The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWellhead Protection Programs Tools for Local Governments 1989United States O[fice of Water EPA 440/6-89-002 Environmental Protection (WH-550G) April 1989 Agency &EPA Wellhead Protection Programs: Tools For Local Governments WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAMS: TOOLS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OFFICE OF WATER OFFICE OF GROUND-WATER PROTECTION U.S. ENVirONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY APRIL 1989 FOREWORD Thc 1986 Amendments to the Safe D~nt%g Water Act (SDWA) establLshed a new Wclihead Protection (WH?) Program to protect grouad waters that supply walls and wellfields that contffente drl,ddnff water to public water supply systems. Under SDWA Section 1428 each State must develop a WHP Program that consists of several elements. At a minimlll~ each State's WHP Program must: (1) Specify roles and duties of Sta~e agonciea, local governmon~ cofit;,'-s, and public water suppliers, with respect to V~'~rlP. Progrsm~; (2) Delineate the wellhead protection area (WHPA) for each wellhead; (3) Identify souse, es of contaminants within each (4) Develop m sn%o~mant appronchus to protect the water supply within WHPAs from such COat-mi-A-ts; (5) Develop covri%aency plans for each public water supply system to respond to well or wenfield cont ~mln~fiOlg (6) Site ~w wells properly to maylm;Te yield and m;nim[~ potential contamination; and (7) Eusurc public participation. The Wellhead Protection Program requires thc participation of all levels of government. Thc Federal government is responsible for approving State Wellhead Protection Progrsm~ and for providing technical support to State and local governments. States must develop and implement Wellhead Protection Programs that meet the requirements of the SDWA Amendments. While the responsibilities of local governments depend upon the particular requirements of their State's Wellhead Protection Program, localities are often in the best position to implement measures to ensure that wellhead areas arc properly protected from contaminsfion. Local governments t~dcally implement decisions, develop land-use pl.n~, oversee bui~d;-g and fire codes, implement health requirements, supply water and sewer services, and enforce police powers. Each of these lool powers may be used to protect the quality of local aquifers. Local cities and counties are also oRen the im~ovators in developing wellhead protection programs by applying combinatious of m*-agcment te~'hniques (e~., zonin~ and seusco prohibitions) to m~et enique local condifious. Loc~lifi~ oftan protect ground water as par of larger projes~ such as developing growth management ph,,, or economic develupmon~ efforts. In close coopera- tion with regional, State, and Federal ~gencles, local governments can take posilive steps to protec~ their wellhead areas. Because of the importance of local efforts to protect ground water, EPA bas prepared thh Technical Assistance Document. In general, this document is directed at the fourth program clcmcnt noted above, thc m~-~gemcnt of COntaminant sourCeS within WHP az~.as. More specifically, it shows how local govermnents, such us cities and ceuntie~ have developed innovative and effective wellhead protection progr,m% even with limited resources and expertise. The document descn'bes ways in which local governments may develop such progrsm~, discusses potential management tools, and provides examples of local programs around the country. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document was prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Off~ce of Ground-Water Protection (OGWP) by ICF Incorporated. Mr. Start Austin and Mr. Steven Roy of OGWP served as Task Managers TABLE OF CONTENTS (co,~ued) 5. FINDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ................................... 39 EPA Regional Groumi-W~ter Rcpreseatative~ .................................. 40 State Ground-Water Protection Contacis ...................................... 41 Other Source~ of I, fformation ............................................. 46 ENDNOT~__~ ........................................................... 49 SECTION I USING THIS DOCUMENT describes how localities can, as a par~ of a State Wellhead Protection Program; develop and implement effective techniques for th~ prntection of ground water. The document emphasizes combinations of program~ that have worked well, and presents several factors that effect the success of local wellhead protection program~, such as budgetary constraints and legal issues, E~mples of the ways in which some commm~if~-s are ~a-~ment tooh to protec~ grouud wa~er ore hi~ohli~hted in the tc~ in bold face prht or in shaded boxes. Con,ms for more inf,,,~ation on these local pro~rams are li~ed at the end of the document. LO(AL GOVE~ ARE TAKING STEPS TO PROTECT GROUND WATER ground-v,,uler protection lwo~rom. Rib Moun- tain, Iocaled in Mamtlum County near Waum~ conducted a ~ogeolog~ ~ and det~mgned t~t iU 8round-w~r v,~lb wer~ hlg~ly permeable at.f er. In Septont~ lq a)~er receiving ns~istance 3n~rn th~ Marathon adopted zoning w~aladons tv lm~ct its tt~e municil~ wa~r v~ply wett~ ~ne town prohibited indart~al and ¢ommotial develop- ment in hlgl~ pemteablt or~s ov~vlyinll the town's aquifer an~ in less susceptible area~ allowed limited indutttial o~ntl ~ommetcial u~s based on special permit~.l Organization of Document This TAD is orgn-i-ed ~ follows: Section 2 (Identifying Local Needs) scvcral ~ssues localities may want to consider as they develop local wellhead protection progrmas: · Estabtishi~E local objectives; Dcline~fin.q wctlhead protection areas; · Eva~.atln~ sources of co~,mlnn- tion; and · E~m;n;.~ implement~don issues (c.~, fun'~;"a lcsal authority). Section 3 (Choo~;ng Apln'opria~ Tools for Wellhead ~..otection ) descn'bns s~veral munag~mant tunis, provides examples where they have been s~c_~__.sfully applied, and notes how tooh can be combined effccfi~ly. The management tools desto'bcd here include: Zo.l..- ordlmm~: Direct had development and regulate land uses; · Subdivision oras,,-~,-: Protect land d~ided for development; Site pisa ~ Helps ensure compliance with development plans; Design standards: Prevent ground-water CO~tam;"ntJOB by seol-g cle~gn and construction standards; Operath]S stund~rd~: Help regulate potentially bs,*rdous practicea; Source proMbitlons: Proh'bit development or materials that threaten ground water;, Purchse of properW or develop- merit rights: Ensures control of land uses in wellhead areas; Fabric eduentton: Builds support for ground-water protection activities; · Ground-water monitorin8: Helps assess ground-water quality;, Household II&urdous wuste col. lecflon: Red~ threats toground V~ttcr fzol~ h~Tgrdo~ Water conservation: Reduces ~nt~mim~t;o~ f~om Othar .u~m~Ls: C. au meet local needs (e~., by comb~-;,,g other man%o~,ment tools). Section 4 0mplem~atl-g a Local Program) pre, s~nts program ma-%o~-me, at it~ues to co-.lair in implementing a weglh~'~d pa'ot~ima in.ram. Local wellhead protection programs rely on ,t~lt-d staff, communication with the public, and enforcement of requirements. ERgttiae may be avaihhle at the local level Altcraafively, ou~ide agendes, such as universities or State agencies, may provide staff or other te~kni~l SUplg~t to local programg, A range of techniques may be used to conununicate with the pul)l/c, includia~ meetla~o~; flyers, and other adver~*i-5 ~ can also protect ground water thro%oh ac~m eaforcement of regulations. Section S (F'mding Additional Information) provides additional sources of information on wellhead protection m~n%~e, ment techniques and local ground-water protection pro~r~m~. Contacts in States and EPA Regional offices are listed and other re. fences on ground-water protection and hydrogeology are provided. Other Technical Aecisbmce Documents In response to the 1986 SDWA Amendments, EPA's Office of Ground-Water Protection has developed several TADs, in addition to this Page 2 document, for Stat~ and local governments interested in developing Wellhead Protection Programs: Devedol~ng A State Wellhead Protection Pro. grig. A User's Gu~ to ~ Stat~ Agencies Under t~..~ Drinld~g Water Aa LqSS); Wellhead Prot~don Areas (May z~ss); State W~u/Pro, a/on Program {~ue~tion and An.n~e.r Fact Sheet (June zqs'0; Guidan~ For Applicants For State WelPnead Protection Program Assis- tance Funds Under The Safe Drinking Water Act (June 1987); Gu/dd/ne.s For D~//neau~ Of Wd/head Prot~t/on A.-eas (June 1987); and · Wel~ad Proration: d Decision iaaa' C-u/ae (~ay 1987). To obtain copies of thcse or othcr EPA matcri:~k; contact the EPA Regional ground-water repre- sentative (listed in Section 5). SECTION 2 IDENTIFYING LOCAL NEEDS This section reviews the typical questions that localities have considered before developing a wellhead protection program: · Local objexaives: What must be accomplished? · Wellhead protr, etlon areas: What areas should be protected? · Sources of covt=mln~6on' V~nat arc the threats to ground water? What can be accomplished? program~ ne, cd to be considered? An evaluntion of these issues may help guide development of a wellhead protection program. Local Objectives By dearly specifying objectives in adopting a wellhead protection program, localities may be better abl~ to: · Investigate program* adopted elsewhere to meet ;imilar goals; Dec/de what program options make sense and which do not; and · Tailor the program to the specific objectives. A variety of factors, ind,,ding dependance on ground water, availah'dity of alternative sources of drinking water, local commitment to a program, and other factors discussed in this section, win combine to determine the local objectives in well- head m~n%o~mant. Some comm.nltles may wish to provide complete protection %oa;n*t any contamination of their aquifer throl~h use of the various land-nse tools. Others may wish to give highest priority to current or future problems stemming from particlller sources, such as underground storage tnnlr~; or agricultural practices. EPA's Guidelines for Delinemion of Wellhead Protecffon Areas identifies several operational goals for wellhead protection: Providing a reined/al action zone around a wellhead to act as a safety buffer that allows time to respond to an accidental contam- inant release; Creath~g an attenuation zone to reduce concentrations of known COvtnm;nnnt.$ ill ground water before they reach th~ wen; and Using wellfield w*-%~mont zones to regulate activity in ail or part of the re~hargo area Although the goals can often be identified before evalustl.g the other issues discussed in this section, locsli~ies should be careful not to restrict may reveal that i~;tlal goals could be expanded upon, or should be modified. Wellhead Protection Area For the purposes of thi~ document, wellhead protection area refers to the area that will be managed by a commlmlty in order to protect ground-water resources. Under the Safe Dri~lrh~g Water Act, a wellhead protection area is defined as 'the surface and subsurface area slLrroan&iag a water well or wellfinld, supplying a public water system, through which contsm;nants are rcusonably likely to move toward and reach such water well or w¢llfield." WELLHEAD DELINEATION The method by which this area is defined may differ from one community to the next. The objective is to identify a defined geographic area that is significant for the protection of water quality. Various documents and other resources are available to ~xsist in making this determination, inclvding EPA's Guidelines for Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas. Communities with sufficient resources may wish to hire hydrogeologic consultant~ to delineate the boundaries of these areas. A community need GROUNI~WATER '. THREATS (CCAM~ a ~rojed ~o~:'stxrn. wr~d.by.~he U.S. . G~cag Su~. . ~. M~ehuse~s to ~un~w~ ~t fm ~y se~n$ demons~e i~" ~;d~ats ~ing these a~rop~ate, l~ for a' ~. ~ac w~er ~ppOi to d~e~ ~ ~t tO'~d wat~ posed by comple~ ~elopment un~r ~s~ng ~ning ~o~ ~d. ~ ?~'t~ ~ ~fed by un~e~und, stom~' ~ and lan~ll~.2 not, however, have the resources of a large metropolitan area to obtain an adequate delineation of their wellhead protection area. EPA's GuMelines present a range of methods for delineation of wellhead areas, some of which are straightforward and unlikely to require significant time of resources. State offices responsible for protection of water resources may be particularly useful sources of information. Contacts at these State agencies are listed in Section 5. These agencies will, in many cases, have information available on the geology and hydrology of areas in the State. Massachusetts, for example, maintains a hydrogeologic information matrix that lists all relevant State, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and consultant reports, indexed by geographic location. In addition, communities can contact represen- tatives of the local water utilities, the Soil Conservation Service, the Extension Service of the Page 4 U.S. Departmont of Agriculture (USDA), or the District Office of the U.S. Geological Survey. Individuals associated with these agencies often possess knowledge of the local geology that will assist in determlni,,g the appropriate level of protection. Local expertise may also be available from other sources, indudl-g university faculty, local residents, or local industries willing to offer their services. GROUND-WATER HYD~OGEOLOGY About half the U.S. population, and about 95 percent of rural America, depends on ground water. Rala and snow infiltrating through the soil, and water from streams and rivers, recharge underground aqalfers. Aquifers may be localized or cover several towns or counties. Ground water generally moves from areas of recharge to areas of discharge. Ground-water wells affect the flow of ground water by loweriag water levels ia an area around the well, known as the zone of influence or cone of depression, as depicted in Exhibit 1. The full recharge area to the well is often called the zone of contribution. The zone of influence and the zone of contribution may constitUte a fraction of an aquifer's area, or go beyond individual aquders to inter-counected aquifers. The wellhead protec- tion area may constitute all or part of the zone of influence or zone of contribution. Wellhead protection areas range in size, usually from tens of acres to several square miles, and, in some cases, to tens of square miles. Ground water can become contaminated by many hazardous materials, such as pesticides, fertilizers, organic chemicals, and human wastes. The degree of contamination depends on soil characteristics, contaminant characteristics, ground- water flow, and other factors. Porous soils, such as sand, located over shallow aquifers generally are quite susceptible to contamination, while deep aquifers located in heavy clay soil areas are less susceptible. Once contaminated, aquifers are dilTtcult and expensive to clean up. For example, localities or responsible parties may have to pay for site studies, remediation, and property damage. The most cost-effective approach is to prevent contamination before it occurs, rather thaa at- tempting