3 , 
 
 < own \n v 
 
 ^ • EMERGENCY 
 
 DROUGHT 
 Klilli 
 
 PROGRAM 
 
 $* - IIP' 
 
 P/T: ^-'-.' ■'■•.»>'* - •:.-,- '~~mr* !'&&'• *w "*' Jr '•■ - 
 
 . I".,, 
 I 
 
 
 
 £* 
 
 
 I 
 
 h r 
 
 » 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 f IMl REPORT 
 
 
 19?? 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 F h i$>k 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE • Economic Development Administration 
 
 :rl 
 
 *■', v * *■' 
 
 
 ^■^.^^'■*^ 
 
DR 
 
 U G l-l 
 
 i 
 
 WAT1ER IS LIFE. THERE IS NONE TOWASTE. 
 
(01IMMIT 
 milM.IVV 
 
 INUH4.III 
 
 IUIIII 
 11UK.KMI 
 
 Loans and Grants 
 
 To Help Communities in 
 
 Drought-Designated 
 
 Areas 
 
 4*?°'* 
 
 c 
 
 X 
 
 
 5 
 
 Sr ATES <>* * 
 
 • 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 o 
 a 
 
 0) 
 
 a 
 
 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
 Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary 
 
 Sidney Harman, Under Secretary 
 
 Robert T. Hall, Assistant Secretary 
 for Economic Development 
 
 .■ 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2012 with funding from 
 
 LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/communityemergenOOunit 
 
FOREWORD 
 
 On March 23, 1977, President Carter transmitted to the Congress a message 
 containing proposals for responding to the severe drought problems afflicting 
 the Western and Plains States. Among the legislative actions proposed was the 
 provision of new temporary authority to allow the Department of Commerce's 
 Economic Development Administration (EDA) to provide grants and low-interest 
 loans to communities for emergency water system improvements that could be 
 completed quickly and were essential to protect public health and safety. 
 Congress responded to that proposal by passing the Community Emergency Drought 
 Relief Act of 1977, which was signed by the President on May 23. This document 
 reports on EDA's implementation of the program authorized by that legislation: 
 the $175 million (Community Emergency Drought Relief Program for cities and 
 counties with populations in excess of 10,000, States, Indian tribes and non- 
 profit organizations such as water districts. 
 
 EDA, the primary domestic economic development agency , was given responsibility 
 for this temporary emergency drought program because our mandate also encompasses 
 economic adjustment assistance efforts. Drought relief aid, like EDA assistance 
 in response to military base closings, steel plant cutbacks, or other responses 
 to sudden economic dislocations, fulfills this mandate by helping areas and 
 their residents adjust to such rapidly changed economic circumstances. 
 
 In providing this special drought adjustment assistance, EDA joined with the 
 Farmers Home Administration, the Small Business Administration, and the Bureau 
 of Reclamation in a comprehensive effort by the Administration to address the 
 needs of drought- impacted areas. Because of the emergency nature of this effort, 
 EDA rapidly developed regulations, guidelines and procedures. The same day 
 that the drought legislation was signed, six EDA Emergency Drought Relief 
 Offices and eleven Information Offices were opened. This enabled approval of 
 the first three drought relief projects three weeks after the legislation was 
 signed. In the ensuing 130 days, 265 additional projects involving grants 
 and loans were approved, representing the entire $175 million appropriation. 
 
 We at EDA are pleased with our record in designing and implementing the 
 Community Emergency Drought Relief Program, and I am particularly proud of 
 EDA's permanent staff, who undertook this added responsibility at a time when 
 the Agency was engaged in administering another special program with a 
 September 30 deadline: the $4 billion Local Public Works Program. Both of 
 these activities were conducted in addition to EDA's regular programs of 
 economic development assistance. 
 
 EDA appreciates having been given the opportunity to play a part in helping 
 to ameliorate the problems of the Nation's drought- impacted communities. 
 
 Robert T. Hall 
 Assistant Secretary 
 for Economic Development 
 
 - l - 
 
Folsom Lake, a reservoir on the American River, Placer and El Dorado 
 Counties, California. This is a source of water supply for Placer 
 County Water Agency serving the Auburn, California area. 
 
 "**«•%*,, 
 
 Photo by Monty Finnell 
 Auburn, California, Journal 
 
 11 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 Foreword , . . . , i 
 
 Summary v 
 
 I. Establishment of the Program 
 
 A. The Drought Emergency and the Administration ' s Response 1 
 
 B. Interagency Relationships 3 
 
 C . Administrative Structure 3 
 
 D. Informing Affected Communities 6 
 
 II. Program Objectives and Implementation 
 
 A. Program Objectives 8 
 
 B. Project Development 8 
 
 C. Project Implementation 10 
 
 III. Program Impact 
 
 A. Drought Problems 14 
 
 B. Summary of Drought Program Investments 14 
 
 C. Typical Drought Relief Projects 16 
 
 Appendixes 
 
 1. List of Approved Projects 22 
 
 2 . Drought Program Field* and Information Offices , 54 
 
 3. Key EDA Drought Program Staff 55 
 
 - in - 
 
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 Page 
 
 "DROUGHT - Water Is Life. There is none to waste" 
 
 A water conservation poster depicting the inside Cover 
 
 Pardee Reservoir, Municipal Utility District, 
 Oakland, California 
 
 Photograph of Folsom Lake , Auburn, California ii 
 
 Designated Areas Map 4 
 
 Palmer Drought Index Maps, July 31, 1976, and July 2, 1977 5 
 
 Photograph of Marin Municipal Water District Pipeline over San 
 Rafael-Richmond Bridge , Marin County, California 7 
 
 Progress of Drought Project Approvals (Chart I) 11 
 
 Actual and Projected Disbursements (Chart II) 13 
 
 Map of Approved Projects by States 15 
 
 Sources of Funding for EDA Drought Projects (Chart III) 17 
 
 Percentage Allocations of EDA Dollars Invested in Emergency Drought 
 Relief Projects (Chart IV) 18 
 
 - iv - 
 
SUMMARY 
 
 In many parts of the country, the 1976-77 drought was the worst ever 
 experienced. Record lows in precipitation, snowpack, streamflow, soil 
 moisture, and other measures of drought severity were found in two- 
 thirds of the country. 
 
 EDA's Community Emergency Drought Relief Program was designed to 
 respond to water supply problems and other serious problems caused 
 by these drought conditions and to do so as quickly as possible with 
 a minimum of red tape. This document is a report on that response. 
 
 EDA's drought program is one of several programs initiated by the 
 Administration to mitigate the effects of the drought. Other programs 
 have been implemented by the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, 
 and the Small Business Administration. 
 
 The legislative authority for EDA's drought program was provided by 
 the Community Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-31) . In 
 the spring of 1977, EDA participated in the design of the program 
 through service on the White House Task Force that worked out the details 
 of the President's proposals between March 23 and the March 31 submission 
 of the legislative package to Congress. The Act was passed by the Senate 
 on May 11; by the House on May 17; and signed by the President on May 23. 
 
 The Act authorized $225 million for the EDA drought program. The 
 appropriation was $175 million. Of this $175 million, $109 million was 
 used for loans, and $66 million was used for grants. The $175 million 
 expended by EDA leveraged more than $34 million in funding from State 
 and local governments and project applicants, as well as over $4 million 
 from other Federal agencies. Thus, for each $100 of Federal funds, $19 
 of State or local funding was stimulated. 
 
 The Act provided for a temporary program of loans and grants to: cities 
 and counties of more than 10,000 population, States, Indian tribes, and 
 non-profit organizations including water districts. Its basic goals were: 
 
 - the augmentation of community water supplies by improving 
 water systems; 
 
 - the provision of aid for the purchase and transport of water; 
 
 - the promotion of water conservation. 
 
 Projects funded under the program were to mitigate drought-related 
 public health and safety problems. 
 
 - v - 
 
EDA established a special temporary organization to implement the 
 drought relief program, consisting of a "National Coordination Unit," 
 six Field Offices, and eleven Information Offices. 
 
 Normal EDA project development and project implementation procedures 
 were modified in a number of ways to meet the demand for speedy action 
 inherent in an emergency relief program. 
 
 The special organization and the modified procedures enabled EDA; 
 
 - to approve the first $12 million in projects within 
 three weeks after the Act was signed 
 
 - to approve the typical project in approximately 7 working 
 days after receipt of the completed application 
 
 - to approve 75 projects in communities with particularly 
 serious drought emergencies in less than one month 
 
 - to invest the entire $175 million appropriation in 
 loans and grants for worthwhile drought relief projects 
 in the four-month period between May 23 and September 30. 
 
 Two-hundred sixty-eight projects were approved under the EDA Community 
 Emergency Drought Relief Program. Communities in 28 States, Puerto Rico 
 and 145 counties received EDA drought assistance. 
 
 The nature of these projects was such that 88% of these projects responded 
 to existing or immediately foreseeable threats to public health or safety. 
 The balance of the projects responded to economic problems caused by the 
 drought or to critical, but less serious, drought-related problems which 
 threatened community water supplies. To accomplish this, 84% of the 
 project funds were invested in the water system components, including 
 new construction and repairs. An additional 10% of the funds were 
 expended for purchase and transportation of water, while the remaining 
 6% helped provide water conservation programs and fire protection. 
 
 Construction or implementation of all projects will have commenced by 
 February 1, 1978, with 165 projects, or 61% of all projects, already 
 begun as of October 25, 1977. Based on the EDA knowledge of the projects 
 and the binding assurances of the recipients of the drought relief funds, 
 264 projects, or 99% of all EDA- funded projects will be completed by 
 April 30, 1978. The remaining four, which responded to severe damage 
 of a permanent nature, can reasonably be expected to be completed in 
 their entirety by September 30, 1978. 
 
 - vi - 
 
I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PROGRAM 
 
 A. The Drought Emergency and the Administration's Response 
 
 The 1976-77 drought has been a natural disaster of severe proportions 
 and has created serious problems for communities in two-thirds of the 
 country. 
 
 In the West, critical water shortages in Northern California required 
 stringent water rationing measures. The Central Valley of California 
 encountered soil conditions which threatened to hurt agricultural 
 production. Arizona faced depletion of underground water sources. 
 Western Nevada also suffered water shortages. Idaho experienced the 
 worst drought ever recorded as water supplies became exhausted and 
 storage reservoirs were depleted. Oregon was threatened with substantial 
 wheat crop and stock losses. 
 
 In the Rocky Mountain and Great Plains States, water supplies declined 
 to 50% of normal. 
 
 In the Southwest, the Gila River in New Mexico was reduced to extremely 
 low water levels, and water shortages resulted due to lack of storage 
 reservoirs. Soil moisture was so low in the western half of Oklahoma 
 that agriculture was severely affected. 
 
 In the Upper Midwest, the drought caused significant damage to domestic 
 and industrial water supplies and affected river transportation. 
 
 As the summer progressed, the drought moved further and further eastward, 
 with Virginia being the East Coast State most affected by the lack of 
 rainfall . 
 
 A White House Task Force was established to design and coordinate the Federal 
 drought relief effort. In a message to Congress on March 23, 1977, 
 the President expressed concern about the continuing effects of the 
 1976-77 drought. The President recommended a variety of drought 
 assistance programs to help meet these problems. 
 
 The Department of Agriculture was to provide drought assistance to rural 
 communities for the benefit of farmers and ranchers. Loans and grants 
 were also made available through the Department of the Interior for a variety 
 of projects for States to aid damaged fish and wildlife, to aid affected 
 Indian tribes and to provide for the construction of irrigation systems 
 where needed. The Small Business Administration (SBA) was to provide 
 emergency loans to businesses adversely affected by the drought. For 
 EDA, the President proposed a program of grants and low-interest (5%) 
 
 - 1 - 
 
loans to a variety of applicants. These funds were to be provided 
 quickly and efficiently for projects which would protect public health 
 and safety, as well as to address other drought problems. 
 
 The White House Task Force and members of the Department of Commerce 
 immediately began a cooperative effort to prepare the necessary EDA 
 drought legislation. Administratively within EDA, work also began 
 immediately on writing regulations, guidelines, and procedures to 
 implement the proposed legislation. 
 
 Submittal of the legislation soon followed, with the Act being introduced 
 to Congress on March 31. After testimony by the Assistant Secretary of 
 Commerce for Economic Development, the Act was passed by the Senate on 
 May 11. This was followed by passage in the House on May 17. On 
 May 23, the Community Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-31) 
 was signed by the President and became law. On that same day, EDA 
 opened six Drought Relief Field Offices and 11 Information Offices 
 throughout the United States (see Appendixes 2 and 3) . Four days later, 
 program regulations were published in the Federal Register . 
 
 The "Community Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1977" provided temporary 
 authority to the Secretary of Commerce to facilitate emergency actions 
 to mitigate the impacts of the 1976-77 drought and promote water conserva- 
 tion. Loans and grants were to be made available to applicants in 
 drought- impacted communities for projects to implement short-term 
 actions to augment water supplies where there were severe problems. 
 
