Small Utility Success Story: How Lima Municipal Water Secured $4.2M in Funding

How a Rural Utility Transformed Constraints into Strategic Advantage
When the Lima Municipal Water Authority in Pennsylvania found itself grappling with 35-year-old filters and almost no financial reserves, the outlook was bleak. In just 18 months, though, Lima secured $4.2 million in funding—65% of it in grants—to overhaul its filtration system while minimizing the rate burden on residents. Their story offers a playbook for small utilities navigating similar challenges, showing how data-driven planning, creative funding stacks, and strategic partnerships can turn limited resources into a big win.

The Problem: Aging Infrastructure, Tight Budgets

• Infrastructure Crisis: Lima’s pressure filters, installed in 1988, were breaking down frequently by 2023. Annual repair costs had ballooned to over $120,000—about 15% of Lima’s total operating budget. Water quality was still within regulatory limits, but with a diminishing safety margin during peak demand periods. (Smaller utilities often experience more frequent breakdowns than larger ones due to older assets and sparse maintenance funds) [1] [2]

• Limited Resources: The utility serves just 8,500 residents with a modest $860,000 annual operating budget and $350,000 in capital reserves. This size is typical—91% of U.S. community water systems serve populations under 10,000. With a community median household income of $42,800 (significantly below Pennsylvania’s average), Lima’s water rates already consumed about 2.1% of the typical household income, nearing affordability red flags. (The EPA’s guideline is to keep water bills under 2% of median income. Nationally, 88% of Americans pay under that level, yet up to 36% of households could struggle to afford water by 2024.) [3]

• Affordability Pressures: Because of the low income base, Lima had little room to raise rates without causing hardship. Prior to the project, water charges were approaching the generally accepted affordability threshold. Further rate hikes risked pushing bills into unaffordable territory for many residents, a common issue in rural communities. (Only 21% of U.S. water utilities can fully cover costs with current rates, and among small utilities, just 10% expect to sustain full cost recovery. The rest face funding gaps that often translate into deferred upgrades or steep rate increases.)[2]

• Limited Technical Capacity: Like many small utilities, Lima operated with a lean staff—just six full-time employees—and no in-house engineering team. No one on staff had significant grant-writing experience or dedicated time to navigate complex funding applications. Previous capital projects had been funded via simple municipal bonds and rate increases, approaches that were now infeasible. This situation is common: small systems often lack full-time technical experts and rely on volunteer or overextended personnel. They typically don’t apply for many funding programs without outside help because “they need dedicated no-cost assistance for project development and for qualifying for funding…”. In short, Lima had the will to fix its aging infrastructure, but not the resources or know-how to finance a multi-million-dollar project on its own.[4]

The Strategic Turnaround

Facing these challenges, Lima’s leadership chose a new approach instead of the familiar (but untenable) path of simply issuing debt and raising rates. The utility implemented a step-by-step strategy that leveraged data and creativity to punch above its weight. This strategic turnaround involved five key steps:

1. Start with Data – Building a Compelling Case

Rather than immediately diving into a full-scale design, Lima first invested in understanding the problem. The authority commissioned a targeted condition assessment and energy audit focused on the failing filtration system, at a cost of about $28,000. This limited-scope study (far cheaper than a comprehensive facility plan that could cost around $150k) yielded critical data:

• A 32% drop in filtration energy efficiency was identified, meaning the aging system was using roughly one-third more energy to treat water than it did when newer. This finding was eye-opening – energy costs are often the second-largest expense for water utilities (30–40% of operating costs, after labor), so inefficiencies were draining Lima’s budget.[7]

• Maintenance records showed a sharp uptick in filter breakdowns and repair needs during peak summer demand, indicating an accelerating trend toward system failure. Lima was essentially in reactive mode, spending heavily just to avoid service disruptions.

• The audit also documented water quality challenges: while regulatory turbidity limits were met, during high-demand periods the filtered water’s turbidity crept closer to the 0.3 NTU safety limit (EPA rules require 95% of samples ≤0.3 NTU for conventional filtration). This narrowing compliance margin underscored the public health risk if the filters were not replaced soon.[13]

• A simple lifecycle financial analysis was developed, comparing the status quo (ongoing repairs and high energy use) versus a full replacement. It showed that, over the equipment’s life, replacing the filters would save money due to reduced energy and maintenance costs.