to remedy exLqting contamination. For detailed information on the hydrogeologic framework of the wellhead protection program, localities may wish to examine some of the EPA materials or other ground-water references listed in Section 5 of this document. EXHIBIT I GROUND-WATER DMDE IZOI Zone of Infbzenoe I ZOC Zone of Contzlbuuon or Rloh~rge Ami Sources of Contamination Mauy co~,~unities have evaluated both esisti~ and po~antinl sources of contsminst;on before co~idering methods to prevent future problems. IN~.JqTORY OF EXISTING SOURCES An inventory of ~ha number and diversity of cxisri,,~ activities can serve a two-roM purpose for wellhead pro~ection: It provides local offi,~Al* with an understavd;n~ of the potential for coat~m;n~tion; and It provides basic information that can be useful for designing dif- ferent controls and determin;n~ the areas in which they should be applied. The extent and focus of an inventory can vary from town to town depending on spec/ftc local concerns, resources available, and the variety of potential conr~min~tion sources. A local communit~ may decide to inventory all of the potential sources within its political boundaries or may decide to expand the inventory beyond these boundaries to encompass cont~,mifla~.t SOUrCeS that pose a potential threat. Oaldey, Kansas, for imtance, in cooperation with tho county gov~ra- merit, is con~_,~_'-g a reviow of land-usc practices both inside and outside tl~ city lim;r* that may not have the legal authority to regulate the sour- cos outside its boundarlcs, property owners, water utilities, or adjacent rog-I.tory Ofl~le may be will;n~ to cooperate in an effort to prcveat con- tnmlns~;ion. In addition, a communiiy may daterm;-* that specific sources pose a threat to the water supply and focus on these threats wherever they my be found. In agricultural communities, the focus may be on the storage and application of fertilizers and pesticides. Other communities may decide to concentrate on underground stora~ t*nk% dry cleaners, or specific industrial activities. After assessing thc risks, communities that choose to focus on either specific areas or sources can expand their program in the future to cncompe.ss additional arces or activities at a later date. l~Yh~it 2 identifies specific sources of contamination that could be ach:he~d in an inventory. EPA or State ofl~,-~M* can provide information on how to conduct an inventory and local agencies, such as fire departments, can assht in identi~ing potential sources (e.g., tmdersround storage tank~). EXHIBIT 2 SOURCES OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION3 CATEGORY I - Sources deM~ocd to dlsc~ substances Subsurface percolation (e.g., septic tanks and cease) Injection Wells Hazardous waste Non-hazardous waste (e.g., brine disposal and drainage) Non-waste (e.g., enhanced recovery, artiftciai recharge solution mining and in-sim mining) Land application Waste water (e.g., spray irrigation) Wastewater byproducts (e.g., sludge) Htuardous waste Non-hazxmtous waste CATEGORY II - treat, and/o~ dbl~S~ of sul~am~s; dlsehar~ throngh maplann,d rdcu~ Industrial hazardous waste Indus~al non-hatardous waste Municipal sanitary Open dumps, including illegal dumping (waste) Residential (or local) disposal (waste) Surface impoundments Hazardous waste Non-hazardous waste Waste tailings Waste piles Ivr~antous waste Non-hasardous waste MateMais stockpiles (non-waste) araveya~ Animal burial Aboveground storage tanks Hazardous waste Non-hazardous waste Non-waste Underground storage tanks Hazardous waste Non-hazardous waste Non-waste Containers Hazardous waste Non-hazardous waste Non-waste Open burning sites Detonation sites Radioactive disposal sites CATEGORY !I1 - Sourc~ deM~ned to fetal. sul~tune~s during tranalmrt or mmsmlsslon P/pe//nes Hazardous waste Non-hazardoas waste Non-waste Materials traneport and tranffer operations Hatardou~ waste Non4mzantous waste Non-waste CATEGORY IV - Sources d~ mbstancu as a consequence ot ot~m' pimmed octivfttes trri~ion prac~es (e.g., return flow) Pesticide applications Fen~r ap~calions Percolution ~ ~ ~ Un~ ~e~d CA'I~GORY V - Soure~a iwovid~ coad~t or Indu~ dl~har~ ~ all~nl ~ lmtt~ns Produ~on we//s 0/I (and gas) wells Geothermai and heat recovery wells Water suppty wells Other wells (non-waste) Monitoring wells F_aploration wells Construction excavation CATEGORY VI - Naturally occurring sources whose diselmrge is created and/or mcerbated by h~an activity Groundwater - surface water interactions Natural leaching Salt-water intr~ion/bracldsh water upconing (or intrusion of other poor-quality natural water) After the inventory has been completed, the local government will evaluate the data gathered in the inventory. Commnnifies have mapped thc location of sources and calculated distances to wells or aquifer recharge areas. Sources may bc categorized by type or by dcgrec of potential harm to ground water. In addition, the inventory could categorize sources by the degree of local rcgulatory authority over the source (c.g., local ordin~,nces may rcgulate subdivision development, while State and Federal regulations govern bs~rdous waste management practices). POTENTIAL FOR NEW SOURCES Identification of existing contain;nation zources may address immcdintc concen~s about prote~ion of the local water supply. To ensure that the supply remsinn uncontaminated, comm~mities have also anticipated growth areas and future activities to maintain thc quality of thc water supply. in applic~onx m~ ~n~ a ~' of h~. Communities in rapidly growing areas, for example, have examined land-use patterns and directed industrial development or other potential sources of contamination to areas that do not pose a threat to the water supply. Where land*use controls alone were insufficient or not appropriate, communities have adopted design and operating standards to protect ground-water quality. Where particelarly sensitive aroas have been identified, communities have decided to ban activities that pose a larga risk of cont~minarion in those areas. Thc advantage of phnnln~ prior to develop- ment is that localities can specify growth locations and development procedures that will mln[miT~ later problems with ground-water quality. T,~kln~ steps before a problem arises has the added advantnge of avoidin~ disruptions to e~tln~ land nsc and possible legal challenges (e.g., daim~ of discrlminat, ory actions), PRIORITIZING SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION Idcntificafion of the potential sourcez of contamination is one of thc first steps in wellhead protection. As mentioned above, a community may decide to focus its inventory on specific sources based on a perception of local threats or needs. Even if a complete su~ey has been made of all potential sources of covtAmia~6On, a loewi!fy may still w~h to prioritize thc sources based on the degree of threat and the need for controls. pR~oRITIZI~G.'$O~RCES OF. '..'.: f~to~ ~ to est~1~h.a co~n~ ~k ~' · ~. ~e ~stem ~e~ ~o~ ~ Co~c~on of p~bl~. · ' ' Some activities that present a risk to ground- water quality may be adequately regulated by existing controls and, thus, not require further oversight. Moreover, limits on available resources may dictate that local governments address more significant threats to the water supply immediately and address additional sources as resources become available. Some communities have developed methods to evaluate the risk potential of sources. Federal and State officials also may be able to assist local governments in setting such priorities. Local Reeource A ground-water mima~mont program should be tailored to fit the specific needs and capabilities of a commtmity. Therefore, many comm.n;li~.s hnv~ cvahlated ~ reso~'~ thnt may ~ thc implementation of local prog~ms, ADMINIgrRAYIVE Most of [he management tools that are discussed in this docament require some degree of adm;ni~trative activity in ordor for the pro~. am to nn*lysis of thc local land-use pat'tm'ns to d~term;n¢ growth areas; site plan review requires a means of reviewing applications; and d~;g,~ and opernti.~ handled by a pt,,~,~,,g c,~,-i,~;on, site plan review many co,~,~.,,;~i.~. Before adol~-S a particular management tool, the~fore, a community may wish to decide who will be responsible for implementation of the program and ensure thnt thc responslhl¢ agency has the time and expertise necessary to do thc job effectively. RESOURCES Before adopting a m-n.g~ment tool, local govermnents may wish to com/dor the resources avs;lzhle for implementation. For cgample. of the ground work in idealifying potential sources and by participating in pl.,~;.g and site plan review activities, they will not be able to conduct Similarly, progr~m~ that require the time of health department, building department, or other municipal personnel must be evaluated in light of the current stn~ug ne. cAs and staff levels of that department. If the buildi~ department, for instance, is already stretched to its capacity, it may be unable to provide review of the use of new design standards in buiMing permit applications without additional staff. In some cas~ current pexsonnel do not havc thc necessary expertise in the subject. The avnilability of trsi~ng should be looked into before adopfi-g particular tools or hiring new staff with the needed Fa~e8 ECONOMIC/Iq)M'FIC~L Reg-t, ti,,n of activi~ in thc wdll~d l~Otec- tion area, if it is to stami up to local x~vi~w and ~. A ~ ~y ~ m~ ~ a~~ ~n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o a may ~ m~e ~ to ~ ~ A ~mmnni~ thnt ~ ~y p~ ~ ~ b~, on ~c ~ ~ my ~ ~m to ~ r~ on s~ ~ ~ ~cn* ~ ~ to ~o~-~ q~ ~ ~. Lesal autl~ ..a the ~ of,~,-, au~orit~ must ~ ~~c~~m opfi~ ~ ~ ~r of ~c S~ ~ ~ ~e Te~ ~m~ of ~ U.S. C~ ~ ~ ~ to ~ me~ ~ m~ ~. ~ ~ ~r ~ s~ a ~ ~r to ~.tc ~ ~h.lf of ~ p~ he~lth~ ~, ~ ~rC, ~ ~ ~ ~SU~ ~S tO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ on ~ ~ of F~ ~ S~ nc~ to ~e eq~ pro~og duc pr~ of ~w, ~d j~t ~on f~ pro~ ~ for p~ ~. ~e ~ ~o~y or o~cr 1~ go~ aUo~ ~ e~e ~r 1~ re~l*~o~ or ~ wo~ ~e a p~Rc h~ ~d ~eW ~ ~n ~d ~ by M~t 1~ go~ ~ &c ~r to cs~ ~d ~or~ ~ains ~d s~ion rc~d*~ ~d to protcct ~a~ag ~tar. Other legal issues that may affect local mnnngement options include: · State/Federal prcempfion; · Delegatiom of local powers; · Authorities granted, or restricted by statutes; and · Specific limitations within thc muaicipal charter. These legal ~u~s arc discussed below. State/Federal Pre~mplio~. Courts have found thst some matters are of such general conrem that laws pa~sed at the State or Federal lavel win take precedence over local regulation. This doctrine generally appllas, however, only whe~ the State or Federal government has actually adopted lagidation in the SpeCific area thnt local government is seeki.~ to regolat¢. Dd~flone of local powers. State co~t~utions are thc means by which States typically delegate police powers to local governments. Another common source of authority is through the grant of home rule power ekher by le~.l.aon or constitutional amendments. This delegation may, for installce, llm;t local police power to regalations thnt do not conflict with the general laws of the State. In many cases, thc dolegatlon may be so broad as to be unclear. Where there appears to be a valid case to be made for an interpretation favoring re~O~t~on, Io~,lltles may wish to we~h the risk of a contrary interpretation by the consts and thc associated legel costs *~in,t the potantial ground-wator protection benefits. Questionable delegations of power can be referred to thz State Attorney General for clarification. Statutes. State le~,ln6on may specifically grant local governments the authority to adopt ground-water protection programs. For example, Illinois authorized local c~eation of a setback zone: ~The corporate authorities of each municipality served by a com- munity water supply wall may perform a groundwater protection ne~ls assessment, and may by ordinance adopt a mln~mBlH or ma~mRIH s~tback zone around a wellhead..." ~llnois Groundwater Protection Act (P.A. 8.5-863) §11- 12~-4. In addition, States may rescrvc the authority to regulate in certain areas. Some States, for e~mple, restrict the authority of localities to regulate pesticide usc. Charter. Some communities receive their authority to govern by a charter, granted by the State. In such a case, the charter will be specific as to powers. This wili generally include the authority endowed by police power. A community may wish to conduct a pre- liminary investigation of local needs, evaluate Pa~ 9 man%~ement options, and request an annl~is of preferred alternatives by the municipal attorney or a local land-nsc attorney. Existing Programs Existing programs in a corem,may may already address local concerns. In addition, some Federal, State, or regional and local programs may provide I~DERAL There are several Federal statutes thnt va'ions aspects of ground-water protection: SDWA (the Safe Dri~k~n~ Water ACt) regulates thc use of wells for waste disposal and establishes the Wellhead Protection Program. Sole Source Aquifer provides a~ additio~l level of review for some Federal activitY. /~ addition, the SDWA provides EPA and the States with authority to c~ure that drialfillg water supplied by public water systems meets mlnlrnlm~ heslrh standards. RCRA (the Resource Consarva- tion and Recovery Act) sets stan- dards for thc de~i~; operation, and cleanup of hazardous waste fadlities. RCRA also rt~ulates underground storage of petroleum and other hn~nrdons sob~t~mces, and municipal solid wastc lan,t61!,. CERCLA (thc Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com- pensation, and Liability Act), also known as Superfund, was established to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites, indudi-g these that threateo drlnl~ng water supplies. SARA (Superfund Amendments and Re. authorization Act) Title IH requires businesses to net~ governments of potentially hn~nrdou~ substances stored or managed on-site. This information can be useful in identifying potential contamln~tion sources. CWA (the Clean Water Act) is currently ~mired to around water shown to have a couneetion with surface water end sets stendards for allowable pollutant discharges. t-u--l,u~ (the Federal Insecticide, F,,.~, and Rede~ Act) was establi,l~d to set standards for pesticidcs. Pesticides are potential e~ntnmin~, Of ground- water supplies, espe~inlly ~l rllral Local offielnls should contact Regional EPA personnel, end State ground-water offlrlnl* (see Section 5) to obtain information on how these laws end pro~rnml may nffcct locRI ~ protection plans. STATE State governn~nts, umJ. er the reatuirement~ of SDWA, are to de~i~nte a lead agency and develop a wellhead protection program at the State leveL Offlr4~l~ responsible fro' admini'.teriU8 this program can provide guidance for meetin.o State requirements end establ~=hing local program~ States can ~ some of the aarhorifics created by RCRA, SDWA, end CWA by adopting le~ end a r~ progrnm at least as pro.