Security

Information

Collaboratives

Utilities

A Guide for Water 

EPA/625/R-05/002 

May 2005 

Security Information

Collaboratives

A Guide for Water Utilities 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

National Homeland Security Research Center 

Cincinnati, OH 45268 

Recycled/Recyclable

Printed with vegetable-based ink on paper that contains a 

minimum of 50% postconsumer fiber content processed 

chlorine-free.
Acknowledgments

The development of this guide was managed by Scott Minamyer, with the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Homeland Security Research

Center. While developing the publication, EPA sought the input of many

individuals. We would like to thank the following people for their contributions:

Jonathan Herrmann, EPA National Homeland Security Research Center,

Cincinnati, OH

Susan Ruggles, EPA Water Security Division, Washington, DC

Bay Area Security Information Collaborative Case Study

Clifford Bowen, California Department of Health Services, Berkeley, CA

Steve Dennis, Alameda County Water District, Fremont, CA

Diana Gaines, Zone 7 Water Agency, Pleasanton, CA

Bruce Macler, EPA Region 9, San Francisco, CA

John Rodgers, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, CA

Ray Yep, Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose, CA

Milwaukee Inter-Agency Clean Water Advisory Council Case Study

Paul Biedrzycki, City of Milwaukee Health Department, WI

Larry Landsness, Department of Natural Resources, Milwaukee, WI

Carrie Lewis, Milwaukee Water Works, WI

Newport News Waterworks Collaborative Case Study

Tom Kahler, Newport News Waterworks, VA

Captain Frank Crotty, York County Sheriff ’s Department, VA

Captain Joe Moore, Newport News Police Department, VA

SA Jason Freed, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Norfolk, VA

Cadmus Group Support

Richard Krop was the project manager.

Vanessa Leiby was the technical lead.

Chile Hidalgo provided graphics support.

Joseph Milbury and Shreedhar Kanetkar assisted with research.
Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1

What is a Security-Information Collaborative? ................................................................ 1

What are the Benefits of a Security-Information Collaborative? ................................... 2

How to Use this Guide ...................................................................................................... 3

Chapter 1. Seven Steps to Forming a Security-Information Collaborative ....... 5

Step 1: Evaluate your utility’s current situation to determine whether a collaborative

is necessary ............................................................................................................................ 5

Step 2: Identify organizations that should be part of the collaborative ........................ 7

Step 3: Obtain upper management support and keep them informed ........................ 8

Step 4: Invite potential members of the collaborative to meet and discuss

its formation ........................................................................................................................ 9

Step 5: Establish a meeting schedule and location .......................................................... 9

Step 6: Agree on how the collaborative will be run ....................................................... 10

Step 7: Establish goals and specific steps for achieving them ....................................... 11

Chapter 2. Operating and Maintaining a Security-Information Collaborative 13

Chapter 3. Benefits of a Security-Information Collaborative ..........................15

Bay Area Security Information Collaborative (BASIC): ................................................ 15

The Milwaukee Inter-Agency Clean Health Water Advisory Council: ......................... 16

Newport News Waterworks: ............................................................................................ 16

Chapter 4. Three Case Studies .........................................................................17

BASIC, a Utility-to-Utility Collaborative ......................................................................... 17

The Milwaukee Inter-Agency Clean Water Advisory Council, a Utility-toPublic-Health Collaborative .............................................................................................. 20

Newport News Waterworks, a Utility-to-Law-Enforcement Collaborative ................ 23

What Makes a Collaborative Successful? ......................................................................... 25

Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 26

Appendix A. Sample Resource Documents .................................................... 27

iii
iv
Introduction

Water infrastructure-related emergencies can vary greatly in their severity and extent. 

They can run the gamut from waterborne disease outbreaks and vandalism to terrorist 

threats and actions suddenly made conceivable by the events of September 11, 2001. 

Drinking water and wastewater utilities have been working harder than ever to improve 

or maintain security. Information about potential threats to these systems—and the 

appropriate responses to those threats—is essential to the success of any security 

improvements. Drinking water and wastewater utilities can work with each other, state 

primacy agencies, the public health community, and law enforcement and other first 

responders to collect and share pertinent information. This guide offers suggestions 

on how to establish a successful security-information collaborative. In preparing the 

guide, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drew on the experiences of 

established security-information collaboratives across the country. 

What is a Security-Information Collaborative? 

A security-information collaborative is a group of organizations and agencies formed to 

share information and address common issues regarding security—in the case of this 

guide, water security. These collaboratives can take many forms, from ad hoc groups 

that meet only as needed to formal organizations complete with charters, mission 

statements, operating budgets, and regularly scheduled meetings. 

This guide describes three types of security-information collaboratives: utility to utility, 

utility to public health, and utility to law enforcement. Its step-by-step approach will 

help individual utilities identify and create security-information collaboratives that best 

meet the needs of their particular situations. Its case studies will show how utilities can 

enhance their security by working more closely with other entities. 

Figure 1: Range of Options for Security Information Collaboratives 

Informal Formal

Communication

among parties 

as needed 

Regular calls 

to other key 

players

Subgroup of other 

interagency groups 

with informal 

cooperation agreement 

Chartered

interagency

organization

Informal Formal

1
What are the Benefits of a SecurityInformation Collaborative? 

The principal benefit of a collaborative is enhanced drinking water and wastewater 

security and public health protection. Among the many other benefits a collaborative 

provides is the opportunity for utility officials to develop working relationships with the 

people on whom they will rely during an emergency. Another benefit cited by members 

of the collaboratives profiled in this guide is the opportunity to share information from 

a variety of sources. For example, the water utility may subscribe to the Water 

Information Sharing and Analysis Center (WaterISAC), from which it receives early 

warnings of potential physical, contamination, and cyber threats, as well as information 

about security. State primacy agencies can provide expertise, resources, and information. 

Local law enforcement officials obtain updates from the Department of Homeland 

Security and regional offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Public health 

agencies receive information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 

and are part of new disease surveillance programs being implemented around the 

country. Although the information can sometimes be redundant, a focused effort to 

share it can ensure that utilities have a more comprehensive picture of the current security 

condition. Other benefits of collaboratives include: 

 Improved detection of, response to, and recovery from security crisis events 

 Enhanced working knowledge and understanding of different professional 

disciplines

 More effective use of different skills and resources 

 Increased effectiveness in educating consumers and responding to questions 

from the media and public 

 Improved intergovernmental communication 

 Better understanding of various organizational perspectives and enhanced ability 

to resolve conflicts in a non-crisis environment 

 Heightened sense of trust and community among organizations 

 Identification and elimination of obstacles that prevent full cooperation 

 Joint project development 

 Increased efficiency through resource and information sharing 

 Multiple communication links 

 Enhanced problem-solving and team-building capabilities 

 Identification and coordination of inter-organizational dependencies 

2
How to Use this Guide 

EPA has developed this guide to inform drinking water and wastewater utilities, and 

others, about the benefits of establishing collaboratives to share information on water 

security. The guide provides step-by-step suggestions for establishing a collaborative. 

