Fundamentals of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)

On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed the $1.2 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) into law. The BIL appropriates a significant amount of funding to the State Revolving Fund Programs (SRF), which is administered by the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority, Department of Local Affairs and CDPHE. The Authority is the grant recipient for the SRF, DOLA evaluates the financial structure of the applicant’s application to the SRFs, and CDPHE manages the technical and compliance aspects of the SRFs. The funding will be allocated in essentially three “buckets” over the next five years, which includes general infrastructure, emerging contaminants, and lead service lines. Colorado will receive approximately $680 million over the next five years, with much available as loan forgiveness (similar to a grant). Below is a table showing the anticipated awards.

Year	Clean Water - Supplemental Infrastructure Funds	Drinking Water - Supplemental Infrastructure Funds	Total
2022	$14,354,000	$35,476,000
2023	$17,616,000	$42,498,600
2024	$19,224,000	$46,377,900
2025	$20,824,000	$50,237,900
2026	$20,824,000	$50,237,900
Total:	$92,842,000	$224,828,300	$317,670,300
Year	Clean Water - Emerging Contaminants Funds	Drinking Water - Emerging Contaminants Funds	Total
2022	$753,000	$14,898,000
2023	$1,800,000	$15,000,000
2024	$1,800,000	$15,000,000
2025	$1,800,000	$15,000,000
2026	$1,800,000	$15,000,000
Total:	$7,953,000	$74,898,000	$82,851,000
Year	NA	Drinking Water - Lead Service Line Replacement Funds	Total
2022		$55,866,000
2023		$56,000,000
2024		$56,000,000
2025		$56,000,000
2026		$56,000,000
Total:		$279,866,000	$279,866,000
Totals:	$100,795,000	$579,592,300	$680,387,300
Blue numbers for 2022 are actual allotment numbers. 2023 through 2026 are estimates.

 

As stated above, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) funding is allocated by the EPA to the existing drinking and clean water state revolving fund (SRF) program. The process for awarding funds is the same as the existing program.

1. Applicants must submit an eligibility survey to be included on the state’s Intended Use Plan (IUP) that describes how funds will be used for the plan year.
2. Based on the eligibility surveys received, the division develops eligibility lists and includes them in the draft IUP. TheWater Quality Control Commission reviews and approves the IUP. 
3. After the commission approves the IUP, the eligibility lists are adopted by the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority,and the General Assembly.
4. Communities that are included on the eligibility lists in the approved IUP may start the application process through the SRF.
5. The steps for a drinking water project are described in the DWRF Loan Program Steps and wastewater projects are described in the WPCRF Loan Program Steps.
6. The BIL requires funds to be issued as a combination of principal forgiveness and a subsidized loan. The eligible criteria are included in the Intended Use Plan. The projects are evaluated based on the criteria and may be awarded principal forgiveness subject to funding availability at the time of loan application. The eligibility criteria and BIL funding categories are included in the Addendum to the 2022 DWRF IUP and Addendum to the 2022 WPCRF IUP.  

This funding represents a major opportunity for Colorado. The existing SRF programs received approximately $34 million in funding from the EPA per year over the past few years. The BIL allocates an additional $121 to $143 million to the SRF program on a yearly basis for the next five years. No funding has been awarded yet, as the state is still in the process of applying for funds. But we currently have 40 applications in process that are being evaluated for eligibility with regards to BIL funding. The department will likely begin issuing funds within the next few months, depending on when EPA sends the funds.

While the BIL represents great opportunity, there are expected challenges too, such as:

1. The BIL funding requires a state match for the next five years. It appears that the state has the matching funds for the first year. But the program is working to determine how the state will meet the match requirements in future years.
2. Staffing and training of new staff is a challenge given the level of additional funding. The program is working quickly to hire additional staff.
3. The Build America, Buy America Act (BABA) applies to BIL funding, and requires  that all construction materials and manufactured products are made in the United States. Additional federal regulations such as BABA may slow funding awards and may be a challenge for projects to comply with. 

We share a collective commitment with local governments to protect public health and ensure safe tap water for all. The BIL funding can help us move forward toward that goal. Contact us if your community is interested in pursuing this funding. Thank you.

➽ Mark Henderson, P.E. Unit Manager, Grants and Loans

➽ Michael Beck Section Manager Community Development & Partnership 

➽ Ron Falco, P.E. Safe Drinking Water Program Director

Another Storage Tank Article? Here's why...

Colorado promulgated the first-of-its-kind finished water storage tank rule in 2015. By and large, the public water system community has done an outstanding job in the last few years improving storage tank oversight, cleaning, and maintenance. Systems have also taken measures such as installing tank mixers at key locations in order to keep water fresh and maintain proper water quality throughout distribution.  While everyone’s efforts are improving the protection of water quality by identifying and addressing potential pathways of contamination at tanks, this article focuses on a specific avenue that may allow for contaminants to enter protected water storage - flush-mounted roof hatches.

In subsequent years after the Storage Tank Rule went into effect, we have published a myriad of articles about finished water storage tanks, their importance, the purpose of the rule, key things to be planning for, and other guidance to help water systems stay on top of their storage tanks. To see just a sample of some of the articles we have published about storage tanks, follow these links:

Storage tank rule primer articles:

• Article 1
• Article 2
• Storage tank air vent article
• Storage tank comprehensive inspection article

Prior to 2010, the division did not consistently review or approve storage tanks or storage tank appurtenances including hatches. We had published design criteria about roof hatch expectations (see Figure 1 below), but at the same time the division did not cite specific tank issues on design approvals. Therefore, for tanks designed and constructed prior to the 2000s, many different styles and types of hatches were installed and remain in use today. At this time, the department has identified challenges to provide adequate protection of tanks with the flush-mounted storage roof hatches installed outdoors. See Figures 2 and 3 below. The department has seen an uptick of significant deficiencies during sanitary surveys related to these flush mount systems installed outdoors.

