eries published by the Trust for Public Land and American Water Works Association rotection S "The health of our waters ater P is the principal measure of W how we live on the land." Land Conservation and the Future of America's Drinking Water Protecting the Source The Trust for Public Land conserves land for people to enjoy as parks, gardens, and other natural places, ensuring livable communities for generations to come. AWWA is the authoritative resource for knowledge, information, and advocacy to improve the quality and supply of drinking water in North America and beyond. AWWA is the Written by Caryn Ernst largest organization of water professionals in Edited by Kim Hopper and David Summers the world. AWWA advances public health, safety, Copyright 2004 by the Trust for Public Land and welfare by uniting the e orts of the full All rights reserved spectrum of the drinking water community. cover photo left © 2001 Al Fuchs Through our collective strength we become cover photo right © 1999 Bill Silliker, Jr. better stewards of water for the greatest good Quotation on front cover by Luna Leopold, of the people and the environment. professor emeritus, Department of Landscape Architecture, University of California, Berkeley left cover photo: Protecting watershed land has many benefits. In Ohio, just south of Lake Erie, Edison Woods o ers public access to 1,300 acres of woods, wetlands, and meadows. right cover photo: More than half a million people receive their drinking water from Mountain Island Lake near Charlotte, North Carolina. PROTECTING THE SOURCE Land Conservation and the Future of America's Drinking Water this report was produced with funding from the following organizations Henry Phillip Kraft Family Memorial Fund of the New York Community Trust Aquarion Water Company Contents Foreword 4 Acknowledgments 5 Executive Summary 6 part one: Making the Case Protecting Water Resources 9 Drinking Water and Public Health 17 The Costs of Not Protecting Source Waters 21 Watershed Management: The First Barrier in a Multiple-Barrier Approach 25 part two: Best Practices Understand Your Watershed 28 Use Maps and Models to Prioritize Protection 30 Build Strong Partnerships and Work Watershed-Wide 33 Create a Comprehensive Source Water Protection Plan 35 Develop and Implement a "Funding Quilt" 38 Conclusion 44 Glossary 45 State Source Water Protection Contacts 46 Notes 50 CASE STUDIES Suffolk County, New York 12 Philadelphia Water Department, Pennsylvania 30 Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 13 Nashua, Massachusetts 33 Brick Township, New Jersey 14 Columbus, Georgia 34 West Groton Water Supply District, Massachusetts 15 Seattle, Washington 36 Carroll County, Georgia 18 Austin, Texas 37 City of Lenexa, Kansas 19 Assawompsett Pond Complex, Massachusetts 38 New York, New York 23 New York/New Jersey Northern Highlands 39 Salem, Oregon 24 North Carolina 40 Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Carrbaro, Ohio's Restoration Sponsorship Program 41 North Carolina 26 Rockaway Township and Morris County, San Antonio, Texas 27 New Jersey 43 Foreword n 1997, the Trust for Public Land (TPL) re- noted, the median percentage of watershed lands leased the first edition of Protecting the Source. The I owned by water utilities nationwide was only 2 report promoted the strong interrelationship percent. That number has not changed signif- between land and water resources and the ab- icantly over the past decade. solute necessity of landuse planning in watershed TPL and AWWA's partnership on this edi- management. Over 15,000 copies of the report tion represents the first e ort in a collaboration to were distributed to communities across the coun- promote suppliers' ability to turn EPA-mandated try. This new edition of Protecting the Source is the re- source water assessments into protection strate- sult of a partnership between TPL and the Amer- gies. Both organizations are strongly committed ican Water Works Association (AWWA) to look to source protection. In the summer of 2003, more closely at the case for land conservation as a AWWA's board rea rmed its commitment to se- © source water protection strategy. curing drinking water from the highest quality PHIL SCHERMEISTER The release of the 1997 report coincided with sources available and to "actively and aggressively" the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Wa- protecting those sources. Land conservation is ter Act that mandated a state source water as- central to TPL's mission, and over 30 years of sessment and planning process-and, we think, partnering with local and state governments on created a renewed interest in a multiple-barrier land protection strategies make it well suited to approach to source protection. By the mid-1990s, partnerships with water suppliers. TPL was increasingly working with local govern- The original edition of Protecting the Source in- Will Rogers ments and water suppliers on land conservation troduced the issue of source protection to landuse strategies for water quality protection. Based on planners-and revisited historical e orts. It high- public surveys testing voter support for new taxes lighted the increasing pressure on supplies as de- to support land conservation, it was clear to us by velopment sprawls into drinking watersheds. This the late 1990s that the public was greatly inter- new edition builds on earlier case-making with ested in using land conservation as a tool to ad- more detailed information on cost benefits, on the dress water quality. increasing challenges to water treatment, and on a COUR In 2002, TPL formed a partnership with growing body of knowledge regarding the use of AWWA to revisit the ideas in the first edition of land conservation for source protection. TESY OF AMERICAN Protecting the Source and to provide a stronger case For 60 years, the safety of most of America's and a set of best practices for using land conserva- drinking water has been dependent on technology. tion for source protection. AWWA's Source Pro- Today, water suppliers are revisiting the idea that tection Committee, composed of volunteer prac- watershed protection-the first barrier against W titioners and scientists, has worked diligently to contamination-needs to, once again, be an inte- ATER support TPL's e orts to ferret out research and gral part of their water quality protection strategy. WORKS ASSOCIA field practice regarding the value and practice of The information and best practices in this report land conservation for protecting drinking water will ensure that suppliers will be well prepared to quality. take on this challenge. AWWA has long promoted the idea of source TION protection. Reporting on the results of a major 1991 AWWA Research Foundation watershed management study, the AWWA Journal asserted that "the most e ective way to ensure the long- Jack Ho buhr Will Rogers Jack W. Ho buhr term protection of water supplies is through land President Executive Director ownership by the water supplier and its coopera- TPL AWWA tive public jurisdictions." At that time, the Journal 4 Acknowledgments he Trust for Public Land (TPL) would like Ed Holland, Orange Water and Sewer Authority, to thank the many people who helped to make North Carolina Tthis report possible. In particular, we would Pam Kenel, Black and Veatch like to thank the members of the American Water Gary Logsdon, Black and Veatch Works Association (AWWA) Source Water Pro- Walton Low, U.S. Geologic Survey, National tection Committee and TPL's Source Water Pro- Water Quality Assessment Program tection Advisory Committee for their support Kirk Nixon, San Antonio Water System throughout this project and the untold hours they K. C. Price, Startex, Jackson, Wellford and committed to conference calls and reviewing Duncan (SJWD) Water District drafts to help TPL "get it right." AWWA's Source Grantley Pyke, Hazen and Sawyer Water Protection Committee Chairperson, Rich- Carol Storms, New Jersey American Water ard Gullick, deserves special recognition for sup- Company porting this project since its outset, not only with Brian Thompson, Aquarion Water Company of technical insight and editorial assistance, but also Connecticut by providing a much needed water utility perspec- tive. Special thanks also to Gary Logsdon, for his TPL would also like to thank the many water detailed, thoughtful, and technically proficient suppliers who participated in our survey, which review comments, and to Grantley Pyke, for his surfaced critical information on the link between extensive references, data sources, and guidance forest cover and treatment costs. We would like to with our water supplier surveys. Without the wis- convey our special appreciation to the many mu- dom of our many advisors, TPL could not have nicipalities, water utilities, and state and federal produced this report or its companion report, agency representatives who provided extensive Source Protection Handbook: Using Land Conservation to materials for our case studies and background data Protect Drinking Water Supplies. for making the case. EPA sta at the O ce of Ground Water and Drinking Water, especially Debra Gutenson, supported TPL's fieldwork, where many of our best practices and case studies TPL's Source Water Protection originated. We are grateful for their partnership and support of our work. Advisory Committee Special appreciation is due to Kathy Blaha, Se- nior Vice President of National Programs at TPL, Scott Abrahamson, New York State, for her support, guidance, and countless hours Department of Environmental Conservation of reviewing and revising drafts. Thanks also to Paul Barten, University of Massachusetts Kathryn Lanouette for her research assistance and Kathy Blaha, Trust for Public Land her tenacious e ort to collect water supplier sur- Suzanne Chiavari, American Water veys, and to Kyle Holland for his assistance with Chris Crockett, Philadelphia Water Department research and other editorial details. Scott Emry, Hampton Roads Planning District TPL is especially grateful for the financial sup- Commission port provided by the Henry Phillip Kraft Family Stephen Gasteyer, Rural Community Assistance Memorial Fund of the New York Community Trust Program and by the Aquarion Water Company, without Richard Gullick, American Water which this report would not have been possible. 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY n 1896, shortly after constructing its first public creased the chances that contaminants will reach water supply system, Seattle leaders agreed on our tap. Some of the treatment challenges faced by Ia long-term plan to eventually own the en- suppliers drawing from intensively used source tire Cedar River Watershed, thus permanently lands include: protecting and securing Seattle's drinking water source. With a 100,000-acre watershed, it was a 1.The emergence of new contaminants that bold vision. suppliers may not be prepared to test or treat One hundred years later, Seattle's original vi- 2.Spikes in contaminant loads due to storms Water is the most sion had finally been achieved. By taking advan- and flooding that make treatment more tage of opportunities, creating dedicated local challenging critical resource issue funding, and patiently sticking to a long-term vi- 3.Constantly changing standards and of our lifetime and sion, the City of Seattle has permanently pro- regulations regarding new contaminants, our children's lifetime. tected one of the most pristine sources of drinking which are present in the water long before water in the country. Seattle made a cost-e ective they are identified as threats to public health The health of our waters investment in clean source waters that will never 4.Increased treatment and capital costs due to is the principal measure of be threatened by pollution from roads, sewers, or higher pollutant loads and changing water how we live on the land. urban runo . It is an investment that will continue quality standards to pay o many times over through reduced treat- -Luna Leopold ment costs and a safe supply of water for genera- The loss of natural lands to development im- tions to come. pacts not only the quality of our drinking water, Unfortunately, watersheds in many other fast- and therefore the cost of treating it, but also the growing communities remain unprotected and quantity. That's because development increases de- threatened by development. New roads, homes, mand for drinking water while decreasing the and commercial development can abruptly alter a ability of water to infiltrate the ground and re- landscape and generate nonpoint source pollution charge water supplies. Sprawling suburban-style that contaminates drinking water supplies. Ac- development contributes even more to water cording to the U.S. Environmental Protection scarcity than does compact development, as it Agency, the leading cause of water quality degra- promotes more lawn areas and larger lots planted dation is nonpoint source pollution (NPS)-over with turf grass, requiring significantly more water 60 percent of pollution in U.S. waterways comes than homes with smaller lots. from runo from lawns, farms, cities, and high- ways, as well as leachate from rural septic systems and landfills. While point sources of pollution -which emit from pipes, canals, or municipal Watershed Management- wastewater treatment plants and industrial facili- ties-have been closely monitored and regulated The First Barrier in a Multiple-Barrier since the 1970s, the management of nonpoint Approach to Source Water Protection sources of pollution has only recently become a national priority.1 The considerable threats to our drinking water Advances in treatment technologies allow require an integrated and comprehensive re- most suppliers to meet current drinking water sponse. Governments and water suppliers are standards, yet the constantly expanding diversity tasked with protecting each droplet of water. of contaminants, coupled with greater pollutant Starting in the watershed or aquifer recharge ar- loads and fewer natural barriers, has made treat- eas, continuing through the treatment process, ment more di cult and expensive, and it has in- and extending to the distribution system, suppli- 6 © KEN SHERMAN ers must safeguard the water from contamination, tially dramatic increase in treatment costs that can The Geauga Park District acquired erecting multiple barriers of protection at every result from the loss of forests, grasslands, and wet- 574-acre Bass Lake Preserve at the stage from source to tap. It is a multiple-barrier ap- lands, and the natural filtration these landscapes headwaters of the Chagrin River, proach; each method of protection acts as a barrier provide. A study of 27 water suppliers conducted 25 miles east of Cleveland, Ohio, in safeguarding water from contamination. by the Trust for Public Land and the American 2003 to help protect regional water Watershed protection is the first and most Water Works Association in 2002 found that quality. Watershed protection funds fundamental step in a multiple-barrier approach more forest cover in a watershed results in lower from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency made the to protecting drinking water. Healthy, functioning treatment costs. According to the study, for every transaction possible. watersheds naturally filter pollutants and moder- 10 percent increase in forest cover in the source ate water quantity by slowing surface runo and area, treatment and chemical costs decreased ap- increasing the infiltration of water into the soil. proximately 20 percent, and approximately 50 to The result is less flooding and soil erosion, cleaner 55 percent of the variation in treatment costs can water downstream, and greater groundwater re- be explained by the percentage of forest cover in serves. the source area.2 When communities invest in land protection This report presents a series of best practices as a way to protect their drinking water, they are to guide communities' source protection e orts investing in the long-term health and quality of and to showcase those communities that are al- life of their citizens-guiding growth away from ready linking land and water protection e ec- sensitive water resources, providing new park and tively. Protecting the Source serves as a reference and recreational opportunities, protecting farmland resource for those seeking best practices in devel- and natural habitats, and preserving historic land- oping and maintaining the highest level of water scapes. Many communities don't realize the cost- quality and, at the same time, preserving our lim- saving benefit of source protection and the poten- ited natural land resources. Executive Summary 7 Best Practices- *A long-term vision, short-term action strategies, and measurable goals Guiding Implementation in the Field *A strategy to fund the plan The following five best practices provide a frame- 5.Develop and implement a "funding quilt": work for developing and implementing a source Implementing a comprehensive source protection plan for city planners, government of- water protection plan requires a significant ficials, and water suppliers. and steady stream of funds. Successful communities secure funds from a variety of 1.Understand your watershed: An e ective source sources-federal, state, local, and private- protection plan is built upon an understand- creating a "funding quilt." By tapping into a ing of your watershed and aquifer recharge range of sources, communities can raise and areas. Scientific data and watershed analyses leverage significant amounts of money and are essential to define an e ective source avoid reliance on a single revenue stream. protection plan and build public support for its implementation. 2.Use maps and models to prioritize protection: Moving Forward Municipal water supply managers and conservation agencies routinely face questions The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Wa- and problems when choosing where to invest ter Act reflected a renewed national focus on in conservation and restoration strategies. source protection as a tool to prevent the contam- Using maps and models to identify high- ination of drinking water supplies. Instead of fo- priority land for protection and restoration cusing on water treatment, emphasis is placed is critical, as funding is always limited and on contamination prevention and on the inte- multiple demands are often made upon a grated management of source areas by requiring valuable piece of land. all states to develop Source Water Assessment 3.Build strong partnerships and work watershed-wide: Plans (SWAPs), which identify threats to every The support and cooperation of a variety of public water supply in the state. These forward- public and private partners will be required thinking amendments mark a return to a set of to e ectively implement a source protection historic best practices in watershed protection plan, as most communities' source areas lie and management. partially, if not entirely, outside of their Local water suppliers support the notion that jurisdiction. E ective source water protection watershed planning and protection activities are can be achieved by influencing others to act key to a multiple-barrier approach. Voters sup- on your behalf, utilizing existing initiatives port it too, with poll after poll showing support for and frameworks, and finding common goals new taxes for land conservation that protects wa- with others.3 ter quality. States are also creating programs and 4.Create a comprehensive source protection plan: using federal Clean Water Act dollars more cre- Creating a comprehensive source water atively to support more comprehensive ap- protection plan is an opportunity to pull proaches to addressing threats from nonpoint together everything learned from analyzing source pollution. State and federal support, a watershed, assessing the threats to drink- through increased and more flexible funding op- ing water, mapping high-priority land for tions, new tools and technologies, and incentives protection and restoration, and developing to promote the creative use of existing programs, partnerships. Such a plan should incorporate: will be key in ensuring their success. With the completion of the Source Water As- *Strategies for both managing threats and sessment Plans, local communities are poised to protecting natural resources move forward on implementing source protection *A combination of voluntary and regulatory strategies. The best practices outlined here o er a strategies guide to success for local communities. 8 Protecting the Source PART ONE MAKING THE CASE Protecting Water Resources s we grow, the land around us changes forever. is at its source-the point at which water falls to Sometimes this happens dramatically as new earth, either seeping into the ground and into un- Aroads, homes, and commercial develop- derground aquifers, or winding its way across the ment abruptly alter our landscape. Other times it earth through surface waterways. The reservoir or is subtle, and we recognize that we've lost farm- waterway itself is the next protection point. Then, land, forestland, and open space over the years. barriers are needed to remove impurities as the The numbers confirm the story. Urbanized water is processed in treatment plants and flows land-land with houses, businesses, or industry- into canals, pipes, wells, and holding tanks, and has quadrupled since 1954. From 1992 to 1997, the finally to the tap. national rate of land development more than dou- Historically, protecting source lands-the wa- bled to three million acres per year, and urban land tersheds that supply surface water and the aquifer area increased more than twice as fast as did pop- recharge areas that cover groundwater sources- ulation between 1950 and 1990.4 These changes has been an essential part of a multiple-barrier impact our communities, our quality of life, and approach to clean drinking water. Cities such as our natural resources-the air and water we need Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, and New York ini- to survive. tiated source water protection e orts in the 1800s Increased sprawl and development brings in- as a primary tool for protecting public health be- creased pressure to develop land in drinking wa- fore chlorination and other treatment technolo- ter source areas. Once development infringes on gies were available. Understanding the value of a source areas, the controls designed to protect wa- protected source, they continue to employ source ter quality become stressed. Although advances protection methods today. in treatment technologies allow most suppliers Many newly developing midsize cities and to meet current drinking water standards, the suburbs have not been as proactive about protect- challenges of storm water runo from agricultural ing their source areas. "Authorities face tough and developed lands make treatment more heavy- choices between building houses for growing handed, complex, and expensive. Compounding populations, chopping down forests for timber, or the problem is the loss of wetlands, forestlands, conserving them to help secure the water sup- and grasslands, which naturally filter water and ply," say Chris Elliot, Director of World Wildlife serve as bu ers to water supplies.5 Fund's Forest for Life Program. The considerable threats to our drinking wa- Fortunately, source protection is receiving a ter require an integrated and comprehensive re- renewed focus. With the passage of the Safe sponse. Consider for a moment that a drop of Drinking Water Act, Congress and the U.S. EPA water often traverses many miles through both emphasized the protection of source waters as a natural and manmade systems before reaching key component of our national e orts to safe- household drinking taps. Governments and water guard America's drinking water. It is increasingly suppliers are tasked with protecting this droplet clear to many at the federal, state, and local levels during its travels-beginning in the watershed that land conservation and watershed manage- or aquifer recharge area, continuing at the treat- ment practices are necessary to reduce pollutant ment facility, and extending through the distribu- loads to aquifers, rivers, and reservoirs in our com- tion system-ensuring the purity of each glass of plex watersheds. drinking water poured by the consumer. The This report makes a case for land conservation process is a multiple-barrier approach; each method of as an essential element of the multiple-barrier ap- protection acts as a barrier safeguarding water proach to water protection. It does so by present- from contamination. ing a series of best practices to guide communi- Considering the water droplet's journey, the ties' e orts in the field, and by highlighting those first opportunity to protect it from contaminants communities that already link their land and 9 water protection e orts. Protecting the Source serves leachate from rural septic systems and landfills. As as a reference and resource for those seeking water from rainfall or snowmelt flows over the best practices in protecting their precious water ground, it carries with it natural and human-made resources