-m, may be aide to help dotm~mine if enforcmnent of ~ reSuatiom could alleviate local concen~ end if e~pertise i. aveilable to assist local governments. Meny States also have pro~'nmn related to ground-water protection thnt may already provide some form of regulation of REGIONAL AND LOCAL Local orains,ces and by-laws may already be sufficient to accomplish local goals. Lo~al cOmm,mities may wish to e~mmine cxistin8 local ptoge*m, to de~d~ if atrla~mt enfm'cement or additional chan~.s will b~ st~F~ent to ac~omld~h the de~tred goals. Fh,~Uy, meny States have a network of re,kraal ~ such as pinnni~ ~'ound-watar protection or can provide in~orma~on or ~t~istence to local ~ovemments. SECTION 3 P~,e 11 CHOOSING APPROPRIATE TOOLS FOR WELLHEAD PROTECTION Overview A number of commonly used land-use controls, source controls, and other tools have been found to be uscfal for protecting w~llhead areas. tho,gh most of thase tools have been used tradi- tionally for other purposes, many arc now being used to protect ground water. This section degnq~s briefly some tools used successfully by local 8ovemmants throughout the country for ground-water prote, ction. Thc purpose here is to introduce these tools, explain how they have been used in the past, how commlllllitle$ carl fiad iunovative ways to apply them to wellhead protection areas, and what considerations communities should be aware of ia adapting and implementlnE them. This discussion is not an exhaustive review, but simply an introduction to what is available and what to look fur. Fur more information, check the wriRen sources listed in Section 5 ur contact EPA ur State ground-water protection agencies. The managcmeat tools described here arc: Zoning Ordinances (page 12). Zoning or- dinances typically arc comprehensive land-use requirements de*i~ed to direct the development of an area. Many local governments have used zonin~ to restrict or regulate certain land uses w~thJn wellhead protection areas. Subdivision Ordlnnncas (page 18). Subdivision ordinances arc applied to land _that is divided into two or more subnnit~ for sale or developmunt. Local governments usc this tool to protect wellhead areas in which ongoing devalopmeat is causing contamination or there is inadequate well recharge. Site Plan Review (page 19). Site plan reviews arc regulations requiring developers to submit for approval plans for development occurri~ wi_thin a ~.ven area. This tool ensures compliance with regulations or other requirements made within a wellhead protection area. Design Standards (page 21). Design standards typically arc regulations that apply to the design and construction of ballaln~ or structures. This tool can be used to ensure that new buildin~us or structures placed within a wellhead protection area are designed so as not to pose a threat to the water supply. Operofln~ Standards (page 23). Operating standards are regulations that apply to ongoing land-use activities to promote safety or environ- mcmzl protection. Such stlmdsrds call mi~;mi~ the flu'cat to the wellhead asea from ongoing activities, such as the application of agricultural pesticides or the storage and use of hn,,~dous substances. Source Prohibitions (page 25). Source prohibitions are reg,_dnrlous that proinq~it thc presence ur uso of chemicals ur ha,.,.dous activities within i glveo area. Local govermueots have ased r~trictious on tim sturage or lumalinE of large quantities of hazardous materials within a we~head protection area to et;mlnnte the threat of contnm;nation. Po~h.*e of Prope~ or Development Rights (page 26). The purehs~e of property or develop- mcnt rights is a tool used by some localities to ensure complete control of land uses in ur sur- rounding a wcllhcad area. This tool may be preferable if regulatory restrictions on land use are not politically feasa'ole and the land pureh*~ is affurdable. PnbHc Education (page 29). Public education often consists of brochures, pamphlets, or seminars designed to present wellhead area problems and protection efforts to the public in an understandable fashion. This tool promntcs thc use of voluntary protection efforts and builds public support for a commlmit~s protection program. Ground-Water Monitoring (page 31). Ground- water monitoring generally con,i,~s of s;n~n~ a series of test wells and developing an ongoing water quality testing program. This tool provides for monitoring the quality of the ground-water supply or thc movement of a contsminnnt plume. Household Hn,-nrdoIts Waste Collection (pagc 32). Residential baTardeus waste management programs ca~ be dasigned to reduce the quantity of household hazardous waste being disposed of improperly. This program has been used in localities where municipal landfill~ potcntially threaten ground water due to improper household waste disposal in the wellhead area. Water Conservation (page 34). Water conser- vation can cncourage individual or commercial/ industrial users to limi~ their water nsc. This tool may re4~ee or ~ ~ of ground- water supplies through sult~ater intrusion. Other Mahods (page 35). Many c,,,~,m,,;ti~ are u,lng innovative methods that combine elements of the previous m~n%a,.me~ tools. Some create new management tools of their own. Zoning Ordinances DESCRIFHON Zo-l-g is a tool that traditionally has been used to control development in a comprehemiv~ plnnn~ manner. A logality might bG 8b~ to modify an existing zon~g ordlmam'O, or draft a new orelinnnCe, to incorporate wellhead protection are~ into a compreheusive plnn. This section desoaq)e~ briefly how zon'mg has been ~ nnd then discusses how loculiti~ can meet specific wellhead area protection needs. ExhiMt 3 presents a hypothetical locul~y with typical ZOning ordlnnnce in p~. ~ ~ ~- ~p~, ~ ~n~ ~c ~t ~ ~ m~ ~H ~ ~ mind ~d h~ ~ ~ s~o~ &e w~ ~ ~ned for ~t ~m~ ~. B=~e ~ p~l of ~d ~ ~t ~t ~ dc~lo~ se~r~ ~fiom for ~ ~ of · e we~ead ~ea may ~ a~ble. ~ ~e ~bit ~ be m~ ~ ~ ~ t~ W · ~ate how ~'wn~g ~Y ~ app~ W ~e ~.n!~ ~d ~w ~rhy w~i~ may ~ ~ &e we~d protec~ Zoning has been used as a tool to protect wellhead areas fxom contamination or inadequate ground-water recharge in a number of ways, depeeding on the level of developmcnt surrounding the w~llfields. Zo~ng is useful primarily for directing future development in a planned as opposcd to chsn~n~_ exlstin~ developed condi- tions. Once an area is developed for industrial use, it may bc difficult to re-zone that area for commercial or re.~dentlal ase. Pal~ 12 If a wdlkand urea currantly is uud~Joped and uuzoeed, the most direct approach for protect- hag that area is to zone the area for some use more compatible with ground-water protection. Many communities have found that uses that are compatible with ground-water protection include low-deusity residential use (with limit~Al or prohibited septic system use) and open space. These uses are generally compatible with wellhead protection because they typically do not involve the ese or transport of large qn~ntitjes of hazardous materials. Also, these uses typically do not create large areas of impervious surfaces that might hinder ground-water re~-I,~rge. Other uses, such as light iadusl;l~l & mi~ht be compatible i~ co~anities take precautious %o~',~,~. the impropar storage or use of hazardous substances. Down,zoning. If a wellhead area is already zoned but is not yet developexi, the community could "down-zone" that area to a usc more compatible with ground-water protection. Down- zoning refel's to vhn~_~g an establlshext zone to a ug that is less h~¢mive (i.e., with a lower allowable density) than the o 'nginafly desi~ated use. F.~ibit 4, for exsmple, ilhsUates how the hypoti~tical community presented in Ex~it 3 could down-zone the zones surroandlng its wells to promote better wellhead protection. In this hypothetical example, the town would ~ha~e the light industrial us~ dexi~tion of the zone surrounding the well sites to residential use. Hm~-h~. ff a wellhead arco is zoned and developed in a manner not readily compatible with wellhead protection, some protective measures may be possible by phasing/m zoning requirements over time. If the wellhead area is surrounded by heavy industrial plants, for eYample, a comm~mity could require that no new industrial plants can locate ~ the wellhead area and that, once their useful lives were complete, all existing facilities must be shut down and decontaminated. Moreover, existing facilities might be barred from expanding their operations. Although this approach may take some time to be implemented fully, it do~s allow the use of zon;ng despite existing, incompatible development patterns. Other management tools, such as source restrictions, can also be phased-in to avoid disruptions in developed areas. In addition to these relatively simple zoning approaches, a wide variety of more specialized and sophisticated zoning methods might aho be useful for wellhead area protection. As noted above, zoning typically involves both designating allowable general land uses, such as residential use, and further specifying particular regulations, such as EXHIBIT 3 Locality With Typlcel Zoning Ordinance 1't INDUSTRIAL UGHT INDUSTRIAL (Un~eve/ope~) RESIDENTIAL Scale: 1" = 1 mile Legend: Municipal Water Supply Well Ground-Water Flow EXHIBIT 4 Zonin~ ~ Io Ch~n~ From InduMl~l I~ I~MiIiml~l 'I (Undeve~e~) RE~;DENTIAL RESIDENTIAL (Undeveloped) Scale: 1" - 1 mile Legend: Municipal Water Supply Well Ground-Water Flow Wetla~ ~imltin~ the use of septic systems. The wni-~ variations presented here either emphasize one aspect of this process or combine zonln~ with other land mana~ment tools to allow effective wellh~-ad area protection. The remainder of this section briefly describes these ZOnin~ VaX~tion.q and then offers some general considerations for the use of zon;n~ for wellhead area msnsgemcnt and protection. Lurg~-lot zoal~. Large-lot zoning applies to residenrisl use zones ami re. qnlre~ for ex~mple, 5- to 20-ar~ or larger lot ~es. Commemlth-_$ have found that such zoning is particularly useful for reducing the quantity and impact of septic system leachate to a water supply aquifer or for preserv- ing open land in order to facilitate aquifer recharge. Conditional Zoning. Conditional z~nl.g may apply within a standard zone or may be used in the absence of dearly delineated zones. The idea behind this teehniqne iS thst ~ lami ~ (e.g., ~i.g~e f~mily ho,,~ing) are allowed ~ other uses (e.g. apartment complexes) are allowed o~y under specified co. 'd~inns (e.&, no mnlti-f~,~i~y structure may use a septic s~sem). The purpo~ of this tool iS to clarify the arceptability of 8iffere.t laed uses and to ensure tl~ potentinlly ham~'nl activities addressed adequately. This tool iS probably most effective if used in combination with site plan review, which iS discussed in more detail below. Floatin~ Zones. Floatin~ zones arc defined by specified land conditions and may not necessarily be clearly delineated on a z~i.g map. The sped/fed conditions that might bring f'lo-t~*~g restrictions into effect might includ~ for the presence of wetlnnds or a wellhead area. Typically, developers must demonstrate either thst their projects do not lie w~thln an area subject to floating zon~ Hmlts or, if they do, I-hut applicable restrictions are bein~ met by the proposed development. Because the burden of proof iS on the developer, floating zones might be a useful way to protect wellhead areas without actually de6nlng those areas on a map. For e.~ample, a commtmity could specify that development may not occur within a five-year time of travel area surrouv&;ng a wall and then require developers to demonstrate whether they fall into such a zone. The use of a site plan review in combination with a flo~fi,~g zone requirement might help to ensure that undesirable activities are not occurring within wellhead areas or that adequate precautions are being taken. Cluster Zoning amd Plmmed Unit Develop- ments (PUl)s). Cluster zen;ne, used primarily to control residential development, involves increasing den~itios w~thln :SeCtiOns of a Single zone while the remsi*,ing areas of the zone are le~ in open space. Development that increases the density of the area iS allowed only if the averag~ density throughout thc entire zone remnln~ at or below the designated density for that zone. For example, as long as the average density w~thln a zone remnln* at five units per acre, it does not matter whether those units are spread evenly throughout thc zone or 'clustered' in a comer of thc zone. PUDs are essentially cluster zo~i,~g developments on a large scale. Tho p~ of both of these methods iS to increase density while ma~,ol-h~g open space. lae~llve or Boaa~ Zoning. Incentive zo.ln.. typically iS nsed as a way of promoting the uso of clustered zones. Incentive zoning might work by allowing 15 houses per ac~ rathar th.n 10 hons~ per ac~ (thus prod.~,~g a five-bonse bonus for the developer) as long as ~e develolgr takes actions to protect a wellhead area, such as incren~ing reehnr~e by ma,~'imi~ing open space-. This tool can be nscful if clustering iS not required. Overlay Zoning. Overlay zoning involv~ tnlrl.g am existing zoned area and overhyi~ additionally defined zones for environmental or other purposes. Overlay zones need not conform to the boundaries of exi.~tlng zones. Overhy zoning typically is ~amlni*tered by plotting an opaque map that delineates existing zones (c.g., rcsldcptlsl~ commercial, indnstrinl) and then ming transparent maps to delineate the overlay zone itself (e.g., a wellhead protection area). This tool may be particularly useful for adopting wellhead protection zones and regulations in a municipality that already has a standard zoning ordinance. Exhibit 5 illustrates the use of an overlay zone for the hypothetical community presented in Exhibit 3. In this example, the overlay zone is thc wellhead protection area itself. Only those areas actually within thc overlay zone become subject to special wellhead protection measures. In this case, the areas within thc wellhead protection area arc designated as a wellhead area protection district in addition to the original designation. Creating a wellhead area protection district may involve, for example, restricting the use of septic systems or requiring lower density residential devclopment. Onc advantage of ,~ing an overlay zonc iS that it can target changes to wellhead areas alone and allow uses outside the overlay zone to continue. Several of thc land managcment tools discussed below, such as site plan reviews, design and EXHIBIT 5 Scale: 1" = 1mile Legend: Municipal Water Sul~ly Well Ground-Water Flow ~ .,/Overlay District opersfin5 standards, and source prohibitions, be cepe~islly effective when applied w;fh;, wel]bead CONSIDEBATIONS Any one of the above zon;n..a methods may be useful in protecting w~llhcad areas if a corem,miry already bas a zon;,,g ota;n*-ce in place or if it is seeking the kind of comprehensive land-use appropriate approach, a locality should cousider its own need~ and rusou~ces carefully and tailor its efforts accordingly (e.g., down-zoning is leas effective in developed areas). Moreover, tesardless of the zoning method clash to protect thc we. llh,-ad area, several asp~ of zoning in ~ne, i'ld There ate a number of other legal issues to consklcr. Be aware that ordinances which are unnecessarily rustrict~ or ~ :.