 Eligible applicants under the Act were established as: States or 
 political subdivisions of States with a population of 10,000 or more; 
 Indian tribes regardless of population; and public or private non- 
 profit organizations, including water districts. 
 
 All projects were to be completed by April 30, 1978, unless time extensions 
 were granted by the Secretary of Commerce in exceptional circumstances. 
 Grants were not to exceed 50% of allowable project costs and loans were 
 not to exceed 40 years at an annual interest rate of 5%. The relative 
 needs of applicants were to be considered in determining the appropriate 
 loan/grant ratio. Compliance with the National Environmental Policy 
 Act of 1965, as amended (P.L. 91-190) was required to the extent possible 
 consistent with the emergency nature of the program. The program 
 authorization runs through December 31, 1977; however, the appropria- 
 tion of $175 million was for fiscal year 1977, ending on September 30, 
 1977. 
 
 - 2 - 
 
B. Interagency Relationships 
 
 In April of 1977, the Interagency Drought Emergency Coordinating 
 Conrmittee was established to designate Emergency Drought Impact 
 Areas (EDIA's) , in addition to those which might be designated by 
 the Secretary of Commerce. A Memorandum of Understanding was pre- 
 pared between the Small Business Administration, the Department of the 
 Interior, Department of Agriculture and Department of Commerce (EDA) 
 to establish a basis for the creation of the Committee. Requests for 
 designations of areas were to be initiated by the Governors of the 
 States. The map on page 4 shows those EDIA's which were ultimately 
 designated. 
 
 Criteria for the designation by the Committee involved an analysis 
 of several factors. The Palmer Drought Index, which was compiled 
 each week by Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- 
 tion, provided measures of the "scope, severity and frequency of 
 prolonged periods of abnormally wet or dry weather . "* The maps on 
 page 5 show drought severity as indicated by the Palmer Index. 
 Drought- related problems reported by the Agency representatives were 
 also considered by the Committee in designating areas. 
 
 A Memorandum of Understanding between EDA and the Farmers Home Administra- 
 tion (FmHA) was prepared and signed to establish primary jurisdiction 
 for FmHA in rural counties with towns of less than 10,000 population, 
 with EDA having primary jurisdiction in other areas. In addition, the 
 Memorandum provided for cooperation between the two agencies to review 
 and refer projects to each other as necessary to assure all areas in 
 need of aid would be assisted. 
 
 In addition, close contact with State agencies and State representatives 
 of Federal agencies was maintained. State government drought offices 
 were contacted to further determine the nature of drought problems and 
 identify potential drought projects. Additional contacts were made 
 with officials from the Governors' offices of various States which 
 had formed the Western Drought Task Force, FmHA representatives and 
 State planning officials. 
 
 C. Administrative Structure 
 
 Within EDA, a temporary organization was established to administer the 
 drought program. It consisted of the "National Drought Coordination 
 Unit," six Drought Field Offices, and eleven Information Offices (see 
 Appendix 2) . 
 
 *Extremely dry areas are indicated on the Palmer Drought Index Map by negative 
 numbers. The higher the absolute value of the negative number, the more 
 abnormally dry the area. The same is true of abnormally wet areas which are 
 indicated by positive numbers. 
 
 - 3 - 
 
- 4 - 
 
DROUGHT SEVERITY 
 
 (PALMER MDEX] 
 +2-2 
 
 July 31, 1976 
 
 ABOVE +4 EXTREME 
 +3 to +4 SEVERE 
 +2 to +3 MODERATE 
 
 -2 to +2 NEAR NORMAL 
 
 -2 to "3 MODERATE DROUGHT 
 -3 to -4 SEVERE DROUGHT 
 BELOW "4 EXTREME DROUGHT 
 
 VALUES INDICATE DEPARTURES 
 FSOM NORMAL CLIMATE 
 
 +4 National Weather Service. NOAA 
 
 DROUGHT SEVERITY 
 
 [PALMER INDEX) 
 
 ABOVE +4 EXTREME 
 +3 to +4 SEVERE 
 +2 to +3 MODERATE 
 
 -2 to +2 NEAR NORMAL 
 
 -2 to -3 MODERATE DROUGHT 
 -3 to -4 SEVERE DROUGHT 
 BELOW -4 EXTREME DROUGHT 
 VALUES INDICATE DEPARTURES 
 FROM NORMAL CLIMATE 
 
 US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis 
 Environmental Data Service 
 
 - 5 - 
 
Because of lack of time for approval of a new personnel ceiling and 
 staff recruitment , staffing was accomplished by detailing regular EDA 
 employees to the Drought Program. The funds required to administer 
 the Drought program were taken from the regular EDA administrative 
 budget, allowing the entire drought appropriation to go for projects. 
 Administrative costs totalled $600,000 as of September 30, 1977. 
 
 In the National Office, a National Drought Coordinator was appointed, 
 with responsibility for the implementation as well as administration of 
 the entire program, and direction of the activities of all Field Offices. 
 A "Western Team Leader" coordinated the work of the Oakland, Seattle, 
 and Austin Offices, and had the major responsibility for program and 
 policy coordination. An "Eastern Team Leader" had responsibility for 
 the Chicago, Denver and Washington, D. C. Offices, and for administra- 
 tive matters and communication (see Appendix 3) . 
 
 Six "Regional Drought Coordinators," directly responsible to the EDA 
 Regional Office Directors, were assigned to the Field Offices. (The 
 Philadelphia and Atlanta EDA Regional Office areas were served by the 
 D. C. Field Office within the National Drought Coordination Unit.) 
 
 The Field Offices were staffed by project officers, construction managers, 
 financial analysts, attorneys, environmentalists, and engineers. Informa- 
 tion Offices were staffed by the regular Economic Development Representa- 
 tives, their assistants, and student summer employees. 
 
 D. Informing Affected Communities 
 
 Immediate efforts were made to inform drought-impacted communities about 
 the program. Congressional briefings were held by EDA as a joint effort 
 with other Federal agencies involved in the drought programs to inform 
 members of Congress as to aid available for their constituents. Public 
 Interest Groups Briefings were held to inform local and city officials 
 of available assistance. Four thousand mailouts were sent to potential 
 applicants providing them with EDA drought guidelines, regulations and 
 typical questions and answers regarding the EDA Emergency Drought 
 Program. Information Offices and Field Office staff also contacted 
 potential applicants. Several States, in cooperation with EDA, 
 conducted special drought program campaigns. 
 
 - 6 - 
 

 Construction of the temporary pipeline 
 across the San Rafael-Richmond Bridge 
 to Marin County, California. 
 
 Photo by Bob Hax 
 
 - 7 - 
 
II. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AT© IMPLEMENTATION 
 
 A. Program Objectives 
 
 The basic objectives of the Community Emergency Drought Relief Program 
 were: 
 
 - to augment community water supplies by improving water systems 
 
 - to provide assistance to communities for the purchase and 
 transport of water 
 
 - to promote water conservation. 
 
 Additional objectives were: to complement drought assistance programs 
 being undertaken by other Federal agencies and by the States; to assist 
 applicants in responding to health and safety problems; and to assist 
 applicants to respond to other serious problems such as adverse economic 
 
 impact, caused by the 1976-77 drought. 
 
 In project selection, primary emphasis was given to the severity of 
 the problem and the appropriateness of the project. Area water short- 
 fall, existence of conservation programs, types of users benefitted, 
 and area economic distress were also considered. Appropriate projects 
 could take the form of improvements, expansion or construction of water 
 supplies, purchase and transportation of water, or similar activities. 
 
 Those projects which responded to severe health and safety hazards 
 were given preferential treatment as required by EDA Community 
 Emergency Drought Relief Regulations. These projects were termed 
 "First Priority" and primarily consisted of augmentation of community 
 water supplies, maintenance repairs to existing water supply systems, 
 and fire protection in populated areas. "Second Priority" projects 
 were directed at alleviating economic distress, furnishing of fire 
 protection in non-populated areas, and resolving threatened, but not 
 immediate , water shortages . 
 
 B. Project Development 
 
 Drought Program procedures were designed to provide maximum efficiency 
 in the delivery of financial assistance to communities suffering from 
 the effects of the drought. Among the steps taken to speed up the 
 process were the following: 
 
 - 8 - 
 
- elimination of the lengthy standard Federal "pre-application" form, 
 which was replaced by a two-page "project profile" form prepared by 
 EDA staff in consultation with the applicant. Although the profile 
 form was very brief, it provided the key information needed for a 
 prompt decision on project selection. 
 
 - maximum assistance to applicants in preparation of the application 
 itself. Not only was this step helpful to the applicant, but it 
 eliminated the need for an extended review period after the applica- 
 tion was received. 
 
 - approval of projects at the Regional Office level rather than in 
 Washington, with post-approval review in Washington to assure policy 
 conformance . 
 
 - the establishment of special communication between the Field Offices 
 and the National Drought Coordination Unit to quickly solve problems 
 and to further assure consistency in the selection and development of 
 projects. 
 
 The ratio of EDA grant funds to the total project cost was determined by 
 two factors - the "priority" of the applicant's project and by a calcula- 
 tion of the applicant's ability to repay a loan, as calculated by the 1% 
 Rule.* 
 
 "Priority One" projects - those which addressed public health or safety 
 problems resulting from the drought - automatically received a grant of 
 20% of the total project cost. This grant could be increased to 50% of 
 the project cost if the "1% Rule" showed that repayment of a loan of 
 greater than 50% would be an undue burden on the applicant. 
 
 The balance of the project cost, after the size of the grant had been 
 determined, could be financed with an EDA loan, with the applicant's own 
 funds, with a grant or loan from another Federal agency, or with State 
 or local government funds. 
 
 *Under the "1% Rule", 1% of the median family income in the area served by the 
 applicant multiplied by the number of water users to be benefitted by the 
 project is considered to be the amount reasonably available for annual pay- 
 ments to amortize the loan on a project. After this figure was calculated, 
 existing annual debt payments by the applicant were subtracted from this 
 figure. The amount remaining represented the annual payment that could be 
 made on an EDA loan. 
 
 - 9 - 
 
"Second Priority" projects normally received a 100% loan. However, a 
 grant of up to 50% could be provided if the needs of the area, the nature 
 of the project/ or the applicant's inability to repay a loan justified it. 
 
 EDA staff time and resources during the project development and applica- 
 tion review stages were primarily devoted to assistance of applicants and 
 to determination of the appropriateness of a project proposal in relation 
 to the applicant's drought problem. A large number of projects, possibly 
 a majority, were restructured to some extent between the time a proposal 
 was submitted and the final project was approved. Seventy-five projects 
 in communities with particularly desperate emergency situations were 
 identified, selected, had applications prepared, were reviewed and 
 approved in four weeks or less. The median number of calendar days 
 between the time EDA first identified a potential project and the time 
 it was approved was 48. The chart on page 11 indicates the progress of 
 drought project approvals. 
 
 C. Project Implementation 
 
 The procedures for disbursement of grant and loan funds, and project 
 implementation were also designed for maximum flexibility. Grant 
 disbursements, up to the final disbursement, will be on the basis of 
 the Grantee's projections of incurred expenses. The final payment, 
 however, will follow the project audit and complete the reimbursement 
 of EDA's pro-rata share of the actual project costs. Loan closing and 
 disbursement can take place as soon as the requirements of local law 
 for sale of the bonds are met, and construction contracts, if any, have 
 been let. The form of the bonds may comply with standard local practice, 
 and the repayment thereof may be on such terms as to minimize the 
 hardship on the community. 
 
 Project implementation oversight is primarily being accomplished through 
 contact with the Grantee to assure that standard Federal requirements are 
 being met. EDA staff, however, will also be in contact with Grantees to 
 provide assistance and to ensure that the scope and purpose of the projects 
 are fulfilled, as well as that Drought Program requirements are met. 
 
 As of October 25, 1977, 165 projects or 61% of the total number of projects 
 were underway; all projects will be underway by February 1, 1978. 
 
 - 10 - 
 
LA 
 
 Q. O 
 CD CO 
 CO 
 
 C0 
 
 < 
 
 > 
 o 
 
 0< o 
 
 - (Oh -S 
 
 h(0UlN 
 
 5 w 111 o 
 
 OK O 
 
 ceo- = 
 
 'si 
 
 D 
 O 
 
 oc 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 00 
 
 </>■ 
 
 o 
 
 ■CO- 
 
 CM 
 CO 
 ■CO- 
 
 LO 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 ■CO- 
 
 a lo 
 
 CO 
 
 0) CM 
 CO 
 
 ?» 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 o.s 
 
 SJaL 
 
 <D CL o 
 
 < 
 
 fs 
 
 > 
 3 
 
 (1) 
 
 C LO 
 
 3 r- 
 
 a> 
 
 c 
 3 
 
 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 O) 
 
 00 
 
 1^ 
 
 CO 
 
 LO 
 
 *■ 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 .2 c 
 
 CD ^ 
 
 GL C 
 
 GO 
 
 11 
 
As of October 25, 1977, eight projects or 3% of the total number of 
 projects were completed. Another 27 projects, or 10% of the total 
 number of projects, are expected to be completed by November 30, 1977. 
 By April 30, 1978, 264 projects or 99% of all projects are expected to 
 be completed. Time extensions of the deadline have been granted for the 
 remaining four: one is a project replacing wells permanently destroyed 
 by the drought, two are in the Dakotas where construction seasonality 
 may prevent the projects from being completed before the end of May, 
 and the fourth project is experiencing difficulty in obtaining rapid 
 delivery of the most efficient pumping equipment. These four projects 
 should be completed by September 30, 1978. 
 
