ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAABACADAEAFAGAHAIAJAK
1
Timestamp1. Select the state where you primarily conduct your SRF advocacy work.2. What type of organization do you represent?3. Please provide the name and email of the primary SRF program contact in your organization.4. If you submitted IUP comments this year please upload a PDF version here.
Use the following naming convention for your file:
"[Fiscal Year of IUP][CW or DW][State]_[Organization]"		6. If applicable, please list the primary organizations in your SRF advocacy coalition. 7. Please indicate which issues are included in your policy asks or recommendations to SRF administrators. (Select all that apply)8. Please list any SRF policy or programmatic wins your organization or SRF advocacy coalition achieved in the past year.9. How significant are the following barriers to your SRF advocacy efforts? [Lack of transparency in IUP narratives, financial reporting, and project priority lists]9. How significant are the following barriers to your SRF advocacy efforts? [Small window for public comments]9. How significant are the following barriers to your SRF advocacy efforts? [Unresponsive SRF administrators]9. How significant are the following barriers to your SRF advocacy efforts? [Difficulty understanding the IUP and/or project priority list]9. How significant are the following barriers to your SRF advocacy efforts? [Multiple documents and updates are published at scattered times or locations, making it hard to know if the information is complete or current]10. How effective have the following strategies improved the equity, transparency, and accessibility of SRF programs and policies in your state? [Regular follow-up through meetings with SRF administrators]10. How effective have the following strategies improved the equity, transparency, and accessibility of SRF programs and policies in your state? [Partnering with other organizations]10. How effective have the following strategies improved the equity, transparency, and accessibility of SRF programs and policies in your state? [Submitting formal comments on Draft IUPs]10. How effective have the following strategies improved the equity, transparency, and accessibility of SRF programs and policies in your state? [Writing to SRF administrators outside of IUP comment periods]10. How effective have the following strategies improved the equity, transparency, and accessibility of SRF programs and policies in your state? [Regular meetings with utilities/municipal staff]10. How effective have the following strategies improved the equity, transparency, and accessibility of SRF programs and policies in your state? [Providing oral testimony on a specific topic (outside of IUP hearings)]10. How effective have the following strategies improved the equity, transparency, and accessibility of SRF programs and policies in your state? [Attending a public hearing on IUP comments]10. How effective have the following strategies improved the equity, transparency, and accessibility of SRF programs and policies in your state? [Speaking at a public hearing on the Draft or Final IUP]10. How effective have the following strategies improved the equity, transparency, and accessibility of SRF programs and policies in your state? [Meeting with SRF administrators only once during the year]11. Has engaging with the SRF Forum resources and members increased your confidence in advocating for SRF policy improvements with SRF administrators?12. To what extent has your participation in or use of materials from the SRF Forum helped you feel more connected with your advocate peers?13. To what extent has the Forum contributed to your SRF policy or program successes?14. How helpful has the SRF Advocates Forum been in supporting your advocacy efforts overall?15. What are your next steps or goals in SRF advocacy, particularly around engagement efforts or policy recommendations?16. Please include other details not captured in your previous responses. 9. How significant are the following barriers to your SRF advocacy efforts? [Challenging relationship with SRF administrators]11. How significant are the following barriers to your SRF advocacy efforts? [N/A]5. Please share the Google links below if you submitted additional IUP comments, letters, or other related materials.
