AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
Olivia Odom for the degree of Master of Science in Water Resources Policy and
Management presented on June 10, 2008.
Title: Institutional Capacity Building through Land and Water Stewardship
Integration-An Analysis of Source Water Protection in Corvallis, Oregon
Abstract approved:
Aaron T. Wolf
Globally, access to safe, reliable drinking water sources is a major challenge of
this generation. Protected sources of drinking water provide communities with a
sustainable, vital resource, yet many public water suppliers lack legal authority over
their source water protection (SWP) area, especially in surface water systems.
Absence of legal authority and ownership restricts institutional capacity. In the
absence of legal authority and land ownership, strong social capacity supplements
weak institutional capacity for SWP. Using a case study approach, this paper presents
a national experience survey of municipal approaches to increasing institutional
capacity for SWP; details SWP programs of two similar municipalities; uses those
findings to inform the creation of a SWP plan in Corvallis, Oregon with particular
attention paid to the augmentation of institutional capacity by integration with existing
environmental stewardship organizations; compares institutional outcomes; and finds
that social capacity maximization is a viable approach to SWP.
© Copyright by Olivia Odom
June 10, 2008
All Rights Reserved
Institutional Capacity Building through Land and Water Stewardship IntegrationAn Analysis of Source Water Protection in Corvallis, Oregon
by
Olivia Odom
A THESIS
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Master of Science
Presented June 10, 2008
Commencement June 2009
Master of Science thesis of Olivia Odom presented on June 10, 2008.
APPROVED:
Major Professor, representing Water Resources Policy and Management
Director of the Water Resource Graduate Program
Dean of the Graduate School
I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon
State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any
reader upon request.
Olivia Odom, Author
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I express sincere appreciation of my graduate committee and project sponsors:
Mr. Mark Taratoot of the City of Corvallis and Water Resources Graduate Program
Advisory Board for his generous support of this research and plan development; Dr.
Todd Jarvis of the Institute for Water and Watersheds for his candid and constructive
advice on this project and throughout my graduate studies; Dr. Aaron T. Wolf of the
Water Resources Policy and Management Graduate Program for his perpetual
encouragement and the numerous professional opportunities he has bestowed upon
me; Dr. Kevin Boston of the Department of Forest Engineering for his incalculable
contribution to my next step.
Many other faculty members have been instrumental to this edifying graduate
experience, and for their contribution to my education I will be forever appreciative:
Dr. Mary Santelmann and Dr. Denise Lach for their benevolent and pedagogic support
and Mr. Geoff Huntington for his mentorship in legal studies.
While many graduate students have enriched this experience, I particularly
wish to thank Yoshiko Sano for her technical and stylistic contribution to the source
water protection plan.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Introduction........................................................................................................
2. Literature review- protected source water as a sustainable resource.................
3. Methodology......................................................................................................
4. Survey of local SWP implementation experience.............................................
4.1 Regional legislation and policies provide SWP guidance at the local level..
4.1.1 Federal legislation- SDWA Amendments of 1996.................................
4.1.2 Federal legislation- House Bill 8028.......................................................
4.1.3 State policies- DEQ Drinking Water Protection Program......................
4.1.4 County regulations- City of Enterprise, Wallowa County, Oregon........
4.1.5 County guidance- City of Laramie, Albany County, Wyoming.............
4.2 Municipal planning strategies and by-laws protect SWPA...........................
4.2.1 Planning strategies- Bridgetown and Middleton, Nova Scotia................
4.2.2 By-laws- Cave Junction, Oregon............................................................
4.3 Land use activities controlled in SWPA........................................................
4.3.1 Control by maximizing social capacity...................................................
4.3.1.1 Partnering for specific water quality issueEWEB obsolete chemical storage.......................................................
4.3.1.2 Integrating SWP with water stewardship institutionsChester, Pennsylvania.............................................................................
4.3.1.3 Cross-jurisdictional collaborationSouth Santiam SWPA, Oregon...............................................................
4.3.2 Control through land use management...................................................
4.3.2.1 Ecosystem service payments- New York, New York.......................
4.3.2.2 Land use permitting in SWPA- Los Angeles, California..................
4.4 Land acquisition for SWP.............................................................................
4.4.1 Eminent domain- Central Arkansas Water, Lake Maumelle..................
4.4.2 Third party purchases and trusts- Salt Lake City, Utah..........................
4.4.3 Direct purchase- Seattle, Washington.....................................................
4.5 Water quality and quantity emergency planning..........................................
4.5.1 ContingencyMcKenzie Watershed Emergency Response System, EWEB................
4.5.2 Water supply emergencySupply Emergency Curtailment Plan- Corvallis, Oregon.......................
5. Comparative SWP Case Studies........................................................................
2
6
13
18
22
22
22
23
24
24
25
25
25
26
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
6. Results- City of Corvallis, Oregon SWPP.........................................................
6.1 Description of drinking water supply............................................................
6.2 Potential contaminant source inventory........................................................
6.3 SWPP development.......................................................................................
6.4 City of Corvallis- institutional capacity........................................................
6.4.1 Regional legislation and policies provide SWP guidance.......................
6.4.1.1 Federal level......................................................................................
6.4.1.2 State level..........................................................................................
6.4.1.3 County level......................................................................................
6.4.2 Municipal planning strategies and by-laws protect SWPA.....................
6.4.2.1 Planning strategies............................................................................
6.4.2.2 By-laws.............................................................................................
6.4.3 Land use activities controlled in SWPA.................................................
6.4.3.1 Control by maximizing social capacity.............................................
6.4.3.1.1 Partnering for specific water quality issue..................................
6.4.3.1.2 Integrating SWP with water stewardship institutions.................
6.4.3.1.3 Cross-jurisdictional collaboration...............................................
6.4.3.2 Control through land use management..............................................
6.4.4 Land acquisition for SWP.......................................................................
6.4.4.1 Eminent domain................................................................................
6.4.4.2 Third party purchases and trusts........................................................
6.4.4.3 Direct purchase..................................................................................
6.4.5 Water quality and quantity emergency planning.....................................
6.4.5.1 Contingency plan..............................................................................
6.4.5.2 Supply Emergency Curtailment Plan................................................
7. Conclusions........................................................................................................
Bibliography...........................................................................................................
Appendices.............................................................................................................
Appendix A- Text of HB 8028...............................................................................
Appendix B- Potential Contamination Source Inventory......................................
37
37
42
47
48
49
49
49
50
51
51
51
52
52
53
55
56
57
58
58
58
59
59
59
61
62
64
72
73
76
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1. Statement of critical problem and research hypothesis......................................
3
2. The Environmental Pendulum (Freeze, 2000)...................................................
6
3. The SWP Sustainability Triangle.......................................................................
7
4. Source Water Protection Methodology..............................................................
13
5. SWP Schema......................................................................................................
14
6. Survey of Experience Map.................................................................................
21
7. Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, Utah Bar Graph.......................
35
8. City of Salem, Oregon Bar Graph......................................................................
36
9. Map of Willamette River SWPA.......................................................................
40
10. Rock Creek Vicinity Map (Ferguson, 2006)....................................................
41
11. Aerial view of Rock Creek SWPA................................................................... 42
12. PCS and relative risk in Willamette River SWPA...........................................
45
13. Map of M37 claims in Willamette River SWPA.............................................. 46
14. Linkages that result in protected drinking water supply..................................
48
15. City of Corvallis, Oregon Bar Graph...............................................................
49
16. Situation map of potential partners for PCS management...............................
53
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1. Institutional Capacity Indicators and Subindicators for SWP...........................
21
2. Institutional Capacity- Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, Utah....
34
3. Institutional Capacity- City of Salem, Oregon................................................... 36
4. Riverside Parks, Docks and Landings and Agencies.........................................
57
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AWWA
BMP
BSWCD
CAFO
CAW
CR2K
CWA
DEQ
DHS
DOGAMI
Env. Health
EPA
EWEB
GIS
GLT
HB
IWW
LADWP
LUST
LSWCD
M37
M49
MRWC
NYC
ODA
ODFS
ODOT
OERS
OSU
PCS
SB
SDWA
SPU
SWA
SWP
SWPA
SWPP
TMDL
USFS
WHO
American Water Works Association
Best Management Practice
Benton Soil and Water Conservation District
Confined Animal Feeding Operation
Central Arkansas Water
Community Right to Know
Clean Water Act
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Oregon Department of Human Services
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries
Benton County Environmental Health
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Eugene Water and Electric Board
Geographic Information System
Greenbelt Land Trust
House Bill
Institute for Water and Watersheds
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Linn Soil and Water Conservation District
Ballot Measure 37
Ballot Measure 49
Marys River Watershed Council
New York City
Oregon Department of Agriculture
Oregon Department of Forestry
Oregon Department of Transportation
Oregon Emergency Response System
Oregon State University
Potential Contaminant Source
Senate Bill
Safe Drinking Water Act
Seattle Public Utilities
Source Water Assessment
Source Water Protection
Source Water Protection Area
Source Water Protection Plan
Total Maximum Daily Load
United States Forest Service
World Health Organization
DEDICATION
The author wishes to dedicate this work to the City of Corvallis, Public Works
Department and the Institute for Water and Watersheds.
Institutional Capacity Building through Land and Water Stewardship IntegrationAn Analysis of Source Water Protection in Corvallis, Oregon
2
1. Introduction
Globally, access to safe, reliable drinking water sources is a major challenge of
this generation as 1.1 billion people lack access to improved water supply (Bernstein,
2002; Davidson et al., 2005; Davidson et al., 2006; Gleick, 2004; WHO, 2005).
Acute, waterborne diseases are not limited to marginalized segments of the developing
world as evidenced by studies describing an increasing trend in Giardia outbreaks in
the public water systems of the US (Hlavsa, Watson, & Beach, 2005). The need to
prevent contamination of raw water supplies is immediate, and the active field of
research and practice known as source water protection (SWP), whereby water quality
improvement efforts are focused on watershed health as opposed to a treatment
process, is emerging. SWP activities include development and implementation of
strategies to prevent or minimize the risk of direct or indirect release of contaminants
into drinking water sources (surface or groundwater). The process typically involves
an assessment phase of delineating a source water protection area (SWPA) and
identifying potential sources of contamination within that SWPA; a strategy
generation phase of developing policy tools to address potential contaminants; and
ongoing implementation, monitoring and evaluation stages (DEQ, 2007).
Throughout the United States public water systems that draw drinking water
from surface water supplies face an institutional obstacle to SWP. Municipalities
rarely have legal authority over the supply watershed. The US Congress developed a
set of incentives for SWP in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of
1996 (herein after referred to as Amendments), yet a key capacity integral to a
community’s ability to prevent contamination is defined by jurisdictional boundaries
3
that are not feasibly modified. However, communities may supplement a lack of
institutional capacity to control land use by developing and fostering partnerships with
institutions that regulate potentially contaminating activities or have previously
existing relationships with landowners in the SWPA (Balco, 1992; Centner & Mullen,
2002; Page, 2001; Peckenham et al., 2002).
Critical Problem: Municipalities rarely have the institutional capacity to protect
surface source water supplies due to a lack of legal authority in the watershed.
Hypothesis: In the absence of legal authority and land ownership, strong social
capacity supplements weak institutional capacity for SWP.
Figure 1- Statement of critical problem and research hypothesis
The approach to increasing institutional capacity by utilizing robust social
capacity is novel but has a foundation in the recommendations developed by the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide guidance for SWP activities at the
local level. EPA guidelines emphasize community and stakeholder involvement in
strategy creation and implementation. The approach discussed in this paper diverges
from the EPA-suggested model of convening a new stakeholder committee and
investigates innovative strategies whereby the public water supplier utilizes the efforts
of existing watershed organizations in a community in order to avoid the difficulties
encountered by new planning groups (Ryan & Klug, 2005), to enable both
intergovernmental and collaborative approaches to be applied to issue-specific
situations (May et al., 1996), to maximize watershed protection efficacy (Ivey et al.,
2005) and to avoid resource expenditure overlap (Ferreyra & Kreutzwiser, 2007).
4
All watershed-planning groups face difficulties in improving water quality
through collaboration, but new groups tend to encounter such difficulties to a greater
extent due to their lack of experience. In a study of watershed planning groups in
Washington state, all newly formed groups confronted challenges in establishing trust
(within and outside of the group), defining the role of the public and working with
other governments (Ryan & Klug, 2005). A SWP strategy that incorporates
established watershed stewardship institutions and regulatory agencies may avoid the
obstacles of establishing a new SWP-specific organization.
Addressing land use variety in a watershed requires a flexible approach. Land
uses such as agriculture may be better served through collaborative frameworks that
involve multiple stakeholders and tend to take a bottom-up or grass-roots approach
that avoid conflict and resentment by emphasizing collaboration (Ryan & Klug, 2005).
The interest of local governments and their ability to meet higher policy goals may be
enhanced through this process. Water quality issues that are ubiquitous throughout the
watershed may warrant an intergovernmental approach whereby only local agencies
and municipalities have standing to make decisions (May et al., 1996).
Such
approaches include wastewater discharge and emergency response.
Integration with ongoing projects that have shared outcomes related to
improved water quality increases the efficacy of watershed protection activities. By
taking an integrated approach to SWP, opportunities for synergy with existing land
and water stewardship initiatives are maximized and broader outcomes and benefits
may be achieved. Although the main focus is the protection of municipal sources of
drinking water for human health purposes, the specific requirements for developing
5
and implementing SWP influence current and future watershed management activities
throughout the watershed (Ferreyra & Kreutzwiser, 2007; Ivey et al., 2005).
In addition, integration avoids duplication, increases resource efficiency for
shared outcomes, better serves shared target groups and increases community
ownership for shared implementation (Ferreyra & Kreutzwiser, 2007). For example, a
local government may team with an agricultural conservation organization to pool
human and financial resources to reduce program overhead.
