United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Drinking Water April 1991
Washington. DC 20460
Meeting the Challenge
An Update on ODWs Mobilization Effort
Focus on Small System Viability
Much of this issue of Meeting the
Challenge is devoted to describing how
States, US. EPA and outside organiza-
tions are working together to ensure the
long-tram viability of both new and
existing small drinking water systems.
Nationally, small systems (those regu-
larly serving between 25 and 3300 per-
sons) represent 88 percent of all public
water systems. They account for over
92 percent of the violations of current
drinking water standards.
Training and technical assistance
will be enough to help many of these
small systems. However, for some small
systems there is the broader issue of
viability. Does the system have the ca-
pacity to be helped? There is a pressing
need for State drinking water programs
to ensure the long-term managerial, fi-
nancial and technical viability of small
water systems.
State viability programs differ in
detail, but (hey all share the same objec-
tive: to address the problems and needs
of existing small systems and to control
the proliferation of new small systems.
Several States already have effective
viability programs in place.
Permitting requirements can be
used to ensure the financial, managerial
and technical qualifications for new
small systems, boot at their creation and
in the future. These requirements can
also be adapted to determine if existing
systems are viable.
Many States recognize area-wide
planning as a means of addressing cur-
rent and future problems. For potential
new systems, planning identifies all
water systems in a given service area
and determines how best to coordinate
future development. For existing sys-
tems with problems.area-wideplanning
determines whether a system should
remain independent, or whether con-
solidation or satellite management is a
better course of action.
What have States already done to
address the viability issue? How are
States going about developing special,
viability programs? What are the best
ideas coming out of the States as they
face the challenge of viability head on?
This newsletter highlights the best ap-
proaches we have seen and heard about
a
What is Mobilization?
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the States
recognize the scope and seriousness of thecttaDenge they facein trying to
turn the vision of public health protection, embodied in toe SDWA
Amendments, into reality. In order tomeetflrischallenge, EPA'sOfficeof
Drinking Water has undertaken a broad and far-teaching Mobilization
effort.
Mobilization involves the formation of action-oriented partnerships
among EPA^StateDrinkingWater Programs, and wgamzationsinterested
in safe drinking water. Participants in Mobilization partnerships are
committed to building strong State programs, strengthening smalt sys-
tems, and changing public attitudes about drinking water.
This newsletter is Mobilization's forum for theexchange of ideas and
Viability Case Studies MM..Mmram.
Public Health Benefits Addressed in Vermont ...p.5
TAP BITS . pp.6-7
Joining Hands: A State Task Force Summary «p*8*9
Educating Decision Makers—.. ......—~-~p, S
California Small Systems CommUtee...~.~.,.~~«.p. 10
Mobilization Publications & Contacts >MMUMWMMp. 12
,pp.l-5 & p.lO,U
TAP BITS
Look in the center spread
for articles you con use in
your own newsletter.
&IDWVKN0W.,.
• SMALL SYSTEMS
MUST MONITOR
FOR VOC'S DURING
1991?
4 THE NUMBER OF
DRINKING WATER
STANDARDS
JUST DOUBLED?
+ PESTICIDES AND
NITRATES ARE
SHOWING UP IN
GROUNDWATER?
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Meeting the Challenge
Maryland’s
Viability
Program
Maryland uses its county water
supply planning program and a sum-
gent permitprocess to ensure the viabil-
ity of new and existing small water
systems.
The Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE) requires each
county to develop a plan that provides
for the development, extension, and
expansion of water systems during a
period of at least 10 years. The plan
must identify present and future water
supply systems, construction and op-
eration costs, and time schedules and
methods for financing each planned
water system. MDE must approve all
plans and may refuse to issue any pa-
mits for water system construction or
alteration in a county that does not sub-
mit or correct inadequacies of its plan.
MDE uses the county planning process
to predict and prevent future compli-
ance problems. MDE has the authority
to investigate existing water systems to
detenninciftheyareopaatedefflcienuly
and are meeting State and Federal water
quality standards. If MDE finds a sys-
tem not being properly maintained, it
may appoint a new manager, or order
watcrsystem alterations andextensions.
In addition to county planning,
MDE requires all proposed public wa-
ter systems to submit technical, finan-
cial, and managerial information before
it will grant a permit. Systems must
submitplans outlining construction and
maintenance costs and expected rev-
enues. Privately owned systems also
must deposit sufficient funds into an
escrow account to cover future opera-
tion and maintenance, and system re-
pair and replacement. These require-
ments are designed to ensure the long-
term financial viability of water sys-
tems and prevent the creation of new,
non-viable systems.
For more mformationonMaryland’s
program contact
William Parrish
Program Administrator
Water Supply Program
MDE
Point Breeze, Bldg 4, Rni. 8L
2500 Broening Hwy.
Dundalk, MD 21224
(301) 631-3702
I,
Pennsylvania’s
Viability
Program
The Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources (DER), Di-
vision of Water Supply, is conducting a
two-part study to investigate viability
assurance methods. The first part of the
study has three majarcomponents. First,
the State is investigating existing stat-
utes and regulations to determine what
viability control measures already exist
and reviewing the legal framework to
support any new viability control mea-
sures. Second, it is examining other
States’ viability controls to see if Crite-
ria may be applicable to Pennsylvania.
Finally, it will suggest a process of
assessing the financial viability of a
proposed new water system.
