Governance self-check — Improve Water Governance

Budgets

Can the public and the board see how money is planned, spent, and deferred?

Multi-year capital plan is published (or available on request) with major projects listed

Without a visible capital list, communities cannot judge priorities or deferrals.

Operating budget separates personnel, energy, chemicals, maintenance, and debt service at a readable level

Lumped totals hide where cost pressure or underspending actually sits.

Ring-fencing (or equivalent earmarks) for water revenue is documented when claimed

“User fees pay for water” needs a traceable rule, not only a slogan.

Deferred maintenance is listed with estimated backlog cost (even if rough)

Invisible backlog becomes tomorrow’s emergency spend.

Tariff or rate changes are explained with a short public rationale and timeline

Rate trust depends on clear reasons, not only on the final number.

Who supervises performance, and can they challenge it with evidence?

Board / commission meeting calendar and agendas are public in advance

Oversight that happens only in closed rooms cannot build public trust.

Minutes or decision summaries are published within a stated timeframe

Without a record, prior commitments evaporate.

A short set of performance indicators is reported at least quarterly (e.g. continuity, complaints, NRW if tracked)

Oversight needs numbers, not only narratives.

Conflict-of-interest disclosures for board members are on file and accessible to the clerk/secretary

Allocation and contracting decisions need clean roles.

There is a known channel for civic questions or complaints with an acknowledged response path

Silence is not accountability.

Physical losses, commercial losses, and fiscal waste all drain the same system.

NRW (or a local equivalent loss measure) is estimated at least annually

You cannot manage what you never measure — even a rough estimate starts the conversation.

Leak detection / repair priorities are written down (hotspots, critical mains, customer-side vs network)

Ad-hoc repairs alone rarely reduce systemic loss.

Commercial losses (metering gaps, billing errors, unauthorized use) have an owner and a review cycle

Physical leaks are only part of NRW.

Major procurement and energy contracts are reviewed for obvious waste or lock-in risks

Fiscal waste often hides in long contracts and unchallenged assumptions.

Who gets served first, who pays what, and how hardship is handled.

Service-area and connection priorities are stated in writing (e.g. health facilities, schools, underserved zones)

Fairness needs criteria before a crisis forces ad-hoc choices.

Tariff structure (fixed vs volumetric, lifeline/social rates if any) is explainable in one page

Opaque rate design breeds distrust among households and businesses alike.

Disconnection / restriction policy includes hardship steps and is publicly described

Enforcement without a humane path damages legitimacy.

Major allocation or rationing decisions are logged with criteria and a review date

Use the decision log template so trade-offs stay visible.