Using a case study approach, this paper presents a national experience survey
of municipal approaches to increasing institutional capacity for SWP; investigates in
detail SWP programs of two municipalities- Salt Lake City, Utah and Salem, Oregonthat are similar institutionally to the target community- Corvallis, Oregon; and uses
those findings to inform the creation of the Corvallis SWP plan with particular
attention paid to the augmentation of institutional capacity by integration with existing
environmental stewardship organizations. The City of Corvallis, Oregon commenced
the SWP planning process in May 2007 with the primary objective of reducing
contamination potential in the Willamette River SWPA, which provides 68% of the
community’s drinking water and is projected to support the City’s growing population.
6
2. Literature review- protected source water as a sustainable resource
R. Allan Freeze (2000) describes environmental regulation as following the
“environmental pendulum” whereby government intervenes to prevent environmental
degradation (i.e., “swings into legislative action,” pg 14); resulting environmental
regulation is criticized as too stringent by industry; conservative administrations come
to power and pull back environmental regulations which leads to environmental
negligence and a swing back to legislative action (see Figure 2). With each swing of
the environmental pendulum, social costs result in legislative excess and inadequacy.
Figure 2- The Environmental Pendulum (Freeze, 2000)- illustrates the dynamic
between environmental groups that advocate stringent environmental protection
legislation and regulated industries that react against burdensome laws. Government
acts as the intermediary by catering to whichever group currently holds more power.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer describes a similar phenomenon as caught in a
“vicious circle” that is self-enforcing and leads to environmental laws that go too far
(Breyer, 1993). Misuse of and over-reliance on technical methods in environmental
regulations is one of three components of Justice Breyer’s circle of environmental
policy. Public misperception and Congressional overreaction complete the circle
7
(Schnare, 1998; Lewis, 1990). The debate between science and law in policy continues
30 years after the first round of environmental policies were enacted. While both sides
agree that each has an important place in environmental policy, they disagree on what
to base it on and how to implement it (Faigman, 2000; Houck, 2003). This debate
contributed to major changes in the 1996 SDWA reauthorization, where Amendments
create a more harmonious relationship between science and law by giving states and
local operators more flexibility in drinking water supply management (EPA, 2006b).
Such changes move SDWA out of Breyer’s vicious circle and into the sustainability
triangle as illustrated in Figure 3 (Allen, 2004; Loucks & Gladwell, 1999; Rizak et al.,
2003; Warner, Bindraban, & Van Keulen, 2006).
Figure 3- The SWP Sustainability Triangle- illustrates the balance between
environmental, social and economic needs of a community and how SWP fulfills each
need.
The Amendments profoundly changed the nature of federal drinking water
regulation. Prior to the Amendments, SWDA was reactive and focused on science-
based regulatory measures, especially in surface water systems.
8
Two SDWA
programs, the Wellhead Protection Program1 and the Sole Source Aquifer Program2,
protect groundwater sources from contamination. The Amendments shifted the focus
to a more holistic, sustainable, environmental program of contamination prevention
that protects ground and surface water sources (EPA, 2006b). The result of the
Amendments is an economically feasible, truly environmental, community-based
statute that provides for the sustainable use of water by public water systems (Clayton
& Radcliffe, 1996; Gallopin, 2003).
Before SDWA, private remedies of common law torts such as nuisance and
trespass provided the sole recourse for drinking water contamination. If a neighbor
contaminated a well, the issue was settled in court on a case-by-case analysis. Such
remedies are insufficient due to their retroactive nature and strong burden of proof
requirements. In addition, contaminated drinking water may cause irreversible harm
that cannot be “made whole” from compensatory damages (Jorgensen, 1989). Civil
law fails in many such cases because science cannot meet the legal burden of proof
(Faigman, 2000). The cost to the litigants and to the judicial system of individual
litigation of each drinking water contamination case is not feasible. The authorization
of the SDWA3 in 1974 sought to ensure the quality of America’s drinking water and
1
Section 1428 of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986 (Public Law 93523, 42 U.S.C. 300 et. seq)
2
Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-523, 42
U.S.C. 300 et. seq)
3
Title XIV of the Public Health Service Act 42 U.S.C. 300f-300j-26
9
protect public health through a federal system of scientifically based standards
(Houck, 2003; Tiemann, 2006).
In its initial form, SDWA switched the focus from compensation for harm to
prevention of harm thus bypassing the rigor of proof of causation. Federal healthbased standards for public water systems are set by EPA and enforced and
implemented at the state level (Tiemann, 2006). Violation of these standards imposes
cost on public water suppliers regardless of the existence of harm (Dinan, 1995).
Technocrats set the standards for drinking water quality with little regard to the costs
of meeting such standards (Houck, 2003; Schnare, 1998). However, scientifically set
standards fail to overcome the resistance of those forced into compliance (Tiemann,
2006). Consequences that arise from this resistance are low levels of compliance and a
lack of incentive to exceed the strict regulatory requirements (Houck, 2003).
Obstinate, scientifically based regulations are narrow-minded mechanisms for
enforcing compliance. In a comparative assessment conducted by the Brookings
Institute, SDWA violations decreased only in the presence of benchmark competition
while rigorous regulations and penalty had no perceivable impact on water quality
(Wallsten & Kosec, 2005).
Under the George H. W. Bush Administration, EPA had limited options to
address compliance difficulties faced by small public water suppliers. EPA could not
ask for a grant program to support smaller systems in meeting the expensive standards,
nor would committees authorize deregulation of some standards (Tiemann, 2006).
Cost of meeting drinking water standards was increasing while health benefits of
increasing regulation were not (EPA, 2006a; SDWA, 1996). The only politically
10
viable alternative was an overhaul of SDWA. Through the Governor’s Forum on
Environmental Management, EPA produced an influential report with dramatic
prescriptions for SDWA. The resulting Amendments produced a federal SWP mandate
that includes cost-benefit analysis and a shift in focus from strict, scientific standards
to watershed protection signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton (Schnare,
1998).
Amendments address long-term, environmental health concerns through SWP
with emphasis on contamination prevention and transform the previous law into a
truly environmental statute (Houck, 2003). Instead of being a reactionary regulation,
the statute now encourages prevention and watershed planning. The first step in the
program is a mandatory source water assessment (SWA) of each public water supply.
The assessments must include a delineation of the watershed that contributes to each
intake and relative contamination susceptibility. Potential sources of contamination
must be identified and rated based on level of risk. Once the SWA is complete, each
water supply system has the option to complete a SWP plan (SWPP). Under a SWPP
systems may apply for funds to create a contamination contingency plan, develop
contamination prevention programs, reduce existing contamination, educate the local
population on SWP and watershed health and foster ecosystem services provided by
upstream landowners. Benefits of completing a SWPP are relaxed monitoring and
reporting requirements that translate into real financial rewards for the public water
supplier (EPA, 2006b). In addition, conserving and restoring riparian areas, reducing
pesticide use in sensitive areas and removing roads from steep slopes are examples of
watershed management practices that can improve drinking water quality without the
11
cost of treatment (Johnson, Revenga, & Echeverria, 2001). Thus, watershed
management investment is economically sound. For every $1 invested in SWP, a
water supply system can save from $7.50 to $200 for new water treatment facilities or
contamination mitigation (Reid, 2001).
The original SDWA virtually ignored the role of communities in providing
safe drinking water. The Amendments acknowledge the power of public participation
in watershed protection and the “right to know” of drinking water consumers. A key
provision in the SWP scheme is the creation of a team composed of local stakeholders.
The team develops the protection strategy and implements the plan (EPA, 2006b). By
giving the power to the public, the community is more likely to take ownership in the
plan. Increased ownership will lead to greater pride and personal responsibility in the
municipal watershed. An informed, responsible public creates an “Individual Action
Barrier” to drinking water contamination (EPA, 2002). Also, home-grown, grass-roots
campaigns allow for flexible, community-specific plans tailored to the individual
needs of each system and can focus on the likely contaminants found in each
watershed (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999).
Protection of raw source water is the first step of a “multi-barrier” approach to
drinking water safety (McQuigge, 2002) and is “almost invariably the best method of
ensuring safe drinking water and is to be preferred to treating a contaminated water
supply to render it suitable for consumption” (WHO, 1993). A protected drinking
water source is a sustainable community resource. By protecting the source of public
water supply, a community reduces the risk to public health of contamination and
12
disinfection byproducts, avoids the cost of pollution remediation and promotes
environmental stewardship (EPA, 2006b; Krewski et al., 2004; Medema et al., 2003).
13
3. Methodology
The research question I aim to address is that of institutional capacity
supplementation through social capacity development. As a water resources intern for
the City of Corvallis and research assistant for the Institute for Water and Watersheds
(IWW) at Oregon State University (OSU), I developed strategies to address each
potential contaminant source (PCS) in the SWPA through the creation of a SWPP. To
inform the Corvallis case study and SWPP development, a national survey of
experience was conducted and narrowed down to two comparative case studies of
communities with access to similar resources as Corvallis. Once this background
information was compiled, program development commenced. As outlined in Figure
4 and illustrated in Figure 5, the first step in program development was PCS
identification, followed by strategy development and, finally, contingency planning.
Source Water Protection Methodology
1. PCS Identification
-database search
-field verification
2. Institutional Capacity Evaluation
3. Strategy Development
-background research:
-regulatory requirements and constraints
-best management practices
-expert interviews
-landowner communication
-potential partner identification
4. Contingency Planning
Figure 4- Source Water Protection Methodology- outlines approach taken to develop
Corvallis’ SWPP that integrates land and water stewardship with SWP
14
For municipal SWP, there is little quantitative data available, and the process
to collect and develop new data sets was outside the fiscal and temporal range of this
analysis. As a result, primarily qualitative information was gathered and analyzed to
identify and develop strategies to address each PCS in the SWPA.
15
The research I
conducted included, but was not limited to, identification of regulatory requirements
and constraints, analysis of international, national and local policies for best practices
and failures, field studies of potential sources of contamination and communication
with land managers and SWP specialists in order to evaluate institutional capacity in
the absence of ownership.
The majority of empirical data were derived from regulatory database searches
and stakeholder and key informant, purposive interviews conducted from May 2007
through November 2007. Interviews and meetings lasted from thirty minutes to two
hours. Informants include local land managers, state drinking water protection
coordinator, municipal SWP directors (e.g., EWEB, Metropolitan Water District of
Salt Lake City, Central Arkansas Water, South Santiam Collaboration), watershed
conservation organization representatives (e.g., Greenbelt Land Trust, Marys River
Watershed Council, Benton Soil and Water Conservation District), public works
utilities division manager, water conservation program coordinator, fire chief,
stormwater manager, water quality analyst, water treatment plant operators, state
emergency response operations manager and others. Databases such as the Oregon
Office of State Fire Marshall Community Right-to-Know (CR2K) Hazardous
Substance Information, DEQ Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Online
Petroleum Release Reporting, DEQ LUST Cleanup Site Database, DEQ
Environmental Cleanup Site Information, DEQ Facility Profiler, Pacific Northwest
Water Quality Data Exchange, DEQ Underground Injection Control Database, Oregon
Explorer Confined Animal Feeding Operation Data Collection, EPA Surf- your-
16
Watershed, AgWaterQualityManagement, Oregon Department of Agriculture Measure
37 geospatial information, Oregon Department of Transportation Daily Spray Reports,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Form 714 Reports and others were researched
for relevant data in the SWPA. Following a case study approach (Yin, 2003), data
derived from these sources was confirmed in the field, corroborated by interview data
and compiled into an enhanced contaminant inventory database. Mitigating factors
when determining susceptibility include potency or toxicity of the contaminant,
discharge or release volume, distance from the river, distance from the intake, and the
likelihood of entry of the contaminant into the source waters. Better definition of risk
levels will allow the project team to prioritize potential threats and protection
strategies (Groundwater Foundation, 2003).
A literature review was conducted on the factors that enable a community to
protect drinking water resources. Using a community capacity indicator framework
outlined in Table 1, the City of Corvallis’ ability to protect its drinking water sources
was evaluated. This framework guided a literature review of approaches to
augmenting institutional capacity that was compiled into a capacity building policy
toolbox that the City may attempt to emulate.
Information gathered from database reviews, interviews, field study and
literature review was used in formation of a SWPP that details potential sources of
contamination, relative threat posed from each contaminant, potential partners in
addressing each threat, BMPs for related land uses, outreach materials, program
evaluation methods (Bamberger, Rugh, & Mabry, 2006) and, finally, a contingency
plan to guide emergency response. The planning process itself is presented here as an
17
important policy tool to raise interest in SWP (Burby et al., 1997). Results presented
here are in case study format and compared with SWP efforts in Salt Lake City, Utah
and Salem, Oregon, which were identified through a review of EPA SWP literature
and selected for the variety of institutional arrangements presented and similarities to
the Corvallis system. Because the study sought to explore a contemporary
phenomenon within a real-life context, case study methodology was appropriate (Yin,
2003).
18
4. Survey of local SWP implementation experience
Capacity of a community to protect a raw drinking water source is measured
using community capacity indicators developed by Timmer et al. (2007). Financial,
human resources, technical, social and institutional capacities determine potential to
effectively prevent contamination of source water and wellhead protection areas.
Recent guidance from EPA instructs water system operators on how to increase
financial, human resources and technical capacities in accordance with the
Amendments (EPA, 2007, 2008a). Numerous organizations distribute information on
increasing social capacity through pubic outreach (Boling, 1994; EPA, 2003; Gasteyer
et al., 2000; Hincliff et al., 1999; MacPherson, Tonning, & Faalasli, 2003).
Institutional capacity is the indicator with the least amount of federal guidance (Ivey et
al., 2006). The role of institutional arrangements for land use planning and water
resource management is key to community capacity for SWP (Simonovic & Bender,
1996) because they influence interactions and activities of individuals, groups and
multiple levels of government (de Loe, Giantomasso, & Kreutzwiser, 2002; Hamdy,
Abu-Zeid, & Lacirignola, 1998).
Institutions supportive of SWP provide legal
support for zoning, land use planning, emergency management and land acquisition
(Platt & Morrill, 1997; Robbins et al., 1991).