All of this evidence helped Lima clearly illustrate the urgency and benefit of the project. “We realized that to compete for limited funding, we needed to clearly demonstrate both the urgency of our situation and the community impact,” explains Lima’s Board Chair, Sarah Williams. The focused assessment gave them concrete metrics instead of just anecdotes. Importantly, it also allowed the utility to avoid spending time and money on a broad master plan; they pinpointed the filtration system as the critical failure point and gathered just the data needed to justify its replacement. This data-driven case would form the backbone of every grant application to follow.

As one lesson learned: good data wins funding – with solid evidence in hand, a small utility can present a compelling case that funders take seriously.

2. Explore All Funding Options – Casting a Wide Net

In the past, Lima’s leaders might have defaulted to the few financing tools they knew (e.g. a bank loan or municipal bond). This time, they cast a much wider net. The team (with board encouragement) conducted a comprehensive scan of funding sources, including:

• State and Federal Grants: They researched programs targeting small systems and disadvantaged communities, such as Pennsylvania’s PENNVEST (State Revolving Fund program) which offers grants/forgivable loans for communities meeting income criteria, EPA’s Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) grants, and specialized federal programs for rural utilities.

• USDA Rural Development funds: USDA offers water and waste disposal loans and grants for rural communities. Lima confirmed it met the rural population size criteria, so USDA funding was on the table.

• American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds: ARPA, the pandemic-era federal program, had allocated $350 billionto state and local governments, with water infrastructure explicitly an eligible use. Lima learned that their county had ARPA grant dollars available for water projects, which they could apply for at the county level.

• State Energy Efficiency Grants: Because the project promised significant energy savings (replacing inefficient 35-year-old motors and pumps), Lima explored state-level grants for energy efficiency upgrades. Many states set aside funds for “green” projects or have energy offices that co-fund efficiency improvements in public facilities.

• Regional Partnerships: They even discussed regional solutions – e.g. could a neighboring utility partner on a joint project and share grant resources? In Lima’s case, regional consolidation wasn’t feasible, but simply asking opened dialogue with neighbors and state officials about potential funding.

This exhaustive search revealed several opportunities that hadn’t been on Lima’s radar before. Notably, the state’s SRF program (PENNVEST) had a “Small System Disadvantaged Community” designation that Lima qualified for due to its size and income levels – unlocking a potential for principal forgiveness (grant) on a portion of the loan. In fact, the current federal infrastructure funding environment strongly favors projects just like Lima’s: under the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, EPA is channeling more than $50 billion into water infrastructure, and 49% of those funds must be offered as grants or forgivable loans to disadvantaged communities. (The definition of “disadvantaged” is set by each state, often based on income and affordability metrics.) EPA officials have emphasized the goal of directing funds to small, underserved systems — keeping “equity and affordability in mind… in particular, getting the funding for projects in small and rural communities that have not accessed this funding in the past,” as Karen Dettmer, EPA’s water infrastructure lead, put it. [11]

However, identifying programs was only half the battle; accessing those dollars is notoriously challenging for small utilities. Application processes are complex and competitive. Lima understood it needed to overcome this hurdle. Here, they took inspiration from peers and experts: persistence and thoroughness would be key. As one industry expert noted, the funding applications for a village of 1,000 look much like those for a city of 500,000 – “it is extremely extensive… It takes… months to get it together”. In other words, small utilities face a paperwork and bandwidth burden that can be overwhelming. Many don’t even try to apply without outside help; as a recent analysis bluntly stated, if a town “can’t afford to upgrade and maintain… with the money they have, do you think they have money left over to hire somebody to put together this application? They don’t”. Lima’s leadership was determined to not let those obstacles stop them. They committed upfront to devoting the needed time (and if necessary, funds for outside assistance) to pursue every viable funding source rather than assume it was out of reach.This proactive, wide-net approach set the stage for an innovative funding package that combined multiple sources – something small utilities must often do to succeed. [14]

(Lesson: Diversify the funding stack – don’t rely on one source. Even small projects can be pieced together from several programs, especially with new federal funds flowing. Many states encourage communities to layer grants and loans from SRFs, USDA, ARPA, etc. to fully fund a project.)

