What is source water? - National Environmental Services ... · PDF fileOn Tap Spring 1998 1...

On Tap Spring 1998 1

Drinking Water News For AmericaÕs Small Communities

Spring 1998Volume 7, Issue 1

On Tap is apublication of theNational Drinking

Water Clearinghouse,sponsored by the

Rural Utilities Service.

Continued on page 20


SpecialSourceWaterProtectionIssue

by Kathy JespersonNDWC Staff Writer

EditorÕs Note: This is the fifth installment inOn TapÕs 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)followup. We will continue to track SDWAimplementation throughout the next year.

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is theprimary statute that protects our nationÕs publicdrinking water supplies. Prior to August 1996,this law had not been amended for 10 years.These new amendments mandate source waterprotection, and in August the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) issued guidance forstate source water assessment programs.

The guidance says that states must developsource water assessment programs and submit

them to EPA for approval. With EPA approval, thestates will then have two years to assess all theirpublic water systems. An additional 18-monthtime extension may be requested if necessary.(For a review of the guidance, see page 8.)

Idaho Makes PlansSteve Tanner, program supervisor for IdahoÕs

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ),said that IdahoÕs source water advisory councilmet at the end of January. ÒWe spent a lot of timegetting the committee together,Ó Tanner said

ÒThe committee meeting was mostly anÔinformation downloadÕ kind of session,Ó saidScott Short, aquifer protection supervisor, DEQ.ÒWeÕll provide guidance on what a source waterassessment is.

by Harriet EmersonOn Tap Editor

Water is the most common substance on Earth,pooling in ponds, threading across the land inlakes and rivers, and flowing beneath the EarthÕssurface as groundwater.

Water covers three quarters of the EarthÑ97percent is salt water, located in oceans and seas,

What is source water?

and 2 percent is frozen in polar ice caps. Of allwater on Earth, only the remaining 1 percent isavailable as a drinking water source. Source wateris described as groundwater or surface water. Inthis context, weÕre discussing that 1 percent.

In AmericaÕs Private Land: A Geography ofHope, a U.S. Departmentof Agriculture (USDA)Natural Resources Conservation Service publica-

tion, Paul Johnson describeswater as Òthe source blood ofnatural systems.Ó Conservation-ists have long held that we needto treat the environment as aholistic systemÑthat we all livedownstream. Scientific advance-ments that measure contaminantsin quantities as infinitesimal asparts per billion confirm theoriesof interconnected ecosystems.

Once a water supply is con-taminated, the financial cost ofremediation can be extraordinary,and the ecological cost inesti-mable. The U.S. is a water-rich

SDWA: States Must Assess Source Water

Ricketts Glen, PennsylvaniaPhoto by: David Zuk

2 On Tap Spring 1998

R E S O U R C E S

Volume 7, Issue 1Spring 1998

Sponsored byRural Utilities

Service

AdministratorWally B. Beyer

Loan SpecialistDonna Roderick

Established in 1991 at WestVirginia University, the NationalDrinking Water Clearinghouse

is funded by the Water andWaste Disposal Division of the

Rural Utilities Service.

National Drinking WaterClearinghouse

Manager, WVU EnvironmentalServices and Training Division

John L. Mori, Ph.D.

Program CoordinatorSanjay Saxena

Technical AssistanceSpecialists

Mohamed LahlouSalam Murtada

Managing EditorHarriet Emerson

Staff Writers Kathy Jesperson

Natalie Eddy

Graphic DesignerEric Merrill

Program AssistantSheila Anderson

On Tap is a free publication,produced four times a year(February, May, August, and

November). Articles, letters tothe editor, news items, photo-

graphs, or other materialssubmitted for publication are

welcome. Please addresscorrespondence to:

Editor, On Tap, NDWCWest Virginia University

P.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506

(800) 624-8301(304) 293-4191

http://www.ndwc.wvu.edu

Permission to quote from orreproduce articles in this

publication is granted whendue acknowledgment is given.

Please send a copy of thepublication in which informationwas used to the On Tap editor

at the address above.

The contents of this publicationdo not necessarily reflect the

views and policies of the RuralUtilities Service, nor doesmention of trade names or

commercial products constituteendorsement or

recommendation for use.ISSN 1061-9291

OnTap

Two of the three interest rates for RuralUtilities Service (RUS) water and wastewaterloans remain unchanged this quarter. The mar-ket rate decreased slightly.

The RUS interest rates are set quarterly atthree different levels, which have specific qualifi-cation criteria. The rates for the second quarterof fiscal year 1998 apply to all loans issued fromJanuary 1 through March 31, 1998. These ratesare:¥ poverty line rate: 4.5 percent (unchanged

from the previous quarter);

RUS Market Rate Decreases; Others Unchanged

¥ intermediate rate: 4.875 percent (unchangedfrom the previous quarter); and

¥ market rate: 5.25 percent (down .125 fromthe previous quarter).RUS loans are administered through local or

state Rural Development offices, which canprovide specific information about RUS loansand applications.

For the phone number of your state RuralDevelopment office, contact the National Drink-ing Water Clearinghouse at (800) 624-8301 or(304) 293-4191.

On Tap is printed onrecycled paper.

This, the National Drinking Water Clearing-houseÕs (NDWC) largest newsletter to date, isdedicated entirely to source water protection.However, weÕre well aware that we have barelybrushed the surface of this subject. We haveincluded as many resources, contacts, and Websites as possible, but understand this is in noway comprehensive.

This On Tap offers aselection of educationaland regulatory articles,including a general feature,ÒWhat is source water?Ó(see page 1) and a reviewof the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection AgencyÕs (EPA)State Source Water Assess-ment and ProtectionPrograms Guidance, adocument that will be theÒbibleÓ for state drinkingwater professionals. (Seepage 8.)

We had substantialoutside assistance on thisissue and wish to acknowl-edge those that contributed, including the drink-ing water professionals who continue to help ustrack the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)implementation by sharing their experiences.(See page 1.)

Thanks to David Zuk, Ellsworth, Maine, forhis beautiful photographs, including our coverpicture; Chetan Desai, Senior Research Coordina-tor, West Virginia State Geographic InformationSystems (GIS) Technical Center at West VirginiaUniversity, who provided an introductory articleabout GIS (see page 5); and Edward Winant, a

How can we protect our source water?technical assistance specialist with the NationalSmall Flows Clearinghouse, who contributed theinteresting historical piece about New York CityÕsfirst watershed protection project. (See page 12.)

Many thanks to the individuals with MontanaÕsWater Center for sharing information about thatstateÕs technical assistance programs. (See page18.) Thanks also go to Brendan Shane, Associa-

tion of State DrinkingWater Administrators.And, as always, thanksgo to EPA and the U.S.Department of Agriculturefor assistance.

Once again, MohamedLahlou, NDWC technicalassistance specialist,compiled information forour seventh ÒTech Brief:Drinking Water PlantResiduals Management,Óa subject we feel comple-ments our source watertheme, but one that is notoften covered. (See centerpages.) Babu Madabhushi,

NDWC research assistant, answered our Q&A thistime, ÒIs nitrate contamination a serious problem?Ó(See page 26.)

Lahlou continues to gather information aboutstate and local drinking water programs. If youpublish a drinking water newsletter for smallcommunities, consider sending him a copy.Many thanks to those who sent newsletters.

Lahlou is also interested in suggestions forfuture Tech Brief topics. Our address is printedin the credit box at the left or you may e-mailhim at [email protected].

Photo by: Harriet Emerson


N E W S & N O T E SN E W S & N O T E S

Do you want to talk about drinking water? TheNational Drinking Water Clearinghouse (NDWC)now provides an online discussion group for pro-fessionals and other individuals with an interestin small community drinking water issues athttp://www.ndwc.wvu.edu.

This forum is open to anyone wishing to postdrinking water related questions and receive

feedback from other users. An NDWC engineerwill review the forum several times a week.However, this is a discussion group and not analternative hotline. If you have specific questionsthat require the expertise of an engineer, weencourage you to call the NDWC at (800) 624-8301or (304) 293-4191 and ask to speak with a techni-cal assistance specialist.

An additive that helps unleaded gasoline burnmore completely, methyl tertiary-butyl ether(MtBE), is under scrutiny by the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA) as a potentialwater contaminant. Present in gasoline since thechangeover from leaded to unleaded in the late1970s, MtBE usually amounts to only a smallpercentage (2—7 percent) of the total volume.

The Clean Air Act of 1990 requires the useof reformulated gasoline (RFG) in states withthe worst ozone or smog problems. RFG containsapproximately 11 percent MtBE by volume.Thirty-two areas in 18 states participate in theRFG program, accounting for approximately 30percent of gasoline used in the country.

Leaking underground storage tanks and pipeshave been the predominant routes of contamination.Airborne particles of MtBE from fuel exhaust arerelatively water soluble and can wash into surfacewater and groundwater. Once in groundwater,MtBE moves twice as fast and far as other gasolinecompounds and is fairly resistant to decomposition.The substance tastes and smells unpleasant andcan be detected readily by many people, thoughwater treatment chemicals can mask the tastefor some.

In high doses, MtBE has demonstrated carci-nogenic activity in animal studies. The EPA iscontinuing research to find out if there are anymore specific risks to people through their drink-ing water.

The United Nations (UN) has designatedMarch 22 as World Water Day (WWD).

The theme ÒGroundwaterÑthe InvisibleResourceÓ has been selected for 1998, the sixthannual WWD. The UN has expressed its concernabout three principal gaps in groundwater manage-ment worldwide that have enormous implicationsfor sustainable development: the accelerateddegradation of groundwater through pollutionof aquifers; the lack of professional and publicawareness about the sustainable use and economic

NDWC Discussion Group Is Online

Groundwater Is World Water Day Themeimportance of groundwater; and the economicimplications of not resolving groundwaterdemand and supply management.

For more information, see the WWD Website at http://www.oneworld.org/ircwater/WWDINDEX.HTM. You may also write to Dickde Jong, IRC International Water and SanitationCentre, PO Box 93190, 2509 AD The Hague,The Netherlands or e-mail [email protected]. He wouldgreatly appreciate press clippings on WWD.

NSF International announces their new publication,WaterWorks, a newsletter directed to personnel responsiblefor treatment and distribution of drinking water.

For more than 50 years, NSF International has been operatingas an independent, nonprofit organization that works to protectthe environment by developing safety standards, educating thepublic, and providing impartial conformity assessment services.NSF is widely recognized for its scientific and technical expertisein the health and environmental sciences.

For further information about WaterWorks, see NSFÕs Website at http://www.nsf.org.

NSF Announces New Publication

Gas Additive May Contribute to Groundwater Contamination

EPA Issues MtBE Drinking Water AdvisoryOn December 12, the EPA issued a non-bind-

ing advisory to keep concentrations of MtBEbelow the range of 20—40 parts per billion (ppb)in drinking water. Several New England stateshave already adopted their own nonenforceablemaximum exposure guidelines, which range from40—100 ppb. New Jersey has formally adopted amaximum contaminant level (MCL) of 70 ppb,and Maine has legislation on the table that, ifadopted, should establish an MCL for that stateby spring of 1998.

More information about the EPAÕs advisorycan be found on their Web site at http://www.epa.gov/OST/Tools/.


The Groundwater Foundation, establishedin 1985, informs the public about one of thecountryÕs most important hidden resourcesÑgroundwater.

Cindy Kreifels, director of the foundationÕsGroundwater Guardian program, said the founda-tion Òworks to bring groundwater to the worldÕsattention so people have the information necessaryto make the right choices.Ó

Susan Seacrest formed The GroundwaterFoundation following a personal crisis,which brought potential groundwaterproblems to the forefront for her.Seacrest and her husband dis-covered that their first son hadserious health problems relatedto an inability to absorb nutrients.

During her babyÕs recovery,Seacrest read a newspaper articleabout the high incidence oflymphoma and leukemia alongthe Platte Valley in Nebraska,where they lived. Researchers atthe University of Nebraska sus-pected that pesticides in the groundwater werethe culprit. Although it was never conclusivelyproven, Seacrest believed the same groundwatercontamination may have been responsible for hersonÕs illness. And, she developed a passionateinterest in groundwater.

Foundation Activities Involve Communities¥ The ChildrenÕs Groundwater Festival is an

annual one-day event involving more than3,000 elementary students in Nebraska.Children learn about groundwater throughentertaining, interactive displays. Ground-water festivals are becoming popular all overthe country.

¥ The Groundwater Guardian program, begunin 1994, encourages community members tobegin groundwater awareness and protectionactivities. The program supports the commu-nities in their efforts and recognizes theirachievements. Communities include ruralareas, large cities, Indian reservations, andeven water basins. In 1996, 84 communitieswere designated Groundwater Guardians.

