A Drop of Knowledge

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 enables operators to pinpoint assets using GPS coordinates and photos, and facilitates streamlined recording of operation, maintenance, and inspection records. This data can be easily accessed and analyzed through a real-time asset management dashboard. GIS therefore 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. 

How many operators truly understand breakpoint chlorination? Both new and experienced operators continue to face challenges in comprehending its significance and determining whether their system has achieved an adequate residual level. Breakpoint chlorination is not simply about attaining an arbitrary free chlorine concentration. It is, in fact, defined as “the point at which enough chlorine has been added to a quantity of water to satisfy its disinfecting demand” (Breakpoint Chlorination). 

While newer operators are still familiarizing themselves with the concept of breakpoint chlorination, even seasoned professionals often find it difficult to fully grasp its implications. Furthermore, how can operators be certain that their system has reached an adequate residual level? This question warrants further consideration. To clarify, breakpoint chlorination is not about reaching a random free chlorine value but about ensuring the system is properly disinfected and the required demand has been met. 

Stage 1:  Chlorine Demand 

In this stage, chlorine is first introduced to water where it will react with reducing agents like hydrogen sulfide, iron, and manganese.  During this stage, all the chlorine is consumed by the reducing agents which will result in no free chlorine residual.  This is known as “Zone 1” of the breakpoint chlorination curve. 

Stage 2:  Formation of Chlororganics and Chloramines 

It is well documented that ammonia is present in water.  Because of that, as chlorine is increased, it will begin to react with ammonia to produce monochloramine, dichloramine, and trichloramine. Many communities disinfect with chloramines because chloramines maintain a residual longer in a long distribution system. The major drawback with chloramines includes taste and odor issues as well as they are a less effective disinfectant. This is known as “Zone 2” of the breakpoint chlorination curve. 

Stage 3:  Destruction of Chlororganics and Chloramines to Breakpoint 

Here is where all the chlororganic and chloramine compounds that have been formed begin to break down with the addition of more chlorine.  It is here where customers will complain that there is too much chlorine in the water.  It is also here that when these complaints come in, the chlorine feed does not get decreased but rather increased instead. That is right, that just doesn’t seem to make any sense whatsoever.  Once the compounds are destroyed, the breakpoint curve will drop. Any residual at this point will be total chlorine. This is known as “Zone 3” of the breakpoint chlorination curve. 

Stage 4:  Free Chlorine Residual 

Here in “Zone 4”, the addition of chlorine will be strictly free, available chlorine that is highly effective for disinfection. In this zone, the residual chlorine is present to ensure ongoing protection against recontamination as the water travels throughout the distribution system.  

At the beginning of this article, we stated that many operators are unsure whether their system has reached an adequate residual level. In order to determine whether said system has reached the adequate residual level, collect your instantaneous sample and divide it in half. One of the samples will be tested for total chlorine, while the other needs to be tested for free chlorine.  Once you obtain your residual results, take the free chlorine and divide it by total chlorine then multiply it by 100. If your result is greater than 75% then you have an acceptable chlorine residual level. Although 75% is an acceptable result, your best result will be 80% or greater. 

Free Chlorine ÷ Total Chlorine × 100 = Percent 

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

Many small systems find themselves in dire straits during extreme weather events due to improper installation of waterlines during the original construction of the system. These issues often become apparent during events such as droughts, high temperatures, or sub-freezing conditions. In these scenarios, the costs of repairs can be substantial, and affected customers may experience low water pressure or complete service interruptions, leading to diminished customer confidence in the system.   

How can these issues be avoided? 

Ensure your project engineer stays engaged with the system during construction and makes frequent unscheduled visits.  

Hire a qualified project inspector who can interpret the plans and specifications and is confident enough to enforce them. Interview prospective inspectors and have them go through the plans and specifications and demonstrate their ability to understand the requirements. 

Call in the project engineer if needed to give clarification and directions to the contractor. If project inspection is provided by the engineering firm, make sure the inspector is always present during line installation or require the contractor to leave the trench open until it is inspected.  

Require the project inspector to keep a daily diary to include weather and ground conditions, the number of crew members on site each day, the amount of pipe installed each day, notes as to any issues that arise each day, notes regarding any materials delivered, and whether these meet the specifications. This daily diary will be of value when change orders are requested for extra contract days, and if there are any questions as to the quantities of line installed for the monthly pay estimate.  

Schedule regular monthly construction progress meetings to discuss work performed, quantity and quality of work, time schedules, pay estimates, and change orders. If issues are noted during inspections, this is the time to review the plans and specifications and make sure everyone understands what is expected and what will be accepted. 

Require the contractor to make change order requests as changes are needed, and monthly for any requests for a time extension based on weather conditions. Discussing these during the monthly progress meeting can help everyone come to an agreement and help appropriately manage the contingency fund.  

Have someone from the system, such as a board member or operator, take an active role in checking in with the inspector and seeing what work is being done. This person can’t give directions to the contractor but can report to the governing body and project engineer if there are issues noted. This person should attend the monthly progress meeting and if the issues they noticed are not discussed by the project inspector during the meeting, bring this to the engineer’s attention. 

Take pictures or videos. This cannot be stressed enough. If you have pictures of work in progress, you have documentation if the contractor is not meeting the requirements of the contract. Pictures are worth a thousand words. 

In ensuring proper line installation, vigilance and proactive measures are key. By implementing stringent inspection protocols, fostering clear communication channels and maintaining meticulous documentation, small systems can safeguard against future nightmares, ensuring reliable water service and maintaining customer trust, even in the face of extreme weather events. 

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

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.

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. 

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.