~;natory, especially if they exceed local home rule powers, may be struck down by the courts. Moreover, stringe~ tegulafious that cause excessive dim;nntion of propen7 values can be deemed a 'regulatory t*kln~ by the courts, thus necess.ltnfin~ thc pa~mant of *just compensation* to affected parties. Oac way to prevent litigation is for thc local government's legal counsel to review regulatory programs for unnecessary stringency. Zo-ing should be given some practical cousidcrntion as well. As noted above, zo-i,,g is primarily a tool for directing the development of land in a dealrable manner. If local wellhead areus are already largely developed, down-zo~i-g may not be the most effective or timely approach for prote~i-g the wellhead areas. Nonetheless, down- zon;ng or one or more of the zon;ng variations described above may be useful for thc reduction of potential co-~mi-*~ion threats in already developed wellhead protection areas. A finll aspect of zo.l.g to consider is its political feasibility. Although one of the oldest and must established land-use tools throughout the United States, zon;n~ i~VO[VUS telHn~ people what they can and Cannot do with theh' la~d. ~uact~ a zo.;-g ordinance, therefore, can be ~oliticafly contentious. Moreover, because one political benefit that zonln~., prodnc£g is the knowledge t~t land use in a given area will be stable and cousistent, cb.-~-g an existi~ zo-;-g des~,~-"on may prove to be more contentious th,~ c~eating the zone in the ~rst place. I~e 17 ZONING CAN BE AN EFFEc-nYE WF..U,~AD ARF~ PROTRCTION TOOL The objectives of this ardinance we rd ~ that pedinf opeca~ am wra~l~ sita planned lend ~ m prm~t wmm .tm~ entering au,face and go~ wattn, and to promote vnw~ ~ ~ ~tqui~nm~ establ~hed ~ ~ a condMonol u.~ include maintaining a nutrient balance on the available cropland at. aBe. used .for rnonure sprendin$; submitti~ tgam, ~ and ~ data,, cor~marting a manur~ wnagnmeat facile, and pro~ eva~ of the ~ of mu~t be based on I~l d~ on wei~ ~ and surface water ~ t~l col~orm baat~ levels, rndtt~ appIitat~ rectw~ oep .yield~ plant analyses, plow iaye, and mb~! nv. afent~ rectmtt of tetue~ for ~ ~nted land mbject to the manure ~pmadiag re~tr~tions. .4 number of minor problons have been enconntered with this ordinance. For example, the Zoning Administrator's ttam-tn,.rson office fcedlot operations on less than 35 acres am not included w~thin the ordinance although they are re4i~nsible for c~iderab~e r/maure di~al and w~er ~ualiO~ problems. Also, e~dng feedlots are not regulated by the ordino~e althtntgh the), are responsible for considerable manure disposal and vau~r qua~ t~btems. Moreover, the State of Wisconsin incorporated in its WPDES permit approval process ndes and requirements that preempt the county's ntle$ )vt leave a gap in coverage. Despit~ thee problems, most farmers have been willing to cooperate. The Coumy Zoning Administrator is attempting to resolve the problems by simplifying and organizing the necessary data handling and ana~sis. Aiso, he is requesting that small acreage farms be regu- lated attd that the gap in covenage between the State law arid the county ordinance be closed.6 Subtlivision Ordinanoes DF.,SCRIFIION Another tool that local governments might be able to adapt for protecting wellhead areas is a subdivision ordi,,,,,~..~, lille zoO,,*.., thc authority to impose subdivision regulations to control land use is deleSated by the State to a locality. Unlike zo-~-_-, how,~r, subdivision re~. ~,*i,~s apply only when land is actually divided for sale or devclopmant. Subdivision ordinances, therefore, are nseful prlm*~ily for ~ fut~e de~__~..~, the mnnlcipality, and may be less objectio-,hlc to town rcsidonm because such orah~*ncas typically do not involw thc comprcben- sire plnnnlng .and conUol required by zoning. If a compl~hen~v~ plnnnin~ e-~ol't iii n~_~n~y or infeasible, a sub~ orala,,~ce re;Sbt be a ascful tool for controll;n~ development and perhaps applying other protective re,clarions With;n corem,milles misht adopt mbdivlsion ordi--~.es to meet local well.ad area proteclion needs. Subdiv~ion ora;nnm.~ aro OIGi-n,~'.S that apply ~ a ~1 ~ ~ h ~ ~o ~ or m~e !~ f~ ~ or ~ent ~d ~e oRen ~ont~ ~ ~ of ~ ~ ~;~ (e.D, ~ me~o~litnn ~). ~ ~ p~ of s~n r~d*~on ~ to ~ ~lo~t to e~c ~ ~ d~ ~ o~ 1~ ~e (c~, r~ ~ ~d ~c prot~on). Tra~*l~, ~ ~ of for ~m~ to &c ~c, r~ of ~d for p~Hc p~ or ~ ~ &e ~ of Often thc only form of land-use control in rural areas, subdivision ordlnn.ces can be applied to a certain size of davulopmcnt (i.e., thc number of the lots bdn~ created), or the timing of development (i.e., ail at once versus a smnll number of parcels per y~r). Moreover, thc types of requirements made, such as how much land must be set ~side for open space, and the type~ of exemptions allowed, such as land trnn~fers within fnmil;es, can vary widely depepding on what the locality's developmant goals are. As noted above, a subdivision ordinance used for wellhead area protection will rcsemble a zoni-~ ordinance in a number of ways. For example, a subdivision oral.nnce will be useful for directing the development of an area but will not be useful like zo-;*~ a subdivision ordinanc~ can be tailored to apply only in certain areas, such as w~head areas, and impo~e basic density or open space requirements for the sake of ~ w~lhaad · l'('. ~ contnminnt~on and promotln~ aquifer rechur~. be combined eas~ with other, more specialized or sophisticated land ~ tools, such as site plan reviews, da~n .m4 opernti .ng standards, or source proht~oitions, to ereate effective welled area protection progrsras. by -'~;-g a subdivision ordinance. One appsoach that has been used requires that any subdivision minimum density standa~s, such as five-acre lots, or use low le~l~%g~, sewers and advanced wat~ If some de~rec of development already ba~ taken place around a wellhead area, or if a hydrogoologic study indicates that thc wellhead protection area is in cln.~o~r of being contaminated, subdivision ordinances also can be combined with source control rcgulations. For cxamplc, a comrmmity could prohibit thc placomcnt of hazardous materinls storage co.aim:rs in thc wellhead area and could also require that any ncw or additional subdivision and development tnlring place in thc wellhead areas incorporate appropriate de-~'~mn and operating standards. In goneral, the usefulness of a subdivision orainance will dapend primarily on thc extent of development surrounding well sites and whether future development will entail the subdivision of existing land parcels. With little or no development within large parcels of undivided land, a wide variety of subdivision ordinance options may be awa-He. Aker~tlve17, i~ an area is fully subdivided into small uni~ a subdivision ordinance will bg of llmit~l utility in proteVi-~ a wellhead CONSIDERATIONS A subdivision ord;,~-ce designed for wellhead protection will like~ ~ ~imilsr tO a zoning ordin~nC~ in that regulafio~ ~ be applied to development a~ifies in limited or specified ~reas. If a community's p,;,,,ary goal is to ensure only th,t whatever development takes place does not threaten wellhead areas, and not to control land use outside of wellhead areas, then a subdivision ordlnan~ mi?_ht be more appropriate than a comprehensive zo-l-g ordinance. On the other hand, subdivision regulatlons only apply, by ddini- tion, when a parcel of land is divided for develop- meat purposes. If the concern is to address any kind of ~velopmant regardiess of whether the land is acUudiy divided into subnaits, then zc~i-g might be a more effective wellhead area protection tool than a subdivision ordinance. Larger metropotitan areas often combine subdivision ordinances with ZOning progranls. Establi~h;-g a subdivision ordinsnce has implications for a co~,~unity. As with zo.i. subdix4zion reg.lat~om can be chzllenged in court for beln8 discriminatory or exclusionary if they are not applied consistently within an area or across residential or industrial uses. Moreover, a subdivision ord;n~nce that causes a dlmlmlfion of property values might be construed as a "regulatory takln~ and so require just compensation to affected parti~. Regulations that are as~d~lly stringent also might be litigated for exceeding the locality's home rule powers, unless the loeality can demonstrate that the regulation is reasonable and necessary to protect the public welfare. A final aspect of subdivision regulation that should be considered is its political feasibility. As with zonin~ subdivision regulation is a common and generally accepted municipal land-use control authority. Nonetheless, subdivision ordinances limit what land owners can do with their land and so can be contentious. Any effort to enact a subdivision ordinance could be accompanied by an active effort to explain why wellhead areas need .protection and why the ordinance being proposed is appropriate. m~agva~nt. A gro~ ~t proF~ ordinance, or both. coile~m uad ~atment ~ a~ adequ~ A to t. tan no Site Plan Review DESCRIF~ON The purpose of a site plan review is to determine whether a proposed development project is compatible with existing land uses in the SOITOOpaing area and whether the exist;ng or phn.ed infrastructure w~l be able to support the new development. Generally, a rite plan review is required by a Ioea~ ordh~mce, such as a zon~g or subdivision ordinance, before any construction can begin and is reviewed by a local authority, such as a town board or plann;ng committee. The plan itself might have to respond to numerous, detailed specifications, such as design and construction standards, or shnply n~ht hs~ to meet a genial condition, such as a requlmnent that new developments must be compal~le with use, docs not meet required st~ or would otherwise oveawhdm tl~ in~rastmcture, then the bo~d usually eit~r ~ reje~ the plan outright or accept the plan upon conditicmal modiflcaliom. A site plan re~icw rcq~rmne~ can be an e~a~ion*S~ useful tool for implementing a wellhead protection ~ ~ it is an effective me~hnnhtm for ~ ~ I:~orcia8 other requireme~s, ff a site l~a review is required as part of a zo~;%o or subdivision or- m-..ce, for example, then the site ~ r~.~w become~ thc means for ensuring that, before any requirements of t]~t ordin~ce. Some of the more ' .un~.ortant'requiremen.ts. o~tl~ zonin~ or subdivision standards or ~ource proh'bitiom dm~ned to protect wdlhead areas f~om contamlmm'on or adverse Moreover, the m~e sophisticated and complex e~'i~g that all asl~s of tl~ ~ are plan reviews arc required with comfitlon~ or flont~ng zo-h,~ where various land uses are allowed only under specified cond~io~. CONSIDERATIONS Communities ~vo ei~Ollll~red several ~m~nlnt* h ~ ~ of a ~e p~ r~ req~ent for ~d ~ ~ eff~. by ~o~ ~at plnn~ ~ s~ for r~cw, a lo~U m~t ~ s~ ~ reso~ ~d te~hni~ ~ m a~y peffo~ ~e rc~cw. E~n ~o~ a key a~ of a site p~ renew req~eme~ h ~t ~ b~den of pr~ ~ on ~e ~r, ~c more teeh-i~y ~mp~ ~ ~e p~ re~ req~em~ ~c m~ ~c ~ ~ re~e~s m~t ~ve. A second aspect of the site plan review process tm con~ider is that the less prec~ the requirements being reviewed, thc more air'cult it win be to evaluate reviews conui*tently and the more likely it is that requirements will be Vestal, New York is a ioca~t i~ e~ ~$~n~l &~'t o£ tha Sa~. ~ and ~ a~. ~ 1~ t~ T~ Bmgtt b~tam~ ~ about 8nmte~ the applicant is requi~l to use the best COMBIHING ZOniNG AND Council detmnlnu that th~ deployment not l~ ~thin any rw, h~ ~e~, t~ tl~2op~ doeto~mt plan. rej~ct any pltm~ ~ tmpose od~e or ntgot~ plan~ and r~-mbmit tl~m for tmon Plan; C~ ~ m~ ~j~ pl~ breed ~ ~ed in court. In order to facilitate evaluation, a commlmit7 coRld make requirements as specific as poem'vie and ensure that the requirements address real threats or problems in an appropriate rammer. One way to ensure that requiremcnts are specific and appropriate may be to combine the site .plan review with conditional ZOnln~. overlay zomng, design and operating standards, or source proht~fitions that are tailored spedficany for wellhead proration. l~-'q~, as with other com,,,only mini land-uae controls, site plan review are more cffec6ve for ensorin8 that future development takes place in a desirable m~-,,--, rather th*~ ~h..~ e3Jsting conditions. Nev~rtl~le~, ~to plan reviews ,night be som~vhat more acceptable politicany th*n ]arid- the emph~ of *to plan r~-M ia On approln'h dovelopm=t ratber Design Standards DF~qCRIPTION Design and opar*~h,g standards are used to regulate the d~zi~ construction, and ongoing operation of various land. use activities. Tradition- ally intended to promote th~ use of safety featm'~, de~;? and ope~,,g standards mor~ recently haw for physical smmur~ such as double-wall~ Ondergrouml storag~ tanks, while oper~ti,,~ aa Iimi~ On road ~lHn~o_ Lo~al gov~'m~ollta ~ desi or oporatias v.a la or bet , to Thia ~tion ~ design standards in more standards. D=.;? standards typically are applied to new build;.? or structures or to infraatructute items such as road and parE..= lot nmoff collection systems, stream or ditch clumn~ and road salt storage areas. Activiti~ that might haw a si~nificant impact on grolmd water, and so m;ght effectively be controlled by design standards, include hazardous matorials con~ainm~nt Strllctl~S or areas. Other such activities might hdude surface water runoff collection systems and hrge impervious surfaces, such as pa~ki.~ lots or build- in~ that might, reduce aquifer recharge. One ~mnple of a design standard that could be applied to such activities ia a requirement that run-off collection systems for roads and parklnE lot~ be able to conUol at le~t the fn-st inch or two of rain water, which typically COntaln~ mest of the contaminants carried away by runoff. A standard also might be applied to hn=a~doua materiah coptnlnment systems requiring a back-up contninm¢~t system or adequate protection from adverse we*th~ to ~ an ~ ~ of materials. Yet another ~ stamt~d that wo~ld be useful for ensuring that a wellhead area has ad~qllate reeh~rg~ mi~oht b~ ~o limit ~ area of imper~m sur~ge~ GBDi~ND WATgB agenci~.v believed that thi~ gn~th vnmld a~ct oitical arem ne~e~smy for CONSIDERATIONS There are a number of comidotatious m take into account in n~ing d~? standsl'ds for prote~in~ a wellhead area. Vast, drafting ao..i~o~ standards will require some teehni,'al expertise. Sta~¢, regional; or local aguncles (e.g. public works departments) may be able to provide help in speclfy~g technical standerds and applicable de-c;~-~, Second, if the deaign standard is a performam:e s~undard, such as 'new development must control adequately runoff into the wellhead protection area,' the locality should easure that the standard is specific enough to allow consistent evaluation of a development project. This may reduce the likelihood of a legal ,~h-Ileage based on the arbitrary or excessive uae of regulatory authority, could reduce the difficulty of m.t-l.g compliance determ;natlous, and may result in less con_fusion among affected developers. Third, if the de-~i~,~ standard is a technical standard, such as "b~'ardous materials storage structures must have secondary coagainment [ problems ami are ~e requirements. 