Protecting Sources
of Drinking Water
Chuck Kanetsky, EPA Region 3
Goal: Improve Source Water
Quality
• Minimize risk to public health through
risk reduction in source water areas
• Develop prevention & protection
strategies, achieve substantial
implementation of strategies for
individual CWS
Comprehensive Source Water Protection
MULTIPLE RISKS REQUIRE MULTIPLE BARRIERS
SDWA PROTECTING AMERICA’S PUBLIC HEALTH
RISK
RISK
PROTECTION
PROTECTION
BARRIERS
BARRIERS
RISK
RISK
PREVENTION
PREVENTION
RISK
RISK
RISK
RISK
RISK
RISK
RISK
RISK
RISK
INDIVIDUAL
RISK
INDIVIDUAL
MONITORING/
MONITORING/
MANAGEMENT
ACTION
MANAGEMENT
ACTION
COMPLIANCE
COMPLIANCE
EPA’s Water Quality Laws
• Clean Water Act (CWA) 1972
–Water Quality Standards
–Discharge Permits
–Waste Water Treatment
–Wetlands
–Nonpoint Source Pollution
–Assessment of water
–Assessment of impaired waters
• Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) 1974
–Standard Setting for Drinking Water
–Public Water Supply Supervision
–Underground Injection Control
–Sole Source Aquifer Program
–Wellhead Protection Program
–Source Water Assessment Program
Source Water Assessment Programs

Required through SDWA Section 1453, 1996 Amendments

Comprehensive assessment / prioritization of potential threats for every Public
Water Supply System (PWS)

All States developed programs for EPA approval




•
Required extensive public involvement in program design
Wellhead Protection Programs cornerstone of SWP Programs
Funded through Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Diversity from State to State/system type by system type
Challenges
–No requirement for protection
–Resources
–Numbers of systems change
SWAP Basics
• State assessment program plans were due
in early 1999
• EPA approval within 6 months of
submittal
• States assess sources for all public water
systems by 2003
• 21,000 public water systems in EPA Region 3, servicing > 25 million people
Source Water Assessment Dollars
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
$674,604
$405,778
$1,764,090
$5,327,070
$2,944,240
$1,255,880
Key SWA Elements
• Delineation
• Contaminant Source Inventories
• Susceptibility Analyses
• Public participation and public access to
assessment results
SWAP – Delineation
• Immediate area of impact
– Well
• 5 year time of travel
• 1 mile radius
– Surface water
• Watershed boundaries
Intake
SWAP – Contamination
Source Inventory
•
•
•
•
•
•
Permit Compliance System
Toxic Release Inventory
Underground Storage Tanks
RCRA
Superfund
Land Use Information
SWAP – Susceptibility Analysis
• Analysis of risk
– Hydrogeology/hydrology
– Understanding of contaminants
– Effectiveness of existing protection programs
SWAP – Public Participation
• Public access to assessment results
• Educate public on potential problems
• Protection activities
Source Water Assessments
Availability
• Target completion September 2003
• Region 3 States have completed
assessments for about 99.5% of 21,0000
Public Water Systems
Use Assessments for Surface &
Ground Water Source Protection
• Source water protection strategies to
address actual & potential contaminant
sources
• Target substantial implementation of
protection strategies for 50% of CWS and
62% population by 2011
R3 SWAP Findings (GW)
DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV
• Most Prevalent Sources: Ground Water
– Commercial/Industrial, Residential Housing,
Agriculture
– Highest rankings from R3 states: Residential septic
systems, UST
• Most Threatening Sources: Ground Water
– Commercial/Industrial, Residential Housing,
Agriculture
– Highest rankings from R3 states: UST, septic
systems, crop production
R3 SWAP Findings (SW)
DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV
• Most Prevalent Sources: Surface Water
– Commercial/Industrial, Agriculture, Wastewater,
Transportation
– Highest rankings from R3 states: General
agriculture, grazing, overall transportation
• Most Threatening Sources: Surface Water
– Agriculture, Commercial/Industrial, Wastewater
– Highest rankings from R3 states: General
agriculture, Residential
Strategic Actions
• Complete & improve assessments
• Use assessments as basis for SW & GW
protection plans
• Integrate actions:
– Federal, State, local
– CWA & SDWA
• Collaboration among Federal
agencies/programs
Water Safe to Drink
Measure #: Strategic Target SP-4
National Office Lead: OGWDW
Measure Description: Percent of community water systems and percent of the population served by
community water systems where risk to public health is minimized by source water protection.
