended term loans will be 1.75% for borrowers who have been designated as disadvantaged using these criteria and who have received a notification letter from SRF by Sept. 20, 2022. During SFY 2023, the Iowa DWSRF Program will evaluate the affordability criteria currently used to determine disadvantaged community status and will revise these criteria through public review and comment. The SRF intends to implement the new affordability criteria to determine disadvantaged community status in future quarterly updates as an annex to the DWSRF Intended Use Plan. | IUP | Iowa DWSRF Program | Civil Rights and Environmental Justice, Iowa DNR | 11/18/2022 |
| Kansas | (1) a public water supply system that serves a population of 150 or less. OR (2) a municipal public water supply system that has a percentage of population that is below the poverty level which is greater than the state-wide percentage of population that is below the poverty level (11.4% of the statewide population is below the poverty level for the 2023 IUP). OR (3) a project area confined by and benefiting specific census tracts that have a percentage of population that is below the poverty level which is greater than the state-wide percentage of population below the poverty level (11.4% of the statewide population is below the poverty level for the 2023. | IUP | Kansas Public Water Supply Section | 11/18/2022 | |
| Kentucky | Kentucky has one standard interest rate and two non-standard interest rates for the DWSRF program dependent upon the community’s Median Household Income (MHI). Information is provided in the next section for Kentucky’s methodology for MHI determination. 1. The standard rate is applied when the MHI is equal to or above the Kentucky MHI of $52,238. 2. The first non-standard rate is applied for the following reasons: a. When the MHI is greater than 80% but less than the Kentucky MHI; b. Projects that meet the definition for regionalization; or c. Projects necessary for compliance with an Agreed Order or Consent Decree. 3. The second non-standard rate is applied when the MHI is equal to or below 80% of the Kentucky MHI. This rate is also known as the Disadvantaged Community rate (DCR). a. Projects that qualify for the DCR are eligible for principal forgiveness consideration and may request a loan amortization up to 40 years but not beyond the expected design life of the project. | IUP | Kentucky Infrastructure Authority | Environmental Justice - Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet | 11/18/2022 |
| Louisiana | A disadvantaged community project is one for which assistance is necessary to correct an imminent threat to public health as a result of a noncompliance issue with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) resulting in an Administrative Order. This determination will be made by the Louisiana Department of Health (LDH) utilizing one of the following requirements: 1. The public water system is located in a state where the median household income is below the national median household income of the United States according to the U.S. Census Bureau. 2. Assistance is necessary to resolve noncompliance issues with the SDWA that have resulted in an Administrative Order being issued against the water system. 3. The public water system serves a community with a population under 10,000. | IUP | Louisiana DWRLF Program | 11/18/2022 | |
| Maine | A Disadvantaged Community PWS is defined as any PWS that serves a community and can demonstrate that its year-round residential water consumers have a median household income of $58,924 per year or less or when the ratio of average annual water bill to median household income is 0.8 or greater. DWSRF Disadvantaged Community PWS Assistance will only be allowed where the disadvantaged water consumers will directly benefit from the assistance. | IUP | Maine DWSRF Program | 11/18/2022 | |
| Maryland | Maryland's definition is applicable to state programs beyond the SRFs. Maryland defines an Environmental Justice (EJ) Community as one with a low-income or minority population greater than twice the statewide average. MDE has implemented a (beta) website screening tool that uses three socioeconomic indicators to screen locations and communities based upon census data and the following: Minority populations of 50% or more; poverty rate of 25% or more; and English proficiency of more than 15% of the population as having limited English proficiency. | Statute | Maryland DWSRF Program | Maryland - What is Environmental Justice? and MDE EJ Screening Tool | 11/18/2022 |
| Massachusetts | Massachusetts uses the following metrics to determine Disadvantaged Communities and creates a metric called Adjusted Per Capita Income (APCI) and it is used for both the DWSRF and the CWSRF: Per Capita Income; Employment Rate; Population Change; Adjusted Per Capita Income (APCI) = PCI x Employment Rate x Population Change. A "Disadvantaged Community" is a community that falls into one of the three tiers using the Trust's annual affordability calculation. This calculation is performed to determine the adjusted per capita income (APCI) of each city and town in Massachusetts. The affordability calculation is based on an adjusted per capita income (APCI) metric. This approach identifies communities that are most in need of additional financial assistance to construct necessary infrastructure improvements. This allows the Trust to determine financial need by using the metric below which uses publicly available sources of data. Pursuant to the EPA’s guidance, criteria must be based upon: Income; Unemployment Data; Population Trends; and, Other data determined relevant by the state. The Trust and MassDEP use the following formula to calculate the affordability tiers. Adjusted Per Capita Income (APCI) = PCI x Employment Rate x Population Change Per Capita Income (as listed on the most recent data tables of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue): Per Capita Income is a widely accepted metric of an ability to afford the cost of infrastructure projects. Employment Rate (as listed on the most recent calendar year data tables of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue): The percentage of the workforce employed. Higher employment rates suggest that a community has more residents able to afford the cost of infrastructure than a community with lower employment rates. Population Change: The percentage of gain or loss, according to the US Census data, in a municipal population between 2010 and 2020. Increase in population suggests that the community is experiencing growth, which provides a larger rate payer base to support infrastructure costs. Loss of population suggests negative growth and leaves fewer taxpayers and ratepayers to absorb the burden of the infrastructure cost. Based on the APCI formula described above, the Trust calculates APCI for the state and its 351 individual municipalities annually. Communities that fall below the Commonwealth's APCI are considered disadvantaged communities and are assigned into one (1) of the three (3) affordability tiers. The bullets below shows how the tiers are broken down. Tier 1: Communities with APCI more than 80% but less than 100% of the State’s APCI. Tier 2: Communities with APCI more than 60% but less than 80% of the State’s APCI. Tier 3: Communities with APCI less than 60% of the State’s APCI. | IUP | Massachusetts SRF Drinking Water Program | Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs - Environmental Justice | 11/18/2022 |