Case studies of three types of collaboratives are included to show how utilities can 

coordinate with various key water security partners. These three case studies are: 

 The San Francisco Bay Area Security Information Collaborative (BASIC), a 

utility-to-utility collaborative 

 The Milwaukee, WI, Inter-Agency Clean Water Advisory Council, a utility-topublic-health collaborative 

 The Newport News, VA Waterworks, a utility-to-law-enforcement collaborative 

While these three collaboratives are certainly not the only types possible, they do indicate 

the variety of opportunities available to help identify threats, reduce vulnerabilities, detect 

potential contamination, and respond quickly to terrorist threats or attacks. Chapter 1 

provides suggestions for starting a security-information collaborative. Operational 

guidelines are offered in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 discusses some of the benefits of a 

collaborative. Chapter 4 describes the case studies in detail. Appendix A gives sample 

documents. How an individual utility might proceed will be based on the local issues 

identified and agreed upon by the potential participants in a security-information 

collaborative. Therefore, the composition of collaboratives across the country and their 

operation will vary. 3
4
Chapter 1. Seven Steps to Forming a 

Security-Information Collaborative 

Security-information collaboratives can be a useful way to continually collect and share 

important information about water security. This chapter presents seven steps you can 

take to form a collaborative. The process begins with basic questions about your utility 

and circumstances to help you decide whether a collaborative is necessary. It then takes 

you through the steps needed to create a collaborative. 

Step 1 

Evaluate your utility’s current 

situation to determine whether a 

collaborative is necessary 

A collaborative can help ensure access to information today and over the long term. To 

decide if a collaborative would be worth pursuing, you should answer several basic 

questions about your utility, your potential partners, and the environment in which you 

operate.

In many areas of many states, more than one utility provides drinking water and 

wastewater services. These utilities often share resources, such as drinking water supplies, 

and may face common problems. What do you know about your neighboring water 

utilities? Do you know whether they conducted vulnerability assessments, and if so, 

what they found? What do you know about their emergency response plans? Do you 

know if they ever conduct security exercises and, if they do, what they are learning from 

those exercises? Do you know whether other utilities have access to information that you 

do not have? What do they know about your utility, and what would you like for them 

to know? Are opportunities for regular interactions with these utilities already available? 

You may need to coordinate your security plans with local law enforcement agencies and 

other first responders, as well as the public health community. Do you regularly interact 

with these groups? Do you know whom to contact in case of an emergency? If your 

utility serves more than one jurisdiction, do you know whom to contact in each 

jurisdiction? And if your utility serves more than one jurisdiction, is it clear who will 

respond if an emergency arises? Are you familiar with any safety and security guidelines 

issued by your local police or fire department? Are the police, fire fighters, and other 

emergency personnel familiar with your facilities and their operation? Do they know 

where your utility’s critical assets are? Do they know where you store potentially 

dangerous materials? 

5
Remember, your utility’s operating environment may be constantly changing. Your 

answers to the questions above might be different today than they would have been 3 or 

4 years ago—and they may be different 3 or 4 years from now. The potential threats to 

your system are also evolving, as are your potential responses. Positions in 

organizations—and the responsibilities associated with them—may change with time. 

The individuals who fill these positions may retire or move on to other opportunities. 

Does your utility have good working relationships with other utilities, police and 

emergency responders, and public health officials, or do you need to cultivate long-term 

relationships with them? Are you able to keep current with changes in these 

organizations? Can you ensure that you and your counterparts in other organizations 

will continue to have access to up-to-date information? 

If you do not have regular contact with neighboring utilities, the police and fire 

departments, and the public health community, and you are unfamiliar with their security 

and emergency response plans, a security-information collaborative can help. A 

collaborative can help you share information with other utilities in your region on an ongoing basis. It can help you coordinate your plans over the long-term with law 

enforcement, fire departments, and public health officials and keep you up-to-date on 

water security issues in your region. 

A successful collaborative often begins with one person who has the vision and drive to 

bring together different groups for a common purpose. In each of the case studies 

presented in Chapter 4, the person who organized the collaborative had the authority to 

make key decisions. That authority either was already a part of that person’s position in 

the utility or was delegated to him or her by senior management. So before you begin, 

you need to ensure that you have individuals who possess the skills and drive to bring 

the collaborative together and the support of senior management to form the 

collaborative.

6
Step 2 Identify organizations that should 

be part of the collaborative 

Collaboratives tend to work best when their member organizations share mutual goals 

or values and are similar in character. Organizations you include in your collaborative will 

depend on the information you need. For example, if you need to know the emergency 

response plans of other water utilities in your region, you should focus on a utility-toutility collaborative. If threat and countermeasure information is needed, law 

enforcement should be brought in. If you need to coordinate with the public health 

community, its representatives should be part of the collaborative. Regardless of the 

type of collaborative you form, it is important to identify the agencies and organizations 

that share common concerns and can bring additional information and knowledge to 

your utility and to the collaborative’s other members. 

Organizations you should consider include, but are not limited to: 

 Water utilities in the region that share similar security concerns or issues 

 The state primacy agency 

 The state or local health department 

 The regional FBI office 

 Local police, fire fighters, and other first responders 

 Local Emergency Planning Committees 

 The Regional EPA Office 

 Local Joint Terrorism Task Forces 

 Laboratories

 Universities

 Military Installations 

7

Forming the Collaborative 

A driving force behind the formation of BASIC was the need to coordinate 

emergency planning and responses among many of the large urban water utilities 

in the San Francisco Bay Area. BASIC is one of many regional organizations in 

the Bay Area, which includes several large cities and water utilities. Its original 

program (CALFED), a consortium of state and federal agencies that addresses 

help coordinate their responses to security issues. 

members were in contact with each other through the California-Federal Bay-Delta 

issues regarding the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary. 

BASIC’s original members met in response to 9/11 and agreed to form BASIC to 
A collaborative needs to be big enough to ensure there are enough people to do its work, 

but it should not be so big that its meetings become unwieldy and unproductive. 

Experience shows that collaboratives of 8 to 12 persons work very well. Other 

individuals can be added as needed or participate in specialized subcommittees or 

workgroups. Subcommittees typically report directly to the collaborative but do not 

participate in its regular deliberations. Larger groups may be necessary sometimes and 

should not be ruled out, but larger collaboratives can be more difficult to operate than 

smaller ones. 

Before forming your own collaborative, it is important to identify any that may already 

exist. A group established to address non-security-related issues might form the basis of 

your security-information collaborative. Your utility may be able to join an existing 

collaborative or form a subgroup or working group within one. At the very least, you 

should be able to identify the key players in the established collaboratives and ask them 

whether they would be interested in joining a new one dedicated to water security 

information. Most likely, you will have to show them that the benefits of forming a 

collaborative will outweigh the costs and time commitment of doing so. 

