United States EPA 816-R-01-019

Environmental Protection July 2001

Agency

Office of Water(4606)

State Strategies to Assist

Public Water Systems in

Acquiring and

Maintaining Technical,

Managerial, and Financial

Capacity

A Comprehensive Summary of State

Responses to Section 1420(c) of the Safe

Drinking Water Act
i

Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................. iii

State Summaries

Alabama ........................................................................... 1

Alaska ............................................................................ 4

Arizona ............................................................................ 7

Arkansas .......................................................................... 10

California ......................................................................... 13

Colorado .......................................................................... 16

Connecticut ....................................................................... 19

Delaware ......................................................................... 22

Florida ........................................................................... 25

Georgia ........................................................................... 28

Hawaii ........................................................................... 32

Idaho ............................................................................ 35

Illinois ........................................................................... 38

Indiana ........................................................................... 42

Iowa ............................................................................. 45

Kansas ........................................................................... 49

Kentucky ......................................................................... 52

Louisiana ......................................................................... 55

Maine ............................................................................ 58

Maryland ......................................................................... 61

Massachusetts ..................................................................... 64

Michigan ......................................................................... 67

Minnesota ......................................................................... 71

Mississippi ........................................................................ 74

Missouri .......................................................................... 77

Montana .......................................................................... 80

Nebraska ......................................................................... 83

Nevada ........................................................................... 86

New Hampshire .................................................................... 89

New Jersey ........................................................................ 92

New Mexico ....................................................................... 95

New York ......................................................................... 98

North Carolina .................................................................... 102

North Dakota ..................................................................... 105

Ohio ............................................................................ 107

Oklahoma ........................................................................ 110

Oregon .......................................................................... 113

Pennsylvania ..................................................................... 116

Puerto Rico ...................................................................... 119

Rhode Island ..................................................................... 123

South Carolina .................................................................... 126
ii

South Dakota ..................................................................... 129

Tennessee ........................................................................ 132

Texas ........................................................................... 135

Utah ............................................................................ 139

Vermont ......................................................................... 142

Virginia ......................................................................... 146

Washington ...................................................................... 149

West Virginia ..................................................................... 153

Wisconsin ........................................................................ 156

Wyoming ........................................................................ 159

Attachment 1: Summary Tables

Table A1: Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize PWSs in Need of TMF Assistance ....... 163

Table A2: Prioritization Methods ..................................................... 167

Table B1: Common Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity Development ................... 173

Table B2: Other Factors that Enhance or Impair Capacity Development ....................... 174

Table C: How the States will Use the Authority and Resources of SDWA ..................... 175

Table D: Establishing a Baseline and Measuring Improvement .............................. 178

Table E: Identification of Stakeholders and Interested Persons .............................. 182
iii

Executive Summary 

Section 1420(c) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), in conjunction with SDWA Section

1452(a)(1)(G)(i) established a withholding of Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) monies 

if a State failed to develop and implement a strategy to help public water systems (PWSs) acquire and

maintain technical, managerial, and financial capabilities. States that failed to develop and implement a

strategy by August 6, 2000 would have incurred a 10% withholding in fiscal year 2001. 

EPA Headquarters and the EPA Regions approved strategies from all 50 States and Puerto Rico and

therefore no DWSRF funds were withheld. States, and Puerto Rico are still subject to a 15% withholding

in fiscal year 2002, and 20% withholding in subsequent years if they do not successfully document ongoing implementation of the strategy. 

Section 1420(c)(2) required that States, in preparing their capacity development strategies, consider,

solicit public comment on, and include as appropriate the following:

A. The methods or criteria that the State will use to identify and prioritize the PWSs most in

need of improving technical, managerial, and financial capacity.

B. A description of the institutional, regulatory, financial, tax, or legal factors at the Federal,

State, or local level that encourage or impair capacity development.

C. A description of how the State will use the authorities and resources of this title or other

means to assist PWSs in complying with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

(NPDWRs); encourage the development of partnership between PWSs to enhance the

technical, managerial, and financial capacity of the systems; and assist PWSs in the training

and certification of operators.

D. A description of how the State will establish a baseline and measure improvements in

capacity with respect to NPDWRs and State drinking water law.

E. An identification of the persons that have an interest in and are involved in the development

and implementation of the capacity development strategy (including all appropriate agencies

of Federal, State, and local governments, private and nonprofit PWSs and PWS customers). 

This document summarizes each State’s response to SDWA Section 1420(c)(2)(A-E). In addition to

each State summary, Attachment 1 at the end of this document contains a number of tables that allow for

easy comparison among the State programs. Attachment 1 includes:

• Table A1 which compares the methods or criteria to identify and prioritize PWSs in need of

technical, managerial and financial assistance. It includes information on the sources each

State used to gather information about systems, the criteria used to evaluate systems, and the

method of prioritization (e.g., points system, matrix, etc.). 

• Table A2 which provides a more detailed explanation of each States’ prioritization scheme

and lists how systems are ranked (i.e., the State’s first, second, and/or third priority). 
iv

• Table B1 which provides a list of the common factors the States identified as enhancements

or impairments to capacity development. 

• Table B2 which lists the less commonly identified technical, financial, legal, and tax factors.

• Table C illustrates how the States will use the authority and resources of SDWA to help

PWSs achieve and maintain capacity. The Table is divided into how each State is:

< Helping systems achieve compliance;

< Encouraging partnerships; and, 

< Helping systems train and certify operators.

EPA has compiled this table based on submissions of State Capacity Development

Strategies. The table may not reflect every element of a State’s program. The focus of the

table is on new initiatives being developed as part of the State’s capacity development

strategy for existing systems, and not the State’s entire drinking water program. 

• Table D which compares how the States established a baseline and how they plan to

measure improvements. 

• Table E which compares the methods used by the States to identify stakeholders and other

interested parties. 
1

Alabama

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) established a Drinking Water

Advisory Committee to consider and provide comments on capacity development strategy proposals. 

Participating stakeholders represented a total of 28 governmental, environmental, business, scientific,

technical assistance (TA), and citizen organizations. ADEM also solicited comments on capacity

development during three Drinking Water Advisory meetings, held in February 1998, March 1999, and

November 1999. ADEM incorporated comments into the written strategy document.

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

To assess the status and needs of PWSs in the State, the Water Supply Branch (WSB) of ADEM will

continue to conduct annual inspections of all systems in the State. Since most of the PWSs are publicly

funded and operated, WSB can gather financial information during quarterly meetings with the U.S.

Department of Agriculture Rural Development office (USDA-RD) and the Alabama Department of

Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA). WSB will supplement this information with managerial

and financial data collected through on-site visits by the Alabama Rural Water Association (ARWA). 

ARWA will generate a document that addresses the status of several capacity components. WSB will

use all of this data to rank systems based on need for assistance.

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

The factors that encourage capacity development in Alabama include: the water supply permit process

(including stringent design and treatment requirements), the operator certification/continuing education

program, and strong enforcement. An active enforcement program has caused the number of systems to

go down, but has not placed constraints on growth. ADEM does not identify any factors that impair

capacity.

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

WSB staff conduct annual inspections of each PWS. These inspections help staff identify physical and

operational constraints to the production and distribution of high quality drinking water. Staff

thoroughly assess each system’s technical capacity, considering issues such as water capacity, storage,

operator certification, monitoring plans, source water assessment status, redundancy of essential

equipment, cross connection control, and other indicators of capacity. 
2

WSB is using a portion of the authorized set-aside funds from the DWSRF program to contract with the

ARWA: 

C To evaluate the capacity of systems through on-site visits. Since WSB’s annual inspections

focus on technical capacity, ARWA will focus on identifying deficiencies in managerial

capacity. Additional circuit riders with ARWA will work closely with rural water systems

throughout the State to address debt repayment, monthly operation report submissions to the

WSB, complaints and concerns of customers, water loss, and other problems. 

C To conduct five training sessions throughout Alabama to instruct management level personnel on

the importance of their decisions to the technical and financial future of the water system. The

training sessions also provide information on the use of new technologies and on WSB’s water

supply, treatment, and distribution requirements. 

WSB also provides training on capacity requirements to planners, water systems, and towns that plan to

apply for ADECA funds. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

Stringent design and treatment requirements have prompted systems without adequate financial

resources or technical expertise to consolidate. The number of PWSs in Alabama has continually

declined since 1978, even while the number of total customers has increased during the same period. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

All community water systems (CWSs) and nontransient noncommunity water systems (NTNCWSs) in

Alabama must have a certified operator. Certificates are valid for three years. Operators must complete

a minimum of 24 Continuing Education Hours (CEHs) and submit a renewal application to receive a new

certificate. The Alabama Water and Wastewater Institute and AWRA provide the majority of operator

training courses in Alabama. ADEM provides information about the operator certification program,

including the schedule and location of training sessions, on its Web site. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

ADEM will set a baseline against which they will measure improvements in system capacity by

examining information from annual inspections and on-site visits, and by meeting with USDA-RD and

ADEC on system finances. ADEM will compare the information from year to year to determine if

system capacity has improved. 

ADEM will also examine trends in compliance percentages to measure overall improvements in

capacity. Since water systems in Alabama have had high compliance rates with National Primary

Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) for several years, the information gathered on specific systems

will likely be a more useful tool. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

ADEM designed the Drinking Water Advisory Committee to reflect all elements of the drinking water

community. Members were drawn from ADEM and other State agencies, citizen groups, local
3

government coalitions, business organizations, and others. Examples of members include: Consulting

Engineers Council of Alabama, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Alabama League of Municipalities, and the

Business Council of Alabama. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

Through regular inspections and communication with TA providers and funding agencies, WSB will

identify PWSs that lack adequate capacity and direct resources towards those systems. WSB will review

financial assistance applications submitted to USDA-RD and ADECA as an additional method of

identifying deficiencies. WSB will join with these organizations to educate water system managers on

capacity issues. These efforts will supplement the existing operator certification/training and operating

permit requirements to help ensure that all PWSs in Alabama have the ability to provide safe drinking

water. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

Alabama is already implementing many aspects of its capacity development strategy, including annual

inspections and on-site visits by ARWA circuit riders, monthly meetings with ARWA, quarterly

meetings with USDA-RD, participating in ADECA training workshops to inform funding applicants

about capacity requirements, and the operator certification/training and permit programs. ADEM will

continue to implement all of these activities and programs and make changes to the strategy as needed. 
4

Alaska

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) convened a Citizens Advisory Board

(CAB) to advise the Department on the development of the strategy. ADEC sent out an extensive

mailing to solicit interest in serving on the CAB. The CAB met in each of the three largest communities

in the State. 

During 1999 and 2000, the CAB considered the challenges and opportunities facing PWSs in Alaska. 

The Board developed a Report of Findings which presented their conclusions and their recommendations

to ADEC. ADEC staff presented the Report at conferences and meetings throughout the State. ADEC

distributed a questionnaire asking for public comment on the Report, posted it on their Web site, and

included notices announcing the release of the Report in Departmental publications. 

Few people attended the CAB and other public meetings, and ADEC did not receive many comments on

the Report or completed questionnaires. The Department responded to public comments and considered

all of CAB’s findings and recommendations included in the Report. ADEC used the Report and public

comments to develop the final strategy document. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

The CAB developed a matrix system for prioritizing PWSs in need of TMF assistance. Certain factors

related to compliance problems are ranked as high, medium, or low risk. For example, in assessing a

system’s monitoring and reporting, a system that is in compliance would receive a high while a system

on the SNC list for coliform bacteria would receive a low. Each factor is multiplied by a relative

weighting factor which the Board believed was needed to account for the relative risk of each factor. 

ADEC is planning on adopting the CAB matrix in some form.

Using PWS records and the SNC list, and by consulting with representatives that have knowledge of

system needs, the Department will select 50 PWSs to form a round table panel. The panel will rank the

selected PWSs according to the risk matrix. ADEC will provide assistance to the 50 ranked systems that

are willing to cooperate and to systems that voluntarily request TMF assistance. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

ADEC concurred broadly with the lists of factors that enhance or impair capacity provided by the CAB

in the Report. CAB identified 114 impairments and 50 enhancements and chose to note 77. ADEC

decided to focus its efforts on the factors on which it could have some impact. Those factors that were

outside the Agency’s influence and control were not considered. 
5

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

The CAB listed 14 programmatic changes that ADEC should make during the initial implementation of

the strategy. ADEC chose to implement half of the recommendations.

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

ADEC will use the matrix (described above) to provide information on a system. This information will

be used in conjunction with the activities listed below to enhance the system’s ability to comply with

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs).

• Enhanced sanitary survey. ADEC is working to modify their existing sanitary survey form to

include additional technical and managerial capabilities. The information gathered through the

sanitary survey will be used to measure improvements and to make changes to the State’s

strategy. 

• System self-assessment. ADEC in cooperation with the Alaska National Rural Water

Association has developed a self-assessment guide to allow public water system owners and

operators to evaluate their own capabilities. 

• Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). ADEC will work with RCA to streamline regulatory

processes for PWSs.

• Training. ADEC is working with one of its partners to develop an outline of training needs.

• Water metering. Proposed regulatory changes would require one water meter per PWS prior to

obtaining final operation approval.

• Early notification of rule changes. ADEC will continue to provide information to the public

through the use of the advisory boards, workshops and publication of a newsletter. 

• DWSRF grants and loans. Alaska has passed legislation that will allow privately owned PWSs

to be eligible for DWSRF starting July 1, 2001. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

ADEC will include information about the development of partnerships in all training products and

educational materials. In addition, the Department will provide information to individual systems.

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

ADEC will continue to sponsor operator certification training. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

ADEC will use the results of the prioritization matrix as a baseline of TMF capacity. The Department

will set a baseline for the 50 priority systems and for any system that voluntarily requests a capacity

evaluation. 

ADEC will measure improvements by reviewing compliance trends on a statewide basis and by 

comparing annual numbers of sanitary survey deficiencies, emergency calls for TA, systems on the SNC
6

list, training events and the attendance at the training events, and systems with properly certified

operators.

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

ADEC conducted an extensive mailing to solicit interest in serving on the CAB. ADEC contacted

federal, State, City, and local government officials; water and wastewater system representatives; TA

providers; environmental, housing, and health associations; and Tribal consortium representatives. The

final Board members represented a broad cross-section of interests, knowledge, and points of view. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

The Alaska strategy, when taken as a whole, will identify the particular needs of systems in the State and

address those needs using available resources. Over the next two years, ADEC will finalize a matrix that

will help to prioritize systems, provide a baseline of TMF capacity against which system improvements

can be measured, and provide information on assistance needs. The Department is working with the

NRWA to modify the matrix into a system self-assessment and working with other partners to modify 

existing sanitary survey forms. Due to funding and staffing limitations, the State has chosen to

emphasize and modify already existing programs.

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

ADEC was unable to present the draft strategy to the CAB or to the public since the deadline for

submitting the strategy coincided with the closing of the construction season. ADEC was planning to

present the draft strategy at training conferences, workshops, and meetings during the last few months of

2000. 

When ADEC prepares its 2002 Report to the Governor required under the SDWA, it will evaluate the

possibility of expanding the strategy to include other CAB recommendations. 
7

Arizona

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) formed a stakeholders group to solicit

comments on a draft of their capacity development strategy. The Department also held a series of

public/stakeholder meetings in various locations around the State. ADEQ advertised these meetings

through Statewide press releases, mailings, and personal invitations. Copies of the draft strategy were 

made available on ADEQ’s Web site before the meetings. 

Stakeholders and the public discussed issues including water conservation, consumer confidence reports,

current training activities, implementing a new approach to PWS plans for anticipated growth, improving

interagency communication, encouraging system consolidation, improving access to data, providing

additional technical and managerial assistance for monitoring, rate case procedures, and backflow

prevention activities. The Department plans to incorporate comments as appropriate. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

To create a detailed inventory of PWSs, the Department plans to implement Survey 2000. Survey 2000

will assess TMF capacity of PWSs by asking systems to describe their storage, distribution, and

treatment; training programs; system organizational structure; management skills; system revenues;

capital improvement funds; financing programs; and rate structures.

Until Survey 2000 can be implemented, ADEQ will divide the inventory of PWSs in the State into four

categories: PWSs serving more than 10,000 persons, PWSs serving 10,000 or less persons, State and

federal PWSs, and TNCWSs. PWSs within each category will be sorted by: 

• Source type (a system with a surface water source is a higher priority than one with a ground

water source).

• System type (CWS are a higher priority than NTNCWS which, in turn, are a higher priority than

TNCWS).

• Population served (the lower the population the higher the priority). 

To further prioritize systems within each category, ADEQ will examine information in the Arizona Safe

Drinking Water database (SWD) including: 

• Compliance violation data and enforcement actions (the more current and previous violations the

higher the priority).

• Water Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA) priority listing (systems already receiving

financial assistance may be a lower priority for ADEQ). 

• Sanitary survey results.

• Operator certification (systems without a certified operator and systems without an on-site

operator may be a higher priority).

• Source water (SW) assessments to identify vulnerable or sensitive aquifers. 

• Owner type (i.e. municipality vs. trust vs. corporation vs. sole proprietor, etc.). 
8

• Annual financial reports.

• Consecutive source information (identifies those systems that obtain all of their water from

another PWS and therefore do little or no sampling). 

SWD allows users to make relational queries and save and export information that will aid in the

identification and prioritization process.

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

ADEQ developed a list of several factors that enhance the capacity of PWSs in Arizona. Enhancements

include TA programs; the monitoring assistance program; and e-schedules, an electronic reporting

initiative, as well as other Web-based information access activities. 

The Department also identified 10 factors that impair capacity. Stakeholders and ADEQ determined that

three of these impairments (complexity of the SDWA, regulatory obstacles, and lack of access to

compliance information and monitoring schedules) can be addressed in the initial implementation of the

strategy. 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

ADEQ provides funding to several industry associations and consulting engineers. These groups provide

services such as rule training and operator certification training. In an effort to improve the TA process

and avoid duplication of effort, the Department plans to coordinate meetings among these groups. 

The Department plans to work closely with small systems to prepare them for revisions to MCLs and

other new regulatory requirements. ADEQ will expand its on-line services to include monitoring

schedules, CCR data, operator certification expiration dates, lists of contaminants for SW approval, and

approved analytical laboratories. By posting this information on its Website, ADEQ will improve access

to compliance and monitoring information. The Department also plans to improve its public outreach

activities to better inform owners and operators of regulatory changes.

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

ADEQ plans to coordinate with stakeholder groups to encourage and develop a mentor program where

large and complex PWSs would provide pro bono managerial and technical support to small systems in

neighboring locales. The incentives to participate may include earning continuing education hours for

mentoring activities. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators 

The Department is in the process of developing new, more flexible, operator certification rules which

will allow third parties to administer the training and testing portions of the operator certification

program. ADEQ expects this new approach will increase training and testing opportunities. 
9

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

Arizona plans to establish a baseline using either 1998 or 1999 data. Possible approaches for measuring

improvements include:

C Measuring the number of outreach activities, sanitary surveys and comprehensive performance

evaluations, and completed system self-assessments. 

C Assessing the prevalence of certified operators.

C Examining the results of self-assessments, water system plans, annual financial reports, or

budgeting worksheets.

C Analyzing compliance trends.

C Conducting written surveys including the annual Survey 2000. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

ADEQ developed a list of interested stakeholders including TA providers, State Departments, local

associations, PWS owners and operators, and the public. The Department used the list to invite

interested parties to a series of meetings. Invitations to the meeting were also distributed in newspaper

announcements and mailings ensuring a wide variety of opinions and views would be represented. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

Arizona’s Capacity Development strategy for Existing Public Water Systems is a comprehensive strategy

that incorporates a process to identify and prioritize systems that pose the most significant threat to

public health and which are most in need of assistance. The Department is also planning to implement

new programs that will help systems comply, encourage partnerships, and improve the operator

certification process. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

The ADEQ implementation schedule runs from March of 2000 to August of 2001. After submitting the

strategy to EPA for final review in August 2000, ADEQ plans to focus on mailing Survey 2000. This

tool will enable the Department to develop a preliminary prioritization list, establish baseline parameters,

and develop and conduct a comprehensive assessment of PWSs. The Department has started working on

several tasks identified in the strategy including developing a means to measure improvements,

prioritizing systems, and understanding DWSRF funding mechanisms. 

ADEQ regularly participates in a variety of conference calls with State and federal officials to discuss

capacity development issues. These calls allow ADEQ to evaluate the progress of implementing the

strategy and provide a forum for discussing program changes. 
10

Arkansas

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) formed a stakeholders group and held workgroup meetings

to gather input on the SDWA §1420 elements and to develop a draft capacity development strategy. 

During the first stakeholder meeting, the larger group split into smaller input sessions to focus attention

on different elements of the strategy. Participants rotated within these groups to ensure a cross-section of

ideas. 

During a second meeting, stakeholders were invited to comment on a draft of the strategy developed by

ADH after consideration of the comments gathered at the meeting. The stakeholders discussed several

elements of the strategy, including the prioritization list, assistance with compliance, partnering and

training, measures of success, and future stakeholder involvement. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

ADH evaluates the technical/operational and financial/managerial aspects of small CWSs (systems

serving less than 10,000) and NTNCWSs. Water systems are ranked according to a point system related

to various components of capacity including: MCL or Treatment Technique (TT) violations within the

last 2 years (10 points for each violation), presence of a properly certified operator (20 points if the

system does not have an operator), the type of system (0 points for groundwater, 5 points for GUDI, and

8 points for surface water systems), and loan repayment history (20 points for systems determined by

Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission (ASWCC) to be financially weak, 40 points for

systems determined to be financially very weak). 

Systems receiving the highest combined score after each evaluation are considered to pose the most

serious threat to public health. In FY 2000 points ranged from 10-138 for technical and operational

evaluations, and from 10-168 for financial and managerial evaluations. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

ADH and stakeholders determined 10 factors which enhance capacity and 14 factors which impair

capacity. 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

The Department, among other things, conducts sanitary surveys (on CWSs and NTNCWSs) and

comprehensive performance evaluations (CPEs) (on surface water systems), reviews project plans, and

provides TA and operator training. ADH is participating with EPA in the Area Wide Optimization

Program to optimize performance at all surface water treatment plants. ADH uses the results of sanitary
11

surveys and CPEs to address system deficiencies. The results may also be used to initiate enforcement

action if appropriate. 

ADH uses DWSRF set-aside funds for several small system TA projects and State program management

activities. The Department has entered into two TA contracts: Small Systems (10,000 population) TA

Contract for Technical and Operation Capacity Development with the Arkansas Rural Water Association

(ARWA), and a Small Systems TA Contract for Financial and Managerial Capacity Development with

the Community Resource Group (CRG). Each contractor conducts on-site assessments, according to the

priority list established by ADH under Element A, on forms provided by ADH. The contractors use their

on-site assessments to prepare a strategy to address system deficiencies. Follow-up is provided through

site visits and telephone calls. 

The Department is currently being restructured. Plans are to have the State divided into 5 regions that

operate more or less autonomously under agreements with a Central Office. At the time the strategy was

submitted to EPA, State representatives did not know the impact of restructuring on the State Drinking

Water Program. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

ADH is currently using an incentive based approach to encourage regionalization, consolidation, and

interconnection. Systems with source water quality or quantity issues that choose to consolidate will

receive additional points on the State’s DWSRF priority list. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

ADH recently revamped their operator certification examination and the exam process. The new exams 

are standardized, computer graded, multiple-choice, and closed book. All operators are required to

obtain 24 hours of training every two years in order to renew their licence. ADH also hired a Licensing

Training Coordinator who will organize and coordinate operator certification training programs around

the State, offer a greater number of training programs, and aim training at both treatment operation and

distribution system operation. 

ADH works with ARWA to provide training for water operators at various locations around the State. 

ARWA built a training facility that provides both classroom and hands-on training for water system

operators. Two large auditorium-style classrooms and two smaller classrooms will be eventually

supplemented by the construction of a model distribution system. 

ADH will use a portion of the 5% set-aside for DWSRF Local Assistance and other State Programs to

fund contracts that will identify operator training needs, develop training courses, and conduct training

sessions. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

ADH will establish a baseline against which they will measure improvements by reviewing current

compliance levels. The Department will measure success by comparing future compliance levels for a

specific regulation or set of regulations against the baseline. 
12

ADH will also consider, as other measures of improvements, compliance rates of those systems receiving

TA under the Small Systems TA contracts; the compliance rates of those systems that have had a

capacity review against systems that have not had a complete review; attendance rates at American

Waterworks & Water Environmental Association (AWW&WEA) meetings; and trends in number of TA

contracts, long-range plans, and systems receiving infrastructure funding.

Each contractor is required to develop an Access database to track baseline information and facilitate the

collection of information for measuring improvements. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

ADH sent invitations to participate on the stakeholders group to members that appeared on the 

membership lists of various water industry related organizations and planning groups including industry

associations, TA providers, public and private water system owners and operators, consulting engineers,

political groups, planning and development districts, and several State regulators. The Department also

contacted interested parties and notified the public about the meetings through announcements made at

the AWW&WEA meetings, in newsletters, and in mailings. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

ADH has developed and adopted criteria for ranking PWSs in the State to better prioritize systems in

need of assistance. By assigning point values to systems meeting certain criteria, ADH can ensure that

TA is given to the systems that pose the most significant threat to public health. The State provides

programs and activities which help systems stay in compliance, provides incentives for partnerships and

system consolidation, and has made changes to their operator certification program. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

Future stakeholder meetings are planned on a semi-annual basis to continually gather information and

input on the implementation of the strategy. ADH will consider additional programs and activities as

resources allow, including providing TA for the development of the required long-range plan, increasing

the number of CPEs conducted, conducting topic specific training if the results of the sanitary surveys or

CPEs show a deficiency that commonly occurs among systems, and increasing the type of materials

provided through the Department’s Website. 
1References to the “Department” in the strategy refer to both DHS and the local agencies.

13

California

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The California capacity development program will be implemented by the Department of Health

Services (DHS) and local primacy agencies under delegation agreements with the State.1

 The

Department established a Technical Advisory Committee and conducted five workshops during the

summer 2000 in order to give the public an opportunity to comment on a draft of the strategy. In

addition, the Department posted the draft strategy on its Website. The Department considered and

responded to all comments from the public workshops and the Internet. Responses were included in the

strategy documents submitted to EPA. 

The Department intends to conduct focus groups in 2001 and to provide other opportunities to inform the

public and seek comment.

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

The Department will use five sources of information to identify and prioritize systems in need of

assistance:

C Data on water system violations (repeat violators are given a higher priority). 

C Information from water system inspections (those systems with the most significant deficiencies

are given a higher priority).

C The State Revolving Fund priority list. 

C Knowledge of the drinking water program staff. 

The Department developed criteria to evaluate the TMF capacity of systems. The Department based the

criteria on the criteria used to evaluate the TMF capacity of DWSRF applicants, and also incorporated

input from stakeholders.

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

The Department evaluated its drinking water program in 1993. The report from that evaluation identified

six factors that contribute to high rates of noncompliance for small water systems: financial and technical

limitations, regulatory program issues, planning and permitting issues, operation and maintenance issues,

outreach programs, and regional solution issues for small water systems. The Department will update

and revise the report by June 30, 2001.
14

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

In order to improve compliance, the Department will incorporate TMF capacity issues in the following

program activities: permit issuance, sanitary surveys, compliance monitoring and enforcement, and

source water protection. The Department will provide guidance aimed at improving operational

procedures and developing system Operations Plans. The Department will use its entire DWSRF setaside ($2.0 million annually) to fund these activities. During 2001 and 2002, the State will provide

training on implementing the revised permit procedures. 

The Department is revising its Staff Permit Policy and Procedure Manual in order to ensure that effective

and uniform permit policies and procedures are followed Statewide. In early 2001, the State will provide

training on implementing the revised permit procedures. The Department has established the issuance of

the water supply permit as the control point in implementing TMF requirements. 

Enforcement actions are used to require water systems to improve TMF capacity in areas related to their

violations. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

The Department does not explicitly discuss how it will encourage the development of partnerships in its

strategy.

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

State regulations requiring certification of distribution system operators will take effect January 2001. 

The Department will continue to implement its operator certification program. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

The Department will establish a baseline and measure improvements to system capacity by using the

following information:

• Water system violation data will be compared from year to year and the Department will identify

important factors and trends.

• Results of a survey (tracked over the next 5 years) to determine the current number of certified

operators and their level of certification.

• The number of Operations Plans developed each year. The Department will analyze the number

and type of violations by system that have prepared operations plans and compare them to the

number and type of violations by systems that do not have a plan. 

• A report by a Technical Advisory Committee that identifies and quantifies the level of TA that is

provided.

• The number of TMF capacity assessments completed each year. 
15

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

The Department formed a Technical Advisory Committee with representatives from PWSs, various State

and Local agencies and TA providers. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

The chosen elements provide a comprehensive method of identifying systems in need of TMF assistance,

providing targeted assistance to the identified systems, ensuring the appropriate level of operator

certification, and evaluating water systems progress. 

The Department will continue to receive input from its Technical Advisory Committee. It will also

conduct focus groups in 2001 and continue to use its Web site to provide information to and receive

feedback from the public on its capacity development activities.

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

The Department is preparing a Program Implementation Plan that will be designed to meet the three

broad goals of the Capacity Development Program and will solicit stakeholder comment on the Plan. 
16

Colorado

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPH&E) held a series of public

meetings to inform the public and interested stakeholders about capacity development issues and to

solicit public comment on a draft of their capacity development strategy. The Department also formed a

Capacity Development Workgroup, to provide input into the development and implementation of the

State’s Capacity Development program and to review and provide comments on the draft strategy. The

Workgroup will continue to work with CDPH&E during the initial implementation of the strategy. In

addition, CDPH&E held two training courses to educate water system managers and operators,

engineers, local officials and other interested parties on capacity development issues and to solicit

comment on the strategy. CDPH&E also posted the strategy on the Internet. 

The draft strategy was favorably received and therefore CDPH&E did not receive very many comments. 

The Department incorporated the comments made by the Department of Local Affairs and the Rural

Community Assistance Corporation into the final strategy document. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

CDPH&E will identify systems in need of assistance by:

• Using the results of the self monitoring program to detect systems with violations.

• Conducting site visits.

• Reviewing requests for assistance made by systems.

• Using validated customer complaints.

During the State’s next fiscal year, systems with monitoring violations will be the State’s highest

priority. CDPH&E will recommend enforcement action against those systems with MCL or TT

violations unless TA will provide a more timely response and resolution to the threat to public health. 

The Capacity Development Workgroup working in conjunction with the CDPH&E Capacity

Development Coordinator will recommend a prioritization plan, as well as a way to revise the priority

setting process. 

The Department has also targeted CWSs using surface water as a source of supply that are failing to

provide a minimum of three log removal of particulate matter. CDPH&E will perform CPEs to identify

the causes of the inadequate performance and to recommend cost-effective methods of correcting the

problems. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

CDPH&E identified 7 factors that encourage capacity development in PWSs. The Department

categorized the 7 factors that impair capacity into legislative, operator certification, and regulatory

issues. 
17

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

The Capacity Development program includes programs and activities that will identify, provide a

response to, and prevent capacity weaknesses. Many interrelated activities will be pursued, including: 

• TA. CDPH&E staff and approved third party providers will provide targeted assistance to

systems. Programs and activities include:

• Conducting annual on-site sanitary surveys of NCWSs through an agreement with the

Consumer Protection Division. 

• Contacting by telephone or in person all PWSs that fail to conduct required monitoring. 

• Developing a RFP for a qualified third party to conduct CPE’s of identified surface water

systems (i.e. those failing to provide a minimum of three log removal of particulate matter).

• Training.

• Dissemination of information. The Department plans to provide greater access to information

through the Internet by establishing a Colorado drinking water hotline, and by investigating the

feasibility of providing a web-based training program for water system operators. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

CDPH&E is looking into ways of encouraging partnerships between PWSs. The Department will ask its

strategy work group to develop a water system excellence program (similar to the AWWA/EPA

partnership program). TA providers are being asked for information on consolidation, restructuring,

shared staffing arrangements, rate structure, budgeting etc., in an effort to provide systems with methods

of lowering costs by sharing or partnering with other systems. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

The Colorado Plant Operators Certification Board (the Board) is in the process of developing regulations

to implement the SDWA operator certification requirements. Following the approval of the regulations,

CDPH&E will work with the Board to improve the certification process including validating test content,

improving test administration, and providing training for existing certification requirements. The

Department is working to remove redundancy from training materials provided by the State and its third

party providers, and to improve the passing rate of test applicants by ensuring access to information. 

The Department may fund an FTE position to support the development and delivery of training

programs. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

CDPH&E will use the rate of noncompliance established by Colorado’s 1998 Annual Compliance Report

as the baseline against which improvements will be measured. 

CDPH&E will use a number of different approaches to track the effectiveness of the capacity

development strategy including:
18

• Comparing annual compliance rates.

• Comparing the annual number of sanitary surveys or other on-site evaluations conducted using

capacity development funds.

• Measuring the effectiveness of on-site TA.

• Examining changes in SNC rates.

• Examining the compliance rates of new systems that were subject to the program for ensuring

capacity in new CWSs and new NTNCWSs, and comparing them to the compliance rates of

systems that commenced operation prior to the implementation of the program. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

CDPH&E formed a Workgroup during the summer of 1998 to help develop the capacity development

program. The participants were drawn from a broad array of organizations and associations, and from

other Divisions within the CDPH&E. While interest and participation in the Workgroup waned over

time, the current Workgroup members include representatives from federal, State, and local government;

the Colorado Rural Water Association; and the Colorado Rural Community Assistance Corporation. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

CDPH&E will provide TA to the systems identified as having the greatest need based on a review of

compliance rates. The type of TA and the choice of the TA provider will be targeted to meet the specific

needs of the system. CDPH&E is also increasing the type and frequency of its training opportunities for

system managers and operators. The training will ensure that systems who come into compliance have

the knowledge and resources that will allow them to remain in compliance. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

The State’s Capacity Development Work plan for the State fiscal year 2001 provides detailed

information on the activities and programs that CDPH&E is hoping to implement in the next year. 

The Workgroup will meet monthly to evaluate and provide recommendations to CDPH&E on the success

of the strategy. The Workgroup has been asked to develop a plan for the solicitation of additional public

input on the strategy. Changes will be made to the strategy as appropriate. 

In the future, CDPH&E will enter into agreements with TA providers, other agencies, and engineering

companies to carry out the existing work plan and the strategy. 
19

Connecticut

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The State of Connecticut began its capacity development efforts (called “viability” by the State) in the

early 1980's. In 1982, the Connecticut legislature created a Water Resources Task Force to evaluate the

State’s water supply issues and recommend improvements in the management of water resources. The

Task Force included: legislators, utilities, and State agencies. The outputs of this early process form the

core of Connecticut’s capacity development program. These outputs were developed over many years

and each was subject to public participation.

Beginning in 1999, the Water Supplies Section (WSS) of the Department of Public Health (DPH)

provided several opportunities for the public to comment on a draft of the capacity development strategy. 

These included a public “seminar” to introduce and discuss the strategy, and contracts with five TA

providers to educate and solicit comments from their constituencies (Council of Small Towns, American

Water Works Association, Connecticut/Rhode Island Rural Water Association, mid-Atlantic Rural Water

Association, and University of Connecticut Health Center). DPH considered comments from these

various sources when finalizing the strategy document.

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

WSS identifies systems with potential problems by reviewing compliance status, sanitary survey

information, inspections, or consumer complaints.

In 1997, DPH worked with the Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC) to develop a viability

model for CWSs (except municipal systems). The model has two parts: a technical evaluation and a

financial analysis. The technical evaluation measures system performance (focusing on regulatory

factors) and ability to comply. The financial analysis includes a review of a system’s cash flow,

financial leverage, earnings performance, and interest obligation protection. The model provides

formulas for the evaluator and establishes ranges of performance depending on the results of the formula. 

For example, the model provides formulas so the evaluator can calculate total operating cash flow and

total debt service. The model then leads the evaluator through the process of determining an appropriate

ratio and compares the result to a range of performance (e.g. if the result is greater than 1.2, the

company is in a good position to meet its debt obligations after paying expenses, a result of 1.0-1.2 is

marginal – a company can adequately cover its obligations but may not be able to cover infrastructure

needs or capital improvements, and a result of less than 1.0 is poor). The financial and technical results

of the evaluation provide a comprehensive view of a system’s capacity. 

Connecticut developed separate strategies for non-community water systems including criteria for the

prioritization of NTNCWSs and TNCWSs. NTNCWSs are generally a higher priority than TNCWSs.
20

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

Based on public input, DPH developed seven tables of factors that encourage or impair capacity

development. For each of the three elements of capacity development (TMF) there are two tables: one 

for factors that encourage capacity and one for factors that impair it. Each factor in the table is rated as

having a high, medium, or low impact on CWSs, NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs. The seventh table is a list

of “overriding factors that encourage or impair capacity development.”

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

Connecticut’s comprehensive program is aimed at improving compliance. The State conducts sanitary

surveys; runs the operator certification, cross connection control, and watershed protection programs;

and controls transfers of land by water companies. DPH surveys water quality data on an ongoing basis. 