Pennsylvania’s approach is to de-
velopacost modeland screening method
that examines cost of service based on
complete accounting of the full costs of
providing safe drinking water. This fi-
nancial assessment also considers mar-
ket forces that influence cost. If a resi-
dential developer, mobile home park
owner, or local government were about
to make an unwise investment in water
system development, they should en-
counter enough resistance from credi-
tors (ability-to-pay) and customers
(willingness-to-pay) to convince them
to investigate cheaper alternatives. This
does not happen now because the full
costs of operating a water system are
not being recognized, which indicates
thatthezeisaflawinthepricesignaLTo
correct this flaw, so that market forms
induce needed changes in development
decisions, three basic elements are
(1) pre-application process for estimat-
ing cost at an early phase of project
development supplying rough estimates
of the true cost of service to the con-
sumer,
(2) modified permit process that xc-
quires a facility plan, an operations and
maintenance plan, a management and
financial plan, and an annual report to
ensure that the full costs of services are
imposed upon the developers of the
new systems; and
(3) requirements toensure that financial
responsibility for full costs cannot be
e d
Theseelemenisam the staitingpoint
for the viability study in Pennsylvania.
As the second part of this study, Penn-
sylvania intends to develop a compre-
hensive viability screening mechanism
to evaluate existing systems.
For more information on
Pennsylvania’s program contact:
Steven Schmidt
Program Development and Evaluation
Pennsylvania DER
P.O. Box 2357
Harrisburg, PA 17105
(717) 787-0122
0
2
April1991
-------
An Update on ODWs Mobilisation Effort
Connecticut's
Viability
Connecticut has developed a
comprehensive program for con-
trolling the creation of new, non-
viable small systems and ensuring
the viability of existing systems.
Connecticutregulates small systems
by using the Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity, the
Connecticut Han, and laws that
mandate takeovers of small systems.
The Certificate of Public Con-
venience and Necessity requires a
new or expanding water system
serving between25 and l.OOOpeople
to obtain a permit from the Depart-
ment of Health Services (DHS) and
the Department of Public Utilities
Commission (DPUC). These de-
partments will allow the creation of
a new water system only after they
determine that interconnection with
an existing system or satellite man-
agement is not feasible. In addition,
before granting a Certificate, these
departments mustevaluate the tech-
nical, financial, and managerial
qualifications of the proposed sys-
tems' owners.
The Connecticut Plan estab-
lishes "exclusive service areas" for
existing utilities using an area-wide
planning approach. A utility ac-
cepts responsibility for all new and
existing water systems in its service
area, thereby reducing demand for
new, potentially non-viable small
systems. Exclusive service area
boundaries delineate the areas for
which utilities are responsible. Once
exclusive service areas are estab-
lished, individual water companies
accept responsibility for new and
existing water systems in their area.
The purpose of the area-wide plan is
to coordinate individual water sys-
tem plans and to avoid the creation
of systems unable to meet safe
drinking water standards.
Connecticut's program sets mini-
mum design standards for new sys-
tems and encourages small, existing
systems to combine withlargerones.
Connecticut passed laws that
grant DHS and DPUC the authority
to order a solvent water company or
municipality to take over a failing
small watersystem. These laws were
intended to ensure the viability of
existing systems. In exchange for
taking over a failing system, a sol-
vent water company is allowed to
recover reasonable costs in its rate
base. If a solvent water company
refuses to take overa system, DPUC
has the power to order it Acquisi-
tion of failing systems helps guaran-
tee that all customers receive safe
drinking water at reasonable prices.
Connecticut's viability pro-
gram discourages new, non-viable
small drinking water systems from
forming and helps existing systems
maintain compliance.
For more information on
Connecticut's program contact:
Raymond Jarema
Chief Engineer
Water Supply Section
CTDHS
ISO Washington St
Hartford, CT 06106
(203) 566-1251
Washington's
Viability
Program
The Washington State Drinking
Water Program uses its water supply
planning process and its permit require-
ments to discourage thecreation of new,
small systems and encourage (he con-
solidation of existing non-viable sys-
tems.
The Public Water System Coordi-
nation Act establishes a planning pro-
cess for counties to demarcate present
and future water system service areas,
establish minimum design and fire flow
standards, plan future water system de-
velopment, develop procedures for au-
thorizing new water systems, develop
shared or joint use of facilities, and
develop a Satellite Support System to
provide management, operations, or
maintenance assistance to small sys-
tems. InService Area Agreements, water
utilities identify their respective areas
and plan for future systems, eliminating
competition, duplication,and inefficient
extensions of facilities. Minimum De-
sign Standards for new systems and
extensions to existing systems are in-
tended to make future system exten-
sions easier by ensuring compatibility.
Developers are required to build by the
same specifications.
The Satellite Support System and
the Joint Use of Facilities are an impor-
tantpartof the planning process. Small
systems needing help may become pan
of a Satellite Support System to obtain
technical, financial, or managerial as-
sistance from largerwater utilities. Joint
Use of Faculties is an arrangement
whereby individual water systems hav-
ing quantity or quality problems agree
to share other systems' facilities. The
most common arrangement is the
physical interconnection of two sys-
tems. Utilities may also share water
sources, reservoirs, or storage tanks.
This process minimizes costs and im-
proves water service.
Washington provides many alter-
natives for small systems to ensure their
ongoing viability. The State relies
heavily upon its planning process, pre-
venting compliance problems before
they occur.
For more information about
Washington's program contact:
Richard Siffert
Planning Program Supervisor
Drinking Water Program
Department of Social and Health Ser-
vices
Mail Stop LD-11, Building 3
Airdustrial Park
Olympia,WA 98504
(206)753-5953
April 1991
-------
- Meeting the Challenge
On the Road to Viability: Developing Action
Plans In Scottsdale
Developing a plan of action
is an effective first step fora State
to take to tackle the small system
viability challenge ahead. Asmore
Stales begin to develop plans for
viability programs, there will be a
need for model programs. Ten
States attended a Viability Work-
shop in Scottsdale, Arizona in Sep-
tember (see “States Meet For Vi-
ability Workshop” in Meeting the
Challenge December 1990). These
Stales have since then continued to re-
fme their small system viability action
plans and some have begun to imple-
ment planned activities.
