Possible Gaps in Small Systems’ General Security Thinking

RCAP has collaborated with many different agencies and organizations involving security, including the development of WARN networks.  In collaborating with other entities such as the National Environmental Services Center (NESC) and Office of Community Services (OCS) it has become clear that there are still gaps in the way people that manage small systems think about security for drinking water and wastewater services.  Now in the second year of a 3-year project funded by OCS; RCAP and NESC are finding some of those gaps.  The following discussion briefly summaries some of those findings.

A purpose of the project is to raise awareness in communities of possible security gaps in key areas not addressed through traditional means.  These gaps may include personnel or workforce shortages or factors affecting the utility system due to global warming, aging infrastructure and environmental degradation.  

For instance, when preparing standard planning documents for assessing and planning for security threats, no consideration may be paid to an impending operator shortage.  If the local operator retires or fails to show up for some other reason, is there someone to back them up?  With potential climatic changes, have you planned for increased ice or decreased rainfall that may occur?

The general method used for this security planning project was to ask communities what they perceived as risks to their drinking water and wastewater services and to catalog them.  Risks directly associated with provision of drinking water and wastewater services were then assessed. 

RCAP also collaborated with the National Environmental Services Center (NESC) to carry out the following activities:

(1)  Literature search to identify the full range of threats posed to small and rural utilities;

(2)  Security and training needs assessment to identify definitions of water security, perceived threats and how management practices can be applied to address these challenges;

(3) Creation of a PowerPoint presentation summarizing key preliminary findings; and

(4)  Recommendations for next steps in addressing risks to small systems and promoting the integration of comprehensive security and emergency response/recovery strategies into the management of small water and wastewater utilities.

Work accomplished:

• reviewed relevant literature to identify and define the broad range of risks and threats to water systems and supplies;
• conducted telephone interviews and follow-up questionnaires to assess small community/small system worker perceptions about risks and threats to small water systems;
• analyzed and summarized results of interviews and questionnaires;
• developed a PowerPoint presentation summarizing relevant aspects of the literature review and interview findings; and
• developed recommendations for preparing tools, training, and resources to address small water system security for small water and wastewater utility boards.

 Review of Literature

The RCAP-NESC team reviewed dozens of resources, including books, journals, articles, reports and websites on a variety of topics related to water and wastewater security, such as aging infrastructure, retiring workforce, climate change, source water contamination, groundwater over-pumping and women’s and children’s environmental health.  The literature review served to identify the full range of non-traditional risks to small utilities and to define existing or potential impacts of these risks on water supplies and systems.

RCAP participated in three conferences and two meetings to gather additional information:

• Women’s Health and the Environment: New Science, New Solutions, Pittsburgh, PA; April 20, 2007; Sponsored by Teresa Heinz Kerry, The Heinz Endowments, Magee-Women’s Hospital of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Centers;
• The Next Decade of Children’s Environmental Health Protection, Washington, D.C., and online; April 26, 2007; Sponsored by the US Environmental Protection Agency, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
• Ground Water – Today’s Critical Resource, Annual Forum 2007; San Diego, CA; September 16-18, 2007; Sponsored by the Ground Water Protection Council and the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators.
• US Environmental Protection Agency’s Water Security Division Partner’s Group; Water Security Division meeting of water sector stakeholders; June 28, 2007
• US Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Homeland Security’s meeting with the Waster Security Division Partner’s Group, meeting topic: Pandemic Flu; July 17, 2007

 Interviews about Risks to Water Systems and Supplies (Process and Questions)

The RCAP-NESC team conducted 1-2-hour telephone interviews with 12 people who work in or with small communities, and conducted one email interview, for a total of 13 interviews.  Interviewees included small system/community assistance providers who provide technical, managerial and financial assistance, environmental trainers, an emergency management expert, small system operators (or previous experience as a small system operator), small community decision makers (or previous experience as a small town decision maker) and a state regulator (or previous state regulatory experience). Interviewees worked in 13 different states; two of the interviewees work with small systems and communities nationwide.  On average, each interviewee represented, or could speak for, approximately 75-100 systems. 