3. Leverage External Support – No One Goes It Alone

Recognizing their internal limitations, Lima reached outward for help. They tapped into every technical assistance resource they could find:

• State Rural Water Association: Lima contacted the Pennsylvania Rural Water Association (PRWA), a nonprofit that supports small systems (often via federally funded circuit rider programs). PRWA advisors helped review Lima’s plans, provided template documents, and even coached the operators on necessary steps. Such organizations can be a lifeline – small systems can access free expert assistance from programs like PRWA or RCAP (Rural Community Assistance Partnership), funded by EPA, to diagnose problems and secure funding. [9]

• EPA Engineering Assistance: Through an EPA initiative (sometimes referred to as WaterTA Engineering Support), Lima obtained direct help with engineering and planning tasks. In fact, EPA’s technical assistance programs can provide communities with engineering expertise needed to develop funding applications and preliminary designs. In Lima’s case, they received an EPA technical assistance grant valued at $225,000 that funded an outside engineering consultant to complete environmental reports, preliminary engineering, and the SRF loan application package. This dramatically improved the quality of their submissions.[8]

• Local University Partnership: Lima formed a relationship with a nearby university’s environmental engineering department. A team of graduate students (under faculty supervision) assisted with data analysis and compiling benefit-cost information for the project. This was mutually beneficial – the students gained real-world experience, and Lima gained extra hands for research at no cost. Letters of support from academics also bolstered Lima’s grant applications.

By leveraging these external supports, Lima effectively augmented its tiny staff with a network of experts. What they lacked internally in specialized knowledge or free time, they compensated for by asking for help – and it paid off. Most funding agencies encouraged this; for example, states often have circuit riders or technical staff precisely to help small utilities get projects “shovel-ready.” (It’s noteworthy that the EPA has been expanding technical capacity programs – adding new technical assistance positions and funding providers – precisely so that small/rural communities can capitalize on the surge of infrastructure funding.) Lima’s experience underlines that vendors, consultants, and assistance providers are eager to help small systems succeed. For a vendor or solution provider working with a utility like Lima, being able to point them toward grants or offering help with grant writing can be a huge value proposition. [12]

(Lesson: Build relationships and ask for help – small utilities shouldn’t try to do it all alone. Engaging state programs, rural water associations, and technical assistance providers early can significantly improve project outcomes. Vendors who facilitate these connections or provide grant support services differentiate themselves in the small-utility market.)

4. Design for Success – Aligning the Project with Funding Priorities

With data in hand and potential funding sources identified, Lima next ensured the project itself was scoped and designed to maximize success. They worked with their consulting engineer (partly funded through the assistance grant) to refine the project plan in ways that met multiple objectives:

• Pilot Testing Innovative Technology: Rather than simply replacing the old filters with identical models, Lima piloted a newer filtration technology (with vendor support). A temporary pilot unit was operated for a few weeks to verify performance on Lima’s water. This demonstrated Lima’s commitment to innovation and due diligence – a plus in many grant evaluations. It also gave confidence that the chosen solution would deliver the promised water quality improvements.

• Modular and Phased Implementation: The design was broken into modular components that could be built in phases. This was strategic: if full funding didn’t come at once, the project could be constructed in stages as money became available. Phasing also meant the plant could continue operating during construction by taking one filter offline at a time. Designing modularity and resilience into the plan made the project more attractive to funders, who often worry about construction risks in small communities.

