Drop of Knowledge

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, disadvantaged 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. 

Water is the most precious resource on the planet. Our rivers, lakes, and oceans make up seventy-one percent of the earth’s surface; no one can live without water, but clean and fresh water is becoming harder to find.

Water pollution occurs when harmful chemicals or microorganisms get into a river, lake, ocean, or aquifer, making it toxic to humans or the environment. Water is known as the universal solvent, it dissolves more substances than any other liquid, including those harmful to life.

Chemicals, waste, and other pollutants are contaminating our waterways. Some eighty percent of the world’s wastewater is dumped untreated back into the environment, diminishing our drinking water sources. Throughout the United States, potentially harmful contaminants such as arsenic, copper, and lead have been found in tap water. These substances occur naturally but are the result of manufacturing as well. By the year 2050, the demand for fresh water will be one-third greater than it is now.

Drinking water comes from groundwater and surface water. Groundwater primarily comes from precipitation that seeps down into the ground through cracks, crevices, and porous spaces down to the aquifer; an underground storage area of water. The aquifer is our least visible or thought-of resource. Nearly forty percent of Americans rely on groundwater for drinking. For some communities in rural areas, it is their only source for fresh water, but this groundwater can become contaminated by pesticides, fertilizers, and waste from landfills, septic tanks, and farmlands. Once an aquifer is polluted, it may be almost impossible to get the contaminants out, making the aquifer unusable for decades to come, or sometimes never useable again.

Surface water covers about seventy percent of the earth’s surface. Surface water from freshwater sources accounts for more than sixty percent of the water used in American homes, and according to the Environmental Protection Agency, almost half of that water is unfit for swimming, fishing, or drinking. Nutrient pollution, such as nitrates and phosphates are the leading types of contamination for surface waters. Ocean water is contaminated by chemicals, nutrients, and heavy metals that are carried from farms, factories, and cities by the way of storm drains and sewers spilling out into our bays and estuaries, and then out to sea, carrying with it trash and plastic.

On the opposite side of the water spectrum, we have wastewater, which is comprised of sewage, some industrial waste, and gray water. Gray water comes from our sinks, showers, washing machines, and dishwashers; sewage comes from our toilets. More than eighty percent of the world’s wastewater flows back into the environment without being treated or reused.

In the United States wastewater treatment plants process about thirty-four billion gallons of wastewater per day. Wastewater treatment plants reduce pollutants such as pathogens, phosphorus, and nitrogen that’s in sewage and discharge the treated water back into the environment. Some is used to spray fields while some is discharged into a stream or river, and some is injected back into the aquifer. When systems fail due to aging and easily overwhelmed sewer systems, raw sewage – some eight hundred and fifty billion gallons a year – is released into the environment.

The truth of the matter is – water pollution kills. In fact, almost one and a half million people die each year, and one billion people are sickened by unsafe water. Diseases like cholera, giardia, and typhoid are spread by contaminated water. Even a water system that is safe can become contaminated by backflow of pollutants into the system.

What can we do to help prevent water pollution? We can reduce our plastic consumption and reuse or recycle when we can. We can dispose of chemicals, oils, and non-biodegradable items properly. We can avoid applying pesticides or herbicides to our lawns and not flush our old medications down the toilet but dispose of them properly.  Those are just a few ways to help prevent water pollution.

Implementation of new regulations could alleviate today’s challenges to chemicals such as microplastics, PFAS, and pharmaceuticals that wastewater treatment plants were not built to handle.

Our waterways serve every one of us. We all have the power to help protect our most natural resource by properly disposing of chemicals and being mindful of the products we use.

This article was funded under RCAP’s EPA NPA 1 2022 – 2024 grant. 

“Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association– those are big words!” laughs Tracie Johnson of the newly-formed Southern New Mexico Water Association.

Serving approximately 120 rural households, the Enchanted Forest community water system was nestled in a rugged section of Lincoln County in Southern New Mexico that had been experiencing numerous wildfires and drought over much of the past decade.

By late May 2022, the community had run out of water.

Fortunately,  Johnson had reached out to Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) just the month before, seeking advice on how to ensure a clean and reliable source of drinking water for residents of the Enchanted Forest community system. As Johnson often stated, “We need the water!”

