Skip Maine state header navigation
Report of Findings
On Improving the Technical, managerial and financial
Capacity of
Capacity
Development Workgroup
to
the
Maine
Department of Human Services
Table of Contents
Executive Summary........................................................................ i
Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
Used in This Report........................ iv
Introduction to Capacity
Development: Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 1
Section A: Identifying Systems
In Need of Technical, Financial, and Managerial Assistance................................................................................................. 3
Table A.1: Methodology For Prioritizing Systems Needing
TFM Assistance 4
Table A.2:
Section B: Factors that Enhance
or Impair Capacity Development........ 6
Section
C: Recommendations on How the State Can Use Its Authority and Resources to Help
Water Systems Improve Capacity .................................. 23
Section D: Measuring the Success
of Maine’s Capacity Development Strategy 28
Section
E: Public Involvement in Preparing the
Appendix
A: Capacity Development Workgroup Meeting Highlights..... 30
Executive Summary
During 1999 and 2000, the Capacity Development Workgroup (Workgroup)
to the Maine Department of Human Services (DHS) considered the challenge of
improving the technical, financial, and managerial (TFM) capabilities of public
water systems. This Report of Findings presents the work of the Workgroup for
consideration by the general public and DHS management.
Guidance for the Workgroup in preparing this report came generally from
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996. At the heart of this report are the
Workgroup’s recommendations regarding the programs that the DHS Drinking Water
Program could strengthen or establish that would assist water systems in
building capabilities to achieve compliance with the requirements of the SDWA.
This document serves as a
“report card” as to where agencies can best help drinking water systems in need
of assistance. No DWSRF funds will be
allocated based upon ranking schemes presented in this report.
The body of the report is presented in five sections, labeled
alphabetically. This is an intentional
correspondence with the language in the SDWA, which lays out the five elements
that a state must consider when preparing a Capacity Development Strategy.
SECTION A: IDENTIFYING SYSTEMS IN NEED OF
TECHNICAL, FINANCIAL, AND MANAGERIAL ASSISTANCE
A multi-level ranking scheme was adopted, in which compliance with the
drinking water regulations was a primary factor. Water systems failing to comply with
regulations are more likely to lack technical, financial, or management
capacity. Non-complying systems will be
assessed to determine the seriousness of the capacity-related problems they are
experiencing. These problems will be
ranked as critical, serious, minor, potential, and those that request
assistance. Water systems in the five
classes will be ranked additionally by their willingness to work with DHS in
achieving solutions.
SECTION B: FACTORS THAT
ENHANCE OR IMPAIR WATER SYSTEM CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT
Factors operating at the
Federal, State, and local level that enhance or impair water system capacity
are presented in this section of the report.
These factors were drawn from the experience of Workgroup members.
The Workgroup
identified 237 factors at the Federal, State and local levels that are either
enhancements or impairments to drinking water system TFM capacity. Enhancements and impairments were further
divided into six categories: Institutional, Regulatory, Financial, Tax, Legal
and Other. These are displayed in Table
E1.
Table E1:
Federal, State, and Local Factors that Affect Water System
Technical,
Managerial, and Financial Capacity
Factors
|
Enhancements |
Impairments |
|
Institutional |
28 |
43 |
|
Regulatory |
22 |
39 |
|
Financial |
24 |
37 |
|
Tax |
9 |
6 |
|
Legal |
4 |
8 |
|
Other |
6 |
11 |
|
Total |
93 |
144 |
SECTION C: RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW THE STATE CAN USE
ITS AUTHORITY AND RESOURCES TO HELP WATER SYSTEMS IMPROVE CAPACITY
In developing the conclusions drawn from analyzing the
enhancements and impairments noted in Section B, the Workgroup identified 21
recommendations as to how the resources of the State and other stakeholders
could be utilized to help water systems improve TFM capabilities. The 21 non-prioritized elements are
outlined below, and presented in full within the Report of Findings.
1.
DHS
should develop and utilize an enhanced sanitary survey that will permit DHS
field staff to periodically collect TFM information about each of the State’s
regulated water systems, which can be used to determine those systems most in
need of TFM assistance.
2.
A
self-assessment tool should be developed so that water systems can examine
their capabilities and determine what type of assistance would provide the most
benefit.
3.
Training
should be provided to water system personnel in fiscal capacity and financial
management.
