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 ------- |