REPORT OF THE

AQUIFER PROTECTIONTASK FORCE

FEBRUARY 15, 1989

Senate

1988-89 AQUIFER PROTECTION TASK FORCE

House of Representatives

Michael Meotti, Co-chairpersonGeorge GuntherKevin SullivanCynthia Matthews

Thomas Luby, Co-chairpersonMary MushinskyVincent MazzottaJames FlemingRuth Fahrbach

Hugo Thomas, Designee for~DEP CommissionerKenneth Andersen, Commissioner of AgricultureJames Okrongly, Designee for DOHS CommissionerRichard Albani, Designee for DPUC CommissionerHorace Brown, Designee for Secretary of OPMJohn Shemo, Municipal PlannerCheryl Reedy, Representative of MunicipalityEdward Wilensky, Representative of MunicipalityJeffrey Lipton, Representative of AgricultureDavid Losee, Public MemberRussell Shaw, Representative of Private Water utilityDirck Barhydt, Representative of Business and IndustryAlice Lynch, Public MemberAlan Hess, Representative of Public Water UtilityLarry Fiano, Representative of Home Builders AssociationKaren Hayward~ Houstatonic Valley Association

Committee Staff

Nancy Drake, Environment Com/aittee ClerkAttorney David L~ff, Legislative Research

Attorney Cathy Bernstein, Legislative Commissioner’s Office

Task Force Staff

Eric Jo Brown, Executive Director

ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEELEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING

ROOM 3200HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06106

(203) 240°0440

FebrUary 15, 1989

TO:

FROM:

Governor William A. O’NeillConnecticut General Assembly

Senator Michael P. MeottiRepresentative Thomas P. Luby

Pursuant to P.A. 88-324 we, hereby, transmit to the Governor and

the Connecticut General Assembly, the 1989 Report of the Aquifer

Protection Task Force.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Task Force would like to thank all those individuals andorganizations who expressed their interest, related thei~concern, and imparted their knowledge to the Task Force.

Our appreciation also extends to Armando Carbonell, ExecutiveDirector of the Cape Cod Planning and Economic DevelopmentCommission for his expertise and informative presentation; to RonGehl and his associates at TRC Environmental Consultants fortheir participation and availability for technical information;and to the Towns of Manchester and Glastonbury for hosting theTask Force and providing valuable perspective to our work.

To Fred Banach and Diane Mayerfeld of the State Natural ResourceCenter go unbounded thanks for their professional expertise andconsistent hard work on behalf of the Task Force.

i

PRELUDE

This report represents an exhaustive consideration of the complexand often technical issues related to protecting Conne~tfcut,spresent and future drinking water supplies. The intention of theTask Force is to direct this report to the broadest possibleaudience, as protection of present and future drinking watersupplies involves the participation of every Connecticut citizen.

Connecticut citizens have enjoyed a long history of readilyavailable and good quality drinking water. A decade ago, stateplanners had many potential reservoir sites identified fordevelopment as public water supplies. With the tremendous growthConnecticut has experienced during successive years, many ofthese sites are no longer available. The high costs ofreservoirs, as well as user conflicts over the few suitable riversources, is making groundwater the primary choice for futuredrinking water supplies. Unfortunately, developmental pressuresand incidents of contamination are rapidly encroaching on thesepotential drinking water sources as they have on once promisingreservoir sites.

We are fortunate that Connecticut has a plentiful supply ofgroundwater in many areas of the state. The increasing importanceof groundwater as a present and future supply of drinking watermakes it one of our state’s most valuable natural resources.Unfortunately, such an abundance of a natural resource oftenleads to complacency among those of us who utilize and depend onit. It is easy to forget that as present citizens of

.Connecticut, we are charged with using its natural resourceswisely and with preserving them for use by future generations.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ........................................... i

Prelude ..................................................... ii

Executive Summary ........................................... iii

PART I: CONNECTICUT’S GROUNDWATER SUPPLY

Understanding Groundwater ..~ ......................Reliance on Groundwater As a Drinking Water Supply.The Aquifers ...........................Groundwater Contamination - A StatewideRemediation ............................The Effort to Protect ..................

State and Federal Efforts ...........Local Land Use Controls .............

1988 Task Force and Legislation ..... ...1988-89 Aquifer

Problem..

Protection Task Force Process ......

1236788

I0ii13

PART II: THE STATE AQUIFER PROTECTION PROGRAM: A PROPOSAL

The Participants ........Program Elements .......Elements in More Detail

Mapping .............Land Use Regulation.Education ...........Acquisition ................................. 25Enforcement ..................................... 26¯ ¯ 26Monltorlng ......................................Agriculture ..................................... 27

Proposed Outline 6f Roles .......................... 29Economic Impact .................................... 32

PART III: OTHER AREAS OF INVESTIGATION

Water Softeners .................................... 33Research ........................................... 37Transportation ..................................... 37Protecting Bedrock Aquifers ........................ 39

PART IV: RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING

First Phase Recommendations Requiring Funding ...... 43First Phase Recommendations Not Requiring Funding.. 45Recommendations For Future Legislation .............. 46

PART V: APPENDICES

Appendix i: Chemicals of Concern ................... 49Appendix 2: Land use/Activities of Concern ......... 5~Appendix 3: Land Use Regulatory Approaches ......... 65Appendix 4: Geographic Information Service ......... 66Appendix 5: Public Act 88-324 ...................... 69

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

State government has a fundamental responsibility Go’protectpublic drinking water supplies. Over one million Connecticutresidents rely on groundwater as their source of drinking water.This groundwater is extracted through wells from undergroundwater supplies known as aquifers. Unfortunately, over 1300incidents of public or private water supply well contaminationhave been documented during the past ten years, occurring innearly two-thirds of the State’s municipalities.

With Connecticut experiencing continued growth in its economyand mounting pressures for further development of open space,incidents of drinking water contamination are likely to occurwith increasing frequency. Additionally, new areas are beingdeveloped without regard to their potentia! as a future supply ofdrinking water. Though numerous communities have made efforts toprotect their groundwater supplies, consistent and effectiveprotection of groundwater drinking water supplies will requirestate action.

In the last decade, Connecticut’s state government has begunto address the problem of groundwater protection. The 1987 DEPreport, "Protection of High and Moderate Yield Stratified DriftAquifers", made available the first inventory of Connecticut’slargest aquifers, identified known and potential contaminationthreats, and set forth numerous policy issues to be confronted inan effort to protect groundwater supplies. That report triggeredthe formation of this Task Force by the Legislature in the Springof of 1987.

In its first year, the Task Force concluded that Connecticutmust develop a comprehensive regulatory framework to protectpublic drinking water supplies and determined that a prerequisitefor implementing such a protection program was a statewidemapping effort of stratified drift aquifers. In 1988, theLegislature passed an act requiring medium and large utilities tomap stratified drift aquifers used for public water supply andauthorized the Task Force to develop further recommendations forprotecting these resources.

This year, the Task Force focused on constructing theregulatory framework which should include minimum stateprotection standards for the most sensitive aquifer areas as theyare identified through the mapping process.

This report presents the findings of the Task Force andincludes the following major recommendations:

iii

FIRST PHASE RECOMMENDATIONS REQUIRING FUNDING

i. Authorize and require the Department of EnvironmentalProtection to:

o Develop regulations and performance standards for existingland uses to be implemented by municipalities in AquiferProtection Areas;

O

O

Develop a schedule of compliance for existingnon-conforming uses in Aquifer Protection Areas;

Develop regulations and performance standards for futureland uses to be implemented by municipalities in AquiferProtection Areas;

o Develop an administrative exemption procedure forprohibited uses which, for special reasons, do not posecontamination risks to existing or future water supplies;

o

o

Develop, in conjunction with DOHS, a statewide educationprogram on groundwater protection which should involveutilities, public service organizations, state educationinstitutions, environmental and other non-profitorganizations, regional planning agencies, municipalgroups, corporate leaders and the regulated community;

Develop a program in conjunction with DOHS and the waterutilities to provide technical assistance to regionalhealth districts, municipalities, and the regulatedcommunity for implementing all aspects of the program;

Develop in conjunction with DOHS ,water utilities, andthe regulated commuhity, a strategic groundwatermonitoring plan %o be implemented within one year ofcompletion of level A mapping;

Develop a model aquifer protection ordinance and aprocedure for approving local ordinances to ensureconsistency and compliance with minimum state standards;

Direct farms located within Aquifer Protection Areas todevelop and implement Farm Resource Management Plans;

Enforce state minimum standards in municipalities whichdo not institute acceptable protection ordinances forAquifer Protectioh Areas;

Work with the Department of Transportation to developprotection programs for public wells near interstatehighways and state roads

Develop a positive incentive program to provide9gnition for successfu! efforts within the regulated

Community to promote protection of public drinking water

Develop in conjunction with DOHS and DPUC land acquisitionguidelines for lands surrounding existing or proposedpublic water supply wells and to encourage acquisition oftitle and development easements; ¯ ¯

Develop amendments to the water diversion policy act topermit the reservation of diversion rights by utilitiesengaged in the mapping and water supply planning process;

Adequately fund the use of DEP’s Geographic InformationSystem (GIS) to support the Aquifer Protection Program.

3. Authorize funding of research into bedrock aquifers.

FIRST PHASE RECOMMENDATIONS NOT REQUIRINGFUNDING

Require municipalities to designate Aquifer Protection Areasand to adopt regulations in accordance with minimum stateguidelines;

Require municipalities to notify the appropriate utility ofany pending land use applications within Aquifer ProtectionAreas;

Require utility mapping of future stratified drift publicwater supplies upon approval of individual water supplyplans but before completion of regional plans if nojurisdictional issue exists;

Require DEP and other government agencies to provide highpriority to aquifer protection in their ongoing programs forland acquisition, land management, water qualityclassification, and environmental enforcement;

Require water utilities to prepare municipal technicalassistance programs;

Require municipalities to complete land use inventorieswithin one year of receipt of approved level B maps;

Require DEP to work with federal agenciesto prioritizefederal resource related protection efforts in Connecticut;

Require one municipal designee from each municipalitycontaining a present or proposed public water supply well instratified drift aquifer to receive technical training onaquifer protection through DEP or other DEP approved trainingprograms prior to municipal adoption of aquifer protectionordinances;

Ii.

12.

130

Require existing agricultural cost-sharing programs toinclude development of individual resource management plans;

Require inspection and enforcement coordination among.DEP~DOHS, municipalities, utilities, and regional healthdistricts utilizing DEP’s delegation statute whereapproprlate,

Authorization for water utilities to explore state ownedlands for the purpose of determining their potential asfuture public drinking water supplies;

Require DOHS to review the resources currently committed tothe water planning process and to redirect current resourcesto this program where feasible; and

Authorize DOHS to take measures to expedite the approvalprocedure for the individual water supply plans.

RECOMMENDATIONS FORFUTURE LEGISLATION

Supplemental Funding of existing agricultural cost-sharingplans commensurate with estimated agricultura! lands locatedwithin Aquifer Protection Areas;

Funding for expansion of the Geographic Information System’srole in mapping delineated aquifers as well as analyzingaquifer and other land use information;

Funding to DEP for conducting research in developing bettermodeling techniques for Aquifer Protection Areas in fracturedbedrockconditions; and

sImplement acquisition recommendatlon developed by DEP andDOHS including funding if required.

RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC ACT 88-324

Require public or private water supply companies serving betweenone thousand and ten thousand persons to complete level A mappingof existing stratified drift wells by July i, 1994;

Require public and private water supply companie~ s~rvig~r~e~eenone thousand and ten thousand persons with poten~ia± we±±£~e±as

and approved as a future water supply source, completetwo years and level A mapping five years

of the plan;

Authorize the Commissioner of Environmental Protection to map atlevel B, all potential wellfields located in stratified driftaquifers; . .

Authorize mapping of public and private water supply wells tocommense subsequent to approval of individual water Supply planswhere no jurisdictional conflicts exist.

RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT TO DOHS WATER SUPPLY LEGISLATION

i. Require the reports of the Water utility CoordinatingCommittees to specify recommendations for land acquisition forlands surrounding proposed stratified drift wells.

THE AQUIFERS

An aquifer is any set of geologic conditions which allows forthe withdrawal of water from the ground in useable qu~ntlties.Connecticut is blessed with such geologic conditions in manyareas of the state. In specific areas, such reserves aresufficient to supply thousands of Connecticut citizens with their

.daily water needs.

There are two principle types of aquifers in Connecticut.Bedrock aquifers are composed of hard rock which has beenfractured and faulted over millions of years. These fractures andfaults provide "channels" through which groundwater flows.Bedrock underlies the entire state of Connecticut. While they aregeographically wide spread, bedrock aquifers generally have a lowyield. They represent the principal water source for mostprivate wells in rural and suburban areas.

Stratified drift aquifers are the highest yieldinggroundwater sources in Connecticut. They are composed ofunconsolidated sands and gravels of glacial origin transportedand deposited by streams and rivers. Most stratified driftdeposits in the state’s uplands appear as long thin bands, whilein the lower lying and broad river valleys, they may be quiteextensive and deep. The water drawn from these stratified driftaquifers is generally of excellent quality.

Figure 2 illustrates in cross-section, a typical stratifieddrift aquifer. The aquifer, having been developed as a drinkingwater supply, is delineated into four regions:

Wellfield: The area immediately surrounding the,well and the region where thewater supply is most vulnerable tocontamination.

Area of Contribution: The region where the water table islowered due to the pumpage ofthe well. Water in the Area ofContribution flows directly to thewell, making the well highlysusceptible to any contaminationoccurring in the area.Typically 20 i00 acres.