and preserving their sensitive natural pollutants. Eventually, these pollutants reach our lands. lakes, rivers, oceans, and even underground The Trust for Public Land has also produced a sources of drinking water, as they seep into the companion report, Source Protection Handbook: Using ground. Land Conservation to Protect Drinking Water Supplies, According to the U.S. Environmental Protec- which provides detailed guidance on how to im- tion Agency, the leading cause of source water plement each of the best practices presented in degradation is nonpoint source pollution.8 Al- Despite the expenditure Protecting the Source.Copies of the handbook can be though agriculture is currently the greatest non- of hundreds of billions ordered from TPL's Web site, www.tpl.org. point source threat to drinking water quality, of dollars over the last urban runo is the fastest-growing threat nation- wide. The development of formerly forested land 30 years, the 1972 Clean Water Act goals of fishable Nonpoint Source Pollution- can also exacerbate existing agricultural pollu- tion, for it removes the natural bu ers that once and swimmable waters The Primary Threat trapped and filtered those pollutants before they reached waterways. In Carroll County, Georgia, have not been achieved, Point sources of pollution-which emit from Commission Chairman Robert Barr has seen that largely because contaminants pipes, canals, or municipal wastewater treatment change firsthand. "In our county there has been a from di use [nonpoint] plants and industrial facilities-have been closely rapid shift from agricultural landuse to suburban monitored and regulated since the 1970s, but the landuse," explains Barr. "Row crops are no longer sources have not been management of nonpoint sources of pollution a major landuse. The greatest new contributor to controlled successfully. (NPS) has only recently become a national prior- water quality degradation is accelerating residen- National Research ity.7 NPS pollution includes runo from lawns, tial and commercial development." Council, 20016 farms, forests, cities, and highways, as well as The impact of NPS on the quality of un- CLEAN WATER ACT AND SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT ongress passed mandates for drinking tion of estuary plans. In 2003, states Safe Drinking Water Act: Under the Safe Cwater protection in the 1980s that form were awarded $1.29 billion and pro- Drinking Water Act, the EPA awards grants the basis for modern water protection activi- vided $4.7 billion in assistance for to states to fund Drinking Water State ties. Although these laws focus on mitigat- wastewater, nonpoint source, and estu- Revolving Funds (DWSRFs). State Revolv- ing existing pollution and constructing or ary projects. Currently, only about 5 ing Funds provide eligible public water sys- upgrading wastewater and drinking water percent of the Clean Water SRFs are tems with loans and other assistance to treatment plants, the Clean Water Act and used for mitigating nonpoint source finance infrastructure projects. Up to 31 Safe Drinking Water Act can potentially pollution, with 95 percent going toward percent of these capitalization grants can fund initiatives focused on protecting wastewater treatment infrastructure.10 be set aside to administer the SRFs and source waters via land conservation. * Nonpoint Source Program (Section state source protection programs and to fund source water protection activities, Clean Water Act: The goal of the Clean 319): Provides grants for projects that including land acquisition. Up to 15 percent Water Act is to restore and maintain the address nonpoint source pollution, of the set-aside can be used for land con- chemical, physical, and biological integrity such as implementation of best man- servation and voluntary, incentive-based of the nation's waters so that they can sup- agement practices, restoration, and protection measures, with no more than 10 port the protection and propagation of fish, public education. Approximately $237.5 percent used for a single type of activity, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and million in grants was distributed for this such as land protection. In 2003, states on the water. Under the Clean Water Act, the program in 2002. The Nonpoint Source were awarded $787.4 million and were EPA funds three water quality programs:9 Program receives only 17 percent of provided $1.3 billion in loans for infrastruc- * Clean Water State Revolving Fund clean water funding, despite the fact ture improvements. Since the act's incep- (SRF) (Section 212): Provides loans for that NPS pollution now accounts for 60 tion, only $2.7 million in assistance has water quality improvements and has percent of all pollution in U.S. water- been used by systems to protect less than traditionally been used for wastewater ways.11 2,000 acres of land under the set-asides.12 treatment infrastructure, but it can also * National Estuary Program (Section be used to fund the implementation of 320): Funds projects that protect or nonpoint source management plans improve estuaries. The program distrib- and the development and implementa- uted $17 million in 2002. 10 Protecting the Source treated water depends on several factors, includ- SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS ing the amount of pollutants carried by runo (pollutant load) and the pathway the water takes n 1996 the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was amended, placing a when it flows through the source area. If water Inew focus on source water protection.The law requires every state to flows quickly over the surface of the land, most of examine existing and potential threats to the quality of all public water sup- the pollutants it carries will reach the main body plies and to develop a Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP). The of water. If the water flows more slowly or infil- assessments' purpose is to inform and motivate local source water protec- trates the ground, more of the pollutants will be tion activities, which the EPA considers the critical initial component in the filtered out, either by adhering to plants and soil SDWA multiple-barrier protective scheme. Instead of focusing on water treatment, the amendment emphasizes contamination prevention and the or by being absorbed through plants' root systems. integrated management of multiple supplies that share one source area. Pollutants are carried between surface water and As part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's requirement groundwater, which means that both resources that states conduct source water assessments on all source areas within must be monitored and protected. their jurisdiction, states have identified all of the source areas that supply Water resource protection requires an under- public tap water, inventoried potential contaminants, and assessed sus- standing of the interconnection between ground- ceptibility to contamination. At the completion of the SWAPs, states must water and surface water. The terms "surface wa- inform the public of the results. Although some resources were provided ter" and "groundwater" refer to the same water to the states to conduct assessments, no resources were authorized or regardless of its source. They merely clarify the lo- appropriated for implementing protection strategies, and no mandate that cation of the water at a particular time.13 Accord- it occur has been given. Implementation will have to be locally driven and ing to a national study performed by the U.S. Ge- creatively funded. Contact your local water supplier or your state source water protection office for more information and for a copy of the SWAP for ologic Survey, an average of 52 percent of stream your water supply. Contact information for state source protection offices flow nationally is provided by groundwater. The can be found at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/protect/contacts.html. groundwater contribution can vary tremendously depending on the season and watershed charac- teristics, but the important point is that ground- water pollution, chemistry, and flow can directly impact surface water quality, as surface water pol- lution can impact groundwater quality. In areas carrying sediment and pollutants to surface water where supply wells are located in shallow aqui- bodies.14 fers adjacent to streams or lakes, supply wells can The riparian zone is the area where streams in- reverse the direction of groundwater flow under teract with the land, and it is a stream's best de- pumping conditions, and they can induce aquifer fense for keeping nonpoint source pollutants out infiltration through stream and lake bottoms. of its waters. The riparian zone protects water The close relationship between ground and quality by processing nutrients, filtering contami- surface water makes it imperative that water sup- nants from surface runo , absorbing and gradually pliers understand what percentage of their supply releasing floodwaters, maintaining fish and wild- comes from each in dry and wet seasons, and that life habitats, recharging groundwater, and main- they act to protect those resources. A closer look taining stream flows.15 at just how ground and surface water sources are impacted by nonpoint source pollution follows. Groundwater and Nonpoint Source Pollution Surface Water and Nonpoint Source Pollution Water moves underground through pores in the soil and cracks in surface rocks. An aquifer is rock Surface water is precipitation that does not or soil that contains and transmits water and thus infiltrate the soil. Instead, the water moves as can be a source of underground water.16 In a con- overland flow to streams and rivers. The land area fined aquifer, layers of impermeable clay or rock, from which water drains into a surface water sup- above and below the aquifer, protect the water ply-a stream, reservoir, or lake-is called a water- from some contaminants and restrict the water's shed. In a watershed with natural groundcover, movement. The recharge area for a confined aqui- about 50 percent of precipitation infiltrates the fer, where surface water infiltrates the land and re- ground and only about 10 percent flows over the supplies the aquifer, may be miles from a well that land surface as runo . In a highly developed wa- draws water from it. tershed, with its impervious surfaces and lack of In an unconfined aquifer, water can infiltrate vegetation, about 15 percent infiltrates and ap- directly from the surface to the aquifer, carry- proximately 55 percent becomes surface runo , ing landuse contaminants with it. The extent to Part One: Making the Case 11 which contaminants are filtered from groundwa- CASE STUDY ter as it passes through the soil depends on how Su olk County, New York porous the soil is. Where the soil is sandy or porous, water flows more quickly below the sur- Located at the eastern end of Long Island, face, and fewer contaminants are removed. Su olk County contains much of New York's Reservoirs, lakes, aquifers, and other standing premier ecosystem, the Pine Barrens, under- bodies of water tend to act as sinks for contami- neath which is the island's largest supply of fresh nants. When these water supplies are damaged, drinking water. Su olk County Water Authority useable water resources are lost.17 Some communi- is the largest groundwater supplier in the nation, ties already connect more than one potential serving 1.2 million residents from this federally source to their treatment facility so as to choose designated sole source aquifer. Heavy develop- which source to use at a particular time, depending ment in the aquifer recharge area in recent on shifts in source water quality and the ability to decades led to concern about damage to this treat substances in the water. In extreme cases, sensitive and unique ecosystem and the threat drinking water sources must be abandoned be- of nonpoint source pollution seeping into cause water quality has become unsafe or too the groundwater. costly to treat, causing communities to invest tre- In response to this concern, in 1987 Su olk mendous resources in developing new sources. County voters overwhelmingly approved (83 Wetlands and forested land, if left undeveloped, percent to 17 percent) the continuation of a can help slow and filter water before it gets to lakes, quarter-cent of the county's sales tax to purchase rivers, and aquifers, keeping these drinking water critical watershed areas through a new Drinking sources cleaner and making treatment cheaper. Water Protection Program. As part of this pro- gram, the county acquired watershed lands in one of the Special Groundwater Protection Areas (SGPAs); seven SGPAs are designated within the deep aquifer recharge areas of the county. Since the inception of the program, over $220 million has been spent on land acqui- sitions. When the program was due to expire in DRINKING WATER TREATMENT 2000, voters once again voiced their support for drinking water protection by extending the pro- rinking water treatment is one of the most critical barriers in a gram through December 2013. By leveraging Dmultiple-barrier approach, as it provides a direct barrier against disease agents and is considered essential in protecting public health. funding from their sales tax, Su olk County also Whether drinking water comes from groundwater sources or surface received a $75 million loan in the late 1990s and water supplies, it is likely treated before it reaches the tap. Even in the another $62 million in 2003 from New York's most pristine watersheds, natural pollutants such as animal waste and Clean Water State Revolving Fund to acquire organic matter can impair the quality of water. land in priority watershed and aquifer recharge Modern drinking water treatment can reduce most source water con- areas. taminants to acceptable levels before water is delivered to consumers. In the early 1990s, even as voters were The types of treatment necessary depend on the quality of the source approving the use of sales tax revenues to protect water and the pollutants encountered. Water quality standards are cre- the Pine Barrens, several hundred development ated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency based on extensive projects were being proposed in the central Pine public health research. These standards guide the amount and type of Barrens. If these projects had been successful, treatment needed for all ground and surface water supplies. A wide variety of treatment methods are currently in use, and new the ecological integrity of the Long Island Pine technologies are employed regularly to ensure drinking water meets cur- Barrens would have been severely compromised. rent standards. Treatment costs can increase significantly when more rig- A grassroots advocacy e ort by the Long Island orous treatment is needed to cleanse contaminated source water.18 Pine Barrens Society to educate the public and Most suppliers of surface water clarify the water through a sedimenta- elected o cials about the ongoing threats to the tion process (letting particles settle out), then filter water through sand or Pine Barrens led to the passage of the Long high-tech membranes in order to remove particles and microorganisms. Island Pine Barrens Protection Act in 1993. Some facilities treat water with carbon or mix it with air to remove pollu- The legislation established a Central Pine tants or reduce taste and odor. The final treatment state is disinfection, Barrens Commission to oversee the develop- often using chlorine, to kill disease-causing microorganisms. All surface ment and implementation of a Comprehensive water supplies must be disinfected, although a small number of highly Management Plan (CMP). The plan delineated protected supplies are not required to be filtered. Many groundwater supplies are disinfected, though some are used without any treatment. two major regions within the 100,000-acre For more information on how drinking water is treated or on treatment area-a 52,000-acre core preservation area standards, go to www.epa.gov/safewater/DWH/Treat/.html. where no new development is permitted and 12 Protecting the Source a 48,000-acre compatible growth area where lim- To ensure that future investments in the pro- ited, environmentally compatible development tection of MIL had the greatest impact on clean is allowed. The CMP also recommended that water, the MIL Initiative created GIS models of The South Central 75 percent of the core preservation area be pre- the watershed to help them identify the highest Regional Water Authority served through public acquisition. The plan was priority areas for conservation. Modeling showed (SCRWA) in Connecticut adopted by the Pine Barrens Commission in that although protection of the lakeshore and closed an aging treatment 1995. Various landuse and zoning tools are used regulated floodplain was important, protection plant on Lake Whitney to accomplish the preservation goals of the act, of the smaller streams and tributaries in the because it could no longer including transfer of development rights, cluster headwaters was equally important. As a result, effectively treat the raw zoning, and conservation easements. the MIL Initiative set a goal to protect both 80 water, which had degraded significantly due to heavy CONTACT: Tom Isles, Planning Director percent of the lakeshore and 80 percent of its development in the ADDRESS: Suffolk County, 100 Veterans Highway, tributaries. In 1999 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Havtiange, NY 11788-0099 County passed a $220 million land-banking watershed. Almost a decade after the plant PHONE: 631-853-5190 bond to preserve land countywide for future was shut down, the water FAX: 631-853-4044 public needs, including open space, parks, green- authority is investing EMAIL: Tom.Isles@co.suffolk.ny.us ways, and schools. Fifteen million dollars of the bonds were directed to preserve land within the substantial resources in MIL Watershed. Over the next few years, the building a facility with City of Gastonia, the City of Charlotte, and the more advanced treatment CASE STUDY North Carolina CWMTF also contributed and filtration capacity that Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina funds to support land protection in the MIL will again make Lake Watershed. These years of focused protection Whitney a safe and viable Mountain Island Lake (MIL), a section of the e orts have protected 74 percent of the source. Because they Upper Catawba River that has been shaped by a lakeshore and 20 percent of the tributaries. understand the challenges series of dams, is a meandering lake that divides Since 1999, more than $31 million has been and costs associated with Charlotte-Mecklenburg County from Gaston spent in Charlotte-Mecklenburg County for treating degraded water, and Lincoln Counties in the southern piedmont land acquisition. Approximately 4,009 acres the SCRWA is now one of North Carolina. Although it receives some have been acquired in this county, including of the most progressive of its flow from Lake Norman, to its north, it donations of floodplains for greenways. Over suppliers in the state when receives most of its flow and pollutants from $9 million has been spent in Gaston and Lincoln it comes to protecting the Mountain Island Lake Watershed, a 69- Counties. Today more than 6,000 acres of source water, investing square-mile watershed of which 72 percent lies watershed land is protected. in land conservation and in Charlotte-Mecklenburg County. The lake In addition to land conservation strategies, watershed management supplies drinking water to about 600,000 peo- regulatory protections of landuse and point strategies to protect ple in Charlotte-Mecklenburg County and in sources of pollution are also needed in a water- water resources. Gastonia and Mount Holly, both in Gaston shed where much of the land is already devel- County. oped. In 1996, in response to declining water In the past decade, rapid development in the quality conditions and the need for a broader set MIL Watershed raised alarms with local leaders, of watershed protection tools, the Charlotte- who feared that what they had taken for granted Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners for so many years-clean water from Mountain took a stand in support of clean, useable creeks Island Lake-was threatened by increasing sedi- and lakes by directing sta to develop a plan to ment and fecal coliform from new development. ensure that all surface waters in the county were In 1997, in response to this growing concern, the fishable and swimmable, a daunting task consid- Foundation for the Carolinas convened a group ering only about 15 percent of the county's creeks of partners to create and implement a plan to then met the criteria. The Surface Water protect the MIL Watershed, which became Improvement and Management (S.W.I.M.) Pro- known as the Mountain Island Lake Initiative. gram was created, and it has been instrumental The initiative's formation coincided with the in the adoption of a countywide stream bu er state's creation of the North Carolina Clean system, implementation of streamside forestry Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF), and restoration projects, the 70 percent reduc- the first state-funded program in the nation tion of fecal coliform through reduction of sewer dedicated to funding activities to protect and discharges, and the reduction of sediment improve waterways statewide. The CWMTF's through improved inspection and enforcement first grant was $6 million for the MIL Initiative's of erosion control from construction sites. e ort to protect a large tract on the western Since the MIL Initiative and the S.W.I.M. shore of the lake. Program were created, water quality has measur- Part One: Making the Case 13 ably improved throughout the MIL Watershed much as 16 times more water than did homes on a and Charlotte-Mecklenburg County as a whole. more traditional urban grid with smaller lots. Per Current e orts focus on raising additional funds capita use of public water is about 50 percent to protect the remaining high-priority streams, higher in the western United States than in the through acquisition and easements and by east, due to the amount of landscape irrigation implementing the second and third phases of needed to maintain lawns in more arid regions.22 the S.W.I.M. Program. Increased imperviousness, over-appropriated CONTACT: Nancy Brunnemer rivers, and excessive groundwater pumping ADDRESS: Mecklenburg County Real Estate have become serious problems across the United Department, 1435 West Morehead Street, States. Many eastern communities are now fac- Suite 120, Charlotte, NC 28208 ing frequent water shortages similar to those of PHONE: 704-336-8828 their western counterparts. For much of the mid- EMAIL: brunnnm@co.mecklenburg.nc.us Atlantic region, 2002 was the driest year in over WEB SITE: http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/ 100 years of record-keeping, as communities up LUESA/Water+and+Land+Resources/ and down the coast declared drought emergencies Programs/Water+Quality and implemented water restrictions. A recent American Rivers report looked at the change in the amount of impervious, or paved, surfaces from 1982 to 1997 in cities around the Protecting Water Quantity country. American Rivers sought to estimate the amount of water "lost" to runo and evaporation The loss of source lands impacts not only the qual- as a result of increased development and impervi- In the past 100 years the ity of our drinking water, but also the quantity. ous surfaces. A key finding was that the potential world population tripled, Development increases demand for drinking wa- amount of water lost annually ranged from 57 bil- but water use for human ter while decreasing the ability of land to recharge lion to 133 billion gallons in the Atlanta metropol- water supplies. itan area alone. Atlanta's losses in 1997 amounted purposes multiplied sixfold! When water infiltrates soil, the ground itself to enough water to supply the average daily house- World Water becomes a temporary storage tank; rather than hold needs of 1.5 million to 3.6 million people per Council, 200019 evaporating into the atmosphere or flowing out to year.23 the ocean, water is stored underground for days, "In the past, water barely even entered into our weeks, or years, slowly supplying our water sources. calculations," says J.T. Williams, chairman of Kil- Rainfall needs to infiltrate the ground and re- learn, Inc., which has developed thousands of golf charge groundwaters in order to maintain supplies courses and clubhouse community homes in the during dry seasons. Where land is developed, wa- Atlanta metro area in recent years. But now, Mr. ter infiltrates less and moves more rapidly and in Williams admits, "People in the development in- much greater volume than under natural condi- dustry are a little nervous," with water wars brew- tions. The result is a decrease in groundwater ing in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida.24 flows into streams, less recharge into aquifers, an increase in the magnitude and frequency of se- vere