Under statutes enacted in 1984 and 1985, Connecticut instituted several mechanisms that will be used to

implement the State’s capacity development program including:

• The Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity requires a new or expanding water system

serving between 25 and 1,000 people to obtain a permit and provide assurances of TMF capacity.

• Six statutes give the State authority to order a solvent water company or municipality to take

over a non-viable small water company. PWSs that consistently fail to achieve compliance may

become targets.

• The Connecticut Plan requires systems serving more than 1,000 people to periodically develop

individual water supply plans. These plans help to identify TMF capacity deficiencies. The Plan

also establishes regional Water Utility Coordinating Committees (WUCCs) that develop regional

water supply plans.

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

Both the WUCCs and the takeover process result in regional solutions to drinking water problems. Each

WUCC develops a coordinated regional plan with input that addresses long-range water supply issues

and establishes exclusive service areas in which a utility accepts responsibility for all services. This

reduces the demand for new, potentially non-viable small systems. 

The takeover process, which is used as a last resort, is a forced means of consolidating or regionalizing

small systems, in order to ensure TMF capacity. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

Connecticut has had authority to establish water system operator qualifications since 1937. In order to

comply with the 1996 SDWA Amendments, Connecticut is revising its regulations. The new regulations

will require NTNC water systems to have certified water operators.
21

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

DPH believes that the “convention of ‘counting’ items as a success indicator is often naively applied to

determining the quality of a risk reduction program.” The Department has used, and currently uses, a

number of program elements to provide relative measurements of capacity improvements including, for

example: 

• The total number of PWSs (reflects takeover and consolidation measures).

• The percentage of PWS types with MCL violations (prioritizes resources among system types).

• The percentage of PWSs with monitoring and reporting violations (indicates familiarity with

regulatory requirements).

• The results of tracking significant non-compliers (identifies number and type of long-term noncompliers).

In addition, to evaluate its capacity development efforts, DPH will use information from the Annual

Compliance Report, Annual Organic Chemical Report to the Legislature, Quarterly Enforcement

Activity Report, and Quarterly SWAP Report. The State notes that the indicators it uses to measure

improvements in the capacity of systems may change as the program changes.

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

DPH has two full-time staff people dedicated to public participation and outreach activities. They have a

master list of individuals, groups, and organizations in five categories: government officials, water

industry and affiliated enterprises, environmental groups, academia and the general public, and public

health professionals. WSS draws from this list for its outreach efforts. WSS has an extensive program

of routine, ongoing outreach and public involvement in developing and implementing elements of the

capacity development strategy.

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

Connecticut has a comprehensive capacity development program that addresses the elements of SDWA

§1420(c) and includes other elements that predate the requirements of SDWA. Connecticut’s strategy

includes mechanisms to identify and prioritize water systems with TMF capacity problems; provide TA

or other means to improve capacity or eliminate non-viable systems; ensure public involvement; measure

improvements in system capacity; and make revisions to the program based on public input and system

needs.

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

Connecticut began implementing its strategy in the 1980's. The program has evolved and expanded since

then. DPH is using more than $300,000 from the DWSRF set-asides to provide TA to small water

systems. DPH is also evaluating the use of the DWSRF local set-aside in order to implement additional

elements of its capacity development strategy.
22

Delaware

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

In preparing its Capacity Development strategy, the Delaware Public Health Office of Drinking Water

(ODW) solicited and considered public comment on all program elements. ODW formed an internal

committee of four individuals to gather ideas and draft a Capacity Development strategy. ODW

introduced the draft, which focused on strengthening existing programs and offering “new avenues of

assistance for water systems,” to a representative group of owner/operators. ODW also presented the

draft strategy in February 2000 at the Delaware Rural Water Association (DRWA) annual conference,

which was open to water systems and the public. Finally, ODW held an informational meeting on May

25, 2000 to present the strategy to additional stakeholders. Attendees included water system owners and

operators, the Public Service Commission, DRWA staff, the Department of Natural Resources and

Environmental Control, Delaware Health and Social Services, and one member of the public. ODW

incorporated comments as appropriate.

ODW also ran a pilot program to test the baseline setting methodology (see Element D). ODW sent six

water systems a self-assessment questionnaire and existing compliance data. During an on-site visit each

system provided feedback on the questionnaire and the strategy. ODW received positive feedback in all

cases.

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

ODW will review the compliance history of all PWSs to identify systems in need of assistance. The

Office will examine sanitary surveys, complaint history, and operator status information, and will rank

systems within prioritization levels based on this information. The type and scope of assistance will

correlate to the prioritization level. 

• Priority level 1: systems demonstrating significant non-compliance.

• Priority level 2: systems with 1 or more violations in the past 3 years.

• Priority level 3: systems maintaining compliance, but at risk of becoming non-compliant in the

future.

• Priority level 4: systems demonstrating full compliance.

ODW anticipates that level 2 and 3 systems will be offered primarily “preventative programs.”

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

ODW identified 6 factors that encourage the development and maintenance of capacity in PWSs,

including DWSRF financial assistance, operator certification and training programs, and DRWA services

(e.g., circuit rider program and training seminars). In addition, ODW mentions that systems benefit from

the State authority, which discourages the proliferation of new, potentially non-compliant PWSs. 
23

Institutional policies also protect the State from water shortages and industrial or septic system

contamination.

ODW identifies 6 factors that impair capacity, including those that hinder consolidation, discourage

participation, and lead to insufficient owner/operator knowledge. Improper land use, political rivalry

between municipalities, and the time and red tape involved for receiving a DWSRF loan are also

identified as impairments. In addition, ODW mentions that many water suppliers lack expertise and do

not trust State and EPA officials, and that interconnection and consolidation of systems are discouraged

through Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity.

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

ODW continues to implement activities and programs that assist systems with meeting applicable

standards and requirements, including sanitary surveys, TA, plan reviews, monitoring, and the ODW

contract with DRWA that assists DWSRF applicants deficient in capacity. ODW will also develop and

implement two new activities that will further assist systems: the ODW quarterly newsletter sent to every

PWS in State, and the ODW Web site.

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

ODW chooses not to develop a partnership program at this time since the State’s small area encourages

systems to partner on an informal basis. Other partnership and consolidation programs are available

through American Water Works Association and other organizations. A more formal program may be

considered in the future.

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

ODW continues to implement programs to assist systems in the training and certification of operators

such as the State’s mandate for operator certification, an ODW contract with Delaware Technical

Community College to provide operator training classes, and DWRA training and continuing education. 

ODW plans to develop operator certification programs and activities since the State mandate for

certification is new.

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

ODW will use existing information, a self-assessment questionnaire, and site visits to establish a baseline

and to measure improvements in the capacity of systems. ODW will create a baseline utilizing its

prioritization scheme (described in Element A). Level 1-3 systems will receive a self-assessment

questionnaire which will be followed up with a site visit. This two step process allows ODW to

customize TA to the particular circumstances of the system. ODW staff provide much of the assistance,

although contracts and other agencies will be called upon when necessary, especially for managerial and

financial assistance. The systems in prioritization levels 1-3 will be reexamined in 2002 to review their

prioritization level and measure any improvement in capacity. 
24

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

ODW introduced a draft of the Capacity Development strategy to a group of 8 individuals representing a

cross section of stakeholders: 2 mobile home park owners, 1 town manager, 2 municipal water system

operators, 1 NTNC manager, and 2 representatives of investor owned utilities (combined, the two private

utilities owned or operated 100 systems in Delaware). ODW’s strategy did not include a discussion of

the process used to establish this stakeholder group. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

Delaware’s Capacity Development strategy pulls together several aspects of its PWS program that had

been previously unconnected. ODW plans to implement several new initiatives that will further assist

systems. ODW identifies and prioritizes systems in need of TMF assistance by conducting a review of

water system compliance histories and other indicators (sanitary surveys, complaint histories, and

operator status). Self-assessment questionnaires and on-site visits establish baselines and track

improvements in capacity. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

Delaware’s strategy will be implemented primarily by ODW, with assistance from outside contractors or

other State agencies if necessary. Each year ODW will provide documentation to EPA that shows the

ongoing implementation of the Capacity Development strategy. ODW does not indicate a time schedule

for implementing the new initiatives described in the strategy document.
25

Florida

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) solicited public comment on its capacity

development strategy through mass mailings, citizens advisory group meetings, and public meetings. 

The State considered the comments and responded to them in the final strategy document. Comments

were evaluated based on their feasibility, the cost- and time-effectiveness of implementing the

suggestion, how often the comment was mentioned, and the position of the individual making the

comment. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

From March 2000 through December 2000, FACA and DEP, in cooperation with FRWA, worked to

identify systems in need of assistance. FACA used median household income data, population data,

violation data from SDWIS, Consumer Confidence Reports, and other information to identify systems

with potential or actual compliance problems. DEP currently uses sanitary survey and PWS database

information as well as citizen complaints and self-referrals to identify additional candidates for

assistance.

DEP frequently screens the identified systems to eliminate those systems that have the resources to

resolve their problems. DEP periodically updates a report listing all the significant noncompliers* and

systems with other types of “indicator” problems, as listed in the strategy program description. DEP

maintains a list of systems actively participating in the technical assistance program and systems

identified but not participating in the technical assistance, (e.g. declined to receive assistance, system

already has resources to meet it’s needs.) DEP periodically discusses the report with FRWA and

prioritizes offers of technical assistance (TA). Systems with a history of acute health risk violations are

the top priority.

*Significant noncompliers (SNCs) are defined as systems with compliance problems. They may not

meet the EPA definition of SNC.

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

DEP identified six factors that impair capacity development and will aim to address these factors in the

implementation of the strategy. 

• Different requirements relating to drinking water systems from different agencies.

• Population density.

• Per capita Income.

• Large number of smalls systems in the State.
26

• Difficulty in following some requirements.

• Drinking water systems can be started up with relatively few requirements.

FACA will use three of the impairments (population density, per capita income, and the size of the

system) as additional criteria that will help identify systems in need of assistance. 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

Florida plans to offer assistance to as many identified systems as possible. If a system accepts the offer

of TA, FRWA will perform a thorough assessment of the system’s TMF capacity and will then provide

consulting services. FRWA has equipment to assist or lend to systems, including computerized leak

detectors, ultrasonic flow and meter testers, pressure recorders, etc. 

This assistance will supplement Florida’s existing efforts which include inspections, individual and

group training on consumer confidence reports and other topics, data management, monitoring assistance

and waivers, financial assistance to restore or replace contaminated sources, a program focusing on

systems using ground water under the influence of surface water (the UDI program), and several other

initiatives. For information on Florida’s monitoring relief program, see

http://www.dep.State.fl.us/water/wf/dw/dw_interest_mrp.htm. For information on Florida’s UDI

program, see http://www.dep.State.fl.us/water/wf/dw/dw_interest_udi.htm.

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

To encourage partnerships among systems, DEP plans to refer systems to networks of water system

professionals, such as the American Water Works Association and FRWA. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

DEP’s Operator Certification Program (OCP) trains and licenses operators. To aid in curriculum

development, representatives of FRWA, the Department of Education, the Florida Water Pollution

Control Operators Association (FWPCOA), and the Department of Health periodically provide

suggestions for additional training topics that need to be emphasized in courses and exams. Beginning

on March 1, 2001, new continuing education requirements for operators are in effect. 

DEP is continuing to gather information on the possibility of providing board member/municipal

manager training to Florida water systems. SERCAP plans to provide board member training in the near

future in Florida through a grant from Mississippi State University.

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

DEP will establish a baseline of system capacity using compliance and violations records, sanitary

survey information, and FACA records of responses to self-evaluation and assessment surveys. DEP

will measure improvements in overall capacity by tracking changes in the baseline, evaluating public
27

comment, examining the number of training sessions and the number of attendees at the sessions, and

other information that may indicate improvement. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

Florida relied mainly on mass mailings, a citizens’ advisory group, and public meetings to identify

interested stakeholders. The Department’s mailing list includes approximately 400 utilities, consultants,

governmental professionals, and others. Mass mailings sent out in 1999 included descriptions of the

capacity development program, announcements of public meetings, and requests for comments. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

Florida’s capacity development strategy will allow the State to identify and prioritize systems that can

benefit most from existing programs, from the State’s partnerships with TA providers, and from the

additional assistance that will be offered by FRWA and FACA. The strategy provides a thorough

approach for reaching systems that do not have adequate capacity and for helping these systems resolve

their problems. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

DEP is already implementing most of the programs described in its strategy, and FACA has completed

the identifications, needs surveys, self evaluations and draft corrective action plans for 50 systems. As

the capacity assistance efforts move forward, DEP will track the progress of systems and modify the

assistance as necessary to maximize improvements in capacity. DEP will work to ensure that assistance

is balanced between public and private systems. New continuing education requirements for operator

certification became effective March 1, 2001. 
28

Georgia

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Georgia Water Management Campaign (the Campaign) and the Georgia Department of Natural

Resources Environmental Protection Division (EPD) assembled a Local Government Advisory Board

(the Board) to advise them on capacity development issues. The Board, consisting of 21 local officials,

met five times prior to the development of the draft strategy and submitted comments to EPD for review.

 The Campaign also established a Private System Work Group made up of 36 individuals. This group

met six times between September 1998 and April 1999 and submitted comments to EPD. EPD also

solicited comments at the Georgia Resources Leadership Summit, another Campaign event, in April

1998.

In 2000, EPD held three statewide capacity development stakeholder meetings which were attended by a

total of 22 individuals. The list of invitees included governmental agencies, trade and professional

organizations, environmental advisory groups, health departments, Rural Development Centers, TA

providers, and concerned citizens. 

In an effort to receive input from the general public, EPD published notices of capacity development rule

amendment public hearings in statewide newspapers. 

Comments that EPD received through the forums described above are either listed under Element B of

Georgia’s strategy (“Factors that Encourage or Impair Capacity Development”), or were specifically

addressed in Section 3.4 of the strategy (“Solicitation and Consideration of Public Input”). 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

To identify and prioritize PWSs that are most in need of improving TMF capacity, Georgia will consider

the following information:

C Compliance Records. Systems with MCL violations, treatment technique violations, or

monitoring and reporting violations will be given high priority.

C Sanitary Surveys and Inspections. The number, type, and severity of deficiencies that are found

during the sanitary surveys and inspections will be used to identify and prioritize systems in need

of improving TMF capacity.

C Complaints. A computerized complaint tracking system for all EPD environmental programs,

including drinking water, is currently being piloted in EPD’s Southeast Region Office. Once

completed and distributed to all branches, the tracking system will be used to identify systems

with multiple complaints. 

Systems impacted by new regulations and systems requesting assistance will also be given special

attention. 
29

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

Georgia considered factors identified by the Local Government Advisory Board, the Private System

Work Group, and stakeholders that attended statewide capacity development stakeholder meetings. 

Twelve factors that impair capacity development were listed in the strategy document. Many of these

factors point to the unique challenges faced by Georgia’s large number of small, privately owned

systems (e.g., their ineligibility for DWSRF funds), as well as the need to educate and involve local

governments that manage and operate water systems. Under Section 3.4, Georgia identified factors that

encourage capacity development, including enforcement, construction inspections, operator certification,

public outreach and training.

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

In addition to existing efforts to identify and resolve compliance problems, including engineering plan

reviews, sanitary surveys, and formal and informal enforcement actions, EPD has undertaken the

following assistance initiatives:

C Business Plan and Operation and Maintenance Plan Guidance. In May 2000, EPD’s “Minimum

Standards for Public Water Systems” were revised to include technical guidance for the

development of a Business Plan and Operation and Maintenance Plan. These plans are required

both for new systems and for existing systems that are changing ownership. 

C TA visits. Using DWSRF set-aside funds, EPD has contracted with the Georgia Rural Water

Association (GRWA) to provide a minimum of 625 circuit-rider type TA visits each year. Ten

percent of these visits will be provided within 48 hours of notification by EPD in order to

quickly address problems posing an immediate threat to public health. 

C Monitoring assistance. Under an optional “Drinking Water Service Contract,” EPD also

provides water systems with the laboratory and related services necessary for the system to

comply with monitoring requirements. Systems pay a fee based on their service population, the

type of source water, and the number of entry points. 

C Consumer Confidence Report (CCR). Using DWSRF set-aside funds, EPD has established a

three-year contract with the Georgia Water and Pollution Control Agency (GWPCA) to assist

PWSs in completing their CCRs. GWPCA has developed a guidance and preparation manual for

the CCR. 

C Local Government Initiatives. The Campaign, established by a three-party contract between

EPD, the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority, and the Association County

Commissioners of Georgia, completed a service delivery guidance for local governments. The

guidance helps local governments identify, analyze, and implement comprehensive water

management strategies; and describes alternative service delivery strategies such as privatization,

contract operation, satellite management or shared services, consolidation or regionalization, and

private water system takeover/acquisition. The Campaign also completed a guidance document

for governments working with privately owned CWSs and 16 case studies highlighting

intergovernmental cooperation and service delivery arrangements for drinking water and

wastewater services. The case studies are published on the web at www.accg.org. 

 
30

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

C Peer Review Program. Participating water systems complete a comprehensive self-assessment

to identify deficiencies. A peer review team, made up of volunteers with a range of expertise in

water system management and operations, conducts an on-site evaluation of the system. Upon

completion of the evaluation, the team presents their results and recommendations for

improvements to the management of the system. All activities and reports are confidential.

C Source Water Assessment and Delineation. Using DWSRF set-aside funds, EPD is currently

providing assistance to large surface water systems to delineate or assess their source water

protection areas. In some cases, water systems are forming regional partnerships and delegating

a lead partner to complete a comprehensive assessment of the source water protection area

affecting all of the systems. 

C Local Government Initiatives (see above).

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

Using DWSRF set-aside funds, EPD has subsidized operator training conducted by the Georgia Water

and Wastewater Institute (GWWI). GWRA also provides specialized operator training through funding

provided by the State legislature. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

EPD will use the following information and methods to establish a baseline and measure improvements.

C Compliance Data. EPD generates an annual report on water system violations and will use it to

identify important factors and trends. Initial compliance rates for new regulations will also be

analyzed and tracked by EPD. 

C Operator Certification/Training Data. EPD will determine the current number of certified

operators and track the number of operators seeking re-certification, the number of new

operators, the number of operators attending training, and the number of hours of training

provided. EPD will work with the State Board of Examiners for Water and Wastewater

Operators and Laboratory Analysts, GRWA, and GWWI to gather this information.

C TA Information. As a measure of success, EPD will report data on the number and type of TA

visits provided to PWSs by GRWA. 

C Consolidation of PWSs. EPD will track the number of water systems that are inactivated

because of consolidation with other water systems. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

Stakeholders were identified through the Georgia Water Management Campaign, the Private System

Work Group, EPD’s official mailing list for drinking water and water withdrawals, EPA-sponsored

capacity development trainings in May 1999 and February 2000, a review of organizations participating

on other water resources or management programs, and discussions with other primacy agencies.
31

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

Georgia has implemented a number of TA programs to improve existing water system capacity, ranging

from operator training, to monitoring assistance, to CCR preparation. Georgia launched several

initiatives to specifically address privately owned systems and systems managed by local governments.

To provide additional services to these systems, EPD has partnered with TA organizations and taken

advantage of DWSRF set-aside funds. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

EPD’s capacity development assistance initiatives are ongoing. As the program moves forward, the

Division will track multiple sources of information related to capacity development (e.g., operator

certification, TA visits, etc.) to determine the success of the program. 
32

Hawaii

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Safe Drinking Water Branch (SDWB) of the Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) held stakeholder

meetings with organizations deemed to have an interest in the capacity development strategy. SDWB

also obtained input from the interested public, organizations, agencies, and water system customers. 

SDWB widely publicized the capacity development strategy through public notices and mailings.

SDWB presented the a draft of the strategy at public meetings held on four of the five major islands and

also accepted written comments. Very few comments were received. The State made minor revisions

and sent the revised strategy to water system purveyors and to any other person or organization that

commented on the draft. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

Initially, the State will select five systems it believes are most in need of assistance, based on compliance

histories, sanitary survey findings, and recommendations from local sanitarians. SDWB will select one

system from each major island. 

These systems will be asked to provide information through a system self-assessment. The assessment,

called Evaluating Capacity of Existing Public Water Systems, asks a series of questions on the TMF

capacity of the system. A system’s answers are assigned points based on a comparison to a hypothetical

existing system that meets the TMF requirements. The fewer the points, the higher the priority. Systems

are either graded as “satisfactory” or “needs assistance.”

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

Hawaii identified the following factors as encouraging capacity development: State public notification

requirements; Consumer Confidence Reports; potential liability; and system education through sanitary

surveys. The State did not identify any factors that impair capacity development.

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

Of the water systems that are graded as “needs assistance” in accordance with the State’s identification

and prioritization scheme, five will be asked to determine the underlying causes for inadequate capacity

and to provide an improvement plan. SDWB will work with each system to assist with capacity

improvement efforts. SDWB will further evaluate the selected systems to determine whether State

Revolving Fund (SRF) assistance would be beneficial in ensuring compliance.

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs
33

SDWB will, on a case-by-case basis, arrange for a system needing assistance to meet with one that has

adequate capacity. The meetings will provide the struggling system with a first-hand look at how

capacity can be achieved and maintained. SDWB will also encourage large water systems to invite staff

from small systems to attend their training. SDWB will continue to sponsor educational workshops that

not only instruct, but give water system operators a chance to interact and develop working relationships.

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

SDWB will arrange for other organizations, such as the State Waste Water Operator Training Center, to

conduct training. SDWB will also assist the State Operator Certification Board in implementing the

operator certification program.

In addition, SDWB is will hire a contractor to provide professional development and training courses in

1999 and 2000 for water treatment plant and distribution system operators, and utility managers. The

courses will be offered free of charge on each of the major islands. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

Each system completing the Evaluating Capacity of Existing Public Water Systems will earn numerical

points, based on a degree of compliance as compared to the hypothetical water system. The sum of the

points is the baseline against which SDWB will measure improvements. SDWB will compare the sum of

the points earned during a re-evaluation to the baseline number. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

SDWB established and met with a stakeholder group with representatives from the following entities:

Land Use Research Foundation, Hawaii Association of Realtors, Rural Community Assistance

Corporation, AWWA Small Water Systems, Maui Land and Pineapple Company, American Savings

Bank, West Hawaii Water Company, and Campbell Estates. Other interested parties were encouraged to

attend public meetings or submit written comments.

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

SDWB established a process to identify, evaluate, and improve the performance of specific water

systems lacking adequate TMF capacity. This process requires SDWB to identify systems needing

assistance and then evaluate them against criteria the State has developed to identify areas of weakness. 

SDWB and the water system will then prepare a plan to correct the causes identified for the inadequate

capacity, including an SRF loan, if appropriate. After the plan is implemented, SDWB will make

periodic site visits and will re-evaluate the system against the criteria to determine whether the system

has achieved adequate TMF capacity. The State also intends to generally improve water system

performance through training offered to all treatment and distribution system operators and utility

managers. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress
34

SDWB has already developed the attributes of the hypothetical system that will be used to evaluate water

system capacity. 

The Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) to has just completed a contract with the SDWB

to provide the manager training on utility management and the distribution system operator training

during 1999 and 2000. A follow-up training contract will be implemented to provide a professional

development training program for managers, water treatment operators and distribution system operators

over the next three years (2001 through 2004). 

The SDWB has selected a consultant to work with the SDWB and the five selected water systems to

determine each system’s TMF capacity weaknesses, and determine the cause for the capacity problems,

and provide the assistance needed to attain capacity. The consultant will be working with the SDWB and

the water systems over the next two years (2001 through 2003). The lessons learned and the generic

products generated will then be applied to other water systems.

Progress will be evaluated by a consultant comparing the system’s performance against the capacity

attributes for a hypothetical system with adequate TMF capacity. Periodic progress reports will be

provided to the water system management and the SDWB. 

The SDWB will revise or adjust the capacity development program to make the program more effective

as the need for revisions are identified. 
35

Idaho

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

In April 1998, the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) convened a Citizens Advisory

Committee (CAC) to advise the Division on the development and implementation of a capacity

development program. The CAC developed a Report of Findings which included their conclusions and

recommendations regarding the SDWA §1420(c)(2) elements. 

To solicit additional public comment, IDEQ posted the Report on the Internet, published advertisements

in the State’s major newspapers that provided instructions on how to obtain a copy of the report, and

issued press releases. The Report of Findings was also discussed at a series of public workshops held in

six cities around the State.

The CAC provided responses to the comments that were received in response to the Report. IDEQ 

provided responses to questions or concerns raised during a question and answer period at each of the

public workshops. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

IDEQ will examine the compliance records for all the PWSs to identify systems in need of assistance. A

hierarchy of violation types, based on public risk, will be used to assign systems into “critical” and

“serious” categories. The critical category includes those violations associated with immediate health

risks such as microbial contamination or a positive coliform sample. A serious problem is one that poses

a potential health risk but may not require immediate action such as chemical MCL or monitoring and

reporting violations. 

Once the systems are identified and assigned a category, they will be ranked according to population

size. The Division will consider the systems’ willingness to cooperate with the State’s assistance efforts

and may not provide assistance to those systems that refuse to engage in a partnership with the State and

its TA providers. IDEQ will also provide assistance to any system that asks. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

The CAC identified 61 factors that enhance capacity and 74 factors that impair it. The Committee

provided 16 recommendations for programmatic changes that would address some of these impairments. 

IDEQ staff reviewed all of the factors and agreed with most of the Committee’s conclusions. The 

Division chose to focus on 8 of the recommendations during the initial implementation of the strategy. 

IDEQ will consider implementing the other recommendations if resources and circumstances allow. 
36

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

IDEQ will:

• Enhance its routine sanitary surveys to include an examination of additional managerial and

technical information.

• Develop an easy-to-use tool (self-assessment) for systems that would help them identify

deficiencies and provide information on existing assistance programs and activities.

• Develop a business planning handbook that will provide information on long-term planning.

• Provide training on financial issues including long-term capital replacement plans.

• Enhance its efforts to provide water systems with early notification of regulatory changes.

• Provide training to IDEQ staff and consultants on capacity issues.

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

The Division plans on including information on partnerships and other cooperative arrangements in its

training programs and educational materials. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

IDEQ will continue to provide operator certification training.

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

IDEQ will track compliance trends on a statewide basis through its report on systems with a history of

non-compliance and an SNC exceptions report. Systems who receive assistance under the capacity

development strategy may be asked to complete a survey regarding the effectiveness of the assistance. 

IDEQ will also examine annual compliance reports, the numbers of operators who become certified, and

the TMF assessments performed for DWSRF loan applicants.

IDEQ will tally the number of sanitary surveys, the number of capacity related site visits, and the number

of water systems that complete a self-assessment. IDEQ does not provide information on how these

numbers will be used.

IDEQ may periodically survey systems to determine the number of systems engaging in long-term

planning (financial and capital infrastructure) and self-assessment activities. An increase in the number

of systems that are conducting this planning will indicate improvements in system capacity and the

success of the State’s capacity development strategy. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

IDEQ invited public drinking water systems, utility councils, local government organizations, cities,

child care facilities, public health organizations, financial organizations and associations, well drillers,

and a number of other groups that might have had an interest in capacity development issues to

participate on the CAC. IDEQ’s administrator selected 17 members to serve on the Committee. A 
37

number of other individuals voluntarily attended the Committee meetings. 

The CAC identified other organizations and associations and attempted to solicit their involvement. 

Additional Committee members were added based on this list and some non-appointed participants

attended and participated in the Committee meetings. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

IDEQ has developed a strategy that focuses attention on: systems with compliance problems, systems

that are willing to cooperate and implement changes that will have public health benefits, and regulatory

programs that will address the factors that impair water system capacity in Idaho. IDEQ will monitor

both system improvements and program implementation success by tracking overall compliance trends

in the State. Many of the strategy’s activities will be funded by the State’s DWSRF capitalization grant

set-aside.

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

Due to a staffing shortage, IDEQ plans on seeking proposals from suitable service providers for the

development and delivery of learning tools and training programs. The Division has proposed setting

aside 5% of its DWSRF capitalization grant for these purposes for the next 3 years. 

IDEQ has developed an implementation schedule that offers a general idea of when and how the eight

recommendations will be implemented. The schedule has IDEQ preparing specifications and RFPs by

2001. All of the products and programs are targeted to be implemented no later than 2002. 

IDEQ will evaluate the possibility of expanding its strategy by adopting additional recommendations

made by the CAC. The Drinking Water Advisory Committee, a permanent standing committee of IDEQ,

will be consulted on these and other issues during the initial implementation of the strategy. 
38

Illinois

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Illinois EPA (IEPA), Bureau of Water (BOW), Division of Public Water Supplies, is responsible for

developing and implementing the capacity development strategy for CWSs. BOW coordinated with

several existing drinking water advisory committees to develop a list of stakeholders, who were invited

to participate in a meeting to discuss the basic approach of the capacity development strategy. BOW also

invited the public to the annual Bureau of Water Program Plan Hearing. The Bureau made a series of

presentations but did not receive any comments. BOW received additional comments on the draft of the

strategy, including the need for self evaluations, peer evaluations, and TA opportunities during two

AWWA Emergency Response/Capacity Development Demonstration workshops. BOW incorporated

comments from this meeting into a draft of the strategy. 

The Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) is responsible for developing the NCWS strategy. In

order to solicit comment on the draft of the NCWS strategy the Department established an advisory

committee to address capacity development and operator certification issues. Comments and suggestions

were incorporated into the draft as appropriate. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

To prioritize systems in need of TMF assistance, BOW will categorize water systems into three groups:

priority one supplies, priority two supplies, and priority three supplies. The Bureau will identify and

evaluate systems using compliance data. Systems in noncompliance are priority one systems and will be

addressed first. These systems will be required to enter into a compliance agreement which will require

the system to demonstrate adequate capacity. Priority one systems may be subject to formal enforcement

action. 

Priority two supplies include systems which do not display adequate technical capacity, are approaching

70%-80% capacity of treatment plant production and serving a growing population, or have inadequate

storage, distribution pressure problems, or recurring water quality problems. These systems will be

identified by using engineering evaluations and site visits. Priority two systems are possibly non

compliers and may be subject to formal enforcement action. 

Priority three will be required to complete a Capacity Development Screening Survey. BOW’s Field

Operations Staff (FOS) will review the completed survey during a scheduled engineering evaluation. The

criteria FOS will use to evaluate systems includes changes in management or ownership, reductions in

operations staff, failure to submit operational reports and construction permits, increasing operational

problems, resource shortages, and a perceived inability to maintain compliance. 

IDPH plans to use the CWS priority classification system described above to identify and prioritize

NCWSs. Priority one supplies will be identified and evaluated by an examination of MCL violations and
39

significant constructional or operational deficiencies. These supplies, like their CWS counterparts, will

be required to enter into a compliance agreement and may be subject to formal enforcement action. 

IDPH will identify priority two systems by reviewing monitoring records during sanitary surveys. These

systems may be referred for formal enforcement action. Finally, priority three supplies are those with

minor TMF deficiencies which will be identified during routine sanitary surveys. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

The Bureau identified nine factors that impair capacity and eight that encourage it. Of the identified

impairments, the most significant obstacles are related to public education, operator and management

constraints, and the regulatory process. In order to reduce the number of impairments affecting systems,

the Bureau, and specifically the FOS, plan to continue providing TA and public education programs on a

variety of topics including managerial and regulatory requirements. 

IDPH identified three factors that impair, and two factors that enhance, the capacity of NCWSs. 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

The Bureau will continue working with systems on compliance related activities including: providing TA

to PWSs in an effort to identify solutions, reviewing permit applications and accompanying documents

for systems that are expanding, and performing sanitary surveys. The Bureau has also adopted an

internal enforcement process to ensure that proper notification is sent to all systems in violation and that

enforcement actions are taken if violations are not corrected within a reasonable amount of time. 

As a result of the public participation process that helped to develop the strategy, BOW plans to work

with AWWA to develop a self-evaluation tool for systems. The self-evaluation will help systems prepare

for their engineering reviews. 

IDPH has adopted federal SDWA requirements by reference and has adopted an internal enforcement

process similar to BOW’s. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

The strategy does not mention a plan to encourage partnerships between PWSs.

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

Illinois has had an operator certification program since 1965. A law that allowed very small systems to

operate under the direction of a responsible person was repealed. Operators are required to secure

continuing education units in order to review their certificates of competency. IEPA and the Illinois

Department of Public Health will continue to provide a variety of educational workshops, symposia, and

seminars to keep operators abreast of technical and regulatory changes. 
40

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

The Bureau will use compliance and operations data to set a baseline from which they will measure

improvements in capacity. Using engineering evaluations and the pre-screening survey, the Bureau will

assess: whether the system has recurrent violations, the system’s ability to handle problems and

emergencies, the quality of CCR, and operational problems. These factors will be tracked from year to 

year. BOW will also use monitoring and reporting violations data as part of the assessment of the

capacity development program’s success. 

IDPH plans to use data on MCL and monitoring violations, timely submission of sampling data, and

employment of reliable certified operators to measure improvements. Progress will be based on

comparing existing compliance information to information collected in future years.

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

BOW and AWWA contacted small system operators, operator association officials, water education

institution staff, State EPA staff, consulting engineers, and IL Rural Water Association Staff (RWA) 

staff who are members of existing advisory committees. BOW also made presentations at a series of

association conferences, AWWA workshops, and RWA meetings in order to present the draft of the

strategy to a wide variety of stakeholders. 

In order to solicit public comment from other interested parties, the Bureau mailed meeting

announcements for the Annual BOW Program Plan Hearing to citizen, environmental, industrial,

commercial, and institutional stakeholders groups. Other official capacity development notifications

were sent to consumers and published on the Illinois Website. 

IDPH established an Advisory Committee which consisted of industry, State, local, and public

participants. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

Illinois’ capacity development strategy is a comprehensive tool that will enable the BOW and IDPH to

improve the overall TMF capacity of PWSs throughout the State. The prioritization process will enable

the BOW and IDPH to identify those systems most in need of TMF assistance, and provide them with the

resources to improve TMF capacity. BOW plans to continue providing public education, TA, and

outreach to water systems and consumers to mitigate capacity impairments and is improving the

compliance and operator certification programs in the State. Finally, the BOW and IDPH used

stakeholder comments to help develop the strategy which ensures that system and customer needs will be

met. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

In response to public participation, the Bureau will work with AWWA staff to develop a comprehensive

system self-assessment tool, which will be used in conjunction with engineering inspections and site

visits. Systems can also use this tool to identify and correct deficiencies.
41

Within the next few years, BOW is planning to hire and train additional FOS staff whose primary

responsibility will be to track and follow up on complaints, review new rules, review operation visit 

information, and track water supplier responses to evaluation report letters. The staff will work within

the regional office to facilitate capacity development activities and disseminate information to other

regional staff on capacity development issues. 
42

Indiana

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) created both internal and external

stakeholder groups to participate in meetings on the capacity development strategy. The internal group

created a draft strategy and invited comments from the external group. A total of six meetings were held

for external stakeholders. Early meetings focused on the development of specific elements in the

strategy while later meetings focused on refining the draft. Each of the five program elements were

addressed during the stakeholder meetings. 

A draft of the strategy was presented at several water association conferences and regional meetings and

copies were available at various conferences around the State. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

SDWA §1420(c)(2)(A) is the focus of the State’s strategy. The Department will use existing compliance

data maintained in the State’s databases along with the following information to conduct an initial

screen:

• Complaints.

• Operator certification.

• O & M problems.

• Sanitary surveys.

• Early warning orders or connection bans.

• Other data including Indiana Utility regulatory Commission (IURC) accounting data, State

Budget Agency data, and tax data. 

• Field inspector input. 

After the screening, IDEM will determine whether a system is “at risk,” “at marginal risk,” or “at low

risk.” At risk systems (i.e. systems having very little, if any, TMF capacity) will undergo a thorough

evaluation by IDEM staff or a contractor and will receive TA based on the specific needs of the system. 

At risk systems will be further prioritized by source (systems using surface water and ground water under

the direct influence of surface water are high priority), system type (CWSs and NCWSs with susceptible

populations are high priority), and population data (systems serving fewer than 10,000 are high priority). 

Marginal risk systems (those that do not have adequate capacity to maintain operation over the longterm) will be asked to complete a self-assessment that will help determine TMF capacity deficiencies. 

Low risk systems (those that may not meet one or more of the screening criteria but have adequate

capacity) will be continually evaluated through the screening process to ensure that changes in the

system’s TMF capacity are quickly detected and the system is reclassified as a marginal or high risk

system. While the timing, type, and level of assistance may vary because of the priority of classification,

IDEM plans on assisting all system regardless of risk classification by directing them to a variety of

resources. 
43

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

IDEM and the stakeholder groups identified several factors that enhance and impair capacity. Part of

IDEM’s long-range approach is to utilize the tools found to encourage capacity and make improvements

to them as needed. The Department will also attempt to eliminate or reduce the impact of the factors

found to impair capacity including: lack of operator certification opportunities, the cost of implementing

regulations, staffing shortages, and the complexity of the sampling program. 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

Once a system agrees to participate in a capacity building effort, IDEM already provides several

programs and initiatives to assist system with compliance. In an effort to further improve compliance

rates the Department may provide on-site TA, develop an IDEM Drinking Water Manual, provide

regional small system TA workshops, establish a toll-free drinking water hotline, develop a Website

pertaining to water system operations, and implement Indiana’s source water assessment plan. IDEM

will also develop a Comprehensive Evaluation/Self-Assessment form. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

IDEM may develop a program that will require, or encourage, the consolidation of systems incapable of

maintaining adequate capacity. The Department is considering having PWSs that have successfully

mitigated similar issues provide TA to problem systems, and providing them with mentoring

opportunities. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

IDEM offers a 12 week preparation course to those planning to take the operator certification exam; a

one day refresher course to anyone planning on updating their certification; and coordinates with other

water associations to suggest and approve programs for continuing education credit.

