Rural Development: USDA's Approach to Funding Water and Sewer Projects
(Chapter Report, 09/22/95, GAO/RCED-95-258).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) process for allocating and distributing loan and
grant funds for water and sewer projects, focusing on: (1) funding
levels for the Water and Waste Disposal Program; (2) the formula used to
allocate funds among USDA state offices; and (3) the approach that USDA
state offices use to distribute funds within states.

GAO held that: (1) the USDA water and sewer program has provided loan
and grant support totalling about $28 billion, supporting almost 17,000
projects, and assisting over 12,500 communities throughout the United
States; (2) the three factors that USDA considers in its allocation
formula for water and sewer funds are rural population, rural poverty,
and rural unemployment; (3) no state may receive more than 5 percent of
the total available funds in the initial allocation; (4) the allocation
formula may partially reflect states' needs and ability to pay, but it
does not reflect cost differences between states; and (5) although USDA
state and district offices have considerable flexibility in determining
the amount of grant assistance for individual projects under the current
approach, this flexibility can result in differing funding decisions for
similar communities.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-95-258
     TITLE:  Rural Development: USDA's Approach to Funding Water and 
             Sewer Projects
      DATE:  09/22/95
   SUBJECT:  Sewage disposal
             Community development
             Grant administration
             Funds management
             Federal/state relations
             Grants to states
             Formula grants
             Wastewater treatment
             Economically depressed areas
IDENTIFIER:  RDA Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities 
             Program
             FHwA Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program
             Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Block Grant
             Texas
             North Carolina
             Ohio
             Pennsylvania
             Mississippi
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Honorable
William F.  Clinger, Jr.,
House of Representatives

September 1995

RURAL DEVELOPMENT - USDA'S
APPROACH TO FUNDING WATER AND
SEWER PROJECTS

GAO/RCED-95-258

USDA's Funding of Water and Sewer Projects

(150416)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  MHI - median household income
  USDA - U.S.  Department of Agriculture

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-262161

September 22, 1995

The Honorable William F.  Clinger, Jr.
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Clinger: 

This report responds to your request that we review the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture's process for allocating and distributing
loan and grant funds for water and sewer projects.  We examined (1)
funding levels for the program and the projects supported, (2) the
formula that the Department uses to allocate loan and grant funds
among its state offices, and (3) the approach that the Department's
state and district offices use to distribute funds within states. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees; the Secretary of Agriculture; the Director, Office of
Management and Budget; and other interested parties.  Copies are
available to others upon request. 

Please contact me at (202) 512-5138 if you or your staff have any
questions.  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
III. 

Sincerely yours,

John W.  Harman
Director, Food and
 Agriculture Issues


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================ Chapter 0


   PURPOSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

Many of the 62 million people living in over 2,300 rural counties in
the United States still lack access to a supply of clean water and
sanitary waste disposal facilities.  Continuing a long-standing
effort, the U.S.  Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Water and Waste
Disposal Program provides funding for water and sewer projects to
rural communities.  The program is now the major source of federal
funds targeted to water and sewer projects in rural areas.  In fiscal
year 1994, USDA provided about $1.3 billion for the program. 

Representative William F.  Clinger, Jr., asked GAO to review USDA's
process for allocating loan and grant funds for water and sewer
projects.  This report provides information on (1) funding levels for
the program and the projects supported, (2) the formula that USDA
uses to allocate loan and grant funds among its state offices, and
(3) the approach that USDA state and district offices use to
distribute funds within states. 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

USDA administers the Water and Waste Disposal Program by allocating
grant and loan funds to its state offices.  Each state's allocation
is determined by a formula established by USDA regulation.  The state
offices then make the funds available to their district offices to
support rural water and sewer projects proposed by local communities. 
All 50 states, Puerto Rico, the U.S.  Virgin Islands, and the Western
Pacific territories receive funds.  Before the initial allocation,
USDA sets aside about 10 percent of both loan and grant funds as a
reserve for emergencies, cost overruns, and other unforeseen
problems.  In addition, state offices must return unobligated funds
to USDA headquarters twice a year.  USDA makes set-aside and
unobligated funds available to the states for specific projects. 

The type of assistance (either loan funds or a combination of loan
and grant funds) provided is governed by each community's financial
situation.  USDA's program regulations stipulate that grant funds are
to be provided for projects serving financially needy communities to
reduce user charges to a reasonable level.  USDA headquarters
officials consider a "reasonable" user charge to be one that the
community can afford.  The loans are repaid to the U.S.  Treasury,
not to USDA. 

USDA state and district offices determine affordability on the basis
of the (1) community's median household income or (2) user charges
for similar systems in the area.  USDA has the discretion to decide
which approach will be used to determine the amount of grant funds
provided.  With respect to the median household income criterion,
USDA assumes that a community can pay no more than 1 percent of the
median household income for servicing the debt on the USDA loan, as
well as other outstanding debt owed to USDA.  If the community's
payment based on median household income cannot support the project
and outstanding debt, USDA supplements its assistance with a grant. 
With respect to the second criterion, USDA examines the average user
charges paid by residents of comparable communities for similar water
and/or sewer services and determines a similar, affordable user
charge for the project under consideration.  This user charge in turn
determines the mix of grants and loans awarded for the project. 

Communities may also supplement USDA water and sewer funds with their
own funds and funds from other federal, state, or private sources. 

GAO visited USDA state and district offices in four
states--Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania--to
examine the distribution of water and sewer funds within each state. 
These states were four of the five largest recipients of water and
sewer program funds over the past 30 years.  GAO reviewed a total of
120 projects in these states. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

Since fiscal year 1965, USDA's water and sewer program has provided
loan and grant support totaling about $28 billion (in fiscal year
1994 dollars) through June 1995.  These funds have supported almost
17,000 projects that assisted over 12,500 communities throughout the
United States and its territories. 

USDA's allocation formula for water and sewer funds considers three
weighted factors--rural population (50 percent), rural poverty (25
percent), and rural unemployment (25 percent).  USDA's formula is
easy to administer and is based primarily on readily available data
from the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  No
state can receive more than 5 percent of the total available funds in
the initial allocation.  The formula may partially reflect states'
needs and ability to pay; it does not reflect cost differences
between states. 

Under the current approach used to distribute funds within states,
USDA state and district offices have considerable flexibility in
determining the amount of grant assistance, if any, for individual
projects.  In some instances, this flexibility results in differing
funding decisions for similar communities.  We identified these
differences in funding decisions between and within the four states
we visited. 


   PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4


      WATER AND SEWER PROGRAM HAS
      PROVIDED ASSISTANCE FOR
      THOUSANDS OF PROJECTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1

Almost 17,000 projects serving over 12,500 communities have received
USDA funds for water, sewer, and combined projects since fiscal year
1965.  Over this time, the water and sewer program has provided more
than $20.4 billion in loans and about $7.3 billion in grants for
these projects (in fiscal year 1994 dollars). 

The number and costs of projects funded vary by state.  For example,
USDA's Mississippi office funded, on average, 28 projects annually
from fiscal year 1965 through June 1995, while USDA's Ohio office
funded an average of 13 projects annually over the same period. 
Differences in the number of projects funded are due in part to the
types of projects funded.  In Mississippi, more funding went to water
projects, which are generally less costly to fund than the sewer
projects funded in Ohio. 