The level of participation by individual members tends to be directly related to the stake 

their organizations have in the collaborative. Although ex-officio-type members may be 

appropriate, for the most part each member should feel he or she has an equal stake in 

the collaborative. 

Step 3 Obtain upper management support 

and keep them informed 

Upper management support is critical to the formation and maintenance of securityinformation collaboratives. Financial support is often in the form of in-kind services, 

and members must take time from other duties and responsibilities to attend meetings 

of the collaborative. Upper management support not only ensures that the necessary 

resources are available for the collaborative to function, it also validates the effort. The 

need to report to management on its activities also forces the group to move forward on 

projects and other efforts. 

8

Participation in the Collaborative 

It is essential that the right people from each organization participate in the 

i

needed the participation of the uniformed patrol commanders from each precinct. 

The commanders would oversee any response to an event, and they needed 

police chief was important, but the participation of these commanders was essential. 

collaborat ve. The Newport News Waterworks determined early in the process that it 

information about the Waterworks’ assets in their jurisdictions. The support of the 
Invite potential members of the 

collaborative to meet and discuss its 

formation

Step 4 

The group’s initial meeting is an excellent time to explore the benefits of working 

together and to understand what each member organization can contribute. At this 

meeting, it is important to identify the areas of common concern and, perhaps, develop a 

mission statement or set of goals for the collaborative. The personalities of its members 

have much to do with whether a group functions well. Try to identify people who are 

not only in the right positions in their organizations, but who are also able to work 

cooperatively. When reaching out to other organizations, contacting upper management 

first may be necessary, but be clear that the participating members should be the persons 

who will do the collaborative’s work. 

Do not be discouraged if the first meeting does not go as well as you had hoped. Often, 

this initial meeting may be the first time that some of the group’s potential members 

have had a chance to sit and talk. There may be differences in philosophy, terminology, 

and approaches that need to be understood. Group dynamics and individual 

personalities will have a significant impact on the meeting’s outcome. 

The formation of a group or the conduct of a meeting generally follows a welldocumented pattern: form, storm, norm, and perform. The group is brought together 

(form). Its members each express their views and state their positions and expectations 

(storm). Eventually, the group “normalizes” as its members decide that there is value in 

working together and seek areas of agreement (norm). Last, the group agrees on future 

joint actions (perform). 

Step 5 Establish a meeting schedule and 

location

Most successful collaboratives meet regularly. Face-to-face meetings are best, especially at 

the beginning of the process. These meetings provide the best opportunity for 

members to get to know each other prior to an emergency. How often the collaborative 

meets can vary. It often depends on the amount of work to be done, availability of 

members, and security conditions. At first, the group should meet at least once a 

month, preferably at a set day and time (e.g., the third Thursday of each month from 

2:00 to 5:00 p.m.). Meetings can be held at the same location or rotated among the 

member organizations. Rotating the meeting locations means each organization shares 

in the cost of meeting rooms and refreshments; it also helps each member feel that his 

or her organization is a full member of the group. 9
Agree on how the collaborative will 

be run Step 6 

As previously stated, there is no single type of collaborative. Some are formal 

organizations with written charters and formal positions. Others are loose, open 

organizations with no formal positions whose membership may change over time. You 

will need to decide how formal or informal your collaborative will be. Some questions to 

consider include: 

 Is a formal charter or memorandum of understanding necessary for the 

collaborative?

 Will the collaborative have a chairperson who develops the agenda, facilitates the 

meetings, and prepares notes or follow-up action items? 

 How will the chairperson be selected? 

 Will the chairmanship rotate among all collaborative members or stay with one 

organization?

 Will the collaborative have a budget and, if so, how will the budget be handled? 

 Will the collaborative be supported only by staff from member organizations or 

will the collaborative hire staff to manage its work? 

 How will the collaborative members communicate between meetings? 

How your collaborative answers these questions will depend on individual personalities, 

the requirements of the member organizations, and circumstances. Collaboratives 

appear to work best, at least initially, when the workload is shared by its members. This 

sharing encourages full participation and greatly reduces the costs borne by any one 

member organization. 

An important issue to decide is whether the collaborative will prepare a budget and 

develop a mechanism to spend funds on contract services or other products. Experience 

shows that collaboratives work best when resource issues do not distract members from 

the group’s activities. Settling questions about budgets and disbursing funds up front 

allows the collaborative to focus on substantive issues. Appendix A provides some 

example documents, such as a charter article, that could be used to define the 

collaborative.

10
How the collaborative will resolve issues and conflicts must be determined. Will votes be 

taken? Is consensus necessary to move forward on an identified activity or project? More 

formal entities may be able to operate by majority rule, but collaboratives are most often 

voluntary organizations, so consensus may be necessary for the collaborative to act as a 

group. 

Sensitive security information will undoubtedly be part of the group’s deliberations from 

time to time. An agreement to keep discussion details in the meeting room may help 

members speak freely about sensitive issues or raise important concerns that may run 

counter to the opinions of a majority of the collaborative’s members. (The 

collaborative’s members should check with the appropriate authorities regarding 

obligations to make their deliberations part of the public record.) 

Step 7 Establish goals and specific steps 

for achieving them 

Although everyone is busy, people will take time out for a meeting if they see a benefit. 

The collaborative should establish some short-term and long-term goals and, perhaps, 

identify some projects that will benefit the member organizations. Doing so will ensure 

that the work of the collaborative stays “fresh” and evolves with the changing nature of 

security concerns. For example, utilities that initially were concerned about completing 

their vulnerability assessments are now developing or finalizing their emergency response 

plans. These plans need to be tested and exercised and the lessons learned should be 

shared with the collaborative members. By sharing experiences and working together, 

members of the collaborative can increase efficiency and reduce redundancy related to 

water security at their respective organizations. 

Working Together 

The Milwaukee collaborative produced several documents concerning a response 

protocol for detecting Cryptosporidium or Giardia in finished water. It took the 

collaborative more time to produce these documents than a single agency would 

;

to ensure that the documents were reviewed thoroughly by experts in both the 

water works and public health departments. In fact, the members believe the 

collaborative produced more robust, higher quality documents than would have 

been produced by the individual agencies. 

have required however, by working together, the collaborative’s members were able 

Membership in the collaborative may change over time as the issues that confront the 

collaborative evolve. The collaborative should have a mechanism for periodically 

reviewing its charter and working documents and reconfirming the interest and 

membership in the group. 11
12
Chapter 2. Operating and Maintaining 

a Security-Information Collaborative 

This chapter provides some tips learned from the case studies described in Chapter 4 to 

help the collaborative run smoothly. Just as there is more than one type of collaborative, 

there is more than one way to make a collaborative successful. How well you do will 

depend on your group’s needs, circumstances, and dynamics. 

Remain flexible. The goal of the collaborative is to collect and share information over 

the long run. As circumstances change, your collaborative must adapt. For example, the 

Milwaukee collaborative was formed in response to an outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in 

1993. The collaborative added heightened security and bioterrorism to its agenda 

following the 9/11 attacks, and these remain integral parts of its work. 