floods, and high stream velocities that cause severe erosion, damaging water quality, aquatic CASE STUDY habitat, and infrastructure.20 Additionally, remov- Brick Township, New Jersey ing groundwater at a faster rate than recharge can replace it causes permanent loss of groundwater The Brick Municipal Utility Authority (MUA) storage capacity, increased movement of contam- provides drinking water to more than 100,000 inated groundwater into clean groundwater, more residents in Brick Township and Point Pleasant saltwater intrusion into coastal basins, and reduc- Beach, drawing 75 percent of its raw water from tions in stream flow.21 the Metedeconk River and 25 percent from deep In addition to decreasing infiltration, sprawl- and shallow wells. Throughout the Metedeconk ing suburban-style development also contributes Watershed, seven other communities also draw to water scarcity because it promotes more lawn ar- their drinking water from wells. eas and larger lots planted with turf grass. Accord- The Metedeconk River Watershed, with its ing to the EPA, an average of 32 percent of resi- headwaters in Turkey Swamp Wildlife Manage- dential water use is for outdoor purposes. A study ment Area, has benefited from extensive wet- in the Seattle metropolitan area found significant lands that cover 30 percent of the watershed, di erences in water use among suburban-style relatively intact riparian forests, gentle topogra- housing. Large suburban properties consumed as phy, and sandy, well-drained soils. As a result, 14 Protecting the Source CHALLENGES FOR SMALL WATER SYSTEMS he more than 45,000 small commu- and limited training. Rates tend to be nity w T ater systems in the country serve very low and there is very little will to fewer than 3,300 people each. Over invest in system upgrades unless there 30,000 of these systems are very small, is a crisis, as rural residents assume serving fewer than 500 people each. their raw water is clean. At NeRWA, Because of less stringent disinfection we try to help small systems address requirements and the large number of these challenges with on-site technical small, rural groundwater supplies, ground- assistance in operation, maintenance, water sources for small communities vio- finance, governance and source pro- late drinking water standards for microbes tection planning.30 and chemicals almost twice as often as those serving larger communities-58 per- cent of outbreaks as opposed to 33 per- cent25-leaving people served by these CASE STUDY systems even more vulnerable to out- West Groton Water Supply District, breaks of waterborne illness.26 The vast majority of small water sys- Massachusetts © ERNEST BRAUN tems use groundwater supplies, which are threatened primarily by bacteria from rural The West Groton Water Supply District Source water protection is critical for small communities septic effluent. It can be particularly chal- supplies water to approximately 520 house- dependent on local groundwater supplies. lenging and costly for small water sup- holds in West Groton, Massachusetts. The pliers to upgrade treatment technologies sole source of drinking water is a well field to address contamination threats and to located in a shallow, sand-and-gravel- which was not deemed a source water meet increasingly strict drinking water stratified drift aquifer with 47 intercon- threat. The Water Supply District wanted standards.27 A $100,000 capital investment nected wells. The aquifer is only 30 feet to control only the commercial portion of is considered minor for a system that deep and is directly under the influence of the site but could not buy it separately from serves over 300,000 people, yet it may be surface water. It is thus highly susceptible to the rest of the property. If it bought the out of reach for a system serving fewer contamination from inappropriate landuse. entire parcel as a public entity, the Water than 5,000 people. In 2000, almost 40 per- For years the West Groton Water Sup- Supply District would not be able to resell cent of privately owned community water ply District has been proactive about pur- any portion of it to recoup costs. systems serving fewer than 500 people chasing and protecting land in its Zone I To solve the dilemma, the Water Supply suffered financial losses, as compared source protection area (a 250-foot bu er District created the West Groton Water to only 5 percent of those serving over around the well field), and critical parcels Supply District Realty Trust to own and 100,000 people.28 in its secondary Zone II source protection manage the land. This allowed it to pur- According to the Committee on Small area. Because it is a small district with lim- chase the property, subdivide it, and resell Water Supply Systems assembled by the ited resources, it needs to be strategic about the house. The house was subsequently National Research Council, "small water when and how to acquire land and finance placed back on the tax rolls, and most suppliers should seek the cleanest water its long-term protection. important, the Water Supply District supply available and protect that resource In 1985, the Water Supply District recouped $200,000 of its $260,000 invest- before investing in new treatment tech- detected trace amounts of Trichloroethylene ment. The district continues to control the nologies, other than disinfection."29 (TCE) solvents (a petroleum by-product) commercial site, using it for storage, and the The National Rural Water Association in its source water. A machine shop in the creek that runs through the property and is (NRWA) assists small suppliers around Zone II protection area was identified hydrologically linked to their well fields. the country with planning and implement- as the source. The TCE was no longer During negotiations with the landowner, ing source protection strategies in order to detected shortly after the machine shop was the Water Supply District completed an envi- protect public health and avoid costly treat- closed. Fifteen years later, the landowner ronmental assessment of the property and ment upgrades. According to Jennifer decided to sell the 1.5-acre commercially discovered leaking underground oil tanks. Palmiotto of the Northeast Rural Water zoned property. In order to avoid potential The Massachusetts Department of Environ- Association, a regional office of NRWA, future contamination from commercial use mental Protection immediately removed the of the property, the Water Supply District tanks and began clean-up. By controlling the small rural water systems are faced decided to acquire it. The Water Supply site, the Water Supply District was able to with increasingly complex challenges. District had only $60,000 in reserves to avoid the future contamination of their well In order to safeguard public health, spend, which was not nearly enough to fields and the potentially significant public water systems must meet the require- cover the $250,000 asking price and the health threat and clean-up costs. ments of ever-growing regulations and need for environmental assessments and CONTACT: Gordon Newell monitoring demands while struggling to potential clean-up. In order to protect the ADDRESS: West Groton Water Supply make ends meet. Many of these rural property, the Water Supply District needed District, P.O. Box 246, systems are managed by volunteer a creative solution. West Groton, MA 01472 boards and have one operator, who is Aside from the machine shop, the only PHONE: 978-448-3711 also often a volunteer with limited time other building on the lot was a small house, FAX: 978-425-9372 Part One: Making the Case 15 water use to ensure that water supplies would last into the fall, when authorities could only hope for rain. The restrictions included a man- datory ban on all nonessential outdoor water use, including no watering of lawns and gardens; no washing of cars, buildings, sidewalks, and drive- ways; and no outdoor use of water for ornamen- tal or aesthetic purposes, including fountains. It also banned serving water in restaurants, unless specifically requested by the patron. Eventually, low rainfall caused salt water intrusion into the Metedeconk River, forcing Brick MUA to shut down its surface water intake and rely solely on groundwater wells, which were also low. Although the drought led to severe restric- tions on water use, it brought a beneficial aware- ness to watershed residents of the threats to their water supply, creating greater support for watershed protection. The Brick MUA is taking advantage of this increased interest and of the incentives provided by new storm water manage- ment regulations, and is expanding its source protection activities. In 2002, Brick MUA hired a Watershed Coordinator to facilitate activities with the seven townships and two counties in the watershed and is looking at ways to build partnerships and provide incentives for water- shed protection and growth management. Brick MUA plans to work with other jurisdictions to develop storm water management plans, edu- cate the public, and implement protection and restoration activities. Additionally, in order to better understand their watershed and to guide and support protection strategies, Brick MUA has implemented a Watershed Management Model to estimate runo and pollutant loads. Building on Brick MUA's monitoring and © 2001 CLARK JONES modeling program, priority areas for protection and restoration have been mapped throughout the watershed. In 2001, the Trust for Public New Jersey's Turkey Swamp storm water runo is slower, infiltrates more eas- Land, working in partnership with Freehold Wildlife Management Area, ily, and is cleansed naturally by large wetland Township in Monmouth County and Jackson which expanded in 2001 to include forests. With urban development now covering Township in Ocean County, purchased over the Metedeconk River and Toms 35 percent of the watershed, rainwater flows 1,794 acres adjacent to Turkey Swamp Wildlife River headwaters, safeguards the overland and out to the ocean, instead of Refuge, expanding the refuge's boundaries and Barnegat Bay watershed and infiltrating into the ground and recharging the protecting critical wetlands and forests in the the region's water supply. shallow aquifer. In this way it is lost as a poten- headwaters. Brick MUA will continue to work tial freshwater source. Although Brick MUA with TPL and others to protect land critical to draws most of its water from the Metedeconk groundwater recharge, ensuring the quality and River, it is almost completely dependent on the quantity of future supplies. shallow aquifer for its supply, as 60 to 80 per- CONTACT: Rob Karl, Source Water Administrator cent of the Metedeconk's baseflow comes from ADDRESS: Brick Municipal Utility Authority, 1551 groundwater. Highway 88 West, Brick, NJ 08724 After almost four years of drought condi- PHONE: 732-458-7000, ext. 271 tions, water quantity has become a critical issue EMAIL: LGialanella@brickmua.com for local water suppliers and residents alike. In WEB SITE: http://www.brickmua.com 2002, severe restrictions had to be placed on 16 Protecting the Source Drinking Water or have only recently been identified as potential health threats. and Public Health In the 1980s, Cryptosporidium, a waterborne pathogen, was first identified as a potential threat Throughout history, the contaminants in source to human health. By the early 1990s multiple large Clean water, clean food, waters have changed, as has our understanding of outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis were traced to in- and sewerage have led to what is safe and what is not. The introduction of fected drinking water sources. Although some chlorine in the early 20th century, combined with suppliers had been required by the EPA to test for two-thirds of the increase filtration, dramatically reduced waterborne dis- Cryptosporidium and some were testing volun- in life span from 1900 to ease in the United States and has made the Ameri- tarily, it was not until 2002 that rules were passed today. Drinking water can water supply one of the safest in the world. But requiring all suppliers to test for and treat Cryp- these technological advances have caused people tosporidium. degradation is a critical to question the importance of protecting source Emerging pathogens pose one of the greatest threat to the foundation lands. "The bargain made by some communities of waterborne threats to public health. According to of our societies.38 a century ago was to trade source water protection epidemiologists, recently emerging pathogens, for a future reliance on water treatment. The wis- such as Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and Hepatitis Dr. Jeffrey Griffiths, est choice is to marry the two together whenever E,32 share similar characteristics. They tend to be:33 MD MPH & TM, possible," Tufts University 31 according to Dr. Je rey Gri ths, Di- School of Medicine rector, Graduate Programs in Public Health, Tufts * Resistant to chlorination or disinfection University School of Medicine. * Resistant to antibiotics or have no medical Some of the treatment challenges faced by treatment suppliers drawing from intensively used source * Spread by animals as well as humans lands include: * Highly infectious-small numbers of 1.The emergence of new contaminants that microbes can cause illness suppliers may not be prepared to test for or treat That last characteristic means that isolated and chronic waterborne diseases can go unde- 2.Spikes in contaminant loads due to storms tected or unrecognized, because current methods and flooding that make treatment more of detection may not be suitable to detect low lev- challenging els of microbe infiltration.34 A nationwide study of 3.Constantly changing standards and waterborne disease outbreaks found that epi- regulations regarding new contaminants, demic outbreaks of waterborne disease have been which are present in the water long before recognized only after thousands of acute cases they are identified as threats to public health were reported.35 This section takes a close look at these public In addition to pathogens, emerging contami- health challenges. With an understanding of the nants include chemicals, metals, and pharmaceu- threats comes an ability to provide clean and plen- ticals. According to Daniel Okun, a leading envi- tiful drinking water supplies into the future. Keep ronmental engineer at the University of North in mind that local governments and water suppli- Carolina, new knowledge about the health im- ers have the most critical responsibility where pacts of chemicals has made them a primary con- source protection is concerned. Public and private cern among epidemiologists studying emerging water suppliers are responsible for providing threats in drinking water.36 drinking water that meets Safe Drinking Water Industries invent and put on the market new Act standards; both can and should take action to chemical compounds daily, such as pesticides for ensure the ongoing safety and availability of their agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and chemicals for source water. plastics. Because we increasingly live and work in our drinking water watersheds, these manmade chemicals eventually reach our water sources via septic systems, storm sewer overflows, and runo from lawns and farms. Emerging Contaminants With the increasing diversity of manmade chemicals reaching our waterways, and with the The threat to public health from emerging con- need for special testing methods to identify and taminants presents the most compelling reason measure them, these emerging contaminants can to protect drinking water sources. Emerging con- go undetected.37 A recent study by the U.S. Geo- taminants are contaminants that either are new logical Survey included a list of potential emerg- to the environment (new diseases or chemicals) ing contaminants that have largely been ignored Part One: Making the Case 17 by researchers to date, such as nonprescription Georgia EPA inspectors worked with City of drugs and plasticizers, and it developed new mon- Carrollton engineers to evaluate the cause of the "It is di cult to know what itoring techniques to measure these contami- outbreak and to upgrade the filtration system to new contaminants might nants' prevalence in our waterways. Through na- address the problem. The costs to upgrade the sys- be in the watershed that tionwide monitoring, researchers found steroids tem came to almost $280,000-a significant cost could make it to the treat- and nonprescription drugs in over 80 percent of for a relatively small supplier. Though many in the ment facility, and therefore the 139 streams tested. The highest concentra- city and county were left sickened by water, in the what treatment process will tions were of detergents, steroids, and plasticiz- years that followed the outbreak the public main- be most e ective at safely ers. This monitoring e ort represents significant tained a heightened awareness and understanding removing them," explains progress in identifying and measuring emerging of watershed activities and water quality. Chris Crockett, Manager contaminants in our waterways, but it points to Although the new treatment processes initi- of Philadelphia Water the fact that our ability to identify and measure ated after the outbreak successfully controlled Department's Source contaminants will always be behind their emer- the threat from Cryptosporidium and other path- Water Protection Program. gence as a threat.40 ogens, in the seventeen years since the outbreak, "From a public health Conventional treatment processes, such as increasing sediment and organic loads, most likely perspective, it is prudent clarification and filtration, remove many known from cattle in the streams and new development, to manage and protect the and as yet unknown contaminants, yet they typi- have made treatment more difficult and expen- source area to the degree cally do little to remove most pesticides or phar- sive. The increased treatment needed to address possible to prevent con- maceuticals. Not much is known about the toxic- high organic loads has contributed to an increase taminants from reaching ity of these substances at low levels and in complex in unwanted disinfection by-products (DBPs). the raw water source mixtures, making it di cult to predict even po- In recent years, DBPs have on occasion exceeded in the first place."39 tential health e ects on humans. Also, we don't water quality standards. Because DBPs are a by- know much about how common processes, such as product of the disinfection process, one of the disinfection, alter the structure of many of these best ways to reduce them is to reduce organic chemicals and the types and toxicity of the by- pollutant loads in the raw water, thereby decreas- products that may be produced.41 ing the degree of disinfection required. Basically, cleaner water requires less treatment and results in fewer treatment by-products. CASE STUDY In 2002, Carroll County applied for and Carroll County, Georgia became a demonstration site for the Trust for Public Land and U.S. EPA to study source water The Upper Little Tallapoosa River Watershed is protection activities that could result in cleaner located in Carroll County, about 50 miles west water. Led by County Chairman Robert Barr, the of Atlanta, Georgia. A series of small reservoirs Upper Little Tallapoosa Steering Committee has on the Little Tallapoosa River provide drinking embraced a series of recommendations from the water for 30,000 people. The fertile lands of the study that focus on better watershed management Little Tallapoosa River Watershed have enabled for safe drinking water. Some of the source pro- Carroll County to become the second leading tection e orts under way as a result of this study producer of beef cattle in Georgia, but develop- include the development of watershed protection ment, moving west from Atlanta, is quickly ordinances, a plan for managing wastewater and encroaching on agricultural lands. No public on-site septic systems, outreach to farmers on sewer exists in much of the county, and individ- best management practices, the acquisition of ual on-site septic systems are proliferating. lands critical to protecting source water, and the The first known major outbreak of Cryp- establishment of a dedicated local funding source tosporidium in the world occurred in the Upper for land protection. In November 2003, voters Little Tallapoosa Watershed in the city of Car- approved new funding via a local sales tax that will rollton and Carroll County in January 1987. direct about $20 million toward land acquisition Immediately following the outbreak, water for source water protection and public recreation. trucks had to be brought in to serve the resi- CONTACT: Amy Goolsby dents, and restaurants imported ice and water ADDRESS: Carroll County Department of Community from Alabama. "There was a period of time Development, Carroll County when you couldn't get a drink of water from Administration Building, P.O. Box 338, a restaurant in Carrollton," says Curtis Hol- Carrollton, GA 30117 labaugh, a longtime resident and university PHONE: 770-830-5800 professor at West Georgia College, where FAX: 770-830-5992 the outbreak was first discovered. EMAIL: agoolsby@carrollcountyga.com In response to the outbreak, U.S. EPA and WEB SITE: http://www.carrollcountyga.com 18 Protecting the Source Spikes in Pollutant Loads maximum loads. The city of Decatur, Illinois, for instance, spent $8.5 million on a nitrate removal Spikes in pollutant loads are caused by the accu- facility in 2001, which is only used to address mulation of pollutants in the watershed over time spikes in pollutant loads during heavy rainfall or and the transport of those pollutants to waterways storm events. During years with low rainfall, the during rainfall or snowmelt. These pollutants are facility is scarcely used. eventually flushed into a receiving body of water, such as a lake, reservoir, or large river, via storm water runo or storm sewer overflows. Because spikes usually occur during heavy rains, and be- CASE STUDY cause the pollutants accumulate throughout the City of Lenexa, Kansas watershed and over a period of time, it is very di cult to accurately target sources and to meas- Lenexa is a community of over 40,000 residents ure the impact of pollution on water quality and located in Johnson County, Kansas, in the south- public health. western Kansas City metropolitan area. The As forests in our watersheds and aquifer re- city's location and accessibility have fueled its charge areas are replaced by development, more growth as a business center and resulted in a water runs over the surface of the land at greater significant retail base. Three of the city's five speeds, quickly carrying heavy loads of pollutants main watersheds drain to tributaries of the to our water treatment plants. Even though the se- Kansas River, less than one mile upstream from ries of barriers in a modern water supplier's infra- the county's main water supply intake. Because structure should e ectively prevent these pollu- 50 percent of Lenexa's storm water runo drains tants from reaching consumers, the failure of even to the county's water supply intake, there is a a single stage threatens the entire system. Conse- need for a progressive approach to storm water quently, spikes in pollutant loads can have serious management and the protection of natural public health consequences. Various estimates resources. suggest that between 900,000 and two million Because storm water runo from the city people become ill each year in the United States by directly impacts the quality of source water for ingesting protozoan, bacterial, and viral patho- the entire county, local communities are very gens in incompletely treated and untreated drink- interested in managing storm water runo , ing water from community water supplies.42 flooding, and resulting spikes in pollutant loads. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 1993, more than Working with consultants from the Black and 403,000 people became ill and an estimated 54 Veatch Corporation, the city undertook an people died as a result of an outbreak caused by extensive community planning process to Cryptosporidium that contaminated the water develop a storm water management plan that during a rainstorm, which carried heavy pollutant reduces the risk of flooding and of spikes in pol- loads to the treatment plant.43 In 1990 in Cabool, lutant loads to the water supply intake, while Missouri, four people died and 243 were stricken providing ancillary community amenities, such ill from drinking water contaminated with he- as parks and greenways. The watershed-based molytic E. coli from pasturelands. In Walkerton, approach to storm water management that was Ontario, in 2000, seven people died and more developed through this planning process incor- than 2,300 became ill when the drinking water porated strategies to minimize flooding and deal system became contaminated during a rainstorm with storm water runo by creating a system of with E. coli and Campylobacter jejuni, which in-stream wetland treatments and a chain of reached the intake from a nearby field recently lakes and wetlands to provide flood retention fertilized with animal waste.44 In each of these and improved water quality. The system of lakes cases, spikes in pollutant loads from heavy sur- and wetlands includes wetland and riparian face runo during rainstorms, combined with im- filters as well as the implementation of upstream proper or insu cient drinking water treatment, best management practices, such as infiltration were the likely causes of contamination. In some basins, aggressive erosion and sediment control cases, the failure of monitoring systems, both at practices, stream restoration and conservation, the treatment plant and by the regulatory agen- and regional storm water detention. This project cies, meant the outbreaks were not recognized or has been part of a larger e ort to inventory and addressed quickly enough to protect public health. protect stream corridors with high habitat qual- Occasional spikes in pollutant loads can be ity in the developing western portion of the city very expensive for water suppliers, who must of Lenexa. upgrade their treatment facilities to deal with Lenexa is leveraging opportunities created Part One: Making the Case 19 rules in e ect since the fall of 2003, the city of Lenexa has already met many of the require- "There are a large number of chemical compounds that are used extensively in ments and serves as a model for other communi- our day-to-day lives and our use of the land and, therefore, occur frequently in ties looking for innovative ways to meet federal the aquatic environment. Because many of them are unregulated in drinking storm water management requirements. water, their occurrence and concentration in the environment raises water- CONTACT: Jim Finlen, Lenexa, Kansas quality and human-health concerns," explains Carol Storms, Manager of Water ADDRESS: Parks and Recreation Department, Quality, with American Water. "At American Water we understand that 134 20 Oak Street, Lenexa, KS 66215 regulation of a contaminant is always somewhat behind its occurrence in the PHONE: 913-541-8592 raw water, so we monitor extensively to identify potential contaminants of con- FAX: 913-492-8118 cern and to ensure that our treatment process is adequately removing them."45 EMAIL: jfinlen@ci.lenexa.ks.us WEB SITE: http://www.ci.lenexa.ks.us by the storm water management plan to provide Changing Standards recreational amenities for residents. With the motto "Rain to Recreation," dry-bottom deten- Since the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act, tion basins will be constructed to double as the EPA has continued to identify compounds sports fields, and new lakes and protected ripar- that hold the potential to cause cancer and other ian corridors will be connected to residential adverse health e ects, and it has set maximum and commercial areas via a new greenway trail contaminant levels in drinking water for each sub- system. stance. The establishment of such standards has Implementation of conservation and resto- had a dramatic impact on the quality of drinking ration activities began in the fall of 2000. The water in this country. However, "as any analytical city is combining these activities with a mix of chemist knows, what you see depends on what you incentives and regulations to encourage a more look for," says Lynn Roberts, a professor of envi- conservation-oriented approach to development. ronmental chemistry at Johns Hopkins Univer- With the U.S. EPA's storm water management sity.46 What you see also depends on the resources and time available to researchers. The inherent challenges of establishing and adapting contami- nant standards are as follows: * The seemingly endless number of known, 150 and as yet unknown, contaminants that need TED to be identified and studied 125 * Limited resources available for such research * The di culty of drawing clear conclusions 100 about cancer-causing agents, as the onset of 75 cancer may require decades-long exposure AMINANTS REGULA and extensive and complex epidemiological 50 research * The di culty of assessing health e ects 25 from simultaneous exposure to multiple contaminants NUMBER OF CONT 0 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 It is particularly challenging to set contain- PHS EPA ment standards, as new chemical compounds are constantly reaching our water sources, and their public health risks may not be understood. Until recently, long-term exposure has been the primary Number of drinking water contaminants regulated by concern with chemical compounds and disinfec- the U.S. government. The large increase in regulated tion by-products (DBPs); measuring the impact contaminants that begins after 1976 is due to regulations issued under the Safe Drinking Water Act of average doses over many years has been consid- and its subsequent amendments. Adapted, with ered adequate. Current research, however, is permission, from Okun (1996). © 1996, the American showing potential impacts on reproductive sys- Society of Civil Engineers. tems (endocrine disruptors) that can result from 20 Protecting the Source exposure to chemical compounds and DBPs over courage more sustainable development patterns. periods as short as three months.47 These communities are learning that while land Drinking water standards and treatment conservation is a big investment, it may also be a "When rapid development guidelines have been established for numerous bargain compared to the long-term costs of treat- in Mecklenburg County chemicals. However, many chemical compounds ment and contamination. This section summa- began to impact the do not have standards, and current standards do rizes the potential costs of not protecting a com- Mountain Island Lake not yet account for exposure to complex mixtures munity's source lands. Watershed, which for long periods at low concentrations, or for sea- provides drinking water sonal spikes in concentrations.48 to 600,000 county residents, it was a wake- Increased Treatment Costs up call to the community that we needed to act The Costs of Not The development of watershed and aquifer now to protect our recharge lands results in increased contamination drinking water," says Ruth Protecting Source Waters of drinking water. With increased contamination Samuelson, Mecklenburg come increased treatment costs. The costs can be County Commissioner. Treatment and filtration, land conservation, new prevented with a greater emphasis on source pro- "In addition to the cost of development, and infrastructure-each has a price tection. treatment for a degraded tag that impacts decisions about drinking water A study of 27 water suppliers conducted by the water supply, the loss of protection. For municipalities and water suppli- Trust for Public Land and the American Water our forests and natural ers, budget constraints and the bottom line factor Works Association in 2002 found that the more landscapes threatened in throughout the process. What's important is forest cover in a watershed, the lower the treat- the quality of life in our making informed assessments about the costs, ment costs. According to the study: community. Today, both long- and short-term, of source protection in * Approximately 50 to 55 percent of the Mecklenburg County relation to other approaches. variation in treatment costs can be explained owns over 4,000 acres, Landuse and protection decisions are often by the percent of forest cover in the source an eighth of the total based on short-term (one to five years) revenue area. of Mountain Island 50 and expense projections for local governments, as Lake Watershed."51 elected o cials decide how to balance land pro- * For every 10 percent increase in forest cover tection policies based on current budgets. How- in the source area, treatment and chemical ever, the impacts of development on water quality costs decreased approximately 20 percent, up to and treatment costs are realized over the long about 60 percent forest cover. term-five to ten years and longer-and are often The study did not gather enough data on sup- ignored in landuse planning processes. The short- pliers with over 65 percent forest cover to draw term costs for protection of source lands can be conclusions; however, it is suspected that treat- high, and water suppliers, who understand the ment costs level o when forest cover is between long-term cost and public health impacts of wa- 70 and 100 percent. The 50 percent variation in tershed development, are not usually involved in landuse or land protection decisions. It is di cult to establish the impact of landuse alone on water quality. By the time water quality degradation has become apparent and treatment data used in regression analysis methods need to be upgraded, it is often too late outlying data points not used for municipalities and suppliers to choose source $160 water protection as a means for addressing the $140 problem. "For many cities, time is running out," said David Cassells, a World Bank forest special- $120 ist. "Protecting forests around water catchment $100 y=0.0174x2 ­ 2.7531x + 140.77 areas is no longer a luxury but a necessity. When $80 R2=0.5518 they are gone, the costs of providing clean and safe $60 drinking water to urban areas will increase dra- $40 matically."49 Many communities that have experienced the $20 COSTS PER MILLION GALLONS increased treatment and capital costs of degraded $0 0 20 40 60 80 100 water and the quality-of-life impacts of fast growth are now implementing regulatory and PERCENT OF WATERSHED FORESTED nonregulatory strategies to protect land and en- Part One: Making the Case 21 TREATMENT AND Department of Agricultural Economics at Texas WATERSHED CHEMICAL COSTS CHANGE AVERAGE TREATMENT COSTS A&M University.55 From a sample of 12 geograph- FORESTED PER MG IN COSTS PER DAY PER YEAR ically representative suppliers with three years of 10% $115 19% $2,530 $923,450 data, researchers found that: 20% $93 20% $2,046 $746,790 * Suppliers in source areas with chemical 30% $73 21% $1,606 $586,190 contaminants paid $25 more per million 40% $58 21% $1,276 $465,740 gallons to treat their water than suppliers in 50% $46 21% $1,012 $369,380 source areas where no chemical contaminants 60% $37 19% $814 $297,110 were detected. * For every 4 percent increase in raw water turbidity, treatment costs increase 1 percent. Increased turbidity, which indicates the treatment costs that cannot be explained by the presence of sediment, algae, and other percent forest cover in the watershed is likely ex- microorganisms in the water, is a direct result plained by varying treatment practices, the size of of increased development, poor forestry the facility (larger facilities realize economies of practices, mining, or intensive farming in scale), the location and intensity of development the watershed. and row crops in the watershed, and agricultural, urban, and forestry management practices.52 The table above shows the change in treatment costs predicted by this analysis, and the average Increased Capital Investment in daily and yearly cost of treatment if a supplier New Treatment Technologies treats 22 million gallons per day-the average pro- duction of the surveyed suppliers.53 (The percent- The impact of development and loss of forestland age change in costs starts at zero percent forest on water quality happens over time and is usually cover: from zero percent forest cover to 10 percent greatest during periods of heavy rainfall. At first, forest cover, treatment costs decrease 19 percent.) heavy pollutant loads are isolated events during A similar study was conducted in 1997 by the storms. Gradually, larger and more complex pollu- tant loads appear with greater frequency and severity until an acute event or revised water qual- ity regulations cause suppliers to alter treatment strategies or upgrade facilities. Upgrading treatment systems can be extremely Some utilities understand that protected lands mean protected water expensive. Between 1996 and 1998 the City of quality and are working to prevent future increases in treatment costs Wilmington, North Carolina, spent $36 million to through targeted land conservation. Kirk Nixon at San Antonio Water add ozonation and to expand its treatment facility, System is developing ways to measure the water quality, quantity, and in part as a result of an increase in industrial and financial benefits of their successful effort to protect approximately 15,888 agricultural runo in their watershed. In 2000, acres of aquifer recharge land over the past five years, the total acreage Danville, Illinois, invested $5 million in a nitrate from both the San Antonio Water System Sensitive Land Acquisition removal facility to deal with spikes in nitrogen re- Program and the City of San Antonio Proposition 3 Initiative. sulting from agricultural runo . In 2001, Decatur, According to Nixon, "The benefits of these types of programs are quite Illinois, invested $8.5 million in a nitrate removal difficult to quantify. It is a difficult task to compare actual land development facility, also to deal with agricultural runo . and the associated storm water treatment required versus conserving land New water quality regulations are often the in a natural, undeveloped state. These are the very issues that we at the San final impetus for treatment upgrades. However, Antonio Water System, in cooperation with other entities, are striving to suppliers with protected source waters are less resolve. Through a cooperative agreement with USGS, we are conducting likely to be forced to invest in major upgrades be- pollutant loading studies, recharge and runoff estimation models, and cause their pollution concentrations are more hydrogeologic and vulnerability mapping projects. In the first phase of our likely to remain below maximum allowed levels. study, we're establishing gauging and sampling stations on small, specific In fact, EPA's proposed Long Term 2 Enhanced landuse watersheds, collecting the data, and characterizing the impacts from Surface Water Treatment Rule embodies the various landuses on the Edward's Aquifer Recharge Zone. In the second principle that higher quality waters require less phase, we will calibrate a watershed model to predict runoff, constituent treatment. This rule establishes additional treat- loads, and recharge on the Bexar County portion of the recharge zone."54 ment requirements for water treatment plants that draw from sources with elevated levels of Cryptosporidium.56 22 Protecting the Source Loss of Consumer Confidence- the city chose to take on an aggressive watershed management plan with land acquisition as its A High Price to Pay centerpiece. A new filtration plant would have Auburn, Maine, saved resulted in the likely doubling of water rates. $30 million in capital When water quality causes illness or even just an In January 1997, the City of New York, costs, and an additional unusual taste, odor, or color, the public quickly through its Department of Environmental $750,000 in annual loses confidence in the safety of its supply. An ero- Protection (NYC-DEP), entered into a operating costs, by sion of public trust costs both the supplier and the groundbreaking Watershed Memorandum of spending $570,000 to community, often leading to broader economic Agreement with some 76 signatories, including acquire land in their impacts in addition to treatment and capital costs. the EPA, the State of New York, virtually all of watershed. By protecting Residents begin buying bottled water and house- the counties, towns, and villages in its water- 434 acres of land around hold filtration systems, and local businesses that sheds, and a number of environmental and pub- Lake Auburn, the water rely on clean water install their own filtration sys- lic interest organizations, including TPL. This systems are able to tems. In some cases, businesses and individuals agreement established a far-reaching program maintain water quality may choose not to live or work in a community be- to protect all three of the city's watersheds- standards and avoid cause they perceive it has poor water quality. Catskill, Delaware, and Croton-including building a new filtration The impacts of contamination and water- adoption of new watershed regulations, envi- plant. Funding for the borne disease outbreaks should not just be meas- ronmental and economic partnerships with land acquisition came ured economically. They should also be measured watershed communities, and a watershed land from a Drinking Water in human terms. In an inquiry into an E. coli out- acquisition program. All together, the city pro- State Revolving Fund break in Walkerton, Ontario, in 2000, the inves- jects spending approximately $1.2 billion over Loan to the Auburn tigator wrote that the most important conse- the first 10 years on a variety of watershed Water Department. quences of the outbreak were in the "su ering improvements. The agreement, which by pro- endured by those who were infected; the anxiety tecting the watershed allows New York to avoid of their families, friends, and neighbors; the losses filtration for its Catskill and Delaware plants, experienced by those whose loved ones died; and includes direct city investment in upstate water the uncertainty and worry about why this hap- pollution controls. Acknowledging that upstate pened and what the future would bring."57 users are the stewards of city water, the city realized that providing financial and technical resources to enable that stewardship was in the city's best interest. For example, the city is The town of Maynard, CASE STUDY spending approximately $270 million to bring all Massachusetts, a rapidly New York, New York 114 existing wastewater treatment plants in the developing community in watershed up to tertiary treatment standards. the Boston metropolitan New York City supplies the nation's largest met- The city expects to purchase land in fee or area, experienced a ropolitan area with surface water from 19 reser- to purchase conservation easements on land for dramatic increase in voirs and three controlled lakes. It serves nine watershed protection. With 355,000 acres under the levels of iron and million users and delivers approximately 1.3 bil- consideration, NYC-DEP had to establish pri- manganese in their lion gallons per day from a 2,000-square-mile oritization criteria to determine which tracts are groundwater as a result watershed in parts of eight upstate counties. Pro- most essential for maintaining pollution-free of increased urban runo . tecting the purity of this source water became an source water. Through GIS modeling, planners The water had become even higher priority for the city with the Safe identified the land with the most potential discolored, leading to a Drinking Water Act (SDWA) amendments in impact on water quality as acquisition priori- surge in complaints from the late 1980s that directed the EPA to develop ties. Five priority areas were established for the customers concerned criteria for filtration. The vast bulk of the city's Catskill and Delaware Watersheds and three about the safety of the drinking water (approximately 90 percent) for the Croton Watershed. In the Catskill and water. Although comes from two systems known as the Catskill Delaware Watersheds, each priority area has cer- discoloration from iron and Delaware water supplies. After allowing tain natural features criteria, including minimum and manganese is not a the city to operate supplies for a brief period of parcel size, that define land that is eligible for threat to public health, time without filtration, the EPA put the city on purchase. The city agreed to solicit percentages expensive treatment is notice: develop and implement a comprehensive of eligible land in each Catskill/Delaware prior- required to remove it. As program to protect the Catskill and Delaware ity area, ranging from 95 percent in the highest a result of public concern, Watersheds, or filter the water. At the time, the priority to 50 percent in the lowest. the town voted to approve city owned less than 8 percent of its watersheds. Funding for these programs is expected to a new $4.6 million Faced with the prospect of spending $6 to 8 bil- come from utility user fees, bonding, and state treatment facility.58 lion on a new Catskill/Delaware filtration plant and federal funding sources, including SDWA and $300 million in annual operating expenses, funding, U.S. Army Corps funding, and USDA Part One: Making the Case 23 CASE STUDY Salem, Oregon The City of Salem's water system currently sup- plies drinking water to approximately 170,000 people. The city relies almost entirely on the North Santiam River for its water supply source. Salem's watershed covers more than 490,000 acres of land stretching from the Cascade Moun- tain peaks of Mount Je erson and Three- Fingered Jack to the city's water intake above Stayton. Approximately 80 percent of the land in the watershed is owned and managed by the United States Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Oregon Department of Forestry, which harvest timber on much of the land. A few small but growing communities with a combined population of about 2,700 are located along the river. After unusual flooding on the North Santiam River in Oregon in February 1996, the City of Salem was forced to take drastic steps to provide potable water to its customers. Salem's water treatment system relies on slow sand filtration, which is a very e cient and e ective way to treat the normally clear waters of the North Santiam © KEN SHERMAN River. However, high turbidity causes the filter system to plug quickly. The water intake from the river is normally shut down when turbidity By protecting the watersheds funding-and is expected to be far less than the exceeds 8 nephelometric turbidity units (ntu). supplying its nine million residents cost of construction and operation for a filtra- During and after the February flood, the river with drinking water, New York tion plant. More importantly, the watershed pro- reached 140 ntu twice and did not fall below 8 City expects to both improve water tection activities are beginning to show success ntu until two months after the flood. Due to the quality and save money that would in addressing water quality challenges. The phos- severe limitations on providing adequate water have gone toward construction and phorus loads from wastewater treatment plants supplies in the aftermath of the flood, the city operation of a new filtration plant. in the watershed between 1994 and 1999 was forced to declare a water emergency. The dropped by 65.7 percent. Of this reduction, resulting cost for the city to keep water supplied about 77 percent appears to be due to treatment to customers was more than $200,000. Due to performance that has been aggressively the impacts from the 1996 flood, the city built a addressed by Department of Environmental permanent Chemical Pretreatment System that Protection sta . Treatment plant upgrades and cost approximately $1 million. For a city that storm water management plans, including water- spends less than $27 per million gallons for shed bu ers and wetlands protection, are treatment, an unexpected $1 million investment expected to lead to even better results in the is significant. future. As a result of these improvements, EPA The U.S. General Accounting O ce (GAO) agreed in November 2002 to extend filtration report Oregon Watersheds: Many Activities Contribute to avoidance for another five years. Increased Turbidity During Large Storms (July 1998, CONTACT: Mark Hoffer, General Counsel GAO/RCED-98-220) found that, although the ADDRESS: New York City Department of watershed seems well protected, timber harvest- Environmental Protection, Bureau of ing and related road construction practices con- Legal Affairs, 59-17 Junction Boulevard, tributed to heavy soil erosion during the 1996 19th Floor, Corona, NY 11368 storm. Also contributing to flooding and signifi- PHONE: 718-595-6528 cant erosion on the 20 percent of land not in FAX: 718-595-6543 public ownership were agricultural, urban, and EMAIL: mhoffer@dep.nyc.gov residential development, including a highway that parallels the city's sole source of drinking water. Since the 1996 flood, the city has worked 24 Protecting the Source closely with local, state, and federal agencies to land prevents contamination by nonpoint source implement better watershed management prac- pollutants and costly clean-up of drinking water. tices to protect its drinking water and avoid Land can and should be protected with both future episodes of contamination. The city regulatory and voluntary tools. Yet in the past, signed a Memorandum of Understanding with many communities have relied too heavily on reg- all federal agencies in the watershed that out- ulatory landuse strategies; although these are crit- lines watershed protection goals and created an ical to any land management plan, as a singular online water quality monitoring program that approach they can place excessive burdens on is cost-shared with the U.S. Geological Survey landowners in the source area. In addition, they (http://oregon.usgs.gov/santiam/). The city also may be di cult or even impossible to implement participates in initial site assessments for all tim- for communities that do not have the authority to ber sales with the Bureau of Land Management regulate landuses within the source area they need (BLM), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the to protect. Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). The Voluntary tools include land conservation, results of water quality monitoring to measure best management practices (BMPs), and public the impact of watershed protection e orts can education. BMPs can be e ective over time by be viewed in the first report by the U.S. Geologi- changing the behaviors and practices of those in cal Survey on this e ort at http://oregon.usgs the watershed, but they may be insu cient on The American Academy .gov/pubs_dir/WRIR03-4098/. Although their own to protect water resources. Such volun- of Microbiology, in their improving water quality and maintaining treat- tary compliance strategies are usually most e ec- ment costs are the city's long-term goals, the city tive when combined with other approaches, such 1996 study on water safety, considers its positive relationships with the as landuse regulation or land conservation. Volun- argued that one of the USFS, BLM, and ODF to be an immediate tary land protection strategies provide permanent best tools for reducing benefit of cooperative actions. protection for critical natural resources. Land and the transmission of CONTACT: Libby Barg, Water Quality and Treatment development rights are acquired from willing sell- Supervisor, City of Salem Public Works ers in a process that is fair to both sellers and buy- waterborne diseases is the ADDRESS: 1410 20th Street SE, Salem, OR 97302 ers. Specific tools include the acquisition of land establishment of watershed PHONE: 503-361-2224 or conservation easements and several leasing protection programs.60 FAX: 503-588-6480 arrangements. EMAIL: lbarg@open.org Given the array of protection tools, where WEB SITE: http://cityofsalem.net/~swater does land conservation work best? Protection of natural lands will benefit any ground and surface water sources, but conservation is particularly e ective in defined circumstances. Watershed Management: * Size. The smaller the drainage area, the easier The First Barrier it is to accomplish measurable water quality in a Multiple-Barrier objectives. Water suppliers who choose land conservation as a primary strategy usually Approach have drainage basins or aquifer recharge areas of 300,000 acres or less.59 Watershed management is the first and most fun- * Existing or potential landuses. Land conservation damental step in a multiple-barrier approach to strategies are more politically salient in protecting drinking water. Healthy, functioning communities where tracts of unprotected watersheds naturally filter pollutants and moder- forest or grasslands are still privately owned, ate water quantity by slowing surface runo and or where water quality has declined increasing the infiltration of water into the soil. measurably as a result of landuse, such The result is less flooding and soil erosion, cleaner as new development. water downstream, and greater groundwater re- * Overlapping benefits. Communities that have serves. other land protection goals, such as growth Watershed management is a multifaceted dis- management or flood control, in addition cipline that involves conservation and restoration, to water quality, are more likely to support landuse monitoring, proactive landuse regula- funding for land conservation. tions, on-site field inspections, education, plan- ning, emergency spill response, and incentives. New knowledge about watershed hydrology Although all of these components are essential to and the flow of pollutants through the watershed improving water resources, only the protection of is allowing communities to make smarter invest- Part One: Making the Case 25 ments in land conservation that have the greatest Shallow groundwater sources and unconfined benefit for drinking water resources. Land conser- aquifers under the influence of surface water are Serving Chapel Hill and vation can be used to protect both surface water very susceptible to contamination from nonpoint Carrboro, North Carolina, and groundwater resources. source pollutants. Since water and pollutants Orange Water and Sewer travel easily between surface waterways and shal- Authority (OWASA) uses low aquifers, pollutants originating in the head- their land acquisition waters of a watershed can make their way to wells program to purchase the Surface Water Protection farther downstream. Therefore, shallow ground- most sensitive land in their water sources and unconfined aquifers need to be watershed to protect their Traditional land protection strategies have fo- protected in a similar manner to that of surface drinking water source cused on protecting riparian areas along large water sources, through the protection of forests, through negotiations with rivers or reservoir shorelines, often ignoring the wetlands, small streams, and high-yield recharge interested landowners. smaller feeder streams. We now understand that areas. By paying landowners for the greatest volume of runo water, and therefore the value of their property, the greatest volume of pollutants, enters most wa- OWASA "actually puts tersheds from small streams. money back into the Within any particular watershed, small CASE STUDY pockets of watershed streams constitute up to 85 percent of the total Orange Water and Sewer Authority, landowners who more stream length and collect most of the surface Carrboro, North Carolina typically perceive runo and pollutants from the land.62 Because themselves as `victims' of small headwater and tributary streams comprise source water zoning and most of the drainage network in watersheds, they The University Lake Watershed is an important development restrictions. strongly influence the quantity, timing, and qual- drinking water source for residents of Carrboro, This has been a successful ity of streamflow. However, due to their size, small Chapel Hill, and the University of North Car- response to the challenging streams are rarely mapped by many local gov- olina at Chapel Hill. These communities, as well issue of equity," notes Ed ernments and are often ignored during planning as 90 percent of the watershed, are located Holland, planning director. processes. within Orange County, which has experienced "Source water protection Recent scientific studies show that protecting significant growth during recent decades. By the has traditionally enjoyed a small streams and their riparian zones can have a late 1980s it was clear that, unless more carefully high level of support by the greater impact on maintaining water quality and managed, continued growth could have a serious environmentally conscious quantity than protection of larger tributaries.63 e ect on the safety and availability of water in community we serve. Watershed managers are beginning to target the University Lake. Our Five-Year Capital protection of small streams and their riparian In response to this growing threat, Orange Improvements Budget zones. Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) initiated typically includes over a planning process with the four governmental $2 million for watershed units that had planning and zoning jurisdiction land and easement within the watershed (Orange County, Chatham acquisition."61 Groundwater Protection County, and the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill). The goal was to develop a joint source In the past, most groundwater protection e orts water protection agreement that incorporated a have focused on wellhead protection-protecting variety of voluntary and regulatory landuse tools. the area immediately surrounding the wellhead, A committee of elected o cials from each where contaminants can reach the treatment jurisdiction negotiated a protection plan that plant quickly and with little time for detection. met the interests and needs both of the residents Although wellhead protection is important, in the watershed and the consumers of the pathogens and soluble pollutants, such as nitrate, drinking water. After two years of negotiation, can travel long distances in groundwater (in some water quality modeling, and extensive public cases very rapidly) and may even reach deep outreach, the committee developed an agree- aquifers.64 Once water flows underground and ment that was politically viable and technically settles in an aquifer, it may remain there for hun- justified in all of the a ected communities. This dreds to thousands of years. If pollutants reach an agreement creatively used a variety of regulatory aquifer, particularly a deep aquifer, contamination tools, including minimum lot sizes, limits on may be essentially permanent.65 Protecting deep impervious surfaces, the prohibition of public or confined aquifers from contamination requires sewer extensions into the watershed, and the protecting land in the aquifer recharge zone. Pro- potential for the transfer of development rights tecting the wellhead may not be su cient to pro- between zones in the watershed. tect the aquifer from contamination. During the negotiation process, it became 26 Protecting the Source clear that regulatory strategies alone would not quality measure was the only one approved by be viewed as equitable by all communities in the San Antonio voters. watershed. Rural watershed residents were per- Years of public education e orts by the San "Our watershed is on ceived to be bearing the brunt of the protection Antonio Water System had laid the groundwork the central coast of New measures through down-zoning of their properties, for the measure by educating residents on water Jersey, where the soils without receiving any of the benefits, as they did supply issues within their community. But the are sandy and water can not drink the water from the lake and, under the impetus and popular support necessary to pass travel underground about protection plan, could not receive sewer services. the bond measure came from grassroots e orts 150 feet per day," notes In response, a land acquisition fund was cre- to mobilize voters and educate the public about Steve Specht with the ated to redirect some of the resources from the the threat to their water supply brought by rapid Brick Municipal Utility communities that would benefit from the development within the aquifer's recharge zone. Authority. "We draw our cleaner water-primarily Carrboro and Chapel SAWS initiated its sensitive Land Acquisi- drinking water from both Hill-to the rural communities in the watershed. tion Program (LAP) in 1997 specifically to pro- surface and groundwater Rural landowners could choose to sell their tect and preserve the quality and quantity of sources, but with 70 properties at fair market value or sell the devel- water in the aquifer recharge zone. The program percent of the river water opment rights, rather than lose value to down- protects lands that are predisposed to geologic coming from the ground, zoning. OWASA created a line item in their sensitivity and possible contamination, such as we know our surface and Capital Improvements Budget that authorized point recharge features (caves, solution cavities, groundwater resources are spending a percentage of revenue each year to and sink holes). Criteria used to determine eligi- one and the same. We're purchase sensitive lands. Since its inception in bility for acquisition include maximum thickness actively working with 1991, the fund has spent $4 million on acquisi- of Edwards limestone on the property; presence the state, counties, and tions and easements and leveraged that invest- of streams or rivers; presence of faulting; pres- surrounding communities ment to attract an additional $1.7 million in ence of major features; and availability and to protect the wetlands grant funds from the North Carolina Clean a ordability of the property. in our headwaters. Water Management Trust Fund. Funding for the LAP is allocated through a We believe this is one of the main reasons CONTACT: Ed Holland, Planning Director portion of the Water Supply Fee. Since 2000, our water quality is still ADDRESS: Orange Water and Sewer Authority, SAWS and its partners have preserved over P.O. Box 366, Carrboro, NC 27510-0366 10,000 acres of land, at a cost of over $5.6 mil- good, despite increased development upstream."66 PHONE: 919-537-4215 lion. The cost to SAWS was just $1.8 million, as FAX: 919-968-4464 it e ectively leveraged its funding with funding EMAIL: eholland@owasa.org from the city, state, and private funding sources. WEB SITE: http://www.owasa.org The Trust for Public Land, The Nature Con- servancy, Texas Parks and Wildlife, and the Bexar Land Trust are working as a team with SAWS to protect and manage these lands. Texas CASE STUDY Parks and Wildlife took title to one of the first San Antonio, Texas major acquisitions, Government Canyon, creat- ing Government Canyon State Natural Area. The San Antonio Water System (SAWS) serves Land for this first acquisition came from more approximately 1.1 million customers via 92 wells than a dozen public agencies and private groups. that draw from Edwards Aquifer. In 1975, it was The Trust for Public Land, The Nature Conser- the first aquifer in the United States to receive a vancy, and the Bexar Land Trust work coopera- sole source designation by the EPA. tively with landowners to negotiate and contract In a May 2000 bond measure, San Antonio for many of the fee and easement acquisitions voters approved a one-eighth cent sales tax and, in some cases, to help with ecological inven- increase for land acquisition to protect the tories and land management strategies. Edwards Aquifer and to create greenways along CONTACT: Kirk Nixon, Manager sensitive creeks within the city. This measure ADDRESS: San Antonio Water System, 1001 East raised approximately $65 million over the next Market Street, San Antonio, TX 78298 four years. Of the four bond measures on the PHONE: 210-704-7305 ballot in 2000, including measures to increase EMAIL: knixon@saws.org tourism and attract new businesses, the water WEB SITE: http://www.saws.org Part One: Making the Case 27 PART TWO BEST PR ACTICES ith the national rate of land development tion, National Rural Water Association, Associa- increasing twice as fast as population, com- tion of State Drinking Water Administrators, and Wmunities need to be proactive about pro- others. tecting natural resources, particularly their source The series of best practices and case studies of drinking water. Although investments in main- outlined here are designed to fill this gap, o ering taining and upgrading treatment systems will al- suppliers and municipalities a set of guidelines ways be critical to protecting public health, these and funding strategies for using land conservation remedial approaches need to be balanced with as part of a comprehensive approach to source wa- investments in source protection. Communities ter protection. The following five best practices that invest in land protection as a way to protect provide a framework for developing and imple- their drinking water are investing in the long-term menting a source protection plan. They can guide health and quality of life of their citizens-guiding city planners, government o cials, and water sup- growth away from sensitive water resources, pro- pliers through a process that begins with develop- viding new park and recreational opportunities, ing a comprehensive understanding of landuse protecting farmland and natural habitat, and pre- threats to drinking water and leads to funding ac- serving historic landscapes. tual land protection strategies. The emphasis on source protection has The best practices we explain here are: changed over time and continues to evolve. The congressional mandate for state Source Water As- 1.Understand your watershed sessment Plans (SWAPs) in the 1996 amend- 2.Use maps and models to prioritize protection ments to the Safe Drinking Water Act provided a 3.Build strong partnerships and work critical national focus on watershed health as a watershed-wide component of preserving safe drinking water. 4.Create a comprehensive source protection SWAPs are a comprehensive initiative designed plan to inform communities about the location of their drinking water resources and about threats to 5.Develop and implement a "funding quilt" their water's quality and quantity in order to en- The Trust for Public Land has also produced a courage and assist local protection activities, in- companion report, Source Protection Handbook: Using cluding land conservation. The call for SWAPs Land Conservation to Protect Drinking Water Supplies, acknowledged the increasing challenges and costs which provides detailed guidance on how to im- facing public water systems, and the value of pro- plement each of the best practices presented. moting source protection as part of a multiple- Copies of the handbook can be ordered from barrier approach. TPL's Web site, www.tpl.org. Though not mandated, public water suppliers and local communities are now expected to de- velop management measures to protect their drinking water sources. Armed with data from Best Practice: their SWAP process, many communities are now Understand your focusing on watershed management issues, in- cluding landuse planning, public education and watershed outreach, land management, and conservation. Yet the tools, best practices, funding, and part- An understanding of your watershed and aquifer nership for implementation are currently limited. recharge areas is the foundation upon which an Networks for sharing information are only just e ective source protection plan is built. Such an developing via e orts by the Environmental Pro- understanding involves the collection and analy- tection Agency, American Water Works Associa- sis of scientific data about source lands, landown- 28 © DUDLEY WITNEY ership, growth and development patterns, and throughout the watershed, (2) sampling at tar- The rapidly growing population the health of watershed lands. Scientific data and geted sites to test the impacts of specific landuse in the vicinity of Florida's Indian watershed analyses are essential to define an e ec- activities, (3) physical, chemical, and biological River Lagoon, an estuary stretching tive source protection plan and build public sup- sampling methods, and (4) monitoring during more than 150 miles down the East port for its implementation. That's because zon- both wet and dry weather.68 A monitoring pro- Coast, is expected to reach nearly ing and other public policy changes need to be gram should be implemented consistently across one million by 2010. E orts to both technically and legally justifiable, and they all jurisdictions in the watershed in order to es- protect the area's water quality require political support from elected o cials; tablish a baseline of past and current watershed through land acquisitions have land conservation strategies, although voluntary, health and to document the impact on water qual- been underway since the 1970s. require public support and usually the commit- ity from changes in landuse or management. ment of public funds. In most watersheds, multiple organizations In many watersheds and aquifer recharge ar- have collected data at di erent times. This data eas, water quality data is being, or has been, col- can be consolidated and analyzed as a single re- lected by more than one organization, and water- source. An analysis of existing data that is physi- shed analyses have been conducted at the local, cally and conceptually accessible to the public, state, or federal level. Often, these varied sources elected o cials, and other stakeholders will help of information have not been brought together create a shared understanding of current and fu- into one source water assessment. The first step ture threats to water resources and can lead to a in understanding your watershed is to compile ex- shared commitment to action. isting information in order to understand the "If you don't understand the baseline and nor- current and likely future threats to your drinking mal water quality range in your source area, you water. have no way to identify where landuse is impact- Comprehensive water quality monitoring is ing water quality and where restoration or best another key to understanding watershed health practices are e ectively mitigating those impacts," and tracking the impacts of changing landuse on says Chris Crockett with the Philadelphia Water water quality. Monitoring is a technical process Department. "In every other industry, the raw that can help you understand the fundamental materials are so important they are tested repeat- health of your watershed, where landuse is im- edly to ensure the quality of the final product. Wa- pacting water quality, and where conservation, ter treatment needs to be approached similarly by restoration, or best practices are e ectively miti- creating comprehensive monitoring programs gating those impacts.67 that e ectively track the quality of water through- A comprehensive monitoring program should out the source area."69 include (1) sampling on all major tributaries Although there will always be a need for ad- Part Two: Be st Practice s 29 ditional data, improved analysis, and better data our stream bank fencing and manure management collection methods, waiting until every outstand- techniques, which we know are e ective at keeping ing question is answered can stall valuable imple- those contaminants out of the water. It gets more mentation strategies to address known threats. complicated when we look at pollutants such as "We found that although it is important to con- endocrine disruptors and pharmaceutical residuals tinuously improve our understanding of the wa- from humans, because even if we could estimate tershed and the threats to our drinking water, it loadings through monitoring and modeling, there is equally important to begin acting on the infor- is limited knowledge of public health impacts and mation we have," explains Carol Storms, Mana- no water quality standards to guide our remedia- ger of Water Quality with New Jersey American tion e orts. But just knowing the pollutant is Water.70 there and understanding its source is critical to protecting public health.71 The Philadelphia Water Department works CASE STUDY with governmental and nonprofit partners to Philadelphia Water Department, collect monitoring data throughout the water- shed to measure pollutant loads, identify poten- Pennsylvania tial sources, and develop strategies for addressing those sources. Their partnership with the Schuyl- The Philadelphia Water Department (PWD), kill Action Network is an example of this process which provides drinking water to 1.5 million peo- in action. The partnership includes over 200 ple, draws its water from three drinking water stakeholders, from community and watershed intakes in the Delaware River Watershed, which groups to regulatory agencies. PWD provides drains from 13,000 square miles of land stretch- technical coordination and planning to the net- ing from Pennsylvania and New Jersey all the work by compiling information on water quality, way to New York state. This extremely complex stream impairment, landuse, source activities, watershed incorporates dozens of urban areas compliance, funding and protection activities, throughout the mid-Atlantic, such as Philadel- and data analysis in order to prioritize areas for phia and Trenton. restoration and protection. Stakeholders then re- Despite the size and complexity of its water- view the information to determine the actions shed, the Philadelphia Water Department has necessary to address priority sites and how they been proactive about finding out what is in their can be integrated e ectively with existing initia- source water, where it is coming from, and how tives. By working collaboratively, they address they and their partners can mitigate pollutant multiple stakeholder objectives and bridge Clean loads throughout the watershed. Philadelphia is Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act goals. on the cutting edge of identifying, monitoring, CONTACT: Chris Crockett, Manager, Source Water understanding, and treating emerging contami- Protection Program nants. Chris Crockett, manager of Philadelphia's ADDRESS: Philadelphia Water Department, Source Water Protection Program, says, 1101 Market Street, 4th Floor, The balancing act is, how do we stay at the front Philadelphia, PA 19107 edge of emerging contaminants and prepare for PHONE: 215-685-6234 the future without overreacting to something or FAX: 215-685-6043 wasting resources? Our strategy is to (1) identify EMAIL: chris.crockett@phila.gov potential sources of contamination from monitor- ing data, landuse information, and literature review; (2) determine the future potential impact of those sources on treatment, public health, and Best Practice: aquatic life; (3) identify what existing practices Use maps and models can be used to address this future threat; and (4) determine what amount of resources will be to prioritize protection needed. Our systematic approach