Protecting the Source - Land Conservation and the Future of America's Drinking Water
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Water Protection Series
published by the Trust for Public Land and
American Water Works Association
“The health of our waters
is the principal measure of
how we live on the land.”
Land Conservation and the
Future of America’s Drinking Water
Protecting the Source
The Trust for Public Land conserves land
for people to enjoy as parks, gardens, and other
natural places, ensuring livable communities
for generations to come.
AWWA is the authoritative resource
for knowledge, information, and advocacy to
improve the quality and supply of drinking water
in North America and beyond. AWWA is the
Written by Caryn Ernst largest organization of water professionals in
Edited by Kim Hopper and David Summers
the world. AWWA advances public health, safety,
Copyright 2004 by the Trust for Public Land and welfare by uniting the eΩorts of the full
All rights reserved
spectrum of the drinking water community.
cover photo left © 2001 Al Fuchs
Through our collective strength we become
cover photo right © 1999 Bill Silliker, Jr.
better stewards of water for the greatest good
Quotation on front cover by Luna Leopold, of the people and the environment.
professor emeritus, Department of Landscape Architecture,
University of California, Berkeley
left cover photo:
Protecting watershed land has many benefits. In Ohio,
just south of Lake Erie, Edison Woods oΩers public access
to 1,300 acres of woods, wetlands, and meadows.
right cover photo:
More than half a million people receive
their drinking water from Mountain Island Lake
near Charlotte, North Carolina.
P R OT EC T I N G T H E S OU R C E
Land Conservation and the Future of
America’s Drinking Water
t h i s r e p o r t wa s p r o d u c e d
with funding from the
f o l l o w i n g o r g a n i z at i o n s
Henry Phillip Kraft Family Memorial Fund
of the New York Community Trust
Aquarion Water Company
Contents
Foreword 4
Acknowledgments 5
Executive Summary 6
part one: Making the Case
Protecting Water Resources 9
Drinking Water and Public Health 17
The Costs of Not Protecting Source Waters 21
Watershed Management: The First Barrier
in a Multiple-Barrier Approach 25
part two: Best Practices
Understand Your Watershed 28
Use Maps and Models to Prioritize Protection 30
Build Strong Partnerships and Work Watershed-Wide 33
Create a Comprehensive Source Water Protection Plan 35
Develop and Implement a “Funding Quilt” 38
Conclusion 44
Glossary 45
State Source Water Protection Contacts 46
Notes 50
CASE STUDIES
Suffolk County, New York 12 Philadelphia Water Department, Pennsylvania 30
Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 13 Nashua, Massachusetts 33
Brick Township, New Jersey 14 Columbus, Georgia 34
West Groton Water Supply District, Massachusetts 15 Seattle, Washington 36
Carroll County, Georgia 18 Austin, Texas 37
City of Lenexa, Kansas 19 Assawompsett Pond Complex, Massachusetts 38
New York, New York 23 New York/New Jersey Northern Highlands 39
Salem, Oregon 24 North Carolina 40
Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Carrbaro, Ohio’s Restoration Sponsorship Program 41
North Carolina 26 Rockaway Township and Morris County,
San Antonio, Texas 27 New Jersey 43
Foreword
I n 1997, the Trust for Public Land (TPL) re-
leased the first edition of Protecting the Source. The
report promoted the strong interrelationship
between land and water resources and the ab-
solute necessity of landuse planning in watershed
noted, the median percentage of watershed lands
owned by water utilities nationwide was only 2
percent. That number has not changed signif-
icantly over the past decade.
TPL and AWWA’s partnership on this edi-
management. Over 15,000 copies of the report tion represents the first eΩort in a collaboration to
were distributed to communities across the coun- promote suppliers’ ability to turn EPA-mandated
try. This new edition of Protecting the Source is the re- source water assessments into protection strate-
sult of a partnership between TPL and the Amer- gies. Both organizations are strongly committed
ican Water Works Association (AWWA) to look to source protection. In the summer of 2003,
more closely at the case for land conservation as a AWWA’s board rea≈rmed its commitment to se-
source water protection strategy. curing drinking water from the highest quality
© PHIL SCHERMEISTER
The release of the 1997 report coincided with sources available and to “actively and aggressively”
the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Wa- protecting those sources. Land conservation is
ter Act that mandated a state source water as- central to TPL’s mission, and over 30 years of
sessment and planning process—and, we think, partnering with local and state governments on
created a renewed interest in a multiple-barrier land protection strategies make it well suited to
approach to source protection. By the mid-1990s, partnerships with water suppliers.
TPL was increasingly working with local govern- The original edition of Protecting the Source in-
Will Rogers ments and water suppliers on land conservation troduced the issue of source protection to landuse
strategies for water quality protection. Based on planners—and revisited historical eΩorts. It high-
public surveys testing voter support for new taxes lighted the increasing pressure on supplies as de-
to support land conservation, it was clear to us by velopment sprawls into drinking watersheds. This
the late 1990s that the public was greatly inter- new edition builds on earlier case-making with
ested in using land conservation as a tool to ad- more detailed information on cost benefits, on the
dress water quality. increasing challenges to water treatment, and on a
In 2002, TPL formed a partnership with growing body of knowledge regarding the use of
COURTESY OF AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION
AWWA to revisit the ideas in the first edition of land conservation for source protection.
Protecting the Source and to provide a stronger case For 60 years, the safety of most of America’s
and a set of best practices for using land conserva- drinking water has been dependent on technology.
tion for source protection. AWWA’s Source Pro- Today, water suppliers are revisiting the idea that
tection Committee, composed of volunteer prac- watershed protection—the first barrier against
titioners and scientists, has worked diligently to contamination—needs to, once again, be an inte-
support TPL’s eΩorts to ferret out research and gral part of their water quality protection strategy.
field practice regarding the value and practice of The information and best practices in this report
land conservation for protecting drinking water will ensure that suppliers will be well prepared to
quality. take on this challenge.
