OnTap · OnTap Winter 1995 3 APWA Sponsors National Public Works Week community, so they will understand how neces-sary and difficult public works employees’ jobs

OnTap Winter 1995 1

OnTapDrinking Water News For America’s Small Communities

Winter 1995Volume 4, Issue 1

Spread the Word for Water

National Drinking Water Week Is May 7–13It’s time to make plans for National Drinking

Water Week, and there are as many benefits toparticipating as there are ways to get involved.

“There are hundreds of ways communitiesand individuals can use water more efficientlyand decrease pollution,” says John Daniel, chairof the National Drinking Water Alliance.

For water system owners and operators, com-munity water protection and water use efficiencycan also mean lower treatment costs and fewercompliance problems in the future. NationalDrinking Water Week, to be held May 7–13,provides an opportunity to educate your commu-nity about all aspects of drinking water, includinghow your water system is required to complywith regulations and how those regulations im-pact a system’s treatment methods and user rates.

“Because water flows so easily through ourlives, we tend to take it for granted. We leave itscare to others,” Daniel says. But “every one of us

has the opportunity to take positive actions forwater every day.”

Therefore, the alliance, of which the NationalDrinking Water Clearinghouse is a part, sponsorsNational Drinking Water Week to draw attentionto the role we all play in protecting our waterresources. To help focus that attention, the alli-ance recommends that three basic principles beemphasized to guide people’s actions:• conserve water,• protect water, and• become involved in local decisions that

affect water sources and water quality.According to alliance literature produced

especially for National Drinking Water Week,these actions can be accomplished in 10 keyways:

1. Take potentially harmful products, such asleftover paint, motor oil, and used batteries to

“Safe, AffordableWater for All RuralFamilies”An Interview with USDAUnder Secretary Bob Nash

Continued on page 7

On Tap is apublication of theNational Drinking

Water Clearinghouse,sponsored by the

Rural Utilities Service.

Under Secretary Bob Nash has directed theU.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) ruraldevelopment agencies for the past two years.As one of six USDA under secretariesappointed by President Clinton, he plays akey role in the reorganization of all RuralEconomic and Community Developmentprograms and the promotion of a varietyof water-related programs and initiatives.

On January 19, 1995, Nash met withNational Drinking Water Clearinghouserepresentatives Sanjay Saxena and BethCahape. The following text represents hisperspectives about the recent appointment ofa new USDA secretary, along with his viewsabout what impact the USDA reorganizationwill have on small community water system

programs. They began their discussion, however,with a look at the Water 2000 initiative to “placea faucet in every American home by the year2000.”

Saxena’s and Cahape’s questions are in bold-face, followed by Nash’s responses.

Can you tell us a little bit about why Water2000 was created andhow this initiative mightbenefit small communitywater systems?

For the greatest coun-try in the history of theworld, it doesn’t makesense for some communi-ties to have to get theirContinued on page 19Bob Nash, U.S. Department of AgricultureUnder Secretary for Rural Economic and CommunityDevelopment, has an extensive administrativebackground in rural and economic development.

2 OnTap Winter 1995

R E S O U R C E S

NA

TIO

NAL DRINKING WA

TE

R

C

LEAR IN GHOUSE

Volume 4, Issue 1Winter 1995

Sponsored byRural Utilities

Service

AdministratorWally B. Beyer

Loan SpecialistDonna Roderick

Established in 1991 at WestVirginia University, the NationalDrinking Water Clearinghouse

is funded by the Water andWaste Disposal Division of the

Rural Utilities Service.

National Drinking WaterClearinghouse

Manager, WVU EnvironmentalServices and Training Division

John L. Mori, Ph.D.

Program CoordinatorSanjay Saxena

Technical ServicesCoordinator

David Pask, P. Eng.

PublicationsSupervisorJill A. Ross

Editor/ProgramRepresentative

Diana Knott

Managing EditorHarriet Emerson

Staff WritersP.J. Cameon

Lauretta GalbraithKathy Jesperson

Graphic DesignerEric Merrill

On Tap is a free publication,produced four times a year(February, May, August, and

November). Articles, letters tothe editor, news items, photo-

graphs, or other materialssubmitted for publication are

welcome. Please addresscorrespondence to:

Editor, On Tap, NDWCWest Virginia University

P.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506

Permission to quote from orreproduce articles in this

publication is granted whendue acknowledgment is given.

Please send a copy of thepublication in which informationwas used to the On Tap editor

at the address above.

The contents of this publicationdo not necessarily reflect the

views and policies of the RuralUtilities Service, nor doesmention of trade names or

commercial products constituteendorsement or

recommendation for use.ISSN 1061-9291

OnTapby Sanjay SaxenaNDWC Program Coordinator

Greetings to all On Tap readers! This is thethird anniversary issue of our publication and Iwant to say “thanks” to all of you. Your feedback,comments, and encouragement have contributedto making On Tap a meaningful newsletter.

Our circulation has grown from 5,100 toalmost 18,000 during the past three years. Wecontinue to receive requests for clearinghouseinformation and On Tap subscriptions. And wecontinue to grow as an organization.

In the fall issue we introduced LaurieKlappauf and P.J. Cameon who are producing

Water Sense—our new financial newsletter. Threenew staff members have joined the NationalDrinking Water Clearinghouse (NDWC). I wantto welcome Harriet Emerson, On Tap’s managingeditor; Eric Merrill, NDWC’s graphic artist; andMary Stewart, NDWC’s senior program adminis-trator. Together we’ll strive to provide you withinformation that will help make your job just alittle easier.

Also, the NDWC is in the process of estab-lishing an editorial board for On Tap. We hopethis will give readers an opportunity to participateeven more. (See the story on page 3.)

In an effort to better understand the needs ofsmall water systems and the problems arising for

those of you in the field, NDWC staffconducted an informal survey of 50small water system professionalslate in 1994. We think you’ll find theresponses interesting. (See chart be-low.) In future issues of On Tap, weplan to address the concerns youraised in the survey.

Results of NDWC’s Informal SurveyOther issues of concern

to small systems

• operator training• centralized control andmonitoring of systems

• increasing number of regulatedcontaminants

• complexity of treatmenttechnology

• money to meet compliancerequirements

• state permitting process• SDWA flexibility provisionsfor small water systems

• SRF provisions for small systems• viability• rising construction costs• groundwater disinfection rule• balancing expenditures forenvironmental regulations

• managerial and operationalefficiency

• technical assistance and training• corrosion control• radon rule

Primary issue for small com-munity drinking water systems

• install alternative technologies• adequate public healthprotection with limited resources

• “feasible” small systemstechnology

• local leadership• tight budgets• high user fees• increasing operation andmaintenance costs

• Lead and Copper Rule• Surface Water Treatment Rule• financial and operationalviability

• Phase II and V Rules• funds for testing/monitoring• understanding reasoningbehind EPA regulations

Sanjay Saxena, left, NDWC programcoordinator, discusses plans for On Tap’snew editorial board with Harriet Emerson,On Tap managing editor, and Eric Merrill,NDWC graphic artist.

On Tap Welcomes New Staff, New Year

Products or servicesbeneficial to small systems

• material for operatorcertification

• fact sheets on regulations,treatment technology, andfinancial management

• alternative technologyoptions

• alternative funding• lab lists• technical assistance bylarge systems

• monitoring• viability• literature to educate thepublic and mobilize support

• Internet use• satellite downlink sites• very simple, short, freenewsletters to communicatewith systems with fewerthan 500 people

OnTap Winter 1995 3

APWA Sponsors National Public Works Weekcommunity, so they will understand how neces-sary and difficult public works employees’ jobscan be, she says.

According to Van Hooser, a number of com-munity activities can increase public awarenessand appreciation. For example, employees mightconduct a tour of their public works facility, senda speaker to address local groups about issues intheir area, or visit public schools and show thestudents the equipment they use on the job.

For more information about National PublicWorks Week or the APWA, contact Van Hooser orDiana Ewert, chapter relations manager, Ameri-can Public Works Association, 106 West 11th St.,Suite 1800, Kansas City, MO 64105-1806. Youmay also call them at (816) 472-6100.

Many people take drinking water, sewagetreatment, and snow removal for granted.National Public Works Week, May 21–27, pro-vides an opportunity to educate consumers aboutthe importance of these essential services.

Sponsored by the American Public WorksAssociation (APWA), the week was establishedby President John F. Kennedy in 1960 as areminder of the effect public works have oneveryday life. Contributing in all levels ofgovernment, public works employees includeengineers, consultants, contractors, and educators.

When public works services get attention,unfortunately it’s often negative, says Susan VanHooser, APWA marketing director. This givesemployees a chance to show the positive side oftheir work and to build a relationship with the

N E W S & N O T E SN E W S & N O T E S

WAVE Saves Businesses Water and Money

On Tap is looking for five to eight peoplewho keep abreast of trends in the drinking waterfield and want to share their knowledge, insights,and recommendations.

The National Drinking Water Clearinghouse(NDWC) is setting up an On Tap editorialadvisory board (EAB). Consider taking part indecisions about our newsletter’s content anddirection. We want feedback and ideas: Whatwe’re doing right and how we can improve.Also, we want to reflect the professional andgeographic diversity of those who use NDWCinformation.

Who can serve on the board? Anyone in-volved in small community drinking waterissues, including operators; system managers;

NDWC To Establish On Tap Editorial Board

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) is developing a voluntary partnershipprogram with commercial businesses to increasewater efficiency and, thus, prevent pollution. Thepartnership, called Water Alliances for VoluntaryEfficiency (WAVE), encourages businesses toinstall water efficient fixtures and adopt waterefficient practices.

The program’s first phase targets the lodgingindustry, says John Flowers, WAVE programdirector. In the future, EPA plans to expand theprogram to other commercial businesses, includ-ing office buildings, multi-family housing,hospitals, and universities.

WAVE’s goals for the lodging industry includereducing water use and associated energy con-sumption; informing hotel guests and employeesabout the importance of water conservation; and

helping hotels realize a dollar savings for theirefforts.

Participating hotels and motels are encouragedto install water efficient bathroom fixtures,kitchen and laundry facilities, cooling towers, andlandscaping. According to Flowers, the programhas the potential to reduce the utility bills ofparticipating lodging facilities by more than 30percent. For example, he says, an 1,800-roomhotel in Las Vegas recently installed low-flowshower heads and faucet aerators that will resultin a savings of more than $200,000 per year inwater and energy bills.

To help the facilities achieve maximum water-use efficiency, participating WAVE membersreceive “WAVE-Saver,” an interactive PC-basedsoftware program that allows hotel maintenanceContinued on page 13

engineers; local, state, and federal officials; andmembers of assistance organizations. Boardmembers serve two years, share equal status, anddiscuss ideas with On Tap’s managing editor. Wewill hold at least one group meeting each year,through a conference call or a face-to-face meet-ing. Each EAB member will review past issues ofOn Tap and recommend future editorial content.Ideally, discussions will include debate on timelyissues, readers’ interests, and important trends inthe field.

To apply for a position on the board, pleasesend a letter by May 1 detailing your interest anddrinking water background to Harriet Emerson,On Tap editor, P.O. Box 6064, Morgantown, WV26506-6064.

