Untapped Potential

Water Infrastructure
Spending in New York

 

ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVOCATES OF NEW YORK

YOUR GOVERNMENT WATCHDOG

Untapped Potential: Water Infrastructure Spending in New York
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................... 3
What is Water Infrastructure? .......................... 4
New York’s Water Infrastructure Crisis ............. 5
An Analysis of WIIA, 2015-2017 .................... 7
Findings: A Thriving Program ......................... 8
Findings: Untapped Potential ......................... 10
A Lack of Federal Leadership ......................... 13
Conclusion .................................................... 14
References ..................................................... 15

Acknowledgements
Environmental Advocates of New York has many partners and organizations to thank for making this report possible – in
particular, we extend our appreciation to the Marta Heflin Foundation, the Park Foundation and Charles Stewart Mott
Foundation whose generous support fostered this research.
We thank Liz Moran, environmental policy director at New York Public Interest Research Group, Patricia Cerro-Reehil,
executive director at New York Water Environment Association, and Dan Shapley, water quality program director at
Riverkeeper, for reviewing a draft of this report and providing their comments and suggestions.
Author: Rob Hayes
Editors: Brian Keegan, Max Oppen, Kate Kurera, Peter Iwanowicz

About Environmental Advocates
Since its formation in 1969, Environmental Advocates of New York has been championing environmental policies that have
improved health, protected wildlife, enhanced the quality of New York’s natural resources, and saved lives. Based in Albany,
we monitor state government, evaluate proposed laws, and champion policies and practices that will ensure the responsible
stewardship of our shared environment.

Cover image: Water main break near the Empire State Plaza in Albany, NY. Photo credit: EANY

 Executive Summary
Clean water is essential for healthy communities. Every day, New Yorkers depend on a vast network of pipes to deliver water to
their taps that is safe to drink and to transport waste from their homes and businesses. They rely on hundreds of drinking water
treatment plants to filter water sources, and hundreds of wastewater treatment plants to prevent contamination of lakes and
rivers, many of which serve as drinking water sources.
Yet aging water infrastructure is increasingly putting the safety of our water at risk. Water main breaks are a regular occurrence
in many cities, shutting down streets and businesses and at times prompting boil water orders. Sewer systems overflow during
rain events leading to billions of gallons of raw sewage entering our water bodies every year. These sewage overflows can cause
bacterial contamination and contribute to harmful algal blooms that make swimming dangerous. As our wastewater treatment
plants struggle with outdated technology long past its intended lifespan, contaminants can slip through the cracks.
To fix our crumbling drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, it was estimated in 2008 that New York must invest close
to $80 billion over the next 20 years.
To address this need for state investment, Governor Cuomo and the State Legislature created the Water Infrastructure
Improvement Act (WIIA) in 2015. WIIA provides grant assistance to local governments to fund both drinking water
and wastewater (also known as ‘clean water’) improvement projects. With an initial allocation of $200 million in 2015,
WIIA’s funding was doubled with another $200 million in 2016. WIIA achieved its largest funding increase in 2017, when
legislators allocated ‘at least’ $1 billion to the program to be spread over five years, as part of the $2.5 billion Clean Water
Infrastructure Act.
This report examines how successful WIIA has been at channeling these much-needed resources to communities across New
York. It presents data from the program’s first three grant cycles (2015, 2016, and 2017) obtained from the Environmental
Facilities Corporation (EFC), which administers WIIA funds in conjunction with the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) and Department of Health (DOH).

Our findings reveal a thriving program. Money is moving efficiently out the door as
funding increases, and communities are taking notice and responding enthusiastically.
We found:
A 60% increase each year in the number of project applications submitted by
local governments
A greater number of projects are receiving grants each year, with almost four times
the number of projects awarded in 2017 when compared to 2015
Projects in 53 of New York’s 62 counties have received WIIA grant funding
Yet our findings also reveal a vast untapped potential for WIIA. Each year, only 50% of eligible applicants received a grant
award from EFC. Shovel-ready water quality improvement projects continue to wait in the wings, held back by a lack
of available funding. It will be crucial to address this untapped potential if additional progress is to be made in keeping New
York’s waters clean and healthy.
The creation of a modern water infrastructure system was one of the great public works and public health achievements of the
20th Century. This legacy is at risk in the 21st Century, however, if adequate investments are not made to repair, replace, and
rebuild our sewers, pipes, and treatment plants. As New York’s water infrastructure continues to crumble, the threats to clean
water continue to multiply. WIIA has proven itself a successful vehicle to address this challenge in the years to come.

