United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
System Partnership Solutions to
Improve Public Health Protection
Examples of One-Page Case Studies, designed to help us work
with small systems to enhance their ability to provide safe and
affordable drinking water.
-------
Office of Water (4606M)
EPA-816-R-02-022
www.epa.gov/safewater
September 2002
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
System Capacity Challenges and Partnership Solutions Overview
Water system capacity is the ability to plan for, achieve, and continually provide safe and
affordable drinking water to customers, thereby increasing public health protection. Capacity
development is the process through which drinking water systems acquire and maintain the
technical, financial and managerial capabilities to consistently provide safe drinking water. All
states are currently implementing state-specific capacity development programs tailored to meet
their water systems' needs. One tool for building capacity is system partnership solutions.
Technical
• Inadequate & deteriorated infrastructure
• Limited/poor source quality/quantity
• Lack of operations & maintenance expertise/certified
operator
Financial
• Diseconomies of scale (few households = high costs)
• History of low rates = resistance to full-cost pricing
• Limited knowledge of financing options
• Small systems are often in economically disadvantaged areas
Managerial
• "No time" or limited part time management attention
• Lack of expertise in long-term water system planning/
operations
• Lack of focus - providing water is not the system's primary
purpose
Small
System
Challenges
System partnership solutions can range from informal cooperation,
such as mentoring programs, to ownership transfer with managerial
and/or physical consolidation
These system partnership solutions serve as a capacity building tool
and involve changing the operational, managerial or institutional
structure of a water system. The changes serve to meet the
increasing costs and responsibilities of consistently providing safe
water that meets the Safe Drinking Water Act standards
System
Partnership
Solutions
System Partnership Spectrum
Informal
Cooperation
Coordinate with
other systems,
but without
contractual
obligations
Contractual
Assistance
Utilities contract
with another system
or service provider,
but contract is
under the system's
control
Joint
Powers
Agencies
Creation of a
new entity
designed to
serve the
systems that
form it
Ownership
Transfer
Takeover by
an existing
entity or a
newly created
entity
^ Increasing Transfer of Responsibility J
-------
System Capacity Challenges and Partnership Solutions Overview
System Partnership Solutions
Technical
• Shared, new, or upgraded infrastructure
• Locate higher quality/quantity source water
• Access to a certified operator and additional expertise
• Better treatment technologies available
Financial
• Reduced costs = safe and affordable water at full pricing
• Greater economies of scale achieved through shared
services
• Better access to funds
Managerial
• Expertise in water system planning/operations
• Accelerated path to obtaining the managerial skills and
structure required to adequately oversee the water system
Potential
Outcomes
86% of America's 54,000 community water systems
are small systems serving less than 3,300 people
86% of these small systems are within 5 miles of another
system*
The proximity of these systems to potential partners
demonstrates many opportunities for small systems to form
cooperative agreements, share services, or join together
under common management
The feasibility of physical interconnection should be
analyzed carefully and compared with the economic savings
that other partnership solutions may achieve
Distance to next closest
Community Water System*
Opportunities
for System
Partnerships
5 to 10
Miles
12%
10 to 20
Miles
2%
1 to 5
Miles
86%
*AWWARF study: findings based on data collected from 17 states
-------
<&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
System Capacity Development Case Study
City of Panora Water System, Iowa, 2002
The City of Panora Water System is located about 45 miles from Des Moines Water Works
in a small town of 1,1 75 people and 700 connections, primarily residential.
Panora's raw and finished water supply consistently violated the Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL) for nitrate in the spring and early summer months. Panora received a notice
from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to address their high nitrate problem.
Technical
Managerial
Financial
Panora's finished water nitrate levels exceeded the MCL by 20-40% during the
spring and early summer months.
Panora's grade 2 certified operator needed to obtain grade 3 certification, a
state requirement for operating a surface water treatment plant.