RCAC Rural Development Specialists (RDSs) and Johnson worked quickly to obtain emergency assistance from the New Mexico Board of Finance and led efforts to reorganize the community’s imperiled water system into a Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association (MDWCA) to access public financing options. The MDWCAs were originally authorized under New Mexico’s Sanitary Projects Act of 1949 to address the waterborne illness that was prevalent throughout many parts of the state at the time. They allow small communities like Enchanted Forest to legally build and develop  safe drinking water systems with public funding assistance. RCAC then helped develop organizational documents that would be needed for the transition, such as the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. By June 2022, the community system had been officially reorganized as an MDWCA.

RCAC next continued to help the community address its water security needs by assisting the newly-formed Enchanted Forest MDWCA with implementing system improvements. RCAC helped the board procure engineering services and navigate the often-complex loan and grant funding application process, identifying the best approach for leveraging the community’s limited financial resources. Most recently, RCAC devoted additional resources to conduct a household income survey that will determine the community’s eligibility to access additional public funding opportunities.

According to RCAC’s regional field manager, Ramon Lucero, who has played a vital role in helping Enchanted Forest, “Rarely have I seen an association so engaged and motivated. It has been a great privilege working with Enchanted Forest.” Referring to Lucero and the RCAC Rural Development Specialists Karl Pennock and Indira “Indie” Aguirre who have also worked on this effort, Johnson writes, “Again and again and again, you, Karl, and now Indie have just been invaluable, and I hope for a long, long-time friendship out of this entire adventure.”

Congratulations to Enchanted Forest Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association on a job well done!

This article was funded under RCAP’s EPA NPA 1 2022 – 2024 grant. 

An island community in Washington state faced a challenge when its water system’s private investor-owners decided to sell. Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) Assistant Regional Field Manager Dessa Wells worked with local residents to obtain U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development (USDA-RD) funds to purchase and make improvements to the system.

About the Community

Burton is an unincorporated community located on Vashon Island, north of Tacoma. The island is the largest in Puget Sound, at nearly 40 square miles—accessible only by water or air. Census data reports that Vashon Island’s population is just over 10,000. Burton’s water system serves 412 connections, 400 of which are single-family homes.

The previous local water system owners wanted to sell the system, prompting a small group within the community to organize a board and purchase the water system. The community wanted to apply for USDA-RD funding to purchase the water system assets from the existing investor-owned water system and make system improvements. USDA-RD staff referred the newly formed board to RCAC to provide technical support.

About the Project

All tests show that the water quality exceeds standards, however the existing drinking water source and distribution system has an aging infrastructure network. The system includes seven pumped wells and 17 vacuum wellpoints, and the water is chlorinated before delivery. There are two storage reservoirs (one 150,000-gallon tank and one 100,000-gallon tank) to meet peak demand. The distribution system includes pipes of a variety of sizes, age, and material. The main trunk line includes 6-inch steel, 6-inch asbestos-cement, and 6-inch PVC pipe. The 6-inch steel main trunk line has been observed to have nodules, a sign of age. The asbestos-cement trunk line is approaching 60 years old. Other parts of the distribution system include galvanized iron pipe, polyethylene, and PVC. Some of the galvanized iron leaks frequently, and all pipes in the distribution system are deficient in terms of their ability to provide adequate fire protection flows.

USDA Funding

RCAC worked with the Burton system’s new board to obtain the necessary plans, reports and financial documents to submit a completed application to USDA on August 7, 2023. Project estimated costs, including acquisition, are $4,454,000.

Challenges

The board needed to obtain interim funding to be able to apply for USDA-RD funds. Rates will need to increase to cover the cost of providing service, including purchasing the system, upgrades, and a new right of way charge fee from King County. Burton has a financially diverse customer base and the board strived to be fair and equitable to maintain affordable rates.

Another challenge for this project was in estimating costs since getting contractors on and off the island might incur extra costs given that the island is only accessible by water or air.

What’s next

The proposed updates to the facility will include a significantly improved distribution piping network, such as all main trunk line pipes being replaced with 8-inch PVC. Additionally, the recommended improvements will increase the system’s fire flow capacity and also improve water quality in some parts of the system by reducing stagnation points. If the funding is approved as anticipated, construction is expected to begin in December 2024.

This project/article was funded under RCAP’s USDA Technitrain 23 – 24 grant.

Under the EPA’s Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR), Public Water Systems are required to create a lead service line inventory (LSLI) and make it accessible to customers by October 16, 2024. Under the proposed Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI), new public notification and education requirements may be required to protect public health. These changes necessitate public outreach strategies for utilities that may not have previously prioritized it.