Meet as often as necessary. Not every collaborative holds regular group meetings. 

How often a collaborative meets depends on its requirements, the workload of its 

participants outside the group, and its current circumstances. As noted in Chapter 1, 

some collaboratives are informal, and the initiating water utility may meet regularly with 

individual members, rather than bringing the entire group together. Other collaboratives 

may be more formal, but still not meet every month. Once the collaborative has been 

established, it may reduce its meeting schedule to every other month or even every 

quarter, or decide to meet more often as circumstances dictate. Members may rely on email and telephone calls to keep current between meetings. 

Share the work. Consider rotating the meetings among the collaborative’s participating 

organizations. This helps spread the cost of the collaborative—primarily conference 

rooms, refreshments, and travel—among the members. Of course, if one participating 

organization is centrally located or able to provide conference space at little or no cost, 

holding every meeting at its site may be worthwhile. 

Also, consider rotating the chairmanship of the collaborative regularly to help spread the 

burden of the work and avoid burnout. The chair rotates among BASIC’s members 

every six meetings. Rotating the chair is not always necessary or feasible, however. As the 

central players in their collaboratives, the water works in Milwaukee and Newport News 

always chair their respective meetings. 

Establish an agenda for each meeting. Having an agenda helps to focus and manage 

the discussion. The Milwaukee collaborative’s agenda is set and does not vary much 

from meeting to meeting. Participants know what to expect and are prepared. Being far 

less formal, Newport News does not have regular group meetings, but its meetings with 

law enforcement officials follow a set plan. The BASIC chair prepares a loose agenda for 

each meeting, but members may introduce additional topics for discussion. 

13
Decide whether to keep formal minutes. Minutes provide a consistent record and can 

be especially useful to anyone who misses a meeting. On the other hand, some 

participants may be reluctant to speak openly if minutes are taken. In fact, the rule that 

“what is said in the 

room stays in the 

room” proved helpful 

for each collaborative 

studied. This can be 

especially important for 

any statements and 

information of a 

sensitive nature. If 

minutes are not kept, 

Perhaps the most important benefit of 

a security information collaborative is 

the opportunity for utility officials to 

develop working relationships with the 

people on whom they will rely during 

an emergency before a crisis occurs. 

individual members may decide to take their own notes. Be sure to follow up on all 

decisions, especially if there are no formal minutes. 

Find ways to communicate between regular meetings. E-mail is an effective way for 

the members of the case study collaboratives to relay alerts and other information from 

outside sources and otherwise stay in touch between meetings. Regular telephone calls, 

list servers, and one-on-one meetings also help members maintain contact, especially 

when groups meet less often than once a month. 

Commit staff time to water security. In the post-9/11 world, water security is an 

integral part of providing safe drinking water. For that reason alone, utilities should 

have staff members whose responsibilities include water security and who can take the 

lead when working with law enforcement, other utilities, or public health officials. These 

persons should play a leading role in the work of the security-information collaborative. 

Involve senior management. Senior managers must support the process by giving 

their staff the resources, time, and authority to participate fully in the collaborative. In 

turn, the collaborative must keep senior management informed of its activities. 

Make the best use of your resources. Most of the collaborative’s activities will be 

carried out by the people who belong to the group. The primary activity likely will be the 

regular periodic meetings, whose costs will be borne by the member organizations. The 

collaborative may also decide to sponsor other activities or programs. The individual 

organizations involved may pay for some of these programs as part of their regular 

operations. For example, Newport News Waterworks gave tours of its facilities and 

provided geographic information system (GIS) maps to law enforcement officials. 

BASIC created an emergency planning exercise paid for by the member utilities that chose 

to participate in the exercise. In other cases, the collaborative may want to finance an 

activity directly. Although they have not used it to date, BASIC has a mechanism to 

manage financial contributions and contract for outside services. The approach your 

collaborative takes will depend on local circumstances, including the financial resources of 

the participating organizations. 

14
Chapter 3. Benefits of a SecurityInformation Collaborative

As the three case studies in the next chapter show, security-information collaboratives can 

accomplish a great deal. In all cases, the benefits not only met, but exceeded the 

participants’ expectations. BASIC’s members said they cannot overstate the dividends 

from communication and information sharing. The Milwaukee collaborative plays a 

critical role in maintaining contacts among its members, who said they hear about things 

they would not hear about otherwise. The Newport News collaborative has proven to be 

an excellent source of information about the water system for law enforcement in 

communities throughout the region. 

In addition to these general benefits, the collaboratives studied have several concrete 

accomplishments. Examples of what a successful collaborative can achieve include the 

following. 

Bay Area Security Information Collaborative 

(BASIC):

1. Jointly developed a Threat Condition Response Plan for the Homeland Security 

Advisory System in an effort to ensure a consistent response by Bay Area water 

utilities following the events of 9/11. The joint plan specifies a consistent 

approach across BASIC utilities under various threat conditions, ensures that 

each utility is adequately protected, and improves confidence that the utilities are 

fully engaged in security activities by providing information to the public on 

these matters. 

2. Conducted a joint security tabletop exercise. This exercise brought together local 

police, fire, FBI, and hazardous materials (HazMat) agencies to discuss coordination during a terrorist event involving a water system. 

3. Established a secure communication network among its members consisting of 

e-mails, pagers, and LAN-link communications. 

4. Developed PowerPoint presentations on the formation and nature of BASIC, 

which members present to help other utilities form collaboratives. 

5. Created a mutual aid resource list that enables members to share equipment and 

expertise.

6. Is developing a set of generic tabletop exercises to share among the member 

organizations and other utilities. 

7. Is working to generate an emergency notification tree. 

8. Is developing a generic guide for water system response to emergencies. 15
The Milwaukee Inter-Agency Clean Health 

Water Advisory Council: 

1. Published a “Response Protocol in the Event Cryptosporidium/Giardia is 

Detected in Finished Water.” 

2. Is developing a “Matrix of Risk of Cryptosporidiosis to People Who Drink 

Milwaukee Water.” 

3. Is developing a cost/benefit model to explain the risks identified in the Matrix. 

4. Is generating an emergency notification protocol. 

Newport News Waterworks: 

1. Identified all counties, cities, and police departments with jurisdiction in areas 

where Waterworks assets are located. 

2. Met with uniformed patrol commanders, made presentations about the assets 

of the Waterworks, and provided GIS maps showing the location of critical 

infrastructure.

3. Has provided facility tours to all local police departments to inform officers 

about the chemicals stored at the utility and about the nature and function of 

the utility’s critical assets. 

4. Met with the local FBI Field Office to discuss protocols and steps that would be 

taken should the water utility be threatened or an event occur. 

5. Regularly meets with or communicates with local law enforcement through email and telephone calls to share threat information and discuss other potential 

issues of concern. 

System Teamwork 

water utility alerted the other utilities that belong to its collaborative about the 

incident. These utilities determined that the same individual was also taking pictures 

of their systems. They informed the police, who apprehended the individual. 