Panora has had difficulties retaining operators and has relied on Des Moines'
operators to fill in when necessary.
Panora lacked the financial resources to install nitrate treatment and pay
competitive wages to attract a grade 3 certified operator.
Actions: Informal Cooperation
The City of Panora completed a joint water study with Lake Panorama and Xenia Rural
Water Association to assess potential partnerships based on source water and system
needs.
This study demonstrated that the most cost effective long-term solution to the high nitrate
levels was for Panora to connect to and purchase water from Lake Panorama's low-nitrate
source water and blend this water with their current source in order to meet the nitrate MCL.
Panora worked with Des Moines Waterworks to evaluate their treatment plant's remote
monitoring capabilities. The systems decided to pursue this partnership opportunity and are
currently testing remote monitoring of Panora's treatment plant from Des Moines Water
Works.
Panora and Des Moines are drafting a memorandum of understanding to allow the systems
to work together to operate the treatment plant. This informal agreement will allow Des
Moines to remotely monitor Panora's treatment plant.
Des Moines operators are mentoring Panora's grade 2 certified operator to obtain grade 3
certification.
Outcomes
Panora will avoid installing expensive nitrate treatment as the City will have access to wate
from the Panorama Lake Association to blend with its current supply, which will ensure
compliance with nitrate requirements during peak months. The risk of blue baby
syndrome will virtually be eliminated.
Des Moines will remotely monitor Panora's treatment plant, reducing the full-time attention
required of an onsite operator to about 2.5 hours per day. Panora will be able to utilize
onsite operators for other city duties, relieving the city of hiring additional staff
and reducing costs.
Questions about Iowa's Capacity Development Program? Contact Jennifer Simons • Iowa Department of Natural Resources
401 SW 7th Street • Suite M • Des Moines, IA • 50309-4611 • (515) 725-0298 • jennifer.simons@dnr.state.ia.us
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
System Capacity Development Case Study
Lee County Water Plant, Sanford, North Carolina, 1993
The Lee County Water Plant serves 149 customers, including 60 residential connections
and a large poultry company in central North Carolina.
The system faced operational challenges, including numerous monitoring and reporting
violations, which may have prevented them from providing safe water.
Capacity Issues
Technical
Financial
Lee County lacked the expertise to make necessary operational improvements.
Lee County lacked the regular supervision of a qualified operator.
Lee County received only periodic technical assistance from a circuit rider.
Lee County did not have the resources to hire a qualified operator.
>ntractual Assist
Lee County entered into a management, operation and maintenance contract with a private-
sector operations and maintenance firm. Lee County has renewed the contract through 2002.
The firm hired and supervises the system's three full-time employees.
The firm provides a part-time qualified operator with extensive technical expertise.
The firm conducts some activities (financial management and billing) through a central office
to take advantage of economies of scale.
Lee County Plant now provides high-quality water that is in full compliance with drinking water
standards, reliably protecting public health.
Lee County works with the operation and maintenance firm to plan for capital improvements
and secure local and federal funding, guaranteeing the long-term production of
"safe drinking water.
Lee County benefits from the firm's bulk purchasing agreements to save money.
Questions about North Carolina's Capacity Development Program? Contact Bob Stea • NC Department of Environment and
Natural Resources Public Water Supply Section • 1634 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1634 • (919) 715-3269 •
bob.stea@ncmail.net
-------
<&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
System Capacity Development Case Study
Aurora, South Dakota, 1992
Aurora, South Dakota, is a small residential town with a population of 500. The town
water system has 250 connections. Aurora is located five miles from the City of Brookings,
which has a population of 22,000 including the local university.
The system did not have the capacity to provide water that met National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations, consistently violating the Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrate.
Capacity Issues
Technical
Financial
Aurora's finished water nitrate levels exceeded the MCL by up to 50%.
Other nearby wells had high nitrate levels, so Aurora could not easily find a new
source.