State police powers to protect public health and safety are legally inherent and
expansive yet divided hierarchically among levels of government. In the context of
SWP, the federal government exercises constitutional power, as defined in the
commerce clause, to regulate and set drinking water safety standards through the
authorization of SDWA. States establish land use and water resource regulations and
19
enforce federal standards. Local governments (counties and municipalities) limit
specific land uses by zoning and permitting development, but their legal authority is
generally restricted to the geographic expanse of their jurisdiction. Municipalities that
rely on surface water systems that originate and flow upstream of their city limits lack
legal authority (i.e., institutional capacity) to protect those waters from contamination
and must rely capacity building mechanisms to increase their potential for SWP
(Neocleous, 2004).
The academic debate over the concepts of “capacity” and “capacity building”
that prevails in the fields of natural resource management, public health, public
administration and international development differentiates between “capacity for selfdetermination” which focuses on relational capacity of individuals and groups to
achieve their own objectives and “capacity for action” which focuses on functional
capacity of individuals and groups to achieve external goals (Black, 2003; Casswell,
2001; Goodman et al., 1998; Harrow, 2001; Honadle, 1986; UNDP, 1994; Wolff,
2001). This debate is largely absent in the realm of water resource management where
the broader trend identifies factors that either constrain or promote effective water
management capacity through decentralization and public participation (Agrawal &
Gibson, 1999; Bryant & Wilson, 1998; Calder, 1997; GWP, 2000; Ivey, Loe, &
Kreutzwiser, 2002; Kapoor, 2001; Litke & Day, 1998; Shanaghan et al. , 1998).
Developing institutional capacity can be particularly difficult due to a lack of
jurisdictional control, as most municipal boundaries do not follow watersheds
(Timmer et al., 2007) and a majority (66%) of American drinking water sources are
surface water (Hall, Stewart, & Crockett, 2006). Institutional arrangements that
20
prioritize SWP are rare, and most SWP programs are a compilation of issue-specific
arrangements that deal with potentially contaminating activities, industries and
resources especially when managing nonpoint source pollutants (Pontius, 1996; Trax,
1999). Used here in the “capacity for action” sense, “institutional capacity” refers to
governance mechanisms available in the SWPA and is broken down into five
indicators developed by Timmer et al. (2007). However, it should be noted that SWP
is both technical and social in nature and strong “capacity for self-determination” is
also required to build relational capacity (Ferreyra & Beard, 2005). The following
discussion presents an institutional capacity toolbox by highlighting examples of
institutions- from the federal government to local community groups (Figure 6)taking innovative approaches to increase institutional capacity broken down by
indicator and subindicator (outlined in Table 1).
21
Figure 6- Survey of Experience Map- identifies communities that take innovative
approaches to SWP institutional capacity supplementation
Table 1-Institutional Capacity Indicators and Subindicators for SWP
modified from Timmer et al. (2007)
1. Regional legislation and policies provide SWP guidance at the local level
a. Federal
b. State
c. County
2. Municipal planning strategies and by-laws protect SWPA
a. Planning strategies
b. By-laws
3. Land use activities controlled in SWPA
a. Control by maximizing social capacity
i. Partnering for specific water quality issue
ii. Integrating SWP with water stewardship institutions (general partnership)
iii. Cross-jurisdictional collaboration
b. Control through land use management
i. Ecosystem service payments
ii. Land use permitting
4. Land acquisition for SWP
a. Eminent domain
b. Third party purchases and trusts
c. Direct purchase
5. Water quality and quantity emergency planning
a. Contingency plans
b. Water Supply Emergency/Curtailment Plan
22
4.1 Regional legislation and policies provide SWP guidance at the local level
Municipalities may benefit from the support of multiple levels of government
especially those that have legal authority in a SWPA where the local government lacks
jurisdiction. For purposes of evaluation, regional legislation and policies are broken
into subindicators of federal, state and county regulations and guidance.
4.1.1 Federal legislation- SDWA Amendments of 1996
As discussed previously, US Congress passed federal legislation to establish
SWP programs in the Amendments. The federal program provides guidance to public
water suppliers, tribal governments and community members through the EPA Office
of Water and partners with national nongovernmental organizations (e.g., American
Water Works Association, Trust for Public Land). There are multiple federal tools
available to protect source water such as the Clean Water Act Section 319 Grants,
revolving funds and outreach materials (EPA, 2008b).
4.1.2 Federal legislation- House Bill 8028
At the federal level, congress may elect to protect a specific watershed for the
safety of a community’s drinking water supply. After considerable lobbying of Oregon
Representatives in the early 20th century, Rock Creek watershed was protected for the
people of Corvallis, Oregon (Wilson, 1919). House Bill (HB) 8028 of 1920 set aside
public land to be managed primarily for the protection of the community water supply
(see Appendix A for the full text of HB8028). As a result the City of Corvallis and US
Forest Service (USFS) co-manage the land using best forest practices for watershed
management (Ferguson, 2006).
23
4.1.3 State policies- DEQ Drinking Water Protection Program
In Oregon, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Department
of Human Services (DHS) partnered to fulfill the congressional SWA mandate. The
project involves every ground water and surface water public water supply system in
the state. SWAs are comprised of data pulled from various state and federal databases,
interviews and “windshield surveys” converted to Geographical Information Systems
(GIS) shape files. DEQ and DHS delineated groundwater and surface water SWPAs,
inventoried each potential contaminant source (PCS) and determined the most
susceptible areas to contamination. Public water systems in Oregon are regulated by
DHS, and both agencies continue to provide extensive guidance and technical
assistance to communities developing and implementing SWP strategies. In order to
streamline the planning process, DEQ developed an interactive website for use by
public water system operators, consultants and the public pursuing local SWP
information. Since SWAs consist of unverified and sometimes unreliable data, DEQ
encourages public water managers to use the SWA as a basis for more detailed and
accurate assessment. Capitalizing off the expertise of both agencies, the effort was
complete in 2003 (Hall et al., 2006).
This type of technical knowledge regarding source water and the applicability
of protection measures is a component of technical capacity development. Use of this
information to develop and implement protection measures prevents the need for
treatment to rid drinking water of contaminants and, as a result, improves the financial
capacity of the system by eliminating the need for rate increases to finance capital
improvements (Timmer et al., 2007).
24
4.1.4 County regulations- City of Enterprise, Wallowa County, Oregon
To protect the drinking water source of the City of Enterprise, Oregon,
Wallowa County government restricts residential development, selected agricultural
practices and certain industrial and commercial uses that, if unregulated, pose
immediate threats to the health and welfare of the citizens of Enterprise. The county
established a Watershed Protection Area (WPA) zoning overlay that prohibits certain
activities (e.g. livestock maintenance, fuel and putrescible crop storage) within 1,000
feet of municipal springs. Especially hazardous activities such as solid waste disposal
and chemical storage are completely banned within the WPA. The municipal
government is unable to pass similar ordinances due to a lack of legal authority in the
WPA (WPA, 1988).
4.1.5 County guidance- City of Laramie, Albany County, Wyoming
To protect the Casper aquifer, the primary source of drinking water for
Laramie, Wyoming, from the impact of increased rural residential development in the
recharge zone, the City of Laramie partnered with Albany County government to
create a joint city-county Casper Aquifer Protection Plan. Approximately 95% of the
Casper Aquifer Overlay Protection Zone is located east of the city proper and outside
the city limits. In 2002, the City of Laramie approved the implementation of an
overlay zone based on the Casper Aquifer Protection Plan4. In early 2003 Albany
County approved a similar overlay zone to expand the protection outside of Laramie’s
jurisdiction. In addition to the overlays, subdivision moratoriums are imposed within
the protection zone to allow for protection plan updates. These are continued steps in
4
Chapter 17.82 of Laramie Municipal Code
25
a 17-year effort to protect the quality of the county’s largest source of drinking water
(Lieske et al., 2003).
4.2 Municipal planning strategies and by-laws protect SWPA
In the infrequent case, some municipalities maintain legal authority over their
SWPA and are capable of restricting land use without assistance from higher levels of
government. More often, this is not the case, and local governments are limited to
developing planning strategies and seeking extrajurisdictional authority or
partnerships for implementation. Two examples are discussed below.
4.2.1 Planning strategies- Bridgetown and Middleton, Nova Scotia
In order to avoid the financial, technical and human resource costs associated
with passing and enforcing ordinances, municipalities may adopt planning strategies
that limit land use activities in watersheds without necessarily regulating development.
Such is the case in Nova Scotia, where legislative tools are often superfluous and
constrain rather than foster a community’s capacity. Bridgetown and Middleton, Nova
Scotia use planning strategies to guide land use in sensitive watershed and recharge
areas (Timmer et al., 2007).
4.2.2 By- laws- Cave Junction, Oregon
When applicable, municipal regulations play a critical role in SWP because
protective actions are tailored to unique local situations. Cave Junction, a small rural
community in southwest Oregon, passed an ordinance that restricts certain land uses in
the ‘Water Protection Area,’ requires an impact study to be completed for every new
development and creates a safety buffer of 200 feet surrounding any tributary to a
drinking water source (SWP, 1998).
26
4.3 Land use activities controlled in SWPA
When local governments lack legal authority to control land use, they may
utilize other approaches to land use management. This indicator is broken into two
subindicators: control by maximizing capacity, whereby municipalities partner with
institutions to combat a specific issue, to create general relationships and/or to employ
legal authority; and control through land use management techniques such as
ecosystem service payments and integrated land and water resource management.
4.3.1 Control by maximizing social capacity
Partnerships form to accomplish multiple objectives: addressing a specific
water quality issue, general partnerships to enhance overall water quality or crossjurisdictional collaborations to expand the reach of a SWPA and maximize the
resources of each institution within the expanded reach (Ivey et al., 2005). Drinking
water protection is not an isolated issue; organizations working in a watershed to
improve water quality may not be focused on drinking water quality only, yet their
work has a positive impact in the SWPA. Municipalities that partner with such groups
reap the benefits of overall water quality improvement while the organizations expand
their funding reach to include human health concerns (Ferreyra & Kreutzwiser, 2007).
4.3.1.1 Partnering for specific water quality issue- EWEB obsolete chemical storage
Oregon State University (OSU) Extension Service conducted a survey of farm
chemicals used and stored by growers in the upper Willamette basin and found that
thousands of gallons of obsolete chemicals lie in storage on farms. Growers are not
allowed to participate in household hazardous waste collection events, and the cost of
proper disposal is high, and some of these chemicals, such as Dichloro-Diphenyl-
27
Trichloroethane (DDT), are illegal to apply to fields. Thus, many growers are unable
to use them or afford their disposal. The Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB)
created a program aimed at providing growers with a no-cost opportunity to safely
remove these chemicals from their farms. The project required the assistance of
county waste management operators, fire and rescue departments, soil and water
conservation districts, watershed councils and regional HazMat teams among others to
collect and dispose of 17,400 lbs of pesticides; 5,200 lbs of old fertilizer; 950 gallons
of waste oil and solvents; and 600 gallons of various other chemicals (Morgenstern,
2006).
4.3.1.2 Integrating SWP with water stewardship institutions- Chester, Pennsylvania
For over 40 years, the Chester Water Authority has collaborated with the
Octoraro Watershed Association to protect its source of drinking water, Octoraro
Reservoir, by creating a link between consumers of Octoraro drinking water that live
outside of the watershed and landowners in the watershed that do not rely on Octoraro
Reservoir as their drinking water source. The partnership supports best management
practice (BMP) education and outreach programs to local farmers. Chester Water
Authority is able to supply or identify sources of funding for projects that the
watershed association promotes through on-the-ground activity and close relationships
with community members (Dougherty & Hei, 1999).
4.3.1.3 Cross-jurisdictional collaborations- South Santiam SWPA, Oregon
The Oregon cities of Sweet Home, Lebanon and Albany are part of an
innovative pilot project aimed at managing multiple SWPAs on the South Santiam
watershed as a single, unified SWPA.
Municipalities collaborate for greater
28
consolidated control and partner with USFS, Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
watershed councils, county governments, US Army Corps of Engineers and Oregon
Department of Forestry (ODF) over turbidity, endangered species protection and
Clean Water Act (CWA) total maximum daily load (TMDL) concerns (Jarocki, 2002).
4.3.2 Control through land use management
Communities with extraordinary resources are capable of SWP through
managing land use outside of jurisdictional control.
Examples described below
illustrate how local governments with the ability to raise phenomenal amounts of
capital reduce contamination potential through exercising strong financial capacity.
4.3.2.1 Ecosystem service payments- New York, New York
Ecosystem services provided by upstream riparians result in tangible benefits
to downstream municipalities by protecting drinking water quality and preventing
increases in treatment costs. In long-term, successful relationships, the downstream
beneficiary willingly pays the upstream landowners for their services (Enters, 1999).
The largest scale example is the watershed protection program for New York City
(NYC) water supply. The program was driven by the filtration requirement in SDWA
which forced NYC to choose between watershed protection and a filtration plant
estimated to cost $6 billion in capital costs and $300 million annually for maintenance
(Postel & Thompson, 2005; Walter & Walter, 1999).
Through a comprehensive plan negotiated among landowners, environmental
organizations and state and federal officials in the Catskill-Delaware watershed, NYC
invests $1.5 billion over 10 years in the watershed to restore and protect watershed
processes that improve water quality (City of New York, 2004; Walter & Walter,
29
1999). The plan has been initially successful and mutually beneficial (Ward, 2004).
Success indicates that NYC will continue to enjoy its filtration plant waiver while
NYC residents enjoy high-quality drinking water at a lower price than mechanically
filtered water. In exchange for ecosystem services, landowners gain income, healthier
streams, increased wildlife habitat, access to outdoor recreation activities and
economic investments in their communities (Postel & Thompson, 2005).
