1.This Act may be cited as the
Clean Water Affordability Act of
2010
.
2.Capitalization
grant agreementsSection
602(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1382(b)) is
amended—
(1)by striking
and
at the end of paragraph (9);
(2)by striking the
period at the end of paragraph (10) and inserting ; and
;
and
(3)by adding at the
end the following:
(11)the State will
use at least 15 percent of the amount of each capitalization grant received by
the State under this title after September 30, 2011, to provide assistance to
municipalities of fewer than 10,000 individuals that meet the affordability
criteria established by the State under section 603(i)(2) for activities
included on the State’s priority list established under section 603(g), to the
extent that there are sufficient applications for such
assistance.
.
3.Water pollution
control revolving loan funds
(a)Extended
Repayment PeriodSection 603(d)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1)) is amended—
(1)in subparagraph
(A) by striking 20 years
and inserting the lesser of 30
years or the design life of the project to be financed with the proceeds of the
loan
; and
(2)in subparagraph
(B) by striking not later than 20 years after project completion
and inserting upon the expiration of the term of the
loan
.
(b)Section 603 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1383) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
(i)
(1)In any case in which a State provides assistance to a
municipality or intermunicipal, interstate, or State agency under subsection
(d), the State may provide additional subsidization, including forgiveness of
principal and negative interest loans to benefit a municipality that—
(A)meets the State’s
affordability criteria established under paragraph (2); or
(B)does not meet the
State’s affordability criteria if the recipient—
(i)seeks additional
subsidization to benefit individual ratepayers in the residential user rate
class;
(ii)demonstrates to
the State that such ratepayers will experience a significant hardship from the
increase in rates necessary to finance the project or activity for which
assistance is sought; and
(iii)ensures, as part
of an assistance agreement between the State and the recipient, that the
additional subsidization provided under this paragraph is directed through a
user charge rate system (or other appropriate method) to such ratepayers;
or
(2)
(A)On or before September 30, 2011, and after
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment, a State shall establish
affordability criteria to assist in identifying municipalities that would
experience a significant hardship raising the revenue necessary to finance a
project or activity eligible for assistance under section 603(c)(1) if
additional subsidization is not provided. Such criteria shall be based on
income data, population trends, and other data determined relevant by the
State, including whether the project or activity is to be carried out in an
economically distressed area, as described in section 301 of the Public Works
and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3161).
(B)If a State has previously established, after providing
notice and an opportunity for public comment, affordability criteria that meet
the requirements of subparagraph (A), the State may use the criteria for the
purposes of this subsection. For purposes of this Act, any such criteria shall
be treated as affordability criteria established under this paragraph.
(C)Information to
assist statesThe Administrator may publish information to assist
States in establishing affordability criteria under subparagraph (A).
(3)The
total amount of additional subsidization provided under this subsection by a
State may not exceed 30 percent of the total amount of capitalization grants
received by the State under this title in fiscal years beginning after
September 30,
2011.
.
4.
(a)In
this section, the following definitions apply:
(1)The
term Administrator
means the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
(2)The
term affordability
means, with respect to payment of a utility
bill, a measure of whether an individual customer or household can pay the bill
without undue hardship or unreasonable sacrifice in the essential lifestyle or
spending patterns of the individual or household, as determined by the
Administrator.
(3)The term financial capability
means the
financial capability of a community to make investments necessary to make water
quality-related improvements, taking into consideration the criteria described
in subsection (b)(2)(A).
(4)The
term guidance
means the guidance published by the Administrator
entitled Combined Sewer Overflows—Guidance for Financial Capability
Assessment and Schedule Development
and dated February 1997, as
applicable to combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows.
(b)
(1)Not later than one year after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Administrator shall update the guidance to ensure that the
evaluations by the Administrator of financial capability assessment and
schedule development meet the criteria described in paragraph (2).
(2)The
criteria described in this paragraph are that, under the updated
guidance—
(A)in assessing the
financial capability of a community—
(i)greater emphasis
should be placed on local economic conditions;
(ii)for
regional systems, consideration should be given to the economic conditions of
political jurisdictions and significant demographic groups within each
region;
(iii)prescriptive
formulas for use in calculating financial capability and thresholds for
expenditure should not be considered to be the only indicator of the financial
capability of a community;
(iv)site-specific
local conditions should be taken into consideration in analyzing financial
capability;
(v)a
single measure of financial capability or affordability (such as median
household income) should be viewed in the context of other economic measures,
rather than as a threshold to be achieved; and
(vi)(I)consideration should be
given to the economic outlook of a community, including the potential impact of
program requirements over time, in the development of implementation schedules;
and
(II)the assessment should take into
consideration other essential community investments relating to water quality
improvements;
(B)with respect to
the timing of implementation of water quality-related improvements—
(i)environmental
improvement implementation schedules should be structured to mitigate the
potential adverse impact on distressed populations resulting from the costs of
the improvements; and
(ii)implementation
schedules should reflect local community financial conditions and economic
impacts;
(C)with respect to
implementation of methodologies—
(i)a
determination of local financial capability may be achieved through an
evaluation of an array of factors the relative importance of which may vary
across regions and localities; and
(ii)an
appropriate methodology should give consideration to such various factors as
are appropriate to recognize the prevailing and projected economic concerns in
a community; and
(D)the residential
indicator should be revised to include—
(i)a
consideration of costs imposed upon ratepayers for essential utilities;
(ii)increased
consideration and quantification of local community-imposed costs in regional
systems;
(iii)a
mechanism to assess impacts on communities with disparate economic conditions
throughout the entire service area of a utility;
(iv)a
consideration of the industrial and population trends of a community;
(v)recognition
that—
(I)the median
household income of a service area reflects a numerical median rather than the
distribution of incomes within the service area; and
(II)more representative methods of determining
affordability, such as shelter costs, essential utility payments, State
affordability criteria, and State and local tax efforts, should be
considered;
(vi)a
consideration of low-income ratepayer percentages; and
(vii)impacts relating
to program delivery, such as water quality infrastructure market saturation and
program management.
(3)The
updated guidance should indicate that, in a case in which a previously approved
long-term control plan or associated enforceable agreement allows for
modification of the plan or terms of the agreement (including financial
capability considerations), and all parties are in agreement that a change is
needed or that the plan or agreement contains a reopener provision to address
changes in the economic or financial status of the community since the
effective date of the plan or agreement, reconsideration and modification of
financial capability determinations and implementation schedules based on the
criteria described in paragraph (2) is appropriate.
(c)Publication and
submissionUpon completion of the updating of guidance under
subsection (b), the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register and
submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives
the updated guidance.