A Little History . . .

During the late 80s, several meetings were held on water operator certification but with no luck in getting it to move in the right direction.  In 1990, the Delaware Rural Water Association (DRWA) made it a goal to assist the State of Delaware Office of Drinking Water with the certification of drinking water operators and in the mid 90s, DRWA selected a large group of water-interested persons to form the Drinking Water Coalition.  This coalition met time after time, writing, researching, and recommending just what type of operator certification fits our state.  These people worked side by side with the Office of Drinking Water staff to make sure we were meeting the guidelines set by EPA and the State of Delaware.

After several years of working on regulations of drinking water operators and trying to figure out the different classifications of water operators, we came up with a Class 1-2 drinking water operator, which today is the Basic Water Operator license, and the Class 3 that was the filtration course with treatment techniques and has now become the endorsements.

We want to thank Jerry Williams and the staff of the Environmental Training Center (ETC) for all the assistance and hard work they have provided in this joint effort in getting operator certification in Delaware.  It seems like just yesterday Ed Hallock and myself went to EPA to speak with Ken Hay on how the ETC could acquire funding for a center, and the ETC did receive funding to build the facility they currently have now.

Over the years, DRWA and the ETC have trained hundreds of water and wastewater operators.  These are the people who work in some facilities that can barely maintain compliance because they have limited or even no budgets.  They take a bad situation and make it work.  They strive to get the job done.  Most of these operators are always overlooked.  You will, most of the time, find them standing in the back.  Meet the most dedicated professional water and wastewater operators in the State of Delaware.  These Delaware operators are now entering in courses that enhance their knowledge in their professions and if you research compliance, you will see a decrease in the non-compliance rate which is a good thing.

As everyone knows, for the past several years DRWA along with WWOA, ODW, DNREC, and Del Tech sponsor the water and wastewater operator of the year awards.  As most of you who know me know, I’m always brainstorming and thinking of new ideas for getting operators recognized.  Well, one day I was speaking with Representatives Booth and Hocker in their offices about how I could get these operators recognized during the legislative session and possibly getting the second Thursday in May declared “Water and Wastewater Operator Day” here in Delaware.  They felt that since Representative Tina Fallon has been participating in the yearly Operator of the Year Awards Ceremony, she should do the honors, and on May 11, 2006, the first official recognition took place at Legislative Hall in Dover.   Look for the article on Operator of the Year Awards, by Sherrie Turner, in the following pages.

            I want to congratulate each and every  water and wastewater operator in the State of Delaware.  Even though you may not get recognized at our event, you are still truly winners at what you do, and don’t let anyone tell you different.  Be proud—no, be very proud—of what you do for the residents of Delaware by providing them with clean, safe, potable drinking water.

Operator of the Year Awards

On May 4, 2006, we again recognized our outstanding counterparts in the fields of water and wastewater. The Operator of the Year Awards Ceremony held at the Owens Campus at Delaware Technical and Community College.  This year’s event was moved to the Carter Partnership Center and it made an exceptionally nice occasion.  We enjoyed a delicious lunch while our host, Jerry Williams, led the presentations.  Along with Delaware Tech, other sponsors included the Delaware Rural Water Association; Delaware Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Drinking Water; DNREC, Division of Water Resources; and the Water and Wastewater Association Eastern Shore Chapter.

This annual awards ceremony acknowledges nominees for outstanding: Water Operator of the Year,  Wastewater Operator of the Year, Environmental Lifetime Achievement Awards, and US EPA Operation and Maintenance Excellence Award.  Next year there will be a new award honoring “The On-Site Professional of the Year Award” which will be co-sponsored by the Delaware On-Site Wastewater Operation Association.

Among the nominees for Water Operator of the Year were the following with a brief excerpt from their nomination letters:

Steven Baker, Artesian Resources, Sr. Pump Operator - nominated by Robert Brock, Supervisor. “Steve has been with Artesian Water Company for more than 30 years and is currently a senior operator.  Steve has always taken the lead when additional licensing or training has been required.  He has been invaluable when it comes to instructing newer operators in the intricacies of operating a very delicate and complex water system.  When we recently began offering contract services to other public water systems, Steve again took the lead in determining the operational requirements necessary to optimize the running of these systems.  As a result, he is now the lead operator for these systems enabling us to expand this end of our business.”

William McCabe, Town of Selbyville, Water Operator - nominated by Gary Taylor, Town Administrator. “During the last two years the Town has experienced a tremendous growth.  During this time the town put a lot of responsibility on our only water operator, William McCabe.  We added another 125,000 gallon water tower, had entire new developments tie into our system, extended waterlines outside of town and then asked Willie to make sure everything stayed in line as far as his chemicals, flow, and quality of water.  Willie took command of the situation and spent many hours making sure the residents of Selbyville were getting a quality product.”