Recharge Area: The area from which groundwater flowsdirectly to the Area of Contribution°

Indirect Recharge Area: The area which contributes surfacewater to the Area of Contribution.

Three of these regions - the wellfield, the area ofcontribution and the recharge area comprise the sectors in whicha chemical spill presents the most direct threat to a well.Thus, these regions comprise the area to be designated an"Aquifer Protection Area".

FIGUP~ 2: CROSS-SECTION, STEATIFIED DRIFT AQUIFER

Table 2 sets forth the number of public water supply wells inConnecticut which extract water from stratified drift aquifers.

TABLE 2

STATE OF CONNECTICUTPUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WELLS IN STRATIFIED DRIFT AQUIFERS

Number ofCommunity WaterSystems Served

TotalWithdrawal

(MGD)

Number ofStratifiedDrift Wells

ApproximateNumber ofWellfields

157 55~0 480 240

Figure 3 illustrates locationsstratified drift aquifers.

of public water supply wells in

- 5 -

GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION - A STATEWIDE PROBLEM

Connecticut’s highly urbanized and industrialized nature hasresulted in numerous instances of well water contamination~including many public water supply wells. Since 1980, thegroundwater supplies of more than 150,000 people have beencontaminated. There have been 1,332 documented incidents of wellpollution in the last decade. Groundwater contamination has beenfound in every town, and 116 of the State’s 169 towns haveexperienced public or private well contamination (Figure 4).

Table 3 identifies the various types of materials responsiblefor well pollution. Pesticides and nitrates are agriculturerelated. Solvents are the result of industrial and commercialland uses and activities..~

TABLE 3

Occurences of Known Groundwater Contamination By Type 1979 - 1988

PesticidesNitratesSolventsLandfill LeachateGas and OilRoad Salt (sodium)Other

TOTAL ,LS CONTAMINATED

Number of Occurences387 *

95292176245iii26

1,332

~d by the pesticide EDB)

REMEDIATION

In recent years, many chemical spills posing a threat togroundwater have been addressed through remediation efforts. Theeffectiveness of these clean-up efforts principally depends onthe chemical involved, the time gap between spill and detection,and the subsurface material involved. The Task Force investigatedthe costs and technology associated with remediation in order toevaluate its viability as a vehicle for protection. As part ofthis investigation, the Task Force was given numerous casestudies, a portion of which is listed in table 4.

O

TABLE 4: AQUIFER REMEDIATION CASE STUDIES

PROBLEM:SOLUTION:

COST:

EDB/EDC contamination of 25 domestic wells.Abandon wells, connect 25 homes to public watersupply.$30,000 investigation, $420,000 for connection

PROBLEM:

SOLUTION:

COST:

Leaking underground gasoline storage tanks(volatile organic compounds)Soil vapor extraction, groundwater recovery withair stripping$70,000 investigation, $175,000 remediation,$40,000/yr operation and maintenance

PROBLEM:

SOLUTION:

COST:

PROBLEM:

SOLUTION:

COST:

o PROBLEM:

SOLUTION:

COST:

Leaking underground storage tanks and saltcontamination (volatile organic compounds, chloride)Groundwater recovery with air stripping and carbonadsorption$280,000 investigation, $500,000 remediation;$590,000/yr operation, maintenance and monitoring

Chlorinated ~olatile organic compounds in fracturedbedrock aql/iferGroundwater recovery with air stripping and vaporphase carbon adsorption$130,000 investigation; $195,000 remediation;$55,000/yr operation, maintenance and monitoring

Industrial and municipal waste landfill (Manycontaminants in leachate, bedrock aquifer)Landfill cap, leachate collection and treatment,abandon 50 domestic wells, connect to public watersupply$20,000,000 for landfill(cap, collection,treatment), $1,500,000 for water supply hookup andwell abandonment

Although remediation techniques and costs vary greatly withindividual cases, the Task Force concluded that remediationshould not be considered a substitute for other protectionefforts. Rather, the difficulty and cost of clean-up highlightsthe need for prevention policies as a cost effective means ofsafeguarding our drinking water supplies.

- 7 -

THE EFFORT TO PROTECT

State And Federal Efforts

Connecticut has been in the forefront of a national effort topreserve good quality drinking water. Connecticut’s landmarkenvironment report, Environment/2000: Connecticut’s EnvironmentalPlan, defines the State’s position on protection of waterresources. The Report explains:

Since the enactment of Connecticut’s 1967 Clean Water Act,significant improvements have been made in the State’ssurface water quality, although some surface waters havenot yet attained designated goals. In 1980, the programwas expanded and Connecticut was the first state to adopta comprehensive groundwater quality program. In spite ofthese efforts, existing high quality waters are in jeopardyand may become permanently contaminated and unfit for use.Among the major problems left to be dealt with areinadvertent or accidental discharges and land usedevelopment impacts. As more incidents of contaminationare identified, there will be increased difficulty in riskassessment, establishment of health effects, anddesignation of tolerance limits.

Historically, surface waters have received the principalattention of federal and State water quality improvement programsas they were the most used and known abused sources of waters.Groundwater, on the other hand, has more recently become thesubject of serious concern. With passage of Connecticut’s 1967Clean Water Act, and subsequent Federal legislation (RCRA, CWA,CERCLA), groundwater has been protected from the most obvioussources of pollution. The State’s policy of prohibitingvirtually all non-domestic wastewater discharges to itsgroundwaters is, perhaps, the single most important mechanism inplace for preventing contamination of drinking water supplies.

Most activities on land impact groundwater quality andquantity. The impact may be slight or not immediately noticeable,but it will occur. In recognition of this, the Departments ofHealth Services and Environmental Protection have, developed alarge number of diverse measures to protect and managegroundwater resources and to ameliorate the impacts ofgroundwater contamination. These management programs applystatewide and fall into the following categories:

i. Drinking Water Standards2o Water Quality Standards and Classifications3. Source Controls45 Education

!6. Statewide ProhibitionsMana¢

Victim

i0. Water Use and Allocationii. Monitoring12. Research13. Data Management14. Local Assistance

Connecticut’s groundwater management program represent acomprehensive approach that is considered a national model. TheState’s requirements for wastewater and leachate discharges,hazardous wastes, prohibitions on certain hazardous substances,and other groundwater protection mechanisms are morecomprehensive than ever.

Despite these achievements, increasing population andurbanization suggest Connecticut will continue to experiencegroundwater contamination from accidental spills and non-pointsource pollution. Stratified drift aquifers are very susceptibleto contamination. Public water supply wells tapping theseresources may be adversely affected in the future unless theState’s water pollution control program provides strongprotection for these especially vulnerable areas.

In order to further the goal of groundwater protection, theDEP produced a 1987 report, "Protection of High and ModerateYield Stratified Drift Aquifers." This report inventoriedConnecticut’s major aquifers; identified known and potentialcontamination threats; and set forth numerous policy issues to beconfronted. To investigate these complex issues, the reportrecommended that a task force be created. Acting on thisrecommendation, the 1987 General Assembly established the AquiferProtection Task Force.

Municipal Aquifer Protection Initiatives

Section 8-2 of the Connecticut General Statutes provides that"zoning regulations~hall be made with reasonable considerationforthe protection of . existing and potential public surfaceand groundwater drinking water supplies. Fourty-eightConnecticut towns have adopted some form of groundwaterprotection legislation as listed in Table 5.

TABLE 5

Towns With Local Groundwater/Aquifer Protection Regulations

BozrahCanterburyCheshireColumbiaCornwallCoventryCromwellDanburyDurhamEast HamptonEast LymeEnfield

EssexFarmingtonGrotonGuilfordHaddamHamdenHebronKentKillinglyKillingworthMansfieldMiddletown

NewtownNorth HavenNorth StoningtonOld LymeOld SaybrookPlainfieldReddingSalisburyScotlandSharonSouthingtonStafford

StoningtonThomastonThompsonTollandWallingfordWaterfordWestbrookWestportwillingtonWiltonWindhamWoodbury

The ordinances vary widely with regard to rigor,comprehensiveness, relationship to drinking water supply needs,and in the scientific basis for protection area boundaries. Thereis also a significant demand at the local level for increasedtechnical assistance. Although local efforts thus far have beenimportant, much more needs to be done.

i0

1988 TASK FORCE REPORT AND LEGISLATION

The 1988 Report of the Aquifer Protection Task Force includedrecommendations to the General Assembly. The report conclhdedthat a rigorous aquifer protection program requires a soundscientific foundation and therefore that the stratified driftaquifers containing current or future public water supplywellfields should be mapped. The Task Force recommendations wereadopted in Public Act 88-324 (Appendix 5), and include:

DEP must establish two standards for aquifermapping. The more detailed mapping is described asLevel A, and the less costly mapping as Level B.

All public or private water companies serving morethan 1000 persons shall complete level B mapping of theirexisting well fields by July i, 1990. Those watercompanies serving more than 10,000 customers shall completelevel A mapping of their existing well fields by July i,1992.

Public and private water companies serving more than 10,000persons shall map all potential well fields that arelocated within stratified drift aquifers as identified byWater Utility Coordinating Committee Plans. Level Bmapping is to be completed within 2 years and level Awithin 4 years of the completion of the applicable plan.

Within three months of receiving approval from theCommissioner of Environmental Protection of level Bmapping, each municipality is responsible fordesignating a body which will inventory land useslocated within well fields, areas of contributionand recharge areas of’such aquifers mapped within theirmunicipal boundaries.

Level A studies in stratified drift, requiring the mostsophisticated data collection and interpretation program, aredesigned to minimize the number and magnitude of assumptions, andutilize the most sophisticated multi-dimensional models. Thesestudies are designed to be highly accurate in theirrepresentations of the physical systems and are to be calibratedand verified.

Level B studies for stratified drift aquifers are designed tobe conducted in a relatively short period of time at a low cost.These studies are based for the most part on existing mapping anddata and the methodology is based on gross assumptions concerningthe flow of groundwater under pumping conditions. The equationsused to determine the initial setback distances have been used topredict well drawdowns for decades. Because of the grossassumptions that must be made concerning the physicalcharacteristics of the system and the behavior of groundwaterflow, protection boundaries based on level B mapping maydesignate substantial areas for both under and over protection.

- ii -

In addition, the act called for the continuation of the TaskForbe for the purpose of considering minimum protection standardsfor existing and future activities occurring in wellfield areas,areas of contribution and recharge areas. Additionally, th~

water¯ "nleg~slatlo called for the Task Force to study the use ofsofteners on water quality and.to recommend programs for theeducation and training of utillty personne! as wel! as localagencies and officials. The Task Force was also charged withproposing appropriate legislation related to the protection ofaquifers.

1988-89 AQUIFER PROTECTION TASK FORCE PROCESS

With the fundamental requirement of accurate mapping havingbeen addressed in the 1988 legislation, the next goal 6f ~he TaskForce was to develop a comprehensive, fair and effective programto protect Connecticut’s aquifers, once delineation of theirboundaries is completed.

In September 1988, the Task Force visited two communities inthe Hartford area which typify the spectrum of issues which anaquifer protection program must be prepared to address. InManchester, the Task Force met with town officials who are in theprocess of formulating regulations to protect their groundwater,which supplies approximately 50% of the town’s drinking water.Much of Manchester is already developed with many "high risk"existing land uses located over sensitive areas of the aquifers.

In Glastonbury, the Task Force observed a largely undevelopedarea which overlies a major stratified drift aquifer. The areahas outstanding potential as a major future supply of drinkingwater. However, this area is facing tremendous and immediatedevelopmental pressures. Protecting this vital future resourcefor the community and the region poses an enormous challenge tolocal officials.

Over the next several months, the Task Force held many publicmeetings. Subcommittees were formed to consider differentelements of the issue. The subcommittees included Task Forcemembers along with representatives from interested public andprivate organizations. These subcommittees submitted reports tothe Task Force which were reviewed, revised, and incorporatedinto this report. In addition, the Task Force heard testimonyfrom federal, State and local officials from Connecticut and NewEngland.

The remainder of this report describes the elements,participants, framework and specific recommendations of the TaskForce for the protection of groundwater public drinking watersupplies.

- 13 -

PART II: THE STATE AQUIFER PROTECTION PROGRAM: A PROPOSAL

A successful aquifer protection program will require theparticipation of many different levels of government, privateorganizations, and individuals. The program should make use ofdiverse management approaches such as water supply pianning, landacquisition, facility regulation, zoning and education. Thisdiscussion provides an overview of the many participants andelements recommended for inclusion in a new program to protectConnecticut’s groundwater drinking supplies.

THE PARTICIPANTS

The Federal Government - administers many laws and programs whichaffect groundwater, conducts basic research on groundwaterhydrology (USGS, EPA), and provides technical assistance to thestates. The Federal "Wellhead Protection Program" (authorized bythe Federal Safe Drinking Water Act) requires states to developspecial resource protection programs for public water supplywells and their associated groundwater resources.

The State of Connecticut - leadership must be exerted at~his level for comprehensive aquifer protection. This beginswith the State legislature where program authorization is needed,and then must be carried out by State agencies. The Departmentof Environmental Protection should have primary respo.nsibilityfor implementing ~nd coordinating the aquifer protectlon program.

Municipalities - have the major responslbllltre for zoning andsubsequent authority to assure continued compliance with zoningrequirements. They can also accept delegated authority forcertain programs,, such. as ’inspection authority from DEP.Regional Health D1strrc%s, as agents for municipal government,should be encouraged to assist municipalities and DEP inmeeting their obligations under this recommended program.Municipalities are the level of government in most direct contactwith the users of the land. Thus, the municipal level ofgovernment, particular, ly with respect to future land use, willcarry aquifer protection to the people.

