The

The Pipeline Published Bi-Monthly by the Public Service Commission

201 Brooks Street, P.O. Box 812 Charleston, WV 25323

Web Address: http://www.psc.state.wv.us. Email: vmiller@psc.state.wv.us

Telephone: (304) 340-0482 Toll Free: (800) 344-5113

Fax: (304) 340-3759

Contributors

Geert Bakker, PSC John Mottesheard, PSC Katheryn Emery, DEP Mindy Ramsey, DHHR

The information contained in this publication is

based on the current laws, rules, regulations, and policies of the PSC, DEP and DHHR and reflects the personal or professional opinions of the indi-

vidual authors. Nothing contained in the publica-tion should be construed as an adjudication on

any specific factual situation or as a formal opin-ion of the PSC, DEP, or DHHR unless it is clearly

cited as such.

January/February 2008

INSIDE THIS

ISSUE Diamonds and Water

Page 1-5

EPA Perform-ance Track Pro-gram

Page 6

An Awesome Responsibility

Page 7-11

2009 Wellhead and Source Wa-ter Protection Grant Program

Page 12

Utility sustainability, as it relates to utility management and the level of rates, is an important topic that will continue to keep the water and sewer as well as stormwater industries occupied for a long time. To understand its importance, one only has to realize the infrastructure requirements for the future, including the re-placement cost of the utility plant in operation. Last year, we summarized a Commission Order (Case No. 07-0072-PSD-42T) wherein the Commission established the facts needed to determine the level of cash surplus necessary for a utility. The Commission similarly determined the cash surplus for Clarksburg (Case No. 07-0541-W-MA), after exceptions were filed to the Recommended Decision. The following article puts the various issues in a per-spective that may help everyone to start organizing their opera-tions with a long term view (including rate design). This would necessarily include the need to communicate to current customers about the provision of service to future generations, which is often the toughest argument to make. If anyone would like to contrib-ute to this discussion from an operational perspective, please do so.

Diamonds and Water Facing Up to the Full Cost of Utility Services By G. Tracy Mehan III

This article was originally printed in UIM. Permission has been granted for inclusion in the Pipeline by Benjamin Media.

“To be truly sustainable, our nation’s water infrastructure needs to be de-pendent on ratepayers, not the taxpay-ers of other communities.”

Water utility managers are confronted with a difficult challenge. As providers of services and a commodity, they try to serve customers for the least cost. Yet as stewards of key resources (both the water and the infrastructure that treats and delivers it to their customers), they should be mindful of the maintenance of these assets for the long haul. It is the classic tension between short-term and long-term interests. This is a tough problem for an investor-owned utility, but it often seems an impossible task for a publicly owned sys-tem that must report to political leadership focused on compressed election cycles and facing constituents who,

Continued on Page 2

News and Views From WV Bureau for Public Health, WV Department o f Environmental Protection , and the Public Service Commission of WV

Continued from Page 1 rightly or wrongly, view a rate increase as a tax increase rather than a necessary business or financial decision. In political parlance this is nothing short of a “root canal” for an elected official whose constituents lack any real sense of ownership, literally and figuratively, in the assets that yield clean and safe water. In truth, U.S. water managers have not had a lot of success in resolving these contradictions. In 2002, while I served as Assistant Administrator for Water at EPA, we issued the now fa-mous “Gap Report” (www.epa.gov/owm/gapreport.pdf), which described “a gap between projected clean water and drinking water investment needs over the 20-year period from 2000-2019 and current levels of spending.” We pointed out that if investment in water and wastewater systems remains flat and does not increase, we expected a “gap” to occur. The Gap Report also reviewed gloomier scenarios that many stakeholders believe to be likely. Whether you believe the lower-end or higher-end estimates, the numbers are large. They are evidence of inadequate investment, whether by ratepayers or taxpayers, in critical infrastructure for many years. Under the flat investment or “no revenue growth” scenario, we estimated a clean water capi-tal payment gap of $122 billion over the 20-year time period. Our mid-range estimate for the drinking water capital payment gap was $102 billion, again, assuming “no revenue growth.” It should be noted that the report also estimated O&M gap figures, but those are not the subject of this article. Of course, our “revenue growth scenario” yielded dramatically different numbers. If, instead of flat investment, revenue and spending grew at 3 percent per year, over and above the rate of inflation, our mid-range estimate for the clean water capital shortfall drops to $21 billion and to $45 billion for the drinking water capital gap. Whether you view these estimates as reasonable or wildly optimistic, it is clear that water systems have been delaying, deferring, postponing and otherwise punting on needed capital investments.