Ed Dobos, Tidewater Utilities, Sr. Plant Operator - nominated by Ken Cross, Director of Production.  “Ed has been with Tidewater Utilities since 2000 as a licensed water operator for 3 ½ years.  Ed is the Lead Operator for the Kent County water plant facilities, which include 32 water plants spread throughout the county and services more than 6,000 customers.  Ed has more than 25 years of electrical experience also. In 2005, Tidewater began an official yearly electrical inspection program throughout the State.  Ed oversaw this program for all 48 water plants.  With his vast electrical experience, the inspections were conducted in a timely and professional manner.”

Stephanie Dukes, Office of Drinking Water, Environmental Control Tech II - nominated by Patrick Coates, Sr., Executive Director, Slaughter Neck Community Action Organization, Inc.  “In October 2004, the  Division of Public Health, Office of Drinking Water informed us that the well supplying our Community Center complex had high levels of Dinoseb.  Ms. Dukes attended several community action meetings to inform the community about the problem and what steps we should take.  She was the bridge between the community and the ODW.  Stephanie was also instrumental in having some surrounding private wells tested free of charge.”

The “2005 Water Operator of the Year” was Steve Baker.

This year’s nominees for the Wastewater Operator of the Year Award, with excerpts from their nomination letters, were:

Stella Padilla, Kent County Department of Public Works, Level III Operator - nominated by Reinhold Betschel, KCWF Plant Manager.  “Stella has worked in the wastewater field for the past 10 years.  In March 2002, Stella joined the KCWF as a Level III Operator.  Stella has a pleasant and positive attitude, can always be counted on when anything has to be done, take’s pride in the appearance of the KCWF and the County’s excellent compliance record over the past ten years.  At KCWF, Stella learned how to clean and replace the three liners at the bottom of a 10MG activated sludge basin, and she helped develop and test a standard operating procedure (SOP) for this sensitive but difficult operation.”

Mike Evans, Kent County Department of Public Works, Level IV Operator - nominated by Reinhold Betschel, KCWF Plant Manager.  “Mike started his career as an operator, but after extensive wastewater training at community colleges and state universities, he obtained a Level IV license with the land application certification and became an Assistant Plant Superintendent.  At his last facility in North Carolina, Mike started a preventative maintenance program and developed an aggressive 5-year capital improvement plan. Mike led by example during a 5 month long clean-up and liner replacement job at the KCWF 10MG activated sludge basin.  As part of the Operations Team, Mike contributed with formulizing our SOPs for the Environmental Management System program, passing the National Biosolids ISO14001 and OHSAS18001 certification audits and receiving the 2005 EPA Region III Wastewater Operation and Maintenance Excellence Award.”

William M. Vincent, Jr., Kent County Department of Public Works, Plant Operator IV - nominated by Kenny Glanden, Operations Supervisor.  “Bill has been employed at the KCWF since November, 1984.  Bill is one of the senior members of the operations staff that have faced many challenges over the years.  His knowledge of our system and keen observation has been valuable in training new operators and development of procedures that have stood the test of time.  Recently, his assistance in developing formal standard operating procedures (SOPs) was very helpful in the wastewater plant’s success in achieving ISO14001 and OHSAS18001 and National Biosolids partnership certification.”

Mark Kondelis, Artesian Resources, Sr. Wastewater/Water Operator- nominated by Robert Penman, Jr., Director of Operations.  “Mark has 19 years of experience in the water/wastewater field.  He holds both a Level IV Wastewater Operator’s License and a Level II Water Operator’s License in Delaware.  In May 2005, Mark was awarded an Associate Degree in Applied Science, Environmental Technology, from Delaware Tech.  At that time he was selected as the “Outstanding Student for 2005” in the General Engineering Technology-Environmental Water/Wastewater program.  This past year, Mark has been instrumental in overseeing the construction and operation of our new Stonewater Creek wastewater facility in Sussex County, as well as the Reserves at Lewes wastewater facility.  His experience and oversight helped us design “operator friendly” treatment plants.”

Anthony Dellacamera, Sussex County Engineering Department, District Manager - nominated by Loran George, District Manager.  “Anthony began his employment with Sussex County in July, 2001, as a Level III Wastewater Operator, working at the South Coastal Regional Wastewater Facility.  Anthony immediately demonstrated leadership skills, attention to detail, and professionalism, earning the respect of his supervisors, co-workers and outside contractors.  Anthony is currently a Level IV Wastewater Operator, passing the State exam with one of the highest scores achieved.  In November 2004, Sussex County completed the 3.4 million dollar conversion of the solids handling process at the SCRWF.  Within weeks, Anthony had the new process operating efficiently, producing a high quality product.  In addition, to ensuring the process is operating properly, he must operate the heavy equipment, keep detailed records, and order chemicals.  In July of 2005, Anthony was awarded the “Residuals Management Award” from the WWOA for his management of this process.”

G. Dean Melvin, Perdue, Inc. Wastewater Manager - nominated by Sharon Cooke, Perdue Lab Specialist and Franklin Timmons, Wastewater Operator Level II.  “Dean is a professional at what he does as manager of all wastewater plant operations.  Everything he asked to be adjusted or worked on is very well planned. He is one of the most precise people I know.  In fact, we nicknamed him “Dollar Bill” because he can get more out of a dollar than anyone I’ve ever seen.  If you know Dean, you know you are talking to a professional wastewater manager”.

