Maryland State Capital Funding Programs Point Source Nutrient Reduction Chesapeake Bay Restoration

Similar documents
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Wastewater Treatment Story: Three Decades and Counting

Water Quality and Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund Programs

State of Arkansas Construction Assistance Revolving Loan Fund Program

Excellence in Engineering Since 1946

DORCHESTER COUNTY CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL PHASE II WATERSHED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT)

Overview of the Division of Water Restoration Assistance

BALTIMORE COUNTY. Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan

Chesapeake Bay and Potomac Tidal Monitoring Programs Past, Present and Future

Kevin DeBell, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gary Shenk, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

WORKING PAPER How Nutrient Trading Could Help Restore the Chesapeake Bay

Baltimore City Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) July 2, 2012

State of Arkansas Construction Assistance Revolving Loan Fund Program

Integrated Water Management in Maryland. Anwer Hasan, Senior Vice President

Overview of Water Quality Trading Programs

A MODEL PROGRAM FOR ONSITE SYSTEM MANAGEMENT IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED

Maryland s s Nutrient Trading Program. How Trading Works. John Rhoderick Maryland Department of Agriculture

LOW INTEREST LOANS FOR AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION

Market-Based Programs for Water Quality Improvement: (Part of) the solution to diffuse pollution?

Comparison Tables of State Nutrient Trading Programs in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

FY Springs Funding Projects

Maryland Department of the Environment. FY16 Strategic Plan. June 2015

Accounting for Uncertainty in Offset and Trading Programs

TMDL Data Center Webinar: Response to Comments and Questions

THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM

Table 2: State Agency Recommendations Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets

MS4 MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS. Purpose The magnitude of the MS4 program Where do the stormwater dollars go Benefits Authority

EPA Trends for wastewater Treatment in California

Chesapeake Conservation Corps Member Application Instructions

Maryland's Trading and Offset Programs Review Observations

Series 2016A-2 (Green Bonds) Final Proceeds Allocation April 2016

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Report to the General Court of the Commonwealth on the Topic of NPDES Authorization

5. Environmental Analysis

Georgia Department of Public Health. Georgia Onsite Sewage Management Systems. Background and Use of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in Georgia

Leveraging Ohio s Clean Water SRF Program to Fund Stream and Wetland Restoration and Protection Projects

Economic Impact of Stormwater Financing

County Watersheds. Total Project Cost - $11.1 M. Project Description. Funding Sources. Project Milestones. Service Impact

Overview of Proposition 1 TRACIE BILLINGTON, CHIEF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE BRANCH DIVISION OF INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT

Kansas City s Overflow Control Program

NEW JERSEY ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE TRUST. Financial Assistance Programs for Environmental Infrastructure Facilities

MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL NONPOINT PROGRAM NOAA/EPA DECISIONS ON CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

SECTION 10: POLLUTION CONTROL BONDS OREGON DEQ AGENCY REQUEST BUDGET

Rouge River Watershed, MI Region 5. Community Case Study ROU-1. Number of CSO Outfalls. Combined Sewer Service Area. Wastewater Treatment Capacity

Florida Senate SB 534

FINAL Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL July 2, 2012

ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR

EPA Grants Supported Restoring the Chesapeake Bay

Water Quality and Water Usage Surveys

Facilitating Adaptive Management in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed through the Use of Online Decision Support Tools

Clean Water Activites Services - Suggestions from Stakeholders. Federal Statute or Regulation Change? State Regulation Change? Policy Change?