Full-Cost Pricing No doubt, some water managers are awaiting the dawn of a new era of federal public works programs with outright grants replacing, or at least supplementing, existing state revolving loan funds (SRFs). If you live along the Gulf Coast, that might be in the cards. Otherwise, with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the vast resources being allocated to Katrina relief, this is, at best, a remote prospect. In fact, Congress recently reduced the fed-eral contributions to the SRFs. The federal treasury is a far-off solution, one that raises many issues of efficiency and equity on a national scale, pitting the older systems of the Northeast and upper Midwest against the newer systems of the Sunbelt and West. And what of the ratepayers of water utility systems across the country? A case can be made that they are not bearing an adequate share of the upkeep of our nation’s pipes, pumps and treatment works, at least in terms of the average household. Clearly there are distributional disparities that result in some systems charging unusually high rates. But, on balance, the

2 Continued on Page 3

Continued from Page 2 ratepayers of America are not anywhere near paying for the full cost of water and wastewa ter infrastructure. Adam Smith, the 18th century philosopher generally credited with laying the foundation of modern economics, described a paradox of diamonds and water. How could it be that water, so essential for life, is so cheap, while diamonds, used only for mere adornment, are very costly? Smith used the paradox to explain the basic concepts of supply and demand and to show that prices reflect relative scarcity. Smith’s paradox raises troubling questions as to why many ratepayers are not paying the full cost of their water services. Consider that, based on 2001 calculations we did at EPA, the average American household expends more for soft drinks than for water and wastewater services: $707 per year on soft drinks (carbonated) and other (noncarbonated) refreshment beverages, $474 per year on water and wastewater charges. You can also draw some disturb-ing comparisons with expenditures on cable television and the like. In 2002, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that, “Ultimately, society as a whole pays 100 percent of the costs of water services, whether through ratepayers’ bills or through federal, state, or local taxes.” CBO estimated that combined water and wastewater bills then averaged 0.5 percent of income, i.e. one half of one percent. Even if future infra-structure needs fall into the very high range, average water bills will still only account for 0.9 percent of income on average. In 2002 a draft report of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), made up of mostly democratic, market-oriented countries, the United States had the lowest percentage of income going to water charges among the 18 member countries for which data was available. Accordingly, we included full-cost pricing into the Office of Water’s “Four Pillars of Sus-tainable Infrastructure” (www.epa.gov/water/infrastructure/index.htm) along with better management (e.g., asset management, EMS), water efficiency and watershed approaches such as watershed-based permitting, trading and source water protection. The idea was to focus on tools and techniques that were within the control of individual water systems, not dependent on the vagaries of the political process. We did not have many creative ideas for promoting full-cost pricing. We did make some regulatory changes to allow full-cost recovery of water charges from apartment dwellers. Also, we marshaled useful information on the EPA’s website (www.epa.gov/water/infrastructure/pricing/index.htm). We made the case wherever and whenever the opportunity presented itself, believing that something approaching full-cost pricing, while politically challenging, was unassailable based on the data. In truth, we be-lieved that industry leaders would have to come to grips with this issue if they were to meet their responsibilities to their ratepayers and the resources entrusted to them. One key issue requiring more attention by the EPA and the industry is the affordability prob

3 Continued on Page 4

Continued from Page 3 lems that low-income households may face. To alleviate these hardships, communities could offer rate structures that mitigate impacts on low-income customers. The most prominent ex-ample is “lifeline rates” where the charge for an amount of service considered non-discretionary (the minimum sanitary requirement) is kept low, but then higher unit charges are levied on, say, water consumption beyond that amount. Affordability programs are offered by only 14 percent of water utilities as demonstrated in a 2002 study by Raftelis Financial Con-sulting. This compares unfavorably with the gas and electric utilities, which have offered low-income assistance for many years. CBO recognizes low-income assistance, along with research on new technologies, as one area where government assistance makes sense. In other words, if you have a problem with poor people, take care of them — just don’t distort the overall pricing or rate structure for those customers who can afford the cost of the services provided.

