From onsite septic repair to stormwater infrastructure, $183 million is going to more than 100 clean water projects

Ecology’s Water Quality Program is offering more than $183 million in financial assistance for 106 high-priority clean water projects across the state. The funding includes $169 million for 105 new projects and $14 million to fully fund a project from last year’s list. Offers went out to the successful applicants on June 28 and the projects can start as soon as the agreements are finalized.

“Nearly 90 percent of our state’s water quality funding goes to local communities,” said Heather Bartlett, Ecology’s Water Quality Program Manager. “Clean water projects can be in communities big or small and anything from enhancing wastewater treatment systems to designing stormwater gardens to planting trees along rivers.”

Our Water Quality Combined Funding Program supports local communities by helping them upgrade sewage treatment systems, manage polluted stormwater runoff, and complete a variety of other projects to prevent and cleanup pollution. More than $100 million of our combined funding is for new projects that will help support Puget Sound recovery. These projects are a high priority, as they help improve water quality and create a healthy habitat for the endangered Southern Resident Orca, salmon, and the food web they rely on.

Clean water funding comes from a mix of state and federal funds for water quality improvements and protection. State financial managers calculate that 11 direct and indirect jobs are created in Washington for every $1 million spent on building clean water infrastructure.

Our interactive map shows where the projects are located and provides additional details. Below you'll find a few of the project highlights.

Reducing stormwater pollution

The South Fork of the Palouse River will benefit from a new 

stormwater decant facility in Pullman.

Ecology is offering $33 million in grants to 38 communities to implement projects to treat and reduce stormwater pollution. More than $20.5 million of the stormwater grant funding is for Puget Sound recovery projects, as stormwater runoff is a leading pollution threat in urban areas. The highest-priority stormwater projects include:

• The City of Pullman in Whitman County was offered a $525 thousand grant to design and build a new stormwater decant facility. The City’s current facility is undersized and not connected to the City’s sewer system. The new facility will help improve water quality in the South Fork Palouse River, as untreated stormwater has been identified as an important source of pollutants to the river.
• The City of Bremerton in Kitsap County was offered a grant of more than $800 thousand to construct a system to treat runoff from 6.31 acres of urban roads and parking lots and 8.32 acres of other surfaces to improve the water quality of Ostrich Creek. The creek is considered to be the most polluted stream in Kitsap County, with restrictions on contact due to pollution. The project was the highest rated stormwater project among this year’s applications, and it is a high priority in the Puget Sound Action Agenda.
• The City of Tacoma in Pierce County was tagged to receive a $5 million grant and more than $2.7 million in loan to retrofit stormwater treatment on nearly 27 blocks of failed residential roadway in the Larchmont Neighborhood. The project will treat stormwater and reduce stormwater flows from 43 developed acres through infiltration, using permeable pavement and sidewalks. The project will help restore more natural hydrologic conditions to Flett Creek and Chambers Creek.

This planning map shows the blocks in Tacoma's Larchmont 

Neighborhood that will receive stormwater retrofit.

Addressing nonpoint pollution

Nonpoint pollution comes from activities that are usually widespread across an area without a single pollution source. Nonpoint pollution is a serious pollution problem across the state, and one of the most difficult to solve. We are helping to address nonpoint pollution by funding 33 projects with $21.4 million in grants, forgivable loans that do not have to be repaid, and low interest rate loans.

This septic project in Chinook is one of +1,200 projects
Craft3 has financed under the Regional Loan Program to
improve public health and water quality.

• The projects offered funding include an expansion of the highly successful Regional Loan Program for repairing and replacing failing onsite septic systems at homes and small businesses. The program currently includes 15 counties, but with the new funding it is expanding to Pend Orielle, Stevens, Ferry, Skagit, Okanogan, Benton, and Franklin. It is expected that loans will be available in these new areas by September, 2019.