| Michigan | (c) "Disadvantaged community" means a municipality in which all of the following conditions are met: (i) Users within the area served by a proposed public water supply project are directly assessed for the costs of construction. (ii) The median annual household income of the area served by a proposed public water supply project does not exceed 120% of the statewide median annual household income for Michigan. (iii) The municipality demonstrates at least 1 of the following: (A) More than 50% of the area served by a proposed public water supply project is identified as a poverty area by the United States Bureau of the Census. (B) The median annual household income of the area served by a proposed public water supply project is less than the most recently published federal poverty guidelines for a family of 4 in the 48 contiguous United States. In determining the median annual household income of the area served by the proposed public water supply project under this subparagraph, the municipality shall utilize the most recently published statistics from the United States Bureau of the Census, updated to reflect current dollars, for the community which most closely approximates the area being served. If these figures are not available for the area served by the proposed public water supply project, the municipality may have a survey conducted to document the median annual household income of the area served by the project. (C) The median annual household income of the area served by a proposed public water supply project is less than the most recently published statewide median annual household income for this state, and annual user costs for water supply exceed 1% of the median annual household income of the area served by the proposed public water supply project. (D) The median annual household income of the area served by a proposed public water supply project is not greater than 120% of the statewide median annual household income for this state, and annual user costs for water supply exceed 3% of the median annual household income of the area served by the proposed project Users within the area served by a proposed public water supply project are directly assessed for the costs of construction. The median annual household income of the area served by a proposed public water supply project does not exceed 120% of the statewide median annual household income for Michigan. The municipality demonstrates at least 1 of the following: • More than 50% of the area served by a proposed public water supply project is identified as a poverty area by the United States Bureau of the census. • The median annual household income of the area served by a proposed public water supply project is less than the most recently published federal poverty guidelines for a family of 4 in the 48 contiguous United States. In determining the median annual household income of the area served by the proposed public water supply project under this subparagraph, the municipality shall utilize the most recently published statistics from the United States Bureau of the Census, updated to reflect current dollars, for the community which most closely approximates the area being served. If these figures are not available for the area served by the proposed public water supply project, the municipality may have a survey conducted to document the median annual household income of the area served by the project. • The median annual household income of the area served by a proposed public water supply project is less than the most recently published statewide median annual household income for this state, and annual user costs for water supply exceed 1% of the median annual household income of the area served by the proposed public water supply project. • The median annual household income of the area served by a proposed public water supply project is not greater than 120% of the statewide median annual household income for this state, and annual user costs for water supply exceed 3% of the median annual household income of the area served by the proposed project. | Statute | Michigan DWSRF Program | Michigan Office of the Environmental Justice Public Advocate | 11/18/2022 |
| Minnesota | Principal Forgiveness and/or Water Infrastructure Fund (WIF) funds may be granted to a DWRF project if the average annual residential drinking water system cost would otherwise exceed 1.2 percent of the median household income (MHI) of the project service area. For BIL funds for LSLR only: For lead service line replacement projects, PFA will determine what the estimated annual cost would be for each property if the replacement of the private portion were financed through a special assessment on the property over ten years. PFA will then add the average cost per household for water service (reflecting the operation and maintenance and debt service costs of the system) and compare the total to the municipality’s median household income. If the result exceeds 1.2% the municipality will be considered a disadvantaged community and the lead service line replacement project will be eligible for principal forgiveness. | Statute | Minnesota Department of Health DWSRF | 11/18/2022 | |
| Mississippi | The amount of PF for which a potential “Loan Recipient” (LR) may be eligible will be determined by calculating the percentage of the “Median Household Income” (MHI) of the potential LR versus the MHI of the State of Mississippi ($46,511) as a whole. 90% < LR MHI < 100% - 15% Principal Forgiveness 80% < LR MHI < 90% - 25% Principal Forgiveness 70% < LR MHI < 80% - 35% Principal Forgiveness LR MHI < 70% - 45% Principal Forgiveness | IUP | Mississippi DWSRF Program | Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality - Environmental Justice | 11/18/2022 |
| Missouri | State regulations define a disadvantaged community as any applicant serving a population of 3,300 or fewer, whose average user rates for 5,000 gallons will be at or above two percent of the recipient median household income, and the recipient median household income is at or below 75 percent of the state average. | Regulation | Missouri Financial Assistance Center | 11/22/2022 | |
| Montana | A community is considered economically disadvantaged when its combined annual water and wastewater system rates are greater than or equal to 2.3% of the community’s Median Household Income (MHI). If the community has only a water system, the percentage is 1.4% of the community’s MHI. | IUP | Montana Financial Bureau | Montana Pole Environmental Justice Plan | 11/22/2022 |