REVISED DRAFT Prince George s County, Maryland Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan

Getting to Know Your Watershed: Lewis Bay

EPA s Allowing States to Use Bonds to Meet Revolving Fund Match Requirements Reduces Funds Available for Water Projects

AGENCY SUMMARY NARRATIVE

Delaware's Trading and Offset Programs Review Observations. I. Summary of Program Characteristics and Regulatory Status

Sustainability Brief: Water Quality and Watershed Integrity

FY2016 Intended Use Plan

CHAPTER MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS

Clean Water Services. Ecosystems Services Case Study: Tualatin River, Washington

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA District Department of the Environment *** MS4 LETTER AGREEMENT

Creating the environment for business

Capital Construction and Debt Service

2015 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF KANSAS E REPORT #9. Paul Johnson March 6, 2015 POLICY BATTLES

Sanitary Sewers LINK TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

APPLICATION FOR STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN

Anne Arundel County s Watershed Protection and Restoration Program STORMWATER REMEDIATION FEE CREDIT POLICY AND GUIDANCE (Multi-Family,

Part B Integrated Monitoring Design for Comprehensive Assessment and Identification of Impaired Waters Contents

EPA Webcast: Implementing Green Roofs at the Local Level June 8, Sara Loveland

SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN

WRI POLICY NOTE. Because demand for funding in conservation programs

Water management and challenges in Norway

CAPE COD. Regional Wastewater Management Plan Understanding the Cost Factors of Wastewater Treatment and Disposal

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION. INVESTMENT POLICY for. Liquidity Fund (Taxable)

On-Site wastewater Treatment Programs in the Watershed

Water Trust Board. Background. Water Matters! Water Trust Board 28-1

On-site Treatmentt for Domestic Wastewater in Thailand Suwanna. K. Boontanon Mahidol Univ. 2

APPENDIX F MDE Response to EPA s Comments on the Final Draft 2004 Integrated Report

Glen Hills Area: Septic System and Public Sewer Q & A Information Sheet Page 1

~Pennsylvania Campaign for Clean Water~ Stormwater Workgroup

American Society of Civil Engineers

SECTION 7 DEBT MANAGEMENT POLICY LAS VEGAS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET

Anish Jantrania (photo) and Allen Knapp

12/3/2015 MUNICIPAL STORMWATER RESPONSIBILITIES YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS STORMWATER? WHY?

BEFORE THE PHILADELPHIA WATER, SEWER AND STORMWATER RATE BOARD DIRECT TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN J. FURTEK

Environmental Engineering, University of Seoul, Jennong-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Korea.

A HYDROLOGIC NETWORK SUPPORTING SPATIALLY REFERENCED REGRESSION MODELING IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED

DRAFT Town Overview Why the Wastewater Management Program Was Created Block Island

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY OF INVENTORY FINDINGS:

Yes, subject to certain limitations under the VRA Act and IRS regulations.

SILVER CREEK ST. AUGUSTINE LLLP FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT. December 31, 2015 and 2014

Bear Creek Watershed Jefferson, Clear Creek & Park Counties, Colorado

15. EPA Region 6: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico & Oklahoma

CHAPTER WAC WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AND ABATEMENT PLANS FOR SEWAGE DRAINAGE BASINS

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C

Groundwater Discharge Permit Falmouth Wastewater Treatment Facility. Response to Comments

FIVE-YEAR ASSESSMENT REPORT

Town of Ware Board of Health. Regulations for Percolation Tests, Soil Evaluations, Design, and Technical Review of Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems

Rocky EEP Preliminary Findings Report Summary February 2005

Protecting the Nation s Waters Through Effective NPDES Permits

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY. Bureau of. Bond Finance.

NEW JERSEY. New Jersey ranks 24th among the states in number of local governments, with 1,383 as of October COUNTY GOVERNMENTS (21)

Transcription:

Department of the Environment Maryland State Capital Funding Programs Point Source Nutrient Reduction Chesapeake Bay Restoration Jag Khuman, Director Maryland Water Quality Financing Administration (MWQFA) Environmental Management of Enclosed Coastal Seas (EMECS-9) Conference August 29, 2011

Maryland Capital Funding Programs for Point Source Nutrient Reduction Administered by MDE Presentation Overview Nutrient (Nitrogen & Phosphorus) Reduction From Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) discharging to Surface Waters (Point Sources) in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 1. Bay Restoration Fund (WWTP & Septic) 2. Water Quality Revolving Loan Fund

