section 4 ground water ground water - gwpc water protection full chapter.pdf · ground water ground...

Source Water Protection&&

Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water Ground Water

Access to clean, safe drinking water is the essential ingredient to a

healthy and viable community. Severe human health, ecological, and

economic consequences follow from losses of current and future

drinking water sources—losses that can be prevented. The potential for

contamination of drinking water, coupled with the high cost of treating

water and locating and developing alternate water sources, makes it

imperative that federal, state, and local entities adopt and implement

effective strategies for long-term protection of drinking water sources.

Congress and USEPA have taken the first step in developing such

strategies by requiring assessments of all public water systems—termed

Source Water Assessment and Protection. To be most effective,

assessments and strategies must be based on an understanding of the

factors that affect water quality and quantity, including how surface

water interacts with ground water, how water quality factors into water

availability, and how the management of potential water contamination

involves everyone.

Key Message

Section 4

Ground Water Report to the Nation…A Call to Action

Prevention Costs a Whole Lot LessIf an aquifer that supplies drinking water to a community becomes contami-nated, the cost of restoring clean drinking water to that community skyrock-ets far beyond what it costs to treat water. Research is needed to quantify thecosts and benefits of source water protection so that cost/benefit analysis toolscan be developed to help communities and stakeholders quantitatively assessthe potential merit of source water protection. Some rough estimates werecollected from USEPA Region 10. (See Table 1.)

Burlington, North Carolina, is a good example of how a community can savemoney by going the source water protection route. When the herbicideatrazine was found in the water supply, Burlington worked to eliminate thepollutant rather than pay to treat an ongoing contamination problem. Usingwater quality monitoring and guidance from the Water Resources ResearchInstitute (WRRI), the city was able to trace the atrazine to agricultural oper-ations in parts ofthe water supplywatershed. Withthe help of Coop-erative ExtensionService agents,farmers came tounderstand that

Our Source Water Protection Imperative

“When we honor water, we honor ourselves and the rest of life.”Veer Bhadra Mishra

4 • 2

whySource Water Protection matters to ground water…

All drinking water sources, both public and private, are vulnerable tocontamination from an array of human activities such as septic system discharges, waste-site

releases, underground storage system leaks, nonpoint-source pollution, and agricultural

chemicals. Without diligent attention to managing these potential sources of contamination,

our drinking water will come at a higher cost over time. This cost includes the increasing need

for water treatment, monitoring, remediation, finding alternate water supplies, providing bot-

tled water, consultants, staff time, and litigation. Source water protection is simpler, less expen-

sive, and more reliable over the long term.

Untreated water from rivers, streams,lakes, or aquifers that is used to supply

public drinking water.

SOURCE WATER

Key

Term

Drinking water wells are rarely as visiblycontaminated as the water from thiswell, which is being pumped to waste, ata former wood treating facility inMinnesota. Routine monitoring is neces-sary to determine water quality; howev-er, even with monitoring, it is often diffi-cult to pinpoint an actual cause of con-tamination and many pollutants are noteven looked for or assessed.

the water treatment plant did not remove atrazineand, with subsidies from the city, they transitioned toother pesticides and practices.

This approach resulted in a total cost to Burlington of$30,000 (for lab analyses and subsidies to farmers).Contrast that one-time expense with an estimatedcost of $108,000 per year to treat contaminatedground water with activated carbon. By implemen-ting source protection, Burlington not only has cleandrinking water again, it has eliminated the source ofthe problem. (North Carolina Division of WaterQuality, 2002)

The Big Push for Local Source Water ProtectionWhile public water system operators have primaryresponsibility for delivering safe drinking water, they

do not control the many potentially harmful land-useactivities and decisions that take place beyond theiroperational jurisdiction—often the source areas ofthe water they collect from water intakes or wells.This responsibility lies primarily with communitydecision makers, such as planning and zoning boards,municipal administrators, health departments, publicworks departments, and the general public.Protection of private ground water sources is typical-ly left to the well owner and the health department.

In many instances, public and private drinking watersource water areas extend beyond a community’s or aprivate well owner’s jurisdiction—out of their imme-diate control. To adequately protect source water, theidentification of potential sources of contamination,elimination of threats, and application of best man-agement practices to address these threats must occur

4 • 3

Section 4 • Ground Water and Source Water Protection

DELINEATED SOURCE WATER PROTECTION AREA

Figure 1. Thissample mapshows the delin-eation of aSource WaterProtection Areaand includes loca-tions of knownand potentialsources of con-tamination todrinking watersources in thatarea.

Source: Considerthe Source: APocket Guide toProtecting YourDrinking Water,USEPA.

RATIO OF CONTAMINATIONCONTAMINATION BASIC SOURCE TO SOURCE WATER

COMMUNITY COST WATER PROTECTION COST PROTECTION

Gilbert $547,323 $2,744 200:1

Norway $545,904 $101,014 5:1

Tumwater $570,813 $22,073 26:1

Gettyburg $4,015,351 $22,579 178:1

Dartmouth $1,176,646 $99,052 12:1

Middletown $491,823 $22,761 22:1

Table 1. Examples of relative costs of source water contamination versus prevention measures in selected USEPA Region 10communities.Source: Eric Winiecki, USEPA Region 10.


throughout the geographic area influencing theaquifer or surface water source.

Our challenge is to ensure that both public and pri-vate sectors take ground water resource protectioninto account in development plans, ordinances, pub-lic works practices, construction practices, and otherland-use decisions. Indeed, all citizens share responsi-bility for source water protection.

The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)Amendments took a bold and essential step forwardin protecting sources of drinking water by requiringevery state to take a serious look at potential contam-ination threats to public drinking water supplysources, including ground water sources. These newrequirements set the stage for providing citizens witha better understanding of potential threats to drink-ing water. The underlying principle in source waterprotection is that prevention is the most effective andefficient method to assure long-term safe water.