4 OnTap Winter 1995

AmeriCorps Helps Small Communities


by Lauretta GalbraithNDWC Staff Writer

You may have heard about the AmeriCorpsprogram, President Clinton’s national serviceinitiative, and how it will provide thousands ofAmericans with money to help pay for highereducation or repay their college loans in exchangefor community service. But did you know thatAmeriCorps participants might be able to helpsolve water contamination problems in your area?

Participants must be U.S. citizens or residentswho are at least 17 years old (16 for some youthprograms). The AmeriCorps program requiresthat they work a minimum of 140 hours a monthin areas of education, public safety, social service,or the environment. In return, participants receivea living allowance of approximately $7,500 peryear; health care; and an educational credit of$4,725 per year to finance college tuition or payback student loans.

President Clinton praised AmeriCorps in hisState of the Union Address in January, saying it is“the very best example” of how government canhelp teach people to solve community problems.

Jamal Kadri, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) project officer for the “Neighbor-hood Improvements: Lead, Radon, and UrbanWaters” program, says a wide range of peoplehave shown interest in being AmeriCorps partici-pants. “Our AmeriCorps team in Newark, NewJersey, includes a 44-year-old who is completinga graduate degree in environmental science andan 18-year-old working on finishing his GED. It’svery diverse.”

Small drinking water systems may be eligiblefor assistance by establishing a program or—amore likely scenario—by tapping into an existingprogram. According to Wendy Grassi, a spokes-person for the Corporation for National Service,which oversees AmeriCorps, there is still money

available for organizations that are interested andshow a need for AmeriCorps help.

Programs are selected through an on goingnational competition, says Grassi. “We areaccepting applications through March 1995from organizations that want to get involved.[Organizations] can call their state commissionson national service for an application. They canget the number from their state governor’s office.All applications from local programs are submit-ted to the Corporation for National Servicethrough the state offices.”

Grassi says that currently 350 programs arefunded through AmeriCorps: 58 through nationalnonprofit organizations and 292 through localand state nonprofit agencies. Programs involvedinclude nonprofits, multi-city and multi-statepartnerships, schools and universities, and inter-denominational coalitions. Federal agenciesinvolved include the EPA, the Department ofthe Interior, the Department of Energy, theDepartment of Agriculture, and the Neighbor-hood Reinvestment Corporation.

“Each project is tailored to meet local needswith multiple objectives of getting things done,”says Kadri. Environmentally based projects“involve seeing environmental changes andincreasing public awareness. We also want to getAmeriCorps [participants] interested in careeropportunities in the environmental field.”

In addition to providing funds, AmeriCorpsrequires programs to raise money on their own.“The programs have to match some of the fund-ing,” says Grassi. “For example, for the minimumwage, programs must raise 15 percent. They alsomust meet 25 percent of the administrative costs.”

Drinking Water Projects Already ExistA number of drinking water-related projects

have been funded through AmeriCorps withnational organizations as their sponsors. For ex-ample, the EPA has been awarded approximately$1.5 million for three projects that focus attentionon water problems in low-income, disadvantagedcommunities.

One project is working to improve the waterquality of the Anacostia watershed in Washington,D.C. Participants will conduct biological, physi-cal, and water quality monitoring; clean up trashand debris from the river; reforest suitable sitesalong the river; and record information at inven-tory sites.

Another project is helping to improve thewater quality in South Texas colonias where thewater typically is contaminated by human andanimal waste. Participants will identify and mapContinued on next page

OnTap Winter 1995 5


California; Charleston, South Carolina; and Den-ver, Colorado.

Participants Are Still NeededPeople who want to become AmeriCorps

participants may call the AmeriCorps informationhotline (see conclusion for the phone number)and talk with an operator who can answer specificquestions about the programs.

“People who are interested in performingservices should first find out what programs arein their area of the country,” Grassi says. “Theyshould find out where they want to work and thenapply to those organizations directly. We don’trecruit participants here in Washington, D.C. . . .Each organization recruits its own participants.”

The selection criteria for participants is basedon the organization’s own goals and objectives.For the most part, organizations are looking forparticipants with a commitment to communityservice and leadership potential.

To help programs recruit participants, theCorporation for National Service has establisheda databank that stores information on all thepeople who have submitted an application.

“When we receive [applications], we put thenames in a databank, so when an organizationcalls us and asks, ‘Who do you have inKalamazoo, Michigan?’ or ‘Who do you havethat can do water quality testing?’ we can refer[participants] to them,” Grassi says.

For more information about becoming anAmeriCorps participant or for information aboutspecific programs, call the AmeriCorps informa-tion hotline, (800) 942-2677. For informationabout NCCC, call (202) 606-5000, ext. 178.

Continued from previous pagepotential contaminant sources; enter informationinto a geographic information system; distributebilingual educational materials; and conducteducational seminars for the general public.

The EPA will also help restore urban streamsin four low-income areas across the country: EastSan Francisco Bay area; Newark, New Jersey;Pierce County, Washington; and Atlanta, Georgia.AmeriCorps participants will map potential con-taminants; conduct water quality monitoring; andevaluate urban streams, as well as assess theareas’ habitat and wildlife.

Additionally, the Soil Conservation Service issponsoring a number of programs in SouthernCalifornia through water quality and water con-servation projects. The Department of the Interioris working with the Bureau of Reclamation andthe Metropolitan Water District of Southern Cali-fornia to conduct water conservation initiatives toreduce residential water consumption, saveenergy, and reduce wastewater discharge.

VISTA and NCCC Are Part of AmeriCorpsThere are two additional divisions of

AmeriCorps. They are the National CivilianCommunity Corps (NCCC), a new service corpsfocusing on the environment, and the Volunteersin Service to America, which is involved withanti-poverty work.

The NCCC’s environmental focus is in suchareas as water quality testing; nonpoint sourcepollution reduction; urban watershed surveys;and mountain streams and watersheds protection.Members serve for approximately 11 months,living and training on down-sized military bases infour locations: Aberdeen, Maryland; San Diego,

New Quarter Brings Rate Changes forWater and Waste Disposal Loans

• market rate: 6.875 percent (up .750 percentfrom last quarter).RUS water and waste disposal loans are

administered at the local level through the newRural Economic and Community Development(RECD) offices, formerly known as FarmersHome Administration. Local RECD offices canprovide specific loan and application information.

For the number of your state RECD office, callthe National Drinking Water Clearinghouse at(800) 624-8301.

After two quarters of steady interest rates, thefirst quarter of 1995 brought rate changes forRural Utilities Service (RUS) water and wastedisposal loans.

Set quarterly at three different levels, each ofwhich has specific qualification requirements, theinterest rates in effect from January 1 throughMarch 31 are:

• poverty line rate: 4.500 percent (unchangedfrom last quarter);

•intermediate rate: 5.625 percent (up .375percent from last quarter);

6 OnTap Winter 1995


Report Recommends Priorities forSmall System Funding

State Officials Cite Small System Needs“Small systems clearly have needs that are

different from the needs of larger systems,” saidCohn.

For example, approximately 75 percent ofrespondents said loan funding is not feasible forsmall systems to address compliance problems.Reasons cited include excessive per householdcost to repay loans and the previously statedinability of small systems to compete with largersystems for funding. The report states that smallsystems “either will not qualify for loans in theamounts needed to bring the operations intocompliance, or will be unable to repay any loansthat are distributed.”

The greater financial capability of largesystems also allows for better managerial andtechnical expertise.

For these reasons, survey respondents agreedthat non-compliance with drinking water regula-tions is primarily a problem of small systems,according to the report.

Responding states cited operator training,states conducting all sample analyses, and betterinformation on monitoring/reporting (M/R) re-quirements as the three most effective solutionsto resolving M/R violations. In some states, M/Rviolations account for more than 75 percent of allviolations. Respondents cited operator training,capital financing for physical plant projects, andimproved financial management practices as themost effective solutions to maximum contami-nant level violations.

The respondents generally rated restructuringlow among options for bringing systems intocompliance.

Cohn said there are many reasons why smallcommunities are reluctant to consider restructuring.These issues include communities’ pride in theirsystems, the idea of “home rule,” complicatedtax matters, and a lack of complete understand-ing of a community’s responsibility when itundertakes the operation of a water system.

“Many states have not put into place mecha-nisms for healthy systems to take over smallsystems,” he said. “That’s something that a lotof states have to work out.”

EPA Takes a Progressive ViewDespite the criticism of restructuring, Peter

Shanaghan, small systems coordinator for theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),maintains that restructuring can be beneficialfor systems.

by P.J. CameonNDWC Staff Writer

Funding for training and technical assistanceand grants for capital improvements are amongthe recommendations included in a recent reportof small drinking water system needs.

The recommendations are included in “WhatAm I Drinking? An Analysis of Small DrinkingWater System Needs,” a report by Robert A.Rapoza Associates for the Center for CommunityChange. The report, financed by The Ford Foun-dation, analyzes the results of a survey conductedin 1993. It is one of a number of rural develop-ment reports issued by Rapoza Associates for thecenter and The Ford Foundation.

The report states that funding is needed toaddress inadequate technical capability amongsmall drinking water systems. As an option toaddress the problem, the report recommendsfunding be provided to states and qualified non-profits for management and operations training,as well as technical assistance. The report furtherrecommends a national requirement that alldrinking water system operators be certified—anindirect effort to address decision-making diffi-culties that are “inherent in many small systemmanagement structures.”

To address another problem—inadequatefinancial resources—the report recommends thatgrants be offered to small systems “in addition toor in lieu of a revolving loan fund.”

Despite the recommendation concerninggrants, Rapoza Associates continues to supportthe proposed drinking water state revolving fund(SRF). “Anything that increases the amount ofmoney available is a good thing,” said PaulCohn, a policy associate with the Rapoza organi-zation. He added that small systems needimproved access to SRFs if they are to be of anybenefit in addressing small system needs. Somecriticism has been launched toward wastewaterSRFs in the past because of small systems’inability to compete with the larger systemsfor funding.

The report’s recommendations followed asurvey of state officials who assist small drinkingwater systems. Officials from 30 state drinkingwater programs completed the survey and othersanswered selected questions about their experi-ences with small systems. (Most Midwesternstates did not respond, probably because thesurvey was conducted in 1993 when they werepreoccupied with the massive flooding.)

Continued on next page

OnTap Winter 1995 7

May 19951 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31

Continued from previous page


adding that the document should be an inspira-tion to small systems facing similar problems.

Cohn said while restructuring may providelong-range solutions for troubled systems,operator training is the most immediate solution.He also stressed the importance of technicalassistance for operators and the benefits ofhaving states or nonprofit organizations conductwater sample analyses.

For more information on the report or toreceive a copy, contact Robert Rapoza, president,or Paul Cohn, policy associate, at Rapoza Asso-ciates, 601 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Suite 850,Washington, DC 20004; or call them at (202)393-5225. The report can be obtained for $10.

Shanaghan said restructuring is one routefor systems “to provide high-quality services ataffordable costs.”