| Nebraska | The purpose of the affordability criteria is to determine which of the projects receiving funds from the DWSRF may also qualify for financial assistance beyond the ordinary benefits available through the DWSRF. Eligible PWSs may qualify for additional financial assistance if their population is equal to or less than 10,000 people with an MHI less than 120 (one hundred twenty) percent of the state MHI. Systems that meet the minimum disadvantaged criteria determination are also eligible for extended loan terms up to 40 years. NE sets several thresholds for DAC principal forgiveness for communities based on population size: population of 10,000 or less (20% PF); population of 3,300 or less (25% PF); population of 500 or less (30% PF). Additional assistance for Disadvantaged Communities through loan forgiveness will utilize the Affordability (Disadvantaged) Criteria provided in Appendix F. Additional assistance of loan terms up to 40 years will be available to communities which have a Median Household Income (MHI) less than or equal to 120% of the State MHI, using the 2014-2018 American Community Survey (ACS) data set published by the U.S. Census Bureau communities based on population size: population of 10,000 or less (20% PF); population of 3,300 or less (25% PF); population of 500 or less (30% PF). Additional assistance for Disadvantaged Communities through loan forgiveness will utilize the Affordability (Disadvantaged) Criteria provided in Appendix F. Additional assistance of loan terms up to 40 years will be available to communities which have a Median Household Income (MHI) less than or equal to 120% of the State MHI, using the 2014-2018 American Community Survey (ACS) data set published by the U.S. Census Bureau. | IUP | Nebraska DWSRF Program | 11/22/2022 | |
| Nevada | Nevada defines a disadvantaged community as an area served by a public water system in which the median [middle] household income is less than 80 percent of the state median household income (MHI) (NAC 445A.675245). | Statute | Nevada DWSRF Program | 11/22/2022 | |
| New Hampshire | A disadvantaged community or system includes: 1. Financially Disadvantaged Water Systems - Non-transient public water system or community that serves residents whose median household income (MHI) is less than the statewide MHI (Attachment D) based on the most recent census data and/or income survey. If an applicant for DWSRF assistance meets the definition of “disadvantaged” and if the water rate exceeds the statewide affordability criteria (see section 3.8.3), it may be eligible for subsidies from the Disadvantaged Community/System Program. Subsidies will be available in the form of principal forgiveness. This program only applies to infrastructure projects; and 2. Environmentally Disadvantaged Water Systems - Non-transient public water system or community that is: 1) Affected by environmental pollution, naturally occurring contaminant(s)and/or has lead in the water supply or service lines; and 2) Is at risk for negative health effectsdue to contamination and/or there is water supply or lead service lines containing lead. | IUP | New Hampshire DWSRF Program | 11/22/2022 | |
| New Jersey | In New Jersey, those applicants that meet either of the following two criteria are considered to have satisfied the State’s DWSRF Affordability Criteria: 1. Project Affordability Score of 80 or less; or 2. The project is eligible to receive 80 Environmental Justice Economic Overburdened Community Criteria DWSRF ranking points. Project Affordability Score = Project Median Household Income (MHI) Factor – Project Unemployment (UE) Factor – Project Population Trend (PT) Factor Project MHI Factor =100 x (Project MHI/State MHI) (Rounded down to the nearest integer) Project UE Factor = 1 if Project Unemployment Rate > State Unemployment Rate Project UE Factor = 0 if Project Unemployment Rate < or = State Unemployment Rate Project PT Factor = 1 if Project Population Trend < State Population Trend Project PT Factor = 0 if Project Population Trend > or = State Population Trend Project Unemployment Rate is equal to weighted unemployment rate of the project service area using service area populations and county unemployment data. Calculation is similar to weighted MHI example below. Project Population Trend is equal to the weighted population trend for the project service area using service area populations and municipal population trend data. Calculation is similar to weighted MHI example below. Consideration will be given for projects with a qualifying service area population within a municipality that does not meet the DWSRF Affordability Criteria. | IUP | New Jersey Loan and Capacity Development | New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection - Environmental Justice | 11/22/2022 |
| New Mexico | Proposed for FY23: Disadvantaged Entities – to be considered a Disadvantaged entity, the applicant’s Median Household Income must be greater than 75% but less than 100% of the National Median Household Income, based on the most recent 5-year average of Median Household Income from census data or through a survey acceptable to NMFA. Severely Disadvantaged - to be considered a Severely Disadvantaged entity, the applicant’s Median Household Income must be 75% or less of the National Median Household Income, based on the most recent 5-year average of Median Household Income from census data or through a survey acceptable to NMFA. Disadvantaged Median Household Income (MHI) - Communities with an MHI of the water service area between 100% - 80% of the State’s MHI fall under this level. MHI is based on the most recent 5-year average of Median Household Income from U.S Census Data or through a household income survey acceptable to NMFA. Severely Disadvantaged Median Household Income (MHI) - Communities with an MHI below 80% of the State’s MHI. MHI is based on the most recent 5-year average of Median Household Income from U.S Census Data or through a household income survey acceptable to NMFA. | IUP | New Mexico DWSRF Program | New Mexico Environment Department - Equity | 11/22/2022 |
| New York | To be considered for Disadvantaged Community (hardship) assistance including grant/principal forgiveness or interest-free financing, public water system projects must meet the following criteria: • Must be a municipally-owned or NYS Public Service Commission (PSC) regulated privately owned drinking water infrastructure project; • Must be listed on the Annual List with a score equal to or greater than the score at the Hardship Evaluation Eligibility line (for base DWSRF) or must appear on the BIL-GS Eligible Project List. If insufficient qualifying projects exist above the Annual List Hardship Line to award all of the additional subsidy required under the Base DWSRF, projects below the line will be considered in public health priority order until all of the required additional subsidy is obligated; • Municipal population must be less than 300,000 per the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS). Alternatively, a public water system with a population greater than 300,000 can qualify if the project is for an established water district or a service area with a population less than 300,000. An income survey of the water district or service area would be required; • At least one of the following criteria must be met: o The Median Household Income (MHI) of the municipality, per the 2019 ACS, must be less than 80% of the regionally adjusted statewide MHI; or o For projects in communities with an MHI equal to or greater than 80% and less than 100% of the regionally adjusted statewide MHI, the community must have an ACS family poverty rate greater than the statewide family poverty rate; or o At least 50% of the project cost or project scope must serve, protect, or benefit an identified Environmental Justice (EJ) area. • Projects for communities with an MHI equal to or greater than 100% of the regionally adjusted statewide MHI, and that do not meet the EJ criteria outlined above, are not eligible for hardship assistance; • An income survey, Census Designated Place (CDP), or other acceptable demonstration of a more accurate MHI for the service area may be used in lieu of the American Community Survey published MHI; by the US Census Bureau. In addition, the Hardship Policy includes regionally adjusted MHI thresholds used for determining hardship eligibility. Projects serving Environmental Justice (EJ) areas may also qualify for hardship eligibility. Projects in EJ areas that do not otherwise qualify for hardship based on MHI or poverty rate criteria will be considered for hardship eligibility if at least 50% of the project cost or project scope serves, protects, or benefits an identified EJ area. | IUP | New York Department of Health DWSRF Program | Environmental Justice - New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation | 11/22/2022 |