Jeff Deats, City of Seaford, Superintendent of Wastewater Treatment & Composting Facilities - Nominated by Delores Slatcher, City Manager.  “Jeff came to work for the City of Seaford in 1990 as an operator.  He quickly learned the operation and began to pursue his professional licenses.  In 1996, he achieved his Level IV Operator’s license, and in 1997, he was named Superintendent of the Facility.  Jeff’s accomplishments during his tenure with the City are many.  After an 8.3 million dollar expansion to the system that would take the discharge limit to 2 MGD there was a problem of equipment being sized based on the final capacity of 2 MGD.  For example, the aeration system was “over designed” for the less than capacity conditions of 1.1 MGD.  The blowers that introduced oxygen into the waste stream were a three-motor/blower system: at limited flow rates only one is required.  A study of the individual budget line items revealed that utilities were one of the highest expenses at the facility.  This expense accounted for nearly 7% of our yearly budget.  With the overbuilt motors continually operating, electrical and maintenance costs are unnecessarily high for lower rate flows.  Jeff recognized that the blowers in the plant were the highest power consuming items.  After some investigation he suggested to reconfigure the motor controls to sense the amount of oxygen necessary for aeration of the incoming waste stream and use a variable frequency drive to adjust the motor output to match the aeration needs, thereby conserving electricity. This project was implemented by the staff at the facility and as a result of this innovative operation strategy, a significant cost reduction has occurred”.

 The “2005 Wastewater Operator of the Year” was Jeff Deats.

The Lifetime Achievement Awards are presented annually for sustained, praiseworthy achievement in providing significant contributions to Delaware’s environment. This year’s winners with a brief excerpt from their nomination letters are:

Ken Cross, Tidewater Utilities, Director of Production - nominated by Gerry Esposito, President.  “Ken has a cumulative total of 6 decades of combined water and wastewater experience. His achievements run the gamut from operations to executive level administration.  He has done everything in the field of water and wastewater operations and management ranging from individual plant operations, to regional circuit rider, to contract operations, to government institutional responsibilities, to industrial wastewater processing to environmental regulatory compliance, to water utility operations, to wastewater utility operations.”

Dean Melvin, Perdue Farms, Wastewater Manager - nominated by Sharon Cooke, Wastewater Lab Specialist, Perdue Farms. “Dean has been working in the Environmental field for almost 25 years.  He started out driving a sludge truck and then became an operator at the Perdue Georgetown facility about 22 years ago.  As time passed, he became a Wastewater Manager at the plant and currently holds a Level IV Operator’s license.  Under his leadership, the Perdue Georgetown facility has a 17 year safety record and a very good compliance history.”

James Burk, Jr., Town of Selbyville, Manager of Operations - nominated by Gary Taylor, Town Administrator.  “Jim has been with the Town of Selbyville for 17 years as its Wastewater Manager and is considered by most as one of the premier operators in the State of Delaware.  Currently, Jim is involved in a major upgrade of our facility.  This expansion will allow us to continue servicing areas outside of town limits that are experiencing failing septic systems that create potentially dangerous health problems and environmental disasters.”

James Harrington, retired from Artesian Resources - nominated by Robert Penman, Jr., Director of Operations.  “Jim retired from Artesian water Company last June after 56 years, truly a lifetime of service.  During his career, Jim contributed to all aspects of water utility operations, from installation of facilities to systems operations to maintenance of equipment.  He retired “officially” in 1994, but for the last 11 years, he was in charge of special projects, assisting our engineering group with the design, construction and operation of new water systems throughout the State of Delaware.  In 2004, Jim spearheaded construction of our South Bethany/Fenwick Island water system, including a 1 MGD treatment plant, a 0.6 MG elevated water tank, over 8 miles of main, and connection of over 1200 customers.  This would have been an ambitious project for anyone, but it is really remarkable when you consider Jim was over 70 years old at the time.”

And last, but certainly not least, the US EPA Operations and Maintenance Excellence Awards.  Last year’s nominee, Kent County Wastewater Treatment Facility, did receive the award (remember Rose’s nice article) and is the first facility in Delaware to be further nominated by Jim Kern and Region III to compete for the national award.

This year the State of Delaware nominated The City of Wilmington/Veola Water WWTF for the EPA award.  Best of luck!

        I know this article is lengthy, but it merits mention of all our fine nominees and winners.  Of course, I think all of Delaware’s Water and Wastewater Operators deserve to be mentioned for the outstanding job they do, day in and day out.  A big thank-you to my supervisor, Rick Duncan, in getting the second Thursday of May voted as “Water and Wastewater Operator Day”.  So in closing, congratulations to all of you.  You are all winners in my book!

On-Site Dewatering

Jim Burk, from the Town of Selbyville’s Wastewater Facility, called me to watch a new process for dewatering biosolids.  Blessing Farms, Inc., near Milford on Rt. 1, utilizes a mobile filter screen.  The trailers have a special filter fabric on the sides and center that allow solids to stay behind and the filtrate water drains out.  This process uses polymer to thicken the solids.