He said the Rapoza document makes somegood points critical of restructuring’s effective-ness, but those points are made from a “retro-spective” viewpoint. “In the past, there was littleor no reason for systems to think about joiningefforts. It was easy for them to come into existence,and [once established] there were few requirementsfor them to meet.”

According to Shanaghan, in recent years thehealth effects of water quality and the need formonitoring have become more apparent. In re-sponse, he said, restructuring has been presentedas a “prospective” option for small systemsstruggling to take greater precautions to protecttheir water quality.

“We are in the process of putting together adocument featuring about three dozen systemsthat have successfully used restructuring. It’s acompelling set of case studies,” Shanaghan said.

He said the systems are using “a wide varietyof creative and well-thought-out approaches tostrengthen their ability to provide good water,”

National Drinking Water Week Is May 7–137. Encourage those who have septic tanks to

have them inspected and pumped out regularly.If not properly cared for, septic tanks can leaknitrates, bacteria, and chemicals into groundwater.

8. Join a community groupthat is working to improve andsafeguard water quality.

9. Reduce, reuse, and recycleto help conserve water used inmanufacturing and to cut downon trash that ends up in landfillsor oceans.

10. Spread the word for waterto friends, family, and co-workers.

The more educated and aware people become,the more likely they are to act accordingly.

These key activities are included in aNational Drinking Water Week activity packetthat also includes information for your localmedia, community involvement ideas, studentactivity sheets, and water information contacts.Each packet costs $3, plus $2 for shipping andhandling. See the back page for additionalordering information.

Continued from page 1special collection centers because what youthrow in the trash, pour down the drain, or dumpon the ground can get into your water source.

2. Plant grasses and shrubs thatdon’t need a lot of water. In manyparts of the country, as much as 50to 70 percent of household water isused for lawns and gardens.

3. Never cook with or drink hotwater from the tap. Start with coldwater and heat it, because hot watercan be contaminated by lead frompipe, brass fittings, and solder.

4. Replace old, inefficient water fixtures andappliances with water-efficient ones. Low-flowshower heads and toilets can save hundreds ofgallons of water a year, and save you money inthe process.

5. Use pesticides and fertilizers sparingly,because as rainwater passes through the ground,it takes these chemicals with it and can contami-nate your water source.

6. Support measures to protect watershedsand wellhead areas. Preventing pollution is fareasier and less expensive than treating water tomake it safe to drink.

FOOTNOTE: Rapoza Associates has recentlycompleted a follow-up report that examines states’models for addressing small systems’ needs. Specifi-cally, it looks at the opportunities and obstacles tocoordinating funding as well as regulatory agencyactivities at the federal and state levels with regardto small water systems. It also profiles seven states’approaches to enhancing this type of coordination.This report is available for $10.

8 OnTap Winter 1995

Celebrate Earth Day’s 25th Anniversary


event. The smaller ones are just as important.Groups are organizing trash clean-ups, graffitiremoval, parades and fairs, and essay contests,”he continues. “Anything to help make the earth abetter place are the kinds of things we encourage.”

Other focuses for the 25th anniversary in-clude encouraging the use of recycled products;restoring or improving local parks and beaches;supporting preservation efforts for endangeredspecies; conserving water; composting food andyard debris; and using only biodegradable soapsand detergents.

There are many sources of Earth Day infor-mation. Earth Day USA offers a $10 organizer’s

manual to help plan events. In addition, theyhave fact sheets, available for a mini-

mal fee. For information write toEarth Day USA, P.O. Box 470,

Peterborough, NH 03458.You may also contactEarth Day USA viaphone, (603) 924-7720,or fax (603) 924-7855.

Earth Day Networkprovides a free list ofevents scheduled in eachstate. For a copy of the

events in your state, senda self-addressed stamped

envelope with a letter re-questing information for a

particular state to Earth DayNetwork, P.O. Box 9827, San Diego,

CA 92169. Earth Day Network also offers a free organ-

izer’s guide. To receive a copy, send a self-addressed stamped 9x12-inch envelope with$2 postage to the above address. Enclose aletter of request. You may also request informa-tion from Earth Day Network by e-mail [email protected].

In addition, Earth Day Network has a 24-hourtelephone line. You can call and let them knowabout activities you are planning or receive infor-mation on events in various parts of the country.That number is (619) 496-3361.

Chase also suggests calling your localinformation directory and asking for Earth Daywith your city’s name. This will let you knowif an organization in your area is organizingevents. She says you can also try your localAudubon Society or Sierra Club for Earth Dayinformation.

by Lauretta GalbraithNDWC Staff Writer

Thousands across the country will celebratethe 25th anniversary of Earth Day on April 22with events that demonstrate concern for theenvironment. The first Earth Day in 1970 in-volved more than 20 million people throughoutthe U.S. Volunteers engaged in activities thatraised environmental awareness and focusednational attention on air and water pollution.

In the next few years, the country institution-alized environmental safety. In 1970, the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency was formedand in 1974, Congress passed the Safe Drink-ing Water Act.

While the country has madeprogress environmentallyover the past 25 years,Earth Day celebrationswere fairly low key untilthe 1990 event whichinvolved more than 200million people in 141countries. This celebra-tion brought the envi-ronment to the forefrontonce again, and since thena number of organizationshave attempted to maintainthe momentum inspired by theoriginal and 1990 events. Twogroups in particular are working on thenational level: Earth Day Network and EarthDay USA.

Earth Day Network, a federation of localEarth Day groups, encourages individuals to getinvolved at the local level. Carolyn Chase, aspokesperson for the network, urges people topick a project they see as valuable in their areaand get involved. “Adopt a park, participate inclean-ups, or help with publicity,” she suggests.

Earth Day USA, an organization that worksclosely with companies, individuals, groups, andinstitutions that promote environmental pro-grams, plans to concentrate efforts on energyefficiency. “We would like to make energy effi-ciency to Earth Day 1995 what recycling was toEarth Day 1990,” says Bruce Anderson, EarthDay USA president. He says that in 1990 therewere few curbside recycling programs in thecountry, but partially due to Earth Day activitiesthat year, there are now more than 5,000 curbsiderecycling programs throughout the country.

“There are many things individuals and com-munities can do to help the environment,” saysAnderson. “It’s not necessary to have a large

OnTap Winter 1995 9

Monitoring Flexibility Exists, Says EPA

But is it as simple as it sounds?by Kathy JespersonNDWC Staff Writer

Drinking water system operators and manag-ers have been faced with dozens more monitoringrequirements for potential contaminants in thelast few years. Not the least among these require-ments are the Phase II and Phase V rules, whichrequire small community and nontransientnoncommunity water systems to monitor for awide variety of chemical contaminants. Formany small communities, compliance with thesechemical rules is especially difficult becauselaboratory tests are very expensive.

In response to these concerns, the U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) has empha-sized that state regulatory agencies have theoption to offer waiver programs, which couldwaive certain contaminant monitoring require-ments for a system, a region, or even an entire state.

Developed with the assistance of Mike Muse,implementation coordinator of the chemicalphases in the U.S. EPA’s Office of DrinkingWater, the following article examines the criti-cisms of monitoring requirements, potentialmonitoring flexibilities, and the advantages anddisadvantages of state waiver programs.

When Snowflake, Arizona’s Mayor RayCaldwell heard there were more drinking waterregulations to contend with, he got mad.Caldwell says his town’s water source has alwaysbeen clean, and he’s angry because he viewsmore regulation as unnecessary and burdensome,especially since it’s causing sampling costs to soar.

“We have a water source that’s pure andabundant,” he declares, “and it’s never beenproven to have any contamination in it. Our littletown is spending in the thousands of dollars ayear for tests that come back negative.

“We’re not anti-environmental,” he con-cludes. “We want clean water. But why shouldwe be punished for a problem in New Jersey?”

Keeping up with increasing regulation buildsanxiety for everyone involved, but especiallyfor small systems with limited resources. Andbecause the Phase II and Phase V rules requireinitial quarterly monitoring for most of the regu-lated contaminants they encompass, compliancecosts are high. (See chart on page 10.)

In some cases, individual water systems willbe paying from $12,000 to $15,000 for initialannual sampling to monitor for pesticides(synthetic organic chemicals, or SOCs), metals(inorganic compounds, or IOCs), and industrial

solvents (volatile organic chemicals, or VOCs)regulated under these two rules, says the 1993U.S. EPA document Technical and EconomicCapacity of States and Public Water Systems toImplement Drinking Water Regulations.

Because of these high costs, water systemsacross the country are searching for monitoringflexibilities, and the EPA says options exist.

“We’re trying to draw attention to the factthat monitoring flexibilities exist,” says PeterShanaghan, small systems coordinator for EPA.“And we’re trying to answer the overwhelmingoutcry that so many systems have expressed—that they don’t have the resources to provide fourquarterly samples.”

Why the outcry?“The biggest problem,” says Vanessa Leiby,

director of the Association of State DrinkingWater Administrators (ASDWA), “is Congressdictated a list of contaminants that EPA had toregulate, whether or not they were found indrinking water at a level of public health threat.Because EPA did not have adequate occurrencedata, they put the onus on the systems to collectdata to ‘prove’ the water wasn’t contaminated.Now EPA expects states to spend their resources[on waiver programs] to let systems out of therequirements they [EPA] put in place.”

Mary Ellen Ley, planning and programanalyst for the state of Wisconsin, agrees.“Flexibilities may make it less burdensome forindividual systems, but unless a state is willingand able to take on the associated burdens, watersystems are unable to take advantage of them.When states choose not to have a waiver pro-gram, systems must comply with the stringentrequirements.”

And, contend Leiby and Ley, with the limitedamount of resources available to small systems,it would be a good idea to make sure that dollarsare spent on the most important measures toprotect public health. “In small systems,” saysLey, “money spent on unnecessary monitoringmay prevent or postpone activities such asconstruction upgrades, microbiological investi-gations, and other protective, preventativemaintenance activities.”

Are there other solutions?There are [potential] solutions to reducing high

monitoring costs,” says Ley. “The most obviousis to just take fewer samples. In Wisconsin, 99percent of the water systems are served byContinued on page 10

‘‘We’re trying to

answer the

overwhelming

outcry that so many

systems have

expressed—that

they don’t have

the resources to

provide four

quarterly samples.’’

Peter Shanaghan,U.S. EPA

Small SystemsCoordinator

R E G U L A T I O N SR E G U L A T I O N S

10 OnTap Winter 1995

However,“all of these solutions requirechanges in federal regulations,” Ley adds. Andshe acknowledges that EPA is under court-ordered deadlines to create new regulations,which makes revising previous ones difficult.

Where’s the flexibility?States must find other ways to reduce moni-

toring requirements and reduce their costs forenvironmental protection. This can occur in avariety of ways. For example, states can cutsystems’ laboratory costs by allowing sample“compositing,” where equal quantities of up tofive samples are combined to produce onesample. For systems serving more than 3,300people, compositing is allowed only among fivesampling points within a single system. However,for systems serving less than 3,300 people,compositing among five different systems ispermitted—increasing the cost savings for thesesmall systems. However, if the sample comesback positive, all five systems must resample.

