A Drop of Knowledge

Per- and Polyfluorniated substances (PFAS) are man-made chemicals used for decades to make non-stick and water-resistant consumer products. Exposure to PFAS through drinking water is a global health concern. In 2021, the city of Glen Dale, West Virginia identified PFAS in their drinking water.

See how this city is battling PFAS contaminants and what their plan is on tackling this issue.

Hysham is a small community of 276 people on the Yellowstone River in eastern Montana. The town has struggled to keep a certified operator and was on a Do-Not-Consume order for more than a year due to the buildup of Manganese in the transmission mains and treatment plant piping. The treatment plant and transmission piping are quite old and need replacement. The Town is pursuing emerging contaminant funding through the SRF program to replace the transmission mains and piping with excess manganese buildup. The town is 53% low to moderate income and is considered disadvantaged by USDA under the Climate Change, Energy, Health, and Legacy Pollution categories. Hysham is in the 90th percentile for heart disease and the 95th percentile for cancer rates. As far as climate change is concerned, Hysham is in the 80-90th percentile for both flood and wildfire risk.

Watch their story and see how the Midwest Assistance Program (MAP) assisted them in getting off the Do-Not-Consume order.

Water utilities are constantly juggling the management of their physical and digital infrastructure. With a myriad of assets ranging from pump stations and storage tanks to valves, hydrants, and pipes, proactive management of these assets can seem insurmountable for operators, particularly those overseeing small to medium-sized systems with limited resources. For staff managing these utilities alone or with minimal assistance, keeping track of numerous assets can feel overwhelming, especially without access to a robust asset management software that offers features such as smart data entry, analytics, and customization. 

Recognizing the need for a comprehensive solution at an affordable price, many water operators in small utility systems are turning to Geographic Information Systems (GIS). GIS not only enables operators to pinpoint assets using GPS coordinates and photos, but also facilitates streamlined recording of operation, maintenance, and inspection records. This data can be easily accessed and analyzed through a real-time asset management dashboard. Therefore, GIS emerges as an indispensable “one-stop shop” for small water utilities, addressing their needs for accurate asset location, asset management, and operational efficiency. Small water systems typically rely on multiple software applications for efficient day-to-day operations of water treatment and distribution. Navigating through these various applications can be challenging for operators, particularly when managing other essential maintenance tasks. For instance, a water system may utilize computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) software for meter billing and customer data management, supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems for monitoring treatment-related assets such as tank levels, chemical levels, and pump performances, as well as software for leak detection or material identification. Given this complexity, it becomes crucial to consolidate distribution-related recordkeeping and asset locating using GIS as a primary software system. This eliminates the need for multiple individual software applications for each specific use, streamlining operations and enhancing efficiency.  

GIS can handle complex calculations, such as logging critical data during hydrant flushing operations, estimating the water loss during a main break, or recording historical data in a valve exercising program. Moreover, GIS enables visualization and analysis of data from these operations and maintenance activities through various web mapping applications and dashboards. This capability empowers operators to make informed decisions and optimize their system’s performance. Another significant benefit of GIS is its capability to serve as a central repository for various existing data sources. Whether it is as-built engineer records, curb stop tie cards, asset management records, scanned work orders, or other pertinent information, GIS can consolidate this information into one unified location known as a geodatabase. This geodatabase can then be integrated into online web-based GIS layers, offering a digital representation of each asset on the map. These layers include tabular descriptions, tables, attachments, and photos, providing a comprehensive and easily accessible database for efficient data management. The versatility of GIS software makes it ideal for small water systems, eliminating the need to purchase separate software for each individual operations and maintenance task. GIS can be recognized as the “last stop” in a water operator’s journey to managing their physical and digital infrastructures.  

This article was funded under RCAP’s EPA NPA 1 23 – 25 grant.