The treatment plant operator was not adequately certified and had a range of
other municipal responsibilities.
The system lacked the financial resources to install treatment for nitrate.
~7\
Aurora and Brookings shared the cost of constructing a transmission pipeline to interconnect
the two systems.
Aurora customers now pay slightly more for water, but less than if nitrate treatment had been
installed.
Aurora uses its old well for fire protection.
Outcome.
Brookings provides Aurora residents with drinking water that consistently meets the nitrate
MCL. The risk of blue baby syndrome has virtually been eliminated.
Brookings has back-up systems for power outages and redundant treatment facilities,
} ensuring the reliable provision of safe drinking water.
Aurora's contract with Brookings has allowed it to avoid installing expensive nitrate
I treatment.
Questions about South Dakota's Capacity Development Program? Contact Kevin Espeland • SD Department of Environment
and Natural Resources • Joe Foss Building • 523 E. Capitol • Pierre, SD 57501 • (605) 773-3754 • kevin.espeland@state.sd.us
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
System Capacity Development Case Study
Jefferson Communities Water System, Florida, 2002
Jefferson County is a rural, economically distressed area in the Florida panhandle with
about 13,000 residents. Lloyd Water Works Authority (LWWA) was a small water system
in the County that served only a portion of one community, totaling 32 residential
connections.
Jefferson County residents not connected to LWWA were facing acute health risks from
using private ground water wells with high concentrations of coliform bacteria. LWWA did
not have the capacity to extend service to these residents.
The Jefferson County residents' private ground water wells lack the depth and
proper casing to avoid contamination from nearby septic tanks and are
susceptible to surface runoff, petroleum leaching from underground gasoline
tanks, and a potential leak from an area chemical plant.
LWWA lacked the facilities to provide service to the Jefferson County residents.
LWWA did not have a formal management structure.
LWWA lacked the financial resources to expand service to other areas of the
County.
int Powers Agencies (Regionalizatii
Local residents, unhappy with the quality of their water, initiated the development of a new
county-wide system to replace and expand LWWA. A public awareness campaign that
included community meetings, political and health department support, and newspaper
coverage led to the development of JEFCOM, a new system that will serve 1,000
connections and approximately 2,500 customers.
JEFCOM received grants and loans from DWSRF and USDA Rural Development for
chlorine treatment and system expansion.
JEFCOM is operated under a new organizational structure which consists of one system
manager and a board with one representative from each of the nine communities served.
Construction has begun on the new system and will be completed by November 2002.
Outcomes
JEFCOM consumers will be protected from acute illnesses caused by
microbiological contamination.
JEFCOM consumers will be provided with safe, reliable water that complies with drinking
water standards for the first time. The water will be provided at a reasonable cost, with water
bills expected to be between $20 and $25 per month.
JEFCOM will likely receive widespread support in the future, because customers
have been involved with the planning and development of JEFCOM since its creation.
Questions about Florida's Capacity Development Program? Contact Greg Parker • FL Drinking Water Section • Twin Towers
Office Building • 2600 Blair Stone Road • Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 • (850) 487-1762 • greg.parker@dep.state.fl.us
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
System Capacity Development Case Study
Pittsfield, New Hampshire, 1998
Backgrouni
Pittsfield Aqueduct Company, an investor-owned utility, had been designed to provide
water to several textile mills. Water quantity for the mills drove this system's design in the
19th century. Pittsfield currently has 620 connections, 75% of which are residential. The
system's 1,860 residential customers no longer require the same high water quantity.
'th Challer
Pittsfield consumers were exposed to high levels of bacterial contamination and high
turbidity levels due to an unfiltered surface water supply. Stagnation of water in the
distribution system was also a problem, potentially leading to microbial contamination.
Technical
Managerial
Financial
Pittsfield's transmission and distribution systems were oversized.
Pittsfield experienced frequent water main breaks.
Pittsfield was in violation of Surface Water Treatment Rule requirements and
was facing heavy fines.