“Grandfathering” sampling data providesanother monitoring flexibility option. States mayallow systems to use data from tests run withinthree years prior to the initial compliance period

groundwater and do not show significant seasonalvariations in water quality,” making quarterlymonitoring unwarranted, she says.

“Prior to the Phase II regulations, the stateshad sampled the most vulnerable systems forcommonly used pesticides. Quarterly samplingresults indicated that pesticide concentrations donot show significant seasonal variations,” sheexplains. “Unfortunately, the regulations do notallow the states to determine monitoring frequen-cies based on this type of information.”

In addition to taking fewer samples, “anothersolution would be to permit the use of cheapertesting methods,” Ley continues. “There are newscreening methods costing less than $20, whichcan be used to test the most common pesticidegroups. This is the technology that is used inclinical chemistry and drug testing. If a screeningsample is positive, a second test is done.

“The technology for this approach withenvironmental samples exists; however, theregulations still require the most accurate, expen-sive methods for all samples,” Ley says. “As aresult, millions of dollars must be spent to detectpesticides occurring in less than five percent ofthe samples.”

Continued from page 9

But is it as simple as it sounds?



Initial Monitoring Requirements Trigger thatIncreases Requirements

Contaminant Groundwater Surface Water Sampling for Waivers

Asbestos 1 Sample every 9 years > MCL Based on VulnerabilityAssessment

Nitrate Annual Quarterly > 50% MCL No Waivers Allowed

After 1 year < 50% of MCL, surface watersystems may reduce to an annual sample

Nitrite 1 Sample: If 50% of MCL, state discretion > 50% MCL No Waivers Allowed

Inorganic 1 Sample every Annual sample > MCL Based on AnalyticalChemicals (IOCs) 3 years Results of 3 Rounds

Volatile Organic 4 Quarterly samples every 3 years Detection Based on VulnerabilityCompounds Annual after 1 year of no detects (.0005 mg/l) Assessment(VOCs)

Synthetic 4 Quarterly samples every 3 years Detection Based on VulnerabilityOrganic After 1 round of no detects: systems AssessmentCompounds >3300 reduce to 2 samples per year(SOCs) every 3 years; systems < 3300

reduce to 1 sample every 3 years

Unregulated Not Based on Vulnerability • IOCs 1 Sample Applicable Assessment • SOCs 4 Consecutive quarterly samples

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Compliance Monitoring RequirementsUnder the Standardized Monitoring Framework

OnTap Winter 1995 11


Water Fact

Thirty-nine thousandgallons of water are

used to producethe average

domestic auto,including the tires.

—America’s CleanWater Foundation

to satisfy base monitoring requirements. Usingthis flexibility may permit systems to reducesampling frequencies, or they could use the infor-mation as evidence to apply for waivers.

Primarily, however, monitoring flexibilitiesare possible through state waiver programs. Statesare expected to develop and operate their ownprograms, but they must meet the standards of—and be approved by—EPA. These programsenable states to waive a system’s sampling re-quirements for specific contaminants based oncertain criteria—such as whether a system isvulnerable to contamination and whether con-taminants have been used, stored, or transportedin the area. The state can then determine whethera system, watershed, or even the entire state isvulnerable to specific contamination.

EPA’s Shanaghan emphasizes that the major-ity of waivers issued will be for SOCs. “SOCs arethe most expensive contaminants to test for,” hesays, “and they are the easiest to receive waiversfor” because SOCs are primarily found in agricul-tural areas, and they do not occur naturally.

Waivers for VOCs and IOCs are much moredifficult to acquire because these chemicals areused almost everywhere, and some occur natu-rally. Therefore, some sampling must occurbefore the waivers for these contaminants canbe issued.

According to EPA literature titled “Consoli-dated Rule Summary for the Chemical Phases”(see back page), systems cannot get waivers forinitial VOC sampling rounds. However, systemsmay “grandfather,” or use, prior sampling data(i.e., samples taken after January 1, 1988) insteadof sampling again. Systems may apply for awaiver for repeat sampling if the contaminantwas not detected in the initial results, or if thecontaminant was not detected after three con-secutive years of sampling. VOC waivers mustbe renewed every three years.

To qualify for an IOC waiver, the state mustdetermine that water from sampling points willnot exceed the maximum contaminant levelsbased on “all previous analytical results. . . .”These results must include at least three samples,and at least one must have been taken afterJanuary 1, 1990.

Such data should be readily available forsome IOCs that were regulated before Phase IIand Phase V encompassed them, says EPA’sMike Muse, implementation coordinator of thechemical phases in the U.S. EPA’s Office ofDrinking Water. Therefore, it is possible to usethis data when applying for an IOC waiver, which,if granted, must be renewed every nine years.

Continued from previous page While waivers for VOCs and IOCs will bedifficult to obtain, states can waive the samplingrequirements for SOCs “based entirely on thevulnerability of their source water to contamin-ation, even if no sampling has ever beenconducted,” according to EPA’s chemical rulesummary. That means if a system can prove thatan SOC was never used near or in its watershed,the state can issue a waiver effective for onethree-year compliance period.

“It’s always good to have some samples,”says Jackie Pine, environmental engineer forEPA’s Region 3. “But you don’t have to samplefor SOCs if records show that they have never,ever been used in the area.”

If the waiver is not renewed because of detec-tion, changes in use patterns, or other factors,the system must return to the repeat samplingfrequency based on its size and circumstances,says Muse.

Are there special cases?Some chemicals require special monitoring

standards because of their unusual characteris-tics. Asbestos, nitrate, and nitrite fall into thiscategory. While these chemicals are IOCsregulated under Phase II, separate monitoringstandards were imposed to minimize their poten-tial health hazards, says EPA’s Pocket SamplingGuide for Operators of Small Water Systems:Phases II and V. (See back page.)

Known to cause tumors in the lungs oflaboratory animals and, hence, believed toincrease the risk of cancer in humans, asbestosdiffers from other contaminant classes becausecontamination can occur naturally or can be dueto asbestos-cement piping.

Although it is a difficult process, waiversfor asbestos can be obtained. For example, if asystem can prove that asbestos does not occurnaturally in its source water, and if it finds thatthe water in its distribution lines is not suscept-ible to asbestos contamination, the state canissue a waiver good for one nine-year compli-ance period.

For nitrate and nitrite, however, grand-fathering of samples and waivers are simply notallowed because their health risks are so critical.These contaminants are known to causemethemoglobinemia, or “Blue Baby Syndrome,”which causes oxygen deprivation in infants.

Under the Phase II and Phase V rules, sys-tems with 150 or more service connections mustalso monitor for 13 “unregulated” contaminants,so called because they don’t have a maximumcontaminant level. Keeping tabs on unregulatedContinued on page 12


* State waiver programsapproved as part ofState PrimacyApplication

** State programsin place, but waiting finalEPA approval

Source: U.S. Environ-mental ProtectionAgency, December 1994status report

But is it as simple as it sounds?


Continued from page 11contaminants is important, however, because EPAuses this information to establish new regulations,Muse says.

Waivers may also be granted for unregulatedcontaminants based on vulnerability assessments(discussed below) or previous negative analyticalresults, provided the data were collected afterJanuary 1, 1990.

“There are many things a state can do to setup a monitoring flexibility program,” assertsEPA’s Shanaghan. “Based on good sound analy-sis, states can decide to issue monitoring waivers.”

How do waivers work?If a monitoring waiver

program has been estab-lished, the state makes deci-

sions about issuing samplingwaivers on a contaminant-by-

contaminant basis and can issuetwo types: use waivers and suscepti-bility waivers.

A use waiver may be pursued ifa particular contaminant has never

been used in the area delineated around the watersystem’s source water. To obtain this kind ofwaiver, the system, state, or some third party,such as a consultant or engineer, must conduct asurvey of the area, showing not only that thecontaminant has not been used there, but that italso has not been manufactured, stored, or acci-dentally spilled in the area.

If any one of these situations has occurred,“the system is ‘susceptible’ to contamination anda ‘use wavier’ cannot be granted,” states the EPAchemical rule summary. Documenting such infor-mation generally entails:• investigating land-use records;• verifying state pesticide registration

programs; and• examining chemical storage records.

However, if you find that a contaminant hasbeen used in your area, you may still apply for asusceptibility waiver. This kind of waiver requiresa “vulnerability assessment” to determine howvulnerable your source water is to potential con-tamination. However, conducting a vulnerabilityassessment is not always easy and can be expen-sive—ranging from $2,000 to $10,000, dependingon whether the system has kept up-to-date, accu-rate records, according to one consultant.

The assessment must include documentation of:• prior laboratory analysis results;• the source well’s depth and whether it’s cased;• if there is an existing wellhead protection

program;

• the geological/geographic protection of thewater supply;

• proximity of potential contamination; and• other industrial and agricultural activity

occurring in the area.Whether you’re pursuing a use waiver or

susceptibility waiver, and whether your sourcewater is surface water or groundwater, you mustdemonstrate that the areas of the watershed orwell your system draws from are not likely tobecome contaminated during the term of thewaiver, which varies by contaminant.

Further, to participate in many waiver pro-grams, most states require a wellhead protectionprogram, too. That means “managing a land areaaround your well to prevent groundwater con-tamination,” says the EPA document WellheadProtection: A Guide for Small Communities.

This area, which can be quite large, is wherepotential sources of contamination may be found.Your community’s zoning map or current land usemap can help you determine what the land isbeing used for, and, therefore, what contaminantsmay be present. Public education, permittingrestrictions, and regulatory ordinances can helpprotect the area.

Although gathering and organizing thisinformation will require some work, wellheadprotection programs and vulnerability assess-ments can be less costly than monitoring forchemical contaminants that are rarely found, saysLey. And once the work is done, your communitywill be helping to prevent future water contami-nation. Your system can use this information toapply for waivers if your state has an approved orinformally approved waiver program.

Why do states delay waiver programs?According to a December 13, 1994, EPA

status report, only 10 states have EPA approvedstate waiver programs. (See graph at left.)Twenty have informally approved programs,meaning they have developed programs and arewaiting formal EPA regional approval, and 18states are in the process of developing programs.But even when a state goes through the trouble ofsetting up a monitoring program, problems canstill remain.

“Some states go through the effort of setting upa program,” says ASDWA’s Leiby, “but then findthat implementation is too difficult. Let’s face it—the bottom line is the [vulnerability] assessment isdone on the local level. Where are these systemsgoing to find the resources to assess the situation?”

States, too, must weigh the costs of waiver pro-grams with the benefits. “Setting up a monitoringContinued on next page

States with EPAApproved WaiverPrograms*

FloridaGeorgiaIdahoIllinoisMichiganMississippiNorth CarolinaOregonTennesseeWisconsin

Stateswith InformallyApproved Programs**

ConnecticutIndianaLouisianaMaineMassachusettsMinnesotaMissouriMontanaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkOhioOklahomaRhode IslandSouth DakotaTexasUtahVermont



“Setting up a

monitoring waiver

program is very

labor intensive,”

George Zoto,

Massachusetts

Waiver Program

Coordinator

Continued from previous pagewaiver program is very labor intensive,” saysGeorge Zoto, Massachusetts waiver programcoordinator. Staff time, travel, data collection,identifying possible contaminant sources, andnumerous other tasks are only part of the work astate must consider. Other components includeinvestigating years of records, identifying theneed for area-wide waivers versus site-specificwaivers, and analyzing the costs of vulnerabilityassessments versus the costs of sampling.