State recognized municipalities located within Tribal boundaries can sometimes have unique challenges not seen in a typical small town. The incorporated city of Eagle Butte, South Dakota (population 1,258, of which 88% are American Indian) is the home of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (CRST) Tribal headquarters and lies inside the boundaries of this Tribal nation. The CRST reservation was created in 1889 by the breakup of the Great Sioux Reservation with four of the seven Lakota bands. The reservation is located in north central South Dakota and covers almost all of Dewey and Ziebach Counties. The total land area is 4,266,987 square miles, making it the fourth largest Tribal-owned land area in the United States.  

Before the CRST created their own utility, any Tribal-paid improvements made to utilities inside city limits were transferred to the city to maintain. Around 2014, the CRST created the Mni Wašté Water Company and started handling their own wastewater operations and maintenance for the Reservation. As a result, the question of ownership came into play for prior improvements and maintenance to the aging system and who was responsible for future repairs and replacements. With those unanswered questions, there was potential for conflict. For example, at one point in time, one entity hired a contractor to inspect the sewer lines with a camera, resulting in the other entity issuing a cease-and-desist order through their legal counsel. Although the video confirmed that the gravity sewer infrastructure needed repairs and replacements, which was already obvious due to the known collapsed non-working sewer lines, the situation has become contentious because there are two utilities vying for the utility revenue. 

The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Long Term Group (CRSTLTG) contacted Midwest Assistance Program (MAP) to request their assistance in getting their Tribe and Eagle Butte back on track to make necessary improvements to their infrastructure. Initially, MAP identified possible funding to fix these issues: the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF), the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development (USDA-RD), and/or the Indian Health Services (IHS). However, until ownership could be determined, it was impossible to know which entity applies for and manages the funds, since only one utility can apply for and receive funds with the approval of the other entity.  

The first thing MAP did was identify all the players and convened a meeting that included representatives from the city of Eagle Butte, CRST, CRSTLTG, USDA-RD, IHS, the Planning District, and the city’s engineering firm. SRF representatives had removed themselves from the discussion, recognizing that Eagle Butte could obtain more grant funds through USDA-RD, considering their Tribal status and that their median household income (MHI) was below 60% of the state’s average. Dialogue could now resume between all the parties to ensure the repairs were made to the systems.   

MAP then started helping the city with the USDA-RD application, while simultaneously providing on-site training to the new finance officer.  MAP drafted a letter of support from the city to the CRST, asking for their support for the improvements. If support was granted, the city would receive an additional 10% in USDA-RD grant funding, but the CRST has yet to sign the letter.  

Despite these setbacks, these entities are all in dialogue to uncover solutions for their utility issues, with MAP’s assistance. As a result, the engineering firm initiated planning and worked on gathering cost estimates, while USDA-RD reopened the old applications. The CRSTLTG is grateful for MAP’s assistance and remains positive that the two entities can work out their differences for the good of their community. 

“Your commitment has had a profound impact on our community, and we deeply appreciate the care and attention you’ve shown throughout this process. Your efforts have not only addressed our immediate needs but have also laid the foundation for a stronger, more resilient future for our community.” – Art Rave, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Long Term Group  

 MAP will continue to provide assistance for a long-term solution for the residents of Eagle Butte and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.   

This article was funded under RCAP’s EPA Treatment Works 3 – Tribal 23 – 26 grant. 

At the end of 2023, the Great Lakes Community Action Partnership (GLCAP) received a referral to start work with the Savannah Army Depot that had been significantly reduced in size. The site was located just outside Savannah, Illinois, on the eastern bank of the Mississippi River in Jo Davies and Carroll County. At one time, the Army Depot was over 13,000 acres and was used for artillery weapons and ammunition testing before its decommissioning by the United States Army in 2000. Currently, there are 30 water and wastewater connections at the Army Depot.  

GLCAP Operator Anthony Brown was able to connect with Army Depot personnel to schedule a site visit. Brown began the visit by collecting technical, managerial and financial information from the Depot’s wastewater operator in order to complete an assessment of the facility. During this visit, Brown also shared a flash drive with wastewater resources, which were provided by the RCAP national office through an EPA grant.  