| North Carolina | Project must result in residences and buildings identified in disadvantaged areas being connected to utility services owned, operated and maintained by the applicant. Disadvantaged areas may be subsections or pockets of a service area, rather than the entire local government unit area or entire utility service area. For instance, disadvantaged areas may be census block groups that meet qualifying characteristics. The targeted project area will be determined a “disadvantaged area” based on factors that shall include: • Affordability of water and sewer service rates relative to the income levels of residents in the targeted project area, median household income, poverty rates, per capita appraised values of property, and/or employment rates of the targeted project area, • Additional factors that may qualify the targeted project area as disadvantaged, such as but not limited to demographic, historical, cultural, linguistic, socioeconomic stressors, cost-of-living stressors, or existing contamination factors, may also be considered. | Policy | North Carolina DWSRF Program | North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality - Environmental Justice | 11/23/2022 |
| North Dakota | The criteria used by the North Dakota DWSRF program are: • The average annual residential water user charge as a percent of the local or service area annual median household income • Percent of households with an income less than 200 percent of the poverty threshold • Percent unemployment • Percent of residents with less than a high school education | IUP | North Dakota DWSRF Program | 11/29/2022 | |
| Ohio | Draft: For PY 2023, a disadvantaged community candidate is a Public Water System (PWS) with a system population below 10,000, a nominated project with demonstrated health related factors and meets any three of the four socio-economic benchmarks identified in Table 2: Median Household Income (MHI) less than or equal to statewide average, Individuals with income below 200 percent of poverty level greater than or equal to statewide average, Unemployment Rate greater than or equal to statewide average, Water and sewer rates compared to MHI greater than or equal to statewide benchmark | IUP | Ohio Water Supply Revolving Loan Account Program | 11/23/2022 | |
| Oklahoma | A “Disadvantaged Community” means those communities which serve a population whose Median Household Income (MHI) is greater than 80% but less than 90% of the national MHI according to the United States Census Bureau/American Community Survey. Communities serving population whose MHI is less than 80% of the national MHI according to the United States Census Bureau/American Community Survey will be designated as “Severely Disadvantaged Communities” and hence will receive 60 priority points instead of the 40 points reserved for Disadvantaged Communities. MHI is based on the most recent 5-year average of median household income from United States Census Data or through a household income survey acceptable to DEQ. | IUP | Oklahoma DWSRF Program | Environmental Justice Statement - Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality | 11/23/2022 |
| Oregon | For Oregon’s DWSRF the following criteria are used to determine disadvantaged community status: Median Household Income (MHI) below the state average: A disadvantaged community is a public water system that has a service area with a MHI below the state average. | IUP | Oregon DWSRF Program | Oregon Department of Environmental Quality - Environmental Justice | 11/23/2022 |
| Pennsylvania | PENNVEST utilizes a financial capability analysis that compares various community specific demographic data to similarly situated communities across the Commonwealth to determine a percent of the community’s adjusted median household income (MHI) that should be available to pay for water service. The amount that should be available to pay for water service by residential customers will range from 0.5 to 1.5 percent of the community’s adjusted MHI dependent upon the specific socio-economic factors that are provided by the Pennsylvania DCED. This process aids in an equitable distribution of residential user rates. Should the estimated resulting residential user rates be higher than similar systems, even after PENNVEST has provided the most favorable funding package available, based upon criteria set forth in the PENNVEST Act and regulations and further described in this document under the section “Priority and Allocation of Assistance,” these systems would be considered “disadvantaged” for the purpose of term extension from the normal 20 years to a term of up to, but not to exceed, 30 years repayment of principal and interest. Systems qualifying for term extensions must exceed the user rate(s) found in similar systems according to the PENNVEST financial capability model. The terms will be extended to a point that will allow the residential user rate to fall to a level equal to similar systems’ cost of water service, as determined by the demographic analysis and financial capability analysis. In considering projects where there are no immediate users, such as some green infrastructure, the above-described methodology will be modified. In such cases PENNVEST will look to the applicant’s financial capability to repay a loan. If there is no reasonable expectation that this capability will be present, then PENNVEST could determine that the applicant fits the definition of a disadvantaged system. Additionally, any community identified as disadvantaged using the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool or located in a Pennsylvania defined Environmental Justice Area will be considered a disadvantaged system for purposes of applications relating to design and engineering projects with the financial capability analysis being performed on the service area impacted by the proposed project instead of system wide. Should the estimated resulting residential user rates be higher than similar systems, even after PENNVEST has provided the most favorable funding package available, based upon criteria set forth in the PENNVEST Act and regulations and further described in this document under the section “Priority and Allocation of Assistance,” these systems would be considered “disadvantaged” for the purpose of term extension from the normal 20 years to a term of up to, but not to exceed, 30 years repayment of principal and interest. Systems qualifying for term extensions must exceed the user rate(s) found in similar systems according to the PENNVEST financial capability model. The terms will be extended to a point that will allow the residential user rate to fall to a level equal to similar systems’ cost of water service, as determined by the demographic analysis and financial capability analysis. In considering projects where there are no immediate users, such as some green infrastructure, the above-described methodology will be modified. In such cases PENNVEST will look to the applicant’s financial capability to repay a loan. If there is no reasonable expectation that this capability will be present, then PENNVEST could determine that the applicant fits the definition of a disadvantaged system. | IUP | Pennsylvania DWSRF Program | Office of Environmental Justice (pa.gov) | 11/23/2022 |