 At present, funds are being disbursed as rapidly as possible. The 
 chart on page 13 shows the actual and projected disbursement schedule. 
 
 - 12 - 
 

 (0 
 
 < 2 "o 
 
 UJ w 
 
 o 
 
 0. 
 
 I 
 
 c 
 d> 
 
 E 
 
 
 
 3 
 (0 
 
 © 
 
 (0 
 
 3 
 O 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 (A 
 
 +■» 
 C 
 
 
 E 
 
 
 (0 
 
 +- — 3 
 
 <0 .Q 
 
 oo 
 </>■ 
 
 [ 
 
 C 
 
 o 
 
 J I I I I I 
 
 £ (0 UD 
 
 « in 
 
 e in 
 
 CO r- 
 2 
 
 0) 
 
 E IT) 
 
 O 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 (I) O 
 
 Q. ? 
 
 oooooooooo 
 cooorscom^-cocNt- 
 
 13 
 
III. PROGRAM IMPACT 
 
 A. Drought Problems 
 
 Community water supply problems resulting from the drought were 
 exacerbated where water system facilities were old, marginal, or in 
 poor repair, or where recent growth had strained the existing capacity. 
 
 Water conservation measures, including consumer education, restructuring 
 of water rates to deter heavy users, penalties and fines for wasteful 
 customers, and rationing in the most seriously affected areas were the 
 first actions taken by most water system authorities. Such efforts were 
 very effective. Cuts of 20-30% in water usage were common; in some 
 areas, water users were saving over 50%. 
 
 Conservation efforts could not in every case make up for the shortage 
 of water caused by the drought. A simple shortage of water was just 
 one drought problem faced by community water systems. Mineral and 
 suspended particle concentrations increased to levels above those allowed 
 by health standards. Bacterial contamination became a problem in some 
 systems where chlorination is not usually necessary. Salt water intrusion 
 and settling of earth threatened to permanently destroy wells. Maintaining 
 water pressure at levels that could ensure fire protection capability 
 was a common problem. 
 
 The drought problems of farmers and ranchers received considerable 
 attention from the news media. Other sectors of the economy, however, 
 also suffered. Midwestern river transport was hampered by low river 
 levels. Logging activities in the Northwest and Upper Midwest were 
 suspended frequently over the summer due to fire hazard in the forests. 
 The tourism industry in drought areas suffered severely, particularly 
 in California and the Northwest. Areas whose electricity supplies are 
 dependent on hydroelectric plants still face shortages of power. Fish 
 spawning areas and other wildlife habitats were dried up and destroyed. 
 
 B. Summary of Drought Program Investments 
 
 A total of 268 projects located in 29 States, plus the territory of 
 Puerto Rico were funded under the EDA Drought Program. Projects were 
 located in 145 counties, and there were State-wide projects in Wisconsin, 
 Oregon, Washington and Idaho. The entire $175 million appropriation was 
 invested in the four-month period between the end of May and September 30. 
 The accompanying map shows how the drought program funds were invested 
 on a State and regional basis. 
 
 - 14 - 
 
The total investment from all sources in EDA drought projects reached 
 approximately $213 million. This included $66 million in EDA grants, 
 $109 million in EDA loans, $4 million in other Federal agency funds and 
 $34 million in funds provided by the States, local governments, and the 
 applicants. The final ratio of EDA loans to EDA grants was 62.4:37.6. 
 The chart on page 17 illustrates the total investment in EDA drought 
 projects from all sources. 
 
 Of the EDA funds expended, 84% were for augmentation of water supplies 
 and water system iinprovements ; 24% for pipelines; 16% for storage tanks 
 and reservoirs; 13% for wells; 1% for water intake structures; 16% for 
 other water system components, and 13% for combinations of the above 
 facilities. Ten percent of the funds went for the purchase and 
 transportation of water, while six percent were invested in water 
 conservation and fire protection. The component chart on page 18 
 illustrates this. 
 
 Appendix 1 provides a list of all approved projects with a brief 
 description of each. 
 
 C. Typical Drought Relief Projects 
 
 Of the total 268 projects EDA approved, 237 projects or 88% were 
 first priority projects directed at alleviating severe health and 
 safety hazards. The remaining 31 projects, aimed at relieving 
 critical, but less severe drought-related problems, represented 
 12% of the total projects. Out of the $175 million appropriated, 
 88%, or $154 million, was allocated to first priority projects. 
 Second priority projects received $21 million, again representing 
 12% of the total. 
 
 The following twelve projects illustrate some of the specific problems 
 suffered by communities as a result of the drought and how drought relief 
 projects assisted the communities. 
 
 Marin Municipal Water District, California - $1,387,000 Grant; 
 $5,550,000 Loan 
 
 In this area, normal annual water production fell to 43% of normal. A 
 mandatory water conservation program was instituted, yet was still 
 insufficient to provide area needs for the 44,000 residential and 7,000 
 commercial users. This project is providing a 6.2-mile, 24-inch pipeline 
 from the City of Richmond to Marin County, and funding the purchase of 3.4 
 billion gallons of water, well development, pumps, barges, and 
 rationing program administrative costs. 
 
 - 16 - 
 
CHART III 
 
 SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR 
 EDA DROUGHT PROJECTS 
 
 ($ in millions) 
 
 Percent 
 
 uu 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 90 
 
 
 
 
 80 
 
 
 
 
 70 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 60 
 
 
 
 
 50 
 
 
 51% 
 $109 
 
 
 
 40 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 30 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 31% 
 $66 
 
 • 
 
 
 20 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 16% 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 $34 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2% 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I I 
 
 EDA 
 Loans 
 
 y 
 
 $4 
 
 EDA 
 Grants 
 
 State, Local Other 
 and Applicant Federal 
 
 Contributions Agencies 
 
 17 
 
Types of Projects 
 
 Pipelines 
 
 Storage Facilities 
 
 Water System 
 Components not 
 in Other Categories 
 
 Wells 
 
 Combination of 
 Pipelines, Wells, 
 Intake Structures 
 and Storage Facilities 
 
 Purchase of Water 
 
 Conservation 
 
 Fire Protection 
 
 Purchase and 
 Operation of Vehicles 
 for Water Transport 
 
 Intake Structures 
 
 Irrigation Systems 
 
 24% 
 
 3% 
 
 3% 
 
 16% 
 
 16% 
 
 13% 
 
 13% 
 
 8% 
 
 CHART IV 
 
 PERCENTAGE ALLOCATIONS 
 OF EDA DOLLARS INVESTED 
 IN EMERGENCY DROUGHT 
 RELIEF PROJECTS 
 $175 Million Allocated (100%) 
 
 2% 
 
 ] 
 ] 
 
 1% 
 
 1% 
 
 18 
 
Oklahoma City Municipal Improvement Authority - $1,200,000 Grant; 
 $8,800,000 Loan 
 
 Oklahoma City furnishes water to seme 14 communities in Oklahoma. Oklahoma 
 City obtains its present water supply from two sources, one of which is 
 the North Canadian River. The North Canadian River is dependent on three 
 reservoirs for water storage. One has gone dry and the other two are at 
 alarmingly low levels. 
 
 The other source is the Atoka reservoir from which water is piped through 
 a 60-inch pipeline approximately 100 miles long. However, existing pumps 
 are inadequate. This project will replace pumps, motors, and electronic 
 power installations to increase the Atoka output from 60 million gallons 
 of water per day to 90 million gallons per day. 
 
 City of Two Rivers, Wisconsin - $66,000 Grant; $66,000 Local Funds 
 
 In 1976, Two Rivers received only 3.95 inches of precipitation, about 
 10% of the normal annual average. Subsoil moisture was reduced to zero, 
 and the usual "frost barriers" two or three feet underground failed to 
 form. The extremely cold dry winter of 1976-77 froze the ground to 
 seven feet, cracking and breaking water mains and transmission lines. 
 Five hundred forty customers lost their water service for periods up to 
 four months. The EDA project is providing funds to repair the damaged lines 
 and restore water service. 
 
 LaJolla Band of Mission Indians, California - $165,750 Grant; 
 $175,750 Bureau of Indian Affairs Funds 
 
 Due to the 1976-77 drought, the water table on the LaJolla Indian Reserva- 
 tion has dropped so that the residents are forced to haul water. Seme 
 residents had to move due to a lack of water in 1976 and are now using 
 untreated water from an irrigation ditch. The ground water supply is 
 expected to be completely depleted in the near future. To relieve the 
 situation, EDA funds are being used to provide and equip a new well, provide 
 a 100,000 gallon storage tank, install water transmission lines, and provide 
 irrigation system rehabilitation. 
 
 State of Washington Department of Emergency Services - $94,000 Grant; 
 $94,000 State Funds ' 
 
 This State Emergency Service Department has the responsibility for providing 
 water to families and small communities whose wells have gone dry or who have 
 otherwise lost their usual water supply. The project funds are being used 
 to purchase and deliver 1,000 55 -gallon potable water containers, to 
 deliver other water containers which the National Guard has available, 
 and to pay for the transportation and administrative costs of hauling 
 water to the affected families. 
 
 - 19 - 
 
Ute Mountain Indian Tribe, Colorado - $50,000 Grant; $50,000 BIA Funds 
 
 Cattle operations owned by the Ute Mountain Tribe and individual tribal 
 members were severely threatened by lack of feed and water caused by the 
 drought. 1976-77 snowpack in the San Juan mountains, the reservation's 
 source of water supply, was at a record low and early summer rainfall 
 was greatly below normal. The joint EDA-BIA project is providing 
 irrigation water for feed crop land and new wells to water the cattle. 
 
 Canon City, Colorado - $514,400 Grant; $771,600 Loan 
 
 As a result of the 1976-77 drought, the City's sole source of water 
 supply, the Arkansas River, has been flowing at one-third or less of 
 normal river flow. The City holds "Junior Water Rights" to the water 
 on the river and those reduced flows jeopardize the City's ability to 
 have an adequate supply of water. 
 
 This project will help assure a continuous supply of water by adding 
 treated water storage capacity. This will allow the City to bridge 
 periods of low river flows during which it cannot pump water. Additionally, 
 water will be conserved by converting present non-metered users to a 
 metered system. 
 
 Oregon Forestry Department - $331,500 Grant; $331,500 State Funds 
 
 This project is in response to Oregon State's extraordinary emergency 
 fire readiness requirement as a result of this year's drought-induced 
 fire hazards. Because of the lack of precipitation and snowpack that 
 has brought on the extreme fire conditions, pre-suppression, suppression 
 and prevention activities have been drastically increasing. The 
 emergency fire-fighting program funded here is providing temporary 
 contracts for fire-fighting equipment consisting of five helitrack 
 helicopters, an aerial tanker standby, four standby retardant bombers 
 and mobilization of tankers, and standby equipment. 
 
 City of Cordele, Georgia - $20,000 Grant; $80,000 Loan 
 
 Cordele's water is supplied by three wells, two of which were 
 threatened with going dry as a result of the drought. The project 
 consists of repairs to and rehabilitation of the wells to prevent 
 their failure. 
 
 Mt. Zion Public Service District, West Virginia - $164,500 Grant; 
 $164,500 Farmers Home Administration Grant 
 
 The project consists of a water line extension from the Town of 
 Grantsville to the Mt. Zion Public Service District. It includes 
 approximately 18,000 feet of pipeline, a booster station and master 
 
 - 20 - 
 
meter, and a storage tank. Due to drought conditions, the Mt. Zion 
 Public Service District found its ground water supplies decreased 
 from 31,000 gallons to 18,000 gallons per day, and Grantsville has 
 agreed to supply the additional water needed. 
 
 Clayton-Camp Point Water Commission, Illinois - $1,312,500 Grant; 
 $2,486,500 Loan 
 
 The towns of Mt. Sterling and Augusta suffered adverse effects from the 
 drought. Augusta has had water rationing since October 1976 and the 
 town of Mt. Sterling had less than two feet of water in its reservoir. 
 This project is providing 12 miles of transmission lines to each towi and 
 one elevated storage tank of 500,000 gallons which will serve to eliminate 
 the shortage in both towns. 
 
 University of Idaho, Moscow - $260,400 Grant; $260,400 Loan 
 
 This project is providing an effluent recycling system. It includes a 
 holding tank and pipelines for the purpose of capturing sewage effluent 
 from the Moscow treatment facility. The effluent is being reused for 
 irrigation of the University campus and for forestry research facilities. 
 This recycling is reducing the strain on the capacity of the City of 
 Moscow's water supply. 
 
