Water Utilities Watch Closely As West Virginia Imposes Tougher Regs

Water utilities across the country have a close eye on West Virginia as the state attempts to bolster safety at water plants after a major chemical crisis two years ago.

In January 2014, a chemical facility owned by Freedom Industries leaked the coal-processing chemical 4-methylcyclohexane methanol into the Elk River, leaving 300,000 people unable to use their tap water for about a week. The spill left locals ill with nausea, rashes, vomiting, and abdominal pain, according to a review by West Virginia health officials.

In reaction to the spill, West Virginia lawmakers created new rules for water utilities. As regulators begin enforcing the rules, they are trying to walk the line between providing ratepayers with new protections and avoiding financial burdens for utilities, which are under deep financial and operational strain as it is.

State Senator John Unger, who helped head up the legislature’s response to the spill, told West Virginia Public Broadcasting: “When the chemical spill happened, and the water became a top issue again. Then this was a time that we needed to address protecting our water resources here from chemical contaminations,” he said.

The latest milestone in the process: 125 water systems in West Virginia were required to submit source-water protection plans to state health regulators this month, according to West Virginia Public Broadcasting. The law also requires that they implement the plans.

The plans contain six categories, according to the report: “A management plan, a contingency plan, engineering details, an inventory of potential sources of significant contamination, a communication plan, and an early warning monitoring system.”

So far, feedback from water utilities has been mixed. Large water utilities are in a different position from small providers as they try to meet the new standards.

Morgantown Utility Board (MUB) is a larger provider. It serves 25,000 customers, and was the first utility in the state to make its plan public. Tim Ball, MUB's general manager, weighed in.

“You know the honest answer is, it’s as tough as the utility chooses to make it," Ball said, per the report. "We made it tough on ourselves. We imposed a high standard. We tried to include multiple scenarios, and we’ve committed to a level of preparedness that I’m pretty confident that most of the state has not committed to.”

Small providers have expressed concern about the financial burden of compliance. In response, the state is providing $2.5 million in aid.

“The funding has been provided through a series of grants during 2015 and 2016 to assist in the development of various sections of the source water protection plans for about 116 of the 125 public water utilities,” said Rahul Gupta, the Commissioner for the state Bureau for Public Health, per the report.

The next step: State regulators will review, and potentially approve, the plan submitted by each utility.

For similar stories visit Water Online’s Drinking Water Regulations And Legislation Solutions Center.