The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy held a webinar to solicit stakeholder suggestions on updating the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) scoring criteria that will apply to fiscal year 2027 projects. Dean Beauchamp, section manager for the Water Infrastructure Funding and Financing Section at EGLE, led the presentation and said the agency is taking early input so it can “get suggestions and comments early on” before issuing a draft.

The discussion matters because the scoring criteria determine how projects are ranked for loans, principal forgiveness and grants from the DWSRF. Beauchamp noted that a 2022 change to SRF legislation permits the department to revise scoring and the disadvantaged definition no more than every three years; he cited Part 54 as requiring DWSRF scoring to address specified categories. EGLE said the scoring framework adopted in 2023 has governed fiscal years 2024–26 and will remain in effect for projects that submitted planning documents by June 1 for fiscal year 2026.

Under the existing criteria EGLE reviewed on the webinar, projects are scored across five statutory categories with a total of 100 possible points: regulatory compliance (25 points), public-health protection (20 points), drinking-water quality/standards (15 points), improving infrastructure (15 points), and affordability/overburdened status (25 points). Subcategory examples and point values cited by Beauchamp include 50 points for upgrades that improve or maintain compliance with drinking-water standards (within the regulatory compliance subcriteria), 15–20 points for actions tied to public-health protections such as lead service line replacement or addressing acute MCL violations, and 20–25 points for systems designated as overburdened or significantly overburdened.

EGLE staff outlined the planned schedule: staff will accept written suggestions immediately, post draft scoring criteria on the agency SRF website (EGLE) in August, hold a public hearing in September to take formal comment, and publish final scoring criteria in October in advance of the department’s November 1 intended‑to‑apply (ITA) deadline. Beauchamp said the department intends the timeline so applicants can use the finalized criteria when deciding whether to submit planning documents by the June 1 project-planning deadline for the next fiscal cycle.

During the Q&A, commenters raised several substantive points EGLE said it will consider. Jacqueline (no last name provided), who identified herself as representing the Village of Marcellus, asked that EGLE award more points to systems with a “history of proactive public health protection” (systems without violations) and to clarify how source-water protection and wellhead protection plans are scored. Jacqueline said her community has elevated arsenic in raw groundwater and requested more credit for proactive treatment upgrades rather than incentivizing projects that only score because they have violations.

Another participant, identified only as Brian (no last name provided), asked whether EGLE had considered segregating funding so overburdened and significantly overburdened communities do not directly compete with non‑overburdened applicants. Beauchamp responded that existing SRF legislation requires projects be scored and ranked together, but that EGLE has in past cycles used other funding (for example, American Rescue Plan Act allocations and principal‑forgiveness under Infrastructure Law) to increase grant support for disadvantaged systems and has been communicating early with communities about their intent to proceed if grant levels change.

EGLE staff also said they are reviewing tie‑breaking rules: the current tie-breaker is lowest cost per capita, and staff said they are “looking to potentially change that” for fiscal year 2027. Staff encouraged applicants with questions about fiscal‑year‑2026 draft scores to work with their district engineer; EGLE will circulate draft scores to applicants after scoring is complete and said communities can dispute draft scores through their district engineer.

The webinar drew about 54 registered attendees. Lance Wood, an SRF project manager in EGLE’s Kalamazoo district, and Jim Ostrovsky from EGLE’s Environmental Support Division were among staff monitoring the session. Participants were reminded to submit written comments to EGLE’s WIFs inbox at egla-wiffs@michigan.gov (email address posted in chat) and to sign up for the agency’s GovDelivery email list for notices on the draft criteria and public hearing.

EGLE also noted funding context that will shape scoring and grants: the agency used American Rescue Plan funds heavily in prior years to increase grant levels for disadvantaged systems and continues to deploy federal Infrastructure Law funds that include higher levels of principal forgiveness. Beauchamp said EGLE will consider those funding streams while refining scoring, and will review public suggestions — including expanding preference points for joint clean-water and drinking-water projects to promote “dig‑once” efficiencies — before issuing the draft in August.

The department emphasized that the current scoring criteria (adopted in 2023) remain in effect for projects already in the FY24–26 pipeline, and that any changes discussed at the webinar would apply starting with projects for fiscal year 2027.