Knowledge Is Power Perfect information is the Holy Grail of market participants. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, if the market was perfect, it wouldn’t exist. Perfection is not a real option in either the financial or political marketplace. But better, more robust information can be made available to ratepay-ers, political leaders and their constituencies with a view toward increasing their understand-ing of the link between rates and the long-term sustainability of their system’s sustainability. What is necessary is that water managers incorporate ongoing, strategic communications into their toolkit along with hard skills such as engineering, accounting and law. Call it marketing, public relations or information services — the time has come to educate ratepayers as to the value of the assets at risk and the benefits of investing in them over time. From my perspective, a recent breakthrough on this front was the publication of Avoiding Rate Shock: Making the Case for Water Rates (April 2004) published by the American Water Works Association (AWWA). On its title page is a very telling quote from Archibald McLeish: “There is only one thing more painful than learning from experience, and that is not learning from experience.” This study drew upon research, case studies and in-depth interviews with stakeholders, along with lessons learned from the experiences of the project team. It also drew on the knowledge and expertise of utility staff from nine geographically and demographically diverse organiza-tions. Among its key findings, Avoiding Rate Shock asserts that, “A consistent, structured communications outreach program builds the credibility necessary to support customer-utility relationships and, therefore, rate increases.” It also offers practical advice in terms of billing practices and rate structure options, which can affect customer reactions and acceptance of rate increases. Appended to Avoiding Rate Shock is a sobering article by James Wiemken, director of Stan-dard & Poor’s Credit Market Services, which discusses the credit implications of rate struc-tures and rate setting for water and sewer utilities. “A utility’s ability to implement policies and procedures which garner the support of ratepayers for the additional revenues required to

4 Continued on Page 5

Continued from Page 4 support these needs will become more important to the [credit] rating,” says Mr. Wiemken. “Such policies should encourage both rate stability and transparency, and should minimize the likelihood of political influence that sacrifices the utility’s long-term health for tempo-rary rate freezes.” It is also encouraging to see that the Water Environment Federation (WEF) is pursuing stra-tegic communications and a public education campaign by reason of its Infrastructure Spe-cial Task Force. “WEF believes that addressing the inadequacies of infrastructure manage-ment and investment should be a national priority because right now water and wastewater professionals are facing a lack of resources necessary to ensure that public, environmental and economic health are adequately protected,” says task force co-chair Robert McMillon, WEF past president. In the latest issue of Water Environment & Technology (September 2005), the official publi-cation of WEF, several public affairs and communications officials from various California sanitation districts outline “Great Communication Ideas for Utilities.” The ideas outlined in the article are simple, basic and effective — but they must be managed and promoted within the organization. The authors conclude that, “Whatever methods you choose, remember that it is important to reach out to the public, the media and your elected officials whenever pos-sible. The way these key groups view your organization can mean the difference between success and failure when you plan projects, ask to raise rates or run into an odor problem.” From time to time, water utilities may hit the political jackpot, as when Maryland passed a “flush tax” to support the cleanup of Chesapeake Bay, or land a congressionally earmarked grant. But even if that kind of assistance were to materialize for the benefit of a few sys-tems, it will not be enough to meet the incredible investment needs of this country. To be truly sustainable, our nation’s water infrastructure needs to be dependent on ratepay-ers, not the taxpayers of other communities. Full-cost pricing, at least some approximation of it, should be a goal toward which water utility managers strive for as long as our citizens re-quire essential water services. G. Tracy Mehan III was Assistant Administrator for Water at the U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency, 2001-2003. Previously, he served as director of the Michigan Office of the Great Lakes and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. A practicing lawyer for many years, he is presently Principal with the Arlington, Va., office of The Cadmus Group Inc. He can be reached at gmehan@cadmusgroup.com OPTION PULL QUOTE To be truly sustainable, our nation’s water infrastructure needs to be dependent on ratepay-ers, not the taxpayers of other communities ***

