Toolkits & Reports
Unlocking Clean Water State Revolving Funds to Finance Resilience Projects Across the Great Lakes Region
Established in 1987, Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) have played a key role in improving water quality in the United States by providing more than $145 billion to finance more than 42,800 projects nationwide. This report looks at the current status of how CWSRF dollars have been spent across the Great Lakes states, and proposes greener priorities that would spur transformation in environmental, economic, public health, and social outcomes.
Recommendations to increase investment in green stormwater infrastructure (GSI):
Change legislation, agency goals, and project ranking criteria to promote GSI
Offer additional subsidies and sponsorship opportunities for GSI use
Develop local revenue streams and maintenance practices
Engage in outreach to foster enthusiasm for GSI
Utilize SRF-financed GSI investments to advance equity
Meant for public sector and non-profit managers, planners, and decision makers, this tool-kit contains the following guidance for four classes of BMPs:
- Background details
- Customization options
- Maintenance information
- Design details
Classes of BMPs:
Bio-retention practices such as bioswales, rain gardens, and stormwater planters
Naturalized detention practices such as wet/dry bottom detention ponds etc
Bio-filtration practices such as spreaders, filter strips, and vegetated swales
Other urban practices such as box tree filters, green roofs, and permeable pavements
The report features narrative context and analysis of publicly available data pertaining to the 653 counties in the eight Great Lakes states in the United States. Based on a composite rating, a priority list of Great Lakes counties has been produced that are best suited for intervention due to being highly at climate risk, with highly vulnerable populations, with highly agile workforces, and strong financial capacity.
Paying for Water Quality Improvements and Resilience in the Great Lakes – A Toolkit for Green Stormwater Infrastructure
This toolkit presents traditional and newly emerging funding and financing options for green stormwater infrastructure. The report memorializes rapid advances being made in the Great Lakes region although findings presented herein, are easily applicable elsewhere in the country.
Key Questions to Ask to Develop a Strategy to Finance/Deliver Green Stormwater Infrastructure
- Size and scope of need
- Regulatory environment
- Existing funding capacity
- Available grant opportunities
- Applicability and feasibility of new funding sources
- Availability of implementation partners
- Financing costs and benefits
- Risk management
Local Funding Strategies
Traditional Public Bonds and Loans
Private Financing and Procurement Strategies
This report presents the findings of an initiative to expand the use of green stormwater infrastructure in the Great Lakes Basin through the use of private financing and/or private delivery. Presented here-in are assessments of the market size, key drivers of green stormwater infrastructure, benefits of private delivery/finance, and relevance of stormwater utilities.
Market Size in the Great Lakes Basin
Relevance of Stormwater Utilities
Status of P3 Legislations
A Report to the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Assessing Delivery and Finance Options to Implement Large-scale Green Infrastructure
After analyzing a variety of P3 options, project team recommends considering the use of either a CBP3 or an EIB for MMSD to meet its 2035 Green Stormwater Infrastructure vision. To enact a CBP3, MMSD doesn’t need private finance, and it can utilize its excellent credit rating to access best-fit public financing/funding strategies via various low-cost tax exempt and/or taxable capital sources, such as State Revolving Fund (SRF) and/or Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loans, municipal bonds, existing property taxes and other general funds. Alternatively, MMSD can use an EIB that allows access to new capital and leverage a high degree of flexibility to scale innovations via a pay-for-performance framework.
Key benefits of a CBP3 to MMSD
- MMSD and communities retain ownership, governance and decision authority.
- MMSD and communities retain program savings.
- Accelerated delivery of a large number of projects.
- Private partner compensated on performance and achievement of aligned goals and objectives.
- Private partner retains risk for project delivery, maintenance, etc.
- Partner is responsible for the achievement of goals through the management of design, build, operation and maintenance processes.
- Workforce development, economic development, and other socially driven goals can be a CBP3 contract requirement.
Key benefits of an EIB to MMSD
- Ease of execution and access to new sources of impact capital, which can accelerate funding for innovative uses.
- Lack of a long-term encumbrance of an asset.
- High degree of flexibility to scale innovations and transfer risks from pilot projects.
- Meet the borrowers’ environmental and social objectives.
- Possibility of engaging multiple payors who benefit from green infrastructure projects (e.g., housing authority, economic development, public health, etc).
- Ability to use a variety of preferred delivery methods with the public borrower(s) retaining or transferring construction and maintenance risks to the private partner.
A Report to the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Assessing Delivery and Finance Options to Implement Large-scale Green Infrastructure
A set of public-private partnership options were analyzed for NEORSD that included a CBP3, an EIB, and stormwater credit trading. Of these, stormwater credit trading emerged as the preferred partnership model for NEORSD. To have a successful credit trading program, NEORSD will need to to enact a new low-impact development ordinance, and an in-lieu option as well as a purchase guarantee of credits.