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

IDEM will use compliance data, sanitary surveys, operator certification information, the number of

systems associated with professional water organizations, the number of systems that have received

training, their monthly report of operations data, enforcement figures, IURC figures, wellhead protection

data, complaints, and system data such as outages and boil water notices, to establish a baseline and to

measure improvements. The Department does not mention the time line it will use to measure

improvements.

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

IDEM gathered stakeholders together from both inside and outside the agency to create two stakeholders

groups. The “internal group” consisted of members from IDEM’s Drinking Water Branch, while the

“external group” included the internal group plus members from other State agencies, law firms, water
44

systems, and water agencies. IDEM mailed meeting announcements and notes to various State agencies,

water associations, activist groups, county and local health departments, consultants, public water

supplies, and other interested stakeholders. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

The Indiana capacity development strategy for existing PWSs will enable systems to improve overall

TMF capacity. IDEM developed a prioritization scheme that will identify systems with immediate needs

(high risk), systems with some needs or a potential need (marginal risk), and systems with relatively low

need (low risk). Once systems are identified, they will be directed to various existing IDEM resources

which will be supplemented by several new initiatives developed in response to stakeholder discussions. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

The initial emphasis will be on prioritizing and ranking systems in need of improved TMF capacity. 

Long-term goals of the strategy include identifying the factors that focus on improving capacity,

proposing solutions or methods to mitigate the problems, and directing the appropriate resources to

improve or eliminate the factors that impair capacity. IDEM will continue to work with the internal

stakeholders group to evaluate progress and develop additional programs and activities as resources

allow. 
45

Iowa

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) formed a Viability Assessment Advisory Group

(VAAG), a which includes both members of IDNR’s SDWA Advisory Group and a range of other

stakeholders, to get input on developing its capacity development program. VAAG met monthly for ten

months and produced a Report of Findings on Improving the Technical, Financial and Managerial

Capacity of Iowa’s Public Water Systems. The meetings were facilitated by the Environmental Finance

Center at Boise State University. 

In addition to the input from this group, IDNR solicited broader public input. The Department held three

public meetings where it presented the Report of Findings. The meetings were widely advertised in the

press and a notice was sent to each PWS in Iowa. IDNR awarded Continuing Education Units (CEUs) to

certified operators and engineers for their attendance at public meetings. IDNR received verbal, written,

and e-mail comments. Comments and IDNR’s responses were included in the strategy document.

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

VAAG developed a decision model to identify and prioritize systems in need of TMF assistance. The

model leads the reviewer through a series of questions to determine the type of system including:

• A system that is out of compliance and has a critical problem (acute health risk).

• A system that is out of compliance and has a serious problem (chronic non-acute health risk). 

• A system that is out of compliance and has a minor problem (sporadic or one-time violation). 

• A system that is in compliance but has potential problems.

• A system that is in compliance but voluntarily requesting assistance.

IDNR will perform a TMF analysis and provide TA for those “problem” systems that are willing to work

with the Department. IDNR will take enforcement action against any system that has a “problem” and is

unwilling to rectify the situation. 

IDNR will use the model to rank and prioritize assistance needs at the end of each calendar quarter.

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

The VAAG identified 25 factors that enhance capacity development. Included in this list were recent

changes to Iowa’s tax code that provide assistance to investor-owned utilities, allow tax exempt bonds to

finance municipal infrastructure projects, and provide exemptions from State sales and property taxes to

publicly-owned and rural water systems.

VAAG identified 56 impairments to capacity development. These included legal factors such as the lack

of land use regulations and the pending urban sprawl legislation, and financial factors such as State
46

auditing requirements for DWSRF loan recipients. VAAG identified regulatory impairments such as

lack of understanding of the regulations at the local level and inconsistency of State enforcement.

VAAG analyzed the enhancements and impairments and developed eight recommendations for how the 

State and TA providers could help water systems improve their capacity. VAAG also provided

suggestions for the actions that IDNR or others could take to implement the recommendation.

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

IDNR Rules require systems applying for DWSRF loan funds, SNCs, “problem” systems, and systems

without a certified operator to submit a viability assessment. The Department also requires systems

experiencing TMF deficiencies (identified during a sanitary survey), to complete an assessment. IDNR

reviews and evaluates the assessment and provides a list of corrective actions. On-site inspections will

be completed on an as-needed basis, to help the system implement the required improvements. Failure to

take corrective actions may result in the revocation or denial of the system’s operation permit. 

New initiatives under the capacity development strategy may include:

• The development of an enhanced sanitary survey to collect additional TMF information. The

Department will follow up the sanitary survey with an on-site meeting and will provide the

system with a “scorecard” as to the results of the survey. 

• Mailing an annual rules status update to all water system operators.

• Making IDNR standard forms for water suppliers available in electronic form. 

• Creating a periodic newsletter.

• Preparing an annual report for water systems explaining how annual water supply fees were used

by IDNR. 

• Assessing EPA grants to examine the possibility of funding public relations and education

activities. 

• Increase inter-departmental and intra-departmental communications including the possibility of

recognizing staff, developing a description of potential linkages among agencies, and increasing

communication with other Departments. 

• Sponsoring a meeting where capital financing agencies, public finance specialists, and PWS

stakeholder groups discuss techniques for financing small PWS improvements. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

One of the eight recommendations addresses improving partnerships and networking among

governmental agencies and water systems. Specifically, IDNR may use the Iowa Communications

Network for training sessions or peer review forums targeted to operators, management boards, and city 

clerks; use the Iowa State University extension service as a source of TA for financial issues; encourage

partnerships among TA providers; encourage EPA to work more closely with the U.S. Department of

Agriculture in providing funding for water system improvement projects; encourage and assist small

systems to develop local cooperative buying agreements; and reimburse partnership activities through

the operator certification training program.
47

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

The second of the eight recommendations is to improve the knowledge of drinking water protection rules

among operators (and management personnel). To that end, IDNR may offer CEUs for operator

attendance at rule hearings, develop an automatic e-mail service to keep operators updated on regulatory

developments, mail an annual regulatory status update to all water system operators, and provide on-site

board member training.

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

IDNR defined five broad goals, adapted from the State of Texas’ Capacity Development strategy Report,

each with a series of measures that would indicate the extent to which the goal is being achieved,

including:

• Ensuring safe drinking water for all Iowans (measured by the total number of systems in

compliance, percentage of population served by systems in compliance, and change in the

number of SNCs from year to year).

• Providing funding for system improvements to increase capacity (measured by loan dollars

distributed; the number of systems required to improve capacity due to deficiencies noted in the

DWSRF process; and a change in the number of DWSRF recipients that showed no enforcement

actions or monitoring violations, on-time repayment of the loan, maintenance of a certified

operator, and on-time submission of required forms).

• Increased service from IDNR (measured by the number of operator certification and training

events, number of on-site inspections, number of systems voluntarily requesting self-assessment

manual, etc.).

• Improving overall TMF of water systems (measured by the percentage of systems having a

certified operator, returning a consumer confidence report, with monitoring violations, with

notice of violation letters, or that must submit additional information for the self-assessment, and

the number of systems involved with consolidation or regionalization activities). 

• Improving internal interaction (measured by the number of meetings between IDNR cental office

and the field offices). 

IDNR currently tracks several of the measures to fulfill other reporting requirements and will use

existing data to establish a baseline. For the other measures, IDNR will establish a baseline after

sufficient data are collected. At the time IDNR prepares its report to the Governor and to EPA, it will

rely on some or all of the measures under each goal. It may also add measures if they better define the

success of the strategy.

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

During the first meeting of the VAAG, the group identified additional stakeholders who were then

invited to participate in subsequent meetings. Minutes of each meeting were sent to each identified

stakeholder, so that he or she could follow the process and submit comments even if attendance at the

meeting was not possible. 
48

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

IDNR believes that the elements chosen from those suggested during VAAG’s consideration of

§1420(c)(2), when taken as a whole, constitute a strategy that will improve the TMF capacity of Iowa’s

PWS’s. The strategy is comprehensive, in that it addresses all five elements in §1420(c)(2) through the

existing and new programs and activities, and is directly related to the factors that impair and encourage

capacity. The strategy addresses improvements that can be achieved by water system operators, as well

as by management boards. The strategy also includes a system for evaluating progress and for

continuing to receive feedback from the Advisory Group.

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

IDNR is currently implementing certain capacity development provisions for existing systems through

regulations in the Iowa Administrative Code. However, the Department may need to revise the Rules in

order to fully implement the strategy. Implementation of the Advisory Group’s recommendations will

begin with the use of the prioritization decision model. During the first year of implementation, IDNR

staff will add financial and managerial questions to the sanitary survey protocol. Staff will also

implement communications and training activities. Other recommendations will be implemented in the

future, as resources and staff allow.

IDNR will collect information for the performance measures. It may reconvene the VAAG prior to

preparing the report for the Governor in order to evaluate the success of the strategy and to develop new

programs and activities as necessary.
49

Kansas

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) convened a Capacity Development

Workgroup to advise the Department on how to approach capacity development issues. The Workgroup

held eight meetings facilitated by the Environmental Finance Center at Boise State University and

prepared a Report of Findings which was widely distributed for public comment. KDHE issued a

Statewide press release announcing the availability of the Report for public comment and made the

Report available on its Website. In addition, KDHE mailed a copy to all public water systems, held four

public meetings, and made a presentation during the March convention of the Kansas Rural Water

Association. KDHE received no comments from the public on the Report.

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

The Workgroup recommended, and KDHE adopted, a strategy of using compliance data to identify and

prioritize water systems in need of assistance. KDHE will use information it maintains, as well as

information from other State agencies, notably the Kansas Water Office (KWO). KWO also has

responsibility for assessing water system capacity. KDHE is adopting regulations that will require

systems to participate in a survey that will assess the system’s TMF capacity.

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

The Workgroup identified 47 enhancements and 72 impairments to capacity development at the Federal,

State and local levels. 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

Initially, KDHE will pursue eight of the 15 recommendations made by the Workgroup, including: 

• Pursuing the adoption of regulations requiring participation in a TMF assessment every three

years. 

• Seeking any additional statutory authority necessary to require water use reports from all water

systems.

• Developing a business planning guidebook.

• Water system management and board/council training.

• Determining whether enabling legislation is needed to require the use of water meters or if

KDHE or KWO already has the authority.

• Expanding the regulation specific “survival guides” which provide regulatory information in a

plain English format.

• Developing a facilities management plan guidance that explains preventative maintenance,

equipment replacement schedules, and financial capacity issues.
50

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

One of the Workgroup’s recommendations was to encourage partnerships and communication among

agencies and among water systems. KDHE did not specifically adopt this recommendation but believes

that this issue is addressed in the Kansas Water Plan, the State’s official water planning document

prepared by KWO. The Kansas Water Plan calls for development of a regional public water supply

assistance program. KWO will adopt guidelines for developing regional water supply strategies and

providing TMF capacity assistance to water suppliers interested in a regional strategy.

In addition, the DWSRF applicants get additional priority points for consolidation plans. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

KDHE will continue its operator training and certification program. In addition, KDHE will provide

training on water system financing, review and improve regulatory guidance material for system

operators, prepare a business planning guidebook, and provide training for water system board members.

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

To establish a baseline against which it will measure improvements, KDHE will track:

• Compliance rates of individual systems supplemented by information from the KWO survey.

• Outreach and assistance activities.

• The number of water systems engaging in capital planning, business or financial planning, and

self-assessment activities.

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

The Capacity Development Workgroup included members representing a wide variety of stakeholders

including representatives from the Kansas Natural Resource Council; Federal, State, and local

government; the Public Health Association; the Kansas Ground Water Association; and business,

environmental, consulting, and water industry groups. The Workgroup identified additional

organizations that were encouraged to participate. To ensure that a wide variety of stakeholders and

interested parties were aware of the strategy’s development, KDHE conducted a number of public

outreach initiatives including mailing information, posting information on its Web site, and holding

public meetings. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

KDHE developed a prioritization scheme which is now based on compliance and will be supplemented

with information from the TMF capacity surveys. The recommendations chosen for initial

implementation are directly related to the enhancements and impairments identified by the Workgroup. 

KDHE will use set-asides from the DWSRF to support the program. KDHE will measure individual

water system responses to capacity development efforts and will track overall compliance trends within

the State. Finally, KDHE has encouraged and will continue to encourage public involvement in the
51

development and implementation of the strategy.

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

TMF surveys will be a key component of the strategy and will help prioritize systems, identify their TMF

needs, and provide a baseline against which improvements can be measured. Implementation of the

survey requires KDHE to develop a form as well as promulgate regulations. KDHE expects the

regulation to be effective in June 2001, with the first surveys due January 2002. Results from the initial

surveys will be available in 2002.

KDHE will raise metering issues during the fall meetings of the KWO in order to discuss State statutory

amendments. KDHE will issue a contract in the spring of 2001 for an inventory of relevant training. 

They will follow that with another procurement to develop materials that do not exist or adapt existing

materials for use in Kansas.

KDHE will continue to use the Capacity Development Workgroup to provide feedback as the program is

implemented. KDHE will also get feedback from others through implementation of the Kansas Water

Plan.
52

Kentucky

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

In June 1999, the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Division of Water

(DOW), mailed a notification to stakeholders identifying the five SDWA program elements and

requesting comment on them. The notice also included an issue paper on how the State plans to identify

and prioritize systems as well as information on three public meetings. DOW sent a schedule of meeting

times and meeting locations to over 1,000 organizations and individuals who had requested to be advised

of all DOW regulatory activity. A copy of the notification was published in two newspapers, both with

Statewide circulation. 

Meeting attendees expressed their concerns that a capacity development program managed by DOW

would be duplicative of other State programs. DOW responded to these and other comments as they

were raised at the meetings, and incorporated them into the capacity development strategy as appropriate. 

The DOW also received comment on the criteria used for prioritization, and all but two of the criteria

received public support. DOW changed the focus of the two criteria in question to correlate with the

public comments received.

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

DOW developed a group of criteria described in the proposed draft regulation, and assigned each one

points for use in a formula that will help DOW identify systems that need TMF assistance: 

• Systems receiving 25 or more points are referred to a DOW Committee to determine the type

and level of TMF assistance needed. The Committee can request additional financial and

managerial information, sanitary surveys, inspection reports, information from the field staff,

and can apply an “affordability test” to the system’s rate structure. 

• Systems receiving up to 25 points, and judged by the Committee to be in need of assistance, are

referred to the Local Planning Council (LPC). The LPC, created previously by DOW through its

Water Supply Planning (WSP) program, helps systems develop a local level capacity

development strategy. Systems in need of capacity improvement must include their LPC

capacity development strategy in the WSP required 20-year plan, along with timetables and

goals for improvement. For more information on the specific elements of the WSP program, see

the program’s homepage: http://water.nr.State.ky. us/wsp/.

• Systems scoring 50 or more points are “most in need” and will be addressed first. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

DOW does not specifically identify factors that encourage the development and maintenance of capacity

in PWSs. DOW believes that the established planning process deals effectively with PWSs judged to be

in need of improving capacity. DOW identifies many institutional and regulatory factors that impair

capacity in the State. Impairments include the time-consuming permit process to use a U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers reservoir as a source of supply, as well as local institutional problems (e.g., water district
53

managing boards and conflicting political agendas), unreasonable monitoring costs, complex regulations,

and inconsistent interpretation and enforcement of policies.

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

DOW uses existing programs such as wellhead protection, source water assessment, rural community

assistance, community development block grant, water withdrawal permitting, dental health, and

comprehensive TA, to assist systems with meeting NPDWRs. Monitoring requirements, GIS mapping

systems, and TA provided by the Kentucky Rural Water Association (KRWA) are additional existing

programs that help systems meet capacity standards and regulations. DWSRF set-asides, the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development program, and loans administered by the Kentucky

Infrastructure Authority (KIA) provide financial assistance for capacity development. 

The State’s Public Service Commission regulates systems and water associations, while 15 Area

Development Districts serve as regional planning agencies for local governments. DOW also plans to

use the University of Louisville’s Environmental Finance Center to offer training sessions that will assist

systems with long-term decision making processes.

DOW is considering establishing a “certification program,” which would be “a voluntary program

whereby PWSs could be affirmatively judged to have TMF capacity for purposes of DWSRF and any

other advantages that such certification may afford.” The managerial and financial capacity certification

program would be developed by third parties, and the DOW would retain its current programs for

determining technical capacity. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

DOW encourages partnerships among PWSs through a Peer Review Program operated by KRWA and

the Kentucky Association of Counties. Through a priority formula used for funding proposed projects,

DOW encourages systems to achieve economies of scale by merging, creating regional facilities,

obtaining adequate quantities of water, and upgrading treatment facilities. KIA’s planning mechanisms

also encourage regionalization and service to unserved or under served areas of the State. In the future,

DOW plans to investigate the business practices of systems, in hopes of facilitating additional mergers

and the regionalization of systems.

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

Kentucky’s Operator Certification program is an existing activity that assists systems in the training and

certification of operators. DOW plans on working with Western Kentucky University’s “Small System

TA Center,” which will develop training for water system managers.

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

Data from the beginning of 1999 will be used as a baseline. DOW will use the number of SNCs, the

number of systems referred to LPCs, the number of improvement plans, and the subsequent carrying out 
54

of those plans, as benchmarks against which the State will measure improvements in system capacity. 

The number of systems taking part in the capacity certification program, and the improvements made by

those systems, will also be used as an indicator of improvements to system capacity. 

DOW will consider the loaning of all the DWSRF monies as an indicator of the success of the State’s

strategy. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

DOW identified its stakeholders by listing all relevant State and federal agencies, local governments, 

groups or associations that may have an interest in the State’s capacity development strategy, county

judges, mayors, Area Development Districts, the contact of record for all PWSs, known drinking water

consultants in the State, certified laboratories, and environmental and public health groups. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

DOW believes that the programs and activities described in response to the five SDWA elements

constitute a cohesive strategy to improve the capacity of Kentucky’s PWSs since it includes methods to

identify systems most in need of capacity, a capacity certification program, a WSP program, use of the

DWSRF program to assist systems in attaining and maintaining capacity, the incorporation of other State

and federal funding programs, TA offered by KRWA, and the Peer Review Program. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

DOW will implement its strategy with the assistance of State and local agencies, which have the 

authority and resources to maintain existing programs that address TMF capacity. Kentucky has applied

for and received grants to set up a DWSRF to assist the State’s water systems with infrastructure needs. 

DOW does not State when future programs, such as the proposed capacity certification program, will be

developed and implemented.
55

Louisiana

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Office of Public Health’s Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund Program (DWRLF) solicited public

comment through meetings with stakeholders and a number of public water systems and consulting

engineers. DWRLF sent letters to State Senators and Representatives inviting them to attend meetings

on DWRLF’s plan for developing and implementing the strategy. The Program met with the Community

Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the Rural Utilities Services (RUS) to discuss the strategy and to 

reduce redundancy of activities. 

The State’s strategy provides responses to the concerns of CDBG and RUS. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

The DWRLF’s first priority will be to address systems with compliance problems including those

systems currently under an Administrative Order, SNCs, systems having MCL violations in the previous

three years, and systems that have uncorrected deficiencies discovered during a sanitary survey. The

State will also prioritize randomly selected systems that are representative of certain system

characteristics and service populations. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

The strategy lists two factors that encourage capacity (use of set-aside money to provide on-site TA and

the statutory authority to develop and implement a Capacity Development strategy) and three factors that

impair capacity (lack of funds, insufficient water rates, conflicting requirements among agencies). 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

The State currently has entered into five contracts to assist systems with compliance including:

• The Louisiana Compliance Initiative, which provides compliance training schools and on-site

TA to systems under Administrative Orders, or about to be, and to systems having MCL or other

violations. 

• Very Small Water System Training, which provides training on system operation and

maintenance to systems serving less than 500 people.

• 16 annual training sessions and two circuit riders who provide on-site TA for systems serving

fewer than 10,000 people. 

• Management training to educate water system managers on regulations, liabilities, financial

management, and operations and management of a water system.

• One-on-one assistance to systems in completing the business plan, rate setting, record keeping,

and other capacity development issues. 
56

In addition, the Safe Drinking Water Program completes CPEs on surface water systems. Targeted TA is

provided based on the results of the CPE. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

Applicants for DWRLF monies are given additional points on the State’s priority criteria worksheet if

the proposed project will consolidate or regionalize existing systems. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

DWRLF will continue to provide training and certification exams for operators through a contract with

Louisiana Rural Water Association. The State may contract to provide additional training resources. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

DWRLF will use compliance data to establish a baseline. The State will use a number of factors to

determine if the capacity initiatives are working, including: 

• Sanitary Surveys. DWRLF will compare yearly surveys to see if the technical capacity of a

system has improved.

• Annual updates of the Business Plan. DWRLF will compare the yearly updates to track financial

capabilities.

• Operator Certifications. An increase in the number of certified operators will indicate

improvement in the capacity of systems.

• Management Training. An increase in the number of people completing a management training

course will indicate improvements to capacity.

• On-Site Assistance. DWRLF will examine reports by on-site assistance providers to determine

if the assistance was helpful.

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

The State identified interested stakeholders based on their relationship with PWS activities. Interested

stakeholders included the Public Service Commission, the Louisiana Rural Water Association, the

Community Resource Group, CDBG, RUS, legislators, the Department of Environmental Quality, and

the Safe Drinking Water Coalition, which is an association of various environmental interest groups. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

DWRLF has established a method for identifying and prioritizing systems (compliance data) and means

of getting information about systems (the Business Plan). This information will allow the State to target

assistance. To ensure the maintenance of capacity, DWRLF is providing training for operators and

managers. Ongoing input from stakeholders will provide information on the effectiveness and the

progress of the strategy. 
2All existing PWSs are required to submit a Business Plan to DWRLF six months after a visit by a

designated State representative who is providing assistance to the PWS. 

57

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

A Business Plan requirement2

 went into effect on September 20, 1998. Through two circuit riders, the

State has been providing TA to systems serving fewer than 10,000 people and has entered into a contract

for management training sessions. A new contract will provide additional TA focusing on financial and

technical issues. 

To facilitate ongoing review and evaluation of the strategy, DWRLF will conduct semi-annual

stakeholders meetings to discuss capacity development issues and solicit input on how to encourage

partnerships among systems. The State will also use these meetings to discuss success stories and

“lessons learned” from working with systems. 
58

Maine

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

Maine’s Drinking Water Program (DWP) used the recommendations of Maine’s Capacity Development

Citizens Advisory Committee (AC) to develop the State’s Capacity Development strategy. The AC,

representing a wide range of interests, provided the primary means for public involvement in developing

the strategy, and their Report of Findings summarizes their conclusions and recommendations. 

Maine relied on an “open-forum” approach to public involvement during the development of the

strategy. DWP distributed on their Website and in their newsletter all capacity development information

including AC meeting times, minutes, and progress reports to an extensive mailing list of relevant parties

and interested individuals. The DWP and the AC concluded that providing the information was a more

effective way of soliciting public comments since the non-controversial strategy would lead to limited

attendance at public meetings. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

DWP identifies systems with compliance problems that have potential public health impacts by

examining compliance data. Noncompliant systems are divided into one of the four following problem

categories:

• Critical: Continued exceedance of an acute health based standard or lack of monitoring for an

acute contaminant.

• Serious: Continued exceedance of a non-acute health based standard or lack of monitoring for a

non-acute contaminant.

• Minor: Sporadic or one-time exceedance of a health based standard or lack of contaminant

monitoring.

• Potential: Problems that may lead to critical or serious problems in the future or circumstances

that may culminate in a problem due to tightening of current regulations.

Within each category, DWP ranks systems according to the relative seriousness of the capacity problems

and then determines assistance needs through a self-assessment survey, a sanitary survey carried out by

the State, or a third party on-site evaluation. If a noncompliant system refuses to engage in a partnership

with the DWP and its service providers, that system does not receive assistance and may face further 

enforcement action. All systems may apply directly to DWP for assistance at any time. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

The AC and DWP staff identified 93 factors that enhance capacity and 144 factors that impair capacity. 

The AC reviewed all identified factors and used a subset of them to recommend new programmatic

activities (see Element C) to DWP. 
59

For the final strategy, DWP did not consider any recommendation clearly outside its influence or control. 

The AC decided to publish a comprehensive list of all the enhancements and impairments in its Report of

Findings so that during the ongoing evaluation of the State’s strategy, additional factors can be addressed

as resources allow. 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

DWP will continue to implement existing programs and activities geared towards assisting systems with

compliance such as the Source Water Assessment Program, Consumer Confidence Reports, and SDWIS. 

These programs and activities will be supplemented by:

• The development of an “enhanced” sanitary survey (i.e., DWP will develop a brief questionnaire

for inclusion in the survey process to gather data on the TMF capacity of systems).

• A system self-assessment.

• Training for water system personnel on financial capacity issues.

• A review of water meter regulations to determine if changes are necessary. 

• Improvements to the methods for notifying systems of rule changes or new regulatory

requirements.

• Expansion or revision of public participation programs and public outreach activities.

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

DWP commits to locating and disseminating independent research which depicts the benefits and

shortcomings of consolidation. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

DWP sponsors operator certification training and will continue to do so. Efforts are underway to provide

both training and training cost reimbursement to eligible systems and third party providers. In addition,

since current training in the State focuses on a broad array of technical and managerial topics, DWP

intends to provide better training to system personnel regarding fiscal capacity and financial

management. DWP will help train DWP staff on TMF capacity issues. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

DWP will adopt a three-pronged tracking system, as recommended by the AC in their Report of 

Findings. The overall goal of the tracking effort is to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the strategy

and provide the basis for future enhancements.

• Tracking of Statewide compliance results and trends. Data will include information from history

of noncompliance reports and SNC exceptions reports, as well as TMF self-assessment survey

data.

• Tracking of outreach and assistance efforts. Data will include number of “enhanced” sanitary

surveys conducted, number of capacity-related site visits, and number of systems that complete

self-assessment surveys. Wherever possible, DWP will compare before-assistance and afterassistance results and data.
60

• Tracking of planning activities. A survey will determine how many systems are engaging in

capital planning, other business or financial planning, and self-assessment activities. Statewide

trends in the use of planning activities may reflect how well capacity understanding is improving

among system personnel. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

The AC represents many different interests in the drinking water industry. During the drafting of their

Report of Findings, interested parties could join the AC’s work at any time, and DWP encouraged the

AC to recommend additional interested parties whose perspectives would be beneficial to the strategy’s

development. The AC’s active networking added several members to the AC. Through press releases

and Website postings, DWP gave a wide spectrum of interest groups the opportunity to participate in the

development of the strategy and kept them advised of the AC’s progress.

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

DWP developed Maine’s strategy from the recommendations of the AC and from staff knowledge. 

Maine’s prioritization scheme focuses on system compliance, public health impacts, and willingness to

cooperate. The recommendations for future DWP initiatives are a direct result of an analysis of the

factors that impair and enhance system capacity in Maine. DWP will use SRF funds to run their

assistance program, and DWP will measure improvements by tracking trends in compliance and

measuring individual system responses to assistance. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

Besides the “enhanced” sanitary survey (implemented by January 2001), and the self-assessment survey,

(in place by July 2001), other new programs and initiatives will be implemented within a reasonable time

frame, as determined by DWP. Presently, the DWP employs one permanent staffer to develop all

learning tools and training programs included in the strategy. Work done by other DWP staff and other

statewide and national organizations will assist with the implementation of the tasks identified in the

State’s strategy. 

DWP will continue to rely on a stakeholder-based process during the implementation and revisions to the

strategy. There will be a continuing role for the AC, whose membership will “remain fluid and open by

intention.” In addition, DWP will remain open to suggestions and recommendations from Maine’s

regulated community, partners, and citizens. 
61

Maryland

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Maryland Department of the Environment’s (MDE) internal capacity development team solicited

and considered public comments throughout the development of the capacity development strategy. A

Steering Committee, made up of MDE staff, representatives from various organizations, and individuals

from the regulated community, met regularly to develop and discuss the strategy. 

During initial strategy development, seven “representative” systems completed and commented on a

draft of the Capacity Development self-assessment, which MDE will use to establish a baseline, measure

improvements, and rank systems in need of assistance. MDE incorporated the “representative” systems’

comments where appropriate, along with recommendations of MDE staff and the Steering Committee. 

MDE presented a draft of the strategy at the Maryland Rural Water Association (MRWA) conference

held May 2000. MDE also mailed the draft to other organizations, requested comments on the strategy

through their Website, and provided information on the strategy and the development process in a

newsletter distributed to parties interested in MDE activities.

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

Using the baseline information (described in Element D below), MDE will rank the TMF problems of

systems statewide, by county, by ownership type, and by other factors. Systems with the most serious

and prevalent problems (e.g., systems with major sanitary defects indicated by the sanitary survey results

receive a higher priority than systems with minor defects) will be targeted for TA. 

MDE will also provide assistance to water systems that request it. MDE supplies training providers with

each system’s relevant information to ensure individual and specific assistance. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

MDE identified 11 factors that encourage capacity in PWSs, including State emphasis of TA, adequate

training opportunities, Comprehensive Performance Evaluations of surface water systems, and MDE

policies that encourage consolidation. 

MDE identified seven factors that impair capacity, including lack of State and federal funding, limited

State staffing and resources, a lack of certified operators, and a lack of operator and manager interest in

training. In addition, MDE believes that systems do not know about available resources, small systems

are deficient in their maintenance and planning efforts, and the authority of regulating transient systems

is delegated to counties who already struggle with resource restraints. MDE identified mechanisms that

can be used to address the impairments. 
62

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

In order to assist systems with meeting applicable standards and monitoring requirements, MDE will

continue to: provide systems with monitoring schedules, sampling and analysis of chemical and

radiological MCLs, and water supply financial assistance (both grants and DWSRF low-interest loans);

conduct annual sanitary surveys; and perform source water protection assessments. 

MDE is also developing a self-assessment survey that will enable systems to identify deficiencies and

provide the State with TMF information that will lead to more targeted assistance. If a survey is not

returned, MDE will call the system or identify the deficiencies during the sanitary survey. In addition,

MDE will begin working with TA providers to assist systems in completing funding applications and

provide training, which will enable systems to better defend their requests.

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

To determine the level of system interest in partnership activities, MDE included a question on the selfassessment survey. The results will be used to shape future activities. MDE is also working with

American Water Works Association Chesapeake Section to develop a partnership program where system

operators can provide training to other operators. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

MDE classifies facilities according to their treatment technology. Operators must pass a test specific to a

treatment technology type, which ensures that operators are technically qualified for the process they are

required to operate. Operator certifications must be renewed every three years. 

MDE provides grants to the Maryland Center for Environmental Training (MCET) and MRWA to

provide TA. Frequent telephone calls, faxes, site visits, mass mailings, seminars, and training courses

provide other avenues of disseminating information to operators. Expected changes to State regulations

may make it easier for operators to be certified, and MDE will continue to explore and encourage

innovative ways of ensuring properly trained and certified operators.

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

MDE will establish a baseline and measure improvements through the use of:

• Compliance data. The number, type (which contaminant), and degrees (level of exceedance) will

be used to establish a baseline for technical capacity, while the number of monitoring and

reporting violations will be used to set a baseline for managerial and financial capacity. 

• Operator certification information. MDE will examine the number and classification of certified

operators to set a baseline and measure improvements in managerial or financial capacity. 

• The number and severity of deficiencies identified during a sanitary survey will be used to

establish a baseline and measure improvements.
63

• The results from the self-assessment questionnaire. MDE will mail the self-assessment to CWSs

every six years. The results of the surveys will be compared to measure improvements and to

determine additional assistance needs. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

The 17 person Steering Committee included a seven person MDE internal capacity development team, 

AWWA Chesapeake Section, county health departments, Manufactured Housing Institute, Maryland

Rural Water Association, Maryland Center for Environmental Training, University of Maryland

Environmental Finance Center, and water system owners. MDE identified additional stakeholders

through a mailing list of organizations representing the interests of communities, the general public,

State and county governments, and municipalities. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

MDE solicited public comment and incorporated it as appropriate throughout all stages of the strategy’s

development. Through the establishment of a baseline that examines TMF aspects of a system, training

and assistance can be targeted to the systems with the most severe and prevalent compliance problems. 

Subsequent updates will ensure that improvements are measured and that changes can be made, if

necessary.

 

As a future initiative, MDE will create a ranking system from the self-assessment survey and compliance

data, which will further prioritize systems in need of assistance. The State continues to use its current

programs to foster compliance, partnerships, and operator training. MDE acknowledges that the

strategy’s purpose is to use the least amount of resources while providing the greatest amount of capacity

development information. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

Using existing authority and resources, MDE provides TA, operator training, and financial assistance to

water systems. MDE will establish a baseline by August 2001. The State will update the baseline and

measure improvements every three years. The self-assessment survey will be sent out every six years. 

As evaluation of the strategy continues, changes may be necessary to improve the efficiency of the

system-evaluation process.
64

Massachusetts

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

On June 1, 2000, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Drinking Water

Program (DWP) staff met with the Safe Drinking Water Advisory Committee to discuss the current

status of Capacity Development Program activities and to request comments on a draft of financial and

managerial capacity guidelines. The program activities, the financial and managerial guidance materials,

and the comments of the Committee are components of the final strategy. 

On June 12, 2000, DWP invited a group of stakeholders to participate on the Capacity Stakeholders

Committee. The Committee held a “Brainstorming Workshop,” and DWP incorporated significant

Committee ideas into the State’s strategy. 

Finally, on June 14, 2000 (and previously on June 20, 1998) the Capacity Development Coordinator

convened a Capacity Development Task Force to discuss program updates, program planning, capacity

strategies for existing PWSs, and financial and managerial capacity issues, including the draft guidance

on financial and managerial capacity. DEP solicited additional public comment by posting the final draft

strategy on its Website. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

DEP identifies systems in need of TMF assistance through:

• Sanitary Survey/Comprehensive Compliance Evaluation (CCE).

• DWSRF priority systems: DWP reviews all systems seeking DWSRF funding to determine their

need for TMF assistance.

• Compliance History.

• Other factors: Source Water Assessment Program Reports, Consumer Confidence Reports,

permitting requirements (i.e., Water Management Act permits), Board of Health/State

agency/local agency referrals, and consumer or other complaints.

• Change in ownership. 

Systems are prioritized based on risk level. Assistance is targeted at systems with the highest public risk,

using the following three-tiered prioritization scheme (and factors): 

• Direct impact on public health (i.e. orders to boil, do not drink, and/or do not use; and SNC

status).

• Indirect impact on public health (failure to report).

• Violation of technical safeguard (e.g. lack of signs in a watershed protective area).

DWP will also determine the appropriate type and level of Technical Assistance by examining all

gathered information and taking into account long-term infrastructure needs, new and proposed

regulations, and compliance history.
65

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

DEP identifies 26 factors that encourage capacity, including stakeholder group meetings, established

programs, DWSRF monies, and mentoring networks among small systems. DEP identifies 26 factors

that impair capacity, and is currently taking action to minimize the impact of many of the impairments.

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

In order to assist PWSs in achieving and maintaining compliance, DEP collects data (i.e. sanitary

surveys, source water assessments, DEP reports, and monitoring and compliance reports) to evaluate

systems and plan for improvements; provides on-site consultations, financial and managerial capacity

guidelines, and a streamlined enforcement process; publishes the “In the Main” newsletter; mails rule

updates to all system owners and operators; uses the Internet to publish program components; and

circulates the TNC-Small System Handbook. DEP provides technical support to trade associations by

writing articles and making presentations at their meetings. The Department also provides outreach to

local school communities to increase public awareness. DE also works closely with other State and

federal agencies to promote compliance (e.g. Department of Public Health, Plumbing Board, Department

of Telecommunications and Energy).

Possible future initiatives include developing a more advanced communications system (e.g., e-mail list

server, automated telephone calling, fax on demand) to keep operators updated on rule developments or

rule modifications; developing electronic reports of data; and the transfer of lab results. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

DEP has an agreement with the Massachusetts Coalition for Small System Assistance. The coalition is

comprised of New England Water Works, Massachusetts Water Works Association, the Northeast Rural

Community Assistance Program, and the Northeast Rural Water Association. The Coalition provides

group training, conducts one-on-one site visits, and provides a mentoring program.

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

The State has developed an operator training curriculum based on the “Findings” section of the Sanitary

Survey. Updates will be made as necessary. A new initiative is owner board member training, which

DWP hopes will increase the managerial capacity of systems.

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

DEP uses the results of the Sanitary Survey/CCE as the primary means of collecting information to

establish a baseline. This information is used as a reference point upon which the State will measure

improvements in the system’s capacity and compliance status.