to understand- ing and addressing emerging threats helps us tar- Municipal water supply managers and conserva- get our resources most e ectively. tion agencies routinely face questions and prob- For example, if monitoring data and literature lems when ranking conservation and restoration reviews point to antibiotic-resistant bacteria or priorities. Which forested parcels should receive pathogens from animals as a growing threat in the highest priority for conservation? Which areas particular sub-basins, we look for ways to increase are in need of restoration using creekside forest 30 Protecting the Source bu ers? Where will storm water management the Groundwater Foundation (www.groundwater practices likely yield the greatest improvements in .org). water quality? Identifying high-priority land for Complex GIS applications, such as quantita- protection and restoration is critical, as funding tive models that predict impacts on water quality is always limited and multiple demands often are from landuse change, can be very useful and accu- made on a valuable piece of land. rate. Yet they require more significant resources, A number of characteristics make some lands technical expertise, and data than many commu- more important to protect or restore than others. nities may have. Environmental consulting com- Parcels with steep slopes and erodable soils, in for- panies are excellent resources in thinking through est or other natural cover, and close to a waterway whether and what quantitative models are the or encompassing small streams are the most criti- most appropriate tools for reaching your goals. cal to protect; development on these sites is more Ranking systems, which are easier to imple- likely to degrade water quality. Geographic Infor- ment than quantitative models, are a widely used mation System (GIS) maps and models can be GIS tool for identifying high-priority areas for very helpful in identifying these critical parcels protection and restoration. Ranking systems and showing where protection or restoration will combine information on land characteristics such have the greatest benefit for water quality. GIS as soil type, slope, landuse, and zoning, ranking software can be used to identify high-priority each characteristic in importance. For example, lands in a number of di erent ways, including: a large forested parcel that encompasses small streams with steep slopes and highly erosive soils * Identifying landuse and features (such as would rank higher for protection or restoration streams or slopes), or locating parcels of than a level parcel with good soils that is far from land or contaminants using existing data a water source. Where digitized parcel data is sources. available, each parcel can be given a numeric score * Creating ranking systems and operational indicating its value for conservation or restora- models that rank parcels based on a set tion. Ranking systems can e ciently generate of characteristics. These models require land protection priority lists. When combined digitized data layers for the characteristics with local knowledge and field inspections, the of greatest interest, such as slope, land cover, resulting priority lists are accurate and e ective and distance to stream. decision-making tools. For more information on * Developing quantitative models that can creating a GIS-based ranking system for your wa- predict potential impacts from landuse on tershed, see the Source Protection Handbook: Using Land water quality, such as pesticide concentration, Conservation to Protect Drinking Water Sources. nutrient loading, or total suspended solids in The EPA's Southeast Regional O ce has de- stream water. These models require long- veloped a Watershed Characterization System term, research-grade weather, streamflow, that provides a wealth of information for organi- water quality, and watershed data for zations operating in the Southeast. This software development, testing, and validation. incorporates extensive state-level data on landuse, soils, slope, and water quality, all of which can be As our understanding of the impacts of land- used for targeting on-the-ground strategies. use on water quality improves and the GIS map- Some communities have combined GIS- ping software becomes more sophisticated and based ranking systems with other analyses, such as accessible, prioritizing areas in a watershed is be- cost-benefit. For example, Orange County Water coming more feasible even for communities with and Sewer Authority, working in partnership with limited resources and technical capabilities. The Tetra Tech, Inc., has developed an e cient and simplest use of GIS-mapping landuse, munici- cost-e ective way to prioritize parcels for acquisi- pal, or parcel boundaries, or locating contaminant tion by using formulas to estimate potential phos- sources-can be very helpful in integrating infor- phorous loads from future development at each mation into one watershed map that can become site, and then weighing phosphorous loads against a shared resource and guide for remediation or the cost for either acquisition or easements. This protection. For small communities with limited strategy allows them to identify the parcels with resources, this can be an excellent first step in the greatest potential phosphorous load and the understanding threats to drinking water and lowest cost, which are highest priority for protec- mapping out a strategy for protection. For more tion. information on how to create such a tool, see Us- For more information on the many ways GIS ing Technology to Conduct a Contaminant Source Inven- can be used, refer to Conservation Geography: Case tory: A Primer for Small Communities, a publication by Studies in GIS, Computer Mapping, and Activism.72 Part Two: Be st Practice s 31 Groundwater Conservation, Restoration, and Storm Water Management Priority Indices for the Squannacook and Nissitissit River Watersheds, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The enlarged areas are centered on (left) Townsend, Massachusetts, and (right) Brookline, New Hampshire. Conservation Priority level was based on whether forested or wetland, type of soil, transmissivity, and whether there is a public water supply. This map includes all Community Water Systems with more than 25 users, with Zone I and Zone II source protection areas in gray. CASE STUDY tion in state forest stewardship programs, which Nashua, Massachusetts o er tax breaks for implementing forest man- agement plans, and ways that landowners can The Nashua River Watershed extends through conserve their property through state and federal 31 communities in northeastern Massachusetts easement and cost share programs. and southern New Hampshire. The Squanna- CONTACT: Al Futterman cook and Nissitissit sub-basins make up the ADDRESS: Nashua River Watershed Association, northern portion of the Nashua Watershed, 592 Main Street, Groton, MA 01450 where it crosses the state borders. These sub- PHONE: 978-448-0299 basins comprise approximately 133 square miles EMAIL: alfutterman@nashuariverwatershed.org and include portions of four counties, two states, WEB SITE: http://www.nashuariverwatershed.org and five towns in Massachusetts and six towns in New Hampshire. They are primarily rural and forested and have been recognized for their pris- tine water and important and unique habitat. Best Practice: There are approximately 12 community water Build strong partnerships systems in the Squannacook and Nissitissit sub- basins, all of which draw their water from wells. and work watershed-wide The Nashua River Watershed Association (NRWA), which has been working since 1969 E ectively implementing a source protection plan to protect and improve the ecosystem of the requires the support and cooperation of a variety Nashua River Watershed, recognized that pro- of public and private partners. That's because tecting drinking water sources was critical to the most communities' source areas lie partially, if not health of the watershed community, and that entirely, outside of their jurisdiction and, in most source protection strategies could e ectively cases, cross multiple jurisdictions and even state strengthen and support their broader clean lines. And although few suppliers have the au- water and habitat goals. In 2001, the NRWA thority to directly control activities on land in applied to participate in an EPA-funded their source area, most have the ability to plan and demonstration project to study the Squannacook partner with other communities and stakeholders and Nissitissit sub-basins and identify ways that who can directly influence landuse and land man- land protection and management strategies agement. Source water protection can be achiev- could be used to protect drinking water sources. able and e ective when you influence others to act As part of this demonstration e ort, the Uni- on your behalf, utilize existing initiatives and versity of Massachusetts produced maps that frameworks, and find common goals with others identified areas of the watershed that were high- to build partnerships.73 est priority for conservation and restoration. Potential pollution sources must ultimately be Because all of the communities in the Squanna- managed at the local level, where most landuse de- cook and Nissitissit sub-basins drink ground- cisions are made. Partnerships can be built with water, maps and models were developed that local jurisdictions, nonprofits, and other stake- combine data on groundwater wells, soils, slope, holders by identifying common goals and plan- landuse, and pumping rates to identify the high- ning ways to achieve them together. Farmers est priority lands for protecting and improving benefit from clean water for cows in order to re- groundwater. The Nashua map shows in gray duce disease. Recreational users benefit from im- areas of the watershed that are high priority for proved fish habitat and safe swimming opportuni- conservation, with highest priority areas in dark ties, and upstream townships might benefit by gray. Recharge areas for groundwater wells meeting obligations for existing regulatory initia- ranked high, along with areas with shallow tives, such as Phase II Storm Water Regulations groundwater under the influence of surface or Total Maximum Daily Loads, or simply by im- water. Similar maps were produced to identify proving local quality of life.74 "We have found that high-priority areas in the watershed for the pro- sometimes simply finding a way to help a partner tection of surface water supplies. address a nagging local issue can make a project By overlaying parcel lines, the NRWA is successful," notes Crockett.75 able to identify individual landowners whose When thinking about who needs to be in- property is critical to the quality and quantity volved in a source protection planning process, the of groundwater supplies. Using these maps, key is to consider who will ultimately be needed NRWA sta is conducting outreach to to successfully implement a plan. "Too often we landowners to discuss options for participa- count the success of a planning e ort based on how Part Two: Be st Practice s 33 and that build on initiatives they already have un- der way, if the information they need to guide their actions is made available to them. Most wa- tershed and community organizations, and even some municipalities, lack the technical knowledge or resources to direct their activities at the highest priority needs. Stakeholder relationships can be developed through the exchange of data, maps, or other technical or scientific information. If the utility or municipality does not have the capability to provide this data themselves, they can work with other municipalities, local colleges, planning commissions, or river basin commissions to help them create the needed resources.77 Although local municipalities and suppliers play an important role in coordinating source pro- © CHRIS LANCETTE tection e orts, federal and state governments and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) play critical roles in planning, financing, and imple- A coalition of groups is working to many people were at the table, particularly how menting source protection strategies. Involving protect a 180-mile greenway along many residents or members of the general public state and federal representatives in source protec- the banks of Georgia's Chattahoochee showed up to our meetings," says Billy Turner, di- tion planning facilitates the local communities' River from development pressures. rector of the Columbus Water Works. "Instead, access to additional data, funding sources, and The river provides drinking water we need to think about what our ultimate goal is technical assistance, all of which contribute to to half the state's population. and who will be needed to implement that goal successful implementation. once the planning has ended."76 In some source areas, voluntary watershed as- It may not be clear at the beginning of the sociations and other NGOs are beginning to take process exactly who will be needed for successful on the role of coordinating entities. As indepen- implementation, but it will be clear that: dent third parties, they can often bring together * Local, state, and federal funding will be needed. local municipalities and counties that may not have planned cooperatively in the past and help * Landowner groups will be important, such as them to plan for the protection of regional re- farmers, developers, and woodlot owners, sources. Nongovernmental organizations often if nonpoint source pollution is the primary bring unique skills and organizational flexibility threat. that can leverage new resources and encourage * The municipalities that reside in the watershed new strategies. or manage the local water supply will ultimately have to implement regulatory changes or fund acquisition. * Business and industry groups, which may CASE STUDY contribute to water quality problems, Columbus, Georgia need to be part of finding solutions. Their early substantive involvement is critical Columbus Water Works (CWW) is in its final to developing successful and broadly year of a three-year program studying water supported protection strategies. quality in the Middle Chattahoochee River * If supplies are managed privately, those Watershed. The study is an e ort to assess total suppliers can be involved in funding and maximum daily load (TMDL) allocations implementing strategies to protect their through the calibrated Better Assessment Sci- source. ence Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS) developed in the Middle Chatta- * Local land trusts, watershed associations, and other hoochee study. This work will help provide com- nonprofits can be key to public outreach and munities with assistance in their regulatory and education and, potentially, to implementing stewardship programs, including source water strategies with their constituent groups. assessment and protection. Other jurisdictions and stakeholders will of- CWW serves approximately 200,000 ten support and contribute to source water pro- customers in an estimated 74-square-mile area tection e orts that meet their goals and objectives on the river about 120 miles southwest of 34 Protecting the Source Atlanta. The river segment in this study area than $100 million to $382 million. During the divides Georgia from Alabama and encompasses same time period, the operating budget reflected the growing cities of LaGrange, West Point, and a $1 million decrease from the previous year's Opelika. Metropolitan Columbus, located in the budget of nearly $14 million, due to numerous center of the study area, is growing within the managerial and operational improvements. More core areas of the drinking watershed. A key fea- importantly, Combined Sewer Overflow events ture of this study is CWW's initiative in testing monitored since the fall of 1998 have demon- the idea of interstate water resource coordina- strated consistent compliance with water quality tion with the creation of a stakeholder team that standards for the river. includes seven water companies, Georgia Power, CONTACT: Billy Turner, Director Natural Resources Conservation Service, local ADDRESS: Columbus Water Works, P.O. Box 1600, Columbus, universities, the Chattahoochee River Keeper, GA 31902 and state and federal agency representatives. PHONE: 706-649-3430 While CWW has primary responsibility FAX: 706-327-3845 for the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) con- EMAIL: bturner@cwwga.org trol, the comprehensive watershed study was WEB SITE: http://www.cwwga.org approached as a partnership venture. The stake- holders are working together with CWW con- sultants, the EPA, and the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) on the water- Best Practice: shed study. They are coordinating a monitoring network and an Internet-based GIS information Create a comprehensive and communications network; discussing and source water protection plan implementing source water protection policies; and integrating drinking water source protection Creating a comprehensive source water pro- with other regional goals for recreation, tourism, tection plan is an opportunity to pull together and economic redevelopment. everything learned from analyzing a watershed, In 1993, CWW developed a vision, "to be the assessing the threats to drinking water, mapping nation's best water resources utility by 2000," high-priority land for protection and restoration, and it made significant progress toward that goal and developing partnerships. Such a plan should through its multi-jurisdictional partnership and be developed with other partners and jurisdic- aggressive public outreach e orts. In the early tions in a source area and should incorporate the 1990s, the citizens of Columbus were faced with following: significant increases in water/wastewater rates to rehabilitate the CSO system to meet state * Strategies for managing threats, such as wastewater and requirements. Voters overwhelmingly supported agricultural runo , and for protecting natural resources, a 1 percent special local option sales tax to under- such as forests and wetlands. In most drinking write the cost of the CSO program as well as a water watersheds, threats to water quality number of associated community projects. exist from septic systems, agriculture CWW used the funding to implement the practices, lawn maintenance, underground CSO plan and to foster a comprehensive public storage tanks, and other point and nonpoint education initiative to develop and nurture a sources of pollution. Source water protection long-term commitment to protecting drinking plans should identify the greatest threats and water supplies. The Oxbow Meadows Environ- outline a plan to manage those threats in the mental Learning Center, the crown jewel of the future. Likewise, identifying and protecting outreach initiative, provides environmental edu- highly sensitive lands that are vulnerable cation to a broad spectrum of users and visitors. to development allows communities to Two new treatment facilities were developed be proactive about protection and avoid with dual-use community features such as the costly mitigation or restoration action in 8.2-mile Riverwalk and a two-block city park the future. built over one of the treatment plants. These * A combination of voluntary and regulatory strategies, strategies provide both recreational amenities such as land acquisition and landuse regulation. A to residents and needed treatment facilities. comprehensive source water protection plan The total cost of the CSO control program should combine voluntary and regulatory and parallel community projects like the River- strategies, along with best management walk was $95 million. Between 1997 and 1998, practices. Landuse regulations should be CWW's total assets increased more balanced with voluntary acquisition and Part Two: Be st Practice s 35 cost-share programs in order to be A bond was passed within a year to purchase two politically viable and e ective over water companies. By 1895, voters again approved the long term. "No single manage- bonds to construct the Cedar River system, in ment option can meet all of our the mountains outside of town, which continues source water protection objectives; to be Seattle's primary water source today. therefore, a combination of methods Shortly after constructing the water supply is needed," according to Ed Holland system, city leaders agreed on a plan to eventu- with Orange Water and Sewer ally own the entire Cedar River Watershed, thus Authority in North Carolina.78 permanently protecting and securing Seattle's * A long-term vision, short-term action strategies, and drinking water. With a 100,000-acre watershed, measurable goals. Plans are only as valuable as it was a bold vision, yet the plan was simple: the actions that result from them. Therefore, * Buy land, not trees. a long-term vision (extending as far as 30, 50, or even 100 years) should be accompanied * Invest in the future by planting seedlings. by short-term action strategies. Such action * Manage the land for water and wildlife. strategies should be feasible and their results measurable, with timelines, budgets, and crit- The city's first purchases were in 1898. At the ical partners identified, so that as funding time, the watershed was owned by homesteaders, becomes available or opportunities arise, timber and mining companies, and the federal they can be acted on. government, all of whom were there to extract * A strategy to fund the plan. Funding can come resources from the land. The city knew it was from a wide variety of sources that change buying a "fixer-upper," but that was part of the regularly, depending on the political and plan. The city negotiated agreements with tim- financial climate. Potential funding sources ber companies to allow them to harvest the trees that are identified up front can be pursued and eventually sell the barren land to the city at when the time comes. Look for both existing incredibly low prices. Over the next 50 years, the funding sources and new sources created city purchased almost two-thirds of the water- through public finance measures, fees, shed through similar deals with private compa- or other strategies. nies and individual landowners. The remainder of the watershed was owned "Start your plan early and stick with it," advises by the federal government, which is not permit- Suzanne Flagor, director of Watershed Manage- ted to sell land but can exchange it for land of ment with Seattle Public Utilities. "The key to equal or greater value. Over the course of 60 Seattle's success in protecting our watershed was years, the City of Seattle purchased land in other in having a long-term plan and taking advantage parts of the state that they knew was high prior- of opportunities to make progress on that plan as ity for the federal government, and they negoti- they arose. Funding availability and land owner- ated a series of land and timber exchanges that ship change regularly, creating unique opportuni- eventually led to the city's ownership of almost ties for action. If you are not prepared to take ad- 100 percent of the Cedar River Watershed. vantage of those opportunities, they'll be lost."79 In 1996, the city's original vision, created over 100 years earlier, had finally been achieved. By strategically and creatively taking advantage of opportunities as they arose, and patiently CASE STUDY sticking to a long-term vision, the City of Seattle Seattle, Washington has secured for its residents the permanent pro- tection of one of the most pristine sources of In the late 1800s, residents in the small, coastal drinking water in the country. city of Seattle, Washington, were drawing their CONTACT: Suzanne Flagor, Director of Watershed water from a series of wells, springs, and private Management water companies dispersed throughout the city. ADDRESS: Seattle Public Utilities, 19901 SE Cedar In 1889, the Great Seattle Fire, which destroyed Falls Road, North Bend, WA 98045 the entire 64-acre business district, exposed the PHONE: 206-233-1528 glaring inadequacies of the city's water supply sys- FAX: 206-233-1527 tem, which had insu cient water or water pres- EMAIL: Suzanne.Flagor@seattle.gov sure to suppress the blaze as it raged through town. WEB SITE: http://www.cityofseattle.net/util/services/ Immediately after the fire, residents voted to Drinkingwater create a city-owned and -operated water system. 