An interested community forms a Ground-water Guardian team consisting of residents,business and agricultural representatives,educators, and government officials. Teamsthen develop activities, such as education andawareness, pollution prevention, public policy,conservation, and best management practices,that address the communityÕs groundwaterprotection concerns. Kreifels added that

communities re-enter the program each year asthey continue to build on previous successes.

¥ Groundwater University is a three-day programin which children from grades 7 through 12stay at the foundationÕs headquarters inNebraska and receive hands-on experiencein various aspects of groundwater monitoring.

¥ Groundwater Grad School, also for kids fromgrades 7 through 12, is a program in which astudent works with a mentor, learning about

that personÕs area of groundwaterexpertise.

¥ Festival Expedition is a newprogram that offers a structuredtour of the 1997 ChildrenÕsGroundwater Festival in GrandIsland, Nebraska.

¥ Priming the Pump is a nationalworkshop in which participantslearn how to plan a festival,share successful water educationactivities, and network withother educators.

¥ Fall Symposium is an annual gatheringof representatives from government, highereducation, private business, and the generalpublic to examine a particular groundwaterissue in-depth.

¥ This spring the foundation will sponsor itsfirst ChildrenÕs International GroundwaterSummit at Grand Island, Nebraska. Thesummit, open to 11- and 12-year-olds, willinclude discussions of the worldÕs waterprograms through the youngstersÕ eyesand their solutions to these issues.

Newsletters Reach Diverse Audience¥ Infiltration is a monthly publication that serves

as the official newsletter of the GroundwaterGuardian program. This publication coversgroundwater protection through land-usemanagement and promotes the transfer ofappropriate groundwater protection technology.

¥ The Aquifer is a quarterly journal focusing ongroundwater policy issues. Sprinkles, a quarterlywater education newsletter that features success-ful water education events, activities, andmaterials, will be absorbed into The Aquiferin March 1998.For more information about The Groundwater

Foundation, contact Seacrest at (800) 858-4844or visit the foundationÕs Web site at http://www.groundwater.org/. Also, see On Tap, Spring1995, Volume 4, Issue 2, ÒThe GroundwaterFoundation Guards the SourceÓ online at http://www.ndwc.edu.

Foundation Protects Groundwater

R E S O U R C E SR E S O U R C E S


by Chetan Desai, M.S.Senior Research CoordinatorWest Virginia State GIS Technical Center

What is GIS ?A geographic information system (GIS) is a

computer-based tool for mapping and analyzingthings that exist and events that happen on Earth.GIS technology integrates common databaseoperations, such as query and statistical analysiswith the unique visualization and geographicanalysis benefits offered by maps. These abilitiesdistinguish GIS from other information systemsand make it valuable to a wide range of public andprivate enterprises for explaining events, predictingoutcomes, and planning strategies.

GIS consists of integrated hardware and soft-ware that supports capture, management, manipu-lation, analysis, and display of spatial data forsolving planning and management problems.Geographic information contains either explicitgeographic references, such as latitudeor longitude, or other grid coordinates.Researchers are able to compare andanalyze far more data on screen thanthey ever could on paper.

Features representing geographicinformation can be related to tabulardata (called attributes) that describe non-spatial characteristics of the features, such aswater use tables. A GIS may also integrate imag-ery from airplanes or satellites that may not beclassified into features.

In a watershed affected by acid mine drainage,a GIS provides researchers with the ability todisplay the locations of streams as well as possiblethreats to the quality of the water and life foundin and around it.

What does GIS cost?The GIS costs can be classified into four com-

ponents: hardware, software, personnel, and data.Current GIS technology allows fairly complicatedGIS functionality to be supported on an officepersonal computer. The small format printers arealso inexpensive. Software costs can range froma few hundred dollars to a few thousand dollarsfor the lower end applications. A number ofcomputerized maps for GIS are already availablefrom government sources.

The user requirements analysis will reveal thethemes of information that are necessary to addressthe users needs. The cost of data design and devel-opment is very likely to define the overall cost ofthe GIS system.

For smaller communities it is crucial that localconstituencies share the costs of data development.

The U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyÕs State SourceWater Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance recom-mends that states create source water assessment mapsthrough a geographic information system; however, topo-graphic formats may be used.

GIS: ItÕs the Future of MapsThe personnel cost varies based on the level ofusage, however, for users not familiar with GIStechnology some allowance of resources (timeand/or money) should be budgeted. GIS classesare available at a number of places now, includingmany universities.

How is GIS useful for a water utility ?Water utilities use GIS technology in a variety

of planning and engineering applications including:¥ automated mapping,¥ facilities management and inventory,¥ disaster preparedness and emergency response,¥ planning and forecasting future demand, and¥ management of maintenance.

The GIS integrates the water supply relatedfeatures, such as water mains, hydrants, manholes,pumps, valves, reservoirs, and facility lines withproperty ownership boundaries, transportation,pavements, right of ways, customer address infor-mation, and aerial photography.

The water utility can use GIS to automatethe production and revision of maps, eliminateduplication of facility data, and provide analyticalfunctionality to perform some maintenance planningbefore the crews go out in the field.

If the GIS information stores attribute infor-mation, such as age of various water mains, etc.,then this information can be readily mapped with asimple query to allow scheduling of maintenance.Corridor mapping would allow mapping of supplyline corridors to anticipate future demand indeveloping areas.

Although the visible product of a GIS may be amap display and integration of related informationfrom different sources, the benefits and applicationstranscend the initial benefit.

A GIS can routinely allow users to view spatialareas of high consumption of water, analyze pres-sure zones to critical locations, such as hospitals,and emergency response modeling. The linkageto information, such as customer billing addresses,property ownership, aerial photography, etc. givesthe potential for the GIS database to be multi-jurisdictional, allowing for sharing of equipment,software, data, and trained personnel.

For more information on GIS, contact Desaiat (304) 293-5603 or you may e-mail him [email protected].

T E C H N O L O G I E ST E C H N O L O G I E S


Continued on next page

by Michelle MooreNDWC Contributing Writer

You could say that we all live in a watershedsince waterways, large and small, flow throughmost of the country. Everything that is done tothe land in an area affects the quality and quantityof water.

Indiscriminate housing and business develop-ment have caused many of the water pollutionproblems we have today. Often, the impact ofrunoff from structures and paved surfaces intowatersheds is barely considered. In the not-too-distant past, pollutants were dumped freely intolakes, streams, and rivers.

The prevailing attitude was that toxic substanceswould either be adequately diluted or that theproblem would wash downstream for someoneelse to deal with. The Clean Water Act of 1972helped reduce point-source pollution by makingit difficult for businesses to discharge waste intowaterways.

Water quality problems wonÕt go away withoutprompt action. Each community needs to decidewhether it will have clean water through moreintensive treatment or clean water from the source.

Watershed Management Is VitalThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) estimates that during the next 20 years acapital investment of more than $138 billion willbe needed to ensure the delivery of safe drinkingwater. ThatÕs a pretty hefty bill for somethingmany take for granted as cheap and plentiful.

Protecting the watershed is becoming morea necessity than an option in resolving issuesof clean water. The American Water Works Asso-ciation publication The AWWA Journal reportsresults of a watershed management study theyconducted: Òthe most effective way to ensure thelong-term protection of water supplies is throughland ownership by the water supplier and itscooperative public jurisdictions.Ó The report alsosaid that only about 2 percent of watershed landsare owned by water utilities nationwide.

What can small communities do?Watershed management focuses on preventing

pollution of source water instead of paying the priceof cleanup after the fact. Land trusts, nonprofitorganizations that operate to preserve open spacesfor conservation, recreation, and other publicbenefit, can be one route to keeping source watercleaner. Public and private land trusts have alreadysaved more than four million acres of wild landsfrom being developed. Watershed landsÑwhich

The 1996 Amend-ments to the SafeDrinking WaterAct include newauthority to providelocalities withDrinking WaterState RevolvingFund loans that maybe used to purchaseland or easementsfrom willing sellersor grantors if thepurpose is to pro-tect source waterand ensure drinkingwater standardscompliance.[Section 1452(k)(1)(A)(i)]

Land Trusts Work To Preserve Watershedsinclude aquifers, rivers, lakes, and streamsÑcanbe designated as protected areas to reduce oreliminate the possibility of business or residentialdevelopment.

Two national organizations, the Trust forPublic Land (TPL) based in San Francisco andthe Land Trust Alliance (LTA) in Washington,D.C., work to help retain land in its natural state.They both have regional offices across the country.Their roles include educating the public on theadvantages, both ecological and economic, ofprotecting open land.

According to TPL, approximately 1,100 landtrusts operate in the U.S. Every state is protectingsome of its landscape through land trusts withnew trusts forming at a rate of approximatelyone per week.

How do land trusts work?Land trusts are often created by individuals

who sell or donate their properties for preservation,but that is not the only method. Trusts can includeconservation easements through restrictions ondeeds still held by individual families. Or landtrusts sometimes purchase mineral rights toprevent land from being mined. They can alsobe helpful in negotiating or fundraising for othergroups or agencies, such as state conservancies,to acquire properties for nature preserves. Whenthe word gets out that a land trust is being formed,foundations and other philanthropic groups oftencome forward to lend a hand.

State governments have gotten involved inprotecting resources, too. The North CarolinaLegislature voted last year to devote 6.5 percent(a projected $40 million in the first year) of itsrevenue surplus to start the Clean Water Manage-ment Trust Fund. New York state voters approved$150 million for buying land in the Clean Water,Clean Air Bond Act. Florida residents approvedthe Everglades Trust Fund to protect this vitalaquifer recharge area.

Drinking water state revolving fund (DWSRF)loans, created through the 1996 amendments tothe federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),authorized that up to 15 percent of each stateÕsfunding could used for acquiring land or conser-vation easements, and another 10 percent couldbe used for wellhead protection.

Grassroots Organizing Is Powerful Land trusts develop at the local level through

the efforts of people who have an interest in thefuture of the area. The size of the community isnot necessarily a factor. TPL reported that

E D U C A T I O NE D U C A T I O N


Gunnison, Colorado, a town of 6,000 residents,spent more than $500,000 (about the same as theirtotal annual drinking water budget) to buy a ranchsituated above the local aquifer to prevent housingand commercial development. Residents knew thatdevelopment of the landÑand its accompanyingpollutionÑwould Òdirectly threaten drinkingwater quality,Ó Gunnison Public Works DirectorKen Coleman said. ÒPreserving the ranch protectsboth the quality and quantity of GunnisonÕs drink-ing water, as well as preserving open space.Ó Hayis still grown on the ranch, and water used toirrigate the hay soaks through the soil to rechargethe aquifer.

As in Gunnison, partnerships form amongpeople who have a stake in their watershed. Thesepartners can include landowners, local businesses,recreational users, government agencies, electedofficials, and/or members of the media. Peopleof all ages living in the region can be educatedto the need for protecting the future of the localwater supply.

This partnership approach has proven to be oneof the more successful ways to manage watersheds.Much better response, motivation, and communitycontrol can be achieved through the com-bined effort and cooperation achievedthrough a local partnership. People feelinvolved with the process of conservationrather than feeling as though they arebeing forced to accept outside regulationof their natural resources.

Plan Well for SuccessBefore a land trust can be established,

organizers need to determine exactly whatlands need to be preserved and the mostrealistic way of achieving that end. Featuresof the watershed need to be identified,such as its size, the general lay of theland, and the type(s) of soils in the area.

An evaluation of the local residentsÕ interestsneeds to be made, and the present uses of the water-shed need to be determined. Achievable goalsshould be set that preserve the land while preservingthe peace among members of the community.

Land trust organizations, such as TPL andLTA, can help devise a workable conservationplan that is the most reasonable choice for yourcommunity. Several books are available to guidepeople through the steps of setting up and imple-menting land trusts including The Standards andPractices Guidebook: An Operating Manual forLand Trusts and Doing Deals: A Guide to BuyingLand for Conservation.

For more information about land trusts orto find out if there is a land trust group active inyour state, contact the TPL or LTA. You may writeto the Trust for Public Land, 116 New MontgomerySt., San Francisco, CA 94105 or call them at(800) 714-5263 or (415) 495-4014. TPL alsohas a Web site at http://www.tpl.org.

You may reach the Land Trust Alliance bywriting to 1319 F St. NW, Suite 501, Washington,D.C., 20004-1106 or by calling them at (202) 638-4725. Their Web address is http://www.lta.org.

