October 2025 League of Nebraska Municipalities
Municipalities may be liable for failure to train
This article originally appeared in the March 2011 Utilities Section Newsletter and was written by William A. Harding and Kelly M. Ekeler of Harding and Schultz Law Firm. While this law firm no longer exists, the information and analysis in this article is still highly relevant to municipalities in 2025.
In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a municipality may be held liable when its failure to train employees results in a violation of the Constitution. See City of Canton v. Harris , 498 U.S. 378 (1989). Specifically, the Canton Court held that a municipality may be liable for inadequate training under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which prohibits municipalities from depriving a citizen of constitutionally protected rights.
In Canton, Geraldine Harris was arrested by officers of the City of Canton Police Department. After being arrested, Harris repeatedly slumped over and when asked whether she needed medical assistance, she responded incoherently. After Harris was released from police custody, she was taken to a hospital by her family and was diagnosed as suffering from severe emotional ailments. Harris filed a lawsuit against the City under § 1983, seeking to hold the city liable for its violation of her right to receive necessary medical attention while in police custody and for failure to train
1335 L Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
(402) 476-2829
info@lonm.org
police officers regarding medical emergencies.
The Canton Court held that inadequate police training could serve as a basis for municipal liability under § 1983, but only when the failure to train amounted to “deliberate indifference” to the rights of persons with whom the police came in contact. The Court said the plaintiff alleging the violation must prove that a deficiency in training actually caused the police officer’s violation of a constitutionally protected right. The appropriate test is whether the injury to the plaintiff could have been avoided if the officer had been trained pursuant to a program that was not deficient in the respect claimed by the plaintiff.
The record in Canton indicated that the city did train its officers and its training covered medical emergencies. The Court stated that in resolving the issue of the city’s liability, the focus must be on adequacy of the training program in relation to the tasks officers must perform. The fact that a particular officer may be unsatisfactorily trained will not alone suffice to fasten liability on the city. For liability to attach, the identified deficiency in the city’s training program must be closely related to the ultimate injury. Thus, the
plaintiff must prove the deficiency in training actually caused the police officer’s indifference to the needs of the injured party.
Several appellant court decisions have added context to the Canton holding that municipalities can be liable under § 1983 for failure to train employees. The Supreme Court emphasized that an “inadequate training” claim can be the basis for § 1983 liability only in “limited circumstances.”Bd. of Co. Commrs. v. Brown , 520 U.S. 397 (1997). Various circuit court decisions have reiterated Canton’s message that municipalities may be liable for failure to train only when the failure reflects “deliberate indifference” to constitutional rights. See e.g. Jeffes v. Barnes , 208 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 2000). Municipalities may be liable for failure to train their employees only when the failure reflects a deliberate or conscious choice or policy of the city. See e.g. Reitz v. County of Bucks, 125 F.3d 139 (3d Cir. 1997).
The Eighth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Nebraska, held that a county was not liable for failure to train an officer when
Continued on page 2
Lash
Utilities Section Newsletter
Municipalities may be liable for failure to train
Continued from page 1
it had no notice that its training procedures were inadequate and likely to result in a violation of constitutional rights. Anderson v. Franklin Co. , 192 F.3d 1126 (8th Cir. 1999); see also Swain v. Spinney , 117 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1997) (city not liable for failure to train an officer with respect to a strip search where there were no previous incidents to put the city on notice of any deficiency in training). The Anderson court concluded that the county did not deprive the plaintiff of his constitutional rights when an officer mistakenly arrested the plaintiff, where there was no evidence the county had notice that its training was inadequate. Other Courts have addressed similarly
Classifieds
City Administrator. The City of Burwell is accepting applications for the position of City Administrator. The City of Burwell is the county seat of Garfield County and has approximately 1,200 residents. Burwell is located seven miles from the Calamus Reservoir in Central Nebraska. The municipality owns, operates, and provides electric, water, and wastewater services to its residents. Law enforcement is under the direction of the County Sheriff’s Department. This position requires comprehensive knowledge of municipal finance, expertise in city, state, and federal laws, regulations and guidelines, strategic planning, and supervisory skills. Individuals should possess a degree in a related field and/or possess a level of education that together with experience and training gives the
narrow factual issues. See e.g. Allen v. Muskogee, Oklahoma, 119 F.3d 837 (10th Cir. 1997) (issue of fact existed as to whether officers used excessive force in killing suspect where evidence indicated officers were inadequately trained in leaving cover and approaching armed and suicidal persons); Popham v. City of Talladega, 908 F.2d 1561 (11th Cir. 1990) (holding that a city’s failure to train jail personnel to screen detainees for suicidal tendencies was insufficient to impose liability on the city).