3

 What is Water Infrastructure?
How is water delivered to your kitchen faucet? What happens to the waste when you flush the toilet? The answers to these
questions provide good descriptions of the two components of our water infrastructure system: drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure. The former transports water from source to tap, while the latter conveys waste from homes and businesses to
treatment plants for cleaning and discharge back into waterways.
The main physical components of drinking water systems include:

$80 Billion

• Source: lakes, rivers, reservoirs, or groundwater wells
• Treatment: facility that filters and disinfects the water
• Storage: elevated or ground-level water storage tanks
•  Distribution: water mains, service lines, and pumping stations[i]

Estimated combined need to fix
New York’s water infrastructure

The main physical components of wastewater systems include:
•  Collection and conveyance: sewer systems and pumping stations move waste to the treatment facility intercepting,
outfall, and outlet sewers
• Treatment: facility that neutralizes or stabilizes sewage[ii]

WIIA funds the construction, replacement, or repair of physical infrastructure at
municipally-owned sewage treatment works and municipally-owned public water
systems.[iii] In other words, it funds improvements to the ‘grey infrastructure’
described in this section. ‘Green infrastructure’ improvements, such as the
creation of riparian buffers and pervious pavement to lessen stormwater runoff,
received a separate funding line in the Clean Water Infrastructure Act of 2017.
Likewise, ‘natural infrastructure’ projects, including drinking water source
protection, are separately funded.

4

 New York’s Water Infrastructure Crisis
The magnitude of New York’s water infrastructure crisis is enormous. New York has one of the oldest water infrastructure
systems in the nation, and one of the largest. It has the largest documented need for wastewater infrastructure investments in
the nation.[iv]
In 2008, DEC and DOH released reports cataloging New York’s wastewater and drinking water infrastructure needs. DEC
found that New York needs to invest $36.2 billion over 20 years in municipal wastewater improvements.[v] DOH found that
$38.7 billion in state investments would be needed over 20 years to fix New York’s drinking water infrastructure.[vi] It is
important to note that these estimates are now over 10 years old; New York’s needs have almost certainly grown since
that time.[vii]
The scale of this crisis has serious consequences for public health. The more frequently New York’s water infrastructure fails, the
greater the chance that people will get sick.

Water Main Breaks
When a water main break occurs, the negative
pressure created can cause bacteria and other
contaminants to enter the pipe and pollute drinking
water. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has linked major water main breaks to
increases in hospital visits for gastrointestinal
illnesses, with symptoms like vomiting, nausea, and
diarrhea especially common among young children.
[viii]

179-

Number of water main
breaks in the City of
Syracuse in 2018[x]

With many of New York’s water mains surpassing
100 years of age, pipes have corroded, leading to
more frequent water main breaks across the state.
Since August 2018, water main breaks have occurred
in Orangeburg, Montebello, Rotterdam Junction,
Phoenix, and Albion, NY, with each town issuing
boil water advisories to some of their residents - and
this is by no means an exhaustive list.[ix] Boil water
advisories typically last three to five days, disrupting
residents’ daily lives and putting public health at risk
for an extended period of time.

Outdated Wastewater Treatment Plants
Wastewater treatment plants are the main line of defense to keep contaminants found in sewage, including pathogens,
bacteria, heavy metals, and other toxics, out of our waterways. Operators of wastewater treatment plants are frontline
environmentalists, working constantly in the face of outdated infrastructure to provide drinking water and wastewater that
is as clean as possible.
Excess nutrients from sewage can contribute to toxic algal blooms, which have the potential to devastate aquatic life and harm
human health. Symptoms from exposure to a toxic algal bloom can range from skin rash, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal
pain to memory loss, liver failure, respiratory paralysis, and coma.[xi] More than 170 waterbodies in New York State reported
harmful algal blooms in 2018. [xii]

5

 Many New York State wastewater treatment plants do not currently use technology that can remove the excess nutrients that
lead to harmful algal blooms. In addition, these excess nutrients can contribute to the formation of disinfection byproducts
at drinking water treatment plants, a health concern that has prompted many drinking water treatment systems to require
upgrades.
There are 610 municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in New York that serve 1,610 municipalities and 15 million
New Yorkers.[xiii] As of 2015, 25% of the state’s wastewater facilities are more than thirty years old, surpassing their expected
useful life expectancy.[xiv] Common technological improvements include adding ultraviolet disinfection, replacing screens that
remove grit and solid waste, and fixing faulty electrical equipment.