MWQFA Administered Programs Water Quality Revolving Loan Fund (WQRLF) Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund (DWRLF) Bay Restoration Fund (Wastewater) Bay Restoration Fund (Septic) Provides financial assistance for a wide variety of projects to protect or improve the quality of Maryland's rivers, streams, lakes, the Chesapeake Bay and other water resources Provides financial assistance for a wide variety of projects to facilitate compliance with national primary drinking water standards that protect or improve the quality of Maryland's drinking water resources Provides grants for the upgrade of major wastewater treatment plants with Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR) technologies, the upgrade of existing sewerage distribution systems and the incremental cost of wastewater treatment plant ENR operations and maintenance Provides grants and loans for the upgrade of septic systems with nitrogen removal best available technologies. (Also grants for cover crops through Maryland Department of Agriculture)

Chesapeake Bay Watershed The nutrients causing water quality impairments drain into the Chesapeake Bay via rivers from the entire watershed. New York Pennsylvania Chesapeake Bay Watershed Boundary West Virginia Maryland District of Columbia Delaware Virginia

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Includes parts of six states - Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, and the entire District of Columbia. About 150 rivers and streams make up the 64,000-squaremile Bay Watershed The Susquehanna River provides about 50 percent of the fresh water coming into the Bay an average of 19 million gallons of water per minute. The Bay watershed is home to 17 million people and growing.

Sources of Nutrients Sources of Nutrients to the Chesapeake Bay are: Fertilizer from farms, lawns, golf courses etc. Sewage treatment plants, industrial wastewater facilities, septic systems and animal manure Stormwater runoff Air pollution from vehicles, coal burning power plants and industries

Chesapeake Bay Habitat Health Report Card: 2008 Source: The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES)

EPA Bay TMDL TMDL: Total Maximum Daily Loading US EPA is enforcing the Federal Clean Water Act by establishing Bay-wide TMDLs. River and stream segments to have max. pollution loading limits.

Nitrogen TMDL

Nitrogen Max. Loading Allocation - Bay States July 1, 2010 Draft Allocations Nitrogen Allocation (million pounds/year) PENNSYLVANIA 76.77 MARYLAND 39.09 VIRGINIA 53.40 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 2.32 NEW YORK 8.23 DELAWARE 2.95 WEST VIRGINIA 4.68 SUBTOTAL 187.44 ATMOSPHERIC 15.70 BASIN-WIDE TOTAL 203.14

Example: MD Maximum TN by Sector (million lbs per year) Total Nitrogen (TN) Loading - By Sector Sector Progress Final Target % Reduction Thru 2009 Load Needed Urban Regulated 5.098 4.099 20% Urban Non Regulated 0.551 0.459 17% Agriculture 17.713 13.603 23% CAFO 0.080 0.079 0% Septic 4.007 2.479 38% Forest 7.133 7.133 0% Air 0.691 0.686 1% WWTP & CSO 14.148 10.547 25% Total 49.421 39.086 21%

History - Bay Restoration (WWTP) Fund In 2004 Maryland amended the Environment Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland to establish the Bay Restoration Fund as a special, continuing, nonlapsing fund to be administered by MWQFA The Statute implemented the Bay Restoration Fee on January 1, 2005 to be paid by the users of wastewater facilities & users of onsite septic systems/ holding tanks MWQFA issues the first Bay Restoration Fund Revenue Bonds 2004 2005 2008

Maryland Bay Restoration (WWTP) Fund Customers of all (~170 municipal) wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) and owners of industrial WWTP pay into the fund Fee: $2.50/month per household (or EDU) collected by the sewer billing authority or County Government Fees collected are deposited with the State Comptroller each quarter for transfer to MDE Annual Revenue: ~$55 million from WW users 1 EDU = 250 gallons per day average flow

