Drinking Water vs Wastewater Services:

The funding data is categorized by the type of service provided. Which types of services received the larger share of funding? As expected, sewer services are generally more costly and capital intensive and therefore received the lion’s share of public monies. (Click on figure for larger image.)

Grants vs Loans:

With the passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in 1972, nearly 80 percent of all water and sewer (W&S) infrastructure wastewater costs were shouldered by Federal grants. This large push in public funding amounted to one of the largest public investments in US history. Meanwhile Federal subsidies have continuously decreased for the past two decades. Local governments may now often carry up to 90 percent of the burden. Second only to education, W&S infrastructure in the US is one of the most costly items in a local government’s budget. These large capital expenditures for W&S infrastructure can hamper local government’s ability to provide other critical public services (e.g. police and fire protection).

In recent years, low interest rate loans have been gaining popularity over grants. Although these grants often required extensive paperwork and engineering, it was often considered ‘free’ money regardless. In 2000 through 2003 the majority of funds were distributed via loans – largely through the State Revolving Fund programs. (Click on figure for larger image.)

State Comparison of Grants vs Loans:

The way in which different states are distributed Federal funds, and distribute their state funds are equally diverse. Grant based financial strategies of the 1970s are generally being replaced with loan based strategies. Eleven of the 13 Appalachian states utilize loan mechanisms over grants – with the exception of North Carolina and Kentucky. This is likely due to the sheer number of different state programs each of these states have enacted (refer to the “State Specific Funding Programs” figures below). (Click on figure for larger image.)

Per Capita Disbursements from Federal vs State Sources:

When the funding data is normalized on a per capita basis, we see that certain states (such as West Virginia) receive a greater portion of funding on a per capita than others. This is significantly different picture than total funding disbursements per state or county.

Through a federal versus state comparison between states it is apparent that certain states such as Alabama, Mississippi, and Maryland receive the majority of funds from Federal sources. Whereas state specific programs play a much larger role in the other states. (Click on figure for larger image.)

Funding from State Specific Programs:

Special programs established by individual states accounted for about 23 percent of the public fund investments. Stand-alone state specific programs have been important in some states and nonexistent in others. States in Appalachia employ vastly different funding strategies, which lead to major differences in the types of assistance and incentives that reach local communities. (Click on figure for larger image.)

Funding Trends:

A view of the trends in public financing of water and sewer services depict how monies have been distributed; select state trends are shown. (Click on figure for larger image.)