When a staff member noticed an individual photographing one of its reservoirs, a 

16
Chapter 4. Three Case Studies 

The three case studies in this chapter show how utilities can work with member 

organizations to collect and share information. Each case study describes the 

collaborative’s: 

 History, including how it was formed 

 Mission and goals 

 Structure (e.g., formal organization with a charter or informal group) 

 Meetings and the means its members use to communicate with each other 

 Benefits and accomplishments 

 Future activities 

BASIC, a Utility-to-Utility Collaborative 

History and Background 

The San Francisco Bay Area is served by a number of water agencies. Six large agencies 

that use water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the Hetch Hetchy reservoir in 

Yosemite National Park started BASIC. All are involved with CALFED, a consortium of 

state and federal government agencies that addresses issues concerning the Bay and the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary. Prior to forming BASIC, the board members 

and general managers of these water 

agencies kept in touch through CALFED 

and other forums. In April 1999, the 

general managers of several Bay Area 

utilities realized that they needed to 

cooperate more formally and consistently. 

That realization led to the creation of the 

Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition, which 

made such cooperation easier. 

After the events of 9/11, six members of 

the coalition formed BASIC to share 

security-related information. BASIC first met in October 2001. Two private utilities 

joined later. EPA became involved with BASIC after the passage of the Bioterrorism 

Act. The California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Field Operations 

Branch (state primacy agency) has been actively involved with BASIC. The FBI is also 

involved as time permits. 

17
Mission and Goals 

One goal of BASIC is to provide its members with new information about what other 

utilities are doing to enhance their security. Another objective is to speak with a unified 

voice to the local media. Many members interviewed for this guide indicated that they 

needed to standardize their security practices and keep all members informed of 

technological developments. As stated in its charter, BASIC’s mission is to support the 

development of security practices among Bay Area water utilities, the discussion of 

appropriate common security practices, and the creation of practical work products 

designed to facilitate a common level of security among member utilities. 

Structure

BASIC is comprised of eight member utilities. Its formal charter provides a mission 

statement, establishes meeting protocols, and discusses financial arrangements. BASIC 

has no paid employees. While its charter allows BASIC to contract for services, it has not 

yet done so. 

BASIC deliberately limits the size of its meetings. In the beginning, about 25 persons, 

two or three from each member utility, attended each meeting. Such a large group proved 

to be unwieldy. Eventually, members found that working with eight to ten persons 

fostered productive decision making. Now, with fewer participants, the meetings are 

more efficient and decisions are made more swiftly. 

BASIC occasionally will have joint projects in addition to its regular meetings. 

Participation in the collaborative’s projects is voluntary. To share in the results of these 

projects, however, members must participate in the project. One or two member 

organizations may fund a project in whole or in part, and other members may provide 

other services. 

Meetings and Communications 

At its first meeting, the group decided to meet on the fourth Thursday of each month. 

After an initial round of meetings, the group agreed to meet every other month. 

Members exchanged contact information and selected a chair, with the understanding 

that a new chair would be named by the collaborative each year. 

Each meeting is hosted by a different member utility, which is responsible for providing 

meeting space and refreshments. Adhering to an informal agreement, whatever is 

discussed at each meeting does not leave the room. For the first several meetings, no 

formal meeting notes were taken. The group sometimes has used “non-disclosure” 

letters to track hard copies of sensitive information. Members treat all confidential 

information as if it came from their own organizations. 

18
The loose meeting format can change slightly whenever a new person begins chairing the 

group, based on the preferences of the new chairperson. Members prefer an open 

discussion only loosely guided by an agenda. This format allows new ideas to come up 

and opinions to be thoroughly explored. 

EPA Region 9 and the California Department of Health Services attend and participate 

regularly. Representatives of the FBI and other non-utility agencies occasionally attend 

the meetings to get to know local utility personnel. Several times in BASIC’s existence, 

members have contacted the FBI to dispel rumors. Members have also received 

information from the FBI. 

The members of BASIC remain in contact between meetings by e-mail. Another 

mechanism that has proven effective for the collaborative is the use of working groups 

made up of some of the collaborative’s members. One working group, for example, has 

drafted guidelines for conducting tabletop exercises that all eight utilities can use to 

organize their own exercises. 

Benefits and Accomplishments 

BASIC members highly value the ability to compare and contrast security practices and 

share information with other Bay Area water utilities and feel that participation in the 

collaborative has strengthened their water security programs. Members can find out 

quickly what is going on in the other organizations because they remain in 

communication through the collaborative. 

Among its specific accomplishments, the collaborative has developed threat response 

procedures very useful to members. The procedures help the utilities decide what to do 

when the National Homeland Security Advisory System status changes; for example, 

from yellow to orange. Member utilities find that having a list of options is useful, even 

if no specific threat to the water sector is identified when the national alert status is raised. 

In 2003, BASIC conducted a tabletop exercise whose scenario involved the intentional 

contamination of pipelines throughout the Bay Area. The BASIC members sponsored 

the event in conjunction with the California Department of Health Services and Alameda 

County Office of Emergency Services, which made available free meeting space. 

Approximately 80 agencies participated, including the FBI, California state and local 

public health agencies, other public water agencies, HazMat agencies, and fire and police 

departments.

Future Activities 

Some smaller utilities have expressed interest in joining BASIC, and the group does not 

rule out future expansion. However, members believe the collaborative’s current size and 

structure can be maintained indefinitely. The persons responsible for taking BASIC into 

the future face the challenge of deciding whether to take on even larger projects. 

19
The Milwaukee Inter-Agency Clean Water 

Advisory Council, a Utility-to-Public-Health 

Collaborative

History and Background 

The Milwaukee Water Works provides water to the city of Milwaukee, WI and 14 

surrounding suburbs. The collaboration between Milwaukee Water Works and the 

Milwaukee Health Department began after 

an outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in April 

1993. (The outbreak was described by one 

long-term member as “a wake-up call.”) 

The collaborative grew out of a mayoral 

directive to formally bring together officials 

from the water utility, the public works 

department, and the health department, as 

well as representatives of local and state 

government agencies. The Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources (the 

state’s water quality regulatory agency) and local sewerage districts are involved. City 

officials recognized that routine communication between the water utility and public 

health department would be essential to ensure that waterborne outbreaks of this 

magnitude be prevented in the future. 

Mission and Goals 

The collaborative’s goal is to promote the regular exchange of information about water 

quality and public health-related science. It also helps manage the city’s response to waterrelated crises through a multi-agency team approach. It seeks to foster communication 

among the several public agencies responsible for source water, treatment plants, and 

community health and safety. Its goal is to share technical information regarding the 

measurement of contaminants and their removal from drinking water, emerging 

technologies, barriers to protect the public from potential contaminants, environmental 

influences to source water quality, and trends in disease surveillance and select pathogen 

incidence.