Lead is now widely known to be a toxic substance, commonly found in older plumbing materials (pipes, joints, and solder) and paint. Exposure to lead in drinking water or airborne particulates is of particular concern to children, whose developing bodies absorb more lead than adults. Lead exposure can significantly inhibit children’s learning development, emotional regulation, and motor skills. Regrettably, lead was widely used as a water distribution material in the early 1900s and was not banned by the EPA until 1986. The lingering presence of lead in drinking water infrastructure continues to pose health risks to consumers. This is perhaps best illustrated by the Flint Water Crisis, where a change in water source caused lead corrosion in water distribution piping and impacted the health of over 99,000 people. The Flint Water Crisis, among others, has played a large role in increased public scrutiny of drinking water.

Public confidence in drinking water is critical to the survival of a water utility. Trust between consumer and provider can be achieved through proactive, transparent communication efforts on the part of the utility. So, let’s look at how we can talk about lead in drinking water more effectively, and places to promote the quality of a water system’s product:

If there is lead in the system you represent, be transparent about it.

It’s unlikely that where lead is present, the current utility staff had anything to do with its installation. That said, consumers should still be empowered to protect their health and be made aware of any dangers associated with water consumption.

Post educational information that promotes public health. Water utilities have the expertise to provide best-practices information to promote safe drinking water consumption. Some helpful tips utilities can provide to consumers include:

Clean faucet screens routinely.
Install point-of-use filters or use filtered pitchers (adhering to standards from the National Science Foundation and the American National Standards Institute).
Use cold water for cooking, drinking, and preparing baby formula.
Flush pipes for 2-5 minutes after 4-6 hours of stagnation.

Proactively engage with consumers about lead-related projects. Consider providing information about lead service line replacement projects and lead service line inventory information voluntarily. A proactive utility will engage with the public before there’s a problem and can promote the good work they’re doing to address lead in drinking water. Places to post information may include:

Webpages & Social Media
Consumer Confidence Reports
Customer invoices
Local papers or bulletins
Doorhangers & flyers

Create a list of FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) on one of the aforementioned outlets. An FAQ is a great way to quickly communicate answers to common questions, and it can reduce the frequency of information requests from customers. Also use language and terminology your customers can understand. It may also be useful to utility employees!

Know the community: Understanding the needs of your consumers right down to how they access information is crucial to a successful outreach campaign. Luckily, materials exist to help utilities form strategies and overcome obstacles, including language barriers. Here are some resources to get the ball rolling:

Lead In Drinking Water Outreach Resources (via US EPA)
EPA’s Protect Your Tap: A Quick Check for Lead
Website Example (City of Rochester, NY)
Lead FAQs (via New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services)
EPA Communication Plan
EPA Lead in Drinking Water Infographic (Spanish)

With these tips and revisions under the LCRR, we hope utilities can continue being proactive with their consumers regarding lead levels in drinking water.

This article was funded by RCAP’s EPA NPA 1 22 – 24 grant. 

Pembroke Township Public Water System is an unincorporated Community Water System in the town of Hopkins Park, IL, in rural Kankakee County. It is a small water system that provides potable water to 287 customers outside of the village, to allow them the same benefit of safe drinking water as their village neighbors enjoy. The community is a rural residential area surrounded by small farms and ranches and is comprised of a mostly lower income minority population with many elderly residents.

In October 2023, Pembroke Township Public Water System (PWS) requested assistance from the Great Lakes Community Action Partnership (GLCAP)   to address the need to install a new water service line. Due to a difficult job market, personnel on hand with the necessary experience were few, and those who were there lacked experience in performing these functions, as more experienced workers had moved on, creating a void. GLCAP was happy to assist in this educational opportunity.

After evaluation of available equipment in early October 2023, a plan was developed to acquire missing equipment and consumable items required to complete the work, as well as providing further training in excavation safety and water main repair. Once plans were in place, a date was set, and GLCAP began developing training materials as  resources for current and future employees  should they need to do  this work again.

On October 24, 2023, employees, an equipment contractor, and GLCAP were on site at the location for the new water service line. A brief review covering safety and the objectives of the work were discussed before work began, including the use of   personal protective equipment (PPE) that meet OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) requirements, hand signal use for the equipment operator, and safe work practices.