| Rhode Island | The Affordability Index is calculated using the following formula: Affordability Index = Median Household Income x Employment Rate x Population Ratio • Median Household Income is a widely accepted metric of resident’s ability to afford the cost of infrastructure projects. A community with higher median household income suggests higher ability to afford the cost of infrastructure. • Employment Rate represents the resident employment size divided by the size of the total labor force in the community. Higher employment rates suggest that a community has more residents able to afford the cost of infrastructure than a community with lower rates. • Population Ratio is the ratio of the current US Census Bureau Decennial Census population to the previous Census population expressed as a percentage. A percentage greater than 100% indicates communities with a growing population, and a percentage less than 100% indicates a shrinking population. A growing population indicates an increasing ratepayer base to absorb infrastructure costs. As a state, Rhode Island’s population slightly increased from 2000 to 2010. Large drinking water systems serving over 10,000 users shall be tiered based on the tier of the community they serve. Large systems serving multiple communities shall be tiered based on an index set to be a weighted average of each community served. Weighting shall be based on population served or flow data and come from publicly available sources or data provided by the system. Small drinking water systems serving 10,000 users or less shall be tiered based on median household income from either an income survey or census tract data. If a system serves multiple census tracts, the census tract with the lowest income is used. • To participate in the Disadvantaged Community Program, an eligible borrower must be a community public water system; • The water supplier must make application to RIDOH for inclusion on the PPL and application to the Bank for a loan in the current year; • The water supplier must have a service area Median Household Income figure (MHI) less than or equal to the State MHI which is currently $71,169 (source: 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates); • A debt service schedule for a standard Program loan (25% interest subsidy) will be calculated for the project loan being contemplated. The schedule will be added to the water supplier’s existing rate structure and the resultant annual user fee, when compared to the service area MHI, must be greater than 0.999 percent RI also has a "disadvantaged very small system program" for non-municipal community and non-transient, non-community systems that are nonprofit public water systems, that serve a population of 1,000 people or fewer. A disadvantaged very small system is defined as a system that can demonstrate that user rates are 1% or more of the community’s median household income.The water supplier must have a service area Median Household Income figure (MHI) less than or equal to the State MHI which is currently $63,296. A debt service schedule for a standard Program loan (25% interest subsidy) will be calculated for the project loan being contemplated. The schedule will be added to the water supplier's existing rate structure and the resultant annual user fee when compared to the service area MHI. must be greater than 0.999 percent. RI also has a "disadvantaged very small system program" for non-municipal community and non-transient, non-community systems that are nonprofit public water systems, that serve a population 1000 people or fewer. A disadvantaged very small system is defined as a system that can demonstrate that user rates are 1% or more of the community's median household income. | IUP | Rhode Island DWSRF Program | Environmental Justice- Rhode Island -Department of Environmental Management | 11/23/2022 |
| South Carolina | Eligible sponsors with eligible projects that may receive PF assistance are as follows: • Small systems (population less than 10,000) with a Median Household Income (MHI) less than the State MHI that cannot qualify for a DWSRF loan, or; • A sustainable system owner willing to assume ownership or receivership of an unsustainable or abandoned system. | IUP | South Carolina SRF Program | South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control - Environmental Justice | 11/23/2022 |
| South Dakota | Communities that meet the disadvantaged eligibility criteria described below may receive additional subsidies. This includes communities that will meet the disadvantaged criteria as a result of the project. To be eligible for loan subsidies a community must meet the following criteria: 1. for municipalities and sanitary districts: a. the median household income is below the state-wide median household income; and b. the monthly residential water bill is $30 or more for 5,000 gallons usage; or 2. for other community water systems: a. the median household income is below the state-wide median household income; and b. the monthly water bill for rural households is $55 or more for 7,000 gallons usage | IUP | South Dakota DWSRF Program | 11/23/2022 | |
| Tennessee | The SRF Loan Program continues to respond to requests from Governor Lee regarding rural community assistance by prioritizing allocation of subsidy for drinking water infrastructure (in the form of principal forgiveness and lower interest rates) to communities identified as both small and economically disadvantaged. Eligibility of DW SRF principal forgiveness will be determined based on the most current Ability to Pay Index (ATPI). Small communities are those with a population of 20,000 or fewer. To be considered disadvantaged, the community must score 50 or less on the ATPI. The affordability criteria from the ATPI will also be used to prioritize projects that have the same number of points from the PRL. Communities with greater economic need and smaller populations will be given a higher ranking. The index is determined based on a normal distribution of affordability scores for cities and for counties. The affordability score is a simple average of nine (9) factors unique to each community. Together, these factors: median household income, unemployment, food stamp dependence, families in poverty, community assets, revenues, debt, expenditures, and change in population determine a community’s Ability To Pay Index value Tennessee’s DWSRF Loan Program developed a small and disadvantaged community loan forgiveness process that prioritizes allocation of subsidy for disadvantaged communities with an ATPI of 50% or less. The index is determined based on a normal distribution of affordability scores for cities and for counties. The affordability score is a simple average of nine (9) factors unique to each community. Together, these factors include: median household income, unemployment, food stamp dependence, families in poverty, community assets, revenues, debt, and expenditures, and change in population determine a community’s Ability To Pay Index value. Tennessee intends to update the ATPI annually to capture the most current fiscal capacity, changes, and economic trends of communities across the state. | IUP | Tennessee DWSRF Program | Tenessee Department of Health - Environmental Justice | 11/23/2022 |