4.3.2.2 Land use permitting in SWPA- Los Angeles, California
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) owns 314,000 acres
of the 2.2 million acre Eastern Sierra watershed that supplies Los Angeles with
drinking water. Primarily on the Owens Valley floor, LADWP leases most of this land
to ranching, commercial and recreational interests. The leasing and inspection process
ensures that land use activities comply with LADWP objectives for maintaining water
quality and is more stringent than grazing practices allowed on USFS and BLM lands
(LADWP, 2007). This example of institutional capacity differs from other forms of
land acquisition (described below) in that the SWPA is still a working landscape
controlled through a permitting system (Calder, 2005) while most purchases of land
have an objective of restoration to more ecologically pristine environments (Ernst,
2004; TPL, 1998).
4.4 Land acquisition for SWP
An obvious resolution to a lack of jurisdiction is land acquisition through
eminent domain, direct purchase and/or third party purchase. Methods have varying
levels of political and financial viability: third party purchases or leases (conservation
easements) have the least financial and political consequence (Ernst, 2004) in contrast
30
to condemnation that can be both very expensive and politically costly (Feldman et al.,
2006; Waldon, 2005).
4.4.1 Eminent domain- Central Arkansas Water, Lake Maumelle
Lake Maumelle provides the drinking water to 400,000 customers in Little
Rock, Arkansas and neighboring communities and is surrounded by relatively
undeveloped forests. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) petitioned to use its power of
eminent domain to purchase high value watershed property to preempt the
development of multi-million dollar homes directly upslope of the intake.
After
contracting a watershed protection plan and pilot program to assess the likelihood of
water quality degradation from residential development (Clements & Brewer, 2007),
CAW settled with the developers and condemned 179 acres of prime watershed land.
The settlement includes a proposal to construct a ditch that will, in effect, remove the
area from the watershed (Cate, 2007). To date, CAW has spent over $10.5 million on
litigation, mitigation, consultant and purchase costs and caused considerable political
upheaval (AP, 2007; Feldman et al., 2006).
4.4.2 Third party purchases and trusts- Salt Lake City, Utah
When utilities condemn, they must pay fair market value; however,
environmental groups may have land donated or acquire a portion of property in trust.
Upon recommendation from Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City staff,
environmental groups purchase priority protection properties (McLaughlin, 2007).
Upon acquisition, environmental groups place land in private trust, conservation
easements, for the protection of water quality (Thorne, 1997). As watershed protection
is a major issue within the Salt Lake City community, a publicly funded program for
31
watershed land acquisition initiated with the 1988 Watershed Master plan. This
program is based on community contribution to a watershed land purchase fund, a
dedicated fund financed by $.50 per water bill, generating $500,000 per year. Trust for
Public Lands acts as the broker and uses the fund to purchase over 1200 acres of prime
watershed property, prevent development and provide long term protection by
incorporating conservation easements with the purchases and partnering with USFS to
manage the land. While each conservation easement is unique, USFS employs best
practices for SWP such as riparian restoration and access restriction (Davis, 2005).
4.4.3 Direct purchase- Seattle, Washington
Seattle Public Utilities’ (SPU) Cedar River is one of the few unfiltered surface
sources of public water supply. Land acquisition is a top priority of SPU SWP
activities (SeattleChannel.org, 2007). Funded through billing revenue, SPU owns
nearly the entire watershed (99.9%). Due to the federal Cedar River Watershed Act of
1992, the land is not open to public access, timber harvesting or development of any
sort. Land use limitations have devalued the land to affordable levels for SPU
acquisition (Hill, 2004).
4.5 Water quality and quantity emergency planning
Contingency planning describes the emergency management protocol for
contamination events. Contamination could be natural (e.g., sediment from fire or
landslide) or anthropogenic (e.g., leaking storage tank) and intentional (e.g.,
vandalism) or accidental (e.g., hazardous substance spill). This protocol should assure
prompt notification and action of water treatment plant operators. In addition, water
32
managers should plan for supplemental water supply and demand management
(curtailment) in the case of shortages due to drought or contamination (Bruins, 2000).
4.5.1 Contingency- McKenzie Watershed Emergency Response System- EWEB
Responding to a contamination event of a multi-use water body is complex and
time-sensitive. The McKenzie River is the drinking water source of Eugene, Oregon,
habitat to multiple threatened species and is a major transportation corridor over the
Cascade Mountain Range. Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB), the public
water supplier, developed a detailed GIS to guide emergency response in the event of
a hazardous spill on the highway. The system includes points of interest (e.g., back
channel habitat areas that must be temporarily dammed off if a spill occurs at certain
upstream positions), lists of emergency response equipment (e.g., temporary dams),
emergency contacts (e.g., HazMat teams), notification information (e.g., local media)
and incident communications (e.g., local dispatch) (Morgenstern, 2003).
4.5.2 Supply emergency-Supply Curtailment Plan- Corvallis, Oregon
In addition to maintaining a storage capacity to supply water to its customers
for three days, City of Corvallis Water Supply Emergency/Curtailment Plan outlines
mandatory curtailment measures in a tiered format depending on shortage severity.
The plan covers emergencies related to drought, source contamination, power supply
interruption, transmission line breakage, reservoir failure and catastrophe. Tiers of use
restrictions reflect reservoir water levels and expected length of interruption. Less
severe events are likely to prompt voluntary use reduction while critical water
shortage events require mandatory restrictions of water use.
33
5. Comparative SWP Case Studies
Levels of institutional capacity vary greatly throughout the United States. Most
states have made progress on mandatory SWA of each public water supplier, but the
voluntary nature of SWP contributes to a wide gap in levels of strategy development
and implementation. The City of Corvallis’ SWP program is modeled on some of the
more successful projects with recognition that less successful efforts (or lack thereof)
can help avoid certain obstacles. Two examples- Metropolitan Water District of Salt
Lake City, Utah and City of Salem, Oregon - are described below. Like Corvallis, Salt
Lake City and Salem source drinking water from surface water systems owned and
managed by USFS, face pressure from upstream development and have access to local
university resources. However, each community exhibits different approaches to SWP
and levels of institutional capacity as summarized in Tables 2 & 3 and illustrated by
bar graph in Figures 7 & 8 below.
34
Table 2- Institutional Capacity-Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, Utah
1. Regional legislation/policies
a. Federal
SDWA Amendments of 1996; PL 199 & 259- Federal & City
partnership to manage and own Salt Lake Forest Reserve for
SWP; USFS owns 62% of watershed
b. State
State Constitution authorizes the Legislature to grant
extraterritorial jurisdiction to protect watershed and drinking
water supply. Utah statutes give Salt Lake City broad and
substantial discretion in the management of its watersheds to
protect its drinking water sources from pollution.
c. County
County Health Department prescribes watershed regulation.
County Commission responsible for water quality planning.
HB40 requires county SWP.
2. Municipal by-laws/planning strategies
a. By- laws
"No person or persons shall be allowed to build cow yards,
privies, or deposit any filthy substance on the banks of the
streams running through [Salt Lake City] so as to affect the
water thereof." March 21, 1851. City passed ordinances for
SWP. Livestock grazing/trailing prohibited.
b. Planning
Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan provides Salt
Strategies
Lake City guidance in management of canyon watersheds and
protection of drinking water supply. Wasatch Canyon Master
Plan focuses on land-use issues and compliments management
plan. Watershed plans have deterred several proposed
developments (Ski Interconnect tunnel and cable-tram system,
Wasatch Super Tunnel, 2002 Olympic Events)
3. Land use control
a. Maximizing social capacity
Sanitation concerns over subdivisions- Commercial Club
i. Specific
partnership, June Sucker Recovery Implementation Program
water quality
issue
ii. General
Four Seasons Fly Fishers, Utah Rivers Council, Northern
Partnership
Utah Wetlands Partnership
iii. CrossJurisdictional
Collaboration
Collaborations with Brighton to reduce impact of subdivisions
for summer homes; Collaborations with downstream irrigation
districts to manage projected water supply shortages;
Collaborations with county health department to protect
watersheds and water quality
35
Table 3 (cont.)- Institutional Capacity of Metropolitan Water District of Salt
Lake City, Utah
b. Land use management
i. Land use
Extraterritorial jurisdiction grants legal authority to control
control
land uses within 10 miles outside of city boundaries
4. Land acquisition
485 acres of private land purchase through partnership with
a. 3rd party
City (financer), Trust for Public Lands (broker) and USFS
purchases and
(land manager); Through the Salt Lake City Watershed
trusts
Land Acquisition Program over 1200 acres of prime
watershed property have been placed in conservation
easements
b. Direct
City Creek, Emigration, Red Butte and Parleys Canyons
purchase
purchases total over 23,000 acres or 18% of SWPA. Land
ownership successfully discouraged the development of a
proposed ski resort.
5. Emergency planning
a. Contingency Utah Administrative rule R309-605-10- All public water
plans
suppliers must submit a contamination contingency plan
that includes emergency response, rationing, water supply
b. Water
decontamination, and development of alternative sources.
Supply Plan
Figure 7- Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, Utah Bar Graph- illustrates
institutional capacity
36
Table 3-Institutional Capacity- City of Salem, Oregon
1. Regional legislation/policies
a. Federal
SDWA Amendments of 1996; partnership with USFS and
Willamette National Forest
b. State
ODEQ Source Water Protection Program offers assistance; "Three
Basin Rule" prohibits wastewater discharge in North Santiam basin
c. County
none
2. Municipal by-laws/planning strategies
a. By- laws
none
b. Planning
In process
Strategies
3. Land use control
a. Maximizing social capacity
i. Specific
MOU "North Santiam River Cooperative Water Quality Monitoring
water quality
Program" with USFS to monitor relationship between turbidity and
issue
forest practices
ii. General
Oregon Watersheds, Salem area watershed councils
Partnership
iii. CrossCollaboration with Oregon Department of Forestry
Jurisdictional
Collaboration
b. Land use management
i. Land use
none
control
4. Land acquisition none
5. Emergency planning
a. Water Supply
Emergency supply is available from municipal wells and City of
Plan
Keizer connections
b. Contingency
Part of municipal planning process
Plan
Figure 8- City of Salem, Oregon Bar Graph- illustrates institutional capacity
37
6. Results- City of Corvallis, Oregon SWPP
The City of Corvallis, Oregon commits to protect drinking water quality at the
source and seeks to create a barrier to drinking water contamination through
development of an approved SWPP. To achieve this goal, the program addresses
facilities and land use activities that pose high or moderate risks for contaminating
public water supply through integrating existing land and water stewardship programs,
developing new outreach initiatives and examining the impacts of evolving land use
policy.
As a riverfront city, Corvallis takes pride in its environmental health and
wealth of natural features. Watersheds are valued and managed to protect water purity,
aesthetics, biological integrity and recreational opportunities.
As stated in the Corvallis 2020 Vision Statement (Corvallis City Council, 1997):
“The community's water supply, along with its streams and creeks, are
clean and clear. Water conservation efforts decrease the amount of
water city residents consume. Drinking water quality has been
improved by convincing upstream industries to stop polluting the
Willamette and its tributaries.”
As this vision becomes reality, one outcome is integration of SWP with land-use
planning and stewardship; farming, industry and development practices; watershed
planning, protection and clean-up; and daily routines of the citizens of Corvallis.
6.1 Description of drinking water supply
The City of Corvallis treats water from two sources- Rock Creek and
Willamette River- and serves approximately 53,900 citizens, Oregon State University
and Hewlett Packard. Rock Creek is located on land owned by the City of Corvallis
and USFS and is managed primarily for protection of drinking water supply (see full
38
text of H.R. 8028 in Appendix A). The Willamette River watershed encompasses
diverse ownership. Land use includes agricultural production, rock mining, food
processing, urban and rural residences and pulp and paper production. One intake is
located on the Willamette River and three others are located on North Fork Rock
Creek, South Fork Rock Creek and Griffith Creek. In 2007 Corvallis drew
approximately 68% (1.88 of 2.76 billion gallons) of its public water supply from the
Willamette River but has no legal authority over most activities in the watershed
(Corvallis, 2008).
The Willamette River intake is located in Muddy Creek watershed of the Upper
Willamette subbasin of the Willamette basin. Water intakes for Pope & Talbot Inc.,
EWEB, City of Westfir, City of Cottage Grove, City of Creswell and London Water
Co-Op public water systems are also located on the Willamette River or its tributaries
upstream of the Corvallis intake (DEQ & DHS, 2003).
The Willamette River intake is located at approximately 210 feet above mean
sea level (see Figure 9). The Coast Range on the west and the Cascade Range on the
east bound the watershed. The geographic area providing water to Corvallis’
Willamette River intake (Willamette River SWPA) extends upstream approximately
94 stream miles (Willamette River and tributaries) and encompasses approximately
63.7 square miles.
Included in this area are a number of channels and sloughs
connected to the Willamette River including Middle Channel, Boonville Channel,
Boonville Slough, Clark Slough, Albany Channel, Ingram Slough and Curtis Slough.
The SWPA upstream of the Pope & Talbot Willamette River intake extends an
additional 1,672 stream miles and encompasses an additional 3,900 square miles.
39
Tributaries to the Willamette River upstream of the Pope & Talbot intake include the
Long Tom, McKenzie, Middle Fork and Coast Fork Willamette Rivers and their
numerous tributaries (DEQ & DHS, 2003). The Willamette River SWPA within an 8hour travel time from the intake extends approximately 6.3 miles upstream of the
Corvallis intake (see Figure 9). DEQ determined that eight hours provides adequate
response time to protect the integrity of the public water system intake should a spill
or release occur at any crossing or discharge point (EPA, 1997). Rock Creek SWPA
includes the area contributing to three intakes: North Fork Rock Creek (North Creek
Reservoir), South Fork Rock Creek and Griffith Creek (see Figures 10 & 11). This
area supplies the City with approximately 32% (879 million of 2.76 billion gallons in
2007) of its annual water needs (Corvallis, 2008). Intakes are located in Marys River
watershed of the upper Willamette subbasin of the Willamette basin. The geographic
area providing water to the Rock Creek watershed intakes extends upstream a
cumulative total of 14 stream miles and encompasses a total area of approximately 10
square miles. North Fork Rock Creek, South Fork Rock Creek and Griffith Creek
intakes are located approximately 600 feet, 600 feet and 720 feet above mean sea
level, respectively. The upper extent of the watershed is 4,097 feet at Marys Peak, the
highest point in the Coast Range Mountains (DEQ & DHS, 2003).