In Selbyville, they used to haul 1-3% solids for land application.  With Mr. Bruce Blessing’s process, the solids can get up to 9%.  This reduces the amount of solids to be hauled off-site and saves money!  After the solids are dewatered, the biosolids are delivered to Blessing Farms and converted to compost.

A new addition to Bruce’s company is our own Biosolids Director, Steve Rohm, who retired from DNREC. 

Delaware Drinking Water Regulation Review Workshop Planned

The State of Delaware’s Drinking Water Advisory Council, which is responsible for establishing the “Regulations for the Licensing and Registration of Operators of Public Water Systems”, will be hosting several regulation review workshops in August.  The current regulations have not been amended since September of 1994, and the Advisory Council has seen the need to make minor changes to these regulations.

We need your comments on the proposed regulation changes and any additional comments about issues that you feel need to be addressed, so please plan to attend either of the workshops.  I would seriously recommend that the “DRC” — Direct Responsible Charge — be sure to attend and also any “Operators in Training”.  As with any of our workshops, we welcome all City Managers, Mayors or Council persons to attend, and we welcome their comments.

So mark your calendars for August 16, 2006, 9:00 a.m. to noon, at the Delaware Rural Water Association Training Facility in Milford or August 30, 2006, 9:00 a.m. to noon, at Artesian Water Company on Churchmans Road, Newark.   Please call 302-424-3792 and register for either location.

The 2001 Delaware Source Water Bill, Come Again? Source Water Bill Compliance by December 2007!

The Delaware Rural Water Association is offering assistance to any municipality interested in compliance with the Delaware 2001 Source Water Bill and developing a Source Water Protection Plan.  We can provide guidance, coordination, custom GIS maps, and research the information you need to complete your Plan.  Also, we can help you develop management strategies such as a Source Water Ordinance.  These ordinances are aimed to comply with the mandates of the Delaware Source Water Protection Law of 2001.  The Bill requires municipalities and county governments with populations of 2,000 or more to update their 2007 Land Use Plans with source water protection regulations in wellhead protection areas (WHPAs) and excellent recharge areas (ERAs), as delineated by DNREC.  (To see the entire DE 2001 Source Water Bill turn to page 17)

DNREC has provided a source water assessment for delineated WHPAs to nearly every municipality and public water system.  Source water assessments basically summarize the contaminants and vulnerability of untreated drinking water.  The Delaware Geological Survey (DGS) has published several articles about groundwater recharge in all three Delaware counties.  DNREC has adopted the DGS findings about excellent groundwater recharge areas, or ERAs, and delineated them as critical.  

We at Delaware Rural Water Association highly recommend that all staff and governing bodies responsible for the public water supply read their respective DNREC source water assessment.  As well, we urge you to read the Delaware Geological Survey publications on groundwater recharge.

Numerous cities and towns have recognized the mandates of the Source Water Bill.  As a result, they have requested the assistance of the Delaware Rural Water Association.   For more information on how we can help you, please call the Delaware Rural Water Association office at 302-424-3792 and ask for John Hayes, Source Water Protection Specialist.

Find your Source Water Assessment online.  For a printable version of your Assessment, go to the DNREC Source Water Assessment and Protection Program website: http://www.wr.u del.edu/swaphome/index.html  then click “Final Assessment”

To find the DGS online publications of Groundwater recharge in Kent and Sussex Counties Delaware go to the Delaware Geological Survey website:  http://www.udel.edu/dgs/publ.html then click “Publications” then go to DGS Publication Catalog, Online Ordering, and Online Viewing.  Find “Reports of Investigations” #66 Ground-Water Recharge Potential Mapping in Kent and Sussex Counties, Delaware: A. Scott Andres,
2004, 20 p.(Approx. 6.7mb)

State of Delaware Source Water Protection Law of 2001

Synopsis

his Bill requires county governments and municipalities with populations of 2,000 or more, as part of the updates to the 2007 Comprehensive Land Use Plans, to adopt maps delineating source water assessment, wellhead protection and excellent groundwater recharge areas, and regulations governing the use of land within those critical areas designed to protect drinking water supplies. The bill obligates DNREC to provide the necessary technical assistance to local governments to adopt these measures and defines and clarifies source water and wellhead protection areas as critical areas as defined under Chapter 92, Title 29 of the Delaware Code. The bill also requires that a citizen and technical advisory committee be consulted in the implementation of the Source Water Assessment Plan and closely related matters. 141st General Assembly Delaware State Senate Bill 119 Signed into law: June 27, 2001 Title 7 Chapter 60 Subchapter VI: Source Water Protection

WHEREAS, sixty percent of the residents of the State of Delaware rely on groundwater and forty percent rely on surface water as their sole sources of drinking water; and

WHEREAS, certain public drinking water supplies exceed maximum contaminant levels for various chemical constituents; and

WHEREAS, the United States Congress has mandated the assessment of drinking water supplies through the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996; and

WHEREAS, the United States Congress has encouraged the protection of drinking water supplies through the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996; and

WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency granted approval of the State of Delaware’s Wellhead Protection Plan on July 31, 1990 and the State of Delaware Source Water Assessment Plan on October 27, 1999; and

WHEREAS, the State of Delaware is required to complete the delineation of source water assessment areas and an assessment of their susceptibility to contamination for all public water supplies by April 2003; and

WHEREAS, the State of Delaware will have completed mapping the areas of groundwater recharge potential within the state by 2001; and

WHEREAS, the protection of existing and proposed sources of water for public consumption is critical to protection of public health and the environment and continued economic prosperity.