Case Study 1
Arizona
Arizona has four viability program objectives: to define the term “viability”, to
prevent the creation of new, non-viable systems, to help existing systems become
viable, and to encourage the elimination of non-viable systems whose problems cannot
be corrected. To achieve these objectives, the State is considering several programs.
One important program is to develop financial requirements that will test the viability
of new and existing systems. The State has established that by definition the viable
water sysuan is one which is self-sustaining, has a reliable wa supply, has the
commitment and has the mansgerial technical, operational and fmancial capability to
reliably meet performancerequirements applicable to thatwatersyateinonalong -term
basis.
Arizona Contact:
Mr. Robert I .. Munarl
Department of Bnvircatnenial Quality
2655 E. MagnoJit Stmct
P oenix, Arizona 85034; (602) 392-4002
Case Study 2
Massachusetts
Massachusetts has planned sevezal viability initiaiiveato limkthe creationof new
non-viable systems and to encourage the expansion of existing viable systems. One of
the most important is financial accountability requirements for new systems. Other
initiatives being considered are conducting financial reviews of existing systems 1
providing business management assistance to newly formed systems, and expanding
operator certification requrrerneuls to very small systems.
Massachusetts Contact:
Ms. Yvette DePeiza
Division of Water Supply
Department of Environmental Protection
One Winter SIred. 9th Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
(617) 292-5857
fore it is constructed. Several
States have been successful in
adopting various practical meth-
ods to make such determinations.
The Scottsdale workshopprovided a
forum for State program personnel,
legislativeexperts,U.S. EPA staff and
U.S. EPA consultants, and people in-
volved in viability issues to exchange
information and experiences.
The following 5 case studies are
highlights from the drafted action plans
that should be of interest to other State
programs, along with a contact for each
State.
The goal of the work-
shop was for each State to develop a
plan of action to implement a program
to determine a small system’s fmancial,
technical and managerial capability be-
Case Study i3
Montana
Montana wants to establish a vi-
ability program to limit the prolifera-
tion of now water systems and to ensure
the viability of existmg systems. Men-
tanais currentlydrafiing legi slation that
would require small systems to submit
financial, operational, andmanagement
information during the construction
permit process. In additio the Depart-
ment of Health and Environmental
Sciences i sconsideringaprovision that
would order small systems to maintain
escrow accounts to ensure furoreviabil-
ity. Other viability initiatives include:
developing an annual financial report-
ing requirement, encouraging satellite
management/ownership, providing fi-
nancialmanagementassistance, andes-
tablishing operator certification re-
quirements for non-transient, non-
community system operators.
Montana Contact:
Mr. Dan Fraser
Chief, Waxer Quality Bureau
Department of Health and Environ-
mental Sciences
Cogsweil Building Room A206
Helena, Montana 59620
(406)444-2406
4
April1991
-------
An Update on ODW’s Mobilization Effort
Small Community in Vermont Supports Rate Increase in
Interest of Public Health
We can all probably think of a few
water systems which we consider “bas-
ket cases”. They are small, isolated and
seem to have been out of compliance
forever. As Region Ienforceinentcoor-
dinator Linden (Lin) Witherall has
shown, we should not give up on these
systems too easily!
In Northwestern Vermont, two
“basket cases” existed. These two sys-
tents were using untreated surface wa-
ter and were consistently significant
non-compliers. After Lin had issued
Formal Administrative Orders (FAOs)
to both systems for turbidity and mi-
crobiological violations, the two sys-
tems joined with a third water system to
form anew,regional water system serv-
ing an extensive area.
Li i i put the new regional water
system on an improvement schedule
that required them to hireaprofessional
engineer, review system deficiencies
and develop a plan for improvement.
The system complied.
The plan called for a new filtration
plant to be funded by a rate increase
from the current $30/year per family to
a proposed $500/year per flunily. The
State and system officials were con-
cerned about going to the voters with
this increase. They decided that the best
approach was to have the federal regu-
lator who wasresponsibleforenforcing
the national drinking waterstandardsto
explain the need for system improve-
menis.Lin said thathewas “willing to
risk being tarred and feathered” whelp
this system thathad already comealong
way.
Liii travelled to the town meeting
during the week after Thanksgiving.
The professional engineer hired by the
system opened the meeting by explain-
big the history of the water systems
Annual household rates
increased from $30
to $500.
involved and presenting his recommen-
dations for a new filtration plant. After
informing the town meeting members
that the cost of the new plant would
cause a substantial rate increase, he
turned the floor over to Tin.
Li i i familiarized the people with
the issues involved in providing safe
drinking water. He reminded them that
the regulations he enforces were de-
signed to protect the public health. He
explained the problems with small ru-
ral water systems, thefactthatunueated
sewage entered the lake that served as
their water source, and that there had
been outbreaks of giardiasis in the area.
Li i i then opened the floorforquescions.
The communityresponded with stories
of their own problems with the drink-
ing water supplies—e.g., needing to
empty a faucet screen that filled with
debris every day and extended periods
of water outages.
The meeting ended on a positive
note. On December 6, the town called
Lin to let him know the voters passed
thebondbyavoteof97 to35.