36 Protecting the Source CASE STUDY Austin, Texas In 1998, the citizens of Austin, Texas, passed several bond measures for watershed protection and parks, o cially launching the city's Smart Growth Initiative after years of grassroots advo- cacy. The Edwards Aquifer, on the western side of Austin, is the sole source of drinking water for over 1.5 million people, including residents of San Antonio and Austin. The Barton Springs segment of the aquifer-the segment around Austin-has been identified as the most endan- gered aquifer in Texas. It is highly vulnerable to pollution due to its relatively small size, its high porosity, and the region's land-development boom. In 1995 and 1996, a Citizens Planning Com- mittee studied landuse, transportation, and envi- ronmental concerns and developed the guiding principles for what in 1998 would become Austin's comprehensive Smart Growth Initia- tive. During the process, it was determined that the city's surface water needed protection beyond current regulatory restrictions. Building on that recommendation, the city council desig- nated the most sensitive third of the Austin region-land that drains into Barton Springs and the Highland Lakes-a "Drinking Water Protec- tion Zone." The remaining two-thirds were des- ignated a "Desired Development Zone," which included the urban core, commercial corridors, © 1999 ERIC SWANSON and the central business district. This innovative landuse plan directed development away from sensitive groundwater recharge lands and toward further conservation through the purchase of The Barton Creek Watershed targeted urban growth centers. This enhanced land and development rights in order to protect protects the water quality of economic and neighborhood development drinking water quality. In 1998, voters approved Edwards Aquifer, which is the strategies while protecting drinking water. several land-protection funding measures, sole source of drinking water Even as Austin voters were trying to including a $65 million revenue bond to pur- for 1.5 million Texans. strengthen development regulations, they were chase land and easements within the Drinking also moving to protect the watershed through Water Protection Zone and a $75.9 million bond land acquisition. A 1991 poll jointly sponsored to create and improve parks and greenways, by the Trust for Public Land and Citizens for partly as incentive for attracting new develop- Open Space revealed that Austin residents ment to the Desired Development Zone. Most favored open space acquisition-particularly as a recently, in November 2000, Austin voters once means to protect water quality and secure recre- again taxed themselves, approving $13.4 million ation-and that they would approve increased in bonding authority to protect land in the Bar- property taxes to pay for the land. In 1992, they ton Springs Watershed. approved a $20 million bond act for a new Bar- CONTACT: Butch Smith, Senior Planner ton Creek Wilderness Park, which would protect ADDRESS: Parks and Recreation Department, the most critical areas around the springs. Municipal Building, 124 Eighth Street, Since 1992, Austin voters have chosen to No. 111, Austin, TX 78701 spend over $200 million to protect their water- PHONE: 512-974-2000 shed. In 1997, after years of research, the city's FAX: 512-974-1886 Watershed Protection Department published EMAIL: butch.smith@ci.austin.tx.us The Barton Creek Report, which recommended WEB SITE: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us Part Two: Be st Practice s 37 Best Practice: beauty and recreational opportunities in the Develop and implement fastest-growing part of the state. The majority of funding for this July 2002 a "funding quilt" project was provided by the state's Department of Environmental Protection Aquifer Land The implementation of a comprehensive source Acquisition Program, which made a $6.55 million water protection plan requires a significant and grant and will receive a conservation easement steady stream of funds. Successful communities on 3,500 acres. The state's funding came from secure funds from a variety of sources-federal, the 1996 Environmental Bond Bill. The Town of state, local, and private-creating a so-called Lakeville contributed $1.1 million and the City of funding quilt. By tapping into a range of sources, New Bedford contributed $600,000 toward the communities can raise significant amounts of Betty's Neck purchase. The City of Taunton money and avoid reliance on a single, potentially hopes to receive $600,000 from the Statewide unpredictable revenue stream. Revolving Fund for that purpose. The Trust On any specific project, a wide range of fund- for Public Land also contributed $250,000 to ing sources may combine to meet funding require- the project, thanks to an anonymous Boston ments, including a state grant matched by local foundation. funding; local funding that is supplemented by a CONTACT: Badge Blackett private fundraising campaign; and a private con- ADDRESS: TPL New England Regional Office, servation e ort that leverages a federal grant. It is 33 Union Street, 4th Floor, essential to use one funding source to leverage Boston, MA 02108 others. PHONE: 617-367-6200 Yet despite the importance of quilting to- FAX: 617-367-1616 gether a combination of resources, local funding is EMAIL: Badge.Blackett@tpl.org the foundation of any long-term land conserva- WEB SITE: http://www.tpl.org tion e ort. Local funds allow for local control and demonstrate the commitment needed to leverage other resources. Explore all funding options, but always keep in mind that the largest burden rests Create and maintain dedicated with the local government. local public funding sources This section outlines best practices for creat- ing a source protection funding quilt. Included are Local (preferably dedicated) funding is the foun- guidelines specifically designed for local water dation of any credible, long-term land conserva- suppliers and municipalities as well as broader tion e ort. The competition for state and federal state and federal frameworks. Only by under- funds is intense, and local funding is often neces- standing the conservation and source protection sary to secure these outside funds. Local funding is landscape at all levels is the full funding of local also the only source that is completely within the conservation projects possible. control of the local government, as federal and state sources are frequently subject to significant fluctuations that make them less reliable. Local funding can take the form of a general CASE STUDY fund appropriation or a legislatively approved tax Assawompsett Pond Complex, Massachusetts increase. Often, however, the price tag, the poli- tics, and the legal options warrant approval by vot- Through a combination of state, local, and pri- ers of a conservation spending measure. Hun- vate funding sources, nearly 4,000 acres of the dreds of local governments have passed ballot Assawompsett Pond Complex was protected in measures in recent years. During 2002 and 2003 fast-growing southeastern Massachusetts. This -two years of slumping economic fortunes-205 collaborative e ort included acquiring the 480- local governments across the United States passed acre Betty's Neck property in Lakeville and ballot measures that included funding for land securing conservation easements on 3,500 adja- conservation. Seventy-five percent (in 2002) and cent acres already held as municipal watershed 83 percent (in 2003) of local ballot measures land. The Assawompsett Pond Complex is the placed before the voters passed around the coun- sole source of drinking water for the Cities of try.80 New Bedford and Taunton and provides drink- The Trust for Public Land has worked with ing water to Lakeville. It is also home to an dozens of local governments to pass ballot meas- abundance of wildlife species and o ers scenic ures, assisting with research and development, 38 Protecting the Source public opinion polling, and ballot language design, federal Forest Legacy Program and the state and has compiled lessons learned regarding the grant portion of the federal Land and Water key components to winning a land conservation Conservation Fund, with more than $1 million measure. For more information on how to create from private foundations. a dedicated local funding source, see TPL's Local The most notable purchase within the High- Greenprinting for Growth Workbook, Volume III: How to lands was the 1998 purchase of 15,000 acres of Secure Conservation Funds, which can be downloaded Sterling Forest, a heavily forested area straddling for free from TPL's Web site, www.tpl.org. the New York/New Jersey border. To reach the total cost of $55 million, Congress approved $17.5 million; the state of New York, $16 million; and New Jersey, $10 million. In addition, the Lila CASE STUDY Acheson and DeWitt Wallace Fund for the New York/New Jersey Northern Highlands Hudson Highlands and the Doris Duke Chari- table Foundation contributed $5 million, while The Northern Highlands serve as the source the Victoria Foundation contributed $1 million. of drinking water for 4.5 million people in New Private donors provided the remaining funds. Jersey. The area includes a series of reservoir CONTACT: Terrance Nolan systems-the Wanaque/Monksville system, the ADDRESS: Trust for Public Land, 20 Community Pequannock system, and the Boonton/Split Rock Place, 2nd Floor, Morristown, NJ 07960 system. Over the past five years, within each PHONE: 973-425-0360 system, a range of funding sources has come FAX: 973-425-0366 together to protect thousands of acres. EMAIL: terrance.nolan@tpl.org Several factors underpin the success in land WEB SITE: http://www.tpl.org conservation e orts in the Highlands. First, New York and New Jersey have significant state fund- ing for land conservation-New York approved the $1.75 billion Clean Water, Clean Air Bond in Create substantial state funding 1996, and New Jersey's Garden State Preserva- tion Act (1998) provides $98 million annually and the right mix of policies to support from the state sales tax. Second, New Jersey has broad-based land conservation in a state provided the legal framework for counties and municipal governments to initiate local open While landuse and land conservation activities are space trusts and the incentives (via matching primarily the domain of local governments, the grants) to create them. As a result, all of New public policies established by state governments Jersey's 21 counties and more than 178 local gov- shape those decisions significantly. A good state ernments have open space trust funds. Finally, framework for clean water and watershed man- there are broad networks of private foundations, agement can give communities the flexibility, land trusts, and citizen supporters of conserva- funding, and technical assistance they need to plan tion in the area. and implement successful programs. Local conservation finance measures have States can promote source protection and been approved in recent years in both Sussex and clean water programs with incentives and funding Morris Counties, home of the Pequannock and programs that help local communities meet their Boonton/Split Rock systems. Sussex County watershed protection goals. States can play an voters approved their first-ever property tax levy enormous role in local watershed planning activi- in November 2000, which raises $1.6 million ties by putting forth an ambitious vision that cap- annually, while Morris County voters increased tures complementary goals for land conservation their levy in November 2001 to $25 million to and water quality protection. They can also pro- $30 million annually. vide key technical assistance with data collection The Hawkwatch project in Rockaway and management, GIS mapping, build-out analy- Township, New Jersey, is an example of the local sis, and landuse analysis. government funds helping to leverage other A clear vision for source protection and clean funding. Of the total $7 million for the project, water can lead to partnerships and leveraging of Morris County and Rockaway Township con- complementary federal funding, such as USDA's tributed $1.5 million from their local property Natural Resources Conservation Service and For- tax levies, and $3 million came from the state's est Legacy Programs. As public water suppliers Green Acres Program with a mix of grants and and watershed planners create their funding quilt, loans. An additional $1 million came from the states can help support these programs with clear Part Two: Be st Practice s 39 goals, blended funding streams, and program in- grants supporting up to 100 percent of project tegration that matches the kind of integration costs. For example, in 1998, the fund granted happening locally. Some of the steps states can rural Gaston and Lincoln Counties the full $6.15 take to support local conservation for clean water million needed to buy 1,231 acres around Moun- are outlined below. tain Island Lake, key watershed land providing 1.Create substantial state investment. A dedicated drinking water for more than a half-million state funding source pays for statewide Charlotte-area residents. source protection projects and reinforces a The Trust Fund has the option of requiring long-term conservation commitment and a 20 percent local match in funds. Projects must vision. Some existing state programs rely on enhance or restore degraded waters, protect a single revenue stream, while others use a unpolluted waters, or contribute toward a net- combination of revenue sources. The most work of bu ers along riverbanks and greenways common revenue streams used by states for environmental, educational, and recreational are general obligation bonds, sales tax, benefits. Uses for the funds include land acquisi- lottery income, real estate transfer tax or tion, conservation easements, cooperative plan- deed recording fees, and general fund ning e orts, stream restoration, and wastewater appropriations. and storm water projects. The initial allocation for the program was 2.Enable and provide incentives for local financing. State 6.5 percent of the state's unspent fund balance, enabling legislation gives local governments which came to about $45,000. Five years later, the authority they need to raise local dollars. the allocation had grown to $30 million per year. Incentives, often in the form of matching And within the program's first decade, legisla- grants and low interest loans, encourage local tion requires the allocation be increased to governments and nonprofit conservation $100 million. organizations to develop programs and CONTACT: Bill Holman, Executive Director generate local funds while strengthening ADDRESS: North Carolina Clean Water Management partnerships. Trust Fund, 1651 Mail Service Center, 3.Leverage federal financing. State grants and loans Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 can be linked to federal Clean Water and PHONE: 919-733-6375 Drinking Water State Revolving Funds to FAX: 919-733-6374 provide grants or low-interest loans for land EMAIL: bill@cwmtf.net conservation e orts that protect water WEB SITE: http://www.cwmtf.net resources. 4.Link multiple community priorities. State programs that link water quality benefits with other Use state-directed federal community goals, such as recreation, historic preservation, and habitat protection, will funds more creatively attract greater support and funding from the public and elected o cials. Three distinct types of federal funding for land conservation exist: 1.State-directed programs, in which states CASE STUDY receive grants from the federal government North Carolina but are given broad discretion to allocate funds (Clean Water and Drinking Water Following several high-profile water pollution State Revolving Funds) incidents, in 1996 North Carolina's General 2.Direct federal programs, in which the Assembly created the Clean Water Management federal government makes direct grants in Trust Fund. The fund is the first state funding partnership with states to local recipients, program in the country dedicated exclusively usually local governments (Forest Legacy to water quality protection. It acts as a quasi- Program) independent agency within the Department of 3.Direct federal acquisition (Forest Service or Environment and Natural Resources, awarding National Park Service acquisition) grants to projects addressing water pollution problems. The first category, state-directed federal pro- Nonprofit land conservation organizations, grams, include the Clean Water State Revolving municipalities, and state agencies have received Fund (CWSRF), the Nonpoint Source Grant 40 Protecting the Source Program (Section 319), and the Drinking Water resources for water quality improvements. State Revolving Fund (DWSRF). The revolving For example, a nonprofit can match a grant funds provide water quality improvement grants from an individual or foundation with an to states, which then make loans to local govern- SRF loan to complete a conservation or ments, and in some cases nonprofits, private citi- restoration project. Over a dozen states allow zens, and others. States are given a great deal of private borrowing, including California and flexibility in the allocation and management of Illinois. funds in order to encourage innovation and to al- 3.Proactively promote the use of State Revolving Funds low them to address their most pressing water and Nonpoint Source Grant Program Funds for a wide quality problems. variety of water quality projects, including land Traditionally, the CWSRF was used to fund conservation and restoration. Many potential new and upgraded wastewater treatment plants, borrowers do not know that federal rules and the DWSRF was used to fund new or up- allow these funds to be used for water- graded drinking water treatment plants. Although shed protection or restoration, estuary there continues to be a need for capital improve- management projects, and source water ments in many communities, the primary threat protection measures. State programs, such as to water quality in most of our nation's waterways Ohio's Restoration Sponsorship Program, is no longer e uent from wastewater treatment have been very e ective for promoting the plants but nonpoint source pollution. In fact, use of funds for nontraditional projects. nonpoint source pollution now accounts for 60 4.Provide state funding and mandates for implementing percent of all pollution in U.S. waterways, yet 95 source water protection plans. Currently there are percent of CWSRFs go toward wastewater treat- no guidelines or provisions for implementing ment upgrades.81 Federal rules allow a great deal on-the-ground strategies, only a mandate of flexibility in the use of the CWSRF, but the to complete assessments. State funding or DWSRF rules only allow states to set aside up mandates could ensure that the e ort that to 15 percent of their loan pool to fund land con- went into developing Source Water Assess- servation or voluntary, incentive-based protec- ment Plans results in actions to protect tion measures. This set-aside is too small to cover source waters. many land protection projects, ranked separately from other projects, and it is not integrated with Local stakeholders can also impact how federal other capital investments. conservation programs are structured and how So how can states more e ectively use their funds are spent at the local level, particularly in the share of state-directed federal funds to address category of state-directed programs. Specifically, threats from nonpoint source pollution at the lo- they can communicate with state program admin- cal level? The following best practices highlight istrators about how these funds could most e ec- what's working in many states. tively address high-priority water quality prob- lems. Generating applications for projects that 1.Create an integrated priority ranking system. In order address nonpoint source pollution and source wa- to fund a wider variety of high-priority ter protection is another way to demonstrate local projects, particularly nonpoint source demand for NPS funding. And finally, local gov- projects, integrate Clean Water Act funding ernments can encourage states to implement in- programs, including the CWSRF, the novative grant and loan programs that leverage Nonpoint Source Grant Program, and the other local and state dollars. Where there has been Estuary Program, and prioritize funding a strong desire at the local level to use SRFs to decisions based on primary water quality fund nonpoint source projects, states have re- threats. In 2002, approximately 26 states sponded with creative loan structures and high took advantage of the flexibility in the Clean funding levels. Water Act to create integrated priority ranking systems, including Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington. For more information on integrated priority ranking CASE STUDY systems, refer to EPA's publication: EPA- Ohio's Restoration Sponsorship Program 832-R-01-002, March 2001. 2.Allow private and public borrowing in the State With funding from the federal Clean Water Revolving Fund, Nonpoint Source Grant, and Estuary State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan program, Programs. Private borrowing by nonprofit land the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has trusts and other groups can leverage private created an innovative program to address threats Part Two: Be st Practice s 41 to do that," said Robert Monsarrat, a manager within the Ohio EPA's division of environmen- tal and financial assistance.82 Communities applying to the Water Resource Restoration Sponsorship Program for wastewater treatment loans can either imple- ment their own watershed restoration project or sponsor a land trust, park district, or another entity's watershed protection or restoration proj- ect. The loan recipient receives a reduced rate for their loan equal to the principal and interest costs of the project, plus an additional reduction of 0.1 percent as an incentive. The savings they receive through the reduced interest rate is then granted to the watershed protection project. The result is the creation of new grant dollars for watershed protection projects and a total repay- ment cost for loan recipients that is lower than if they had borrowed solely for a wastewater project. For example, if a utility borrows $1 million for a plant upgrade or expansion, they receive a standard interest rate of about 3.8 percent and have a total repayment of about $1,437,000, including principal and interest. If they borrow $1 million for a plant upgrade and an additional $393,000 for implementing a restoration or pro- © 2001 AL FUCHS tection project, their interest rate would drop to 0.2 percent, resulting in a total loan repayment of $1,422,000-a savings of $15,000 on the total Northern Ohio's Edison Woods, from nonpoint source pollution. Since its incep- loan repayment. The utility can either use the located just south of Lake Erie, tion, Ohio's Water Pollution Control Loan Fund $393,000 to implement the protection project was permanently protected with (WPCLF), which is funded through the federal themselves or grant it to a nonprofit partner to funding from the Ohio EPA's CWSRF, has significantly reduced the impact of implement the project. Projects eligible for the Water Resource Restoration wastewater treatment on water quality. However, Water Resource Restoration Sponsorship Pro- Sponsorship Program. nonpoint source runo and habitat degradation gram include the purchase of easements on are impeding that progress and are threatening riparian corridors, stream channel restoration to reverse water quality improvements if not projects, and wetland restoration and protection addressed. projects. Because of this growing threat, Ohio EPA In the first two years of the program alone, o cials are taking a broader perspective on communities used $24 million in loan funds to water quality and how to protect and improve it. protect and restore 1,850 acres of riparian land Rather than just looking at discharges from and wetlands and 38 miles of Ohio's stream cor- sewage treatment plants, they are looking at ridors. E orts such as the protection of Sawmill e ects on water quality from storm water wash- Creek, the drinking water source for 400,000 ing o roadways, loss of forested land to new Ohioans, and the protection of Edison Woods, development, and degraded stream corridors. a 1,300-acre reserve that is part of the National In 2000, the Ohio EPA created the Water Estuarine Reserve System, illustrate the tremen- Resource Restoration Sponsorship Program, dous success of this innovative program in pro- which o ers drastically reduced loan rates to tecting and improving Ohio's valuable water utilities and local governments for traditional resources. wastewater treatment work if the loan recipient CONTACT: Robert Monsarrat, Section Manager either implements or "sponsors" a watershed ADDRESS: Ohio EPA, Division of Environmental protection or restoration project. "We're trying and Financial Assistance, P.O. Box 1049, to get people to think more broadly to improve Columbus, OH 43216-1049 and protect water resources and at least to pro- PHONE: 614-644-3655 vide an incentive financially to encourage them WEB SITE: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/defa 42 Protecting the Source In addition to state-directed programs, federal CASE STUDY conservation funds are made available to state and local governments and to nonprofit organizations Rockaway Township and through appropriations, grants, and incentives. Morris County, New Jersey The Federal Funding Sources box below gives an overview of some of the most common federal In Rockaway Township, New Jersey, funding funding programs for land conservation. Al- from multiple sources reached a $7 million goal though none of these funding sources are directed to protect local water resources. Local