(SP-4a) Community water systems:
2005 Baseline
2006 Commitment
2006 Adjusted
Commitment
2006 End-of-Year
2007 Commitment
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Target
Universe (FY 07)
Reg 1
51%
33%
Reg 2
30%
15%
Reg 3
12%
7%
Reg 4
21%
10%
Reg 5
19%
15%
Reg 6
19%
10%
Reg 7
13%
10%
Reg 8
20%
15%
Reg 9
1%
5%
Reg 10
28%
20%
Total %
20%
12.7%*
Total #
10,281
6,734
51%
52%
52%
30%
56%
56%
12%
14%
18%
21%
22%
4,592
21%
22%
25%
19%
32%
23%
19%
13%
18%
13%
14%
15%
20%
32%
30%
5%
1%
10%
28%
28%
28%
20%**
24%
25%
10,567
12,616
13,087
2,734
3,905
30%
9,175
7,482
8,097
4,123
3,151
4,672
Reg 1
78%
Reg 2
54%
Reg 3
35%
Reg 4
27%
Reg 5
34%
Reg 6
17%
Reg 7
18%
Reg 8
5%
Reg 9
0%
Reg 10
50%
77%
58%
53%
24%
47%
26%
23%
21%
0%
67%
32.0
54%
55%
24.7
14.5
52,349
2011 Target: 50%
(SP-4b) Population:
2005 Baseline
2006 Commitment
2006 End-of-Year
2007 Commitment
2007 End-of-Year
2008 Target
Universe (in millions)
4,418
National Program Manager Comments:
54.3
42.2
36.1
11.7
9.9
46.1
10.3
Total %
28%
n/a
34%
n/a
n/a
37%
100%
2011 Target: 62%
Target measure; FY 08 State Grant Template measure. SP-4a is a PART measure. Note: “Minimized risk” is achieved by the
substantial implementation, as determined by the state, of actions in a source water protection strategy. The universe is the most
recent SDWIS inventory of community water systems. * FY 06 national commitment total adjusted to reflect weighted regional
commitments. ** 2006 Adjusted is adjustment of the FY 06 commitment to reflect FY 05 results.
Total #
78.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
104.3
281.8
2007 End of Year Report for Strategic Target "F" / SP-4
A
REGION & STATE
REGION 3
DELAWARE
DIST. OF COL.
MARYLAND
PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
C
D
E
F
CWSs
NUMERATOR DENOMINATOR % CWSs
956
48
DNR
308
431
77
92
4,561
211
5
494
2,092
1,248
511
G
H
POPULATION
NUMERATOR DENOMINATOR% POPULATION
21% 13,402,342 24,696,946
23%
479,662
882,041
606,730
DNR
DNR
62% 3,191,894 4,888,853
21% 6,675,333 10,627,826
6% 2,297,288 6,429,469
18%
758,165 1,262,027
54%
54%
DNR
65%
63%
36%
60%
State Definition for “Substantial Implementation ”
Region 3
Delaware
Strategies substantially implemented – These strategies refer to “enforceable” protection measures or
standards adopted at the local or state level that require protection of water quality or quantity in a source
water areas ( wellhead and watershed). (Examples would be local ordinances with SWP regulations,
County wide ordinances with SWP regulations, UST Secondary containment policy).
Maryland
Strategy developed and initially implemented means that a local planning team has been established
agreed upon a strategy and implemented a portion of the strategy. Substantially implemented means that
the most significant risks were or are being addressed by implementing a strategy. For example if a
community purchased the recharge area for a well or spring source for protection then the strategy is
substantially implemented, even if it was accomplished many years ago.
Pennsylvania
Establishment of an approved local Source Water Protection Plan or the undertaking of relevant and
sustainable actions/efforts that address priority risks as identified in the source water assessment.
Virginia
Waterworks has developed a watershed or wellhead protection plan. Plan does not have to be approved or
certified by state but should include all elements of source water strategy such as:
a. management team or advisory group that meets on a regular basis,
b. identified potential contaminate source(s) [results of SWAPs],
c. recommended action(s), and contingency planning [may be already stipulated in VA Waterworks
Regulations]
West Virginia
Any community public water supply system or a group of systems that has a protection plan in place and
is addressing at least three of the top protection measures identified in its state supplied source water
protection plan and/or locally defined protective measures approved by the state is considered substantial
implemented. For systems serving 3,000 or fewer people, substantial implementation will be determined
on a system by system basis.