The Water utilities - whether private, quasi-public, ormunicipal, water supply utilities clearly have a great interestand role to play in aquifer protection, utilities are alreadyrequired to conduct the technical groundwater modeling andmapping needed to identify critical areas of protection. WaterUtility Coordinating Committees prepare area wide water supplyplans and identify aquifers not currently tapped but which may beneeded for drinking water in the future.

Theindustries along with commercial and

.es must work with State and municipalto Lsure implementing regulations are both

sound and affordable. The regulated community should

be encouraged to participate in education and technicalassistance opportunities for the purpose of preventing futuregroundwater contamination.

The Public - represents the ultimate beneficiary of the aquiferprotection program, and therefore must also be the ultimatewatchdog. The general public can be instrumenta! in encouragingthe use of private monies for land acquisition. In addition,groundwater contamination can arise from a variety of residentialactivities, so it is vital that the public be well-informed aboutthreats to groundwater and that they actively participate in theprocess to protect it.

Non-Profit Organizations - play a vital role in the process. Manyenvironmental organizations have significant experience indealing with drinking water issues. In addition, civic groups,scouting and other youth groups along with a multitude ofcommunity organizations have a tremendous potential to contributeboth in raising public awareness and in educating theircommunities with regard to the risks of taking drinking water forgranted,

PROGRAM ELEMENTS

The entire aquifer protection program is predicated on knowingwhere the aquifer lies and the specific regions within theaquifer where certain land uses are likely to affect the qualityof drinking water. Mapping of aquifers used for drinking waterwill take place over the nekt four years, as required by PA88-324. Recommendations~for amendments to this public act arecontained in this report.

Land Use Regulation

The principal tool for regulating future land use is zoning,which will therefore be a centerpiece of the aquifer protectionprogram. Rather than using traditional zoning categories whicheither allow or prohibit commercial and industrial usesaltogether, the program will rely on an aquifer delineationoverlay to identify protection areas where specially designedland use regulations would be applied. Within these AquiferProtection Areas, certain high risk activities should beprohibited outright. The judgement to prohibit an activityshould be based on the relative drinking water threat, thequantity of the chemicals involved, the probability ofsuccessfully regulating working practices to control discharges,and the feasibility of quickly detecting any discharge. Also,regulations can be used to reduce risks from pre-existing uses. Apreliminary list of activities which might be prohibited orregulated is included in appendix 2.

15 -

Education

Education at all levels, from officials implementing regulationsto the individual citizen living or working over an aquifer, iscrucial to the success of groundwater protection.

Acquisition

Land acquisition offers the most complete protection forgroundwater. However, this protection method is too expensive to

~re A~uifer Protection Areas. For landsimmediately surrounding present ana future w~±±~u ,acquisition should be considered a necessary component of aquiferprotection.

Technical Assistance...... esWith the vital roles played by munlcipall~ and the general

public, along with the need and desire of the regulated communityto be aware of best management practices, the availability oftechnical assistance to these participants is an essentialelement of the protection program.

Enforcement

Enforcement is clearly a necessary element of implementing theaquifer protection program. Responsibility for enforcement,

" nincluding facility inspectlo , should be shared among DEP, themunicipalities, and water utilities. DEP should have leadresponsibility and must provide for overall coordination tominimize or prevent redundant or inconsistent .enforcementefforts ¯ ~

Monitoring

Monitoring by DEP, DOHS and the water utilities is an essentialprogram element. It provides a necessary tool for enforcementpurposes, and serves the critical role of detecting contaminantsbefore they impact the well field. Monitoring further providescheck to ensure that groundwater quality is up to drinking waterstandards.

Agriculture

Given the State’s interest in agricultural preservation and theunique way agriculture is both assisted and regulated by stateand federal governments, special considerations have beendeveloped for agriculture. Preventing contamination from

sive application of pesticides or fertilizers,leaking fuel storage tanks and improving agricultural

are agricultural objectives.

Figure 5 is a summary matrix which illustrates the role of eachparticipant with respect to the various elements of the program..

X

X

x

8

17 -

ELEMENTS IN MORE DETAIL

i. MAPPING OF PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES

TO protect our groundwater resources, aquifer locations andpotential yields need to be determined. In 1988, the legislaturetook a major step by establishing a timetable for the completion

of level A and level B mapping for existing and proposedstratified drift public water supply wells operated by utilitiesserving more than 10,000 persons. Level B mapping of existingwells operated by utilities serving fewer than 10,000persons ~as required. The Task Force recommends that thislegislatlon be amended to include mapping completion guidelinesfor proposed wells serving 1,000 - i0,000 persons, and level Amapping for existing wells which presently serve 1,000 - I0,000

~- -~- the commissioner of DEP should.beperson .... ~___~ ~ -~--~n~ in all ootentlal well£1elQsauthorlzed to conQuc~ x~v~ ~ ,,,~ ~in stratified drift aquifers. Table 6 summarizes existing andrecommended mapping guidellnes.

TABLE 6

LEVEL

B

LEVEL

A

SERVICE AREA> i0,000

Prop Exist

7/1/90 2yrs

/1/92 4yrs

SERVICE AREA1,000-i0,000

Prop Exist

7/1/90 2yrs

7/i/94

Existing Requirements :Proposed Amendments: bold print

SERVICE AREA< 1,000

Exist Prop

Commis Commis

UNSERVICED

5yrs

regular print

Commis

As a result of the 1988 legislation, identification ofproposed wells is being done through a coordinated water systemplanning process. This process includes two main components: thepreparation of water supply plans by the individual waterutilities, and the preparation of areawide supplements by theWater Utility Coordinating Committees (WUCCs) within seven

gnated water supply management areas. The areawide components1~e being sequentlal y prepared for each of these areas.

The mapping of aquifers targetted for future wells is tied tocompletion of the particular WUCC report responsible for thataquifer. In the report, the WUCC must assign to utilitiesjurisdictional boundaries. In essence, each potential~weil fieldmust be assigned to a utility.

The ability of the WUCCs to complete their work according tothe original timetable is in doubt. Contractors involved informulating these plans have indicated that the present fundinglevel is inadequate. The Task Force is concerned with delays inthese projects as protection of future water supply sourcespresently hinges on the completion of the reports° However, itmay not be necessary to wait for the completion of the WUCCreports before clarifying the water utility areas ofresponsibility. Allocation of aquifer mapping responsibilities inthe WUCC reports will be based primarily on approved individualwater supply plans of the water utilities. These plans havealready been drafted for most of Connecticut, although theapproval process for most of these reports has yet to becompleted. Accordingly, the Task Force recommends that futurewellfields with clear jurisdiction should be mapped by theappropriate utility with a timetable of two years for level Bmapping and four years for level A mapping subsequent to approvalof individual water supply plans. The mapping of future watersupplies for which utility jurisdiction is still undecided ordisputed would await the conclusion of the WUCC process.

Additionally, the Task Force recommends that the staffresources committed to the water planning process, and theapproval process for the water supply plans be reviewed.Expediting the process for mapping potential future watersupplies ranks at the highest priority level of the Task Force.

The Task Force is also ~oncerned that some municipalities maynot have adequate input 4o the WUCC planning process which mayresult in municipalities acquiring significant responsibilitiesunder the 1988 legislation and the recommendations of thisreport. Although they presently have the opportunity to testifybefore their WUCC on a voluntary basis, some municipalities maynot yet realize the important long term consequences of WUCCrecommendations. Municipalities should be encouraged to maximizetheir involvement in the WUCC water planning process.

Finally, the most effectively protected land areas are thosewhich are owned by the State. These lands are presently not opento exploration of water resources. The Task Force recommendsthat water utilities be given permission to explore state ownedlands for the purpose of determining their potential as futurewater supply sources.

2. LAND USE REGULATION

During the late 1970’s and throughout the 1980’s, numerouslaws and regulations, necessary for Statewide groundwaterprotection, have been enacted. However, these same laws do not

- 19 -

provide the special protection measures needed to protect thehighly vulnerable and important aquifers areas useful for publicwater supply. Many different land uses and activities inConnecticut pose unacceptable risks to wells. It is thereforeessential that land use regulations be included in this resourceprotection program.

This section of the report identifies the major types ofactivities and chemicals which pose a threat to groundwatersupplies (refer to Appendices 1 and 2); recommends various landuse controls, regulations, and management techniques to minimizethe risk of groundwater pollution from those activities(Appendices 2 and 3); and assigns responsibility for minimizingthe risks of groundwater contamination.

Where These Protection Mechanisms Should Apply

Protection Measures pertaining to land uses should be appliedin "Aquifer Protection Areas". Aquifer Protection Areas should bedesignated by municipalities based on detailed mapping ofstratified drift aquifers supplying public water supply wells.This mapping is required of all major water utilities and, asdiscussed previously, must be approved by DEP per therequirements of Public Act 88-324. These protection measures donot apply outside Aquifer Protection Areas, where any uses areallowed as long as they meet all other federal, state, and localland use and other environmental requirements.

As stated earlier, the Aquifer Protection Areas will normallyconsist of the Area of Contribution (which includes thewellfield), and the Recharge Area. Most prohibitions of new landuses would only apply to ~he Area of Contribution. However, theCommissioner of DEP shoul~ identify those land uses oractivities, such as mo~t solid waste disposal activities,hazardous waste disposal sites, major fuel storage and chemicalmanufacturing facilities, that should be prohibited throughoutthe entire Aquifer Protection Area. Additional regulations forexisting and future activities should, in most cases, also applythroughout the Aquifer Protection Area.

Relationship Between Regulation and Prohibition of Land Uses

Regulation and prohibition of new land uses are discussedtogether in this report as they represent complementaryprotection approaches. Some land uses pose such high risks ofgroundwater contamination that they should be prohibited frommoving into Areas of Contribution. For other activities, certaindesign measures can sufficiently reduce the risks of groundwatercortamination, and these activities could be allowed in AquiferProtection Areas, subject to certain regulations. Also, as

idiscussed below, uses already !ocated in Aquifer Protection Areasforced to relocate, but they can be subjected to

rec In order to minimize the chance of groundwateractivities.

Need for Cooperation

A cooperative effort among State and local government, waterutilities, the regulated community and the public will’be’ neededto protect public drinking water aquifers without imposing anundue burden on any one participant. The State should take thelead in setting standards and controls on high risk land uses toassure a consistent level of State-wide protection. Municipalgovernment will be largely responsible for implementing suchcontrols on new or expanded land uses. It is also important thatmunicipalities inform utilities of any land use applicationsinvolving Aquifer Protection Areas. Similar to the InlandWetlands Act, DEP should be provided the authority to interveneor revoke municipal authorities, as developed by this program, ifa municipality fails to take actions required to protectgroundwater in Aquifer Protection Areas.

Municipalities will also conduct site plan reviews. Theseplans contain detailed site information on areas of parking,unloading facilities, storm water runoff, and storage ofchemicals associated with the activity.

Materials management plans are presently required for certainland users which handle hazardous materials. These plans shouldbe required for all land uses within Aquifer Protection Areaswhich involve the use of potential groundwater contaminants andshould include details on the use, storage and handling ofhazardous substances as well as the disposal of byproducts. Theplans should also include measures to prevent groundwatercontamination including education of employees. DEP would haveprimary responsibility for reviewing these materials managementplans. However, arrangements may be made for municipal orregional bodies to have responsibility for reviewing some ofthese plans under DEP’s dellgation program.

Should Protection Measures be Based on Chemical Use orActivities?

Ultimately, the purpose of the aquifer protection program isto prevent contamination of drinking water supplies by harmfulchemicals. However, as new chemicals are constantly beingintroduced, and as one chemical may be known by different tradenames, the Task Force feels that it would be more helpful to boththe regulators, and the regulated community to list the land usesand activities commonly associated with these substances ratherthan to simply provide a list of chemicals of concern. Althoughboth regulators and the regulated community will probably relyheavily on the list of land uses and activities, the ultimatedecision to regulate or prohibit should depend on the use,handling, storage, and disposal of potentia! contaminants.

Appendix 1 includes a summary list of chemical groups ofconcern. Land.uses and activities which involve storage, use,handling, or dlsposal of slgnlflcant quantities of suchsubstances pose the greatest risks to underlying groundwatersupplies.

Appendix 2 presentS a detailed list of activities,industries, and commercial/instituti°n.alnUSeS which arerecommended for prohibition or regulatlo in Aquifer ProtectionAreas. The list was derived largely from DEP’s experience ~withgroundwater contamination in the State. The most common ¯ tgroundwater contaminants between 1979 and 1988 in Connectlcuwere pesticides, nitrates, solvents, landfill leachate, gas andoil, and road salt. In addition, DEP provided the Task Forcemembers with information developed in other States. As stated

e rohibitions would not apply to existing highrevlously, th p _ r. be subject to newP. ¯ ¯ es would, howeve o . .rlsk uses. Exlst~Ing us . A ~so .,~-conformlng useAquifer Protection regulation (se~ a~ .......discussion) ¯

Statutes authorizing DEP to develop minimum State regulationsassociated with these restrictions are necessary. The actualapproach for the development of such regulations would likelyfocus on certain high risk uses, such as new dry cleaners or gasstations, but also should have a high risk chemical association(use of chlorinated solvents) as a primary or major activity of amanufacturing or commercial process. See also the discussion ofAdm~n~stratlve Exemptlon ¯

Designinq the State StandardsThe minimum state standards should consist of the following

four major elements:

rohibition of certain types of ~roposed development in the~eaPof Contribution and of a few particularly high riskactivities throughout the Aquifer Protection Area. The list ofuses to be prohlbited shohld be developed by DEP and basedgenerally on types and~quantities of chemicals used, andactivities associated with their use. See Appendices 1 and 2.

of ro osed development in the Aquifer Prot~ctio~2. Re ulatlon P P ¯ ’ ..... towns unaer theArea~ gThese regulation~ s~ ~ ~~dw~h statelocal review process anu snuuxuregulations.