AWWA has long promoted the idea of source
protection. Reporting on the results of a major
1991 AWWA Research Foundation watershed
management study, the AWWA Journal asserted
that “the most eΩective way to ensure the long- Will Rogers Jack W. HoΩbuhr
Jack HoΩbuhr
term protection of water supplies is through land President Executive Director
ownership by the water supplier and its coopera- TPL AWWA
tive public jurisdictions.” At that time, the Journal
4
Acknowledgments
T he Trust for Public Land (TPL) would like
to thank the many people who helped to make
this report possible. In particular, we would
like to thank the members of the American Water
Works Association (AWWA) Source Water Pro-
Ed Holland, Orange Water and Sewer Authority,
North Carolina
Pam Kenel, Black and Veatch
Gary Logsdon, Black and Veatch
Walton Low, U.S. Geologic Survey, National
tection Committee and TPL’s Source Water Pro- Water Quality Assessment Program
tection Advisory Committee for their support Kirk Nixon, San Antonio Water System
throughout this project and the untold hours they K. C. Price, Startex, Jackson, Wellford and
committed to conference calls and reviewing Duncan (SJWD) Water District
drafts to help TPL “get it right.” AWWA’s Source Grantley Pyke, Hazen and Sawyer
Water Protection Committee Chairperson, Rich- Carol Storms, New Jersey American Water
ard Gullick, deserves special recognition for sup- Company
porting this project since its outset, not only with Brian Thompson, Aquarion Water Company of
technical insight and editorial assistance, but also Connecticut
by providing a much needed water utility perspec-
TPL would also like to thank the many water
tive. Special thanks also to Gary Logsdon, for his
suppliers who participated in our survey, which
detailed, thoughtful, and technically proficient
surfaced critical information on the link between
review comments, and to Grantley Pyke, for his
forest cover and treatment costs. We would like to
extensive references, data sources, and guidance
convey our special appreciation to the many mu-
with our water supplier surveys. Without the wis-
nicipalities, water utilities, and state and federal
dom of our many advisors, TPL could not have
agency representatives who provided extensive
produced this report or its companion report,
materials for our case studies and background data
Source Protection Handbook: Using Land Conservation to
for making the case. EPA staΩ at the O≈ce of
Protect Drinking Water Supplies.
Ground Water and Drinking Water, especially
Debra Gutenson, supported TPL’s fieldwork,
where many of our best practices and case studies
originated. We are grateful for their partnership
TPL’s Source Water Protection and support of our work.
Advisory Committee Special appreciation is due to Kathy Blaha, Se-
nior Vice President of National Programs at TPL,
Scott Abrahamson, New York State, for her support, guidance, and countless hours
Department of Environmental Conservation of reviewing and revising drafts. Thanks also to
Paul Barten, University of Massachusetts Kathryn Lanouette for her research assistance and
Kathy Blaha, Trust for Public Land her tenacious eΩort to collect water supplier sur-
Suzanne Chiavari, American Water veys, and to Kyle Holland for his assistance with
Chris Crockett, Philadelphia Water Department research and other editorial details.
Scott Emry, Hampton Roads Planning District TPL is especially grateful for the financial sup-
Commission port provided by the Henry Phillip Kraft Family
Stephen Gasteyer, Rural Community Assistance Memorial Fund of the New York Community Trust
Program and by the Aquarion Water Company, without
Richard Gullick, American Water which this report would not have been possible.
5
E X EC U T I V E S U M M A RY
I n 1896, shortly after constructing its first public
water supply system, Seattle leaders agreed on
a long-term plan to eventually own the en-
tire Cedar River Watershed, thus permanently
protecting and securing Seattle’s drinking water
creased the chances that contaminants will reach
our tap. Some of the treatment challenges faced by
suppliers drawing from intensively used source
lands include:
1.The emergence of new contaminants that
source. With a 100,000-acre watershed, it was a
suppliers may not be prepared to test or treat
bold vision.
One hundred years later, Seattle’s original vi- 2.Spikes in contaminant loads due to storms
Water is the most sion had finally been achieved. By taking advan- and flooding that make treatment more
tage of opportunities, creating dedicated local challenging
critical resource issue
funding, and patiently sticking to a long-term vi- 3.Constantly changing standards and
of our lifetime and sion, the City of Seattle has permanently pro- regulations regarding new contaminants,
our children’s lifetime. tected one of the most pristine sources of drinking which are present in the water long before
water in the country. Seattle made a cost-eΩective they are identified as threats to public health
The health of our waters
investment in clean source waters that will never 4.Increased treatment and capital costs due to
is the principal measure of be threatened by pollution from roads, sewers, or higher pollutant loads and changing water
how we live on the land. urban runoΩ. It is an investment that will continue quality standards
to pay oΩ many times over through reduced treat-
—Luna Leopold The loss of natural lands to development im-
ment costs and a safe supply of water for genera-
tions to come. pacts not only the quality of our drinking water,
Unfortunately, watersheds in many other fast- and therefore the cost of treating it, but also the
growing communities remain unprotected and quantity. That’s because development increases de-
threatened by development. New roads, homes, mand for drinking water while decreasing the
and commercial development can abruptly alter a ability of water to infiltrate the ground and re-
landscape and generate nonpoint source pollution charge water supplies. Sprawling suburban-style
that contaminates drinking water supplies. Ac- development contributes even more to water
cording to the U.S. Environmental Protection scarcity than does compact development, as it
Agency, the leading cause of water quality degra- promotes more lawn areas and larger lots planted
dation is nonpoint source pollution (NPS)—over with turf grass, requiring significantly more water
60 percent of pollution in U.S. waterways comes than homes with smaller lots.
from runoΩ from lawns, farms, cities, and high-
ways, as well as leachate from rural septic systems
and landfills. While point sources of pollution
—which emit from pipes, canals, or municipal Watershed Management—
wastewater treatment plants and industrial facili-
ties—have been closely monitored and regulated The First Barrier in a Multiple-Barrier
since the 1970s, the management of nonpoint Approach to Source Water Protection
sources of pollution has only recently become a
national priority.1 The considerable threats to our drinking water
Advances in treatment technologies allow require an integrated and comprehensive re-
most suppliers to meet current drinking water sponse. Governments and water suppliers are
standards, yet the constantly expanding diversity tasked with protecting each droplet of water.
