Purpose

Strategies for Effective Public Involvement Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection is designed to facilitate the public involvement required by the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. Our objective is to promote an open dialogue between state and local public officials charged with source water assessment planning and citizens who consume the water. The term “citizen” is defined here as any drinking water consumer not involved in the management or regulation of the public supply; in this guide, the term includes representatives of public interest groups, businesses and agriculture. The term “public official” refers to the person(s) charged with developing and implementing source water assessment. Initially the “official” is likely to be on the state level; later, as more of the effort is delegated, the “official” may well be in a city, town or county.

The League of Women Voters Education Fund has developed this guide to help state agencies, water systems, local governments and others involved in the planning and implementation of source water assessments to plan and implement effective public involvement programs. We have included the citizen’s perspective so that public officials may better understand their audience. This guide builds on the recommendations found in the Environmental Protection Agency’s State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance; however, the ideas and recommendations are from the League of Women Voters Education Fund, based on our experience in citizen involvement in public policy issues. We recommend that you select the ideas that will work best in your unique situation.

For the first time in national water regulation, the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments emphasize public participation and public information from the planning stage of the drinking water source assessment. Public involvement processes can be time consuming, disorderly and sometimes downright frustrating. It is essential for everyone involved to understand that, ultimately, the awareness and support that comes from working together far outweigh the time and consternation involved.

The 1996 law delegates authority for drinking water protection programs to the states, upon program approval by EPA. Each state has unique hydrogeological conditions and political infrastructure; some have wellhead, watershed or other surface water area protection programs in place. No single method of public involvement will work for all. Select those tools that will work best in your state and in your situation.

This guide presents practical and powerful strategies, tools and ideas for generating public involvement in your state’s drinking water source assessment plan and its results.

• Section 2, Public Involvement, focuses on public awareness strategies and techniques for generating and using public feedback.
• Section 3, The Citizen Advisory Committee, addresses forming and supporting a group of citizen advisors. For convenience, this document will call this group a citizen advisory committee; however, the actual name of this group may vary from state to state. As of the writing of this guide, 26 states have groups of citizen advisors and the committees have begun to meet. By publication, even more states will have joined this list. Use Section 3 as a reference if your advisory group has begun work; if you have not yet formed such a group, Section 3 will help you do so.

This publication often uses a dual column approach, one column focusing on the public official and one on the citizen, to highlight that various participants in the process have different perspectives and responsibilities. Keeping the differences in mind should aid your public involvement efforts.

The guide assumes that readers are familiar with the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, their requirements and the benefits of preventing drinking water contamination by protecting the sources of that water. We recommend that readers refer to the EPA State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance for details on federal requirements for the Source Water Assessment Project. Readers who are thoroughly familiar with the 1996 amendments and the EPA guidance may want to skip the following brief summaries of the law and the guidance.

The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was designed to protect the quality of public water supplies (defined as those serving 25 households or more). The previous law focused on treatment of public drinking water. The amendments improve the older statute and:

• Emphasize prevention of drinking water contamination.
• Delegate primary responsibility for prevention to the states, upon EPA program approval.
• Require public involvement in the development of each state’s source water assessment plan (SWAP), acknowledging the increasing demand for public right-to-know.
• Require that states’ plans and the results of the assessment be made available to the public.
• Require each public water system to provide its customers with an annual consumer confidence report including information on contaminants and drinking water standards violations and information on its source waters.
• Provide some funding to the states to accomplish these goals.

Source water assessment (section 1453) is the SDWA’s key prevention initiative. The principle of the public’s right-to-know is covered in Section 1428(b), which mandates public involvement in the planning and implementation phases of source water assessment.

The Source Water Assessment and Protection Program

The drinking water source assessment program as outlined in the law requires that:

• States identify and delineate the areas that are sources of public drinking water (delineation).
• States identify and list the potential contaminant or pollution sources that affect those areas (source identification or contaminant source inventory).
• States assess water supplies’ susceptibility to contamination (vulnerability analysis).
• States inform the public of all results of the assessment.

While it is not mandated, the intent of the law is for states to develop, and/or augment existing protection plans for their source water areas (surface, groundwater or a combination of the two) to minimize the need for expensive treatment processes. EPA’s goal is that “by the year 2005, 50 percent of the population served by community water systems will receive their water from systems with SWP [source water protection] programs in place under both WHP [well head protection] and watershed protection programs.” A strong protection plan will include measurements of effectiveness to assess how well the efforts are working.

In August 1997, EPA published its State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance. Since many states began source water protection programs several years ago with the Wellhead Protection (WHP) program, the work necessary to meet the new requirements will vary from state to state. States are urged to build on existing source water programs when possible in designing the Source Water Assessment Plan. Whether building on ongoing efforts or just beginning the process, each state must submit a source water assessment plan to EPA for approval by February 1999. So time is short.

Timeline for Meeting 1996 SDWA Source Water Assessment Requirements

 The statute leaves the design and implementation of the assessment plan up to the states, with public input. The first step is developing the source water assessment plan with the help of citizen and technical advisors. States can delegate some or all of the implementation tasks to local entities. Citizens and officials who get involved in the planning process will be in a position to contribute to state decisions.

August 1997
EPA Guidance

August 1997 - February 1999
States develop SWAP

By November 1999
EPA reviews, approves plans

November 1999 - November 2001 (extension to May 2003 possible)
States conduct assessment

Public Involvement

Ideally, public involvement brings people with different needs and values together to develop a plan for “the common good” through a respectful dialogue. The shift from “command and control” regulation to a more cooperative and inclusive public interaction may pose some initial hurdles. Everyone involved may need to discard some comfortable patterns and expectations.