3,~in; this ~y ~ ~ ~ of a ~ ~~~of~ d~ ~ ~ ~ p~ r~ my rel~ ~ primarily to protect the ~ ~ it ~hould be clearly M~ttun to apply either within that area only or within ~hat area and some e.Xpunded ~ U~e~der to avoid ~or ~ rea~ burdon of havi~ to reviow requlmUm~ whe~re they are ~ ~, ~ ~ ~1 of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ might Underground storage c~-t*;u;~,j petroleum products or hs~z~om sGbstances; · Underground injection wells; Hazardous waste facilities that have waste mana~m~meat unit~ such as I.n,fl;~. c~u~;n~r stoFas~ area~, sm'face impouadments, or hazar- dous waste treatment units; · Hazardous waste generators; · Municipal and industrial solid waste landfills; · Wastewater treatment plants; · PCB storage, treatment, and dis- posal facilities; · Superfund sites (e.g., abandoned h~-~rdous waste disposal facilities); · Facilities m~-~ nuclear mnterialg and · Surface mlaes. For information on the Federal or State progrnm* applicable to these potential sources, contact Regional EPA Ground-Wat~ Rcprcsentntives or Stntc 8round-watcr protection ngencies (listed in Section 5). Another factor to consider when drafting a design standard is that design standards es a land- use tool may not ad&*ess e,:dsting conditions effectively because they ge~rally apply only to the design and construction of new development projects. Nonetheless, dc, i? standards may be useful for ~ontro11;"~' any modifications to eadsting developed areas or other land uses. A 6nnl consideration with regard tO design standards concerns cooralnntion with operntln~ standards to ensure thc continued cffectivaness of protection efforts. Commnnitles uqln~o both types of standards have designed both standards at the same time to make sure they are compatible. For e~mple, an operating standard requiring the periodic t~;-~o of secondary contn;~ment systems may be useful if such systems are required as a de*;~ standard. Operating Standards DESCRIPTION Aa oper*ting standard requirement along with a de~;~ standard requircmant m;~ht be a useful tool for protecd-g a wellhead protection area. As with dcsign standards, oper~d-g standards, such as those applied to handlers or transporters of toxic chemicals, are designed to ensure the safety of workers ur other parties. Operntlng standards can also be used to protect the environment by preventing or cont~olfi~ releases of COntnmlnnnta. If wellhead areas are surmonded by land-use practices that involve the storage or use of hnzar- deus materials, communities may use operating standards effectively to protect those wellhead areas. Operating standards de-~i~ed to protect weRhcad areas probably would take thc form of agricultural or industrial/commercial best manage- meat practices, Best management practices (BMPs) generally define a set of standard operating procedures that can be used in a particular industry or commercial activity to limit AGRICUL~JRAL BMh CAN BE USED TO PROT~r'r GROUND WATER tn~tion of N~bra~ka around Grand Island is concmumi~ ia moy stoa from ovouse Ja~ is n~t al~wed on s~ ~. concenWetio~u o~ about laS gmn may ~ be piaced iato the PIm~ 3 ¢.~.e~o~ In addi, gon to Pha~ 1 nad 2 rexju~ Plmse 3 eaeos are subject to periodic fegddizer prohibigom and mo~ detailed repo~iag requirements. Tha CPNRD hos enjoyed auppot~ from local fa~nen for thee restffctionz The distn'~ cttablizhe, d ~ demonaWation fwid~ th~ iadi- ceded thai, .for every dollar s~t on sampling and analysis, four dollars art sm,ed in fertilizex costs. B~e the progam hos b~.n in effect for only one year, howzver, aetu~ decrea~s in the ai~mt conczntration~ in tl~ ground water haw not yet been observed. Il thc threat to thc cnv~onmant lx~cd by on~ processes, such as pesticide apron or the managcman£ of hs~dous substances. Lo~fiti~4 can either impose msndatory BMPs or request the voluntary use of BMPs. Although ms~dutory BMPs are pO~nti*]ly mo~'c e. ff~l~, they require en~orcem©ut and may raise po~tti~ and legal opposition. Voluntary BMPs, on the other may b~ more ~ acc~atabl~ but also may require incantivcs or an educational campaisn to promote thci~ usc. Bcam~ thc ongoing msn*~m~me41t or ~ of h~r~ sub~ calx po~c a .~'~n;fi~nt r.~ to v~llhmld areas, BMPs might be an intcgral pa~t of a protcctlon program. Anothcr land usc that might threaten w~llhoad protection areas and could be .~,i.~,~ by operut- b~g standards or BbiPs is activities th,t require the storage or hsnelling of haT~mrdOIl~ matori~. Such activities include dry deanmz, auto service stations, industrial pl*nt*~ truckiag and railroad facilities, and airports. Staadards thnt might be usehzl for these Pjpe~ of activities *~;~* ineimtc restrictions on h~.~rdous materials storage or dis- posal, llmlqs on or collection syst~ms for the use of road salts and de-i,,h~g chemicals, and requirements for p~rlo~ic testing and system c. hcc,~s. EPA and several States have produced a number of publications describi~ the kinds of agricultural and industrial/commerdud ac~i~/w,s that might ~ a threat to ground water and what kinds of BMPs may be used to reduce those threats (e.g., C~s Ou/d~ to Contamgnation Sources for Wellhead Protect/on, Jub] 1988). Aa a locality develops its wellhead protection program, it might review the ongoing activities within wellhead areas, review publications disobeying contamination threats and appropriate BMPs, and devise an opera*lng standard with voluuta.ry or mandatory BMPs that could minimiT., or eliminate potential threats. In I9~ a t~ittr ~ ~ ~ CONSIDERATIONS Loc~ities considering the use of an op~£atlng standard requirement m~ also consider several additionul aspects of opm~iag standards. F~rst, like design standards, drafting of standards may require considerable technical expertise. Second, again like d~;? standards, operating standards are most cffcedve when used as part of a comprehensive v,~llhead protcctlon approach that is based on z~niflg Or subd~on Ordinances and combined with site plan reviews. This integrated combinagon of tools is likely to provide a more effective program thsn would bo possible with the use of a ~i~gle tool Opersti,~g standards are often effectively implemented through by-laws, board of heslth regulations, or performance standards. Useful ope~'atlng stalldRrds might, fOllOW directly from development projects that incorporate de-~i~ standards, such as secondary contnlnm~Rt systems, that mi.e_ht require periodic testing and replacement. De.,i~m~ and Operstin.., standards can complement each othar and each should be degi~ed with thc other in mind. Source Prohibitions DESCRIFrION Source prohibitions, where the storage or use of dangerous materials is prohibited from a defined area, have become a common method for prote~%g human health and the environment. For example, hn~,nrdous chemicals that are ~ volatile, causlic, or to:dc often are prohibited from use or storage in large qu~tities in residential areas. Many lo,'nllties abe are now prohibiting the storage or handling of h~7~dons materiah where the release of those chemicah could pose a threat to surface or ground-water supplies. Where a wellhead area is sufficiently vulnerable so that deal? and operating standards would not be fully protective, or where there is no development in the wellhead area, source proh'bifious have been shown to be a useful wellhead protection tool. Source prohibition regulations generally take the form of either prohibitions n?inst certain kinds of ac~vities that typically require the uso of haynrdous materials or restriaious on thc use of specific ba~'~rdous materlah. Activities that typi- cally involve the use of baT~rdou.s materials and so might be prohibited within the wellhead protection area include: · Agriculture; · Jnnk yards; · Machine shops; · Landfills; and · Septic systems. Communities can refer to thc list of sources that commonly pose a threat to ground water presented SOURCE eltOm~moNs Orr~¢ AI~ APPLIED WrnlIN A ZONING FRAblEWO~ repoa the chen~cal~ that thgt map Of wlurre tilt chemicals in Section 2 of this document (Exln'oit 2), from which the above list was drawn, to determine whether any of these activities may be alloyed within wellhead areas. Specific hn~nrdous materials that might be prohibited within the wellhead area include: · Heavy metah; · Solvents; · Petroleum products; and · Radioactive materials. Thc list in F-.hibit 2 is not exhaustive and, althoa~h several sources wcre notcd, many actbn'ties might usc or produce these kinds of substauces. Handbooks and guidance from EPA, States, and regional agencies may help determine thc kinds of matcrlais localities might consider restricting in wellhead areas. CONSIDEI~TIONS While source prohibitions are ~i~ty cffcctiw for removing a cc~,,,mi-,,t;on threat, they arc also st.-ingent ragulations. Before source prohb~ arc establlsheAt, therefore, localities m;~kt want to perform initial hydrogeologic st-odies in order to deter'mine wlicthcr aquifers are vulnerable to contnminntJon ~ iS esp~Jnll~ trt~ ~ SOUrces One way to m;ti~te the edwrso impacts of source prohibitiom is to phase-in the requirements over time. tn a..I;.g with undm'ground storage tnnl~, for e~mm~te, comm-~ifi,.* could ban the placement of new tnnlt* w~thl, the well.ed protection area while not requifins that ezistin8 t~nl~ ~ remo~d imrn~'Aint~yo Replacement of ex~t~n~ tnnk~ at the end of their service lives could be prohibited. This phased al~oach limits the economic impact of thc prohibition. while source proifibltlous will work by themselves, they probably are most effective when used as part of a comprehemiv~ program and are applied, for example, only in the most vulnerable areas of the w~lll~"JAd protection area. Puroh me of Property or Development Rights DESCRIFHON Menn;a~ul protection of ground-watcr resources rcquir~ control over activities on lands that feed water to an aquifer. Wellhead protection areas can encompass large amounts of land (e.g., a protection area with a radius of two miles arotmd a wcll is ovcr 8,000 acres). The surest mcthod for a comm~Rity to establish control over a parcel of land is through purchase of the property. Ownership of land can be thought of as a "bundle of rJ~tS," inclvdin~ surface use rights, mineral rights, air rights, and the right to control access to thc land. In sccl:;ng to acquh'e land, local governments may target the entire bundle of rights (frill or "fcc simple" tide) or a more limited set of rights (partial interests). Thc choice depends on practical factors, such as the purpose of thc acquisition and local fi-~-cial resources. Whatcver thc type of property interest to be acquired, local government officials have two basic means of acquiring land: p/dm rmNm md ~arov~ proc~ yor · Undertake negotiations with a willing seller; or · Exercise thc right of eminent domain and condemn thc property. Voluntary negotiations avoid the time and legal expense associat~l with condemnation proceeAing~, In addition, condemnation can involve ~;~o~ificant controversy tha~ can undermine political support for public land acquisition. Acquisition et fee simple interests. As a fee simple owner, a local government has the fullest measure of control over land uses. Thc community can benefit by establlshln~., parkl~n~ recreation facilities, or other com--mi~,-orientcd land uses. The property can also be set aside for resource conservation purposes, with public access res~ctsd to a greeter or lesser degree depentlin~ on thc impact of human activities on the resources to be protected. Numerous ~A~mmlln;~,~ around the country, for ex'~mple, have acquired lands as critical for water supply protection purposes, including Manchester, New Hampshire; Scheaect~dy, New Yor~; and Moatgamery Connty, Acquisition of partial interests. Short of purchasing land outright, loeelitiea may be able to protect ground-water resources by partial interests ia propertiea located in w¢llheed protection areas. Acquisition of partial interests t~ically takes one of two forms -- acquisition of conse~atlon cusemcnts (sometimes referred to as "pur~ha~ of development rights") and restrictive Cov~n~nf.s, ~ pa~ial interests do not convey total coairol over a parcel of ]and, there arc c~rtain advamagas over fee s;m~le interest: · Thc comm.n;~ iS not burdened with malnt~i.i.2 the property;, · The property remainn on the tax rolls; and Lower costs allows thc corem,miry to obtain interest in more parcels. Conservation easements are a form of "neg- ative easement," so called because they convey to thc casement holder thc right to prevent a landowner from tzldng specified actions on the property covered by thc casement. Negative casements arc highly flexible legal instruments that can be nscd to protect a wide variety of resources, including ground water, while permitting land- owners to continue many productive uses of their land. An easement used for wellhead protection must be c. ascfully crafted to cusure that the restrictions embodied in thc easement control surface land uses that will threaten ground-water resources. The specific restrictions embodied in an casement might prohibit certain kinds or den- sities of development altogether (e.g., by permitting only open space land uses such as agriculture and forestry) or prohibit or llmi~ certain threatening Page 27 human activities such as thc use of hazardous materials or septic systems for sewagc disposal. Enscments apply to all subsequent landowners for the full term of the easement, which may be a finite number of years or forever. Similar to easements, restrictive covenants attach to the property and apply to subsequent landowners. Whereas easements are held by ~h~ Ib~its paved surfaces or home ~ as a condition of ~mo~n~ site ~ a~ f~ a ~ pro~ ~ to a ~e p~. H~- CON~II~RATiO~ Whi~ i~ prOt~:~ ~ and re~h~e arcas, acq-;~t4,:m is also cos~ for local governments. Serial strntc~ies are ev, dl.~lo in see~_.* to conuol the cost of a~quiri~ aquifer protection lands: · Priorifi~g the lands to be ac- quire, d; sales of interests where pesdblc. Cornmun~s can M'im~flze the buds to be capabilifiu of spedftc parcels as well as existing petrie, able soils in relatively close pr~imi~ to a ,~hnllOW well mi~h,; for caample, receive h~h~r acquisitiom priority th,. le~ permeable land. The extent and pattcrn of ~ developm~t in a w~]]head pFoteotion area dircctly ~ both the price of land and the degrce ~o which the acquis/fion of remsinin_e undeveloped properties can protect wells from CC~tnwnln~OD~ Property that is zoned indiistr~ a~d faces imminent development could pose a threat to the integrity of ~round-water resources, unless development pressures arc removed through public land acquisition. In rural areas, where no such threat is apparent, land-use regnlnrlons will probably provide adequate resource protection. Localities may want to monitor development and land price trends carefully, however, since growing development pressures will incrcasc propcrty values and thc resulting cost of acquisition. Localities can mitigate thc high cost of land acquisition by targeting the real property Interests to be acquired. On any ~ parcel, acquld~ of fee ,;mple rights will be more expandve th,. acq, i-(ifion of partial interests, such as a conscrva- tiaa casement. In ganeral, the more restrictive thc casement in terms of ~Jow~le land uses and other surface and subsurface activities (such as s~p~c ~ ~ ~ hii~ling of materials), the more the cost of an easement approaches the co~t of pur,.h~eJr~g the propen'y outrliht. In choo~-g which type of real property interest to acqui~ in a 8iven urea, lo~llti~ could considor the ~ prol~ies of the parcel (i.e. how much control over land use and surface activities is necessa~ to prevent wellhead con- landowner. A two-tiered approach may be propriate: full fee acqu/sltlon of parceh ~ for wellhead protection, and partial interest ac- q.i~ifion on less critical parcels. Thc attitude of landowners toward ~ and othe~ partial interests, will ~ priorities as well; some owners will resist negotiating the a~qnh/*~on of an easement, desiring to own their land outright or not at all Acqui~i#on Pmgam ~n Vwm~ ze~u~ ~ t~ to e~abli~h fe~ for s~adav, mt of Localities can also control acq 'maition costs by attempti%* to negotiate danatimas and ,si.' (pur,.h-~ at less th,m full mar~t value) by private landowners. Motivated by chaxltable, by thc Fedcral and State income and estate tvx hmdowncrs may be w~llln~ to forgo Because fcw comm--;t~es win be able to negotiate donn~o~s of all the had necessary to protcct their welI~.ad and aquife~ re~-hnrge areas, it may be necesaa~ to find monies sufficient to meet thc residual acq-is;t~on costs. V~ it is beyond the scope of ri, i, document to discuss in detail ail rcsources available to local 5ovemments, several of the most s;~o~iflr-~nt · Increases in water and sewer rates and fees; Public Education DESCRIPTION Many cOmm.