The 2020 wildfire season has affected numerous communities, spanning approximately 6.6 million acres. Weather patterns and expanding urban development both set the stage for wildfire impacts on the water supply community to occur well beyond the 2020 fire season. Wildfire impacts on watersheds have direct, and in some instances, long‐term effects on water systems. The Water Research Foundation has published several resources (https://bit.ly/387nWfr) to help utilities prepare for and recover from wildfires and identify mitigation strategies.

In recent instances, the fires have directly impaired water system operations in California. News coverage (https://nyti.ms/37WAOVA) has highlighted the latest wildfire challenge—contamination of distributed water. Analyses following the Tubbs and Camp Fires—which impacted Santa Rosa and Paradise, Calif., respectively—were summarized in a recent AWWA Water Science paper (https://doi.org/10.1002/aws2.1183). It appears depressurization of the distribution network likely transported contaminated water that subsequently contaminated undamaged infrastructure.

Additional research is needed to further understand what wildfire scenarios pose a contamination risk and to develop sound guidance for mitigating those risks and clearing water systems and individual homes for a return to service. The Water Sector Coordinating Council has called on the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to engage with the water sector to revise existing USEPA guidance to overcome logistical and technical limitations in current guidance. A renewed effort is needed to develop guidance that prioritizes return to service while ensuring protection of public health.

A new evidence‐based protocol should be developed that is not limited to wildfire scenarios. The protocol will need to move beyond previous USEPA guidance, which placed the responsibility for action on water systems while also focusing on solutions that are not feasible under emergency conditions. A different approach is needed, and a common effort that leverages the technical capacity of state and federal partners, as well as in‐sector expertise, will be key.

The new guidelines—or a separate and parallel effort—will also need to address challenges in the current command structure for emergency response and recovery. In 2008, a working group of subject matter experts prepared a report on decontamination of water systems that included a series of prioritized recommendations on key issues for the water sector (https://bit.ly/3jE5woZ). Issue 11 addressed the need to clarify roles and responsibilities.” The current ad hoc approach creates uncertainty for water system managers during an event and hinders their ability to prepare reliable emergency response plans required by America's Water Infrastructure Act.

During this year's wildfire season, confusion as to which agency or individual had the necessary authority and/or responsibility for providing decontamination guidance continued. Determining the appropriate instructions typically involves a combination of water system, primacy agency, emergency management, and public health officials. As the scale and magnitude of incidents grow and exceed typical response scenarios, the time required for these organizations to agree on and distribute response actions during an event can become protracted.

This decision‐making conundrum is not new, and it is in part traceable to the lack of a clearly defined water sector mission within the National Response Framework (NRF). AWWA testified on this very need following Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. The National Infrastructure Advisory Council made similar recommendations in 2009 and 2016. This year's wildfire session has provided yet another clear example of why the NRF needs to reflect the criticality of water as a core lifeline function by creating a focused water mission. The absence of such a mission leads to inefficiencies, delays in response actions, and decision support paralysis, especially during complex incidents like wildfires. This disaggregated federal approach results in an unintended but problematic demotion of water sector priorities during in incident response and recovery. The consequence is a lack of understanding of the scale and potential impact associated with water system loss. To respond to future wildfire contamination issues, we need a clearer, better coordinated effort to support water sector recovery so that systems can return their communities to full service quickly and safely.

2020年的森林大火季节影响了许多社区，面积约660万英亩。天气模式和不断扩大的城市发展都为野火对水供应社区的影响奠定了基础，而这种影响要远远超过2020年火灾季节。野火对流域的影响直接且在某些情况下对水系产生长期影响。水研究基金会已经发布了一些资源（https://bit.ly/387nWfr），以帮助公用事业为野火做好准备并从野火中恢复并确定缓解策略。

在最近的情况下，大火直接损害了加利福尼亚州的供水系统运行。新闻报道（https://nyti.ms/37WAOVA）强调了最新的野火挑战-分配水的污染。在最近的AWWA水科学论文（https://doi.org/10.1002/aws2.1183）中总结了分别影响了圣罗莎和加利福尼亚天堂的塔布斯和篝火之后的分析。分配网络的压力似乎很可能是运输了被污染的水，后来又污染了未损坏的基础设施。

需要进行进一步的研究，以进一步了解哪些野火场景会造成污染风险，并制定合理的指南来减轻这些风险并清理水系统和个人房屋以恢复服务。水务部门协调委员会已呼吁美国环境保护署（USEPA）与水务部门合作，以修改现有的USEPA指南，以克服当前指南中的后勤和技术限制。需要做出新的努力来制定指导方针，在确保保护公众健康的同时，优先考虑服务的返回。

应该开发一种新的基于证据的协议，该协议不仅限于野火场景。该协议将需要超越之前的USEPA指南，该指南将责任置于水系统上，同时还将重点放在在紧急情况下不可行的解决方案。需要一种不同的方法，而利用州和联邦合作伙伴的技术能力以及行业专业知识的共同努力将是关键。

新的准则（或单独的并行工作）也将需要解决当前指挥结构中的紧急响应和恢复挑战。2008年，主题专家工作组编写了一份有关水系统去污的报告，其中包括针对水部门关键问题的一系列优先建议（https://bit.ly/3jE5woZ）。第11期解决了明确角色和责任的必要。” 当前的临时方法给事件中的水系统经理带来了不确定性，并阻碍了他们制定《美国水基础设施法》所要求的可靠的应急计划的能力。

在今年的野火季节，关于哪个机构或个人具有提供去污指导的必要权限和/或责任的困惑仍在继续。确定适当的指示通常涉及供水系统，首要机构，应急管理和公共卫生官员的结合。随着事件的规模和严重性的增长并超过典型的响应方案，这些组织在事件期间达成一致并分配响应行动所需的时间可能会变得很长。

这种决策难题并不是什么新鲜事物，部分原因可归因于在国家应对框架（NRF）中缺乏明确定义的水务部门使命。AWWA跟随飓风Harvey和Irma证明了这一需求。国家基础设施咨询委员会（National Infrastructure Advisory Council）在2009年和2016年提出了类似的建议。今年的野火会议又提供了一个清晰的例子，说明了NRF为什么需要通过建立有针对性的水任务来反映水作为核心生命线功能的重要性。缺少这样的任务会导致效率低下，响应行动延迟和决策支持瘫痪，尤其是在野火等复杂事件中。这种分散的联邦方法导致事故响应和恢复过程中水部门优先事项的意外降级，但是却出现了问题。结果是对水系统损失的规模和潜在影响缺乏了解。为了应对未来的野火污染问题，我们需要更清晰，更协调的努力来支持水务部门的恢复，以便系统可以快速安全地使其社区恢复全面服务。