      CURRENT ALLOCATION FORMULA
      TO DETERMINE STATE FUNDING
      IS EASY TO ADMINISTER AND
      MAY PARTIALLY REFLECT NEED
      AND ABILITY TO PAY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2

USDA's current allocation formula used to determine the amount of
funds provided to the states has the advantage of being easy to
administer because it is based on readily available data and is easy
to understand.  In addition, the data (on rural population, rural
poverty, and rural unemployment) are specifically directed toward
rural areas.  Experts in public finance generally agree that certain
other criteria are important in formulas for allocating federal
funds.  These criteria include (1) communities' needs for services,
(2) a state's ability to pay for such services without federal aid,
and (3) variations in project costs such as labor or construction
costs among states. 

USDA's current formula may partially reflect states' needs and
ability to pay; it does not reflect cost differences among states. 
Data are available to more fully address these criteria, but any
change to the formula could alter the amounts of loan and grant funds
that states receive.  GAO did not analyze how potential changes would
affect individual states. 


      AWARD DETERMINATION APPROACH
      PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY WHILE
      RESULTING IN DIFFERING
      FUNDING DECISIONS FOR
      SIMILAR COMMUNITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.3

Under USDA guidelines, state and district offices have the authority
to vary the amount of grant and loan funds that they award to
communities eligible to receive funding for water and sewer projects. 
Officials may base their funding decisions on an applicant
community's median household income or on the user charges for
similar water and sewer systems in the area.  According to USDA
officials, most decisions are based on the user charges for similar
systems.  The flexibility permitted by USDA guidance allows the
Department to vary the mix of funds among competing projects.  This
flexibility results in differing funding decisions for similar
communities. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

GAO is making no recommendations in this report. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6

GAO provided copies of a draft of this report to USDA's Rural
Utilities Service for its comments.  GAO met with several agency
officials, including the Deputy Administrator and the Director of the
Water and Waste Disposal Division, who agreed that the information
presented in the report is accurate.  They provided new or clarifying
information that GAO incorporated as appropriate. 


INTRODUCTION
============================================================ Chapter 1

Many of the 62 million people living in over 2,300 rural counties in
the United States lack access to a supply of clean water and sanitary
waste disposal facilities.  In 1937, the Congress created a program
that provided low-cost loans to ranchers, farmers, and rural
residents of 17 arid and semiarid western states for water storage
projects.  Since that time, the Congress has changed the program to
also fund water distribution systems and waste disposal facilities
and to provide grant funds in addition to loans.  Currently, the
program, known as the Water and Waste Disposal Program, offers grants
and loans to construct or modify water and/or sewer systems in rural
communities that cannot obtain funding from other sources.\1
Administered by the U.S.  Department of Agriculture (USDA), this
program is now the major federal program providing such loan and
grant funds to rural America. 


--------------------
\1 In 1990, the Congress also made solid waste disposal facilities
eligible for assistance.  This report only addresses assistance for
water and/or sewer facilities. 


   USDA ALLOCATES LOAN AND GRANT
   FUNDS TO STATE OFFICES THROUGH
   A FORMULA
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1

USDA administers the Water and Waste Disposal Program--referred to in
this report as the water and sewer program--through its Rural
Utilities Service.\2 To be eligible for this program, a rural
community must have a population of 10,000 or less and be financially
needy, meeting low-income criteria. 

USDA headquarters allocates both loan and grant funds to its state
offices through an allocation formula that it established through
regulations.\3 The formula consists of three weighted factors:  rural
population (50 percent), rural poverty (25 percent), and rural
unemployment (25 percent).  No state may receive more than 5 percent
of the total loan and grant funds initially allocated.  About 10
percent of both loan and grant funds are set aside in a reserve pool
for emergencies, cost overruns, and other unforeseen problems. 
Furthermore, twice a year, USDA headquarters withdraws to its reserve
pool a portion of the unobligated loan and grant funds that may
remain in a state's accounts.  State offices can request pooled funds
and receive funding above a state's initial allocation; USDA
headquarters determines how pooled funds will be distributed. 
Generally, these pooled funds are used to provide supplemental
funding for projects that are ready to be approved.  In the following
fiscal year, the states receive their allocations on the basis of the
formula, not on whether they spent the prior year's allocation.  In
fiscal year 1995, USDA headquarters withdrew about $60 million in
loan and grant funds as a result of the pooling process. 

The water and sewer program has been funded at an average of $1
billion per year for the last 6 fiscal years; funding in fiscal year
1994 was about $1.3 billion. 


--------------------
\2 Among other functions, the Rural Utilities Service administers one
of several programs that were under USDA's Rural Development
Administration.  These programs, in large part, originated under
USDA's Farmers Home Administration.  Both of these agencies were
abolished under the Department's recent reorganization, and their
functions were transferred to newly created agencies. 

\3 Before allocating funds to the 50 states, Puerto Rico, the U.S. 
Virgin Islands, and the Western Pacific territories, USDA
headquarters sets aside funds as directed by the Congress for
communities with specific water and sewer needs.  Examples of such
communities include the Colonias--generally referred to as rural
communities along the U.S.-Mexican border that have substandard
living conditions, including water and sewer facilities.  Usually,
more grant funds than loan funds are set aside. 


   USDA ADMINISTERS THE WATER AND
   SEWER PROGRAM THROUGH STATE AND
   DISTRICT OFFICES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2

USDA administers the water and sewer program through a network of
state and district offices.  USDA headquarters allocates the
program's funds to the state offices, which are responsible for
general oversight of the program, including approval of district
offices' project and funding recommendations.  District offices
administer the loan and grant program at the local level and serve as
the point of contact for communities seeking assistance.  Through a
preapplication process, a district office obtains preliminary
information to determine a community's eligibility for assistance and
the proposed project's feasibility.  If the community meets these
requirements and funds are available, the district office asks the
community to prepare a full application package. 

The district office provides the state office with data on the
project, including the application package and the district office's
recommendation for approval.  Most state offices have approval
authority for loans of up to about $3 million; they can approve
grants of any dollar amount.  Under certain conditions, state offices
must obtain final approval through USDA headquarters. 


      USDA OFFICES BASE LOANS AND
      GRANTS ON THE ESTIMATED
      AMOUNT A COMMUNITY CAN
      AFFORD TO PAY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.1

Generally, USDA finances water and sewer projects through a
combination of loans and grants.  In addition, other funds--such as
those from federal or state agencies or the applicant community--may
be combined with financing from USDA. 

USDA state and district offices determine the applicant's eligibility
and the project's feasibility, including the reasonableness of user
charges, which USDA headquarters officials interpret as an affordable
charge.  USDA state and district offices determine the community's
ability to repay a loan, including consideration of the community's
outstanding debt to USDA.  These offices initially attempt to finance
the project through a loan.  Since USDA expects its loans to be fully
repaid,\4 district and state offices estimate what the average
monthly user charges for the water and/or sewer services would have
to be in order to sufficiently cover anticipated costs and avoid
defaulting on the loan.\5 Typically, a community repays its loan
through monthly charges collected from the residents who use these
services. 

If USDA state and district offices conclude that the loan amount
would result in an onerous user charge, they consider replacing a
portion of the loan with a grant to bring the user charge down to a
more manageable level.  In addition, officials in some states
encourage the local community to obtain funding from other sources,
such as state and/or other federal agencies, to reduce the amount of
the USDA loan and grant funds needed.  The grant amount that USDA
state and district offices provide for a specific project can vary
for several reasons--for example, the amount of grant funds on hand,
the urgency for the project, and competing demands for grant funds
within the district and across the state. 

There are two principal limits on the grant provided for a particular
project.  First, legislation limits the amount of the grant to 75
percent of the project development costs\6

and provides for higher grants for projects in communities that have
lower population and income levels.  By regulation, USDA limits some
communities having a somewhat higher median household income to a
maximum grant of 55 percent of the project development costs. 
Second, under USDA regulations, grants cannot be so large that they
cause average monthly user charges to be lower than those prevailing
in the area.  A state office may also fund a project at less than the
allowable amount if its grant allocations are not sufficient to
provide maximum grant funds for that project. 

