Question:
Although no one reported any substantively new initiatives, officials fromall eight case study states cited some management practices they are usingthat could increase the efficiency and effectiveness of their drinking waterprograms. These officials told us that their states are taking advantage ofthe expertise in other state and federal agencies or associations throughcontracts, interagency agreements, and partnerships. For example, accordingto Massachusetts officials, the state program contracts with a consortium offour organizations that provide technical assistance for small water systemsto improve their level of compliance with federal requirements.19 Arkansashas a formal cooperative agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey toconduct source water assessment activities. Program officials in both Utahand Oregon reported that partnerships with other agencies and organizationshave assisted them in implementing their programs. When initiating theircapacity development activities, officials in both states found partnershipswith the Environmental Finance Center at Boise State University to be veryhelpful.

Answer: Nationwide, more than 70 percent of the states we surveyed reported usingthird-party assistance.20 Of the states that used third-party assistance andreported inadequate staffing levels, 20 percent also reported that usingcontractors allowed them to meet half or more of their programs' needs. Theeight states that we contacted all used contractors to some extent, and foursaid contractors allowed them to meet half or more of their program needs.However, in Oregon, where contractors meet about half of the program'sneeds, an official explained that he does not hire contractors to supplementstate staff. Instead, Oregon chooses to contract out services that can beperformed more efficiently by another organization. Arkansas officials alsoexplained that even if the state's drinking water program were operating atits fully authorized staff level, the state would, for the sake ofefficiency, continue to contract with third parties that have specializedexpertise.21

Most of the officials we contacted also reported an increased use oftechnology. They mentioned using the Internet and developing or improvingelectronic records management systems as efficient practices. For example,in Indiana, some laboratories submit data electronically, which, accordingto state officials, allows program staff to react quickly when contaminantsare present in water samples. Officials in half of our case study statesspecifically reported using the Internet as a means of readily obtaining anddisseminating information.

Effectiveness, But It May Take Years to Realize Benefits

The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 included requirements forstate programs to assess drinking water sources for vulnerability tocontamination and improve water systems' capacity to comply with federaldrinking water regulations. Although these new requirements necessitate thestates' investing substantial resources in the short term, according to EPAofficials, they will eventually improve both the efficiency andeffectiveness of the states' programs.

An assistant branch chief in EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Waternoted that the requirement to assess drinking water sources challenges thestates to enhance their programs' long-term effectiveness by investing inincreased public involvement, concentrating financial resources inidentified drinking water protection areas, and emphasizing environmentalthreats requiring protective measures. By incorporating a public review ofthe assessment program's design and results, as the statute requires, thestates are more likely to raise the public's interest so that theinformation will be used to improve the quality of drinking water, theofficial noted. In addition, that official noted that the amendments'requirement for designating drinking water protection areas encourages thestates to maximize resources by focusing their efforts intensively withinthose areas most influential to the quality of water at wells and intakelocations. Finally, the assessment requirement emphasizes the identificationof contamination threats to all sources of public drinking water.Ultimately, this requirement might reduce the need to monitor and treatsupplies, and it is widely recognized as the most cost-effective approach toprotecting drinking water.