In this Issue:
Newsletter Links:
Sponsored by the
Utah Department of
Environmental Quality
In the mid-1990s, the 4,000 folks living in West Haven, Weber County, had an overflowing problem: Many septic tanks were full and spilling into open drain ditches, creating foul odors and a major health problem.
Today, the city boasts a new wastewater collection system connecting area homes and businesses to the Hooper wastewater treatment plant. The nearly $12 million project was funded by a zero-interest loan from the State Revolving Fund Loan Program, administered by the Water Quality Board.
“Without this type of loan, without the help of the Water Quality Board, we wouldn’t have been able to build the system,” said Steve Anderson, West Haven city engineer. West Haven residents now pay $30 to $40 a month in sewer bills, a fraction of what it would have been without the loan program.
But success stories like West Haven may be harder to come by in the future if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dramatically cuts its water project grants to the states. Because Utah takes its share of the EPA grant pool and adds it to the revolving loan fund, less federal funding could mean fewer Utah projects will be funded.
“The loan program has been very successful, providing $350 million in loans to help fund more than 200 projects since 1988,” said Walt Baker, director of the Utah Division of Water Quality. “This year’s funding is at an all-time low, and EPA is proposing to cut federal funding even further.”
EPA contributes $4.72 million to the revolving loan fund in the current budget year. The proposed 2007 budget calls for $3.66 million. The revolving loan fund has anywhere from $18 million to $23 million a year, coming from loan repayments, sales tax revenue and EPA funds. The number of critical projects is typically greater than the amount of money available, and any reduction in EPA money will mean some projects will be delayed.
And delays mean the growing backlog becomes a growing problem. Water Quality officials are accustomed to shrinking federal participation. In the mid-1980s, EPA contributed more than $20 million a year to Utah projects for Central Valley Water Reclamation Facility, Provo City and Spanish Fork City.
Those aging facilities will soon be in need of upgrades, Baker said. And that comes at the same time that many small Utah communities need to switch from septic tanks to treatment facilities.
In Fairview, Sanpete County, $4.1 million of funding assistance in 2004 helped the town build a $10 million collection and treatment system.
“Without these Water Quality Board loans, cities like Fairview wouldn’t be able to afford it,” said John Iverson of Sunrise Engineering, project manager for the Fairview city project. The city charges $38 a month for sewer service. Without the loan, it would have been well over $100 a month.”
The only silver lining is that the higher loans of years past are now being paid back, creating a bigger pool of loan repayment funds available to be loaned out again. “The loans help communities embrace new technologies that improve public health and improve the environment,” Baker said. “We make a difference.”