For more infonnalion contact:
Linden Witherall
U.S. EPA Region I
JFK Federal Building Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3608
Case Study #4
M issou r i
Missouri is developing such i-
ability initiatives aa creating aperroit .
flag program to ensure technical, fi-
iianciaL and managaW viability de-
veloping financial requirements en-
couraging comprehensive water aye-
templannung, and Impmvingopaator
anainin g r eq uks
M Issouri Contacti
Mr. Jerry Lane
Department of Water Resources
Division of Environmental Quality
.205 Jefferson Street
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, M Issouri 65102
(314)751.0535
The States of Kentucky, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Utah are also implanenting
action plans which will be featured in feture issues of Meeting the Challenge .
a
cne sbady#S
Vermont
Vermont’s ob,jeodvcis to ensure viability of new end existing public water systems
wkhpanicularenqtasisen ptivatelyowned systems. Sonicof the inittativesthe State
is a,nsid&ng met requiring systems to develop 10-year financial —, requiring
pmposed systems to explore alternatives such as intnconnecdon, proposing legisla.
don that would anate incentives for consolidation of small systems mid satellite
management, and Improving tecimical assistance to small system opoutots.
for more Information contaet
Mr , Winslow Ladue
Environnitidal Ikaith Division
Vermont Depaxtinan of Health
60 Main Street, P.O. BOX 71)
Burlington, Vermont 05402
( °M
April1991
5
-------
Meeting the Chailenge
TAP BJTS%..TAP BJTS S
EPA recently completed a hand-
book about drinking water treatment in
small communities entitled tnviron-
mental Pollution Control Alternatives:
Drinking Water Treatment for Small
Communities,” EPAI625/5-90fl)25. It
provides information about drinking
water treatment requirements and the
treatment technologies suitable for small
systems. It is intended for owners,
operators, managers, and local decision
makers such as town officials.
The S2page bookietis not intended
to be a comprehensive manual. Rather
his designed to give an overview of the
problems a small system may face.
treatment options that are available to
solve specific problems, and resources
that can providefurther information and
assistance.
Chapter one discusses why we need
drinking water treatment and gives an
overview of the drinking water treat-
EPA has recently released a new
publication entitled ‘Paying for Safe
Drinking Wa Alternative Financing
Mechanisms for State Drinking Water
Programs,” EPA 5704P9-9010l4.
This bookieS intended forall those
who are concerned about safe drinking
water and should be helpful to organi-
zations and States as they support in-
creased resources for State drinking
water programs.
Thebookletdiscusses methods that
can be used by States to raise revenues
to meet current needs and to finance the
costs associated with implementation
of the new amendments.These methods
have been termed “alternative financ-
ment process.
Chapter two provides a summary
of existing and new federal drinking
water requirements and explains how
these regulations affect small systems.
Chapter three provides an over-
view of how to select drinking water
treatment technologies and discusses
special management issues for small
systems.
Chapters four through seven de-
scribe established and emerging tech-
nologies suitable for small systems.
Chapter eight lists organizations,
publications, and other resources that
can assist small systems.
Single copies of the booklet are
available from the EPA’s Center for
Environmental Research Information at
513-684-7562. C l
ing mechanisms” (AFMs) and include:
user fees, dedicated or “earmarked”
taxes, and fines and penalties.
The publication examines the pros
and cons of the various financing meth-
ods, in addition to general revenues,
that States can useto help pay for their
drinking water programs. These AEMs
are discussed in general terms in the
first section and through case study a-
periences provided by nine States in the
second section. It concludes with ama-
trix summarizing drinking water AFMs
in 22 States.
Single copies of the booklet am
available from Mr. Brian Rourke of
EPA at 202-382-7785. C l
Drinking Water
Contaminants
Identified
A priority list of contaminants to
be candidates for future regulation has
been published by the EPA. EPA will
setstandards for25 of these in 1995 and
foran additional 25 at a later date.
Establishing this priority list is impor-
tantbecauseexsensiveresearchmustbe
done on the health effects and risks of
each contaminantbefore new standards
canbeproposed.
Publications Available:
Treatment Booklet for Small
Communities Available
TAP BITS are
tidbitsof news for use
in your own publica-
lions. Fecifreetorea
print or revise any
item tt *tt the needs
of your own news e-
teEt (Please send us a
copy). Also, if you
have any ideas or
suggestions for 1u
tare TAP BITS cola
uinus 9 please Let ES
know.
For more jut or-
mation on what Is re
quired of public wa-
ter systems contact
your State Drinking
Water Office or call
theEPAflotlineat i.
800 -426-4191 .
Alternatives for Funding
State Programs
6
April1991
-------
An Update on ODW’s
Effort
...TA.P BITS. TAP BITS
Number of
Regulated
Contaminants
Nearly Doubles
EPA has just published a new rule
which virtually doubles the number of
contaminants subject to federally en-
forceable standards. In 1986, when the
SDWA was amended, only 26 con-
laminants were federally regulated.
With thisnewrulethereare6Oandthat
number will increase to 83 in 1992.
The new rule establishes stan-
dards for 33 inorganic and synthetic
organic chemicals and has re-proposed
standards for another five. The States
now have eighteen months (July 1992)
to adopt regulations which are at least
asstringentasEPAregulations. Atthat
time, public water systems must com-
ply with the new monitoring, reporting
and public notification requirements.
While all 200,000 of the nation’s public
drinking waler systems will have to
monitor for the contaminants to ensure
that health standards arc being met,
EPA estimates that only 3,300 of these
will have to treat their water. While the
economic impact of the regulations on
most drinking water systems and their
customers will be small, the impacts
could be substantial for small systems
with contaminated sources.