This program has gotten off to a promising start;however, it must be nurtured. The states’ ability andwillingness to sustain these efforts is uncertain, sincethe SWDA placed no requirements on communitiesto follow up on the state programs and implementthe steps needed to protect source water, nor did itprovide funding to carry out the implementation.

DRINKING WATER SOURCES AND HUMAN ACTIVITY

Any human activity that alone or cumulativelydegrades the quality of source water is a threat tosource water. Many types of land uses have the poten-tial to contaminate ground water—spills from tanks,trucks, and railcars, leaks from buried containers,

4 • 4

Top: Sacramento River water intake sign.Bottom: Sacramento river and intake facility.

Figure 2. Most human-derived contaminants enter groundwater after passing through unsaturated soil. A secondimportant point of contaminant entry is at the beds andbanks of streams, reservoirs, lakes, and wetlands. Oneapproach to protecting public ground water supplies is toestimate the area contributing recharge to public supply wellsand then to implement ground water protection practiceswithin that area. This map shows the recharge area for thewells for the City of Rochester, Minnesota.

Source: USGS, http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/Circ1174/circ1174.pdf

LAND AREA CONTRIBUTING TOGROUND WATER RECHARGE

Phot

o:Br

ian

Hick

s Ph

oto:

Dona

ld C

hild

s Jr.

failed septic systems, burial or injection of wastesunderground, use of fertilizers, pesticides, andherbicides, road salting, and polluted urban andagricultural runoff. While catastrophic contami-nant spills or releases can wipe out a waterresource, ground water degradation, in particu-lar, can also result from a plethora of small releas-es of harmful substances, such as gasoline from anearby service station or perchlorethylene from adry cleaner.

Ground water degradation can be acute, theresult of a sudden event, or it can be the gradualand insidious erosion of water quality.Contaminants can cumulatively impact theresource and degrade it over time. According toUSEPA, nonpoint-source (NPS) pollution (whenwater runoff moves over or into the ground,picking up pollutants and carrying them intosurface water and ground water) is the leadingcause of water quality degradation.

Pathogens and the Ground Water RuleViral and bacterial pathogens are present in humanand animal feces, which can, in turn, contaminatedrinking water. Fecal contamination can reachground water sources, including drinking water wells,from failed septic systems, leaking sewer lines, and byinfiltrating soil and fractured bedrock. The Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention reports that,between 1991 and 2000, ground water systems wereassociated with 68 outbreaks that caused 10,926 ill-nesses.

To provide for increased protection against microbialpathogens in public water systems that use groundwater sources, USEPA issued its Ground Water Rulein November 2006. There are several components tothis rule that apply to all community and noncom-munity water systems. They include determining thesensitivity of the groundwater system; performingadditional monitoring for total coliform-positivesamples; correcting significant deficiencies identifiedin the system’s sanitary survey; and taking correctiveactions after certain triggers are exceeded. Systemsmust begin to comply with the new requirements byDec. 1, 2009. For more information on the GroundWater Rule see: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disin-fection/gwr/index.html

Source Water and Ubiquitous PesticidesOur world is filled with potential threats to groundand surface water, but one such threat is remarkablywidespread—the array of pesticides (including herbi-cides) used on agricultural fields, lawns, gardens, golfcourses, along highways, and even around the home.As a society, we are somewhat lax about our use ofpesticides, not necessarily considering the potentialhealth risks associated with exposure. Adding to thisis the fact that many contaminants and their break-down products do not have drinking water standardsor guidelines. A 2007 USGS report, Pesticides in theNation’s Streams and Ground Water, 1992–2001, says,for example, that only about half the pesticides andvolatile organic compounds (VOCs) measured by theUSGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA)Program have current USEPA standards.

EPA’s Office of Pesticides relies on USGS for high-quality, nationally consistent monitoring data for pes-ticide registration and for its assessments of pesticideexposure. The federal Food Quality Protection Act(FQPA) requires USEPA to factor potential exposuresto pesticides through drinking water into alreadycomplex procedures used to set pesticide “tolerancelevels” in foods. NAWQA data helps guide USEPA’sdecisions on the commonly detected herbicidesaldicarb, alachlor, and acetochlor, and the insecticides

4 • 5


Nationally, states rank agriculture as the second most prevalent andthreatening potential source of contamination for both ground andsurface water sources of drinking water. Pathogens that can be carriedin animal waste include E. coli, salmonella, cryptosporidium, and giar-dia. Source water from waste generated from upstream concentratedanimal feeding operations require additional treatment and mayrequire additional technology to achieve required results. There aremany efforts at all levels of government to prevent contaminantsfrom animal feedlots from entering source waters.

Phot

o:Pa

ul Je

hn

chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and carbofuran.

State source water assessments (see page 4 • 7) haveshown that both agricultural and residential land usesare in the top five most prevalent and most threaten-ing potential sources of ground water contamination.According to USGS, we need to better understand thecorrelations of pesticide occurrence with the amountsand characteristics of pesticides used so that we cananticipate and prioritize the pesticides most likely toaffect water quality in different land-use settings.

The entire hydrologic system and its complexitiesmust be considered in evaluating the potential forpesticide contamination of source water. Protectionefforts must be made at the local level, and they arevery challenging. Many times the solution is educat-ing people in all sectors on the proper use of pesti-cides, which boils down to finding ways to minimizeuse or find less threatening alternatives.

Looking at the Entire Hydrologic Systemand Its Complexities Ground water protection and drinking water protec-tion overlap to a considerable extent. Protection ofany drinking water source must be carried out in thecontext of the land area that influences the water sup-ply, whether it is the area upstream of a surface waterintake or a wellhead protection area. For groundwater supplies, an understanding of ground water

hydrology within a delineated watershed or aquifersystem provides the basis for evaluating the vulnera-bility and sustainability of that source water and themeans for determining how it can be protected andpreserved.

