System Partnership Solutions to

Improve Public Health Protection

Examples of One-Page Case Studies, designed to help us work

with small systems to enhance their ability to provide safe and

affordable drinking water.
Printed on Recycled Paper

Office of Water (4606M)

EPA-816-R-02-022

www.epa.gov/safewater

September 2002
Water system capacity is the ability to plan for, achieve, and continually provide safe and

affordable drinking water to customers, thereby increasing public health protection. Capacity

development is the process through which drinking water systems acquire and maintain the

technical, financial and managerial capabilities to consistently provide safe drinking water. All

states are currently implementing state-specific capacity development programs tailored to meet

their water systems’ needs. One tool for building capacity is system partnership solutions.

Technical

• Inadequate & deteriorated infrastructure

• Limited/poor source quality/quantity

• Lack of operations & maintenance expertise/certified

 operator

Financial

• Diseconomies of scale (few households = high costs)

• History of low rates = resistance to full-cost pricing

• Limited knowledge of financing options

• Small systems are often in economically disadvantaged areas

Managerial

• “No time” or limited part time management attention

• Lack of expertise in long-term water system planning/

 operations

• Lack of focus - providing water is not the system’s primary

 purpose

Small

System

Challenges Challenges Challenges

• System partnership solutions can range from informal cooperation,

 such as mentoring programs, to ownership transfer with managerial

 and/or physical consolidation

• These system partnership solutions serve as a capacity building tool

 and involve changing the operational, managerial or institutional

 structure of a water system. The changes serve to meet the

 increasing costs and responsibilities of consistently providing safe

 water that meets the Safe Drinking Water Act standards System

Partnership artnership

Solutions Solutions Solutions

System Capacity Challenges and Partnership Solutions Overview

Informal

Cooperation

Contractual

Assistance

Joint

Powers

Agencies

Ownership

Transfer

Coordinate with

other systems,

but without

contractual

obligations

Utilities contract

with another system

or service provider,

but contract is

under the system's

control

Creation of a

new entity

designed to

serve the

systems that

form it

Takeover by

an existing

entity or a

newly created

entity

System Partnership Spectrum

Increasing Transfer of Responsibility
Potential otential otential

Outcomes Outcomes Outcomes

Opportunities Opportunities Opportunities

for System

Partnerships artnerships artnerships

System Partnership Solutions

Technical

• Shared, new, or upgraded infrastructure

• Locate higher quality/quantity source water

• Access to a certified operator and additional expertise

• Better treatment technologies available

Financial

• Reduced costs = safe and affordable water at full pricing

• Greater economies of scale achieved through shared

 services

• Better access to funds

Managerial

• Expertise in water system planning/operations

• Accelerated path to obtaining the managerial skills and

 structure required to adequately oversee the water system

• 86% of America’s 54,000 community water systems

 are small systems serving less than 3,300 people

• 86% of these small systems are within 5 miles of another

 system*

• The proximity of these systems to potential partners

 demonstrates many opportunities for small systems to form

 cooperative agreements, share services, or join together

 under common management

• The feasibility of physical interconnection should be

 analyzed carefully and compared with the economic savings

 that other partnership solutions may achieve

*AWWARF study: findings based on data collected from 17 states

Distance to next closest

Community Water System*

5 to 10

Miles

12%

10 to 20

Miles

2%

1 to 5

Miles

86%

System Capacity Challenges and Partnership Solutions Overview
City of Panora Water System, Iowa, 2002

A n ctions: Informal Cooperation

The City of Panora completed a joint water study with Lake Panorama and Xenia Rural

Water Association to assess potential partnerships based on source water and system

needs.

This study demonstrated that the most cost effective long-term solution to the high nitrate

levels was for Panora to connect to and purchase water from Lake Panorama's low-nitrate

source water and blend this water with their current source in order to meet the nitrate MCL.

Panora worked with Des Moines Water Works to evaluate their treatment plant's remote

monitoring capabilities. The systems decided to pursue this partnership opportunity and are

currently testing remote monitoring of Panora's treatment plant from Des Moines Water

Works.