“Water treatment plants tend to get ignored by the general public, but it’s your
most important infrastructure.”
- Kevin Pratt, wastewater treatment plant manager for Saranac Lake, NY[xv]
In Saranac Lake, an average of 1.7 million gallons flow through the Village’s treatment plant every day.[xvi] Saranac Lake has
struggled to keep up with the costly, long-term capital-improvements needed to maintain the plant. After inspecting the facility
in 2017, DEC wrote a letter to the Village stating:
“The department remains very concerned with the physical condition of some of the concrete tanks (aeration tanks, thickener,
etc.) due to severe deterioration. Concrete is eroded down to rebar, foundations are undermined, and what appears to be leaks
on the west side of the aeration tanks were evident during the June 2017 inspection.”[xvii]
The deficiencies to such essential aspects of wastewater treatment technology at Saranac Lake’s plant reflect the dire condition
of wastewater infrastructure across New York.

Sewage Overflows
Approximately 7,000 of the 22,000 miles of New York’s sewer systems have exceeded their useful life expectancy of 60 years
but have yet to be updated or replaced.[xviii] Many of these are combined sewer systems (CSSs), in which stormwater and
wastewater are collected in the same pipes. During rain events, the total volume of water can overwhelm wastewater treatment
plant capacities, leading to either partially treated or wholly untreated sewage released directly into lakes, rivers, and streams.
There are 807 known combined sewage outfall points across the state.[xix]
Upgrading wastewater treatment plants to handle greater volumes of water and separating stormwater sewers from
wastewater sewers will be crucial to reduce the large number of sewage overflows across the state.
In 2016, Environmental Advocates of New York released a report entitled Tapped Out: New York’s Clean Water in Peril,
which examined the extent of combined sewage overflows (CSOs) and sanitary system overflows (SSOs) in New York.[xx] An
addendum to that report revealed that 10,687 sewage overflows were reported by local governments from May 2013 to July
2017, with a total volume of 3.8 billion gallons of sewage discharged into New York’s water bodies.[xxi]
Yearly estimates of total sewage overflows have grown as more recent data has been collected. Today, the City of Buffalo alone
estimates that it annually discharges around 1.7 billion gallons of sewage into waterways like the Buffalo River, Black Rock
Canal, Scajaquada Creek and Cazenovia Creek.[xxii]

In July 2018, Buffalo saw 16,317,910 gallons
of sewage discharged in a single night into
local creeks, rivers, and lakes after
heavy rains.[xxiii]

6

 An Analysis of WIIA, 2015-2017
In 2014, there was a proposal to redirect $500 million from the
New York City portion of the clean water loan program to fund the
construction of the Tappan Zee Bridge replacement. Though that
effort was thwarted, it lead Environmental Advocates and other
organizations to question why such a large pot of money was
not being spent. In early 2015, Governor Cuomo and the State
Legislature responded by creating the Water Infrastructure
Improvement Act to provide grants that, when coupled with loans,
could address the financial hardship that many communities face
when securing funding for water infrastructure projects.
Under the terms of this new program, a municipality in general may
receive a WIIA grant for up to 25% of an eligible wastewater project
cost, with an award cap of $5 million per year.[xxiv] For a drinking
water project, the state can cover up to 60% of municipalities’ costs,
with an award cap of $3 million over five years.[xxv] Crucially,
municipalities can combine this grant funding with other state
and federal loans, ensuring that up-front costs are not prohibitive.
Water main break in the Center Square neighborhood of Albany, NY.
Photo credit: EANY