Regardless of its intended use (drinking or other pur-poses), all water is a segment of a watershed’s oraquifer system’s water budget, which must be main-tained at a healthy level to be viable. Watershed via-bility requires that we apply exact hydrologic scienceand facts before we transfer water across basins.Where we locate new development, the degree towhich we draw down existing water resources, andhow well we provide for future and/or alternativewater sources are all functions of the watershed oraquifer budget, and therefore source water protec-tion.


4 • 6

The most intensive pesticide applications are in agriculturaland urban areas, including substantial use for residentiallawn and garden pest control. Reducing the use of pesticidesis the most effective way to reduce their concentrations inthe hydrologic system.

Pesticides in water(most were used during the study period)

Agricultural Areas

Urban Areas

Undeveloped Areas

Mixed Land Uses

Stream water

Shallow ground water

Stream water


Stream water


Stream water

Major aquifers

Percentage of time (streams) or samples (ground water) with one or more detections

0 25 50 75 100

97%

97%

61%

55%

65%

29%

94%

33%

Figure 3. In this NAWQA study, Pesticides in the Nation’sStreams and Ground Water, 1992 – 2000, one or more pesticideswere detected in water more than 90 percent of the time dur-ing the year in streams draining watersheds with agricultural,urban, and mixed land uses. In addition, some organochlorinepesticides that have not been used in the United States formany years were detected along with their degradates and by-products in most samples of whole fish or bed sediment fromstreams sampled. Pesticides were less common in ground water,but were detected in more than 50 percent of wells sampled toassess shallow ground water in agricultural and urban areas.

Source: USGS http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2005/1291/pdf/circ1291.pdf

Phot

o:US

GS

OVERVIEW OF PESTICIDE OCCURRENCE

SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENTPLANS

Although many states, water systems, and localitieshave had watershed and wellhead protection pro-grams since the 1980s, the 1996 SDWA Amendmentsbroadened the focus of these programs by requiringall states to develop a Source Water Assessment Plan(SWAP). The state SWAPs include the followingrequired assessment activities:

• Delineate the source water protection area forall public water supply sources (wellhead pro-tection area for ground water sources; water-shed area for surface water sources)—160,000nationwide.

• Conduct an inventory of potential sources ofcontamination in each delineated area.

• Determine the susceptibility of each water sup-ply to those contamination sources. (The infor-

mation from these three steps is compiled into areport called a source water assessment.)

• Release the results of the assessments to watersystems and to the public.

The ultimate goals of this program are to preventcontamination of public drinking water sources,avoid the costs of dealing with contamination, andprotect public health by motivating water suppliersand concerned citizens to develop and implementlocal Source Water Protection programs (SWP pro-grams). Source water protection, by its very nature,requires the effective integration of key federal, state,and local functions. The success of the programdepends on the ability of communities to adopt pro-tective measures and strategies and develop partner-ships with water suppliers, businesses, states, and thelocal citizenry.

4 • 7


GROUND WATER SURFACE WATER(46 states reporting) (46 states reporting)

1. Commercial/Industrial 1. Commercial/Industrial

2. Agriculture 2. Agriculture

3. Wastewater 3. Wastewater

4. Residential 4. Transportation

5. Contamination sites 5. Residential

MOST PREVALENT POTENTIALCONTAMINATION SOURCES

Table 2. National Source Water Assessment Summary data show-ing top five most prevalent potential contamination sources.

GROUND WATER SURFACE WATER(46 states reporting) (46 states reporting)

1. Commercial/Industrial 1. Commercial/Industrial

2. Agriculture 2. Agriculture

3. Residential 3. Wastewater

4. Contamination sites 4. Transportation

5. Wastewater 5. Residential

Table 3. National Source Water Assessment Summary data show-ing top five most threatening potential contamination sources.

SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENTS COMPLETE

% CWS % all NC % all PWS

National Total 99% 98% 99%

SOURCE WATER PROTECTION STRATEGIES(NATIONAL TOTALS)

CWS Pop

Protection Strategy in Place 43% 50%

Protection Strategy Substantially Implemented 24% 34%

2005 data used for states that did not report in 2006 (SD, WY,and CA). Total percentages based on systems/population inSDWIS (Q4 2005).

Table 4. A 2006 summary of USEPA regional data showing per-cent of completed source water assessments for communitywater supplies (CWS), noncommunity water supplies (NC), andpublic water supplies; percent of strategies in place; and strate-gies substantially implemented for CWS and total population.

REGIONAL SUMMARY DATA

MOST THREATENING POTENTIALCONTAMINATION SOURCES

Source: US EPA


Are the Assessments Improving SourceWater Protection?Most states have completed their source water assess-ments for public water systems and have made theassessments available to the public. Each assessmentprovides a concise summary of available information

regarding the source(s) (e.g., well,lake, river) supplying a publicwater system. These documentsare normally produced by statesource water protection staff andare intended to provide basicinformation to public water sup-pliers and the general publicregarding: (1) where their drink-ing water comes from, and (2) thedegree to which it may be impact-ed by potential sources of contam-ination. (See Tables 2 and 3.)

States are at various stages ofdeveloping and implementingtheir source water protectionstrategies. Though states are notmandated to implement sourceprotection, they are expected todevelop their own Source WaterProtection programs and strategicplans. States are using their assess-ment reports in different ways.Drinking water agencies are usingthem to help improve their pro-grams by prioritizing overall pro-tection efforts, upgrading contam-inant inventories, and targetingeducation and outreach efforts.Some state agencies are also look-ing seriously at coordinatingsource water protection with otheroverlapping programs, such asunderground storage tanks andonsite sewage disposal.

