PWS Use of Asset Management and Emergency Response Plans

In December 2010, Julie Smoak, the Capacity Development Coordinator for Kentucky Department for the Environment asked if ASDWA would help gather information about state program requirements and efforts relative to asset management plans and emergency response plans for PWSs.  State capacity development program coordinators were invited to respond to three questions and provide additional information and comments as appropriate.

30 states (including Kentucky) and the Navajo Nation responded to the information request (AL, AK, AZ, AR, CT, DE, FL, IA, KS, KY,LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NC, OH, OK, RI, SC, SD, UT, VA, WA, AND WV).

Below is a numeric summary of the responses:

1.  Does your state have a regulatory requirement for PWSs to have an Asset Management Plan?

YES __2__                    NO __29__

2.  Does your state have a regulatory requirement for PWSs to have an Emergency Response Plan?

YES _19__                    NO __12__

3.  Regardless of regulatory requirements, do you provide any guidance documents for these plans?

YES _16__                    NO _15__ (for Asset Management Plans)

YES _23__                    NO __8__ (for Emergency Response Plans)

Some interesting comments were also offered by state program staff.  Most suggest that states are working hard to meet the needs of their systems through technical support and guidance nearly as often as through regulation.  For example, MA is developing asset management guidance and promoting CUPSS for small systems; Florida is not developing its own ERP Guidance but does reference the AWWA M19 Manual on emergency planning; and Delaware works through its capacity development program and DE Rural Water to encourage systems to have both asset management and emergency response plans.  New Jersey takes advantage of the EPA STEP Guides on asset management.  West Virginia provides asset management information to water systems regardless of whether they are seeking SRF funding and, in some cases, they also provide onsite assistance with the CUPSS program.  Washington, on the other hand, has specific guidance for financial viability and emergency response.  They also offer general planning guidance for comprehensive plans.  North Carolina notes that two of their state funders (CWSRF and a state fund for water and wastewater) have begun to award “points” for systems that have an asset management plan.  This is not required for the drinking water program, but they are interested in tracking the outcomes from the other two programs.

Thanks to Kentucky for asking such interesting questions and to all of the states who responded to the Kentucky request!



Comments are closed.