 - 21 - 
 
APPENDIX 1 
 LIST OF APPROVED PROJECTS 
 OAKLAND FIELD OFFICE 
 
 ARIZONA 
 Project 
 Havasupai, Arizona 
 
 San Carlos Apache Tribe, 
 San Carlos, Arizona 
 
 Navajo Tribe, Navajo 
 Reservation, Arizona 
 
 Papago Tribe of Arizona 
 
 Flagstaff, Arizona 
 
 Scottsdale, Arizona 
 
 Safford, Arizona 
 
 San Carlos, Arizona 
 
 TOTAL FOR ARIZONA 
 
 NEVADA 
 
 Walker River Paiute Tribe, 
 Nevada 
 
 TOTAL FOR NEVADA 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $ 41,000 Grant 
 $ 41,000 Total 
 
 $1,900,000 Grant 
 $1,900,000 Total 
 
 $2,605,000 Grant 
 $2,605,000 Total 
 
 $ 571,500 Grant 
 $ 571,500 Total 
 
 $ 445,000 Grant 
 $ 445,000 Total 
 
 63,000 Grant 
 
 $ 63,000 Total 
 
 $ 426,000 Grant 
 $ 426,000 Total 
 
 $2,000,000 Grant 
 
 2,000,000 Loan 
 $4,000,000 Total 
 
 $8,051,500 Grant 
 2,000,000 Loan 
 
 $10,051,500 Total 
 
 $ 100,000 Grant 
 $ 100,000 Grant 
 
 $ 100,000 Grant 
 $ 100,000 Total 
 
 Project Description 
 14 water storage tanks. 
 
 New wells, repair of wells, 
 water storage, repair dam and 
 aqueduct, improve independent 
 electrical power source. 
 
 New wells, pipelines, water 
 recycling, and cover water 
 storage tanks. 
 
 Two new wells and ten 
 rehabilitated wells. Three 
 water transport vehicles. 
 
 Drilling of two water 
 wells and necessary tie-in. 
 
 2 deep wells, telemetry 
 systems, 2 well renovations. 
 
 Construct tanks, wells, 
 pipes, and land purchase. 
 
 Water storage, demand 
 reservoir, water distribu- 
 tion system, aqueduct. 
 
 Develop three livestock 
 wells, rehabilitate 
 facilities at six existing 
 well sites. 
 
 - 22 - 
 
CALIFORNIA 
 
 Project 
 
 Lompoc, California 
 
 Olivehain Municipal Water 
 District, California 
 
 Tract #180 Mutual Water 
 Conpany, California 
 
 Lake Madrone Water District, 
 California 
 
 Compo Band of Mission 
 Indians, California 
 
 Contra Costa County Water 
 District, California 
 
 Paramount County Water 
 District, California 
 
 LaJolla Band of Mission 
 Indians, California 
 
 Comrosa County Water 
 District, California 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $ 
 
 31,000 Grant 
 
 
 124,000 Loan 
 
 $ 
 
 155,000 Total 
 
 $ 
 
 610,000 Loan 
 
 $ 
 
 610,000 Total 
 
 $ 
 
 275,000 Loan 
 
 $~ 
 
 275,000 Total 
 
 $ 
 
 95,500 Grant 
 
 
 95,500 Loan 
 
 $ 
 
 191,000 Total 
 
 $ 
 
 62,000 Grant 
 
 $~ 
 
 62,000 Total 
 
 $ 
 
 119,000 Grant 
 
 
 476,000 Loan 
 
 $ 
 
 595,000 Total 
 
 $ 
 
 131,800 Grant 
 
 
 527,200 Loan 
 
 $ 
 
 659,000 Total 
 
 $ 
 
 165,750 Grant 
 
 $~~ 
 
 165,750 Total 
 
 $ 460,000 Loan 
 ? 460,000 Total 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Domestic water well and 
 pipeline construction. 
 
 Cover and expand reservoir. 
 
 Drill new well, install 
 pump, replace 1200 l.f. 
 of water mains. 
 
 Repair of water line, 
 installation of well, 
 installation of water 
 storage facility. 
 
 Rehabilitate 11 wells, 
 purchase tanker, three 
 1,000 gallon trailers. 
 
 Test drilling and developing 
 new wells, water conserva- 
 tion materials and 
 rationing devices. 
 
 Construction of a well, 
 installation of 250 water 
 meters . 
 
 Drill and equip well, 
 install storage tank, 
 pipeline and chlorination 
 station. 
 
 Rehabilitation of 2 wells, 
 construction of reservoir, 
 and water conservation 
 program. 
 
 - 23 - 
 
Project 
 
 Pauma Band of Mission 
 Indians, California 
 
 Owens Valley Paiute Tribe, 
 California 
 
 Northern Valley Indian 
 Health, Inc., California 
 
 Placer County Water Agency, 
 California 
 
 United Indian Health 
 Service, California 
 
 Morongo, California 
 
 Norco, California 
 
 Dry Creek Tribe, California 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $ 
 
 31,000 Grant 
 
 $ 
 
 31,000 Total 
 124,000 Grant 
 
 $ 
 $ 
 
 124,000 Total 
 27,000 Grant 
 
 $ 
 $ 
 
 27,000 Total 
 310,000 Loan 
 
 $ 
 $ 
 
 310,000 Total 
 200,000 Grant 
 
 $ 200,000 Total 
 
 $ 22,600 Grant 
 $ 22,600 Total 
 
 $ 408,000 Grant 
 
 1,632,000 Loan 
 $2,040,000 Total 
 
 $ 3,900 Grant 
 
 3,900 Total 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Well purap control, pump 
 house, and water lines. 
 
 Purchase of 5 -ton 4 • 
 wheel-drive truck to 
 transport water. 
 
 Purchase of two 4--wheel-- 
 drive 3/4 ton pickups for 
 distribution of water. 
 
 Construction of transmission- 
 distribution pipeline. 
 
 Purchase of trucks, tanks, 
 pipe, water pumps and 
 construction of well and 
 administration expenses. 
 
 One well. 
 
 Two wells, construct 
 reservoir and connecting 
 pipeline. 
 
 Drill and develop community 
 well and extension of water 
 main. 
 
 Soboba Band of Mission 
 Indians, California 
 
 $ 121,060 Grant 
 $ 121,060 Total 
 
 New well, replace water 
 lines, install new storage 
 tank. 
 
 Orleans Karok, California 
 
 $ 208,500 Grant 
 $ 208,500 Total 
 
 Trucks, water purchase, 
 bladder and storage 
 reservoirs, and administra- 
 tion costs. 
 
 Laguna Beach County Water 
 District, California 
 
 Boron Community Services 
 District, California 
 
 $ 650,000 Loan 
 $ 650,000 Total 
 
 59,600 Grant 
 238,400 Loan 
 
 $ 298,000 Total 
 
 Purchase of 3/4 ton pickup, 
 tank, pump and administra- 
 tion expenses. 
 
 Pipelines , standby 
 generator valves, and other 
 items. 
 
 - 24 - 
 
Project 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Littlerock Creek Irrigation 
 District, California 
 
 $ 112,400 Grant 
 449,600 Loan 
 
 Hoopa Valley Tribal Council, 
 California 
 
 San Lorenzo Valley County 
 Water District, California 
 
 Jurupa Community Services 
 District, California 
 
 Tuolorane Band of Me-Wuk 
 Indians of the Tuolomne 
 Rancher ia, California 
 
 Chino, California 
 
 Cerritos, California 
 
 Hayward Water System, 
 California 
 
 $ 562,000 Total 
 
 $ 537,000 Grant 
 $ 537,000 Total 
 
 $ 60,000 Grant 
 
 240,000 Loan 
 $ 300,000 Total 
 
 $ 492,000 Grant 
 
 1,968,000 Loan 
 $2,460,000 Total 
 
 $ 156,900 Grant 
 $ 156,900 Total 
 
 94,000 Grant 
 376,000 Loan 
 
 $ 470,000 Total 
 
 80,000 Grant 
 320,000 Loan 
 
 $ 400,000 Total 
 $ 70,000 Grant 
 
 70,000 Total 
 
 Replace 29, 200 l.f. of 
 pipeline, and 5,300 l.f. of 
 8" pipe; reactivate a tail 
 water reservoir and 
 construct storage tank. 
 
 Water system development. 
 
 Rehabilitate an existing 
 well, construct 250,000- 
 gallon reservoir; install 
 pump station and pipeline. 
 
 Install well, refurbish 
 well, install 3 tanks and 
 booster station with 
 connecting pipeline. 
 
 Purchase of water and 
 vehicles for its distribu- 
 tion, water irrigation 
 system improvements. 
 
 Develop and construct water 
 well and water transmission 
 line for domestic and fire 
 needs, water conservation 
 program. 
 
 One 18" x 1,000' gravel 
 pack well, drilling and 
 equipping . 
 
 Repair and rehabilitate 4 
 wells, rehabilitate a pre- 
 stressed reservoir and 
 install mains and intertie 
 for distribution system 
 lodging. 
 
 - 25 - 
 
Project 
 
 Los Angeles Dept. of Water 
 and Power, California 
 
 Ontario, California 
 
 Buena Park, California 
 
 Upland, California 
 
 Sanger Public Works, 
 California 
 
 Tor lock, California 
 
 Blue Lake Springs Mutual 
 Water Co. , California 
 
 South Coast County Water 
 District, California 
 
 Woodland, California 
 
 Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation 
 District, California 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $1,000,000 Grant 
 $1,000,000 Total 
 
 $ 282,000 Grant 
 
 1,128,000 Loan 
 $1,410,000 Total 
 
 $ 46,600 Grant 
 186,400 Loan 
 
 $ 233,000 Total 
 
 $ 174,000 Grant 
 647,000 Loan 
 
 $ 821,000 Total 
 
 $ 16,600 Grant 
 66,400 Loan 
 
 83,000 Total 
 
 81,000 Grant 
 134,000 Loan 
 
 $ 215,000 Total 
 
 $ 167,500 Grant 
 137,912 Loan 
 
 $ 305,412 Total 
 
 $ 757,000 Loan 
 $ 757,000 Total 
 
 106,800 Grant 
 427,200 Loan 
 
 $ 534,000 Total 
 
 $ 80,000 Grant 
 320,000 Loan 
 
 $ 400,000 Total 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Purchase of 67,000 acre 
 feet of water. 
 
 Redevelopment of 6 wells, 
 refurbish 7 wells, and 
 construct 2 booster stations. 
 
 Drilling of new well and 
 the refurbishing of five 
 existing wells. 
 
 Installation of pipeline, 
 refurbishment of well and 
 conservation program. 
 
 Construction of new wells 
 and installation of 300 
 water meters. 
 
 Drill and equip two new 
 wells, lower five well bowls, 
 and two mainline sections. 
 
 Drill wells, install tanks 
 and treatment facility. 
 
 Replacement of water distri- 
 bution lines; water reclama- 
 tion system; construction of 
 a 5- million-gallon reservoir, 
 and purchase of mobile 
 storage tank trucks. 
 
 Drill well, equip with 
 pumps, lower pumps and 
 extend mains. 
 
 Repair of 5000' of pipe in 
 Bangor Canal, replace 18" 
 and 36" redwood syphon, 
 repair Bald Hills Syphon 
 and replace other 
 deteriorated leaky pipe. 
 
 - 26 - 
 
Project 
 
 San Jose, California 
 
 Manzanita Band of Mission 
 Indians, California 
 
 County of Sonoma, California 
 
 Antioch, California 
 
 Big Valley Village Corpora- 
 tion, California 
 
 San Rafael, California 
 
 Ventura County, California 
 
 Paradise Irrigation District, 
 California 
 
 LaJolla Band of Mission 
 Indians, California 
 
 Fresno, California 
 
 Delano, California 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $ 41,600 Grant 
 $ 41,600 Total 
 
 $ 20,000 Grant 
 5 20,000 Total 
 
 $ 16,200 Grant 
 
 16,200 Total 
 25,800 Grant 
 
 25,800 Total 
 
 3,000 Grant 
 
 3,000 Total 
 
 46,800 Grant 
 
 46,800 Total 
 
 $ 150,000 Grant 
 $ 150,000 Total 
 
 $ 562,600 Grant 
 104,400 Loan 
 
 $ 
 
 667,000 
 
 Total 
 
 $ 
 
 20,000 
 
 Grant 
 
 $ 
 
 20,000 
 
 Total 
 
 $ 
 
 56,000 
 
 Grant 
 
 $ 
 
 56,000 
 
 Total 
 
 $ 
 
 36,800 
 
 Grant 
 
 $ 
 
 36,800 
 
 Total 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Reconstruct park water 
 system. 
 
 Purchase 2,500-gallon 
 water tanker truck. 
 
 Purchase of water hauling 
 equipment. 
 
 Drilling and equipping wells 
 to augment City's reduced 
 allocation of water. 
 
 Removal of intake facilities, 
 extension of pipeline, 
 improvement of existing works. 
 
 Development of independent 
 water sources for use in 
 park system, right-of-way 
 and public buildings and 
 grounds. Water conservation. 
 