-;fi~ around the country have developed innovative public education progrnms on ground-water protection topics. The purpose of these public education efforts has been to build suppor~ for regulatory prosrnm% such as conlrols to implement voluntery ground-wetcr protcclion efforts, such as water conservation, used oil collec- llon, and household h~'~rdous waste mnnn~asmellt. There are several public education approaches localities could take: Distrib.rlng press releases to newspapers and radio stations; ,~A'ran~n..~ press conferences on ground-water protection topics for local radio stations, newspapers, and television stations; DislribvtiflE ground-water protec- tion information in local govern- ment newslelIers; COMIq,EMENTIN~ Plt~N WITB ~C EDUCATION Developlag slide shows or video tapes on ground-water protection for dlstdbufion to local schooh E-~s _hli~hing vol-atal~ e~mmm**~ to ns-~;~t local agcndes implement public education and ground-water protection proEr~m~; Prov;a;%o Sl~mk~rs on ground- wa~er protection to local groups; and Developing brochures on ground- water protcctlon to include in water or tax Mlh. CONSIDERATIONS Thc content of public education materials will depend on local conditions and the target audience. Localities may wish to target specific group~, such as farmers or local gas station owners, or develop a comm-n;~-, wide education pro,ram. Information could include: F_~plsn~,rions of the effect of ground-water quality on public health; Methods for prcvev~ng ground- water cont~mln~tlon by businesses and homeowners (e.g~, proper b~7~rdous waste disposal, mini- · Water ~on Commi#e~ which con.vim of bo~ lntbtic o~cials and p~n~ ~t~ ~ed by ~ ~ ~ ~b~t ~d ~~ of pm~ h~ been ~ p~ ~e 1~5 ~d ~c~s a n~s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~d~e on ~ ~ ~ sup~i~, lnf~ ~ ~ ~ ho~o~er c~ce~g ~e~ ~ti~ ~d ~eir effec~ on wa~r ~i~. In ~ annual confe~nce ~ held f~ ~ ~ ~blic feam~ S~g ~d l~al ~ions. conf~ce c~ ~s c~ p~c ~ ~p~ ~ ~ ~ h~e- t~ ~b~. ~ c~ ~o arkie a ~li~ ~enta~n c~c~g pmt~tion of public water z~ies, with on identi~ potentiM so~ of cont~in~ion and ~ on ~s ~ ~ ~e c~ be available to h~h ~cht~, civic ~u~, ~ other inten, sted ~ps ~d o~i~ions.18 pro.m* has beon interest ~ the lmblle, elem~d ~ and local or St~ ~verammt a~mci~a. Althoush advhory committees can play a useful role in local ground-water protection education efforts, localities may wish to focus committee efforts by 1~ ~,~i~. on the rola and life of the cc~-ir~eo, ass~ deadli~ for d~Joping r~ and ~ members respomi~ to lo~l priori~. goiloral wlil roqniro tinte and re~o~e~ m 1~ effective. M~ on ~o~ W~ t~m~~~tok~ ~ ~f~c ~ p~c. M~r, s~ ~e ~d ~ m~ ~ ~ to dc~lop p~c ~veafion W~. s~ ~ ~ ~Rer Ground-Water Monttmtng Some localities have established ground-water monitoring programs to a.sse~ the quality of local aquifers. Typically, a ground-water monitoring program consists of a regular program of sampling public and private walls for selected cootamlnants (e.g., nit~atea or pesticide, s). The ground-water monitoring program can be confined to a limited area, such as a wellhead protection area, or to a broad geographic region, such as an entire county. Localitiea may accompl/~h several objectives by implementing a ground-water monitorlns program: To measure the effectiveness of source controh (such as limitations on underground storage taak~); To measure compI;,mce with dr;n~.g water standards (e.g., Federal or State MA~'imum Coa- t.,-i-.-t Levels (MCLs)); or To provide advance ~ar-ing of COntnminnnl~s i~ grollnd ~r thnt may ~catcn to ;n61~ata ~n~n~- water ~. Ground-water monitoring progrnm, arc de~i~ed to measure contnmin~tion in aquifers, not to prevent or clean up COntnminnfiO~ Localities may combine ground-water monitoring progr,,m~ to identify problems and then implement prevention or cleanup approaches to solve or prevent future problems. CONSIDERATIONS Water ul'iliti~ monitor public drinking water supplies at the tap for compl;nace with drl.t-lag water standards (e.g. MCI.s). In addition, owners or operators of hn~'nrdou8 Waste facilitY, $~7h 8~ landfilk or surface impetmdments, are required by law to monitor ground-water near their facilities to detect potential contsminstlon. Mo~t loci;ties, however, do not conduct their own ongoing ground- water monitoring progrsms because monitoring progrsms require te~hnlcal expertise, access to sn*lytlcal testing laboratories, and sufficient resources to pay for monitoring costs incurred in well-drilllng samplln~ and tastily. Some localities contract with State or Federal agencies, such as State geologic agenclcs or the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), to conduct ground-water monitoring of local wells. Localities may wish to consider the fo]lowing issues: Wlmt is the scope of the program? Determine the extent of the problem and dcdgn thc ground- water monitoring program to meet specific needs. Is the comm~ity concerned, for instance, about ground-water quality in the entire commlmity or in a concentrated area? What contnrnlnants threaten the aquifer? Can the locality take advaatage of existing dam? State and regional agencies may have water quality data from wells in the area. Similarly, well-drillin~ firms are often required to test the water quality of new private wells and USING MONFI~OBING TO FOCUS GR(RP~D-WATER MANAGEMENT on l;~*~nf~ meamr~.~Y may file that information with local or regional agencies. What is the best *tamlmlin~ program? A locality may need to determine the geographic area for sampling, the frequency of sam- piing, thc constituents to be tested (i.e., the specific chemical tests needed), and sampling te~hniques (e.g., protocols established by EPA or the USGS). Will the program include new monitoring wells? Will private well owners be required to submit samples or conduct tests? Will the pragrnm be feasible and affordable? Ground-water moni- toring progrnm% especially for organic chemicals such as pesticide% can be expensive for small communities to conduct. O~ 9 n. ,ly~ [l~or~or~ may and d~'~g new monito~ wells MONITOBING TO ~ PaOBI~M ~ In addidon ~o thi~ mortising l~,ogrem, ~e ~ to n~ d~ ~ ~ ~ed co~c~ of a hi~ by ~ ~ est~h~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~d suppl. ~ ~ ~ ~ce ~b~ ce~ l~d ~ ~ ~ t~ ~ing mtd st~ of c~ h~ ~, ~d ~qui~s a .~d~ ~ to be ~ed by ~e est~en~. In ~er to ap~y f~ a · e ~pl~t m~t submit a hy~ ~p~t ~s~s~nt to ~e ~sl~ ~r ~ui~ ~d appmv~. A~ t~ A~r ~tec~ O~m~e ~d the ~g ~ bo~ sen'e ~ p~ ~d w~ ~ ~ not tied ~t~ ~ ~e ~o~er.20 Hou hoM Warm Collm lon DF..qCRII-iION Household hs~rdous wastes arc a potentlsl source of co.t,,miM~i,-,a of local ~rouad-waicr supplies, Common household wastes include: · Solvents; · H~rbicides; · Septic syama chemicals; · Pool chemicals; · paim~; and · Att supplies. Homeowners may dispose of h~dous wastmt in regular trash pickups or into sewers or seplic sy~ems. These wustes may also be discarded in a suppl~ Wastes di~k*,~d into sewers or sqXic systems may alao bc i~'oduccd Jato a~lU~CrS. One innovative method that several commaaities havc used to al~6atc thc datcat of COiltsimlnnt~n fi'om ~ soGr~ h&s ~ ~O hold h~edooa waste collecfi~ days. Mm. leu C~uty, ladimm, for e.~mp~e, conducted a 'Tox*Away Day' in 1985 that took ia over 6,500 containers of wastes.21 On specified days, a loolity could receive h*~'~rdoIl~ WaMg6 from bc.m~eowners at a central location and dispose of thc wastes thro~,~ah a liccaacd h~dous waste disposal firm. H,~nloua waste collcctioa days provide a means fo~ ~oplc to safely dialx~e of I,~dot~ wastes and reduce thc amount of wastes that will be disposed in la~d~ll~ and wustcwatc~ diapoaal systema and thrcatcu aq~crs. Collection days have been succcsaful in several communities by collecting wast~ and abain8 people to thc a~-geta of diapc~h,~ h~z:,~doua wastc~ with household t~ash or in wast~vatcr syatgma. Since 1983, several communities on the Cai~ Cod, Ma~achmetts, p~nlnnula have participated ia succe~*Ul hous~old ~,~-~nious wustc collection days, wi~h average ~-~,,~6ca of 6,000 gallona of hazardous wastes CONSIDERATIONS Hazardous waste collection days, however, can be costly and may entail some legal liability for thc cost of cleanups. A comm,,ity will spcnd r/mc and money organizing thc collection day, provitl;n_.~ ~ to handle wastes, and hiring a ha-nrdous waste m*n%m..ment firm to transport and dispose the wastes because the locality could be legally liable for cleanup costs should the disposal contractor fail to adequately treat or dispose of the wastes. DEVELOPMENT OF A HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COKLECTION PROGRAM around Bingltam~ initfated a program from 1982 to ll~ to collect hou. w. hotd t,,,,,-dous waste~ to prevent such wastes ft~,n being digonied in tile local sanitary landfill and ~ conaminat~ th~ grou~ v~mr. ~ of waster were held in 1982, 1~ a c~aird tocaO, dn. The to~l quantity of waste ~ om, ~e four-year pe~od wa~ ~timated ~o ~v.~nt l~ss than one I~cent of the amounts The co~ of each collection effo~ inc,,ea~d frora ~I, fiO0 in 1982 ~o nearly $1~000 in 198A FurOw. nno~ questions were nz~d concerning the ie~l liability of the coumy under Fedeazl hazard~m waste la~s for laxmtidly improtv, r dismal of the collected r~astes. Ia mpoa.~ ~he col~c~ion inv~sm was stoplx~t Many coramunides a~vv. ad Ow nadot~ however, haw adored mcce. ssfui ho,..vehold hazardous waste programs to prevent ground-water contemiaation.23 Communities experienced in conducting ha,ar. dous waste collection days have found that carefifl plnn~in~ is required to ensure succosa:24 Publicity. Interest groups and individuals should be encouraged to participate in publloi~ing and or?n;~;-g thc collection day. The public needs advance notice of the date, location, and purpose of the collection. Re~Cluirements for packa~n~ wastes or limits on wastes (e.g., no more fhnn 5 pounds per person) may be in- cluded in publicity materials. Location. The collection point should be access~le, have sufli- clent parklnZ space, and provide adequate cover from rain. Advance arrangements may be necessary if a privately-owned location is used. Disposal. Contractual arrange- meats must be made with a hazardous waste management finn to collect the wastes from the site and transport the wastes to a treatment or disposal site. and waste disposal may Hou~hol~ h.~,~rdous waste collection programs may be usoful in areas where h*~A~Ious substances threaten tO COnt.min.te aquifers through ~ systems, sewra~ or la~dfill,, Collection program* may only collect small amounts of wastes but, in combination with other innovative wellhead protection tools, such as public education program% may increase public awaseneu of ground-water issues and reduce the pOtential for COntaminatirm of aquifers. Water Conservation DESCRIFrlON Water conservation can help a COmmnnlh~ in tWO Ways: by reduel.~ the total ~.anfity of water withdrawn from grouad-water aquifers and by protecting a~oainat COntaminatiOn from saltwator il~en or other contAminAtion by roduci~ tho rate at which contamination sproad~ in the aquifer. If a comm,mity is located near the ocean and relies on ground water, exccsalve withdrawais of watex from the aquifer may draw saltwater into thc aquifer and COntam;nat~. w~lis with braeH.h~ undriulmblc water. Saltwater intntsion is a potential problem in many comm.nltles with brino country. Jack. on Conaty, Mle~leMpi~, for example, is cxparie~oln~ growing problems with saltwater intrusion and is e~plorlng alternative water supply 50usCeS. One method for addre~*;ng present or future problems with saltwater intrusion or aquifer contamln~tion may be to encore-age water couser- vatiom Conservation may allow localities to reduce withdrawals from wells clo~o to the ocean brine aquifers or COntaminated plumes and thus dehy or prevent contamination of water sources. Many coml~lllnitles around the country ah'cady encourage voluntary water consezvntinn nnd have mn,~datory conservation progr-~, during ~ of drought. See Section 5 for sources of inform~aon on specific methods for implementing water con~.~/ation in CONSIDERATIONS Commuaifias have foumi that water users in a community can be persuaded or COml~Jled to increase their water consc~ efforts. Pcrsuaai.g people to vohmt.,'ily comldy (e.g.,by re, duc~ l~wn watering or inlttnllin~ irrigation equipment) requires spen,41-g considerable time edllgntlng ~ wer~ on the need to conserve and the res.lt, are oi~en short- lived. Some steps localities have taken to iuili~e a water conservation effort include: F. duc~ti.