The new regulations set standards
for seventeen pesticides and thirteen
probable carcinogens. In addition,
Slates may require systems to monitor
forthepresenceofupto ll3addidonal
contaminants for which standards have
not yet been set.
The rule offers several options to
lessen the economic impact on small
systems, such as monitoring waivers,
phased-in monitoring requirementsand
On January 1.1991, small systems
must begin sampling for Volatile Or-
ganic Chemicals (VOCs). This new
requirement applies to community wa-
ter systems serving less than 3,300
people and school and business oper-
ated systems.
V©C unonitoir nig lTomr sunsillil
syst uns begani on aimnusury 1
1l 1I.
VOCs are chemicals used as sol-
vents, degreasers, fumigants and in
gasoline. They can cause long term
health problems if they contaminate
drinking water. in 1987, EPA set stan-
dards for eight VOCs which had been
found contaminating groundwater.
Nearly ten percent of the nation’s
94,600 community water supply wells
and four percent of the 10.4 million
rural domestic wells contain detectable
levels of at least one pesticide. Half of
all wells contain nitrates.
These are the results released No-.
vember 1990 in Phase I of EPA’s Na-
tional Survey of Pesticides. The most
commonly detectedchemical wasnitrate
(mainly used in fertilizers),foUowedby
the acid metabolites of dacihal (a weed
killer used primarily on lawns) and
atrazine (a herbicide extensively used
on corn and sorghum).
Most of the nitrate and pesticides
were fiund at very low levels and do not
exceed EPA health advisories and
These rules became effective on
January 1, 1988,andlargeandmedium
size systems have already completed
their first round of monitoring. How-
ever, to minimize hardship, public wa-
ter systems which serve less than 3,300
people were given until this year to
begin sampling.
Each system must take up to four
samples (requirements vary from State
to State) in the firstyear. The frequency
of monitoring after that is determined
by the State and depends on whether
any VOCs were found and on how likely
it is that contamination could occur.
Small systems will also be testing
for thepresence of additional pollutants
for which EPA has not yet set health
standards.
drinking water standards. EPA consid-
ers the results cause for concern but not
alarm. The potenh 1 far more serious
contamination does indicate the need
for increased vigilance.
In theNational SurveyEPA tested
1347 well water samples for 126 pesti-
cides, pesticide degradates and nitrates
and took samples from community and
domestic private wells in every State.
For more information about this $12
million study and how EPAplans Louse
theresults toprotect vulnerable ground-
water sources and to assure delivery of
safe drinking water, call the Safe
Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-
4791.
VOC Monitoring
Requirements Expand to
Small Systems
First National Survey of Drinking
Water Wells Shows Contamination
by Pesticides and Nitrates
possible deadline extensions. EPA is
alsopromotingdevelopmentoflow-
cost package treatment technologies. 0
April1991
7
-------
Meeting the Challenge
Joining Hands: Efforts Taken by States
to Organize Task Forces
Educating Decision Makers:
Montana’s Task Force
Task forces and advisory committees have been formed In
___ Stateis not onlyto address the spec I C problems otsmall systems but
also to play an Important role in educating State decIsIon makes. In
Montana the PtThflc WaterSupplylaskForce recenUycompletedlts
report to the (ovemorand the State Legislature. The report clearly
presents the financial and technical needs of the current State
drinking water pttgra effects of new regulations, the conse-
quences of losing primacy, and the Task Force’s conclusions and
recommendations. The Task Forte also prepared an Executive
Summary that presents these conclusIons and recommendations in
aweilivrltten user4rlendy brochure.
In the Spring 011996, Governor Stephens authorized the ap-
pointmem of therask Foroeto mvlewthe situation and develop polICy
recommendations for direction of MorrtanEs Public Water Supply
Pfl gram. The Task Force was charged to make recommendations
based on program essentials that will best protect public health. It Is
comprIsed Of approximately 30 persons representing utilities. the
affected public. various cIvIC organizations, State agencies, legisla-
tive committees, and local health departments. The Task Force
completed Itework In tour wodcsttops. These workshops focused on
reviewing the development of the current program aM regulations,
and on pro)ectthg future needs of the public and water purveyors.
The task force concluded -that the Program should retains
exIsting regulatory and technical assistance fwictlon: the Program
must e expanded to include requirements of the amended Safe
Drinking Water Act br Slate primacy to be retained: and legislative
changes must be made to authorize the Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences (OHES) to assess tees to supplement
funding of the Programd
The task torte recommendations are: to provide a weH-staf ted
and funded comprehensive Program including preventive and en-
forcementactMtles toamend1he Public WaterSystem (PWS) Acf$
authorize the DHEStoassessfeesforservicesto alleviate the FWS
Program funding shortfall, andto reconvene to reassess the statusot
the PWS section and make recommendallons for th 1993 Leglsla-
tiveSesslorL. . -
For more Information contact:
Mr. Dan Fraser
CSt Water Guality Bureau
Department ot Kealth and Environmental Sciences
Cogswell BuDding
Room A206
Helena. M I 59620
(406) 444-2406
Many States have found that form-
ing a drinking water task force or advi-
sory committee is an excellent way to
build support for their program and to
develop solutions to a wide range of
drinking water issues. Successful task
forces and advisory committees take a
Due Mobih7JutlOn approach and often
include representatives from State
drinking waterprograms, executive and
legislative branches of State govern-
ments, water industry (including both
large and small systems), citizen groups
andotheroutsideorganizationsandU.S.
EPA. Task forces and advisory com-
mittees bring togetherperspectives from
all sides as the best tool for developing
solutions to the specific problems fac-
ing the State.