 Construction of a new water 
 well, repair water storage 
 reservoirs, rehabilitate 
 water wells and a water 
 conservation program. 
 
 Paradise dam enlargement 
 and Magalia Outlet works 
 enlargement. 
 
 Purchase of water tanker 
 truck. 
 
 Construction of water system 
 interties and a conservation 
 program. 
 
 Construction of a water well 
 and water conservation 
 program. 
 
 - 27 - 
 
Project 
 
 San Bruno, California 
 
 Hanford, California 
 
 Benicia, California 
 
 Ceres, California 
 
 Soboba Tribal Council, 
 California 
 
 San Francisco, California 
 
 Madera , Cali f ornia 
 
 Indian Wells Valley County 
 Water District, California 
 
 Seal Beach, California 
 
 Nevada Irrigation District, 
 California 
 
 Orangevale Mutual Water 
 Conpany, California 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 52,400 Grant 
 209,600 Loan 
 
 $ 262,000 Total 
 
 $ 96,000 Grant 
 384,000 Loan 
 
 $ 480,000 Total 
 
 $ 471,500 Grant 
 
 471,500 Loan 
 $ 943,000 Total 
 
 $ 185,000 Grant 
 
 165,000 Loan 
 $ 350,000 Total 
 
 $ 7,500 Grant 
 
 $ 7,500 Total 
 
 $ 376,450 Grant 
 $ 376,450 Total 
 
 21,000 Grant 
 84,000 Loan 
 
 $ 105,000 Total 
 
 $ 325,600 Grant 
 
 1,302,400 Loan 
 $1,628,000 Total 
 
 72,000 Grant 
 288,000 Loan 
 
 $ 360,000 Total 
 
 $ 401,000 G rant 
 $ 401,000 Total 
 
 46,000 Grant 
 184,000 Loan 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Replace leaking pipes, 
 repair existing well, and 
 two new purnping stations. 
 
 Two new wells, lower 12 
 well pumps, and replace 
 leaking pipes. 
 
 Replacing and repairing 
 pipelines, and water 
 recycling systems. 
 
 New wells and standby 
 emergency electrical 
 generator . 
 
 Purchase of water and 
 pipeline . 
 
 Pipeline, repair leaking 
 pipes, purchase water and 
 recycling. 
 
 Drill and equip one deep 
 well and lower bowls of 
 five existing wells. 
 
 Elevated storage reservoir, 
 new well, two auxiliary 
 c.iesel engines, conserva- 
 tion program. 
 
 Deep well and associated 
 equipment . 
 
 Installation of water meters 
 and water filters, cloud 
 seeding program and pipeline 
 repairs . 
 
 New wells, storage tanks 
 and pumps. 
 
 $ 230,000 Total 
 
 - 28 - 
 
Pro j ect 
 
 Paradise Irrigation District, 
 California 
 
 Lodi, California 
 
 Redding, California 
 
 Stockton, California 
 
 Rohnert Park, California 
 
 Placer County Water Agency, 
 California 
 
 Oakdale Irrigation District, 
 California 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $ 19,400 Grant 
 19,400 Total 
 
 55,000 Grant 
 
 North Marin County, California $ 
 
 55,000 Total 
 
 46,000 Grant 
 46,000 Loan 
 
 $ 92,000 Total 
 
 $ 950,000 Grant 
 950,000 Loan 
 
 $1,900,000 Total 
 
 $1,934,000 Grant 
 
 1,834,000 Loan 
 $3,768,000 Total 
 
 $ 56,000 Grant 
 
 $ 56,000 Total 
 
 $1,200,000 Grant 
 $1,200,000 Total 
 
 $ 500,000 Grant 
 500,000 Loan 
 
 Project Description 
 Purchase of water. 
 
 New well and pumps. 
 
 Pipeline and new well, 
 
 Water mains, rehabilitation 
 of wells. 
 
 Transmission line, wells, 
 pumps and conservation kits. 
 
 One deep well and a waste 
 water retention reservoir. 
 
 Pipeline and water storage 
 tanks. 
 
 New well, pumps and pipeline, 
 
 $1,000,000 Total 
 
 East Bay Municipal Utility 
 District, California 
 
 Marin Municipal Water 
 District, California 
 
 Placer County Water Agency, 
 California 
 
 El Dorado Irrigation District, 
 California 
 
 North Marin County Water 
 District, California 
 
 $1,493,295 Grant 
 
 5,973,178 Loan 
 $7,466,473 Total 
 
 $1,387,000 Grant 
 
 5,550,000 Loan 
 $6,937,000 Total 
 
 $ 85,000 Grant 
 85,000 Loan 
 
 $ 170,000 Total 
 
 $2,406,000 Grant 
 
 2,306,000 Loan 
 $4,712,000 Total 
 
 $ 87,942 Grant 
 351,770 Loan 
 
 Pumping stations, carbon 
 feed facilities, and 
 electricity and chemicals. 
 
 Pipeline, purchase of water, 
 wells and pumps. 
 
 Electricity for emergency 
 pumping. 
 
 Three interties, two 
 reservoir filters, repair 
 of leaking reservoirs. 
 
 New wells and off-stream 
 storage . 
 
 $ 439,712 Total 
 
 - 29 - 
 
Project 
 
 Vacaville, California 
 
 Davis, California 
 
 San Juan Suburban Water 
 District, California 
 
 Pittsburg, California 
 
 Monte Vista County Water 
 District, California 
 
 City and County of San 
 Francisco, California 
 
 Kern County, California 
 
 Tracy, California 
 
 Fountain Valley, California 
 
 Fairfield, California 
 
 Solano Irrigation District, 
 California 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $ 124,200 Grant 
 496,800 Loan 
 
 $ 621,000 Total 
 
 42,400 Grant 
 
 42,400 Total 
 
 128,000 Grant 
 512,000 Loan 
 
 $ 640,000 Total 
 
 $ 107,000 Grant 
 92,000 Loan 
 
 $ 199,000 Total 
 
 $ 225,600 Grant 
 745,844 Loan 
 
 $ 971,444 Total 
 $ 15,600 Grant 
 
 $ 15,600 Total 
 
 $5,000,000 Loan 
 $5,000,000 Total 
 
 $1,042,600 Grant 
 
 4,170,400 Loan 
 $5,213,000 Total 
 
 $ 130,000 Grant 
 520,000 Loan 
 
 $ 650,000 Total 
 
 $ 301,800 Grant 
 544,200 Loan 
 
 $ 846,000 Total 
 
 $ 200,600 Grant 
 613,100 Loan 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Reworking existing well- 
 water storage, emergency 
 standby electrical 
 generator, water mains 
 and water meters. 
 
 Two wells and rehabilita- 
 tion and lowering of two 
 pumps. 
 
 Replace leaky pipes and 
 ijnstall four units for 
 distribution system looping. j 
 
 Five new wells and casing, 
 pumping and distribution to i 
 existing system. 
 
 Three new wells and 
 pipeline . 
 
 Reactivation of old 
 well. 
 
 Purchase of water. 
 
 Water treatment plant and 
 transmission line. 
 
 $ 813,700 Total 
 
 Three new wells. 
 
 Leak survey and replacement 
 of water mains. 
 
 Five wells, seven temporary 
 dams, pipeline, storage 
 tank. 
 
 - 30 - 
 
Project 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Sonoma County Water Agency, 
 California 
 
 Roseville, California 
 
 Vallejo, California 
 
 138,000 Grant 
 552,000 Loan 
 
 Santa Rosa, California 
 
 County of Kings, California 
 
 Pico County Water District, 
 California 
 
 Stockton East Water District, 
 California 
 
 Pauma Indian Reservation, 
 California 
 
 American Canyon, California 
 
 Oakland, California 
 
 $ 690,000 Total 
 
 $ 113,400 Grant 
 
 453,600 Loan 
 $ 567,000 Total 
 
 $1,061,200 Grant 
 
 4,244,800 Loan 
 $5,306,000 Total 
 
 $ 407,000 Grant 
 $ 407,000 Total 
 
 41,200 Grant 
 
 41,200 Total 
 
 168,000 Grant 
 238,000 Loan 
 
 $ 406,000 Total 
 
 $ 591,500 Grant 
 591,500 Loan 
 
 $1,183,000 Total 
 
 20,000 Grant 
 
 20,000 Total 
 
 $ 272,000 Grant 
 $ 272,000 Total 
 
 87,400 Grant 
 349,600 Loan 
 
 $ 437,000 Total 
 
 Development of emergency 
 ground water supplies, a 
 water rationing and conserva- 
 tion program. 
 
 Two new wells and a 
 booster pump. 
 
 Addition of water main, 
 lining of water main, 
 reservoir rehabilitation and 
 conservation measures. 
 
 Rehabilitation of six wells, 
 drilling of two wells, 
 public information program 
 and water purchase surcharge. 
 
 Purchase of two tanker trucks 
 with fire pumping capability, 
 10,000 ft. of 3" hose and 
 2,000 water saving kits. 
 
 Water main replacement. 
 
 Drill wells and supplement 
 existing facilities. 
 
 Purchase of water truck. 
 
 2 MGD filtration plant and 
 2 MG reservoir with 
 connecting mains and 
 distribution lines. 
 
 Drill wells, install pump 
 stations, construct ponds. 
 
 - 31 - 
 
Project 
 
 Vista Irrigation District, 
 California 
 
 Colusa Indian Tribe, 
 California 
 
 Central Valley, California 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $ 20,300 Grant 
 83,200 Loan 
 
 $ 104,000 Total 
 
 17,000 Grant 
 
 ? 17,000 Total 
 
 $ 163,700 Grant 
 $ 163,700 Grant 
 
 Project Description 
 
 2 12", 600' deep 
 wells . 
 
 Purchase of truck, bladder 
 and water. 
 
 Purchase of 12 pickup trucks j 
 and water and containers. 
 
 Lake Elizabeth, California 
 
 Millbrae, California 
 
 Pacific Reefs, California 
 
 Santa Rosa Band of Mission 
 Indians, California 
 
 Mendocino County Indian Health 
 Service, California 
 
 Kern County Water Agency, 
 California 
 
 Monterey Park, California 
 
 $1,094,000 Loan 
 $1,094,000 Total 
 
 $ 50,000 Grant 
 
 200,000 Loan 
 $ 250,000 Total 
 
 $ 5,200 Grant 
 20,300 Loan 
 
 26,000 Total 
 
 17,900 Grant 
 
 $ 17,900 Total 
 
 $ 136,313 Grant 
 $ 136,313 Total 
 
 $ 359,355 Loan 
 ? 859,855 Total 
 
 32,000 Grant 
 
 32,000 Total 
 
 Construct a surface water 
 treatment facility and 
 replace water lines. 
 
 Construction of new storage 
 facility and water con- 
 servation program. 
 
 Development of springs, 
 holding tank, installation 
 of pump. 
 
 Purchase water truck and 
 trough . 
 
 Seven storage tanks, three 
 water transport vehicles an( 
 three water bladders. 
 
 Water purchase. 
 
 Purchase water, drill three 
 wells, defray cost of 
 electrical systems, and 
 conservation . 
 
 Big Valley, California 
 
 68,000 Grant 
 
 68,000 Total 
 
 Intake facility, PVC line, 
 storage tank and electrical j 
 system. 
 
 - 32 - 
 
Project 
 
 Yosemite, California 
 
 TOTAL FOR CALIFORNIA 
 
 TOTAL FOR OAKLAND FIELD 
 OFFICE 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $ 100,000 Grant 
 $ 100,000 Total 
 
 $24,448,310 Grant 
 
 54,726,159 Loan 
 $79,174,969 Total 
 
 $32,600,310 EDA Grant 
 
 56,726,159 EDA Loan 
 $89,326,469 EDA Total 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Drill well, construct storage 
 tank, meter system and 
 electrical equipment. 
 
 - 33 - 
 
SEATTLE FIELD OFFICE 
 
 IDAHO 
 
 Project 
 
 Lewiston Orchards Irrigation 
 District, Idaho 
 
 Lewiston , Idaho 
 
 University of Idaho, 
 Moscow, Idaho 
 
 State of Idaho 
 
 Moscow, Idaho 
 
 Bogus Basin Recreational 
 Association, Idaho 
 
 Caldwell, Idaho 
 
 Coeur d'Alene Tribe, Idaho 
 
 Nanpa, Idaho 
 
 Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, 
 Idaho 
 
 TOTAL FOR IDAHO 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $ 338,301 Grant 
 ? 338,301 Total 
 
 $ 345,250 Grant 
 
 345,250 Loan 
 $ 690,500 Total 
 
 $ 260,400 Grant 
 
 260,400 Loan 
 $ 520,800 Total 
 
 $ 100,000 Grant 
 ? 100,000 Total 
 
 $ 293,000 Grant 
 $ 293,000 Total 
 
 $ 122,000 Loan 
 $ 122,000 Total 
 
 $ 66,000 Grant 
 
 264,000 Loan 
 $ 330,000 Total 
 
 $ 73,000 Grant 
 73,000 Loan 
 
 $ 146,000 Total 
 
 $ 177,60 Grant 
 $ 177,600 Total 
 
 $ 173,000 Grant 
 
 173,000 Loan 
 $ 346,000 Total 
 
 $1,826,551 Grant 
 
 1,237,650 Loan 
 $3,064,201 Total 
 
 Project Description 
 New well and pipeline. 
 