Structure

There are two parts to the collaborative. The Inter-Agency Clean Water Advisory Council 

(IACWAC) was formed by the Milwaukee Common Council in 1994 and charged with 

the overall coordination of all water quality issues facing the community. It brings 

together the heads of the water, health, and engineering departments, and representatives 

of state regulatory agencies and the local sewerage districts. The IACWAC reviews, 

develops, and implements policy. The second component is the Water/Health Technical 20 Subcommittee, which brings together staff with expertise in epidemiology, 
environmental science, laboratory management, water treatment processes and system 

operations, and public health to exchange information, foster communication, and 

discuss water quality issues. 

The subcommittee presents 

any proposals or 

recommendations it develops The collaborative helps manage to the IACWAC. The Water 

Works Superintendent and the the city’s response to crises 

Health Department Manager through a multi-agency team for Disease Control and

Prevention are members of approach.

both the IACWAC and the

Water/Health Technical 

Subcommittee.

Meetings and Communications 

The IACWAC meets quarterly. It reviews developments in the community and directs 

the work of the Water/Health Technical Subcommittee. The collaborative’s technical 

work is done by the Water/Health Technical Subcommittee, which meets once a month. 

(If an incident, event, concern, or issue needs immediate attention, members are 

prepared to meet within 1 hour after notification.) Meetings are held at the same location 

each month. The water and public health agencies communicate regularly and share 

information through the subcommittee. 

The agenda typically is the same for every scheduled meeting of the Water/Health 

Technical Subcommittee. It includes an update on water quality, reports on other water 

treatment projects (such as the status of capital improvement construction projects), 

updates on drinking water treatment plant status and sewage treatment, and an update 

from the health department. The health department update covers disease occurrence 

trends, laboratory capacity, and environmental matters such as watershed influences, 

source water quality, and surface water testing and monitoring. 

The subcommittee takes no formal votes; all matters are decided by consensus. 

Attendance is required by the relevant department heads. The subcommittee reports on 

its activities at the IACWAC quarterly meetings. 

The Water/Health Technical Subcommittee does not take notes or compile formal 

minutes. The advantage of the current arrangement is that members may be more 

willing to share their views than they would be if formal notes were taken. The 

disadvantage is that some material may need to be repeated at meetings for those who 

missed a previous meeting, and some of the detail and nuance of complex issues may be 

lost. Because the subcommittee submits a report to the IACWAC, the substance of the 

group’s meetings enters the documentary record. 

21
Benefits and Accomplishments 

Members identified many benefits to the collaborative. Its meetings help build 

professional rapport and understanding between the water utility and the health 

department, which have different organizational cultures. The meetings also help 

representatives of each organization develop insight regarding the challenges faced by 

their counterparts in the other organizations. The scientific bases for various activities are 

shared and understood, and new developments in the various professional disciplines 

are reviewed. Members find that the collaborative helps promote problem solving and 

team building by bringing together professionals who have different qualifications and 

perspectives.

The Water/Health Technical Subcommittee provides a forum that lets its members work 

out problems methodically and creatively. Its discussions help to ensure that all sides 

thoroughly understand all aspects of an issue before moving forward. Sometimes the 

discussions are long, but participants agree that this is necessary for all aspects of safe 

drinking water to be discussed. 

Specific accomplishments include the development of procedures to notify the public in 

the event of a contamination or disease outbreak. The collaborative also recently updated 

its emergency response plan and is now working on a risk-assessment matrix for selected 

pathogens.

Future Activities 

Group members are satisfied with the collaborative and have no immediate plans to 

make changes. However, the collaborative’s members recognize that they need to avoid 

complacency and work to sustain its efforts. The representatives of each organization 

will continue to bring topics and projects of mutual interest to the collaborative. Likely 

topics include water security, new laboratory methods to improve health risk assessment, 

disinfection by-products, and early warning and detection technologies. The collaborative 

members believe that this will ensure that the collaborative will continue to provide 

benefits to its participants into the future. 

22
Newport News Waterworks, a Utility-to-LawEnforcement Collaborative 

History and Background 

Newport News Waterworks (NNW) 

provides water to Newport News, 

VA, as well as Hampton, Poquoson, 

and portions of York and James 

City Counties. It is surrounded by 

military installations: two army 

bases, one air force base, and one 

shipyard where nuclear carriers and 

submarines are built. The Norfolk 

naval base, to the south of Newport News, is among the largest in the world. About 

nine miles to the west of Newport News is the Surrey nuclear power plant. In view of 

its geography and location, as well as the nature of the communities it serves, NNW 

takes security very seriously. The collaborative began immediately following 9/11 with 

informal discussions among the heads of local law enforcement departments and the 

Waterworks. The collaborative’s status was recognized more formally after a 

reorganization at NNW, which created a full-time security/compliance manager who 

began working with local law enforcement. This manager went to the local authorities to 

provide them as much information as possible and establish working relationships. 

Mission and Goals 

The NNW collaborative was started to strengthen ties with local law enforcement. The 

utility uses the collaborative as a way to provide information about the Waterworks to 

law enforcement in a consistent and timely manner. The collaborative also works to 

coordinate emergency response plans between the Waterworks and law enforcement. 

Structure

An operations support manager fills the full-time water security position at NNW. 

NNW also has nine other water system employees from various disciplines who are part 

of a security advisory team. The collaborative itself is informal. The system owns 

property in five law enforcement jurisdictions and two counties. NNW meets and works 

with officers from all jurisdictions to remain aware of security threats in the area. The 

Waterworks has informal agreements with some jurisdictions, but none in writing. 

Under the current agreement with the Newport News Police Department, if the 

Homeland Security Advisory System alert level rises to orange, the police will step up 

vigilance. If the alert level rises to red, both the York County Sheriff ’s Department and 

the Newport News Police Department will provide additional personnel to guard assets. 

These assets include the city’s two surface water treatment plants and large watershed 

property, which includes a public park. 23
NNW works with each law enforcement jurisdiction individually. Its security manager 

has visited each jurisdiction several times and maintains regular contact with each. NNW 

also works closely with the military installations in the area. It communicates with agents 

in the Office of Special Investigations at Langley Air Force Base and has contacted Fort 

Eustis and the Navy Head of Public Works. In addition, it has approached local fire 

departments, SWAT teams, and HazMat teams. NNW has also made contact with 

bomb squads and specialists in explosive ordnance disposal at local military installations. 

Meetings and Communications 

NNW prepares and outlines important information about its infrastructure and 

operations for law enforcement officials. It maintains contact with uniformed patrol 

commanders, who are able to understand the threats and are in a position to assign 

personnel to guard infrastructure. NNW meets with law enforcement officials when 

necessary, and remains in regular contact by telephone and e-mail. Formal notes are not 

taken at meetings. 

Meetings are not scheduled regularly. While some law enforcement officials feel regular 

meetings could be worthwhile, they agree that the current approach works well. It 

responds flexibly to the varying intensity of security concerns and, when there is no 

urgent issue, there is no need to meet. 