40
Figure 9- Map of Willamette River SWPA (DEQ & DHS, 2003)
41
Figure 10- Rock Creek Vicinity Map (Ferguson, 2006)- Identifies City-owned land
and relative position of Rock Creek to Corvallis, OR.
Rock Creek watershed provides a limited supply of water. For this reason,
Corvallis depends on the Willamette River to meet future water demand. Because
Corvallis relies more heavily on Willamette source water and co-manages the
watershed and because of the relative abundance of high-risk PCSs within the
Willamette River SWPA, the SWPP focuses on the Willamette River portion of the
municipal watershed.
42
Figure 11- Aerial view of Rock Creek SWPA with reference to Willamette River
SWPA and Corvallis, OR (DEQ & DHS, 2003)
6.2 Potential contaminant source inventory
The Willamette River watershed is the lifeblood of Oregon. The Willamette
River is the 13th largest river by volume in the United States, and 70% of Oregon
residents live in the Willamette River watershed (Wolf, 2007). The Willamette River
provides essential water resources such as irrigation for agriculture, recreation and
public supply of drinking water. These beneficial uses do not necessarily have to
43
compete. Under a comprehensive SWPP, multiple uses may be made of the
Willamette River without degrading the quality of public drinking water supply.
In July 2003 DEQ conducted an inventory of PCSs within the SWPA and
completed a SWA to identify and document significant PCSs of concern. This
inventory was updated and enhanced in June 2007 by the previously discussed
methods and identifies 40 PCSs, all of which are within sensitive areas. A majority (28
sites or 70%) have high or moderate risk associated with their activities. Each of three
intakes in Rock Creek SWPA has one high risk PCS: managed forestlands and clear
cuts. The remaining 37 are within the Willamette River SWPA, and 25 of those sites
(63%) have high- to moderate-risk associated with their activities (see Appendix B for
PCS description). The area immediately upstream of the intake is particularly dense
with potential risk. In approximately three square miles upstream from the intake there
are 16 PCSs (DEQ & DHS, 2003).
Willamette River SWPA is primarily dominated by agricultural and rural
residential land uses. PCSs include a fish toxicology lab, a water treatment plant, a
food processing operation, three permitted dischargers, irrigated crops, farms,
junkyards, five confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), a rock products
operation, non-irrigated crops, State Highways 99W and 99E, Peoria Road, an area
with a high density of septic systems, storm water outfalls, river recreation, gravel pits,
Corvallis Municipal Airport, rural homes, businesses with chemical storage, upgraded
underground storage tanks, a cemetery, a large capacity septic system, a utility station
and a turf research lab. All pose a relatively high to moderate risk to the drinking
water supply with the exception of non-irrigated crops, rural homes, Corvallis
44
Municipal Airport, upgraded underground storage tanks and cemetery, which present
low risk (see Figure 12 for locations of each PCS and Appendix B for a detailed list).
Recent changes in land use regulations may impact the SWPA. Ballot Measure
37 (M37), passed in 2004 by ballot initiative, allows land owners whose property
value is reduced by land use regulations to claim compensation from state or local
government. If the government fails to compensate a claimant within two years of the
claim, the law allows the claimant to use the property under only the regulations in
place at the time of purchase5.
There are four M37 claims filed within the SWPA and outside of the urban
growth boundary (see Figure 13). Increased development may increase the number of
PCSs, namely those that are related to residential land uses, construction activities and
traffic. Related increases in stormwater runoff, land-disturbance and septic systems
may decrease the quality of source water.
5
ORS 197.352
45
Figure 12- PCS and relative risk in Willamette River SWPA (DEQ & DHS, 2003)
46
Figure 13- Map of M37 claims in Willamette River SWPA (IPMS, 2007)
Ballot Measure 496 (M49), passed in November 2007, limits the extent of
M37, but its impacts on the watershed remain unclear. M49 allows for no more than
ten home sites if the claimant is able to demonstrate a loss of value that justifies the
number of new homes requested. M37 had no cap on home sites and may have
allowed larger scale developments in the SWPA. If land is categorized as “high value
farmland” or in a groundwater restricted area, the cap is three home sites. M37 claims
approved and vested before passage of M49 may proceed under the regulations stated
in M37 ("Ballot Measure 49," 2007). Only one of four claims has been approved. The
question of what constitutes “vested” will likely remain unclear for some time. This
approved claim is for a single dwelling on a 95-acre property. Even if it is vested and
6
Amends ORS 197.352 and 93.040
47
moves forward with construction, a single home is not likely to have any measurable
impact on the SWPA. All other claims are now subject to M49 restrictions.
If the claimants reapply, they will be subjected to review under Benton
County’s new water supply ordinance. Regulations require a developer to prove up
water availability from groundwater sources before a claim approval. These new rules
are the first product of a county-wide water plan that is in its initial stages of
development (Benton County, 2008a, 2008b). Plan details are discussed in following
sections.
6.3 SWPP Development
The SWPP clearly identifies strategies to manage actual and potential sources
of contamination within SWPA. Secondly, it describes educational efforts concerning
the public and the importance of SWP. Finally, it provides a comprehensive action
plan in case of a contamination emergency. Outlined herein is a novel approach to
SWP that integrates ongoing land and water stewardship programs to maximize the
social capacity and overcome institutional barriers to protect source water. Working
with the City of Corvallis, the author developed strategies to protect public health,
increase SWP awareness, prevent degradation of water supply and establish a
contingency plan for water supply contamination and service interruption
emergencies. Figure 14 shows key linkages among these key components of a
successful strategy to protect drinking water. Each component is addressed in stages.
48
Figure 14- Linkages that result in protected drinking water supply
6.4 City of Corvallis- institutional capacity
Because the majority of potentially harmful land use activities lay outside of
municipal jurisdiction, the City has little or no authority to restrict or control
management practices and thus, lacks traditionally defined institutional capacity. To
compensate the City maximizes its social capacity in the watershed by partnering with
local, bottom-up land and water stewardship organizations that have the institutional
capacity to protect source water. Meaningful stakeholder participation provides the
City with the possibility of SWP through voluntary adoption of best management
practices. Detail of this strategy follows in sections below and is illustrated in Figure
15, a bar graph of institutional capacity indicators.
49
Figure 15- City of Corvallis, Oregon Bar Graph- illustrates institutional capacity.
Note- light grey bars indicate potential fulfillment of an indicator.
6.4.1 Regional legislation and policies provide SWP guidance
6.4.1.1 Federal level
As discussed previously, federal legislation ("Safe Drinking Water Act," 1996)
and guidance are available to local officials for SWP. In addition, HB 8028 of 1920
(Appendix A) federally protects 32% of Corvallis’ drinking water supply. Because of
this existing level of protection, the rest of this case study focuses on the remaining
water supply, the Willamette River.
6.4.1.2 State level
As discussed previously, DEQ provides Corvallis officials with multiple levels
of guidance. DEQ Office of Water Quality provides technical assistance in the form of
50
SWA and policy advice through numerous case studies, model ordinances and direct
consultation.
6.4.1.3 County level
In Oregon, a contemporary issue county and state agencies are facing is the
integration of land use planning and water resources management. Bates Van de
Wetering (2007) describes the “governance gap” which exists between those
responsible for regulating land use (counties) and water supply (Oregon Water
Resources Department). In Oregon, water resource managers and county land use
planners have begun calling for clarity and elimination of this gap (Mabbott, 2007).
Without long-term plans for future water use, water suppliers are left with
weak institutional capacity to protect drinking water supplies. In addition, the lack of
jurisdictional control over the rural areas in a SWPA compounds a water supplier’s
lack of institutional capacity (Timmer et al., 2007). Multiple Oregon county
governments are developing countywide water plans to protect water resources as the
population of Oregon grows. However, most of these plans focus on ground water
related issues, mostly water quantity with some incorporating water quality.
Oregon, along with multiple other states, follows consistency doctrine
principles when developing planning strategies. “Merging intentions and actions, the
consistency doctrine is the expression of the idea that plans are documents that
describe public policies that the community intends to implement and not simply a
rhetorical expression of the community’s desires” (Lincoln, 1996). Tarlock and
Lucero (2002) call for an evolution of the consistency doctrine to integrate local plans
for water conservation to ensure that they are consistent with regional and state water
51
and land use plans. County commissions throughout Oregon are amending their
Comprehensive Plans to include water supply provisions in compliance with statewide
planning goals approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission7,
specifically Goal 5-Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas and Open Spaces8.
Published in August 2007, a survey of 26 counties found 7 counties that either have
water plans or are in the process of plan development (Snell, 2007).
Adopted in 2007, the Benton County Comprehensive Plan, while not
regulatory, serves as the basis of the Development Code. To comply with federal
legislation for water systems, the Comprehensive Plan includes policies that require
vulnerability assessments and source protection for public water supply as part of the
land use regulatory process (BCPC, 2006). These rules are not yet implemented or
enforceable, but the County has demonstrated a commitment to eliminate development
practices that result in degradation of water quality and is moving “with slow and
steady momentum” toward such ends (Irvin, 2007).
6.4.2 Municipal planning strategies and by-laws protect SWPA
6.4.2.1 Planning strategies
The City of Corvallis’ SWPP aims to protect current drinking water supplies
and is the focus of this case study.
6.4.2.2 By-laws
Because most of the SWPA falls outside of the jurisdiction of the Corvallis
municipal government, there are no by-laws at the municipal level to protect current
7
8
ORS 197.175
OAR Chapter 660, Division 15
52
drinking water supplies. The small portion of the SWPA that lies within municipal
jurisdiction is subject to a stormwater ordinance that can protect source water and an
anti-waste ordinance that can reduce demand.
6.4.3 Land use activities controlled SWPA
6.4.3.1 Control by maximizing social capacity
Working cooperatively with landowners to reduce the potential risk posed by
certain land uses will ensure a long-term, safe drinking water supply for Corvallis as
well as other users. Corvallis is blessed with a wealth of experts within and around the
community that provide a valuable SWP resource. Corvallis incorporates SWP into a
broader context of projects that have a shared outcome of improved water quality in
the Willamette Basin. Each PCS management strategy incorporates action of multiple
organizations (e.g., Oregon Trout, Marys River Watershed Council, Willamette
RiverKeeper, Benton Soil and Water Conservation District). A majority are addressed
through PCS-specific partnerships, while others are better managed through general
SWP integration with land and water stewardship organizations. The remaining PCSs
are primarily of concern in emergency situations and addressed through contingency
planning (see Figure 16, a situation map of partners by PCS).
53
Figure 16- Situation map of potential partners for PCS management broken down by
PCS-specific partnerships, general partnerships and contingency planning
partnerships. City government (e.g., 911 dispatchers, fire department) also plays a
large role in the contingency planning process. DOGAMI=Department of Geologic
and Mineral Industries; ODA=Oregon Department of Agriculture; BCEH=Benton
County Environmental Health; DEQ=Department of Environmental Quality; MRWC=
Marys River Watershed Council; BSWCD=Benton Soil and Water Conservation
District; IWW=Institute for Water and Watersheds; ODOT=Oregon Department of
Transportation
6.4.3.1.1 Partnering for specific water quality issue
An Agricultural Chemical Take Back Program is a subproject of the City of
Corvallis SWPP. This program is aimed at providing growers with a no-cost
opportunity to safely remove chemicals from their farms. Willamette River SWPA is
dominated by agricultural land uses. DEQ lists agricultural related activities (e.g.,
storage and application of pesticides and fertilizers) as a high contamination risk to
drinking water sources.
54
As human resources become available, the City will apply for funds and, if
sufficient funds are granted, conduct a chemical take-back event for agricultural
landowners within the SWPA. Removing chemicals, especially legacy chemicals,
from farms within the SWPA will reduce the likelihood of a spill or leak. By
extending an opportunity to dispose of such chemicals to landowners all parties
benefit. Growers reduce their liability for spills and reduce the chances of being
exposed to hazardous materials while increasing storage space.
The City, other
downstream users and aquatic organisms would benefit by reducing the risk posed by
excess pesticide storage.
Potential partners include: Benton County Waste Management; Benton County
Fire and Rescue; City of Adair Village; City of Corvallis; Benton Soil and Water
Conservation District (BSWCD); Linn Soil and Water Conservation District
(LSWCD); Institute for Water and Watersheds (IWW); Marys River Watershed
Council (MRWC); local fire departments; OSU Extension; Willamette Groundwater
Management Area representatives; and regional HazMat teams.
Less formally, PCS strategies include arrangement with regulatory and
stewardship institutions. CAFO management includes annual review of ODA
livestock water quality inspection reports. Farm machinery repair strategies utilize
expertise of DEQ’s Toxics Use/Waste Reduction Assistance Program and free
technical assistance and training from Ecological Business Program.
Potential
contamination risk from food processing is addressed by direct partnership with plant
managers. Encouraging managers to participate in End of Life Vehicle Solutions
(ELVS), a free hazardous material collection service partnered with DEQ, may
55
significantly reduce threats from automotive salvage yards. Stormwater management
of mines and gravel pits may improve as result of distribution of DOGAMI produced
materials. Partnership with Environmental Health of Benton County ensures septic
system compliance with environmental regulations and provides a conduit to land
owners for BMP promotion.
6.4.3.1.2 Integrating SWP with water stewardship institutions
PCSs best addressed through general partnerships are those that are widespread
and present a variety of typical contaminants such as irrigated and non-irrigated crops.
The SWP Team (Team) consists of two principal partners: the City of Corvallis and
IWW. In addition, many other organizations have pledged support to the program
(e.g., MRWC and BSWCD). Each partner has roles and responsibilities that support
the overall program. The composition of the Team will change as different aspects of
the plan are implemented. For example, the Agricultural Chemical Take Back
Program will expand the membership of the Team during implementation.
The City of Corvallis Public Works Department is ultimately responsible for
the program. The City provides administrative and technical support to the Team.