Panora and Des Moines are drafting a memorandum of understanding to allow the systems

to work together to operate the treatment plant. This informal agreement will allow Des

Moines to remotely monitor Panora's treatment plant.

Des Moines operators are mentoring Panora's grade 2 certified operator to obtain grade 3

certification.

C s apacity Issues

Technical

X Panora's finished water nitrate levels exceeded the MCL by 20-40% during the

spring and early summer months.

X Panora's grade 2 certified operator needed to obtain grade 3 certification, a

state requirement for operating a surface water treatment plant.

Managerial X Panora has had difficulties retaining operators and has relied on Des Moines'

operators to fill in when necessary.

Financial X Panora lacked the financial resources to install nitrate treatment and pay

competitive wages to attract a grade 3 certified operator.

System Capacity Development Case Study

B d ackground

The City of Panora Water System is located about 45 miles from Des Moines Water Works

in a small town of 1,175 people and 700 connections, primarily residential.

P s ublic Health Challenges

Panora's raw and finished water supply consistently violated the Maximum Contaminant

Level (MCL) for nitrate in the spring and early summer months. Panora received a notice

from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to address their high nitrate problem.

O s utcomes

Panora will avoid installing expensive nitrate treatment as the City will have access to water

from the Panorama Lake Association to blend with its current supply, which will ensure

compliance with nitrate requirements during peak months. The risk of blue baby

syndrome will virtually be eliminated.

Des Moines will remotely monitor Panora’s treatment plant, reducing the full-time attention

required of an onsite operator to about 2.5 hours per day. Panora will be able to utilize

onsite operators for other city duties, relieving the city of hiring additional staff

and reducing costs.

Questions about Iowa’s Capacity Development Program? Contact Jennifer Simons • Iowa Department of Natural Resources •

401 SW 7th Street • Suite M • Des Moines, IA • 50309-4611 • (515) 725-0298 • jennifer.simons@dnr.state.ia.us










C s apacity Issues

Technical

X Lee County lacked the expertise to make necessary operational improvements.

X Lee County lacked the regular supervision of a qualified operator.

X Lee County received only periodic technical assistance from a circuit rider.

Financial X Lee County did not have the resources to hire a qualified operator.

System Capacity Development Case Study

Lee County Water Plant, Sanford, North Carolina, 1993

A e ctions: Contractual Assistance

Lee County entered into a management, operation and maintenance contract with a privatesector operations and maintenance firm. Lee County has renewed the contract through 2002.

The firm hired and supervises the system's three full-time employees.

The firm provides a part-time qualified operator with extensive technical expertise.

The firm conducts some activities (financial management and billing) through a central office

to take advantage of economies of scale.









O s utcomes

Lee County Plant now provides high-quality water that is in full compliance with drinking water

standards, reliably protecting public health.

Lee County works with the operation and maintenance firm to plan for capital improvements

and secure local and federal funding, guaranteeing the long-term production of

safe drinking water.

Lee County benefits from the firm's bulk purchasing agreements to save money.

B d ackground

The Lee County Water Plant serves 149 customers, including 60 residential connections

and a large poultry company in central North Carolina.

P s ublic Health Challenges

The system faced operational challenges, including numerous monitoring and reporting

violations, which may have prevented them from providing safe water.

Questions about North Carolina’s Capacity Development Program? Contact Bob Stea • NC Department of Environment and

Natural Resources Public Water Supply Section • 1634 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1634 • (919) 715-3269 •

bob.stea@ncmail.net
Aurora, South Dakota, 1992

A e ctions: Contractual Assistance

Aurora and Brookings shared the cost of constructing a transmission pipeline to interconnect

the two systems.

Aurora customers now pay slightly more for water, but less than if nitrate treatment had been

installed.

Aurora uses its old well for fire protection.

C s apacity Issues

Technical

X Aurora's finished water nitrate levels exceeded the MCL by up to 50%.

X Other nearby wells had high nitrate levels, so Aurora could not easily find a new

source.

X The treatment plant operator was not adequately certified and had a range of

other municipal responsibilities.

