Program Manager message: Infrastructure Funding

During the 2020s, we have seen unprecedented federal support for funding drinking water infrastructure. However, it has also been complicated and challenging, and the future is uncertain regarding the continuation of federal funding. Yet it remains quite certain that water infrastructure needs for the next couple of decades will be enormous. The need stems from both replacing aging infrastructure and meeting new federal public health protection requirements, including lead and PFAS, with another major rule coming out in a couple of years to update the Microbial/Disinfection Byproducts (M/DBP) suite of rules.

As we reported in 2022, President Biden signed the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) into law in 2021. The IIJA appropriated significant funds to the State Revolving Fund Programs (SRF), which is administered by the Co
lorado 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 is being allocated in essentially three “buckets,” including general infrastructure, emerging contaminants, and lead service lines. Initially, Colorado was projected to receive approximately $680 million over the five years. However, the actual awards have fluctuated to some degree due to adjustments made in Congress and reallocations of some of the lead money. 

At this point, we are four years in and have one more to go. This funding represents a major opportunity for Colorado. But the need for continued water infrastructure support is enormous, especially considering the new federal drinking water rules mentioned above. There has been talk across the sector about extending the federal infrastructure investment. At the recent annual conference of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), a panel regarding funding and finance recommended emphasizing the following points when communicating about water infrastructure needs:

• Positive impact for affordability. With so much pressure on rate payers these days, supporting water infrastructure is one way to support overall economic vitality and help keep water rates affordable. 
• Impact to small, rural communities. These communities tend to struggle most with tackling complicated, expensive infrastructure projects and these funding sources tend to help small, rural communities the most.
• Share responsibility. Federal, state and local governments all share roles and responsibilities for safe water, and infrastructure investments like IIJA demonstrate that commitment. 
• Fundamental societal need. Adequate infrastructure is a cornerstone of safe water which is foundational for the economy and national security.
• Specifically, for restoring SRF funding, the following points were discussed:
• Without the SRFs, loan forgiveness and many great assistance programs that benefit small, rural communities will be lost.
• SRF funding is vital to ensure the efficacy of many state primacy programs, which is a preferred option compared to direct federal implementation.
• The SRFs support water affordability in small, rural communities that cannot afford modern water infrastructure. 
• Commitment to the SRFs is needed because they provide below-market loans, even 0% interest loans and loan forgiveness (like grants), especially to small, rural communities.

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

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

PM Message: Addressing High Nitrate Levels in Groundwater

Last month I attended the annual member meeting of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) in Washington, D.C. This group consists of all my counterparts in other U.S. states and territories. It is a great opportunity for me to learn about how other states are working to address similar challenges to what we may be facing in Colorado. This year three states, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Nebraska, shared information about what they are doing to address high nitrate levels in groundwater. Significant portions of these states experience this problem that impacts both community and non-community groundwater systems, plus private wells. Nitrate is known as an acute health risk contaminant for infants. However, more research is being done about chronic impacts as well.

Though our nitrate concerns in Colorado tend to be more localized, we have had a number of water systems exceed the nitrate Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 10 mg/L over time as well. In the 2010s almost 50 communities had a nitrate MCL violation and 65 non-community water systems also had nitrate MCL violations. Fortunately, those numbers are considerably lower so far in the 2020s. A nitrate MCL violation represents a serious challenge for those systems as immediate Tier 1 public notice must be provided advising customers to stop drinking the water. Addressing this issue can be time consuming and expensive. If treatment is needed then ion exchange or reverse osmosis is typically used, which requires a higher level operator for the system and creates a concentrated waste that must be handled and disposed of as well on top of all the added cost for the treatment infrastructure.

Given these concerns, I thought I would share a brief summary of this issue in these states and some of the steps they are taking to address this challenge

Wisconsin is “America’s Dairyland” and #2 state in the country in growing potatoes, which is a nitrate intensive crop. Ten percent of its 800,000 private wells exceed the nitrate MCL which would cost over $400,000 million to replace those wells. Wisconsin public water systems receive 30 to 40 new nitrate MCL violations every year, dwarfing our problem in Colorado. While there is a sense that this problem cannot be fully “solved” in the near future, Wisconsin is taking numerous steps with many partners and projects help with it. Most of these efforts come from their source water protection protection program and include:

• Teacher workshops through universities educating kids about groundwater with specific lesson plans and hands on models
• Nitrogen budget and leaching calculator
• Decision tools that can evaluate application rates
• Developed a well water quality map view with largely private well data
• Evaluating nitrate depth guide drilling to often deeper unimpacted locations
• Numerous projects with with farmers and universities
• Replacing wells

In Minnesota corn and bean crops are main nitrate sources and the southeastern portion of the state with its karst geology is most vulnerable to contamination. Minnesota has fewer violations than its neighbor but last year, 60% of those water systems had to install treatment. Minnesota enacted a new groundwater protection rule that limits fall fertilization applications and is working on a mitigation process in vulnerable areas. The state also developed a number of programs designed to help private well owners and developed simple communication materials. These efforts involve: 

• Well inventory including private wells
• Substantial Outreach/communications including realtors
• Free nitrate testing
• Free treatment available, with 140 reverse osmosis systems installed
• Health-based guidance including:
• New studies showing nitrate association with numerous conditions
• Historical information regarding blue baby syndrome cases in the 1940s

Nebraska recently commissioned a study of nitrate in groundwater showing large areas of the state with nitrate levels above 10 mg/L. They have about 170 public water systems currently  treating for nitrate. Nebraska developed a predictive model to predict how far away a system might be from having a source that exceeds the nitrate MCL and categorized the systems with certain actions:

• 0-3 years out = get started on funding applications
• 3-6 years = provide assistance
• >6 years = Emphasize source water protection

Nebraska offered free testing to private well owners and a rebate program for reverse osmosis treatment systems. They also developed an outreach toolbox with an emphasis on risk assessment.

In Wisconsin and Minnesota EPA got involved to pressure the states to take action to address this acute health risk, and also partnered with the states in the efforts to address it. As you can see, tackling this challenge requires a great deal of effort. I am thankful that we can draw on the experiences in these states to help us when we face similar issues in Colorado. Thank you for your efforts in keeping our drinking water safe.

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