Several States have already formed
task forces or advisory committees and
others are in the process of doing sa
Here are examples of how some States
have used task forces and advisory
committees to assess the needs and it-
sources of State drinking water pro-
grams, to evaluate the potential use of
alternative funding mechanisms, and to
evaluate options for increasing small
system viability.
Idaho
The State has a broad based advi-
sory committee that works in the a-
pacity of educating state decision
makers. A comprehensive report was
developed on State program needs, in-
cluding currentworkload shortfalls, and
additional needs to meet the new re-
quirements. The Statelegislaturepassed
arcsolutionin 1989 supporting there-
tendon of primacy, but did not provide
funding for the program. The advisory
committee helpedto push the resolution
through the last session and they will
play an important role in getting any
funding increase through the legisla-
na t.
(cont. p.9)
a
8
Apr i l 1991
-------
An Update on ODW’S Mobilization Effort
State Contac&
Mr. Richard Mallory
Bureau of Water Quality
Division of Environment
Idaho Department of Health and Werare
1410 North Hilton Street
Boise. ID 82720
(208)334-5867
New Hampshire
The Southern New Hampshire
Water Supply Task Force completed a
study to address the growing need for
safe drinking water. This task force is
comprised of members of the Public
Utilities Commission, Department of
Environmental Services, the Office of
State Planning, four large water utili-
ties, regional planning commissions,
citizens groups and local decision
makers. The task force developed a
strategy that addresses the financial,
managerial, and technical inadequacies
faced by many small water systems.
The task force determined that regional
water systems, interconnections with
existix g water systems, extending fran-
chise rights, and providing bonding
guarantees will ensure among other
initiatives that public water systems re-
main viable.
State Contact:
Bernard Lucey
Administrator of Water Saspply
Engineering Bureau
Department of EnvirwunentalSesw es
P.O. Box 95, Hazen Dr.
Concord, NH 03302 -CY)95
(603)271-3139
Oregon L
In December 1989 the Governor’s
office in Oregon appointed members to
the Task Force on Drinking Waler
Fund gandRegion2li linn. Members
include representatives of State Divi-
sion of Health, waxer districts, the pub-
lic utilihies commission, county health
officials, the American Water Works
Association, League of Oregon Cities,
Deparimentof Economic Development,
Water Resources Dep., Oregon Asso-
ciation of Water Utilities, FmHA and
Oregon Rural Community Assistance
Program. BrendanDoyle,anEPApolicy
specialist on loan to the Health Divi-
sion, is managing task force activities.
The Task Force has recommended
that the State issue bonds to establish a
grant and loan program to assist drink-
ing water systems. They have further
recommended that applicants for State
financial assistance be required to ex-
plore all potential “coordinated solu-
tions” prior to obtaining funding. This
requirement will give systems more
incentive to “regionalize”. Legislation
(SB 1147) to iinplementtheTaskForce
recommendations has beenintroduced
to the 1991 State Legi Inture.
Stale CosztacL
Brendan D*
Drinking Water Section
OR Health DivLcion
P.O. Box 23.1
Portland OR 97201
(503)-229-6302
Pennsylvania L LL .J
The Pennsylvania Small Water
System Committee was formed by the
Division of Water Supplies of thePenn-
sylvania Department of Environmental
Resources in 1988 as an interagency
small systems forum andnetwork whose
25 members include representatives
from the water industry, regulatory
agencies, special interest and citizens
groups, and State and local govern-
ments. One of the Committee’s most
important functions is to coordinate and
maximize available resources from or-
gnni ntions and larger water systems.
The Committee functions as a clearing-
house for government agency ser-
vices and requirements affecting
small water systems. The Commit-
tee has also assisted in the passage of
legislation affecting water systems and
helped toresolve numerous interagency
problems regarding drinking water is-
sues and programs. The Division of
Waler Supplies uses the Committee to
foster constructive working relation-
ships with outside agencies.
Stale Content.
Stejen Schmidt. Chief
Program Development and Evaluation
Division of Water Siq’plies
PAoqartmentof&rviravnentalResoiwces
P.O. Box 2357
Harrisburg, PA 17105
(717) 787-0122
Utah
Utah Safe Drinking Water Task
Force, comprised of individnal from
Utah Rural Water Association, Utah
Department of Health, Utah League of
Cities and Towns, Association of State
Drinking Water Mniinistrators,private
corporations,andthe Governors office,
is working to define and analyze alter-
native ways to ftmd additions to Utah’s
Safe Drinking Water Program. The
Task Force gathered information from
several other State studies on alterna-
tive means of financing State waterpro-
grains and also evaluated funding ac-
tivities already in place in other States.
Their conclusions were published in a
November 1989 report for the Utah
Safe Drinking Water Committee.
State Contact.
Gayle Smith, Director
Bureau of Drinking Water/Sanitation
Uf Department a/Health
PD.Box 16690
Salt Lake City, UI’ 84116-0690
(801)538.6159
West Virginia
ADrinkingWaterPolicy Advisory
Committee has been formed in West
Virginia to evaluate the best way to
addivsscurrentandfuluredrinkingwater
needs in the State. Members include
EPA Region Ill, representatives from
the governor’s office, two State legisla-
tors, AWWA ,NRWA , a consultant,
and the State Health Department, and
the League of Women Voters.