Later in the year, Brown returned to the Army Depot to complete a condition assessment of the wastewater system. He walked through the system with the operator and began identifying major issues that needed to be addressed. Through the assessment, it was determined that two major challenges were the presence of I & I (inflow & infiltration) in the system and a loss of sanitary water to the underground environment. He was able to investigate these issues and begin to build a work plan on remediation.  

Brown also determined that the wastewater collection system needed to be cleaned and televised and recommended inserting CIP (cast in place) lining as a more cost-effective way to address defects in the system. He is now working with the Army Depot to develop cost identify potential contractors to complete the project. Moving forward, Brown is also assisting the Depot with identifying funding options for these proposed improvements to the wastewater treatment plant.  

The Savannah Army Depot project is unique. As a decommissioned site, it presents several challenges, including working with Army Corps of Engineers requirements as well as the shift in population. GLCAP is going to continue to assist the Army Depot and offer any assistance they may need.   

This article was funded under RCAP’s  EPA Treatment Works 1 Grant. 

A failing septic system can cause numerous issues for a homeowner. It can affect household well water quality and decrease the property’s value. Repairing or replacing a septic system can be costly or require more land than is available. Plus, if the failure results in raw sewage leaving the property or impacting other property, a complaint can be filed with the local health department or state primacy agency. The agency investigating the complaint can then issue enforcement actions under the Clean Water Act and county or state health codes, including declaring the home unfit for habitation, levying fines, or other legal action– leaving the homeowner wondering where to turn for help. 

In early January 2024, the Environmental Services Team at Communities Unlimited (CU) was contacted by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) regarding enforcement action against a homeowner due to a failing septic system. The home’s wastewater was being piped to a hand-dug cesspool at the lower end of his property, and sewage had spilled over onto a neighboring property.  

First, a CU Technical Assistance Provider (TAP) gathered resources to share with the homeowner. They connected the homeowner with the US Department of Agriculture’s “504” Housing Program, which could cover the cost of home safety and sanitation repairs, in case the owner met the income guidelines. Although the homeowner did not qualify for the “504”, the CU TAP next provided the homeowner with information about the CU Decentralized Water System loan product, including estimating a monthly payment amount. The CU Lending Team then guided the owner through the process of applying for a loan. In March, the homeowner was awarded a loan of $7,900 to install an aerobic septic system. The system was installed in early April 2024, remedying the ODEQ enforcement action.  

Although two other dwellings tied to the cesspool did not meet the eligibility requirements for the CU loan, CU provided information on other resources that might be available to these homeowners. 

Finally, the CU TAP facilitated conversations with the ODEQ staff to ensure the court actions initiated against the homeowner would be suspended once the system was scheduled to be installed. The CU TAP also prepared training materials for the homeowner, including a diagram of an aerobic system, how it works, and best practices for operation and maintenance. In addition to sharing information on the Decentralized Water System loan assistance to ODEQ, CU staff provided two training sessions this past year in Oklahoma, focused on decentralized wastewater systems for ODEQ staff and the general public. 

Through the work with this homeowner, CU has established a relationship with the staff of ODEQ and is seen as a resource for others in the state with failing septic systems.  “Working with Communities Unlimited was a great experience that provided a solution to a longstanding issue DEQ, and the property owner had been dealing with,” said Ryan McIntosh, Environmental Programs Manager – Central Region for ODEQ. “It aided in assisting the individual with access to a septic system that eliminated the discharge of sewage into the environment. Communities Unlimited was the catalyst toward compliance that helped both parties achieve the desired outcomes. Their timely responses and willingness to help was a testament to their core values of truly wanting to improve the lives of people within the communities that they serve.” 

The ODEQ provides information on the CU Decentralized Water System Loan to homeowners needing assistance, in the hopes that their failing septic system issues can be resolved quickly to protect the environment. When homeowners in Oklahoma experience septic system issues, they can look to Communities Unlimited for assistance.  