• Energy Efficiency and “Green” Features: The upgrade incorporated high-efficiency pumps, motors, and process controls. As a result, the finished project was calculated to cut energy use by ~28% for the filtration process (compared to the baseline). This had two big benefits: (1) it directly lowers operating costs – a roughly $42,000 per year savings in electricity and reduced maintenance, equivalent to about 5% of Lima’s annual budget, and (2) it qualified the project for “Green Project Reserve” incentives. In many infrastructure funding programs, projects that achieve certain energy or water efficiency goals get bonus points or dedicated grant money. (For instance, the Drinking Water SRF program categorically treats projects with ≥20% energy savings as eligible for green infrastructure grants.) Lima’s 28% efficiency improvement comfortably cleared that threshold, strengthening their case for any green reserve funds. In short, by aligning the project with environmental sustainability goals, Lima made itself eligible for additional funding pots earmarked for green infrastructure. [8]

• Future Capacity and Regulatory Compliance: The design was right-sized for future growth and stricter standards. The new filters and supporting equipment were sized to meet projected water demand through 2045 (with an allowance for a modest population increase). They also improve treatment performance (finished water turbidity is now <0.1 NTU, well above regulatory requirements for drinking water clarity). By showing that the project would ensure long-term compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act and improve public health protection, Lima scored points on funding applications that prioritize health outcomes and sustainability. Essentially, the project wasn’t just fixing a problem for today—it was investing in the community’s water security for the next 20+ years. [13]

All these design elements served a larger strategy: make the project as fundable as possible. By addressing multiple policy priorities (energy efficiency, resiliency, compliance, asset management), Lima could check many boxes in grant and loan criteria. This multi-benefit approach made it easier for funders to say “yes.” A small utility project that only solves one narrow issue might struggle to compete for limited dollars, but one that delivers economic, environmental, and public health benefits stands out. Lima’s consultant and board explicitly mapped out each funding program’s priorities and tailored the project narrative to highlight the relevant benefits. For example, when applying to the state energy office grant, they highlighted the 28% energy reduction; for the SRF loan, they emphasized improved compliance and asset longevity; for ARPA funds, they stressed economic recovery and community well-being. This targeted messaging, backed by solid data, significantly improved Lima’s chances. It’s a savvy approach that solution providers should note: design projects not just for engineering performance, but for funding appeal.

5. Assemble a Strategic Funding Stack – The $4.2M Package

With a fundable project and multiple applications in motion, Lima didn’t end up getting a single “silver bullet” grant for the full amount. Instead, they secured several complementary awards that, when stacked together, met the $4.2 million need. The final funding package looked like this (Table 1):

Table 1: Lima’s Infrastructure Funding Breakdown (Grants vs. Loan)

Total external funding: ~$4.2 million (approximately 65% in non-repayable support and 35% in low-interest loan).

As shown, the lion’s share of funding came through PENNVEST, Pennsylvania’s SRF program, which provided a $2.8M financing package. Crucially, about 51% of that loan ($1.428M) was forgiven as Lima qualified as a disadvantaged small community. Essentially, this portion is a grant. The remainder ($1.372M) is a 30-year loan at an interest rate around 1%. Such generosity was possible in part due to the influx of federal dollars: the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and other initiatives have enabled state SRFs to offer unprecedented levels of principal forgiveness (the law requires ~49% of SRF capitalization grants be used for disadvantaged community subsidies). Lima hit the metrics for income and size that PENNVEST defines for maximum subsidy, and they capitalized on it.

Next, Lima received an $850,000 ARPA grant from the county. This was a direct injection of federal COVID-recovery funds that the county had set aside for infrastructure. Lima’s thorough documentation and shovel-ready project helped convince county officials to allocate a portion to this project – highlighting again the importance of timing and preparation.

Additionally, a $320,000 state energy grant was awarded to cover the cost of the new high-efficiency motors and control system. This came from a state clean energy program targeting municipal facilities. By structuring part of the project as an energy upgrade, Lima tapped a funding source that water utilities often overlook.

Finally, the EPA technical assistance grant of $225,000 (mentioned earlier) essentially covered engineering and planning costs that Lima would have otherwise had to pay out of pocket. While not cash toward construction, it meant Lima did not need to draw from its own scarce reserves for those necessary services. In effect, this freed up local funds to put toward the construction as match.

When all pieces were combined, Lima had the resources to fully fund the filtration plant replacement with minimal impact on ratepayers. Originally, if Lima had to borrow the entire $4.2M at low interest, they calculated it would necessitate roughly a 35% rate increase to cover new debt service. Thanks to the grants and forgiveness, the actual rate increase was only 12%. In practical terms, the average household’s water bill rose by about $9 a month instead of an estimated $25–$30. This difference is enormous for affordability. (For comparison, another rural system in Kentucky recently imposed a 24% increase and still struggles; community advocates there call it “a huge burden on our poorest people”.) Lima’s outcome shows that securing outside funding isn’t just a finance win – it directly protects residents from rate shocks and allows improvements that would otherwise be politically or economically impossible. In Lima’s case, the project proceeded with broad public support, precisely because the community saw that every dollar of outside funding was one less dollar coming from their pockets.