5

EPA’s Performance Track Program by:

Katheryn Emery, P. E., WVDEP CWSRF Engineering Section Manager

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection recently received a brochure about an incentive program initiated by EPA called the National Environmental Performance Track program. This is a voluntary program that provides benefits to public and private fa-cilities that commit to goals for environmental performance improvement beyond compli-ance and report progress toward these goals. In order to participate in Performance Track, a facility needs to do the following: Implement an Environmental Management System (EMS) Commit to continuous environmental improvement Possess a record of sustained environmental compliance Conduct public outreach The primary goal of the EMS is to shift a utility’s focus from being reactive to being proac-tive. The EMS encourages continual environmental performance rather than just meeting the minimum required regulatory compliance. An EMS can result in increased efficiency, re-duced costs, greater operational consistency, improved ability to meet environmental com-pliance requirements, improved succession planning and better relationships with regulators. The reduced costs benefit should be an incentive on its own with utilities facing tighter efflu-ent requirements, infrastructure rehabilitation and general lack of grant fund availability. EPA has created an EMS toolbox with guidance available free of charge at www.PeerCenter.net. These tools include: EMS Handbook for Wastewater Utilities EMS Compendium for Wastewater Utility Managers Case Studies on successful EMS implementation at wastewater and water utilities Environmental Management Systems: A Tool to Help Utilities Manage More Effectively is available at www.awwarf.org The Performance Track program and the EMS go hand-in-hand with the asset management pillar in EPA’s Sustainable Infrastructure (SI) Initiative. The other pillars in-clude full cost pricing, water use efficiency and the watershed approach. Because the DEP along with the PSC and BPH are all participating in the SI initiative with EPA, future articles and conferences will reference this issue. The information for this article was generated from the Recognizing and Providing Incentives for Excellence in Water and Wastewater Utility Management brochure created by EPA and introduces the Performance Track Program. For more information about this program and its benefits, visit www.epa.gov/performancetrack or contact Greg Adolfson with the WVDEP at 304-926-0499, extension 1332.***

6

Imagine that your community has just experienced a water-borne illness that has killed 10 people and sickened hundreds of others, and you sit on the local water governing board. Lawsuits are being filed. Fines are being imposed. People in the community want answers—not an enviable position. Providing safe drinking water to a community is an awesome responsibility. Today water governing board members must make policies, handle financial decisions, and deal with per-sonnel issues all while providing outstanding customer service. And they must do all of these things as volunteers, usually on a part-time basis. Water is one of the most important resources a community has. With rising operation costs, increasing regulations and an ever-expanding demand for new technologies, today’s water system governing boards have more responsibility than ever before. “We have been quick to assume rights to use water but slow to recognize obligations to preserve and protect it . . . . In short, we need a water ethic—a guide to right conduct in the face of complex decisions about natural systems we do not and cannot fully understand.” Sandra Postel, Last Oasis: Facing Water Scarcity “As a water system board member, your number one goal is compliance,” says Jeff Cooley, Alabama state coordinator of the Community Resource Group, Inc. (CRG), one of six re-gional organizations of the Rural Community Assistance Partnership. “Everything you do branches off of compliance. So whether you’re setting rates, collecting samples, or develop-ing long-range plans, it all centers around compliance.”

An Awesome Responsibility 22 On Tap Spring 2006 By Natalie Eddy NESC Staff Writer Photos by Julie Black This article is being re-printed with permission from the National Environmental Services Center On Tap

