Description
This powerpoint presentation outlines information on small potable water systems. Small potable and wastewater systems in the U.S. are a consistent source ofproblems for regulators and, of all public infrastructures, pose the mostcommon and important health threat. While considerable effort andfunding have been directed to building the “capacity” of these systems, littleattention has been paid to actually transferring competence to their users,operators and managers.Most funding support for these systems is tied to bringing them intocompliance with applicable regulations and has resulted in numerousprojects – usually capital and usually performed by a consultant. On rareoccasions, that consultant may try to transfer competencies to the users, butthis is mostly the exception. Statistics of three small water systems in the U.S. are provided, located in Northumberland, New Hampshire, and in Merrimac and Freetown, Massachusetts. Information on a fourth small system located in Patillas, Puerto Rico, is presented and includes: Problems – “Those people” can’t operate a reliable system;(universal)- unknown occurrence and frequency of frankpathogens in distributed potable water;- no firm evidence of attack rates for diarrheal diseasein small potable water systems (actually, in any size);- no demonstrable effects on pathogen occurrence ordiarrheal disease of intervention in these systems; response – educate operators and administrators, require time in systems,measure pathogen occurrence, andhealth effects. Relationship of intervention with illness – users served by systems where RCAP and CECIA had intervened were lessthan half as likely to suffer from diarrheal disease, even after almost 2 years. Northumberland -time invested was 6 months;Merrimac – time invested was 6 months;Freetown – time invested was more than 1,000 hours over 7 years. Over 1,575 hours of formal training for operators and over1,170 hours for administrators was conducted, plus hundreds of additional hours ofcollaboration and training in several workshops and meetings. Severalcommunity and cooperative-wide activities were conducted where all membersand users were oriented in the importance and vulnerability of their systems. Lessons in androgogy: the group chose to be there, make themthink they made the right choice;draw them into the activity, ask them toshare their experiences and discuss theiropinions; and,be sure everyone understands what theygain from the activity. The presentation states that capacity-building is the belief that the members of the communities will understand and fix their own problems. However, a subsequent question is can we afford to waitfor them to engage? The term “returnivism”, (recidivism without the connotation), means we go there a lot, and over andover, we build trust over time. Includes table, figures.
Product Details
- Edition:
- Vol. – No.
- Published:
- 06/01/2007
- Number of Pages:
- 36
- File Size:
- 1 file , 7.5 MB
- Note:
- This product is unavailable in Ukraine, Russia, Belarus
