Community characteristics influencing interlocal agreements: How rural governments comply with SDWA mandates

The combined pressures of federal mandates and rural repopulation trends drive rural expenditures and determine the services they can provide. One example is their inadequate capacity to deal with federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates. Little is known about how rural communities deal with these mandates, or whether they are interested in federal/state prescriptions for interlocal collaboration or consolidation. To study how community characteristics influence collaboration regarding drinking water, structured interviews were conducted with local government officials in ten rural communities in the Tug Hill Region of New York.; The study uses collaboration and collective action theories to explore community motivation to collaborate. Four questions guide the research. Under what circumstances do rural governments act to improve drinking water access or quality? Under what circumstances do these governments collaborate? What are the characteristics of collaborating governments, and which variables explain why they collaborate? Is their capability to improve their drinking water strengthened by collaborating?; The study found that rural governments improved their drinking water access or quality in response to SDWA deadlines or unreliable supplies causing emergency rationing. In collaborating communities, characteristics influencing collaborations were: previous collaborations, neighboring governments with water to sell, a water reliability crisis, and economic advantages. Different types of collaboration resulted in different outcomes related to water service quality, autonomy, effects on local budgets, and future prospects. Few incentives exist for communities to address drinking water quality issues in a timely manner, and state grant criteria encourage extreme delay tactics and overpriced water projects, while discouraging collaboration.; The conclusions are (1) drinking water collaborations help some rural governments, (2) types of collaboration have different effects on communities, and (3) the marked variation of characteristics between rural communities makes interlocal agreements practical only for some. These effects and this variation must be considered in federal/state prescriptions for collaboration.