• The Underwood Conservation District in Klickitat County was offered a $250 thousand grant to conduct riparian planting, install cattle exclusion fencing, implement livestock best management practices, monitor water quality, and provide education and technical assistance in the White Salmon River Watershed. The primary areas of focus for the project are streamside agricultural areas in the Trout Lake Valley.
• The Cascadia Conservation District in Chelan County was offered a $245 thousand grant to implement a large-scale riparian restoration plan through a community-wide clean water outreach and education campaign and to provide technical assistance to landowners to take steps to reduce nonpoint source pollution and practice good stewardship. The project is consistent with actions recommended in locally-developed water quality improvement reports and management plans.

Supporting wastewater treatment projects

A leaking, exposed outfall pipe that goes into

Olequa Creek could be replaced with new funding.

Ecology is offering $124 million for 35 wastewater treatment projects. Of this, $110 million is for new projects and $14 million is to fully fund a project from last year’s list. Nine of the projects qualified for hardship financial assistance due to their potential impact on residential sewer bills. These hardship projects may receive a combination of grants, forgivable loans that do not have to be repaid, and low interest rate loans. High priority wastewater hardship projects include:

• Yakima County was offered nearly $1.5 million in grant and $700 thousand in loan to design and construct critical repairs and improvements at the wastewater treatment facility in the community of Buena. The repairs and improvements are necessary to ensure proper treatment of the wastewater discharged from the facility. The project was the highest rated among all projects submitted for funding this year.
• The City of Vader in Lewis County was awarded $4.8 million in grant and loan to protect Olequa Creek by constructing significant improvements to its wastewater treatment facility. The funding for the project is approximately half grant and half loan.

Adequate funding in state budgets for the Centennial Clean Water Program is vital for helping small, financially challenged communities such as these to complete important wastewater projects. The program also provides funding for many nonpoint pollution control projects across the state.

More information

We’re looking forward to seeing these projects take off! In the coming months, we plan to share updates and clean water successes.  If your community is receiving funding for clean water projects and you’d like to share your project’s progress, please let us know by emailing Emma Kluzniok at emma.kluzniok@ecy.wa.gov.

Find out more about the Water Quality Combined Funding Program on our website.

More information on this funding cycle, including a link to the funding offer list and an interactive map of our offered funding for projects can be found on our funding cycles webpage.

A map of recent clean water projects across the state can be found on our Ecology Grants and Loans map.

By Daniel Thompson and Colleen Keltz, Water Quality Program

Puget Sound Nutrient Watch: What we're learning from other states

Nutrient management from coast to coast

Across the country, many states are dealing with similar environmental issues. This month, thanks to funding from the EPA’s National Estuary Program Grant, we invited experts from Long Island Sound, Chesapeake Bay and the San Francisco Bay to speak to the Puget Sound Nutrient Forum and share their work on reducing nutrients in estuaries. Puget Sound is the country’s second largest estuary, an area where saltwater from the ocean meets freshwater from rivers. Our state shares similar challenges as other coastal estuary states.

Many coastal areas need to reduce the amount of nutrients coming into the waterway. Excess nutrients can come from humans and cause low dissolved oxygen conditions, a problem for aquatic species and food webs. Long Island Sound and Chesapeake Bay were experiencing extremely low levels of oxygen, called hypoxia, due to excess nutrients from humans. Through state-run clean-up plans, each state was able to reduce human nutrient sources and improve water quality.  

There’s nothing like a good success story to keep us inspired in our nutrient reduction strategies. Check out some highlights from their work:

Tricks of the trade from Long Island Sound

The Long Island Sound’s largest source of nutrients, according to Rowland Denny of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, was discharges from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Connecticut’s cleanup plan focused solely on reducing nutrients at WWTPs. 

Because treatment technologies can be costly and require long-term planning, Connecticut set out to create a cost-effective plan in the 1990’s to restore a healthy Long Island Sound.  

To start their cleanup plan, Connecticut first established a cleanup goal: reduce nutrients from WWTPs by 58.5%. Their plan has three main elements:

Changes in hypoxia in Long Island Sound from 1994-2018. 

Extreme hypoxia (red) is entirely gone and the Sound 

is much healthier.