7 Continued on Page 8

Continued from Page 7

The Basics “For every water system, there has to be someone who oversees that water system,” Cooley says. “It doesn’t operate by itself. Each water system out there has to have an operator and a managing or governing entity overseeing it. “It’s either a municipal system where you have a council that is the actual board or it’s a county/rural system that is overseen by a board appointed by either the county commission or county council. There are also customer-owned water systems where the board members are actually voted into their position each year at an annual meeting.” With approximately 54,000 community water systems in the U.S., it stands to reason that there has to be management oversight for each of them. Of all the community water systems, 45,000 of those serve less than 3,300 people, and 30,000 of those serve less than 500 peo-ple.For larger systems with engineers, consultants, and accountants on staff, the role of a board member might not be all that challenging. However, for small systems lacking these supplemental resources, the job is often more demanding and confusing. Many new board members lack knowledge of how much it costs to provide safe drinking water or what the issues are. Fortunately for newcomers, help is available to ease them into the sometimes difficult, often challenging role of public service on a water governing board. The National Environmental Training Center for Small Communities (NETCSC), a program of the National Environmental Services Center, has a short course for local officials of small water systems that outlines water governing board members’ responsibilities for providing safe drinking water. Sandra Fallon, NETCSC training specialist, says, “Across the nation people recognize that board members need training. It’s a bigger challenge to provide that training.” NETCSC’s training course was devised to train representatives from state organizations to educate board members at the local level. The course has been successfully implemented hundreds of times across the country. NETCSC has also presented the course directly to board members.

An Important Role Cooley believes the role of a water governing board member “is probably one of the most important jobs in a small, rural community. The water system is vital to them. For that sys-tem to be viable, they need a good managing board. They don’t really get job descriptions, and sometimes it’s a thankless position. With new regulations and requirements coming out yearly, it is important that the boards stay informed.” Alabama, according to Cooley, is starting to approach the idea of mandatory board training. Currently, board member training is voluntary in most states. Although a definitive list is unavailable, preliminary research reveals that only Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and West Virginia mandate some level of board training. “We do provide onsite board management training in small group settings. We provide com-prehensive information and hands-on training about financial issues, emergency response, risk management, customer service, personnel management, and

8 Continued on Page 9

Continued from Page 8 EPA regulations,” he says. “I would put financial management at the top of the list,” Cooley continues. “Many times the board members come from various backgrounds and have various ideas about financial management. Part of what we do is try to make them realize that a water system works dif-ferently than a local grocery store or another local business. You have certain liabilities and responsibilities that go along with it. One of the main things they need to understand is that they could be held liable as a board if something goes wrong in that system.” Although many boards are covered with liability insurance, Cooley says if the system is not managed properly, the insurance may not cover them, especially when it deals with regula-tions. Cooley begins his training sessions with a “shock and awe” session of worst-case sce-narios, much like the one described in this article’s introduction. “I give them actual real-time news stories,” he says. “I’m not just saying these things could happen. I actually show them incidents that have happened and give them copies of news articles of how those things have happened in small communities just like theirs. “When I get their attention, that’s when I tell them, ‘this is everything that can go wrong. Now let me inform you of how to make sure those things don’t happen in your system.’ If I approached it with a type of training where I gloss over a lot of important issues, I don’t think I would be doing my part,” says Cooley. Part of the training is reassuring board members that the more they understand the chal-lenges of the job, the better equipped they will be to meet those challenges. A well informed and active board can be better equipped to make the tough decisions needed to maintain vi-ability in their system.

Being Active is Key Wyoming runs a governing board training program as well. Brian Mark, supervisor of the state revolving loan fund program within in the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), says, “A well-trained, active board can make the difference between having a utility run smoothly or facing enforcement action from the regulatory agencies.” Mark says his state has a very active voluntary program. The DEQ works in concert with the Wyoming Association of Municipalities and the Wyoming Association of Rural Water Systems to reach the boards. “I think just being active is the main responsibility of a board member,” says Mark. “The willingness to participate and the willingness to be part of the system is what counts. That may sound simple on the front, but it’s very difficult for a lot of these systems to find people willing to step up to the plate with that sort of dedication of service. It is a big commitment.” Mark recommends that new board members understand proper meeting conduct using Rob-erts Rules of Order. Being well prepared for meetings is also a must. “They should make sure before the meeting that they have a copy of the agenda, so they can be prepared for the issues at hand whether it’s to purchase equipment, make a personnel decision, or go over an enforcement issue,” says Mark. “They need to do a little research before the meeting. I guess a lot of these things are just day-to-day managers’ responsibilities.”

9 Continued on Page 10

Continued from Page 9 One of the biggest problems Mark sees with new boards is that they leave everything to the plant operator. Board members need to take an active role in the utility. “A water board should act in much the same way as a board of directors, setting the future direction for the utility,” he says. “That is not to say they should be out there turning valves, but they need to be the managers of that system.”