Maryland Bay Restoration (Septic) Fund All Users on On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems (Septic Systems) pay into the BRF (septic) fund Fee: $2.50/month ($30/yr) year collected by the water billing authority or County Government Fees collected are deposited with the State Comptroller each quarter for transfer to MDE (60%) and MD Dept. of Agriculture (40%) Annual Revenue: ~$14 million from OSDS users Use: MDE Septic nitrogen removal upgrade grants; MDA for Cover Crops grants

Maryland Bay Restoration (WWTP) Fund Goal: Provide grants to upgrade the existing 67 major municipal WWTP with Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR) technologies by 2017 to meet the point source targets under the Chesapeake Bay TMDL/Watershed Implementation Plan More cost-effective to undertake ENR are major WWTP. Minor WWTP may not need to upgrade for ENR. Use BRF fee revenue as collateral for payment of debt service on revenue bonds issued to expedite financing ENR: WWTP upgrade to achieve effluent quality of Annual Avg. Nitrogen < 3 mg/l; Phosphorus < 0.3 mg/l Major WWTP: Design Flow > 0.50 million gallons/day

Maryland Major Wastewater Facilities There are ~170 Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) designed to treat ~525 million gallons per day of sewage from Maryland 67 WWTP are classified as Major (Sewage design flow > 0.50 million gallons per day) that account for ~95% of the Maryland flow in to the Chesapeake Bay Upgrades to the major 67 WWTP are estimated to reduce total nitrogen (TN) loading to the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries by ~7.5 million pounds annually As of June 2011, the estimated ENR capital cost to upgrade the 67 Major WWTP is $1.4 billion

Maryland Communities Served

Millions Projected Cumulative Grant & Bond Issuance Bay Restoration Fund $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $- 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 FY Total ENR Funding Need (67 WWTP Upgrade): ~$1.4 billion (May 2011 estimate) Bay Restoration Fund Capacity: ~$1.0 billion using cash and revenue bonds Funding Shortfall: ~$400 million based on current fee level and bonding capacity

BRF Financing Mechanism Flow of Funds Collections of BRF Fee at Local Level Comptroller (Up to 5.5% of BRF Fee may be retained for administrative expenses, 0.5% for the Comptroller and 5.0% for each Billing Authority) MWQFA Program Fund 98.5% 1.5% Grants Equity Account Current Revenues Account Administration Expenses Account Semi Annual Required Transfers - 100% I & 50% P Accounts Held by Trustee Must Fund May Fund Project Fund (Bond Proceeds) Pledged Revenue Fund Senior Lien Debt Service Fund Subordinate Lien Debt Service Fund

Revenue Bond Indenture Provisions State Law permits only up to 15-year bond amortization Additional Bonds Test at 1.10 times debt service coverage Bond proceeds to be used to provide ENR grants No Debt Service Reserve Fund Reflective of the fact that the Bay Restoration Fee is collected statewide from WWTP users at a flat rate of $30 per year per households. Commercial users pay fee based on $30 per year per EDU (avg. 250 gpd usage), which is estimated to account for less than 25% of the total BRF WWTP fee revenue Balance in Program Fund Equity Account (not a pledged revenue for bonds) provides additional security for debt service, if needed

Water Quality Revolving Loan Fund Sources of Capital Federal Capitalization Grants State Match (20% of Federal Funds) Revenue Bonds issued by MWQFA Investment Earnings Loan Principal & Interest Repayments (net of revenue bond debt service)

Water Quality Revolving Loan Fund Funds water quality improvement capital projects Annual Budget: ~$150 million Funding: Primarily below market interest rate loans (up to 20-year term), secured by Sewer Revenues/GO pledge Current interest rate (including fees): 2.7% standard; 1.6% Disadvantaged Communities Additional subsidies of up to $1.5 million loan forgiveness (grant) to Disadvantaged Communities Project selection based on project priority ranking Project application solicited annually (Dec-Jan)

WQRLF Sources & Uses SOURCES (From inception in 1989 through 6/30/2011) $ Million Federal Capitalization Grant $ 796 (including one time 2009 Stimulus $) State Match Funds $ 140 Revenue Bonds $ 213 Investments Earnings $ 136 Loan Repayments (P&I) $ 694 $1,979 USES Capital Financing for Loans $1,679 (loan forgiveness also permitted in future) Bonds Debt Service (P&I)/Reserves $ 262 Transfers Out (WQ/DW) $ 11 Operating Expenses $ 17 $1,979