Once the CCE is complete, DEP records violations that threaten capacity and develops a Compliance

Plan. If significant capacity problems are identified, DEP enters them into the Water Quality Testing
66

System electronic database. Entering the information creates a Capacity Development Profile for the

system. The profile will be used to identify systems that lack capacity and their specific deficiencies. 

Once DEP collects and enters data into the WQTS, the system is rated as having: “adequate capacity,”

“conditional capacity,” or “inadequate capacity.” Success is measured by toward adequate capacity or

continuous capacity. 

DEP will measure the overall success of the strategy by tracking the type and frequency of TA (i.e., the

number of sanitary surveys or CPEs performed, the amount and type of assistance provided in response

to a site-visit). Finally, DEP measures improvement by tracking reductions in compliance and

enforcement actions, including a reduction of the number of SNCs. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

DEP invited groups that regulate, service, operate, interact with, or receive water from PWSs; TA

providers; regional planners; CWSs; NCWSs; well drillers; boards of health; municipal and State

officials; consulting engineers; and housing association representatives to participate in the Capacity

Stakeholders Committee. In addition, the Capacity Development Task Force, which met twice during

the development of the strategy, included a collection of water supply professionals, accountants, TA

providers, utility professionals, and rate analysts. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

In addition to the existing DEP programs designed to improve the TMF capacity of PWSs in the State,

DEP’s proposed program elements (i.e. a more advanced communications system) will address some of

the State impairments to capacity. Through prioritization for assistance, DEP targets systems that

present the greatest risk to public health. DEP uses a Sanitary Survey/CCE to establish a baseline and an

individual system capacity categorization. DEP records capacity information in the following five year

cycle: year one CCE/SS; year three (shortened sanitary survey) coupled with follow-up site visits and

enforcement action. This process is used to measure improvements in the activities of the State’s

capacity development program.

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

DEP is already implementing all of the significant programs and activities that make up the capacity

development strategy. New programs will be implemented as the need arises and as resources allow. 

The Department will use the input of the Capacity Development Task Force, the Safe Drinking Water

Advisory Committee, and the Capacity Stakeholders Committee to improve the Capacity Development

strategy. As DEP implements the capacity program, changes to the State’s approach are expected and

welcomed. 
67

Michigan

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) utilized the experience and expertise of

stakeholders from inside and outside the Department to develop, and solicit comments on, a draft of their

capacity development strategy. The Department invited representatives from State and local agencies,

industry associations, public interest groups, consultants, community associations, water system owners

and operators, law firms, contractors, and consulting engineers to participate in a meeting to develop the

capacity development strategy. MDEQ gathered input on each of the elements of the strategy during this

meeting.

MDEQ presented the same information at a Rural Water Association (RWA) meeting, published

information regarding the strategy on the Department’s Field Operations Staff (FOS) Web site, and

published informational articles in the Michigan chapters of the American Water Works Association

(AWWA) and RWA monthly newsletters. 

In Michigan, the MDEQ has delegated the implementation of the strategy to 43 local health departments

for the NCWS water systems. MDEQ and 43 local health departments developed the NCWS strategy,

and solicited input from representatives of NCWS associations and owners groups. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

MDEQ considers this Element to be the key issue in the strategy. The Department plans to screen both

CWSs and NCWSs using existing information found in the State’s databases and files including

compliance information, sanitary survey and evaluation results, construction permit bans/warning letters,

O&M problems, and Drinking Water and Radiological Protection Division staff input. 

MDEQ will then prioritize CWSs based on the relative seriousness of the system’s problems. A

hierarchy of violation types based on public health risk has been developed and will be used to assign

problems into categories: 

• Critical - continued acute exceedance, lack of monitoring, and chronically not in compliance. 

• Serious - chronic nonacute exceedance and lack of monitoring.

• Minor - sporadic one-time violations.

• Potential - exhibit problems that may lead to critical or serious problems in the future.

• Request assistance - systems foresee a capacity weakness and request assistance.

After MDEQ makes the priority determination, the Department will provide assistance from a variety of

resources based on the needs of the system. Enforcement action will be initiated against any system that

is unwilling to participate in the capacity development process. 

MDEQ will prioritize NCWSs as follows:

• NCWSs with a water borne disease outbreak, or chronic violations of acute MCLs or treatment

techniques (TT).
68

• NCWSs reaching formal hearing status for violations.

• Failure to employ a certified operator for public health treatment.

• SNCs, other than monitoring and reporting violators.

• NCWS with other MCL or TT violations.

• Potential SNCs.

• Significant uncorrected infrastructure deficiencies.

• Monitoring and reporting SNCs.

• NCWS brought to the informal hearing step for violations.

• Chronic failure to pay annual fees, civil fines, or State laboratory analytical fees. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

MDEQ identified factors that encourage capacity and factors that impair capacity for both CWSs and

NCWSs. The Department plans to use the tools that enhance capacity to further strengthen the strategy

and to make improvements as needed. As part of the long-term strategy, the Department will try to

reduce or eliminate the factors that impair capacity and focus on specific factors for improvement. 

As part of the development of the NCWS strategy, local health departments determined that 8 factors

encourage capacity and 4 factors impair capacity. 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

The Department has several existing programs which aid systems in complying with State and federal

regulations, including amended Michigan SDWA regulations, which include capacity development

requirements; TA contracts for assistance to small systems; SWA programs, and use of DWSRF funds

for small system planning assistance; and source water and wellhead protection efforts. The Department

plans to establish a Website to answer capacity development questions; establish a team of TA providers

to refer systems in need of assistance; develop a system self-assessment; and encourage stakeholders to

develop programs for rule training, wellhead zone delineation, and engineering assistance.

MDEQ plans to utilize existing programs and services to help NCWSs comply with applicable drinking

water regulations.

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

The Department plans to encourage stakeholders to provide mentoring opportunities to systems which

lack adequate TMF capacity, and encourage systems to join professional organizations to improve

communication among industry association professionals and water system operators. 

For NCWSs, the concept of partnerships is difficult due to the complex nature and function of most

NCWSs. The Department will encourage partnerships among systems with a common purpose by

providing educational and networking opportunities. 
69

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

MDEQ plans to continue coordinating operator certification training and testing activities with the

Michigan EPA Environmental Assistance Division (EAD), AWWA, and other TA providers. 

The Department plans to significantly enhance the existing training and certification program through the

implementation of new operator certification requirements for the 1,800 NCWSs in the State. MDEQ is

encouraging stakeholders to provide training in operational responsibilities, rules, and rate structures. 

The Department has already contracted with a TA provider to train NCWSs that serve schools. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

The Department will examine several factors to establish a baseline and measure improvements. MDEQ

plans to evaluate and compare information which is available in State maintained databases, including

compliance data, the number of sanitary surveys and evaluations completed annually, the number of

systems that complete a self-assessment each year, operator certification information, the number of

public notifications distributed annually, enforcement information, and information on WHP and SWP

activities. MDEQ is also considering using additional information including the number of systems with

emergency contingency plans, the number of systems with acceptable standby power, the number of

systems with Reliability Plans and General Plans, and the number of systems with Cross Connection

Control programs. This data will be used when available. 

Local health departments will analyze annual compliance reports which track monitoring, reporting, and

MCL violation rates; and the Local Health Department’s NCWS program performance evaluation to

measure improvements in the NCWS.

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

In order to identify interested stakeholders, the Department utilized the expertise of several

organizations, including MDEQ, DWRPD, EAD, Michigan Department of Consumer and Industry

Services, Michigan Department of Treasury, AWWA, RWA, Michigan Townships Association,

Michigan Municipal League, Michigan Community Action, Public Sector Consultants, Michigan

Association of Local Environmental Health Administrators, Michigan Association for Local Public

Health, Small Business Association of Michigan, Michigan School Business Officials, Michigan Public

Service Commission, Michigan Rural Community Assistance Program (RCAP), Michigan Manufactured

Housing Association, PWSs, Michigan Consulting Engineers Council, contractors, law firms, and the

League of Woman Voters.

The Department also made presentations at several conferences and meetings, posted information on the

FOS Web site, and published articles in monthly drinking water association newsletters to reach a

diverse group of stakeholders. 

In developing this strategy, MDEQ invited representatives of NCWS associations and owners groups to

attend and participate in the process. The strategy does not specifically mention how the stakeholders

were involved. 
70

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

MDEQ has developed and adopted criteria for ranking CWSs and NCWSs in order to identify and

prioritize systems most in need of TMF assistance. The hierarchical prioritization methodology will

enable the Department to assist those systems which pose the most significant threat to public health

first, and then assist PWSs with TMF deficiencies that are not a severe threat to public health. The

Department also plans to continue using several tools and resources to assist systems with compliance,

partnerships, and training and certification opportunities for certified operators. Finally, the

implementation of this strategy focuses on prioritizing systems based on several criteria. MDEQ

believes classifying systems to identify those systems most in need of assistance is the most important

step in the capacity development strategy implementation process. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

The Department will address those systems that need immediate assistance during the first phase of the

strategy’s implementation. MDEQ plans to address all systems that need TMF assistance over the longterm. MDEQ will use the results of the system improvement evaluation of as a measure of program

success, and to determine if changes need to be made to the strategy. 
71

Minnesota

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) solicited involvement and public comments through the

development of a questionnaire and through the creation of a stakeholders group. MDH held 

stakeholders meetings in June and July 2000 to gather information, comments, and suggestions on the

development of the Capacity Development strategy for Existing Systems. 

At the meetings, stakeholders were asked to review a draft of the strategy and to discuss potential

improvements to Minnesota’s drinking water program, provide input on the methods and criteria the

State plans to use to identify the PWSs most in need of improving TMF capacity (element A), determine

a baseline and an opportunity to measure outcomes (element D), and identify elements which encourage

or impair capacity development (element B). MDH incorporated all public, stakeholder, and EPA

comments as appropriate. The Department developed a questionnaire which was sent to all PWSs in

Minnesota to invite participation in the development of the strategy. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

MDH and the Stakeholders Group will identify systems in need of improving TMF capacity by

reviewing sanitary surveys, system planning documents, and analytical testing results; and through

personal contact with system owners and operators. 

MDH plans to prioritize systems using information which is maintained in existing databases. MDH will

address systems in the following order: systems with emergencies and acute disease MCL or TT

violations, SNCs with violations other than monitoring and reporting, potential SNCs, systems with

MCL or TT violations, systems with infrastructure deficiencies and sanitary issues, SNCs with

monitoring and reporting violations, and systems with training and planning needs. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

The stakeholders group and MDH developed a list of factors that enhance or impair capacity in

Minnesota. Fourteen factors were identified that encourage capacity, while 11 factors were found to

impair capacity. MDH believes that the most important factor enhancing capacity is that several

capacity development activities are regulated and implemented by MDH. This consolidated jurisdiction

ensures non-duplication of effort and facilitates communication among staff and programs related to

drinking water.
72

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

MDH plans to continue implementing existing programs to expand the use of its current authorities and

resources to develop new tools for assisting PWSs with compliance. Initiatives include: source

water/wellhead protection programs; mandating service connection fees, additional training and

education; and revising the sanitary survey process to include the review of managerial and financial

information. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

Minnesota currently utilizes several resources which encourage partnerships, including cooperation with

industry groups and newsletters that provide information on system developments. MDH plans to

develop new tools such as joint operating agreements, public-private partnerships, “big brother”

arrangements, and peer review programs, that will enable further development of the partnership

initiatives. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

The Department plans to improve its operator certification program, develop DWSRF application

criteria, and implement new training and TA programs to help systems train and certify operators. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

The Stakeholder group and MDH determined that the baseline would be the annual average rate of

compliance for all PWSs taken together with the number of systems that did not remain in compliance

for the entire calendar year. In order to measure the success of this program, MDH plans to evaluate

trends in noncompliance rates compared to the baseline in order to target the best use of its resources. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

MDH compiled a list of interested Stakeholders including representatives from PWSs, various State and

local agencies, TA providers, environmental organizations, and the general public. MDH contacted

interested parties and individuals by mail, posted a Capacity Development Fact Sheet on its Web site,

and circulated the questionnaire. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

The Minnesota Capacity Development strategy is a comprehensive program based on years of experience

implementing the drinking water program. The development of prioritization criteria will further enable

the State to identify systems most in need of aid and to target assistance to those systems. Additional

compliance, partnership, and operator certification programs, which are in development phase, will

strengthen the current program. Finally, continued stakeholder involvement will ensure that the program
73

will be evaluated on a regular basis and that changes can be made based on current needs, resources, and

the experiences of those implementing the strategy. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

The State is currently implementing many of its programs to help systems acquire and maintain TMF

capacity. 

The Department plans to periodically evaluate the strategy and to make adjustments based on the needs

of PWSs in the State. MDH also plans to continue soliciting comments and ideas from the public by

continuing Stakeholder Group meetings, by posting the strategy and future documentation on the MDH

Web site, and by periodically publishing articles in various newsletters. 
74

Mississippi

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Mississippi State Department of Health (MSDH) established an advisory Committee to assist in

developing the State’s Capacity Development Program. Several agencies and organizations representing

a broad array of interests were invited to participate as members of the Committee. The Committee

reviewed the State’s draft capacity development strategy and capacity rating system and provided

recommendations for revisions and improvements. In addition to the Advisory Committee, the MSDH

conducted three public hearings to solicit public comment on the draft strategy and rating system. To

provide maximum opportunity for participation, MSDH held these meetings in the north, central, and

southern portions of the State. MSDH developed the final strategy based on the recommendations of the

Advisory Committee and the comments received during the hearings. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

In consultations with the Capacity Development Advisory Committee and participants at the three public

hearings, MSDH’s Division of Water Supply developed a capacity rating system for all PWSs. During

annual sanitary surveys, Water Supply regional engineers will complete a Capacity Assessment form

answering five major yes/no questions related to the TMF components of capacity (15 questions overall). 

Each response earns a set number of points. The total points for each component area are added together

to derive an overall capacity rating. Using these results, MSDH will rank all systems according to their

need for assistance.

The managerial and financial portions of the form are tailored to the three major types of

PWSs—municipal, private, and non-profit. MSDH intends to modify the rating system as necessary to

effectively assess the needs of “non-typical” PWSs such as mobile home parks and NTNCWSs. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

MSDH identified several key factors that encourage capacity in PWSs including required board member

training, the submission of annual financial reports, TMF evaluation for CDBG grants, no-cost TMF

assistance to a minimum of ten systems each year, annual sanitary surveys, mandatory approval of

engineering plans and specifications, administrative penalties for PWSs that have exceeded design

capacity, and stringent enforcement of SDWA requirements. MSDH does not identify factors that impair

capacity. 
75

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

Mississippi provides TA to PWSs through contacts with private organizations. The contracts are funded

with set-aside funds from the DWSRF program. MSDH entered into multi-year contracts with the

RCAP/Community Resources Group and with the Mississippi Rural Water Association to provide

comprehensive TA to systems throughout the State. MSDH has also contracted with the Mississippi

Extension Service to develop a training manual and to coordinate the State’s PWS Board Member

training program. 

Four new pieces of legislation are helping to improve the capacity of water systems in Mississippi. 

Under one statute, board members of all non-profit (rural) water systems and municipalities serving

fewer than 2,500 people are required to attend 8 hours of management training within 2 years of being

elected or re-elected to the board. In response to this legislation, the Division of Water Supply met with

the Mississippi Extension Service to develop a board member training program and manual using setaside funds. New legislation also requires non-profit (rural) water systems to prepare and submit a

standardized annual financial report to the State Auditor’s office. A third piece of legislation that

recently passed prohibits the Mississippi Department of Economic and Community Development

(DECD) from awarding CDBG to PWSs unless they are viable or will be made viable by the grant

award. In accordance with the last piece of legislation, MSDH must identify at least 10 PWSs each year

that are in need of comprehensive TMF assistance and must provide this assistance at no cost. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

MSDH encourages systems with inadequate capacity to form cooperative arrangements, including

physical consolidation and administrative mergers, by increasing the number of enforcement actions,

imposing administrative penalties on systems that serve customers in excess of their approved design

capacity, and by reviewing plans and specification. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

In 1997, Mississippi passed legislation requiring that only individuals licensed by the State can operate

PWSs. An Annual Operating Agreement (AOA) must be negotiated between the certified operator and

the responsible official for each individual system. The AOA ensures that the responsible official

understands what operators must accomplish on a routine basis to effectively operate the system, and that

operators actually complete the routine activities. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

MSDH will determine a baseline capacity rating during the sanitary survey of each PWS. MSDH will

gauge the effectiveness of its capacity development strategy by examining the capacity ratings from year

to year, and by tracking compliance rates.
76

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

MSDH formed the Advisory Committee to assist with the development of its capacity development

program. The State affiliations with all of the major industry associations (i.e., Mississippi Rural Water

Association, Mississippi Manufactured Housing Association, Mississippi Manufacturers Association,

etc.), and relevant State agencies and private organizations were invited to participate on the Committee.

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

MSDH developed a capacity rating system for all PWSs whereby TMF capacity will be assessed

annually and systems will be prioritized according to their need for assistance. The rating system will

allow MSDH to evaluate improvements in capacity on a system-by-system basis and will help to gauge

the overall effectiveness of the program. The State has set aside funds from the DWSRF that will enable

it to provide comprehensive TA to the systems that need it most, as identified through the rating process,

as well as to those that request assistance from the State. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

The State will rely on the results of annual capacity ratings issued during sanitary surveys, and the

tracking of compliance rates to determine the effectiveness of the strategy. 

MSDH began implementing its capacity development strategy in July 2000. They reported noticeable

improvements in the management and operation of PWSs in a September 2000 letter to EPA, which

accompanied the submission of the final strategy document. 
77

Missouri

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ Public Drinking Water Program (PDWP) invited

various water organizations, agencies, and water utilities to form a Capacity Development Advisory

Committee. The Committee developed a Missouri Report of Findings (the Report) that served as a draft

capacity development strategy. 

To solicit comments on the Report, PDWP contacted all CWSs and NTNCWSs by mail and held a

number of stakeholder and public meetings. PDWP issued a public news release and notice of six public

meetings. The Advisory Committee also distributed information through the Department’s TA Program

(TAP), the Mid-America Regional Council, and the Missouri Association of Councils of Government.

PDWP made presentations and distributed an initial draft of the Report at the American Water Works

Association (AWWA), Missouri Water Well Association, Public Service Commission, Missouri Rural

Water Association (MRWA), and Environmental Management Institute (EMI) meetings. Presentations

on the proposed strategy were given by various members of the Advisory Committee at the Missouri

Department of Health’s Environmental Health Conference and at the USDA Engineers Meeting in 1999.

The Department posted the Report on its Web site and made note of the invitation to submit public

comment in its newsletter. The Missouri Section of the AWWA, the MRWA, US EPA, and the

Environmental Finance Center were each asked to make the Report available on their Web sites as well. 

PDWP responded to the comments it received on the Report in the first section of its final strategy

document. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

PDWP will identify and prioritize systems by reviewing their compliance records. Systems with

violations will be categorized into one of three classes:

C Critical (Class 1): systems with Administrative Orders for Significant Non-Compliance.

C Serious (Class 2): systems in Significant Non-Compliance that have not been issued an

Administrative Order.

C Potential problems (Class 3): systems identified through operational test data on water quality

parameters.

Systems that do not fall into the above categories but request assistance will be helped as resources

allow. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

The Advisory Committee identified 83 factors on the federal, State, and local levels that either enhance

or impair system TMF capacity. Of these, the Committee specified 39 factors for consideration as part

of the strategy. These factors formed the basis for developing and selecting the strategy’s program
78

recommendations for improving TMF capacity. (Program recommendations are included under Element

C.)

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

PDWP or a third party will conduct “enhanced” sanitary surveys of priority systems using a newly

developed TMF Checklist. Inspectors will meet with the system’s operation and management staff to

discuss TMF deficiencies discovered during the survey. If the system is having financial difficulties, 

TAP will provide financial planning assistance. TAP utilizes its User Charge Analysis software to help

systems examine and adjust their rates to maintain adequate revenues and assure equitable rates. 

In addition to referring systems to TAP, PDWP will work with other assistance organizations, including

the AWWA, the EMI, the Midwest Assistance Program (MAP), and the MRWA, to ensure that they

incorporate capacity development issues into their training programs. In response to a survey circulated

among stakeholders by PDWP, these organizations indicated that they would be willing to assist in onsite and off-site TA efforts. PDWP will use future DWSRF set-aside funds to contract with engineers to

provide systems with specialized TMF capacity assistance. 

PWDP will continue biweekly meetings with the Water and Waste Water Review Committee

(W&WWRC) and will increase communication with the Department of Health and the Public Service

Commission to reduce overlapping or disjointed services and missions. During these meetings, PWDP

will aim to improve funding opportunities for capacity development related programs. Coordination

with W&WWRC will also help ensure that systems with poor operation and management are not being

rewarded with funding. In another effort to improve funding services for PWSs, PDWP and TAP will

coordinate with the Missouri Bankers Association (MBA) to explore alternative financing options for

small systems. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

During sanitary surveys, PWDP will encourage large systems to assist small systems and, in particular,

to take the lead in mass public education efforts (e.g., by offering their facilities as meeting sites). 

Working together to provide public education increases interaction among neighboring systems. In

addition, PDWP has developed Model Emergency Operation Plans and other model ordinances that

recommend resource sharing between systems. (See TAP’s Web site at

http://www.dnr.State.mo.us/deq/tap/hometap.htm for model ordinances.) PDWP will request that other

agencies encourage partnerships during their training programs. The State indicates in its strategy

document that PDWP may use future set-asides to support the regionalization/consolidation of existing

systems in areas where systems have compliance problems.

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

One impairment to capacity identified under SDWA §1420(c)(2)(B) was the need to improve operator

knowledge of relevant rules and regulations. In response to this need, operators will earn Continuing

Education Units towards recertification by attending rules hearings and meetings. PDWP will continue
79

to provide information and updates on upcoming rules in technical bulletins, fact sheets, training courses,

and on the Department’s Web site. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

PDWP will use compliance records of those systems that are selected for assistance as a baseline, and

will track the compliance of these systems as they receive assistance to measure improvements in the

systems and the success of the program. PDWP will also track statewide trends in compliance, but

expects that system-specific compliance tracking will more accurately measure the effectiveness of the

capacity building efforts. PDWP will keep records of assistance programs and track the number of

enhanced sanitary surveys and site visits that are performed by PDWP and its partners. In addition,

PDWP will conduct surveys to obtain feedback on its TMF assistance efforts. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

PDWP invited various water organizations, agencies, and water utilities to form the Capacity

Development Advisory Committee. The Committee approached many stakeholder groups at meetings

and conferences to identify other individuals interested in providing comments on the Report of

Findings. Newsletters, press releases, Web site postings, and wide distribution of the Report also helped

inform interested persons of capacity development activities. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

Missouri examined system TMF needs, considered how the needs might be met, and developed a

strategy to meet the TMF goals of the systems and the State. Missouri’s strategy provides for direct TA

to those systems with the most significant compliance problems and for the continuation of many

activities that have already provided benefits to systems, such as public education and the encouragement

of partnerships. To improve the support system for all PWSs, Missouri will place a new emphasis on

interagency coordination for funding and training programs. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

Using DWSRF set-aside funds, PDWP has hired three new Regional Office staff to conduct enhanced

sanitary surveys, one TAP staff person specializing in operator certification and out-reach to noncommunity water systems, and one TAP staff to develop and implement financial capacity assistance

measures. PDWP is currently in the process of contracting with various organizations and engineers to

provide training. PDWP is considering using future set-aside funds for regionalization and consolidation

efforts activities. To pursue its interagency coordination goals, PDWP met with MBA and DOH earlier

this year and will continue to hold regular meetings. The Capacity Development Advisory Committee

will meet annually to review the sanitary survey TMF checklist, to discuss the success and possible

shortcomings of the strategy, and to determine what improvements are needed, if any. 
80

Montana

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments 

Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Public Water Supply (PWS) Section

organized three regionally located public hearings and invited the public to attend. The Section

presented the draft strategy and encouraged the attendees to make comments; two participants provided

input. Due to this limited public involvement, the PWS Section developed a new approach to solicit and

obtain public input. 

The new approach involved presenting the strategy at a series of previously scheduled meetings and

seminars throughout the State. In total, MDEQ made seven presentations between February and June of

2000. Presenters spoke at a variety of conferences, including the Rural Water Systems Conference,

DWSRF Advisory Committee meeting, an AWWA Conference, and a capacity strategy meeting. The

Section gathered several comments, including: improving the sanitary survey process to encompass

financial and managerial factors, building trust among operators and board members, concentrating

financial and managerial assistance on fewer systems to provide a higher level of service, providing

training for board and council members, and continuing to provide sampling schedules to operators. The

PWS Section included these comments in the strategy. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

In order to identify systems in need of improved TMF assistance, the PWS Section will use the following

methods: 

• Review monitoring data.

• Evaluate the SNC list.

• Perform sanitary surveys and evaluate results.

• Make preliminary assessments for GUDI systems.

• Conduct SW assessments.

• Coordinate with Midwest Assistance Program (MAP) and Montana Rural Water Systems

(MRWS) staff to identify systems in need of assistance.

• Evaluate systems that have proposed construction improvements or expansions.

• Coordinate with the Public Service Commission to identify systems that need to raise rates or

that have revenue issues. 

• Consult system CCRs to identify capacity issues.

The State will prioritize systems based on the health risks associated with TMF deficiencies and any

requests for assistance by systems. MDEQ developed a set of comprehensive flow charts to determine 

priority categories and to provide examples of the type of assistance that will be given based on the

individual needs of the system. 

• First priority systems are those which have an acute MCL violation, are a SNC, or which fail the

GUDI assessment and become classified as a surface water system. 
81

• Second priority systems are those which have a non-acute MCL violation or have failed the

GUDI assessment, but require minor TMF improvements to maintain compliance. 

• Third priority systems are those that request assistance. These systems are further prioritized as

follows: CWSs and schools, NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs.

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

The Section identified seven factors which encourage capacity and two factors which impair capacity. 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

The State currently provides assistance to systems through a variety of programs and activities including:

assistance to operators through an O&M contract with MAP, helping systems develop a sampling

schedule, ensuring proper sampling procedures, and assessing other operator-related issues. 

MDEQ has entered into a contract with a third party TA provider to provide financial and managerial

assistance with rate establishment, financing improvements, cash flow issues, administration, and

staffing. The Department also plans to develop a self assessment survey that focuses on staffing

qualifications, management and administration, and assessing finances of the water system. Montana’s

PWS Section plans to use DWSRF funds to improve existing programs, to add new staff, and to create

SWP plans for each system. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs 

The strategy does not include information on developing partnerships between PWSs.

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

MDEQ, PWS Section plans to use their DWSRF Operator Certification set-aside to support the Operator

Certification Program within the State. Currently, the Water and Wastewater Operator Certification 

program offers testing, record keeping, program information services, and ensures that ongoing training

is provided to water operators. 

Montana’s Operator Certification program also involves a variety of stakeholders groups including: the

Governor-appointed Water and Wastewater Operators’ Advisory Council (Council), and the ad hoc

continuing Education Credit Review Committee. These groups provide support on training and

continuing education credit decisions. The members of the Council meet on a quarterly basis to make

recommendations on operator certification issues, to administer examinations, to teach math review

sessions, to assist with exam validation, and to update study materials. 

The Montana Environmental Training Center publishes an annual training calendar for water,

wastewater, and other environmental professionals which details the date and location of training

programs such as AWWA programs, Montana University System, Water Center courses, and Continuing

Education Credit courses and seminars.
82

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

MDEQ will use their 1999 Annual Compliance Report to establish a baseline against which

improvements will be measured. The Department will compare the annual number of systems with

compliance violations. Any reduction in the number of compliance violations will be considered an

improvement. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

The Section involved stakeholders from a variety of organizations and associations throughout the State. 

AWWA; MRWS; the Montana Association of Water and Sewer Systems, Water, Wastewater, and Solid

Waste Action Coordinating Team; and the DWSRF Advisory Council members were all involved in, and

all held various meetings during, the development of the strategy. MDEQ invited the public to attend

these conferences and meetings and encouraged participants to make comments on the draft strategy. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

Montana’s strategy will enable the PWS Section to provide assistance to PWSs that need compliance, 

operator certification, and other types of TMF assistance. The Section will prioritize and identify

systems by using a flow chart that targets systems with acute health violations first. Systems with nonacute health violations and systems that request assistance will be helped as resources allow. MDEQ

plans on improving existing programs and activities, and developing new initiatives using DWSRF

funding. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

The PWS Section will continue to involve stakeholders implementing and evaluating the success of the

strategy by presenting the strategy at training sessions and conferences. The PWS Section will involve

consultants, operators, PWS owners, board and council members, and industry associations to ensure a

wide variety of opinions and experiences. 

The PWS Section will make changes to the strategy based on the needs of water systems and comments

received from the public. The Section will re-evaluate all administered TA contracts on an annual basis

to ensure that the services provided are meeting the needs of the water systems.
83

Nebraska

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) convened a strategy Committee, made up of

representatives from a broad spectrum of interested parties, to consider the five elements of SDWA

§1420 (c)(2). Through a series of public meetings, the strategy Committee developed a Report of

Findings (the Report) that included their conclusions and recommendations. DHHS posted the Report on

the Department’s Website with instructions on how to submit comments. 

DHHS also held three public meetings around the State. In an effort to increase participation, DHHS

combined the capacity development strategy meetings with public meetings on the requirements of the

Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and the Disinfection/Disinfectants By-Products Rule. 

DHHS incorporated all of the comments (except one) from the public meetings, along with the

information and recommendations made by the strategy Committee in the Report, into an outline of the

State’s Capacity Development strategy. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

The State has identified systems with pending administrative orders, SNCs, those with acute violations,

and systems with multiple violations, as priority systems. DHHS will further prioritize systems based on

the number and severity of the system’s deficiencies or violations. Systems on the DWSRF project

priority list will also be given priority. 

This method of prioritization will be used until DHHS begins using its enhanced sanitary survey form

(described in further detail below) in January 2001. Systems will be added to the priority list using the

following criteria and ranking scheme:

• Systems with TMF deficiencies that present a direct or potential threat to public health (critical

systems) will be assigned a value of either 5, 7, or 10 points depending on the severity and

immediacy of the deficiency (e.g., a 5 represents a potential threat while a 10 represents and

immediate and direct threat to public health).

• Systems with potential TMF deficiencies (serious systems) will be assigned a 1, 2, or 3 where 1

represents a relatively minor deficiency and 3 a more serious deficiency. Systems with a number

of serious deficiencies may be categorized as critical. 

• Systems that have minimal deficiencies or have corrected previously identified deficiencies

(minor systems). 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

The strategy Committee identified 191 factors at the federal, State, and local level that either enhance or

impair capacity development in PWSs. The Committee reviewed 112 factors (47 that enhance and 66

that impair) while developing the Report of Findings. The other factors were included in the Report but

were not part of the Committee’s deliberations. 
84

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

The activities and programs that will assist PWSs with compliance include:

• Enhanced sanitary survey form. DHHS revised their sanitary survey form to include financial

and managerial information. Including this information in the survey will help systems plan for

the future, thereby increasing the possibility of long-term compliance. DHHS and members of

the Two Percent TA Team will hold meetings with systems to answer questions arising from the

survey, and to provide additional TA. 

• Two Percent TA Team. DHHS in conjunction with several organizations and associations that

provide assistance to PWSs, will meet every two or three months to review a list of systems most

in need of assistance (provided by DHHS Regulation and Licensure). The Team will decide

which entity can best provide the assistance that is required. 

• Public education. DHHS recognized the strong need for a more enhanced public education

program and therefore will develop and implement one. 

• Water meter requirements. All DWSRF applicants will need to install metering devices (except

under limited circumstances).

• Fiscal management training. DHHS will hold a series of meeting throughout the State to discuss

innovative techniques for financing improvements to small water systems. The Department is

also investigating whether rate-setting and financial management training can be presented at the

same time. 

• Enhanced dissemination of information on proposed and upcoming rules. DHHS has notified

potentially impacted systems by mail, and through site visits and informational meetings. The

Department is also developing an automatic e-mail service to keep operators updated on rule

developments. 

• Board member training. DHHS is designing a board and council member training module that

will focus on long-term planning; financial management; full-cost financing; and regulatory,

environmental, and financial controls. Training is voluntary.

• Plain English handbook of regulations. DHHS is developing a handbook that will explain the

TMF capacity requirements. The Department wants to include all of the proposed regulations

and therefore the handbook will not be finalized until 2003. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

DHHS will lead a task force of organizations through a series of meetings to discuss land use planning

issues including consolidation of existing systems. Currently, there is a lack of planning in rural areas

which is impacting the affordability of safe drinking water. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

DHHS will hold a series of Stakeholder meetings to discuss the new operator training regulations which

become effective January 2002. Recent regulatory changes that will help operators include changing the

training format into a series of training modules, giving certification exams at locations around the State,

and reclassifying systems to more accurately reflect the level of treatment provided and population

served so that system personnel will be certified to the appropriate level. 
85

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

Until DHHS completes the first round of sanitary surveys using the enhanced form, the Department will

establish a baseline using the information used to prioritize systems (systems with pending

administrative orders, SNCs, systems with acute and multiple violations). 

During the first three years of strategy implementation, DHHS and the Two Percent TA Team will

measure improvements by examining the outreach and assistance performed. DHHS will evaluate the

number of sanitary surveys performed on an annual basis and the number of site-visits and type of

assistance rendered, conduct follow-up with systems via a survey to gather feedback on the effectiveness

of the TA, and examine if trends in the types of deficiencies are determinative of how the public outreach

programs are working. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

DHHS sent invitations to participate on a stakeholder group to an extensive number of individuals,

organizations, associations, and other parties interested in drinking water issues. Committee members

were drawn from the broadest possible spectrum of interested parties. Additional individuals who were

not formally appointed to the Committee attended meetings and contributed to the Report of Findings. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

The strategy represents a philosophical commitment to the T, M, and F improvement of PWSs. The

Department gathered information on current system needs and made assumptions about future needs,

analyzed how to meet system needs, examined the available resources, established priorities, and

developed methods for measuring improvements and amending the strategy if necessary. The strategy

formally links planning, budgeting, and operational activities to achieve TMF goals at both a system and

State level. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

DHHS has proposed a time line for strategy implementation. Most of the activities or programs will be

implemented within the first two years. Since the enhanced sanitary survey is the cornerstone of the

State’s strategy, this activity will be implemented first (i.e., by January 1, 2001). Initially, all systems

will be evaluated every three years. If after the first three-year cycle, a system demonstrates adequate

TMF capacity (i.e., no violations, no requests for assistance, or no serious deficiencies), the system will

be evaluated every five years. 

Implementation activities include the ongoing review of the strategy. DHHS will meet with the strategy

Committee to examine the progress of systems and make changes to the strategy as appropriate. 
86

Nevada

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Bureau of Health Protection Services (BHPS) formed a capacity development stakeholders group to

gather input on the development and implementation of the State’s capacity development strategy. 

During the first stakeholder meeting, the group divided into four smaller input sessions to address issues

facing small systems, impairments and enhancements to capacity development, additional programs to

assist systems, and goals and priorities for a capacity development strategy. BPHS used the comments

and recommendations from these input sessions to develop a draft of the strategy.

At a final public workshop/stakeholder group meeting, BHPS presented a draft of the strategy and

additional input was solicited on BHPS’s prioritizing scheme, a capacity assessment form, the additional

programs BHPS would like to develop, and the proposed measures to evaluate the success of the

program. Attendees were also asked to describe how BHPS could supplement existing partnership

efforts and to provide feedback on the frequency of future stakeholder and public involvement. 

BPHS categorized comments and suggestions gathered at the stakeholder meetings into four groups:

incorporate into strategy now, consider item for future consideration, not for consideration followed by

an explanation, and information only. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

The Bureau will use information from several sources to identify systems in need of assistance. BHPS

will examine the State’s SNC list and the list of systems targeted for TA; sanitary surveys; operator

certification program information; and data from training and TA programs. The Bureau is currently

developing a Source Water Assessment (SWA) program, a Wellhead Protection (WHPP) program, and a

Underground Injection Control (UIC) program which will eventually be used to identify additional

systems. 

The Bureau decided to use a matrix system developed by the Oregon Health Division to prioritize

systems. The matrix uses risk factors relative to compliance problems and ranks system most in need of

help. Initially, the State will use data on the health and water quality threats to public health, monitoring

and reporting violations, and operator certification information in the matrix. Additional managerial and

financial information collected through TA contracts will be integrated into the matrix over the next few

years. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors that Enhance or Impair Capacity

The stakeholders group identified 100 factors at the federal, State, and local level that either enhance or

impair capacity development. Enhancements include the Bureau’s management of all programs that

fund or oversee PWSs; accessibility of BHPS staff; technical support; availability of funds; adequate

number of TA providers; Nevada Water and Wastewater Training Coalition; economic
87

diversification;CCRs; new operator certification requirements; solid master planning; DWSRF funding;

Infrastructure for Nevada Communities (INC); and communication between cities, counties, and State

offices. 