IWW acts as a conduit between the City and OSU by providing students to support the
program. MRWC co-sponsors public educational efforts in support of SWP and
utilizes their role as a link between private property owners and natural resource
agencies. BSWCD is well established within the agricultural community and has
pledged support to the program in the form of extending its outreach programs to
include aspects of SWP.
56
6.4.3.1.3 Cross-jurisdictional collaboration
River recreation on the Willamette River poses a relatively moderate potential
contaminant risk to drinking water quality. Inadequate disposal of human waste
contributes bacteria and nutrients to raw drinking water supply. Heavy use may
contribute to stream bank erosion and turbidity increases. Fuel spills and emissions
also contribute to contamination (Stewart, 2001).
Governor Kulongoski’s three-part plan to revitalize the Willamette River
includes the Willamette River Water Trail. The Trail is meant to create educational,
scenic and enjoyable experiences for canoeists and kayakers. The Trail may increase
awareness of the Willamette River; awareness may increase overall health of the River
(Kulongoski, 2004). Unfortunately, increased traffic may increase contamination. A
public education campaign is a viable option to reduce potential negative impacts of
river recreation.
Creating and installing educational signage at boat ramps and
campgrounds upstream of the intake will inform river users on proper waste disposal,
ways to reduce stream bank erosion and the importance of reducing fuel emissions.
The City of Corvallis strives to develop partnerships with the governing agency of
boat ramps to install such signage.
One tool that addresses river recreation is distribution of informational,
reusable, mesh trash bags at riverside parks. One model of this approach is used on
Buffalo National River, Arkansas, where boaters are encouraged to take a bag for their
trip, empty it at receptacles at each take-out and leave the bag for the next boater.
Oregon Trout has experience with using similar mesh bags, and Willamette
RiverKeeper coordinates the Willamette River Trail. Both organizations have pledged
57
support of this project. Also, dock and ramp managers could help with trash
collection, waste management and signage installment and design.
Table 4 lists
upstream riverside parks and associated managing agency of each.
Name
Table 4- Riverside Parks, Docks and Landings and Agencies
Access Managing Agency
Waste Facilities
Peoria Park
Vehicle
Linn County Park and
Recreation Commission
Trash cans,
restroom
Snag Boat Bend
No
Public
Access
William L Finley Wildlife
Refuge
-
McCartney Park
Vehicle
Linn County Park and
Recreation Commission,
State Game Commission,
Willamette River Park
System
Trash cans,
restroom
Harrisburg Park
Vehicle
City of Harrisburg
Trash cans,
restroom, pet
waste bags
6.4.3.2 Control through land use management
Oregon’s land use law already provides some protection against the conversion
of farm and forestlands to other uses. Senate Bill 10109 (SB1010), an outcome-based
mechanism to address nonpoint source pollution from agricultural activities, may
provide SWP. SB1010 takes a bottom-up approach to CWA implementation whereby
each land manager must develop a water quality management plan (“Farm Plan”) that
describes how certain prohibited conditions will be avoided and improved conditions
will be met and maintained. This approach encourages innovation, stewardship and
public participation; enlarges the resource pool to comply and educate; and
9
ORS 568.909.2
acknowledges diversity of agricultural products (Ward, 2007).
58
The City is not
currently partnering with watershed stewardship groups in the development of Farm
Plans, but drinking water quality is likely to improve if the established conditions are
met.
City-managed forestlands are all within the Rock Creek SWPA. This land is
owned and managed by the City of Corvallis and USFS for the primary objective of
drinking water supply. As stated in the Corvallis Forest Stewardship Plan, “water
quality for domestic use is the first priority for all management practices within the
watershed on Forest Service property and City land.” USFS also manages their land
for similar objectives (Ferguson, 2006).
6.4.4 Land acquisition for SWP
6.4.4.1 Eminent domain
The use of eminent domain, whereby government may seize private property
for public use and compensate the owner for fair market value, is not a financially or
politically viable option for the City of Corvallis due to the scale of the Willamette
Basin.
6.4.4.2 Third party purchases and trusts
By one estimate, approximately 15,000 acres of land in Oregon are currently
protected through conservation easements by land trusts while approximately 400,000
acres are held under conservation easements by private and public entities (Walsh,
2002). Conservation easements are often used in Oregon to conserve natural resources
on farm and forest lands and are particularly well-suited for such a role, given that
they can be crafted to allow for continuing economic uses of land while
59
simultaneously achieving conservation objectives such as the maintenance or
improvement of wildlife habitat. Greenbelt Land Trust (GLT) worked with the City of
Corvallis to purchase a portion of the Owens Farm property and to pass bond
measures to purchase conservation acreage and is currently working to complete a
126-acre easement on Muddy Creek. Overall, GLT is responsible for eight
conservation easements totaling 1,450 acres owned outright in Benton County, some
of which are located within the SWPA. There are also two federally sponsored
conservation easements that total approximately 300 acres. Due to federal privacy
laws, exact locations cannot be disclosed in this document. There are currently no
plans to increase conservation easements specifically for SWP, but the relationship
between GLT and the municipal government has been fruitful in the past and may
produce more conservation easements for SWP in the future.
6.4.4.3 Direct purchase
Direct purchase of any significant portion of land in the Willamette SWPA is
not financially viable option for the City of Corvallis. Third-party purchases are much
more cost effective.
6.4.5 Water quality and quantity emergency planning
6.4.5.1 Contingency plan
Strictly regulated and monitored PCSs and those that only pose a threat in
emergency situations (e.g., permitted dischargers, research laboratories, transportation
routes, utility stations) are primarily managed through contingency planning. A
secondary goal of SWP is to limit the negative impacts of drinking water supply
disruption due to natural or anthropogenic contamination. To achieve this goal, a
60
contingency plan was developed through the cooperation of multiple local agencies.
While contamination prevention is more cost effective than contamination mediation,
a plan to deal with water supply contamination or service interruption is vital to the
community. The contingency plan developed through the SWPP process supplements
the Emergency Management Plans of Corvallis and Benton County.
In the event of a source contamination emergency, city managers must act
promptly and effectively to protect public health and welfare. In the context of this
plan, emergencies include complete loss of water system pressure, contamination of
water supply or threats of or observed vandalism to the water system.
To reduce the adverse impact of a contamination event, the City of Corvallis:
•
•
Maintains a chain of command to coordinate efforts among City departments that
have responsibilities related to the environment and public health and safety.
Fosters relationships with spill response teams and emergency management
agencies at the state and local level to ensure that they will contact the appropriate
city official should a contamination event occur upstream of the Corvallis intake.
In Oregon, the primary point of contact for state notification of an emergency
or disaster is the Oregon Emergency Response System (OERS). The OERS manages
state resources in response to emergencies and coordinates multi-jurisdictional
cooperation (levels of government and private sector). Local dispatchers, local public
safety agencies or other sources (e.g., direct calls from landowners or private sector,
calls from other dispatchers) initiate OERS. If a contaminant may impact drinking
water supply, OERS contacts Oregon Department of Human Services - Drinking
Water Program (DHS-DWP). The responsibility of OERS does not end until a DHSDWP duty officer receives notification (Gregg, 2007). As the state regulator of
drinking water, DHS - DWP contacts water treatment operations if appropriate.
61
6.4.5.2 Supply Emergency Curtailment Plan
As discussed in a previous section, Corvallis has a tiered plan in place to
manage demand and conserve supply in times of water shortage.
62
7. Conclusions
At the local level, SWP-specific institutions are rare and typically weak.
Trends in environmental governance indicate a movement toward decentralization and
suggest that municipal governments must rely on existing institutional arrangements to
protect source water. Capacity to integrate SWP into established land and water
stewardship organizations vary widely. In Corvallis, formal mechanisms for land and
water integration on a watershed basis, which aid in overcoming jurisdictional
constraints and increasing public participation, are a key factor in SWP strategy. The
Corvallis case may be instructive for other municipalities throughout the US where
local governments bear the burden of SWP but have restricted legal authority over the
watershed that contributes drinking water supply.
It should be noted that levels of institutional capacity do not necessarily
correlate with drinking water quality. In fact, the relationship may be inverse in
scenarios where external pressure (e.g., upstream development, endangered species
listing) forces a municipality to increase its institutional capacity to combat potential
water quality degradation. For example, Benton County, Oregon recently began to
develop a county water plan in response to a change in Oregon land use laws that may
increase groundwater use and septic tank installation. On the other hand, Salem,
Oregon won the Pacific Northwest Section American Water Works Association award
for best tasting drinking water in 2006 with low levels of institutional capacity at the
municipal level. There are few external pressures in the Salem SWPA that compel
action with respect to institutional arrangements.
63
The decision to increase institutional capacity may be reactive (e.g., Central
Arkansas Water; Benton County, Oregon) or proactive (e.g., Corvallis, Oregon; Salt
Lake City, Utah) and be riddled with complications related to legal authority, political
and financial realities, landowner relations and mixed land uses. Reaching out to
SWPA leaders, experts and authorities is a viable solution to overcome institutional
obstacles.
When water systems that are pressed for resources are forced into complying
with strict rules, they have limited ability to plan and manage with long-term
objectives in mind (Carter, 2006; Tiemann, 2006). Improving watershed health is a
proven method for increasing drinking water quality, but water systems operators
cannot focus on conservation or restoration programs while the regulatory hammer
demands all of their limited resources to meet standards. The 1996 SDWA
Amendments allow for the use of integrated water resource management (IWRM)
which acknowledges the influence of ecosystems and land uses on water flow and
water quality (Allan, 2003; Calder, 2005; Raharman & Varis, 2005). Because most
public water suppliers lack the institutional resources to implement IWRM, they must
partner with stewardship and regulatory institutions to produce SWP results.
64
Bibliography
Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. (1999). Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of
Community in Natural Resource Conservation. World Development, 27(4), 629649.
Allan, J. A. (2003). IWRM/IWRAM: a new sanctioned discourse? London: SOAS
Water Issues Study Group, School of Oriental and African Studies, King's
College London, University of London.
Allan, J.A. (2004). Water in the environment/socioeconomic development discourse:
sustainability, changing management paradigms and policy responses in a global
context: SOAS Water Issues Study Group, School of Oriental and African
Studies, King's College London, University of London, The University of
Sheffield.
AP (Associated Press). (2007). Tentative deal reached on Lake Maumelle
development. Associated Press.
AWWA (American Water Works Association). (2007) Source Water Protection
Standard.
Balco, J. J. (1992). Site planning for aquifer protection. Environmental Protection,
3(5), 39-42.
Ballot Measure 49 (2007). Oregon Laws ch. 424 (Enrolled House Bill 3540)
Bamberger, M., Rugh, J., & Mabry, L. (2006). Real World Evaluation. Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Bates Van de Wetering, S. (2007). Bridging the Governance Gap: Strategies to
Integrate Water and Land Use Planning: University of Montana Public Policy
Research Institute.
BCPC (Benton County Comprehensive Plan). (2006). Benton County Comprehensive
Plan. In Benton County Planning Commission (Ed.).
Benton County. (2008a). Benton County Water Policy and Water Supply Plan- Project
Synopsis.
Benton County. (2008b). Memorandum of Cooperation between Benton County and
the (Watershed councils, irrigation districts, cities, counties and other
stakeholders) Water Policy and Supply Plan.
Bernstein, S. (2002). Freshwater and human population: a global perspective. In K.
Krchnak (Ed.), Human Population and Freshwater Resources: US Cases and
International Perspective. New Haven: Yale University.
Black, L. (2003). Critical review of the capacity-building literature and discourse.
Development in Practice, 13(1), 116-120.
Boling, D. (1994). How to Save a River: A Handbook for Citizen Action. Washington
D.C.: Island Press.
Breyer, S. (1993). Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bruins, H. J. (2000). Proactive Contingency Planning vis-à-vis Declining Water
Security in the 21st Century. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,
8(2), 63-72.
65
Bryant, R. L., & Wilson, G. A. (1998). Rethinking environmental management.
Progress in Human Geography, 22(3), 321-343.
Burby, R., May, P., Berke, P., Dalton, L., French, D., & Kaiser, E. (1997). Making
Governments Plan: State Experiments in Managing Land Use. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Calder, I. R. (1997). Capacity building support to the WRMS project. Ewelme,
Wallingford, UK: Government of Zimbabwe and British Department for
International Development.
Calder, I. R. (2005). Blue Revolution: integrated land and water resource
management (2nd ed.). Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
Carter, T. W. (2006). Preface. In T. W. Carter (Ed.), Safe Drinking Water Act and its
Interpretation: Nova Scientific Publishers, Inc.
Casswell, S. (2001). Community capacity building and social policy: what can be
achieved? Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 17, 22-35.
Cate, M. S. L. (2007, July 7, 2007). Water utility, builder near accord on lake homes.
Arkansas Democrat Gazette.
Centner, T. J., & Mullen, J. D. (2002). Enforce existing animal feeding operations
regulations to reduce pollutants. Water Resources Management, 16(2), 133-144.
City of New York. (2004). New York City's Water Supply System, Watershed
Protection: New York City Website:
www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dep/html/watershed.html.
Clayton, A. M. H., & Radcliffe, J. (1996). Sustainability, A Systems Approach.
London: Earthscan.
Clements, T., & Brewer, K. (2007). Lake Maumelle Watershed Management Plan.
Little Rock, AR: Prepared for: Board of Commissioners, Central Arkansas Water.
Corvallis City Council. (1997). Corvallis 2020 Vision Statement, from
http://www.ci.corvallis.or.us/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=234&Ite
mid=188
Corvallis, City of (2008). City of Corvallis 2007 Water Quality Report. Corvallis, OR:
City of Corvallis, Public Works.
Davidson, A., Deere, D., Stevens, M., Howard, G., & Bartram, J. (2006). Water Safety
Plan Manual. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Davidson, A., Howard, G., Stevens, M., Callan, P., Fewtrell, L., Deere, D., et al.