Conservation Easements Explained

The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests offersPermanently Protecting Water Supply Lands With ConservationEasements to help explain some of the details of contracts to protectsource waters. Funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,the 44-page booklet contains model easements and guidance on how,when, and where to use this land trust option.

Copies may be ordered from the Society for the Protection of NewHampshire Forests, 54 Portsmouth Street, Concord, NH 03301-5400.Please send a check for $2, which covers postage and handling.

For more information, e-mail [email protected] or visit theirWeb site at http://www.spnhf.org/.

Continued from previous page

Faulty septic systems are the leading sourceof contaminants in water supplies, according to aU.S. Environmental Protection Agency CommunityWater System Survey. Help is available to smallcommunities for reaching practical, affordablesolutions to water treatment problems throughthe National Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC).

The NSFC, a sister organization of the NationalDrinking Water Clearinghouse, offers technicalassistance and referrals, databases, newsletters,and a research journal. Their products guide lists

NSFC Can Help Clean Up Your Townmore than 250 manuals, booklets, pamphlets, andvideotapes on subjects ranging from septic tanksiting to watershed protection.

To request the latest Guide to Products or afree information packet that describes NSFCÕsservices, call the NSFC at (800) 624-8301 or(304) 293-4191. This guide also is availablethrough their Web site at http://www.nsfc.wvu.edu.Orders also may be placed via e-mail [email protected].

Land Trusts Work To Preserve Watersheds




EditorÕs Note: The following is a brief reviewof the U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyState Source Water Assessment and ProtectionPrograms Guidance.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) issued guidance for state source waterassessment programs in August 1997 as mandatedin the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amend-ments of 1996. What does the law require? What isthis guidance all about? Is source water protectionnew? What will this guidance mean for states?What will this mean for small communities?

What do the SDWA Amendments require?States need to develop and implement source

water protection (SWP) programs. Each statewith primacy needs to submit a source waterassessment program (SWAP) to EPA by February1999. Once approved, a state has two years toassess all public water systems (PWS), with apossible additional 18-month extension if necessary.

Each assessment must identify the areas thatsupply tap water, inventory contaminants andassess how susceptible to contamination a PWSis. The state must tell the public the results ofthe assessments.

Section 1453 (a)(1) mandates that assessmentsbe accomplished Òfor the protection and benefitof PWSs and for the support of monitoringflexibility . . . .Ó

Section 1453 (a)(2) (A) requires states todelineate boundaries of the source water areasfor each PWS, using all reasonable availablehydrogeologic information.

Section 1453 (a) (2) (B) requires states toidentify contaminants regulated under the SDWAfor which monitoring is required or any unregulatedcontaminant the state has added to the list. And tothe extent practical, states need to findout wherecontaminants are coming from and how much atrisk the PWS is.

Section 1453 (a)(3) sets a time line allowing notmore than two years for completion after approvalof a program, with a possible 18-month extension.

What is this guidance?The guidance describes what SWAP must do.

It provides minimal mandates, maximum guidance.The guidance offers suggestions for assessmentapproaches and information about existing federalregulations and programs.

Two of the elements the guidance concentrateson most are partnership and avoiding duplication.Neither money, time, nor water are limitless. (Foran overview of which other federal legislationprovides for source water protection, see page 11,

and/or part V of the State Source Water Assessmentand Protection Programs Guidance.)

Is SWP new?Source water protection isnÕt exactly new. The

SDWA 1986 Amendments introduced wellheadprotection (WHP) and Sole Source Aquifer (SSA)programs, public water monitoring waivers andtreatment exemptions, as well as ComprehensiveState Ground Water Protection programs. Sincethen, EPA has supported state and communityefforts to protect drinking water sources.

Also in place are the Toxic Release Inventory,pollution prevention and community based initia-tives, and other programs, such as the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture (USDA) ConservationReserve Program.

EPAÕs stated SWP goal is that 60 percent of theindividuals served by community water systems(CWS) receive water from systems with SWPprograms in place by 2005.

What has changed?Important provisions in the 1996 Amendments

related to SWP include:(1) continuation of the WHP program and

new authority for states to support WHPthrough drinking water state revolvingfund (DWSRF);

(2) new, optional petition program;(3) authority for states to use DWSRF funds

to administer or provide technicalassistance through SWP programs,except for enforcement actions;

(4) new authority to give local communitiesDWSRF loans that may be used to pur-chase land or easements if the purpose isto protect source water or ensure drinkingwater standards compliance; and

(5) new authority to provide loans to com-munities to implement local, voluntary,incentive-based SWP measures.

The 1996 Amendments do not confer any newregulatory or enforcement authorities for drinkingwater source protection upon states. However,many provisions require EPA to incorporate SWPinto drinking water regulations.

WhereÕs the money?States may set aside funds from the DWSRF

to finance source water assessments. Possibleset-asides include:

(1) up to 10 percent of a stateÕs DWSRFallotment to administer or give technicalassistance to SWP programs (Note: Statesmust match funds dollar-for-dollar);

How can states protect source water?

R E G U L A T I O N SR E G U L A T I O N S

Water Fact

The five GreatLakes representapproximately 95percent of all fresh

water aboveground in the U.S.

U.S. EPA Office ofWater Web Site


(2) up to 15 percent of stateÕs capitalizationgrant for more than one of several SWPactivities, such as land acquisition, ease-ments (see land trust article, page 6),source water assessments; and

(3) up to 2 percent of the stateÕs DWSRFallotment for additional technical assis-tance to small PWS.

Each state is required to separately match 20percent of the entire DWSRF capitalization grant.Under other set asides, funds from the DWSRF canalso be used for any PWS activity that may comple-ment SWP, such as as operator certification andcapacity building. (For further information aboutthe DWSRF as well as other federal fundingsources, see the fall Water Sense, Volume 3, Issue2, pages 11-12; or Volume 3, Number 4, page 11.)

What does EPA suggest states do first?One of the first steps in any SWAP is to gather

and review information. Many states have alreadygathered considerable data on contaminationsources, performed vulnerability assessments,and analyzed monitoring data on contaminantsin implementing waiver WHP programs.

Where can one find data? If you have access to the Internet, this is the

best place to begin. An incredible amount ofinformation is available online, from EPA factsheets on hundreds of topics to complete versionsof regulations. (See source water help, page 17.)

Specifically, information sources may includedelineations and assessments done under:

(1) WHP program or state watershed approach,(2) vulnerability assessments,(3) sanitary surveys,(4) monitoring programs,(5) delineation and assessments under a state

management plan for pesticides, and

(6) any assessments done under the CleanWater Act (CWA), plus additional stateand local statutes. Any system with anexisting waiver may be a good place tostart assessing as much of the work mayalready be done.

How complete must assessments be?A complete local assessment of a PWS includes

the three steps of delineation, source identification,and susceptibility. For the state’s program to becomplete, every PWS needs to be assessed andthe results released to the public.

Must the level of exactness be the same in allassessments of all PWSs? No. Many detailedassessments may already have been completedunder other programs or to meet other regulations.By consulting geologic maps, states can put detailedassessments for certain systems on the backburner. If, for instance, a community is isolatedfrom industrial or other contaminants and hasaccess to high quality drinking water from deepconfined aquifers, a state could reasonably conducta less detailed assessment on that system andconcentrate on communities at risk.

WhatÕs the publicÕs part?States have a high degree of flexibility in how

they implement this program. States must provideopportunities for the publicÑboth advisory com-mittees and broad public participationÑto guidethe decision-making process, and EPA expects awide variety of approaches. The guidance docu-ments suggest many ways to involve the public;however, they do not mandate a particular method.

The State Source Water Assessment and Pro-tection Programs Guidance, EPA 816/R/97/009,may be ordered from the Safe Drinking WaterHotline at (800) 426-4791 or e-mail your requestto [email protected]. This documentis also available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/source/swpguid.html.


CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act or Superfund

CWS Community Water SystemCWA Clean Water ActDBP Disinfection By-ProductsDWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving FundFIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide ActGIS Geographic Information SystemGWDR Ground Water Disinfection RuleMCL Maximum Contaminant LevelNEP National Estuary Program

Acronyms Defined

NPS Nonpoint SourceNRCS Natural Resource Conservation ServiceOGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking WaterSDWA Safe Drinking Water ActSSA Sole Source AquiferSWAP Source Water Assessment ProgramSWP Source Water ProtectionSWTR Surface Water Treatment RuleUSDA U.S. Department of AgricultureUSGS U.S. Geological SurveyWHP Wellhead Protection



Each state needs to:

Describe the approach the state will take to implement a SWAP

Describe whether the state plans to implement a source waterprotection program

Describe how a SWAP will link with existing protection program

For groundwater systems, use delineation methods in accordancewith EPA-accepted guidelines for WHP

Include recharge areas that are not adjacent to or surroundingthe well

For surface water, delineate the entire watershed area upstreamof any intakes or diversion structures, up to the stateÕs borders

Indicate what Òcontaminants of concernÓ its SWAP will address

Include a clear description of the sources of contamination (orcategories of sources)

Choose an approach for determining which types of potentialsources are significant

Indicate what types of potential sources of the contaminants ofconcern will be considered ÒsignificantÓ

Define Òsusceptibility determinationÓ

Describe how the results of susceptibility determination willcontribute to the protection and benefits of the PWSs

Describe how it will delineate source water protection areas,conduct an inventory of contamination sources, and conducta susceptibility determination for that part of a boundary river,the Great Lakes, or multi-state rivers that are within thestateÕs borders

Exert the maximum practical effort to ensure interstatecoordination for assessments

Make the results of the assessments available quickly

Make available all the information collected during eachassessment, when requested

Create maps that include the delineated area and sourcesof contamination described in the inventory

Describe how, to whom, and what aspects of SWAPimplementation the state will delegate

Indicate the stateÕs definition of delegation

State the financial capacities of the entity or entities to whomaspects of the assessments are delegated

Explain how it will complete the assessments, using the resourcesallocated by the state

Explain how it will coordinate with other state environmentalprograms, Tribes, local stakeholders, other states, and federalagencies

Describe how it will periodically report to EPA on the progress ofthe SWAPs

Describe the timetable for implementing and completing theassessments within the state

Indicate whether the state wants an extension (of up to18 months)

Source: State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance.

Making the Results of Assessments Available to the Public

SWAP Approach Is Outlined for States


Each state is statutorily required to:

Conduct SWAPs for the Òprotection andbenefit of PWSsÓ

Submit SWAPs to the appropriate RegionalAdministrator by February 1999 (within 18months after EPA publishes final guidance)

Delineate boundaries of the assessmentareas using all reasonable availablehydrogeologic and other information

Conduct a contamination source inventory

Conduct an inventory for Cryptosporidiumand other raw water contaminants regulatedunder SDWA

Conduct a susceptibility determination

Conduct SWAPs for the Òprotection andbenefit of PWSsÓ

Ensure the results of the assessmentsare made available to the public in anunderstandable manner

Implementing the Chosen SWAP

Implement the SWAP immediatelyupon approval

Complete the assessments in the approvedtime table


Since the turn of this century, the U.S. Govern-ment has taken a hand in protecting the quality ofthe nationÕs water. Congress passed the Rivers andHarbors Act in 1899, and although the purpose ofthis initial legislation was protection for the sakeof commerce, it heralded the advent of nationalwater protection.

In 1948, the federal government passed theWater Pollution Control Act, which for the firsttime offered state and local governments technicalassistance and funds to promote water qualityprotection efforts.

The 50 years since then have seen unprec-edented growth in population and urban andsuburban sprawl. A number of federal laws thathelp protect source water quality have beenpassed in the five decades since the original waterpollution regulations, including the Water QualityAct (WQA); the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA);the Clean Water Act (CWA); the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); theComprehensive Environmental Response, Com-pensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, orSuperfund); the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); and the ToxicSubstance Control Act (TSCA).

In addition, the 1972 Marine Protection,Research, and Sanctuaries Act prevents unaccept-able dumping in oceans, and the 1990 Coastal ZoneAct Reauthorization Amendments focus effortson reducing polluted runoff in 29 coastal states.

WQA Set Water Quality StandardsIn 1965, the legislature passed the WQA,

which charged states with setting water qualitystandards for interstate navigable waters.

The Water Quality Act of 1987 supports newstate and local efforts to manage polluted runoff.The act created a revolving loan fund to supportconstruction of treatment plants, catalyzedaction to address pollution from urban runoff,and created programs to protect estuaries ofnational importance.