of contaminants, coupled with greater pollutant Starting in the watershed or aquifer recharge ar-
loads and fewer natural barriers, has made treat- eas, continuing through the treatment process,
ment more di≈cult and expensive, and it has in- and extending to the distribution system, suppli-
6
© KEN SHERMAN
ers must safeguard the water from contamination, tially dramatic increase in treatment costs that can The Geauga Park District acquired
erecting multiple barriers of protection at every result from the loss of forests, grasslands, and wet- 574-acre Bass Lake Preserve at the
stage from source to tap. It is a multiple-barrier ap- lands, and the natural filtration these landscapes headwaters of the Chagrin River,
proach; each method of protection acts as a barrier provide. A study of 27 water suppliers conducted 25 miles east of Cleveland, Ohio, in
safeguarding water from contamination. by the Trust for Public Land and the American 2003 to help protect regional water
quality. Watershed protection funds
Watershed protection is the first and most Water Works Association in 2002 found that
from the Ohio Environmental
fundamental step in a multiple-barrier approach more forest cover in a watershed results in lower Protection Agency made the
to protecting drinking water. Healthy, functioning treatment costs. According to the study, for every transaction possible.
watersheds naturally filter pollutants and moder- 10 percent increase in forest cover in the source
ate water quantity by slowing surface runoΩ and area, treatment and chemical costs decreased ap-
increasing the infiltration of water into the soil. proximately 20 percent, and approximately 50 to
The result is less flooding and soil erosion, cleaner 55 percent of the variation in treatment costs can
water downstream, and greater groundwater re- be explained by the percentage of forest cover in
serves. the source area.2
When communities invest in land protection This report presents a series of best practices
as a way to protect their drinking water, they are to guide communities’ source protection eΩorts
investing in the long-term health and quality of and to showcase those communities that are al-
life of their citizens—guiding growth away from ready linking land and water protection eΩec-
sensitive water resources, providing new park and tively. Protecting the Source serves as a reference and
recreational opportunities, protecting farmland resource for those seeking best practices in devel-
and natural habitats, and preserving historic land- oping and maintaining the highest level of water
scapes. Many communities don’t realize the cost- quality and, at the same time, preserving our lim-
saving benefit of source protection and the poten- ited natural land resources.
E x e c u t i v e S u m m a ry 7•A long-term vision, short-term action
Best Practices— strategies, and measurable goals
Guiding Implementation in the Field •A strategy to fund the plan
5.Develop and implement a “funding quilt”:
The following five best practices provide a frame-
Implementing a comprehensive source
work for developing and implementing a source
water protection plan requires a significant
protection plan for city planners, government of-
and steady stream of funds. Successful
ficials, and water suppliers.
communities secure funds from a variety of
1.Understand your watershed: An eΩective source sources—federal, state, local, and private—
protection plan is built upon an understand- creating a “funding quilt.” By tapping into a
ing of your watershed and aquifer recharge range of sources, communities can raise and
areas. Scientific data and watershed analyses leverage significant amounts of money and
are essential to define an eΩective source avoid reliance on a single revenue stream.
protection plan and build public support
for its implementation.
2.Use maps and models to prioritize protection: Moving Forward
Municipal water supply managers and
conservation agencies routinely face questions The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Wa-
and problems when choosing where to invest ter Act reflected a renewed national focus on
in conservation and restoration strategies. source protection as a tool to prevent the contam-
Using maps and models to identify high- ination of drinking water supplies. Instead of fo-
priority land for protection and restoration cusing on water treatment, emphasis is placed
is critical, as funding is always limited and on contamination prevention and on the inte-
multiple demands are often made upon a grated management of source areas by requiring
valuable piece of land. all states to develop Source Water Assessment
3.Build strong partnerships and work watershed-wide: Plans (SWAPs), which identify threats to every
The support and cooperation of a variety of public water supply in the state. These forward-
public and private partners will be required thinking amendments mark a return to a set of
to eΩectively implement a source protection historic best practices in watershed protection
plan, as most communities’ source areas lie and management.
partially, if not entirely, outside of their Local water suppliers support the notion that
jurisdiction. EΩective source water protection watershed planning and protection activities are
can be achieved by influencing others to act key to a multiple-barrier approach. Voters sup-
on your behalf, utilizing existing initiatives port it too, with poll after poll showing support for
and frameworks, and finding common goals new taxes for land conservation that protects wa-
with others.3 ter quality. States are also creating programs and
4.Create a comprehensive source protection plan: using federal Clean Water Act dollars more cre-
Creating a comprehensive source water atively to support more comprehensive ap-
protection plan is an opportunity to pull proaches to addressing threats from nonpoint
together everything learned from analyzing source pollution. State and federal support,
a watershed, assessing the threats to drink- through increased and more flexible funding op-
ing water, mapping high-priority land for tions, new tools and technologies, and incentives
protection and restoration, and developing to promote the creative use of existing programs,
partnerships. Such a plan should incorporate: will be key in ensuring their success.
With the completion of the Source Water As-
•Strategies for both managing threats and sessment Plans, local communities are poised to
protecting natural resources move forward on implementing source protection
•A combination of voluntary and regulatory strategies. The best practices outlined here oΩer a
strategies guide to success for local communities.
8 Protecting the SourcePA RT O N E
MAKING THE CASE
Protecting Water Resources
A s we grow, the land around us changes forever.