To determine the yearly user charge for a project, USDA state and
district offices consider costs in four categories:  debt service,
operations and maintenance, reserve fund, and other costs.  These
offices add the yearly debt service calculation--including
outstanding USDA debt--to the yearly costs for operations and
maintenance to arrive at the total yearly cost.  When applicable,
these offices also add the cost of maintaining a reserve fund
(generally 10 percent of debt service), which is used to replace
certain types of equipment that have a relatively short useful life. 
This reserve fund should not be large enough to build a substantial
surplus.  Ordinarily, the total reserve will be equal to one average
annual loan installment, accumulating at a rate of one-tenth of the
total each year.  In addition, USDA state and district offices may
consider other costs, such as funded depreciation and delinquent
accounts.  To arrive at the total grant amount, these offices
determine how much debt service a community can afford.  They then
factor in amortization over a period of time, usually 40 years. 


--------------------
\4 Loans are repaid to the U.S.  Treasury, not to USDA. 

\5 According to USDA headquarters officials, the program has a very
low default and delinquency rate.  USDA reported that only 0.1
percent of the total principal loaned had been lost to default since
the program's inception.  The delinquency rate is less than 2 percent
of the total loans made. 

\6 Development costs include costs for constructing, expanding,
extending, or otherwise improving water or waste disposal facilities. 


      ESTIMATED USER CHARGES CAN
      BE ADJUSTED ON THE BASIS OF
      COMPARISONS WITH SIMILAR
      COMMUNITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.2

In deciding on the mix of loan and grant funds to award for water and
sewer projects, USDA state and district officials estimate the
maximum size of the grant on the basis of a comparison of a
community's median household income with the state's poverty level.\7
A community may not receive the maximum grant if further calculations
of the debt service amount that the community can afford reveal that
the grant should be less.  A key factor in estimating affordability
is determining how much the average customer can pay for water and/or
sewer service on the basis of a community's median household income. 
USDA officials may override this affordability measure and increase
or decrease the grant amount to bring the user charge in line with
the average charges paid by comparable communities for similar
systems.\8 However, officials may not change the grant amount if the
change will result in user charges that are lower than those charged
to customers in nearby communities. 


--------------------
\7 State and district offices consider providing a grant when the
debt service portion of the average annual user charge exceeds
certain percentages of the median household income.  These
percentages are 0.5 percent when the median household income of the
service area is below the poverty level or below 80 percent
(whichever is higher) of the statewide nonmetropolitan median
household income and 1 percent when it exceeds 80 percent but is not
more than 100 percent of the statewide nonmetropolitan household
income. 

\8 USDA regulations define similar system charges as "the cost of a
community having similar economic conditions, being served by the
same type of established system, constructed at similar cost per
user.  Similar system cost shall include all charges, taxes, and
assessments attributable to the system."


   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3

Representative William F.  Clinger, Jr., asked us to review certain
aspects of USDA's Water and Waste Disposal Program.  This report
provides information on (1) funding levels for the program and the
projects supported, (2) the formula that USDA uses to allocate loan
and grant funds among its state offices, and (3) the approach that
USDA state and district offices use to distribute funds within
states. 

To address the first objective, we obtained access to the USDA
database that contains information on the water and sewer program
since its inception in the 1930s.  We analyzed data for projects
begun from fiscal year 1965 through June 1995--the period during
which USDA was authorized to provide both grants and loans for water
and sewer projects.  We excluded (1) about 4,000 projects (with a
value of about $1.3 billion in nominal dollars) from our analysis
because USDA's database did not provide the year in which the
projects were begun and (2) about 3,000 additional projects because
the database did not provide the dollar amounts for these loans
and/or grants.  We summarized, by state, information on USDA's loans
and grants and on other sources of funding.  We converted amounts in
the database to constant fiscal year 1994 dollars.  We did not
perform a reliability assessment of USDA's database. 

To respond to the second objective, we reviewed the literature on
allocation formulas used for distributing federal funds and spoke
with experts in other federal and private agencies.  We identified
generally accepted criteria for the factors that should go into an
allocation formula and compared these factors with those used for the
current water and sewer allocation formula.  We also analyzed
allocation formulas used to distribute funding for other federal
programs. 

To address the third objective, we reviewed files at USDA
headquarters for a random sample of 120 projects receiving funding
from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1994.  We selected 30 cases
each from four of the five states that are the largest recipients of
loan and grant funds (Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania).  We analyzed the approach used to distribute funds
within the states and identified variations in funding decisions.  We
visited these four states and talked with USDA water and sewer
officials at the state level and with officials in 12 of USDA's
districts.  We also talked with nine borrowers who had received
grants or loans from USDA for water or sewer projects in two of these
states. 

We performed our work from September 1994 through August 1995 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:4

We provided copies of a draft of this report to USDA's Rural
Utilities Service for its comments.  We met with several agency
officials, including the Deputy Administrator of the Rural Utilities
Service and the Director of the Water and Waste Disposal Division. 
These officials agreed that the information presented in the report
is accurate.  They provided new or clarifying information that we
incorporated as appropriate. 


USDA HAS HELPED TO FUND THOUSANDS
OF WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS FOR
RURAL COMMUNITIES
============================================================ Chapter 2

From fiscal year 1965 through June 1995, USDA supported the
development of water and sewer projects in thousands of rural
communities.  The expenditures, number of projects, and average costs
varied by state.  On average, the water and sewer program provided
about 70 percent of the funds for the projects that it supported. 
The remainder of the funds came from other sources such as the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states, and counties. 


   EXPENDITURES, NUMBER OF
   PROJECTS, AND AVERAGE COSTS
   VARIED BY STATE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1

Since fiscal year 1965, USDA has provided financial assistance to
over 12,500 rural communities and almost 17,000 water and sewer
projects.  The number of projects supported and the amount of loan
and grant funds provided varied, ranging from a low of two projects
and about $5.6 million in the Western Pacific Territories to a high
of more than 1,100 projects and $1.8 billion in expenditures in
Texas.  Furthermore, the average expenditure per project varied
widely among the states. 

Table 2.1 shows the top five states in total expenditures and the
average expenditure for each project in those states since fiscal
year 1965. 



                               Table 2.1
                
                   Top Five States Receiving Funding,
                   Fiscal Year 1965 Through June 1995

                                                   Average
                                         Total  expenditur
                                                     e per     Average
                          Number  expenditures     project      annual
                              of           (in         (in   number of
State                   projects     billions)   millions)    projects
----------------------  --------  ------------  ----------  ----------
Texas                      1,116          $1.9        $1.7          36
North Carolina               562           1.4         2.5          18
Ohio                         390           1.1         2.9          13
Pennsylvania                 439           1.1         2.5          14
Mississippi                  879           1.0         1.2          28
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  USDA's data. 

As table 2.1 shows, while total expenditures were comparable for
three of the five states, the average expenditure per project and the
average annual number of projects varied considerably.  For example,
the average expenditure per project in Ohio was about 2-1/2 times the
expenditure in Mississippi.  This occurs in part because the USDA
office in Mississippi funded more water projects than did the USDA
office in Ohio, which funded more sewer projects.  In general, water
projects are less costly than sewer projects.  (App.  I provides
information on projects and expenditures by state.)


   PROJECTS ALSO RECEIVED FUNDING
   FROM OTHER SOURCES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2

Many projects that the water and sewer program supported also
received funding from sources other than USDA, including the
community itself, the state and county, and other federal sources,
such as EPA.  Figure 2.1 shows the amount and percentage of support
provided by these sources and USDA. 