(2005). Water Safety Plans: Managing Drinking-Water Quality From Catchment
To Consumer. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Davis, J. (2005). Governor's Quality Growth Awards. Retrieved February 13, 2008,
2008, from
http://www.slcgov.com/utilities/NewsEvents/news2005/news5232005.htm
de Loe, R., Di Giantomasso, S., & Kreutzwiser, R. D. (2002). Local capacity for
groundwater protection in Ontario. Environmental Management, 29, 217-233.
de Loe, R. C., Di Giantomasso, S., & Kreutzwiser, R. D. (2002). Local capacity for
groundwater protection in Ontario. Environmental Management, 29(2), 217-233.
DEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality). (2007). Oregon Drinking Water
Protection Program- Program Introduction (Vol. 2007).
66
DEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality). & DHS (Oregon Department of
Human Services). (2003). Source Water Assessment Report- City of Corvallis.
Dinan, T. (1995). The Safe Drinking Water Act: A Case Study of an Unfunded Federal
Mandate: DIANE Publishing.
Dougherty, C. C., & Hei, D. V. (1999). Protecting Sources of Drinking WaterSelected Case Studies in Watershed Management. In O. o. W. USEPA (Ed.):
USEPA.
Enters, T. (1999). Incentives as policy instruments- key concepts and definitions. In D.
W. Sanders, P. C. Huszar, S. Sombatpanit & T. Enters (Eds.), Incentives in Soil
and Water Conservation- From Theory to Practice. Enfield, New Hampshire:
Science Publishers.
EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (1997). State Methods for
Delineating Source Water Protection Areas for Surface Water Supplied Sources
of Drinking Water: Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (1998). Guidance on
Implementing the Capacity Development Provisions of the SDWA Amendments of
1996. Washington D.C.
EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2002). Source Water
Protection: Best Management Practices and Measures for Protecting Drinking
Water Supplies.
EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2003). Annotated
bibliography of source water protection materials
EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2006a). 1996 Amendments to
the Safe Drinking Water Act: Public Law 104-182 104th Congress. In T. W.
Carter (Ed.), Safe Drinking Water Act and its Interpretation: Nova Publishers,
Inc.
EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2006b). The Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments of 1996- strengthening protection for America's Drinking
Water. Retrieved May 20, 2007, 2007, from
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/theme.html
EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2007). Analysis on the Use
of Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Set-Asides: Promoting Capacity
Development. In Office of Water (Ed.).
EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2008a). National Capacity
Development Strategic Plan. In Office of Water (Ed.).
EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2008b). Source Water
Protection Publications and Resources: USEPA.
Ernst, C. (2004). Protecting the Source- Land Conservation and the Future of
America's Drinking Water: Trust for Public Land
Faigman, D. L. (2000). Legal Alchemy: the use and misuse of science in the law. New
York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Feldman, G., Feldman, E., & Feldman, A. (2008, April 6, 2008). Editorial: Lake
Maumelle fight not over yet. The Leader.
Ferguson, S. (2006). Corvallis Forest Stewardship Plan. Portland, Oregon: Trout
Mountain Forestry.
67
Ferreyra, C., & Beard, P. (2005). Assessing Collaborative and Integrated Water
Management in the Maitland River Watershed. Lessons Learned I: Process
Evaluation: Guelph Water Management Group, University of Guelph, Ontario.
Ferreyra, C., & Kreutzwiser, R. (2007). Integrating Land and Water Stewardship and
Drinking Water Source Protection. Challenges and Opportunities. Newmarket,
ON: Conservation Ontario.
Freeze, R. Allan (2000). The Environmental Pendulum: A Quest for the Truth about
Toxic Chemicals, Human Health and Environmental Protection. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Gallopin, G. (2003). A systems approach to sustainability and sustainable
development. Santiago: Sustainable Development and Human Settlements
Division.
Gasteyer, S., Banerji, D., Bastian, S., Aleman, S., Kroma, M., Mears, A., et al. (2000).
Participatory approaches and process indicators: A summary of existing
literature and approaches. Ames, IA: North Central Regional Center for Rural
Development.
Gleick, P. H. (2004). The Millennium Development Goals for Water: Crucial
Objectives, Inadequate Commitments. In P. Gleick, N. L. Cain & D. Haasz
(Eds.), The World's Water 2004-2005: The Biennial Report on Freshwater
Resources. London: Island Press.
Goodman, R. M., Speers, M. A., McLeroy, K., Fawcett, S., Kegler, M., Parker, E., et
al. (1998). Identifying and defining the dimensions of community capacity to
provide a basis for measurement. Health Education and Behavior, 25(3), 258278.
GWP (Global Water Partnership). (2000). Integrated water resources management.
Denmark.
Groundwater Foundation. (2003). Using Technology to Conduct a Contaminant
Source Inventory. Lincoln, Nebraska.
Hall, B., Stewart, S., & Crockett, C. (2006). Integrating Drinking Water into
Watershed Protection. In Office of Water (Ed.), Watershed Academy Webcast.
Hamdy, A., Abu-Zeid, M., & Lacirignola, C. (1998). Institutional capacity building
for water sector development. Water International, 23, 126-133.
Harrow, J. (2001). 'Capacity building' as a public management goal: myth, magic or
the main chance? Public Management Review, 3(2), 209-230.
Hill, C. (2004). "Regulatory Federalism: A Comparative Study of Safe Drinking
Water Policy Implementation in Vancouver, Canada and Seattle, USA",
Canadian Political Science Association (pp. 35): University of British Columbia.
Hincliff, F., Thompson, J., Pretty, J., Guijit, I., & Shah, P. (Eds.). (1999). Fertile
Ground: the Impacts of Participatory Watershed Management. London: IT
Publications.
Hlavsa, M., Watson, J., & Beach, M. (2005). Giardiasis Surveillance- United States,
1998-2002. Surveillance Summaries 54 (SS01); 9-16. Atlanta: Centers for
Disease Control.
68
Honadle, B. W. (1986). Defining and doing capacity building: perspectives and
experiences. In B. W. Honadle & A. M. Howitt (Eds.), Perspectives on
Management Capacity Building: State University of New York Press.
Houck, O. (2003). Tales of a Troubled Marriage: Science and Law in Environmental
Policy. Science, 302, 1926-1929.
Irvin, R. (2007). “Sustaining Water Resources in Benton County”. Benton County
Environmental Issues Advisory Committee. Corvallis-Benton County Public
Library. Corvallis, OR. 15 Nov 2007.
IPMS (Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies) (2007). Oregon Land Use Explorer.
Available online at http://oregonexplorer.info/LandUse/index.aspx
Ivey, J., McCormack, K., Swainson, B., Ferreyra, C., Kreutzwiser, R., de Loe, R., et
al. (2005). Working Together to Protect our Source Waters: Guelph Water
Management Group; Conservation Ontario; Canadian Water Network.
Ivey, J. L., de Loe, R. C., & Kreutzwiser, R. D. (2002). Groundwater management by
watershed agencies: an evaluation of the capacity of Ontario's conservation
authorities. Journal of Environmental Management, 64, 311-331.
Ivey, J. L., de Loe, R., Kreutzwiser, R., & Ferreyra, C. (2006). An institutional
perspective on local capacity for source water protection. Geoforum, 37, 944-957.
Jarocki, B. (2002). South Santiam Collaboration. Retrieved December 7, 2007, 2007,
from
http://sspa.boisestate.edu/efc/Tools_Services/United%20Source%20Water%20Pr
otection_files/Oregon%20Source%20Water%20Protection.htm
Johnson, N., Revenga, C. a., & Echeverria, J. (2001). Managing Water for People and
Nature. Science, 292(5519), 1071-1072.
Jorgensen, E. P. (1989). The Poisoned Well: New Strategies for Groundwater
Protection: Island Press.
Kapoor, I. (2001). Towards participatory environmental management? Journal of
Environmental Management, 63, 269-279.
Krewski, D., Balbus, J., Butler-Jones, D., Haas, C. N., Isaac-Renton, J., Roberts, K. J.,
et al. (2004). Managing the microbiological risks of drinking water. Journal of
Toxicology and Environmental Health, 67(Part A), 1591-1617.
Kulongoski, T. (2004). The Willamette River: Oregon's Legacy. Retrieved October 15,
2007, 2007, from http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/willamette.shtml
LADWP (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power). (2007). ANNUAL OWENS
VALLEY REPORT Los Angeles: LADWP, Water Resources Division, Aqueduct
Section.
Lewis, H.W. (1990). Technological Risk. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Lieske, S. N., Hamerlinck, J. D., Feeney, D. M., Frank, A., Hulme, D. G., Knapp, M.,
et al. (2003). Aquifer Protection and Community Viz in Albany County, Wyoming.
Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming.
Lincoln, R. (1996). Implementing the Consistency Doctrine.
Litke, S., & Day, J. C. (1998). Building local capacity for stewardship and
sustainability. Environments, 24(2/3), 91-109.
Loucks, D. P., & Gladwell, J. S. (1999). Sustainability Criteria for Water Resource
Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
69
Mabbott, T. (2007). Bridging the Governance Gap in Oregon: Water and Land Use
Planning, Water in the Pacific Northwest: Moving Science into Policy and Action.
Skamania, WA.
MacPherson, C., Tonning, B., & Faalasli, E. (2003). Getting in Step: Engaging and
Involving Stakeholders in Your Watershed: USEPA.
May, P., Burby, R., Ericksen, N., Handermer, J., Dixon, J., Michaels, S., et al. (1996).
Environmental Management and Governance: Intergovernmental Approaches to
Hazards and Sustainability. London: Routledge Press.
McLaughlin, N. A. (2007). Conservation Easements: Perpetuity and Beyond. Ecology
Law Quarterly, 34.
McQuigge, M. (2002). Water: a clear and present danger. Canadian Journal of Public
Health, 93(1), 10-11.
Medema, G. J., Shaw, S., Waite, M., Snozzi, M., Morreau, A., & Grabow, W. (2003).
Catchment characterization and source water quality. In Assessing Microbial
Safety of Drinking Water. London: WHO/OEDC.
Merrey, D. J., Murrar-Rust, D. H., Garces-Restrepo, C., Sakthivadivel, R., & Kumara,
W. A. U. (1995). Performance improvement capacity audit: a methodology for
diagnosing capacity to improve irrigation performance. International Journal of
Water Resources Development, 11(1), 11-24.
Mitchell, B., & Pigram, J. J. (1989). Integrated resource management and the Hunter
Valley Conservation Trust. Applied Geography, 9, 196-211.
Morgenstern, K. (2003). Use of GIS for Spill Response Planning to Protect a Critical
Watershed: Eugene Water and Electric Board.
Morgenstern, K. (2006). Agricultural Chemical Removal Project. Eugene, OR:
Eugene Water and Electric Board.
Neocleous, M. (2004). Fabricating Social Order: A Critical History of Police Power.
London: Pluto Press.
Page, G. W. (2001). Planning implications of water supply decisions. Planning
Practice and Research, 16(3/4), 281-292.
Peckenham, J. M., McNelly, J., Tolman, A., & Ziegra, J. (2002). How to get from
source water assessment to source water protection. Journal of New England
Water Works Association, 116(2), 115-120.
Platt, R. H., & Morrill, V. L. (1997). Sustainable water supply management in the
United States: experiences in Metropolitan Boston, New York and Denver. In D.
Shrubsole & B. Mitchell (Eds.), Practicing Sustainable Water Management (pp.
282-307). Cambridge, Ontario: Canadian Water Resources Associations.
Pontius, F. W. (1996). Source water protection under the amended SWDA. Journal of
the American Water Works Association, 88(11), 17-18.
Postel, S., & Thompson, B. (2005). Managing Water for People and Nature. Science,
292(5519), 1071-1072.
Raharman, M. M., & Varis, O. (2005). Integrated water resources management:
evolution, prospects and future challenges. Sustainability: Science, Practice &
Policy, 1(1), 15-21.
Reid, W. V. (2001). Managing Human Dominated Ecosystems. In G. C. D. G.
Chichilnisky, P. Ehrlich, G. Heal, J.S. Miller (Ed.), Monographs in Systematic
70
Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden (Vol. 84, pp. 197-225). St. Louis,
MO.
Rizak, S., Cunliffe, D., Sinclair, M., Vulcano, R., Howard, J., Hrudey, S., et al. (2003).
Drinking water quality management: a holistic approach. Water Science and
Technology, 47(9), 31-36.
Robbins, R. W., Glicker, J. L., Bloem, D. M., & Niss, B. M. (1991). Effective
watershed management for surface water supplies. Journal of the American Water
Works Association, 83(12), 34-44.
Ryan, C. M., & Klug, J. S. (2005). Collaborative Watershed Planning in Washington
State: Implementing the Watershed Planning Act. Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management, 48(4), 491-506.
SDWA (Safe Drinking Water Act). (1996). Pub. L. 93-523. 42 U.S.C. sec 300f et seq.
Schnare, D. W. (1998). Environmental Rationality and Judicial Review: When
Benefits Justify Costs Under the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996.
West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, 5(65).
SeattleChannel.org. (2007). Environment, Emergency Management and Utilities
Committee 10/23/2007. In S. Channel (Ed.), Environment, Emergency
Management and Utilities Committee: Cable Channel 21.
Shanaghan, P. E., Kline, I. P., Beecher, J. A., & Jones, R. T. (1998). SDWA capacity
development. Journal of the American Water Works Association, 90(5), 51-59.
Simonovic, S. P., & Bender, M. J. (1996). Collaborative planning-support system: an
approach for determining evaluation criteria. Journal of Hydrology, 177, 237-251.
Snell, A. (2007). Water Supply Planning Perspectives from Oregon Counties: An
Overview of the Water Resources Department’s County Outreach Project. Salem:
Oregon Water Resources Department.
Stewart, S. (2001). Typical Contaminants. In D. W. P. P. Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (Ed.).
Surface Water Protection, (1998). City of Cave Junction, Oregon Municipal Planning
Code 13.16.010-13.16.070
Tarlock, A. D., & Lucero, L. (2002). Connecting Land, Water and Growth. Urban
Lawyer, 34(4), 971-979.