Sometimes this happens dramatically as new
roads, homes, and commercial develop-
ment abruptly alter our landscape. Other times it
is subtle, and we recognize that we’ve lost farm-
is at its source—the point at which water falls to
earth, either seeping into the ground and into un-
derground aquifers, or winding its way across the
earth through surface waterways. The reservoir or
waterway itself is the next protection point. Then,
land, forestland, and open space over the years. barriers are needed to remove impurities as the
The numbers confirm the story. Urbanized water is processed in treatment plants and flows
land—land with houses, businesses, or industry— into canals, pipes, wells, and holding tanks, and
has quadrupled since 1954. From 1992 to 1997, the finally to the tap.
national rate of land development more than dou- Historically, protecting source lands—the wa-
bled to three million acres per year, and urban land tersheds that supply surface water and the aquifer
area increased more than twice as fast as did pop- recharge areas that cover groundwater sources—
ulation between 1950 and 1990.4 These changes has been an essential part of a multiple-barrier
impact our communities, our quality of life, and approach to clean drinking water. Cities such as
our natural resources—the air and water we need Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, and New York ini-
to survive. tiated source water protection eΩorts in the 1800s
Increased sprawl and development brings in- as a primary tool for protecting public health be-
creased pressure to develop land in drinking wa- fore chlorination and other treatment technolo-
ter source areas. Once development infringes on gies were available. Understanding the value of a
source areas, the controls designed to protect wa- protected source, they continue to employ source
ter quality become stressed. Although advances protection methods today.
in treatment technologies allow most suppliers Many newly developing midsize cities and
to meet current drinking water standards, the suburbs have not been as proactive about protect-
challenges of storm water runoΩ from agricultural ing their source areas. “Authorities face tough
and developed lands make treatment more heavy- choices between building houses for growing
handed, complex, and expensive. Compounding populations, chopping down forests for timber, or
the problem is the loss of wetlands, forestlands, conserving them to help secure the water sup-
and grasslands, which naturally filter water and ply,” say Chris Elliot, Director of World Wildlife
serve as buΩers to water supplies.5 Fund’s Forest for Life Program.
The considerable threats to our drinking wa- Fortunately, source protection is receiving a
ter require an integrated and comprehensive re- renewed focus. With the passage of the Safe
sponse. Consider for a moment that a drop of Drinking Water Act, Congress and the U.S. EPA
water often traverses many miles through both emphasized the protection of source waters as a
natural and manmade systems before reaching key component of our national eΩorts to safe-
household drinking taps. Governments and water guard America’s drinking water. It is increasingly
suppliers are tasked with protecting this droplet clear to many at the federal, state, and local levels
during its travels—beginning in the watershed that land conservation and watershed manage-
or aquifer recharge area, continuing at the treat- ment practices are necessary to reduce pollutant
ment facility, and extending through the distribu- loads to aquifers, rivers, and reservoirs in our com-
tion system—ensuring the purity of each glass of plex watersheds.
drinking water poured by the consumer. The This report makes a case for land conservation
process is a multiple-barrier approach; each method of as an essential element of the multiple-barrier ap-
protection acts as a barrier safeguarding water proach to water protection. It does so by present-
from contamination. ing a series of best practices to guide communi-
Considering the water droplet’s journey, the ties’ eΩorts in the field, and by highlighting those
first opportunity to protect it from contaminants communities that already link their land and
9water protection eΩorts. Protecting the Source serves leachate from rural septic systems and landfills. As
as a reference and resource for those seeking water from rainfall or snowmelt flows over the
best practices in protecting their precious water ground, it carries with it natural and human-made
resources and preserving their sensitive natural pollutants. Eventually, these pollutants reach our
lands. lakes, rivers, oceans, and even underground
The Trust for Public Land has also produced a sources of drinking water, as they seep into the
companion report, Source Protection Handbook: Using ground.
Land Conservation to Protect Drinking Water Supplies, According to the U.S. Environmental Protec-
which provides detailed guidance on how to im- tion Agency, the leading cause of source water
plement each of the best practices presented in degradation is nonpoint source pollution.8 Al-
Despite the expenditure
Protecting the Source. Copies of the handbook can be though agriculture is currently the greatest non-
of hundreds of billions ordered from TPL’s Web site, www.tpl.org. point source threat to drinking water quality,
of dollars over the last urban runoΩ is the fastest-growing threat nation-
wide. The development of formerly forested land
30 years, the 1972 Clean
can also exacerbate existing agricultural pollu-
Water Act goals of fishable Nonpoint Source Pollution— tion, for it removes the natural buΩers that once
and swimmable waters The Primary Threat trapped and filtered those pollutants before they
reached waterways. In Carroll County, Georgia,
have not been achieved,
Point sources of pollution—which emit from Commission Chairman Robert Barr has seen that
largely because contaminants pipes, canals, or municipal wastewater treatment change firsthand. “In our county there has been a
from diΩuse [nonpoint] plants and industrial facilities—have been closely rapid shift from agricultural landuse to suburban
monitored and regulated since the 1970s, but the landuse,” explains Barr. “Row crops are no longer
sources have not been
management of nonpoint sources of pollution a major landuse. The greatest new contributor to
controlled successfully. (NPS) has only recently become a national prior- water quality degradation is accelerating residen-
National Research ity.7 NPS pollution includes runoΩ from lawns, tial and commercial development.”