2
9/21/2025 13:41:58TexasCommunity Based OrganizationUsman Mahmood, usman@bayoucitywaterkeeper.orghttps://drive.google.com/open?id=11DZ0s35WCCUH-oSAaFmh5jxuIYbw_g6IBayou City Waterkeeper, Coalition for the Environment, Equity, and Resilience, West Street Recovery, and Rio Grande International Study CenterImproving accessibility and transparency of Intended Use Plans (IUPs), Making project priority lists and intended funding lists more detailed and readable, Prioritizing state-defined Disadvantaged Communities (DACs), Improving financing options (interest rates, loan terms, etc) and other terms of assistance (e.g., principal forgiveness), Increasing provision of technical assistance, Maximizing utilization of set-asides, Strengthening Green Infrastructure programsProgrammatic wins: increased application points for DACs, increased PF allocations for DAC categories. Administrative win: extended public comment period from 18 days to 30 days.Very significantVery significantNot significantSomewhat significantSomewhat significantSome EffectiveSome EffectiveSome EffectiveSome EffectiveVery EffectiveSome EffectiveSome EffectiveSome EffectiveSome EffectiveYes, somewhatQuite a bitA great dealModerately helpfulWe plan to continue engaging with TWDB staff to advocate for our recommendations beyond the IUP comment period, and continue developing our relationship with our main Houston utility/department that submits SRF applications to ensure our efforts for accessibility and equity can be pushed at various levels. We also plan to engage soon with the Region 6 EPA office with other Region 6 Southern SRF cohort members to discuss our advocacy and how the program can improve for Southern states.Not significant
3
9/26/2025 11:06:28MississippiCommunity Based OrganizationRomona Williams. romona.williams@mcup.orghttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1SOblJp6Squqo5pGQaQclmmPK1Ndmu7O4MCUP and EPICImproving financing options (interest rates, loan terms, etc) and other terms of assistance (e.g., principal forgiveness), Increasing provision of technical assistance, Maximizing utilization of set-asides, Strengthening new LSLR programsThis is the first time we have submitted IUP comments, and the first time MS has received comments on their IUP, which caught their attention. This will hopefully lead to us building a relationship with the SRF agency. Very significantNot significantN/ANot significantNot significantN/AN/AN/AN/AVery EffectiveN/AN/AN/AN/ANot applicable / I have not engaged enough with Forum resources or membersNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableWe are building our coalition and will continue to use EPIC's insight to inform our future conversations with SRF administrators. With EPIC's help we would like to gain a better understanding the SRF program in MS. N/Ahttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1EMkWPZ5G-40JsqdDlizTx9LOmZgYXqoXuRXPuMFIeCs/edit?tab=t.0
4
9/26/2025 13:14:09AlabamaState-based non-profitV Miller (vmiller@alabamarivers.org)https://drive.google.com/open?id=13RgsOYn-BeOaeh2LN0oxd30HmzQDrrPGSigned on to this letter is: Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Blackbelt Women Rising, Cahaba Riverkeeper Inc, Friends of the Alabama River, Southern Poverty Law Center Alabama State Office, Voters Legal Justice Watch Group

Other organizations active in SRF advocacy: Water Finance Exchange, Southern Environmental Law Center, Cahaba River Society (now Cahaba River Coalition), few others and academics upon request		Improving accessibility and transparency of Intended Use Plans (IUPs), Making project priority lists and intended funding lists more detailed and readable, Prioritizing state-defined Disadvantaged Communities (DACs), Improving financing options (interest rates, loan terms, etc) and other terms of assistance (e.g., principal forgiveness), Increasing provision of technical assistance, Maximizing utilization of set-asides, Strengthening Green Infrastructure programsMaintained quarterly meetings to discuss SRF process with state administrators in 2025Very significantVery significantVery significantSomewhat significantVery significantSome EffectiveVery EffectiveSome EffectiveSome EffectiveVery EffectiveSome EffectiveN/AN/AN/AYes, significantlyQuite a bitSomewhatVery helpfulFigure out how we continue to advocate for long-standing needs and folks in the margins (septic and private well users) as the budget gets tight again post BIL and ARPA. Trying to advocate for more state level budgetary contributions to water infrastructure, particularly for unincorporated and decentralized communities. We might see a few water infrastructure related bills come up next session, some we would want to support. Very significant
5
9/29/2025 13:51:33TennesseeCommunity Based OrganizationMarie Campbell, mariecampbell@harpethriver.orghttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1zWdTJhNK24K-MuOUR5-4yDUGxwxVKDI7Harpeth Conservancy, Protect Our Aquifer, Young Gifted and Green, Native American Indian Association of TNImproving accessibility and transparency of Intended Use Plans (IUPs), Making project priority lists and intended funding lists more detailed and readable, Prioritizing state-defined Disadvantaged Communities (DACs), Improving financing options (interest rates, loan terms, etc) and other terms of assistance (e.g., principal forgiveness), Strengthening new LSLR programs, Strengthening Emerging Contaminant programsTBD!N/ASomewhat significantSomewhat significantNot significantNot significantVery EffectiveVery EffectiveSome EffectiveVery EffectiveN/AN/ASome