Integrate Federal, State & Local
Actions
• Region 3 pilot projects
– Schuylkill Action Network: PADEP,
Philadelphia Water Department, EPA
– Potomac Partnership: DW utilities, MDE,
VDH,VADEQ, DCDOH, ICPRB,
WVDHHR, PADEP, EPA
– Source Water/UST Collaboration
SAN Structure Reflects Priorities
Executive Steering Committee
(PADEP, Phila. Water Dept, EPA, DRBC)
Planning Committee
Education/
Outreach
Storm Water
Agriculture
Acid Mine Drainage
Pathogen/
Compliance
Data Team
Watershed Land
Protection
Collaborative
Potomac Partnership Mission
• Cooperative and
Voluntary
Partnership
• Improve Source
Water Protection
• Multi-barrier
Approach
• Safe Guard Public
Health
Potomac Partnership
Workgroups
•
•
•
•
•
Strategy
Ag/Pathogens
DBP
Early Warning
Emerging
Contaminants
• Urban
• Funding
Wellhead Protection
• 4 biennial cumulative reports from ’91 – ‘99
• WHP program used by states as foundation for
SWP program
• WHP biennial data provides benchmark for
progress on WHP and SWP
• Funded through CWA 106 and SDWA SRF
• Integral to groundwater protection in
watersheds
Protecting Public Health:
Leaking USTs - a major threat to groundwater supplies
MOU with WCMD and EAID.
Underground Storage Tank
Efforts:
• Prioritize inspections
• Clean up priority tanks
Resources & Funding
• Drinking Water State Revolving Fund: grants
for SWP staff, wellhead protection projects;
loans for surface water protection projects
• Clean Water State Revolving Fund: loans for
point & nonpoint source projects, land
acquisition
• CWA grants: Sect. 106, 104(b)(3), 319, 604(b)
• Farm Bill
Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund
• The SDWA, as amended in 1996, established
the DWSRF to make funds available to
drinking water systems to finance infrastructure
improvements.
• Funds are also provided to small, disadvantaged
communities and to programs implementing
pollution prevention as a tool for ensuring safe
drinking water.
• Nationally about $800 Million
(20% State Match)
Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund
• Grants for SWP staff, wellhead protection
projects; loans for surface water
protection projects through set-asides
• 15 % - Land acquisition, Capacity
Development, Wellhead Protection
• 10% – Administer or provide technical
assistance through SWP programs
• 2% Set-a-side – Technical Support
For Small Systems
Springdale, PA - Stormwater,
UST
• Storm event caused a salt storage pile to
leach into the ground and into drinking
water supply.
• Due to leaking UST, benzene
contaminated ground water.
• Trichloroethylene (TCE) from another
source also contaminated GW well.
• Springdale needed to improve
management of land use.
Springdale, PA continued
• The Water Department set-up the Springdale
Borough WHP Committee, with guidance from
PRWA, and Allegheny County Health
Department, to make recommendations to
town Council and Planning Division of
Allegheny County.
• With assistance from PA DEP SWP grant, the
Committee developed a WHP plan, approved
by PA DEP in 2003.
• Established a student education program with
brochures and newsletters for residents
Zoning and Ordinances, Town
of Townsend, DE
• Townsend is in southwestern NCC, in
Middletown-Odessa-Townsend (M-O-T)
Planning Region. Recently M-O-T has
had accelerated growth and development.
• Townsend increased area through recent
annexations, from original size of 111
acres to 587 acres today.
• Result is primary land use inside the town
boundaries is “Vacant Developable”
Zoning and Ordinances, Town of
Townsend, DE continued
• In 2002 the Town adopted a source water
protection land use ordinance.
• Comprehensive environmental ordinance
protects all wetlands, recognizes critical natural
resource areas, promotes reforestation and
preserves buffers
• Requires new building in “water resource
protection areas” to discharge all roof runoff
into underground recharge systems and limits
the surface area that can be covered by asphalt,
cement or other impermeable surfaces.
Parkersburg, WV
• Prepared a Wellhead Protection Plan assisted
by the Great Lakes Rural Community
Assistance Program
• Participated in the Source Water Assessment
Plan
• Partnered with the USGS in developing a
generic ground water model for water systems
which use radial collector wells
• Abandoned three city wells by safely and
properly closing them
Contact Information
Kanetsky.charles@epa.gov
215-814-2735