CWA Protects Surface WaterIn 1972, the CWA created a program designed

to protect and restore the physical, chemical, andbiological integrity of the nationÕs surface waters.It set standards for allowable pollutant dischargesand required permits for discharge. The initial CWAencouraged the use of best achievable pollutioncontrol technology and provided billions of dollarsfor sewage treatment plant construction.

The 1977 amendments to the CWA strengthenedcontrols on toxic pollutants and allowed states toassume responsibility for federal programs.

What regulations protect source water?SDWA Protects Drinking Water

In 1974, Congress passed the first federallegislation that dealt specifically with drinkingwater. As outlined in the SDWA, the U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets maximumcontaminant levels for public water supplies, regu-lates underground disposal of wastes, designatessole-source aquifers, and establishes public watersupply protection programs.

There are six major source water protectionprograms under the SDWA: underground injectioncontrol (UIC), sole source aquifer (SSA), wellheadprotection (WHPP), source water assessment,source water petition, and comprehensive ground-water assessment grants.

1986 SDWA amendments included the WHPPand the SSA Demonstration Program. EPA providestechnical assistance programs to the states, whichimplement these two programs.

SSA programs, authorized under the 1986SDWA amendments, give EPA authority to estab-lish procedures for development, implementation,and assessment of demonstration projects designedto protect critical aquifer areas designated as soleor principal source aquifers. Sole source aquiferscan be critical areas designated by EPA or desig-nated under the CWA. Originally there was adeadline for SSA applications; however, the 1996SDWA amendments eliminated the deadline, andapplications can be submitted any time.

The SDWA, as amended in 1996, emphasizestwo new key elements in source water protection:a clear state lead in program development andmanagement, and a strong ethic of public partici-pation. By 2003, all states will need to haveassessments of drinking water sources. The EPAgoal is to have local source water protection pro-grams in place by 2005. (For a review of the StateSource Water Assessment and Protection ProgramsGuidance, see page 8.)

RCRA Regulates Solid WasteThe RCRA regulates storage, treatment, and

disposal of hazardous and solid wastes to preventcontaminants from leaching into groundwaterfrom municipal landfills, underground storagetanks, surface impoundments, and hazardouswaste disposal facilities. The Act requires docu-mentation that follows hazardous waste frompoint of generation to final disposal.

The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste amend-ments to RCRA promote waste reduction andrecycling and treatment of hazardous wastes, aswell as prohibiting land disposal of certain haz-ardous wastes unless treated. The Land DisposalRestrictions Program, another 1984 amendmentContinued on page 19


DonÕt Forget

EARTH DAY!April 22, 1998


by Ed Winant, Ph.D.NDWC Contributing Writer

The Dutch settled Manhattan Island in 1609.Occupying the lower tip of the island, they madeuse of wells dug in the middle of streets to meettheir fresh water demands. Though surroundedby three rivers, that water was brackish (salty)and unfit for drinking. The rivers were used forwaste disposal, but tidal action kept the pollutionnear the island.

Manhattan quickly grew, and with morepeople and more pollution, the wells quicklybecame fouled. For many years, however, thesolution was to dig more wells or build pondsfarther up the island. Residents were requiredto trudge the extra distance carrying buckets orpurchase water from a vendor who used a cartfor hauling. Since the town was not interested infinancing a municipal waterworks, this was allthat the meager private resources could fund. Butwith the population growing to 33,000 by 1776and 60,000 by 1800, the islandÕs water sourcesbecame inadequate both in quantity and quality.

Degraded Water Quality Causes ConcernA water quality report from 1831 details the

sorry state of ManhattanÕs local water supplies.The findings, titled ÒOf the Purity of the NewYork Waters,Ó found large amounts of contaminantsfrom feces and urine in the groundwater. Waterquality studies were subjective, mostly based ontaste and odor. Tests were done by evaporating asample and inspecting the remaining sediment. Inan interesting comment, the report noted that staleurine would precipitate salts from the water, thusacting as a water softener. The report concluded,ÒAlthough the fastidious may revolt from the use

of water thus sweetened to our palate, it is perhapsfortunate that this mixture is daily taking place,for otherwise the water of this city would become. . . utterly unfit for domestic purposes.Ó

Water treatment was in its infancy, however.A few cities in England used sand filtration toremove sediment, but this practice was not wide-spread. A British engineer, William Weston,proposed a gravel and sand filter to treat waterdiverted from the nearby Bronx River. Westonplanned to divert and treat three million gallonsper day (MGD) at a project cost running in thehundreds of thousands of dollars. He succeededin forming a corporation but could not secure thenecessary capital, and the project collapsed.

Politics Cloud Water IssuesDuring these years, the city was plagued by

repeated fires and yellow fever epidemics. Thecity needed a municipal supply of water to washthe filth out of the streets and to fight fires. Thefire department tried using river water but foundthat the brackish water fouled their pumps. Thus,New York City (NYC) submitted a bill to the stateassembly for the right to construct a municipalsystem. This bill was blocked by AssemblymanAaron Burr, who wanted to secure private controlof ManhattanÕs water supply. Dismayed by thepolitical opposition and desperate for water, thecity council agreed to let Burr found a privatecorporation to supply water to NYC.

BurrÕs intentions were less than noble. Hispolitical party, the Democratic-Republican Party,ran in the minority to the dominant Federalistparty. The Federalists chartered the banks in NewYork and would deny loans and services toDemocratic-Republicans. BurrÕs party wanted

Croton River:

ManhattanÕs First Source Water Project



ÒHigh Bridge of theCroton AqueductCrossing the HarlemRiverÓ by F. B. Tower.Illustrations of theCroton Aqueduct(New York: Wiley &Sons, 1843).


their own bank, but could not get one charteredthrough the state.

In the charter for the water company, Burradded a clause that allowed excess capital to belent out at interest to subsidize the water rates forthe city. The charter allowed the Manhattan Com-pany to sell stock up to $2 million or totalling $2million, enough to fund WestonÕs Bronx Riverplan. When the company acquired the capital,however, they announced a change in plans to useManhattan well water and lent out most of theirmoney at interest. They dug a few new wells tomaintain their charter, but these faced the samewater quality issues as the old wells.

The Manhattan Company, currently knownas the Chase-Manhattan Bank, maintained astranglehold on New YorkÕs water supply from1799 until 1833. They could not allow anothercompany to provide water to the city, for thatwould void their charter. Neither could theyinvest the necessary capital of their own as thiswould hamstring their highly successful bankingoperations. Thus the residents continued to sufferthrough epidemics, fires, and polluted water.

City Surveys Source Water OptionsIn 1821, the city council took matters into its

own hands and authorized a survey of the BronxRiver with the intent of diverting its water toManhattan. They authorized Canvass White, oneof the chief engineers of the Erie Canal to overseethe survey. He proposed four different plans: twoof open canals with pumps for distribution, araised canal for gravity distribution, and a coveredbrick channel to preserve the waterÕs purity. Anyof the open canal schemes were predicted to cost$950,000, the covered brick channel about $2million. The council approved the brick channelbut left it to White to raise the money privatelyand run the waterworks as a private company.The Manhattan Company promptly sued, andWhiteÕs plan went nowhere.

In 1832, former governor DeWitt Clinton,responsible for the Erie Canal, lent his politicalweight to NYC to free them from the grip of theManhattan Company. They won state approvalto appoint a Board of Water Commissioners andtake municipal control of the water supply. Thenew board then reviewed all of the various pro-posals, including plans to divert New Jersey riversand Connecticut rivers into the city via canals.However, they rejected every plan either becausethe source was impure or insufficient to supplythe demand of the city. This demand was ninemillion gallons per day, enough to give the popu-lation of 450,000 people 20 gallons each.

New York Turns to Croton WatershedThe city then turned to the Croton watershed.

The Croton River empties into the Hudson about40 miles north of Manhattan. Some farms andsmall villages bordered the river, but it waslargely undeveloped, and the water was quitepure and wholesome.

To maintain this purity, the Board of WaterCommissions selected a covered brick-linedchannel that would carry thewater by gravity. JohnJervis, selected asChief Engineer, wasresponsible forconstructing the41 miles ofchannel ata constantslope of 13and a halfinches permile. Thechannelhad 16tunnels,114 cul-verts, 33ventilators(to maintain unpressurized conditions in the aque-duct), six waste weirs (diversions to remove excesswater from the aqueduct), two inverted siphons,an impoundment dam on the Croton River, and theHigh Bridge over the Harlem River. This massiveproject was capable of conducting 42 MGD.

Structures Control Water FlowOf these structures, two deserve special mention.

The headworks dam was approximately 40 feethigh and impounded the Croton River to form areservoir that would store water through the summerdrought. Jervis calculated the average summerflow of the river at 27 MGD and needed to makeup the difference. Of course, when built, the aque-duct only needed nine MGD to supply the city,but Jervis was planning for the future. Additionally,the dam raised the starting point of the aqueduct,and thus reduced the length of channel by aboutfive miles. The masonry dam was constructedwith an ogive, or backwards ÒSÓ shape, todampen the force of water crossing it and alsohad a stilling pool to dissipate energy. The tail ofthe ogive redirects the falling water to a horizontaljet and shoots it into the stilling pool where areservoir of still water dissipates the energy of thejet. These two features, now quite common onlarge dams, were pioneered by Jervis.



Typical Cross Section ofthe Croton Aqueduct.Drawing by John Hriblanfor the Institute forHistory of Technologyand IndustrialArcheology, WestVirginia University.



High Bridge carried the aqueduct across theHarlem River onto Manhattan Island. Originally,Jervis wanted to use an inverted siphon here, ashe had at Manhattan Valley, a large gulf in themiddle of the island. However, the Board of WaterCommissioners insisted on a large stone viaducttall enough to allow sailing ships under it so as tomaintain navigation on the Harlem River. Jervisretorted that there had never been navigation on

ManhattanÕs First Source Water ProjectContinued from page 13


the Harlem, and there never would be. Still, heacquiesced and planned the 1,450-foot-long HighBridge, with 15 stone arches 114 feet above riverlevel. At this height, he still lacked about 40 feetto the level of the aqueduct. This elevation wasscaled using a small inverted siphon.

Once in the city, the aqueduct delivered waterto a receiving reservoir on York Hill. This facilitycould store 150 million gallons. The reservoirheld the inflow, sending it via cast iron pipes to a

distributing reservoir on Murray Hill.The distributing reservoir, with ahigh stone facade done in EgyptianRenaissance style, held 20 milliongallons and housed the controls tosend water throughout the city. It saton the site of the present day NYCPublic Library. The aqueduct starteddelivering water in July 1842. Thedistribution piping was completedin October to provide Manhattanresidents with all the conveniencesof indoor plumbing.

Croton Still Serves CityThe selection of the Croton River

as a source of water was of greatconcern to the Board of Water Com-missioners. With water treatment inits infancy, the only way to ensurewater quality was to find and protecta pure source. The commissionersaccomplished this, using a coveredchannel to protect the water duringits 40-mile journey. Croton Reservoir,expanded in the 1880s, still servesNYC as a source of water and itswatershed is still protected to preservethe high quality of water that firstattracted people to New York in the1820s. It now provides approximately10 percent of NYCÕs daily need.

Population growth has impactedthe watershed. The water is currentlydisinfected, and the city is under aU.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) order to construct a filtrationplant. Protection of the watershed iscovered in the NYC Watershed Agree-ment. This cooperative document

East Fishkill

BeekmanPawling

Patterson

PutnamValley

Carmel

Kent

Southeast

Somers

NorthSalem

Yorktown

NewCastle

Cortlandt

Bedford

Lewisboro

Harrison

MountPleasant

PoundRidge

HudsonRiver

New CrotonReservoir Cross River

Reservoir

MuscootReservoir

AmawalkReservoir

KensicoReservoir

TiticusReservoir

Catskill A

queduct

Catskill A

queduct

Croton A

queduct

Delaw

are Aqueduct

NorthCastle

Delaware AqueductBoyds CornerReservoir

West BranchReservoir

LakeGlenelda

MiddleBranchReservoir

KirkLake

Croton FallsReservoir

Lake Gilead

MiddleBranchReservoir

Bog BrookReservoir

EastBranchReservoirDiverting

Reservoir

New York

Connecticut

Putnam County

Westchester County

Dutchess County

Putnam County

Long IslandSound


A map of the Croton Watershed isonline at http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dep/html/croton.html. (Source: TheCity of New York Department ofEnvironmental Protection)


links city, state, local communities, environmentalgroups, and the EPA in maintaining high source-water quality. That NYCÕs water has not neededfiltration until now is a ringing endorsement forthe foresight of the original commissioners. Infor-mation about the watershed agreement may befound at http://www.state.ny.us/watershed/overview.html.