Setting up a waiver program can also take upa significant portion of the funds states receivefrom the federal government to run their drinkingwater programs, says Leiby.

“We were lucky,” says Wisconsin’s Ley. “Wehad $275,000 [in state funds] to hire temporaryhelp and meet other program costs. If states thatwant to set up a program don’t have the resourcesthey need, it could present problems.”

What are their advantages?Despite the time and expense, most state offi-

cials agree that setting up a waiver program is farless costly than monitoring for all the regulatedchemicals. For instance, even though Wisconsin’scost for the waiver program was approximately$400,000, it helped the state’s water systemsreduce monitoring costs for SOCs from $22 mil-lion to $3.8 million.

Massachusetts’ Zoto estimates that watersystems throughout his state will save about $25million through the monitoring waiver program.Without the waiver program, says Zoto, water

systems in his state would be spending between$28 and $30 million for chemical monitoring.With the program, however, they are spendingonly $2.8 million.

Sarah Pillsbury, New Hampshire wellheadprotection coordinator, says that small systemswith few resources were able to use informationgathered by her state when conducting their ownvulnerability assessments, and the systems re-ceived additional aid in reviewing and analyzingrecords.

Pillsbury was enthusiastic about the NewEngland Regional Program, which includes NewHampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont,Rhode Island, and Connecticut. “We workedtogether to set up a common regional package,”she says. “We were able to split up the work,which helped everyone see the similarities anddifferences among the states. This allowed us toshare information. Understanding how anotherstate goes about setting up a program was veryhelpful.”

Knowing that certain contaminants were notused throughout entire areas was especially ben-eficial, she says. “The thing that really helped uswas that we were able to submit our area-widewaiver requests to EPA as a group, which prob-ably gave us more clout.”

For more information about monitoringwaiver programs, contact your state’s regulators.For the number, or for information about theresources mentioned in this article, call theNational Drinking Water Clearinghouse at(800) 624-8301.

Continued from page 3staff to track water use and identify water-savingopportunities. Flowers says the first version ofWAVE-Saver is customized for the lodgingindustry. “As EPA expands the program to othercommercial sectors, intentions are to adapt thesoftware for each sector added to the WAVEprogram.”

According to the EPA, WAVE-Saver can cal-culate the incremental cost of water; create budgetprojections based on past rates and occupancypatterns; evaluate efficiency options using tablesand databases; and evaluate equipment upgradesusing color graphics and full motion video. Toassist users, Flowers says, WAVE-Saver has ex-tensive on-line help, which is accessible at alltimes when the software is in use.

Charter members of WAVE’s partnershipprogram include Hyatt Corporation, ITT Sheraton,Westin Hotels and Resorts, Saunders Hotel Group,and Outrigger Hotels.

Water management companies, water utilities,municipalities, equipment manufacturers anddistributors, consulting firms, and local govern-ments also can participate in the program byhelping to publicize WAVE and by recognizingpartners’ efforts to conserve water and energy.

The American Hotel and Motel Associationhas recently endorsed WAVE, says Flowers, andwill help promote and publicize WAVE to itsmembers.

If the lodging industry fully participated, saysFlowers, the potential annual savings are 32 bil-lion gallons of water; one trillion BTUs of energy;and $85 million in energy, water, and sewer costs.

For more information about the WAVE pro-gram, contact Flowers at (202) 260-7288, AnneRobertson at (202) 260-9762, or Kevin Rosseel at(202) 260-3715.

WAVE Saves Businesses Water and Money



NRWA Report Details Burden of NewMonitoring Requirements

Continued on page 22

AritonAriton*

Alabama

The report cites various responses by smallsystems: deferred maintenance, eliminatingcapital improvements, and refusing to expand.Keegan said he has heard anecdotes of “extremesacrifices in which systems have actually changedthe way that they’re set up so they’re not regu-lated. They’re changing their configurations sothey’re no longer public water systems.”

The Impact on a Small CommunityThe drinking water system in Ariton,

Alabama, is one of the seven featured inthe report. The small, rural system with

about 400 connections gets its waterfrom three wells.

Mayor Randy Laney said thecommunity expected to begin PhaseII/V monitoring this year at a cost

of $1,000 per well each quarter,or an estimated total of $12,000.The Alabama Department ofEnvironmental Management(ADEM) said those costs do not

include lead and copper testing or monthly bacte-ria testing.

“Eventually the water rates are going to haveto go up,” Laney said. The expected rate increasewould be imposed on a population of which anestimated 75 percent are retired residents withfixed incomes.

“These type of one-size-fits-all regulationsare going to put small towns under,” Laney saidin the NRWA report. “We can’t afford to continu-ally spend our resources where there is littlebenefit to the community while sacrificing higherpriority concerns.”

In a follow-up conversation with On Tap staff,Laney said he stands by his original statementthat Phase II/V constitutes too much monitoring.“It’s going to be hard,” Laney said of the monit-oring’s impact. “Some things are going to suffer.”

Waivers Offer Some ReliefLaney argues that his community has a good

groundwater supply and previous testing has notuncovered any contaminants. Waivers wouldreduce some of the community’s monitoring costs.

The EPA allows states to apply for waiver pro-grams for systems that meet strict requirements.(See related article on page 9.)

The ADEM’s Water Supply Branch is in theprocess of forming a sampling waiver program,but only for dioxin and asbestos source water,according to ADEM Engineer Tom DeLoach.

by P.J. CameonNDWC Staff Writer

Many drinking water industry officials haveargued that new federal monitoring requirementswould pose an especially heavy burden on smalldrinking water systems. A recent report by theNational Rural Water Association (NRWA)reinforces that concern.

The report, “Impacts of Monitoring forPhase II/V Drinking Water Regulationson Rural and Small Communities,” dealswith the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency’s (EPA) requirements for themonitoring of 61 possible drinkingwater contaminants.

The August 1994 report includescase studies detailing monitoring costsfor seven small systems and how theyhave coped with the added expense. Italso includes a summary of the effort inMaine to reduce the monitoring burdenfor small communities and results of asurvey and study to determine the statusof state waiver programs. Slightly morethan 600 rural and small systems in 22states responded to the survey.

Mike Keegan, an NRWA analyst involved inthe project, said the report shows the expense ofthe monitoring while reinforcing critics’ concernsthat there is no justification for the amount ofrequired testing.

“The cost is significant to very small commu-nities. These costs were sometimes in excess of$10,000 for one small community,” Keegan said.While the costs have been significant, accordingto Keegan, there has been insufficient relief fromthe requirements. He mentioned the Chafee-Lautenberg Amendment, Congressional action in1992 that provided some monitoring relief, butfor only one year.

Keegan said members of Congress have heardfrom constituents concerned with monitoringcosts and will likely take action this year. Hepredicted that any action on Safe Drinking WaterAct reauthorization will include monitoring relieffor small systems similar to that taken in 1992.

“People are starting to look at how all theseregulations add up to the well being of the wholetown,” Keegan said, adding that some small com-munities are sacrificing non-mandated–but morebeneficial–health expenditures to pay for newmonitoring requirements. “That’s obviously notthe way a public health policy is supposed towork,” he said.


Pilot Plant Sees Success

Oklahoma Explores Biological NitrateRemoval Processby Kathy JespersonNDWC Staff Writer

Finding out there are high levels of nitrates inyour system’s raw water often raises concernsbecause of the contaminant’s associated healthhazards. Primarily, the contaminant has beenlinked to infant methemoglobinemia, or “BlueBaby Syndrome.” In this condition, says theCenters for Disease Control in Atlanta, nitratesare converted to nitrites in an infant’s gas-trointestinal tract, creating a condition that de-prives the infant of life-sustaining oxygen.

Nitrates can find their way into drinkingwater supplies through a variety of routes, in-cluding animal waste, fertilizer, natural deposits,septic tanks, and sewage. Because nitrate levelshave been increasing since the 1970s, the numberof systems not in compliance is growing, accord-ing to an Oklahoma Rural Water Association(ORWA) brochure. Mark Matheson, ORWAcircuit rider, says that in 1991 his state had “atmost a couple of dozen systems not in compli-ance with the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency’s (EPA) nitrate level requirements. Todaythere are about 50.”

Oklahoma Tries Biological TreatmentRural Economic and Community Develop-

ment (RECD), formally known as Farmers HomeAdministration, in Oklahoma responded to theseconcerns and provided a technical assistancegrant for a method of nitrate removal known asbiodenitrification. This method relies on thecontrolled use of microbes—usually bacteria—to reclaim contaminated water.

However, because biodenitrification is a rela-tively untried process in the U.S., especially fordrinking water treatment, there isn’t much dataavailable about the method’s performance. So,on September 1, 1992, RECD entered into anagreement with ORWA to design, construct, andoperate a transportable, five gallon per minute,biodenitrification pilot plant.

“The pilot plant was set up to look at theprocess and develop full-scale design param-eters,” says Rick Schlegel, RECD state engineer.“The plant has been in operation for about a yearand a half. We’re looking to receive the blessingsof EPA and the state. So far, we have Oklahoma’s[blessings]. As a matter of fact, Oklahoma’sDepartment of Environmental Quality has agreedto permit construction of full-scale plants as aninnovative process.”

Mounted on a trailer, the treatment plant usesa submerged fixed-film media biodegradationprocess. “We started out not knowing what weneeded,” says ORWA’s Matheson. “We wanted todesign a plant similar to a surface water treat-ment plant to make the process less intimidatingto water treatment personnel. The tank we used issimilar to a settling tank that allows the water toflow upward through an expanded plastic ballmedia to begin the process.”

Plant Is Economical, Easy To OperateMatheson played a key role in the plant’s

design because, as an operator, he knew whatother operators were looking for in the plant’sperformance. “The plant has a lot of automaticfeatures and it’s pretty simple to operate. I’vebeen able to train some pretty unskilled wateroperators to run it,” he says.

Featuring simple control devices and directwater quality readouts, the plant doesn’t leavemuch for an operator to guess at.

In addition to ease of operation, the plantdoesn’t require much operator time either, usu-ally only about two to three hours a day, saysMatheson. Adding to his already enthusiasticapproval, he says the plant has some real eco-nomical advantages as well. “We calculated thesystem’s operation cost at $.80 to $1 per 1,000gallons of treated water, which includes chemi-cals, power, maintenance, and operator time.”

Process Robs Nitrate’s OxygenThe treatment process is relatively simple,

says Schlegel. “When water enters the plant,” heexplains, “sodium sulfite is added to it to removethe oxygen. The water then enters the reactorcolumn, where it is exposed to bacteria that aregrowing in the reactor.

“To remove nitrate,” he continues, “the bacte-ria must have a carbon food source. We addethanol for the bacteria to feed on. However, thebacteria must have oxygen to survive. Becausethe water is void of oxygen, the bacteria will beforced to obtain its oxygen from the nitrate mol-ecules. Essentially, the bacteria then breaks downthe nitrate—first to nitrite, then to nitrogen.