NOW, THEREFORE: BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF

DELAWARE:

Section 1. Amend §6002, Chapter 60, Title 7, Delaware Code by adding new definitions as follows:

(63) ‘Delineation’ shall mean the process of defining and/or mapping a boundary that approximates the areas that contribute water to a particular water source used as a public water supply.

(64) ‘Public Drinking Water System’ shall mean a community, non-community, or non-transient non-community water system, which provides piped water to the public for human consumption. The system must have at least 15 service connections or regularly serve at least 25 individuals daily for at least 60 days.

(65) ‘Source Water’ shall mean any aquifer or surface water body from which water is taken either periodically or continuously by a public drinking water system for drinking or food processing purposes.

(66) ‘Source Water Assessment Area’ shall mean the delineated area which contributes water to a public water supply system. This is called a wellhead protection area for a well and a watershed or basin for a surface water intake. A Source Water Assessment Area shall constitute a critical area as defined under Chapter 92, Title 29 of the Delaware Code.

(67) ‘Source Water Assessment Plan’ shall mean the October 1999 U.S. EPA approved plan for evaluating the sources of public drinking water in Delaware for their vulnerability and susceptibility to contamination.

(68)‘Source Water Assessment’ shall mean the identification and evaluation of the sources of water within the state that are used by public drinking water systems in an effort to determine the susceptibility of those sources to contamination.

(69) ‘Wellhead Protection Area’ shall mean the surface and subsurface area surrounding a water well, or wellfield supplying a public water system through which contaminants are likely to reach such well, or wellfield. A Wellhead Protection Area shall constitute a critical area as defined under Chapter 92, Title 29 of the Delaware Code.

(70) ‘Wellhead Protection Plan’ shall mean the March 1990 U.S. EPA approved plan for protecting the quality of drinking water derived from public water supply wells in Delaware.

(71) ‘Excellent Groundwater Recharge Potential Area’ shall mean any area where soils and sedimentary deposits of the most coarse grained nature have the best ability to transmit water vertically through the unsaturated zone to the water table as mapped by the methods described in the Delaware Geological Survey Open File Report No. 34, “Methodology For Mapping Groundwater Recharge Areas in Delaware’s Coastal Plain” (August 1991), and as depicted on a series of maps prepared by the Delaware Geological Survey. An Excellent Groundwater Recharge Potential Area shall constitute a critical area as defined under Chapter 92, Title 29 of the Delaware Code.”

(72) ‘Source Water Protection Citizens Technical Advisory Committee’ shall mean a group to advise the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control including, but not limited to, representatives of the following organizations or municipalities: DNREC, Department of Health and Social Services, Department of Agriculture, the Delaware Nature Society, the Delaware Public Health Association, the American Association of Retired Persons, the United States Geological Survey, the Christina River Conservancy, the Water Resources Agency of the University of Delaware, the Council of Farm Organizations, the Delaware Rural Water Association, the League of Women Voters, the Friends of Herring Creek, the Civic League of New Castle County, the Delaware Geological Survey, the Committee of 100, the City of Dover, the City of Lewes, the New Castle County Department of Land Use, Kent County Levy Court, Sussex County Council, the League of Local Governments, the Sussex County Association of Towns, the Homebuilders Association of Delaware, the Commercial Industrial Realty Council, public water suppliers and the Delaware Association of Professional Engineers.”

Section 2. Amend Chapter 60, Title 7, Delaware Code by redesignating existing Subchapters VI, and VII as Subchapters VII and VIII and by adding a new subchapter to read as follows:

“Subchapter VI. Source Water Protection”

§6081. Reporting on Source Water Protection

(a) The Secretary shall prepare, periodically, a report to the Governor and General Assembly, beginning in 2003, of the potential threats, including contaminants currently not regulated, to public drinking water systems. The report shall identify actions that the Secretary proposes to control these threats.

(b) The Secretary shall periodically prepare a report to the respective counties and municipalities, beginning in 2003, that denotes the availability of source water assessments completed by the Department. The Secretary shall also report on the status of the Ground-Water Recharge Potential mapping project.

§6082. Adoption of Source Water Assessment, Wellhead Protection, and Excellent Groundwater Recharge Potential Areas by Counties and Municipalities

By December 31, 2004, the Department shall develop a guidance manual, in conjunction with and with the substantial concurrence of the Source Water Protection Citizens Technical Advisory Committee, for desirable land uses within source water assessment areas that promote the long-term protection of public drinking water supplies, consistent with “Shaping Delaware’s Future: Managing Growth in 21st Century Delaware, Strategies for State Policies and Spending” (December 1999)

(b) The counties and municipalities with populations of 2,000 persons or more, with the assistance of the Department, shall adopt as part of the update and implementation of the 2007 Comprehensive Land Use Plans, the overlay maps delineating, as critical areas, source water assessment, wellhead protection, and excellent groundwater recharge potential areas. Furthermore, the counties and municipalities shall adopt, by December 31, 2007, regulations governing the use of land within those critical areas designed to protect those critical areas from activities and substances that may harm water quality and subtract from overall water quantity.