Figure 1 - Excerpt from the Design Criteria for Potable Water Systems (2022 Edition) - Section 7.0.8.iii

Figure 2 - Outside pic of a flush-mount hatch installed on a concrete pedestal - the first hatch has a more robust seal than the second, but both are potentially subject to contamination based on the lack of an overlapping lid.

Figure  3 - Clean drainage channel - intact, robust gasket

At times, these outdoor hatches can be maintained and prevent contamination of the finished water as in the photos in Figures 2 and 3. However, the division has noted that properly maintained and protective flush-mounted tank hatches installed outdoors are more the exception than the rule. These hatches are not designed to keep contamination out of the tank in extreme weather conditions. The intrinsic hatch design has several key points of failure that need to be monitored quite frequently. During recent sanitary surveys that followed significant rain events, division staff observed points of failure in the hatches in question as shown in figures 4-7 below.:

Figure 4 - Flooded drain channel due to screen clogging - rainwater overwhelms the gasket and leaks into the storage tank as shown by the water mark due to drainage into the tank.

Figure 5 - Substantial insect activity in the drain channel - with insect intrusion and webs.

Figure 6 - Substantial insect activity inside a flush mounted hatch with webs and debris

Figure 7 - Evidence of a yellowjacket hornet nest inside the drainage channel - this can cause flooding of the hatch gasket and contamination

The Division recommends that systems proactively replace such hatches. At times, a second hatch can be mounted on the surrounding concrete to provide a proper seal and protect the finished water. However, on other occasions the hatch has to be completely replaced. As the storage tank rule enters its seventh year - there appears to be ample evidence that most flush-mount hatches do not provide a reliable seal for outdoor environments and must be carefully monitored and maintained. While they may be able to provide an adequate seal indoors, in the elements many points of failure make them arguably an unacceptable risk to public health.

The division will continue to communicate with the regulated community about our intention to cite these hatches that allow potential contamination as significant deficiencies each time we encounter them during sanitary survey site visits. However, don’t wait until your next sanitary survey to evaluate replacement as an proactive option to protect finished water and in the meantime, make sure to evaluate them during periodic inspections to ensure proper protections from contamination are in place. If you have any questions, please reach out to the Field Services Section at cdphe_wqcd_fss_questions@state.co.us or the Engineering Section at CDPHE.WQEngReview@state.co.us.  Figure 8 demonstrates the proper hatch systems that should be installed on outdoor storage tanks.

Figure 8 - Ideal hatch design for outdoor installations

➽ Tyson Ingles, Lead Drinking Water Engineer

Program manager message: Operations and Maintenance a Critical Barrier

 

Hello everyone,

We have been doing some digging (it almost feels like an archeological expedition) into the Aquatalk archives and finding some old articles that are relevant today. Way back when, we actually mailed out hard copies of an Aquatalk Newsletter each quarter. Today, we issue a blog article about once every two weeks. A prior version of this article ran in our Fall 2010 newsletter. Only a little modification/updating was needed for the present. We will periodically re-run some prior articles with updates. We hope you enjoy them. 

We are all aware of the multiple barrier approach to protecting public health and providing safe drinking water. Adequate barriers to disease begin at the source water and continue through treatment, disinfection, storage and distribution. But none of these barriers are operated or maintained by themselves. I have been disturbed recently by the amount of advertising I have seen selling equipment or storage tanks as “maintenance free.” Is there really such a thing? I believe this kind of thinking does a disservice to the critical role operations and maintenance personnel serve in protecting public drinking water supplies. 

Vigilant operators provide vital oversight to the actual operating status of the entire public drinking water system from source to tap in real time. Operators should be routinely monitoring all aspects of the system to ensure that everything is working as designed, and identifying and fixing problems that may arise. Operators monitor instrumentation that could show a potential water quality problem and take samples to verify that the water system is working properly and that the drinking water is safe. The instruments themselves need to be monitored and properly maintained and calibrated when appropriate. 

Similarly, maintenance activities prevent equipment failures that could jeopardize water quality or lead to a catastrophic failure. Water systems need detailed equipment inventories and preventive maintenance programs to keep everything running smoothly. Of course, executing the maintenance program is then the key step to ensuring equipment is functioning within specified parameters, and performing its job in keeping drinking water flowing and safe. Proper maintenance also saves money.

I view the human element involved with operating and maintaining public drinking water systems as the most important public health protection barrier. All the sophisticated treatment systems and instrumentation in the world are insufficient without dedicated personnel to verify that said equipment is running properly each day, and taking care of the equipment and instruments with preventive maintenance to ensure it will be running properly tomorrow. Machines, instruments and “maintenance free” devices cannot think for themselves. They cannot truly evaluate and understand what is happening or may happen at a water system. It takes the eyes, ears, knowledge and instincts of operating and maintenance personnel to make sure that drinking water is safe, and will remain that way.  

 I would recommend thinking twice before buying something billed as “maintenance free.”

 Thank you, 

➽ Ron Falco, P.E. Safe Drinking Water Program Manager