   Figure 2.1:  Sources of Support
   for Water and Sewer Projects,
   Fiscal Year 1965 Through June
   1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Some funds provided by the community, state and county, and
other categories may have originated from federal sources that
provide funds to localities for multiple purposes. 

Source:  USDA's data. 

The $27.7 billion provided by USDA's water and sewer program
represents about 70 percent of the total expenditures on these
projects from fiscal year 1965 through June 1995.  The extent of all
other funding sources varied widely by state--from 8 percent in New
Jersey to 62 percent in Vermont.  According to USDA officials in one
of the four states we visited, they encouraged and aided applicants
for the projects in soliciting funds outside of the USDA program. 
Projects in that state and in two others that we visited averaged
over 30 percent in all other sources of funding.  Conversely, the
fourth state we visited relied more heavily on USDA's water and sewer
funds, obtaining only 15 percent of funding from all other sources. 
(See app.  I for sources of funding by state.)


CURRENT ALLOCATION FORMULA IS EASY
TO ADMINISTER AND MAY PARTIALLY
REFLECT STATES' NEEDS AND ABILITY
TO PAY
============================================================ Chapter 3

The current water and sewer formula--which is based on rural
population, poverty, and unemployment--is easy to administer and
draws on data that are readily available and directed toward rural
areas.  As we have reported on a number of previous occasions,\9
experts in public finance have identified three criteria--need,
ability to pay, and differences in cost--that are commonly considered
in allocation formulas aimed at producing an equitable distribution
of funds among states.  USDA's current formula may partially satisfy
the first two criteria but does not address the third.  Data on need,
on the ability to pay, and on certain cost differences are available
from the Bureau of the Census, EPA, the Department of the Treasury,
and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 


--------------------
\9 See Maternal and Child Health:  Block Grant Funds Should Be
Distributed More Equitably (GAO/HRD-92-5, Apr.  2, 1992), Older
Americans Act:  Funding Formula Could Better Reflect State Needs
(GAO/HEHS-94-41, May 12, 1994), and Federal Aid:  Revising Poverty
Statistics Affects Fairness of Allocation Formulas (GAO/HEHS-94-165,
May 20, 1994). 


   THE WATER AND SEWER FORMULA IS
   EASY TO ADMINISTER AND DRAWS ON
   READILY AVAILABLE DATA
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1

USDA's water and sewer formula is easy to administer because of its
simplicity and its use of factors that are based on readily available
data.  It consists of three weighted factors for each state:  rural
population (50 percent), rural poverty (25 percent), and rural
unemployment (25 percent).  Rural population is measured by a state's
rural share of population as a percentage of the national rural
population.  Rural poverty is measured by the state's rural
population below the poverty level as a percentage of the national
rural population below the poverty level.  Rural unemployment is
measured by the state's nonmetropolitan unemployed population as a
percentage of the national nonmetropolitan unemployed population. 

USDA officials informed us that they use rural population, poverty,
and unemployment in the allocation formula because the data are
readily available from the Bureau of the Census and Bureau of Labor
Statistics and do not require any further alterations.  (For
population and poverty levels, data are collected every 10 years; for
unemployment rates, data are collected annually.) In addition, the
data are directed toward rural areas. 


   NEED, ABILITY TO PAY, AND COST
   DIFFERENCES ARE RECOGNIZED
   ALLOCATION CRITERIA
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2

Public finance experts have identified three criteria that are
commonly considered in allocation formulas aimed at producing an
equitable distribution of funds among states.  These criteria are the
(1) need for services or projects, (2) ability of states to fund
projects from their own resources, and (3) differences between the
states in the cost of providing these services.  Some federal
allocation formulas consider one or more of these criteria in
distributing program funding to the states, as discussed below. 


      NEED FOR SERVICES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.1

The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations,\10

reported that the "need for services" is the most common criterion
used to allocate federal funds.\11 Some formulas use direct
indicators of this need.  For example, the formula for the Highway
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program is based on the number
of a state's bridges that are eligible for replacement or
rehabilitation.  Similarly, the formula for the Hazardous Waste
Management State Program is based in part on a direct indicator of
need--the number of hazardous waste management facilities in the
state.  This program assists states in transporting, treating,
storing, and disposing of hazardous wastes. 

Indirect indicators of need, or proxies, may be used when direct
factors are not available.  For example, the Highway Planning and
Construction, Interstate 4R Program formula contains a factor for
vehicle miles traveled on interstate routes in a calendar year.  This
factor serves as a proxy for those interstate highways that are in
the greatest need of repair.  Indirect indicators of need often have
the advantage of objectivity and prevent any perverse incentive
effects that may result from the formula itself.  However, when
direct indicators of need are available, their use may more precisely
target funds. 


--------------------
\10 The Congress created the Commission in 1959 to monitor the
operation of the federal system and to recommend improvements.  The
Commission is an independent, bipartisan commission with 26
members--9 representing the federal government; 14, state and local
government; and 3, the general public. 

\11 Categorical Grants:  Their Role and Design, Advisory Commission
on Intergovernmental Relations, A-52 (Washington, D.C.:  May 1977). 


      ABILITY TO PAY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.2

A state's ability to raise revenues from its own resources--its
fiscal capacity--is also an important factor found in many federal
allocation formulas.  The rationale for including an ability-to-pay
factor is that a greater share of funds should go to recipients who
are least able to finance their needs from their own resources.  Many
federal and state grant programs over the past decade have included a
measure of ability to pay in their formulas. 

Because it is readily available information, per capita income is the
factor used almost exclusively to account for ability to pay. 
However, according to economists and other analysts, per capita
income is not a comprehensive measure of ability to pay because it
does not include other sources of income, such as corporate income
and taxes paid by nonresidents (e.g., hotel and sales taxes). 
Therefore, using an indicator such as per capita income may
understate states' ability to pay. 

Several other factors could be used to develop a more comprehensive
indicator of ability to pay, such as total taxable resources.\12 This
indicator, developed by the Department of the Treasury, is an average
of per capita income and per capita gross state product.\13 By
averaging gross state product with personal income, total taxable
resources covers more types of income than does personal income
alone, including income received by nonresidents.  This measure is
used in the formula specified in the 1987 reauthorization of the
block grant for the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Program. 


--------------------
\12 Other such indicators of ability to pay include the
Representative Tax System and the Representative Revenue System, both
developed by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 
The Representative Tax System is an alternative to per capita income
and measures the potential ability of states to raise taxes from
their own sources.  The Representative Revenue System, a parallel
measure to the Representative Tax System, includes the capacity to
collect nontax revenues, such as user charges, in addition to tax
revenues.  For both of these measures, an index is calculated that
measures the potential revenue-raising ability of each state in
relation to a national average of 100.  However, neither of these
indicators is collected on a regular basis--they were last measured
in 1991.  Currently, they are not used in the United States in grant
formulas.  However, Canada has used the Representative Tax System in
its program of federal-provincial equalization assistance. 

\13 Gross State Product measures all income produced within a state,
whether received by residents or nonresidents or retained by business
corporations. 


      GEOGRAPHIC COST DIFFERENCES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.3

Many allocation formulas include an adjustment for cost disparities
across states.  Ideally, for these formulas to reflect cost
differences fairly, they must incorporate factors that reflect
differences between states in costs that are beyond the states'
direct control.  One formula that includes an indicator to adjust for
costs is the formula for the Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation Program.  This formula considers the costs of
replacing or improving bridges in different states. 