Activity progressed through the day and into the next and also addressed what the township employees would need to know to repair the new water main in the future. At the conclusion of the work and training, the excavation was closed by the equipment operator. GLCAP performed a verbal review of the activities with those employees being trained and provided a formal training documentation plan, training attendance, a standard operating procedure , and training materials packet to the water utility clerk/personnel manager to place on file. This engagement improved environmental and public health, operational safety of employees, and a better financial response in ensuring low water loss during the work.

The PWS Utility Township Supervisor was extremely happy with this activity and provided a USEPA/USDA Letter of Support to GLCAP to show appreciation. :

“As we have some growth, we needed training of newly hired personnel on location of water infrastructure, excavation, proper installation of new water taps, and how to handle water main breaks or leaks. GLCAP TAP Anthony Brown was scheduled to come in and assist with “Hands On” training to allow Pembroke Township Personnel to learn how to locate water infrastructure properly, excavate it, acquire the necessary tools needed to complete tasks, install a new service line tap as well as make repairs to a water main, if needed. .”

Funding for this assistance was provided by US EPA NPA 1 2022-2024.

When doing board training, I often ask the audience, “What is the most important business in your community?” The answer always varies – the local manufacturing plant, the large tech distribution center, the big box store, etc. I rarely hear the answer I believe to be true – the community’s water and/or wastewater system. The fact is the larger businesses that are often identified as the “most important” would not be in the area if there were not a public water system (PWS), and many of these businesses require publicly owned treatment works (POTW) before they consider locating in a community. Therefore, the PWS and the POTW are the most important businesses in the community because they provide safe drinking water and adequate sanitary disposal to everyone in the service area as well as those visiting or passing through the community, and they are a major factor in the economic development in small, rural communities.

For the water and wastewater systems in small communities to succeed, the council/board and the customers must understand the value of the service these utilities provide. To understand the value, people must understand the benefits of these utilities to the community and the true cost of providing these services. This means the council/board must be transparent about the challenges their utility faces on an ongoing basis. These challenges directly relate to what the utility system must charge the customer for the water and/or wastewater services. Without educating the customers on these challenges, the customers may never realize what it takes to have a well-run water and/or sewer system in their community.

Some common challenges customers do not realize directly affect their water and sewer operations include personnel, regulations, and aging infrastructure. Most certified water and sewer operators are nearing retirement, and few young people are entering this field. This makes it hard for water and wastewater systems to hire qualified people. Many utilities are re-assessing their pay scale to attract qualified individuals and to keep the operators they currently employ. Many customers do not realize that regulations require the water and wastewater operators to be certified and have no idea the cost the utility faces to get operators trained and ready to take a certification exam.

New regulations are always challenging for small water and wastewater systems, such as Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) and per-and-polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) for water systems and stricter discharge limits for wastewater. Even regulations in place for years can create compliance issues as temperatures rise and rainfall increases due to climate change. It often takes improving the current treatment techniques, major treatment plant upgrades, or other infrastructure improvements to meet or remain in compliance. Changes in treatment may require additional chemicals or a change in current ones, which can increase chemical costs for the system. Capital improvement projects normally require significant financial investment and years of planning.

Long-term planning is extremely important to water and wastewater systems. The lack of planning for adequate repair and replacement of major components in the utility system has led to major issues directly connected to aging infrastructure, such as water loss, inflow= and infiltration (I&I), and catastrophic pump failure. Aging infrastructure can also contribute to non-compliance with federal and state regulations such as the Disinfectantion Byproducts Rule (DBPR) and the Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR).

With so many challenges facing small water and wastewater systems, the council/board and staff must understand the need to be forthcoming about issues within the utility system to create stakeholders’ trust and support. Everyone must realize how important the water and wastewater systems are to the community and what it takes to keep the utilities running efficiently and providing safe drinking water and adequate sanitary disposal for everyone who lives in or visits the community. After all, the water and wastewater systems are the area’s most important businesses.

Funding for this assistance was provided by US EPA NPA 1 2022-2024.

The Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) mandate that all Community Water Systems (CWS) and Non-Transient, Non-Community Water Systems (NTNCWSs) submit an initial inventory of their service lines by October 16, 2024. This can be a significant undertaking for many small, rural water systems that often lack historical records, adequate staffing, or other resources to assist with completing their inventory. Many small water systems are just beginning their inventory efforts, while others have made considerable progress or have even completed the initial inventory.

The EPA and state primacy agencies offer detailed guidance on their respective inventory requirements and methodology that must be followed. Despite differences in EPA and some state requirements, there are some common practices that can assist a small system in its initial stages with minimal effort.