States have provided the complet-ed assessment reports to theirpublic water system owners andappropriate municipal officials.However, use of the assessmentshas been limited at the local level(USEPA, 2005). This is not sur-

prising, in that many local governments lack the tech-nical and human resources to facilitate developingand implementing source protection strategies—some may also lack sufficient motivation.

4 • 8

Tennessee is blessed with an abundance of high-quality ground water. The vulnerabili-ty, quantity, and quality of the state’s ground water sources are inextricably linked tothe geology, particularly karst terrain (limestone characterized by caves, sinkholes, andsprings) and in unconfined sand aquifers. This vulnerability is particularly true for con-tamination from volatile organics (e.g., chlorinated solvents, gasoline components),which are highly mobile and widely used. In Tennessee, approximately 1.5 million peo-ple rely on public water systems that use ground water as a drinking water source.

Phot

o:Al

an C

ress

ler

Typically, communities and public watersuppliers need encouragement and assis-tance from state agencies and/or non-government organizations, such as statechapters of the National Rural WaterAssociation, Trust for Public Land, andCooperative Extension Service, andinvolvement from agricultural, industrial,and development sectors within the com-munity. They need help in understandinghow to use the assessments as tools fordeveloping a source protection strategyand interpreting the results. In this type ofcollaboration among various sectors of thecommunity, it is critical to maintain afocus on source water protection planningas well as the implementation of identifiedprotection measures.

The Importance of KeepingTrack Source Water Protection programs havestarted off well. However, the initial assess-ments are just a springboard for puttingeffective long-term protection measures inplace. Next steps will require adequate feder-al support to the states and in turn adequate

4 • 9


New Hampshire’s Drinking Water Source ProtectionProgram emphasizes local implementation ofsource water protection in addition to state-levelactivities. Prompted by USEPA’s annual request forwater system–specific information on source waterprotection, the N.H. Department of EnvironmentalServices (NHDES) had developed a fairly completepicture of protection measures implemented bywater suppliers. Missing, however, was informationon the extent to which municipal ground waterprotection ordinances helped protect public watersupply sources.

Beginning with a survey of municipalities and areview of local ordinances in cooperation with thestate’s Office of Energy and Planning and with theassistance of the Ground Water Protection Council

(with USEPA funding), NHDES compiled a geo-graphic database of local ground water protectionordinances that will serve as a planning resourcefor local communities. The project revealed, forexample, that 12 percent of community water sys-tem ground water sources are protected using localland-use restrictions in at least 50 percent of theirwellhead protection areas.

The data set is also being used by NHDES to targetactivities it will undertake to help fill in the gaps inlocal protection and to provide guidance to munic-ipalities on improving their ground water protec-tion-related ordinances. NHDES is also working toextend the data set to include the protection of sur-face water sources through local shoreland protec-tion ordinances.

NEW HAMPSHIRE MOVES FORWARD ON MUNICIPAL SOURCE WATERPROTECTION ACTIVITIES

Figure 4. Forests and pure water go hand in hand. Forests filter precipitationas it infiltrates ground water. Forests also diminish the impact of powerfulstorms by intercepting rainfall and filtering stormwater.

Source: Virginia Department of Forestry http://www.dof.virginia.gov/R2/kaq-wq-source-water.shtml

KING & QUEEN COUNTY, VIRGINIA,WATERQUALITY: SOURCE DRINKING WATER SUPPLY


state support to communities and utilities (USEPA,2005). In order to maintain federal funding, trackingand reporting progress is particularly important.

This track record is a means of informing Congressabout where funding, such as Drinking Water StateRevolving Funds (DWSRFs) set-asides for drinkingwater protection, is necessary. States also need toknow what is occurring at the local level and, thus,need a means for gathering, tracking, interpreting,and reporting on local source water protectionefforts. Measuring and characterizing state and localSWPs can provide the data and information statesneed to inform decision makers about where to targetor refine source water protection activities.

GAPS AND OBSTACLES

While Congress mandated that the states develop astate Source Water Assessment Plan (SWAP) andcomplete their source water assessments, the stateSource Water Assessment and Protection programsare not mandated. Congress and EPA anticipated thatstates and locales would voluntarily take the assess-ments and develop source protection programs thatwould address local issues and many are trying to dothis. But given the serious lack of financial andhuman resources, when it comes to tasks states arerequired to do by federal mandate versus others thatare not mandated but that also need to be done (vol-untarily), state environmental and health agenciesfind themselves pushed into a corner, making choicesbased on mandates and funding.

Federal and state programs can lose sight of theneed for long-term water-supply protection as theybalance resources between regulatory requirementsand long-term goals. There has also been a lack ofeffective coordination among state SWPs and otherfederal programs, such as USEPA’s clean water pro-gram, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau ofLand Management, U.S. Forest Service, and theiraffiliated state counterparts.

Water suppliers and municipalities are expected tomake use of their source water assessments volun-tarily, but in most cases this cannot happen withouteducation, financial and technical assistance, and alocal champion. Utilities that supply drinkingwater are often not able to focus on source waterprotection for several reasons:

• The land encompassed in source water areas isnot under their ownership or jurisdiction.

• They must meet daily challenges of deliveringwater.

• They are busy maintaining the infrastructure,treatment, and monitoring.

• They are concerned with complying with regu-latory requirements.

• They must position themselves to accommodategrowth.

There are several significant gaps associated with thecurrent federal source water requirements thatunderscore why protecting all ground water regard-less of use is critical. First, while the assessments pro-vide an initial snapshot of threats, there is no require-ment for the routine reassessment of potential con-taminant sources, and new development typicallybrings new threats to source water. Second, the pro-gram addresses only current sources of public water,not potential future sources. If we strive to protectonly current drinking water sources, we not only putfuture sources at risk, we also allow for the potentialthat unprotected sources will influence the quality ofcurrent sources.

