|
 |
|
What is Capacity Development?
  
What is capacity development and how can States use capacity development
to help small systems enhance their level of public health protection?
Capacity development is a State effort to help drinking water systems
improve their finances, management, infrastructure, and operations so they
can provide safe drinking water consistently, reliably, and cost-effectively.
More specifically, the capacity development provisions provide an exceptionally
flexible framework within which States and water systems can work together
to ensure that systems acquire and maintain the technical, financial, and
managerial to consistently achieve the health objectives of the 1996 Safe
Drinking Water Act.
Since the overwhelming majority of all public water systems are classified
as small, it then follows that capacity development activities will likely
have their greatest on effect on small systems, and particularly on those
small water systems that are currently out of compliance, or may likely
be in the future.
States can use capacity development to efficiently target the technical,
financial, and managerial needs of many small systems and then directly
address those needs through specific activities that help systems enter
and remain in compliance.
A Few Examples
-
States can help the owners of water systems prepare business plans that
identify financial needs for the coming years, and where the sources of
financial capital will derive from.
-
States can train system operators on how to detect leaks that may pose
a risk to contamination of treated water.
-
States might help water systems set rates that will reflect the true cost
of providing safe water but will not financially burden its customers.
How did the concept of capacity development arise?
Since the crafting the Safe Drinking Water Act in the early 1970's,
Congress has recognized the unique challenges that face small drinking
water systems. The original Act in 1974, and the major amendments in 1986,
focused on developing and implementing a strong regulatory program based
on monitoring and treatment. The general sentiment was that, in the face
of a strong regulatory program, systems would make the changes necessary
to comply. The Act authorized training and technical assistance to help
systems, and provided exemptions for systems that faced compelling economic
circumstances. These exemptions could be extended for very small systems.
By the late 1980's and early 1990's, it was clear that small systems
were having great difficulty keeping up with the rapidly expanding SDWA-mandated
regulations. There was also a growing recognition of a significant need
for basic infrastructure repair and replacement, quite separate from any
regulatory mandates. A few States were implementing "viability" initiatives,
which sought to promote small system compliance, and otherwise address
small systems problems, by ensuring that systems had the necessary underlying
technical, managerial, and financial wherewithal. These programs showed
great promise, and the concept of "small system viability" emerged as a
major consideration in the early discussions about SDWA reauthorization.
As the debate on SDWA reauthorization progressed, however, it became
clear that the term "viability" had at least two significant shortcomings.
First, it promoted an unproductive focus on classifying systems as "viable"
or "nonviable." Second, ti implied a static endpoint. The debate was really
about finding a way to create a process through which systems could enhance
their technical, managerial, and financial capacity to ensure consistent
compliance with the SDWA. Thus, the concept became known as "Capacity Development."
Capacity development implies a process, not a static endpoint, and
does not promote a focus on rigid classification of systems as "having
it" or "not having it."
How does capacity development fit together with other
elements of the Safe Drinking Water Act?
The SDWA Amendments of 1996 became law on August 6, 1996. While retaining
the best of the previous Act, the Amendments create a new and strong focus
on preventing contamination and noncompliance. They also greatly increase
State flexibility, provide badly needed financial support, and create a
new ethic of public awareness and participation. The new provisions may
be thought of as a tapestry; individual provisions are best understood
not in isolation, but in the context of the whole.
From a small systems perspective, the major components of the tapestry
are the new DWSRF, Capacity Development, source water protection, operator
certification, consumer confidence, and variances and exemptions. These
provisions are closely interrelated. Capacity development, source water
protection, and operator certification are directly linked to the DWSRF.
A State may set aside funds from its DWSRF to develop and implement a program
that addresses these three provisions. Capacity development and operator
certification are also tied to the DWSRF through withholding requirements.
Capacity development alone can also be thought as a tapestry which weaves
together all existing State drinking water program activities into a focused
effort to help troubled small systems, such as through sanitary surveys,
technical assistance, permitting and licensing, operator certification,
etc. States can take advantage of DWSRF set-asides to prepare a capacity
development strategy that is focused on a specific group of systems, such
as significant noncompliers, or directed broadly towards systems that are
out of compliance or will soon be out of compliance.
What are the components of capacity development under the 1996 SDWA?
Capacity development under the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking
Water Act has three major components outlined in the table below:
| Capacity Development and the 1996 Safe Drinking Water
Act |
| Section 1420(a) New Systems |
Under penalty of Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) withholding,
States must have a program established to "ensure that all new community
water systems and nontransient, noncommunity water systems commencing operations
after October 1, 1999 demonstrate technical, managerial, and financial
capacity with respect to each national primary drinking water regulation
in effect, or likely to be in effect, on the date of commencement of operations." |
|
Section 1420(c) State Capacity Development Strategies
|
Under penalty of DWSRF withholding, the State must develop and implement
a "strategy to assist public water systems in acquiring and maintaining
technical, managerial, and financial capacity." |
|
Section 1452(a)(3) Assessment of Capacity
|
-
States may not provide DWSRF loan assistance to systems which lack the
technical, managerial, and financial capability to ensure compliance; or
-
if the system is significant noncompliance with any drinking water standard
or variance.
|
However, States may provide assistance if
-
the use of such assistance will ensure compliance; and
-
the system has agreed to make the necessary changes in operation to ensure
that it has the technical, managerial, and financial capacity to comply
over the long term.
|
|