.. ion of existing non-conforming uses would be subject3. Regulat ..... ~^--~ ~,’~blish a schedule forto regulatory requirements, u~compliance with State statute and implementing State regulations.

inistrative Exemption. The list of land uses and~ti~i~tties in Appendix ~ is not exhaustive. There may well beprocesses and activities not included in the list whichnevertheless pose a risk to groundwater and should therefore be

e ulated or even prohibited from moving into Areas of~ g ........... ~- it is possible that a land use or~ontrlputlon. uonv~=~, ~ in anctivity listed in Appendix 2 may be safe enough to allow

Protection Area, either because of new technology or usefer materials, or because the business, despite its general

¯ does not involve hazardous substances which may~ter. An ,.Administrative Exemption" should be

22 -

set up to allow DEP to review these different cases. However,the applicant should have to bear the burden of proof and offerconvincing guarantees that the use will, in fact, not threatengroundwater supplies. ¯ "

Both the exemption and appeals processes should follow theUniform Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA). However, DEP shouldonly be required to hold a public hearing on an exemptiondecision if: i) the Department decides the decision will be ofbroad public interest, 2) a municipality requests a hearing, 3)the public requests a hearing (by a letter or petition with atleast 25 signatures) or 4) the applicant requests a hearing.with this exemption procedure, the process for prohibitting orregulating uses would have some flexibility and not be anabsolute system°

Aquifer Protection Area Non-Conforming Uses

Although the prohibitions on land uses would principallyapply to new development in the Area of Contribution, theregulations should also apply to existing uses in the AquiferProtection Area. Thus, existing uses in categories to beprohibited or regulated should be required to come intocompliance with regulations designed to minimize the risk ofgroundwater contamination. Such regulations could address thestorage, use handling and disposal of hazardous materials andother hazardous substances, including spill prevention andresponse planning, and additional monitoring requirements.

Certain existing uses would continue in the AquiferProtection Area as non-conforming uses. Non-conforming uses area well established device under zoning law and, in most cases, anon-conforming use is not allowed to expand or intensify.However, the Aquifer Protection Program should deal with"non-conforming uses" differently through new legislation. Thefollowing is a list of possible methods to deal with AquiferProtection Area non-conforming uses:

require by statute or ordinance that non-conforming usesmeet more stringent regulations within a certaintime period established by regulation;

increase inspection programs for land uses, givingpriority to the non-conforming uses;

O develop an educational program intended fornon-conforming and regulated activities in AquiferProtection Areas;

allow a certain expansion or use intensification ifcompliance with regulations is achieved and use ofhazardous materials does not increase;

o develop financial incentives to assist business,industry and municipalities to implement AquiferProtection Area regulations;

o require additional groundwater monitoring ofnon-conforming sites;

oestablish a State prog~am,_or encourage municipalitiesor water utilities to aeve±op their own program, torelocate or buy out non-conforming uses (transfer orpurchase of development rights or relocation incentiveprogram)- This progra~ would not be needed for severalmapping is complete and the~ea~S, until the level

the ~e~el

highest risk non-conf°rmlngr~~ [~aand therefore is of lowe P

Y

methods.

C_oqrd___ination to Assure R~egula~ttory Co~It is vital that the participants be coordinated, so as toa single

¯ ’ ¯ .~ ~ =1so imoortant thatavoid dupllcatlon of effort or inconsistency, whereaquifer underlies more than one town, lu ~ =~_ ~= ~-~-ue ml~htall the towns over the aquifer work together, one ~ec,~ =be to form a multi-town coordinating committee for each aquifer.¯ - ~,-~on could be through . .other means of dlre~l~^~?~naI health district,/ mu~l~flee!n~]~sation Agreements i~- ~-~e~ns% or through ux~=~-~[ties/re~ional plannlng org~,~ ...... .assignment of inspections by DEP.

Time-table For Land Use Element. tation of the land use element of theevelooment and lmplemen~ _ ~v~ral stages occurring o~er~_~

D . ~ ill involve ....... enas ~n~proteqtl~n Pr~[$m.~rs. The Task Force therefore recommperio~ or seve~ ~the initial phase of the land use element include:

o completion of ~apping effort;

o development of State regulations *;

o adoption of local ordinances; and

o educational and technical assistance programs.

Later phases of the program should include:

o requiring additional inspections;

o coordination of inspections with federal, State andlocal programs;

o review of materials management plans;

for municipal implementation of aquiferprograms;

program for non-conforming uses; and

- 24 -

O financial incentives for non-conforming businesses andindustry to comply with stricter regulation.

* It is not recommended that legislation include a specificlist of us---~s and activities to be prohibited or regulated.Appendix 3 is intended as an indication of what State aquiferprotection regulations should include.

3. EDUCATION

The Task Force feels the role of education in protectinggroundwater cannot be overstated. As with many environmentalissues, a successful program for protecting Connecticut’sdrinking water requires a change in the attitudes of societybased on enlightened sensitivities to the finite resources uponwhich it depends.

Water utilities, public service organizations, stateeducation institutions, environmental and other non-profitorganizations, municipal groups, corporate leaders and theregulated community should all be involved in the process ofeducation. However, the Task Force believes that the Stateshould provide guidance and play a leadership role infacilitating the education process. Accordingly, the Task Forcerecommends that the Department of Environmental Protection bedirected to develop a specific strategy for education, working inconjunction with representatives of the various organizationsmentioned above.

4. ACQUISITION

The most effective me~hod for protecting groundwaterresources is for utilities, municipalities and the state to ownand strictly control the land’which lies above it. Presently,utilities are required to purchase or obtain controlling interestin the land within a 200 foot minimum radius of public watersupply wells which have a pumping rate of 50 or more gal/min.With typical areas of contribution ranging from 20 to 100 acres,the 200 foot radius represents a minimal level of protection. TheTask Force feels that this issue, which has been often discussedin recent years, should be more substantively addressed.Accordingly, the Task Force recommends that the Department ofHealth Services working in conjunction with DEP and theDepartment of Public Utilities Control should developrecommendations for a land acquisition/wellfield protectionprogram.

The Task Force further recommends that the Water UtilityCoordinating Committees be directed to include specific siterecommendations for land acquisition as part of their reports.

Further, in an effort to incorporate aquifer protection intoexisting state programs, the Task Force recommends that the

- 25 -

commissioner of DEP establish aquifer protection as high prlorl yocess for the purchase of open space under

in the evaluatlon pr ...... ; ~ w~ational and Natura!the Connecticut Grant-ln-~la ~,~u,~, .......

¯ . .

Heritage Trust Programs.

5. ENFORCEMENTThe enforcement of this program is a shared responsibility

and should occur through a program of positive and negative

¯ ¯ . is no protection strategy more effective thanl~centlve~. ~e~rts~of the land user. The Task Forcet~e consclen~uutherefore recommends that the Department of EnvironmentalProtection prepare a method for,public recognition of land userslocated within Aquifer Protection Areas which demonstrate asuccessful record of concern for protecting the aquifer.

flit for inspection of regulated fac~l~ties will beResponsib" Y . ¯ .--~ ~n~ water utllltyshared ~rimarily by State, munlClp~,¯ ¯ nt of Environmental.Protect~°~ sha~l.h~ve_~officials. The.D~ar~me .... ~n~ commercial and ~ndustr~al lanulead responsib~l~tY zor in~ .... = -uses within Aquifer Protection Areas unless individual delegationagreements with municipalities are arranged. For example, throughDEP’s existing delegation authority, municipal officials could becharged with igspectio~=~f,~ non_commercia!/non-industrial landuses and activlties. Tn~ ~ Force recommends that one

m towns containing existin~ or proposedmunicipal designee f~?,_ .~ ~u,~iv wells recelve DEP approveustratified drift, puDl~u ~=~=~ ~ ~= ~training.

Presently, federal and state inspection programs areconducted for handlers and .generators of hazardous wastematerials Because of limited resources, the frequency of these

the size of the operatlon and the~nspec~io~s is often based on the recommendation of the Taskamount of material involved; It isForce that, with identification of Aquifer Protectlon Areas, DEPwork with the federal Environmental Protection Agency in¯ ¯ as tocoord~natl g and prlorltlzl g their Inspectlon effortS soboth target inspections where they are most needed, and also tomaximize the efficiency of the inspection process by avoidingoverlaps in responsibilities.

The Task Force recommends that water utility companiesprovide technical assistance and advice to municipalities as

...... ~-~ate in a visual inspectione shoul~ also pax~ .requlred. Th.y ....... ~-s-ection officlals of 9nY . .rocess and auvls~ ~ne p=uF tZ that municlpalltles

~oncerns. The Tas~ w?rce fur~n~ ~ .........and DEP have the optlon to arrange agreements w~th theappropriate utility to assume their portion of the inspectionresponsibilities¯

serious health risks and the enormous cleanup costsgroundwater contamination that is not

, the Task Force feels that implementing a

strategic monitoring program is essential. These "Early WarningMonitoring Systems" would consist of a series of monitoring wellsstrategically located in Aquifer Protection Areas. The ~nitialinstallation of such wells would be conducted by the ~ppropriateutility. Additional monitoring wells may be installed whenallowing new uses to locate in an Aquifer Protection Area or whenbringing existing uses into compliance with protectionordinances.

Determining the necessary location of these monitoring wellsshould be a cooperative effort between DEP, the water utility andthe regulated community involved. The final decisions on locationof these strategic monitoring wells should rest with DEP. TheTask Force recommends that the cost of implementing these earlywarning systems should be a shared responsibility between theutilities and the regulated community.

The State’s role in the monitoring program would also includeidentifying priorities for monitoring under the Clean Water andSafe Drinking Water Acts, along with the state RCRA and Superfundprograms. Additionally, ongoing research related to groundwatercontaminants and movement should continue.

AGRICULTURE

Connecticut’s farms are a proud part of its heritage. Thenumber of Connecticut farms continues to decline at an alarmingrate. Efforts are ongoing to preserve this important element ofConnecticut’s character.

The Agricultural community has long enjoyed a governmentalnetwork for disseminating technological advances in soil andwater matters. In addition~ few !ocal land use officials are wellversed on these technol~gies and methods, and the small number offarms within each municipality makes development of suchtechnica! expertise by each town inefficient. For these reasons,the Task Force has addressed agriculture as a separate element inthe protection program, and is recommending that agriculture beassisted in this aquifer protection plan by those same State andfederal governmental agencies which are already dealing withagricultural matters.

At the center of the Agricultural element of the program isthe proposed State mandate that all farms which overlay anAquifer Protection Area operate under a state approved resourcemanagement plan. Guidelines for these plans will be developed byDEP with the assistance of Soil and Conservation Service and theConnecticut Council for Soil and Water Conservation. Technicalassistance is also available through federal USDA agencies. Eachfarm located within an Aquifer Protection Area will have a

urce management plan specific to the needs of that particularfarm. The plans themselves will cover traditional soil and water

conservation measures, and assess animal waste storage needs. Inaddition, practices will be recommended for integrated pest

, proper storage, use and disposal of pesticides,proper use of fertilizers and underground gasoline storage tanks..

- 27

In developing the individual farm resource management plans,technical teams drawn from existing agricultural agencies willwork with each farm in the Aquifer Protection Area to write aneffective resource management plan. The county Soil and’WaterConservation Districts should coordinate the technical team,which wil! cooperatively write the resource management plans.

The Department of Agriculture will receive requestS from thetechnical teams for cost-sharing on best management practices asnecessary. Presently, the UCONN Cooperative Extension Serviceand the USDA Soil Conservation Service cooperate to assistfarmers in developing and implementing resource management plans.The Task Force recommends that the cost-sharlng program presentlyavailable to the agricultural community through the Department ofAgriculture, be expanded to include developing groundwaterprotection plans, upon completion of the aquifer mapping process,the Task Force recommends that state funds directed at the

¯ ro ram be supplemented to insure comple~io9 ofcost-sharing P g .......... ~arm !ocated w~thln angroundwater protectlon plans ~u~ ~v~ ~Aquifer Protection Area.

- 28 o

PROPOSED OUTLINE OF ROLES

Federal Role

o test and set drinking water standards, action levels,and issue health advisories for contaminants; and

o give Aquifer Protection Areas priority for funding andinspection in CERCLA and RCRA programs

State Role

The Department of Environmental Protection should be givenauthority to develop regulations including:

o a list of new land uses to be prohibited in Areas ofContribution;

o a list of particularly high risk, new activities to beprohibited throughout the Aquifer Protection Area;

a list of uses or activities to be specially regulatedin the Aquifer Protection Areas, with implementingregulations;

regulations to be imposed on "non-conforming uses" inthe Aquifer Protection Areas;

an administrative exemption procedure for seekingexemptions for uses listed as prohibited butfor special reasons, do not pose significant risksof groundwater contamination;

identification of threshold quantities of hazardoussubstances, including petroleum products, forregulation or prohibition;

o

o

a schedule for municipalities to implement theseprovisions in their Aquifer Protection Areas; and

authority for the Commissioner of DEP to intervene orrevoke municipal programresponsibilities in the eventrequired actions to protect the Aquifer Protection Areaare not taken°

Additional DEP roles:

provide technical assistance to municipalities,including directions and checklists for conducting siteplan reviews on regulated activities in the AquiferProtection Area;

o assist in training and certification of localinspectors and water utility inspectors;

o coordinate DEP regulatory and inspection programs andother related State, local, and federal programs, withpriority given to the aquifer protection effort;

o review materials management plans for land uses notreviewed at the municipal or regional level;

o develop an aquifer protection land use controleducation program for local officials, the regulatedcommunity, the utilities, and the public;

o enforce, or require the enforcement of, the aquiferprotection regulations developed for this program; and

o coordinate data management related to aquifernprotectlo including expanding capabilities of the

Geographic Information Service (see Appendix 4).