From a vendor or contractor’s perspective, the assembled funding stack also meant the project could move forward at full scope. Often, small utilities have to cut project scope or quality to fit what they can afford; here, Lima was able to implement the optimal engineering solution (with energy efficiencies and all) because the money was available. It’s a great example of how creative financing can lead to better technical outcomes.

(Lesson: Strategic funding stacks pay off – by combining multiple funding sources, Lima achieved over 65% grant funding. Small utilities should pursue every grant and forgiveness opportunity; while no single program may cover everything, the puzzle pieces can fit together. This reduces loan burdens and rate impacts dramatically. Vendors working with small systems can add value by helping identify such funding mixes, ensuring projects are financially viable and attractive to approve.)

The Results and Impact

By mid-2025, construction on Lima’s new filtration system was underway. The successful funding and execution of the project has yielded several tangible outcomes:

• Safe, Reliable Water: The new pressure filters and controls ensure Lima consistently produces high-quality water. Finished water turbidity is now measured below 0.1 NTU (versus occasional spikes toward the old 0.3 NTU limit). This provides an extra layer of safety and compliance margin. The community’s risk of boil alerts or regulatory violations due to filter breakthrough is effectively eliminated.

• Financial Sustainability: The dreaded large rate hike was avoided. Instead of a 30–35% increase, Lima implemented a modest 12% rate increase. For context, that keeps the typical household water cost around ~2.3% of local median income – still within a manageable range. The utility’s debt from the project is minimal and easily covered by current revenues. In addition, the operational cost savings are substantial: approximately $42,000 less in annual O&M costs, thanks to lower energy consumption and reduced emergency repairs. Those savings will be redirected to rebuilding Lima’s reserve fund for future needs. (Only a minority of small utilities in the U.S. can cover even basic costs long-term – Lima has put itself in that stable category with this project.)

• Energy Efficiency Gains: The plant’s energy usage per million gallons treated has dropped significantly (28% improvement). Not only does this save money, it also reduces the carbon footprint of operations. Lima’s project contributed to state energy conservation goals, and the utility plans to track and report these savings. It stands as a demonstration that aging infrastructure replacement can yield major efficiency dividends – an angle that Lima used to good effect in marketing the project to funders.

• Capacity for Growth and Economic Development: With the new infrastructure, Lima can support its community’s growth through at least 2045. The system capacity increased modestly and now has ample redundancy. This means the authority can safely add new customers (e.g. if a new housing development or industry comes to town) without immediate further upgrades. The local economic development agency is already referencing the upgraded water system as an asset in attracting business. This broader community benefit – enabling growth – is an often overlooked outcome of infrastructure investment.

• Knowledge and Confidence: Perhaps one of the less tangible but important results is the know-how Lima’s team gained. Navigating the funding maze and managing a complex project has built local capacity. Lima’s staff and board now have experience with grant applications, loan processes, and project management. They are documenting lessons learned and even mentoring a neighboring small water system on how to approach a similar challenge. The confidence that “we can do this” is invaluable; Lima is much better positioned to tackle the next infrastructure issue that comes along.

• Minimal Disruption: By phasing construction and using the modular design, Lima kept the water plant running throughout the upgrade with no service interruptions to customers. The project was delivered on schedule and is expected to be fully online by late 2025. Early results are positive, and the community’s feedback has been enthusiastic, knowing their water supply is secured for decades.

In summary, Lima’s once-daunting infrastructure crisis has been transformed into a success story. A small, resource-constrained utility accomplished a complex upgrade that many thought impossible without burdening its community. The keys were strategic planning, extensive use of external support and funding, and a relentless focus on the big-picture goals of reliability, efficiency, and affordability.