   USDA'S WATER AND SEWER FORMULA
   MAY PARTIALLY SATISFY
   ALLOCATION CRITERIA
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3

The current formula may partially reflect the need for services and
the ability to pay for such services, but it does not reflect cost
differences between the states.  First, to the extent that a state's
relative need for services is proportional to rural population and
poverty, the population and poverty factors may serve as a proxy for
need.  But the formula's reliance on poverty data can result in more
funding to a state that has more resources to help itself than its
poverty data would indicate.  Such a state may have both a relatively
high average income and a high level of poverty.  Also, poverty data
are not adjusted for cost-of-living differences across states. 

Second, the formula partially provides a means for measuring a
state's ability to pay for needed water or sewer services.  The
current formula's unemployment factor provides an indirect measure of
a state's financial capacity but does not directly address a state's
ability to pay for services.  In addition, the use of the
unemployment rate as a targeting mechanism cannot be expected to
reflect the economic conditions of rural areas.  According to USDA,
rural workers are more likely to rely on two or more part-time jobs
rather than one full-time job.  These part-time jobs do not show up
in unemployment statistics.  Also, the unemployment rate may not be
representative of the economic condition of self-employed farmers,
whose employment status is unlikely to change in good or bad times. 

On the other hand, the current formula does not adjust for cost
differences.  It does not recognize that the costs for building and
maintaining water and sewer projects differ from one state to
another.  These costs can differ because of state-to-state
differences in labor costs or other inputs as well as the amount of
resources needed to accomplish the project.  For example, costs may
be higher because of a harsh winter climate or the topography of
certain states, making it necessary to bury water or sewer pipes more
deeply or to drill through rocky terrain. 


   DATA ON NEED, ABILITY TO PAY,
   AND COST DIFFERENCES ARE
   GENERALLY AVAILABLE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4

Most data that could be incorporated into a formula that addresses a
community's need, ability to pay, and cost differences are currently
available.  Appendix II provides details on the availability of such
data.  Any changes that would incorporate such data, however, could
alter the amounts of loan and grant funds that states receive. 
Depending on the factors selected and their respective assigned
weights, changes could be significant.  The ultimate results of any
changes would depend upon assumptions about the relative importance
of factors.  We did not analyze how potential changes would affect
individual states. 


AWARD DETERMINATION APPROACH
PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY WHILE
RESULTING IN DIFFERING FUNDING
DECISIONS FOR SIMILAR COMMUNITIES
============================================================ Chapter 4

USDA state and district officials have the authority to vary the
amount of grant and loan funds that they award to communities
eligible to receive funding for water and sewer projects.  The
officials may base their decisions on either the applicant
communities' median household income (MHI) or the user rates for
similar systems.  This flexibility in funding decisions has the
advantage of allowing state and district offices to vary the mix of
grant and loan funds among competing projects.  This same flexibility
results in different funding decisions for similar communities. 


   AWARD DETERMINATION APPROACH
   ALLOWS OFFICIALS TO ADJUST
   MIXTURE OF GRANT AND LOAN
   FUNDING AMONG COMPETING
   PROJECTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1

USDA state and district officials decide on whether to provide only a
loan or a mix of loan and grant funds for water and sewer projects by
determining what constitutes an affordable payment or average user
charge.  As discussed in chapter 1, if a loan by itself would result
in a user charge that is too high, officials can reduce the loan's
amount by providing grant funds.  The amount of the grant is
ultimately determined by considering a community's MHI or the results
of a comparison between the proposed system and other similar
systems.  USDA officials advised us that most funding decisions are
based on user charges for similar systems in the area, rather than on
the community's MHI. 

According to a number of USDA state and district officials with whom
we spoke, the option of comparing similar communities and systems
provides them with latitude in distributing funds within the state. 
This option allows them to provide more or less funds to projects,
depending on the number and cost of projects competing for funds. 
Accordingly, these states could either fund multiple projects at
reduced grant levels or fewer projects at higher levels. 

USDA offices in all four states chose the latter--assisting a larger
number of projects with relatively lower amounts of grants.  For
example, USDA officials in one state told us that they had a 4- to
5-year backlog of projects totaling about $220 million.  In this
state, when choosing similar systems for comparison, officials were
more likely to pick systems with higher user charges, thus
establishing a lower grant amount for the project under consideration
and spreading grant funds among competing projects. 

According to USDA headquarters, state, and district officials,
selecting comparable communities and user charges is inherently
judgmental.  Water and sewer systems and user charges can differ
because of such factors as the type and age of the system and the
size and density of the population served. 


   FLEXIBILITY IN CHOOSING SIMILAR
   SYSTEMS RESULTS IN DIFFERING
   FUNDING DECISIONS FOR SIMILAR
   COMMUNITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2

While the flexibility for selecting similar systems provides latitude
in determining the amount of a grant that a particular project will
receive, it also means that differing funding decisions may be made
for similar communities.  We identified variations in funding
decisions both between and within the four states we visited. 


      VARIATIONS IN FUNDING
      DECISIONS BETWEEN THE FOUR
      STATES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2.1

Table 4.1 provides information on four communities--one from each of
the four states we visited.  The district and state offices in each
of the states based their funding decisions for these communities on
the user charges for similar water and/or sewer systems in comparable
communities within their respective states.  The table presents
project development costs, the community's MHI, the community's
maximum grant eligibility, the grant's amount based on MHI, the
amount of the grant awarded, the annual user charges, and the
community's user charges used for comparison. 



                                     Table 4.1
                      
                        Variations in Funding Decisions for
                       Water or Sewer Systems in Four States

Bo
rr
ow
er                                             Grant                          User
co                                          estimate        Actual  Annu   charges
mm       Project               Maximum      based on         grant    al        in
un   development             allowable           MHI         award  user   similar
it      cost (in          grant \a (in           (in           (in  char  communit
y      millions)     MHI     millions)     millions)     millions)    ge       ies
--  ------------  ------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ----  --------
St          $6.2  $17,62          $3.4           $ 0          $3.4  $147      $114
 a                     7                                                       127
 t                                                                             146
 e
 1
St           7.6  17,738           5.5           2.1             0   376       360
 a                                                                             365
 t                                                                             396
 e
 2
St           3.8  15,000           2.8           1.1           2.4   182       222
 a                                                                             258
 t                                                                              82
 e
 3
St           2.0  19,654           1.5             0           0.4   204       240
 a                                                                             215
 t                                                                             228
 e
 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The maximum allowable grant is based on a community's MHI as
compared with the state's poverty level. 

Source:  USDA's data. 

The community in State 1 was eligible for a grant of up to 55 percent
of its project development costs, on the basis of its median
household income when compared with the state's median household
income.  As table 4.1 shows, USDA provided this community with the
maximum grant, about $3.4 million.  USDA arrived at an annual user
charge of $147, which was comparable with the annual charges of three
other communities.  In contrast, the community in State 2 was
eligible for a 75-percent grant but received no grant funds even
though it had a median household income similar to that of the first
community.  Without a grant, the community in State 2 projected a
user charge of $376 annually, which was 2-1/2 times higher than the
user charge for the first community.  However, this user charge was
comparable with the three communities that the district office had
selected for comparison in that state.  USDA made differing funding
decisions for these two communities.  While the community in State 2
was eligible for a larger grant than the community in State 1, it
received no grant at all. 

Similarly, the communities in the other two states were each eligible
for a grant of 75 percent, but the grant amounts differed.  One
community's annual user charge of $182 was close to an average of the
three communities selected for comparison, while the other community
received a grant amount that resulted in an annual user charge lower
than that of any of the three systems identified as similar. 


      VARIATIONS IN FUNDING
      DECISIONS WITHIN ONE STATE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2.2

We also found variations in the approaches used within individual
states to determine how much grant funding, if any, USDA would
provide to a particular community.  Table 4.2 presents information
similar to that in table 4.1 for four communities within the same
state.  For these communities, USDA based its decisions on user
charges in similar communities. 