According to George Spasko, NY Bureau ofPublic Water Supply Protection, three surfacewater systems currently serve NYC. Water fromthe Croton will be filtered by the year 2007.The Delaware and Catskill systems continueto meet Surface Water Treatment Rule criteriafor avoiding filtration.

For further information about early watersupply projects, see The Hydraulics Revolutionby Winant, published by University Microfilms,Inc. (UMI) of Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1996. Youmay write to UMI, 300 N. Zeeb Rd., Ann Arbor,MI 48106 or call them at (800) 521-0600 or(313) 761-4700.

A paper by Winant and E. L. Kemp that recountsthe development of the Comiston Aqueduct inEdinburgh, Scotland, has been published in theBritish journal Civil Engineering, Volume 120,Issue 03. It is available online at http://www.ice.org.uk/journals.html.

You may also contact Winant at (800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191 or send e-mail [email protected].

ManhattanÕs First Source Water Project

ÒUse what you need and donÕt polluteÓ isthe message sent to children through the WaterSourcebook series, a comprehensive environmentaleducation program on water issues targeted forkindergarten through high school (grades K—12)developed in cooperation with the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA).

Using a balanced approach, the Water Source-book series explains the water management cycleand how it affects every aspect of the environment.The curriculum provides strong science and mathcontent, but also links these subject areas to socialstudies and language arts.

Activities for students from elementary(grades 3—5) and high school (grades 9—12) levelshelp teach the importance of water as a naturalresource. The grade 3—5 book has 532 pageswith 61 activities; the grade 9—12 edition has 888pages with 77 activities for students. Grade K—2and grade 6—8 books are scheduled for publication.

Sourcebook Helps Kids Learn about WaterÒThese two complementary publications

should prove a great help to any teacher trying toinstill an understanding of water as a resource andways to protect this part of the environment,Ó saidDavid Pask, engineering scientist with the NationalDrinking Water Clearinghouse. ÒThe sections canbe integrated into a five-year syllabus or adaptedas needed into existing curricula.Ó

To order, call Fox McCarthy at (770) 426-8936ext. 234 or write to the Georgia Water Wise Council,Inc., 1033 Franklin Road, Suite 9-178, Marietta,GA 30067-8004. The cost is $25 per copy for thegrades 3—5 book and $35 for the grades 9—12 book.Binders are not included with books. Shipping feesare included in the price, and quantity discountsare available. For more information about theWater Sourcebook series, contact Wayne Aronsonat EPA, (404) 562-9444.



AmericaÕs Private Land: A Geography of Hope,a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural

ResourcesConservationService(NRCS) publi-cation, is de-scribed as aÒcall to action,a call to renewour nationalcommitment to

A Geography of Hope Tells Land-Use StoryAmericaÕs private land and private land owners.ÓThis handsome 80-page publication containsfacts and statistics, as well as many full colormaps and photographs.

For information about USDAÕs NRCS or to viewthe above document online, go to http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/. For a copy of A Geography of Hope,contact the Government Printing Office (GPO)Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954,Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 or call them at(202) 512-1800 and request GPO Stock Number001-000-04642-0. The cost is $7.00.


Businesses throughout the U.S. generatewastewater from their commercial and industrialoperations, and most manage wastewater in anenvironmentally sound fashion. Unfortunately,sometimes businesses, usually those withoutaccess to sewer systems, rely on shallow under-ground disposalÑdry holes, cesspools, or septictanks. Any of these forms of disposal can lead togroundwater contamination.

Improper Wastewater Disposal DiscussedThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) Office of Ground Water and DrinkingWater publication, Is Your CommunityÕs DrinkingWater at Risk? discusses how improper wastewaterdisposal can degrade the environment and contami-nate drinking water.

To order this free document, call the EPA at(800) 426-4791 and request EPA 813/F/95/004.

The latest issue of the Environmental TrainingResources Catalog for Small Communities is nowavailable for trainers and others looking for educa-tional materials useful in training situations.

Compiled by the National EnvironmentalTraining Center for Small Communities (NETCSC),this free catalog contains more than 150 reviewsof products useful in drinking water, solid waste,and wastewater training. Each review covers a

Free Training Resource AvailableproductÕs content, how it can be used, cost, andavailability.

To receive your free copy of the catalog, callNETCSC at (304) 293-4191 or (800) 624-8301or fax your request to (304) 293-3161. Ask foritem #TRBKPR11. The catalog can also bedownload from NETCSCÕs Web site athttp://www.netc.wvu.edu.

The water that exists on Earth today is all thewater that ever has been or ever will be on theplanet. Although we donÕt like to think about it,much of todayÕs wastewater is tomorrowÕs drinkingwater. Pipeline, a newsletter published quarterly bythe National Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC),informs the public about small community waste-water issues.

Three past issuesof Pipeline focus onpreventing sourcewater pollution. TheSummer 1996 issue ofPipeline (item#SFPLNL06) looksat the importance ofwastewater treatmentin protecting the healthand environment of smallcommunities. This issuealso describes potentialhealth and environmentalrisks posed by inadequate treatment.

The Fall 1995 Pipeline (item #SFPLNL03)discusses the threat of groundwater pollution bydomestic wastewater and focuses on educatinghomeowners about proper septic system operationand maintenance. The newsletter explains howseptic systems work and how to care for them,including wise water use, knowing what not toflush, avoiding hazardous chemicals, as well asthe importance of regular pumping and system

Pipeline Protects Source Waterinspection. You will learn why septic systems failand the warning signs of failure.

Disease is not the only danger posed by a goodseptic system gone bad. High levels of nitrate andphosphate can cause excessive algae growth in lakesand streams. Nitrate is also the cause of methamo-globinemia, or blue baby syndrome, a conditionthat prevents the normal uptake of oxygen in theblood of infants. (See Q&A on page 26.)

The Fall 1997 Pipeline (SFPLNL11) isan excellent introduction to waste-water for new community officials

and staff or it can be used as a tool toeducate homeowners and the general

public. This issue looks at the basiccharacteristics of residential and non-

residential wastewaterÑcomponents(organisms, pathogens, organic matter,

gases, etc.) and such characteristics astemperature, pH, and flowÑthat can affect

public health and the environment. Thisissue discusses design, and cost and effec-

tiveness of treatment, as well as methodsfor testing and treating wastewater.

Subscriptions to Pipeline are free. Back issuescan be ordered from the NSFC for $0.20 each.Postal charges are added to orders. Call (800)624-8301 or (304) 293-4191. You may ordervia e-mail at [email protected]. Pleaserequest each item by number and title. Pipelinemay also be downloaded from NSFCÕs Web siteat http://www.nsfc.wvu.edu.



EditorÕs Note: Following is a limited selection ofsource water resources. The National DrinkingWater Clearinghouse (NDWC) Web site at http://www.ndwc.wvu.edu provides direct links to anumber of sites that provide information aboutsource water. The Spring 1995 On Tap, Volume 4,Issue 2 concentrated on groundwater protectionand also may be viewed on the NDWC Web site.

American Ground Water TrustP.O. Box 179616 Centre St.Concord, NH 03301(603) 228-5444http://www.agwt.org

American Water Works Association6666 West Quincy Ave.Denver, CO 80235(303) 794-7711http://www.awwa.org/

Ground Water Protection Council827 N.W. 63rd St., Suite 103Oklahoma City, OK 73116(405) 848-0690http://gwpc.site.net

National Rural Water Association1200 New Hampshire Ave., N.W., Suite 430,Washington, DC 20036(202) 955-4555http://www.ruralwater.org/

Source Water Information Is AvailableNational Ground Water Association601 Dempsey Rd.Westerville, OH 43081(800) 551-7379http://www.ngwa.org

The Groundwater FoundationP. O. Box 22558Lincoln, NE 68542-2558(800) 858-4844http://www.groundwater.org/

U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceDirectorRm. 30121849 C St., N.W.Washington, DC 20240(202) 208-7535http://www.nwi.fws.gov

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency401 M St., S.W.Washington, DC 20460(202) 260-2090http://www.epa.gov

Water Environment Federation601 Wythe St.Alexandria, VA 22314-1994(703) 684-2400http://www.wef.org/

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) National Environmental Publication Informa-tion Site (NEPI) now offers online access to 6,000EPA publications at http://www.epa.gov/cincl. Youmay also call NEPI at (800) 490-9195.

Wellhead Protection (WHP) Technical Assis-tance documents and how to secure them isdescribed in Office of Ground Water and DrinkingWater (OGWDW) Publications (EPA 810/B-96-001).WHP and source water protection (SWP) docu-ments are available at http:www.epa.gov/OGWDW.

Watershed Tools Directory: A Collection ofWatershed Tools (EPA 841/B/95/005) http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/tools/.

See Surf Your Watershed at http://www.epa.gov/surf.

WHP program, section 1428 of Safe DrinkingWater Act (SDWA) is described in EPAÕs publica-tion Guidelines for Delineation of WellheadProtection Areas (EPA 816/R/97/005).

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund ProgramGuidelines are available from the Safe Drinkingwater Hotline (800) 426-4791.

Much of the water quality information gatheredfor Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 305 (b), NationalWater Quality Inventory, is stored in STORET athttp://epaserver.ciesin.org/national/epaorg/storet.html.

For more on:¥ watershed efforts

http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/¥ National Estuary Programs

http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/nep.html¥ Clean Lakes Program

http://www.epa.gov/owow/lakes¥ EPAÕs Wetlands Program

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/

EPA Offers Source Water Assistance



by Kathy JespersonNDWC Staff Writer

With more than 145,000 square miles of moun-tains, plains, and evergreen forests, Montana is oneof the largest states in the U.S., and its 856,057residents truly believe that it is the Treasure State.As Kathy Grizzard Schmook said on her WildWest Web site: ÒHereÕs an enormous playpenand not enough people to fill itupÑthank God.Ó

Yet this vastness does haveits drawbacks. According to thestateÕs Department of Environ-mental Quality (DEQ), so fewpeople under one ÒBig SkyÓmakes getting technical assis-tance and training to all fourcorners of the state difficult.ÒThe eastern part of the state issparsely populated and far fromlarge municipalities, so theyhave to travel farther to receivetraining,Ó said Shirley Quick,certification officer for DEQ.

However, MontanaÕs small drinking watersystems may find the support they need at theMontana University System Water Center(MUSWC). The center is one of 54 water centersacross the nation located at land grant universities.MUSWC supplies training and education for wateroperators, conducts water research on emergingtechnologies, establishes problem-solving partner-ships, and serves as a clearinghouse for Montanawater information.

ÒOur drinking water mission is to help smallcommunities solve their water problems,Ó saidDorothy Bradley, director of MUSWC. ÒWe wantedto help small systems, but did not want to duplicatewhat was already being done. Montana Rural Waterand the Midwest Assistance Program were alreadyoffering excellent onsite technical assistance. So,we looked for other needs and one was technology.Small systems often canÕt afford standard tech-nologies, and often do not know if a new, innova-tive technology would work at their system.Ó

Center Finds Innovative TechnologiesAccording to Bradley, the center seeks out

promising technologies from the private sectorand coordinates demonstration projects throughthe university to gather information. The researchis part of the Drinking Water Assistance Program(DWAP) for small systems.

This information is then presented in a report,which is consequently available to state regulatorsas well as other small systems. ÒWe donÕt make

the decision of whether a technology is good orbad. We just present the information,Ó said Bradley,adding that having such information readilyavailable could make the difference in whetheror not a new technology is approved for usein Montana.

ÒWe have five projects weÕre working on rightnow,Ó said Gretchen Rupp, program engineer forMUSWC. ÒThese projects have been successful

for the communities who areusing them. But the whole thingis really just beginning. We areseeking proposals from peoplewith ideas that will help smallcommunities provide affordable,safe drinking water.Ó

Rupp said the center iscurrently involved in projectsinvestigating lead and coppercorrosion control, electro-chemical nitrate reduction, andmicroorganism and turbidityreduction through ceramicmicrofiltration.

MUSWC Develops Training ToolsBesides this research, MUSWC also works in

partnership with the university, state regulators,private sector, and small communities to ensurethat their drinking water needs are being met. Oneof the most promising projects to come from thispartnership is an interactive computer-based trainingprogram for water operators and managers.

ÒMany operators donÕt have the money or thetime to attend classes that involve long-distancetravel,Ó said Kevin Kundert, program developer.ÒThis computer-based skill training program willbe the next best thing to being there. We are ableto provide a useful training tool by using interactiveexercises and presentations that include sound,video clips, illustrations, animation, virtual realitydisplays, and quizzes.Ó

Operators will, however, gain more than generalknowledge, Kundert continued. The training willbe specific to Montana operations and will includeforms, guides, regulations, documents, and con-tactsÑall necessary to perform the job properly.By organizing this information into modules,updates may easily be incorporated and thegeneral training program can be adapted toother states. Trainers will also be able to accessmultimedia presentations on CD-ROM toenhance workshops.

