The ABCs of SRFsby Robert A. Blattner, Partner; Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, 850 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44114-3399,
Todd S. Davis, Associate; Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, 850 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44114-3399,
Serial Information: Civil Engineering—ASCE, 1990, Vol. 60, Issue 12, Pg. 54-56
Document Type: Feature article
With the outlook for future federal funding bleak, state and local governments will have to reply on their own resources to fund the plant expansions and upgrades needed to meet EPAs wastewater treatment regulations. In the past, municipalities have relied on the standared sources—bank loans, revenue bonds and state-funded loan programs—to finance the construction and upgrade of wastewater treatment plants. All of these options have proven viable, but there are drawbacks. The interest on loans or the cost of issuing bonds, for example, can be too expensive for some communities. The authors describe another option: the state revolving fund (SRF), created by Congress in 1989 to replace direct grants for construction. The authors weigh the disadvantages and benefits of the SRF, concluding that, on balance, the program offers a bright alternative for communities to finance their wastewater treatment needs.
Subject Headings: Wastewater treatment plants | Municipal wastewater | State government | Construction wastes | Financing | Revenues | Local government | Federal government
Services: Buy this book/Buy this article
Return to search