Pittsfield's part-time operator did not have time to adequately oversee system
operation or communicate with customers.
Pittsfield's ownership did not communicate effectively with its customers.
Pittsfield had begun construction of a treatment plant. However, the cost was a
burden because Pittsfield could not secure a low interest loan.
Actions:
Operatic
The investors put the Pittsfield Aqueduct Company up for sale. After a year on the market,
the nearby Pennichuck water utility - a larger utility with substantial technical, managerial and
financial resources — purchased the system.
Pennichuck secured a State grant and refinanced a loan procured to complete the new
Pittsfield filtration plant.
Pennichuck received a HUD Community Development Block Grant to upgrade the
distribution system and improve water quality.
Pennichuck finished construction of the treatment facility and upgraded the distribution
system, dramatically improving the quality of the finished water. Customers are now
I better protected from the acute illness that can result from exposure to
microbiological contaminants.
Pennichuck installed a computer control system to monitor the facility from a remote location
and designated an operator to make daily visits to the plant, ensuring the consistent
provision of safe water.
Pennichuck initiated a customer service program to educate Pittsfield customers about their
water system, promoting the public's right to know and building trust and
support in the community for continued provision of safe water.
Pittsfield customers benefited from a 5% reduction in water rates.
Questions about New Hampshire's Capacity Development Program? Contact Robert Mann • NH Department of Environmental
Services Water Supply Engineering Bureau • PO Box 95 • 6 Hazen Drive • Concord, NH 03302-0095 • (603) 271-5171 •
rmann@des.state.nh.us
-------
<&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
System Capacity Development Case Study
Clarion Township General Authority, Pennsylvania, 1998
Clarion Township is a rural community in western Pennsylvania. The Clarion Township
General Authority (CTGA) purchased drinking water for its 203 connections from the
Pennsylvania-American Water Company (PAWC), a large investor-owned system.
CTGA was unable to cost-effectively provide water to households nearby that were
inadequately served by private wells. Some wells had microbial contamination, others had
high levels of iron and manganese, and some could not produce adequate quantities of
water.
Technical
Managerial
Financial
Actions:
The distribution system required upgrades - water loss from leaks was high
and meters did not function properly. Main breaks would sometimes go
unnoticed until major portions of the distribution system had lost service.
CTGA was managed by a board of part-time volunteers who were unable to
address the technical and financial difficulties of the system.
CTGA became unable to meet their financial obligation to PAWC for the
purchased water.
CTGA's water rates were approximately 20% higher than PAWC's statewide
single tariff pricing.
'nershio Transfer fPrivatizatio
CTGA sold the water system to PAWC for the amount of the debt owed to PAWC.
PAWC obtained a low-interest loan from PENNVEST (the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund in Pennsylvania) for service connections to households with contaminated and
inadequate wells.
PAWC assigned a part-time certified operator to oversee the system.
PAWC extended service to 148 households in the Clarion Township, increasing the number of
people with access to safe drinking water. These customers are now protected from
'the acute illness that can result from exposure to microbiological contami-
nants.
PAWC conducted a comprehensive leak detection survey to investigate the high rate of water
loss. In response, they replaced critical sections of distribution piping and the system's aging
meters. They also installed equipment to automate the water distribution system, ensuring
continuous water service to customers.
PAWC reduced rates for Township customers to the statewide single tariff price of
approximately $5 per 1,000 gallons, or $100 per household per year.
Questions about Pennsylvania's Capacity Development Program? Contact Dennis Lee • PA Department of Environmental
Protection • Rachel Carson State Office Building • PO Box 8466 • Harrisburg, PA 17105-8466 • (717) 772-4058 •
denlee@state.pa.us
-------
INTENTIONALLY
-------
Office of Water (4606M)
EPA-816-R-02-022
www.epa.gov/safewater
September 2002
Printed on Recycled Paper
------- |