“At this point, the harmless nitrogen gasbubbles to the top of the tank and is released intothe atmosphere.” This process, Schlegel explains,is known as endogenous respiration.

After nitrates have been removed, the waterthen goes through “a normal treatment process,”Continued on page 16

T E C H N O L O G I E ST E C H N O L O G I E S

Water Fact

Americans drinkmore than one

billion glasses ofwater a day.

—Fact Sheet onWater, Plymouth

State College


Oklahoma Explores Biological Nitrate Removal ProcessContinued from page 15

T E C H N O L O G I E ST E C H N O L O G I E S

With nitrate levels this low, says Matheson, amethod known as blending can be used to reducetreatment costs even further. If raw water nitratelevels are at 10 milligrams per liter (mg/l) andtreated water nitrate levels are at two mg/l, blend-ing 60 to 70 percent raw water with 30 to 40percent treated water will still produce finishedwater with nitrate levels below EPA requirements,he explains.

Other good news is that this treatment processcan be used in treating water for other contami-nants, says Matheson. “We have seen a reductionin VOCs [volatile organic chemicals] since we’vebeen using this process, and we attribute that tobiodenitrification.”

Successful, but More Research NeededRecent research indicates that biological treat-

ment has many redeeming qualities. The tech-nique has been used to clean up oil spills andtoxic waste sites, as well as to treat drinkingwater, according to such publications as ChemicalEngineering, Garbage magazine, and the SanDiego Union-Tribune. However, the method isstill in the testing stages in the U.S., and manyresearchers want more data before promising themethod will produce consistent results. In themeantime, ORWA will continue its pilot plantresearch, and the association has just applied tothe RECD’s Rural Utilities Service to extend itsgrant for three more years.

For more information about this treatmentmethod, call ORWA at (405) 672-8925. Addi-tional information on alternative technologiescan be obtained through the National DrinkingWater Clearinghouse’s RESULTS database; call(800) 624-8301.

says Schlegel, (see figure on this page) whichincludes:• an aeration process to freshen it;• carbon filters to remove taste and odor;• a pH adjustment for corrosion control;• rapid sand filters to remove suspended

particles and improve clarity; and• disinfection.

Process Produces Little Waste“The process is greater than 90 percent effi-

cient,” says Matheson. “The biggest advantage tousing it is that there is not much concentratedwaste to get rid of. There’s a little sludge becauseof the sloughing of the bio mass, but there’s nowastewater.”

Other processes, such as ion exchange andreverse osmosis, only transfer contaminants fromone liquid phase to another, according to“Bioremediation Strategies,” a 1992 Public Worksjournal article. This exchange creates a need forbackwashing and other means of cleaning thesystem in addition to having large amounts ofwaste to dispose of.

The portable pilot plant has been used success-fully to treat the water of Randlette, North BlaineWater Corporation, and Beckham County RuralWater District 1 in Oklahoma, says Schlegel.

The engineer is confident that the methodremoves nitrates at a level superior to other meth-ods he’s encountered. “This process can keepnitrates down to two parts per million,” saysSchlegel. “Other processes can’t take nitratelevels that low.”

Source: Oklahoma Rural Water Association

BiologicalDenitrificationProcess Biological

Reactor

Backwash Basin Chlorine Contact Basin

Sand FiltersBiologicallyActivated CarbonAeration

Sod

ium

Sul

fite

Eth

anol

Decant Pump

pH Adjust

Backwash Pump

Distribution Pump

Com

pres

sor


M A N A G E M E N TM A N A G E M E N T

Making Wish Lists Come True

Superintendents and Managers Go fromWishing to Realityby Ellen G. MillerPresidentEllen Miller Group

What do managers and superintendents ofsmall water systems, NFL quarterbacks, andFortune 500 CEOs have in common? Not celeb-rity status or vacation getaways, and it sureisn’t equal pay! The answer: stress.

Water system managers and superin-tendents often deal with city counciland board members who want short,undemanding, and infrequent meet-ings; customers who expectCadillac service on a Cavalierbudget; increasing state and fed-eral regulations; and a publicuncertain about the quality of their waterand the quantity of their bills.

Business costs rise; financial resourcesdwindle. In addition, many individuals are part-time managers. They’re responsible for every-thing from making sure drinking water is free ofpathogens to taking down Christmas lights.

In the face of increasing demands, it’samazing that small system managers and super-intendents find time to make plans . . . and getresults. How do they do it? How can you do it?

Start with a Wish ListResults happen because people take time to

make plans. Plans can be big—such as a $1.3million main replacement program or an up-graded telemetry system—or small—like paintingnumbers on each rural water system meter orproducing an annual customer newsletter.

Where to start? First, write down the specificsystem improvements you want to make in 1995.Include projects that take longer—perhaps evenseveral years, to complete—but that you need tostart this year. Examples could be storage, inter-connections, rate schedules, and public education.Next, list the approximate time, estimated cost,and major steps needed to accomplish each project.

Then, list in hand, take action. Distributecopies of your wish list to each board and councilmember, as well as to employees. Give a statusreport at your monthly meeting. The following isa sample of wish list projects from individuals atwater systems across the U.S.

Some Systems Voluntarily ConsolidateThis year, the big event for the Cedar Island

Water System, Perry, Florida, is shutting down. Continued on page 18

This private system currently serves 60 houses.In 1993, severe spring storms destroyed 25homes, and wells and pumps were flooded withsix feet of water. Residents decided it was time tostart a cooperative with a nearby island’s system.

Mike McKinney, manager of Cedar Island’ssystem, says that most state agencies look favor-

ably on their plan and encourage themto consolidate. Two island sys-tems merged, then a third joined

the cooperative for a 350 metertotal. “We are bringing three sys-

tems together into one entity that willhave the money to keep up with new

regulations and new testing require-ments,” McKinney says.

Storage Is the Main Concern of OthersMore than 3,000 miles across the coun-

try, the Umpqua Basin Water Associationin Oregon mapped out a long-range strategy.Replacing redwood storage reservoirs is high ontheir wish list. When the Umpqua Basin, a smallrural system, started, redwood reservoirs were theaccepted storage receptacles. But times havechanged. Umpqua’s five-year goal is to replaceone redwood reservoir per year, upgrading to astandard goal of 1,000 gallons per home served.

Public Water Supply District (PWSD) #7, inBoone County, Missouri, plans to replace threestandpipes with a 500,000 gallon water tower, andadd an eight-inch supply main.

Interconnections May Fill the NeedPWSD #7 also expects to complete its inter-

connections with a nearby district by mid 1995.“We have two wells,” says Charlotte Hord, clerkof PWSD #7. “If something happened and ourwells went down, we’d have a source of water.And if they need water, they could get it fromus.” Her system serves 730 meters over 36 miles.

Technical Upgrades Take MoneyThe Wickerson Creek Special Utility District

in Texas has 1,500 connections. Installing atelemetry system tops their wish list. Telemetry isa method of monitoring remote sections of awater system. Information, such as flow, level,and pressure, is converted into an electrical signal.

The primary goal of the Cedar/Knox RuralWater Project in Nebraska this year is expandingthe current telemetry system. Cedar/Knox has 514connections serving 500 families and three

Plan out multi-year goals.Start cooperative with nearby system.Replace old redwood storage reservoirs.Installing a telementary system.Increase rates and upgrade system.Prioritize list, and act on it.

1995Wish List1995Wish List

CHECK LIST

fea ahga asdhryf sdhjgfafg

gesdjmv fd fhuirue jfdgdf

mnfdnvn n fgnbfg fdjjfd

mfgfudis anaer ejuddks

mvnjk keueolao eurj jfidfj uih


Superintendents and Managers Go from Wishing to RealityContinued from page 17villages. Where does a small water system get themoney for such a high-tech project?

Kent Watson, Wickerson Creek general man-ager, provides part of the answer. “A key to agood financial picture is good budgeting and fullyfunding depreciation,” he says. Approximately$90,000 of Watson’s annual $750,000 operationalbudget goes into depreciation.

Noel Groshong, Umpqua Basin’s generalmanager, adds another part of the answer. “Wehave an annual capital improvement wish listthat’s based on about 15–20 percent of our opera-tional revenues.” And at Cedar/Knox, 25 percentof gross income goes into reserves.

Charge What Service Is WorthCedar/Knox Project Manager Jim Sheldon

says adequate rates are a must. “The [initial] lowrates [which didn’t change for 10 years] tended tomake people undervalue the service and thehookup,” he says. The initial hookup fee was setat $400 to encourage participation. The presentfee is $3,000.

The system in Philippi, West Virginia, serves1,500 customers and sells water to three nearbydistricts. This year, City Manager Joe Mattalianowants to educate the public about the cost ofwater. “They think it’s free,” Mattaliano comments.

He thinks that maybe people overlook the cost ofwater since they don’t see the treatment process.

Today’s superintendents and managers knowthat money counts in two ways:1. Adequate revenues assure proper funding of

operational and capital budgets, reserves, anddebt service.

2. The public needs to understand the changingcosts of water if a system is to attain realisticrates that assure adequate revenues.

Planning Doesn’t Cost, It PaysModern utility management needs to include

planning. It’s hard to find time between busydaily operations and the occasional crisis, buttime taken is time well spent. When you careenough to plan for and accomplish projects thatupgrade your system, the community benefitsfrom improved protection of the public’s healthand quality of life.

Small system superintendents or managersneed to use every available tool to translatewishes into system improvements. Below is a listof do’s and don’ts:

Do1. Get your board/council to prioritize your wish

list—then carry it out.2. Let customers know how they will benefit

from each project.3. Educate your board/council and customers

about the costs of water.4. Evaluate your system annually. Show how

you’ve achieved wish list projects.5. Consider wish list projects that cut costs—

for instance, energy audits.

Don’t1. Underfund capital improvements and reserve

accounts. (If you’re not sure how muchmoney you need to set aside annually, seeyour accountant.)

2. Keep customers in the dark. If you don’t tellyour story, the grapevine will.

3. Keep water rates artificially low.4. Reinvent the wheel. (Seek advice from engi-

neers, lenders, and other organizations.)

Ellen G. Miller began her work with the waterindustry in the mid 1970s. An author, conferencespeaker, and columnist, Miller is president of theEllen Miller Group of Lenexa, Kansas. She facili-tates strategic planning for national and state ruralwater associations, as well as for individual utili-ties. She is co-author of the Water Board Bible:The Handbook of Modern Water Utility Manage-ment. (For more information, see back page.)