The Tough Get Going Filling a position on a voluntary water governing board can sometimes be a difficult task. Most volunteers have day jobs that consume most of their time and running a water board might fall to the bottom of their list of priorities. It’s easy to see why with all of the issues outlined above. Despite the possible pitfalls of joining a water governing board and the tremendous responsi-bilities associated with the job, Mark encourages volunteers. “We all have responsibilities— families and jobs,” he says. “But to the extent possible, I would encourage anyone to become involved in their utilities, both water and sewer, especially in smaller communities, because without that participation, without the voluntary dedication of board members, these systems aren’t going to work properly.” Cooley agrees adding, “One of my favorite quotes that I use in my board training is by Ben Franklin. It says, ‘When the well runs dry, we all know the worth of water.’” With the help of these regional and state-run training organizations and NETCSC, small communities across the country are already finding out the worth of water and how to prop-erly govern their utilities to protect it. Water Bible Outline Responsibilities The Water Board Bible, written by Ellen Miller and Elmer Ronnebaum and published by the Kansas Rural Water Association, details some of the basic local governing board responsibilities. Legal Responsibilities: • Carry out “rules and regulations” or systems policies; • Comply with applicable federal, state and local laws and ordinances; • Conduct business and make contracts as a board; and • Ensure that all documents (records, minutes, notices, etc.) are created, maintained, and made available according to state and federal law. Financial Responsibilities: • Use diligence and care when exercising rights and powers for, and on behalf of, others; • Use appropriate accounting, purchasing, and recordkeeping standards in all transactions; and • Ensure that system revenue covers system operations, debt service, and reserves. In addition to basic legal and financial responsibilities, a governing board member may have the fol-lowing responsibilities: • Make policy decisions and carry out the water system’s mission;

10 Continued on Page 11

Continued from Page 10 • Approve and oversee budgets; • Conduct meetings in accordance with applicable laws; • Determine and set water rates; • Plan strategically for the future, including planning for the utility’s long-term sustainability; • Plan for land use and community growth; • Serve as an interface between landowners, business interests, public officials, and those involved in managing the system; • Work with the plant operator, manager, and supervisor; • Oversee system operation, maintenance, regulation, and compliance issues; • Plan for capital improvements; • Secure financing; • Oversee system upgrades, expansion, or new construction; • Oversee office staff and services; • Hire and manage personnel; • Interact with water system customers and provide good customer service; and • Secure public involvement and educate the public. For more information about NETCSC’s board training course, call Sandra Fallon at (800) 624-8301 ext. 5582 or e-mail sfallon@mail.wvu.edu. Learn more about the Community Resource Group by visiting their Web site at www.crg.org. To order a copy of The Water Board Bible, call the Kansas Rural Water Association at (785) 336- 3760 or order the book from their Web site at www.krwa.net/store. ***

11

TAPPER SAYS: Regarding Termination Notices: Please make sure that the utility phone number is shown prominently on termination notices in a font of a similar size to the Public Service Commission’s phone number. During shut-off week, we refer numer-ous customers to the utility (and provide a phone number because, in some instances, the utility number is incorrect). Please check your termination notice and make sure customers are able to quickly and easily identify the utility phone number. Our Consumer Affairs Technicians appreciate your effort.***

For more infor- mation

12

2009 Wellhead and Source Water Protection Grant Programs By Mindy Ramsey [mindyramsey@wvdhhr.org] The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR), Bureau for Public Health (BPH), Office of Environmental Health Services (OEHS) is pleased to announce the 2009 Well-head and Source Water Protection Grant Programs.

Project Types Grant program funds can be used for the initiation, continuation, or expansion of local wellhead or source water protection programs. Systems can propose two (2) types of projects, Wellhead/Source Water Protection Program Projects or Security Projects. 1) Wellhead/Source Water Protection Program Projects may include, but are not limited to: -Refining source protection area delineations using additional site specific information; -Expanding the inventory of existing and potential sources of contamination; -Promoting community awareness and involvement; and/or -Developing Emergency Response Plans and Procedures. 2) Security Projects involve establishing physical measures to protect water sources.