Public involvement starts with public awareness. Awareness is best accomplished through an ongoing program of outreach and education to all segments of the public. States that have a working outreach program may find the public involvement process for drinking water source assessment easier than those that don’t. Outreach and education efforts are recommended throughout this handbook.

There are many techniques for communicating information to the public and encouraging feedback. None are cost free. One technique that is very effective is personal contact – telephone calls and one-on-one interaction. Each state will make choices on how to inform the public based on budget, the existing level of awareness in the state of water issues, the advice of the citizen advisory committee and the staffing resources available to support the efforts.

Public involvement is required by the law during the development of the plan, before its submission to the EPA. The EPA and the League strongly recommend public involvement during the implementation of the assessment plan and as part of protection programs.

In many states, the planning process already has begun. During the planning stage, public involvement must include an advisory committee and general outreach to inform the public of the state plan and to solicit public feedback. States are expected to distribute the SWAP plan and related information as widely as possible. Furthermore, each state’s plan must include a description of how it achieved public participation and how public feedback will be used in developing its submission.

The Citizen Advisory Group

The EPA Guidance calls for each state to have an advisory group of citizens. The state is expected to provide adequate opportunity for the following types of groups to participate on the committee: public interest groups, public health organizations, vulnerable populations, land conservation and business interests; local governments, tribes, drinking water suppliers, wastewater treatment plant operators, farmers, developers and others. We recommend that states form and involve their committees in the drinking water source assessment planning process from the start. Public interest groups bring key ideas to the process. Including them and assigning their representatives significant responsibilities also can avert subsequent resistance to the plan’s implementation.

Each state must determine what it expects from its advisory committee, how often it will meet and what decisions it will make. These expectations must be clear to committee members. Effective advisory committees will include people who represent a broad spectrum of local interests and who understand the goal of the Drinking Water Source Assessment Planning process. Public officials and citizens work together best when they can exercise some flexibility while remaining faithful to their diverse goals. Seek a diversity of ethnicity, gender, race, economic and educational backgrounds. Include representatives of disabled and vulnerable population communities as well.

For states that already have advisory committees set up for related purposes, the new requirement offers an opportunity to review the success of the current processes and to make changes. For example, if an existing advisory committee does not include all the public interest groups required by the EPA, now is the time to seek new members from these groups.

Informing the Public

It is very important for public officials to make the public aware of the drinking water source assessment program as early in the process as possible, to encourage public input, and to provide an accessible means to receive and process that input. The EPA guidance directs states to provide notice and opportunity for public hearings on the state program to the public. The notice must include "wide distribution and availability of decision planning documents with adequate time to review and meaningful and substantial opportunities for all interested parties to provide detailed comments. . . ." Furthermore, there must be meetings "around the state." As with an advisory committee, reaching a diverse audience is critical. The awareness of and feedback from all segments of the state’s population will greatly improve the overall Drinking Water Source Assessment Plan.

Because formal hearings can be intimidating, this guide emphasizes less formal public meetings. Meetings can be a platform for presenting the plan and a means of acquiring public comments. Public forums may take a variety of formats: workshops, focus groups, hearings, town hall meetings, conference calls, videoconferences, among others. The EPA guidance calls for states to demonstrate that they have conducted such meetings, to show how they incorporated public comments into the plan and to show how they addressed those comments not incorporated.

The more communication between officials and the public and the more people who read and respond to the information, the greater the cooperation and support for the final program. Early in the process, the citizen advisory committee is a good source of direction on effective ways to attract public attention to the issue.

Maintaining Momentum

The League recommends continuing public involvement efforts even after the completion of the Source Water Assessment Plan. A working citizen advisory committee can help implement the plan; later, it can facilitate any new or extended source water protection programs. The advisory members can get to the pulse of the community and facilitate the public notification and education process. Good public support also provides a volunteer base to public agencies. Drinking water protection efforts are more successful when community consumers are aware of the threats to the water supply, understand the location of drainage and recharge areas critical to safe and healthy drinking water, and participate actively in the protection efforts. Public input can provide valuable insights in every aspect of this effort.

The Benefits of Public Involvement

A goal of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 is to create an informed public that will lend its energy to assessing and protecting water supplies. Frequent sharing of information on the planning and implementation processes, with a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment, has many benefits. Some are listed below.

Benefits for public officials

• Time/money savings through access to local information, such as surveys done by local stream groups.
• Public trust in and citizen awareness of the resulting program and the agency(ies) involved.
• Simplified assessment implementation, without conflict.
• Public support for legislative requirements: a knowledgeable public is likely to support any future legislative efforts to increase water budgets or to enact legislation to enable water protection.
• Free labor: state advisors can activate community volunteers for source water contaminant inventory projects and public education efforts.
• Improved relations with public and government agencies within the state and between state and local agencies.
• Creation of new alliances and partnerships.
• Broadened perspective on community attitudes on issues such as environmental justice.

Benefits for citizens

Private citizens

• Opportunities to protect the health of family, friends and neighbors.
• Opportunities to contribute the local perspective in a larger context.
• Awareness and appreciation of community values and perspectives.
• Understanding of the challenges of government and any necessary trade-offs.
• Awareness of the impact of human activities within the source water area on the quality of the drinking water.

Public Interest Groups

• Meeting organizational goals by influencing the process.
• Establishing new contacts for future efforts and new partnerships.
• Strengthening organizational visibility.

Economic Interests

• Creating community partnerships that enhance organizational image, increase business.
• Influencing decisions that will affect operational expenses.
• Understanding of public perceptions of the issues.

The benefits from partnerships with citizen and public interest group representatives at the state level can trickle down to community officials as they become active in the implementation of source water assessment.