Key Lessons for Small Utilities (and Their Partners)

Lima’s journey highlights several lessons that apply to small municipal utilities everywhere, as well as the vendors, engineers, and solution providers who work with them:

1. Data Wins Funding: Investing in solid documentation of the problem (before seeking funding) is critical. Small utilities should gather hard data – condition assessments, operational metrics, financial analyses – to quantify their needs. This turns funding requests into evidence-based proposals rather than pleas. In Lima’s case, $28k spent on an assessment unlocked millions in funding. It’s a reminder that what gets measured gets money. As a utility manager might say, with good data in hand, “we’re presenting evidence, not just an argument.”

2. Design for Multiple Goals: Craft projects that check multiple boxes (rehabilitate aging assets, save energy, improve compliance, build resilience, etc.). A project aligned with state and federal priorities (e.g. reducing energy use or removing health hazards) will score higher for grants. In technical terms, incorporate features like energy-efficient equipment or adaptability to climate change – not only are these smart improvements, but they also open the door to specialized funding streams (such as green infrastructure grants or climate resilience funds).

3. Diversify the Funding Stack: Don’t expect a single source to foot the bill. Pursue a mix of loans, grants, and contributions. Each program has its strengths and limitations; by combining them, a utility can cover gaps. Lima blended state, federal, and local funds masterfully. This approach also spreads stakeholder buy-in – multiple agencies had a hand in the project, which can build momentum. Vendors and consultants can assist by knowing the landscape of funding and guiding clients to various opportunities (e.g. EPA SRF, USDA, CDBG, state grants, private foundation grants, etc.).

4. Leverage Partnerships and Expertise: Small utilities should proactively seek help from technical assistance providers, state agencies, neighboring utilities, and even universities. Free or low-cost expertise is out there – from Rural Water Association circuit riders to EPA-funded programs to online resource clearinghouses. Bringing in expert help early can dramatically improve a project’s viability. For example, getting an expert grant writer’s input or an engineer’s pro bono review can make the difference in a successful application. Solution providers who facilitate these partnerships add value beyond their product or service. Remember: a town doesn’t take care of itself – building a support network is part of the job.

5. Stay Persistent and Flexible: Funding journeys can be long (Lima’s took 18 months of effort) and often require persistence. Setbacks are normal – an application might be denied on the first try, or new requirements might pop up. Lima stayed the course, retooling applications and patiently awaiting decisions while keeping the urgency in focus. They were also willing to adjust project scope and timelines to fit funding realities (e.g. phasing construction when full funds weren’t available upfront). This persistence paid off. The lesson is to never give up early – many small communities fail to secure funding simply because they don’t follow through or adapt to feedback. In Lima’s case, tenacity and the willingness to “learn the system” were as important as the project itself.

Implementation and Outlook

Lima Municipal Water’s success is not just a one-off story but a template that other small utilities can emulate. As of spring 2025, Lima broke ground on the new filtration system. The implementation phase has been smooth, thanks to all the upfront planning. The project features cutting-edge yet appropriate technology: automated controls for remote monitoring, an energy recovery system to capture pressure and reduce pumping costs, and modular filter units that can be maintained one at a time – all tailored to a small utility’s capacity.

The utility has also adopted a formal Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the first time. This plan lays out the next 10 years of priority projects and will be updated regularly. By doing so, Lima joins a growing trend of small systems embracing asset management to avoid falling behind in maintenance (nearly one-third of U.S. water utilities now have a robust asset management plan in place, up from just 20% in 2016). This proactive mindset will help Lima anticipate issues before they become crises. It also positions them better for future funding, since many agencies now ask for asset management or long-term plans as part of grant criteria.

From a wider industry perspective, Lima’s story resonates at a crucial time. With historic federal investment flowing, there is an unprecedented opportunity to fix and upgrade America’s small-town water infrastructure. But success will depend on local leaders and their partners being prepared to seize the opportunity, as Lima did. The case underscores that even the smallest utilities can achieve big improvements when they think strategically and utilize all available support.