Interviewees were asked the following questions:

• What are small water and wastewater systems’ perspectives on security, i.e. what are the real and present risks and threats they’re facing?
• Although federal initiatives focus primarily on terrorism, natural disasters, and other hazards, what other threats are or should be of concern to small systems?
• What are some ways to address these risks proactively and in tune with existing management practices?
• What types of help do small utilities/decision makers want or need from federal/state/local government? From assistance providers?

Telephone interviews were followed with an email questionnaire asking interviewees to:

• Rank risks to the water system/supply in priority order from highest to lowest;
• Identify the percentage of systems he or she works with that are facing the risk, and identify in how many years the system(s) would be facing the risk.

 Brief summary of interview results

Some results of interviews and questionnaire are included in the PowerPoint Presentation.  The PowerPoint presentation was prepared to share project findings at the annual conference of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) in early Oct. 2007.

Security is not defined as terrorism in small community systems; the belief is that a terrorist event will not happen in a small town.  Local issues are more important to small system/community personnel, and security is a low priority compared to other responsibilities.  Local issues include disgruntled employees/customers, local vandalism, natural disasters and their related power outages, and incidents and accidents that could affect the system or community. Although one or two interviewees identified situations beyond these traditionally recognized risks, most agreed, once asked, that a wider variety of events and situations posed risks to the systems’ water supplies and operations.  These include, in order of importance from highest to lowest priority:
 

1. Aging infrastructure
2. Lack of planning
3. Retiring operator workforce
4. Natural disasters
5. Local vandalism
6. Groundwater overpumping
7. Source water contamination
8. Climate change
9. Terrorism

Interviewees identified planning/long-term planning as the primary management strategy for addressing these problems, along with the recognition that very few systems currently engage in long-term planning or understand its value.  In addition, capacity development, asset management, capital improvement planning and risk management were identified as potentially effective management strategies. Only a small percentage of systems have these strategies in place.

Interviewees identified the following types of help that systems want and/or need from federal, state and local government, and assistance providers:

• Additional funding for capital improvements;
• If money is not available,  technical assistance and training resources;
• Recognition that small systems/communities have unique needs and situations—“one size regulation doesn’t fit all;” new standards/requirements should provide necessary funding;
• Regulators must develop a better understanding of small system and community situations and challenges;
• More people/volunteers to help with projects;
• Assistance with economic development;
• Need help with planning.

NOTE:  Many other issues were discussed through these open-ended interviews; some are presented below as key recommendations for future strategies and projects.

 Follow-up Questionnaire Results

Percentage of systems facing each of the nine risks, and the number of years until the system faces the risk.
 

  Recommendations for future strategies and projects to address risks to small systems 

• Heighten local officials’ awareness about water, water system issues, and stewardship;
• Need to offer effective, well-designed education and training across the board: to local officials, system personnel, the public; current technical assistance and training programs being delivered are just scratching the surface;
• Need to provide useful, simple, practical tools with follow-through training or coaching on their purpose, use and application;
• Need to be aggressive in getting information and useful resources into local officials/board members hands;
• Primary management strategy to address through education and training is long-term planning; other important management strategies are capacity development, asset management and capital improvement planning;
• Educate regulators on strategies for working with and understanding small community and small system personnel, and for moving them to action;
• Develop incentives (financial, regulatory, and other) to encourage board members and system personnel to take appropriate actions in managing/stewarding water resources and systems;
• Recognize and take advantage of “teachable moments,” such as situations when local, state, regional or national attention is focused on a particular issue of relevance to water system personnel and board members
• Be more aggressive in linking system improvements to security enhancements in order to obtain security funding;
• Prepare board members and system personnel to assess risk and develop risk management strategies;
• Prepare board members and system personnel to be more proactive in emergency planning and outreach to local emergency management personnel/services.

CONCLUSION

This is an ongoing project and it is a little early to elaborate on any conclusions that are not already listed above in the recommendations.  While funding is very important, the real value here is that the public, public officials, system boards, and operators need to have heightened awareness about the need for an “all hazards” approach to security and need to plan accordingly.