Impairments include lack of consumer education, proposed radon and arsenic standards, regulatory “red

tape”, lack of funding, lack of planning, lack of economies of scale, inadequate board and staff training,

geographic locations, and economic disparity. 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

Several tools exist to aid systems in complying with NPDWRs in Nevada. They include sanitary

surveys, training and TA programs, and enforcement activities. In response to suggestions made by

stakeholders, the Bureau is currently developing SWA, WHPP, and UIC programs; public education

materials; a water system planning manual; a system self-assessment; and an “enhanced” sanitary survey

form that includes an evaluation of a system’s financial and managerial capacity. 

2) Encouraging the Development of Partnerships between PWSs

The Bureau does not explain how it will encourage partnerships between PWSs

3) Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators 

Currently the Bureau requires PWSs to employ a certified operator and provides training and TA to PWS

operators. BHPS plans to incorporate board member training and develop a drinking water handbook to

supplement the existing program. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

Nevada plans to use the SNC list and the list of systems in need of TA (described in Element A) as a

baseline against which it will measure improvements. 

Each quarter, BHPS tracks:

• Number of systems (by type).

• Population served (by type).

• Number of system with MCL violations (by type).

• Number of systems with monitoring or reporting violations.

• SNCs.

• The number of certified operators.

The Bureau will also track the volume of capacity activity including the number of completed:

• Capacity assessments.

• On-site TA visits.

• Training sessions.

• Enhanced sanitary surveys. 
88

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

BHPS invited representatives of federal, State, and local governments; public and private PWSs;

customers; and drinking water organizations and associations to form a stakeholder group. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

BHPS developed a comprehensive strategy to help PWSs in Nevada achieve and maintain capacity. This

strategy includes a methodology to identify and prioritize water systems in need of TMF assistance

developed in part by stakeholder discussion groups. This portion of the program will enable BPHS to

identify those systems most at risk for violating NPDWRs and supplying water which may pose a

significant threat to public health. The Bureau plans to continue using several existing tools and to

develop several more tools which will aid systems in complying with NPDWRs. The strategy will be

evaluated by studying SNC lists, the number of certified operators, and by tracking the volume of

capacity activity.

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

BHPS plans to schedule regular meetings with TA providers to discuss which systems are most in need

to assistance and the types of assistance that should be provided. 
89

New Hampshire

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

New Hampshire’s Department of Environmental Services (DES) invited interested stakeholders from the

water industry to participate in two public peer review meetings held in the spring of 2000. Those 

present drafted a report on the State’s current Capacity Assurance strategy and suggested modifications

to it. DES stated that although there was “reasonable participation from the invited peers, there was

relatively little critical critique and/or ideas from the water industry ... other than comments concerning

funding.” DES provided a response to all comments, provided an explanation of their expected action,

and incorporated all comments into the strategy.

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

DES did not, and is not planning on, formally assessing the status or capabilities of their entire PWS

inventory because of the time involved. Rather, DES’s Water Supply Engineering Bureau staff and the

DES enforcement coordinator identified PWSs that are potential candidates for receiving capacity

assurance program services and evaluated these systems for likely success with the program. The

system is placed on either a capacity assurance candidate list or on the enforcement roster. 

As a general policy, assistance will be provided to owners or operators who want to improve their

systems. DES will assist systems with MCL or monitoring and reporting violations first, followed by

systems demonstrating source limitations, piping and storage limitations, and outages. 

A system can also request services. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

DES identified 3 factors that enhance capacity including the small size of the State, DES’s relationships

with other State agencies, and very little political interference in the regulatory process. DES also

identified 7 factors that impair capacity including the State’s conservative political philosophy, a low

number of stockholder water utilities, and untrained or unavailable health officers. 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

DES’s strategy will address the relatively small number of noncompliant systems. The Department will

continue to provide diagnostic assistance (on-site TA), training seminars and educational programs and

design review. DES will also continue to publish a SDWA newsletter and utilize the DWSRF set-aside

to contract with outside entities that have managerial expertise. 

The Department is also planning to:
90

• Provide additional training through the Internet.

• Develop a series of educational handouts on various managerial and financial topics.

• Develop a managerial or financial course.

• Develop a generic business plan that systems can use as a model.

• Review the DWSRF program to determine the feasibility of providing grants to small systems

and to streamline the DWSRF application process. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

DES’s program initiatives for regionalization and interconnection of water supplies are driven by

circumstance and not subject to formal rules and regulations. As the density of PWSs in the State

increases and their proximity to one another decreases (as systems are built in more rural areas), the

potential for interconnection and assimilation improves. The State intends to maintain an on-going

relationship with specialized water industry peer groups, such as Northeast Rural Water Association and

Rural Community Housing. This will make “on-call expertise” available to educate systems on how to

make partnership-forming financial and managerial choices.

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

DES will continue to implement an operator certification program that has been in existence since 1980. 

In addition, special technical seminars, fall trade shows and classes, and annual educational courses will 

provide additional educational information to operators and owners. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

DES will make an annual assessment of all systems to determine the degree to which systems are in

compliance or in jeopardy of falling out of compliance. The baseline date is June 30, 2000, and annual

measurements will take place on each June 30th thereafter. A deficiency rating for each system is

calculated based on compliance with the State’s Rules. Point values for non-compliance vary depending

on the nature and severity of the rule. At the end of each accounting year, DES will reassess each system

that receives one-on-one capacity assurance services. Improvement for a system that receives services

will be measured by the lowering of its deficiency rating. 

The Department will develop a database to track the type and number of hours of services provided by

DES and third party providers. To measure the effectiveness of the capacity assurance strategy, DES

will examine:

• General State Program Data: number of PWSs, number of DES staff, operator certification, and

program budget information.

• System Specific Data (weighted measurements): number of systems on boil orders, number of

systems out of MCL compliance, number of systems out of monitoring compliance, number out

of compliance with consumer confidence notice, number with source water protection plans,

number with cross connection plan.

• Facility Deficiencies (weighted): number with emergency or business plans, number with O & M

manual, number requiring facilities improvements, number of complaints.

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders
91

Peer review meeting participants included representatives from water works associations, builders,

system owners, engineers, planning agencies, and State government staff. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

DES already provided many capacity assurance services to systems in need including engineering design

review, TA to system owners and operators, educational programs, operator certification, water quality

monitoring, and enforcement. The Department will focus their efforts on those systems at risk of noncompliance and those with serious facility weaknesses. DES provides on-site, one-on-one services to

those systems that have a desire to participate. Resources are not “wasted on recalcitrant systems as they

seek to delay enforcement or reduce penalties.” The Department will measure improvements annually

and adjust the strategy as appropriate. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

The enforcement coordinator, along with a committee of DES staff, will track the type and number of

hours of assistance and evaluate the success of those services. 
92

New Jersey

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The New Jersey Bureau of Safe Drinking Water (BSDW) held four separate stakeholder meetings during

August and September 1998. The goal of the meetings was to gather input on several elements of the

capacity development strategy and to solicit comments on a draft. 

BSDW made presentations at NJ Rural Water Association (RWA) meetings and Rutgers University’s

SDWA courses. Attendees were encouraged to submit written comments and suggestions on the

strategy. The Bureau also began meeting with the Board of Public Utilities on a quarterly basis to

discuss the strategy and to discuss small system compliance issues. 

In June 2000, BSDW posted a draft of the capacity strategy on its Website and sent notices indicating its 

availability to several newspapers, all PWSs in the State, County Environmental Health Agencies, and

other identified stakeholders. 

BSDW incorporated stakeholder comments into the draft and addressed certain comments in the

Capacity Development strategy Support Document published August 2000. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

The BSDW plans to evaluate a system’s compliance history, compliance inspection results, and the SNC

list to identify systems most in need of TMF assistance. 

The Bureau will assess the identified systems and classify them as exhibiting adequate capacity or

inadequate capacity. Systems with inadequate capacity will be considered priority systems and will be

further prioritized in the following order: CWSs serving populations less than 3,300; NTNCWSs such as

day care facilities, schools, and health care institutions; TNCWSs, including restaurants and

campgrounds; and all other PWSs not covered above. All systems with inadequate capacity will receive

TMF assistance from TA providers, and may be required to develop a managerial and financial plan. 

Systems with adequate capacity will be encouraged to participate in the Capacity Development

Enhancement Program and complete a TMF assessment form. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

The Bureau chose not to include this element as part of the strategy at this time. BSDW determined that

enhancements and impairments affecting the capacity of PWSs would become more apparent as the

strategy is implemented. BSDW plans to address and make modifications to this section as necessary. 
93

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

In addition to existing programs and activities, the Bureau is considering several new initiatives to assist

systems with compliance activities including: 

• The creation of a capacity development enhancement process to address the underlying causes

for inadequate capacity and to provide the system with an outline of corrective actions to address

the causes. TA will be provided by the State or its third party providers. 

• Establishing TA, comprised of staff from the drinking water and enforcement programs, to

provide one-on-one assistance to designated PWSs. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

BSDW will sponsor workshops on, and encourage participation in, programs related to the development

of partnerships among water systems. As part of this initiative, the Bureau will recommend that larger

systems include small systems in training programs whenever appropriate, and promote roundtable

sessions to improve interaction among systems of similar size. BSDW anticipates these sessions will

enable systems with inadequate capacity to learn from their peers. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

New Jersey will provide basic training courses in water treatment plant operation and distribution system

operation and maintenance, and will work with State colleges and universities to provide additional

training programs. The Bureau plans to create and maintain a library of resources to help operators and

managers increase TMF capacity. The library will be made available via hard copy and electronically at

the State’s Web site. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

The Bureau is currently developing a baseline from which to measure improvements. 

Once the baseline is established, BSDW will measure improvements by examining SNC status, MCL

violations, monitoring and reporting violations, DWSRF allocations, the number of operator certification

training sessions offered and the number of people attending these sessions, the number and types of

certified operators, the number of public notifications, and the number of formal enforcement actions

taken.

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

BSDW mailed an invitation to participate in Stakeholder meetings to County Environmental Health Act

Certified Agencies, the Board of Public Utilities, the Division of Water and Sewer; the Department of

County Affairs, the Division of Local Government Services, the New Jersey Environmental Federation,

the Sierra Club, the Association of NJ Environmental Commissions, the New Jersey Health Officers
94

Association, AWWA, NJRWA, Rural Community Assistance Program (NJRCAP), the NJ Manufactured

Housing Association, PWS owners, and licensed certified operators. 

The Bureau also invited the public to comments on the draft strategy by posting it on the State Web site. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

The strategy provides the framework for identifying and prioritizing systems most in need of improving

their capacity, establishing how the State will use the authority and resources to assist those systems, and

a method for measuring improvements. The chosen elements provide a basis for establishing standards,

time lines, partnerships, training, corrective action, and coordination of resources and services. The

strategy includes linking existing enforcement, source water protection, and training programs with

capacity development. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

BSDW is currently preparing an updated SNC list, a database to assess compliance history, a database to

compile information on evaluation inspections, a resource library, and a baseline against which the State

will measure improvements in system TMF capacity. 

Future implementation efforts will include the formation of a capacity development TA unit within the

Department of Environmental Protection, coordination of contracts for training providers and operator

certification courses, the completion of an objective analysis of whether the capacity development

program is in compliance with federal law; and coordination of contracts with RWA and other TA

providers. 
95

New Mexico

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) held five regionally located meetings during the

development of the State’s capacity development strategy. During the meetings, participants were

divided into groups to discuss the SDWA §1420(c)(2) elements. The Department made presentations on

a variety of topics including: issues facing small systems, potential weaknesses in the State program, onsite assessments and assistance, TA efforts, education and public outreach, communication and data

systems, and board/council training opportunities. Meeting participants were asked to rank the proposed

program elements. 

The Department also continued to meet with its standing Drinking Water Advisory Group. Based on the

comments from the meetings NMED developed a draft of the capacity development strategy and

presented it at a joint NMED and Drinking Water Bureau Advisory Group meeting. NMED invited the

public to attend and provide input. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

The Department plans to use compliance and enforcement data, sanitary surveys, SRF application

information, and requests for assistance to identify systems in need of improvement. 

NMED will focus on systems in the following order: small publicly-owned water systems and

municipalities serving less than 3,300, systems with immediate emergency needs, systems with TMF

deficiencies, systems which may become deficient within five years with no assistance, and systems

which require limited assistance to obtain funding for infrastructure upgrades. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

Stakeholders and NMED developed a list of 12 enhancements and 15 impairments to the development of

adequate system capacity. The Department plans to utilize programs which have been identified as 

enhancements and will develop new assistance programs to further strengthen their efforts.

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

During the stakeholder meetings, several existing programs were identified which serve to assist PWSs

with compliance activities, including: Statewide compliance sampling and analysis programs,

interagency coordination, DWSRF funding programs for TA providers, and small system TA. The

Department will continue to implement these programs to assist systems and also plans to expand and

add several new programs over the next few years. 
96

Within the next three years, NMED is considering:

• Providing additional assistance to DWSRF applicants who are having difficulty negotiating the

application process and standardizing funding applications. 

• Expanding TA program coordination and oversight activities and existing managerial and

financial assistance activities.

• Providing board/council member and operator certification training programs to all systems and

initiating a voluntary Board Member training certification program. The program may include a

coordinated, multi-disciplinary program covering such issues as funding, training, and regulatory

requirements. NMED hopes that this program will combine elements of already existing efforts. 

• Providing funding to TA providers for on-site training for groups of small systems.

• Providing funding for initial planning and preliminary engineering reports for systems serving

less than 3,300. 

• Coordinating with the State Engineers office to standardize the resolution of water rights issues.

Future efforts include reviewing the legal definition of PWS to determine if changes are needed

regarding the types of systems eligible for funding, to encourage partnerships, and to prevent

inappropriate encroachments. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

The Department currently includes material on consolidation as part of its training program curricula. 

NMED also coordinates with regional planning associations to encourage partnerships, consolidation,

and regionalization.

During the next three years, NMED plans to:

• Give priority funding to small system initial capital improvement plans which consider

consolidation.

• Require that regionalization options are part of Preliminary Engineering Reports.

• Encourage and facilitate the development of model legal agreements for the regional

management of PWSs.

• Provide one-time seed grants ($10,000 maximum) to regional entities planning to develop

partnerships that will enhance long-term TMF capacity. 

• Establish a pilot program with the New Mexico Finance Authority to assist several troubled

systems by facilitating partnerships between water systems. This will be an incentive-based

program that will reward systems for consolidation and regionalization activities. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

NMED contracts with industry associations and agencies for operator training and on-site TA. The

Department plans to improving the existing operator certification program by increasing the frequency of

training sessions and the number of on-site or regional training opportunities, and by focusing on the

needs of small systems. 
97

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

Using FY 2000 data, NMED will establish a baseline from which to measure improvements. NMED will

examine SNC lists, notices of violation, MCL violations, sanitary surveys and Comprehensive

Performance Evaluations, Consumer Confidence Report compliance rates, the number of training

certificates issued to board/council members and operators, the number of TA projects provided, and the

number of partnership grants and construction loans provided to PWSs. The Department will examine

the information annually and compare the results from year to year. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

In order to identify interested stakeholders, the Department complied an extensive list of organizations

and agencies with ties to the drinking water industry including: drinking water associations; private

industry; engineering firms; public interest groups; Federal, State, and local government agencies; and

PWS owners and operators. Personal invitations to attend stakeholders meetings were mailed to each

individual or group. Meetings were held throughout the State and several were combined with other

conferences, such as the NM Rural Water Association annual Statewide Technical Training Conference,

in an effort to include other interested parties not identified on the original list. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

New Mexico’s Capacity Development strategy permits the Department to identify and assist troubled

systems and to address those that present the highest public health risk. NMED will initially focus on

water systems serving fewer than 3,300 people. The partnership, operator certification, and compliance

programs which are currently available, coupled with new initiatives, will ensure continued assistance to

PWSs in the State. Finally, continued stakeholder involvement through the Drinking Water Bureau

Advisory Group, will enable the Department to receive feedback on programs and initiatives, make

improvements to the strategy, and focus on assisting those systems most in need of TMF improvements. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

NMED had divided the strategy into three phases: those activities that are currently being implemented

that may need improvement, additional activities that will be developed and implemented within the next

three years, and future initiatives. 
98

New York

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) formed a Steering Committee comprised of a

small group of individuals with a working knowledge of capacity development issues. The Steering

Committee members met twice to define a process through which the strategy would be developed and to

identify additional stakeholders that should participate in that process. 

NYSDOH convened a Stakeholders meeting by contacting and inviting the stakeholders and interested

parties identified by the Steering Committee. The Stakeholders were asked to participate in the

development of the strategy by participating on the Criteria and Assessments Working Group, the

Barriers and Incentives Working Group, or the Capacity Enhancement Working Group.

The Working Groups reported directly to the Stakeholders Group which provided recommendations to

NYSDOH. Based on a recommendation from the Stakeholders group, the Department decided to present

a Draft strategy to the public. After a series of 14 public meetings used to solicit public comment on the

Draft strategy, NYSDOH provided responses to comments and incorporated the ideas and suggestions of

the public into the strategy where appropriate.

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

The Criteria and Assessment Working Group established criteria for identifying systems lacking TMF

capacity, a five-step method for prioritizing those systems, and criteria to evaluate the TMF capacity of a

PWS. NYSDOH adopted the evaluation criteria and method for prioritizing systems and is working with

other State agencies and the local health departments to identify systems lacking TMF capacity.

The criteria that NYSDOH (and other State Agencies) will use to identify systems with inadequate

capacity include those systems:

• In significant non-compliance.

• In violation of an MCL, treatment technique (TT), or major monitoring requirement.

• In violation of significant sanitary code requirements.

• With potential MCL violations due to upcoming regulatory changes or trends in contaminant

levels.

• Needing source water protection (identified through a source water assessment).

• Applying for DWSRF assistance.

• With significant deficiencies (identified through a sanitary survey).

• With fiscal concerns (identified though annual financial reporting requirements).

• Applying to become a new PWS within a municipality that already has a water district.

• With repeated emergency outages or are unable to respond to a specific emergency.

• Requesting assistance to improve capacity.
99

NYSDOH in conjunction with the County and Local Health Departments will assign a priority level to

those systems needing assistance. NYSDOH’s method of prioritizing systems includes:

• Systems having a critical need (SNCs, MCL violators, or repeated emergency outages).

• Systems having a serious need (TT, major monitoring or significant sanitary code violators,

facing significant potential violations, or with sanitary survey deficiencies).

• Systems demonstrating a need although not critical or serious.

• Systems that request assistance.

• All other PWSs.

Once the systems are identified and prioritized, NYSDOH will coordinate system self-assessments to

evaluate the current status of the system, determine the needs of the system, and identify the type of

assistance that would best serve those needs. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

The Barriers and Incentives Working Group identified 320 factors at Federal, State, and local levels that

enhance or impair capacity. The Group ranked and prioritized the 165 factors that impair capacity and

provided short term (within the next year) and long-term solutions to a number of factors. A prioritized

list of short-term barriers and their proposed solutions are listed below:

• Lack of formal coordination among funding organizations could be overcome by creating a

committee that would, on a regular basis, bring together the various funding organizations. This

unified group would develop a consistent approach to providing funding and financial assistance.

• Public lack of knowledge on capacity issues could be overcome by providing incentives for

participation in training opportunities and providing public outreach and education.

• The lack of up-front money for project engineering and planning could be overcome by

providing support for, or making, short-term grants or loans.

Over the next few years, NYSDOH should: simplify overly burdensome rules and regulations, provide

training and assistance to increase understanding of regulations, encourage PWSs to periodically review

their rates, review community financial statements in order to identify fiscally stressed communities,

review rate structures of DWSRF applicants, and develop rate setting and rate review guidelines. 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

The Capacity Enhancement Working Group adopted the Capacity Enhancement Resource List (The List)

which identifies and describes the programs, services, tools, and other resources that are available to

assist PWSs. A companion Users Guide helps those that are unfamiliar with water systems operations

find appropriate resources. NYSDOH will use The List to match the needs of each system to existing

assistance programs. 

The Department, in conjunction with City and County Health Departments, State Agencies, and TA

providers, will assist systems in complying with the NPDWRs through already existing regulatory and

financial programs, and activities such as the Sanitary Survey and Comprehensive Performance

Evaluation (CPE) Programs, Small Water System/Self-Help Program (provides guidance to communities
100

on project alternatives, costs of chosen and alternative projects, consultant selection, project priorities

etc.), Source Water Assessment and Wellhead Protection Program, Public Service Commission (PSC)

activities, enforcement activities, and training programs. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

The Capacity Enhancement Working Group recommended to NYSDOH that it should review the law

that encourages the merger of school districts to collect information for ideas on how to encourage

cooperative arrangements among water systems; provide systems with grants or low interest loans for the

planning, legal, and engineering activities involved in restructuring; and more actively encourage the

formation of cooperatives. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

The Department has updated its operator certification regulations to reflect the minimum required by the

1996 SDWA Amendments. NYSDOH will continue to require operators to attend ongoing training

session in order to maintain their certifications. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

Based on the recommendations of the Criteria and Assessment Working Group, NYSDOH will use

compliance data, sanitary survey and CPE data, and information gathered from the capacity evaluation to

establish a capacity baseline for each system. NYSDOH will also measure improvements by examining

whether the system has corrected previous violations and is currently in compliance, has corrected

deficiencies identified through a sanitary survey or CPE, and has demonstrated improvements in capacity

as compared to a previous evaluation. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

NYSDOH convened a small group of individuals with some background in capacity development issues

to define the process of developing the strategy, and to identify additional stakeholders. This Steering

Committee identified an extensive list of potential stakeholders and interested parties that NYSDOH

invited to form a Stakeholders Group. The invitees were drawn from Federal, State, and local

governments; water providers; associations; environmental organizations; public interest groups; and

technical service providers. 

To ensure the input of many interested parties, NYSDOH also conducted a series of statewide public

workshops. Over 4,000 invitations were sent to potentially interested parties and the Stakeholders were

encouraged to invite other interested individuals and groups. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

NYSDOH has adopted criteria for identifying which PWSs are in need of assistance and a priority

ranking system. The identification and ranking of systems will ensure targeted assistance to those

systems with the greatest needs. A system that meets any one of eleven criteria will be evaluated, in
101

order of priority, by NYSDOH, a County Health Department, or another State Agency. The assessment

consists of the completion of a capacity evaluation form, and a review of compliance data and results

from a recent sanitary survey or CPE. NYSDOH has also adopted criteria for evaluating the capacity of

PWSs, and will use these criteria to set a baseline on which to measure improvements, identify the type

of assistance required by the PWS, and identify the available resources. 

The Department has many existing programs through which it can provide technical and financial

assistance. There are many State, County, and Local agencies that provide assistance to systems. 

NYSDOH acts as the coordinator of capacity enhancement activities and has asked the other State

agencies, and its partners, to provide information on specific system needs. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

NYSDOH plans to continue using a Stakeholder process to review the strategy and its implementation.

The Department also plans to work with its many partners in implementing the capacity development

strategy including: City and County Health Departments, PSC, Environmental Finance Center, Office of

the State Comptroller, Department of State, Department of Environmental Protection, New York State

Association of Regional Councils, New York Rural Water Association, Rural Community Assistance

Program, Tug Hill Commission, and USDA Rural Development. NYSDOH and its partners will work

together to identify systems in need of assistance and then provide targeted assistance that will be both

efficient and effective. Any State agency or the State’s partners can accept a formal request for a

capacity evaluation ensuring wide access to the assistance the State can provide. 
102

North Carolina

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

North Carolina’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) invited potentially

interested parties and stakeholders to participate on a Capacity Development Advisory Committee. The

Committee met five times between October 1998 and March 1999. At each meeting, the Committee

reviewed draft proposals; and provided input, recommendations, and direction on the development of the

capacity development program. The Committee also reviewed draft proposals and rules prepared by

DENR’s PWS Section. 

In order to develop and implement an effective capacity development program, DENR had to promulgate

new rules. The Department presented the proposed rules to the Commission for Health Services (CHS). 

The public was invited to attend the meeting and DENR mailed a notice to all CWSs, NTNCs, and to a

list of professional engineers. The PWS Section received no public comments. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

DENR will identify systems in need of TMF assistance by using the following tools:

• The State’s SNC list.

• Sanitary surveys and TA.

• Administrative penalties.

• TA from North Carolina’s Rural Water Association (NCRWA).

• Through examination and approval of engineering plans and specifications and the completion of

a Water System Management Plan required of all systems planning to alter or expand existing

infrastructure.

The State does not provide information on the methods or criteria that will be used to prioritize systems. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

DENR identifies the State’s primary regulations as factors that encourage the development and

maintenance of capacity in PWSs and does not identify factors that impair capacity. 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

DENR will continue to implement many existing programs and activities to assist systems with meeting

applicable standards and monitoring requirements. The revised Rules will play a large role in assuring

system compliance since any system wishing to alter or expand infrastructure must first receive approval

from the Department. Approval is contingent upon the submission of a Water System Management plan
103

that includes managerial and financial information, and engineering plans and specifications. The State

will use this information to identify system deficiencies and to target needed assistance.

DENR recently mailed a Monitoring Status & Sampling Schedule report to each CWS and NTNCWS. 

The report provides the dates of last compliance samples and when the next samples are due, and entry

point identification codes and the frequencies that each entry point must be tested. System officials were

asked to verify and change any incorrect information, and to return the report to the Department. 

DENR also recently began providing Compliance Inspection Reports (i.e. field generated Notice of

Violation) to streamline the inspection process, has used a DWSRF set-aside to fund three full-time

Environmental Technician positions, and has initiated enforcement and oversight activities on transient

systems, revised the administrative penalty matrix to provide a greater deterrent, and entered into a

contract with the North Carolina Rural Water Association to proved TA to small water systems. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

Systems must include a consideration of alternative plans for meeting water supply requirements in their

Engineering Reports. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

Four State agencies, North Carolina Water Works Operators Association, NCRWA, North Carolina

American Water Works, and PWS Section, currently work cooperatively to train operators. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

DENR will gather the following data to establish a baseline and will evaluate it on an annual basis to 

measure improvements:

• The number of systems with approved plans and specifications.

• The number of systems with a complete Water System Management Plan.

• The number of systems with a submitted engineer’s certification.

• The number system projects with a submitted owner’s certification.

• The number of systems with appropriate certified operator in responsible charge.

DENR will also track the number of water supply intakes with complete Wellhead Protection Plans

and/or Source Water Assessments. The Department will evaluate trends. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

In May 1995, DENR established a Viability Task Force to restrict the proliferation of new nonviable

systems and to enhance the viability of existing systems. Using information from the Task Force, the

PWS Section created a list of potentially interested parties and stakeholders. The PWS Section sent a

letter to everyone on this list inviting them to participate in the development of the Capacity

Development Program and to serve on the Capacity Development Advisory Committee. The Committee

included representatives from State water associations, utilities commissions, engineer associations,

home builders associations, and various State government staff. 
104

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

The work of the Viability Task Force, beginning in May 1995, provided a foundation from which the

State’s Capacity Development Program was developed. Stakeholders, many of whom were members of

the Viability Task Force, provided direction and guidance to DENR during the development of North

Carolina’s strategy. Based on this input, the Department revised the Rules Governing Public Water

Systems “to provide the primary components of the strategy to improve the capacity of existing systems.” 

The Rules, found in North Carolina’s Administrative Code, establish the capacity development program. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

DENR intends to periodically reconvene the stakeholder Committee to gather suggestions and guidance

for revisions to the strategy. 
105

North Dakota

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) held a public hearing to gather input on a draft

capacity development strategy. The Department sent personal invitations to interested stakeholders and

published an announcement about the hearing in local newspapers. NDDH allowed the submission of

public comment for one week following the hearing. 

After the hearing, the Department prepared a responsiveness summary which was included in the final

strategy document. The Summary detailed all of the comments and how the Department considered

them in finalizing the strategy. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of TMF

Assistance

NDDH developed an identification process based on a number of existing data sources and a

prioritization system that assigns points to systems that meet, or fail to meet, certain criteria. Systems

are evaluated based on compliance history, monitoring, and operator certification violations; sanitary

survey results; and delinquent laboratory payments. Any system earning more than 10 points will be

considered a priority system. These system will be asked to complete a self evaluation.

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

The Department identified 24 factors that encourage capacity, and 24 factors that impair capacity. 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

The Agency has several existing tools which aid systems in complying with State and federal

regulations, including working relationships with other agencies and organizations, TA programs,

sanitary surveys, and enforcement programs. In response to public comment, the Department is

developing a self evaluation which will assess TMF capacity of PWSs and identify areas of capacity

improvement. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

The strategy does not mention a plan to encourage partnerships between PWSs.

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

NDDH currently provides training and certification to PWSs through the operator certification program.
106

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

The Department will use statistical and compliance data currently monitored by the ND Drinking Water

Program to establish a baseline against which it will measure improvements. Specifically, the

information the Department plans to use includes the number and type of PWS, population served,

compliance history, monitoring and reporting violations, and the State’s SNC list. 

The Department also plans to track the number of requests for capacity assistance, the number of site

visits conducted by the Department, the number of contracted TA site visits, and the number of

contracted TA training sessions as a way of measuring improvements to systems. The more capacity

assistance provided, the more improvements the State should see in a systems capacity. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

The Department used a list of stakeholders which was developed for other capacity development efforts

to solicit comment on the draft strategy. The Department invited several organizations to the public

hearing including RWA, North Dakota Water Coalition, North Dakota Water Users Association, PWSs,

US Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, North Dakota Department of Public Instruction,

North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department, North Dakota State Water Commission, Associated

General Contractors of North Dakota, North Dakota Municipal Bond Bank, North Dakota State

Plumbing Board, North Dakota Manufactured Housing Association, North Dakota Association of

Builders, North Dakota Association of Realtors, North Dakota Bankers Association, Midwest Assistance

Program, North Dakota Association of Counties, North Dakota League of Cities, Local and District

Health Units, North Dakota Consulting Engineers Council, Consulting Engineers, and Regional Planning

Councils.

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

The NDDH capacity development strategy is a comprehensive tool to assist systems with capacity

development related efforts. The prioritization method will enable the Department to rank systems and

to provide assistance to those systems which pose the most significant threat to public health. By

examining existing information to establish a baseline, the State will identify system deficiencies and

provide targeted assistance that will effectively meet the needs of the system. The combination of

existing programs with the development and implementation of a self evaluation tool will enable the

Department to assist systems with compliance. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

NDDH planned to begin implementing the strategy during August 2000. The Department will prioritize

systems and then identify the systems lacking adequate TMF capacity. 

In July of 2001, and annually thereafter, the Department will re-prioritize the systems to be able to

evaluate the progress of the capacity development program and the effectiveness of the tools used to

assist systems. 
107

Ohio

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) contacted a variety of stakeholders from inside and

outside the Agency to form a Workgroup whose purpose was to develop a draft of the capacity

development strategy. The Workgroup also identified additional representatives and invited them to

participate in a series of meetings. OEPA solicited comments on each element of the strategy. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

OEPA will use a Capability Assurance Screening Checklist during sanitary surveys to identify PWSs in

need of TMF assistance. The Agency’s priorities are as follows: 

• First: making sure DWSRF applicants submit capability assurance plans and systems implement

the recommendations made during CPEs required under the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment

Rule. 

• Second: Ensuring that systems implement the corrective actions required by the results of a

sanitary survey.

• Third: Negotiating voluntary capability assurance remedies as part of enforcement actions

against SNCs.

• Fourth: Tracking and encouraging voluntary implementation of capability assurance

recommendations made during a sanitary survey or voluntary CPE. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

OEPA identified 17 factors that encourage capacity and 11 factors that impair capacity. The Agency

plans to try to reduce or eliminate the factors that impair capacity by continuing to encourage training;

providing TA referrals; and by encouraging networking among systems, industry associations, and State

staff. 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

The Agency has several existing programs which aid systems in complying with State and federal

regulations, including providing TA, developing and disseminating guidance documents, and providing

referrals to TA providers and planning assistance. In response to sanitary survey results, the Agency also

sends each system a letter which establishes compliance requirements and recommendations to improve

compliance. 
108

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

The Agency currently supports many initiatives which encourage partnerships between PWSs. As part

of the current program, the Agency works to maintain a positive, open, non-adversarial relationship with

water systems, and works with industry associations to encourage networking with, and outreach to,

water systems. OEPA plans to continue recommending partnership alternatives to systems that lack

capacity, promoting the benefits of cooperation between local communities, and encouraging equitable

water service agreements. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

OEPA will provide regional training seminars for small water systems, lend support to the Operator

Training Committee of Ohio, and refer water systems to TA and training providers. The Department is

also considering using the operator reimbursement provisions of SDWA §1419(d) to improve the

training and certification program.

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

The Agency plans to evaluate improvements to a system’s capacity on an annual basis. OEPA will

examine the number and percent of enforcement referrals containing capacity provisions, the number

and percent of systems passing capability assurance screens, the number and percent of systems in

compliance with drinking water rules, and the number and percent of Water Supply Revolving Loan

Fund Account (WSLRFA) applicants denied loans due to lack of capacity. Numbers will be compared

from year to year. 

The State’s DRINK database will be used by OEPA staff to track compliance data, and capacity data will

be added to the electronic database as they are developed. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

In order to identify interested stakeholders and solicit comments on the draft strategy, the Agency invited

several organizations, including: OEPA staff, Public Utilities Commission, AWWA, RWA, Ohio Water

Development Association, PWSs, lending institutions, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Housing and

Urban Development, Department of Commerce, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ohio Public Works

Commission, Ohio Department of Development, Ohio Consumer’s Council, Ohio Townships

Association, Ohio Municipal League, Ohio Home Builder’s Association, Ohio Nursing Home

Association, Ohio Hospital Association, Ohio Industrial Association, Great Lakes Rural Community

Assistance Program (GRCAP), and League of Woman Voters to a series of meetings which focused on

the development of the draft strategy.

OEPA also announced a public comment period in major Ohio newspapers, mailed Workgroup members

a copy of the draft strategy, and posted a draft of the Ohio Capability Assurance Guidelines on the

State’s drinking water Web site. 
109

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

OEPA has developed and adopted criteria for ranking PWSs in order to identify and prioritize

systems most in need of TMF assistance. Using this methodology, the Agency will address those systems

which pose the most significant threat to public health first, and then assist PWSs with TMF deficiencies

found as a result of sanitary survey inspections. The Agency also plans to continue using several tools

and resources that assist systems with compliance, encourage partnerships, and assist with the training

and certification of operators. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

The strategy does not mention specific plans for implementation and future evaluation. 
110

Oklahoma

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) invited stakeholders to participate in

several capacity development meetings to solicit input on each of the five SDWA §1420(c) elements

included in a draft of the State’s capacity development strategy. During the last meeting, participants

provided input on each of the elements through a series of discussion groups facilitated by The New

Mexico Environmental Finance Center (EFC). 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

ODEQ plans to use three already existing lists to identify and prioritize systems in need of TMF

assistance. The lists will provide the Department with a description of the system and the types of

violations or deficiencies that need to be corrected. 

The Department will address systems in the following order: 

• Those that pose the most significant threat to public health. 

• Those that are not in compliance with SDWA. 

• SNCs.

• Those that are not meeting enforcement milestone requirements.

• Those that request TMF assistance. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

The stakeholders group and ODEQ identified 11 factors that encourage capacity and 6 factors that impair

capacity.

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

To assist PWSs with compliance, ODEQ plans to continue to use its current authorities (e.g., frequent

sanitary surveys and small system TA), and to develop and implement new initiatives such as:

C The development of the Area Wide Optimization program. This pilot program is dedicated to

optimizing the performance of surface water treatment facilities by optimizing particle removal

and disinfection at all filtration plants.

C Establishing an Oklahoma Funding Agency Coordinating Team (FACT). FACT will streamline

the funding process and avoid duplication of efforts by several industry associations and State

Departments involved with capacity development funding initiatives.
111

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

DWSRF applicants that include regionalization as a component of the planned project are awarded

priority points. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

Although ODEQ offers several operator certification programs and educational opportunities minor

revisions to the operator certification program regulations are necessary. The Department plans to

develop these changes and implement them once they are promulgated. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

ODEQ will determine a baseline against which it will measure improvements by gathering information

provided in PWS inspection forms and by compiling data from SDWIS and other State databases. The

Department will evaluate systems based on a series of key indicators including:

• For surface water systems: total number of monthly turbidity exceedances and the number of

quarterly THM exceedance.

• For ground water systems: nitrate and total coliform violations.

• For all systems: the average yearly score each system receives on their system inspection form.

In order to measure improvements, the number of exceedances and violations, and the inspection form

score will be compared from year to year. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

ODEQ developed a thorough list of interested stakeholders using a list of groups and individuals who

had previously attended capacity development meetings and discussions. The Department sent personal

invitations to over 40 State, federal, local, and private organizations to gather information on the

Capacity Development strategy. Some of the stakeholders included: Consulting Engineers Council of

OK; Department of Agriculture; Department of Commerce; assorted Divisions within ODEQ; EPA

Region 6; Indian Health Services; Oklahoma Department of Health; Rose State College; Oklahoma

Water Resources Board; selected cities, municipalities, and rural districts; AWWA; CRG; League of

Women Voters; Oklahoma RWA; and several selected engineering firms.