Council, 2001 6 farms, forests, cities, and highways, as well as The impact of NPS on the quality of un-
CLEAN WATER ACT AND SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
C ongress passed mandates for drinking
water protection in the 1980s that form
the basis for modern water protection activi-
tion of estuary plans. In 2003, states
were awarded $1.29 billion and pro-
vided $4.7 billion in assistance for
Safe Drinking Water Act: Under the Safe
Drinking Water Act, the EPA awards grants
to states to fund Drinking Water State
ties. Although these laws focus on mitigat- wastewater, nonpoint source, and estu- Revolving Funds (DWSRFs). State Revolv-
ing existing pollution and constructing or ary projects. Currently, only about 5 ing Funds provide eligible public water sys-
upgrading wastewater and drinking water percent of the Clean Water SRFs are tems with loans and other assistance to
treatment plants, the Clean Water Act and used for mitigating nonpoint source finance infrastructure projects. Up to 31
Safe Drinking Water Act can potentially pollution, with 95 percent going toward percent of these capitalization grants can
fund initiatives focused on protecting wastewater treatment infrastructure.10 be set aside to administer the SRFs and
source waters via land conservation. state source protection programs and to
• Nonpoint Source Program (Section
fund source water protection activities,
Clean Water Act: The goal of the Clean 319): Provides grants for projects that
including land acquisition. Up to 15 percent
Water Act is to restore and maintain the address nonpoint source pollution,
of the set-aside can be used for land con-
chemical, physical, and biological integrity such as implementation of best man-
servation and voluntary, incentive-based
of the nation’s waters so that they can sup- agement practices, restoration, and
protection measures, with no more than 10
port the protection and propagation of fish, public education. Approximately $237.5
percent used for a single type of activity,
shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and million in grants was distributed for this
such as land protection. In 2003, states
on the water. Under the Clean Water Act, the program in 2002. The Nonpoint Source
were awarded $787.4 million and were
EPA funds three water quality programs:9 Program receives only 17 percent of
provided $1.3 billion in loans for infrastruc-
clean water funding, despite the fact
• Clean Water State Revolving Fund ture improvements. Since the act’s incep-
that NPS pollution now accounts for 60
(SRF) (Section 212): Provides loans for tion, only $2.7 million in assistance has
percent of all pollution in U.S. water-
water quality improvements and has been used by systems to protect less than
ways.11
traditionally been used for wastewater 2,000 acres of land under the set-asides.12
treatment infrastructure, but it can also • National Estuary Program (Section
be used to fund the implementation of 320): Funds projects that protect or
nonpoint source management plans improve estuaries. The program distrib-
and the development and implementa- uted $17 million in 2002.
10 P r o t e c t i n g t h e S o u r c etreated water depends on several factors, includ- SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS
ing the amount of pollutants carried by runoΩ
(pollutant load) and the pathway the water takes
when it flows through the source area. If water
flows quickly over the surface of the land, most of
I n 1996 the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was amended, placing a
new focus on source water protection. The law requires every state to
examine existing and potential threats to the quality of all public water sup-
the pollutants it carries will reach the main body plies and to develop a Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP). The
of water. If the water flows more slowly or infil- assessments’ purpose is to inform and motivate local source water protec-
tion activities, which the EPA considers the critical initial component in the
trates the ground, more of the pollutants will be
SDWA multiple-barrier protective scheme. Instead of focusing on water
filtered out, either by adhering to plants and soil treatment, the amendment emphasizes contamination prevention and the
or by being absorbed through plants’ root systems. integrated management of multiple supplies that share one source area.
Pollutants are carried between surface water and As part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s requirement
groundwater, which means that both resources that states conduct source water assessments on all source areas within
must be monitored and protected. their jurisdiction, states have identified all of the source areas that supply
Water resource protection requires an under- public tap water, inventoried potential contaminants, and assessed sus-
standing of the interconnection between ground- ceptibility to contamination. At the completion of the SWAPs, states must
water and surface water. The terms “surface wa- inform the public of the results. Although some resources were provided
ter” and “groundwater” refer to the same water to the states to conduct assessments, no resources were authorized or
regardless of its source. They merely clarify the lo- appropriated for implementing protection strategies, and no mandate that
it occur has been given. Implementation will have to be locally driven and
cation of the water at a particular time.13 Accord-
creatively funded. Contact your local water supplier or your state source
ing to a national study performed by the U.S. Ge- water protection office for more information and for a copy of the SWAP for
ologic Survey, an average of 52 percent of stream your water supply. Contact information for state source protection offices
flow nationally is provided by groundwater. The can be found at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/protect/contacts.html.
groundwater contribution can vary tremendously
depending on the season and watershed charac-
teristics, but the important point is that ground-
water pollution, chemistry, and flow can directly
impact surface water quality, as surface water pol-
lution can impact groundwater quality. In areas carrying sediment and pollutants to surface water
where supply wells are located in shallow aqui- bodies.14
fers adjacent to streams or lakes, supply wells can The riparian zone is the area where streams in-
reverse the direction of groundwater flow under teract with the land, and it is a stream’s best de-
pumping conditions, and they can induce aquifer fense for keeping nonpoint source pollutants out
infiltration through stream and lake bottoms. of its waters. The riparian zone protects water
The close relationship between ground and quality by processing nutrients, filtering contami-
surface water makes it imperative that water sup- nants from surface runoΩ, absorbing and gradually
pliers understand what percentage of their supply releasing floodwaters, maintaining fish and wild-
comes from each in dry and wet seasons, and that life habitats, recharging groundwater, and main-
they act to protect those resources. A closer look taining stream flows.15
at just how ground and surface water sources are
impacted by nonpoint source pollution follows.
G r o u n dwat e r a n d
No n p o i n t S o u r c e Po l l u t i o n
S u r fa c e Wat e r a n d
No n p o i n t S o u r c e Po l l u t i o n Water moves underground through pores in the
soil and cracks in surface rocks. An aquifer is rock
Surface water is precipitation that does not or soil that contains and transmits water and thus
infiltrate the soil. Instead, the water moves as can be a source of underground water.16 In a con-
overland flow to streams and rivers. The land area fined aquifer, layers of impermeable clay or rock,
from which water drains into a surface water sup- above and below the aquifer, protect the water
ply—a stream, reservoir, or lake—is called a water- from some contaminants and restrict the water’s
shed. In a watershed with natural groundcover, movement. The recharge area for a confined aqui-
about 50 percent of precipitation infiltrates the fer, where surface water infiltrates the land and re-
ground and only about 10 percent flows over the supplies the aquifer, may be miles from a well that
land surface as runoΩ. In a highly developed wa- draws water from it.