For vendors and solution providers, the implication is clear: helping clients navigate financing and planning hurdles can be as important as the technical solution being offered. Those who assist in structuring projects to be “fundable” – perhaps by providing data on cost savings, connecting utilities with grant programs, or designing projects in scalable phases – will find receptive partners in the small utility sector. In Lima’s project, the technology (new filters) was only one piece of the puzzle; without the right funding strategy, the best technology would never have been implemented. Vendors who appreciate this reality can tailor their approach to ensure their solutions are paired with a viable funding plan, thus accelerating project adoption.

In conclusion, Lima Municipal Water’s journey from crisis to success illustrates that small utilities, despite limited resources, can tackle major infrastructure upgrades by being smart, tenacious, and collaborative. The $4.2M funding victory was not an accident – it was the product of careful data gathering, broad exploration of options, leveraging of external expertise, innovative project design, and assembling a creative financing package. Each of these steps was necessary; together, they turned a dire situation into a model outcome. For communities facing similar challenges, Lima offers a hopeful message: with the right game plan, “small utility” doesn’t have to mean small ambitions.

References:

1. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2021 Infrastructure Report Card – Drinking Water. ASCE Report Card, pp. 34–39 (statistics on number of small water systems and populations served).

2. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2021 Infrastructure Report Card – Drinking Water. ASCE Report Card, pp. 40–41 (percentage of utilities able to cover costs; small vs large system financial capacity).

3. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2021 Infrastructure Report Card – Drinking Water. ASCE Report Card, pp. 40–41 (EPA affordability standard of 2% MHI for water; percentage of households facing affordability issues by 2024).

4. Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA). Small and Disadvantaged Water System Funding and Assistance (White Paper, Aug 2022), p. 4(small systems often do not apply for funding without no-cost technical assistance).

5. Governing Magazine – J. Simmons. “Billions for Water Infrastructure, but Small Communities Risk Being Left Out to Dry.” (Oct 2022)(quote on extensive effort required for funding applications for small systems).

6. Governing Magazine – J. Simmons. “Billions for Water Infrastructure, but Small Communities Risk Being Left Out to Dry.” (Oct 2022)governing.com (quote on small communities lacking funds to hire grant application expertise).

7. Taylor, J. et al. “Driving Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Water & Wastewater Industry by Focusing on O&M Cost Reductions.” Proceedings of ACEEE Summer Study 2009, pp. 6-30 – 6-31 (energy costs typically 30–40% of a water utility’s operating budget, second only to labor).

8. U.S. EPA – Sustainable Water Infrastructure. “Water Technical Assistance (WaterTA) Engineering Support.”(EPA Fact Sheet, 2023) (EPA’s technical assistance programs provide engineering support to help small communities develop funding applications and plans).

9. Modern Engineering Solutions (Podcast Blog). “Addressing Small System Challenges with Water and Wastewater Experts.” (Interview with S. Wilson, 2023) (small systems can access free assistance from organizations like RCAP, funded by EPA, to identify problems and secure funding).

10. U.S. EPA – Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. “Green Project Reserve – Guidance and Q&A.” (EPA FAQs, 2010)(projects with ≥20% energy efficiency savings qualify as “categorically green” for SRF funding purposes).

11. Vinyl Institute – S. Wade. “How the EPA is Implementing $50 Billion in Water Infrastructure Improvements.”(Aug 2022) (49% of Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s EPA water funds must be distributed as grants or forgivable loans to disadvantaged communities).

12. Vinyl Institute – S. Wade. “How the EPA is Implementing $50 Billion in Water Infrastructure Improvements.”(Aug 2022)(EPA official Dettmer emphasizes focus on funding small, rural, and disadvantaged communities that lacked access to funds in the past).

13. In-Situ Inc. “Typical Turbidity Values and Drinking Water Standards.” (Water Quality FAQ, updated Nov 2024) (EPA standard for turbidity in treated drinking water: <0.3 NTU in 95% of samples, never above 1 NTU).

14. Governing Magazine – J. Simmons. “Billions for Water Infrastructure, but Small Communities Risk Being Left Out to Dry.” (Oct 2022)(example of a rural community implementing a 24% rate increase and the burden on low-income residents).

15. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2021 Infrastructure Report Card – Drinking Water. ASCE Report Card, pp. 42 (increase in asset management plan adoption: nearly one-third of utilities have robust asset management programs, up from 20% in 2016).