This article was funded under RCAP’s EPA Treatment Works 4 – Compliance 23 – 26 grant.

Across rural America and U.S. held territories, Rural Community Assistance Partnership (RCAP) Technical Assistance Providers (TAPs) help rural communities navigate complex bureaucracies, secure project funding, and implement infrastructure projects vital to regional economies. However, TAPs face unique challenges that make their jobs incredibly difficult. Despite these challenges, dedicated rural development specialists understand their critical role as a lifeline connecting communities with the resources they need. 

From the banks of the Colorado River to the archipelagos of Micronesia, Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC)– the Western RCAP – serves a remarkably diverse region. Regardless of the specific culture or geography, the communities RCAC assists often confront the same basic challenges. Here are five of the most typical challenges TAPs encounter. 

1. Tech Time Warp 

Due to spotty internet in rural communities, TAPs find themselves dusting off fax machines, googling a tutorial on how to use one, or becoming an in-person courier, hand-delivering documents so the utilities you assist don’t miss critical application deadlines. Advocating for better connectivity is a long-term battle being fought on various levels, but in the meantime, TAPs should be prepared to deal with the same technological frustrations rural water operators face.  

2. Capacity   

Finding qualified engineers, contractors and other professionals to work in remote rural areas is its own challenge. Communities regularly face overpriced, substandard services and long delays when searching for reliable vendors. TAPs can often expect to spend significant time helping communities navigate the procurement process, vetting bidders, and ensuring that projects are technically sound. TAPs may also find themselves mediating disputes, acting as a watchdog to protect community interests, and providing impromptu project management seminars. Additionally, TAPs may arrive on-site expecting a formal office but instead find yourself working with a few volunteers, juggling their board duties with full-time jobs or businesses or busy lives of their own, including other community leadership roles. In the most basic level, these communities lack capacity for managing major infrastructure projects. Your ability to adapt is crucial. 

 3. Jumping Through Hoops While Drowning in Acronyms (JTHWDA) 

Navigating the labyrinth of federal, state, and local regulations is a formidable task, even for seasoned TAPs. In chronically under-resourced rural areas, the process becomes even more daunting. The alphabet soup of acronyms – RUS, SDWA, CWSRF, TTHM, VOCs and countless others– becomes a second language that takes significant time and effort to master. Understanding the nuances of agency procedures, interpreting timelines and adapting to an ever-evolving regulatory landscape requires specialized expertise and relentless dedication. 

Technological constraints can add another layer of complexity; online portals designed to aid the application process often require extensive navigation and troubleshooting due to their design, shifting requirements and occasional technical glitches. The TAP’s ability to navigate these challenges is a vital skill and critical for assisting rural communities to secure the support they need.  

4. Perseverance Is Your Friend 

Rural communities facing wastewater system failure have no time to spare; when things are not maintained, systems are exposed to potential regulatory fines and public health risks, resulting in cascading economic consequences that can destabilize entire local economies. Securing funding, getting regulatory approvals, and finishing construction projects can take an agonizingly long time. The ability to manage expectations, advocate tirelessly for action, and celebrate even incremental progress is essential for project success and community morale – not to mention your sense of purpose and mental health. Remember: the road to success isn’t always straightforward, and the biggest wins can come from overcoming unexpected setbacks in a slow and steady manner. 

5. Empty Pockets, Full Potential 

Rural communities bear the brunt of historical neglect, underinvestment, and other structural barriers that continuously limit access to capital and professional expertise. These factors make it tough to keep basic services running and aggravate rural communities’ inherent disadvantages in a playing field heavily skewed in favor of more urbanized, affluent regions. 

To effectively tackle these problems, it’s important to understand the historical contexts and inequities that continue to shape rural communities – and their proven track record of finding creative solutions with limited means. This is crucial for crafting strategies that mitigate immediate challenges and pave the way for sustainable development over the long haul. 