As a result of these cases, municipalities should recognize that training programs provided to their employees may result in liability if employees participating in the programs are not adequately trained.
A municipality will only be liable if the inadequate training constitutes the municipality’s policy or regular practice, and is not an isolated occurrence. If a municipality has notice that its inadequate training is likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, the municipality will be liable to a person whose constitutional rights are violated.
Editor’s Note: This article is not intended to provide legal advice to our readers. Rather, this article is intended to alert our readers issues. Readers are urged to consult their own legal counsel if the reader wishes to obtain a specific legal opinion regarding how these legal standards may apply to their particular circumstances.
required knowledge and experience to perform the duties as City Administrator. This person serves the community at the direction of the Mayor and City Council. Salary is negotiable based on experience and qualifications and includes competitive benefits. Interested candidates should contact the City Office at 404 Grand Avenue (PO Box 604), Burwell, NE 68823 or phone 308-346-4509. Completed application along with a cover letter and resume should be mailed or delivered to the city office address above or emailed to cityofburwell@ nctc.net and will be accepted until the position is filled. The City of Burwell is an EOE.
Village Superintendent. The Village of Campbell is seeking a qualified and experienced individual for the position of Village
Superintendent. The Superintendent will be responsible for day-to-day operations of the Public Works Department, which includes water, water-waste, streets, and parks. This role ensures our Village operates efficiently and safely. Qualifications include: ability to obtain and maintain a Nebraska Water Operators License Class 4 minimum; ability to obtain and maintain a Nebraska Commercial or non-commercial applicators license with category 09; and a valid driver’s license. To apply, please submit a letter of interest and resume to the Village of Campbell, PO Box 215, Campbell, NE 68932 or Campbell Clerk's office. A full job description is available at the Clerk’s office. The Village of Campbell is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
SAFETY/HEALTH CORNER
Generator safety: A little prep goes a long way
By Jackson Sash, Utilities Field Rep./Training Coordinator
When the weather starts turning cold, municipalities and citizens alike across the state pull out their generators to make sure they will be ready when the power goes down. Whether it is a big standby unit at the water or wastewater plant or a smaller portable generator used in the field, these machines are essential. But they can also be dangerous if they are not handled carefully. A little preparation now can prevent big problems later.
One of the biggest hazards is exhaust. Gasoline and diesel engines produce carbon monoxide, a gas you cannot see or smell, and it does not take long for it to build up in a closed space. Even cracking a shop door does not always allow enough fresh air to keep it safe. The best approach is to run portable generators outdoors and point the exhaust away from doors, windows, or vents. Permanently installed units should have their exhaust piping inspected regularly. Look
for cracks, rust, or blockages that could cause fumes to leak indoors. A carbon monoxide detector in the work area is a simple and inexpensive addition that can save lives.
Electrical safety is another top concern. A generator can send electricity backward into utility lines if it is not hooked up properly. That puts anyone working on the grid at serious risk. Only trained personnel should connect generators to building circuits, and only through a properly rated transfer switch. Portable units should be plugged into approved receptacles using heavy duty cables. Never attempt to plug a generator directly into a wall outlet – it is one of the most common mistakes and can have deadly consequences.