The following data was obtained from the Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) through Freedom of Information
Law (FOIL) requests, and tracks the outcomes from the first three years of WIIA awards: 2015, 2016, 2017. It details the
municipalities that applied for grants, the total costs of submitted projects and the requested grant awards, which projects
received funding or were eligible for funding, and the reasons why some projects were not eligible.
A note on a data inconsistency: fewer awards were reported in the 2015 and 2016 data sheets provided by EFC than were
announced publicly. For instance, data from EFC indicated that 95 grants were awarded in 2016. However, 102 awarded
projects are listed on EFC’s website.[xxvi] In light of this discrepancy, the number of grant awards listed publicly by EFC have
been used for calculations.
A key metric by which to evaluate the success of the Water Infrastructure Improvement Act is EFC’s ability to handle
increasing funding for the first three of the program’s years. Allocated $200 million in 2015, WIIA was initially created as a
three-year program with $200 million to be distributed over the course of that time period. It proved so popular, however,
that its funding was doubled with another $200 million in 2016. WIIA achieved its largest funding increase in 2017, when
legislators allocated $1 billion to the program be spread over five years, as part of the $2.5 billion Clean Water
Infrastructure Act.

7

 Findings: A Thriving Program
More applications, and more projects awarded
As seen in Table 1, both the total number of applications and the total number of projects awarded WIIA grants increased
each year in response to increased available funding. The percent increases over each year can be seen in Table 2, and show
resounding growth. Almost four times the number of projects were awarded in 2017 when compared to 2015.
The data reveals that EFC has been successful at processing an increasing number of applications, moving WIIA funds out the
door and into communities. Local governments have also been responsive to the program; as more funding became available
and as awareness of the program grew, a greater number of projects to improve local water quality were submitted. There is
clearly no shortage of water infrastructure projects in need of funding across New York.
Table 1
Total applications

Total projects awarded

% awarded

Round 1 (2015)

170

45

26%

Round 2 (2016)

273

102

37%

Round 3 (2017)*

441

169

38%

Totals

884

316

36%

*All Round 3 data includes intermunicipal grants, in which the applicants are joint municipalities.
Table 2
% increase total applications

% increase total projects awarded

Round 1 to Round 2

61%

111%

Round 2 to Round 3

62%

78%

Round 1 to Round 3

159%

276%

Statewide Impact
Projects in 53 of New York’s 62 counties received at least one grant during the first three years of the program. Communities in
57 of those 62 counties applied for funding. Every county outside of New York City has applied for funding. The four counties
that applied but did not receive any funding were Washington, Livingston, Chemung, and Hamilton County. A breakdown of
the percentage of projects awarded by region can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3
Total applications

Total projects awarded

% awarded

Capital District

117

50

43%

Hudson Valley

208

59

28%

Central NY

86

33

38%

Finger Lakes

86

23

27%

Southern Tier

64

29

45%

Western NY

92

33

36%

North Country

99

42

42%

Mohawk Valley

77

25

32%

New York City

0

0

0.00%

Long Island

55

22

40%

8

 Case Study - Success Story from Waverly, NY
Located in the Southern Tier on the border with Pennsylvania, the Village of Waverly has struggled with managing sewage
overflows. With a population of only 4,400 people, the Village on its own could not afford the wastewater treatment plant
upgrades necessary to prevent contaminants from being discharged into nearby Cayuta Creek, which falls within the
important Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
In 2015, the Village received a $4.6 million WIIA grant to complete an overhaul of its treatment plant and protect the area’s
clean water. The grant covers $4.6 million out of a total project cost of $18.3 million.[xxvii]

Timeline of a Successful WIIA Grant
2015: WIIA grant awarded
2016: Finance Agreement finalized by EFC
2017: Updated Project Design finalized by DEC
Normally the project design would be finalized much sooner. In
this case, the original design was revised following the
decision by a local manufacturer to treat waste within their own
facility, rather than sending it to the
Village treatment plant.

2018: Substantial project work
2019: Estimated completion date of March 2019

The main improvements to the plant are intended to better catch pollutants before they can enter Cayuta Creek. Work
included refinishing the surfaces of the four aeration basins, which were peeling with age.[xxviii] Aeration basins are one of the
primary treatment mechanisms of a facility, using oxygen and microbial action to remove pollutants from wastewater. In
addition, the plant’s membrane bioreactor (MBR) was upgraded. MBR tanks work in conjunction with the aeration basins to
filter out an even greater number of contaminants from the wastewater. Work on the MBR tanks was completed in June 2018.
According to the local Morning-Times, these upgrades “give the village essentially a brand new sewage treatment facility that
would have the capacity to treat approximately 800,000 gallons of wastewater a day.”[xxix] These upgrades will substantially
reduce the threat of contamination in Waverly’s waterways.