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

ODEQ believes the responses to each program element constitute a cohesive strategy to improve

capacity in Oklahoma PWSs. ODEQ’s methods to identify and prioritize systems will enable the

Department to assist systems most in need of TMF assistance, improve public health protection, and

increase compliance rates. New programs, including the Area Wide Optimization Program and

Oklahoma Agency Coordinating Team, are positive initiatives which will aid systems. The addition of

new initiatives will serve to strengthen the programs that have been in place for several years. 
112

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

ODEQ has already begun to implement several programs including the FACT and Area Wide

Optimization Program. The Department plans to maintain contact with stakeholders as the Capacity

Development strategy is implemented. 
113

Oregon

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

During 1998, the Drinking Water Advisory Committee (DWAC) began developing the State’s strategy

for assisting existing PWSs in achieving or maintaining capacity. The DWAC is a standing committee

of the Oregon Health Division (OHD) formed to assist in the development of new regulations and advise

the Division on drinking water issues and Program design and administration. The DWAC developed a

Report of Findings (the Report) which it presented to OHD. 

OHD conducted four workshops to solicit public comment on the Report of Findings. Invitations were

sent to all the PWSs in the State. DWAC combined the comments and the Report of Findings into a

summary report which was reviewed by a DWAC subcommittee. The subcommittee presented a draft

strategy to the full DWAC, which presented recommendations for the design and implementation of a

capacity development program to OHD. OHD then revised the draft strategy based on the

recommendations of the full DWAC. The revised draft was unanimously accepted by the DWAC. 

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

To prioritize systems, OHD is using a risk matrix made up of risk factors relative to compliance

problems. There are 6 risk factors: health/water quality, monitoring and reporting, certified operator,

sanitary hazards, source susceptibility, and master plan. The specific violations related to each risk

factor are assigned a risk level (high, medium high, medium, medium low, and low), and each risk level

corresponds to a certain number of points. The systems with higher scores are a higher priority. 

OHD applies a weighting factor based on the size of the system.

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

In the Report, the DWAC identified 67 federal, State and local factors that enhance capacity

development; and 58 federal, State, and local factors that impair capacity development. The Committee

identified 34 factors that should receive attention. OHD considered the DWAC’s recommendations

while drafting the strategy. 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

OHD’s strategy is comprised of 5 programs: the Capacity Assessment Program, Information Services,

Training Program, Public Educations Programs, and Outreach Programs. The Division will implement

existing programs, and has proposed adding new activities, some of which are described below. 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

OHD will conduct capacity assessments to identify system deficiencies, educate operators and water

system personnel, and make corrective action recommendations. From the results of the assessment, the

State will recommend additional managerial or operator training, TA, and other ways of increasing

capacity. 
114

OHD is also planning to expand its existing training programs for managers and administrators of PWSs,

engineers, and operators. Additional training opportunities will increase the regulatory understanding of

those most intimately involved with the management and operation of the water system. Additional

outreach includes the development of:

• Additional guidance documents to help systems prepare emergency response plans and water

system plans.

• Advance guides for computer analyses.

• Worksheets and tools to organize and assess problems.

• Management self-evaluations.

• Videos for instructions on water system operations, the cost of producing safe water, public

communications, financial training, rates and budgets, water system management, etc. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

OHD will develop and implement an outreach program whereby knowledgeable employees from large

systems would provide assistance to smaller systems. The large systems will enter into an agreement

with the State who will provide funding for the outreach. This voluntary program will foster cooperation

among systems and encourage the formation of partnerships and other types of cooperative

arrangements. 

Through the Operator Training Program, the State plans to sponsor interactions among system operators

and conduct interactive group meetings, teleconferencing, and problem solving sessions. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

OHD plans on expanding the current training topics and methods of receiving training (i.e. home study,

video, on-line computer, and media training courses). 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

OHD will use the prioritization risk matrix (described above in Element A) to establish a baseline. 

Those systems at risk will be evaluated through the use of the capacity assessment, and the Division will

provide the system with a list of corrective actions. OHD will contact the systems six months after the

capacity assessment for a status report, and will conduct a follow-up capacity assessment six months

later. The results of the follow-up assessment will be used to re-rank the system using the risk matrix. 

The ranks will be compared to determine the level of improvement, and whether additional assistance is

necessary. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

The DWAC membership represents a broad base of organizations with interests in drinking water

including the League of Oregon Cities, Conference of Local Environmental Health Supervisors, Oregon

Association of Water Utilities, Consulting Engineers Council, League of Women Voters, Special

Districts of Oregon, Oregon Environmental Health Association, Association of Official Analytical
115

Chemists, Conference of Local Health Officials, American Water Works Association, and water system

owners. 

DWAC concluded that additional key interest groups should be invited to participate in the development

of the strategy. Certain key interest groups were appointed to the DWAC, and those not formally

appointed were allowed to attend the Committee meetings. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

OHD’s risk matrix will identify those systems most in need of assistance, and establish a baseline against

which improvements will be measured, and which will allow the Division to effectively allocate

resources. When taken together as a whole, the 5 Programs address TMF capacity issues. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

The State has created three new staff positions for the implementation of the capacity development

program, and plans to begin the hiring process after EPA approval of the strategy. A Capacity

Development Program Coordinator will be responsible for the overall coordination and implementation

of the Capacity Development Programs, including the Information Services Program, Training Program,

Public Education Program, and Outreach Program. A Capacity Assessment Coordinator will conduct

capacity assessments and an Information Specialist will implement the program elements for the

Information Services Program. OHD is planning to issue contracts for the development of training

guides and videos, and to conduct the outreach program activities. 

OHD has developed a program development and implementation time line that takes into consideration

implementation costs and level of effort. The State plans to conduct the initial implementation activities

over the next three years. 

The success of the program will be measured to some extent by seeing an increase in the percent of the

population served by water systems meeting drinking water standards with adequately treated surface

water supplies, and with drinking water protection programs. Also, OHD will consider the program a

success if the number of systems on the SNC list decreases. 

Revisions to the capacity development program will occur through a public participation process and will

be presented to the DWAC for consideration.

 
116

Pennsylvania

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) formed a joint Central and Regional

Office Steering Committee to develop Pennsylvania’s Capability Enhancement strategy. To solicit

additional public comment, DEP sent a draft of the strategy to key stakeholders; published a notice in the

PA Bulletin informing the public that the draft was available for comment; and created an interactive

Web site for the Capability Enhancement Program, on which it posted all meetings, position papers, and

drafts of the strategy. An e-mail station on the Web site provided “direct and instantaneous public input

and response.” 

DEP also presented the draft and solicited input at Regional Office Roundtables, and at State water

industry association meetings and annual conferences. Public comments were summarized and included

in the strategy document.

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

Pennsylvania’s Priority Rating System (PRS) addresses CWSs and NTNCWSs separately. The issue of

how to rate transient water systems will be reevaluated as the current program is implemented and

additional resources become available. Pennsylvania’s Drinking Water Inventory System (PADWIS), an

existing database, stores and analyzes the priority rating factors. 

PRS uses a two-tiered set of rating factors, both objective (tier 1) and subjective (tier 2) analyses. The

objective factors (11 for CWSs and 3 for NTNCWSs) correspond to an assigned point value: the higher a

system’s numerical score, the greater the noncompliance. After the objective analysis, the highly rated

systems are analyzed under the subjective factors including willingness to cooperate with the program,

status of any litigation against the system, financial feasibility of improvement, size and type of

population served, and special considerations. NTNCs have one additional subjective factor: 

availability of water to meet demands of customers. Each system is then assigned a category of high,

medium, or low priority.

All CWSs and NTNCWSs are rated annually. Each of the six DEP regions must nominate six high

priority systems for participation in the Capability Enhancement Program. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

DEP identifies PENNVEST, Pennsylvania’s Infrastructure Investment Authority, as a program that

encourages capacity. The program provides low-interest loans and grants, and is a source of millions of

dollars for needed improvements. DEP also identifies demographics, local government organization, past

resource development, and State program practices as impairments to capacity development. 
117

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

DEP verifies the accuracy of the PRS data and performs a Comprehensive Evaluation of each high

priority system, identifying capability enhancement needs and potential service providers. Following

this evaluation, an Assistance Implementation Plan (AIP) or “a well conceived action plan for change” is

developed. An AIP, which can be either “site-specific” or “global” (i.e., regional or Statewide),

addresses the system’s needs, and transfers the services to meet those needs. An AIP will contain,

among other things, general system information and history, verification of PADWIS data, evaluation of

PRS rating factors, regional and district office recommendations, discussion of TMF issues, capability

enhancement needs, a correction plan, service providers, and a schedule for delivery of services.

The Division of TA and Outreach delivers improved training and assistance programs to system owners

and operators. In addition, the expanded role of the Environmental Training Partnership provides a

broader base of on-site assistance to water supplies. Contracts with Pennsylvania Rural Water

Association and the Rural Community Assistance Program provide new assistance services, including

data collection to support financial needs assessments. Other efforts by DEP Regional Training Teams,

AWWA, Pennsylvania Small Towns Environmental Program, Business Planning Program, and

Engineering Services Contract Program also assist PWSs with compliance.

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

The Consolidation and Construction Grant program provides grants to eligible systems to implement a

consolidation or regionalization plan. In addition, regionalization study grants have made regional

feasibility studies possible.

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

The amended Operator Certification Act improves training and testing, and requires continuing

education. It also assists PWSs through the development of standards for training providers, the support

of a basic training center, and the development of distance learning capabilities. The ability to provide

Web based training will improve the capabilities of systems throughout the State.

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

Each year, every CWS and NTNC system in the State will be rated numerically by objective TMF factors

(tier 1) in Pennsylvania’s PRS (described in Element A). By comparing one year’s total point value to

the next year’s total, DEP is able to determine if a system’s assistance needs are increasing or decreasing. 

If the program is successful, the priority rating values should decrease. 

DEP will also use the PRS to measure regional and statewide improvements. Regions are measured by 

two factors: “number of hits,” or number of times an answer to a rating factor generates rating points;

and “total points,” or sum of all points assigned for a region for a specific factor. In this manner, DEP is

able to determine if a region’s needs are increasing or decreasing. Totaling the numbers for all regions
118

will determine the State’s overall needs. The “global” approach can identify overall program

weaknesses, and will allow the Department to develop programs that address common needs.

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

Pennsylvania’s DEP identified interested stakeholders including government organizations and

community based associations. The principal contributor to the public participation process was the TA

Center for Small Water Systems. The Center’s membership represents a broad view of the State’s water

suppliers. In addition, the joint steering committee included regional program managers, district

supervisors, and permit engineers from all six DEP regions. The Committee also included

representatives from related Divisions within the Bureau of Water Supply Management.

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

DEP’s recent initiatives and existing programs provide a solid framework to implement Pennsylvania’s

Capability Enhancement strategy. The strategy itself includes a PRS, a Comprehensive Evaluation of

targeted systems to further define their assistance needs, an AIP to implement a successful program, and

an annual reevaluation of targeted systems to measure improvement or lack of success.

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

DEP hired three new full-time Capability Enhancement Facilitators (CEFs), each of whom will

administer the Capability Enhancement Program. Working with the regional staff, the CEFs will

determine the capability needs of a drinking water system, design a plan to deliver services, identify

assistance providers, coordinate and oversee the delivery of services, and determine if a system’s

capabilities have been enhanced. DEP proposes to use SRF set-asides to finance the three CEF positions

and foster partnerships with assistance providers who offer crucial tools for the implementation aspects

of the Program. 

In addition, the joint Central and Regional Office Steering Committee is responsible for the oversight

and coordination of the Program’s implementation. During implementation, appropriate changes will be

made based on solicited public comment. The Steering Committee will evaluate the successes and

shortcomings of the program during the initial implementation year. 
119

Puerto Rico

The Department of Health (DOH) implements the drinking water program for the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico. In Puerto Rico, there are 203 community water systems owned and operated by the Puerto

Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA), and 283 community and non-community water systems

not owned by PRASA (non-PRASA). The PRASA systems serve 97 percent of the population and the

non-PRASA systems serve 3 percent of the population. DOH began to implement a compliance strategy

for non-PRASA water systems in 1996, and one for PRASA systems in 1997. These strategies form the

core of Puerto Rico’s capacity development strategy. Since they are markedly different, each section

below has separate subsections for the PRASA and non-PRASA strategies.

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

Non-PRASA strategy

The original non-PRASA compliance strategy was developed by a committee that included Federal,

State, and local government agencies; private and non-profit public water systems; and consumers. The

Committee began meeting in 1996 and has met monthly since then. In April 2000, the Committee

discussed the SDWA §1420(c)(2) elements to be included in a capacity development strategy. The

Committee had 30 days to comment, after which it met again to evaluate comments. 

In June, a public notice was published in a major newspaper announcing a 30-day public comment

period. Following review of the comments, DOH prepared a responsiveness summary and finalized the

strategy.

PRASA strategy

DOH sent PRASA a letter in April 2000 explaining the Department’s position on the SDWA §1420(c)(2)

elements, and provided 30 days for PRASA to comment. In June, DOH sent the draft strategy to PRASA

for comment. DOH followed the same public notice schedule and procedures described above.

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

Non-PRASA strategy

Puerto Rico has a multi-layered method to prioritize non-PRASA water systems. First, DOH reviews the

sampling, inspections, and sanitary surveys data to identify systems that may be in need of assistance. 

DOH also considers the water source (ground or surface water) and whether the water is obtained from 

PRASA or non-PRASA connections. 

The non-PRASA enforcement strategy strives to reduce the number of significantly noncompliant

systems and improve water quality for as many people as possible in the shortest time span. DOH and

US EPA share enforcement responsibilities: EPA issues administrative orders for surface water systems
120

and DOH does so for ground water systems. Systems are categorized based on the number of people

served and the amount of time required for compliance. Priority for action is as follows:

• Systems having PRASA and non-PRASA water sources.

• Non-PRASA communities near PRASA communities.

• Non-PRASA communities that disinfect, but obtained positive bacteria samples.

• Non-PRASA communities that received educational and TA.

PRASA strategy

Priority is given to water systems in violation of the surface water treatment rule and those with acute,

primary, or action level violations. The next priority is systems with deficiencies that present a serious

risk to public health. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

Non-PRASA strategy

DOH identified 23 Federal, State, and local factors that impair capacity development and 18 factors that

encourage it. Impairments include the island’s topography, lack of trained personnel and resources at the

system level, and lack of coordination with other agencies such as U.S. Geological Survey and the Fish

and Wildlife Service during the permitting process. Factors that encourage capacity include staff

dedicated to non-PRASA systems; and the public-private Partnership for Pure Water (PPW), which

provides disinfection equipment at a low cost.

PRASA strategy

DOH identified 17 Federal, State, and local factors that impair capacity development, and six factors that

encourage it. Impairments include the location of sources in relation to system location, lack of

knowledge of disinfection equipment and processes, and inadequate training leading to poorly operated

and maintained systems. Factors that encourage capacity include the formal enforcement process, DOH

staff dedicated to PRASA systems, and an interagency committee of government agencies and private

entities involved with PRASA systems.

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

Non-PRASA strategy

DOH has administered the non-PRASA strategy since 1996. DOH established the Interagency NonPRASA Committee to provide ongoing review of the strategy and its implementation. DOH also works

with the PPW to reduce significant noncompliance. DOH awards grants and contracts for pilot and

demonstration projects, TA, and disinfection equipment.
121

PRASA strategy

Similarly, DOH has been implementing the PRASA strategy since 1997. DOH uses grants and loans to

provide technical and educational assistance, and to purchase and install disinfection equipment.

To facilitate implementation of a compliance and enforcement strategy, DOH established comprehensive

performance evaluation (CPE) teams. CPEs are used to determine whether a system is unable to comply

with the regulations. PRASA has received financing in excess of $1.3 billion from several sources to

implement a capital improvement program (CIP). The CIP is a five-year program designed to modernize

PRASA’s physical infrastructure, which will significantly improve compliance.

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

Where non-PRASA systems using a non-PRASA source of water are located in or near communities that

also have a PRASA water source, DOH encourages them to eliminate the non-PRASA source, if the

PRASA source can absorb the additional demand.

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

Non-PRASA strategy

DOH prepares educational, technical, and operational manuals; and conducts training for non-PRASA

systems. It also contracted with the University of Puerto Rico to develop a reference manual. DOH will

develop an operator certification program and additional training and guidance for small system

operators.

PRASA strategy

PRASA has an independent training program for its operators to ensure that they are trained according to

the classifications of their treatment plants.

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

Non-PRASA strategy

DOH will establish a baseline against which it will measure system improvements by examining the

system’s compliance (by source, with various SDWA rules) and general operation (process control

requirements: equipment and maintenance; and managerial, financial, staffing, and training issues). 

Each of the measures is assigned a weight. DOH will determine progress by calculating an annual

weighted average and comparing it to the initial measurement. 

PRASA strategy

PRASA will use the same general approach, but will not distinguish among water sources. PRASA also

uses a slightly different formula to calculate the weighted average.
122

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

DOH convenes a monthly meeting of the non-PRASA Strategy Committee. The Committee widely

represents government agencies, water systems, and consumers. Similarly, an Interagency Committee

meets regularly to discuss PRASA issues. The membership of both Committees has expanded over time.

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

DOH believes the elements it has selected for its PRASA and non-PRASA programs constitute strategies

that will be successful in achieving the goal of compliance with applicable statutes and regulations.

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

Non-PRASA strategy

DOH will continue to monitor progress through the writing of an annual Achievements Report.

PRASA strategy

DOH will continue to demonstrate improvements in a series of reports submitted to EPA. 
123

Rhode Island

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Rhode Island Department of Health (DOH), Office of Drinking Water Quality (ODWQ), solicited

public comment at an Earth Day/Drinking Water Week festival; through the distribution of a Strategy

brochure along with a system Self-Assessment Survey; and via e-mail, “Usenet news groups,” and the

web.

ODWQ also formed a Capacity Development Advisory Committee which met twice: once to discuss the

factors that encourage and impair capacity; and again to review the results of the Self-Assessment

Surveys, and to examine the draft Strategy and the Public Education Program. ODWQ posted the draft

materials, the Self-Assessment Survey results, and drafts of the Strategy on the DOH Web site. 

Comments and recommendations were incorporated into the Strategy where appropriate. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

ODWQ identifies systems in need of TMF assistance by examining the following on an annual basis: 

• Compliance data (the SNC list, Sanitary Survey results, and staff knowledge).

• DWSRF data (application materials, the project priority list, disadvantaged community status,

and Intended Use Plans). 

• PWS data (consumer confidence reports, source water assessment program data, operator

certification, and consumer complaints).

• Annual license renewal data.

• Self-Assessment Surveys.

With this data, ODWQ assigns each system a priority level: 

• Level 1: No assistance recommended. Systems currently in compliance that will be monitored to

ensure continued compliance with regulations.

• Level 2: Assistance recommended. Systems currently in compliance that would benefit from

assistance.

• Level 3: Assistance required. Systems not in compliance that can be brought into compliance

via assistance. DWSRF funding will be used to assist these systems.

• Level 4: Enforcement required. Systems not in compliance that cannot be brought into

compliance via assistance. Enforcement action will be taken against these systems. 

Level 3 systems that can be brought into compliance are the highest priority. Level 2 systems that can 

become Level 1 systems with technical or financial assistance are of next highest priority.

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

The Capacity Development Advisory Committee identified 49 factors that encourage capacity. These

include current programs, the State’s small size, and plan review requirements. The Advisory
124

Committee also identified 52 factors that impair capacity, including water quantity, urban sprawl,

consumer apathy, and complex regulations.

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

ODWQ and the Advisory Committee identified the current sampling program, the new system

application process, the source water assessment program, and the DWSRF program, as existing

initiatives that help systems achieve and maintain compliance. ODWQ will modify the sanitary survey

process to include an assessment of all TMF capabilities. ODWQ will take advantage of existing

programs to expand public education and conservation. 

One future tool that will assist systems with compliance is the new licensing and enforcement

management software program (“License 2000”) that allows DOH staff access to a PWS’s license

applications, license renewal information, compliance status, public complaints, and accounting. Sample

and Sanitary Survey results, along with operator certification can also be tracked through this new

program. Other new initiatives include the Self-Assessment Survey, DWSRF Outreach for small

systems, and consumer confidence reporting assistance for small systems. ODWQ intends to publish a

newsletter that focuses on the “small and very small” PWSs in the State. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

The Self-Assessment Survey includes questions about a systems interest in local or regional partnerships

and mergers.

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

The State’s current operator certification program assists PWSs with the training and certification of

operators. Additional PWS training and TA, a potential future initiative, will be used to better assist

system operators. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

ODWQ ranks all existing systems and new TNCWSs by the methods described in Element A. The

August 2000 data will serve as the baseline against which the State will measure improvements. All

system data and information will be stored in the new License 2000 system. ODWQ anticipates that

through this system, trends of violations and consumer complaints will “quickly become apparent.” 

Improvements are indicated by progression from a higher priority level to a lower one. Continued ability

to maintain a high level of compliance, especially as new regulations evolve, also indicates

improvement. ODWQ will send follow-up Self-Assessment Surveys to all systems in September 2001

and September 2003. Improved responses from PWSs will indicate greater awareness and understanding

of capacity development. Improved staff awareness of capacity development within the DOH and other

State and federal agencies also indicates program success. Finally, ODWQ notes that a greater
125

percentage of participation in TA programs will indicate improvements in capacity development within

the State.

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

ODWQ held a “brainstorming session” to develop the initial stakeholder’s list. The Office used the

PWSs inventory database to contact PWSs and invited the Source Water Assessment Program Advisory

Committee to become members of the Capacity Development Advisory Committee. The Advisory

Committee included representatives from industry associations, ODWQ staff, regional EPA, water

supply boards, environmental consultants, and others. ODWQ also conducted a web search to identify

additional public interest and conservation organizations.

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

ODWQ will prioritize and rank systems every year to allow for targeted and timely assistance. With

their strategy, Rhode Island hopes to “shift PWS attitudes away from a reactive, ‘bare minimum required

by regulation’ mind set towards a pro-active, customer service attitude.” Throughout the development of

the State’s strategy, ODWQ collected suggestions, comments, and feedback from a wide cross-section of

State drinking water stakeholders. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

In general, ODWQ notes that the State’s record of providing safe drinking water, along with a high

public awareness of environmental protection and the beneficial “hands-on relationship” between PWSs

and State regulators, help with all aspects of capacity development within the State. ODWQ mentions

that 60% of the State’s residents receive their water through one single water system, while the vast

majority of other systems in the State are TNCWSs. Rasing awareness among TNCWSs is a challenge

for ODWQ. Thus, the State’s new programs set out to focus on capacity development awareness,

education, and communication.

Rhode Island’s Capacity Development strategy will be implemented primarily by ODWQ, with

assistance from other State agencies and TA providers. The implementation of the State’s strategy will

be ongoing. As work continues on the strategy and as ODWQ receives feedback on the programs, the

strategy will continue to evolve. In addition to the annual data measurements that will measure system

improvements, Self-Assessment Surveys will be sent out to PWSs in May 2001 and May 2003 to help

evaluate the success of the Capacity Development Strategy. 
126

South Carolina

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (Department) began to consider

drinking water system “viability” when making permitting decisions before the 1996 SDWA

Amendments. In the spring of 1995, the Department assembled an Ad Hoc Committee to assist with

developing a set of criteria with which to evaluate the viability of new systems and a strategy with which

to enhance the viability of existing systems. Twenty-two agencies, organizations, and governing bodies

were represented on the Committee. The full Committee met a total of six times and developed a set of

recommendations for the Department. Committee members were requested to assist with the

development of new regulatory language necessary to implement several of the recommendations. The

proposed revisions were made available for public comment and the Committee was asked to help the

Department address public comments.

South Carolina continuously solicits ideas from the public on ways to improve its capacity development

strategy. The strategy is posted on the Department’s Website (http://www.scdhec.net/water/) and is

periodically featured in newsletter articles.

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

South Carolina relies on its sanitary survey program to identify and prioritize PWSs most in need of

improving TMF capacity. During the sanitary survey, the Department’s inspector completes an

evaluation form, and then assigns a rating of “satisfactory,” “needs improvement,” or “unsatisfactory.” 

An unsatisfactory rating indicates that there is a lack of TMF ability to consistently comply with State

drinking water requirements. Currently, sanitary surveys are conducted on a periodic basis. The

Department’s goal is to conduct annual surveys on CWSs and NTNCWSs and survey all other systems

every three years. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

South Carolina has several requirements in place that enhance the capacity of its public water systems. 

These include the sanitary survey program through which the Department identifies the systems most in

need of improvements, a mandatory construction and operating permit process, and a business plan

requirement.

The Department identified a lack of coordination between State and local governments as an impairment

to capacity. To help address this problem, the State made regulatory changes requiring communication

between the Department and the Public Service Commission, and the Department and local governments.
127

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

If the overall rating on a system’s sanitary survey is “unsatisfactory,” the system owner will be required

to develop and submit a business plan as a condition of the operating permit. The plan must demonstrate

how the system will be managed in the future to ensure its long term viability. Technical assistance with

developing a business plan is provided to small systems (serving up to 10,000), and a detailed guidance

document was prepared to help all public water systems develop a plan. DWSRF set-asides will provide

funds for business plan assistance for small systems. 

South Carolina has also prepared a series of detailed guidance documents to help water systems obtain

necessary permits and evaluate their own capacity. These documents, along with the business plan

guidance, are available on the Department’s Website (http://www.scdhec.net/water/). The Department,

in conjunction with other State agencies and organizations, has developed a public education strategy

which will include the distribution of benchmark information, training on how to prepare a business plan,

and sanitary survey training. 

South Carolina’s State-run monitoring program for public water systems is yet another way in which the

State is assisting systems with compliance. Although the program has been largely funded through an

annual fee charged to each water system, each year the Department requests an appropriation from the

General Assembly to reduce and/or eliminate the annual fee. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

The Department encourages water systems to utilize economies of scale by assigning a higher ranking on

the DWSRF project priority list to projects involving consolidation or regionalization. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

In accordance with South Carolina Environmental Certification Board (Board) regulations, “every two

(2) years, [operators must] provide evidence of having completed twelve (12) hours of relevant

continuing education.” The Board provides useful information on operator certification to system

owners and operators through its Website (http://www.llr.state.sc.us/ecb.htm). 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

The Department will examine a system’s business plan, including annual financials to establish a

baseline against which to measure improvements. The Department will also analyze compliance rates

and sanitary survey results.

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

The Department invited numerous State agencies and other governing bodies, industry associations, and

relevant private organizations to participate on the Ad Hoc Committee. A total of 22 were agencies and

organizations were represented.
128

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

The primary focus of the State’s strategy is to encourage, and in some cases require, public water

systems to develop business plans. The State’s TA efforts and guidance documents help systems to

create sound business plans and to evaluate TMF capacity.

All of the program elements in South Carolina’s strategy were developed through an extensive public

involvement process and the Department has been implementing some of the elements for several years. 

The State is confident that these factors working together have helped to create a sound capacity

development strategy for existing water systems.

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

The Department will look for a reduction in the number of unsatisfactory sanitary surveys for tangible

evidence of the program’s success. Compliance with the monitoring and reporting requirements of the

State Primary Drinking Water Regulations will also be used to help measure the success of the program.
129

South Dakota

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) formed a Capacity

Development Technical Advisory Group (CDTAG). This group provided public input, proposed criteria

that existing systems should strive to meet, and discussed and commented on each of the five SDWA

§1420(c)(2) program elements. DENR posted meeting summaries, materials presented at the meetings,

and the draft Strategy on a Web site developed for CDTAG and the public. A press release notified the

public that the draft was available for review and comment. 

Two public meetings, held over the State’s Rural Development Television Network, presented a draft of

the strategy to the public. All relevant comments were listed in South Dakota’s Capacity Development

strategy for Existing Public Water Systems.

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

CDTAG specified information that DENR could use to identify systems in need of assistance including

DENR’s Drinking Water Database, SNC list, “Pre-SNC” list, Sanitary Survey information, DWSRF loan

applications, State Water Plan applications, Consumer Confidence Reports, Source Water Assessments,

reports from TA providers, and the Municipal Leagues’ Water Facilities Report. 

CDTAG modified the prioritization system developed by the State of Oregon to better fit the needs of

South Dakota. The prioritization system uses the categories listed below to rank systems most in need of

assistance:

• Health/Water Quality (information currently in database).

• Monitoring and Reporting (information currently in database).

• Certified Operator/Operations (information currently in database).

• Sanitary Hazards (information to be collected from sanitary surveys).

• Financial Capacity (information to be collected by a financial survey sent to all systems).

• Source Susceptibility (information to be collected from source water assessments).

Within each category are numerous factors that when matched to a system’s current situation will result

in a risk classification of high, medium high, medium, medium low, or low. DENR prioritized systems

in March 2001 using the first three categories and financial data. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

CDTAG identified 18 factors that enhance capacity, including DENR’s Drinking Water Program, Water

Rights Program, Water and Waste Funding, and the Ground Water Quality Program. CDTAG identified

44 factors that impair capacity, including impairments at the federal, State, and local levels.
130

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

In order to provide needed assistance, DENR contacts high risk systems and obtains further information

through an enhanced sanitary survey (which includes financial and managerial information) or a capacity

assessment worksheet. DENR will also continue to provide training and TA programs, issue

enforcement actions, and conduct source water assessments. 

Future initiatives include public education, or more specifically, news releases, water bill inserts, public

meetings, and education through public schools. In addition, DENR plans to implement board member

training on financial and managerial issues, and to develop a Water System Planning Manual to address

all capacity issues and a Drinking Water Handbook on statues and regulations. DENR plans to use

DWSRF set-asides to provide more technical and financial assistance.

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

DENR notes that their cooperation with other organizations fosters the development of partnerships

between PWSs.

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

DENR will continue to implement the State’s Operator Certification Program.

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

DENR will use the following information to establish a baseline against which it will measure

improvements:

• Drinking Water Program benchmarks (measured each quarter): number of systems, population

served, systems with MCL and monitor/reporting violations, and systems with no violations.

• SNC list.

• Number of certified operators.

• Volume of capacity activity: number of capacity assessments completed, number of TA site

visits, number of training sessions given, and number of “enhanced” Sanitary Surveys

completed.

The information will be periodically examined to determine if the program is successful. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

CDTAG, whose members represented drinking water organizations, associations, and systems from

across the State, identified additional stakeholders who were then invited to participate in CDTAG

meetings. In order to involve other stakeholders, DENR held public meetings over television, posted the

draft strategy on the Web site, and issued a press release to notify the public of the availability of the

draft strategy. 
131

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

DENR has developed methods to identify systems in need of assistance, prioritize those systems based

on the risk the system presents to public health, and to measure improvements in the systems which will

allow the State to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the capacity development strategy. DENR has

also examined current programs, and has developed additional programs and activities that will help

systems achieve and maintain compliance with drinking water requirements. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

DENR started developing the new tools for the capacity development program during the summer of

2000 and will begin to prioritize systems around the same time. Any systems classified as a high risk,

will be contacted immediately and asked to begin the capacity development process. DENR plans to reprioritize systems during January 2001 and quarterly thereafter. DENR will continually evaluate the

State’s capacity development program. 
132

Tennessee

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

In developing its capacity development strategy, the Tennessee Department of Environment and

Conservation’s (TDEC’s) Division of Water Supply (DWS) engaged in a dialogue with stakeholders, the

regulated community, and members of the general public. DWS assembled a working committee to

consider the Capacity Development strategy and to suggest modifications. The Committee consisted of

representatives from PWSs, environmental groups, and the water supply industry. Stakeholder meetings

were held with the Tennessee Association of Utility Districts (TAUD), Municipal Technical Advisory

Service (MTAS), and the Small Community Outreach and Education Committee. The State’s draft

strategy was also made available on TDEC’s Web site. Citizens and stakeholders were encouraged to

comment via telephone, e-mail, or letter. 

DWS staff summarized the comments obtained through these forums and discussed their incorporation

into the strategy. Every comment was considered and addressed in the strategy. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

DWS will use compliance data, sanitary survey results, DWSRF loan applications, audit reports, operator

certification information and reviews by the Water and Wastewater Financing Board and Utility

Management Review Board to identify systems with inadequate capacity. CWSs and NTNCWSs that

are SNCs and Potential Significant Non-Compliers (PSNCs) will be given top priority for assistance. 

DWS will give high priority to DWSRF applicants who must meet TMF capacity requirements in order

to obtain funding. During the second and subsequent years of the program, the priority will include

NTNCWSs that are SNCs and PSNCs, with an emphasis on systems with inadequate financial capacity. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

The factors that encourage capacity development in Tennessee include the creation of the State’s

Operator Training Center, design standards, inspections, TA, and an effective enforcement program. 

Tennessee identified 16 other factors that encourage and, in their absence, impair capacity development. 

For instance, without knowledgeable and experienced commissioners and/or managers, PWSs are less

able to comply with the many requirements of SDWA. To address this need, DWS, in partnership with

TAUD and MTAS, will offer management training to the State’s PWSs (see Element C below). 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

C TMF Assistance. DWS will offer TA to SNCs and PSNCs. Existing CWSs seeking DWSRF

loans and systems referred to DWS by the Division of Municipal Audit and other financial

review boards will also receive financial and managerial assistance, as necessary. 
133

In the second and third years of the program, NTNCWS SNCs or PSNCs that are in need of

financial capacity assistance will receive a Financial Self-Assessment Manual from DWS. The

manual will help systems to determine the source of their problem and to develop a financial

capacity plan. The Division will determine the need for the Self-Assessment through an

interview with the system.

C Management Training. DWS will work with TAUD and MTAS to develop resource materials

for utility district commissioners, council members, aldermen, mayors, city managers, and water

system managers. Using these materials, TAUD and MTAS will schedule and conduct training

events through the State. DWS will encourage management personnel from noncompliant

systems to attend these events. 

C Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). DWS will encourage all PWSs to develop and adopt

SOPs for operations, maintenance, and troubleshooting. Systems with a history of

noncompliance will be required to develop and adopt SOPs. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

Tennessee statutes, regulations, and policies do not require capital improvement planning or

regionalization studies. Water systems do not have to determine the feasibility of interconnection, nor do

they have to examine the financial impacts of annexation, acquisition, or consolidation. Furthermore,

funding is sometimes available for the creation of smaller, stand-alone water districts whereas it is often

unavailable to existing systems that wish to extend their service areas. These legal and financial factors

create a disincentive for partnerships. DWS will meet with the TDEC Policy Office to try to address

these issues and to clarify and strengthen the regulatory language that encourages consolidation “insofar

as feasible.”

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

The State has established an Operator Training Center for water and wastewater operators and requires

all PWSs to employ certified operators. For more information on Tennessee’s operator training

resources, see http://www.State.tn.us/environment/dca/fleming.htm.

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

DWS will use its SNC List (submitted to EPA in August 1997) as a baseline. The State will adjust the

baseline to incorporate systems that become SNCs as new rules are promulgated. Decreases in the

number of systems on the SNC list will provide a measure of the improvement in capacity among PWSs

in Tennessee. Improved sanitary survey scores and increases in the number and technical classification

of certified operators will also indicate improved capacity. 

 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

DWS sent information on the proposed Capacity Development Rules (including both the program for

ensuring capacity in new CWSs and new NTNCWSs and the existing system strategy) to all 1,191 PWSs
134

in Tennessee. Three public hearings on the rules were held in 1999. PWSs, certified operators,

industries, and environmental groups expressing interest in the Rules were sent copies of the draft

Capacity Development Strategy and added to the Capacity Development Committee. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

In developing its strategy, Tennessee recognized that many technical capacity assistance activities are

already in place, including operator certification, plans approval, and sanitary surveys. The State also

recognized that it cannot provide additional assistance to all systems. Therefore, Tennessee’s strategy

focuses attention on the financial and managerial capacity of systems that have attained SNC or PSNC

status. This approach allows Tennessee to direct available resources towards those systems most in need

of help, and offers them types of assistance they may not have otherwise received. Tennessee’s strategy

also focuses on building partnerships with other State agencies responsible for financial reviews or other

activities related to capacity development. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

Implementation efforts have included drafting the strategy, identifying and involving interested persons,

and developing partnerships with other organizations to prepare for future activities, such as the

TAUD/MTAS management training sessions. 

Direct assistance initiatives will begin in the first year of the program with a focus on CWSs that are

SNCs or PSNCs. In the second and third years, efforts will be directed towards NTNCWSs that are

SNCs or PSNCs and towards other NTNCWSs lacking financial capacity.

Also during the second and third years of the program, DWS will re-evaluate the strategy and incorporate

revisions as necessary. The Division will work with its training partners to evaluate and amend the

resource materials and to evaluate the success of past training sessions. 
135

Texas

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Texas Natural Resource and Conservation Commission (TNRCC) held three stakeholder meetings to

gather input on the State’s capacity development strategy. The first meeting was an input session, the

second was an opportunity for stakeholders to comment on a draft of the strategy, and the third meeting

allowed stakeholders to comment on the capacity development activities that TNRCC had already begun

to implement. Input was gathered through small group discussions with report-out sessions. The

information obtained through the meetings was used to develop the final strategy. 