| Texas | An eligible disadvantaged community consists of all of the following: 1. The service area of an eligible applicant, the service area of a community that is located outside the entity’s service area, or a portion within the entity’s service area if the proposed project is providing new service to existing residents in unserved areas and 2. meets the following affordability criteria: a. Has an Annual Median Household Income (AMHI) that is no more than 75 percent of the state median household income using an acceptable source of socioeconomic data, and b. the Household Cost Factor (HCF) that considers income, unemployment rates, and population trends must be greater than or equal to 1 percent if only water or sewer service is provided or greater than or equal to 2 percent if both water and sewer service are provided. | IUP | Texas DWSRF Loan Program | 11/23/2022 | |
| Utah | Disadvantaged communities are those communities located in an area which has a median adjusted gross income (MAGI) which is less than or equal to 80% of the State’s MAGI, as determined by the Utah State Tax Commission from federal individual income tax returns excluding zero exemption returns, or where the established annual cost of drinking water service to the average residential user exceeds 1.75% of the median adjusted gross income. For the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) funding, Utah expanded this definition for the funds specifically marked for lead service line (LSL) replacement. Utah adopted the following LSL replacement funding criteria: 1. If a water system serves one or more census tracts at or above the 80th percentile for the Demographic Index, then the water system may receive grant funding to plan for and replace lead service lines within those census tracts. 2. If a water system serves schools or childcare centers, then the water system may receive grant funding to plan for and replace lead service lines for schools and childcare centers. For the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) funding, Utah expanded this definition for the funds specifically marked for lead service line (LSL) replacement. Utah adopted the following LSL replacement funding criteria: 1. If a water system serves one or more census tracts at or above the 80th percentile for the Demographic Index, then the water system may receive grant funding to plan for and replace lead service lines within those census tracts. 2. If a water system serves schools or childcare centers, then the water system may receive grant funding to plan for and replace lead service lines for schools and childcare centers. | IUP | Utah Drinking Water Assistance Programs | 11/21/2022 | |
| Vermont | "Disadvantaged municipality" means a municipality or the served area of a municipality that: A. has a median household income below the State average median household income as determined by the Secretary and that, after construction of the proposed water supply improvements, will have an annual household user cost greater than one percent of the median household income as determined by the Secretary or B. has a median household income equal to or greater than the State average median household income as determined by the Secretary and that, after construction of the proposed water supply improvements, will have an annual household user cost greater than 2.5 percent of the median household income as determined by the Secretary | Statute | Vermont DWSRF Program | DEC Environmental Justice Team | Department of Environmental Conservation | 11/29/2022 |
| Virginia | Disadvantaged waterworks: VDH is using the 1 percent of MHI as a determinant for target rates. Disadvantaged criteria is as follows: Disadvantaged waterworks are those who currently have or will have after project completion, user rates that meet or exceed the target rate or are willing to adjust/raise rates in accordance with a VDH approved schedule. Additionally, in an effort to comply with the requirements of the BIL, the disadvantaged criteria has been expanded to also include the use of the White House Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool and the EPA Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool. These tools utilize a variety of sources/data to identify EJ and Disadvantaged Communities. The continued use of these tools once the BIL funds are gone will be evaluated at that time. | IUP | Virginia DWSRF Program | Virginia Department of Environmental Quality - Environmental Justice | 11/23/2022 |
| Washington | To calculate affordability, we use the Affordability Index, a formula that considers an applicant’s water rates and median household income. The Affordability Index is based on actual median household income (MHI), existing average monthly water rate, proposed loan amount, and total connections. Starting with the highest scoring applicants, the program awarded subsidy using the following criteria: • Water systems with an affordability index of 2.01–3.50 percent will receive 30 percent principal forgiveness on their loan. • Water systems with an affordability index of 3.51 percent or more will receive 50 percent principal forgiveness on their loan. • Restructuring and consolidation projects that involve acquiring other noncompliant, failing, or struggling public water systems that have water quality problems or deteriorated infrastructure will receive 50 percent principal forgiveness on their loan. Water systems with a Debt Service Coverage Ratio of less than 1.20:1 (i.e., $1.20 in net income for every dollar of debt payments due in a year) may also be considered for subsidy if subsidy dollars are still available after using the screening methods above. | Statute | Washington DWSRF Program | Environmental Justice - Washington State Department of Ecology | 11/23/2022 |
| West Virginia | Communities will be classified as disadvantaged if they meet any one of the criteria listed below. • Water rates for 3,400 gallons average usage are greater than or equal to 1.25% of community Median Household Income (MHI) • Community with census tracts that have a poverty rate greater than or equal to 20% (Using the Census Bureau's official poverty measure) • Communities with 3.4% or greater unemployed population (for 16+ civilian labor force) • Communities with 11.7% or greater of the population receiving food stamps/SNAP benefits | IUP | West Virginia Drinking Water Treatment Revolving Fund | 11/23/2022 | |