• rate increases• new or expanded telemetry systems• closing down in order to join a new cooperative• water storage upgrades, replacements,

and additions• manual and/or computer mapping• interconnecting with another system• line upgrades and extensions, including

replacement, enlargement, improved hydraulics,and fire protection

• cutting costs through off-peak pumping,cross-training employees, and daytimemaintenance

• small tractor back hoe• customer information on health effects and costs• identifying options for treating surface water• helping the board understand costs of

current and upcoming regulations• regular maintenance schedule for meters, mark-

ing meter valves, and checking lines and hydrants

1995 Wish ListsWhat they want

M A N A G E M E N TM A N A G E M E N T

Interviews with individuals at six small water systemsin Florida, Missouri, Oregon, Texas, Nebraska, andWest Virginia elicited the following project proposals:


C O V E R S T O R YC O V E R S T O R Y

“Safe, Affordable Water for All Rural Families”Continued from page 1water out of a stream, or to get unsafe water fromsystems that need to be upgraded. Former Secre-tary Mike Espy’s priority for this initiative ini-tially had to do with providing water for peoplewho don’t have it, who are getting it out ofstreams, creeks, off the roofs of houses, or haulingit from other places.

Along with that he came to understand thatthere are a lot of small systems with existinginfrastructures that did not meet minimum stan-dards. So he felt we ought to incorporate ourcommitment to include them, as well.

Will this initiative have the same priority forthe newly-named USDA secretary, former U.S.Representative Dan Glickman?

I believe that it will be important to the newsecretary. I’ve had an opportunity to talk with Mr.Glickman, and I think it is safe to say that he willbe a very strong supporter of providing water tothe thousands of families in this country whodon’t have it, and a strong supporter of trying tohelp improve existing systems that don’t meet EPA[Environmental Protection Agency] standards.

He understands not only agriculture but ruraldevelopment.

How many Americans does USDA hope toreach through the Water 2000 initiative?

We are going to work very hard to make surethat all rural families have safe, affordable run-ning water in their homes.

Based on information obtained in the summerof 1994 from FmHA/RDA [Farmers HomeAdministration/Rural Development Administration]state directors [now called Rural Economic andCommunity Development state directors], weestimate that about 7.1 million rural householdsare either without safe drinking water or are beingserved by a community water system that does notmeet Safe Drinking Water Act standards.

What do you project this initiative will cost?The costs of addressing the problem were

estimated to be $25.9 billion. These estimateswere based on staff knowledge and input fromstate agencies and others. We know they are roughestimates, but they are the best we have.

We’re trying to get better information on thisbecause, obviously, you have got to talk about thenumber of communities or areas and what it coststo put in systems. And we have to make assump-tions about what these systems cost. A system forone area may cost more in one part of the countrythan in other parts of the country.

Will funds for this primarily come out ofthe USDA?

Obviously, we can’t do it alone—the job istoo big. And as you know, USDA has much lessthan a billion dollars in funds each year for itswater programs.

So, we anticipate working with our otherfederal partners, such as Housing and UrbanDevelopment [HUD]. We can also dovetail withthe Appalachian Regional Commission and someof the Department of Commerce programs, suchas the Economic Development Administration[EDA]. I know EDA’s emphasis is on providingwater for economic development, and a lot oftimes there are opportunities to dovetail withthat. It’s not there yet, but we’re working on waysto make that work. . . . And, obviously, there’sEPA, too.

The bottom line is, I think that there is aninstitutional commitment by this department tothe Water 2000 initiative and all it means. Now, Ihave to temper that kind of commitment withfiscal reality. That’s the case with any programyou mention, not only in this department butanywhere in the federal government.

Speaking of fiscal reality, how much do youexpect a Republican-dominated Congress tosupport this in the 1996 budget?

I would be the last one to say that we willhave all of the dollars that we need to meet all theneed out there. Even if there was another changein Congress, we still couldn’t meet all the needout there.

We have made some very aggressive propos-als as it relates to water in the ’96 budget. We’dlike to have significantly more money than wehad in ’95, but I don’t know what will happen. Ifeel pretty good about where we are today.

Obviously, the president has to submit hisbudget, and we have to deal with the appropriat-ing committees on “the Hill.” And from a directappropriations standpoint, it’s hard to say, today,whether or not Agriculture will come out betterthan EPA, better than HUD. I don’t know.

But we’re going to do all we can to educatemembers who are not aware of the tremendousneed and the long-term health cost of people nothaving safe, sanitary water. We think we have apretty good business argument, in addition to justthe fairness and equity argument that peopleought to have water.

And we have to be more creative, more ag-gressive, form new partnerships, and figure outways to deliver services for less money.Continued on page 20

“We’re going to

do all we can to

educate members

who are not aware

of the tremendous

need and the

long-term health

cost of people not

having safe,

sanitary water.”

Bob Nash,

USDA

Under Secretary

for Rural Economic

and Community

Development



“Safe, Affordable Water for All Rural Families”


Continued from page 19 Review effort, Vice President Gore has chargeddepartments with reducing the volume of rules,regulations, and red tape by 50 percent in fiveyears, and we’ve already started that process. Itrelates not only to water but to all of our programs.

So I expect that to result in fewer hoops thatcommunities have to jump through in order toaccess our funding, and this means we anticipatea shorter period of time between application andactual funding.

And those savings—to the extent that we canstretch dollars farther—mean that we might beable to help a few more systems.

How will you measure the success of thisstreamlining?

I’m not sure about the current fiscal year, butdefinitely in the next year, we’ll be moving to-ward what I would call “performance budgeting.”This means you set these goals for streamlining,for reducing the size of government, and for be-coming more customer-friendly. Then we’ll haveto justify every program that we deliver, in termsof its performance.

We also will be monitored by the Office ofManagement and Budget . . . and obviously byCongress, too. It’s an effort to say, “Let’s measurewhat your output is.” We’re not just talking aboutyour input, because we tend to talk too muchabout how many dollars go into a program.

I’d like to talk about how many systems we’vefinanced, how many families were served, howmany households were served. I’d like to talkabout reducing a significant percentage of theamount of time it takes to get a project funded.Those are the kinds of things that we are goingto have to deal with.

Is this “performance budgeting” approachthe primary reason that USDA underwent acomplete reorganization?

There are several things to say about whyreorganization has gone on. One is that USDAhad 43 different agencies. Many would argue theywere going 43 different directions. We now have29 agencies because we’ve consolidated many ofthem and gotten rid of some other programs.

The second thing is that we had too manyoffices and too many people—particularly at theheadquarters and administrative level. We’vereduced by 6,000 employees in the last two years,and our goal is to total over 11,000.

It also was much too hard for people to accessour services, so we wanted to try to streamline theway we deliver services. This means reducing redtape and regulations, reducing the amount of time

If existing systems can expect to look forsome possible assistance through this initiative,how will USDA prioritize allocations? Whatpercentage of funds will go to them?

While I think existing systems that need helpcan look at these dollars—and the water program—for help, I cannot give you a percentage. It’shard to say, now, whether one has priority overthe other.

First of all, we’ll be trying to serve those mostin need. That’s number one. We would like to tryto concentrate on those areas that need the fund-ing worse than others.

Secondly, a large part of the process will bedemand driven. I think it will have to be. Andhere, if the communities that don’t have watersystems don’t aggressively apply, then very fewof the funds would go to them. I don’t mean togive the impression that we are going to beoperating out of a first-come, first-serve systemprocess necessarily.

However, it’s not a block grant. It’s a commu-nity saying, “We have a need and here’s ourrequest.” I would hope that we would get applica-tions from both need areas.

What about those marginally viable systemsthat may not necessarily face severe economicchallenges? And will they have access to initia-tive funds?

I know communities always want to get thebest rates. But I think that the water problem inthis country has to be addressed by a broad spec-trum of financial sources: USDA, farm credit,state bond funds.

We’d like to try to figure out some way, at ourlevel, to be creative with the investment bankingcommunity. We haven’t really gotten any specificproposals yet, but we’re going to be trying to findways. This will probably be especially true formoderate to higher income communities thatmight have the capacity to repay long-term, low-interest, fixed-rate financing for water systems.And we may try to do some of that at our level.

With this initiative—as with many otherrecent statements—your offices have empha-sized streamlining USDA procedures. Can youelaborate on this?

Rules and regulations take time and costmoney, but they are a necessary evil to make surethat the public’s financial interest is protected andthat minimum standards are met.

At the same time, I think it’s safe to say thatwe have had an overkill in terms of the volume ofrules and regulations. In his National Performance

Water Fact

Nearly one halfof the world’s

population lacksaccess to

clean water forsanitation, drinking,and other human

needs.

—America’s CleanWater Foundation



Continued from previous page appropriations from USDA. It may be because ofsome advocacy that we’re taking to maybe con-vince some state officials to allocate more CDBGs[Community Development Block Grants] towardwater. You know, states have a right to decideabout where to place those funds.

It may mean, for example, encouraging elec-tric co-ops to put more money into water.

With fewer offices to access these programs,how will USDA maintain what it has alwaysbeen noted for—a commitment to localizedservice delivery?

I think we are still going to have localizedservice. Some county offices will consolidatewith another county, or, in some cases, maybethree counties. You also may have a county direc-tor who’s serving two counties. It probably won’tget beyond that. So a person may have to drive, insome cases, a few more miles to an office.

We will ultimately have one-stop centerscreated, where you can access services from, forexample, the farm programs, housing programs,and the water and sewer programs. When some-one walks in there and tells the receptionist, “I’minterested in a housing loan,” that person willknow that in this corner are the housing people.Well, maybe next month that person might comeback and they’re interested in a farm loan. Theydon’t have to fill out all those papers again, becausea lot of this stuff is basic, like income and all.

So we think the trade-off is that people aregoing to get faster service when they walk in, andit’ll be worth the extra miles they might have todrive in order to get to an office.

But, again, it will not happen overnight.

Aside from the recent changes in programnames, when might small communities startnoticing real change as a result of USDA’sreorganization?

In some cases, they’ll start seeing it immedi-ately. There already have been about a hundredoffices closed or consolidated. However, it willprobably take two or three years to see reorgani-zation in the field fully implemented.

Any projections for the future of USDA ruraldevelopment programs?

Our role is to be an advocate for ruralAmerica, in general, and I know we will continueto be aggressive with that. The best way to put itis that I think USDA will still be very prominentin providing services to rural communities.Very prominent.

it takes to get a project funded, being more cus-tomer-oriented. And we’re doing more outreach—outreach that says, “Here we are. Here are theservices that are available.”

I would add that Secretary-designee Glickman,in fact, introduced one of the first, if not the first,reorganization bills in Congress in 1992, I believe.He is a very strong supporter of reorganization.

What was the purpose of the changes in ruraldevelopment programs, particularly with water?

For far too long, I think, we’ve had this stove-pipe approach to program delivery. We had oursingle family housing program here, and ourmulti-family program here, and our telephoneand electric here, etc. They all operated sepa-rately, all did their thing, but they didn’t relate toone another.

What I’ve done is put all the infrastructureprograms together at the Rural Utilities Service;all the business programs together with the RuralBusiness and Cooperative Development; and allthe housing and community facilities programstogether under the Rural Housing and CommunityDevelopment Service.

Really, the mission for these particular areasof rural development means they work closertogether, to hopefully bring to the process betterplanning. You can’t have electric and telecommu-nications and water and sewer unless it’s leadingto a business or house.

How will the two former agencies—the RuralDevelopment Administration and the RuralElectrification Administration—work togethergiven that each is quite different from the otherin focus?