9

 Findings: Untapped Potential
Increasing number of eligible, but unawarded, projects
As successful as the program has been in funding projects across the state, there remains a large untapped potential. Each year,
many fully eligible projects do not receive a grant award due to a lack of sufficient state funding for WIIA. To be considered
eligible, a project proposal must include the full suite of application materials, including a financial plan and an engineering
report, and meet the grant criteria.
The following data from each funding cycle is a snapshot in time - for example, eligible but unawarded projects listed in one
round may have received funding in a subsequent round. Each category reflects the data compiled by EFC for that year.
EFC has successfully kept pace with increased WIIA funding by increasing its grant awards to communities. But as seen in
Table 4, the number of eligible but unawarded projects each funding cycle is not shrinking but growing. Current levels of
WIIA funding are not sufficient to meet the demonstrated need each year. The large number of eligible applications each year
also indicates that local governments’ enthusiasm to submit greater numbers of projects has not led to any decrease in the overall quality of applications. A breakdown of eligible but unawarded projects by region can be seen in Table 5.
Table 4
Total applications

Total projects awarded

Total projects eligible
but not awarded

% eligible but not
awarded

Round 1 (2015)

170

45

50

29%

Round 2 (2016)

273

102

87

32%

Round 3 (2017)

441

169

152

34%

Table 5: Projects Eligible but Not Awarded by Region
Round 1 (2015)

Round 2 (2016)

Round 3 (2017)

Capital District

9

15

18

Hudson Valley

10

27

40

Central NY

6

8

20

Finger Lakes

6

7

11

Southern Tier

3

5

8

Western NY

8

8

10

North Country

6

12

12

Mohawk Valley

1

2

13

New York City

0

0

0

Long Island

1

3

20

Projects were considered ineligible if: the project had an incomplete application; the project was located in a community with
Median Household Income or family poverty rates outside acceptable ranges; the project was outside the scope of EFC
guidelines; or the project was submitted by a local government that had already received the maximum grant award.
Ineligible projects can become eligible in the future. If more funding is available and there is a greater rate of award acceptance,
municipalities that submitted incomplete applications may be incentivized to finish those proposals. EFC has also pledged to
support communities seeking to improve their applications. In addition, projects submitted by municipalities that had already
reached their grant limit could become eligible if more funding is available and those caps are lifted. By excluding these cases
from consideration, the data may underestimate the need for water infrastructure grant funding in New York.

10

 Only half of eligible projects received funding each year
As seen in Table 6, WIIA has been able to fund only half of eligible applications submitted each year given its current funding.
With greater levels of funding, WIIA has the potential to do much more to improve New York’s water quality.
Table 6
Total projects eligible*

Total projects awarded

Total projects eligible
but not awarded

% awarded out of total
projects eligible

Round 1 (2015)

95

45

50

47%

Round 2 (2016)

189

102

87

54%

Round 3 (2017)

321

169

152

53%

*Total projects eligible = total projects awarded + total projects eligible but not awarded
Examining the total amount of money awarded over the program’s first three years in Table 7 confirms that WIIA is currently
able to meet only a fraction of demonstrated need. As exciting as it is that $500 million has already been allocated to launch
water infrastructure projects across the state, there remains hundreds of millions of dollars in submitted, unmet needs.
These submitted projects of course do not comprise the entire universe of New York’s water infrastructure needs. As we have
seen, the number of projects submitted for funding continues to grow. The ‘Grant Dollars Requested’ total signifies a reserve
of projects that local governments have already identified as a top-priority to improve their local water quality. The main ‘green
light’ these projects need to break ground is a grant award.
Table 7
Total Submitted
Project Costs*

Total Grant Dollars
Requested

Grant Dollars Requested
for Projects Eligible but
Not Awarded

Grant Dollars Awarded

Round 1 (2015)

$1,242,819,752

$300,836,237

$81,058,878

$74,883,463

Round 2 (2016)

$1,596,481,865

$454,696,562

$120,260,267

$174,609,719

Round 3 (2017)

$1,956,737,124

$673,863,742

$219,679,147

$256,413,140

*Total Submitted Projects Costs excludes awarded co-funding and ineligible project costs.
Table 8
Total Submitted
Project Costs
(2015, 2016, 2017)