Financial X The system lacked the financial resources to install treatment for nitrate.

System Capacity Development Case Study







B d ackground

Aurora, South Dakota, is a small residential town with a population of 500. The town

water system has 250 connections. Aurora is located five miles from the City of Brookings,

which has a population of 22,000 including the local university.

P s ublic Health Challenges

The system did not have the capacity to provide water that met National Primary Drinking

Water Regulations, consistently violating the Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrate.

O s utcomes

Brookings provides Aurora residents with drinking water that consistently meets the nitrate

MCL. The risk of blue baby syndrome has virtually been eliminated.

Aurora’s contract with Brookings has allowed it to avoid installing expensive nitrate

treatment.

Brookings has back-up systems for power outages and redundant treatment facilities,

ensuring the reliable provision of safe drinking water.

Questions about South Dakota’s Capacity Development Program? Contact Kevin Espeland • SD Department of Environment

and Natural Resources • Joe Foss Building • 523 E. Capitol • Pierre, SD 57501 • (605) 773-3754 • kevin.espeland@state.sd.us
C s apacity Issues

Technical

X The Jefferson County residents' private ground water wells lack the depth and

proper casing to avoid contamination from nearby septic tanks and are

susceptible to surface runoff, petroleum leaching from underground gasoline

tanks, and a potential leak from an area chemical plant.

X LWWA lacked the facilities to provide service to the Jefferson County residents.

Managerial X LWWA did not have a formal management structure.

Financial X LWWA lacked the financial resources to expand service to other areas of the

County.

System Capacity Development Case Study

Jefferson Communities Water System, Florida, 2002

A ) ctions: Joint Powers Agencies (Regionalization)

Local residents, unhappy with the quality of their water, initiated the development of a new

county-wide system to replace and expand LWWA. A public awareness campaign that

included community meetings, political and health department support, and newspaper

coverage led to the development of JEFCOM, a new system that will serve 1,000

connections and approximately 2,500 customers.

JEFCOM received grants and loans from DWSRF and USDA Rural Development for

chlorine treatment and system expansion.

JEFCOM is operated under a new organizational structure which consists of one system

manager and a board with one representative from each of the nine communities served.

Construction has begun on the new system and will be completed by November 2002.









O s utcomes

JEFCOM consumers will be protected from acute illnesses caused by

microbiological contamination.

JEFCOM consumers will be provided with safe, reliable water that complies with drinking

water standards for the first time. The water will be provided at a reasonable cost, with water

bills expected to be between $20 and $25 per month.

JEFCOM will likely receive widespread support in the future, because customers

have been involved with the planning and development of JEFCOM since its creation.

B d ackground

Jefferson County is a rural, economically distressed area in the Florida panhandle with

about 13,000 residents. Lloyd Water Works Authority (LWWA) was a small water system

in the County that served only a portion of one community, totaling 32 residential

connections.

P s ublic Health Challenges

Jefferson County residents not connected to LWWA were facing acute health risks from

using private ground water wells with high concentrations of coliform bacteria. LWWA did

not have the capacity to extend service to these residents.

Questions about Florida’s Capacity Development Program? Contact Greg Parker • FL Drinking Water Section • Twin Towers

Office Building • 2600 Blair Stone Road • Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 • (850) 487-1762 • greg.parker@dep.state.fl.us
C s apacity Issues

Technical

X Pittsfield's transmission and distribution systems were oversized.

X Pittsfield experienced frequent water main breaks.

X Pittsfield was in violation of Surface Water Treatment Rule requirements and

was facing heavy fines.

X Pittsfield’s part-time operator did not have time to adequately oversee system

operation or communicate with customers.

Managerial X Pittsfield's ownership did not communicate effectively with its customers.

Financial X Pittsfield had begun construction of a treatment plant. However, the cost was a

burden because Pittsfield could not secure a low interest loan.

System Capacity Development Case Study

Pittsfield, New Hampshire, 1998

B d ackground

Pittsfield Aqueduct Company, an investor-owned utility, had been designed to provide

water to several textile mills. Water quantity for the mills drove this system’s design in the

19th century. Pittsfield currently has 620 connections, 75% of which are residential. The

system's 1,860 residential customers no longer require the same high water quantity.