(c) Municipalities with populations of less than 2,000 persons, with the assistance of the Department, may adopt by ordinance, the overlay maps delineating, as critical areas, source water assessment, wellhead protection, and excellent groundwater recharge potential areas. Furthermore, the ordinance shall include regulations governing the use of land within those critical areas designed to protect those critical areas from activities and substances that may harm water quality and subtract from overall water quantity. Counties and municipalities of more than 2,000 persons that have previously adopted ordinances that include the Department’s overlay maps and regulations that protect public water supplies and are consistent with minimum standards identified in the guidance manual shall be exempt from the provisions of this subsection.

(d) The Department shall make source water assessment areas available to the public as they are completed, with all systems to be completed by 2003.

(e) The Department may, when based on sound science and factual information, revise and update the overlay maps of source water assessment areas.

(f) Counties and municipalities with populations of 2,000 persons or more shall update their overlay maps in accordance with changes made by the Department with respect to source water assessment, wellhead protection, and excellent ground-water recharge potential areas.

(g) Municipalities with populations of less than 2,000 persons may update their overlay maps in accordance with changes made by the Department with respect to source water assessment, wellhead protection, and excellent groundwater recharge potential areas.

§6083. Adoption of Source Water Assessment, Wellhead Protection and Excellent Groundwater Recharge

Potential Areas by the Governor’s Cabinet Committee on State Planning Issues.

The Department shall make source water assessment, wellhead protection, and excellent groundwater recharge potential area delineations available for maps developed as part of “Shaping Delaware’s Future: Managing Growth in 21st Century Delaware, Strategies for State Policies and Spending” (December 1999).

§6084. Source Water Protection Citizen and Technical Advisory Committee.

The Secretary shall consult a citizen and technical advisory committee, as established by the Delaware Source Water Assessment Plan, on matters related to the implementation of the Source Water Assessment Plan and the requirements of this statute.” 

Wellhead Protection Ordinances

Wellhead and source water protection involves preventing the pollution of the groundwater, lakes, rivers, and streams that serve as sources of drinking water for local communities.  Wellhead and source water protection ordinances help safeguard community health and reduce the risk of contamination of water supplies.  When drafting an ordinance aimed at protecting these sources, the drinking water supplies can be divided into two general sources: (1) aquifers and wells (groundwater) and (2) lakes and reservoirs (surface water).  Wellhead protection areas and excellent recharge areas are two examples of wellhead protection ordinances that seek to protect groundwater sources.  Water supply watershed districts and lake watershed overlay districts are examples of local management tools that provide protection to surface water supplies by restricting land uses around a reservoir used for drinking water.

Communities may take for granted that a plentiful supply of high-quality drinking water will be available.  However, drinking water sources, whether they are from groundwater or surface water, or both, are a vulnerable natural resource that needs to be protected.  To ensure that these drinking water sources are protected most effectively, an ordinance should contain several basic concepts. 

First, planning should be done on a scale that ensures protection of the whole wellhead protection area and excellent recharge area for that source water.  For surface waters, communities may wish to create overlay zoning districts that have boundaries large enough to protect both the source water resources and the tributaries and streams that contribute to the resource.  For groundwater, communities should include the entire area that recharges any aquifer.

Second, an ordinance should also include procedures for review of proposed projects within a protection area to verify that the project is consistent with the ultimate goal of the ordinance.  This might include requiring applicants to submit geotechnical and hydrological analyses to determine the potential impacts to water quality and the submission of spill control plans for businesses performing potentially contaminating activities.

Finally, the ordinance should contain language explaining the mechanisms for enforcement of the requirements of the ordinance.  Civil and criminal penalties that may apply for failure to obey should also be included.

Rural Water News

Have you got something going on at your water or wastewater system?  Then why not share your stories with other rural water systems around the United States?  Just fax or e-mail your articles to us and we’ll forward them to the National Rural Water Association’s State Affiliate News Department to spread the word.

            Articles can be faxed to 302-424-3790 or e-mailed to pkucek@drwa.org.

What are Capital Improvements?

Reprinted with permission from the Office of Smart Growth in the Colorado Department of Local Affairs

Capital planning deals with the purchase or construction, major repair, reconstruction or replacement of capital items such as: buildings, utility systems, roadways, bridges, parks, landfills, and heavy equipment which are of high cost and have a useful life of several years. Capital expenditures are sometimes difficult to identify. A fire truck or a new computer, thought of as a very costly capital item in a small community, may be considered in the operating budget in a larger jurisdiction.