Benefits and Accomplishments 

NNW has successfully built a network of contacts within the law enforcement 

community in Newport News and surrounding areas. The members of the collaborative 

know each other, and they know who to contact when crises arise. During a recent 

incident in which a man was reported missing, a search of the Waterworks’ property was 

quickly organized with just a few phone calls. Local police officers were able to gain access 

to every building on the property, the Department of Inland Fisheries used their boats 

to troll the reservoir in case he had drowned, and the Virginia State Police used an 

airplane to search from the sky. Other agencies were also quickly involved in assembling a 

search party with diverse skills. 

NNW has also developed an emergency response plan and provided information on 

potential water-related security threats to the local police. NNW also allows local SWAT 

teams to train on its property. At each organization it visited, NNW made presentations 

and provided GIS maps of critical assets located within that organization’s jurisdiction. 

Law enforcement officials were given tours of NNW facilities. NNW provides 

information to HazMat teams about the location of chemicals to assist in any emergency 

response. It also established e-mail distribution lists covering all five law enforcement 

jurisdictions. The uniformed patrol commanders agree NNW often gets them 

information faster than their other sources. They add that the high quality of 

communication with NNW helps them ensure there are no inconsistencies between 

emergency response plans developed by the police department and by NNW. 

24
Future Activities 

The future of the NNW collaborative depends on the continuity of personnel. The 

collaborative has been successful because of the efforts of the people involved and the 

personal relationships they have developed. The challenge they face is to institutionalize 

these relationships. Although no formal succession plan has been developed, all 

participants are aware of the issue, and there is general recognition of the importance of 

continual participation by each agency. 

What Makes a Collaborative Successful? 

The three cases presented here are all successful collaboratives. While each has different 

needs and circumstances, they share some characteristics that contribute to their success, 

and they all provide useful lessons for utilities interested in starting their own 

collaboratives.

External events played a large role in each case. The terrorist attacks of 9/11, for example, 

resulted in a heightened focus by the utilities on security and inter-organizational 

cooperation. Natural disasters—such as Milwaukee’s cryptosporidiosis outbreak and 

hurricanes in the Southeast—also focused attention on the need for on-going 

cooperation. Crises not only highlighted the utilities’ water security vulnerabilities, they 

made clear the need for cooperation in collecting information and communicating with 

each other and the public. 

Two factors played central roles in the successful formation and continued operation of 

the collaboratives. First, the people involved in each collaborative are committed to its 

mission and work very hard to ensure success. They put considerable time and effort 

into its formation and take their commitment to the collaborative very seriously. Second, 

senior management fully supports the process. In each case, it is clear to the members of 

the collaborative that their management expects them to participate in its activities. It 

also is clear that management will provide the time and resources necessary for the 

collaborative’s success. In addition, management provides the members of the 

collaborative the authority they need to make decisions and take action. 

The size of the collaborative also plays a role in its success. In each case, the number of 

participants is limited by design. Meetings are cumbersome if too many people are at the 

table, and the discussions can become less frank and open. There is no magic number 

that will make or break a collaborative; rather, the size that works best will depend on the 

people and organizations involved and the format of the meetings. Neither is there one 

format or structure that works best. The Milwaukee collaborative is a relatively formal 

organization, with a charter from the mayor, a set agenda for the meetings, and a 

relatively fixed number of participants. Newport News, on the other hand, takes a very 

open approach, with one-on-one meetings that occur regularly, but not on a set schedule. 

BASIC developed its own charter and allows for some flexibility in its scheduled 

meetings and its members’ participation. Each collaborative settled on an approach that 

met its circumstances and its immediate needs. 25
A challenge for any cooperative effort is to overcome personality differences. 

Collaboratives can bring together people from diverse backgrounds and disciplines with 

very different views on how to organize and proceed. BASIC is successful, in part, 

because its members share a common background and culture. On the other hand, 

Milwaukee brought epidemiologists and health care professionals together with water 

system operators and engineers. Despite differences, this collaborative is successful 

because its regular meetings help build mutual trust and respect. In the end, members 

saw their differences as contributing to better ways to help solve problems when they 

worked together as a team. 

As time passes, the urgency generated by the 9/11 attacks diminishes. The groups 

recognize the need to stay focused on the security concerns they face. Utilities will 

continue to participate actively in a collaborative that addresses issues that are immediate 

and important. Therefore, a collaborative needs a specific focus, agreed on by the 

members, at all times. The focus can change, however, as circumstances change and as 

old problems get solved and new ones arise. 

Conclusion

The three case studies demonstrate many of the advantages and benefits of securityinformation collaboratives. While the collaboratives require the commitment and 

dedication of its members, they do not pose a large burden to their members. In each 

case, the collaborative proved to be an efficient way for water systems to communicate 

regularly and share information on an on-going basis with other utilities, the public 

health community, and first-responders. The collaboratives help water systems stay 

current.

26
Appendix A. Sample Resource 

Documents

This chapter includes examples of charters and working guidelines for securityinformation collaboratives. Formal names for organizations are not shown; instead, 

the type of organization is shown in brackets in place of the name. Also included is 

a sample agenda of a collaborative meeting. 

I. Charter Article 

CHARTER ARTICLE REGARDING FORMATION OF THE 

[Name of Collaborative] 

WHEREAS, the undersigned indicate their desire to support the common goal 

of developing security practices among water utilities, the creation of practical 

work products designed to facilitate a common level of security among the 

member utilities, and discussion of appropriate common security practices; and 

WHEREAS, operations and emergency response managers of the Signatory 

agencies recognize the need for coordination and mutual support in planning for 

water system security in the [region] and have been meeting for this purpose on 

an ad hoc basis since [date]; and 

WHEREAS, the operations and emergency response managers of the Signatory 

agencies also recognize the need to leverage their resources to respond to real and 

perceived water system security breaches in the [region]; 

THEREFORE, the undersigned agencies collectively have agreed to informally 

establish this [name of collaborative] and will work in accordance with the 

following procedures: 

1. The purpose of [Name of Collaborative] is to: 

z Prepare realistic definitions of credible threats to the systems within the 

region

z Discuss and identify common vulnerability assessment processes 

z Develop common response protocols 

z

treatment of, water contaminated with nontraditional materials 

z Conduct workshops (on water quality monitoring, response protocols, 

vulnerability assessment formats, etc.) 

z Conduct region-wide exercises 

Identify access to a secure central store of materials for response to, and 

27
28

2. The functions of [Name of Collaborative] shall be to: 

z Act as liaisons between technical experts and [the various collaborative members] 

z Coordinate development of security related procedures among water utilities 

z

promoted by regulators 

z Provide leadership on issues related to state or federal regulation 

z Coordinate information on security preparations, training and response 

z Identify new areas of cooperation among the [members] 

z Explore financing and organizational alternatives as needed 

3. Chair – A chairperson shall be elected by the participating agencies. The Chair shall 

rotate among the members every 6 months. The Chair is responsible for handling 

i

clerical assistance, agenda preparation, and follow-up on assignments and coordination.

i

4. Meetings – Monthly meetings of [name of collaborative] shall be held. The location 

shall rotate between the members. 