 Upgrading old wells and 
 new pumps. 
 
 Effluent recycling system. 
 
 Statewide conservation 
 program. 
 
 New well, expanded water 
 treatment capacity, 
 installation of water 
 mains and replacement of 
 leaky pipes. 
 
 Storage tank. 
 
 New well, distribution lines, 
 and storage facility. 
 
 Fire truck and garage. 
 
 Well with appurtenances 
 and the installation of a 
 pressurized water system 
 and conservation program. 
 
 20,000 gallon reservoir. 
 
 - 34 - 
 
WASHINGTON 
 
 Project 
 
 Lower Elwha, Washington 
 
 Port Gambel, Washington 
 
 Whatcom, Washington 
 
 Chelan , Washington 
 
 Port Townsend, Washington 
 
 Squaxin, Washington 
 
 State of Washington 
 
 Moses Lake, Washington 
 
 Port Angeles, Washington 
 
 Makah Indian Tribe, 
 Washington 
 
 Ellensburg, Washington 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $ 251,500 Grant 
 251,500 Total 
 
 $ 140,000 Grant 
 $ 140,000 Total 
 
 $ 177,000 Grant 
 178,000 Loan 
 
 $ 355,000 Total 
 
 $ 254,500 Grant 
 $ 254,500 Total 
 
 395,000 Grant 
 395,000 Loan 
 
 $ 790,000 Total 
 
 $ 132,500 Grant 
 
 $ 132,500 Total 
 
 $ 180,000 Grant 
 
 $ 180,000 Total 
 
 $ 245,000 Grant 
 
 $ 245,000 Total 
 
 $ 659,000 Grant 
 
 1,611,000 Loan 
 $2,270,000 Total 
 
 $ 125,000 Grant 
 125,000 Loan 
 
 $ 250,000 Total 
 
 $ 50,800 Grant 
 197,600 Loan 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Redesign and construction to 
 increase production 
 capacity in existing hatchery; 
 relocate and construct 
 intake and out system for 
 each pond. 
 
 Wells, fire truck, water 
 lines . 
 
 Wells, pumps, 100 fire 
 hydrants, new pipe. 
 
 Emergency water hauling, 
 fire trucks, fire- 
 fighting equipment. 
 
 1 MGD well, meters, repair 
 leaking reservoir. 
 
 Construction and assembly 
 of floating pens. 
 
 Fire suppression. 
 
 Addition of columns to 
 lower well pumps, and 
 water meter installation. 
 
 Ranney collector, pumping 
 station, pipeline and water 
 meter installation. 
 
 Steel tank reservoir. 
 
 One new well and pumping 
 station. 
 
 $ 248,400 Total 
 
 - 35 - 
 
Project 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Spokane County Fire Protection 
 District #8, Washington 
 
 Spokane Tribe of Indians, 
 Washington 
 
 Kennewick, Washington 
 
 Clallam, Washington 
 
 20,500 Grant 
 
 Spokane, Washington 
 
 20,500 Total 
 
 $ 179,000 Grant 
 
 179,000 Loan 
 $ 358,000 Total 
 
 $ 545,000 Grant 
 
 1,745,000 Loan 
 $2,290,000 Total 
 
 $ 220,000 Grant 
 130,000 Loan 
 
 $ 350,000 Total 
 
 63,000 Grant 
 
 63,000 Total 
 
 Purchase of one high speed 
 tanker, portable pump and 
 related equipment. 
 
 New well, distribution 
 system and storage tank, 
 water hauling. 
 
 Inter-city cable stay 
 bridge, waterline, water 
 filtration plant. 
 
 Well development, pump and 
 pumphouse transmission 
 intertie, 200,000-gallon 
 storage reservoir. 
 
 Leak detection and repair, 
 pipe replacement, repair 
 of commercial meters. 
 
 Anacortes, Washington 
 
 $ 891,000 Grant 
 $ 891,000 Total 
 
 Rehabilitate two Ranney 
 wells . 
 
 Port Orchard, Washington 
 
 119,000 Grant 
 278,000 Loan 
 
 $ 397,000 Total 
 
 Reservoir, water line, 
 modification to pumping 
 station and an intertie lin 
 
 Ellensburg, Washington 
 
 44,000 Grant 
 176,000 Loan 
 
 $ 220,000 Total 
 
 Replace leaking water 
 mains. 
 
 Chelan County Fire District 
 #1, Washington 
 
 Colville Confederated Tribes, 
 Washington 
 
 $ 66,000 Grant 
 $ 66,000 Total 
 
 $ 700,000 Grant 
 
 700,000 Loan 
 $1,400,000 Total 
 
 Well, storage tanks. 
 
 Four new wells, four 
 storage tanks and trans- 
 mission lines. 
 
 State of Washington 
 
 Whatcom County, Washington 
 
 94,000 Grant 
 
 94,000 Total 
 
 51,000 Grant 
 16,000 Loan 
 
 67,000 Total 
 
 Purchase and use of mobile 
 potable water containers. 
 
 Installation of pump and 
 controls, water treatment 
 equipment and transmission 
 pipe. 
 
 - 36 - 
 
Project 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Douglas County Fire District 
 No. 2, Washington 
 
 Colville Confederated 
 Tribe, Washington 
 
 Grant County, Washington 
 
 59,500 Grant 
 
 Richland, Washington 
 
 Quileute Indian Tribe, 
 Washington 
 
 Ni squally Indian Coirmunity, 
 Washington 
 
 Yakima County Fire Protection 
 District No. 14, Washington 
 
 59,500 Total 
 
 88,000 Grant 
 88,000 Loan 
 
 $ 176,000 Total 
 
 $ 207,000 Grant 
 $ 207,000 Total 
 
 145,400 Grant 
 581,600 Loan 
 
 $ 727,000 Total 
 
 3,500 Grant 
 
 $ 3,500 Total 
 
 $ 386,000 Grant 
 $ 386,000 Total 
 
 12,000 Grant 
 49,000 Loan 
 
 Purchase of fire truck 
 
 and related fire suppression 
 
 equipment . 
 
 Renovation and rehabilitation 
 of springs and water holes. 
 
 Purchase of fire -fighting 
 and tanker trucks, water 
 holding tanks, water pumps 
 and miscellaneous equipment. 
 
 Construction and improvement 
 of a pump station, 
 transmission lines, mains, 
 landscaping, replacing water 
 mains, water meters and 
 engineering fees. 
 
 Purchase of fire suppression 
 equipment. 
 
 Improvement of water quality 
 and construction of 
 rearing ponds. 
 
 Purchase of pumper- tanker . 
 
 61,000 Total 
 
 Yakima County, Washington 
 
 Central ia, Washington 
 
 10,000 Grant 
 18,000 Loan 
 
 $ 28,000 Total 
 
 $ 268,000 Loan 
 $ 268,000 Total 
 
 For purchase of fire truck 
 and appurtenant equipment. 
 
 Construction of 12- inch 
 water mains. 
 
 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, 
 Washington 
 
 42,000 Grant 
 
 42,000 Total 
 
 Purchase of land with water 
 rights for incubation and 
 release of hatching salmon. 
 
 Kent, Washington 
 
 102,000 Grant 
 102,000 Loan 
 
 $ 204,000 Total 
 
 Water supply facility 
 improvements at Kent Springs, 
 
 - 37 - 
 
Project 
 
 Yakima County Fire District 
 No. 4, Washington 
 
 Spokane County Fire Protection 
 District, Washington 
 
 Kitsap County Public Utility 
 District No. 1, Washington 
 
 Bremerton, Washington 
 
 Chehalis, Washington 
 
 Chelan County Public Utility 
 District #1, Washington 
 
 Grant County, Washington 
 
 Marysville, Washington 
 
 State of Washington 
 
 State of Washington Parks and 
 Recreation Commission 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $ 15,400 Grant 
 66,600 Loan 
 
 82,000 Total 
 
 7,500 Grant 
 
 7,500 Total 
 
 96,000 Grant 
 55,000 Loan 
 
 $ 151,000 Total 
 
 $ 131,000 Grant 
 
 204,000 Loan 
 $ 335,000 Total 
 
 $ 475,000 Grant 
 
 1,398,000 Loan 
 $2,373,000 Total 
 
 $ 392,000 Grant 
 320,000 Loan 
 
 $ 712,000 Total 
 $ 29,000 Grant 
 
 29,000 Total 
 
 800,000 Grant 
 800,000 Loan 
 
 $1,600,000 Total 
 
 $ 126,000 Grant 
 $ 126,000 Total 
 
 $ 117,000 Grant 
 $ 117,000 Total 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Purchase of emergency fire- 
 fighting equipment - one 
 fire truck, tanker truck 
 and portable pump. 
 
 Drilling of a well, 
 installing of underground 
 water tank and purchase of 
 portable water reservoirs. 
 
 New well, pump, temporary 
 piping. 
 
 Four new wells, storage 
 reservoir and pipeline. 
 
 Transmission line. 
 
 Storage reservoir, pipeline, 
 water meters, conservation 
 program. 
 
 Covering well. 
 
 New well and transmission 
 line. 
 
 Advisory assistance to 
 localities concerning new 
 water supply development 
 and storage techniques. 
 
 Drilling of wells and pur- 
 chase of equipment for trans 
 portation of domestic water 
 and fire suppression. 
 
 38 - 
 
Project 
 
 Trico Economic Development 
 District, Washington 
 
 TOTAL FOR WASHINGTON 
 
 OREGON 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $ 372,500 Grant 
 313,000 Loan 
 
 $ 685,500 Total 
 
 $ 9,219,600 Grant 
 
 10,493,800 Loan 
 $19,713,400 Total 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Drill wells, pumps installed, 
 transmission lines, 
 distribution lines extended. 
 
 Bend, Oregon 
 
 Coos Bay-North Bend Water 
 Board, Oregon 
 
 South Fork Water Board, Oregon 
 City and West Linn, Oregon 
 
 Ashland, Oregon 
 
 Grants Pass, Oregon 
 
 Douglas County, Oregon 
 
 Oregon Forestry Department, 
 Oregon 
 
 LaGrande, Oregon 
 
 Washington County, Oregon 
 
 Warm Springs Reservation, 
 Oregon 
 
 $ 
 
 229,250 Grant 
 
 $ 
 
 229,250 Total 
 
 $ 
 
 84,300 Grant 
 
 $ 
 
 84,300 Total 
 
 $ 
 
 6,400 Grant 
 
 $ 
 
 6,400 Total 
 
 $ 
 
 30,980 Grant 
 
 $ 
 
 30,980 Total 
 
 $ 
 
 24,000 Grant 
 
 $ 
 
 24,000 Total 
 
 $ 
 
 315,500 Grant 
 
 $ 
 
 315,500 Total 
 
 $ 
 
 331,500 Grant 
 
 $ 
 
 331,500 Total 
 
 $ 
 
 179,000 Grant 
 
 $ 
 
 179,000 Total 
 
 $ 
 
 16,500 Grant 
 
 $ 
 
 16,500 Total 
 
 $ 
 
 360,000 Grant 
 
 
 360,000 Loan 
 
 $ 
 
 720,000 Total 
 
 New well, pump and pipeline. 
 
 Backwash water recycling 
 system, two pumping stations 
 and pipeline. 
 
 Two new water pumps. 
 
 Water pumps and pipe 
 repairs . 
 
 Pump, repair transmission 
 lines, meters. 
 
 Interties, hauling wate">: 
 storage tanks. 
 
 Fire -fighting equipment. 
 
 New well, pumping station, 
 and pipeline. 
 
 Water hauling by truck. 
 
 Wells, pumps, transmission 
 line, storage tanks, water 
 treatment. 
 
 - 39 - 
 
Project 
 Milwaukie, Oregon 
 
 Suttle, Oregon 
 
 State of Oregon 
 of Agriculture 
 
 Dept. 
 
 TOTAL FOR OREGON 
 
 TOTAL FOR SEATTLE FIELD 
 OFFICE 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $ 7,000 Grant 
 28,000 Loan 
 
 35,000 Total 
 
 7,600 Grant 
 30,400 Loan 
 
 $ 38,000 Total 
 
 $ 130,000 Grant 
 $ 130,000 Total 
 
 $1,722,030 Grant 
 
 418,400 Loan 
 $2,140,430 Total 
 
 $12,768,181 EDA Grant 
 
 12,149,850 EDA Loan 
 $24,918,031 EDA Total 
 
 Project Description 
 
 For installation of a 
 service connection intertie 
 and the purchase of water. 
 
 To construct reservoir, 
 drill well, install pump, 
 transmission. 
 
 Implement State-wide 
 agricultural drought relief 
 including transportation of 
 equipment, water troughs, 
 hose, pumps, drought news- 
 letter, administration and 
 appurtenant equipment. 
 