4.
When
feasible, DHS should use third party, rather than governmental, studies to show
that efficiencies can be gained through consolidation.
5.
The
Public Utilities Commission of Maine should continue to work for changes in
their statutory and regulatory authorities to improve the manner in which that
agency regulates small public drinking water systems.
6.
Training
in managerial and financial capacity elements will be needed for contractors, consultants,
and other service providers.
7.
Water
metering requirements already contained within
8.
The
DHS should cooperate with communities and cities to ensure that public water
system capacity issues are actively considered during planning activities.
9.
The
State Drinking Water Program should enhance its efforts in providing early notice
of impending rule changes or new regulatory requirements.
10. Training in technical, financial,
and managerial capacity factors will be needed for DHS Drinking Water Program
staff.
11. Consider the possibility of
creating a loan guarantee fund to assist small water systems in obtaining
private financing for capital improvements.
12. The State of
13. A handbook on drinking water
statutes and regulations should be prepared for water system operators and
managers in order to facilitate understanding and compliance.
14. The DHS should encourage
cooperation among State agencies and between Federal and local levels of government
on matters affecting drinking water systems at every reasonable opportunity.
15. The DHS should take a proactive
approach in educating the public with regards to TFM. The Workgroup recommended six ideas in which
the DHS could improve public involvement and enlightenment.
16. The overall success of the State’s
Capacity Development Strategy will depend in part on the Drinking Water
Program’s acquisition of appropriate financial and personnel resources to
design, promote and deliver TFM assistance programs. The Workgroup proposed ideas on how it could
assist in this process.
17. A water system planning handbook
should be developed to help water systems develop and implement a planning
process aimed at ensuring technical, financial, and managerial capacity.
18. An education program should be
developed to assist water systems in preparing accurate and useful Consumer
Confidence Reports.
19. Develop and implement a training
and assistance program to ensure that water systems maintain practical and
up-to-date capital facilities plans.
This will enable the systems to anticipate their revenue needs and make
repairs and improvements in a non-emergency fashion.
20. DHS should encourage water systems
to develop networks for peer review, information exchange, and sharing of
technical resources.
21. Longer term, DHS may choose to
move toward a “Massachusetts Model” for capacity assistance. This consists of a regularly scheduled forum,
involving DHS and a circle of potential service providers, at which systems needing
capacity assistance are matched with the services they need.
SECTION D: MEASURING THE SUCCESS OF
In designing its Report
of Findings, the Workgroup noted in Section D how the DHS might assess the
performance of capacity building efforts. Three general measures of success were
developed:
1.
The
DHS could note changes in compliance performance, both statewide and on a
system-specific basis.
2.
The
DHS should keep detailed records of assistance programs designed to assist
water systems in improving capacity using means such as: the number of enhanced
sanitary surveys conducted; site visits for technical assistance; tally of
specified training events, attendance, and tracking continuing education units
(CEUs); number of certified operators; and the number of water systems that
request self-assessment tools.
3.
The
DHS could keep track of the number of water systems that prepare water system
plans, emergency plans, and other activities that contribute directly to
enhanced capacity.
SECTION E: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
IN PREPARING THE
The final section of the Workgroup’s Report of Findings provides recommendations on how the broadest
possible involvement by citizens and stakeholders could be obtained in gathering
information, opinions, and ideas on how to build the capacity of drinking water
systems.
gLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS USED IN THIS REPORT
Capacity:
Refers to the capabilities
required of a public water system in order to achieve and maintain compliance
with the drinking water rules. It has
three elements:
Technical: Technical capacity or capability means that the water system meets
standards of engineering and structural integrity necessary to serve customer
needs. Technically capable water systems
are constructed, operated, and maintained according to accepted standards.
Financial:
Financial capacity or capability means that the water system can raise and
properly manage the money it needs to operate efficiently over the long term.
Managerial: Managerial capacity or capability
means that the water system’s management structure is capable of providing
proper stewardship of the system.
Governing boards or authorities are actively involved in oversight of
system operations.
CCR: Consumer Confidence Report – An
annual water quality report required by the 1996 SDWA amendments, which
summarizes information on source water, levels of any detected contaminants,
compliance with drinking water rules, and educational material.
CEU: Continuing Education Unit – Formal credit for
participation in education and training programs, often necessary for
maintaining certification or licensing status.