Operating activities generally have a low cost per unit and recur on a frequent or regular basis. Capital expenditures are usually determined based on their projected life span and initial cost estimates. In some jurisdictions a capital expenditure may be an item that has an initial cost greater than $2,500 and a useful life of five or more years. Other communities might set initial cost limits at $20,000 and life span expectations at a minimum of ten years. One Washington State jurisdiction defines capital expenditures as costs other than those covered in regular operating budgets for the following three major categories:

1.     Infrastructure (roads, bridges, parks, facilities [including building systems and remodeling], sewers, solid waste, water systems);

2.     Heavy equipment and vehicles; and

3.     Office equipment (computers, calculators, furniture).

They further distinguish between capital outlays and capital projects;

Capital Outlay. Any non-major capital expenditure having a service life of two years or more and a value of $150 or more that is not physically dependent on or affixed to a particular stationary fixed asset. Examples: office equipment and vehicles.

Capital Projects. A major capital expenditure exceeding $1,000 in value, with a fixed life of one year or more; a separate, discrete improvement that has a specific purpose in developing, upgrading, replacing or maintaining the existing infrastructure. Examples: upgrades to facilities, roads, sewers.

These ARE Capital Improvements: City Halls, land purchases, courthouses, street lighting systems, fire and police stations, storm sewers, libraries, major building additions & remodeling, park land & development, airports, streets, roads, & sidewalks, disposal sites & equipment; parking lots & buildings, jails, sewer & water mains; recreation buildings, schools, tennis courts, hospitals, swimming pools, water & sewage treatment plants.

These MAY BE Capital Improvements:  Fir trucks, parking meters, road graders & similar equipment, police cars, computer systems, pickup trucks, police & fire radio systems, street & road repairs, trash compactor trucks, playground equipment, minor building remodeling or additions.

These ARE USUALLY Operating Expenses: office furniture, pothole repairs, library books, electric typewriters, fire hoses, blueprint machines, lawn mowers, road gravel.

ADVANTAGES OF CAPITAL PLANNING

A systematic, organized approach to planning capital facilities provides a number of real and practical advantages:

Using taxpayers dollars wisely.  Advance planning and scheduling of community facilities may avoid costly mistakes.  The effort put into deliberate assessment of the need for repair, replacement or expansion of existing public works, as well as careful evaluation of the need and timing of new facilities can provide many savings.  Project timing may be improved to better use available personnel, expensive equipment and construction labor by scheduling related major activities over a longer period.  Coordination of construction of several projects may effect savings in construction costs (a newly paved street may not have to be torn up to replace utility lines).  Overbuilding or under-building usually can be avoided. Needed land can be purchased at lower cost well in advance of construction.

Focusing on community needs and capabilities.  Public works projects should reflect the community’s needs, objectives, expected growth and financial capability.  Assuming each community has limitations for funding capital facilities, planning ahead will help assure that high priority projects will be built first.

Obtaining community support.  Citizens tend to be more receptive toward projects which are part of a community-wide analysis.  A high priority project which is part of an overall plan is less suspect as being someone’s “pet project”.  Where the public participates in the planning of community facilities the citizens are better informed about the community needs and the priorities.  A capital facilities program reduces the pressure on elected officials to fund projects which may be of low priority.  One of the primary benefits of a community capital improvements program is that BECAUSE THE CITIZENS PARTICIPATED, THEY ARE MORE WILLING TO SUPPORT BOND ISSUES, RATE INCREASES AND OTHER FUNDING METHODS.

Encouraging economic development.  Typically, a firm considering expansion or relocation is attracted to a community which has well planned and well managed facilities in place.  Also, a capital facilities program allows private investors to understand a community’s tax loads and service costs, and reflects the fact that the community has done some advance planning to minimize the costs of capital facilities.

More efficient administration.  Coordination of capital facilities construction, both within a jurisdiction and among city, county and special districts, can reduce scheduling problems, conflicts and overlapping of projects. Also, work can be scheduled more effectively when it is known in advance what, where and when projects are to be undertaken.

A capital improvements program allows a community to anticipate lead times necessary to conduct bond elections and bond sales, prepare design work and let contract bids.

Maintaining a stable financial program.  Abrupt changes in the tax structure and bonded indebtedness may be avoided when construction projects are spaced over a number of years.  Major expenditures can be anticipated, resulting in the maintenance of a sound financial standing through a more balance program of bonded indebtedness.  Where there is ample time for planning, the most economical methods of financing each project can be selected in advance.  Keeping planned projects within the financial capacity of the community helps to preserve its credit and bond rating and makes the area more attractive to business and industry.

Federal and state grant and loan programs.  A capital improvements program places the community in a better position to take advantage of federal and state grant programs, because plans can be made far enough in advance to utilize matching funds, both anticipated and unanticipated.  Most federal and state grant/loan programs either require prior facilities planning, or favor, in ranking applications, applicants which have conducted such planning.

PROCESS

The major phases in developing a capital facilities program are outlined below. Local officials must decide how elaborate their approach should be and who will conduct the various steps for their community.