TNRCC also met with the Drinking Water Advisory Work Group, the Texas Water Development Board,

and the different funding agencies in the State; distributed a draft of the strategy to over 200

stakeholders; and presented information on the strategy at trainings and conferences. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

TNRCC has developed several methods by which systems are identified and prioritized including:

C Prioritized Assessments. All systems serving 15,000 people or less are included in the

prioritization data model developed by TNRCC. The model prioritizes systems by assigning

point values to specific weaknesses, including health compliance factors, enforcement status,

susceptibility to drought conditions, and sanitary survey results. These indicators are gathered

using on-site assessments, DWSRF assessments, CPEs, SWP programs, and business/TMF plan

reviews. The systems with the highest priority points are scheduled for an on-site TMF

assessment. 

Any system with 3 or more deficiencies, identified during the TMF assessment, will be required

to complete a corrective action plan (CAP), will be continually monitored, and required to

complete a follow-up inspection with the State. Systems with less than three deficiencies may be

referred to any one of several divisions/sections within TNRCC for assistance. In all cases,

TNRCC will conduct an exit interview with system management after each assessment to judge

its effectiveness.

C DWSRF Assessments. TNRCC conducts on-site assessments of systems on the DWSRF project

priority list that have indicated an interest in applying for a loan, to determine if the system has

sufficient TMF capabilities. TNRCC provides assistance and ensures that any appropriate

changes are made to the system before DWSRF monies are allocated. 

C Consolidation Assessments. TNRCC will conduct a consolidation assessment to determine the

incentives and barriers to consolidation. If consolidation is recommended, TNRCC helps the

system develop and execute a consolidation plan. 
136

C Directed Assistance. Systems with less than 3 deficiencies (as described above) are referred to

the different sections/divisions within TNRCC. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors that Enhance or Impair Capacity

TNRCC identified the following factors and programs, among others, that enhance or impair the capacity

of PWSs: implementation reports (prepared by systems that have completed CAPs); quarterly reports

from TNRCCs’ contract service provider; research conducted by the Region 6 Environmental Finance

Center on rates, establishing a method of assessing affordability of treatment techniques, and the

operating characteristics of a well-run water system; regular stakeholder meetings; integration of

information between TNRCC and rate-making regulatory programs; and sanitary surveys. 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

Along with many existing programs including training and outreach activities, TA programs, on-site

assessments, phone and mail correspondence, drought response referrals, surface water optimization

program, and Web sites, TNRCC is in the process of creating a new contractor TA site visit program for

all PWSs in the State. The Commission has also developed a process to ensure systems will not receive

DWSRF funding until improvements are made, or systems will require improvements as part of the

project. In addition, all DWSRF applicants must take part in a detailed on-site TMF inspection by

TNRCC staff or contractors prior to receiving funding. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

TNRCC has taken several steps to encourage partnerships between water systems in Texas, including:

C Defining regionalization (partnerships) and including several scenarios in the definition to help

systems understand current industry terminology and field practices.

C Creating regional planning groups to address water supply problems on a regional basis.

C Promulgating strict requirements for proposed water systems.

C Requiring systems to demonstrate that they have attempted to obtain water service from a system

within two miles before issuing a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCNs).

C Performing consolidation assessments on those systems that request one or if TNRCC feels such

an assessment is necessary.

C Training staff on the importance of partnerships, regionalization, and consolidation.

C Developing a guidance document titled “The Feasibility of Regionalization.” 

C Allowing investor owned utilities that purchase other water systems to include an acquisition

adjustment in the cost of service for rate setting purposes.

C Providing information on consolidation and partnerships at workshops, seminars and

conferences. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

The TNRCC has promulgated new operator certification rules to ensure operator training is available on

a more frequent basis and that continuing education is required of all operators. TNRCC also plans to

improve the training program for distribution and treatment operators.
137

A unique aspect of the Texas strategy includes providing a basic water production course to high school 

students interested in pursuing a career in the water production business. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

In order to establish the baseline, TNRCC examined all types of water systems. The Commission 

determined the baseline must include both systems with and without adequate capacity in order to

provide a clear picture of the status of water systems in the State. To identify systems with adequate

capacity, TNRCC examined any assessment information, health and compliance data, whether the

system had a certified operator, deficiency scores, and enforcement actions. In total, 1,237 of the 4,473

systems in Texas exhibited adequate capacity. 

In order to measure improvements, TNRCC will analyze how the goals of the strategy are being met. 

The goals of this strategy include: the number of systems in compliance and the percentage of systems

this represents; the percentage of the population served by systems in compliance with SDWA; a

comparison of the number of systems on the SNC list from year to year; the number of systems that are

required to improve TMF capabilities; loan dollars distributed to systems in need of improvements in

treatment capability, and; the number of courses, training sessions, publications, and follow-up

assistance offered by TNRCC. 

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

TNRCC had three stakeholder meetings to gather input on the strategy. The Commission also worked

with the Drinking Water Advisory Work Group whose meetings are attended by, among others, the

League of Women Voters, Consumers Union, AWWA, the Texas Rural Water Association, the

Independent Water & Sewer Companies of Texas, Association of Water Board Directors, Texas Water

Conservation Association, Texas Engineering Extension Service, Texas Municipal League, and Texas

Society of Professional Engineers. 

The Commission has planned a marketing scheme (to increase awareness in the program), which

involves making presentations, developing publications, preparing handouts and brochures, and

developing a Web site. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

The Texas Capacity Development strategy represents a comprehensive package to assist PWSs in

achieving and maintaining capacity. The identification and prioritization initiative will enable TNRCC

to assess the systems most in need of TMF assistance based on compliance and health effects data. 

These systems will be identified and will receive assistance from several sources in order to return to

compliance. New compliance, partnership, and operator certification initiatives will enable TNRCC to

continue to offer new programs and incentives to systems for the purpose of achieving and maintaining

capacity. Continued implementation efforts and periodic evaluations will ensure the program is indeed

improving the TMF capacity of those systems affected by the program. 
138

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

A capacity development strategy has been in place in Texas since 1997. Water system on-site

assessments and assistance were implemented in 1998. Together, the two programs have achieved

several positive results, including: the completion of 657 PWS TMF capacity assessments, assisting 685

PWSs in the development of a CAP to address root causes of noncompliance or to address system

specific issues. Sixty-three water systems were assessed for potential consolidation, and so far, 3

consolidations have been successfully completed, and others are pending resolution.

Because most of the activities described above are performed by a third party contractor, TNRCC

performs monthly QA/QC to monitor the performance of the contractor and the effectiveness of the

program. TNRCC staff also accompany contractors on site visits, and call and send written surveys to

PWS personnel. The surveys enable owners and operators to express their opinions about the program

and the assistance they received. 

Every one to two years, the renewal of contracts for on-site TA provides an opportunity to evaluate and

change the program. During this process contract tasks and deliverables are identified, and cost/benefit

analyses are performed to ensure the goals of the Capacity Development program are being met. 
139

Utah

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

Both the Utah Drinking Water Board (DWB) and Division of Drinking Water (DDW) have authority to

regulate Utah’s PWSs. The DWB used funds from the DWSRF set-asides to fund the development of

regional drinking water management plans in 26 of the State’s 29 counties. The regional planning

process aimed to solicit comments from the water systems and customers most directly affected by the

results. 

Each county commission appointed a Region Administrator (RA) who was responsible for creating the

Region Plan for the county. Each RA scheduled an initial public meeting and advertised it in local

newspapers. Representatives of each PWS in the county were encouraged to attend. At the initial

meeting, the RA explained the scope of the work, and participants were asked to serve on one or more 

regional planning committees including source protection, operator certification, monitoring

requirements, technical analysis, financial analysis, managerial analysis, and funding sources. The Rural

Water Association of Utah, the Local Health Department, and the DDW staff assisted at local meetings,

and, along with the RA, advised the committees. The committees were the prime source of input in the

regional planning effort, and the RA recorded all comments and recommendations made by the

committees. 

The RA and the local committees selected a qualified Consultant who then performed a thorough 

technical and financial analysis of each water system. The Consultant used past sanitary surveys, maps,

engineering plans, and other available information to provide an analysis. 

The Consultant submitted draft copies of the technical and financial data to the RA, who then gave it to

each PWS in the Region. Each PWS had the option to accept or reject the recommendations of the

Consultant. The Consultant reviewed the input from each PWS, and incorporated it into the final Region

Plan submitted to the RA.

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

DDW has developed a list of violations with a corresponding point value which is based on the severity

of the infraction. DDW evaluates a PWS’s compliance record and based on the total number of points,

rates the system as “approved,” “corrective action,” or “not approved” A point accumulation equal to or

greater than: CWSs--150 points, NTNCs--120 points, and NCWS--100 points results in a “not

approved” rating. The “not approved” rating remains in place until the threat to public health is alleviated

or the violation is corrected. 
140

A “not approved” system may qualify for a “corrective action” rating, if the PWS submits the following

three items:

• A written agreement stating a willingness to comply with the requirements of the Administrative

Rules.

• A compliance schedule outlining the necessary construction or changes needed to correct any

physical deficiencies or monitoring failures.

• Proof of financial ability to correct the deficiencies.

The “corrective action” rating continues until the total project is completed. 

DDW uses this rating system to identify which systems are most in need of assistance and then to

prioritize the provision of assistance including site visits, administrative orders, hearings, penalties, and

court action. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

The strategy documents submitted to EPA by DDW did not include the identification of factors that

enhance or impair capacity. 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

DDW will continue to implement programs and activities that assist systems with compliance, including: 

• Plan review and the issuance of operating permits for facility expansions.

• Loan program.

• Source protection program.

• Sanitary Surveys.

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

DDW established the Utah Water Quality Alliance which consists of the largest surface water suppliers

in Utah, and small- and medium-sized systems that operate water treatment plants. The Alliance

provides networking opportunities for PWSs. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

All systems serving more than 800 people, and all systems with treatment plants, must have a certified

operator. Information on the State’s Web site provides operators application and renewal application 

forms, information on books and tapes available from the Lending Library, practice exam questions, a

link to view accumulated Continuing Education Units as recorded in the Division's database, and a one

year training calendar. 
141

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

Utah will use the violation point system (described in Element A) as a means of establishing a baseline. 

DDW will compare the number of systems receiving an “approved” rating to measure success. In

addition, improvement will also be measured by the number of systems receiving TA from DDW, the

RWA of Utah, or Local Health Departments. DDW will also track the number of self-assessment

checklists completed by DWSRF assistance applicants and unapproved systems.

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

RAs advertised public meetings in local newspapers and sent a Draft of the Regional plan to each PWS

in the Region. Representatives of each water system in the Region were encouraged to attend the public

meetings. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

The problems facing small water systems in the State will be resolved using “education, partnerships,

and funds from federal grants.” Systems are prioritized based on the number and types of violations. 

This rating becomes the baseline against which the State will measure improvements. Utah has many

established programs that will assist systems in achieving and maintaining compliance. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

DDW has been implementing many of the programs and activities that comprise their strategy for many

years. The Division will evaluate the progress of their capacity development strategy through the

preparation of the triennial report to the Governor, required under the SDWA. The report will

summarize the results of the previous assessment and describe any changes to the procedures for

assessing TMF capacity. 
142

Vermont

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

In January 2000, Vermont's Water Supply Division (WSD) invited approximately 2000 interested parties 

to become members of a Capacity Development Advisory Workgroup that would help to develop the

State’s capacity development strategy. Fifty volunteers came forward to participate in the Advisory

Workgroup, and met initially to devise a work plan, set out a schedule, and identify other interested

public participants. The work plan called for WSD meetings, owner/operator meetings, and Statewide

stakeholder meetings to gather input on the five strategy elements listed in the SDWA. 

WSD held eight owner/operator public meetings to obtain comments and recommendations on the

development of the draft strategy and Advisory Workgroup meetings to draft the strategy.

WSD posted meeting results, public comments, and strategy documents on their Web site. WSD also

mailed the dates of the public meetings, the location of the draft strategy online, and the deadline for

public comment, to over 2,500 owners, operators, and stakeholders. 

WSD and the Advisory Workgroup reviewed all public comments, responding where appropriate. The

comments and suggestions received at the owner/operator meetings and from the Advisory Workgroup

form the basis of Vermont's capacity development strategy. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

Vermont chose not to prioritize PWSs in need of assistance since technical and financial assistance

providers are able to lend assistance to all systems that request it. WSD identifies the systems in need

through sanitary surveys, compliance monitoring, and other frequent contacts with the systems. In the

event that the number of systems needing assistance exceeds the available resources, WSD plans to

prioritize systems according to the following factors: 

• DWSRF priority list status.

• System ownership (municipal, private non-profit, private profit).

• System type (CWS, NTNC, TNC).

• System size (design population) and number of permanent residents. 

WSD may use criteria from other prioritization schemes (i.e., Planning Loan Fund and Source Water

Protection Loan Fund, enforcement actions, and operator certification) to further prioritize systems and

determine assistance needs. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

WSD identified 7 factors that encourage the achievement and maintenance of capacity in PWSs. Most of

these factors are existing programs, such as operator training, facility evaluation, sanitary surveys, source
143

water/wellhead protection, and loan programs. WSD also notes that the knowledge of WSD staff and

other TA providers in the State contributes to the development and maintenance of TMF capacity. 

The stakeholders and WSD identified 16 factors that impair the capacity of PWSs in the State. As part of

the State’s capacity development strategy, WSD will initiate new programs and activities to address

these impairments. Element C provides a further discussion of these new initiatives. 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

WSD will continue to implement existing activities such as permit plan and review, sanitary surveys, and

sampling and reporting to assist systems with meeting applicable standards and monitoring requirements. 

Financial assistance provided through the Rural Development Program, the Community Development

Block Grant program, the DWSRF, the Planning Loan Program, the Source Protection Loan Program,

the Source Water Assessment Program, and the Facility Evaluation Program, also assists systems with

compliance. WSD also uses the Source Water Assessment Program and the WSD Enforcement

Committee to discuss noncompliant systems and appropriate actions to be taken. 

WSD plans to initiate a monitoring cost study to evaluate the options, advantages, disadvantages, and

impediments to providing systems with financial assistance for compliance monitoring activities. Other

initiatives include:

• DWSRF program changes to make the program more responsive to small systems.

• Contracting with a third party provider to help systems prepare loan applications and municipal

agreements.

• Engineering TA to help small systems with O&M issues.

• The development of small system O&M manual, long range plan, and financial documentation

templates.

• TA to help water system develop budgets and analyze and establish user rates. 

• A possible contract to a TA provider to help small system with public service board rate change

procedures (contingent upon agreement by the public service board).

• Development of a board member manual, small system design criteria guidance manual.

• Publication of a newsletter to improve communications between WSD and systems.

• The establishment of a communications Workgroup.

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

WSD will contract with a third party provider to identify opportunities for physical or operational

consolidation of water systems and the advantages and disadvantages of consolidation. Small CWSs and

schools will be evaluated.

In addition, WSD is considering developing information on, and supporting, pubic-private partnerships,

“Big Brother” arrangements, and a peer review program. 
144

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

WSD, in conjunction with the Northeast Rural Water Association, the Rural Community Assistance

Program, and the Green Mountain Water Environment Association, provides water system operators

with training and certification. WSD’s Operator Certification Committee ensures the usefulness and

effectiveness of the training. In addition, WSD’s information and guidance documents update owners

and operators on regulations and policies. 

In the future, WSD plans to develop technical training and assistance through group training and one-onone assistance. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing Baseline & Means of Measuring Improvements

WSD will set the baseline against which they will measure improvements by examining data collected

by June 30, 2000. On June 30th every year thereafter, the State will review the data and compare it to the

previous year. Baseline data will include:

• Regulatory activities: the number of deficiencies in TOPs; the number of systems with Long

Range, Source Protection, and Bacteriological Sampling plans; the number with approved O&M

manuals; and the number with TMF capacity criteria.

• Compliance data: the number of systems out of compliance with water quality monitoring and

reporting requirements, and the number out of compliance with Consumer Confidence Reports.

• Operator certifications.

• Other indicators of capacity: the number of systems on boil water and “do not drink” orders, and

the number requiring facility improvements.

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

WSD sent an invitation to participate on the Capacity Development Advisory Workgroup to over 2000

stakeholders, including PWSs, local and State agencies, system operators and employees, TA providers,

environmental organizations, and the general public. Over 50 individuals responded. The Advisory

Workgroup identified additional interested stakeholders, who were then encouraged to participate

through the public meetings and during the public comment periods.

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

WSD solicited and considered public comments during the development of their strategy. The strategy

targets the factors that impair capacity as identified by the stakeholders and assistance will continue to be

provided to all systems in need. The Division has decided to implement many new programs and

activities targeted to assist systems with compliance. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

WSD will implement Vermont’s capacity development strategy with assistance from other State agencies

and TA providers. WSD will reevaluate the strategy periodically and make adjustments for

improvement where necessary. 
145

The Capacity Development Advisory Workgroup will continue to meet to provide recommendations,

suggestions, and comments on the new initiatives and on the strategy's implementation. WSD will

continue to solicit public comment through invitations to participate at the Advisory Workgroup

meetings, posting information on the State Web site, publishing newsletters, and soliciting additional

public comment where appropriate. 
146

Virginia

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) presented a framework for the development of the State’s

Capacity Development strategy at the Virginia Waterworks Advisory Committee’s (WAC) March 18,

1999 meeting. At this meeting VDH also discussed SDWA requirements, the schedule for completing

the strategy, and the stakeholder involvement process. Specific members from VDH staff, along with

members from the WAC, formed a Capacity Development strategy Team (TEAM). The TEAM

developed the goals and objectives of the strategy and also provided input into the elements of the

strategy.

VDH solicited public comment through a public comment period in the VA Register, as well as posting

the capacity development strategy document on-line at the VDH Web site. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

VDH identifies systems in need of TMF assistance and prioritizes them according to the following

methods:

C Overall Capacity Assessments. The Overall Capacity Assessment consists of the following four

factors added together:

• Waterworks Compliance Factor: Measures the waterworks ability to meet current SDWA

requirements. Data will come from the existing PWS database that contains basic

waterworks information and compliance histories.

• Waterworks Condition Factor: Information gathered from sanitary surveys including system

condition, and operation and maintenance data. 

• Waterworks Managerial and Financial Capacity Factor: New information that may be

obtained from sanitary surveys. 

• Waterworks Future Regulation Impact Factor: VDH staff determines whether or not existing

waterworks will meet new requirements. Regulations to be evaluated include Operator

Certification, Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, Stage 1

Disinfection/Disinfection By-Products Rule, and the Ground Water Rule. 

• VDH DWSRF staff assess all waterworks targeted to receive DWSRF funding. VDH DWSRF

staff rank waterworks with insufficient TMF capacity, and place them on the DWSRF project

priority list. The systems receive assistance according to the order they appear on the list. Prior

to receiving DWSRF funding, a system must submit and receive approval of a Comprehensive

Business Plan (CBP). 

The prioritization lists are given to VDH’s Oversight Committee. The Committee assesses a system’s

assistance needs and refers the system to a TA provider. Prior to referral, the Committee plans to obtain

VDH Field Office concurrence on the assessment data. TNCWSs requiring assistance will be referred

through VDH’s routine surveillance program. 
147

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

VDH identified approximately 20 factors that encourage capacity including 12 DWSRF funded

activities, an abundant water supply, and the State’s comprehensive program for providing TA to

systems (specifically VDH’s contracts with third parties who guarantee certain services to systems in

need). VDH also identified 14 factors that impair capacity including the large number of independently

owned and operated systems; no discouragement of the proliferation of small, stand-alone waterworks;

and the lack of profit in the operation of most waterworks. 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

VDH identified existing programs that assist PWSs in the State with compliance including the Sanitary

Survey program, plan reviews and permitting, water quality compliance monitoring, vulnerability

assessments, TA circuit riders, and the Source Water Protection program. Compliance activities include:

C On-site assistance to systems, not exceeding one visit per 18 months, through the Sanitary

Survey program.

C Contracting with third party providers to help systems develop a CBP and providing VDH with a

progress report.

Through the use of DWSRF set-asides, VDH plans to expand its programs to provide more assistance to

systems that are in need. VDH will provide State loans or grants to enable waterworks to improve their

infrastructure, and encourage the creation and expansion of regional water suppliers. In addition, VDH

will continue to encourage and require all new waterworks to develop a CBP, and educate consumers in

low-income areas about their water rates and services. VDH will also develop programs to assist

waterworks that have a large number of low-income customers.

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

VDH indicates that existing programs, such as source water assessments, joint projects, circuit riders,

and various forms of TA already encourage the development of waterworks partnerships. In the future,

DWSRF set-asides will be used to establish a Drinking Water Peer Review Program that will pair

waterworks with industry experts. The program will be geared towards small and rural communities, but

will not be limited by size or function. VDH also plans to encourage consolidation through funding (i.e.,

DWSRF) and in compliance/enforcement actions. VDH will develop incentives for satellite

management or other types of regionalization in areas that face economic and demographic challenges. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

In addition to the current of training provided during the sanitary surveys, the present Operator training

and certification programs, the on-site contractor may assist waterworks in obtaining the proper training,

which can lead to proper certification.
148

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

VDH will use existing compliance data, sanitary survey data, and capacity assessment data to form an

Overall Capacity Assessment for every CWS and NTNCWS by July 1, 2001. All waterworks will be

assessed again after 3 years to measure improvements. The information collected by VDH from on-site

assistance providers will provide additional insight into improvements. TNC systems are not included in

the baseline assessment, “due to the relatively low public health impact associated with their lack of

capacity as well as VDH staffing considerations.”

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

Virginia’s WAC has existed since 1974, and is an ongoing committee of active, diverse stakeholders. 

The WAC, which meets every six months, makes recommendations regarding the State’s waterworks

and VDH’s water supply policies, procedures, and programs. The WAC includes members representing

water industry associations, community waterworks owners, system operators, municipal leagues, other

State government officials, and citizens. The WAC formed the core of the TEAM, a 9 member group,

that also included VDH staff. The TEAM provided input into the drafting and implementation of the

State’s strategy. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

VDH will identify and prioritize systems in need of TMF assistance either through the DWSRF

application process or through an Overall Capacity Assessment which combines both existing and newly

gathered information. In addition to prioritizing systems, the Overall Capacity Assessment also creates a

baseline against which VDH will measure improvements. Any system needing assistance will be

referred to VDH staff or a third party provider for targeted on-site assistance. 

VDH staff and the TEAM will help implement the guidance and procedures of the strategy in order to

achieve its missions and goals. VDH will ensure that waterworks are aware of capacity development

issues, requirements, and the financial and TA available through handouts, sanitary survey personnel,

and stakeholders from the TEAM.

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

VDH will perform an Overall Capacity Assessment by July 1, 2001 on all PWSs in the State. A

reassessment will be performed three years later in calendar year 2004 to determine both system

improvements and the overall effectiveness of the strategy. The Capacity Development TEAM will

continue to meet approximately once every six months to discuss the status of capacity development

efforts. 
149

Washington

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Small Water System Advisory Committee (SWSAC), formed by the Department of Health (DOH) in

1997, held five meetings to discuss small system capacity development and regulatory compliance

issues. The Committee identified 15 components that should be included in a Capacity Development

strategy such as, educating other agencies and the public, enforcing planning requirements, providing

incentives to restructuring, promoting satellite management, and providing timely and accurate operating

permits. 

The Washington Water Supply Advisory Committee (WSAC), established by the State Legislature in

1995, held 16 meetings where various aspects of capacity development were discussed. WSAC

concluded that the strategy should:

• Make systems with public health risks a priority.

• Ensure compliance.

• Enhance Training and TA.

• Resolve satellite management barriers.

• Improve outreach and communications with the drinking water community. 

The WSAC considered the comments and recommendations of the SWSAC and provided direction to

DOH. 

DOH, in conjunction with the Public Utility District Association and the WSAC, convened a Satellite

Management Agency Brainstorming Committee (SMBC). The SMBC’s 32 members identified,

categorized, prioritized, and proposed solutions to the barriers that impact the ability of a water system to

remain in compliance. DOH used this information to develop the strategy.

In addition to soliciting and considering the comments of the above described committees, DOH

conducted a number of workshops to solicit public input on the direction of the strategy including:

• SRF Workshops. DOH held 14 workshops to gather input from potential assistance recipients. 

The Department considered the comments and incorporated them into the strategy and the SRF

Loan Application process. 

• Need to Know Training Workshops. Upon the recommendations of the WSAC, DOH conducted

workshops for small systems operators to educate them on how to acquire and maintain capacity. 

The workshops provided DOH with input on specific components of the strategy and operator

and system assistance needs. 

• Small Water System Management Program Development Process and Workshops. Part of

Washington’s strategy requires all systems, not otherwise required to develop a water system

plan, to develop a small water system management program (SWSMP). The program assesses a

water system’s TMF capacity. DOH solicited comment from the drinking water community and

the public and pilot tested the SWSMP in order to refine it for future use. 

DOH posted a draft of the strategy on the Department’s Web site, presented the draft directly to staff

during three meetings, and sent the document directly to the WSAC. The comments DOH received were

evaluated and addressed to the extent feasible. DOH will continue to review public comments as the

Department implements and revises the strategy.
3 A Green permit means a system is in substantial compliance with drinking water regulations. A Yellow

permit indicates the system is in substantial compliance but does not have a current planning document, certified

operator, or has not complied with certain water quality monitoring provisions. A Red permit indicates the system is

in substantial non-compliance with drinking water regulations or a Departmental Enforcement Order. A Blue permit

means the system has not been evaluated by the Department.

4

Systems are placed on the list by department staff. DOH prioritizes the systems on the list based on the

risk they present to public health; the more severe the risk, the higher the priority. 

150

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

Systems are divided into categories based on the color of their permit3

 and whether or not they appear on

the Department’s Compliance Targeting List.4

 The highest priority is given to systems with red, yellow,

or blue operating permits and on the compliance targeting list. Systems operating with a red or blue

permit are also a high priority for DOH. Systems operating with a yellow permit are a medium priority

and systems with a green permit, but deficient in some aspect of capacity, are a low priority. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

The various stakeholder groups identified 31 factors thought to encourage, and 31 factors thought to

impair capacity development. Each factor was categorized on a local, federal, or State level according to

institutional, financial, regulatory, tax, and legal categories. 

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

DOH will continue to implement many regulatory programs and activities that will assist PWSs with

compliance. Department staff also work directly with water systems to identify deficiencies and specify

resources (including the DWSRF) that can help alleviate those deficiencies. DOH also works with a

variety of third party assistance providers who provide training and TA to PWSs.

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

DOH’s Satellite Management Program has approved 34 Satellite Management Agencies who provide

various levels of service to existing water systems. The partnerships ensure that a higher level of

operation and management services will be provided to water systems that may not have the TMF to

operate the system in compliance with regulations. 
151

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

DOH administers a regulatory program for the certification of water system operators. A system without

a certified operator will be issued a yellow operating permit indicating non-compliance with a drinking

water regulation. 

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

DOH is using a very simple equation to establish a baseline from which to measure capacity:

A + B + C = Capacity. A system will receive an A if it has a green operating permit, a B if it has a

complete water system plan or SWSMP, and a C if it has not been issued a Health Order or Departmental

Order. 

Improvements will be measured by comparing data (both individual system data and overall PWS

program data) from year to year in 24 different data categories. Examples include the number of systems

with green operating permits, the number of systems with a certified operators, the number of systems

under SMA ownership or operations, the number of water quality sampling violations, etc.

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

WSAC members are appointed by the Legislature. The Committee represents a range of drinking water

interests, including utility owners and operators, consumers and environmental advocates, industry

representatives, State senators, and local and State government officials. 

SWSAC is made up of representatives from consumer advocate groups, small water systems, investorowned utilities, non-community water systems, TA providers, local health representatives and DOH

staff. 

The SMBC is made up of 32 members representing Satellite Management Agencies, Public Utility

Districts, State Agencies, PWSs, and the private sector. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

Washington has been evaluating drinking water system capabilities for many years. DOH places systems

into five categories based on permit color (which in turn is based on compliance status) and the

Department’s compliance targeting list. Once the systems are categorized, the type and level of

assistance can be determined. Enforcement actions may be taken if TA methods do not bring the system

into compliance. Once a system has achieved adequate capacity, the State continues to monitor the

system through sanitary surveys and compliance tracking. 

Systems with similar deficiencies are grouped together and DOH may fund a project to assist the systems

in resolving the deficiency and may request assistance from one of its third party providers. 
152

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

DOH is currently implementing many programs and activities linked to capacity development. The

Department is developing a detailed implementation plan that defines specifically how the capacity

development strategy will be carried out, monitored, and amended. DOH also plans to develop:

• A communication and outreach strategy to further educate the drinking water community about

capacity development issues.

• A specific strategy to utilize third party groups and a MOU with third party TA providers.

• A new Data System to manage all PWS data.

• New set-aside funded projects to assist water system in achieving and maintaining capacity.
153

West Virginia

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

On June 8, 2000 the West Virginia Bureau of Public Health (WVBPH) held a meeting to solicit input

from stakeholder groups and the general public on a draft of the State’s Capacity Development strategy. 

WVBPH held the comment period open for 30 days and posted the strategy on their Web site. Towards

the end of this period, WVBPH held another public hearing to solicit and record public comments, public

responses, and association positions in a Capacity Development Comment and Response Log. WVBPH

posted the contents of the Log on their Web site. 

In addition, each WVBPH District Office had draft copies of the strategy available for review by the

public. The results of the public participation process will be provided to the public upon request and all

associations participating in the public participation process were be mailed a copy of the final results. 

The final strategy is posted on WVBPH’s Capacity Development Homepage.

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

WVBPH adopted two methodologies for prioritizing water systems:

• Applicants for Drinking Water Treatment Revolving Fund (DWTRF) monies are assessed by

WVBPH DWTRF staff to determine system capacity. Systems with insufficient capacity are

priority systems, are referred to the WVBPH Infrastructure/Capacity Development Section

(ICDS), and added to a list of systems needing on-site assistance.

• ICDS identifies and prioritizes all other systems needing assistance through the Overall Capacity

Assessment process (described in Element D). The ICDS divides this prioritization list into two

categories: those with system specific capacity deficiencies and those with global capacity

deficiencies (i.e. attributable to a specific region or a deficiency effecting multiple systems). 

Systems with global deficiencies are referred to the WVBPH Oversight Committee, which then

provides assistance, while ICDS deals with the system specific problems.

The ICDS, in cooperation with District Office staff, arranges for a comprehensive needs assessment of

high priority systems. The assessment verifies the priority rating and determines assistance needs. 

WVBPH or a third party TA provider provides any on-site assistance. 

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

WVBPH identified approximately 15 factors that encourage capacity including sanitary surveys, operator

requirements, system inspections, and other WVBPH regulatory programs. WVBPH identified 

approximately 11 factors that impair capacity including a lack of a legal mechanism to encourage

consolidation, system location impediments, and poor financial structure of systems.
154

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

WVBPH identified existing tools such as sanitary surveys, plan reviews and permitting, vulnerability

assessments, compliance monitoring, TA from Circuit Riders, and the Source Water Assessment

program, as State resources that help systems achieve and maintain compliance. WVBPH will assist

systems with meeting NPDWRs by providing State loans or grants to enable systems to improve their

infrastructure, by providing funds to encourage the creation and expansion of regional water supplies,

and by continuing to encourage/require all systems to develop a Comprehensive Business Plan. In

addition, WVBPH will develop programs to assist systems with a large number of low-income

customers, educate customers in low-income areas about their water rates and service, and develop

mentoring and/or peer review programs.

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

WVBPH will assist PWSs in the development of partnerships by encouraging consolidation or merger

options through funding infrastructure improvement projects (e.g., DWSRF) and through 

compliance/enforcement actions. The Public Service Commission (PSC) will use its authority to help

systems pursue consolidation. In areas with economic and demographic challenges, WVBPH will

develop incentives for satellite management or other types of regionalization. 

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

In addition to the existing operator certification program and operator training by third parties, West

Virginia will assist systems in the training and certification of operators through the consolidation and/or

coordination of a wide variety of training resources in order to eliminate structural impediments.

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

WVBPH will develop an initial baseline through data generated from a National Rural Water

Association (NRWA) water system self-assessment survey (sent to all systems in July 2000), existing

WVBPH and PSC compliance monitoring data, sanitary survey data, and managerial and financial data. 

The baseline assessment takes into account four factors, listed below, which make up an Overall

Capacity Assessment. Data elements for the Assessment include: 

• Water System Compliance Factor (from NRWA survey and existing PWS database): SNCs and

treatment technique, frequent monitoring and reporting, and CCR failure violations.

• Water System Condition Factor (from NRWA survey and Sanitary Surveys): Failure to meet

source, treatment, distribution, and storage design/construction standards.

• Water System Managerial & Financial Capacity Factor (from NRWA survey and Sanitary

Surveys): Frequent customer complaints and other sanitary survey information.

• Future Regulation Impact Factor (from NRWA survey): Ability to meet new regulations (i.e.,

Operator Certification, Ground Water Rule, Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule,

etc.).
155

Reassessment will occur in 2005, in order to allow ample time for the effects of on-site assistance and

other WVBPH programs to make an impact. The reassessment will use the same process and data

elements as the baseline assessment. In addition to measuring improvement by looking at the Overall

Capacity Assessment data, WVBPH will also measure improvement by examining the results of its

assistance programs.

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

WVBPH identified two types of stakeholder groups. One type represented formal organizations and

associations, which included most drinking water interest groups in West Virginia. WVBPH solicited

comments from all organizations and associations willing to participate. The second type was the public

at large, which was given the opportunity to participate in face to face meetings with WVBPH and to

provide written comments through the mail or Internet. WVBPH will continue its on-going association

with stakeholder groups, who may be consulted on the implementation of the strategy.

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

WVBPH identified existing programs that enhance capacity and commits to their continued

implementation, while suggesting ways to address the aspects of their programs that impair capacity

development. The baseline assessment for CWSs and NTNCs will be accomplished by August 6, 2002. 

The information obtained from the Overall Capacity Assessment will establish a baseline, provide a

means of monitoring improvement over time, establish a prioritized list of systems needing TMF

assistance, and enable WVBPH to direct personnel and money where they are most needed and effective. 

WVBPH or a third party provides on-site TA, and system improvements are measured. WVBPH

acknowledges that an important component of the overall strategy is “ensuring water systems are aware

of capacity development issues, responsibilities and requirements, and the financial and TA available.” 

Thus, in its strategy, WVBPH identifies numerous mechanisms communicating with water systems.

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

WVBPH is responsible for the overall implementation of the State’s Capacity Development strategy. 

WVBPH will designate a Capacity Development Team Leader responsible for coordinating and

implementing TMF capacity activities associated with DWTRF, PSC, District Offices, third party

contractors, and management. Recipients of capacity development assistance will be monitored and

reassessed to determine if assistance results in the achievement of the necessary capacity. Through TA

providers who are required by contract to send reports to WVBPH describing their activities, WVBPH

has an ongoing mechanism to identify factors impairing or enhancing capacity. These reports provide

WVBPH with information to target future assistance efforts. Overall program improvement will be

measured through the success of water system reassessments.
156

Wisconsin

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) convened a Workgroup to assist in developing

the capacity development strategy for existing water systems. The Workgroup met five times between

January and May 2000 to discuss elements of the strategy. 

The Workgroup decided to gather input from a wider audience through a series of “public input

sessions.” DNR held four sessions throughout the State in March and April 2000. The meetings were

widely publicized through invitations to more than 500 municipal systems, 9,800 TNCs, and numerous

trade and professional associations. In addition, the meeting was announced on the DNR Web site and in

various organizations’ newsletters. DNR sent all participants in the meetings copies of the summary

report and the draft strategy.

DNR has included in its strategy the meeting notes, written public comments, and reports from the input

sessions. DNR summarized the input received from all of these sources into 13 major points of advice. 

The capacity development strategy lists and addresses these points.

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

DNR currently uses two primary mechanisms to identify water systems in need of assistance: sanitary

surveys (conducted at all public water systems on a five-year cycle) and annual inspections of municipal

systems. DNR will modify its inspection and evaluation processes to integrate TMF capacity elements. 

Until the existing inspection and evaluation processes are modified however, DNR will use existing data

sources to identify and evaluate PWSs in need of assistance. This includes water quality data, Consumer

Confidence Report data, potential financially-troubled systems as identified by the Public Service

Commission, systems requesting assistance, systems referred by regional DNR staff, and systems dealing

with emergency situations. DNR will modify its Drinking Water System database to store this data

electronically.

DNR will prioritize systems annually and will focus on systems that are out of compliance or on the

verge of being out of compliance. Prioritization will be based on the information sources listed above. 

Once the database has been modified, DNR may develop a numerical scoring system.
157

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

DNR compiled input from the Workgroup and the public input sessions to develop a list of 18 factors

that encourage capacity development and 27 factors that impair capacity development. DNR notes that

the major impairments are related to three conditions:

• Systems owners and operators, board members, and local officials do not know or understand the

SDWA regulations.

• Systems do not have the financial resources or planning abilities to comply with the SDWA

regulations.

• DNR has workload issues and is inconsistent in implementing the requirements of SDWA.

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

Wisconsin already has a number of programs aimed at improving water system capacity. DNR will

continue to use these tools, sometimes targeted toward specific systems and other times more broadly on

a Statewide basis. The strategy lists and describes 24 ongoing programs that are part of the State’s

capacity development program. It also lists and describes six new or expanded activities it hopes to

implement.

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

All of Wisconsin’s capacity development efforts are ultimately intended to improve system compliance. 