| Wisconsin | The Safe Drinking Water Loan Program (SDWLP) offers a lower interest rate to local governmental units that meet two eligibility criteria. This interest rate is 33 percent of the state’s market rate. The two eligibility criteria are: 1. the local governmental unit’s population must be less than 10,000 and 2. the local governmental unit’s MHI must be 80 percent or less of the state’s MHI. In response to BIL, Wisconsin reviewed numerous potential criteria and other policy changes. As a result of this work, a mostly new methodology developed. The revised methodology adds four new metrics to gauge the financial need of a municipalities’ residents: county unemployment rates, Lowest Quintile Household Income (LQI), family poverty percentage, and municipal population trends that are currently used in the CWFP. The definition maintains the metrics for poverty and population trend. | IUP | Wisconsin Environmental Loans Section | The Wisconsin Environmental Equity Tool | Wisconsin Department of Health Services | 11/23/2022 |
| Wyoming | Wyoming State Loan and Investment Board (SLIB) determines the actual amount of principal forgiveness awarded to individual projects based on criteria set forth in SLIB Rules and Regulations Chapter 16 and on the actual applications received. The rules base eligibility for principal forgiveness primarily on disadvantaged community criteria that are based on income data, unemployment data, and population trends. (From 2021 IUP) Office of State Lands and Investments (OSLI) shall determine if an applicant is disadvantaged by awarding points based on population trend, income data, and unemployment data. • Applicants whose total points are six (6) or greater are eligible for Additional Subsidies of up to 75 percent of their loan amount. • Applicants whose total points are between 4 and 5 are eligible for additional subsidies up to 50 percent of their loan amount. • Applicants whose total points are between 2 and 3 are eligible for additional subsidies up to 25 percent of their loan amount. • Applicants whose total points are less than 2 are not considered disadvantaged and are not eligible for additional subsidies. Population: 500 or less (3pts), 501-3300 (2pts), 3301-10,000 (1pt), 10,001 (0pts). Annual MHI (from ACS survey): <60 percent (5), 60-70 percent (4), 70-80 percent (3), 80-90 percent (2) 90-110 percent (1), >110 percent (0). Unemployment: unemployment rate is equal to or greater than state rate (1), if less than (0) | Regulation | Wyoming DWSRF Program | 11/23/2022 | |
| Puerto Rico | Puerto Rico’s definition of a disadvantaged community (DAC) is those systems that meet the affordability criteria and that are less than 10,000 (small systems). The Department of Health (DOH) will consider a disadvantaged system those systems serving 25 or more persons or 15 or more connections for more than 60 consecutive days and up to 10,000 persons and may or may not be connected to a PRASA system whether or not in the next 5 years, and may or may not be considered isolated due to their topographic condition This Criterion is design to assist systems most is needed on a household basis. The points awarded for this Category are documented by the latest census information. For those systems, identified as disadvantaged, priority points will be awarded based on the Median Household Income Levels (MHIL). | Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority | |||
| District of Columbia | Although the District of Columbia (“the District”) is defined as a State for the purposes of SDWA, Section 1452(j) exempts the District from establishing a State Revolving Fund program. Therefore, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides the District's allotment of Federal funds in the form of grants. The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water) is the grantee for project grants while the DC Department of Energy & Environment (DOEE) and its agent, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Office at Blue Plains, can receive funds for oversight and management of these projects. DC does not define a DAC in their IUP for FY2021 or FY 2022. Their project priority ranking system is based on the following affordability criteria. In 1999, EPA in conjunction with DC Water developed a Project Priority Rating System. The Project Priority Rating System uses a system to numerically score drinking water projects based upon their contribution to protecting public health, improving compliance with regulatory standards, and maintaining drinking water reliability, safety, and environment. The ranking system includes a provision allowing for funding of lower-ranked projects (i.e., for by-passing higher-ranked projects) based on exigent circumstances and “implementability” of the ower-ranked projects relative to the higher-ranked projects proposed to be bypassed. | IUP | June 2022 | ||
| Other Territories | The EPA also provides funds from the CWSRF and DWSRF program through grants to the following territories: American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Community water systems and non-profit, non-community water systems are eligible for project funding. The funds are managed by EPA’s offices in Region 2 (for the Virgin Islands) and Region 9 (for American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands). EPA may award a grant to either a territorial government or directly to a territorial public water system. If the grant is awarded to a territorial government, that government selects projects to fund. It is important to note that Congress exempted the U.S. territories listed above from establishing their own state revolving loan fund programs. The U.S. territories instead chose to continue receiving funds under the Construction Grants Program. None of these territories have a DAC definition, as the funds may be awarded to a variety of different managers directly from the EPA. | June 2022 | |||
| Tribes | The EPA established the Drinking Water Infrastructure Grants Tribal Set-Aside (DWIG-TSA) Program to fund community water systems and non-profit, non-community water systems that serve a tribal population. The 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act) expanded the activities that are now eligible for DWIG-TSA funds, to include training and operator certification programs. The DWIG-TSA does not define a DAC beyond the statutory language in the SDWA Appendix A Sec. 1452, which mirrors SDWA language on affordability criteria. Simply put a ‘‘‘disadvantaged community’ means the service area of a public water system that meets affordability criteria established after public review and comment by the State in which the public water system is located. Administrators may publish information to assist States in establishing affordability criteria.” | June 2022 | |||
| State | Text Definition/IUP Priority Criteria | Where is the Definition? | Link to SRF Program | Link to State EJ Resources | Date last confirmed |
The States have been doing incredible work to help address disadvantaged communities, but they are facing both opportunities and challenges with expanding on these successes to help small and disadvantaged public water systems address needs for upgrading, maintaining, managing, and sustainably operating their systems. ASDWA began collecting case studies of community success stories and struggles from members in early 2022. Each case study highlights the community demographics, issues facing each system, and what steps were taken to help the system tackle its challenges. ASDWA is continually adding new case studies. If you have a case study you would like to highlight, please contact Stephanie Schlea at sschlea@asdwa.org.