Furthermore, the Source Water Protection programaddresses only public drinking water covered by thefederal Safe Drinking Water Act, not private waterwells. More than 42 million people in the UnitedStates obtain water from private wells (Solley et al.,1998), which may or may not draw from the same

4 • 10

Phot

o:N

H DE

S

A private well in New Hampshire.

ground water as public supplies. In some cases, pri-vate wells have a greater vulnerability to contamina-tion, especially if they are inadequately constructed orif their water quality is not routinely checked. Statesand private organizations have, however, taken stepsto provide homeowners with information on how toprotect their water wells.

Congress and USEPA need to set attainable goals, pro-vide technical guidance and information managementassistance, and make a financial commitment toensure successful development of state Source WaterProtection programs. According to a 2005 USEPAInspector General’s report,“There is no consistent andsecure source of funding for source water protectionactivities.” The report says that states rely heavily onDWSRF set-asides and annual appropriations, whichseveral other competing regulatory programs also relyon, for source water protection program administra-tion and implementation. There are also some limitedfunding options available through other state and fed-eral programs. Without a sustained commitment tosource water protection at both the federal and statelevels, the significant health and economic benefits ofsource water protection will remain limited.

SOME SUCCESSFUL STRATEGIES

The clear intent of the SWAP Program was to analyzeexisting and potential threats to the quality of publicdrinking water. To accomplish this, states made a

tremendous investment in time and money.Nationwide, approximately 160,000 water systemswere assessed. Now that this effort is complete, a newquestion has emerged: What is the best way to buildupon SWAP results and achieve tangible progress insource water protection?

Despite various obstacles, there are numerous exam-ples of states that have found opportunities forachieving more widespread implementation ofsource water protection. Statewide approaches thatpartner, integrate, and leverage federal, state, andlocal programs can effectively drive source water pro-tection goals and have a positive outcome for manyrelated pubic health program goals.

Sharing information among programs can greatlyimprove effectiveness. Many state drinking waterprograms have posted source protection areas ontheir websites or shared data by other means toencourage other agencies and municipalities to takethese areas into consideration with regard to makingland-use and permitting decisions and settingcleanup priorities.

The USEPA Office of Ground Water and DrinkingWater (OGWDW) has been advocating for moreeffective integration of existing federal programs withsource water protection objectives. This has taken theform of encouraging both federal and state agenciesto seek opportunities such as those described abovefor cross-program integration.

4 • 11


A drinking water intake and “crib” in Lake Michigan. A water crib collects water from close to the bottom of a lake to supply apumping station onshore. At this facility, water is collected and then transported via pipes 200 feet below the lake's surface topumping stations at purification plants at the shores of the lake; from there the water continues on its journey to the Chicagoarea.

Phot

o:Za

char

y Je

an P

arad

is -

http

://w

ww

.flic

kr.c

om/p

hoto

s/za

char

ypar

adis

/499

0597

10/


Much success has been made in improving coordina-tion between OGWDW and USEPA’s Office ofUnderground Storage Tanks, specifically with pro-moting and enabling inspection, enforcement, andcleanup prioritization in source water areas. This suc-cessful initiative could be duplicated with other pro-grams as well. Opportunities for such program/agency integration include Clean Water Act programs(e.g., NPDES, TMDL, other watershed initiatives,standards, water quality criteria, monitoring,stormwater, onsite wastewater treatment), ResourceConservation and Recovery Act programs (e.g.,small- and large-quantity generators, solid waste,household hazardous waste), pesticides and otheragricultural programs, forestry, transportation, andCERCLA (Superfund) programs.

Louisiana – The Louisiana Source Water AssessmentProgram illustrates how state programs can worktogether to each other’s advantage using source wateras a prioritization tool. For example, the LouisianaDepartment of Environmental Quality’s (LADEQ’s)Source Water Program is notified by the LouisianaDepartment of Health and Hospitals (DHH) whennew wells come on line or when wells go out of serv-ice so that LADEQ can update its SWAP database andconduct a Source Water Assessment for the new wells.This keeps Source Water Assessments current andavailable for use by DHH when it conducts sanitarysurveys.

The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources(LADNR) lets the Source Water Program know when

high-volume wells are applying for a permit so theycan evaluate whether a drinking water supply will beadversely impacted. LADNR is involved with aquiferquantity issues while the LADEQ Program focuseson aquifer quality issues. Both assist local SourceWater Protection Committees and give public pre-sentations on water quantity issues throughout thestate. In addition, the Natural Resource Con-servation Service (NRCS) has access to all of theSource Water Protection Areas in the state and canuse this information to induce farmers to take farmland out of production in these areas as part of theConservation Reserve Program.

4 • 12

Phosphorus LoadsInitial (1995) and Target Phosphorus Loads by Lake Segment Showing Adjacent Watersheds in Metric Tons/Year (mt/yr)

T H E L A K E C H A M P L A I N B A S I N AT L A S

Missisquoi Bay (VT)

Main Lake (VT)

Otter Creek (VT)

Malletts Bay (VT)

South Lake B (VT)

Shelburne Bay (VT)

St. Albans Bay (VT)

Burlington Bay (VT)

Northeast Arm (VT)

South Lake A (VT)

Isle LaMotte (VT)

Port Henry (VT)

Main Lake (NY)

South Lake B (NY)

Cumberland Bay (NY)

Isle LaMotte (NY)

South Lake A (NY)

Port Henry (NY)