The Department of Health Services should:

o advise DEP on contaminants of concern to drinkingwater supplies;

o intervene where necessary in municipal land usedecisions that may have an adverse ampact ongroundwater supplies; and

o increase the efficiency of the water planning process.

Municipal

o

Roledesignate Aquifer Protection Areas on zoning maps;

o Complete inventory of land uses within recharge andcontribution areas within one year of receivingapproved level B mapping;

o Adopt the prohibitions and regulations conforming toby DEP regulatory standards;

o require new land users to notify the town ofplans to move into the Aquifer Protection Area, andrequire existing land users in Aquifer Protection Areasto notify the town of planned changes;

o Ensure enforcement of the Aquifer Protection Areaprovisions where so arranged through DEP’s delegation

%ate with existing programs, requirements forinspections, permitting, and regulation;

- 30 -

o review materials management plans for certain landuses arranged under DEP’s delegation program;

o notify utilities of land use applications withinAquifer Protection Areas; and

o take advantage of education and training provided byDEP, other State organizations, water utilities, andnon-profit environmental organizations.

Regulated Community’s Role

o comply with Aquifer Protection Area regulations;

o

o

o

notify towns of changes in use in Aquifer ProtectionAreas;

prepare site plans and materials management plans; and

take advantage of education and training provided bythe State, water utilities, and non-profitenvironmental organizations.

Utility Role

o

o

o

o

provide technical assistance to municipalitiesincluding the process of developing Site Plan Reviews;

conduct visual inspections of Aquifer Protection Areasnotifying the appropriate agency of any concerns and ,where so deligated, perform facility inspections,similar to the Connecticut Public Health Code requiredprogram for public reservoir watersheds;

conduct strategic groundwater monitoring programs;

educate local officials and public about groundwaterprotection;

provide training and certification for localinspectors; and

o Review applications for development in AquiferProtection Areas.

- 31 -

ECONOMIC IMPACT

Implementation of the Task Force recommendations will have animpact on the communities and the regulated uses located~withinAquifer Protection Areas. One of the challenges of the TaskForce has been to develop a program which will maximize thepositive impact of protecting public drinking water supplieswhile minimizing the negative impact on the participantsinvolved. Since all aspects of Connecticut’s society benefit fromhaving a plentiful supply of drinking water, it is only fair thatthe burden for its protection be shared as equitably as possible.

Unfortunately, some land uses and activities which presentlyare occurring in areas which would eventually be designated asAquifer Protection Areas are facing significant adjustments intheir modes of operations and in their future land usecapabilities° However, the Task Force is resolved in itsintention that this plan, and any regulations developed inassociation with it, reflect a flexible and reasonable approach,particularly with regard to the rights and obligations ofexisting land users. In developing its own regulations, as wellas in reviewing the acceptability of any local protectionprograms, the DEP should scrutinize not only the adequacy of theprotection measures, but also insure that any local programsreflect the Task Force’s intentions that such programs bedesigned with the specific goal of protecting public drinkingwater supplies.

The Task Force also received many comments related to theimpact of Aquifer Protection Areas on land values, utilitycompanies expressed concern that the APA designation wouldsignificantly raise the property values such that acquiri~ usersfuture well sites would be extremely costly. Land thinAPAs were concerned that possible restrictions and regulationsmight have a negative impact on their property value. The TaskForce is aware of only one effort to study the impact of aquiferprotection measures on land values. This study, sponsored by theSouth-Central Regional Water Authority concluded that identifyingspecific areas for aquifer protection regulation had nosignificant impact on property values.

Water utilities presently face significant costs under themapping recommendations of this report as well as last yearslegislation. The potential inspection responsibilities proposedwithin the recommendations along with their charge of providingtechnical and educational support may also impact utility costs°

Finally, by establishing uniform minimum standards, and bysubjecting local ordinances to DEP review, the business communitywill be benefitted by greater consistency of controls, greatertechnical merit to the limitations, more assistance in conforming

likelihood of overly exclusionary local

PART III: OTHER

WATER SOFTENERS

The 1988 legislation specifically requested the Task Force toreview the issues surrounding water softeners and sodiumcontamination. Contamination of private wells with sodiumfromthe disposal of water softener wastewater into home septicsystems has occurred in several areas of the state. Suchdisposal is a violation of State law. Yet, the use of sodiumwater softeners continues because of a real or perceived needfor home water treatment. It is evident that current regulationsare not working and that new measures are required.

The State Department of Health Services Regulations forOn-Site Sewage Disposal Systems, Item X Other Wastewaters,includes the statement "No. ..waste from water treatment.which may pollute wells shall dlscharge to any subsurface sewagedisposal." Additionally, section 22a-430 of the ConnecticutGeneral Statutes requires a permit from DEP for any dischargeother than domestic sewage. The 1982 DEP Delegation Agreementwhich authorizes DOHS to regulate discharges of 5,000 GPD or lessspecifically prohibits DOHS from approving "wastes from watertreatment" units. Thus State regulations prohibit the use ofwater softeners in homes with private septic systems.

The only type of home water softening system currentlypermitted under the law uses replacement cartridges, which areregenerated at a central location where the wastewater can beproperly discharged. Currently only two companies offer this typeof service in the state.

The homeowner with a w~ter quality problem knows little aboutwater treatment or its legality. They know that something has tobe done to correct a color, odor or hardness problem, and findssomeone who will sell them the water treatment equipment. In mostcases, this equipment will include a sodium cycle water softener.If the homeowner happens to have sewers, then the wastewater willnot pose a threat to nearby wells. However, if their home has aseptic system, then the wastewater cannot be legally disposed ofinto this system. Home water softeners are generally available tohomeowners, through major stores and mail order houses. If theneed exists, and the equipment cannot be installed "legally",then the homeowner will find other means to obtain and installit.

The law prohibiting water softener discharge to septicsystems is not being uniformly enforced at the municipal level.Some towns actively prohibit installation of water softeners inhomes with septic systems, while others either do nothing orpermit the use of potassium cycle water softeners. Theenvironmental impacts and health effects of potassium chloride,which has been used as a substitute for sodium chloride as awater softener regenerant, have not been fully evaluated.Reputable dealers will not sell or install water softeners inhomes with septic systems, but others will do so.

- 33 -

The problem is intensified by the type of unit installed andthe design of the installation. Most home water softeners aredesigned to regenerate on time, rather than after treating acertain quantity of water. The length of the regeneration cycleis usually set by the dealer to err on the side. of a shorterregeneration cycle. Units required solely to address a hardnessproblem, are usually installed on the whole house water inletline, rather than just on the hot water system. All of thesefactors contribute to higher than required amounts ofre. generatlon and therefore hlgher quantlt~es of sodium beingdlscharged in the wastewater. Additionally, problems with falseand misleading advertisinig practices in the home water treatmentindustry is a growing problem in Connecticut.

Further concern has been raised regarding possible negativeeffects of water softener discharge on the efficiency of septicsystems. Two studies have been conducted which investigated theimpact of water softeners onseptic tanks: "Potential Effects ofWater Softener Use on Septic Tank Soil Absorption 0n-Site WasteWater Systems" by the University of Wisconsin-Madison; and "TheEffect of Home Water Softener Waste Regeneration Brines onIndividual Aerobic Wastewater Treatment Plants" by The NationalSanitation Foundation. Both of these studies concluded that:

Water softener waste effluents caused no operationproblems in home wastewater treatment systems.~

The volume of wastes from properly installed andmaintained water softeners are added to the septic tankslowly and do not cause any deleterious hydraulicloading problems.

Water softener regeneration wastes did not interferewith septic tank d~ain field soil percolation, andactually improved soil percolation in fine-texturedsoils.

It should be noted that brine discharges can adversely affectconcrete tanks, baffles and distribution boxes of septic systemsabove the water line. Also, even moderate increases in flows of50-100 GPD could cause hydraulic failure of septic system whichare on marginally suited lots. Most importantly, these studiesdo not look directly at groundwater contamination. Even when notimpared, septic systems do not remove sodium from water softenerbrine wastewater.

The Connecticut Water Quality Association (CT WQA),representing the Connecticut home water treatment industry, has

in the state arehave

address and ems. The CT WQA is also developingwater

~tems.

The National Sanitation Foundation and the Water QualityAssociation have both developed standards for water softeners.Units which meet these standards will perform, with prpperoperation and maintenance, in accordance with the claims madeunder the standard. The WQA Voluntary Industry Standard S-100-85for Household, Commercial and Portable Exchange Water Softenersprovides a standard of hardness removal, capacity, performance,construction, sanitation and service for devices which conform tothis standard. It is estimated that newer systems may reduce theamount of salt used by 80 percent.

The unregulated sale and use of water softeners and otherwater treatment equipment throughout the state is increasing atan alarming rate. Since the current regulations are not working,any new regulations should apply to the whole non-public watertreatment equipment industry. This will provide protection tothe environment, the consumer, and the reputable businessesthroughout the state.

The State of California recently enacted legislation whichpermits discharge of the regeneration waste to home wastedisposal systems if certain conditions are satisfied:

i. The appliance is certified to control the quantity ofsalt used per regeneration cycle.

2. Water conservation devices are on all fixtures usingsoftened or conditioned water.

3. Piping system modified to only deliver untreated waterto fixtures outside the house.

This law also requires,installation and certification by aContractor having a valid Water conditioning contractor’s licenseor plumbing contractor,s~license. The State of California is alsoconsidering legislation to require certification of all watertreatment devices sold in the state, and make it a misdemeanor tomake false or misleading statements about water treatment devicesor contamination problems in tap water.

Many homes with private wells require water treatment toremove iron, manganese and hardness. Water softeners are designedto correct hardness problems. Other technologies which do notinvolve sodium discharge are available for adjusting iron andmanganese. It is recommended that a water hardness standard bedeveloped through a State/industry cooperative effort in order toreduce the number of sodium based water softeners being used forpurposes other than correcting a significanthardness problem.

Certain changes are required to properly control thiscurrently unregulated industry. The Task Force recommendedprogram to regulate the sale and installation of water treatmentequipment includes the following:

i. Modify existing State Regulations to permit dischargesfrom properly designed and operated water treatment

- 35 -

systems to on-site disposal systems. DEP shoulddelegate the authority to the State Department ofHealth Services, who in turn could delegate theauthority to local health departments to appr6vehome water treatment systems which meet certain designstandards.

DEP and DOHS should develop technical standards forwater softener equipment. These standards shouldminimize quantities of wastewater produced and adverseimpacts on the aquifer. This could include adoptingstandards developed by other organizations such asthe National Sanitation Foundation or the WaterQuality Association.

3. Require DEP and DOHS, working with industryrepresentatives, to develop minimum hardnessrequirements for the use of home water softeners.

More stringent measures were recommended by the Task ForceSubcommittee assigned to investigate the water softener issue.

License the designers/installers of potable watertreatment systems. This licensing should includepassing a written examination covering equipmentdesign and operation and principles of watertreatment. No grandfathering should be permitted.The State could consider accepting the Water QualityAssociation Certified Water Specialist examination inlieu of requiring a separate test. There will be aneed for continuing education courses to train townsanitarians and those needing to prepare for thelicensing examination.

System desig~ and installation must be based on watertests performed by a DOHS certified testinglaboratory. While an uncertified laboratory or fieldtest kit may be used for preliminary evaluation ofwater quality, the final system design should bebased on testing performed by a certified laboratory.

All installations should require a permit from thelocal health department. Applications should includeall pertinent information regarding the problem, watertests, system design, acceptable discharge point (ifapplicable), name of system designer and licensenumber, name of installer and license number.This would be similar to the well permits andseptic permits which they currently issue.

o Notification of health risks associated with the useof sodium cycle water softeners should be providedto consumers through use of a label on the equipment.

of sodium cycle .water softeners should be limitedto hot water systems rather than the whole house waterinlet.

RESEARCH

The Task Force recognizes the need ~o support ongoing .research into groundwater. Both the sclentific understanding ofgroundwater processes, and the socio-economic impact ofprotection strategies need further investigation. Specific areasrequiring investigation include bedrock aquifers (discussedbelow), dispersion and transport of various pollutants,development of new monitoring techniques, aquifer rehabilitation,as well as health and economic effects. The University ofConnecticut Institute of Water Resources has conducted researchinto several of these and other groundwater issues. The TaskForce recommends that such research be continued and that theInstitute serve as the coordinating body for this research.

TRANSPORTATION

One activity posing a threat to drinking water supplies whichis not directly addressed under the recommendations of thisreport is spills of contaminants during transportation. Figure 6illustrates the major transportation routes in Connecticutrelative to stratified drift wells. There is a correlation in thelocations of these wells due to the practice of constructingmajor roadways in river ~alleys. Presently, roadway spills ofhazardous materials are addressed by DEP through the use of theEmergency Spill Response Fund. Established by the legislature in1979 as a means for addressing emergency hazardous waste spills,the function of the fund has expanded to include waste sitecleanup, provision of potable water to those with contaminatedwells, support for the hazardous waste management service,completion of waste site inventory, and studies and publiceducation on pesticide groundwater pollution.