P s ublic Health Challenges

Pittsfield consumers were exposed to high levels of bacterial contamination and high

turbidity levels due to an unfiltered surface water supply. Stagnation of water in the

distribution system was also a problem, potentially leading to microbial contamination.

A e ctions: Ownership Transfer (Acquisition and Satellite

O ) peration)

The investors put the Pittsfield Aqueduct Company up for sale. After a year on the market,

the nearby Pennichuck water utility -- a larger utility with substantial technical, managerial and

financial resources -- purchased the system.

Pennichuck secured a State grant and refinanced a loan procured to complete the new

Pittsfield filtration plant.

Pennichuck received a HUD Community Development Block Grant to upgrade the

distribution system and improve water quality.







Questions about New Hampshire’s Capacity Development Program? Contact Robert Mann • NH Department of Environmental

Services Water Supply Engineering Bureau • PO Box 95 • 6 Hazen Drive • Concord, NH 03302-0095 • (603) 271-5171 •

rmann@des.state.nh.us

O s utcomes

Pennichuck finished construction of the treatment facility and upgraded the distribution

system, dramatically improving the quality of the finished water. Customers are now

better protected from the acute illness that can result from exposure to

microbiological contaminants.

Pennichuck installed a computer control system to monitor the facility from a remote location

and designated an operator to make daily visits to the plant, ensuring the consistent

provision of safe water.

Pennichuck initiated a customer service program to educate Pittsfield customers about their

water system, promoting the public’s right to know and building trust and

support in the community for continued provision of safe water.

Pittsfield customers benefited from a 5% reduction in water rates.
C s apacity Issues

Technical

X The distribution system required upgrades – water loss from leaks was high

and meters did not function properly. Main breaks would sometimes go

unnoticed until major portions of the distribution system had lost service.

Managerial X CTGA was managed by a board of part-time volunteers who were unable to

address the technical and financial difficulties of the system.

Financial

X CTGA became unable to meet their financial obligation to PAWC for the

purchased water.

X CTGA's water rates were approximately 20% higher than PAWC's statewide

single tariff pricing.

System Capacity Development Case Study

Clarion Township General Authority, Pennsylvania, 1998

A ) ctions: Ownership Transfer (Privatization)

CTGA sold the water system to PAWC for the amount of the debt owed to PAWC.

PAWC obtained a low-interest loan from PENNVEST (the Drinking Water State Revolving

Fund in Pennsylvania) for service connections to households with contaminated and

inadequate wells.

PAWC assigned a part-time certified operator to oversee the system.







O s utcomes

PAWC extended service to 148 households in the Clarion Township, increasing the number of

people with access to safe drinking water. These customers are now protected from

the acute illness that can result from exposure to microbiological contaminants.

PAWC conducted a comprehensive leak detection survey to investigate the high rate of water

loss. In response, they replaced critical sections of distribution piping and the system's aging

meters. They also installed equipment to automate the water distribution system, ensuring

continuous water service to customers.

PAWC reduced rates for Township customers to the statewide single tariff price of

approximately $5 per 1,000 gallons, or $100 per household per year.

B d ackground

Clarion Township is a rural community in western Pennsylvania. The Clarion Township

General Authority (CTGA) purchased drinking water for its 203 connections from the

Pennsylvania-American Water Company (PAWC), a large investor-owned system.

P s ublic Health Challenges

CTGA was unable to cost-effectively provide water to households nearby that were

inadequately served by private wells. Some wells had microbial contamination, others had

high levels of iron and manganese, and some could not produce adequate quantities of

water.

Questions about Pennsylvania’s Capacity Development Program? Contact Dennis Lee • PA Department of Environmental

Protection • Rachel Carson State Office Building • PO Box 8466 • Harrisburg, PA 17105-8466 • (717) 772-4058 •

denlee@state.pa.us
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Office of Water (4606M)

EPA-816-R-02-022

www.epa.gov/safewater

September 2002

Printed on Recycled Paper