 - 40 - 
 
CHICAGO FIELD OFFICE 
 
 ILLINOIS 
 
 Project 
 
 Clayton-Camp Point Water 
 Commission, Illinois 
 
 Centralia, Illinois 
 
 Edwardsville , Illinois 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $1,312,500 Grant 
 
 2,486,500 Loan 
 $3,799,000 Total 
 
 24,000 Grant 
 96,000 Loan 
 
 $ 120,000 Total 
 
 $ 325,500 Grant 
 
 325,500 Loan 
 $ 651,000 Total 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Two new wells, treatment 
 plant, 500, 000- gallon 
 storage facility and 
 pipelines . 
 
 Pump and water main. 
 
 Water lines and installation 
 of water meters. 
 
 Summerfield, Lebanon, Mascoutah $ 400,000 Grant 
 Water Commission, Illinois 400,000 Loan 
 
 $ 800,000 Total 
 
 Mb. Vernon, Illinois 
 
 Freeburg, Smithton, Hecker, 
 Water Commission, Illinois 
 
 Macomb , I llinois 
 
 194,000 Grant 
 194,000 Loan 
 
 $ 388,000 Total 
 
 $1,000,000 Grant 
 
 1,000,000 Loan 
 $2,000,000 Total 
 
 45,000 Grant 
 180,000 Loan 
 
 40,000 feet treated water 
 transmission line, 
 appurtenances and 200,000- 
 gallon storage tank. 
 
 Construct 13,170 ft. of 1C 
 inch I.D. water transmission 
 line. 
 
 Construct and operate 21 
 miles transmission system, 
 storage facilities, and 
 appurtenances . 
 
 5 wells and transmission 
 lines. 
 
 $ 225,000 Total 
 
 Pike County, Illinois 
 
 Springfield Dept. of Public 
 Works, Illinois 
 
 73,000 Grant 
 292,000 Loan 
 
 $ 365,000 Total 
 
 $ 116,650 Grant 
 83,350 Loan 
 
 $ 200,000 Total 
 
 2 wells, 5 miles of water 
 line, water filter treatment 
 facilities . 
 
 Recycling of power plant, 
 ash sluice water and treat- 
 ment plant. 
 
 - 41 - 
 
Project 
 
 Peru, Illinois 
 
 EDA Financing 
 $ 30,000 Grant 
 
 30,000 Total 
 
 Project Description 
 
 New aerator, new pump house, 
 separate chlorinating room 
 and gas chlorination 
 equipment, new high service 
 pumps, new piping, valves 
 and meters. 
 
 TOTAL FOR ILLINOIS 
 
 $3,520,650 Grant 
 
 5,057,350 Loan 
 $8,578,000 Total 
 
 MICHIGAN 
 
 Houghton, Michigan 
 
 Monroe County, Michigan 
 
 Portage Lake, Michigan 
 
 Keweenaw Bay Tribe, 
 Michigan 
 
 Summit Township, Michigan 
 
 Oscoda Township, Michigan 
 
 French town, Michigan 
 
 Okemos, Michigan 
 
 County of Marquette, Michigan 
 
 TOTAL FOR MICHIGAN 
 
 15,000 Grant 
 15,000 Loan 
 
 $ 30,000 Total 
 
 $ 470,000 Grant 
 
 129,000 Loan 
 $ 599,000 Total 
 
 $ 112,500 Grant 
 
 112,500 Loan 
 $ 225,000 Total 
 
 70,500 Grant 
 70,500 Loan 
 
 $ 141,000 Total 
 
 $ 200,000 Loan 
 $ 200,000 Total 
 
 84,000 Loan 
 
 $ 84,000 Total 
 
 $1,325,000 Grant 
 
 1,325,000 Loan 
 $2,650,000 Total 
 
 $ 156,000 Grant 
 $ 156,000 Total 
 
 11,400 Grant 
 
 $ 11,400 Total 
 
 $2,160,400 Grant 
 
 1,936,000 Loan 
 $4,096,400 Total 
 
 Installation of 6600' of 
 8" steel above ground 
 water line. 
 
 23,500' water lines. 
 
 Repair water storage tank 
 and distribution system 
 leaks. 
 
 Two fire trucks. 
 
 New well, connection to 
 present system, meters on 
 high volume users. 
 
 New wells, pumps and lines, 
 
 Elevated storage tank, 
 distribution lines, and 
 installation of water meters, 
 
 Water lines and installation 
 of water meters. 
 
 Improve existing well, 
 haul water. 
 
 - 42 - 
 
WISCONSIN 
 
 Project 
 
 State of Wisconsin 
 
 West Bend, Wisconsin 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $ 311,700 Grant 
 
 1,063,300 Loan 
 $1,375,000 Total 
 
 $ 775,000 Grant 
 775,000 Loan 
 
 
 $1, 
 
 ,550,000 
 
 Total 
 
 Two Rivers, Wisconsin 
 
 $ 
 
 66,000 
 
 Grant 
 
 
 $ 
 
 66,000 
 
 Total 
 
 Red Cliff Band of Chippewa 
 Indians, Wisconsin 
 
 $ 
 
 33,500 
 33,500 
 
 Grant 
 Loan 
 
 
 $ 
 
 67,000 
 
 Total 
 
 Bad River Band of Lake 
 Superior Chippewa, Wisconsin 
 
 $ 
 
 33,750 
 38,750 
 
 Grant 
 Total 
 
 St. Croix Chippewa Tribe, 
 Wisconsin 
 
 $ 
 
 41,500 
 41,500 
 
 Grant 
 Loan 
 
 
 $ 
 
 83,000 
 
 Total 
 
 TOTAL FOR WISCONSIN 
 
 $1,266,450 
 
 Grant 
 
 
 1, 
 
 913,300 
 
 Loan 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Fire suppression equipment. 
 
 Two new wells, storage 
 tank, standpipe and tie-ins. 
 
 Reimbursement for 
 restoration of water service. 
 
 Pumper fire truck and 
 tanker truck. 
 
 Provide fire truck, portable 
 tank and pump, and related 
 equipment . 
 
 Forest fire attack-pumper, 
 tank truck. 
 
 $3,179,750 Total 
 
 MINNESOTA 
 
 Fond du Lac Reservation 
 Committee , Minnesota 
 
 Hopkins, Minnesota 
 
 Marshall, Minnesota 
 
 Fergus Falls, Minnesota 
 
 45,000 Grant 
 45,000 Loan 
 
 90,000 Total 
 
 112,000 Grant 
 112,000 Loan 
 
 $ 224,000 Total 
 
 $ 133,000 Grant 
 
 133,000 Loan 
 $ 266,000 Total 
 
 $ 40,000 Grant 
 40,000 Loan 
 
 Purchase of fire fighting 
 equipment . 
 
 New well, pump, pumphouse, 
 transmission line, control 
 system. 
 
 Three new wells and replace- 
 ment of leaking water mains, 
 
 Two new wells. 
 
 80,000 Total 
 
 - 43 - 
 
Project 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Fairmont, Minnesota 
 
 Mankato, Minnesota 
 
 243,000 Grant 
 243,000 Loan 
 
 Hanover, Frankfort, St. 
 Michael & Albertville Water 
 and Sanitary Sewer Board, 
 Minnesota 
 
 TOTAL FOR MINNESOTA 
 
 INDIANA 
 
 Valparaiso, Indiana 
 
 Lebanon, Indiana 
 
 TOTAL FOR INDIANA 
 
 TOTAL FOR CHICAGO FIELD 
 OFFICE 
 
 $ 486,000 Total 
 
 $ 247,000 Grant 
 247,000 Loan 
 
 $ 494,000 Total 
 
 $1,046,000 Grant 
 
 1,046,000 Loan 
 $2,092,000 Total 
 
 $1,866,000 Grant 
 
 1,866,000 Loan 
 $3,732,000 Total 
 
 $ 455,700 Loan 
 455,700 Total 
 
 24,000 Grant 
 96,000 Loan 
 
 $ 120,000 Total 
 
 $ 24,000 Grant 
 551,700 Loan 
 
 $ 575,700 Total 
 
 $ 8,837,500 EDA Grant 
 
 11,324,350 EDA Loan 
 $20,161,850 EDA Total 
 
 Intake modification, 
 
 two new wells and temporary 
 
 pumping. 
 
 Construction of a 1.5 - 
 million-gallon ground storage 
 reservoir and a water con- 
 servation program. 
 
 Two wells, treatment 
 facility, transmission 
 lines and storage facilities. 
 
 Two wells and pumps, raw 
 water lines, additional 
 filters and modification of 
 water treatment plant. 
 
 2 wells, pumps. 
 
 - 44 - 
 
AUSTIN FIELD OFFICE 
 
 NEW MEXICO 
 
 Project 
 
 Roswell, New Mexico 
 
 Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico 
 
 Alamogordo, New Mexico 
 
 Carlsbad, New Mexico 
 
 Famington, New Mexico 
 
 Artesia, New Mexico 
 
 TOTAL FOR NEW MEXICO 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $ 240,000 Grant 
 
 960,000 Loan 
 $1,200,000 Total 
 
 $ 196,000 Grant 
 $ 196,000 Total 
 
 $ 136,000 Grant 
 $ 136,000 Total 
 
 155,000 Grant 
 620,000 Loan 
 
 $ 775,000 Total 
 
 $ 521,000 Grant 
 $ 521,000 Total 
 
 $ 64,000 Grant 
 256,000 Loan 
 
 $ 320,000 Total 
 
 $1,312,000 Grant 
 
 1,836,000 Loan 
 $3,148,000 Total 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Two new wells and 
 transmission lines. 
 
 One new well, storage 
 facility and transmission 
 line. 
 
 Construction of 13,500 
 linear feet of 16" water 
 transmission line and a 
 2 . 25-million-gallon water 
 reservoir. 
 
 Purchase of water rights, 
 storage tank, booster pump, 
 and connecting water lines. 
 
 Booster pump, pumping 
 station and pipeline. 
 
 Modification of two newly- 
 purchased artesian wells and 
 associated equipment and 
 pipelines. 
 
 OKLAHOMA 
 
 Yukon, Oklahoma 
 
 Oklahoma City Municipal 
 Improvement Authority, 
 Oklahoma 
 
 $ 407,000 Grant 
 
 1,628,000 Loan 
 $2,035,000 Total 
 
 $ 1,200,000 Grant 
 
 8,800,000 Loan 
 $10,000,000 Total 
 
 New wells and well field 
 collection system. 
 
 Replacement of pumps, 
 motors and electric power 
 installations . 
 
 - 45 - 
 
Project 
 
 Skiatook Public Works 
 Authority, Oklahoma 
 
 Edmund Public Water 
 Authority, Oklahoma 
 
 Sapulpa Municipal Authority, 
 Oklahoma 
 
 Seminole, Oklahoma 
 
 Ponca City Utility Authority, 
 Oklahoma 
 
 Guthrie Public Works, 
 Oklahoma 
 
 TOTAL FOR OKLAHOMA 
 
 ARKANSAS 
 
 El Dorado, Arkansas 
 
 Searcy Board of Public 
 Utilities, Arkansas 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $ 166,000 Grant 
 
 664,000 Loan 
 $ 830,000 Total 
 
 $ 170,000 Grant 
 680,000 Loan 
 
 $ 850,000 Total 
 
 $ 168,800 Grant 
 500,000 Loan 
 
 $ 668,800 Total 
 
 $ 38,000 Grant 
 $ 38,000 Total 
 
 $ 259,000 Grant 
 
 1,000,000 Loan 
 $1,259,000 Total 
 
 77,000 Grant 
 258,000 Loan 
 
 $ 335,000 Total 
 
 $ 2,485,800 Grant 
 
 13,530,000 Loan 
 $16,015,800 Total 
 
 $ 
 
 64,000 
 
 Grant 
 
 $ 
 
 64,000 
 
 Total 
 
 $ 
 
 40,000 
 
 Grant 
 
 $ 
 
 40,000 
 
 Total 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Construction of a 12" 
 water transmission line. 
 
 Five new wells and water 
 storage tank. 
 
 Pipeline . 
 
 2 new wells and extension 
 of water service. 
 
 Construction of supply line 
 and an intake valve, 
 construction of storage tan 
 and transmission lines. 
 
 Construction of a 2,000,000 
 gallon ground storage tank 
 with pump and controls. 
 
 New well, transmission line 
 and appropriate pump 
 station modifications. 
 
 Construction of a 12" 
 water line. 
 
 - 46 - 
 
Project 
 
 Conway, Arkansas 
 
 Hope, Arkansas 
 
 TOTAL FOR ARKANSAS 
 
 TEXAS 
 
 El Paso, Texas 
 
 Canyon, Texas 
 
 TOTAL FOR TEXAS 
 
 TOTAL FOR AUSTIN FIELD 
 OFFICE 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $ 381,000 Grant 
 381,000 Loan 
 
 $ 762,000 Total 
 
 $ 113,000 Grant 
 452,000 Loan 
 
 $ 565,000 Total 
 
 $ 598,000 Grant 
 833,000 Loan 
 
 $1,431,000 Total 
 
 $ 130,000 Grant 
 $ 130,000 Total 
 
 24,000 Grant 
 
 $ 24,000 Total 
 
 $ 154,000 Grant 
 $ 154,000 Total 
 
 $ 4,549,800 EDA Grant 
 
 16,199,000 EDA Loan 
 $20,743,800 EDA Total 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Storage tank, pumps and 
 transmission lines. 
 