5. Contracting and Financial – [Name of water system] shall be the initial lead agency 

agency shall rotate among the members approximately every 6 months, or as deemed 

a task leader identified. Each member will determine its own level of interest and 

report of financial and contracting status. 

i ] 

members shall meet and seek to resolve issues through consensus. As needed, 

conflicts can be elevated to the member agencies’ general manager for resolution. 

the effective date. The Charter can be terminated or extended upon the agreement of 

the member utilities. 

representatives and be active participants in [name of collaborative]. Participation by 

other water utilities in the [region] will be reviewed by the member agencies, as 

appropriate.

parties without the consent of the contributing member and the consensus of the 

members.

Advise on developing security policy, recommendations and suggestions 

coordination and administrat ve functions of the group. This includes, but is not 

limited to, record keeping, preparation of minutes, mailings, scheduling meetings, 

Each utility will identify a key water security staff member who will serve as the 

primary representat ve for the utility. 

to manage financial contributions and to contract for outside services. The lead 

appropriate by members. For each work activity, a scope of work will be prepared and 

participation for each work activity. The hiring of consultants will comply with the 

procurement policies of the lead agency. The lead agency will provide a monthly 

6. Resolution of Conflicts – In the event of conflicts, [name of collaborat ve

7. Term of Agreement – This Charter shall be in effect for one (1) calendar year from 

8. Other Participants – The U.S. EPA and [State health services] are welcome to assign 

9. Sensitive Information – Sensitive information shall not be shared with outside 
II. A City Charter Establishing a Collaborative 

Whereas, The [Fact Finding Committee] found that the numerous 

governmental agencies which are involved in surface water health and quality 

issues have not always communicated well with each other; and 

agency team approach which made participating agencies more sensitive to the 

importance of inter-agency communications; and 

Whereas, the creation of an [Advisory Council] composed of representatives of 

agencies concerned with water quality issues would continue the team approach 

to solving water concerns and would improve communication with all 

Whereas, [Fact Finding Committee] recommended creation of an [Advisory 

Resolved, Council of the [Name of City], that an [Advisory Council] is 

(DPW) administration, [water utility], DPW engineers division, the [regulatory 

agency], the [local wastewater treatment plant], a representative from the affected 

communities that are [water utility] customers, and [all other involved parties]; 

and, be it 

Further resolved, that the chair of the [Advisory Council] shall be the 

representative of the DPW Administration and the council shall be staffed by 

the DPW administrative staff; and be it 

Further resolved, that the [Advisory Council] shall make semi-annual reports to 

the Council, the Mayor, and the governments of each of the communities that 

; and, be it 

Further resolved, that the Council strongly recommends that the [Advisory 

Council] meet on a regular basis to facilitate a multi-disciplinary response to 

water quality issues. 

Resolution establishing a Clean Water Advisory Council 

Whereas, The City’s response to the water crises are managed through a multicommunities that are served by the [water utility]; and 

Council] that meets on a regular basis; now, therefore, be it 

established, consisting of representatives of the Department of Public Works 

are also [water utility] service customers

29
III. Working Guidelines 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The Committee was formed as an interdisciplinary working group of professionals to 

provide technical support, expertise and recommendations to the water quality work 

group in the areas of: 

z

z Source water impact and influences. 

z Health impact and influences. 

z Emerging research areas. 

The Committee is composed of representatives from diverse affiliations who meet 

regularly to exchange information, foster communication, discuss water quality issues 

members are listed in Attachment A. 

WORKING GUIDELINES FOR CONVENING 

The Committee has been established and meets regularly to prepare members to 

make sound professional judgments in the most informed and expeditious manner 

limited to: 

z

process(es) or violation of established water quality standards. 

z Distribution System event – Failure of a major pumping station, or large feeder 

main break which may result in negative pressure in portions of system or 

contamination of system. 

z

treated water effluent or distribution system. The Committee has established a 

Response Protocol which will be used in the event Cryptosporidium or Giardia 

is detected in the treated water effluent/finished water. 

z Environmental events – Meteorological events, excessive rainfall, sewer treatment 

plant bypass or discharge, outfall discharge of collection sewer system, or evidence 

of a major water system cross connection or contamination of the watershed. 

z Community Disease – Evidence of disease outbreak in the community where 

z Natural disaster – Event which may adversely affect water quality including 

flooding, tornado or power loss. 

Water treatment process and system operation. 

and evaluate impacts to the public served by the water system. The Committee 

2. 

when called upon to do so. Convening the committee can be based on varied 

activities, which may have the potential to affect water quality, including, but not 

Water Treatment Process event - Failure or interruption in key water treatment 

Water Detection event - Evidence of the presence of pathogens or microbials in 

available data suggests drinking water as a potential source of infection. 

30
ATTACHMENT A 

COMMITTEE MEMBER LISTING 

CHAIR

Superintendent

Chief Design Engineer 

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 

Director of Laboratories 

Chief Microbiologist 

Chief Virologist 

Epidemiologist

Environmental Hygienist 

Nursing Coordinator 

SEWERAGE DISTRICT 

Microbiologist

Administration and Projects Manager, Waterworks 

WATERWORKS 

Water Quality Manager 

Acting Water Plants Manager 

Water Plants Manager 

Storm Water Manager 

HEALTH DEPARTMENT 

REGULATORY AGENCY 

Bureau of Drinking Water-Public Water Systems 

Water Supply Engineer 

31
IV. Example of a Meeting Agenda 

Current Events 

Protozoa

Health Update 

Lab Report 

Environmental

Plant Updates 

5. Sewerage District Update 

6. Regulatory Agency Update 

Concerns/ General Comments 

Note of Next Meeting 

1. 

2. Water Quality Update 

Lab Services 

3. 

Surveillance Security Monitoring 

4. 

Water Treatment Plant 1 

Water Treatment Plant 2 

7. 

8. 

V. Example of a Meeting Agenda 

1.

Introductions

Request to review and approve minutes from last meeting 

Meeting schedule confirmed 

On-going business 

New business 

Roundtable - general discussion (additional items for this meeting) 

Future items for next meeting 

Confirm date and location for next meeting 

Adjourn

Welcome 

2. 

3. 

4. Telephone list checked and updated (passed around) 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

32
33

Additional information may be obtained through the 

National Homeland Security Research Center’s Web site: 

www.epa.gov/nhsrc 
Please make all necessary changes on the below label, detach 

or copy, and return to the address in the upper left-hand corner. If you do not wish to receive these reports, CHECK HERE: Detach or copy this cover, and return to the address in the upper left-hand corner. 

PRESORTED STANDARD 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

EPA 

PERMIT No. G-35 

National Homeland Security Research Center Office of Research and Development Cincinnati, OH 45268 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 EPA/625/R-05/002 May 2005 Visit us on the web at: 

www.epa.gov/nhsrc