The strategy specifically mentions letters that DNR sends to water system operators to remind them of

upcoming monitoring and reporting deadlines, activities by stakeholder organizations, and DNR’s

enforcement program. In addition, DNR may develop a self-assessment tool for water systems operators

to identify critical areas and focus on improvements that can be made in their operations, may develop

additional guidance documents, and is planning on expanding its training programs and to include

information on TMF capacity issues. 

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

DNR will issue a contract to establish coalitions of municipal and other-than-municipal (OTM) waters

system owners and operators. The coalitions will provide a forum where operators may discuss issues in

an informal setting, network with other system operators, and receive information on new regulations. 

The contract anticipates setting up 10 to 20 coalitions that will each meet six times per year over a two

year period.

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

Wisconsin has an existing operator certification program. It is being revised to cover certification for

OTM and NTNCWS operators. DNR also contracts with the Wisconsin Rural Water Association for

assistance to NTNCWS and OTM operators and with the University of Wisconsin to provide training for

small municipal system operators and managers.
158

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

DNR will track activities in a number of programs to establish a baseline for measuring improvements in

its capacity development program. For each of 11 programs, DNR will develop methods or tools to

measure progress. For example, DNR will review the Consumer Confidence Report compliance rate

based on the number of reports completed compared to the total number of municipal and OTM systems. 

It will use information collected by the Public Service Commission to provide a measure of the financial

capacity of systems.

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

DNR developed a list of interested stakeholders which the Workgroup reviewed and revised. DNR sent

invitation letters and information on capacity development to 20 additional stakeholders which resulted

in 9 new members on the Workgroup. The Workgroup includes members from AWWA, the Foundation

for Rural Housing, water utilities, mobile home parks, environmental organizations and environmental 

consultants, the Municipal Environmental Group, local government, and State agencies. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

Less than one percent of Wisconsin’s PWSs have difficulty meeting SDWA requirements. DNR

believes this is attributable to its comprehensive and long-standing (since 1919) water program. DNR is

taking a holistic approach with its capacity development strategy. It emphasizes the importance of the

entire public drinking water program in Wisconsin and the interdependence of its parts. DNR believes

this approach will be more effective than trying to address system problems in a piecemeal fashion. It

will target not only significant non-compliers but also those that face the risk of being out of compliance. 

Wisconsin will make maximum use of its existing activities, while creating new programs to fill the

gaps. The goal is to enhance rather than supplant the State’s existing SDWA program.

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

DNR developed a time line for implementing its capacity development program during its first year. The

time line calls for modifying facility contact, inspection, and evaluation processes, conducting initial

capacity evaluations, and collecting baseline information during the fall of 2000. By August 2001 and

2002, DNR’s Capacity Development Coordinator will prepare and submit an assessment report to EPA

and the Governor, respectively.
159

Wyoming

I. Solicitation and Consideration of Public Comments

Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) created a Capacity Development Workgroup

with representatives from interested stakeholder groups and presented a preliminary draft of the Capacity

Development strategy to it. DEQ solicited additional public comment through meetings and requests for

input publicized in Statewide newspapers. DEQ, Wyoming Water Development Office (WWDO),

Office of State Lands and Investment (OSLI), all county libraries, and the DEQ Web site all had copies

of the strategy available for the public. 

DEQ considered and will continue to consider all comments submitted during the implementation of the

capacity development program. The final strategy and Wyoming’s Capacity Assurance Plan (a

supplemental plan that outlines a program to meet 1999 and 2000 EPA deadlines to prevent DWSRF

withholdings) are considered “outreach documents” which are available to all interested stakeholders. 

II. Description of How the State Considered the Appropriateness of Each SDWA §1420 Program

Element

A. §1420(c)(2)(A): Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize the PWSs in Need of

Technical, Managerial, and Financial Assistance

DEQ uses the State’s DWSRF Priority Ranking System to identify and prioritize systems in need of

TMF improvements. The ranking criteria include:

• Address the most serious risk to human health.

• Ensure compliance with the requirements of the SDWA.

• Assist systems most in need, on a per household basis, according to State “affordability criteria.”

DEQ considers SNCs to be high priority for capacity assistance. DEQ will also use the Construction

Permit Program, O&M Manuals, DWSRF Loan Program, and Sanitary Surveys to identify other systems.

B. §1420(c)(2)(B): Identification of Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity

DEQ identified 4 of its programs as encouraging capacity: construction permitting, operator certification,

DWSRF loan authorization, and the State’s Source Water Protection Program (a non-regulatory,

volunteer program). DEQ also identified its efforts with EPA to resolve significant noncompliance and

attempts to promote capacity development as factors that enhance capacity. DEQ identified 2 factors

that impair capacity: the current DWSRF application process and compliance with federal mandates.

C. §1420(c)(2)(C): How the State Will Use the Authorities and Resources of the SDWA 

Wyoming does not exercise primary enforcement responsibilities for PWSs and therefore, DEQ cannot

take regulatory action against systems in significant noncompliance with the SDWA. While DEQ relies

on EPA Region VIII to provide information regarding SNCs, monitoring data, and reporting data,

Chapter 22 of Wyoming’s Water Quality Rules and Regulations (“Capacity Development Standards for

Public Water Supplies”), lists a series of “control points” that DEQ monitors in order to ensure that water
160

systems demonstrate adequate TMF capacities. In addition, DEQ and OSLI have the authority to require

a system to demonstrate capacity prior to receiving a Wyoming DWSRF loan. The two agencies have

worked to streamline and simplify the DWSRF funding application and application process.

1. Assisting PWSs with Compliance

OSLI, WWDO, and DEQ provide TA to systems and hold regular meetings to identify and implement

State activities to facilitate small system compliance with SDWA requirements. In addition, the State’s

Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP), funded through set-asides, also provides PWSs with

compliance assistance. To rank facilities, a SWAP Advisory Committee developed a priority system

which will be used to encourage the development of local source water protection programs.

2. Encouraging the Development of Partnerships Between PWSs

DEQ categorizes the systems in the State and makes a list available to all PWSs that includes general

information on each system. This resource can be used to build relationships with local and/or similar

PWSs for training system personnel, jointly solving problems, and reducing duplication of efforts.

3. Assisting PWSs with the Training and Certification of Operators

The State’s operator certification program establishes standards for the minimum competency and

certification of operating personnel. For systems without properly certified operators, DEQ employs a

“conference and conciliation approach.” DEQ establishes a compliance schedule, which directs systems

to have operators in place by a specified date and refers operators to training classes or study courses as

needed.

D. §1420(c)(2)(D): Method of Establishing a Baseline and a Means of Measuring

Improvements

DEQ evaluates the effectiveness of this strategy by compiling a database of compliance information for

both new and modified systems. DEQ uses this information to compare the compliance rates of systems

that have and have not demonstrated capacity. If new and modified system compliance rates are greater

than existing system rates, the program can be considered a success. If new and modified system

compliance rates are less than or equal to existing system rates, changes will be made to the program to

improve compliance rates.

As required by the SDWA, DEQ, OSLI, and WWDO will prepare a report two years afer the date of the

development and approval of the strategy, and every three years thereafter, discussing the effectiveness

and progress toward improving the TMF capacities of systems in the State. This report will be provided

to the governor and made available to the public.

E. §1420(c)(2)(E): Identification of Stakeholders

DEQ involved interested parties in the creation of the Capacity Development strategy, the Capacity

Assurance Plan, and during the development of Chapter 22 of the Water Quality Rules and Regulations. 

DEQ published notices of meetings and requests for public comment in statewide newspapers. DEQ

identified the targeted stakeholders as publicly and privately owned water supplies; municipalities;
161

consulting engineers other interested parties; and staff from local, State, and federal agencies. Members

of the Capacity Development Workgroup mirrored DEQs targeted group and included representatives

from the Wyoming Association of Municipalities; the Wyoming Association of Rural Water Systems;

and local, State, and federal governments and agencies. 

III. The Basis on Which the State Believes That the Program Elements it Has Chosen, When

Taken as a Whole, Constitute a Strategy

Wyoming’s Water Quality Rules and Regulations Chapter 22 “Capacity Development Standards for

Public Water Supplies” is the basis of the State’s strategy for assisting existing systems with achieving

and maintaining capacity. In addition, the June 1999 Capacity Assurance Plan also provides a basis for

assisting systems in demonstrating TMF capacity. The DEQ, WWDO, and OSLI will interact with

appropriate stakeholders in order to provide assistance to systems on a priority basis. 

IV. Implementing the Strategy and Evaluating Progress

DEQ will continue to implement Wyoming’s capacity development program in conjunction with EPA

Region VIII. DEQ began implementation in January 1999 by sending draft regulations and draft

worksheets to those systems required to make a demonstration of adequate capacity including DWSRF

loan applicants and new and modified systems applying for construction permits for projects that would

not be completed before October 1, 1999. DEQ will gather information on the progress of the strategy

during the development of the reports required under the SDWA.
162

Attachment 1: Summary Tables
5

This table is not comprehensive. Please see the individual State summaries for more information. 

163

Table A1: Methods or Criteria to Identify and Prioritize PWSs in Need of TMF Assistance5

Source of Information1 Criteria

Prioritization

method2

On-site capacity assessmentsInformation from other agenciesInformation from local/field staff

Customer complaints

Sanitary surveys/compliance inspectionsSelf-assessment questionnaireSelf-referral/requestComplianceOperator certificationFinancial informationSNC status

Source typeSource susceptibilityList of TMF questions orindicator problemsDWSRF application status

System typePopulation servedImpact of future regulationsEnforcement orders

Point system

Risk matrixDWSRF priority method

Alabama U U U U U

Alaska U U U U U U

Arizona U U U U U U U U U U

Arkansas U U U U U U U U

California U U U U U

Colorado U U U U U

Connecticut U U U U U U

Delaware U U U U U U

Florida U U U U U U U U U U U U U

Georgia U U U U U U U U
Source of Information1 Criteria

Prioritization

method2

On-site capacity assessmentsInformation from other agenciesInformation from local/field staff

Customer complaints

Sanitary surveys/compliance inspectionsSelf-assessment questionnaireSelf-referral/requestComplianceOperator certificationFinancial informationSNC status

Source typeSource susceptibilityList of TMF questions orindicator problemsDWSRF application status

System typePopulation servedImpact of future regulationsEnforcement orders

Point system

Risk matrixDWSRF priority method

164

Hawaii U U U U U U

Idaho U U U U U U U

Illinois U U U U U U U U U

Indiana U U U U U U U U U U

Iowa U U U U U U U

Kansas U U U U U U U

Kentucky U U U U U U U

Louisiana U U U

Maine U U U U U U U

Maryland U U U U U U U U U

Massachusetts U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U

Michigan U U U U U U

Minnesota U U U U
Source of Information1 Criteria

Prioritization

method2

On-site capacity assessmentsInformation from other agenciesInformation from local/field staff

Customer complaints

Sanitary surveys/compliance inspectionsSelf-assessment questionnaireSelf-referral/requestComplianceOperator certificationFinancial informationSNC status

Source typeSource susceptibilityList of TMF questions orindicator problemsDWSRF application status

System typePopulation servedImpact of future regulationsEnforcement orders

Point system

Risk matrixDWSRF priority method

165

Mississippi U U U U U U U U U

Missouri U U U U U U

Montana U U U U U U U U U U U U

Nebraska U U U U U

Nevada U U U U U U U U U U

New Hampshire U U U U

New Jersey U U U U U U

New Mexico U U U U U U

New York U U U U U U U U U U U

North Carolina U U U U U

North Dakota U U U U U U U

Ohio U U U U

Oklahoma U U U U U
Source of Information1 Criteria

Prioritization

method2

On-site capacity assessmentsInformation from other agenciesInformation from local/field staff

Customer complaints

Sanitary surveys/compliance inspectionsSelf-assessment questionnaireSelf-referral/requestComplianceOperator certificationFinancial informationSNC status

Source typeSource susceptibilityList of TMF questions orindicator problemsDWSRF application status

System typePopulation servedImpact of future regulationsEnforcement orders

Point system

Risk matrixDWSRF priority method

166

Oregon U U U U U U U U U U

Pennsylvania U U U U U U U

Rhode Island U U U U U U U U U

South Carolina U U U

South Dakota U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U

Tennessee U U U U U

Texas U U U U U U U U U

Utah U U U U

Vermont U U U U U U U U U

Virginia U U U U U U U U U U U U U

Washington U U

West Virginia U U U U U U U U U U U U U

Wisconsin U U U U U U U

Wyoming U U U U U

1. Many States will retrieve information from existing databases. 

2. For details on States’ prioritization methods, please see Table A2. 
167

Table A2: Prioritization Methods

Prioritization 

Other Method/Notes

First Priority Second Priority Third Priority

AL Systems with TMF

deficiencies.

--- --- Systems are prioritized based on a list of

TMF criteria.

AK Highest ranked systems

based on risk level

assessment for each area of

capacity. 

--- ---

Points assigned and weighted for several

categories (e.g., Operator Certification,

Water Rights, By-laws, accounting

practices) in each area of capacity. 

AZ Drinking Water Source

(surface > ground)

System Type

(CWS> NTNCWS>

TNCWS)

Population

(lower > higher)

After this initial prioritization, systems

are evaluated based on 11 other factors. 

AR Small CWSs and

NTNCWSs (<10,000

population) --- ---

Points assigned based on violations,

presence of certified operator, source

type, and finances. 

CA Systems most in need of

assistance, based on

DWSRF priority list,

violations and inspections

data, and knowledge of

field staff.

--- ---

CO Systems with violations. Systems with problems

identified by inspection

reports, monitoring results,

or complaints.

Systems that request TMF

assistance.

CT Highest priority systems

based on financial and

technical viability analyses.

--- ---

See individual State Summary for more

details.

DE SNCs Systems with some health

related violations in past

three years, but currently in

compliance. 

Systems without health

related compliance

problems but referred to

department for other

reasons (e.g., lack of

certified operator, failure

to submit CCR)

FL Systems that are in

significant noncompliance

or have other types of

“indicator problems.”

--- ---

DEP will coordinate with the Florida

Association for Community Action and

the Florida Rural Water Association to

ensure that systems with a history of

acute health risk violations will receive

top priority.

GA Systems most in need of

improving TMF capacity,

as identified by EPD staff,

and systems requesting

assistance.

--- ---

Prioritization will be based on

compliance records, sanitary surveys,

complaints, and impact of future

regulations. 
Prioritization 

Other Method/Notes

First Priority Second Priority Third Priority

168

HI Five systems in the “needs

assistance” category, as

designated by TMF

capacity evaluations of

systems invited to

participate. Systems in this

category with the lowest

number of points earned

for capacity will receive

highest priority. 

--- ---

Hawaii will request that systems with a

history of significant noncompliance or

other capacity problems, as identified by

SS results, participate. The capacity

evaluation process compares the existing

systems against the attributes of a

hypothetical system with adequate TMF

capacity. The assistance program may

expand to more than five systems in the

future. 

ID “Critical Problems” 

(posing immediate health

risk)

“Serious Problems”

(posing potential health

risk, but may not require

immediate action) ---

Critical/Serious designations are

determined using the State’s violation

hierarchy. Within each group, population

served, willingness to solve problem, and

TMF analysis are used to prioritize

systems. 

IL SNCs “Pending Non-Compliance

Suppliers”

(Systems with inadequate

source, treatment capacity,

or storage, or with

distribution problems.) 

Systems with other TMF

capacity problems, based

on observations of

program personnel.

IN “At Risk” systems (e.g.,

unaddressed

MCL/TT/Action Level

violations; failure to submit

monthly operations report;

serious operational

deficiencies; no certified

operator, etc.)

“Marginal Risk” systems

(e.g., noncompliance with

M&R requirements; no

maintenance plan; low

storage capacity; failure to

follow up on inspection

deficiencies, etc.) 

“Low Risk” systems

(Systems not identified by

initial screening of

compliance information,

complaints, operator

certification, O&M

problems, early warning

orders, connection bans,

and other data.)

Within each category, systems will be

prioritized by source type, system type,

and population. Surface water systems,

CWSs and NCWSs with susceptible

populations, and systems serving

>10,000 will be high priority.

IA Systems out of compliance

“Critical” (acute health

risk) > “Serious” (chronic,

non-acute health risk) >

“Minor” (sporadic

violations)

Systems currently in

compliance with potential

problems.

Systems in compliance

voluntarily requesting

assistance.

Willingness to remedy problem is also

considered.

KS Systems in need of

assistance as determined by

KDHE. --- ---

Systems are evaluated based on

compliance information, TMF

information from other agencies, and a

TMF survey. 

KY Systems receiving a score

of 50 or more points.

Systems receiving a score

of 25 or more points.

Systems with production

levels reaching design

capacity; systems

requesting assistance.

Points are assigned based on a list of 20

criteria (e.g., regarding: clear ownership;

violations; source protection; record

keeping). 
Prioritization 

Other Method/Notes

First Priority Second Priority Third Priority

169

LA Systems currently under an

active administrative order;

SNCs

Systems with MCL

violations in the previous

three years; uncorrected

physical violations

A random selection of

systems from each system

type and population

category will be chosen

for capacity assessments. 

ME Systems not in compliance

(Critical Problem > Serious

Problem > Minor Problem)

Systems in compliance

with satisfactory evaluation

with Potential Problem.

Systems that request

assistance.

Critical/Serious/Minor ranking adopted

from violation hierarchy based on public

health risk that was developed by Iowa

DNR. Willingness to cooperate also

considered.

MD Systems most in need of

training as determined by

assessment and rating

process.

--- ---

A rating system based on responses to a

self-assessment survey, compliance data,

operator certification, and sanitary

survey results is being developed.

MA Systems posing the highest

public health risk: Direct

Impact on the public health

(Boil order, do not drink

order, SNC, ACO). 

Systems with indirect

impact on public health

violation of technical

safeguard

Systems with potential

problems as identified in

Sanitary Survey, SRF

process, CCR reports,

complaints, etc.

MI Systems not in compliance

or with unsatisfactory

evaluation. (Critical

Problem> Serious Problem

> Minor Problem)

Systems in compliance

with satisfactory evaluation

with Potential Problem.

Systems that request

assistance.

Use “Decision Model” (flow chart). 

MN Systems with emergencies

and acute disease MCL/TT

violations

SNCs with health

violations; potential SNCs;

systems with MCL/TT

violations

Systems with

infrastructure deficiencies;

training and planning

needs

MS Systems most in need of

assistance based on

“capacity points” assigned

by regional engineer during

sanitary survey.

--- ---

Systems are assigned points based on

answers to a list of questions for each

area of TMF capacity. 

MO Systems with

administrative orders for

significant noncompliance.

SNCs that have not been

issued an administrative

order but do not meet the

conditions of Bilateral

Compliance Agreement.

Systems with potential

problems, as identified by

operational test data on

water quality parameters.

Analysis is also performed upon request

by water systems. 

MT Systems with MCL

violations or deficiencies

that pose an acute health

risk; SNCs; GWUDISW

systems newly classified as

surface water systems.

Systems with non-acute

health risk; systems that

fail GWUDISW assessment

but can pass if

improvements are made.

Systems requesting

assistance or identified as

needing assistance

through contact with the

system.

CWSs and schools given

first priority, then other

NTNCWSs, then

TNCWSs. 
Prioritization 

Other Method/Notes

First Priority Second Priority Third Priority

170

NE Systems with TMF

deficiencies that present a

direct or potential threat to

public health.

Systems with potentially

serious TMF deficiencies.

Systems with minimal

deficiencies or that have

corrected previously

identified deficiencies.

Point system.

NV Highest ranked systems

based on risk factors. --- ---

Nevada has adopted the Oregon Health

Division’s risk matrix system.

NH Systems with MCL or

monitoring and reporting

violations.

Systems with source

limitations, piping and

storage limitations, and

outages.

---

NJ CWSs with inadequate

capacity serving less than

3,300

NTCWSs with inadequate

capacity. 

TNCWSs with inadequate

capacity. 

Inadequate capacity is based on

compliance, TMF assessment results. 

NM 1) Systems experiencing

emergencies 2) Systems

with violations that request

help

3) Systems with violations

that do not request help 

4) Systems that request

help, but are not in

violation 

5) Systems with good

management (as

incentive)

6) All other systems

Age and condition of infrastructure is

also considered. 

NY SNCs, MCL violators,

repeated emergency

outages

TT, major monitoring, or

significant sanitary code

violators, those facing

significant potential

violations, those with

sanitary survey deficiencies

Systems demonstrating a

need although not critical

or serious; systems that

request assistance; all

others

NC

Systems most in need of

assistance as determined by

information in Water

System Management Plan.

--- ---

Prioritization is also based on

compliance with drinking water rules,

sanitary surveys, administrative

penalties, and technical assistance

received. 

ND

PWSs ranked 10 or higher.

(SNC automatically

receives 10 points)

Systems receiving 1- 9

points

---

Point system based on 14 factors related

to compliance, operator certification,

sanitary survey results, and laboratory

payment.

OH SNCs out of compliance

with ESTWTR

SNCs with sanitary survey

deficiencies

---

OK Posing most significant

threat to public health

Out of compliance with

SDWA; SNCs

Not meeting enforcement

milestones; request

assistance

OR

Systems receiving highest

number of points in “risk

matrix” evaluation.

Priority list is weighted

based on population.

---

1-5 points assigned based on each

deficiency identified in areas of 

health/water quality; monitoring and

reporting; certified operator; sanitary

hazards; source susceptibility; and master

plan.
Prioritization 

Other Method/Notes

First Priority Second Priority Third Priority

171

PA CWSs and NTNCWSs,

prioritized based on 11

objective technical,

managerial, and financial

factors (Tier I) and five

subjective factors (Tier II),

including willingness to

participate.

--- ---

Point system. Priority rating system for

CWSs is different from system for

NTNCWSs.

RI Level Three. Systems out

of compliance that would

benefit from assistance

Level Two. Systems in

compliance that would

benefit from assistance

Level One. Systems

currently in compliance

Three tiered PWS ranking scheme. 

SC The State does not provide

details on its prioritization

method.

--- ---

SD See Oregon.

--- ---

Risk matrix includes financial capacity

information. South Dakota uses a

modified version of Oregon’s

prioritization method.

TN CWSs and NTNCWSs that

are SNCs or Potential

SNCs

DWSRF applicants lacking

TMF capacity.

2

nd year: Higher priority

will go to NTNCWSs that

are SNCs and PSNCs,

with an emphasis on

systems with inadequate

financial capacity.

TX Serving 15,000 or fewer

with three or more

deficiencies on TMF

checklist

Serving 15,000 or fewer

with fewer than three

deficiencies on TMF

checklist

---

UT “Not Approved” status

based on compliance with

administrative rules

“Corrective Action” status

based on compliance with

administrative rules

“Approved” status based

on compliance with

administrative rules

VT All systems requesting

assistance. --- ---

TA and financial assistance providers are

available to lend assistance to all systems

that request it. If resources become more

limited, Vermont will use its DWSRF

priority ranking system and other criteria

to prioritize systems.

VA SRF applicants with

insufficient TMF capacity

as determined by State SRF

Staff and systems identified

through Capacity

Assessment process.

— —

The Capacity Assessment takes into

account water system compliance,

condition of infrastructure, M & F

capacity, and impact of future

regulations.
Prioritization 

Other Method/Notes

First Priority Second Priority Third Priority

172

WA Systems with red, yellow,

or blue operating permits

and on Compliance

Targeting List; systems

with red operating permits;

systems with blue

operating permits

Systems with yellow

operating permits

Systems with green

operating permits and a

capacity deficiency.

Permit color is based on compliance,

planning documents, and certified

operator. 

WV SRF applicants with

insufficient TMF capacity

as determined by State SRF

Staff and systems identified

through Capacity

Assessment process.

— ---

The Capacity Assessment takes into

account water system compliance,

condition of infrastructure, M & F

capacity, and impact of future

regulations.

WI PWSs with water quality &

sampling noncompliance,

CCR noncompliance, that

are financially troubled,

requesting assistance,

referred by DNR regional

staff AND dealing with

emergency situations.

PWSs with deficiencies in

some, but not all, of these

areas. ---

Wisconsin may develop a numerical

priority scoring system in the future.

WY Systems in significant

noncompliance with

SDWA; highest ranked

systems based on DWSRF

priority ranking system.

--- ---

Prioritization based on risk to human

health, compliance with SDWA, and

affordability criteria.
173

Table B1: Common Factors That Enhance or Impair Capacity Development 

Enhancements Number of States Identifying Factor

Local funding 10

State education Programs 12

New construction planning provisions 12

SDWA requirements 12

Capacity development authority 13

Technical assistance 14

Source water protection and wellhead protection program 14

Design review requirements 15

Sanitary surveys 16

State funding programs 16

State rules and regulations governing drinking water 16

Industry associations 17

Education and training opportunities 18

State technical assistance programs 18

Partnerships, cooperation and networking among agencies,

systems, etc.

25

Federal funding programs (DWSRF, PWSS) 26

Operator certification requirements 29

Impairments Number of States Identifying Factor

Inability of small communities to finance entire cost of

operations and capital investment

10

Insufficient water rates 10

High turnover rate in State agencies and lack of resources 11

Unfunded mandates 11

Politics at federal, State, and local level 12

Lack of long range planning 12

Lack of public education and awareness 13

DWSRF loan process is a disincentive to potential applicants 13

Capital funding needs exceed Congressional appropriations 14

New / Proposed regulations 16

Complexity of SDWA 17

small systems inability to understand complex regulations 18

Lack of operator / board member training 20

Lack of financial resources 25

Inconsistencies among agency requirements 26
174

Table B2: Other Factors that Enhance or Impair Capacity Development

Technical

Establish a program to focus on WQ research, aquiring grant dollars, and improving access to university resources

Establishment of mentoring programs

Creation of a State Operator Certification Training Center

Electronic and Web based communication

Implementing a Monitoring Assistance Program

Promoting regionalization/consolidation (economy of scale)

Financial

An assistance program for very small system training expenses

An assistance program for completing SRF applications

Distribution systems improvement charge (DSIC)

Annual assessment fees to support DW program efforts

Additional requirements for privately owned systems

Private systems qualify for DWSRF funding

Programs to identify at risk systems for free TMF assistance

Financial reporting requirements for small systems

Legal 

Use of receivership laws (takeovers)

Legal action is taken against overloaded systems

Tax

Ability for small system operators to utilize water system improvemetns to attain capacity as a capital improvement or

operating expense, thereby reducing their taxable income to a small degree.

State sales tax exemption for purchasing materials and exemption of property taxation for publically owned and rural

water systems 

Exemption from sales tax for municipal equipment purchases

Tax exempt bonds for infrastructure projects
6.EPA has compiled this table based on submissions of State Capacity Development Strategies. The table may not reflect every

element of a State’s program. The focus of the table is on new initiatives being developed as part of the State’s capacity

development strategy for existing systems, and not the State’s entire drinking water program. 

175

Table C: How the States will Use the Authority and Resources of SDWA6

Helping Systems to Achieve Compliance Encouraging

Partnerships

Helping Systems to Train and

Certify Operators

On-site visits/assistanceManagement/Board memberImproved dissemination ofLong-term/Financial planningGuidance, templates, orSelf-assessment toolBetter Inter-agency/Public educationRegional training sessions“Enhanced” sanitary surveysSystem-to-system

mentoring

Peer review programRegionalization studiesGrants for consolidationSubsidize operator certificationcostsImprove training materials andExpand training methodsIncrease frequency/locations of training sessions

Alabama U U

Alaska U U U U

Arizona U U U U U

Arkansas U U U U

California U U U U

Colorado U U U U U U U

Connecticut U U U U

Delaware U U U

Florida U U U U

Georgia U U U U U U U

Hawaii U U U U U U U

Idaho U U U U U

Illinois U U U

Indiana U U U U U

Iowa U U U U U U U U U

Kansas U U U U

Kentucky U U U

Louisiana U U U U

Maine U U U U U U U

Maryland U U

Mass. U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
Helping Systems to Achieve Compliance Encouraging

Partnerships

Helping Systems to Train and

Certify Operators

On-site visits/assistanceManagement/Board memberImproved dissemination ofLong-term/Financial planningGuidance, templates, orSelf-assessment toolBetter Inter-agency/Public educationRegional training sessions“Enhanced” sanitary surveysSystem-to-system

mentoring

Peer review programRegionalization studiesGrants for consolidationSubsidize operator certificationcostsImprove training materials andExpand training methodsIncrease frequency/locations of training sessions

176

Michigan U U U U U

Minnesota U U U

Mississippi U U U U

Missouri U U U U U

Montana U U U U U U U U U U U

Nebraska U U U U U U U U U

Nevada U U U U U

New

Hampshire

U U

New Jersey U U U U

New Mexico U U U U U

New York U U U U U U

North

Carolina

U U

North Dakota U U U

Ohio U U U U

Oklahoma U U

Oregon U U U U U U U U

Penn. U U U U U U U

Rhode Island U U U U U U U

South

Carolina

U U U U

South Dakota U U U U U U U

Tennessee U U U U U

Texas U U U U U

Utah U U U U
Helping Systems to Achieve Compliance Encouraging

Partnerships

Helping Systems to Train and

Certify Operators

On-site visits/assistanceManagement/Board memberImproved dissemination ofLong-term/Financial planningGuidance, templates, orSelf-assessment toolBetter Inter-agency/Public educationRegional training sessions“Enhanced” sanitary surveysSystem-to-system

mentoring

Peer review programRegionalization studiesGrants for consolidationSubsidize operator certificationcostsImprove training materials andExpand training methodsIncrease frequency/locations of training sessions

177

Vermont U U U U U U

Virginia U U U U U U U U U U

Washington U U U

West Virginia U U U U U U U U

Wisconsin U U U U U

Wyoming U U

Innovative Capacity Development Initiatives for Existing Systems

C Missouri circulated a questionnaire to technical assistance and professional organizations to solicit volunteer assistance.

C Iowa will develop a TMF scorecard that systems will be able to use to determine their TMF capacity relative to other systems in Iowa. 

C Kentucky is considering developing a voluntary TMF capacity certification program.

C Several States give applicants for DWSRF funds additional points on the State’s priority scale if the proposed project will consolidate or

regionalize existing systems.

C Mississippi passed a statute requiring board members of all non-profit, rural water systems and municipalities serving less than 2,500 people to

attend 8 hours of management training within two years of being elected or re-elected to the board.

C New York developed a “Capacity Enhancement Resource List” that identifies the resources available to assist PWSs. A companion User’s

Guide helps those that are unfamiliar with water systems operations to find helpful resources. 

C Colorado involves its local health departments in making decisions about how to allocate DWSRF set-aside funds. 

C Nebraska’s Drinking Water Branch holds regular meetings with the State’s planning organizations. 

C Texas is in the process of forming regional planning groups to encourage partnerships. Texas also has developed new high school curricula on

basic water production for students interested in pursuing a career in water supply.

C To stem the proliferation of small water systems, South Carolina promulgated a new regulation stating: “If an existing public water system is

divided into two or more smaller water systems, each of the smaller water systems shall comply with the water quality monitoring requirements

of the water system prior to it being divided.” 

Note: This list is not exhaustive; please see the State Summaries for other State-specific initiatives. 
178

Table D: Establishing a Baseline and Measuring Improvement

Measures of Improvement

Compliance InformationSN

C

List

Operator Certification DataNumber of T

A

Visits

Number of Training SessionsConductedNumber of TrainingSession AttendeesSanitary Survey/C

P

E

ResultsNumber of Systems CompletingT

M

F

Assessment

Feedback from SystemsResults of Periodic T

M

F

Surveys/Self-AssessmentPlanning ActivitiesSource Water ProtectionActivitiesEnforcement OrdersConsolidationComplaintsD

WSR

F and Other Grant

AllocationsInformation fromAssistance ProvidersSystem

Finances

Infrastructure &

Operations

Information

Alabama U U U U

Alaska U U U U U U U

Arizona U U U U U U U

Arkansas U U U U U U U

California U U U U U U

Colorado U U U

Connecticut U U U U U U U U U

Delaware U U U U

Florida U U U U U U U U U U U U U U

Georgia U U U U

Hawaii U

Idaho U U U U

Illinois U U U

Indiana U U U U U
Compliance Information

SNC ListOperator Certification DataNumber of TA VisitsNumber of Training SessionsConductedNumber of TrainingSession AttendeesSanitary Survey/CPEResultsNumber of Systems CompletingTMF AssessmentFeedback from SystemsResults of Periodic TMFSurveys/Self-AssessmentPlanning ActivitiesSource Water ProtectionActivitiesEnforcement OrdersConsolidationComplaintsDWSRF and Other GrantAllocationsInformation fromAssistance ProvidersSystem FinancesInfrastructure & OperationsInformation

179

Iowa

UUUUU

UU

UUU

Kansas

UUUUUU

Kentucky

UUUUU

Louisiana

UUUUUU

Maine

UUUUUU

Maryland

UUU

Mass.

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Michigan

UUUUUU

Minnesota

U

U

MississippiU

U

Missouri

UUUUUUU

Montana

U

UUUUU

Nebraska

UUUUU

Nevada

UUUUUU

New

Hampshire

UUUUUU

New Jersey

UUUUUUU
Compliance Information

SNC ListOperator Certification DataNumber of TA VisitsNumber of Training SessionsConductedNumber of TrainingSession AttendeesSanitary Survey/CPEResultsNumber of Systems CompletingTMF AssessmentFeedback from SystemsResults of Periodic TMFSurveys/Self-AssessmentPlanning ActivitiesSource Water ProtectionActivitiesEnforcement OrdersConsolidationComplaintsDWSRF and Other GrantAllocationsInformation fromAssistance ProvidersSystem FinancesInfrastructure & OperationsInformation

180

New Mexico

UUUUU

New York

UUU

North

Carolina

UUU

North Dakota

UU

U

UU

Ohio

UUUU

Oklahoma

U

Oregon

UUUU

Penn.

UU

Rhode Island

UUUUUU

South

Carolina

UU

South Dakota

UUUUUU

Tennessee

UUU

Texas

UU

U

U

UUU

U

UU

U

Utah

UUU

Vermont

UUUUUUU
Compliance Information

SN

C

List

Operator Certification DataNumber of T

A

Visits

Number of Training SessionsConductedNumber of TrainingSession AttendeesSanitary Survey/C

P

E

ResultsNumber of Systems CompletingT

M

F

Assessment

Feedback from SystemsResults of Periodic T

M

F

Surveys/Self-AssessmentPlanning ActivitiesSource Water ProtectionActivitiesEnforcement OrdersConsolidationComplaintsD

WSR

F and Other Grant

AllocationsInformation fromAssistance ProvidersSystem

Finances

Infrastructure &

Operations

Information

181

Virginia U U U U U U U U

Washington U U U U U

West Virginia U U U U U U

Wisconsin U U U U U U U U U U

Wyoming U
182

Table E: Identification of Stakeholders and Interested Persons

Advisory/StakeholdersCom

mittee

Newspaper notice or press releaseMailingsWeb SitePresentation at organization meetingsPublic Meeting(s)/Public Hearing(s)NewslettersCapacity Development Trainings/Workshops

Alabama U

Alaska U U U U U U

Arizona U U U U

Arkansas U U U U

California U U U U U

Colorado U U U U

Connecticut U U U

Delaware U U U

Florida U U U

Georgia U U U U U

Hawaii U U U U

Idaho U U U U

Illinois U U U U U

Indiana U U U

Iowa U U U U U U U

Kansas U U U U U U U

Kentucky U U U

Louisiana U U

Maine U U U U

Maryland U U U U U

Massachusetts U U U U U

Michigan U U U U

Minnesota U U U U U
Advisory/Stakeholders

Committee

Newspaper notice or press releaseMailingsWeb SitePresentation at organization meetingsPublic Meeting(s)/Public Hearing(s)NewslettersCapacity Development Trainings/Workshops

183

MississippiUU

MissouriUUUUUU

MontanaUUUUU

NebraskaUUUU

NevadaU

New HampshireU

New JerseyUUUUU

New MexicoUUUU

New YorkUU

North CarolinaUUUU

North DakotaUUU

OhioUU

OklahomaU

OregonUU

PennsylvaniaUUUU

Rhode IslandUUU

South CarolinaUUUU

South DakotaUUU

U

U

TennesseeUUU

U

TexasUU

UtahUUU

VermontUUUU

VirginiaU

WashingtonUUUU
Advisory/Stakeholders

Com

mittee

Newspaper notice or press releaseMailingsWeb SitePresentation at organization meetingsPublic Meeting(s)/Public Hearing(s)NewslettersCapacity Development Trainings/Workshops

184

West Virginia U U U U U

Wisconsin U U U U U

Wyoming U U U U

Other Ways of Identifying Stakeholders and Interested Persons and Soliciting Public Comment

C Iowa awarded Continuing Education Units to certified operators for attending capacity development public meetings.

C Maryland had seven representative systems complete and comment on a draft version of the proposed Capacity

Development self-assessment survey.

C Connecticut contracted with five technical assistance providers to educate and solicit comments from their

constituents.

C South Dakota televised its public meetings on the capacity development strategy.

C Nebraska combined its capacity development meetings with those on the IESTWR and D/DBP Rules.

C Rhode Island conducted a web search of public interest organizations in the State and participated in an Earth Day

Festival.