Fuel storage is another area that deserves attention. Gasoline and diesel must be stored in approved containers, away from heaters, electrical panels, and open flames.
Fuel that sits too long can break down or gas off and gum up the
carburetor or fuel injectors. Rotating stored fuel or using a stabilizer will help keep generators reliable. Always allow the engine to cool completely before refueling, even on cold days. A little caution here can prevent fires and equipment damage.
Maintenance is what keeps standby generators ready to go when needed. Follow the manufacturer’s schedule for oil changes, air filter replacement, coolant checks, and battery care. Run the unit under load every month or so to make sure it will operate properly when the power fails. Many failures occur simply because a generator has been left idle for too long. Checking the fuel system, battery, and starter
Continued on page 4
Generator safety: A little prep goes a long way
Continued from page 3
regularly can prevent frustrating downtime in an emergency.
Field crews using portable generators need to follow many of the same precautions. Set the generator on stable, level ground, keep it dry, and inspect all cords and plugs before use. Worn insulation or loose connections can lead to electric shocks or fires. Make sure the generator is far enough away from buildings or other structures that exhaust does not drift back
inside. Protect it from weather when possible, but never attempt to operate a portable generator inside a garage or shed.
Training is a final, often overlooked piece of generator safety. Even experienced crews benefit from a quick refresher before the cold weather hits. Cover basic operation, emergency shutoff procedures, and fuel handling. Encourage staff to check in with each other if they notice anything unusual during testing. A generator is only as safe
as the people operating it. Generators make life easier when the power goes out, keeping water flowing, pumps running, and lights on. But they demand respect. A few minutes spent reviewing safety procedures, checking exhausts, inspecting cords, and following maintenance schedules can prevent accidents and keep equipment reliable. When it comes to backup power, preparation and awareness are just as important as the generator itself.
Deeper look at coliform bacteria and its role in drinking water safety
By Jackson Sash, Utilities Field Rep./Training Coordinator
When the term “coliform bacteria” crosses your lab bench or shows up on a monthly compliance report, it may feel routine. But the history behind coliform testing is anything but routine – and understanding that history can help small systems strengthen their practices and appreciate why the regulations are in place.
Origins of the Indicator Concept. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, cities across the United States and Europe were confronted by outbreaks of cholera, typhoid, dysentery and other waterborne diseases. At that time the germ theory of disease was still gaining acceptance and public-health officials were grappling with how to track and control invisible microbial threats in drinking water. Over time, microbiologists observed that when fecal contamination was present in a water supply, certain bacteria from the intestines of warm-blooded animals consistently appeared.
These became known broadly as coliform bacteria—organisms that are not typically themselves the most dangerous pathogens but serve as indicators of whether fecal contamination (and thus potentially more harmful microbes) may be present. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), total coliforms remain the standard test for drinking water because their presence indicates contamination by an outside source. (EPA Archive)
Early Methods of Testing. In the early days, laboratory methods for detecting coliforms were quite rudimentary. One of the earliest approaches was the multiple-tube fermentation test: a counted number of tubes containing nutrient broth and lactose would receive water samples, then be incubated and observed for gas production – a sign of lactose-fermenting bacteria (such as coliforms). This gave a “most probable number” (MPN) estimate of bacterial density. As microbiology advanced, membrane filtration techniques emerged
(passing water through a fine filter, placing the filter on selective medium, and counting colony forming units). Over decades, these methods evolved toward greater efficiency, accuracy and feasibility for routine monitoring.
The 1989 Total Coliform Rule. The regulatory turn came with the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 1974, which authorized EPA to establish national standards for drinking water. (CDC Archive) In 1989 EPA published the first major national regulation specifically addressing total coliform bacteria in drinking water: the Total Coliform Rule (TCR). (Environmental Protection Agency) The TCR became effective in 1990 and required systems to
Continued on page 6
Engineering a world where everyone thrives.