State ContacL’
Donald Kurn, Director
Environmental Engineering Division
Office of Environmental Health Services
State Department a/Health
1900 Kanawa Blvd.. East
Charleston, WV 25305
(304) .348-2981
April1991
-------
Meeting the Challenge
Interagency Small Systems Committee in California
One regional interagency commit-
tee thathaseffectivelybmughttogether
groups from all sides of drinking water
issues is the Interagency Small Systems
Committee (ISSC) in California. The
Committee itself is a forum for the co-
operative efforts of a wide variety of
groups with concerns about water is-
sues. The Committee fosters develop-
ment of new ideas for facilitating small
system compliance. It can serve as a
model for other regional efforts in
dealing with the needs of small com-
munities and the small water systems
that serve them.
The Committee addresses many of
the problems facing small systems. All
Committee members have valuable ex-
perience in water management, in get-
ting information to rural or small corn-
munities,or in Sing communities with
financial difficulties. You may remem-
ber the Alameda County “Adopt-a-
Small-System” program that was fea-
tured in the May 1990 Meetina the
Challenae . That program was one out-
growth of this Conuniuee.
The Ad Hoc Interagency Small
Systems Committee was initiated dur-
ing the 1988 CA/NV Section AWWA
Spring conference and has met regularly
since then. The need was identified for
a group external to AWWA comprised
of decision makers from agencies in-
volved with small system compliance
for the puipose of sharing information.
Participation in the meetings is en-
thusiastic. The meetings are informa-
tive and useful as demonstrated by con-
tinued artendence and committment to
the Committee. Members include: U.S.
EPA Region 9 (who has the lead), Cali-
fornia Department of Health Services,
Rural Community Assistance Corpora-
tion, California Rural Water Associa-
tion. Rural California Rousing Author-
ity, Alameda County Water District,
Nevada Department of Health. CA/NV
AWWA, and Farmer’s HomeAdminis-
nation.
Committee members sponsor ac-
tivities and workshops that are widely
attended throughout the region. The
objective of the workshops is to provide
aback-to-basics review of the new fed-
cml requirements and water system
operations, and a list organizations that
can give assistance (e.g., RCAC and
NRWA). Speakers at the workshops
have included volunteers from regula-
tory agencies, manufacturing represen-
tatives,consultingengineers,andhealth
professionals.
Committee members also will be
publishing a bi-annual newsletter. The
target audience will be systems using
minimal treatment, having no operators
or only a part-time operators, and be-
longing to no organizations such as
AWWAthatpzovideassistance. Articles
wlllfocusonregu lations,theimportance
of disinfection, outreach, andpointsof
contact for technical, financial, and
managerial assistance.
For Information Contact:
Bill Thurston- USEPA Region IX
(4l5)-465-2l10
Maintaining Viability of Existing Systems
So far we have focused on specific
examples of how States aredealing with
the issue of small system viability
through changes in the permitting pro-
cess, new regulations, and state legisla-
tion.Muchofthethrustoftheseefforts
is aimed toward controlling the creation
of new, non-viable small systems.
However, there is also a universe of
existing, non-viable systems that need
help.
Existing,non-viable systems are in
dire need of assistance from oiflMe
parties. Often the best way to improve
the viability of an existing system is
through direct local channels. Not only
can State agencies provide advice and
assistance, but so can third parties who
have a vested interest in the water sys-
tem and the people served by that water
system.
The problems that existing, non-
viable systems face will be exacerbeted
as new drinking water regulations are
implemented. The range ofsoluiions to
ensure the viability of existing systems
is broad. Some approaches to remedy-
ing the problem are O&M contracting;
satellite management mergers and ac-
quisitions; training and technical assis-
tance and cooperatives.
• O&M contracting (operationsand
inaintenance)involvescontracting with
an operator who guarantees good qual-
ity maintenance, monitoring,reporting,
managerial services and system fin-
provements.
• Satellite management is a form of
O&M assistance where the conuactoris
alarge water utility rather than a private
service company. Certified operators
for large utilities perform routineO&.M
work for nearby small systems.
• Mergers and acquisitions can be
public or private (although public ac-
quisitions are more common). Mergers
occur when publicly owned water sys-
tans asswue ownership of another wa-
ter system. Public water systems also
can acquire small private systems to
expand their own service. Some States
require publicly owned water systems
to take over privately owned water sys-
tems if the system is failing.
• Creatingacooperativeis a way for
small systems to join together to buy or
share goods or services more econonil-
cally. Cooperatives can share equip-
ment, chemical costs and, if State regu-
lations permit, can save money by hir-
ing one certified operator to serve the
entire group.
The3casestudiesonp. llillustrate
how these approaches have been used
to improve the viability of existing sys-
tems.
Additional information and case
studies may be found in the PA publi-
cation “Improving the Viability of Ex-
isting Small Drinking Water Systems.”
See page 12 of this update for infor-
mation on obtaining this reporL
10
April1991
-------
An Update on ODW’s Mobilization Effort
VlabllItyCaseStUdyNO.1
Operation and Maintenance Contracting -
Crosby Water and Sewer Sçrvioes was created by a mobile borne park owner who had experfeflce4
difficuftY In operating her water systerm After she became a ceiiftied opera afqw neighboring systems
tntornia Iy asked her for assistance. In 1985 shi and her husband decided to start aWater,and wastewater
service businesa Todayr they assist approximately 1 9 wastewater and ‘19 water systemt The compay
consists of tour fuWtlme certified operators who serve systems wlthfti a Smile radius, mainly in WS
County, North Caro lina. Most of Cmsby’scontmctsamwlthmobflebOmepwksafld hoSngde’MOPiileflts
that have an average size 0175 servIce connectlon . -
For additional Intonnet loncontact
Mr. Don Williams
Regional Engineer
Drinking Waler Division
Fayefteville, NC 28301
-1 j91
VIebliftyCase Study No. 2.