• Require equal nutrient reductions at WWTPs: This means all WWTPs in Connecticut were given the same minimum nutrient reduction requirement and were on the same compliance schedule. 
• Give the WWTPs time to transition: Requirements ramped up in three stages: a first reduction goal by 2004, a second reduction by 2009, and finally the total 58.5% reduction by 2014. This gave WWTPs time to make strategic upgrades to their facilities 
• Allow trading: If WWTPs reduce nutrients beyond the requirement, they can sell excess “credits” to WWTPs unable to meet their requirement that year. The state manages the trading program providing a financial incentive to reduce more nutrients than required. It also gives flexibility for WWTPs to buy credits when they have difficulty meeting their requirement. Total nutrients from all WWTPs that enter the Sound must meet the reduction requirement, ensuring the Sound is still healthy even if a few WWTPs don’t meet their exact targets.  

Result: Success! Long Island Sound was able to meet required reductions by the 2014 deadline. The plan was cost-effective and flexible for WWTP treatment upgrades, and 61 facilities upgraded their treatment technologies.

For more info, visit the Long Island Sound Nitrogen Trading Program webpage.

Chesapeake Bay: the grass is greener

Allan Brockenbrough, Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality, speaking at the Puget Sound Nutrient Forum.

To clean up the Chesapeake Bay, Allan Brockenbrough from Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, explained the need to reduce nutrients from all human sources to meet their bay cleanup goals. Allan described Virginia’s nutrient management plan as “everyone doing everything, everywhere.” The most significant source of nutrients to the Bay was WWTPs, but other human sources were also quite high, including agriculture, runoff from urban areas, forestry, and septic systems. 

Similar to the Long Island Sound cleanup, Chesapeake Bay used a nitrogen reduction requirement for WWTPs and allowed trading. They also created technology requirements so that any new facilities or planned upgrades must meet minimum reductions set by the cleanup plan. 

Virginia included reduction for non-point sources, or sources that don’t directly discharge into the Bay. This includes fertilizer run-off from agriculture, stormwater pollution, and failing septic systems. Virginia allowed non-point sources that met nutrient reduction goals to trade with WWTPs. They also did outreach to involve all residents in cleaning up the Bay.

Recovered eelgrass provides habitat for the famous 

Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab.

Result: Success! Chesapeake Bay is on its way to meeting the nutrient reduction goal and you can literally see the improvements. Eelgrass and other aquatic vegetation is recovering and providing habitat for fish and aquatic species. Eelgrass also protects shorelines by lessening wave impact and keeping water clear by rooting down seafloor sediment. 

For more info, visit the Chesapeake Bay water cleanup plan webpage.

San Francisco Bay: Same, same, but different

San Francisco Bay, seen here, is also concerned about 

a growing human population.

Our West Coast estuary neighbor, San Francisco Bay, is planning for future population growth and climate change impacts on their waterways. Nutrient issues have been kept at bay here, due to the strong tides. But, there are concerns about the effects of algal blooms from excess nutrients. 

David Senn, from the San Francisco Estuary Institute, explained that just because excess nutrients aren’t obvious now, it doesn’t mean it won’t be an issue as the human population grows in the surrounding area. That’s why San Francisco wastewater treatment plants and other stakeholders are investing in monitoring and science. 

Puget Sound is also a quickly growing region and is not immune to the impacts of climate change. That’s why we use our sharpest tool in the (water)shed, the Salish Sea Model, to help us understand the impacts of future growth and climate change on the health of Puget Sound. You can explore our recent modeling results evaluating nutrient reductions in Puget Sound on our Salish Sea Model webmap. 

Sharing is Caring

We plan to stay connected with other nutrient management plans around the U.S., because we all benefit from each other’s successes and lessons learned. Managing excess nutrients is a global issue, especially in coastal estuaries near growing populations. 

If you’re interested in what’s being done to reduce nutrients in Puget Sound, please visit our project page for resources and to sign up for email updates. All Forum meetings are open to the public. 

Funding for guest speakers’ travel to the Puget Sound Forum was provided by the EPA’s National Estuary Program. 

By: Kelly Ferron, Water Quality Program