MontanaÕs DEQ fully supports the use ofthis interactive program among the stateÕs wateroperators. ÒIt is an excellent information source

Montana Water Center Serves Small Systems



ÒOur drinking water

mission is to help

small communities

solve their water

problems.Ó

Dorothy Bradley,director, MontanaUniversity System

Water Center


What regulations protect source water?Continued from page 11

for someone who is looking for specific piecesof information either on MontanaÕs certificationprocess, rules and requirements, treatment pro-cesses, or public water supply requirements,Ósaid Quick. ÒWe are hoping to make portionsof the program available for earning continuingeducation units.Ó

Much of the program is based on a newmanualÑavailable by April 1998ÑThe GroundWater Manual for Small Water Systems. ÒTwoprototype training modules have already beenproduced for delivery on our Web site and arebeing modified for a CD-ROM version,Ó Kundertsaid. ÒAll parameters of small public water supplysystem operation will be covered in 11 indepen-dent training modules.Ó

As operators progress through a training module,they will be quizzed and asked to perform specificinteractions. A comprehensive quiz covering thecomplete manual will be provided at three levels:basic, intermediate, and advanced. By doing this,both new and seasoned operators will be challenged,said Kundert.

ÒBecause of the limitations of the Web systems,the majority of the interactive training componentswill be offered in CD-ROM format,Ó he continued.ÒThe MUSWC Web site will provide operatorswith all the forms, manuals, and documentsneeded, and at minimum will show screenshots and examples of the interactivity offeredon the CD-ROM. This can be used on a Mac orPC-compatible computer with a sound card and

CD-ROM drive. For operators without access toa computer, the MUSWC is assembling a list ofpublic facilities in the state that offer access to thenecessary equipment. The center is also sponsor-ing training sessions around the state.Ó

Operators Go Back to SchoolThe annual Water Schools at Montana State

University-Bozeman have proven to be usefultraining sessions for water and wastewater operatorsover the years. ÒThis is a popular four-day trainingseries that can serve as continuing education unitsor as a good certification exam prep for operators,Ósaid Bradley. ÒThe Autumn School is sponsoredby Montana State University, DEQ, and the Mon-tana Environmental Training Center and includestrainers from all of these organizations such asprofessors, health department trainers, state RuralWater people, and regulators. These sessions areuseful to both water system operators and manag-ers. Many are able to meet their continuing educa-tion requirements by participating in this school.Ó

The MUSWC also maintains a large lendinglibrary of products and literature about drinkingwater. The centerÕs other educational resourcesinclude newsletters and a Web site.

For more information about MontanaÕs WaterCenter, contact Bradley at Montana State Univer-sity, 101 Huffman Building, Bozeman, MT 59717-0368. Or call (406) 994-6690. The Water CenterÕsWeb site can be found at http://btc.montana.edu/watercenter/.



to the RCRA, regulates substances includingdioxins, some solvents, PCBs, and halogenatedorganic compounds.

In 1991, EPA developed revised criteria formunicipal solid waste landfills that protect surfacewater and groundwater from contamination.Criteria include restrictions on siting landfills nearwetlands, flood plains, or unstable areas, such askarst. (Karst is an area characterized by rockdissolution.) The revisions require groundwatermonitoring and corrective action.

Superfund Authorizes CleanupCERCLA or SuperfundÑpresently undergoing

reformÑauthorizes the government to clean upcontamination or sources of potential contaminationfrom hazardous waste sites or chemical spills,including those that threaten drinking watersupplies. The act includes a community right-to-know provision.

Currently several national organizations thatrepresent thousands of small communities areengaging the government in a hot debate as towhether Superfund money can be set aside forsource water protection to prevent groundwatercontamination and the extraordinary costs ofremediation once water is polluted.

For a review of SDWA regulations, seeFrederick W. PontiusÕ ÒOverview of SDWASource Water Protection ProgramsÓ in theNovember 1997 Journal AWWA.

For further information on groundwaterprotection efforts under the Superfund reform,contact the Ground Water Protection Councilat (405) 848-0690 or the National Rural WaterAssociation at (202) 955-4555 or http://www.ruralwater.org/protect-groundwater.htm.

You may also write to NRWA, 1200 NewHampshire Ave., N.W. Suite 430, Washington,D.C. 20036.


nation; however, according to A Geography ofHope, water availability could be the most signifi-cant national water issue in the 21st century.

How can we protect source water?Basically, the Safe Drinking Water Act says

that we need to protect our drinking water sourcesfor environmental, financial, social and adminis-trative reasons, and ultimately, for Òthe protectionand benefit of public water systems.Ó It is becom-ing increasingly clearthat one of the mosteffective ways toprotect drinkingwater is to protectwatersheds.

The Trust forPublic LandÕs publi-cation, Protecting theSource, says that thecity of New York,which has a longhistory of protectingits watersheds, isspending $1.5 billionto safeguard its vastupstate reservoirsystem. These safe-guards will allowthe city to avoidconstructing filtrationfacilities estimated tocost between $6 and$8 billion. Althoughsmall systems do nothandle billions ofdollars, as New York City does, the challengesremain the same. (See Croton Watershed, page 12.)

According to the EPAÕs State Source WaterAssessment and Protection Programs Guidance,existing federal laws have tended to focus onspecific sources, pollutants, or water-relatedactivities, but havenÕt addressed the need for anintegrated, multi-disciplinary approach to envi-ronmental management. Use of a watershedapproach by states could integrate surface waterprotection programs with comprehensive ground-water protection efforts.

What is a watershed?The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) Adopt Your Watershed project describes awatershed as ÒnatureÕs way of dividing up the land-scape. Rivers, lakes, estuaries, wetlands, streams,even the oceans can serve as catch basins for theland adjacent to them.Ó

Snow melts or rain falls, flowing downhill intorivers, streams, lakes, or ditches, and percolatingthrough the soil to aquifers or other undergroundwaters. All the land from which water flowsinto a particular water body is known as thatwaterwayÕs watershed. The U.S. is divided into18 major drainage areas, 160 principal riverbasins,and approximately 2,150 small watersheds,which average 900,000 acres in size.

Drainage basins can be quite large. For instance,the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin extends from

central New York to centralVirginia. Watersheds are usuallycomposed of multiple ecosys-tems, such as forests, grassland,wetlands, and transition zones,such as riparian areas, a termreferring to land that bordersrivers. These ecosystems andtransition zones are linked by themovement of energy, nutrients,and water through various path-waysÑgroundwater rechargezones, rivers, streams, soilinfiltration, etc. How thesepathways function is criticalto the health of all the linkedsystems.

In theory, the concept isquite simple: where streams andrivers flow clear and clean, thesoils, plant and animal commu-nities, and human elements ofthe system are likely to behealthy as well.

According to the EPAÕsState Source Water Assessment

and Protection Programs Guidance, the watershedapproach focuses government (federal, state,tribal, and local) programs and citizen effortson environmental and public health managementwithin hydrologically defined geographic areas,taking into consideration both ground and surfacewater flow. Watershed protection approaches vary;however, they emphasize partnerships with thepeople most impacted by decisions, a geographicfocus, and scientific data, tools, and techniques.

The above guidance discusses the key elementsof the EPAÕs watershed approach, including (1)partnerships, (2) geographic focus, (3) soundmanagement techniques, (4) development ofspecific management options and action plans,(5) implementation, and (6) evaluation ofeffectiveness and revision of plans as needed.

Continued from page 1



Photo by: David ZukHadlock Creek,Northeast Harbor, Maine

C O V E R S T O R YC O V E R S T O R Y

The U.S. is a

water-rich nation;

however, water

availability could be

the most significant

national water issue

in the 21st century.

AmericaÕs PrivateLand: A Geography

of Hope


How is groundwater stored?Water is stored underground in aquifers, which

an EPA glossary describes as Ònatural undergroundlayers of porous, water-bearing materials (sand,gravel, fractured rock) usually capable of yieldinga large amount of waterÓ or, more specifically,usable quantities of water.

Aquifers can range in area from several acres tothousands of miles in width and from a few feet toseveral hundred feet deep. For instance,the HighPlains Aquifer (80 percent of which is the OgallalaAquifer) underlies parts of Colorado, Kansas,Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota,Texas, and Wyoming. Approximately 30 percentof the groundwater used for irrigation in the US.is pumped from this aquifer.

How are aquifers replenished?Aquifers are recharged (replenished)

primarily by precipitation infiltrating andpercolating down from the landÕs surface.Identifying the recharge area is critical togroundwater protection.

California, which currently has a popu-lation of 31 million, presents an interestingsituation in that three quarters of theprecipitation falls in Northern Californiawhile two thirds of the population live inthe south. It is also one of the few statesthat sustains year-round agriculturalproduction, and since much of southernCalifornia is essentially desert, very littlerain falls, so crops must be irrigated.

The Central Valley of California, whichconsumes more than 150 percent morefreshwater than annual precipitation provides,is the most heavily pumped area in the country.Groundwater miningÑgroundwater withdrawalat rates that exceed replenishmentÑleads to watertable declines, land subsidence, and saltwaterintrusion into freshwater aquifers. Once an areahas subsided from overdraft, the underlying aquifercapacity cannot return to its prior level.

ÒNo Middle Way on the Environment,Ó anarticle in The Atlantic, December 1997, notes thathumanity is over pumping groundwater storedduring the last glacial period by some trillions ofgallons a year, and that Òanother ice age will berequired to refill some depleted aquifers.Ó

Pumping Increases Risk of ContaminationIt was once assumed that groundwater was

completely protected by filtering layers of rockand soil. Now we know this is not so. Soils areporous and permeable and tend to transmit waterand certain contaminants with relative ease to the

aquifer below. In this interconnected ecologicalweb, water and certain contaminants flow fromrecharge areas to discharge areas.

Some drinking water wells only maintain anadequate yield of water through induced infiltration,which means that water from a nearby surfacewater contributes to the well recharge.

In areas surrounding pumping wells, the zoneof contribution, a land area larger than the originalrecharge area, is drawn into the well and the sur-rounding aquifer, thus increasing the potential forcontamination. The underground area affected bypumpingÑcalled the cone of depression (or zoneof influence, if the same area is viewed on a mapof the surface)Ñmay extend from a few feet tomany miles.

EPAÕs Wellhead Protection: A Guide for SmallCommunities outlines a five-step process forsetting up a wellhead protection program (WHP):

(1) form a community planning team,(2) delineate the WHP area,(3) identify and locate potential sources

of contamination,(4) manage the WHP area, and(5) plan for the future.

Possible Contaminants Are EverywherePossible sources of contamination are legion,

from natural sourcesÑsuch as iron, manganese,chlorides, fluorides, sulfates, radionuclides, ordecaying organic matterÑto numerous humanactivities. Any residential, municipal, commercial,industrial, or agricultural activity can affectgroundwater quality. Some substances pose ahealth threat; others affect the odor, taste, orcolor of water.



Photo by: Harriet EmersonCobun Creek Reservoir, Morgantown, West Virginia



The July/August 1997 issue of WaterWorld(Volume 13, No. 7) contains a report on EPAÕs1995 Community Water System (CWS) Survey,in which water system personnel were asked toidentify potential sources of contamination withintwo miles of their water supply intakes or wells.

System operators most frequently identifiedthese sources of contamination:

(1) septic systems (79 percent),(2) agricultural runoff (55 percent),(3) fuel and heating oil tanks (38 percent),(4) urban runoff (31 percent), and(5) sewage discharge (27 percent).According to the EPAÕs seminar publication

Wellhead Protection: A Guide for Small Commu-nities, a quarter of all homes in the U.S. rely onseptic systems. Improperly sited, designed, con-structed, or maintained septic systems can con-taminate groundwater withbacteria, viruses, nitrates,detergents, oils, and chemicals.

In addition, septic systemsare designed to treat onlysanitary wastes, not industrialwaste. Chemicals, such asoils, lawn and garden chemi-cals, paint and paint thinners,disinfectants, and medicinesshould never be disposed ofin septic systems. An EPApublication Is YourCommunityÕs Drinking Water at Risk? states thatwastewater disposal practices of some businesses,such as some automobile service stations, drycleaners, and machine manufacturers, are of particu-lar concern because the waste they generate islikely to contain toxic chemicals.