Satellite Management
The Sandy Hook Community Club, a homeowners association in Poulebo, Washington contractedv dth
Public Utility DIstrIct No. I for a comprehensive assessment of Its water system. Sandy Hock needed
asStanoeindetelminiflgwhateyStembTlPtoVemefltSShOU1d bemade nordertodeltverbsltetquallty wate r
to Its 75 residences. The PUD was contracted to do the followIng docunient sove.grourdpmblentarea
evaluate the steel main andwater services todetermine approximate conditions below ground; rovisit the
source and storage locations to evah isle the physical and mechanical operations and prepare a report
detailing findings aid recommendations to resolve System deficiencies ,
FOF addluonal kitonnation contact:
Mr. David Siburg
Assistant Manager
PU ! ) No.1 of Kitsap County
1431 F Inn I-fill Rd.
Poulsbo, WA 98370
(206)719-7658
Viability Case Study No.3
Private Merger
GreenacresWaterSupply. In Connecticut, haddift bully complying with a Department of KeafthServloes
(DRS% cider to submit a plan for Improvements to enhance water quality and Increase water supply.
Greenacres 1 owneis did not have therescurces to conipflitti the order and notified OHS that they wanted
to leave the water buslness ConnecUctits takeover legislation allowed the State to facilitate acquisition by
a privately owned utility to correct the problems of the non.viable system. The State acquisition hearing on
Greenacres determined who should take overt the acquisition cost, what system Inçmvements must be
undertaken by the acquiring system, and what rates the customers of the acquired system should be
charged.” ‘ “ ‘ Q •.
For additional lnformatloncontactt
Mr. Raymond Jarema
Chiet Engineer
Water Supply Section
CT DHS
150 Washington St.
Hartford, C l 06106
(203) 566-1251
April1991 11
-------
Meeting tire Challenge
Public
Education
Brochures
Anumberofinformationbrochures
have been developed as part of the
Mobibisition Public Education Initia-
tive. Ifyouwouldllkecopiesoflhese
reports, please call the Safe Drinking
Water Hothne at 1-800-426-4791.
• “Unregulated Contaminant Moni
toring: a Special Program to Help
Public WaterSystemsProtectYour
Drinking Water,” EPA 57019-89-
FFF.
• “Public Notification: Reporting
Violations of Drinking Water
Standards,” EPA 570j9-89-CCC.
• “Lead Contamination Control Act
(LCCA),” EPA 570i9-89-AAA.
• “Home Water Treatment Units;
Filtering Fact From Fiction,” EPA
570 19-90-HuH.
• “Public Water Systems: Providing
ourNaiion’sDrinkingWaler”EPA
57019-89-DDD.
• “Volatile Organic Chemicals: Are
VOCs in Your Drinking Wate??”
EPA 570 9-89-EEE.
• “Bouled Water: Helpful Facts and
Information,” EPA 570/9-90-
GGG.
• “TheLeadBan: Preventing theUse
of Lead in Public Water Systems
and Plumbing Used for Drinking
Water,” EPA 570j9-89-BBB.
Inaddition,theUS. EPA cuirently
has 3 publications available to assist
States and others interested in small
systems viability issues. ‘ Ensurhig the
Viability of New, Small Drinking
Water Systems,” EPA-570 9-89-004
April 1989. This report discusses the
programs in Connecticut, Georgia,
Maryland and WashingIon that are de-
signed to restrict the creation of poten-
tially non-viable systems. “Improv-
ing the Viability of Existing Small
U-
Contractor
Contractor
I
Mobilization Contacts
.. . .. ...
Peter Shanaghan
Beth Hall
Pamela Ansley Contractor
Mary Jones
Mary Ann Eftier
Mobilization Initiative Leaders
State Capacity
Public Education
Institutional Support
Local Health Officials
Non-Transient!
Non-Community Systems
Technology arid
Training Support
Region V
Region VI
Region VII
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
Mobilization Manager
FTSi2O2-382-5813
Special Assistant
FTS/202-382-5553
703-734-8693
FTS!202-382-3806
703-339-0420
James Boume
FTSI2O2-382-5557
Charlene Shaw
FTS/202-382-2285
Jane Ephremides
FTS/202-382-5513
Beth Hall
FTSI2O2-382-5553
Jeff Hass
FTS 21 5-597-9873
Judy Lebowich
David Schnare
FTS!2 02-382-7595
FTSI2O2-382-5541
Glen Yager
Patricia Henry Dunham
Larry Worley
Drinking Water Systems,” EPA 570/
9-90-004 June 1990. This report dis-
cusses initiatives that have been under-
taken in a number of States to improve
the viability of existing small water
systems. Numerous case studies are
included. Also available is “Estab-
lishing Programs to Resolve Small
System Viability - a Summary of the
617-565-3608
F1S1835-3608
FTS/21 2-264-5126
FTSI21 5-597-6531
404-347-2913
FTS1257-291 3
F S/31 2-886-9546
214-655-7155
FTS/255-7155
FTS/91 3-551-7296
303-293-1420
FTSIS3O-1 420
415-744-1850
FTS/484-1 850
206-442-1893
FTS1399-1 893
Federal/State Workshop,” EPA 570/
9-91-002 February 1991. This report
summarizes the results and outgrowth
from the Scottsdale, Arizona workshop
in September. For copies of these re-
ponspleasecalltheSafeDrinking Water
Hotline at (800)- 426-4791 or contact
Penny Barles at (202) 382-5537 for
more information.
Regional Mobilization Coordinators
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV
Al Wong
Richard Narang
Jacqueline Pine
Jane Mcccnathy
Christine Urban
Jose Rodriguez
Michelle Moustakas
12
April 1991
------- |