Deeper look at coliform bacteria
Continued from page 5
monitor the distribution system for total coliforms at a frequency based on population served. It also set a health goal (Maximum Contaminant Level Goal, MCLG) of zero coliforms because even low levels of coliforms had been found in outbreaks. The TCR’s focus was two-fold: ensure that the distribution system was intact and sanitary (rather than simply treating source water) and ensure that microbial contamination might be detected before
disease occurs.
Why the 1989 Rule Needed Revision.
Despite the TCR’s advances, lessons from investigations of distribution system contamination and outbreaks showed that simply testing routinely for total coliforms did not fully address the pathways by which contamination could enter a system (for example through backflow, crossconnections, pressure loss, or pipe breaks). Also, the TCR’s triggerbased approach (coliform
positive leading to followup) did not always prompt proactive assessment of system vulnerabilities. For small systems, especially those serving fewer than 1,500 people, the cost and complexity of monitoring and corrective action posed real challenges.
The Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR). In recognition of those limitations, EPA reviewed the TCR and published changes in the Federal Register on Feb. 13, 2013, with minor corrections on Feb. 26, 2014. The new regulation, the Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR), became effective for all public water systems on April 1, 2016. The RTCR shifts from merely responding to coliform positives toward a “find and fix” philosophy—systems must assess for pathways of contamination, identify and correct sanitary defects, maintain a sample-siting plan,
and monitor more strategically. Under the RTCR, E. coli was given a maximum contaminate level (MCL) and must be tested for in addition to total coliform. For seasonal systems, the rule requires a state-approved start-up procedure prior to resuming water delivery. For small systems, EPA produced a guide tailored for systems serving 1,000 persons or fewer.
Why This Matters for Small Municipal
Utilities. For the smaller system operators you serve, the RTCR presents both opportunity and challenge. The “find and fix” orientation means that a single coliform positive sample isn’t automatically a violation; what matters is whether the system follows through with investigation and correction of sanitary defects. That offers flexibility, but also demands documentation,
Continued on page 7
we’re helping our clients push open the doors to what’s possible, every day.
Deeper look at coliform bacteria
Continued from page 6
a sample-siting plan, timely response to trigger events and an awareness of system vulnerabilities (pipe lapses, pressure drops, backflow risk, etc.). The requirement to maintain sample-siting plans that are representative of the distribution system is particularly important when your community has a limited number of connections or a non-standard layout. The guidance materials emphasize that small systems must still follow the fundamentals: collect samples properly, label them correctly, ship them timely to certified labs, and
document follow-up investigations when a positive sample occurs. For smaller systems the question often becomes: do we have the lab access, staffing, and scheduling needed to ensure all that is in place? The RTCR also encourages preventative measures (source protection, pressure management, pipe integrity, cross connection control) rather than just reactive measures.
Looking Back: Why Coliform Testing Has Endured. That fact this testing persists is no accident. The early microbiologists who observed coliforms laid groundwork for
modern water microbiology: rather than chasing hundreds of individual pathogens, using a surrogate organism (coliforms) enabled a manageable, cost-effective approach to safeguarding public health. Even though total coliforms themselves are not always harmful, their presence signals the need to look more closely. According to an EPA archived page: “For drinking water, total coliforms are still the standard test because their presence indicates contamination of a water supply by an outside source.” (EPA Archive) From the 1989 rule’s focus
Continued on page 8
Deeper look at coliform bacteria
Continued from page 7
on monitoring to the 2016 rule’s emphasis on system assessment, the evolution reflects the water sector’s shift toward distribution integrity and proactive risk management.
Implications for Systems in Nebraska. In Nebraska and other smaller states, the regulatory backdrop is consistent: all public water systems have been required to comply with the RTCR since April 2016. The following practical points are especially important:
• Sample-Siting Plan: Review and update your sampling locations to ensure they represent the distribution system, including any remote connections or potential low-use outlets. If your system layout changes (new connections, changes in flushing practices, seasonal use) the plan should reflect that.