According to the above guide, there are aboutfive million underground storage tanks (containingsubstances, such as heating oil) in this country andapproximately one third of these tanks leak.Landfills, surface impoundments (shallow lagoonswhere liquid waste is stored and treated), sewersand other pipes, improperly constructed wells,mining activities, and runoff from highwayde-icing can all contaminate groundwater supplies.Each winter, more than 11 million tons of salt areapplied to roads in this countryÕs snow belt.

Concentrated animal production sites are ofparticular environmental concern because of thepotential for nutrient and bacterial contaminationof water resources, in addition to odor problems.A Geography of Hope states that parts of theSoutheast and West are the primary hot spots foranimal manure problems.

Pesticides and Fertilizers Pose RisksFarmers, homeowners, businesses, utilities, and

municipalities use millions of tons of fertilizersand pesticides each year. Rodenticides, fungicides,and avicides also can seep into groundwater orwash into streams and rivers. Sediment is a majorsource of water quality impairment. Chemicals andnutrients adsorb to soil particles that enter streamsand rivers as a result of soil erosion.

According to A Geography of Hope, since 1979the agricultural sector has accounted for approxi-mately 80 percent of all pesticide use each year.Pesticide runoff potential is greater in the Midwest;leaching potential is greater in the Southeast.

Nutrients and fertilizersÑprimarily nitrogen,phosphorous, and potassiumÑare applied topromote plant growth. Nitrate nitrogen is highlymobile and has a high potential to leach intogroundwater, volatilize into the atmosphere, or be

carried overland tonearby surfacewaters. Too muchnitrogen can causemajor problems.(See Q&A, page 26.)

For instance,there is a 6,000-square-mile area inthe Gulf of Mexicojust off the coastof Louisiana andTexas known as the

hypoxic zone. Agricultural runoff from states northof the Gulf washes into the Mississippi andAtchafalaya rivers, and during the summer thereis not enough oxygen in the water to supportnormal populations of fish and shellfish in thisarea where the rivers flow into the Gulf.

How can we protect our water?The EPA CWS Survey report mentioned above

notes that more than one third of all communitywater systems already participate in some type ofsource water protection effort. Primary methodsof source protection identified by respondentswere: (1) zoning or land-use controls, (2) bestmanagement practices, and (3) education onland-use impacts.

One example of cooperation between city,county, and private land owners is the Yates CenterCity Lake project, a dam built in 1989 in south-eastern Kansas to supply water for a rural, agri-cultural community of fewer than 2,000 people.

In 1991, a group of stakeholders gathered todiscuss water quality goals for that lake, including

Continued from page 21



Lake Casitas,Ventura County, California

Photo by: Harriet Emerson


ÒHumanity is

over pumping

groundwater stored

during the last

glacial period by

some trillions of

gallons a year.

Another ice age will

be required to refill

some depleted

aquifers.Ó

ÒNo Middle Way onthe Environment,Ó

The Atlantic,December 1997


ÒWe have an approved wellhead protectionprogram in place, but itÕs strictly voluntary,ÓShort noted.ÒWe probably will narrow the focusof the wellhead protection program to deal witha more manageable piece of land for the sourcewater assessments. But, we do intend to capitalizeand maximize on existing programs.

ÒNinety percent of IdahoÕs drinking water sup-plies are from groundwater. So, we will be focusingon groundwater supplies in these assessments.Ó

Oklahoma Surveys SourcesGene Whatley, director of Oklahoma Rural

Water Association (ORWA), said his state hasplanned a source water assessment program withthe Oklahoma DEQ. ÒWeÕre [ORWA] spendingour efforts on groundwater right now. The wayour partnership works is that DEQ works with thesystem to evaluate wellhead areas and sources ofpollution. And ORWA works with the communityto set up a management and contingency plan.

ÒWeÕll go through the assessments of wellheadareas and identify sources of pollution, and thenhelp the community set up a plan,Ó Whatley said.

Pennsylvania Submits PlansÒPennsylvania is in the process of submitting a

wellhead protection program to EPA for approval.This program will be the basis for our sourcewater assessment program,Ó said Joe Lee, chief ofsource water protection section, Bureau of WaterSupply Management.

ÒSource water assessments for groundwatersystems larger than 3,300 will be conducted byDepartment of Environment Protection (DEP)staff,Ó Lee continued.

He said that when DEP staffers begin theassessment process, they will determine the

source typeÑgroundwater or surface waterÑandprioritize how to address individual sources.

ÒLocal voluntary drinking water source assess-ment management plans will be supported andencouraged through technical, compliance, andfinancial assistance to local communities andpublic water systems,Ó Lee continued. ÒLoans andgrants will be made available to communities andsystems to finance development and initial imple-mentation of local source water protection plans.

ÒWe work closely with Pennsylvania RuralWater Association (PRWA),Ó Lee added. ÒPRWAwill be working more with the individual systems.We hope to increase our staff [DEP] to supportthe source water assessment program.

ÒWeÕve also developed three pilot projects,which started last fall, so we can show communi-ties what they can expect as far as source waterassessment. Pennsylvania has 2,600 municipalities.So, this means that planning programs fall to thelocal level.

ÒDWSRFs (drinking water state revolvingfund) stimulate activities at the local level,Ó Leenoted. ÒWeÕll try to fund a more active publiceducation program. And, weÕll continue to workwith environmental groups and public interestgroups at the local level. We want to find thebest approach for PennsylvaniaÕs individualcommunities.

ÒWeÕre still trying to get approval for ourDWSRF workplan for how set-aside funds willbe used,Ó Lee continued. ÒAnd we hope to haveapproval for that by spring.Ó

For more information about the SDWA amend-ments, access EPAÕs Web site at http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/. Information may also be foundby calling the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at(800) 426-4791.

SDWA: States Must Assess Source WaterContinued from page 1

water quality monitoring, roads, hazardous spillcontrol, recreational activities, urban development,and agricultural use. They wanted to managehighly polluting activities and reduce their currentlevel of pollutant production and began a 3.5-yearWatershed Protection Demonstration Project.

Resource managers studied grazing manage-ment styles and beef production activities. Theycollected runoff samples from pastures, detentionponds in the watershed, and from the lake, andtested them for dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, and

nitrate. Results indicate that the lake has excellentwater quality and that the detention dams havebeen highly effective in collecting sediment beforeit enters the lake. They also found good qualityrunoff water from well-managed grassland.

To make sure the Yates Center Lake continuesto enjoy good water quality, the parties developeda zoning ordinance and agreed on long-term accept-able management practices that benefit the lake.

For further information on source water, seethe list of resources on page 17.





alluvialÑRelating to mud and/or sand depositedby flowing water. Alluvial deposits may occurafter a heavy rain.

aquiferÑA natural underground layer of porous,water-bearing materials (sand, gravel) usuallycapable of yielding a large supply of water.

artesianÑWater held under pressure in porousrock or soil confined by impermeable geologicformations. An artesian well is free flowing.

brackishÑMixed fresh and salt waters.

buffer stripsÑStrips of grass or other close-growing vegetation that separate a waterway(ditch, stream, creek) from an intensive landuse area (subdivision, farm), also referred toas filter strips, vegetated filter strips, andgrassed buffers.

circle of influenceÑThe circular outer edge ofa depression produced in the water table bypumping water from a well.

cone of depressionÑThe depression, roughlyconical in shape, produced in the water tableby pumping water from a well. Also knownas the cone of influence.

confined aquiferÑAn aquifer in which ground-water is confined under pressure that is signifi-cantly greater than atmospheric pressure.

direct runoffÑWater that flows over the groundsurface or through the ground directly intostreams, rivers, or lakes.

effluentÑWater or some other liquidÑraw,partially or completely treatedÑflowing froma reservoir, basin, treatment process, or treat-ment plant.

erosionÑWearing away of soil by running water,wind, or ice. Erosion is the process by whichthe earthÕs surface is shaped and occurs evenin remote, uninhabited areas at a slow rate(geologic erosions); of more concern is accel-erated erosion caused by peopleÕs activities.

fresh waterÑWater that generally contains lessthan 1,000 milligrams-per-liter of dissolvedsolids.

groundwaterÑThe supply of fresh water foundbeneath the EarthÕs surface, usually in aqui-fers, which is often used for supplying wellsand springs.

groundwater under the direct influence ofsurface waterÑAny water beneath thesurface of the ground with: 1) significantoccurrence of insects or other macroorganisms,algae, or large-diameter pathogens, such asGiardia Lamblia, or, 2) significant and relativelyrapid shifts in water characteristics, such asturbidity, temperature, conductivity, or pH,

which closely correlate to climatological orsurface water conditions. Direct influencemust be determined for individual sources inaccordance with criteria established by thestate. The state determination of direct influ-ence may be based on site-specific measure-ments of water quality and/or documentationof well construction characteristics and geol-ogy with field evaluation.

head lossÑThe head, pressure, or energy(theyÕre the same) lost by water flowing ina pipe or channel as a result of turbulencecaused by the velocity of the flowing waterand the roughness of the pipe, channel walls, orrestrictions caused by fittings. Water flowing ina pipe loses head as a result of friction losses.

hydraulic headÑIn groundwater, the heightabove a datum plane (such as sea level) of acolumn of water. In a groundwater system,hydraulic head is composed of elevation headand pressure head.

hydrogeologic cycleÑThe natural process ofrecycling water from the atmosphere down tothe earth and back to the atmosphere again.

hydrologic cycleÑThe exchange of waterbetween the earth and the atmosphere throughevaporation and precipitation.

infiltrationÑ1) The gradual flow or movementof water into and through (to percolate or passthrough) the pores of the soil. 2) The penetra-tion of water from the soil into sewer or otherpipes through defective joints, connections ormanhole walls.

interflowÑLateral movement of water in theupper layer of soil.

karstÑA landscape or region characterized byrock dissolution.

nonpoint sourceÑPollution sources that arediffuse and do not have a single point of originor are not introduced into a receiving streamfrom a specific outlet.

overdraftÑThe pumping of water from agroundwater basin or aquifer in excess of thesupply flowing into the basin. The pumpingresults in a depletion or ÒminingÓ of thegroundwater in the basin.

percolationÑ1) The slow seepage of water intoand through the ground. 2) The slow passageof water through a filter medium.

permeabilityÑGenerally used to refer to theability of rock or soil to transmit water.

plumesÑThe way polluted water extends down-stream from the pollution source (analogous to

Glossary of Source Water Terms



smoke from a smokestack as it drifts down-wind in the atmosphere).

point sourceÑA stationary location or fixedfacility from which pollutants are dischargedor emitted. Also, any single identifiable sourceof pollution, e.g., a pipe, ditch, ship, ore pit, orfactory smokestack.

rechargeÑProcess by which rain water (pre-cipitation) seeps into the groundwater system

recharge areaÑGenerally, an area that is con-nected with the underground aquifer(s) bya highly porous soil or rock layer. Waterentering a recharge area may travel for milesunderground.

reservoirÑAny natural or artificial holding areaused to store, regulate, or control water.

riparian rightsÑA doctrine of state water lawunder which a land owner is entitled to use thewater on or bordering his property, includingthe right to prevent diversion or misuse ofupstream waters. Riparian land borderssurface water.

risk assessmentÑA qualitative or quantitativeevaluation of the environmental and/or healthrisk resulting from exposure to a chemical orphysical agent (pollutant); combines exposureassessment results with toxicity assessmentresults to estimate risk.

runoffÑThat part of precipitation, snow melt,or irrigation water that runs off the land intostreams or other surface water. It can carrypollutants from the air and land into thereceiving waters.

sanitary surveyÑAn onsite review of the watersource, facilities, equipment, operation, andmaintenance of a public water system for thepurpose of evaluating the adequacy of thefacilities for producing and distributing safedrinking water.

saturated zoneÑThe area below the water tablewhere all open spaces are filled with water.

semi-confined aquiferÑAn aquifer that ispartially confined by a soil layer (or layers) oflow permeability through which recharge anddischarge occur.

sole source aquiferÑAn aquifer that supplies50 percent or more of the drinking water ofan area.

springÑGroundwater seeping out of the earthwhere the water table intersects the groundsurface.

surface runoffÑPrecipitation, snow melt, orirrigation in excess of what can infiltrate thesoil surface and be stored in small surfacedepressions; runoff is a major transporter ofnonpoint source pollutants.

surface waterÑAll water naturally open to theatmosphere (rivers, lakes, reservoirs, streams,impoundments, seas, estuaries) and allsprings, wells, or other collectors that aredirectly influenced by surface water.

unconfined aquiferÑAn aquifer containingwater that is not under pressure; the waterlevel in a well is the same as the water tableoutside the well.

unsaturated zoneÑThe area between the landsurface and water table in which the porespaces are only partially filled with water.Also called zone of aeration.

water tableÑThe level of groundwater. Theupper surface of the zone of saturation ofgroundwater above an impermeable layerof soil or rock (through which water cannotmove), as in an unconfined aquifer. This levelcan be very near the surface of the ground orfar below it.

water wellÑAn excavation where the intendeduse is for the location, acquisition, develop-ment, or artificial recharge of groundwater(excluding sandpoint wells).

watershedÑThe land area that drains into astream. An area of land that contributes runoffto one specific delivery point; large water-sheds may be composed of several smallerÒsubsheds,Ó each of which contributes runoffto different locations that ultimately combineat a delivery point.

well fieldÑAn area containing one or morewells that produce a usable amount of water.

zone of saturationÑThe soil or rock locatedbelow the top of the groundwater table that issaturated with water.