Total Grant
Dollars Requested
(2015, 2016, 2017)

Grant
Dollars Awarded

Capital District

$694,592,966

$207,010,920

$90,023,801

Hudson Valley

$1,051,207,499

$314,842,013

$69,318,603

Central NY

$388,863,950

$115,413,867

$43,803,278

Finger Lakes

$334,426,719

$123,347,332

$34,863,336

Southern Tier

$494,323,668

$110,664,893

$66,017,245

Western NY

$553,199,944

$157,347,568

$54,548,598

North Country

$547,204,783

$170,923,766

$66,751,358

Mohawk Valley

$451,224,563

$115,766,891

$47,608,625

New York City

0

0

0

Long Island

$280,994,649

$114,079,284

$32,971,480

11

 Case Study - Shovel-Ready Project in Glens Falls, NY
With a shortage of WIIA grant funds, projects to prevent
contamination of drinking water have been kept on hold. As
we’ll see in this case study of Glens Falls, work as fundamental as
ensuring that feces do not pollute drinking water has been unable
to move forward due to a lack of state assistance.
Glens Falls, NY was incorporated as a village in 1839, and as a city in
1908. Much of the city’s water infrastructure dates back more
than 100 years. The strain is showing in some components of its
drinking water system, which serves approximately 14,000 people.
Steve Gurzler, City Engineer and Water and Sewer Superintendent,
provided information about a project to upgrade Glens Falls’ water
storage tanks that the city proposed for a WIIA grant in 2016. The
30-year old water storage tanks hold the city’s treated drinking water
before the water is distributed to residents’ homes.
Glens Falls submitted an application requesting $1.3 million in
grant funding to put towards the $3.5 million project. Though eligible
under WIIA criteria, the project was not chosen for an award by EFC.
An elevated water storage tank in Tannersville, NY. Photo credit: EANY

WIIA funding would have enabled three water quality improvements:
Replacing the tanks’ ventilation screening components. Vents stabilize the air
pressure inside the water tanks, which is constantly in flux as water levels rise
and fall.[xxx] Without functioning mesh screens covering the vents, dust and dried
feces could contaminate the drinking water, and insects, birds, and rodents could
enter the tank.
Replacing six twenty-inch valves that are not fully water tight. These valves
control the flow of water between the treatment plant and the tanks.[xxxi] Due to
the constant leakage, Mr. Gurzler described difficulty in shutting down the tanks
for cleaning.
Thickening of the tanks’ metal interior and exterior walls. If the metal becomes too
thin, holes can cause leaks and impair the structural stability of the tank.[xxxii]
All three of these improvements would have contributed substantial protections against sources of contamination for Glens
Falls’ drinking water. However, Mr. Gurzler and his department have been unable to undertake this project given the lack of
state grant support.

12

 A Lack of Federal Leadership
In the 1990s, the federal government created two funding mechanisms to assist states in tackling their wastewater and
drinking water infrastructure needs. These programs, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), provide federal dollars to New York that, with a 20% match, distributes the money to
local governments in the form of low- or no-cost loans to finance projects.[xxxiii] When communities repay these loans, plus
interest, the money is circulated back into the program, helping to fund future improvements.
However, these programs have suffered from a chronic lack of federal investment.[xxxiv],[xxxv] The CWSRF and DWSRF are
able to provide loan assistance to only a small fraction of the projects submitted to them by local governments. The millions of
dollars provided each year by the federal government is drastically insufficient to address a statewide need in the tens
of billions.

DWSRF: According to DOH and EFC, New York expects to receive a $45 million
allocation from the DWSRF in 2019.[xxxvi] This allocation will contribute to a total
of $250 million in total financing available in 2019. Yet even this total investment
still pales in comparison to the over 2,000 drinking water projects submitted by
local governments to EFC’s multi-year priority list, totaling over $7.8 billion in
project costs.[xxxvii] DOH estimates that 95% of the projects submitted for
inclusion in the DWSRF program remain unfunded due to a lack of available funds.
[xxxviii]
CWSRF: According to DEC and EFC, New York expects to receive a $120 million
allocation from the federal government in 2019.[xxxix] EFC anticipates that it will
be able to provide $1.07 billion in financing in 2019. This covers only 9% of the
$11.4 billion in project costs submitted by local governments and included on
EFC’s multi-year priority list.[xl]
Federal funding alone will not sufficiently tackle
New York’s water infrastructure crisis.
In addition, the projects submitted to these revolving loan funds may only scratch the surface of local governments’ actual
needs. A 2018 report from the state Comptroller’s Office, for example, recognized that many municipalities with combined
sewer systems often find the cost of updating those systems to be prohibitive.[xli] Many municipalities may be unable to afford
to take on large loans, which they must eventually raise the funds to repay. Local governments may not submit projects for loan
funding in the first place, obscuring the true scale of New York’s water infrastructure demands.