~ the public, elected otti- ,.i.1% and the press in thc area to gain wide support; Enli~ting citizens early -- cstabli~hlng a dtizcn adv~o~y commltt. O~ or task force with llnk~ to major water users (e.g., hcmsowner's assOri~ti,-~; farmer's groups, environmental groups, local ,'h~ml~rs of commerce); or other local governmunt of F~ces in the area may provide advice, s~-~n~:e, or other support; time -- buildi%- on s~c~ses and learn from failm--~; and ~ v~-~y co.minion efforts now to prevent mandatory requirements later. Lo~ditles may .run into obstacles in £or people to change tl~ hab/u and to inmdl water l,e~a ~ may aho came certain water users, such as htmer~ to res/st voluntary conser- vation efforts, espe~/ally in Western and South- western Stnt~ rolL. hr on ground wa~r for irriga- tion. Water laws in muny of the~ States pro,/de that tha r/sbt to Smund wat~ ~ on past uses of the water. By adoptln~ conse, rvafion measures, h'rig~ors u~e less water and face the potent~! risk of lo'nE tbeir legal right to their previous ground-water withdrawals. As a result, conservation poses a 'use it or lose it" dile-~a for some irrigntors. Communities have overcome this sort of reluctance by offering property tax incontivas or other innovative inducements to reduce usage. Many co~mn~itie, s have found innovative ways to apply commoll llllld-nso CORtl'Oh and regulatory tools, such as zo~-~ and design standards, to mcct unique local ground-water protection needs. By assessing local ground-water problems and tailoring the warhead protection program to meet those needs, localities may successfully prevent future ground-water COntnminnl~inlg ]Bl~au~e communities face di~erent ground-water problems, no single wellhead protection tool or combination of tools can be prescribed as best for all con--unities. page Sometimes, a rehtively simple approach will work la an agricultural area, for example, where the only threat to ground water comes from livestock operations, a ~ingle tool, such as operat- ing standards for afllmal feedlots, may be su~clent to protect a wellhead area. Similar]y, ill an undeveloped wellhead protection area with affor- dable land prices, a program of land acquisition may be the most effective means of ensuring the q~,Ali*y of the ground water. In other situations, a more complex program may be needed, For e~**~ple, a community could create a wellhead protection district es an overlay zone to existing ZOnln~ areas. ~V'~thin ~ overlay zone, new septic systems could be prohibited and ncw construction could be subject to individual site-plan reviews. Or, if thc community is con- corned about potential leaks from underground storage t~fll~*~ it could ~i~k State a~cncles with cnforc~mcnt of tank regtlletions by community resources, such as voluntccrs, to inventory tnnlr* and report suspected SimilArb/, thc lovelily conld develop effective public education program* to encourage ground- water protcction in thc community through best m*n%a~mcnt practices, for e~mple, or water conservation. All it takes to get started is an undcrstandi%a of local hydrogeologic conditions, a ~.~i~i.~j with thc approp~ v~llheed protection tools, and the mot~ation to protcc~ thc wcllhead Because the list of tools presented in this document is not comprehensive, other toots may be more appropriate for a community. For more information, contact EPA, the State ground-water protection ng~ncy, or check the references listed in Section 5. SECTION 4 IMIR. A LOOAL This seaion soure of ele- ments in implmnc~*~*~ a local ground-water protection and source conUol program. The ~emaem~a ~comtOols used f~r grouod-water prot~cfioa plc~ and must be specifically tailored to local aee~ and condifiom, lacl~41, fo~ a small local goveramant, an iunovative nad carefully desigoed approach to program implemcnt.ti~ may be ~he only way to produce an effective pro,ram. This sec~on discu~ some of tho involved ia developiag a qn*li~,d commuaicating with the local comm..i~], and identifying appropriate cnfurcemcat and moaitoring mctbods. Staffing Local staff will need to have some knowledge about ground water and a de~rce of expertise in the particular regulatory methods chosen. The more f. mili~r the staff is ~ grouad-w~er issue, thc easier it may be fur them to m~.e informed decisions. Knowledgeable staff will be able to: Understandwhycert,,i,, arans need ground-water protection; · Evaluate thc risks of pollutioa; · Enforce effectivcly local rcquircmcnts; · Identify critical problems within the progrnm; and · Evaluate whether or not the program is m~k~%a progress. Staff having experience with thc type of management tool being used will have a better idea of which management and adm;ni*trative techniques are best suited for the program. They will also be able to set realistic goals and their knowledge will aid in developing enforcement and ov~sight methods. The ~kill~ ~ ~O~rlance of the staff are often invaluable assets, partiodRrly in the development of an inuovative wellhead protection program designed to meet local needs. People in local government, however, will not have cxteusive experience in all aspects of ground- water protection because it is a relatively new co~cem. There ere at least three ways to stren~hen personnel resources: .~l~y costs and it may take some time for new staff to become ~.~m.~ with local con'&tious. New staff can, bowev~, bring *i2~*nt new talents to a Broaden tho .~ill. of existing staff with formal tr~*~* in ercus such ~ may ~ a~ilsb~ at 1~ ~o~*fi~ ~ ~A or State en~o~=~ ~n~. Use informal means to thc sldll~ of your existing staff (e.g., 5y .hnring a "circuit rider" ons several Staff can *borrow* expertise from other agoncies or universities, particularly when looklna~ fur inf~ during development of teclmicai information, or seareh;n~ for references and sources of information. Localkies may be able to obtain information and support from outside cutities such as: · Depurtments of he~lth~ · Water control boards or depart- mcnts; · Universities; · State cnviromnenta] agencies; · Divisious of soil and water con- servafion; · Dcpurtments of agriculture; · Dcpartmcnts of honking, com- munity development, or p!~nnin~o~ · Regional pInnn;ng agenciesi · EPA's Regional offices; · Thc District Office of the U.S. Geological Survey, and The U.S. Soil Couservation Set- Communities should not overlook the possibility that a neighboring jurisdiction may have developed a wellhead proteation program and may be Wi.i.g m ~ i~ ~ ~ expedeace. Such support may be patliculorly helpful if the hydrogeologic and land-use conditions are Trsnsfer of knowledge among the staff is hnportant for continlli~ ces rediscovering what has already been learned in the past. There are several techniques that may be useful for this purpose: Developing and or~ -;';-g infor- mation sources, such as guidance manuals and h,ndbooks, will provide quick reference for staff members. For ~m~le, a standard protocol can be developed for inspection of com- mercial and industrial operations. SimHsrly, a formal cheelrlt~t may be useful for review of site Documenting actions, such as the reasons for making p~tiOd~r decisions, provides an im 'Utufional knowledge that will remain even if some staff members leave the program. If, for example, a local/V/is systematically pureh A ~ng development rights within a wellhead protection area, it may prove useful to develop a formal, written strategy that includes the criteria used to select land for acquisition and provides the rationale for determl-;-g offering prices. One-on-one tr. ining for new people is a simple way to transfer thc knowledge of staff members before they leave the program. Communication Successflfl communication can conm'bute to an effective program. Publicity can be used to both info, m and to build support. By proviai.g people who might be regulated by the program, as well as people who might participate in monitoring and enforcement, with clear and concise material on their responm~ilities and on the rationale for thc program, a locality can ina'ease thc awareness and 1-~lldcx'standlng o[ th~ program. 'l~llesc contacts ~ also provide an opportunity to answer questions and to respond to complaints or requests. Involvement of the entire community will ease thc borden on the gcound-watar staff. For e~mple, educated citizans will often anforce wutaring r~trlet~ous within their neighborhoods. Loczl;fies ~ to reach OUt m thc comml,ni~. at large may want m consider teehnlques such as: M~III~ adveA't~e.m~m.~l, and f~ may be an effective way to reach a broad seclion of thc pOplllatioil W~th min{mal oxponso. This would be a good method to remind people that an exisfi-g in effect. Commql~ty ~ faa be used to provide information to and receive input from members of the communiV/that have a specific interest in ground-watar issues. Questionnaires, mailed to a large number of residents, arc useful in going a message out as well as obt-;-;-g f~dback on ground- water issues. Loc-fi~es uying m comm,micate with people or firms directly regulated by the wellhead pro- tection program may want to consider: ~ can be targeted at specific types of recipients, such as gas stations, dry cleaners, or other small businesses that are likely to engage in activities or handle hazardous substances that are subject to regulatlon. Advertisements in trade journAl~ to reach specific types of firms can be useful. Advertisements in local newspapers, while less precisely targeted, may also prove effective. Wne emmet ~' Comm~ may also provide a m~ of Sm~mm's may be used to com- muulcatc detailed i~ormafion to a sm~ll target group. Akhoush sem{n~s maylm'olve greate~ effort and expense, a ~eminar mi~oht bo a nseful way to inform industry of newly developed operating standards. An example of an ~ov~ive approach to communication is the method used in a program to reduce nitrate cont~minstion thro~ ¢onll'ols on fe~dlizer applieafiom AS cited earlier, the Cantrul l~sl~ Natm'ul ~ Distrk't in Grand l~land, Nebr~*ka used severel demonstration farm fields to show that farmers could save on ferfiliTer go~ts wh~ ~dmnltan~:4~lldy r~h~qng collc~.~tratinns Of ri{ti-ate in ~'ot]~ wllt~r. By d~nons~atln~ the effeodvene~ of the progrsm, farmers have been supportive of the program restrietiom. A good relefion~hip with the community my help avoid many ~cnl6e~s and increase the degree of program compliance. Enforcement and Oversight One way to emure that the resources invested in a wellhead protection program arc used cffidenfly is through active enforcement and over,ight of program requirements. Thc program will have fcwer enforcement and oversight problems if the rexluiraments of the program arc detailed and clear, and if there are standards or other ways of measuring when requirements have been met. Compliance h oficn encouraged by provid;ng either incentives or sanctions, such as permits for industry operation or fines for violations of d~isn standards. A locality should clearly de~.i~me who will bo conducting oversight and when this will occur, ~s well as who win take action and what steps will be taken when a violation occurs. Enforcement and oversight methods that might apply to a local program include teehaiquns such as: · Pcrmits; · · Frees; · Mana~mcnt plnnm; · Publication of specific niles; · Clearly stated objective; · Reports demonsV'-~ cc~plianec; · Inspections; and · Ground-water monitoring. One innovative way of limjtfiu$ the _~e~_~ of enforcement and oversight actix4t~ is to look fur opporlllll;['ii*~ tO combine these acth4fias with other local government programs. The agency respects'hie for ~ull~ ~ permit~ for ex- ample, may be able to ensure that design smuderds intended to protect ground water are met duri~ new construction or major renovations. Aaotbor approach is to rely an sulf-anfo~ce- ment of standards. Under this approach, regu~ed s~andards, docomont ~ compli~wx acti~ies on a regular b~s~s, These records mm~ be ms~ts~d for some period of time (perhaps ane year) and mnst be made argUAble ff reques~i by a local ofl~,4~L TI~ approach ,4~mi.,~'es the burden of ongoing enforcement but provides methods for certifying compliance. In short, effective implemontalion is a key element in a successful wellhead protection program. Wlfile many of these issues simply reflect common sense, they are important nonetheless. The best-d~igned program, for example, will have little effect ff there is not sul~cient staff to enforce it. Localities considering different approaches to a wellhead protection program should evaluate how each approach could bo implemented and whether it will actually achieve the desired results. SECTION 5 FINDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Ground-water coilt=mlnstlon is a ~ problem with Federal, State, and local efforts needed to protect present and future ground-water supplies. Although this document has focused on local methods for protecting ground water, Federal and State agencies havo active ground-water protection programs that localities may wish to contact for more information. For information from EPA's Office of Ground-Water Proteciion, please contact a Regional Ground-Water Repre- santutive, as listed in Exhibit 6, or EPA's Om~ of Ground-Water Protection in W~,shln~n, D.C. at (~0~) Sta~e agencies respo-,~ihle for developing and implcme~t~%a State wellhead protcction programs include all the agencies in each State respon~,'h!e for ground-water protection, but it does provide an ;niHsl coutact. Itl addition, other State and regional groups may be able to help establish a local wellhead protection program, incl. ding universities, associations of cities or cOan6,~, national essoei*tiom (e.g., the American Assodation), and geological survey offices. Pa~e 40 EXHIBIT 6 EPA Regional Ground-W.ter Repre~entmiv®s u.s. EPA, U.S. EPA. Pa~k~ VII (913) 236-2970 U.S. EPA, Reglo~ X Page 41 STATE GROUND-WATER PROTECTION CONTACTS Alabama Director, Department of Environmental Management 1751 Federal Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36130 (203 27X-7700 Alaska Commissioner, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation P.O. Box 0 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800 Arizona Assistant Director for Environmental Health Services Arizona Department of Health Services 2005 North Central Room 202oA Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 257-2300 Arkansas Director, Division of Engineering Department of Health 4815 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72205-3867 (504) 66i-2623 California Executive Director, State Water Resources Control Board 901 "P" Street Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 445-1553 Colorado Chief, Drinking Water/Ground Water Section Department of Health 4210 East llth Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 (303) 332-4534 Connecticut DEP Assistant Deputy Commissioner Department of Environmental Protection Room 117, State Office Building 122 Washington Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 (2O3) 566-324~ Delaware Delaware Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources Ground-Water Section Supervisor, Water Supply Branch P.O. Box 1401, 89 Kings Highway Dover, Dehware 19903 (302) 73~-4'703 Florida Assistant Bureau Chief Department of Environmental Regulations 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassce, Florida 32301 (9O4) 488-3601 Georgia Department of Natural Resources Suite 1252 205 Butler Street, S.