WQRLF Project Selection Priority System Used to score and rank project applications Projects are evaluated for their Environmental Water Quality, Public Health and Other Benefits Projects selected in priority order for funding (must be ready to proceed within the funding cycle) Priority system does not determine additional subsidies (A separate disadvantaged community criteria is used)

WQRLF Project Priority System Threshold Requirement (Sewerage) - Project must: Be included in the County Water/Sewer Plan Provide service within a County Priority Funding Area (unless exempted due to public health concerns) Projects Primary Benefit (max 35 points) Environmental Water Quality (WQ) Benefit, or Public Health (PH) Benefit Projects WQ/PH Compliance Status (max 30 points) Projects Cost Efficiency (max 10 points) Projects Sustainability Benefits (max 25 points) Maximum Total Score: 100 points

WQRLF Priority System ENVIRONMENTAL WATER QUALITY (Max 35 points) Projects address nutrient reduction and other water quality problems (e.g., WWTP upgrades, Stormwater BMP, MS-4) NUTRIENT REDUCTION TO CHESAPEAKE BAY Nitrogen Reduction: lbs/yr or Phosphorus Reduction: lbs/yr (use one w/highest score) High (> 200,000 lbs/yr) 15 High (> 65,000 lbs/yr) 15 Medium (>10,000 & 200,000 lbs/yr) 10 Medium (>3,500 & 65,000 lbs/yr) 10 Low (> 0 & 10,000 lbs/yr) 5 Low (> 0 & 3,500 lbs/yr) 5 Relative Effectiveness (TN): or (TP): (use TN or TP w/highest score) Most Effective (> 7.5) 20 More Effective (>5.5 & 7.5) 15 Moderately Effective (>3.5 & 5.5) 10 Less Effective (> 1.5 & 3.5) 5 Least Effective ( 1.5) 0

Example: TN Relative Effectiveness

Additional Subsidies (New) Disadvantaged Community Qualifying Criteria: Sewer user rate per year per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) > 1% of Community Median Household Income (MHI); or Project is physically located and benefits an MDE approved Environmental Benefit District; or Project is physically located and benefits a community with MHI less than 70% of State MHI; or Sewer user rate would need to increase by >20% to achieve financial capacity (MDE determination) Additional Subsidy (New): Up to 87.5% of Loan forgiveness (grant), not to exceed $1.5 million. (Total available funding limited by federal statute)

Flow of Funds RLF Bond Indenture Clean Water SRF Program Drinking Water SRF Program Federal Cap Grants State Match Excess Coverage of Prior Bonds Excess Coverage of Prior Bonds State Match Federal Cap Grants MWQFA Administration Fees Pledged Loans (Direct / Leveraged) Program Fund Reimbursement Reimbursement Program Fund Pledged Loans (Direct / Leveraged) MWQFA Administration Fees Bonds Cost of Issuance Cost of Issuance Bonds Project Draws Project Fund Project Fund Project Draws Loan P+I Revenue Fund Earnings Earnings Revenue Fund Loan P+I Senior Debt Service Senior Debt Service Subordinate Debt Service Subordinate Debt Service Excess Coverage Excess Coverage Cross-Collateralization Master Trust Indenture Cross-Collateralization

RLF Bond Indenture - Highlights Cash Flow Model that pledges most current loans Cross-Investment between WQRLF & DWSRF bonds WQRLF & DWRLF bonds can be issued together No Debt Service Reserve Fund Additional Bonds Test of 1.10X

Maryland Department of the Environment Maryland Water Quality Financing Administration 1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21230 410-537-3119 www.mde.state.md.us/wqfa 1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21230-1718 410-537-3000 TTY Users: 1-800-735-2258 www.mde.state.md.us