13

 Conclusion
As New York’s water infrastructure continues to age, the challenge of ensuring universal access to clean and healthy drinking
water continues to grow. Sewage pollution, outdated wastewater treatment plants, and water main breaks threaten to
contaminate our most precious resource.
This report shows a way forward. Current investments in water infrastructure are paying off. Thanks to the Water
Infrastructure Improvement Act, communities are completing projects like sewer separations and protecting their drinking
water. EFC is moving greater numbers of grant awards out the door as funding increases, and communities are taking notice
and responding enthusiastically with a greater number of applications.
Yet our findings also revealed a vast untapped potential for WIIA. EFC has awarded grants to only 50% of eligible
applications each year. Shovel-ready water quality improvement projects continue to wait in the wings, held back by a lack
of available funding.
A substantial and sustained investment will be needed to build on WIIA’s success and protect our state’s rivers, lakes, and
drinking water. With an estimated need for state investment of $80 billion over 20 years, New York would need to invest
$4 billion each year to tackle our water infrastructure crisis.
New York is currently far from the level of annual funding needed to fix our pipes. Addressing this gap, and realizing the
potential of WIIA, will be crucial to protecting human health and ensuring a strong economic foundation for communities to
build on for generations to come.

14

 References
[i] “A Partially Treated Problem: Overflows from Combined Sewers,” Thomas DiNapoli, Office of the State Comptroller, May 2018, page 3,
https://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/research/infrastructure-series/combined-sewers.pdf.
[ii] New York Environmental Conservation Law, Section 17-1903.
[iii] “Grant Summary: NYS Water Infrastructure Improvement Act,” NYSDOH and EFC, June 2018, page 2,
https://www.efc.ny.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/Water%20Infrastructure%20Improvement%20Act/Grant
%20Summary_2018.pdf
[iv] “NY has the largest need for clean water infrastructure in the U.S.,” Riverkeeper, 2016, available at https://www.riverkeeper.org/news-events/news/water-quality/
ny-has-the-largest-need-for-clean-water-infrastructure-in-u-s/, based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Clean Watersheds Needs Survey,” 2012, available at
https://cwns.epa.gov/cwns2012/
[v] “Wastewater Infrastructure Needs of New York State,” New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation, 2008, page 27.
[vi] “Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs of New York State,” New York State Department of Health, 2008, page 16.
[vii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDNm9wfFsUc
[viii] “Hospital visits for gastrointestinal illness after a major water main break in 2010,” Lin, C., et al., National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory, 2017.
[ix] “Boil water order issued for parts of Orangeburg,” Richard Liebson, The Journal News, October 21 2018, https://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/rockland/
orangeburg/2018/10/21/parts-orangburg-under-health-department-boil-water-order/1720602002/.
[x] https://data.syrgov.net/datasets/water-main-breaks
[xi] “Sewage Problems and Solutions,” American Rivers, accessed January 9 2018, http://www.americanrivers.org/initiative/stormwater-sewage/projects/ sewageproblems-and-solutions/
[xii] NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, “2018 HABS Archive” available at https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/habsarchive2018.pdf
[xiii] “Wastewater Infrastructure Needs of New York State,” NYSDEC, 2008, page 3.
[xiv] “2015 Infrastructure Report Card: New York,” American Society of Civil Engineers, 2015,
https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/new-york/.
[xv] “Saranac Lake sewer plant in need of major work,” Glynis Hart, Adirondack Daily Enterprise, February 13 2018,
http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/news/local-news/2018/02/saranac-lake-sewer-plant-in-need-ofmajor-work/.
[xvi] Ibid.
[xvii] Ibid.