Thorne, S. (1997). Permanently Protecting Water Supply Lands with Conservation
Easements.
Tiemann, M. (2006). Safe Drinking Water Act: Implementation and Issues. In R.
Congressional Research Service, Science, and Industry Division (Ed.).
Timmer, D. K., de Loe, R. C., & Kreutzwiser, R. D. (2007). Source water protection in
the Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia: Lessons for building local capacity. Land Use
Policy, 24, 187-198.
TPL, (Trust for Public Lands). (1998). An Ounce of Prevention- Land Conservation
and the Protection of Connecticut's Water Supply: The Trust for Public Land.
Trax, J. (1999). Source water protection for small systems. Journal of the American
Water Works Association, 91(8), 10.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (1994). Capacity Development:
Lessons from Experience and Guiding Principles. New York: UNDP.
71
Waldon, G. (2005, January 31, 2005). New Ripple in Lake Maumelle dispute: while
Ferguson goes to court, Deltic goes to general assembly. (Deltic Timber Corp.
sues Central Arkansas Water). Arkansas Business.
Wallsten, S., & Kosec, K. (2005). Public or Private Drinking Water? The Effects of
Ownership and Benchmark Competition on U.S. Water System Regulatory
Compliance and Household Water Expenditures. Washington D.C.: AEIBrookings Joint Center of Regulatory Studies.
Walsh, S. (2002). Land Acquisition Survey: Nature Conservancy- Oregon Chapter.
Walter, M. T., & Walter, M. F. (1999). The New York City Watershed Agricultural
Program: a model for comprehensive planning for water quality and agricultural
economic viability. Water Resources Impact, 1(5), 5-8.
Ward, C. (2004). From Commissioner Chris Ward: Around the Watershed. In N. Y.
New York City Department of Environmental Protection (Ed.) (Vol. winter).
Ward, P. (2007). SB1010 Overview. In O. Odom (Ed.). Corvallis, Oregon: FOR 563.
Warner, J. F., Bindraban, P. S., & Van Keulen, H. (2006). Introduction: Water for
Food and Ecosystems: How to Cut which Pie? International Journal of Water
Resources Development, 22(1), 3-13.
WPA (Watershed Protection Area), (1988). Oregon Municipal Planning Code Section
24.010-24.090
WHO (World Health Organization). (2005). Meeting the MDG drinking-water and
sanitation target: the urban and rural challenge of the decade. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Health Organization.
WHO (World Health Organization). (1993). Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality.
Vol 1: Recommendations. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Wilson, E. E. (1919). Correspondence with Oregon Representatives to US Senate.
Unpublished manuscript, Corvallis, OR.
Wolf, M. (2007). Protecting and Restoring the Willamette River. Salem, OR.
Wolff, T. (2001). The future of community coalition building. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 29(2), 263-268.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Third ed. Vol. 5).
London: Sage Publications Inc.
72
APPENDICES
73
Appendix A
Text of HB 8028
74
75
76
Appendix B
Potential Contamination
77
PCS
#
1
PCS Type
USTDecommissioned/
Inactive
Research Laboratory
2
Chemical/ Petroleum
Processing/ Storage
3
Permitted DischargerWPCF
Food Processing
4
Permitted DischargerNPDES
Potential Contaminant Sources, adapted from (ODEQ 2003)
Relative
Approximate Risk
Level
Location
Name
Potential Impacts
Lower
Historic spills may impact the
Willamette
1350 SE
drinking water supply
Research
Goodnight,
Station, Fish
Corvallis;
Toxicology
adjacent to
Higher
Spills, leaks of improper handling
Taylor
of laboratory chemicals ans
Treatment
wastes during transportation, use,
Plant
storage and disposal may impact
the drinking water supply
City of
SE
Higher
Spills, leaks of improper handling
Corvallis
Clearwater
of chemicals and wastes during
Taylor
Drive,
transportation, use, storage and
Treatment
Corvallis
disposal may impact the drinking
Plant
water supply
Stahlbush
3122 SE
Higher
Illegal discharges of wastewater
Island Farms Stahlbush
from food processing plant may
Island Road,
impact the drinking water supply
Corvallis
Moderate Spills, leaks of improper handling
of chemicals and wastes during
transportation, use, storage and
disposal may impact the drinking
water supply
Willamette
SE
Higher
Stormwater runoff from residential
Landing
Rivergreen
areas may impact the drinking
Development Ave/ SE
water supply.
Goodnight,
Corvallis
Comments
LUST clean-up
began 4/8/1991
See section in
document for
details on what
material is stored.
NPDES permit
ORG383514;
operated by City of
Corvallis
WPCF permit 1400B
78
5
Irrigated Crops
Farms
6
Farm Machinery
Repair
Farms
Througout
SWPA:
between
Hwy 99W
and main
river
channel;
major
portions of
Baker,
McBee,
Bear,
Horshoe,
John Smith,
Stahlbush
and Keiger
Islands
Throughout
SWPA
Pesticide/ Fertilizer/
Petroleum Storage,
Handling, Mixing and
Cleaning Areas
Higher
Over-application or improper
handling of pesticides and
fertlizers may impact drink water.
Excessive irrigation may transport
contaminants or sediments to
surface water though runoff.
Moderate
Spills, leaks, or improper handling
of solvents and petroleum
products during transportation,
use, storage and disposal may
impact the drinking water supply.
Higher
7
Junk/ Scrap/ Salvage
Yard
Scrap Yard
Kiger Island
Road,
Corvallis
Higher
8
CAFO
Confined
Animal
Feeding
Operation
Kiger Island
Road,
Corvallis
Higher
Spills, leaks or improper handling
of automotive chemicals, batteries
and other waste materials during
storage and disposal may impact
the drinking water supply.
Improper storage and
management of animal wastes
and wastewater in areas of
concentrated livestock may
Drip-irrigated crops
are considered a
low risk. Orchards,
vineyards,
nurseries,
greenhouses
79
impact drinking water.
9
Permitted DischargerNPDES
Federal
Express
SW Airport
Rd, Corvallis
Higher
10
Homesteads- RuralSeptic Systems
(<1/acre)
Rural Homes
Throughout
SWPA
Lower
11
Junk/ Scrap/ Salvage
Yard
Scrap Yard
Hwy 99W,
Corvallis
Higher
12
Mines/Gravel Pits
Green and
White Rock
Products
Payne
Road,
Corvallis
Higher
USTDecommissioned/Inact
ive
Nonirrigated Crops
Loren J.
Smith Farms
30361 Loren
Lane,
Corvallis
Throughout
SWPA; west
of Hwy 99W
and east of
Willamette
River
Lower
13
14
Farms
Lower
Illegal discharges of stormwater
from this facility may impact
drinking water
If not properly sited, designed,
installed and maintained, septic
systems can impact drinking
water. Use of drain cleaners and
dumping household hazardous
wastes can result in groundwater
contamination
Spills, leaks or improper handling
of automotive chemicals, batteries
and other waste materials during
storage and disposal may impact
the drinking water supply.
Spills, leaks or improper handling
of chemicals and wastes
generated in mining operations or
from heavy equipment may
impact the drinking water supply
Historic spills may impact the
drinking water supply
NPDES 1200-Z
Over-application or improper
handling of pesticides and
fertlizers may impact drink water.
Some agricultural practices may
result in excess sedmients
discharging to surface waters, but
non-irrigated crops are generally
a low risk.
Christmas trees,
grains, grass seed,
pasture
80
15
Transportation Routes
Hwy 99W
Runs N-S
throughout
SWPA
Higher
16
Septic Systems- High
Density (>1
system/acre)
High Density
Septic
Between
Corliss and
3 Mile
Avenue,
Corvallis
Moderate
17
Stormwater Outfalls
Stormwater
Outfalls
Willamette
Landing,
Corvallis
Higher
18
Airport
Corvallis
Airport
Hwy 99W
and Airport
Road
Lower
19
River RecreationHeavy Use
River
Recreation
Mainstem
Willamette
Moderate
Vehicle use increases the risk for
leaks or spills of fuel and other
hazardous materials. Road
building, maintenance and use
can increase erosion and slope
failure causing turbidity. Overapplication or improper handling
of pesticides and fertlizers may
impact water.
If not properly sited, designed,
installed and maintained, septic
systems can impact drinking
water. Cumulative effects of
multiple systems in an area may
impact drinking water supply.
Stormwater runoff may contain
contaminants from residential,
commercial, industrial and
agricultural use areas
Spills, leaks or improper handling
of fuels and other chemicals
during transportation, use,
storage and disposal may impact
the drinking water supply.
Inadequate disposal of human
wastes may contribute bacteria
and nutrients to the drinking water
supply. Heavy use may
contribute to streambank erosion
causing turbidity. Fuel spills and
emissions may also contribute to
contamination.
MDC has
constructed a
wetland to filter
runoff before it
reaches the
Willamette River.
Managed by the
City of Corvallis; on
margin of SWPA
81
20
Mines/Gravel Pits
Gravel Pits
Throughout
SWPA
Higher
21
Mines/Gravel Pits
Knife River
Corvallis
Higher
22
CAFO
Guerber 4R
Ranch
Guerber
Lane,
Corvallis
Higher
23
USTDecommissioned/
Inactive
Greenberry
Store Tavern
Hwy 99W
and
Greenberry
Rd, Corvallis
Lower
UST- Upgraded/
Registered
24
25
CAFO
USTDecommissioned/
Inactive
USTDecommissioned/
Inactive
Valley Oak
Farms
Lakeside
Drive,
Corvallis
Higher
Lower
Horning
Farms
Horning
Lane,
Corvallis
Lower
Spills, leaks or improper handling
of chemicals and wastes
generated in mining operations or
from heavy equipment may
impact the drinking water supply
Spills, leaks or improper handling
of chemicals and wastes
generated in mining operations or
from heavy equipment may
impact the drinking water supply
Improper storage and
management of animal wastes
and wastewater n areas of
concentrated livestock may
impact drinking water.
Historic spills may impact the
drinking water supply
All for gravel.
clean up complete
6/14/2001
Spills or improper handling during
tank filling or product distribution
may impact the drinking water
supply
Improper storage and
management of animal wastes
and wastewater n areas of
concentrated livestock may
impact drinking water.
Historic spills may impact the
drinking water supply
Historic spills may impact the
drinking water supply
3 decommissioned
USTs
82
26
CAFO
Lake View
Farms
29540
Crook Drive,
Halsey
Higher
27
Cemeteries- Pre-1945
Pine Grove
Cemetery
Lower
28
Chemical/ Petroleum
Processing/ Storage
RCO, Inc.
Pine Grove
Road,
Harrisburg
24875
Peoria
Road,
Harrisburg
29
CAFO
Lakeside
Dairy
Nixon Drive,
Harrisburg
Higher
30
Large Capacity Septic
Systems- Class V
UICs
Belco
Warehouse,
Inc.
31322
Crook Drive,
Halsey
Moderate
31
USTDecommissioned/
Inactive
Relco Roof
and Floor, Inc
Lower
32
Utility StationsMaintenance
Transformer Storage
Harrisburg
Substation
30153
Substation
Road,
Harrisburg
Substation
Drive,
Harrisburg
Higher
Higher
Improper storage and
management of animal wastes
and wastewater n areas of
concentrated livestock may
impact drinking water.
Embalmng fluids and
decomposition by-products may
impact drinking water supply.
Spills, leaks of improper handling
of chemicals and wastes during
transportation, use, storage and
disposal may impact the drinking
water supply
Improper storage and
management of animal wastes
and wastewater n areas of
concentrated livestock may
impact drinking water.
If not properly sited, designed,
installed and maintained, septic
systems can impact drinking
water.
Historic spills may impact the
drinking water supply
Spills, leaks or improper handling
of chemicals and other materials
including PCB during
transportation, use, storage and
disposal may impact the drinking
water supply.
Serves > 20 people
3 decommissioned
USTs
83
33
Transportation Routes
Hwy 99E
Runs
through
SWPA
Higher
34
Research Laboratory
Seed
Research of
Oregon
27630
Lewellyn
Road,
Corvallis
Lower
Large Capacity Septic
Systems- Class V
UICs
35
36
37
38
Chemical/ Petroleum
Processing/ Storage
DEQ Cleanup Program
Site
USTDecommissioned/
Inactive
USTDecommissioned/
Inactive
Managed Forest Land
Moderate
Vehicle use increases the risk for
leaks or spills of fuel and other
hazardous materials. Road
building, maintenance and use
can increase erosion and slope
failure causing turbidity. Overapplication or improper handling
of pesticides and fertlizers may
impact the drinking water supply.
Spills, leaks of improper handling
of laboratory chemicals ans
wastes during transportation, use,
storage and disposal may impact
the drinking water supply
If not properly sited, designed,
installed and maintained, septic
systems can impact drinking
water.
Spills, leaks or improper handling
of fuels and other chemicals
during transportation, use,
storage and disposal may impact
the drinking water supply.
Bridge over
Willamette at
Harrisburg
Above ground
propane tank is
only hazardous
material on site.
Serves > 20 people
Safari
Motorcoache
s
Diamond Hill
Road,
Harrisburg
Higher
Langdon
Implement
Co.
Hayworth
Seed
Warehouse
North Fork
Rock Creek
Diamond Hill
Road,
Harrisburg
23460 Hwy
99E,
Harrisburg
Throughout
SWPA
Lower
Historic spills may impact the
drinking water supply
Clean up complete
4/12/2006
Lower
Historic spills may impact the
drinking water supply
3 decommissioned
USTs
Moderate
No current logging is occurring.
None since 1986.
Owned and
managed by City of
Corvallis and USFS
84
39
Managed Forest Land
South Fork
Rock Creek
Throughout
SWPA
Moderate
No current logging is occurring.
None since 1986.
40
Managed Forest Land
Griffith Creek
Throughout
SWPA
Moderate
No current logging is occurring.
None since 1986.
Owned and
managed by City of
Corvallis and USFS
Owned and
managed by City of
Corvallis and USFS