| State | Town/City Name | Title | Pop. Size | Brief Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MN | City of Askov | Funding Infrastructure Improvements to Address DBP Violations in Askov, Minnesota: A Shared Funding and Assistance Plan to Ensure Future Success | 364 | The City of Askov, Minnesota is an underserved, small and disadvantaged community that has ongoing MCL violations for disinfection by-products. Askov was the highest ranked project on the state’s DWSRF Intended Use Plan (IUP) that meets the grant criteria of being underserved AND small or disadvantaged. The project funded from 2020-2023 will address a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) violation for disinfection by-products along with other needed upgrades to maintain compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act. |
| VA | Port Royal | Addressing Degrading Infrastructure in Port Royal, Virginia: A Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Success | 196 | Several significant deficiencies had been noted in previous sanitary surveys. The elevated tank had significant rust issues with structural problems. Water loss was significant due to failing distribution system pipes. Revenue collection was problematic as nobody wanted to shut off the water to any residents in the Town. Inconsistent revenue collection combined with a lack of functioning water meters resulted in minimal funding for operations and maintenance. |
| PA | Watrous Water Association | Addressing Ground Water Quality Filtration Needs in Pennsylvania Watrous Water Association Project | 40 | Watrous has spring sources which are Groundwater Under the Direct Influence of surface water (GUDI) and does not have the required filtration treatment for pathogen removal. Watrous needs a new supply of water that meets safe drinking water standards. |
| PA | Galeton Borough Authority | Addressing Ground Water Quality Filtration Needs in Pennsylvania Galton Borough Authority Regional Project | 1.270 | Galeton struggles with water quantity and is unable to meet pass-by requirements on Wetmore Run during drought conditions. Galeton needs additional groundwater source(s) and associated treatment to be constructed to reduce the withdraw burden on Wetmore Run and to have enough water to supply the needs of Watrous. |
| SC | Timmonsville | Consolidation to Address Violations and Funding Needs – City of Florence and Town of Timmonsville, South Carolina: A Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Fund Success | 2.369 | The town was having both drinking water and wastewater issues with technical, managerial, and financial capacity. Due to a prevalence of leaks and undersized lines, the entire system lacked the ability to maintain adequate system pressure and due to the lack of a backflow prevention program did not have distribution system protection from cross contamination. The wastewater system also needed repairs and upgrades to the treatment plant. |
| WA | Faranda | Building Technical, Financial, and Managerial Capacity in Faranda, Washington: A Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Small System Success | 28 | Due to a small population gain, the system must now meet all federal standards with aging infrastructure and incomplete documentation. Faranda has a contract manager providing a base level of technical capacity but it still lacks the technical expertise needed to effectively run a water system. The system currently has low cash reserves and lacks significant financial resources needed to invest in improving infrastructure. |
| WA | Peoples Creek | Addressing Degrading Infrastructure in Peoples Creek, Washington: A Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Small System Success | 75 | The water system was initially constructed in the 1970s as an investor-owned utility. After years of neglect and several water quality violations, the system was placed into receivership and the community took ownership of the system and formed a Homeowner Association (HOA) in 2007. Soon after, Peoples Creek was not only struggling to bring the run-down system up to existing standards but also found their spring source met the new definition of Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water and required surface water treatment. A permanent boil water advisory was placed on the system until the issue could be resolved. |
| WA | Vader | Addressing Water Main Breaks in Vader, Washington: A Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Small System Success | 985 | In 2010, Vader was facing an insurmountable crisis. The city had experienced 17 system-wide water outages over the past two years as a result of water main breaks they didn’t have the funds to fix. To become eligible for financial aid, the city voluntarily transferred the ownership of their antiquated water system to Lewis County through a state-brokered receivership agreement in 2010. |
| OK | Webbers Falls | Flood Recovery in Webbers Falls, Oklahoma: A FEMA and DWSRF Funding Success | 616 | Due to a major flooding event in May 2019, the Webbers Falls community had a mandatory emergency evacuation and ECOWA closed the water valves. When the flood waters receded and residents returned, ECOWA opened the water valves but residents on the west side of the river were not receiving drinking water. Upon investigation, they discovered that the 6-inch water line that was supposed to be located on the bottom of the river bed had washed away in the flood. |
| CT | Sprague | Emergency Interconnection Between Norwich Public Utilities and Sprague Water and Sewer Authority distribution Systems | 2.967 | DPH’s recent Sanitary Survey report cited SWSA with several deficiencies. SWSA also experiences occasional water main breaks due to the age of the pipes used in the distribution main. SWSA was in need of a reliable backup source of supply to meet their water demands in the event of a public drinking water supply emergency due to a low margin of safety in water supply from their groundwater sources. |
| CT | Multiple towns | Connecticut’s Emergency Power Generator Program | 0 | The importance of having an emergency standby generator at community water systems is to maintain electrical power to their water system during an outage and to continue to provide potable water at adequate volume and pressure to their customers. When a water system loses pressure to their system, not only do the customers lose their potable water supply but it allows for contamination to enter the system and becomes a public health risk to the community. Many of the small water systems in Connecticut face the same resiliency issues that the larger water systems face only with limited capacity to pay for substantial upgrades to their system or to navigate the requirements associated with DWSRF assistance. |
| State | Town/City Name | Title | Pop. Size | Brief Description |
Expand the sections below to view additional environmental justice resources.
ASDWA’s Environmental Justice News Feed
ASDWA publishes content covering various areas of the drinking water program.
2021 © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy.