The steps include:

1.     Identifying the needs for facilities, the timing, costs and means of financing for each project;

2.     Preparing a financial analysis of the jurisdiction’s capacity to pay for new facilities;

3.     Setting priorities among the proposals;

4.     Seeking review and comment by the public on the recommended projects and priorities;

5.     Preparing a final capital facilities program showing projects, priorities, schedule of completion and methods of funding each project;

6.     Adopting the capital facilities program by the governing body and adopting first year’s projects as a capital budget as part annual budget; and

7.     Reviewing the capital facilities program annually.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM PROCEDURES

-      Appoint coordinator and other participants and define responsibilities;

-      Inform citizens;

-      Set rules/policies

-      Define capital improvement

-      Determine length of plan (5 years is recommended)

-      Develop a priority system

-      Prepare inventory list

-      Include age, condition, replacement dates

-      Include improvements underway and current status

-      Prepare a project request list in priority order

-      Include in-depth information on each (justification, future operation and maintenance costs, relationship to other projects)

-      Review projects and develop project summary lists

-      The financial picture

-      Revenue trends/projections

-      Expenditure trends/projections

-      Alternative financing mechanisms

-      Final report, adoption, and implementation

POLICIES:

The first step in preparing a CIP is to have a set of fundamental policies in place.  These policies should define a “capital improvement”, determine length of plan and develop a priority system.

Capital improvements can be defined to include acquisition or lease of land; any projects requiring borrowing, equipment, building and facilities; studies whose cost exceeds $5,000 and related major equipment, furnishings and improvements that exceed a stated dollar amount.

A CIP should show at least five years of capital planning.  The CIP of projected projects will be reviewed once a year and another year will be added on.

A process to prioritize projects should be established.  Some of the factors that could influence the setting of priorities are as follows:

-      Encourage citizen participation in the process;

-      Projects would be consistent with your comprehensive plan or other goals and priorities;

-      Capital projects will be financed as much as possible from specific revenue sources (such as user fees, grants, etc.);

-      Projects mandated by state and/or federal law will receive the highest priority;

-      Projects essential to public health or safety will receive priority;

-      Projects resulting in savings of operating costs will receive priority;

-      Projects that generate sufficient revenue to be self-supporting will receive priority;

-      Allocate a maximum of 5% of operating revenue for capital improvements;

-      Fund capital improvements only in accordance with your approved CIP;

-      Require the adoption of a multi-year plan (CIP) and update it annually;

-      The community will maintain all its assets to protect city investments and minimize future maintenance and/or replacement;

-      Long-term debt financing can be used and is proper when matching costs with benefits received by future residents.

The following pages are sample policies for capital improvement budgeting and related debt management and revenues.  These policies were developed by the Government Finance Officers Association.

SAMPLE
Capital Improvement Budget Policies,
City/County of

The city will make all capital improvements in accordance with an adopted capital improvement program.

The city will develop a multi-year plan for capital improvements and update it annually.

The city will enact an annual capital budget based on the multi-year capital improvement plan. Future capital expenditures necessitated by changes in population, changes in real estate development, or changes in economic base will be calculated and included in capital budget projections.

The city will coordinate development of the capital improvement budget with development of the operating budget. Future operating costs associated with new capital improvement will be projected and included in operating budget forecasts.

The city will maintain all its assets at a level adequate to protect the city’s capital investment and to minimize future maintenance and replacement costs.

The city will project its equipment replacement and maintenance needs for the next several years and will update this projection each year. From this projection a maintenance and replacement schedule will be developed and followed.

The city will identify the estimated costs and potential funding sources for each capital project proposal before it is submitted to council for approval.

The city will determine the least costly financing method for all new projects.

SAMPLE
Debt Policies,
City/County of

The city will confine long-term borrowing to capital improvements or projects that cannot be financed from current revenues.

When the city finances capital projects by issuing bonds, it will pay back the bonds within a period not to exceed the expected useful life of the project.

The city will try to keep the average maturity of general obligation bonds at or below years.

On all debt-financed projects, the city will make a down payment of at least percent of total project cost from current revenues.

Total debt service for general obligation debt will not exceed percent of total annual locally generated operating revenue.

Total general-obligation debt will not exceed percent of the assessed valuation of taxable property.

Where possible, the city will use special assessment, revenue, or other self-supporting bonds instead of general obligation bonds.

The city will not use long-term debt for current operations.

The city will retire tax anticipation debt annually and will retire bond anticipation debt within six months after completion of the project.

The city will maintain good communications with bond rating agencies about its financial condition. The city will follow a policy of full disclosure on every financial report and bond prospectus.

SAMPLE
Revenue Policies,
City/County of

The city will try to maintain a diversified and stable revenue system to shelter it from short-run fluctuations in any one revenue source.

The city will estimate its annual revenues by an objective, analytical process.

The city will project revenues for the next (three/five/other) years and will update this projection annually. Each existing and potential revenue source will be re-examined annually.

The city will maintain sound appraisal procedures to keep property values current. Property will be assessed at percent of full market value.

The year-to-year increase of actual revenue from the property tax will generally not exceed percent. Reassessments will be made of all property at least every years.

The city will follow an aggressive policy of collecting property tax revenues. The annual level of uncollected property taxes will generally not exceed percent.