The point I would make is that the people atthe Rural Utilities Service [RUS] are not narrowin focus. They understand the importance of water,sewer, and solid waste facilities to communitydevelopment. If you don’t have these facilities—and, on the business side, jobs—they’re not goingto have any place to provide electricity and tele-communications service to.

What other benefits might we see for USDAwater programs as a result of the move to theRUS?

Even though we are reducing the number ofemployees and consolidating offices, we thinkthat we will deliver our programs—and, in thiscase, water—more efficiently.

And I think that moving to RUS will enhancethe volume of dollars that are dedicated to water.These dollars may not all come directly from

“Even though we

are reducing the

number of

employees and

consolidating

offices, we think

that we will deliver

our programs—

and, in this case,

water—more

efficiently.

Bob Nash,

USDA

Under Secretary

for Rural Economic

and Community

Development


NETCSC Offers Training Programs

R E S O U R C E SR E S O U R C E S

The National Environmental Training Centerfor Small Communities (NETCSC) has developeda number of programs on how to train small com-munity operators, local officials, regulatory offi-cials, and consulting engineers to improve themanagement of environmental services in theircommunities.

These sessions are aimed at environmentaltrainers and technical assistance providers. Topicsinclude drinking water, wastewater, and solidwaste.

According to John Hoornbeek,NETCSC training research associate,topics for the programs came froma national needs assessment con-ducted by NETCSC in 1992 and1993 and published in 1994.

NETCSC will offer the follow-ing drinking water–related programs atvarious locations throughout the U.S. in1995 and 1996.

“Basics of Environmental Systems Manage-ment for Local Officials” will provide local offi-cials with an understanding of the environmentalneeds and options for small communities.

The course includes discussions of drinkingwater and wastewater regulations; drinking watertreatment and distribution; wastewater collectionand treatment; as well as decision-making tech-niques and ways to generate public participation.

NETCSC conducted four training sessions in1994. “The comments we’ve received from theparticipants in those sessions were very positive,”says Hoornbeek. “As a result, we are planningfive sessions for 1995.”

“Pieces of the Small Community Puzzle: Howto Work Effectively in Small Communities” wasdeveloped to help consulting engineers becomemore familiar with the needs of small communi-ties and existing problem-solving options.

This course addresses such topics as howconsulting engineers can tap the small communitymarket; the roles of participants in an environ-mental project; and how to involve the communityin their project. It also includes financial optionsavailable to small communities and strategies forlong-range project viability.

“Communicating Drinking Water Issues forRegulatory Officials” is designed to help drinkingwater regulatory officials communicate better

with small community audiences.The course provides training on

how to design and conduct work-shops to communicate regulatoryinformation and how to makemeetings more effective. Traininginvolves anticipating and dealing

with hostile reactions from the com-munity affected by the regulations.

Techniques for improving written com-munications are also presented.

In addition to the training programs, NETCSCis working in conjunction with Linn-BentonCommunity College to offer training modules—or mini-workshops—for drinking water andwastewater operators.

Called “Training Modules for Drinking Waterand Wastewater Operators,” these 15 revisedmodules include an introduction to water distribu-tion systems; surface water and groundwatersources; drinking water and wastewater treatment;and laboratory modules relating to water analysis.

For more information about these trainingprograms or to register, contact Sandy Miller,conference coordinator, at (800) 624-8301,extension 536.

NETCSC, a nonprofit organization funded bythe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, sup-ports environmental trainers in their efforts toimprove the quality of drinking water, wastewater,and solid waste services in small communities.

NA

TIO

NAL ENVIRONM

ENTA

L

TR

A IN IN G CENTER

NRWA Report Details BurdenContinued from page 14DeLoach said the waivers would not addressAriton’s Phase II/V monitoring costs, but theywould relieve Ariton of some monitoring costs.

Keegan said waiver programs do not com-pletely address the monitoring burden on smallsystems. “Although waivers for these contami-nants do help and are working, some states thathave approved waiver programs have not waivedall of the unnecessary monitoring.”

Keegan said the EPA approach to monitoringregulations should be reversed. He said insteadof starting with rigorous quarterly testing, theyshould start with a baseline for exotic contami-

nants and increase monitoring when thosecontaminants are detected.

“In general, what I hear is not opposition tomonitoring—it’s opposition to redundant andrepetitious monitoring, especially for exoticcontaminants,” he added, referring to all PhaseII/V contaminants, including acrylamide andmethoxychlor.

For a free copy of the report, Impacts ofMonitoring for Phase II/V Drinking WaterRegulations on Rural and Small Communities,contact the National Rural Water Association atP.O. Box 1428, Duncan, OK 73534.


NETA Training Modules Are Available

R E S O U R C E SR E S O U R C E S

The National Environmental Training Asso-ciation (NETA) continues its “Complying withthe Safe Drinking Water Act” series with theaddition of three new training modules.

The National Drinking Water Clearinghouse(NDWC) is pleased to offer the “Operator Train-ing Guide on the Lead and Copper Regulations,”on a loan basis. The regulatory training modules“Compliance and Enforcement under the SafeDrinking Water Act” and “Lead and CopperRegulations” may be purchased from NETA.

NETA, a professional educational associationfor technical instructors, developed this trainingseries to achieve two goals: to train regulatorypersonnel and local health officials responsiblefor enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act(SDWA) and to educate public water systemoperators on how SDWA regulations apply totheir actual job duties.

Through its association with NETA, theNDWC allows recipients to borrow the module“Operator Training Guide on the Lead and CopperRegulations” for up to four weeks. This operatortraining module, consisting of a 20-minute video-tape and learner’s guide, focuses on monitoringtap and source water; optimizing corrosion con-trol; replacing lead service lines; educating andnotifying the public; reporting violations andrecord keeping; and understanding administrativeand policy issues.

Recipients need only pay return postage coststo the NDWC when borrowing this module. (See

back page for ordering information.) The video-tape and learner’s guide are also available forpurchase from NETA for $55 or the learner’sguide may be purchased separately for $9.

“Lead and Copper Regulations,” a moduleintended to educate regulatory officials about theLead and Copper Rule, also contains a 20-minutevideotape and learner’s guide. It is available forpurchase through NETA and describes the federallaws and regulations relating to controlling leadand copper in drinking water, and details aregulator’s responsibility in maintaining thoseregulations.

Also available through NETA, the regulatorymodule “Compliance and Enforcement under theSafe Drinking Water Act” contains a 20-minutevideotape and learner’s guide. It is aimed at help-ing regulators and health officials identify andexplain enforcement provisions; define andexplain primacy; describe activities that helpsystems maintain compliance; describe the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency’s currentcompliance and enforcement strategy; anddescribe the current status of compliance with theregulations.

The cost for each of the two regulatory mod-ules is $75. The videotape and learner’s guidemay be purchased separately for $40 and $35,respectively.

To purchase either the regulatory modules oroperator module, call NETA at (602) 956-6099.

Free Booklet Focuses on Low-CostTreatment Alternatives

A free booklet that describes low-cost treat-ment alternatives for small drinking water sys-tems is available from the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Researchand Development (ORD).

The 28-page publication, titled DrinkingWater Treatment for Small Communities: AFocus on EPA’s Research, discusses ways smallsystems can reduce the risk of contaminateddrinking water by using such low-cost treatmentalternatives as package plants and home treat-ment units.

According to the booklet, many small sys-tems will need to upgrade existing treatmentfacilities or design new ones to meet the newrequirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Alarge number of those systems may find it diffi-cult to comply with additional requirementsbecause they cannot afford the necessary

Drinking WaterTreatment for Small

CommunitiesA Focus on EPA’sResearch

United StatesEnvironmental Protection

Agency

Office of Research and

DevelopmentWashington, DC 20460 EPA/640/K-94/003

May 1994

EPA

equipment or staff neededfor treatment.

Drinking WaterTreatment for SmallCommunities describescurrent ORD researchprojects that relate totesting and evaluat-ing the perfor-mance of drinkingwater treatmenttechnologies. Also included is alist of other relevant EPA documents.

Available while supplies last, the booklet maybe ordered from ORD’s Center for EnvironmentalResearch Information in Cincinnati, Ohio. Call(513) 569-7562, and request publication number640/K-94/003.


C O N T E N T SC O N T E N T S

NA

TIO

NAL DRINKING WA

TE

R

C

LEAR IN GHOUSE

National Drinking Water ClearinghouseWest Virginia UniversityP.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064

NonprofitOrganization

U.S. Postage PaidPermit No. 34

NDWC Offers Training Module, New DrinkingWater Week Packet

1994 On Tap IndexItem #DWPCIN03This list includes all of the 1994 On Tap

articles, with a brief description of each.Cost: $0.00 (free s/h)

Consolidated Rule Summary for theChemical PhasesItem #DWPCRG26This U.S. EPA summary describes the stan-

dardized monitoring framework and monitoringrequirements for inorganic, volatile organic, andsynthetic organic compounds. Monitoring fornitrate, nitrite, and unregulated contaminants isalso discussed, as are public notification andvarious treatment options.

Cost: $3.10

Sampling Our Drinking Water for Leadand Copper ContentItem #DWVTPE26Developed for use by water system personnel

to educate consumers about tap water sampling,this 11-minute video also provides good back-ground information about the hazards of lead.

Cost: Available for loan for up to four weeks;borrower must pay return postage.

Note: The free items listed below are limitedto one of each per order. A minimum $2 shippingand handling (s/h) charge applies unlessotherwise noted.

Call (800) 624-8301 to place an order. Pleaseallow four to six weeks for delivery.

Operator Training Guide on the Lead andCopper RegulationsItem #DWVTTR10(See article on page 23.)Cost: Available on loan for up to four

weeks; borrower must pay return postage.

National Drinking Water Week PacketItem #DWPKPE01(See article on page 1.)Cost: $3.00

Water Board Bible: The Handbook ofModern Water Utility ManagementItem #DWBKMG05This handbook helps small communities

address public health, environmental protection,and economic issues.

Cost: $9.00

Pocket Sampling Guide for Operators ofSmall Water Systems: Phases II and VItem #DWBLRG29This 1994 spiral-bound publication includes

information about the Phase II and Phase Vrules’monitoring requirements, sample com-positing, using “grandfathered” data, as well asinstructions for collecting samples and a glossaryof terms.

Cost: $0.00

Features:

Departments:

Interview with USDAUnder Secretary,

page 1

National DrinkingWater Week,

page 1

AmeriCorps HelpsSmall Communities,

page 4

Is monitoring flexibilityas simple as it sounds?

page 9

NRWA Report DetailsBurden of New

MonitoringRequirements,

page 14

Oklahoma ExploresBiological Nitrate

Removal Process,page 15

Making Wish ListsCome True,

page 17

NDWC Page,page 2

News and Notes,pages 3-8

Drinking WaterResources,

pages 22, 23

On Tap is printed onrecycled paper.

NDWC Mission StatementThe National Drinking Water Clearinghouse

assists small communities by collecting,developing, and providing timely information

relevant to drinking water issues.

Documents

OnTap · OnTap Winter 1995 3 APWA Sponsors National Public Works Week community, so they will understand how neces-sary and difficult public works employees’ jobs