• Trigger Events: Understand what constitutes a trigger: a coliform positive, an E. coli positive, or other conditions that require investigation and corrective action. Document the investigation (what went wrong, what was fixed, when it was fixed).
• Preventive Maintenance: Think of your distribution system as part of the compliance strategy— not just part of the water system. Cross-connection control, pressure monitoring, maintenance of dead ends, flushing programs, and prompt response to leaks or pipe breaks all help demonstrate you are managing sanitary integrity proactively.
• Lab Coordination and Chain of Custody: The RTCR emphasizes proper sample handling. As one state note warns: “One of the most common ways for samples to not be credited to your water system is when the samples are not properly labeled when sent to the lab.” (Environmental Protection Agency) Recently, we have seen a rising problem with shipments arriving late. Because of this, alternatives need to be considered. Using alternative shipping companies, driving samples to the lab yourself, or coordinating with other nearby communities are all possible solutions to this problem.
• Training and Awareness: Operators and maintenance staff should understand the “why” behind coliform testing and the RTCR—not just the “what.” When staff recognizes that a positive coliform result is a red flag for distribution system integrity
Future
(and not simply a lab failure), they tend to be more diligent in operations, flushing, pressure monitoring, and cross-connection inspections. A Concluding Thought. What may appear as a routine monthly coliform result is in fact the latest link in a chain of scientific discovery, regulatory shifts, and operational vigilance. From the earliest recognition of intestinal bacteria in contaminated water to the “find and fix” era of the RTCR, the evolution underscores a simple truth: water safety depends not just on treatment plant performance, but on the ongoing integrity of the entire distribution system. For small systems it is the everyday practices of sampling, documenting, maintaining and investigating that keep the promise of safe drinking water alive.
Each time a system reports “zero coliforms detected” that is more than a lab number. It is the outcome of decades of learning, of regulatory refinement, and of steady vigilance on the part of operators who know that even a single coliform result is a warning worth taking seriously.
“Snowball” Wastewater Conferences
The dates for future “Snowball” Wastewater Conferences are scheduled and contracts are signed with the Kearney
Holiday Inn. Please note the upcoming Snowball Conference schedule: Jan. 28-29, 2026 Jan. 27-28, 2027 Jan. 26-27, 2028
Utilities Section Newsletter
2025/2026 Training calendar
Visit our website for a complete list of workshops and conferences.
2025
December
Dec. 9 Water Operator Training Workshop League Office, Joe Hampton Conference Center, Lincoln
Dec. 11 ......... Water Operator Training Workshop ........................... Community Building, 3rd Fl, Columbus
2026
January
Jan. 7-9 ......... Utilities/Public Works Section Annual Conference.... Embassy Suites, Lincoln
Jan. 27 .......... Water Operator Training Workshop ........................... Holiday Inn, Kearney
Jan. 28-29 Snowball Conference Holiday Inn, Kearney
February
Feb. 3-4 Nebraska Meter Conference Holiday Inn, Kearney
Feb. 23-24 .... Midwinter Conference ................................................ Cornhusker Marriott Hotel, Lincoln
Utilities Section Executive Board
President
Pat Heath
City Administrator
Gering
1st Vice President
Gary Thurlow
Utility Supt.
Atkinson
2nd Vice President
Sarah Sawin Director of Utilities
Kearney
Past President
Duane Hoffman
Public Works Director
Oxford
Board Member
Matt Owens
Water & Sewer Supervisor
Imperial
Board Member
Jeramie Van Leer
Utility Superintendent Ord
Board Member
Ryan Schmitz
Utilities Director
Grand Island
Ex Officio Member
Kyle Svec
City Admin./Utilities Supervisor
Geneva