[xviii] “2015 Infrastructure Report Card: New York,” American Society of Civil Engineers, 2015,
https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/new-york/.
[xix] “A Partially Treated Problem: Overflows from Combined Sewers,” Thomas DiNapoli, Office of the State Comptroller, May 2018, page 1,
https://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/research/infrastructure-series/combined-sewers.pdf.
[xx] “Tapped Out: New York’s Clean Water in Peril,” EANY, 2016, https://www.eany.org/sites/default/files/documents/tapped_out.pdf.
[xxi] “Tapped Out: Addendum,” EANY, 2017, http://eany.org/sites/default/files/documents/tapped_out_addendum_final_1.pdf.
[xxii] “EPA Approves Buffalo Sewer Authority’s Plan to Reduce Sewage and Water Pollution in Niagara River,” U.S. EPA, April 2014,
https://archive.epa.gov/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/f62f59fbdaee3abd85257cba005a497e.html
[xxiii] “Millions of Gallons of Sewage Discharged into WNY Waterways,” Michael Wooten, WGRZ 2, July 23, 2018,
https://www.wgrz.com/article/news/local/millions-of-gallons-of-sewage-discharged-into-wny-waterways/71-576790501.
[xxiv] “Grant Summary: NYS Water Infrastructure Improvement Act,” NYSDOH and EFC, June 2018, page 2,
https://www.efc.ny.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/Water%20Infrastructure%20Improvement%20Act/Grant %20Summary_2018.pdf
[xxv] Ibid.
[xxvi] “NYS Water Grants - 2016 Awards,” Environmental Facilities Corporation, https://www.efc.ny.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/Water%20Infrastructure%20
Improvement%20Act/Previous%20Awards/WG%20-%202016%20-%20Award%20List.pdf.
[xxvii] “Waverly: Sewer plant project going smoothly - Public work meeting for sewer changes planned for Feb. 21,” Johnny Williams, The Morning-Times, Feb 16,
2018, http://www.morning-times.com/news/article_ec959dc7-2211-5371-b3e6-f54351df1b60.html.
[xxviii] “Sewer Board Minutes, 2014-Present,” Village of Waverly, https://villageofwaverly.com/minutes.php.
[xxix] “Waverly: Sewer plant project going smoothly - Public work meeting for sewer changes planned for Feb. 21,” Johnny Williams,
The Morning-Times, Feb 16, 2018, http://www.morning-times.com/news/article_ec959dc7-2211-5371-b3e6-f54351df1b60.html.
[xxx] “Sanitary Protection of Drinking Water Storage Tanks: Vents,” EPA Region 8 Drinking Water Unit, 2016,
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/tech_tip_tank_vents.pdf.
[xxxi] “Elevated Storage Tank and Ground Storage Tank Design Manual,” City of Dalls Water Utility, 2013,
https://dallascityhall.com/departments/waterutilities/DCH%20Documents/pdf/ElevatedStorageTank_standards_Sept2013.pdf.
[xxxii] “Understanding the Significance of Breaches to and Sediment Buildup in Finished Drinking Water Storage Tanks,” Bob Clement, EPA Region 8, 2016,
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/finished_drinking_water_storage_tanks.pdf
[xxxiii] https://www.efc.ny.gov/loan-programs
[xxxiv] “Clean Water State Revolving Fund,” Healing Our Waters Great Lakes Coalition, accessed January 15 2018,
http://www.healthylakes.org/clean-water-state-revolving-fund/
[xxxv] “Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund,” Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, accessed January 15 2018, https://www.asdwa.org/dwsrf/.
[xxxvi] “Final Intended Use Plan, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, October 1 2018 - September 30 2019,” NYSDOH and EFC, October 2018, page 1,
https://www.efc.ny.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/Intended%20Use%20Plans/
[xxxvii] Ibid, page 182.
[xxxviii] https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/water/drinking/infrastructure_needs.htm
[xxxix] “Final Intended Use Plan, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, October 1 2018 - September 30 2019,” NYSDEC and EFC, October 2018, page 14, https://
www.efc.ny.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/Intended%20Use%20Plans/Clean%20Water/2019/IUP_CWSRF_2019%20Final%20and%20Complete_2018-12-11.
pdf
[xl] Ibid, page 50.
[xli] “A Partially Treated Problem: Overflows from Combined Sewers,” Thomas DiNapoli, Office of the State Comptroller, May 2018, page 9,
https://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/research/infrastructure-series/combined-sewers.pdf.

15