Available Funding Approximately $400,000 will be available for distribution through a number of individual grants. Limits for individual grant amounts will be determined at a later date. Grants are for a project pe-riod of one (1) year, but if approved, may be extended to complete project activities at no additional cost. Individual award will vary depending on proposed project activities.

Eligible Applicants Eligible applicants are community water systems or County Governments demonstrating a direct association with community water systems. A community water system is a public water system which serves at least fifteen (15) service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least twenty-five (25) year-round residents. Systems primarily utilizing groundwater as a public drinking water source should apply for Wellhead Protection Grants; those primarily utilizing surface water should apply for Source Water Protection Grants.

Requirements • Projects must address active or planned public water system sources. • Security projects must propose activities directly related to the raw water source or pumping facility for the raw water.

• Project work must be completed within the grant period. • This grant program is a reimbursement program. Reimbursement will only be made for active ties accomplished within the approved grant period

For details, including project ideas, grant application, submission guidelines, etc, visit: www.wvdhhr.org/oehs/eed/swap. Or direct questions to: Mindy Ramsey at (304) 558-6759, mindyram-sey@wvdhhr.org or Scott Rodeheaver at (304) 558-6713, scottrodeheaver@wvdhhr.org. ***

CASE CONTROL SECTION David W. Dove, PE, Chief Utilities Manager 340-0436 Lisa Bailey, Technical Analyst I 340-0499 Jonathan Fowler, PE, Engineer III 340-0491 David Holley, Technical Analyst I 340-0328 Joe Marakovits, Technical Analyst III 340-0443 Jim Spurlock, Technical Analyst II 340-0357 Sylvie Steranka, Technical Analyst I 340-0466 James C. Weimer, PE, Engineer I 340-0476

PSC WEB PAGE: http://www.psc.state.wv.us * TOLL FREE (800) 344--5113 * Fax (304)

Public Service Commission of West Virginia Our Staff Is Ready To Help You. Don’t Hesitate To Call Or Write

Michael A. Albert, Chairman Commissioners

Edward H. Staats Jon W. McKinney

CASE CONTROL SECTION Bill Nelson, Chief Utilities Manager 340-0445 David Acord II, Utilities Analyst Supervisor 340-0475 David Hatten, Utilities Analyst Supervisor 340-0366 Susan L. Brown, Utilities Analyst III 340-0422 Karen L. Buckley, Utilities Analyst II 340-0470 Bob Cadle, Utilities Analyst II 340-0419 Troy Eggleton, Utilities Analyst II 340-0397 Pete Lopez, Utilities Analyst II 340-0823 Nathan Nelson, Utilities Analyst II 340-0488 Michael Quinlan, Utilities Analyst I 340-0869 C. Sue Stephenson, Utilities Analyst I 340-0868

ASSISTANCE SECTION Geert F. Bakker, Chief Utilities Manager 340-0467 Conrad Bramlee, Utilities Analyst III 340-0471 Bonnie Boston, Utilities Analyst I 340-0479 Pina Sangani, Utilities Analyst I 340-0769 INFORMAL COMPLAINTS James F. Aucremanne, Consumer Affairs Tech 340-0379 Sharra Huffman, Consumer Affairs Tech 340-0826 Melissa Nicely, Consumer Affairs Tech 340-0494

ENGINEERING DIVISION Earl Melton, PE, Director - 340-0392 Victoria Trent, Secretary - 340-0370 Lynn Pringle - 340-0395

ASSISTANCE SECTION James Ellars, PE, Chief Utilities Manager 340-0331 Jeff Bennett, Utility Inspector II 340-0313 Ralph Clark, PE Engineer II 340-0455 Ingrid Ferrell, Technical Analyst III 340-0335 Dave Foster, Utility Inspector III 340-0398 Craig Miller, Utility Inspector II 340-0353 John Mottesheard, Engineering Tech. 340-0399

WATER AND WASTEWATER DIVISION Amy L. Swann, Director - 340-0481 Vickie Miller, Administrative Secretary - 340-0482 Edwina Strickland, Secretary I - 340-3749

Water & Wastewater Division

WV Public Service Commission 201 Brooks Street, P.O. Box 812 Charleston, WV 25323

Pre-Sorted Standard

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

Permit No. 271