EffectiveN/ANot EffectiveYes, significantlyA great dealA great dealExtremely helpfulOur next steps include continued advocacy, specifically around Emerging Contaminants and LSLR. We're currently mapping known LSLs and PFAS contamination along with ATPI scores to determine how to prioritize outreach with small and disadvantaged water systems - utilities and community members - to build support for a robust SRF funding pipeline for LSLR projects and PFAS projects before BIL funds are gone after next year.We're continuing regular meetings with TDEC's SRF administrators and encouraging inter-departmental communication within TDEC for improved outcomes. Ex. TDEC's water division is conducting research on LSLs and PFAS contamination but is not working with SRF staff to recruit a funding pipeline that can solve known issues. We're building that bridge.Somewhat significanthttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1EMvCH44Qa7u9Xqb5dJX-aq4F2qST8iGN/view?usp=drive_link
6
9/30/2025 6:29:39LouisianaNational non-profitKennedy Moore, kennedy@nolawater.orghttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1xFNhiWy2RazP5VhgtzCONznJ3sZsh4VaThe Water Collaborative, Alliance for Affordable Energy, FISH, United Houma NationImproving accessibility and transparency of Intended Use Plans (IUPs), Making project priority lists and intended funding lists more detailed and readable, Prioritizing state-defined Disadvantaged Communities (DACs), Improving financing options (interest rates, loan terms, etc) and other terms of assistance (e.g., principal forgiveness), Increasing provision of technical assistance, Strengthening Emerging Contaminant programs, Strengthening Green Infrastructure programsPriority points for green projects were implemented into the Louisiana Department of Health's their 2024 DWSRF IUP based on our recommendations.Very significantSomewhat significantNot significantVery significantNot significantVery EffectiveSome EffectiveVery EffectiveVery EffectiveN/ASome EffectiveVery EffectiveVery EffectiveVery EffectiveYes, significantlyA great dealA great dealExtremely helpfulWe will continue to meet as a cohort to plan meetings with our EPA Region 6 coordinators to discuss higher level advocacy efforts.Somewhat significant
7
10/3/2025 14:01:30WisconsinCommunity Based OrganizationJoe Fitzgerald - jfitzgerald@milwaukeewatercommons.orghttps://drive.google.com/open?id=16FCWD9ZzF03jkleCzpLZNwaUkDeFgxDfMilwaukee Water CommonsImproving accessibility and transparency of Intended Use Plans (IUPs), Prioritizing state-defined Disadvantaged Communities (DACs), Improving financing options (interest rates, loan terms, etc) and other terms of assistance (e.g., principal forgiveness), Increasing provision of technical assistance, Maximizing utilization of set-asides, Strengthening new LSLR programs, Strengthening Green Infrastructure programs, Incorporating a stronger commitment to workforce development as a part of SRF funded projects. Incorporating priority ranking for projects that reduce flooding and build community resilience to climate change. In light of comments made by Milwaukee Water Commons as well as the Cities of Milwaukee and Racine the WDNR made a modification to a proposed two-pass principal forgiveness allocation process that included a significant cap on PF which would disproportionately impact cities like Milwaukee with a large proportion of the states LSLs. In the revised program, allocations on the first pass will now be capped at 25% of the available principal forgiveness unless the applicant’s share of LSLs in the statewide total from inventories submitted to the DNR and approved as of the application deadline is greater than 25%. In that instance, the cap will be equal to that applicant’s percentage of LSLs in the statewide total.
Somewhat significantVery significantN/ASomewhat significantNot significantVery EffectiveVery EffectiveSome EffectiveVery EffectiveVery EffectiveNot EffectiveNot EffectiveSome EffectiveNot EffectiveYes, significantlyA great dealSomewhatModerately helpfulI would be interested to learn if there are advocacy organizations in the network who have been tracking how SRF resources (both SRF dollars and technical assistance resources) are being administered to tribal communities.

Milwaukee Water Commons is also increasingly looking at opportunities for state SRF programs to help foster more access to workforce and contracting opportunities in the Water Sector. EPA adopted a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) rule that’s been in effect since 2008. The rule applies to all CW and DW projects, requiring that applicants utilize "good faith efforts" to attract disadvantaged businesses to compete on SRF funded projects. However, it seems like it is rare that municipalities or states are held accountable to truly ensure that DBE's are participating on SRF projects.

Currently MWC is actively advocating for policy changes that would ensure that dollars leveraged through the CWSRF program can be used by communities to address flooding and resiliency concerns impacting residents during increasingly frequent major storms. 		Though we have seen a lot of progress in Wisconsin, there are a lot of areas of our advocacy where there has not been much action at the state level. Workforce development, procedural justice, and connectivity with technical assistance and resources for tribal communities are areas of MWC's engagement efforts that still demand attention in our state and more generally amongst the national SRF program. N/A
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100