The Task Force feels that a need exists to address this issuebeyond the level of clean-up and remediation. DOT presentlyconsiders the location of aquifers in its design and constructionof new roadways. However, this generally involves considerationof the entire, undelineated aquifer. The Task Force recommendsthat upon completion of level A mapping, the DEP in conjunctionwith DOT, develop regulations pertaining to location, use,maintenance and construction of new and existing roadways locatedin Aquifer Protection Areas. These regulations would take effectupon completion of level A mapping.

- 37

PROTECTING CONNECTICUT’S BEDROCK AQUIFERS

Bedrock Fracture Aquifer Conditions in Connecticut

Connecticut is underlain by consolidated bedrock. Bedrock isthe most commonly utilized aquifer, supplying virtually allsingle family domestic residences that are self-supplied, as wellas a large number of small public water supply systems.

There are two predominant types of bedrock in Connecticut,sedimentary and metamorphic. Each of type of bedrock exhibitsdifferent structura! characteristics which significantlyinfluences the behavior of water flowing through them.

Sedimentary rocks in Connecticut are found primarily in thecentral valley area running from the Massachusetts line to LongIsland Sound. The rocks include conglomerates, sandstones,siltstones and shales; all having primary porosity (intergranularvoid spaces). These rocks are layered in distinct units, withundefined layering and slightly trending to the east. Fracturingin sedimentary rocks generally occurs parallel to layering withsecondary fractures developing at right angles. Flow of waterthrough this rock is predominantly through the fracture systemsbut may occur to some degree through the primary pore spaces.

The metamorphic rock aquifers are located in both eastern andwestern Connecticut. These rocks are crystalline and composed ofinterlocking grains. Fracture systems are extremely complex withorientations and intensities changing radically over very shortdistances. Flow of groundwater occurs only ~hrough thesefracture systems and is highly variable in velocities and volumesof flow, depending on the intensity and continuity of fracturingand the amount of intercon~ection to the unconsolidated aquifer.

Use of Bedrock Wells FoT Public Water Supply

Bedrock is the most commonly used source of groundwater inthe State (Figure 7). Most community water systems and homesthat require small to moderate amounts of water are supplied bywells that tap bedrock. Approximately 500 community watersystems in Connecticut rely upon water withdrawn from bedrockwells (Table 7).

Approximately 1,000 of the 1,500 public supply wells inConnecticut tap bedrock aquifers. The 1,000 bedrock wellsproduce 20 percent of the public drinking water supply fromgroundwater; the remaining 500 stratified drift wells produce 80percent of the groundwater used for public supply in Connecticut.Although more numerous than stratified drift wells, bedrock wellsused for public supply only serve 140,000 people or 5 percent ofthe State.

- 39 -

PUBLIC SUPPLY BEDROCK WELLS

NO ¯Wells

TABLE 7

Public Supply Wells

No, No., Avg. Pop.Well Com. water ServedFields S~stems Per Syst.

Bedrk 1,000 525 500 300

StratDrift 480 240 157

Residential %Population State

Served Served

140,000

380,000

5

ii

A bedrock well taps water that is transmitted through openfractures, pore spaces, and bedding planes within the rock. Thevast majority of the bedrock wells used for public supply, tapcrystalline bedrock in western and eastern Connecticut. inCentral Connecticut, public supply bedrock wells generally tapsedimentary bedrock which tends to yield more than the averagewell set in crystalline bedrock. Fractured bedrock wellsgenerally have relatively little storage capacity compared tothat of wells set in porous, granular stratified drift.

Additionally, bedrock wells are generally deeper than wellsset in Stratified drift. Bedrock wells range from 50 to 900 feetdeep. The average bedrock well is 300 feet deep compared to anaverage of 65 feet for stratified drift wells. Moreover, thetyplcal public water system on bedrock wells serves 300 peoplefrom water withdrawn from two wells drilled next to each other.These small systems serve residential developments, trailerparks, apartments, and condominiums in outlying areas where largepublic water systems are nonexistent and stratified driftdeposits are limited. Depending upon the nature of the bedrock,public supply wells generally yield from .5 to 50 gallons perminute.

In certain instances, some relatively large community watersystems augment their supply with higher than average yieldingbedrock wells.

__Fifteen of the community water sfrom 1,000 to xu,uuu nave De,rock wells for this purpose. Two ofthe most notable bedrock well fields in Connecticut tap fracturedcacarlate bedrock overlaid by stratified drift in Ridgefield,yielding .5 million gallons of water per day.

Delineation of A~ifer p ~ ¯ r~tectlon Areas For Bedrock Wells.

Presently, there are a very limited number of modelsavailable to simulate the flow of groundwater in fracturedbedrock aquifers. These models have been applied in a verylimited number of attempts to simulate real flow systems. Thoseapplications have dealt with only the simplest of actual fracturepatterns. Additionally, calibration and verification have been,for the most part, incomplete or non-existent.

In Connecticut, there have been no attempts to modelgroundwater flow in fractured bedrock. Data requirements formodelling flow in fractured rock are highly variable dependingupon the geology and in most instances are much more costly thenrequirements for modelling in the unconsolidated aquifer.

The accuracy of delineation of the Area of C " ’ ¯ontrlbu~tlon is afunction of a number of different factors including: thecomplexity of the actual physical system, the amount and quality

of data describing the system, the amount and quality of datadescribing the system, the validity of the assumptions used inthe description of the physical attributes and processes thatoperate within the system and the appropriateness of the

- 41 -

methodology used for simulation.

At this time, delineation of Areas of Contribution forfractured bedrock aquifers based on the available technology fordata collection, interpretation and modeling flow would result inlow confidence levels at high cost. Conceptually, thebehavior offlow in fractured rock is understood, but the application to areal system is complicated by the lack of real data on thesystem.

Recommendations For Delineation Of Aquifer Protection Areas ForBedrock Wells

I. Institute mechanism to develop a methodology for analysis ofcontributing areas to fractured rock wells. This wouldinvolve research into the following areas:

a. Physical properties of fractured rock

b. Modelling techniques to simulate flow in fracturedrock.

2. Interim delineation methodology to be adopted

a. Method I - treat fractured rock conditions similar tostratified drift (gross assumption). Uselevel B setback methodology.

b. Method 2 - setback area based on rechargecalculations. Using catalog values ofrecharge to groundwater in upland(till:rock) areas between zero andsi~ inches per year and 24 to 30inches per year in sand and gravel areas;calculate land area needed to supplywell discharge.

Utilize appropriate management strategies based on one of theabove methods.

PART IV: RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING

Implementing an effective program for protectingConnecticut’s present and future drinking water supplies willrequire a substantial commitment at all levels of governmentalong with the firm and active support of the public. Theprogram outlined in this report, building on the foundationalelements of the 1988 report, charts a course which would putConnecticut in the forefront of groundwater protection. Althoughthe eventual implemention of the entire program will beexpensive, the cost of doing nothing could be catastrophic.Additionally, all program elements need not be enacted during the1989 legislative session. Many of the costs associated with thisprogram will not be incurred until the protective regulatorymeasures are instituted upon completion of the aquiferdelineation process. The Task Force feels a strong responsibilityto prioritize its proposals in terms of a timetable for enactmentand to be conscientious with regard to maximizing the utilizationof present state resources.

Similar to the philosophy of the 1988 Task Forcerecommendations, this year’s Task Force feels it is vitallyimportant that certain elements of the program be adopted duringthe immediate legislative session in order to allow the localprotection programs to begin upon completion of the mappingmandated in last years legislation. Chief among these primaryrecommendations are the development of minimum state protectionstandards as well as educational and technical assistanceprograms. The following section outlines the majorrecommendations of the Task Force.

FIRST PHASE RECOMMENDATIONS REQUIRING FUNDING

i. Authorize and requiret the Department of EnvironmentalProtection to:

Develop regulations and performance standards forexisting and future land uses to be implemented byun~clpal~tles in Aquifer Protection Areas;

Develop regulations and performance standards for futureland uses to be implemented by municipalities in AquiferProtection Areas;

o

o

Develop a schedule of compliance for existingknon-conforming uses in Aquifer Protection Areas;

Develop an administrative exemption procedure forprohibited uses which, for special reasons, do not posecontamination risks to existing or future water supplies;

43 -

o

o

O

Develop, in conjunction with DOHS, a statewide educationstrategy on groundwater protection which should includeutilities, public service organizations, state educationinstitutions, environmental and other non-profitorganizations, regional planning agencies, municipalgroups, corporate leaders and the regulated community;

Develop a program in conjunction with DOHS to providetechnical assistance to regional health districts,municipalities, utilities, and the regulated community forimplementing all aspects of the program;

Develop in conjunction with DOHS, water utilities, and theregulated community, a strategic groundwater monitoringplan to be implemented within one year of completion oflevel A mapping;

Develop model aquifer protection ordinances and aprocedure for approving local protectionordinances for Aquifer Protection Areas to insure~consistency and compliance with minimum state standards;

Direct farms located within Aquifer Protection Areas todevelop and implement Farm Resource Management Plans;

Enforce state minimum standards in municipalities which donot institute acceptable protection ordinances for AquiferProtection Areas;

Work with the Department of Transportation to developprotection programs for public wells near interstatehighways and state roads;

Develop a positive in~entive program to providerecognition for successful efforts within the regulatedcommunity to promote protection of~public drinking waterresources;

Develop in conjunction with DOHS and DPUC land acquisitionguidelines for lands surrounding existing or proposedpublic water supply wells and to encourage acquisition oftitle and development easements;

Develop amendments to the water diversion policy act topermit the reservation of diversion rights by utilitiesengaged in the mapping and water supply planning process

COST: $350,000/Yr

POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCE: Emergency Spill Response Fund(Would require extention ofstatutory authority)

2. Authorize and fund the use of DEP’s Geographic InformationSystem (GIS) to support the Aquifer Protection Program.

COST: $50,000 "

POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCE: Federal matching fundprogram.

Authorize and fund research into bedrock aquifers.

COST: $35,000

POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCE: Existing Agency Research Funds

FIRST PHASE RECOMMENDATIONS NOT REQUIRING FUNDING

6.

7.

8.

Require municipalities to designate Aquifer Protection Areasand to adopt regulations in accordance with minimum stateguidelines;

Require municipalities to notify the appropriate utility ofany pending land use applications within Aquifer ProtectionAreas;

Require utility mapping of future stratified drift publicwater supplies upon approval of individual water supplyplans but before comple~ion of reglonal plans if nojurisdictional issue,~exists;

Require DEP and other government agencies to provide highpriority to aquifer protection in their ongoing programsfor land acquisition, land management, water qualityclassification, and environmental enforcement;

Require water utilities to prepare municipal technicalassistance programs;

Require municipalities to complete land use inventorieswithin one year of receipt of approved level B maps;

Require DEP to work with federal agencies to prioritizefederal resource related protection efforts in Connecticut;

Require one municipal designee from each municipalitycontaining a present or proposed public water supply well instratified drift to receive technical training on aquiferprotection through DEP or other DEP approved trainingprograms prior to municipal adoption Of aquifer protectionordinances;

- 45 -

¯ "n agricultural cost-sharing programs to9. Require exlstl ginclude development of individual resource management plans;

10. Require inspection and enforcement coordination among~DEP~DOHS, municipalities, utilities, and regional healthdistricts utilizing DEP’s delegation statute whereappropriate;

ii. Authorization for water utilities to explore state ownedlands for the purpose of determining their potential asfuture public drinking water supplles;

12. Require DOHS to review the resources currently committed tothe water planning process and to redirect current resourcesto this program where feasible; and

13. Authorize DOHS to take measures to expedite the approvalprocedure for the individual water supply plans.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION

Supplemental Funding of existing agricultural cost-sharingplans commensurate with estimated agricultural lands locatedwithin Aquifer Protection Areas.

FUNDING PERIOD: 1990 1992

ESTIMATED COST: To be determined uponcompletion of agriculturalland survey

Funding for expanslo of the Geographic Information System’srole in mapping delineated aquifers as well as analyzingaquifer and other land use information°

FUNDING PERIOD: Through 1994

ESTIMATED COST: $50,000 per year

Funding to DEP for conducting research in developing bettermodeling techniques for Aquifer Protection Areas in fracturedbedrock conditions.

FUNDING PERIOD: Through 1992

ESTIMATED COST: $150t000

Implement aquisition recommendationis developed by DEP andDOHS including funding if required.

FUNDING PERIOD AND COST: To be determined upon receiptof recommendations

- 46 -

RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC ACT 88-324

Require public or private water supply companies serving betweenone thousand and ten thousand persons to complete level ~ mappingof existing stratified drift wells by July i, 1994;

Require public and private water supply companies serving betweenone thousand and ten thousand persons with potential wellfieldsidentified and approved as a future water supply source, completelevel B mapping two years and level A mapping five yearssubsequent to approval of the plan;

Authorize the Commissioner of Environmental Protection to map atlevel B, all potential wellfields located in stratified driftaquifers.

Authorize mapping of public and private water supply wells tocommense subsequent to approval of individual water supply planswhere no jurisdictiona! conflict exist.

RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT TO DOHS WATER SUPPLY LEGISLATION

I. Require the reports of the Water Utility CoordinatingCommittees to specify recommendations for land acquisition forlands surrounding proposed stratified drift wells~

PART IX~ APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 - CHEMICALS OF CONCERN

CERTAIN CHEMICALS ARE COMMON CAUSES OF GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION. ANYACTIVITIES INVOLVING THE USE, STORAGE, HANDLING, OR DISPOSAL OF SUCH SUBSTANCESMAY BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CONTROLS IN AQUIFER PROTECTION AREAS. A LIST OFTHE CHEMICAL SOURCES OR TYPES IS PRESENTED BELOW.

LEACHATE FROM WASTE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL (this can include all the chemicalgroups listed below)

SODIUM CHLORIDE (uses: de-icing and snow clearance, water softeners)

PESTICIDES (uses: agriculture, landscaping)

FERTILIZERS AND ANIMAL WASTES (uses: agriculture and landscaping)

FUEL/PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, CONSTITUENTS AND BYPRODUCTS (waste oil, benzene,MBTE - methyl tertiary butyl ether, EDB(uses: transportation, heating, lubrication, power generation)

SOLVENTS OR CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS (see also pesticides) (common contaminantsinclude tetrachlorethylene, trlchlorethylene, trichloroethane, toluene,benzene)(uses: machinery and parts cleanlng and degreasing, dry cleaning,industrial laundering, paint thinners)

PCBs (uses: transformer oils)

PHENOLS AND CREOSOTES (uses: wo~d preserving)

METALS (uses: metal plating, dyes, paints)

ACIDS (changes pN, and may release contaminants)

ALKALIES (changes pH, and may dissolve metals)

CYANIDES (found in industrial wastes)

ALCHOHOLS (uses: anti-freeze)

PHARMACEUTICAL CHEMICALS

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

ORGANIC/INORGANIC CHEMICALS

- 49 -

APPENDIX 2

Appendix 2 is organized by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes.These codes should only be used as a preliminary guide, as the classificationsare often quite broad and may contain both high and low risk uses. The actuallist of uses in Column 2 and activities in Column 5 is a more accurateindicator for whether a use should be banned or regulated.

- 51 -

~SIC NUMB~I%~ LA~D USES OF CONCEI%N ~BANIREG~ ACTIVITY/CHEMICAL CONCERN ~ RECOMMENDATION---

N.A. IWASTE DISPOSAL X IACt. - Leachate generation from waste dlaposa1~Proh~blt - Adept ,AA

ISIC NUMBER~ LAND USES OF CONCERN IBANIREG~ ACTIVITY/CHEMICAL CONCERN

6~6~6566

6869?0

73 N.A.74

78

N.A. I PRISONS

N.A. iROAD SALT STORAGE

N.A. ~MUNICIPAL ~ STATE GARAGES FOR XIHIGHWAY ~ PUBLIC WORKS DEPANTMEHTS

~ROADS, TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS, R~INSTITUTIONAL, COMMERCIAL OR~INDUSTRIAL PARKING AREAS

7980818~83848586878889gO919~

9596979899

100lO110~103lOd105106107108lOg110111

llS

116

118

IAIRPORTS

~ISxx-17XX ICONSTRUCTION~ - HIGHWAY AND STREET CONSTRUCTION

~ ~ - WATER, SEWER, AND UTILITY LINES~ ~ - HEAVY CONSTRUCTION, NEC

Olxx IAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION - CROPS

~AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION - LIVESTOCK~

I Slmilar to educatlonal £acilltles - see aboveIsite Plan review - see above.

IAGRICULTURAL SERVICESVETeRINARy SERVICES, LIVESTOCK

X

IAct. ~ Stockpillng o£ road salt for de-lcingof roads and parklng areas.

~Chem.- Sodium chlorlde, de-caklng agents

IAct. - Road maintenace related equipmentstorage and malntenance, fuel storage.

~Chem.- Cleaning solvents, hydrocarbons, pest-Icldes, and other organic chemicals.

~Chem.- Sodium chloride, hydrocarbons, hazar-dous materials¯

IChem.- Hydrocarbons, solvents, waste oils,

iAct. - Fuel. Vehlcle Storage ~4 Maintenance.

R ~

07XX

IRestrlct uee of sodium chl.

~Deslgn review - greater

20xx

22xx

IFOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS

ITEXTILE MILL PRODUCTION- DYEING- TANNING- TEXTILE COATING- FABRIC PRINTING

ALL OTHER TEXTILE PRODUCTION

8SXD& IAPPAREL AND OTHER TEXTILE PRODUCTS

xxxx Chem. -

Hydrocarbons, cleaning solvents t

Raw material storage, processing wasteslSite plan revlew.~ management

IPlan for hazardous materials.Nltrogenous wastes, preservatives tStorage and use o£ hazardous materlals, IProhlblt llsted uses.equipment cleaning, and hazardous I

Stron~ acids and alkalies, solvents, Imetals and hydrocarbons lSite plan review ~ management

I - VETERINARy SERVICES, SPECIALTIESI R IChem.- Pharmaceutical chemicals, pesticides, Ipestlcldes and medlcalalcohols

IOXX-14X.X IMINING ACTIVITIES R IAct. - Fuel, Vehicle Storage ~ Maintenance. IManagement plan for vehicleIrefuel/malnt./splll response

R IAct. - Animal Waste Management.

R IAct. - Peetlclde/Fertillzer Storage and IFarm Resource Management P~an

ISIC NUMB~$ LARD USES OF CONCERN IBARIREG~ ACTIVITY/CHEMICAL CONCERN I RECOHMENDATIO~

121 - DYEING X I equlpment cleanln~, and hazardous12~ - TANNING X I wastes. I123 - TEXTILE/APPAREL COATING X I124 - FABRIC/APPAREL PRINTING X IChem.- Stron~ aclds and alkalles, solvents,125 I metals and hydrocarbons ~Slte Plan review ~ mana~ement~126 ¯ ALL OTHER APPAREL PRODUCTION ¯ R ~ Iplan for critical chemicals.

185186

188

190

196

198

~03

~06~07~08gO9

~30

34xx

36XX

37xx

38xx

39xx

~ - GLASS MIRRORS, COATING

I * ALL OTHER ACTIVITIES *

~PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES

~FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS* METAL PLATING OR CLEA-WING,

ETCHING. AND DEGREASING

* ALL OTHER ACTIVITIES

IIHDUSTRIAL MACHINERY ~ EQUIPMENTMETAL PLATING OR CLEANING,ETCHING, DEGREASING,CONTRACT MACHINE SHOPS.

ALL OTHER ACTIVITIES *

~ELECTRONIC ~ OTHER ELEC. EQUIP.METAL PLATING OR CLEANING,ETCHING, A-WD DEGREASING

ALL OTHER FABRICATION ACT. *

ITRANSPORTATION ~ OTHER ELEC EQUIP.METAL PLATING OR CLEANING,ETCHING. AND DEGREASING

ALL OTHER ACTIVITIES

IINSTRUMENTS ~ RELATED PRODUCTS* METAL PLATING OR CLEANING.

ETCHING, AND DEGREASING

* ALL OTHER ACTIVITIES

IMISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURIHG IND.METAL PLATING OR CLEANING,

X

R

X

X

R

X

R

X

R

X

R

X

R

X

I Act. -

Act. -

Chem.-

Act. -

Chem.-

ACTIVITY/CHEMICAL CONCERN I RECOMMENDATION

and non hazardous waste generation.

Strong acids and alkalies, metals,chlorinated solvents, cyanides, wasteoils

Storage and use of hazardous materials,hazardous waste generation, equipmentcleaning and maintenance, machine shops

Heavy metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons,strong acids and alkalies, waste oils.paint and thinner wastes, cyanides

Storage and use o£ hazardous materials,hazardous waste generation, equipmentcleanln~ and maintenance, machine shops

Heavy metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons,strong acids and alkailes, paint and

Storage and use o£ hazardous materials.hazardous waste generation, equipmentcleaning and maintenance, machine shops

ISlte Plan review, hazardousImaterials. fuels, and waste

IProhlbit banned uses.

Heavy metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons,~Site Plan review, hazardousstrong acids and alkalies, waste oils, Imaterials. fuels, and waste

strong acids and alkalies, waste oils, Imaterials, fuels~ and wastephenols, PCB’s, cyanides ~management plan.

strong acids and alkalies, oils Imaterials, fuels, and waste

SIC NUMBER ~

~ ALL OTHER ACTIVITIES * R ~Chem.- Heavy metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons,~Slte Plan revlew, hazardous

R IAct. - Accidental or illegal discharge of ISite Plan Review - hazardous

IChem.- Solvents, waste oils lwaste handling, records ofI lwaste material management,

IProhibit banned uses.

X IMydrocarbon contamlnatlon. IX I Hydrocarbon eontamlnatlon.

- ELECTRIC SERVICES I R I Isite Plan review, hazardous

- COMBINATION UTILITIES, NEe I R I Imanagement plan.

IProhlhlt banned uses.

Iproducts handled, stored and distributed that IImlght contaminate groundwater as a result o£

tIthreats.

IMACHINE OR MAINTENACE SHOPS AS AISUPPORT ACTIVITY (no contract work

ITRANSPORTI COMMUMICATIONSI UTILITY- TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MAINTEN.- CRUDE PETROLEUM PIPELINES

PETR0. BULK STATIONS/TERMINALS- PETROLEUM PRODUCTS. NEe- PAINTS, VARNISHES ~ SUPPLIES

IWHOLESALE TRADE- COAL A~D OTHER MINERALS ~ ORES X- METAL ~ AUTO P~TS SALVAGE X- CHEMICALS ~ ALLIED PRODUCTS, NECI X

H

ALL OTHER WHOLESALE TRADE *

IRETAIL TRADE- NEW OR USED Cb~ DEALERS- GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS- BOAT DEALERS- RECREATIONAL VEHICLE DEALERS

MOTORCYCLE DEALERS- OTHER AUTOMOTIVE DEALERS- FUEL OIL DEALERS

- LUMBER & OTHER BLDG. MATERIALS- PAINT, GLASS ~ WALLPAPER STORES- HArDWArE STORES- RETiIL NURSERIES A-~D GARDENS- MOBILE HOME DEALERS- DEPARTMENT STORES- AUTO A~D HOME SUPPLY STORES- OTBE~ FUEL DEALERS

xXXxXXX

RRRRRRR

no dry wells or £ioor dralns

~01so~3O3

305306

308309;~10311

314818816

8~5

880

88~

885886

888

343

846

348

851

853

856

~SIC NUMBER~ L~ND USES OF CONCERN ~BA~REG~ ACTIVITY/CHEMICAL CONCERN ~ RECOMMENDATION.............................................. +___+___+ .............................................. + .............................PERSONAL OR BUSINESS SERVICES ~ S Prohlblt banned uses.

76XX

8xxx

- DRY CLEANING PLANTS, EXCEPT RUG- INDUSTRIAL LAUNDERERS- LAWN CARE BUSINESS- HEAVY CONSTRUCTION EQUIP RERTAL

xxxx

- POWER LAUNDRIES (BAM./COMM’L.)- COIN OPERATED LAUNDRIES/CLEARING~- BEAUTY SHOPS- FUNERAL SERVICE ~ CRERATORIES- PHOTOFINISHING LABORATORIES

- PHARMACIES

AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES:- TOP ARD BODY REPAIR/PAINT SHOPS X- AUTO EXHAUST SYSTEM REPAIR SHOPS~ X- TIRE RETREADING AND REPAIR SHOPS~ X- AUTOMOTIVE TRANSMISSION REPAIR X- GENERAL AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOPS X

RRRRR

R

~Dry cleanlng solvents, storage, use, dlsposal.~IIndustrlal strength cleaning solvents/agents.~Storage ~ mlxlng o£ chemicals, equip, eleanlng~~Meavy equipment fueling and m~lntenance.

IChemlcale ~ wastes assocla~ed with servlce.chlorinated solvents and hydrocarbons.

ISlte plan review, require~connectlon to public sewers.

~Slte Plan revlew.

IProhlblt banned uses.

- OTHER AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOPS- RADIATOR REPAIR

- OTHER AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES- TRUCK RENTAL ~ LEASING, NO SERV. I- PASSERGER CAR RERTAL

PASSENGER CAR LEASING- UTILITY TRAILER RENTAL

AUTOMOTIVE GLASS REPLACEMENT- CAR WASHES

? RRRRRRR

IProhlblt vehlcle englne set-

MISCELLANEOUS REPAIR SERVICES:- FURNITURE STRIPPING- ARMATURE REWINDING SHOPS- MARINE SERVICE AND RBPAIR

- RADIO ARD TELEVISION REPAIRREFRIGERATION SENVICE ~ REPAIR

- OTHER ELECTRICAL REPAIR SHOPS- REUPHOLSTENy ~ FURNITURE REPAIR

HEALTH/MISC. SERVICES:

- HEALTH SERVICES

- BIOLOGICAL OR CHEMICAL RESEARCH

- TESTING LABORATORIES

- GOLF COURSES

XxX

R

IGeneral use o£ cleaning solvents, hazardous IProhlblt banned uses.Imaterlals, methylene chlorlde ~

~Cleanlng, lubrlcatlng and regeneration of ISite Plan review, mngmt planlequIpment and parts. Solvents, oils and otherl£or storage and use ofImaterlals. lhazardous materlals, wasteI ~olI and hazardous waste mngnt

IMlscellaneous spllls, leaks, illegal dis- ISlte Plan review, regulateIcharges, hazardous material storage, use, con-lto provide for spill preven-Italner disposal, lawn care lncludln~ use o£ Itlon, proper waste handling,IfertIllzers ~nd pestlclde use, haza dous and Istorage and disposal.Inch-hazardous waste disposal.

R ~

R ILaboratory chemicals and waste materials.