Terms in the above glossary were drawn fromthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Drink-ing Water Glossary: A Dictionary of Technicaland Legal Terms Related to Drinking Water.

To order the glossary, call the National Drink-ing Water Clearinghouse at (800) 624-8301 or(304) 293-4191 and request item #DWBKGN24.The cost is $4.90 plus postage. NDWC productsalso may be ordered via e-mail at [email protected].



Water Fact

The soft drinkindustry alone usesmore than 12 billion

gallons of cleanwater annually toproduce productsvalued at morethan $50 billion.

U.S. EPA Office ofWater Web site


A survey conducted by the American WaterWorks Association (AWWA) indicated that 23percent of the primary drinking water standardviolations occurred because of excessive nitrateconcentrations. A U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) survey conducted in 1990, showedthat approximately 1,130 public and 250,000private domestic water supply wells exceeded themaximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate.Though nitrates are considered to be relativelynontoxic to adults, concentrations greater than 10milligrams per liter (mg/l) can be fatal for infantsunder six months of age.

What are the sources of nitrogen?The sources of nitrogen are agricultural

chemicals, such as inorganic fertilizers and animalmanure. Nitrogen not used by plants is convertedto nitrate in the soil, which is soluble in water andcan easily leach to the groundwater table. Nitrateshows greater persistence in groundwater andaccumulates to high concentrations as morenitrogen is applied annually to the land surface.Approximately 11.5 million tons of nitrogen isapplied yearly as fertilizer in agricultural areasof the U.S.

Other non-agricultural sources of nitrate, suchas septic tanks and leaking sewers, generally areless significant regionally and nationally but canaffect groundwater quality locally. Effluents fromseptic tanks contain nitrates in the range of 50—70mg/l. When this septic tank sewage is disposed inaerobic seepage fields, ammonium and organicnitrogen are transformed to nitrate, which is thentransported to groundwater.

What happens if nitrate is consumed?Exposure to nitrate occurs when vegetables,

cured meats, fish, and nitrate-contaminated drink-ing water are consumed.

Ingestion of nitrate in drinking water byinfants causes Methemoglobinemia. In infants,nitrate is reduced to nitrite which combines withhemoglobin in the blood to form methamoglobin.This causes low oxygen levels in the blood, apotentially fatal condition commonly known asblue baby syndrome (Methemoglobinemia).

Apart from Methemoglobinemia, little isknown about effects on human health or thechronic effects of consuming nitrate contaminatedgroundwater. Literature indicates significantincrease in congenital malformations associatedwith nitrate rich well water sources in SouthAustralia and Canada.

Nitrates and nitrites are not classified by EPAaccording to their carcinogenicity. However,there is a concern about potentially cancerous

transformation products. Nitrite can react withsecondary amines, amides, and carbonates toform N-nitrous compounds, several of whichare classified as carcinogens.

Nitrate concentration in natural groundwatergenerally is less than 2 mg/l. But nitrate concen-trations of 4 mg/l or more in rural drinking watersupplies have been associated with increased riskof lymphoma. EPA has established a maximumcontaminant level of 10 mg/l of nitrate as nitrogen.

How can this water be treated?Nitrate is a highly soluble and stable ion with

low potential for precipitation or adsorption. Theseproperties make it difficult to remove nitrate byusing processes such as softening and filtration.It can be removed by using any of the followingmethods: (1) Ion exchange (IE), (2) Reverseosmosis (RO) and (3) Other processes, such asChemical denitrification, and Electrodialysis.The EPA has identified IE and RO as the BestAvailable Technologies (BATs) for removal ofnitrate from water.

The IE process, the most commonly usedtechnique, involves passing nitrate-laden waterthrough a resin bed. The resin bed contains strongbase anion exchange resins on which nitrate ionsare exchanged for chloride or bicarbonate ions.Regeneration of resin involves flushing the bedwith a concentrated alkaline solution such assodium chloride or sodium bicarbonate. Foulingof the bed may result if organic matter is presentin the influent. Silica and iron precipitates, andsulfate ions reduce the nitrate removal efficiency.Approximately 90 percent of nitrates can beremoved by IE process. IE is very effective forsmall and average size facilities and water withTDS less than 500 mg/l.

RO is a process in which ions in water areselectively removed by applying pressure andforcing the water through a semipermeable mem-brane and leaving ions, such as nitrates, behind.Removal of nitrates can be accomplished bysubjecting water in RO cells to pressures rangingfrom 300 to 1500 pounds per square inch (psi),which reverse the normal osmotic pressure. But,this process requires high inputs of energy andhence more operating costs in addition to highercapital costs compared to IE. The process is moreefficient for nitrate removal if influent watercontains more than 1000 mg/l TDS.

Chemical Denitrification is another method ofremoving nitrate. The reduction of nitrate can beachieved under basic pH conditions using ferrichydroxide. This process involves the formation ofammonia and ferric hydroxide. Ammonia formedContinued on next page

Is nitrate contamination a serious problem?

QUESTIONS & ANSWERSQUESTIONS & ANSWERS


should be removed by using air stripping. Thoughmostly used for removal of nitrates from waste-water, biological denitrification may be used fordrinking water treatment. Electrodialysis is aprocess in which ions are transferred according tothe concentration gradient. The passage of electriccurrent causes ions to be transferred from a lessconcentrated solution to a higher concentratedsolution through membranes.

ReferencesBouchard, D. C., M. K. Williams, and R. Y. Surampalli.

1992. Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater:Sources and Potential Health Effects. Journal AWWA(September): 85—90.

Dorsheimer, W. T., C. B Drewry, D. P Fritsch, andD. E. Williams. 1997. Removing Nitrate fromGroundwater. Water/Engineering andManagement (December): 20—24.

Gosselin, D. C., J. Headrick, R.Tremblay, X. Chen, and S.Summerside. 1997. Domestic WellWater Quality in Rural Nebraska:Focus on Nitrate-nitrogen,Pesticides, and Coliform Bacteria.GWMR (Spring): 77—87.

Kapoor, A. and T. Viraraghavan.1997. Nitrate Removal fromDrinking Water Review. Journalof Environmental Engineering 123,no. 4: 371—380.


The Center for Watershed Protection is dedi-cated to finding new, cooperative ways to protectand restore watersheds. The centerÕs principalfunctions are independent research and technicalsupport to professionals via publications andworkshops. It helps local governments protectthe Chesapeake Bay watershed by collaboratingwith communities to adopt sound land use

GAO Drinking Water Review Is Available

ÒDrinking Water: Information On the Quality of Water Foundat Community Water Systems and Private WellsÓ (U.S. GeneralAccounting Office (GAO), 1997) is a review of studies on waterquality of private wells and state and local regulation of wells in sixstates: California, Illinois, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina,and Wisconsin.

To request this document, available free of charge, write to theU.S. GAO, PO Box 37050, Washington, D.C. 20013, or call (202)512-6000. You may also order online at [email protected].

The Know Your Watershed campaign is anational partnership of more than 50 organizationscoordinated by the Conservation TechnologyInformation Center (CTIC) in West Lafayette,Indiana. CTIC is a nonprofit information/datatransfer center that promotes environmentally andeconomically beneficial natural resources systems.The campaign provides support tools and infor-mation to guide voluntary watershed management

Nitrate Removal for Small Public Water Systems.1983. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Washington, D.C.

Nolan, B. T., B. C. Ruddy, K. J. Hitt, and D. R. Helsel.1997. Risk of Nitrate in Groundwaters of the UnitedStates—A National Perspective. EnvironmentalScience & Technology 31, no. 8: 2229—2236.

Nitrate Removal for Small Public WaterSystems, item #DWBKDM07, may be orderedfrom the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse(NDWC) for $14.40 plus postage.

For further information or to order, call theNDWC at (800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191.You may also order online at NDWC productsalso may be ordered via e-mail at [email protected].

Do you know your watershed?

Is nitrate contamination a serious problem?

Center Offers Chesapeake Bay Watershed Infoplanning and by developing techniques to protectwater quality.

You may contact the center at 8391 Main St.,Ellicott City, MD 21043 or call (410) 461-8323.You may also visit their Web site at http://www.pipeline.com/~mrrunoff/ or e-mail JonathanLe Clere at [email protected]


plans. CTIC has set a goal for the developmentof 500 locally initiated watershed partnerships bythe year 2000.

For more information, write to CTIC, Room170, West Lafayette, IN 47906-1383 or call(765) 494-9555. You may also e-mail them [email protected]. Visit their Web siteat http://www.ctic.purdue.edu.


C O N T E N T SC O N T E N T S

NonprofitOrganization

U.S. Postage PaidPermit No. 34

Morgantown, WV

National Drinking Water ClearinghouseWest Virginia UniversityP.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

SpecialSource Water

Protection Issue

Features

What is sourcewater? page 1

SDWA: States MustAssess SourceWater, page 1

GIS: ItÕs the Futureof Maps, page 5

Land Trusts WorkTo Preserve

Watersheds, page 6

How can statesprotect sourcewater? page 8

What regulationsprotect sourcewater? page 11

Croton River:ManhattanÕs First

Source WaterProject, page 12

NDWC Tech Brief:Water TreatmentPlant ResidualsManagement,center pages

Montana WaterCenter Serves Small

Communities,page 18

Note: The free items listed below are limited to oneof each per order. Call (800) 624-8301 or (304)293-4191 to order products. Please allow three tofour weeks for delivery. Actual shipping charges areadded to each order. NDWC products also may beordered via e-mail at [email protected].

Wellhead Protection Programs: Tools forLocal GovernmentsItem #DWBKMG04Wellhead Protection Programs: Tools for Local

Governments can assist officials in developing aneffective wellhead protection program. The 77-pagebook from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) includes example programs from around thecountry, ideas for implementing a program, andmanagement tools to make the program work.

Cost: $11.10

Wellhead Protection: A Guide for SmallCommunitiesItem #DWBKMG06This 152-page book provides small communities

with information to help them plan for groundwaterprotection and manage a wellhead protection plan.Four case studies from different parts of the country

are included. Information about financing wellheadprotection plans and the agencies involved is alsoprovided.

Cost: $0.00

Guide for Conducting contaminant SourceInventories for Public Drinking WaterSuppliesItem #DWBKMG11This 94-page EPA document helps state and

local water managers develop and refine inventorymethods for existing and potential sources ofcontamination within wellhead protection areas.

Cost: $0.00

Protecting Local Groundwater SuppliesThrough Wellhead ProtectionItem #DWBLPE33This 18-page EPA booklet outlines a five-step

process communities can use to protect their publicwater supply wells. Existing state and federalgroundwater supply protection programs, such asEPAÕs wellhead protection program, undergroundinjection control, and public water supply systemprograms, are discussed.

Cost: $1.45

Source Water Protection Products Available

WaterÕs never-ending use and reuse inspired thisyearÕs ÒRide the Water CycleÓ theme for DrinkingWater Week, May 3—9. The American Water WorksAssociation (AWWA) sponsors Drinking WaterWeek through its Blue Thumb Project, an interna-tional campaign for water resource conservation.

The National Drinking Water Clearinghouse(NDWC), a cosponsor, offers a Blue Thumb pro-motional kit that contains water fact sheets, activityideas for children, community awareness materials,

Drinking Water Week Information Is Available

plus the NDWC poster ÒGroundwater ProtectionBegins at Home.Ó

To order the free kit, item #DWPKPE17, callthe NDWC at (800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191.To order only the groundwater poster, requestitem #DWPSPE40. A charge for postage is added.

To learn more about the Blue Thumb Project,call the AWWA at (303) 347-6137, or visit their Website at http://www.awwa.org/bluethumb/index.htm.

Date post:	30-Jan-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dodat
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times