                                     Table 4.2
                      
                        Variations in Funding Decisions for
                      Borrowers Having Similar Water or Sewer
                                Systems in One State

Bo
rr
ow
er                                                                            User
co                                             Grant        Actual  Annu   charges
mm       Project               Maximum      estimate         grant    al        in
un   development             allowable  based on MHI         award  user   similar
it      cost (in          grant \a (in           (in           (in  char  communit
y      millions)     MHI     millions)     millions)     millions)    ge       ies
--  ------------  ------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ----  --------
Co          $3.3  $27,20          $1.8          $0.5          $0.6  $396      $384
 m                     2                                                       384
 m                                                                             360
 u
 n
 i
 t
 y
 A
Co           7.6  17,738           5.5           2.1             0   376       360
 m                                                                             365
 m                                                                             396
 u
 n
 i
 t
 y
 B
Co           3.3  17,818           2.4           2.8           2.3   353       300
 m                                                                             288
 m                                                                             334
 u
 n
 i
 t
 y
 C
Co           0.9  24,038           0.7           0.4           0.3   348       241
 m                                                                             264
 m                                                                             288
 u
 n
 i
 t
 y
 D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The maximum allowable grant is based on a community's MHI compared
with the state's poverty level. 

Source:  USDA's data. 

On the basis of its MHI, Community A was eligible for a grant of up
to 55 percent of its project development costs and received a grant
of $572,000.  In contrast, Community B was eligible for a 75-percent
grant but received no grant funds.  For Community A, the annual user
charge was $396, which was higher than the annual user charges for
the three communities used for comparison.  For Community B, the
annual user charge was $376, which was higher than two of the
communities used for comparison.  USDA made differing funding
decisions for Communities A and B.  Community A, which had a higher
MHI than Community B, received a grant, while Community B received no
grant. 

Our analysis also showed that Communities B, C, and D were eligible
for grants up to 75 percent ($5.5 million, $2.4 million, and
$657,000, respectively).  While USDA compared similar communities to
arrive at projected user charges for these three applicants, it
provided no grant to Community B, almost the maximum grant to
Community C ($2.3 million), and less than half the maximum grant to
Community D ($300,000). 

Several USDA district officials in this state told us that they
regularly choose systems for comparison that support a $30 to $35
monthly charge because they believe that user charges in this range
are necessary to get the state office's approval for the project. 
However, USDA state officials disagreed with the district officials'
views that a $30 to $35 monthly charge was expected.  Nonetheless, in
another state, USDA state and district officials told us that they
emphasize having a consistent outcome for user charges in their
state.  They informed us that they expected the awards to projects to
result in monthly user charges of about $30 for water projects and
about $35 for sewer projects. 

Also, within each of the four states visited, USDA's rationale for
making grant determination decisions was often not documented in the
files.  For example, files on the projects frequently showed that the
similar systems approach was used but the communities and user
charges selected for comparison were not identified. 


NUMBER OF WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS
AND DOLLAR VALUE OF LOANS AND
GRANTS FUNDED BY USDA AND OTHER
SOURCES
=========================================================== Appendix I



                               Table I.1
                
                 Number of Water and Sewer Projects and
                  USDA Loan/Grant Totals by State for
                 Projects Started From Fiscal Year 1965
                           Through June 1995

                         (Dollars in millions)

                            Number                  Loan and   Average
                                of    Loan   Grant     grant  cost per
States and territories    projects  amount  amount    amount   project
------------------------  --------  ------  ------  --------  --------
Alabama                        321  $450.9  $179.0    $629.9      $2.0
Alaska                          74    54.6    36.2      90.7       1.2
Arizona                        160   172.7    52.1     224.8       1.4
Arkansas                       707   580.6   285.2     865.8       1.2
California                     423   513.5   219.1     732.7       1.7
Colorado                       239   181.3    96.2     277.5       1.2
Connecticut                     80   149.8    38.9     188.7       2.4
Delaware                        35    89.6    15.7     105.2       3.0
Florida                        280   706.5   206.5     913.0       3.3
Georgia                        516   612.6   269.4     882.0       1.7
Hawaii                           7     8.7    10.2      18.9       2.7
Idaho                          255   113.8    62.0     175.8       0.7
Illinois                       729   586.6   240.3     826.9       1.1
Indiana                        401   537.4   179.0     716.4       1.8
Iowa                           676   764.3   195.6     960.0       1.4
Kansas                         369   362.0   142.8     504.8       1.4
Kentucky                       415   724.9   287.7   1,012.5       2.4
Louisiana                      544   550.1   181.4     731.6       1.3
Maine                          224   305.5   120.3     425.8       1.9
Maryland                       161   180.2    79.5     259.6       1.6
Massachusetts                  168   309.6    70.5     380.2       2.3
Michigan                       407   691.9   232.4     924.3       2.3
Minnesota                      466   344.6   155.3     499.8       1.1
Mississippi                    879   806.4   212.4   1,018.8       1.2
Missouri                       452   433.3   200.8     634.1       1.4
Montana                        100    50.6    24.6      75.2       0.8
Nebraska                       205   106.6    57.9     164.5       0.8
Nevada                          63    42.9    15.4      58.3       0.9
New Hampshire                  105   132.2    49.3     181.5       1.7
New Jersey                      80   263.7    62.8     326.5       4.1
New Mexico                     174    83.6    43.6     127.2       0.7
New York                       525   560.5   182.1     742.6       1.4
North Carolina                 562  1,035.   346.1   1,381.3       2.5
                                         3
North Dakota                   176   194.2    77.6     271.8       1.5
Ohio                           390   879.4   267.8   1,147.2       2.9
Oklahoma                       560   442.7   172.8     615.5       1.1
Oregon                         231   211.1   100.4     311.6       1.3
Pennsylvania                   439   777.1   302.3   1,079.4       2.5
Puerto Rico                    330   432.2   219.7     651.9       2.0
Rhode Island                    25    63.9     9.0      73.0       2.9
South Carolina                 285   663.3   159.1     822.5       2.9
South Dakota                   247   260.8   115.6     376.4       1.5
Tennessee                      449   703.5   181.2     884.7       2.0
Texas                        1,116  1,459.   415.1   1,874.7       1.7
                                         6
Utah                           206   133.8    45.3     179.1       0.9
Vermont                        170   132.4    43.9     176.3       1.0
U.S. Virgin Islands              2     5.8     0.4       6.3       3.1
Virginia                       349   551.5   216.6     768.1       2.2
Washington                     353   215.3    88.8     304.0       0.9
West Virginia                  345   502.9   183.5     686.5       2.0
Western Pacific                  2     1.4     4.2       5.6       2.8
 Territories
Wisconsin                      300   207.0   134.9     341.9       1.1
Wyoming                        132    57.2    58.4     115.5       0.9
Total                       16,909  $20,40  $7,347  $27,748.      $1.6
                                       1.9      .0         8
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:  All dollar amounts are expressed in fiscal year 1994 dollars. 
Figures may not total because of rounding. 