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30334 (404) 656-3500 Hawaii Supervisor, Drinking Water Section Department of Health P.O. Box 3378 Honolulu, Hawaii 96801 (808) 548-2235 Idaho Chief, Water Quality Bureau Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Division of Environment Boise, Idaho 83720 (208) 334-5867 Illinois Director, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 2200 Churchill Road Springfield, Illinois 62706 (217) 782-9540 Indiana Deputy Commissioner Department of Environmental Management 105 S. Meridian Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (31.7) 232-8595 Iowa Administrator, Environmental Protection Division Iowa Department of Natural Resources Wallace State Office Building Des Moines, Iowa 50319 (515) 281-5211 Kansas Secretary, Department of Health and Environment Forbes Field, Building 740 Topeka, Kansas 66620 (913) 862-9360 Kentucky Director, Division of Water Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet 18 Reilly Road Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 (502) 564-3410 Louisiana Secretary, Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 94381 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-4066 (504) 342-7015 Pa~e 42 Manna Ground-Water Coordinator State Planning Office State House Station 38 Augusta, Maine 04333 (2O7) 289-3261 Maryland Inspection and Compliance Program Maryland Department of the Environment Office of Environmental Programs 201 West Preston Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (301) 631-3625 Massachusetts Director, Division of Water Supply Department of Environmental Quality Engineering 1 Winter Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617) 292-5770 Michigan Chief, Waste Management Division Michigan Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 (517) 373-1947 Chief, Water Supply Division Michigan Department of Public Health 3423 North Logan Street P.O. Box 30035 Lansing, Michigan 48909 (517) 335-8318 Minnesota Director, Division of Environmental Health Minnesota Department of Health 717 Delaware Street, S.E. P.O. Box 9441 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 (612) 623-5320 Mississippi Bureau of Pollution Control Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 10385 Jackson, Mississippi 39209 (601) 961-5171 Missouri Public Drinking Water Program Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 176 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 (314) 751-5331 Montana Director Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences Cogswell BuiJding, Room C 102 Helena, Montana 59620 (406) ~.~?. ?.544 Nebraska Water Quality Division Chief Nebraska Department of Environmental Control Office of the Governor P.O. Box 94848 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-4848 (402) 471-2186 Nevada Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 201 South Fall Street Carson City, Nevada 89710 (702) 885-4670 New Hampshire Commissioner, Department of Environmental Services 6 Hazcn Drive Concord, New Hampshire 03301 (603) 271-3503 New Jersey Assistant Dh'ector, Water Supply and Watershed Management Element Division of Water Resources Department of Environmental Protection 1474 Prospect Street Trenton, New Jersey 08638 (609) 292-7219 New Mexico Director, New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division 1190 St. Francia Drive Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0968 (505) 827-2919 New York Director, Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water 50 Wolf Road, Room 306 Albany, New York 12233-3500 (518) 457-6674 North Carolina Director, Division of Environmental Management Department of Natural Resources and Community Development P.O. Box 27687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 (919) 733-7015 North Dakota Chief, Environmental Health Section Bismarck, North Dakota 58505 (701) 224-2200 Ohio Chief, Division of Ground Water Management Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 1800 Water Mark Drive, Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43226-0149 (614) 481-7183 Oklahoma Oklahoma Department of Pollution Control Northeast 10th and Stonewall P.O. Box 53504 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152 Oregon Director, DcparU~cnt of Envlronmantal Quality 811 S.W. Sixth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 (503) 22%6295 Pennsylvania Associate Deputy Secretary Office of Environmental Management Pennsylw-is Department of Environmental Resources Fulton Btfilcllng; 10th Floor P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 (717) 787-5028 Rhode Island Director Department of Environmental Management 9 Hayes Street Providence, Rhode Island 02903 (401) 27%2771 South Carolina Chief, Bureau of Water Supply and Special Programs Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 (803) 734-5310 South Dakota Division Director Division of Environmental Quality Depaxtment of Water and Natural Resources Joe Foss Building Pierre, South Dakota 57501 (605) 773-5047 Tennessee Administrator, Office of Water Management T.E.R.R.A. Building 150 Ninth Avenue North Nashville, Tennessee 37219-5404 (615) 741-3657 Texas Chief, Groand-Water Conservation Section Texas Water Commission P.O. Box 13087 Austi~ Texas 78711 (5~2) 463-783O Utah Bureau of Water Pollution Control Department of Health 288 North 1460 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84116-0700 (801) 538-6146 Vermont Director Division of Environmental Health Department of Health 60 Main Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 (802) 863-722O Virginia Assistant Director of Operations Virgi~a Water Control Board P.O. Box 11143 Richmond, Virginia 23230-1143 (804) 257-6384 Washington Department of Social and Health Services Olympia, Washington 98504 (2136) 753-7039 West Virginia Director Environmental Engineering Division Office of Environmental Health Services 1800 Washington Street, East Charleston, West Virginia 25305 (304) 348-2981 Wisconsin Administrator, Division of Environmental Standards Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 101 South Webster, 2nd Floor Madison, Wisconsin 53702 (608) 26%7651 Pag~ 4S Wyoming Administrator Water Omdlty Division Department of Environmental Ouality Hcrschier Building 122 W. 25th Street Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 (30~) V/74781 Guam Administrator, Guam Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 2999 Agana, Guam 96910 (671) 646-7579 Northsm Mariana Islands Chief Division of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 1304 Salpan, CM 96950 (670) 2:~-6n4 Puerto Rico Chairman, Environmental Quality Board Box 11488 Santurce, Puerto Rico 00910 (80~) Virgin Islands Commissioner, Department of Planning and Natural Resources 179 Altnna and Welgnnst St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00820 (809) 77*3320 OTHER SOUN( S OF INFORMATION Born, Stephen M., et al. A ~ to Gmungt~.~ ~ P/ann/ng and Management for Loea/C, ovemmenu. (Madison, WI: W'zsco~,~i~ Dcpa~nent of Natural Resources, Whconsln Geological and Natural History Survey, 1987). Born, Stephen M., et aL Wellhead Protection Districts in P, ruconsin: An ~ m~d T~t Appliea~ns. Special Report 10. (Madhon, WI: Whcon~n Department of Natural Resources, W'~in C~olo~ical and Natural History Survey, 19//8). Bureau of Environmental Services. Columbia South Shore Hazardou~ Materials Containn~nt FaciliP.~s ~ Handbook. (Por*l-,,,t. OR: Bureau of Environmental Se~icez, 1988). Cape Cod Aquifer M--%o,~mant Project. Guide to Contaminalion Sources for Wellhead ProteCtion. (Cape Cod, MA: CCTV, ~niy ~S). Central ~cu~ Regional pl...;.g Agency. Gu/d~ to Groundwa~r and Aqu0~ Pro~ecgon. (Bristol, CT: Central Connecticut Regional plnnn;nE Agency, 1981). Commenwe~lth of Mnl~tchusetts, Department of Environmental Ouality ~ _,,2~-~-k~ Division of Water Supply and Offic~ of plnn.;n~ and Pro,ram Management. C.-round~m~' ~ a~ P~otecgon: A Gu/de for Local Ol~Xa/s. (Boston, MA: DEQE, 1985). Conservation Law Foundation of New England Inc. Und~rgound Petroleum Stom~ Trade: Lor~ ~ of a Groand-Water Hazard. (Boston, MA: CLF, 19~4). Mary Ann~ and Harrison, Ellen Z. Protect/ne ~$ Ground Water. (CT: Connecticut Depmhuent of Environmental Protection, 1984). DiNovo, Frn-I~ and Jaffe, Mat/in. Loca/Groundwater Protect/on. (W,,*h;n~on, D.C.: American Aaaodation, 1987). Freeze, R. ~llsn end Cherry, John A. Groundwater. (Engiewood, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1979). Getzels, J. and Thurow, C., cd. Rura/and Small To~m Planning. (W,-,h;n~.on, D.C.: Amerieau plnnn;,~g Asso,~n~on, 1.q79). Hrezo, Margaret, and Nie~nmn, Pat. Protect/ag lfu~;nia'$ Grouadwater. A Handbook foe Loca/Government O~0~cia/~. (Bhcksburg, VA: V'u'~-;* Water Resources Research Center, VL, L~;,~;. Polyte~h-;c Institute and State University, 1986). King County Rezourcc ph*,n;,~ ead W,,,,hi,,~on State Depamnent of Ecology. Ground Water Resource Protection: A Handbook foe Local Planners and Decision Molaws in Washington State. (WA: Hsfl and Associates, Ruth Dight, plnnner Applied Geotechnolog~, Inc., 1986). Massachusetts Department of Environmental Oua~y ~n~neering. Massachusetts Hydrogeologic [nformtaion Matr/x. (Boston, MA: DEQF., 1986). Massachusetts Department of Environmental Qnal;~ En~neering. Pesticides and Drinking Water. (Boston, MA: DEQE, 1987). Moss, E. Inin% cd. Land Use Controls in the United States: A Handbook on the Legal Rights of Citizens. (New York, NY: Natural Resources Defense Council/The Dial Press, 1977). M. I1;ld.~ ~l;,zbeth B..,In Ounce of Prevention: A Ground-Water Protection Handbook for Local Official~. CMorrisvillc, VT: Vermont Departments of Water Resources end Environmental ~.n~necring, Health, and Agriculture, 1984). National Research Council Ground Water ~2ual/ty Pro~:ffon.' State and Local Strateg/es. (WAgh;,~on, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1986). Page, G. W'dliam, ed. P/unning foe Groundwat~ Protection. (Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc., 198'0. pamaa;I. Jeffrey H., and Brown, Stuart M. Aquifer Protection - One Washingon Cio,'s Ea~dence. National Water Well Azaeciation, Focus Conference on Northwe~ern Ground Water Issues. (PoO'ls-d, OR: May 5-7, l~S7). Robinson, Nicholas A. Environmental Regulation of Real Properly. (New York, NY: Law Joarx~ Seining, rs- SpoIrAn~. Water Management Program CoordinatiOn Office and Technical Advisory Commi~ee. Critical Materials Handbook (Spolrane, WA: Water Q,~lity Msna~ement Program, 1986). U.S. Army Corps of ~n~neers, Iastimte of Water Resources. Handbook of Methods foe the E~,,,~,teg.'on of Water Consen, ation foe Municipui and I~ Water Supply. (Ft. Belvoir, VA: Prepared by the Greeley- Polhemus Group, Inc~, October, 1985). U.S. Department of the Interior, Oenlo~cal Storey. National Handbook of Recommended Methods foe Water Data Acquisition. (Reston, VA: USGS, 197'0. U.S. Depamnent of the Interior, Geological Survey. A Primer on Ground Water. (Wa*hin~un, D.C.: U.S. Government Prln~inS Office, 1976). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Ground-Water Protection Strategy foe th~ Environmental Ag~cy. (w**s;,~on, D.C.: F. PA, L0S4). U.S. Environmental Protectiun Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection. An Annotated Bibliogaphy on Wellhead Protection Progar, u. COW*hi,~on, D.C.: OGWP, 1987). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection. Developing A State Wellhead Protection Program: A User's Guide to Assirt State Ag~ncier Under the Safe Drinking Water Act. (Washin~on, D.C.: OGWP, 1988). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection. EPA Activities Related to Sources of Ground-Water Contamination. (W~hin~on, D.C.: OGWP, 198'0. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Proter~ion. Guidelines for Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas. (Wanhln~on, D.C.: OGWP, 1987). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection. Guidance for Applicants for State Wellhead Protection Program Assistance Funds Under the Safe Drinking Water Ac~ ~Va':hin~on, D.C.: OGWP, 1987). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection. Model Assessments for Delineating Wellhead Protection Areas. (Wanhln~on, D.C.: OGWP, 1988). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection. Protecting Ground Water. Pesticides and Agricultural Practices. (Wanhln~On, D.C.: OGWP, 1988). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Protection of Public Water Supplies from Ground-Water Contamina- tion. (Ci-ei--~tl, OH: Center for Environmental Research Information, 1985). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection. State Program Briefs: Pesticides in Ground Water. OV;,=hin~on, D.C.: OGWP, 1986). U.S. Envir~ Protectlon ASency, Office of Ground-Water Pro~ection. Wd/~ad Protect/tm: A D~idon- Ma/~rs' Gu/de. (Ws*h;n~on, D.C.: OGWP, U3. Environmel~al Prc~w. cfion Agency, Office of Ground-Wa~er Protection ~ Cross-Pro. on Summary: Pesticides Under EPA StaO.~tes. (Wa=hi.on, D.C.: OGWP ~mi OPP, LOGO. WI: W'~,consl, Geological ami Natural History Survey, 1985). ENDNOTES 8. Contact: 9. Contact: 10. Contact: 11. Contact: 12. Contact: 13. Contact: 14. Contact: 15. Contact: 1. See Wellhead-Protection Districo in W'ucon~in: An Analysi~ and Test Applications, Stephen M. Born, Douglas A. yan=.=...oen, Allan R. Czecholhislri~ Raymond I. Tierney, and Ronald G. Henn~n~. Wiscon*i- Geological and Natural History Survey, Special Repurt 10, ('Madison, WI: Wisconsin Departmen~ of Natural Resources, 1988), p. 152. See also P/annfn8 for Grounds, at~ Protection, G. W~ll;sm Page, ed., (Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1967), p. 2515. 2. Contact: Lee Steppacher, Region 1, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (617) 565-3605. 3. Source: U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, Protec~g the Nagon's Gronndwafer from Contamination, Oc~obur 1984. 4. Contact: Bob Glascock, Portland, OR, (503) 796-7700. Holman, David. "A Ground-Water Pollution Potential Risk Index System," Proceed/n~ of ,, Nat/on~ Symposium on Local Government Option~ for Ground Water Pollution Contro£ (Norma~ OK: UKlverslty of Oklahoma, June 1986), p. 25. 6. Contact: Bruce Haukom, Sefferson County Zon;ng .4, dmlnls~rutor, (414) 674-21500. 7. Buffer, Kent S. "Urban Growth Manngemen~ and Oroundwat~ Protection: Auzfi~ Te~s', in Planning for Oroun&vater Proration, O. William Page, ed., (Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1987), p. 261-287. Don B,,1,,,an, Department of Fn~neeri~ Scrvicea, Town of Vestal, (607) 748-1514. Linda Boycr, Mayor, Town of Mt. Airy, (301) 7915-(i012. Richard Hariow, Meridian Township Department of D~vclopment Control, ($17) 349-1200. Ron Bishop, Central Platte Natural Resources District Grand Island, NE, (308) 381-5825. Ronald Olson, City of Rento~ Utility E,~necring, (206) 2315-2631. Bob McOrath, Brookln? Health, Department, (d0~ 692-6629. Dr. Edith T~nnonbaum, Long Island Regional pls,,nin~ Board, (1516) 3d0-15189. Tony Sclllls~ East Oran~ Water Department, (201) 16. Contact: Ronald Olson' Ciiy of Renton Utility E,~neering, (206) 17. Topics suggested in the Texa~ Ground Water Protection Strategy, Texas Ground Water Protection Committee, Senuary 1988. 18. Contact: Sprln.o6eld Watershed Commission, (417) 866-1127. 19. Contact: Nick Richardson, Orange County Water District, (714) 963-.~61. 20. Contact: Penelope C. Sharp, Wilton Conservation Commi~,sion' (203) 21. Parrett, Cynthia L. "Marion County, Ivdl~na: De~,l{nS with Ground Water Protection" Proceed/n~ of a National Symposium on Local Government Option~ for Ground Water Pollution Control. (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma, June 1986), p. 233. (Norman, OK: University of Oklnh~rma, June 1986), pp. 242-243. 23. CoRt~ct: ClaRdi~ St-I~*n. Household FI'~,.~ous W~te P~o~m, (607) '~/2-2114. 24. This list is drawn from Timothy Herbe~ Drm~inlc Forcetla, and W. David Conn, ~ H~gou~ Waste Manag~nent ~n Vbginia: A C_ndd~ fo~ Loca~ ~ (Bladabm~ .VA: ~ ~zata~us Waste Management Project, 1.0~6) as cited in Margaret I-Imm and Pat N'v4~-~ Protecting ~'u~a's Grimmer. A Han,~book fo~ Loca/Gownn~t O~0~/~. ~ VA: V'~* Water R~our~es Research Center, V'u~'~i~ Polytechnic Institute and State U~wrsity, 1986). 25. Contact: Dr. Edith Tnan~-ubamn, Long T*lnnd Regional plnanh,~ Board, (516) 360-5189.