Otter Creek (NY)Initial P: 0.1

Initial P: 4.5

Initial P: 10.1

Initial P: 22.0

Initial P: 20.2

Initial P: 27.0

Inital P: 37.5

Initial P: 0.2

Initial P: 0.3

Initial P: 1.2

Inital P: 1.4

Inital P: 2.5

Initial P: 8.9

Initial P: 11.8

Initial P: 27.6

Initial P: 29.7

Initial P: 61.2

Initial P: 80.7

Initial P: 149.1

Target P: 0.0

Target P: 2.5

Target P: 9.4

Target P: 21.5

Target P: 25.5

Target P: 26.2

Target P: 35.0

Target P: 0.1

Target P: 0.3

Target P: 0.6

Target P: 1.2

Target P: 3.1

Target P: 9.5

Target P: 12.0

Target P: 20.8

Target P: 28.6

Target P: 56.1

Target P: 76.6

Target P: 109.7

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0

Total Phosphorus Load in Metric Tons/Year (mt/yr)

Ve

rmo

nt

Lake S

eg

men

tsN

ew

Yo

rk L

ake S

eg

men

ts

A well house for a municipal well in Tripp County, SouthDakota.

Figure 5. Lake Champlain is a reservoir for about 188,000 peo-ple, or 32% of the basin population. Almost all (about 98%) ofthese people obtain their water from 100 public water sup-plies monitored and regulated by three jurisdictions—Vermont has 73 systems, New York has 26, and Quebec,Canada, has one. Phosphorus, found in lawn fertilizers,manure, and human and other animal waste, causes algalblooms and excessive aquatic plant growth in the lake. Theseplants and the water quality problems that occur when theydecompose can harm fish and other organisms and affect pub-lic water supplies. The three jurisdictions have agreed toreduce phosphorus loads to each of Lake Champlain's seg-ments. This Phosphorus Loads Map shows the area draining toeach of the lake segments and both the initial (1995) and tar-get phosphorus loads for each. Source: http://www.lcbp.org/ATLAS/HTML/is_pload.htm

Phot

o:K.

M.N

eitz

ert,

USG

S

LADEQ is most proud of its direct efforts to workwith local communities. Department representativeswork with local communities to form teams of localcitizens, water suppliers, and government officials andto provide technical assistance in developing commu-nity-based Source Water Protection programs.

Oregon – The Oregon Drinking Water ProtectionProgram has had success communicating directly withcounty planners, other state agencies, and public waterproviders. The Oregon Drinking Water Program(ORDWP) staff/management team meets regularly todiscuss feedback and concerns from its partners. Thedrinking water assessment GIS data was sent to eachcounty’s board of commissioners, land-use planners,health departments, and GIS departments for incor-poration into land-use planning and special-area des-ignations at the local and county levels.

Counties and cities are now able to directly overlaythe identified drinking water source areas onto otherplanning information available to them. The programis now working to integrate the drinking water pro-tection work with the existing watershed approachused for other Clean Water Act implementation bothat the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(ORDEQ) and other state agencies such as theOregon Department of Transportation, OregonDepartment of Agriculture, and Oregon Departmentof Forestry.

Early in the state’s source water protection imple-mentation efforts, it became clear that a method wasneeded to prioritize water systems based ontheir susceptibility to contamination and thespecific risks they faced. This prioritizationwas undertaken statewide to create a riskranking (Tiers 1 – 4) of surface water andground water systems. The state is focusingtechnical assistance toward high-risk systemsfirst.

To assist the individual ground water supplysystems with their protection efforts, theOregon Department of Human Services(ORDHS) and the ORDEQ developed anImplementation Matrix, which presentsinformation on relative risk in a format thatwater systems can use to identify and priori-tize their own efforts. Prior to meeting with acommunity, the state calculates a “relative

benefit” score for each identified potential contami-nant source (PCS) based on the susceptibility of thedrinking water source to a specific PCS and the loca-tion of that PCS within the source water protectionarea. This score reflects the relative benefit to thecommunity of reducing the risk from this PCS.

The Drinking Water Protection Program then linksthe activity-appropriate best management practices(BMPs) to each PCS. This information is then takento the community where, under the community’sdirection, the relative benefit is compared to the ease(time or cost) of implementing the appropriate BMP.The individual PCSs are then transferred to theimplementation matrix. Presented in this manner, thecost-benefit of protection strategies can be easilyunderstood, providing city councils or other localgovernment officials with a mechanism for prioritiz-ing drinking water protection strategies.

North Carolina – North Carolina has recentlyembraced a strategy to build upon its source waterassessments and achieve tangible results for sourcewater protection. The state Source Water Assessmentand Protection (SWAP) program is attempting toinsert SWAP priorities into the agendas of otheragencies and programs. The initial response has beenpositive. For example, the Natural ResourcesConservation Service has adopted drinking waterprotection as a statewide priority within itsEnvironmental Quality Incentives Program. TheNorth Carolina Division of Soil and WaterConservation has supported SWAP priorities within

4 • 13


The Wasatch Front Watershed delineated on a roadside marker in SaltLake City, Utah.

Phot

o:Ro

bin

Davi

s


its Agriculture Cost Share and Urban Cost Share pro-grams. These three programs alone allocate morethan $20 million annually for projects related to envi-ronmental protection and conservation.

In addition, the SWAP program has entered into dis-cussions with the North Carolina Clean WaterManagement Trust Fund and other land conservan-cies that are eager to consider SWAP priorities to eval-uate potential projects. North Carolina believes thatresults from these partnerships can have a significantimpact on drinking water protection throughout thestate.

There are multiple benefits associated with establish-ing SWAP priorities within other programs. Buildingactive partnerships with other agencies raises aware-ness of the SWAP program and its objectives.Moreover, source water protection activities are pro-moted and financed using the resources of cooperat-ing agencies. Finally, arrangements with participatingagencies provide ready incentives and solutions tostakeholders developing local Source WaterProtection plans.