                                    Table I.2
                     
                       Funding for Water and Sewer Projects
                      From USDA and Other Sources, by State,
                        Fiscal Year 1965 Through June 1995

                              (Dollars in millions)

States
and
territor                  State/                          Total non-
ies        Community      County         EPA       Other        USDA        USDA
--------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Alabama        $11.1        $8.5       $52.3       $58.7      $130.5      $629.9
Alaska           4.8        54.6        63.8        22.8       146.0        90.7
Arizona         27.3         0.6        58.1        39.1       125.0       224.8
Arkansas        13.6       118.0        98.6        90.1       320.2       865.8
Californ        21.9        91.5       239.1        69.7       422.1       732.7
 ia
Colorado        34.7        30.6        20.2        23.9       109.4       277.5
Connecti         5.8        34.1       104.7        10.4       154.9       188.7
 cut
Delaware         3.3        32.9        85.5        24.5       146.1       105.2
Florida         24.7        70.2        72.9        35.1       202.9       913.0
Georgia          8.7        10.1        45.9        72.1       136.8       882.0
Hawaii           1.1         3.7         6.1         0.0        10.9        18.9
Idaho           13.2        30.6        36.3        28.4       108.5       175.8
Illinois        45.9         2.1       283.3        85.3       416.6       826.9
Indiana         23.7        43.2       257.9        21.6       346.4       716.4
Iowa            31.0        21.2        76.1        48.4       176.8       960.0
Kansas          40.5        22.5        13.2        13.7        90.0       504.8
Kentucky        43.3        22.7       189.6       232.0       487.5     1,012.5
Louisian        13.5         6.5       112.8        23.7       156.4       731.6
 a
Maine            9.3        85.3       224.3        26.4       345.2       425.8
Maryland         9.4        71.9       157.2        47.4       285.9       259.6
Massachu        29.0        97.6       241.9        11.2       379.6       380.2
 setts
Michigan        13.0        36.0       526.9        60.3       636.3       924.3
Minnesot         6.6        24.7        71.0        28.3       130.5       499.8
 a
Mississi         9.9        17.0       103.1        54.0       184.0     1,018.8
 ppi
Missouri        27.4        78.1        54.9        37.5       197.9       634.1
Montana          2.1         3.9        16.6         5.2        27.8        75.2
Nebraska         8.9         4.8         3.3        16.8        33.8       164.5
Nevada           3.9         3.1        26.4         7.8        41.2        58.3
New              3.7        49.2       109.2        24.6       186.6       181.5
 Hampshi
 re
New              3.1         7.5        13.2         5.8        29.6       326.5
 Jersey
New             12.4        20.7        19.2        20.2        72.5       127.2
 Mexico
New York        10.4        56.6       509.0        71.1       647.2       742.6
North           40.9       204.7       260.5       106.2       612.4     1,381.3
 Carolina
North            9.1        30.8        17.8        19.9        77.7       271.8
 Dakota
Ohio            56.5        24.7       371.0        84.5       536.7     1,147.2
Oklahoma        13.5        10.1        65.8        44.0       133.4       615.5
Oregon          29.2        10.2        66.0        41.6       147.0       311.6
Pennsylv        86.9        57.1       475.3        65.4       684.5     1,079.4
 ania
Puerto          69.7        43.9        18.3        65.4       197.3       651.9
 Rico
Rhode           10.4         8.1        24.9         0.4        43.7        73.0
 Island
South           32.8         7.5       254.4        50.9       345.6       822.5
 Carolina
South           17.5        20.2        32.6        54.3       124.7       376.4
 Dakota
Tennesse        34.0        30.9        63.7       127.9       256.6       884.7
 e
Texas           69.4        60.5        59.9        47.1       236.8     1,874.7
Utah            15.1        36.4        54.1        39.5       145.1       179.1
Vermont          2.0       116.4       157.1        17.1       292.7       176.3
U.S.             0.0         0.0         0.0         1.8         1.8         6.3
 Virgin
 Islands
Virginia        25.3        25.5       109.5       113.5       273.9       768.1
Washingt        14.7        88.4       106.6        29.8       239.5       304.0
 on
West             9.5        52.0       269.0       174.2       504.7       686.5
 Virginia
Western          0.0         0.0         0.0         1.5         1.5         5.6
 Pacific
 Territo
 ries
Wisconsi        41.6       108.3        29.2        39.6       218.8       341.9
 n
Wyoming         14.4        88.5        19.7        65.7       188.3       115.5
Total       $1,109.8    $2,184.0    $6,347.5    $2,506.6   $12,147.9   $27,748.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:  All figures are expressed in fiscal year 1994 dollars. 
Figures may not total because of rounding. 


AVAILABILITY OF DATA ON STATES'
NEEDS FOR WATER AND SEWER
SERVICES, ABILITY TO PAY, AND COST
INDICES
========================================================== Appendix II

This appendix presents information on the data that are available on
need, ability to pay, and cost differences across states. 


   AVAILABILITY OF DATA ON NEED
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

A direct measure of need for the water and sewer program could be the
number of rural households or other units that either do not have
water and sewer facilities or need system modifications. 
Considerable information on states' needs for water and sewer systems
is now or will soon be available. 

Both the Bureau of the Census and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) collect data that reflect the need for rural water and sewer
systems.  The Bureau's decennial "Census of Population and Housing"
reports on households that lack public water and sewer systems at the
county level.  As shown in table II.1, an average of 9 percent of
households in communities with populations under 10,000 lacked public
or private water systems in 1990 and an average of 20 percent lacked
public sewer systems. 



                               Table II.1
                
                Percentage of Households With Population
                  Under 10,000 Lacking Water and Sewer
                       Systems in 1990, by State

                                   Percent lacking     Percent lacking
                                 public or private        public sewer
State                                 water system              system
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Alabama                                          4                  43
Alaska                                          40                  50
Arizona                                         11                  41
Arkansas                                         3                  20
California                                       6                  22
Colorado                                         4                   8
Connecticut                                     19                  31
Delaware                                        13                  12
Florida                                         11                  31
Georgia                                          5                  24
Hawaii                                           4                  43
Idaho                                            5                  11
Illinois                                         7                  14
Indiana                                         12                  15
Iowa                                             4                   7
Kansas                                           3                   4
Kentucky                                         2                  15
Louisiana                                        4                  20
Maine                                           12                  21
Maryland                                        14                  15
Massachusetts                                    7                  55
Michigan                                        14                  12
Minnesota                                       16                  15
Mississippi                                      5                  14
Missouri                                         4                  12
Montana                                         12                  15
Nebraska                                         3                   4
Nevada                                          16                  25
New Hampshire                                    9                  18
New Jersey                                       9                  10
New Mexico                                      16                  31
New York                                        11                  31
North Carolina                                  13                  34
North Dakota                                     6                   5
Ohio                                             8                  15
Oklahoma                                         6                  16
Oregon                                           6                  13
Pennsylvania                                     6                  10
Rhode Island                                    12                  39
South Carolina                                   6                  23
South Dakota                                     4                   7
Tennessee                                        4                  32
Texas                                            5                  18
Utah                                             2                  20
Vermont                                          6                  12
Virginia                                         7                  17
Washington                                       7                  30
West Virginia                                    4                  14
Wisconsin                                       16                   9
Wyoming                                          6                   8
Average                                          9                  20
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's analysis of data from the Bureau of the Census' 1990
Census of Population and Housing. 

EPA surveys small communities (with populations of under 10,000)
biennially to determine whether their publicly owned wastewater
treatment facilities need to be replaced or upgraded to meet the
requirements of the Clean Water Act.  As shown in table II.2, EPA
found that of the 21,834 communities surveyed in 1992, about 7,258
had documented needs for sewer facilities--an average of 34 percent
within each state.\14 This average can be misleading, however, in
assessing needs and costs.  For example, while only 33 percent of
Pennsylvania's small communities have documented needs, the absolute
number of communities needing funding in Pennsylvania is the second
largest in the nation--539 communities.  In contrast, while Tennessee
had a much higher percentage of communities with documented needs--69
percent--this percentage translated to only 170 communities. 

EPA is also collecting information on water needs.  These data are
expected to be available in 1996. 