Rural communities embody a spirit of resourcefulness and determination that can spark remarkable growth when given the right opportunities. By partnering with organizations like RCAP, these communities leverage their strengths, develop strategies for positive change, and energetically build a future where they flourish on their own terms. 

This article is funded under RCAP’s EPA NPA 2 2022 – 2024 grant. 

On February 8, 2024, the Kentucky House Standing Committee on State Government voted 16 – 1 in favor of sending HB 141 on to the House floor for consideration. HB 141 is an act relating to water fluoridation programs in Kentucky. In summary, the bill would amend KRS 211.190 to make water fluoridation optional for water systems and allow the governing bodies of those water systems to decide whether they wanted to participate in the water fluoridation program. It would also prevent consecutive water systems served by the supplying system from forcing the supplier to provide fluoridated water.  

Currently, under 902 KAR 115:010, any water system in Kentucky serving a population of 3,000 or more must supplement their finished water with fluoride if it is naturally fluoride deficient. The range of fluoride in finished water should be between 0.6 ppm and 1.2 ppm with a target goal of 0.7 ppm. This and similar bills have been introduced previously but have never made it through or passed the committee stage with such an overwhelming majority. The lopsided vote in favor of changes has garnered a lot of conversation and responses from both those in favor of the bill and those in opposition.    

The Kentucky Dental Association (KDA) sent a letter to the House Standing Committee opposing HB 141. The KDA explains in the letter, “Over 70 years of research and practical experience, the overwhelming weight of credible scientific evidence has consistently indicated that fluoridation of community water supplies is safe” and “the cost of a lifetime of water fluoridation for one person is less than the cost of one filling.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has named water fluoridation as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century.   

According to the CDC, access to fluoridated drinking water reduces cavities by about 25% in children and adults.  Many of the benefits from drinking fluoridated water include strengthening of developing permanent teeth in children eight and under and supporting healthy tooth enamel in adults, along with fewer cavities for all. Both the CDC and KDA show that 95% or more of Kentucky residents receive fluoridated water. In fact, the CDC ranks Kentucky second, only behind the District of Columbia, in percentage of the population receiving fluoridated water. More information and state statistics can be found on the CDC Community Water Fluoridation page at Community Water Fluoridation | Division of Oral Health | CDC.   

Other groups and individuals have taken a stance of support for HB 141. Soon after the bill passed the committee, the group Kentucky for Fluoride Choice released a letter citing several research articles and opinions from water professionals on the possible dangers of fluoride which they believe could be linked to negative health outcomes. Other concerns from the group include the source of additive fluoride. Many water systems use hydro fluorosilicic acid (HFS), an industrial waste byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer and aluminum industries and is not a naturally occurring chemical. More information can be found on their press release at KFFC Press Release for KMFC Website. 

Water treatment operators, the ones on the front line of this debate who are handling and dosing fluoride for their customers, have brought up the subject many times recently during site visits and at training sessions conducted by Rural Community Assistance Partnership (RCAP) Technical Assistance Providers (TAPs).  Although they are proud of the fact that they play such an important role in dental health for their communities and they take that role very seriously, many have concerns about water fluoridation as well. Most topics of concern include those previously mentioned: 

Forced medication 

Fluoride not being necessary for making water safe to drink 

Hazards of handling HFS and other fluoride additive chemicals 

Possible side effects of fluoride 

As of this writing, it appears that HB 141 will not make it to the House floor before the session expires. However, we can be sure that some form of the bill will come up again soon. As TAPs, we should research both sides of the fluoride debate and be prepared to give advice to operators if asked. At a minimum, it is our responsibility to make sure that small systems and their operators get the training to be able to safely handle and dose the recommended amount of fluoride and, if a change is made, be prepared to assist in communicating to the public fluoridated water alternatives.   

This article was funded under RCAP’s EPA NPA 1 2023 – 2025 grant. 