 New well, storage and 
 transmission. 
 
 Reservoir and transmission 
 line. 
 
 New well, connecting line 
 to existing distribution 
 system and altitude valve 
 for storage facility. 
 
 - 47 - 
 
IOWA 
 
 DENVER FIELD OFFICE 
 
 Project 
 
 Southern Iowa Rural Water 
 District 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $ 129,500 Grant 
 
 220,500 Loan 
 $ 350,000 Total 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Pump station and 
 pipeline . 
 
 Ames , Iowa 
 
 TOTAL FOR IOWA 
 
 65,000 Grant 
 
 65,000 Total 
 
 $ 194,500 Grant 
 
 220,500 Loan 
 $ 415,000 Total 
 
 Drilling of a new well 
 and rehabilitation of ten 
 existing wells. 
 
 KANSAS 
 
 Arkansas City, Kansas 
 
 TOTAL FOR KANSAS 
 
 251,000 Grant 
 427,000 Loan 
 
 $ 678,000 Total 
 
 $ 251,000 Grant 
 427,000 Loan 
 
 $ 678,000 Total 
 
 An intake structure on the 
 Walnut River with a line 
 to the treatment plant. 
 
 NEBRASKA 
 
 Fremont, Nebraska 
 
 TOTAL FOR NEBRASKA 
 
 $ 280,000 Grant 
 
 1,120,000 Loan 
 $1,400,000 Total 
 
 $ 280,000 Grant 
 
 1,120,000 Loan 
 $1,400,000 Total 
 
 Three new wells and 
 transmission lines. 
 
 - 48 - 
 
NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 Project 
 
 Three Affiliated Tribes, 
 North Dakota 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $ 345,000 Grant 
 $ 345,000 Total 
 
 Project Description 
 
 6.5-mile pipeline to 
 Mandaree from Lake Sakakawea. 
 
 Three Affiliated Tribes, 
 North Dakota 
 
 Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, 
 North Dakota 
 
 62,000 Grant 
 
 $ 62,000 Total 
 
 $ 115,000 Grant 
 $ 115,000 Total 
 
 Modify intake structure on 
 lake. 
 
 Two wells, 3-mile pipeline, 
 pumphouse and water storage 
 facility. 
 
 TOTAL FOR NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 $ 522,000 Grant 
 $ 522,000 Total 
 
 SOUTH DAKOTA 
 
 Mitchell, South Dakota 
 
 $ 666,000 Grant 
 
 1,134,000 Loan 
 $1,800,000 Total 
 
 Intake structure on James 
 River and transmission line 
 to reservoir. 
 
 Yankton, South Dakota 
 
 TOTAL FOR SOUTH DAKOTA 
 
 39,000 Grant 
 295,000 Loan 
 
 $ 334,000 Total 
 
 $ 705,000 Grant 
 
 1,429,000 Loan 
 $2,134,000 Total 
 
 Upgrade water treatment 
 plant and pipeline. 
 
 UTAH 
 
 Brigham City, Utah 
 
 375,000 Grant 
 638,000 Loan 
 
 $1,013,000 Total 
 
 Repair and replace 
 leaking lines and storage 
 facilities . 
 
 Salt Lake County Water 
 Conservation District, Utah 
 
 $ 337,000 Loan 
 ? 337,000 Total 
 
 Replace leaking water lines, 
 meter replacement and water 
 use education and 
 restriction program. 
 
 TOTALS FOR UTAH 
 
 $ 375,000 Grant 
 
 975,000 Loan 
 $1,350,000 Total 
 
 - 49 - 
 
COLORADO 
 
 Project 
 
 Ute Mountain Tribe, Colorado 
 
 Southern Ute Indian Tribe, 
 Colorado 
 
 Broomfield, Colorado 
 
 Durango, Colorado 
 
 Canon City, Colorado 
 
 EDA Financing 
 $ 50,000 Grant 
 
 50,000 Total 
 
 $ 103,200 Grant 
 $ 103,200 Total 
 
 $ 296,200 Grant 
 
 444,300 Loan 
 $ 740,500 Total 
 
 24,000 Grant 
 626,000 Loan 
 
 $ 650,000 Total 
 
 $ 514,400 Grant 
 771,600 Loan 
 
 $1,286,000 Total 
 
 Ute Water Conservancy District, $ 320,000 Grant 
 Colorado 480,000 Loan 
 
 $ 800,000 Total 
 
 Montrose, Colorado 
 
 64,000 Grant 
 936,000 Loan 
 
 $1,000,000 Total 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Irrigation system for 
 cattle feed and wells 
 for stock ponds. 
 
 Irrigation system improve- 
 ment, intake structure, 
 water tank truck and 
 storage facilities. 
 
 Purchase of water, pumping 
 facilities, and water 
 treatment plant backwash 
 recovery system. 
 
 Halt reservoir leakage, 
 and installation of water 
 meters . 
 
 Treated water storage 
 capacity and installation 
 of meters. 
 
 Pipeline and pumping 
 station. 
 
 Installation and purchase 
 of water meters and repair 
 and replacement of 
 leaking water lines. 
 
 TOTAL FOR COLORADO 
 
 $1,371,800 Grant 
 
 3,257,900 Loan 
 $4,629,700 Total 
 
 - 50 - 
 
MISSOURI 
 
 Project 
 
 Higginsville , Missouri 
 
 TOTAL FOR MISSOURI 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $ 346,000 Grant 
 519,000 Loan 
 
 $ 865,000 Total 
 
 $ 346,000 Grant 
 519,000 Loan 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Permanent pumps, pipelines, 
 and operation costs. 
 
 $ 865,000 Total 
 
 MONTANA 
 
 Fort Belknap, Montana 
 
 Blackfeet, Montana 
 
 TOTAL FOR MONTANA 
 
 TOTAL FOR DENVER FIELD 
 OFFICE 
 
 $ 113,500 Grant 
 $ 113,500 Total 
 
 $ 100,000 Grant 
 
 100,000 Loan 
 $ 200,000 Total 
 
 $ 213,500 Grant 
 100,000 Loan 
 
 $ 313,500 Total 
 
 $ 4,258,800 EDA Grant 
 
 8,043,400 EDA Loan 
 $12,307,200 EDA Total 
 
 Water wells, windmills, 
 and troughs. 
 
 6 wells, 2 water tank 
 trucks, and 3 fire trucks 
 
 - 51 - 
 
VIRGINIA 
 
 Project 
 
 Nottoway, Virginia 
 
 Norfolk, Virginia 
 Chesapeake, Virginia 
 
 South Stafford Sanitary- 
 District, Virginia 
 
 Virginia Beach, Virginia 
 
 TOTALS FOR VIRGINIA 
 
 WASHINGTON, D.C. FIELD OFFICE 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 WEST VIRGINIA 
 
 Mt. Zion Public Service 
 District, West Virginia 
 
 TOTAL FOR WEST VIRGINIA 
 
 NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 Orange Water and Sewer 
 Authority, North Carolina 
 
 TOTAL FOR NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 46,150 Grant 
 
 46,150 Total 
 
 77,000 Grant 
 
 $ 77,000 Total 
 
 $ 340,000 Grant 
 $ 340,000 Total 
 
 $ 215,200 Grant 
 860,800 Loan 
 
 $1,076,000 Total 
 
 $1,000,000 Grant 
 
 2,000,000 Loan 
 $3,000,000 Total 
 
 $1,678,350 Grant 
 
 2,860,800 Loan 
 $4,539,150 Total 
 
 $ 164,500 Grant 
 ? 164,500 Total 
 
 $ 164,500 Grant 
 $ 164,500 Total 
 
 $ 550,200 Grant 
 
 1,283,800 Loan 
 $1,834,000 Total 
 
 $ 550,200 Grant 
 
 1,283,800 Loan 
 $1,834,000 Total 
 
 - 52 - 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Extension of water system 
 and 8" water main, purchase 
 of water. 
 
 Pipeline . 
 
 Six miles of water line to 
 intertie two water systems. 
 
 Water tank, connection line 
 two booster pump stations. 
 
 Construction of 4 standpipe : 
 
 Water line extension, 
 booster station and 
 water tank. 
 
 Pipeline connecting 
 two water systems. 
 
ALABAMA 
 
 Project 
 
 Utility Beard of the City of 
 Ozark, Alabama 
 
 EDA Financing 
 
 $ 80,000 Grant 
 320,000 Loan 
 
 $ 400,000 Total 
 
 Project Description 
 
 Lowering of pump, new 
 well, distribution mains. 
 
 TOTAL FOR ALABAMA 
 
 GEORGIA 
 
 Gordele, Georgia 
 
 TOTAL FOR GEORGIA 
 
 PUERTO RICO 
 
 80,000 Grant 
 320,000 Loan 
 
 $ 400,000 Total 
 
 20,000 Grant 
 80,000 Loan 
 
 $ 100,000 Total 
 
 20,000 Grant 
 80,000 Loan 
 
 $ 100,000 Total 
 
 Repair and rehabilitation 
 of wells. 
 
 Puerto Rico Aqueduct and 
 Sewer Authority 
 
 250,000 Grant 
 250,000 Loan 
 
 $ 500,000 Total 
 
 Intake structure, pumping 
 station, and transmission 
 line. 
 
 TOTAL FOR PUERTO RICO 
 
 TOTAL FOR WASHINGTON, D.C., 
 FIELD OFFICE 
 
 250,000 Grant 
 250,000 Loan 
 
 $ 500,000 Total 
 
 $2,743,050 EDA Grant 
 
 4,794,600 EDA Loan 
 $7,537,650 EDA Total 
 
 - 53 - 
 
APPENDIX 2 
 
 DROUGHT PROGRAM 
 FIELD OFFICES 
 
 Austin, Texas - Suite 830, American Bank Tower, 221 West Sixth 
 Street, Austin, Texas 78701 
 
 Chicago, Illinois - 1025 Civic Towers Building, 32 West Randolph 
 Street, Chicago, Illinois 60601 
 
 Denver, Colorado - Suite 505, Title Building, 909 17th Street, Denver, 
 Colorado 80202 
 
 Oakland, California - Suite 600, Federal Building, 1515 Clay 
 Street, Oakland, California 94612 
 
 Seattle, Washington - Room 2366, Federal Building, 915 Second 
 Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98174 
 
 Washington, D. C. - Room 7834, Main Commerce, 14th & E Streets, N.W. , 
 Washington, D. C. 20230 
 
 INFORMATION OFFICES 
 
 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - 600 Arch Street, Suite 10424, Philadelphia, 
 Pennsylvania 19106 
 
 Atlanta, Georgia - 1365 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 700, Atlanta, 
 Georgia 30309 
 
 Bismarck, North Dakota - P.O. Box 1911, Bismarck, North Dakota 58501 
 
 Duluth, Minnesota - 515 West First Street, Room 407, Duluth, Minnesota 55802 
 
 Fresno, California - Suite 101, 2502 Merced Street, Fresno, California 93721 
 
 Sacramento, California - Room W-1446, 2800 Cottage Way, New Federal 
 Building, Sacramento, California 95825 
 
 Los Angeles, California - 11777 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 900, Los Angeles, 
 California 90049 
 
 Phoenix, Arizona - 112 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85004 
 
 Portland, Oregon - 1220 S.W. 3rd Avenue, Room 611, Portland, Oregon 97204 
 
 Boise, Idaho - 2404 Bank Drive, Suite 304, Boise, Idaho 83705 
 
 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - Room 815, Old Post Office Building, N.W. 3rd & 
 Harvey Streets, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 
 
 - 54 - 
 
APPENDIX 3 
 
 KEY EDA DROUGHT RELIEF PROGRAM STAFF 
 
 National Drought Coordinator 
 Western Team Leader 
 Eastern Team Leader 
 
 Laurence D. Pitsenberger 
 Anne S. Berblinger 
 Jimmie H. Jones 
 
 Regional Drought Coordinators 
 
 Oakland 
 
 Oakland Deputy 
 
 Austin 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Seattle 
 
 Denver 
 
 Washington, D. 
 
 C. 
 
 Joseph Hollister 
 Myrle Lane 
 Dave Mcllwain 
 Frank Sampson 
 Dave McLucas 
 George Muller 
 Wilbur Paul 
 
 - 55 - 
 

 
 
 
 
 IfiBiiT 
 
 A0000712S'US1 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 \~ : 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 , ■ ■..■■■.■...■.,■■■■■■' - ■ '■ ■ : _ 
 
 -■ J* ... 
 
 
 
 
 
 w tNT Of 
 
 
 « 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 1 ; . : *'M- X : 
 
 
 - , 
 
 
 
 £Pf'. 
 
 
 S?