SOURCE WATER PROTECTION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

While other stakeholders have a role, state drinkingwater programs have a variety of ways to motivateand assist local source water protection implementa-tion. An important feature of an effective strategy formotivating local actions is the availability of easy-to-use tools that target local capabilities and interests.Other motivational possibilities include:

• Phase II/V chemical monitoring waivers.

• Grants funded with DWSRF set-asides (fundingavailable for state programs is expanded signifi-cantly with DWSRF set-asides).

• Requirements for communities to developsource water protection plans.

• Outreach, training, and partnerships with enti-ties such as regional planning groups andNational Rural Water Association chapters.

• Initiatives by other organizations.

• Model land-use ordinances for local govern-ments.

Groundwater Guardian, a program of The Ground-water Foundation, encourages communities tobegin ground water and source water awarenessand protection activities at the local level, supportsthe communities in their efforts, then recognizestheir achievements. This program began in 1994with eight test-year communities and is now work-ing with communities in more than 32 states.

Communities begin the process by forming aGroundwater Guardian team consisting of citizens,business and/or agricultural representatives, educa-tors, and local government officials. These teamsthen develop Result-Oriented Activities (ROAs) toaddress the community’s ground water protectionconcerns and keep the goals active for implementa-tion. ROAs fall into many categories including edu-cation and awareness, pollution prevention, publicpolicy, conservation, and best management prac-tices. Communities represent diverse settings,including rural areas, large incorporated cities,Tribal Lands, and watersheds in the United Statesand Canada.

The Groundwater Foundation provides informationand materials helpful to the communities as theyimplement their ROAs, such as the GroundwaterGuardian Assistance Kit, The Aquifer, and “hottopic” materials, such as the Drinking Water SourceAssessment and Protection Workshop Guide.(http://www.groundwater.org/gg/gg.html)

GROUNDWATER GUARDIANS—SOURCE WATER PROTECTION MOVERS AND SHAKERS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES

Wisconsin Rock River Coalition Ground Guardians at work.

Phot

o:Th

e G

roun

dwat

er F

ound

atio

n an

d Ro

ck R

iver

Coal

ition

Gro

undw

ater

Gua

rdia

n Te

am

4 • 14

• Sharing information, especially GIS data.

• Meetings with stakeholders.

• Continuing education units (CEUs) for drink-ing water utility operators who attend trainingsessions on source water protection.

USEPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water(OGWDW) has produced a compendium of prod-ucts in CD format called Safe Drinking Water Tools forPublic Water Systems. The CD and companion web-site provide a one-stop portal for many of OGWDW’sproducts and tools already in print. (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pws/tools/index.html)

FINANCING SOURCE WATER PROTECTION

States and communities have an assortment of sourcewater protection funding options. Chief among theseoptions has been DWSRF set-asides for state pro-grams, which significantly expanded funding avail-able for source water protection. But there are also anumber of funding opportunities outside of state set-asides. There are several websites that states, commu-nities, and public water systems can explore to learnmore about source water funding options. Amongthese are:

• EPA Catalog of Federal Funding Sources forWatershed Protection (http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund/)

• Environmental Finance Center(www.efc.umd.edu/)

• EPA Clean Water State Revolving Fund(http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/)

• Directory of Watershed Resources(http://sspa.boisestate.edu/efc/)

THE SOURCE WATER COLLABORATIVE

In 2006, USEPAand 14 nationalorganizations,including theGround Water Protection Council, committed towork in partnership to protect present and futuredrinking water sources. They formed the Source

Water Collaborative, which is focusing efforts onimproving our understanding and management ofthe land-water connection at the local level in orderto protect water resources. The Collaborative pro-vides a powerful national network of affiliates, andthe member organizations offer diverse expertise andresources that can then be filtered down to the stateand local levels.

For example, the Delaware Source Water Protectionprogram has retained its original Source WaterCitizen and Technical Advisory Committee (CTAC),which was formed to advise the state’s Source WaterProtection program on the delineation process. In2001, the Delaware General Assembly passed theSource Water Protection Law expanding the CTAC’sauthority and requiring local communities with 2,000or more citizens to develop SWP ordinances andadopt the SWP areas in their Comprehensive LandUse Plans by December 2007.

The CTAC, which provides broad-based input to thestate Source Water Protection program, has providedadvice during development of the Source WaterAssessments and development and distribution ofstate protection guidance to local governments, andon research projects. The committee maintains a reg-ular meeting schedule. Members reflect state-level

4 • 15


Sixth graders model backpacks they received at the 2006Natural Resources/Ground Water Festival held at the RussellCounty Fairgrounds in Castlewood, Virginia. A group of 212students participated in 14 learning stations covering topicsas varied as topographic maps, onsite sewage disposal sys-tems, soils, the water cycle, caves, and mining. Citizen-involved education events provide much needed support forground water protection efforts at the community level.

Phot

o:M

ary

Ann

Mas

sie,

Virg

inia

Dep

artm

ent o

f Env

ironm

enta

l Qua

lity


representatives from many of the organizations rep-resented on the national Source Water Collaborative,including health, agriculture, and other programsthat manage potential contaminant sources; repre-sentative local governments (cities and counties); theDelaware Rural Water Association; environmentalgroups; water utilities; USGS; academic institutions;land-use experts; community development, and theagricultural sector.

The Source Water Collaborative has established awebsite, www.ProtectDrinkingWater.org, to facilitatenetworking and resource sharing. Through the web-site and other modes, the group will identify oppor-

tunities and tools that local decision makers andpractitioners can use to incorporate water resourceprotection into their community planning and land-use practices.

Other activities under development include a sum-mary of research needs on costs and benefits (includ-ing monetary benefits) of source water protection; afinancing guide; and a framework of best practices forlocal decision-makers for drinking water protection.