tershed, with its impervious surfaces and lack of In an unconfined aquifer, water can infiltrate
vegetation, about 15 percent infiltrates and ap- directly from the surface to the aquifer, carry-
proximately 55 percent becomes surface runoΩ, ing landuse contaminants with it. The extent to
Pa r t O n e : Ma k i n g t h e C a s e 11which contaminants are filtered from groundwa- C A S E S T U DY
ter as it passes through the soil depends on how SuΩolk County, New York
porous the soil is. Where the soil is sandy or
porous, water flows more quickly below the sur- Located at the eastern end of Long Island,
face, and fewer contaminants are removed. SuΩolk County contains much of New York’s
Reservoirs, lakes, aquifers, and other standing premier ecosystem, the Pine Barrens, under-
bodies of water tend to act as sinks for contami- neath which is the island’s largest supply of fresh
nants. When these water supplies are damaged, drinking water. SuΩolk County Water Authority
useable water resources are lost.17 Some communi- is the largest groundwater supplier in the nation,
ties already connect more than one potential serving 1.2 million residents from this federally
source to their treatment facility so as to choose designated sole source aquifer. Heavy develop-
which source to use at a particular time, depending ment in the aquifer recharge area in recent
on shifts in source water quality and the ability to decades led to concern about damage to this
treat substances in the water. In extreme cases, sensitive and unique ecosystem and the threat
drinking water sources must be abandoned be- of nonpoint source pollution seeping into
cause water quality has become unsafe or too the groundwater.
costly to treat, causing communities to invest tre- In response to this concern, in 1987 SuΩolk
mendous resources in developing new sources. County voters overwhelmingly approved (83
Wetlands and forested land, if left undeveloped, percent to 17 percent) the continuation of a
can help slow and filter water before it gets to lakes, quarter-cent of the county’s sales tax to purchase
rivers, and aquifers, keeping these drinking water critical watershed areas through a new Drinking
sources cleaner and making treatment cheaper. Water Protection Program. As part of this pro-
gram, the county acquired watershed lands in
one of the Special Groundwater Protection
Areas (SGPAs); seven SGPAs are designated
within the deep aquifer recharge areas of the
county. Since the inception of the program,
over $220 million has been spent on land acqui-
DRINKING WATER TREATMENT sitions. When the program was due to expire in
2000, voters once again voiced their support for
drinking water protection by extending the pro-
D rinking water treatment is one of the most critical barriers in a
multiple-barrier approach, as it provides a direct barrier against
disease agents and is considered essential in protecting public health.
gram through December 2013. By leveraging
funding from their sales tax, SuΩolk County also
Whether drinking water comes from groundwater sources or surface received a $75 million loan in the late 1990s and
water supplies, it is likely treated before it reaches the tap. Even in the another $62 million in 2003 from New York’s
most pristine watersheds, natural pollutants such as animal waste and Clean Water State Revolving Fund to acquire
organic matter can impair the quality of water. land in priority watershed and aquifer recharge
Modern drinking water treatment can reduce most source water con- areas.
taminants to acceptable levels before water is delivered to consumers. In the early 1990s, even as voters were
The types of treatment necessary depend on the quality of the source
approving the use of sales tax revenues to protect
water and the pollutants encountered. Water quality standards are cre-
the Pine Barrens, several hundred development
ated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency based on extensive
public health research. These standards guide the amount and type of projects were being proposed in the central Pine
treatment needed for all ground and surface water supplies. Barrens. If these projects had been successful,
A wide variety of treatment methods are currently in use, and new the ecological integrity of the Long Island Pine
technologies are employed regularly to ensure drinking water meets cur- Barrens would have been severely compromised.
rent standards. Treatment costs can increase significantly when more rig- A grassroots advocacy eΩort by the Long Island
orous treatment is needed to cleanse contaminated source water.18 Pine Barrens Society to educate the public and
Most suppliers of surface water clarify the water through a sedimenta- elected o≈cials about the ongoing threats to the
tion process (letting particles settle out), then filter water through sand or Pine Barrens led to the passage of the Long
high-tech membranes in order to remove particles and microorganisms. Island Pine Barrens Protection Act in 1993.
Some facilities treat water with carbon or mix it with air to remove pollu-
The legislation established a Central Pine
tants or reduce taste and odor. The final treatment state is disinfection,
Barrens Commission to oversee the develop-
often using chlorine, to kill disease-causing microorganisms. All surface
water supplies must be disinfected, although a small number of highly ment and implementation of a Comprehensive
protected supplies are not required to be filtered. Many groundwater Management Plan (CMP). The plan delineated
supplies are disinfected, though some are used without any treatment. two major regions within the 100,000-acre
For more information on how drinking water is treated or on treatment area—a 52,000-acre core preservation area
standards, go to www.epa.gov/safewater/DWH/Treat/.html. where no new development is permitted and
12 P r o t e c t i n g t h e S o u r c ea 48,000-acre compatible growth area where lim- To ensure that future investments in the pro-
ited, environmentally compatible development tection of MIL had the greatest impact on clean
is allowed. The CMP also recommended that water, the MIL Initiative created GIS models of The South Central
75 percent of the core preservation area be pre- the watershed to help them identify the highest Regional Water Authority
served through public acquisition. The plan was priority areas for conservation. Modeling showed (SCRWA) in Connecticut
adopted by the Pine Barrens Commission in that although protection of the lakeshore and closed an aging treatment
1995. Various landuse and zoning tools are used regulated floodplain was important, protection plant on Lake Whitney
to accomplish the preservation goals of the act, of the smaller streams and tributaries in the because it could no longer
including transfer of development rights, cluster headwaters was equally important. As a result, effectively treat the raw
zoning, and conservation easements. the MIL Initiative set a goal to protect both 80 water, which had degraded
CONTACT:Tom Isles, Planning Director percent of the lakeshore and 80 percent of its significantly due to heavy
ADDRESS: Suffolk County, 100 Veterans Highway, tributaries. In 1999 Charlotte-Mecklenburg development in the
Havtiange, NY 11788-0099 County passed a $220 million land-banking watershed. Almost a
PHONE: 631-853-5190 bond to preserve land countywide for future decade after the plant
FAX: 631-853-4044 public needs, including open space, parks, green- was shut down, the water
EMAIL: Tom.Isles@co.suffolk.ny.us ways, and schools. Fifteen million dollars of the authority is investing
bonds were directed to preserve land within the substantial resources in
MIL Watershed. Over the next few years, the building a facility with
City of Gastonia, the City of Charlotte, and the more advanced treatment
C A S E S T U DY North Carolina CWMTF also contributed and filtration capacity that
Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina funds to support land protection in the MIL will again make Lake
Watershed. These years of focused protection Whitney a safe and viable
Mountain Island Lake (MIL), a section of the eΩorts have protected 74 percent of the source. Because they
Upper Catawba River that has been shaped by a lakeshore and 20 percent of the tributaries. understand the challenges
series of dams, is a meandering lake that divides Since 1999, more than $31 million has been and costs associated with
Charlotte-Mecklenburg County from Gaston spent in Charlotte-Mecklenburg County for treating degraded water,
and Lincoln Counties in the southern piedmont land acquisition. Approximately 4,009 acres the SCRWA is now one
of North Carolina. Although it receives some have been acquired in this county, including of the most progressive
of its flow from Lake Norman, to its north, it donations of floodplains for greenways. Over suppliers in the state when
receives most of its flow and pollutants from $9 million has been spent in Gaston and Lincoln it comes to protecting
the Mountain Island Lake Watershed, a 69- Counties. Today more than 6,000 acres of source water, investing
square-mile watershed of which 72 percent lies watershed land is protected. in land conservation and
in Charlotte-Mecklenburg County. The lake In addition to land conservation strategies, watershed management
supplies drinking water to about 600,000 peo- regulatory protections of landuse and point strategies to protect
ple in Charlotte-Mecklenburg County and in sources of pollution are also needed in a water- water resources.