DHS: Department
of Human Services – This agency is responsible for administering the drinking
water standards in
DWSRF: Drinking
Water State Revolving Loan Fund – Congress authorized this fund in 1996. The Maine Department of Human Services
administers the DWSRF.
EFC: Environmental
SDWA: The Safe Drinking Water Act – Passed by the US
Congress in 1974 and amended in 1986 and 1996.
SNC: Significant
Non-Compliance – A list of drinking water systems which, in a manner specific
to various drinking water rules, have been out of compliance for a significant
period of time as per US EPA regulations.
TFM: Technical, Financial, and Managerial – This
abbreviation is used to save space in the report and avoid frequent repetition
of these terms, defined previously as capacity.
Workgroup:
This advisory group is composed of drinking water stakeholders from both the
public and private sectors and was created to provide DHS with recommendations
in formulating a Capacity Development Strategy for the State of
INTRODUCTION TO CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT: SAFE DRINKING
WATER ACT (SDWA)
Water
system capacity is the ability to plan for, achieve, and maintain compliance
with applicable drinking water standards.
Based upon the research and technical assistance efforts of water works
professionals, capacity is defined as having three components: technical,
financial, and managerial. Adequate
capability in all three areas is necessary for a successful public water
system.
Capacity
development is the process of water systems acquiring and maintaining adequate
technical, financial, and managerial capabilities to assist them in providing
safe drinking water. The Safe Drinking
Water Act’s (SDWA) capacity development provisions provide a framework for
States and water systems to work together to help ensure that systems acquire
and maintain the technical, managerial, and financial capacity needed to meet
the SDWA’s public health protection objectives.
The
1996 SDWA Amendments include requirements for States to obtain authority to
assure that new systems are viable, to develop a strategy to address the
capacity of existing systems, and to ensure that potential Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) recipients have sufficient technical, financial, and
managerial (TFM) capacity prior to receiving loan funds (or that the loan funds
will allow them to achieve capacity).
The SDWA outlines several items to include in States’ capacity
development strategies for existing systems; however it is not mandated that
States must include each of these
items, but rather that they must consider
each of the items in developing the strategy. Clearly, including each of the required
elements produces a comprehensive capacity development program for the State
and addresses all of the necessary issues.
However, each State must examine each of the issues and determine those
elements that best fit the needs of the State.
SDWA
§1420(c)(2) addresses the requirements of strategies developed by each State to
improve the technical, financial, and managerial capacity of public water
systems under their jurisdiction. The
development of the State’s strategy is directly related to the level of
financial resources available to help pay for water system improvements. A State that does not develop and implement a
Capacity Development Strategy will receive only 90 percent of the DWSRF
allotment it would otherwise receive in FY 2001, 85 percent of its scheduled
allotment in FY 2002, and only 80 percent of its scheduled allotment in each
subsequent fiscal year.
In
developing and implementing a Capacity Development Strategy, SDWA §1420(c)(2) (A-E) requires States to
“consider, solicit public comment on, and include as appropriate” five
elements:
·
Methods or
criteria to prioritize systems [§1420(c)(2)(A)]
·
Factors that
encourage or impair capacity development [§1420(c)(2)(B)]
·
How the State
will use the authority and resources of the SDWA [§1420(c)(2)(C)]
·
How the State
will establish the baseline and measure improvements [§1420(c)(2)(D)]
·
Procedures to
identify interested persons [§1420(c)(2)(E)]
The Maine Capacity Development Workgroup chose to
prepare a comprehensive Report of
Findings that includes consideration of all SDWA-required Capacity
Development Strategy elements.
The
Maine Capacity Development Workgroup, (Workgroup), an important assembly of
drinking water stakeholders, began work toward developing this Report of Findings in March of
2000. In addition to the Workgroup
members listed below, other individuals and organizations were invited to
participate in this work. An extensive
mailing was conducted to solicit interest in serving with the Workgroup. The purpose was to form a stakeholder group
that would represent the broadest possible spectrum of interested parties while
at the same time respecting the need to keep the group small enough to function
efficiently. Additionally, a number of
individuals who were not formally appointed chose to voluntarily attend the
Workgroup meetings and were able to contribute materially to the Workgroup’s
efforts. Provisions were made to expand
the public involvement process by the following means:
·
A mailing list
of persons or organizations was developed so that periodic updates could be
provided.
