AWWA ACE65576

This powerpoint presentation outlines information on small potable water systems. Small potable and wastewater systems in the U.S. are a consistent source of problems for regulators and, of all public infrastructures, pose the most common and important health threat. While considerable effort and funding have been directed to building the "capacity" of these systems, little attention has been paid to actually transferring competence to their users, operators and managers. Most funding support for these systems is tied to bringing them into compliance with applicable regulations and has resulted in numerous projects - usually capital and usually performed by a consultant. On rare occasions, that consultant may try to transfer competencies to the users, but this is mostly the exception. Statistics of three small water systems in the U.S. are provided, located in Northumberland, New Hampshire, and in Merrimac and Freetown, Massachusetts. Information on a fourth small system located in Patillas, Puerto Rico, is presented and includes: Problems - "Those people" can't operate a reliable system; (universal) - unknown occurrence and frequency of frank pathogens in distributed potable water; - no firm evidence of attack rates for diarrheal disease in small potable water systems (actually, in any size); - no demonstrable effects on pathogen occurrence or diarrheal disease of intervention in these systems; response - educate operators and administrators, require time in systems, measure pathogen occurrence, and health effects. Relationship of intervention with illness - users served by systems where RCAP and CECIA had intervened were less than half as likely to suffer from diarrheal disease, even after almost 2 years. Northumberland - time invested was 6 months; Merrimac - time invested was 6 months; Freetown - time invested was more than 1,000 hours over 7 years. Over 1,575 hours of formal training for operators and over 1,170 hours for administrators was conducted, plus hundreds of additional hours of collaboration and training in several workshops and meetings. Several community and cooperative-wide activities were conducted where all members and users were oriented in the importance and vulnerability of their systems. Lessons in androgogy: the group chose to be there, make them think they made the right choice; draw them into the activity, ask them to share their experiences and discuss their opinions; and, be sure everyone understands what they gain from the activity. The presentation states that capacity-building is the belief that the members of the communities will understand and fix their own problems. However, a subsequent question is can we afford to wait for them to engage? The term "returnivism", (recidivism without the connotation), means we go there a lot, and over and over, we build trust over time. Includes table, figures.