Big Concerns For Small Municipalities
Water Online's "Peer Perspectives" is a Q&A series that provides unique insight into the issues facing water professionals by speaking directly to you, the reader. This month's perspective comes from Paul Fikslin, a municipal engineer working out of Butler, NJ. We wanted to know how recent developments in the water industry have affected small municipalities, and Fikslin offered candid and straightforward opinions and analysis to that end. Read on to learn about some of the frustrations he — and surely others — have encountered while working on the front line.
What strikes you as is the biggest issue facing the water industry today?
The first thing that comes to mind is how the water industry is portrayed. I see a large majority of the public drinking bottled water, and I don't see anybody really defending the water industry, letting people know that the standards are more stringent than the bottled water industry's.
As soon as something goes wrong, it seems that an article is written that makes the industry look really bad, which I think is harmful. Nobody is out there defending or promoting the municipal water side.
In most areas of the country the water supply is very high quality, and there are always more regulations being passed to eliminate newly discovered contaminants. We need stronger public relations to get a more positive tap water message out there.
How have the stricter U.S. EPA mandates on water quality affected small municipalities?
As the EPA keeps passing more and more legislation for more and more contaminates, it forces the hands of smaller municipalities that happen to be in an area that has these contaminates. They get hammered with these big, additional treatment costs. If the costs are too overwhelming, the community is forced to buy water from a large water purveyor (provider) — if one is even available in the area — or worse, forced to sell their system.
We had to spend millions of dollars to install arsenic treatment on six wells for one of our clients. That led to political concerns over whether or not their water system was getting away from them financially, and resulted in an attempted sale of the system.
One town gets hit with these huge treatment costs disproportionately to another, unfortunately. The problem, in this case, was complicated further by the state of New Jersey passing a more stringent arsenic regulation than the federal government, which forced five of the six wells into treatment.
How can regulations be carried out in a way that won't be a financial burden?
I think a localized problem requires a localized solution.
Radionuclides and arsenic, for example, are both localized problems. In areas where they mine uranium, for instance, they typically have naturally occurring radioactive materials in their groundwater. Maybe those municipalities need special help. To make all water systems test for something that only affects a small portion of the country's systems is a waste of money. There is a hefty cost attached for all of that testing.
If we first evaluated whether or not the contaminate is limited to certain, specific areas of the country — which, in many cases, are already known — we wouldn't have to burden the whole country with unnecessary testing costs. What I see now is that the federal government sets a requirement for a certain level of contaminant across the board, and everybody has to start testing for it.
The federal government, via the states, can make grants and loans available to the special-needs areas with arsenic and radionuclides in their water, and save everybody else some aggravation and money.
Speaking of funding concerns and the role of the federal government, what is your opinion on the current state of water infrastructure in the United States?
The problem with the water and sewer industry is that everything is out of sight, out of mind, and the failure of all levels of government has been realizing that and keeping up on it. A lot of water systems have been neglected for quite some time, to the point where all a municipality can do anymore is crisis response. You then lose the advantage of a low bidder for a planned refurbishment, because now you are paying a contractor time and materials to come in and perform an emergency repair while water is flowing into a stream or something. During a crisis, you are always going to pay top dollar for your repair.
One issue of great interest to our readers is water fluoridation. Where do you stand on that debate?
When you add fluoride, you are administering a drug that — in a lot of people's opinion — is not only harmful, but poisonous. Granted, some waters have natural fluoride and everyone is aware of the supposed dental benefits, but you are still administering a drug. If somebody needs fluoride, then have their doctor prescribe them vitamins that have fluoride in them.
New Jersey has the best philosophy in that regard that I have seen: Make the cleanest water possible with the least amount of disinfection, while still maintaining public safety. In other words, just make water as pure as possible for human consumption. Most areas in New Jersey do not purposely add fluoride, but some water purveyors — because it has already been in existence for so long — don't really question it.
I am totally against administering any form of drug via a water system, just out of general principle — not based on whether it has been done before or whether it is considered safe. On general principle alone, I feel very strongly and do not believe that this is the purpose of a municipal water system.
It just comes down to a simple philosophical question: Should we administer medications via our water systems? And once you start doing that, where do you stop? The next thing you know, they'll be administering your heart medication in your water.
What thoughts do you have on the opinions offered in this article? What are some feasible resolutions to the issues cited? Please share your comments below. To be the subject of a future Peer Perspectives Q&A, please e-mail me at editor@wateronline.com. Regardless of position or industry segment, we want to hear from you!