Gastonia and Mount Holly, both in Gaston shed where much of the land is already devel-
County. oped. In 1996, in response to declining water
In the past decade, rapid development in the quality conditions and the need for a broader set
MIL Watershed raised alarms with local leaders, of watershed protection tools, the Charlotte-
who feared that what they had taken for granted Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners
for so many years—clean water from Mountain took a stand in support of clean, useable creeks
Island Lake—was threatened by increasing sedi- and lakes by directing staΩ to develop a plan to
ment and fecal coliform from new development. ensure that all surface waters in the county were
In 1997, in response to this growing concern, the fishable and swimmable, a daunting task consid-
Foundation for the Carolinas convened a group ering only about 15 percent of the county’s creeks
of partners to create and implement a plan to then met the criteria. The Surface Water
protect the MIL Watershed, which became Improvement and Management (S.W.I.M.) Pro-
known as the Mountain Island Lake Initiative. gram was created, and it has been instrumental
The initiative’s formation coincided with the in the adoption of a countywide stream buΩer
state’s creation of the North Carolina Clean system, implementation of streamside forestry
Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF), and restoration projects, the 70 percent reduc-
the first state-funded program in the nation tion of fecal coliform through reduction of sewer
dedicated to funding activities to protect and discharges, and the reduction of sediment
improve waterways statewide. The CWMTF’s through improved inspection and enforcement
first grant was $6 million for the MIL Initiative’s of erosion control from construction sites.
eΩort to protect a large tract on the western Since the MIL Initiative and the S.W.I.M.
shore of the lake. Program were created, water quality has measur-
Pa r t O n e : Ma k i n g t h e C a s e 13ably improved throughout the MIL Watershed much as 16 times more water than did homes on a
and Charlotte-Mecklenburg County as a whole. more traditional urban grid with smaller lots. Per
Current eΩorts focus on raising additional funds capita use of public water is about 50 percent
to protect the remaining high-priority streams, higher in the western United States than in the
through acquisition and easements and by east, due to the amount of landscape irrigation
implementing the second and third phases of needed to maintain lawns in more arid regions.22
the S.W.I.M. Program. Increased imperviousness, over-appropriated
CONTACT: Nancy Brunnemer rivers, and excessive groundwater pumping
ADDRESS: Mecklenburg County Real Estate have become serious problems across the United
Department, 1435 West Morehead Street, States. Many eastern communities are now fac-
Suite 120, Charlotte, NC 28208 ing frequent water shortages similar to those of
PHONE: 704-336-8828 their western counterparts. For much of the mid-
EMAIL: brunnnm@co.mecklenburg.nc.us Atlantic region, 2002 was the driest year in over
WEB SITE: http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/ 100 years of record-keeping, as communities up
LUESA/Water+and+Land+Resources/ and down the coast declared drought emergencies
Programs/Water+Quality and implemented water restrictions.
A recent American Rivers report looked at the
change in the amount of impervious, or paved,
surfaces from 1982 to 1997 in cities around the
Protecting Water Quantity country. American Rivers sought to estimate the
amount of water “lost” to runoΩ and evaporation
In the past 100 years the The loss of source lands impacts not only the qual- as a result of increased development and impervi-
ity of our drinking water, but also the quantity. ous surfaces. A key finding was that the potential
world population tripled, Development increases demand for drinking wa- amount of water lost annually ranged from 57 bil-
but water use for human ter while decreasing the ability of land to recharge lion to 133 billion gallons in the Atlanta metropol-
purposes multiplied sixfold! water supplies. itan area alone. Atlanta’s losses in 1997 amounted
When water infiltrates soil, the ground itself to enough water to supply the average daily house-
World Water
becomes a temporary storage tank; rather than hold needs of 1.5 million to 3.6 million people per
Council, 2000 19
evaporating into the atmosphere or flowing out to year.23
the ocean, water is stored underground for days, “In the past, water barely even entered into our
weeks, or years, slowly supplying our water sources. calculations,” says J.T. Williams, chairman of Kil-
Rainfall needs to infiltrate the ground and re- learn, Inc., which has developed thousands of golf
charge groundwaters in order to maintain supplies courses and clubhouse community homes in the
during dry seasons. Where land is developed, wa- Atlanta metro area in recent years. But now, Mr.
ter infiltrates less and moves more rapidly and in Williams admits, “People in the development in-
much greater volume than under natural condi- dustry are a little nervous,” with water wars brew-
tions. The result is a decrease in groundwater ing in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida.24
flows into streams, less recharge into aquifers, an
increase in the magnitude and frequency of se-
vere floods, and high stream velocities that cause
severe erosion, damaging water quality, aquatic C A S E S T U DY
habitat, and infrastructure.20 Additionally, remov- Brick Township, New Jersey
ing groundwater at a faster rate than recharge can
replace it causes permanent loss of groundwater The Brick Municipal Utility Authority (MUA)
storage capacity, increased movement of contam- provides drinking water to more than 100,000
inated groundwater into clean groundwater, more residents in Brick Township and Point Pleasant
saltwater intrusion into coastal basins, and reduc- Beach, drawing 75 percent of its raw water from
tions in stream flow.21 the Metedeconk River and 25 percent from deep
In addition to decreasing infiltration, sprawl- and shallow wells. Throughout the Metedeconk
ing suburban-style development also contributes Watershed, seven other communities also draw
to water scarcity because it promotes more lawn ar- their drinking water from wells.
