You asked about funding sources for projects to separate combined storm and sanitary sewer systems since 1988. You specifically asked how much of the project costs have come from (1) state and federal grants; (2) state and federal loans; and (3) local bonding and direct funding by municipalities, unsupported by state or federal subsidies. You also asked which of these improvements have been ordered by state or federal governments, and which municipalities have been involved.

SUMMARY

The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) lists seven incomplete or recently completed combined sewer overflow (CSO) projects, funded through the state’s Clean Water Fund. CSO projects separate a municipality’s storm and sanitary sewers.

The seven projects are Bridgeport, Enfield, Jewett City, the Metropolitan District Commission (greater Hartford area), Middletown, New Haven, and Norwich. (The cost of a planned Waterbury CSO project is not included in the list).

The state has so far expended $ 86,275,578 in grants and $ 98,180,668 in loans on these projects, for a total of $ 184,456,246. An additional five CSO projects in Derby, Norwalk, Portland, Shelton, and Westport were completed and funded under a U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) construction grant program that predated the Clean Water Fund. Those projects cost $ 6 million, $ 22 million, $ 1 million, $ 8 million, and $ 4 million, respectively. Under this earlier program, the federal government contributed 75% of the costs, the state 15%, and municipalities 10%.

CLEAN WATER FUND

The Clean Water Fund (CGS § 22a-475 et seq. ), created in 1986, established a revolving loan and grant program to aid municipalities building, repairing, expanding or improving publicly owned systems that store, treat, recycle or reclaim sewage. According to the Clean Water Fund 2003 Annual Report, prepared by DEP and the state treasurer, total cumulative project funding of $ 1. 3 billion has provided wastewater treatment to more than 65% of the state’s population. Municipalities have received $ 335 million in grants since the program began.

Funding for CSO projects is split 50/50 between grants and loans. Municipalities repay the loans, plus 2% interest, over 20 years, starting from the date the project is completed (Conn. Agencies Regs. § 22a-482-2(d)(12(B)(18) and (22)).

According to DEP, the municipalities undertook the CSO projects to comply with DEP pollution abatement orders.

DEP does not keep track of local costs. However, the vast majority of those costs would be incurred in repaying the loans. If one considers low-interest loans a form of subsidy, all local costs would be supported by a subsidy.

According to DEP, the department funds the grants with state General Obligation bonds, while the loans are funded primarily with state revenue bonds with some financial assistance from the EPA. EPA contributes about $ 16 million a year to the Clean Water Fund, but the federal share goes to the fund as a whole and is not broken down by project.

Table 1 lists the costs to date of the unfinished projects. DEP’s William Hogan, engineer of water pollution control facilities, says specific projects listed below may not appear to be split evenly between grants and loans because of project costs eligible for loans, but not grants, such as legal fees, easements and other administrative costs.

Table 1: DEP Clean Water Fund Expenditures for CSO Projects

PF: ts