First, it is critical to have a complete customer list that accounts for each service line. Ideally, this information should be readily accessible or require minimal effort to acquire from the utility’s billing system. Depending on each state’s template, certain required or optional information may be easy to determine, including unique service line IDs, other location identifiers, sensitive population data, current Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling sites, and building types.

Once this information is incorporated into the required inventory template, water systems must conduct an initial records review. This may involve reviewing system maps, records, construction and plumbing codes, or other pertinent information. Parcel boundary data can be useful when containing characteristics like address, owner names, and home built year, which is used to identify older homes and neighborhoods that are more susceptible to having lead service lines.

Another strategy used for inventorying service line materials is providing customers with a public survey form. The survey form would provide instructions to inspect the service line coming into their home. The survey form should encompass all relevant information needed for the customer side of the service line inventory. It should also include instructions on identifying material types by scratch and magnet testing, along with tips for capturing good photos.

The customer survey approach also allows the collection of contact information, such as owner or tenant names, phone numbers, email addresses, or even water meter serial numbers. There can also be a scheduling option where the customer requests the utility staff to complete the home service line inspection. Public surveys can be advertised on utility or town websites, emailed to customers, shared on Facebook, door hangers, or flyers attached to bill stubs with scannable QR codes.

Deploying a customer survey is also an excellent way to show engagement with customers, inform them about the significance of the new EPA lead service line inventory requirements, and share any other pertinent system information. In many states, a completed and well-documented public survey can serve as proper verification of the service line material on the customer side.

Following the public customer survey, a water utility system may be off to a solid start and pleasantly surprised with their progress, but often utilities may only report about a 5-10% response rate from their customers. A water utility may look next to identify sensitive populations such as schools and daycares, or target efforts in areas where lead is most likely located. At this juncture, excavation or other investigative methods will need to be explored.

Completing the service line inventory will undoubtedly demand a substantial investment of time, effort, and money for most small systems. There are few shortcuts in this process and there are some strategies that can aid a small, rural water system in making progress if they are feeling anxious about the October 2024 deadline. Following these steps, a water system may end up with an adequate inventory to submit, but efforts will still be needed to identify any remaining unknown service lines in accordance with state or EPA regulations.

Disclaimer – This article is intended solely for informational purposes. For details regarding specific processes, completion, or submission of the service line inventory, kindly consult your state primacy or EPA.

This article was funded under the EPA NPA 1 22 – 24 Grant. 

Location: Dickson, Tennessee

Issue: Bluebird Hills Water System was out of compliance with the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC).

Outcome: Communities Unlimited (CU) provided onsite operational technical assistance, addressing all compliance issues.

Communities Unlimited was referred to Bluebird Hills Water System (BHWS) by TDEC. Annie Chiodo, a CU staff member, began working with BHWS in October 2017. The owner and operator, Charles Elston, had a history of submitting Monthly Operating Reports (MORs) late, failing to notify TDEC of significant problems and not following sampling procedures.

Mr. Elston said, “I struggled to meet TDEC requirements for recordkeeping and planning, and I failed to make deadlines for several reports. I was regularly late in submitting Monthly Operator Reports. Further, I missed some monitoring deadlines. I was made to pay over $6,000 in fines.”

Annie and Mr. Elston went to work on a calendar of what and when items needed to be submitted by, and both wrote and updated programs. Then in February 2018, the well collapsed. Mr. Elston notified the TDEC immediately. He and Annie went to work on getting the water back up online. BHWS was under a boil order for approximately three weeks until everything was in place. TDEC, Nashville Field Office donated several filter housings to help, and a team had developed to install the filtration and disinfection.

Thomas Killion from TDEC wrote:

“Under Ms. Chiodo’s assistance Mr. Elston has provided MORs on time since July 2018 and has received significant education on the proper operation of his water system. Thank you for your commitment to excellence in drinking water and to the people of Tennessee. It was a pleasure to work with you in regards to this water system, and we look forward to your assistance with other water systems in our area.”

Mr. Elston added, “Annie has made the difference. She is fully competent, uncompromisingly professional, and thoroughly approachable. She has stood with me through difficult times, been hugely encouraging, all while being firm in her ability to hold me accountable. Her example has made me a better water operator and a better person. Bluebird Hills SCWD has been fully compliant with TDEC Rules since Annie and Communities Unlimited came to my aid. I will forever be grateful to Annie, Communities Unlimited, and TDEC for offering such effective and beneficial assistance.”