Sewer customers may be familiar with the notices, “Due to rising costs, the monthly price of your service is set to increase during your next billing cycle.” So why do so many wastewater utilities struggle to raise rates? Unlike your favorite subscription service, wastewater utility customers do not have the choice of pausing or canceling their membership in response to a price increase and deciding to take their business elsewhere.

Wastewater utilities have a responsibility to safely and reliably treat the wastewater that flows through the plant as well as a responsibility to customers to ensure that the use of funds is lawful and efficient. Proper fiscal management means that revenues not only meet day-to-day expenses but also prepare the system for potential emergencies and future capital projects.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Consum the cumulative rates of inflation over the last two, five, and ten years are 6.0%, 21.4%, and 31.1% respectively. We should also expect that the costs associated with the safe and reliable treatment of wastewater have also risen during that time. Infrastructure projects constructed in the U.S. during the 1980s are reaching the end of their useful lives and are in need of capital improvements. If typical repair and replacement schedules are not followed, components suffer premature failure, further increasing costs. Wastewater systems can prepare for these capital upgrades with regular contributions to capital reserves, but not all systems have a dedicated reserve fund or, if they do, it may have not have much in it.

A combination of an outdated rate schedule, little to no reserve or emergency funds, and future capital improvement projects places a wastewater system in a financially vulnerable position. Keeping rate evaluations and increases as a regular part of system operation will benefit managers, operators, and customers in the long term. Raising utility rates may not be a popular move and can result in public backlash from customers. However, keeping rates artificially low and postponing rate adjustments is not financially sustainable and will increase future costs, let alone leave the system vulnerable in case there is an emergency. Maintaining clear and consistent communication with sewer customers throughout the rate adjustment process, including opportunities for public input, helps with a smoother transition to potential rate increases.

Whether a rate adjustment is many years overdue or has become part of the regular budget season, the basic steps are the same.

Current rate structure evaluation

First, the system must understand the existing rate structure and evaluate if that should change. Common fee types include a base fee ($/month) and a use fee ($/gallon). These fees can vary for residential and commercial customers. Systems may have other revenue sources such as debt service fees, or funds levied through property taxes. Check your local code for any limitations about the types of rates your system may use.

Financial assessment

A financial assessment is critical to setting appropriate rates. At a minimum, the last three complete years of budget versus actual expenses should be reviewed to understand how money is moving through the system and what are common expenses as part of operations.

Customer assessment

Customer data must also be reviewed for rate adjustments. Critical questions such as, “How many customers are there, and how much are they paying?” should be asked during this review process. If use fees are applied based on meter data, are there use patterns? Are residential and commercial customers billed differently? Create a picture of the types of customers using the system and what kind of bills they are currently paying. Does this reflect the goals of the municipality and the utility?

Future projections

In concert with the financial and customer assessments, utilities should also consider the future use of the system. Are the expenses expected to change significantly due to capital projects? Is the number of customers expected to stay the same or change? Be critical when reviewing population data since customer bases may be in decline, but rates could be calculated on number of potential users instead of actual users. Use local knowledge and data to make projections for cost and use.

Rate options

With an understanding of total revenue under the current rates coupled with projections for total revenue needed, the difference shows how much additional revenue is needed to maintain sustainable operations. The board of the wastewater system must determine how to produce the additional revenue using available rate structures. Increasing base fees provides a more reliable revenue source but may be unfair by charging all customers evenly, whereas increasing use fees gives customers the most control but leaves the system more susceptible to revenue shortfalls if usage decreases. Considering three to five different rate options can help boards and customers evaluate the pros and cons of different strategies for meeting the system’s expenses.

The annual budget process is a natural opportunity for wastewater systems to assess their financial needs and make necessary adjustments. Just as expenses are consistently rising, sources of revenue need to keep up. Regular rate increases can be intimidating to implement but are a foundation of financial sustainability in any wastewater system.

For additional information, check out our rates guide and our eLearning on rate setting.

This article is funded under RCAP’s EPA NPA 2 2022 – 2024 grant.