                               Table II.2
                
                   Small Communities' Needs for Sewer
                       Facilities, by State, 1992

                                               Number of    Percent of
                                 Number of         small         small
                                     sewer   communities   communities
                             facilities in          with          with
                                     small    documented    documented
State                          communities         needs         needs
--------------------------  --------------  ------------  ------------
Alabama                                458           241            53
Alaska                                  46            11            24
Arizona                                309            37            12
Arkansas                               694           166            24
California                             543           175            32
Colorado                               295            72            24
Connecticut                            120            43            36
Delaware                                31            10            32
Florida                                120            35            29
Georgia                                615           120            20
Hawaii                                  16            11            69
Idaho                                  209            33            16
Illinois                               840           375            45
Indiana                                391           283            72
Iowa                                   895            18             2
Kansas                                 565           108            19
Kentucky                               411           238            58
Louisiana                              448           211            47
Maine                                  210            60            29
Maryland                               359           149            42
Massachusetts                           96            51            53
Michigan                               538           180            33
Minnesota                              626           117            19
Mississippi                            622           222            36
Missouri                               752           174            23
Montana                                192            19            10
Nebraska                               487            34             7
Nevada                                  63            21            33
New Hampshire                           92            58            63
New Jersey                             379           208            55
New Mexico                              79            15            19
New York                             1,005           403            40
North Carolina                         566           343            61
North Dakota                           372            14             4
Ohio                                 1,033           336            33
Oklahoma                               453            91            20
Oregon                                 185            44            24
Pennsylvania                         1,636           539            33
Rhode Island                             7             2            29
South Carolina                         198            98            49
South Dakota                           344           124            36
Tennessee                              246           170            69
Texas                                1,549           592            38
Utah                                   371            18             5
Vermont                                 90            26            29
Virginia                               386           207            54
Washington                             260            84            32
West Virginia                          743           341            46
Wisconsin                              770           323            42
Wyoming                                119             8             7
Total                               21,834         7,258            34
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's analysis of EPA data in 1992 Needs Survey Report to
Congress. 


--------------------
\14 Documented needs consist of facilities and activities, including
the conveyance, storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of
municipal wastewater in which a water quality or public health
problem exists. 


   AVAILABILITY OF DATA ON STATES'
   ABILITY TO PAY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

Data are also available that could be used to address a state's
ability to pay for water and sewer projects.  For example, the total
taxable resources indicator provides a complete picture of a state's
ability to pay and is readily available on an annual basis from the
Department of the Treasury.  This indicator is more comprehensive
than the other leading measure of ability to pay--per capita income. 
While these indicators yield different results for a state's ability
to pay, either one could result in the receipt of proportionately
more funding by states with lower fiscal capacities from the water
and sewer program than they currently receive.  Each of these
indicators looks at an individual state's ability to pay in
relationship to a national average index of 100.  For example, as
shown in table II.3, total taxable resources ranges from 70 for
Mississippi to 156 for Alaska, while per capita income ranges from 72
in Mississippi to 140 in Connecticut.  States that are resource rich,
such as Alaska and Wyoming, score higher on the total taxable
resource index than the per capita income index. 



                               Table II.3
                
                  Ability to Pay Indicators, by State,
                            1991-93 Average

                                     Total taxable
State                                    resources   Per capita income
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Alabama                                         81                  85
Alaska                                         156                 115
Arizona                                         84                  90
Arkansas                                        76                  79
California                                     109                 111
Colorado                                       101                 107
Connecticut                                    133                 140
Delaware                                       122                 109
Florida                                         92                 103
Georgia                                         94                  95
Hawaii                                         116                 116
Idaho                                           82                  86
Illinois                                       108                 112
Indiana                                         91                  94
Iowa                                            89                  92
Kansas                                          95                  99
Kentucky                                        82                  84
Louisiana                                       90                  82
Maine                                           87                  94
Maryland                                       109                 120
Massachusetts                                  117                 122
Michigan                                        94                 102
Minnesota                                      102                 105
Mississippi                                     70                  72
Missouri                                        93                  98
Montana                                         81                  86
Nebraska                                        97                  98
Nevada                                         110                 113
New Hampshire                                  103                 112
New Jersey                                     125                 134
New Mexico                                      82                  80
New York                                       119                 124
North Carolina                                  93                  92
North Dakota                                    84                  86
Ohio                                            93                  98
Oklahoma                                        81                  85
Oregon                                          91                  96
Pennsylvania                                    99                 106
Rhode Island                                    97                 105
South Carolina                                  82                  84
South Dakota                                    86                  89
Tennessee                                       89                  91
Texas                                           96                  95
Utah                                            79                  80
Vermont                                         91                  97
Virginia                                       103                 108
Washington                                     105                 109
West Virginia                                   74                  80
Wisconsin                                       93                  98
Wyoming                                        110                  98
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's analysis of Department of the Treasury data. 


   AVAILABILITY OF DATA ON COST
   DIFFERENCES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

Some data are available to account for differences in construction
costs across states.  For example, state-by-state labor cost data for
constructing water, sewer, and utility projects are available on an
annual basis from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  As shown in table
II.4, these data show significant state-by-state differences in
relationship to a national average index of 100.  Arkansas and
Mississippi had the lowest labor costs, with indexes of 68, while
Alaska had the highest, with an index of 219.  These data could be
used, in conjunction with other cost data, to develop an overall cost
index for water and sewer projects. 

Several studies have shown that although state-by-state data on
capital costs are extremely limited, capital costs closely follow
labor cost data, which are widely available.  In the context of water
and sewer capital costs, however, this connection may not hold.  In
addition, the unit cost of labor or capital does not take into
account the other cost aspect mentioned previously--the
state-by-state differences in costs resulting from the amount of
resources needed to accomplish these projects because of such factors
as climate or topography.  Therefore, data on both capital costs and
costs representing resource use are currently not available and could
only be obtained by directly surveying states to ascertain what these
cost differences are. 



                               Table II.4
                
                Labor Cost Differences for Constructing
                  Water and Sewer Facilities, by State

                                                            Labor cost
State                                                            index
------------------------------------------------------  --------------
Alabama                                                             75
Alaska                                                             219
Arizona                                                             84
Arkansas                                                            68
California                                                         125
Colorado                                                            98
Connecticut                                                        130
Delaware                                                            93
Florida                                                             81
Georgia                                                             77
Hawaii                                                             149
Idaho                                                              118
Illinois                                                           142
Indiana                                                             96
Iowa                                                                95
Kansas                                                              89
Kentucky                                                            82
Louisiana                                                           88
Maine                                                               \a
Maryland                                                            94
Massachusetts                                                      126
Michigan                                                           123
Minnesota                                                          116
Mississippi                                                         68
Missouri                                                            94
Montana                                                            113
Nebraska                                                            93
Nevada                                                             109
New Hampshire                                                       90
New Jersey                                                         156
New Mexico                                                          73
New York                                                           143
North Carolina                                                      76
North Dakota                                                        \a
Ohio                                                               106
Oklahoma                                                            82
Oregon                                                             127
Pennsylvania                                                       108
Rhode Island                                                       133
South Carolina                                                      70
South Dakota                                                        86
Tennessee                                                           72
Texas                                                               88
Utah                                                                82
Vermont                                                             78
Virginia                                                            82
Washington                                                         110
West Virginia                                                       89
Wisconsin                                                          122
Wyoming                                                             83
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Not available. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III

Robert C.  Summers, Assistant Director
Clifford J.  Diehl, Project Leader
Barbara J.  El-Osta
J.  Kenzel Goodmiller
Hector Rojas
Carol Herrnstadt Shulman
Robert C.  Sommer