Source Water Collaborative members include:

American Planning Association

American Water Works Association

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

Association of State Drinking WaterAdministrators

Association of State and Interstate WaterPollution Control Administrators

Clean Water Fund

Environmental Finance Center Network

Groundwater Foundation

Ground Water Protection Council

National Association of Counties

National Ground Water Association

National Rural Water Association

North American Lake Management Society

River Network

Trust for Public Land

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Geological Survey

4 • 16

“There shall be no man

or woman dare to wash any unclean

linen, wash clothes, nor rinse or make clean

any kettle, pot, or pan or any suchlike vessel

within twenty feet of the old well or new pump.

Nor shall anyone aforesaid, within less than a

quarter of a mile of the fort, dare to do the

necessities of nature, cinse [sic] by these unmanly,

slothful, and loathsome immodesties, the

whole fort may be choked and poisoned.”

by order of Governor Gage of

the Jamestown Colony in 1610.

This water tower in Heath Springs, South Carolina, is locatedin rural Lancaster County. More than 50 percent of the state’sresidents rely on ground water as their source of drinkingwater. Most of this water is still at or near its natural excel-lent quality and is suitable for drinking with no treatment,which is an enormous economic and public-health benefit.The South Carolina Department of Health and EnvironmentalControl’s source water protection website provides a collec-tion of tools and outreach materials to assist local sourcewater protection efforts. See http://www.scdhec.gov/environ-ment/water/srcewtr.htm

Phot

o:Do

ug S

hort

4 • 17


To USEPA:

Incorporate source water protection considerations into other programs atthe federal level (e.g., hazardous waste, underground injection control[UIC], Clean Water Act) and allow for flexibility so that state programs cando the same.

Sustain a federal-level Source Water Protection program.

Provide additional financial support and incentives for state and localSource Water Protection programs.

Integrate ground water value into Source Water Protection programs.

To State Agencies:

Establish and sustain a statewide Source Water Protection program thatcoordinates the activities of all agencies responsible for natural resourcesand environmental protection programs so that they proactively addresspotential source water impacts. This includes periodically evaluating theeffectiveness of current source water protection efforts. (See Elements ofan Effective State Source Water Protection Program, a joint Ground WaterProtection Council (GWPC) and Association of State Drinking WaterAdministrators (ASDWA) document, October 2006.)

To Local Governments:

Create, or participate in creating, a municipal watershed or regional-levelcomprehensive Source Water Protection Plan that includes:

• Strategies for managing threats and protecting resources.

• A combination of voluntary and regulatory strategies.

• A long-term vision, short-term strategies, and measurable goals.

• A strategy for how to fund the activities in the plan.

Coordinate land-use planning with source water protection plans, incorpo-rate source water protection as an element of the local comprehensiveplan, and integrate source water areas into land-use planning and zoningregulations.

Recommended Actions

Our challenge is to ensure that both public and private sectors take ground water

resource protection into account in development plans, ordinances, public works

practices, construction practices, and other land-use decisions. Indeed, all citizens

share responsibility for source water protection.


Section 4 References: Ground Water Use and Source Water Protection Franke, O.L., T.E. Reilly, D.W. Pollock, J.W. LaBaugh. 1998. Estimating Areas Contributing Recharge to Wells: Lessons

from Previous Studies. USGS Circular 1174. Available at: http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/Circ1174/circ1174.pdf

North Carolina Division of Water Quality. Spring 2002. “Source Water Protection and Cost Savings in Burlington,North Carolina.” Streamlines, Vol. 6, No. 2. Available at: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wswp/SL/v6i2.pdf

McGuire, V. L., M. R. Johnson, R. L. Schieffer, J. S. Stanton, S. K. Sebree, and I. M. Verstraeten. 2003. Water in Storageand Approaches to Ground-Water Management, High Plains Aquifer, 2000. USGS Circular 1243.

USEPA, March 28, 2005. Inspector General’s Report: Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Show InitialPromise, but Obstacles Remain. EPA Report No. 2005-P-00013.

USGS [U.S. Geological Survey], May 2007, The National Water-Quality Assessment Program — Informing Water-Resource Management and Protection Decisions; written communication, Pixie A. Hamilton, May 2007;http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/xrel.pdf

USGS. 2007. The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters: Pesticides in the Nation’s Streams and Ground Water, 1992–2001.Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2005/1291/pdf/circ1291.pdf

Solley, W. B., R. R., Pierce, and H. A. Perlman, Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995. USGS Circular 1200(1998).

Suggested Reading:How to Update and Enhance Your Local Source Water Protection Assessments. September 2006. EPA816-K-06-004.

Water Today...Water Tomorrow? Protecting Drinking Water Sources in Your Community: Tools for Municipal Officials.2004. New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission.http://www.neiwpcc.org/sourcewateroutreach/index.asp

A recreational area of Barton Springs, Austin, Texas. The Barton Springs aquifer is an important ground water resource for munici-pal, industrial, domestic, recreational, and ecological needs. Approximately 50,000 people depend on water from the aquifer astheir sole source of drinking water. Various spring outlets are the only known habitats of the endangered Barton Springs sala-mander. However, the amount of ground water available to meet current and future needs is limited, owing to the combinedeffects of drought and substantial pumping. A 2004 report by the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District evaluatedthe potential impacts on ground water availability in the Barton Springs segment of the aquifer during a recurrence of drought-of-record (1950s) conditions and various rates of pumping. Results indicate that water levels and spring flow would be signifi-cantly impacted—wells going dry, water levels dropping below pump levels, intermittent yields. In addition, there is the potentialfor saline water to flow from the saline-water zone into the freshwater aquifer, which would affect water supply wells andendangered species. Source: http://www.bseacd.org/graphics/SYM_Final_Report.pdf

Phot

o:Jo

shua

McD

ill

4 • 18

section 4 ground water ground water - gwpc water protection full chapter.pdf · ground water ground...

Documents