eas and larger lots planted with turf grass. Accord- The Metedeconk River Watershed, with its
ing to the EPA, an average of 32 percent of resi- headwaters in Turkey Swamp Wildlife Manage-
dential water use is for outdoor purposes. A study ment Area, has benefited from extensive wet-
in the Seattle metropolitan area found significant lands that cover 30 percent of the watershed,
diΩerences in water use among suburban-style relatively intact riparian forests, gentle topogra-
housing. Large suburban properties consumed as phy, and sandy, well-drained soils. As a result,
14 P r o t e c t i n g t h e S o u r c eCHALLENGES FOR SMALL WATER SYSTEMS
T he more than 45,000 small commu-
nity water systems in the country serve
fewer than 3,300 people each. Over
and limited training. Rates tend to be
very low and there is very little will to
invest in system upgrades unless there
30,000 of these systems are very small, is a crisis, as rural residents assume
serving fewer than 500 people each. their raw water is clean. At NeRWA,
Because of less stringent disinfection we try to help small systems address
requirements and the large number of these challenges with on-site technical
small, rural groundwater supplies, ground- assistance in operation, maintenance,
water sources for small communities vio- finance, governance and source pro-
late drinking water standards for microbes tection planning.30
and chemicals almost twice as often as
those serving larger communities—58 per-
cent of outbreaks as opposed to 33 per-
cent25—leaving people served by these C A S E S T U DY
systems even more vulnerable to out- West Groton Water Supply District,
breaks of waterborne illness.26
The vast majority of small water sys- Massachusetts © ERNEST BRAUN
tems use groundwater supplies, which are
threatened primarily by bacteria from rural The West Groton Water Supply District Source water protection is critical for small communities
septic effluent. It can be particularly chal- supplies water to approximately 520 house- dependent on local groundwater supplies.
lenging and costly for small water sup- holds in West Groton, Massachusetts. The
pliers to upgrade treatment technologies sole source of drinking water is a well field
to address contamination threats and to located in a shallow, sand-and-gravel- which was not deemed a source water
meet increasingly strict drinking water stratified drift aquifer with 47 intercon- threat. The Water Supply District wanted
standards.27 A $100,000 capital investment nected wells. The aquifer is only 30 feet to control only the commercial portion of
is considered minor for a system that deep and is directly under the influence of the site but could not buy it separately from
serves over 300,000 people, yet it may be surface water. It is thus highly susceptible to the rest of the property. If it bought the
out of reach for a system serving fewer contamination from inappropriate landuse. entire parcel as a public entity, the Water
than 5,000 people. In 2000, almost 40 per- For years the West Groton Water Sup- Supply District would not be able to resell
cent of privately owned community water ply District has been proactive about pur- any portion of it to recoup costs.
systems serving fewer than 500 people chasing and protecting land in its Zone I To solve the dilemma, the Water Supply
suffered financial losses, as compared source protection area (a 250-foot buΩer District created the West Groton Water
to only 5 percent of those serving over around the well field), and critical parcels Supply District Realty Trust to own and
100,000 people.28 in its secondary Zone II source protection manage the land. This allowed it to pur-
According to the Committee on Small area. Because it is a small district with lim- chase the property, subdivide it, and resell
Water Supply Systems assembled by the ited resources, it needs to be strategic about the house. The house was subsequently
National Research Council, “small water when and how to acquire land and finance placed back on the tax rolls, and most
suppliers should seek the cleanest water its long-term protection. important, the Water Supply District
supply available and protect that resource In 1985, the Water Supply District recouped $200,000 of its $260,000 invest-
before investing in new treatment tech- detected trace amounts of Trichloroethylene ment. The district continues to control the
nologies, other than disinfection.”29 (TCE) solvents (a petroleum by-product) commercial site, using it for storage, and the
The National Rural Water Association in its source water. A machine shop in the creek that runs through the property and is
(NRWA) assists small suppliers around Zone II protection area was identified hydrologically linked to their well fields.
the country with planning and implement- as the source. The TCE was no longer During negotiations with the landowner,
ing source protection strategies in order to detected shortly after the machine shop was the Water Supply District completed an envi-
protect public health and avoid costly treat- closed. Fifteen years later, the landowner ronmental assessment of the property and
ment upgrades. According to Jennifer decided to sell the 1.5-acre commercially discovered leaking underground oil tanks.
Palmiotto of the Northeast Rural Water zoned property. In order to avoid potential The Massachusetts Department of Environ-
Association, a regional office of NRWA, future contamination from commercial use mental Protection immediately removed the
of the property, the Water Supply District tanks and began clean-up. By controlling the
small rural water systems are faced decided to acquire it. The Water Supply site, the Water Supply District was able to
with increasingly complex challenges. District had only $60,000 in reserves to avoid the future contamination of their well
In order to safeguard public health, spend, which was not nearly enough to fields and the potentially significant public
water systems must meet the require- cover the $250,000 asking price and the health threat and clean-up costs.
ments of ever-growing regulations and need for environmental assessments and CONTACT: Gordon Newell
monitoring demands while struggling to potential clean-up. In order to protect the ADDRESS: West Groton Water Supply
make ends meet. Many of these rural property, the Water Supply District needed District, P.O. Box 246,
systems are managed by volunteer a creative solution. West Groton, MA 01472
boards and have one operator, who is Aside from the machine shop, the only PHONE: 978-448-3711
also often a volunteer with limited time other building on the lot was a small house, FAX: 978-425-9372
Pa r t O n e : Ma k i n g t h e C a s e 15You can also read