·
A decision was
made to present the initial recommendations of the group to the public through
a series of public workshops.
·
Organizations
that publish newsletters were asked to convey information about the Workgroup’s
activities.
These
measures, taken together, helped to ensure that the public would have multiple
opportunities to learn about and provide input to the capacity development
activities. A record of the Workgroup’s
meetings is found in Appendix A.
Workgroup
Members and Contributors
Jodi Castallo, Northeast Rural Community Assistance Program
Scott Emery, USDA – Rural Development
Ray
John
Jackie
LeClair,
Steven
Levy,
Jeff
Cathy
Robinson,
Wayne Rogalski, Bangor Water District
Mark
Ken Sonagere, Small Water System
Gary
Vanidestine, USDA – Rural
Development
Jim West,
Portland Water District
DHS Participating Staff
David
Bois, Drinking Water Program
David
Breau, Drinking Water Program
Workgroup Meeting Facilitator
Bill Jarocki, EFC 10 at
section a: identifying systems in need of
technical, financial, and managerial assistance
The key issue in designing the
State's Capacity Development Strategy is identifying and prioritizing those
public water systems that are most in need of improving TFM capacity to deliver
safe drinking water to the public. At
the core of this discussion is this question: "What information about water
systems does the DHS or other stakeholders have that helps identify problems
that need to be addressed?" Care
was taken to identify and consider the variety of sources for information about
the TFM conditions of water systems.
Ultimately, the Workgroup determined the following:
·
The best and
most current information (consistent and verifiable) for providing an
indication of the capabilities of public water systems is the technical
compliance information maintained by the DHS.
Some financial and management capacity information is maintained by the
DHS.
·
The
State drinking water program already has well defined mechanisms in place for
dealing with acute risks to public health.
Public notification, boil water advisories where appropriate, and
immediate corrective actions are all undertaken when pathogenic organisms or
high levels of chemical contaminants are detected in a water supply. Consequently, the Capacity Development
Strategy will not be expected to deal with these emergency situations.
·
A
pattern of non-compliance will often serve as an indication that a water system
lacks TFM capacity. Failures to monitor,
frequent recurrences of coliform bacteria in the distribution system,
variations in water quality leaving treatment facilities and other symptoms of
this nature should trigger an assessment of a water system's TFM
capabilities.
·
An
overwhelming majority of violations of the drinking water rules occur in very
small drinking water systems (serving 500 or fewer individuals). System size was not a basis for
prioritization. Larger systems in general
are not on the SNC list.
·
The
purpose of the prioritization scheme was not to decide which systems would or
would not receive assistance, but was aimed more at determining the order in
which systems would be given attention.
Because the Capacity Development Strategy will become an ongoing element
of the State's drinking water program, it should be possible to eventually
serve all systems that truly need capacity assistance.
·
There is a
need to collect additional information about the water systems to determine TFM
capacity in order to deliver specific assistance to meet T, F, or M capacity
deficiencies.
The Workgroup deliberated the issue of how current
information could be used to identify and prioritize systems needing TFM
capacity building. Discussions occupied
portions of two meetings. As a result of the considerations identified above
the ranking scheme illustrated in the flowchart on the following page (Table
A1) was adopted. Systems would be chosen
for attention under the strategy based on their compliance record as a first
screening. A hierarchy of violation
types, based on public health risk, was adopted from the Iowa Dept. of Natural
Resources by the Water Supply Section staff (Table A2, Items 2-6). This hierarchy will be used to assign
compliance problems to critical,
serious, minor, potential, or
request assistance categories.
Systems will be ranked according to the relative seriousness of the
problems of that system. A final
consideration in determining which systems to assist would be the willingness
of the water system to cooperate with the State in addressing its
problems.
The nature of the
assistance offered under the capacity development program should be determined
only after an assessment of the technical, financial, and managerial capacity
of the water systems that are ranked highest.
TFM capacity review could be accomplished by a self-assessment, by an
"enhanced" sanitary survey carried out by the State, or by a third
party evaluation conducted on site with the system's cooperation. Section C of this report discusses several of
these assessment tools.
Table A1: DHS Identification and Prioritization Ranking Schematic Based
on the
Table A2:
|
|