R IAct. - Lawn care Includlng storage/use of

hydrocarbons

Prohibit

- Spill prevention plans,connect to public sewers

~Mngmt Plan for lawn care,~£ertillzer/pestlclde storage

Imanagement.

APPENDIX 3 - POSSIBLE REGULATORY APPROACHES

THE TYPES OF REGULATIONS THAT MAY BE NEEDED TO REDUCE THE THREATS OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION ARE LISTED BELOW.

REGULATIONS FOR NEW USES ONLY

REQUIRE CERTAIN FACILITIES TO BE CONNECTED TO PUBLIC SEWERS

SPECIAL EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS, E.G. SEWER EXFILTRATION RATES

SITE PLAN REVIEW - ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT EXCEPT SINGLE LOT RESIDENTIAL

PROHIBITION OF NEW UNDERGROUND FUEL AND CHEMICAL STORAGE

REGULATIONS FOR BOTH NEW USES AND NON-CONFORMING USES

PROHIBITION OF ALL NON DOMESTIC WASTEWATERTYPE DISCHARGES TO GROUNDWATERS

PROHIBITION OF DRY WELLS

OUTSIDE STORAGE REQUIREMENTS

STORMWATERMANAGEMENT PLAN

PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN CHEMICALS, e.g. certain pesticides, others?

MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PLAN (SARA TITLE III MODEL?), INCLUDE:HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OR SUBSTANCES - STORAGE, TRANSPORT AND USEHAZARDOUS AND NONHAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT, HANDLING AND DISPOSALRECORDS KEEPING REQUIREMENTSEMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSEFIRE PROTECTION AND RESPONSE

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (see Agriculture Matrix)

CONSTRUCTION RELATED EQUIPMENT FUELING AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS

REGULATIONS FOR NON-CONFORMING USES ONLY

REGULATION OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND FUEL AND CHEMICAL STORAGE

GROUND-WATER MONITORING

- 65 -

APPENDIX 4: GIS - A BOUNDLESS RESOURCE

General Description of DEP’s Geographic Information System

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are powerful computeraided tools that facilitate the use and analysis of map data instate environmental planning, management and regulatory programs.A typical GIS includes specialized computer hardware

(digitizers, plotters, color graphics terminals) and softwaredesigned to encode, maintain, analyze and output map data. Thesesystems provide the capability to perform complex spatialanalyses over ay geographic area; to determine and evaluatespatial relationships among a variety of data; to maintainextensive data bases; and to streamline numerous agency programs.

In 1986, the DEp acquired ARC/INFO, a proprietary state ofthe art general purpose GIS. It consists of two major groups ofsoftware; ARC modules manage th geographic component of thedata base (i.eo points, lines, areas, and other features typicalof maps) while INFO manages the attribute data that describewhat the map features are (e.g. well depth, soil type, utilityname, aquifer material, etc.).

ARC/INFO provides programs to efficiently encode, store,update and analyze environmental and related data. Maps areencoded as points and lines thereby preserving the resolution ofthe original data. Each digital map is stored as one in a seriesof geographically registered overlays. Each overlay consists ofa basic type of data such as land use, zoning, wetlandboundaries, roads, well locations, etc.

Attribute data that describe unique map features aremaintained in INFO files that are associated with the appropriatedigital map. Data can b@ accessed by geographic location (e.g.by town) and/or by physical characteristics (e.g. all wells thatyield over 500 gallons/minute).

The system includes a number of analytical GIS functions.Maps can be overlayed to determine the coincidence of data (E.G..how many public water supply wells and leachate and waste sourcesare in a particular drainage basin); proximity analyses can beperformed (e.g. find all endangered species habitats within 500feet of class B streams); data can be generalized and/orreclassified (e.g. reclassify a detailed surficial materials mapto show only areas of coarse grained texture possibly suitablefor ground water development).

The GIS can produce highly accurate cartographic output ina variety of formats. Maps can be displayed on a color graphicsterminal, printed on low cost copiers or, when scale accuratelarge format out put is required, they can be plotted bymulticolor pen plotters. Output can be produced on paper, mylar,and other media and can be generated at any scale.

- 66 -

The DEP is using the ARC/INFO GIS to develop the ConnecticutDigital Cartographic Data Base (CDCDB). It is a standardizedquality controlled data base that maintains the high resolutionof existing printed maps. Maps are digitized in-house ahd~through cooperative programs with the US Geological Survey and

the USDA Soil Conservation Service. Most basic data aredigitized from 1:24,000 scale 7.5 minute quadrangle maps and aremaintained in the GIS in Connecticut Grid Coordinates.

Use of GIS in Connectlcut Aquifer Protection Proqram

A variety of GIS maps, many of which have already beendigitized by DEP, will be available to support specificactivities of the Aquifer Protection Program. These maps havebeen digitized for the State’s area wide water supply planningprogram or as part of the ongoing GIS program, they include:. ater SUDDIv well locations. 9reas served by watercommunity w .... sewered areas,

reservoir locations, water quality classification, DEP ownedcompanies, water company excluslve servlce areas, municipal

lands, drainage basin boundaries, surficial materials,, nzoning, town boundaries, roads, water features, pollutlosources, landfills and other related environmental data.

A valuable application of the DEP’s GIS will be themanagement and analysis of public water supply ~nformation.These data have bee~ collected through cooperatlve efforts withthe US Geological Survey Water Resources Division, and the Dept.of Health Services. Data include: water supply well locations,reservoir locations, reservoir watershed boundaries, areas servedutilities and attribute data that quantify annual and.by water ........ ~h~ ~ta and well and reservolrthl water use, u%lllty OWn~=-~ .... . . --mon Y .... ~--~ ~÷a a~ useful in determlnlng the .characterls~Ics. ~n~ ~- 7-- ~ ~^ w~t~r SUDDIv/use indistribution, magnitude~ans mlx o£ puu~uthe state and will be narticularly useful in identifyingimportant groundwater supplxes requxrxng protection

As part of the Aquifer Protection Program, the GIS will be usedto produce base maps upon which water utllltle will delineateaquifer boundaries for existing wells. Base maps will be plottedat scales of 1:24,000 and 1:12,000 and will include townboundaries and roads for reference. The maps will be sent otutilities and aquifer boundaries and well/wellfield locationswil! be drafted on them. These will then be digitized by DEP andentered into the GIS.

A second series of 1:24,000 scale base maps will then beproduced by the GIS to be used by municipalities to delineateland use above aquifers. The base maps will depict townadministrative boundaries, roads and aquifer activities abovethat portion of the aquifer(s) within their town. The land usedata will be digitized by DEP and the GIS will append adjacenttown maps thereby producing a regional map. Use of the GIS for

these mapping activities will insure consistency andgration of data from the above sources.

- 67 -

The GIS will be used to evaluate potential impacts togroundwater based on the type and distribution of existing landuse above each aquifer and from future land use permitted underexisting zoning. Conflicts will be identified so remedial~and/orprotection strategies can be developed for all or parts of eachaquifer. The GIS will permit the development and testing ofvarious protection strategies and will aid in quantifying theenvironmental, social and economic costs associated with them.Because of the speed that GIS technology can conduct spatialanalyses, numerous strategies can be designed and modeled withinthe computer prior to specific plans being adopted. The GIS willalso facilitate the production f customized maps formunicipalities to aid their general groundwater protectionprograms.

- 68 -

APPENDIx 5

Substitute Senate Bill No. 423

PUBLIC ACT NO. 88-324

AN ACT REQUIRING AQUIFER MAPPING.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House ofRepresentatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) AS used in sections 2 to 6,inclusive, of this act, "existing well fields"mean well fields in~use b.y..a, public water supplysystem when mapping is requfred ¯pursuant tosection 3 of this act and "potential well fields"mean those wel.l fields identified as futuresources of supply in the water supply plan of thepublic water supply system approved pursuant tosection 25-32d of the general statutes.

Sec. 2. (NEW) The commissioner ofenvironmental protection shall establish standardsfor two levels of modeling and mapping of thelocation in a~quifers of we!l field areas, zones ofcontribution and recharge areas. Standards formapping at level A shall be established byregulations adopted by the commissioner inaccordance with the provisions of chapter 54 ofthe general statutes and shall be ~based onhydrogeological" data of aquifer geometry,hydraulic characteristics ~ and connection tosurface water features, groundwater level data andsurface water discharge information for modelcalibration and pump test data foe modelverification. Standards for mapping at level Bshall be established by guidelines developed bythe commissioner~ and shall be based on existinggeo!ogic mapping of known aquifer characteristics,limited field verification, the location ofexisting and potential well fields and pumpingrates.

Sec. 3. (NEW) (a) On or before J~ly 1, 1990,each public .or private water company serving onethousand or mo!e persons shall map at level B allits 4Xisting well fields located within its watersupply service area. On or before July 1, 1992,each.public and private Water company serving tenthousand or more persons shall map at level A allits ex~stlng well fields located within its watersupply service area. The commissioner ofenvironmental protection may map at level B allexisting well fields located within the watersupply service area of any public or private waterc~mpany serving less than one thousand persons.

Substitute Senate Bill No. 423

(b) Each public or private water companyserving ten thousand or more persons shall map allpotential well fields that are located withinstratified drift aquifers identified as futuresources of water supply to meet thei~ needs inaccordance with the plan submitted pursuant tosection 25-33h of the general statutes (1) atlevel B two years after approval of such plan and(2) at level A four years after approval of suchplan. The commissioner . of environmentalprotection shall identify and make recommend~t~cn~for mapping all remaining significant well fieldsnot identified by a public or private watercompany as a potential source of water supplywithin the region of an approved plan. Mapping ofpotential well fields by the commissioner shall becompleted at a time determined by thecommissioner.

Sec. 4. (NEW) The mapping of aquifers by apublic or private water company at level B andlevel A required pursuant to section 3 of this actshall not be deemed to be complete unless approvedby the commissioner of environmental protection.

Sec. 5. (NEW) Not later than three monthsafter approval of the commissioner ofenvironmental protection of mapping_of aquifers atlevel B, each municipality in which such aquifersare located, acting through its legislative body,shall authorize any board or commission, or shallestablish a new board or commission to inventoryland uses overl’ying the mapped zone ofcontribution and recharge areas of such aquifersin accordance with guidelines established by thecommissioner pursuant to section 6 of this act.

Sec. 6. (NEW) The commissioner "ofenvironmental protection shall develop guidelinesto be used by municipal boards or commissions inconducting the inventory of land uses requiredunder section 5 of this act.

SeCo 7. Section 1 of special act 87-63 isamended to read as follows:

(a) There is established a task force to-studyand review the development of groundwaterstrategy. Said task force shall (1) [solicitpublic review and com~ent6~ ~e~p6rt submittedto the general assembly pursuant to special act84-84 entitle "Protection of High and ModerateYield Stratified Drift Aquifers", (2) define the~mplementation costs of recommendations of saidreport, (3) review implementation of the aquiferprogram conducted by the department of

- 70 -

substitute Senate Bill No. 423

environmental protection, and (4)] proposelegislation on aquifers, if appropriate, (2) STUDYTHE USE OF WATER SOFTENERS ON WATER QUALI---~Y, (3)CONSIDER MINIMUM PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR EXISTINGAND FUTURE ACTIVITIES FOR WELL FIELD AREAS, ZONESOF CONTRIBUTION AND RECHARGE AREAS AND (4)RECOMMEND PROGRAMS FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING OFUTILITIES, LOCAL AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS.

(b) The task force shall consist of[twenty-one] TWENTY-FIVE members as follows: Thecochairmen and ranking members of the joint~t~ndi~g-committees of the general assembly havingcognizance of matters relating to the environmentand public health, the commissioners ofenvironmental protection, agriculture and healthservices and the chairman of the department ofpublic utilities control, the secretary of theoffice of policy and management or theirrespective designees, A MUNICIPAL PLANNER, onemember of the senate and one member of the houseof representatives, two representingmunicipalities, two representing the public, onerepresenting a private water utility company,[and] one representing a public water utilit~company~ ONE REPRESENTING AGRICULTURE, AND ONEREPRESENTING BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY AND ONEREPRESENTING REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT INTERESTS.The members shall be appointed as follows: Themember from the house of representatives~ [and] arepresentative of a municipality AND AREPRESENTATIVE OF AGRICULTURE shall be appointedby the speaker of the house of representatives,the member of th~ senate~ [and] a representativeof a municipality AND THE MUNICIPAL PLANNER shallbe . appointed by the president pro tempore of thesenate; a public member, {and] the representativeof a private water utilTty AND THE REPRESENTATIVEOF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY shall be appointed by t~eminority leader of the senate and a public membe#~[and] the representative of a public water utilit~AND THE REPRESENTATIVE OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENTINTERESTS shall be appointed by the minorityleader of the house of representatives.

(c) The task force shall submit a PRELIMINARYrep0rt.AND A FINAL REPORT of its findings andrecommendations to the general assembly on orbefore February 15, [1988] 1989.

Sec. 8. The sum of -’~nty-five thousanddollars is appropriated to the joint committee onlegislative management, for the fiscal year endingJune 30, 1989, from the sum appropriated to the

Substitute Senate Bill No. 423

finance advisory committee under sectionspecial act 88-20, for 1988 acts withoutappropriations, for the purposes of section 7 ofthis act.

Seo. 9. This act shall take effect from itspassage except that section 8 shall take effectJuly 1, 1988, and sections 1 to 6, inclusive,shall take effect October 1, 1988.Ceri~;edascorrectby

Clerk of the House.

Approved .1988

Governor, State oj" Connecticut.

- 72 -