property specifically at source protection activities, many taxes in Morris County and Rockaway Township can be used for land protection strategies that pro- contributed $1.5 million. The funding was sup- tect source waters. Communities need to think plemented by $2 million from the state's Green creatively about how these funds can support their Acres program. The federal Forest Legacy Pro- source protection goals. gram and the state grant portion of the federal Many of these programs require matching Land and Water Conservation Fund contributed funds, underscoring the need to secure state, local, another $2 million, and private foundations con- and private funds. Federal funds reach the local tributed more than $1 million. level in a variety of ways, depending on the pro- Rockaway Township's success models how gram. Some funds are fully administered by state the presence of one funding source can help agencies; in others, the federal agency takes a more secure other funding. New Jersey's Department direct role. State agencies often provide informa- of Environmental Protection has successfully tion about federal funding sources, procedures, partnered federal Clean Water State Revolving and contacts. For current and detailed informa- Funds with state funding to finance the imple- tion on federal funding sources for land acquisi- mentation of various water supply, wastewater, tion, search TPL's Federal Programs at www.tpl.org. storm water, and nonpoint source pollution For detailed information on federal funds for management projects through low-interest all watershed protection activities use the EPA's loans. online searchable Catalog of Federal Funding The U.S. EPA provides annual grants to Sources for Watershed Protection at www.epa states under a Clean Water State Revolving .gov/safewater/dwsrf.html. Fund. The money is generally used to provide FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES Land and Water Conservation Fund percent of the total cost of the acquisition, The Farmland Protection Program pro- (LWCF) is the largest source of federal with the remainder to be matched by non- vides federal matching funds for state and money for parks, wilderness, and open federal funds. In FY 2002, Congress local farmland protection efforts. To be eli- space acquisition. The program's funding appropriated $65 million for this program. gible, a state, county, or local jurisdiction comes primarily from offshore oil- and The North American Wetlands Con- must have a complementary program of gas-drilling receipts. At the national level, servation Act promotes voluntary public- funding for the purchase of conservation funds are used to acquire and protect new private partnerships to conserve wetland easements. The 2002 Farm Bill provides national forests, parks, wildlife areas, and ecosystems for waterfowl and other migra- $600 million over six years for this pro- other public lands. In FY 2002, Congress tory birds. Acquired or restored habitat gram. appropriated $429 million for specific can be owned or managed by any federal, The Transportation Efficiency Act for acquisitions in these federal units. State- state, or nonprofit organization involved in the 21st Century (TEA-21) provides states side LWCF is a matching grant program land management. In FY 2002, Congress with funds to acquire land for historic that provides funds to states for planning, appropriated $43.5 million for this program. preservation, trails, scenic beautification, development, and acquiring land and The Cooperative Endangered Species and water pollution mitigation related to water areas. In FY 2000, Congress rein- Conservation Fund (Section 6 of the surface transportation through its Trans- stated funding for Stateside LWCF and Endangered Species Act) provides match- portation Enhancements Program. The funded it at $144 million in FY 2002. ing grants to states for conservation proj- Recreational Trails Program provides funds Forest Legacy Program is adminis- ects that benefit not only species listed as for bike and pedestrian trails, and the Con- tered by the U.S. Forest Service under its endangered but also those that are candi- gestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improve- State and Private Forestry Division and dates, or proposed for the list, on state, ment Program funds projects that improve provides matching funds to states to assist private, and other nonfederal land. In FY air quality. in forest protection. States may receive 2002, Congress appropriated more than federal Forest Legacy grants of up to 75 $96 million for this program. Part Two: Be st Practice s 43 loans for wastewater treatment plants, but sev- drinking water are ultimately local responsibilities eral states, including New Jersey, have used the that demand a committed, comprehensive, and The City of San Antonio, money to help local governments and nonprof- sustainable response from water suppliers and lo- Texas, in partnership with its purchase watershed land, restore watersheds, cal government. the Trust for Public Land, and reduce flooding. To qualify for the CWSRF, Careful planning, leadership, and partnerships was awarded a $3.5 million states must match federal funds with 20 percent are essential. Local stakeholders must design and grant by the U.S. Fish and of their own money. In addition to providing implement a publicly and politically viable plan to Wildlife Service through loans to public and private borrowers directly protect lands that provide critical drinking water the Habitat Conservation from the CWSRF, states have the option of supplies. This requires a complete understanding Plan Land Acquisition pooling the grant money, from which bonds can of the watershed and its threats, the identification grant program, authorized be issued to augment funds available for projects. and prioritization of key source lands, and the use under the Endangered New Jersey also revised its conservation of an array of conservation tools. To pay for the Species Act (ESA). The funding selection criteria in 2002 so that proj- plan, local stakeholders should seek dedicated lo- grant will be used to ects with a water supply protection benefit cal funds that can leverage additional resources protect land over the receive three times the weight of other projects. from federal, state, and private sources. Edwards Aquifer Although the parcel must demonstrate water Local governments should also work with state Recharge Zone that quality benefits, it does not have to be a drinking and federal partners to improve and better inte- provides critical habitat water source. grate federal Clean Water and Safe Drinking Wa- for nine federally listed In the fall of 2000, the combined CWSRF ter programs and to increase their e ectiveness at endangered invertebrate and Green Acres funding program received 34 addressing nonpoint source pollution. Funding species, as well as two applications for the protection of 13,000 acres of flexibility is the key: more creative uses of federal endangered songbirds, land, for a total cost of $250,000. According to and state dollars, such as the Drinking Water State the black-capped vireo program managers, between 15 and 20 of those Revolving Fund and Section 319 of the Clean Wa- and the golden-cheeked applications will probably be funded. ter Act, allow local governments to secure more warbler. "This grant CONTACT: Terrance Nolan nonpoint source pollution funds for source pro- opens the door for the ADDRESS: Trust for Public Land, 20 Community tection. community to make Place, 2nd Floor, Morristown, NJ 07960 Partnerships among federal, state, local, and critical additions to PHONE: 973-425-0360 private stakeholders extend beyond funding, pro- existing parkland, protect FAX: 973-425-0366 viding opportunities to share essential planning significant endangered EMAIL: terrance.nolan@tpl.org data and expertise. Networks, partnerships, and species habitat and ensure WEB SITE: http://www.tpl.org resources are growing and should be utilized at clean drinking water for every stage of the process. In many communities, San Antonio and beyond," innovative partnerships are also being forged with explains Jason Corzine other local jurisdictions, landowners, watershed with the Trust for Conclusion associations, land trusts, and a variety of nonprofit Public Land.83 organizations. The protection of source lands provides many Investments in watershed protection are be- benefits to a community: safe drinking water, coming more a necessity than an option. State natural resource protection, recreation ameni- programs and local water suppliers support the ties, and growth management. Local communities notion that watershed planning and protection across the country are increasingly realizing such activities are key to a multiple-barrier approach. benefits, and source protection is gaining support Voters support it too, with poll after poll showing once again as the cornerstone of the multiple- support for new taxes for land conservation that barrier approach to safe drinking water. protects water quality. At the federal level, the In fact, support for source protection is grow- EPA supports many of these activities in princi- ing at all levels, from the passage of Safe Drink- pal, yet it can also work to enhance tools, promote ing Water amendments at the federal level that new technology, and create more flexible funding promote source water protection to state pro- options that help state and local programs make grams that encourage funding for nonpoint source source protection activities a key focus in the protection projects, including land conservation. multiple-barrier approach. Yet public health and the delivery of clean, safe 44 Protecting the Source Glossary Aquifer Physical, Chemical, and Biological Monitoring An underground layer of rock, gravel, or sedi- Three measurable components of water qual- ment containing water. An aquifer may be ity monitoring: Physical measurements may confined between two impervious surfaces, include temperature, flow, water color, and or it may be unconfined. the condition of streambanks and lakeshores. Dissolved oxygen, suspended sediments, Best Management Practices (BMPs) Regulatory or voluntary procedures that can nutrients, metals, oils, and pesticides are reduce the threat to water supplies posed examples of chemical measurements. The by normal activities in homes, businesses, abundance and variety of aquatic plant and or farms. animal life are biological measurements. Point Source Pollution Bioretention A BMP that utilizes soils and both woody Pollution from a distinct, identifiable source, and herbaceous plants to remove pollutants such as a feedlot or factory. from storm water runo . Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) and Easements Emerging Contaminants Diseases or chemicals that either are new Agreement in which the residential, com- to the environment or have been recently mercial, or industrial development rights identified as potential health threats. of a particular parcel are transferred from landowner(s) to a di erent party. In most GIS Mapping and Modeling cases, PDR and conservation easement are Tools that enhance geography-related deci- interchangeable terms. sion making. Maps and models are created from spatial and attribute data, and they are Riparian Zones housed in a computerized Geographic Infor- Vegetated areas abutting lakes, rivers, and mation System (GIS). streams that function as filters for polluted runo , stabilize banks and channels, and Nonpoint Source Pollution provide habitat for fish and wildlife. Pollution that occurs when surface water runo from rainfall or snowmelt moves Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) across or into the ground, picking up pollu- The amount of a particular pollutant that a tants and carrying them into streams, lakes, stream, lake, estuary, or other body of water wetlands, or groundwater. can contain without violating state water quality standards. Pathogen Any microbiological agent capable of pro- ducing disease in healthy peoples, plants, or animals. 45 State Source Water Protection Contacts ALABAMA CALIFORNIA DELAWARE Joe Alan Power Alexis Milea John T. Barndt, P.G. Public Water Supply Branch O ce of Drinking Water Water Supply Section Alabama Department of Environmental California Department of Health Services Division of Water Resources Management 2151 Berkeley Way, Room 461 Delaware Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 301463 Berkeley, CA 94704 and Environmental Control Montgomery, AL 36130-1463 PHONE: 510-540-2177 P.O. Box 1401 PHONE: 334-271-7773 FAX: 510-540-2152 Dover, DE 19903 EMAIL: jp@adem.state.al.us EMAIL: hw1.amilea@hw1.cahwnet.gov PHONE: 302-739-4793 WEB SITE: http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/ FAX: 302-739-2296 ALASKA dwsap/DWSAPindex.htm EMAIL: jbarndt@dnrec.state.de.us Sue Braumiller WEB SITE: http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/ Drinking Water Program COLORADO frames1.htm Alaska Department of Environmental Kim Parker Conservation Colorado Department of Health and FLORIDA 555 Cordova Street Environment WQCD-OA-B2 Donnie McClaugherty, P.G. Anchorage, AK 99501 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Water Standards and Classifications Section PHONE: 507-269-3076 Denver, CO 80246-1530 Bureau of Water Resources Protection EMAIL: sbraumil@envircon.state.ak.us PHONE: 303-692-3582 Department of Environmental Protection WEB SITE: http://www.state.ak.us/dec/deh/ FAX: 303-782-0390 Twin Towers O ce Building water/protect.htm EMAIL: kim.parker@state.co.us 2600 Blair Stone Road WEB SITE: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/ Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 ARIZONA sw/swaphom.html PHONE: 850-921-9438 Mary Simmerer EMAIL: mclaugher_d@dep.state.fl.us Drinking Water Monitoring and Assessment CONNECTICUT Section Rob Hust GEORGIA Water Quality Division, ADEQ Connecticut Department of Environmental Nolton Johnson 3033 North Central Avenue Protection Water Resources Branch Phoenix, AZ 85012-2809 Water Management Bureau Georgia Environmental Protection Division PHONE: 602-207-4427 79 Elm Street East Floyd Towers, Suite 1362 FAX: 602-207-4634 Hartford, CT 06106-5127 205 Butler Street SE EMAIL: simmerer.mary@ev.state.az.us PHONE: 860-424-3718 Atlanta, GA 30334 WEB SITE: http://www.adeq.state.az.us/water/ FAX: 860-424-4067 PHONE: 404-651-5168 safe/swap.htm EMAIL: Robert.Hust@po.state.ct.us FAX: 404-651-9590 WEB SITE: http://dep.state.ct.us EMAIL: nolton_johnson@mail.dnr.state ARKANSAS .ga.us Lyle Godfrey Lori Mathieu WEB SITE: http://www.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/ Arkansas Department of Health Connecticut Department of Public Health environ/pdfdoc/swappl12.pdf Division of Engineering 410 Capitol Avenue 4815 West Markham Street, Mail Slot 37 MS#51 WAT HAWAII Little Rock, AR 72205-3867 P.O. Box 340308 Hartford, CT 06134 Bill Wong PHONE: 501-661-2623 Safe Drinking Water Bureau PHONE: 860-509-7343 FAX: 501-661-2032 Hawaii Department of Health FAX: 860-509-7359 EMAIL: lgodfrey@mail.doh.state.ar.us 919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 308 WEB SITE: http://health.state.ar.us/eng/ Honolulu, HI 96814 swpframe.htm PHONE: 808-586-4258 FAX: 808-586-4370 EMAIL: waterbill@aol.com WEB SITE: http://www.aloha.net/~will/ hiswap.html 46 IDAHO KENTUCKY MICHIGAN Lance Nielsen Jack Wilson Elgar Brown Drinking Water and Waste Water Bureau Division of Water Ground Water Supply Section Idaho Division of Environmental Quality Natural Resources and Environmental Drinking Water and Radiological Division 1410 North Hilton Protection Cabinet Michigan Department of Environmental Boise, ID 83706 14 Reilly Road Quality PHONE: 208-373-0502 Frankfort, KY 40601 P.O. Box 30630 EMAIL: lnielsen@deq.state.id.us PHONE: 502-564-3410 Lansing, MI 48909-8130 WEB SITE: http://www2.state.id.us/deq/ EMAIL: wilson_ja@mail.nr.state.ky.us PHONE: 517-335-8312 Water.htm WEB SITE: http://water.nr.state.ky.us/dow/ FAX: 517-335-8298 swap EMAIL: BrownElg@state.mi.us Scott Short WEB SITE: http://www.deq.state.mi.us/dwr/ Wellhead Protection Program LOUISIANA swa/swa.htm Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Division of Environmental Quality Howard Fielding MINNESOTA 1410 North Hilton Louisiana Department of Environmental Boise, ID 83706 Quality Bruce Olsen Ground Water Protection Division Special Services Unit PHONE: 208-373-0542 P.O. Box 82215 Drinking Water Protection Section FAX: 208-373-0576 Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2251 Minnesota Department of Health EMAIL: sshort@deq.state.id.us PHONE: 225-765-0578 P.O. Box 64975 St. Paul, MN 55164-0975 ILLINOIS EMAIL: howardf@deq.state.la.us PHONE: 612-215-0796 Rick Cobb MAINE FAX: 612-215-0979 Division of Public Water Supplies EMAIL: bruce.olsen@health.state.mn.us Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Paul Hunt WEB SITE: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/ P.O. Box 19276 Maine Drinking Water Program eh/dwp/swp/swp.pdf Springfield, IL 62794-9276 Bureau of Health, Division of Health Engineering PHONE: 217-785-4787 10 State House Station MISSISSIPPI FAX: 217-782-0075 Augusta, ME 04333-0010 Bill Wall EMAIL: epa3188@epa.il.us PHONE: 207-287-6196 Division of Water Supply WEB SITE: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/ source-waterassessment-and- FAX: 207-287-4172 Mississippi State Department of Health protection/index.html EMAIL: paul.hunt@state.me.us 2423 North State Street WEB SITE: http://www.state.me.us/dhs/eng/ P.O. Box 1700 water/swappage1.htm Jackson, MS 39215 INDIANA PHONE: 601-960-7518 Lance Mabry MARYLAND EMAIL: billwall@mail.misnet.com Ground Water Section Indiana Department of Environmental John Grace MISSOURI Management Water Supply Program P.O. Box 6015 Water Management Administration G. Lawson Penny Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015 2500 Broening Highway Public Drinking Water Program Baltimore, MD 21224 Missouri Department of Natural Resources PHONE: 317-308-3318 PHONE: 410-631-3714 P.O. Box 176 FAX: 317-308-3339 EMAIL: jgrace@mde.state.md.us Je erson City, MO 65102 IOWA WEB SITE: http://www.mde.state.md.us/ PHONE: 573-526-5449 health/swap WEB SITE: http://www.cares.missouri Dennis Alt .edu/swap Iowa Department of Natural Resources MASSACHUSETTS Wallace O ce Building MONTANA 900 East Grand Tara Gallagher Des Moines, IA 50319-0034 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Joe Meek / Russell L. Levens Protection SWAP Section, Pollution Prevention Bureau PHONE: 515-281-8998 Drinking Water Program Montana Department of Environmental One Winter Street Quality KANSAS Boston, MA 02108 Metcalf Building, Box 200901 Jim Pennington PHONE: 617-292-5930 Helena, MT 59620-0901 Kansas Department of Health and FAX: 617-292-5696 PHONE: 406-444-4806 / 0471 Environment EMAIL: tara.gallagher@state.ma.us FAX: 406-444-1374 Building 283, Forbes Field WEB SITE: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/ EMAIL: jmeek@mt.gov / rlevens@mt.gov Topeka, KS 66620 dws/dwspubs.htm PHONE: 785-296-5505 State Source Water Protection Contacts 47 NEBRASKA NEW YORK OREGON Marty Link / Stephanie Vap Claudine Jones Ra erty Dennis Nelson Nebraska Department of Environmental New York State Department of Health Oregon Department of Human Services Quality 2 University Place, Room 410 Drinking Water Program P.O. Box 98922, State House Station Albany, NY 12203 442 A Street Lincoln, NE 68509-8922 PHONE: 518-458-6743 Springfield, OR 97477 PHONE: 402-471-4270 / 7784 EMAIL: cfj02@health.state.ny.us PHONE: 541-726-2587 EMAIL: deq076@deq.state.ne.us / WEB SITE: http://www.health.state.ny.us/ FAX: 541-682-7499 deq244@mail.deq.st.ne.us nysdoh/water/swap.htm EMAIL: dennis.o.nelson@state.or.us WEB SITE: http://www.deq.state.ne.us/ WEB SITE: http://www.ohd.hr.state.or.us/cehs/ GroundW/nsf/TOC NORTH CAROLINA dwp/swp.htm Robert Midgette NEVADA Public Water Supply System Sheree Stewart Jon Palm North Carolina Department of Drinking Water Protection Program State Health Division Environmental, Health, and Natural Oregon Department of Environmental Bureau of Health Protection Services Resources Quality 1179 Fairview Drive, Suite 201 P.O. Box 29536 811 SW 6th Avenue Carson City, NV 89701-5405 Raleigh, NC 27626-0536 Portland, OR 97204-1390 PHONE: 503-229-5413 PHONE: 775-687-4750 ext. 229 PHONE: 919-733-2321 FAX: 503-229-6037 FAX: 775-687-5197 EMAIL: robert_midgette@mail.enr.state .nc.us EMAIL: sheree.stewart@state.or.us NEW HAMPSHIRE WEB SITE: http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/ PENNSYLVANIA Sarah Pillsbury pws/index.htm New Hampshire Department of Joseph Lee Environmental Services NORTH DAKOTA Division of Water Supplies, 11th Floor Water Supply Engineering Bureau Dave Glatt Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 6 Hazen Drive Ground Water Protection Program Resources P.O. Box 95 Division of Water Quality 400 Market Street, Box 8467 Concord, NH 03302 1200 Missouri Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17105-8467 PHONE: 717-772-4018 PHONE: 603-271-1168 Bismarck, ND 58504 EMAIL: lee.joseph@a1.dep.state.pa.us FAX: 603-271-2181 PHONE: 701-328-5217 WEB SITE: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/ EMAIL: s_pillsbury@des.state.nh.us FAX: 701-328-5200 dep/deputate/watermgt/wsm/ WEB SITE: http://www.state.nh.us/des EMAIL: dglatt@state.nd.us WSM_DWM/SrceProt/ WEB SITE: http://www.health.state.nd.us/ TACSWPSM.htm NEW JERSEY ndhd/environ/wq/gw/gwindex.htm Sandy Kreitzman RHODE ISLAND New Jersey Department of Environmental OHIO Protection Mike Baker Clay Commons Bureau of Safe Drinking Water, CM426 Division of Drinking and Ground Waters Rhode Island Department of Health East State Street Ohio Environmental Protection Agency O ce of Drinking Water Quality Trenton, NJ 08625-0426 P.O. Box 1049 3 Capital Hill Providence, RI 02908-5097 PHONE: 609-292-5550 Columbus, OH 43216-1049 PHONE: 401-222-6867 ext. 2237 EMAIL: skreitzman@dep.state.nj.us PHONE: 614-644-2752 FAX: 401-222-6953 WEB SITE: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/ FAX: 614-644-2909 swap.html EMAIL: clayc@doh.state.ri.us EMAIL: mike.baker@epa.state.oh.us WEB SITE: http://www.health.state.ri.us/ WEB SITE: http://www.epa.ohio.gov/ddagw/ environment/swaphome.htm NEW MEXICO pdu/swap.html Darren Padilla SOUTH CAROLINA Drinking Water Bureau OKLAHOMA New Mexico Environment Department Mike Houts / Mike Harrell David Baize, Director P.O. Box 26110 Water Quality Division Bureau of Water Santa Fe, NM 87501 Oklahoma Department of Environmental South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control PHONE: 505-827-7536 Quality 2600 Bull Street EMAIL: darren_padilla@nmenv.state.nm.us 1000 NE 10th Street Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212 Columbia, SC 29201-1708 PHONE: 803-734-5323 PHONE: 405-702-8100 EMAIL: baizedg@columb32.dhec.state.sc.us EMAIL: michael.houts@OKLAOSF.state .ok.us / mike.harrell@OKLAOSF WEB SITE: http://www.state.sc.us/dhec/ .state.ok.us srcewtr.htm 48 Protecting the Source SOUTH DAKOTA VERMONT WYOMING Anita Yan / Tricia Sebes Elizabeth Hunt Kevin Frederick / Beth Pratt / South Dakota DENR Water Supply Division Maggie Davison Joe Foss Building Department of Environmental Conservation Wyoming Department of Environmental 523 East Capitol 103 South Main Street Quality Pierre, SD 57501-3181 Waterbury, VT 05671 Water Quality Division PHONE: 605-773-3296 PHONE: 802-241-3409 Herschler Building FAX: 605-773-6035 FAX: 802-241-3284 122 West 25th Street EMAIL: anitay@denr.state.sd.us / EMAIL: elizh@dec.anr.state.vt.us Cheyenne, WY 82002 tricias@denr.state.sd.us WEB SITE: http://www.anr.state.vt.us PHONE: 307-777-5985 / 7079 / 7092 WEB SITE: http://www.state.sd.us/denr/ FAX: 307-777-5973 DES/Ground/Sourcewater/ VIRGINIA EMAIL: kfrede@missc.state.wy.us / sourcewater.htm Gerald Peaks bpratt@missc.state.wy.us / O ce of Water Programs mdavis@missc.state.wy.us TENNESSEE 1500 East Main Street, Room 109 Tom Moss Richmond, VA 23219 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Ground Water Management Section PHONE: 804-371-2882 Sharon Gonder Division of Water Supply EMAIL: gpeaks@vdh.state.va.us DC Department of Health Department of Environment and Water Quality Division Conservation WASHINGTON 2100 Martin Luther King Drive, Suite 200 401 Church Street Washington, DC 20020 Nashville, TN 37243-1549 David Jennings Division of Drinking Water PHONE: 202-645-6601 ext. 3087 PHONE: 615-532-0170 Department of Health FAX: 202-645-5622 EMAIL: tmoss@mail.state.tn.us P.O. Box 47822 EMAIL: sgonder@mail.environ.state.dc.us WEB SITE: http://www.state.tn.us/ environment/dws/index.html Olympia, WA 98504-7822 PUERTO RICO PHONE: 360-586-9041 Olga I. Rivera TEXAS FAX: 360-586-5529 EMAIL: dgj0303@hub.doh.wa.gov Puerto Rico Department of Health Brad Cross Public Water Supervision Program Public Drinking Water Section (MC-155) WEST VIRGINIA P.O. Box 70184 Texas Natural Resource Conservation Edificio A. Centro Medico Commission Bill Toomey San Juan, PR 00909 P.O. Box 13087 West Virginia Department of Health Austin, TX 78711-3087 Environmental Engineering Division 815 Quarrier Street, Suite 418 U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS PHONE: 512-239-6020 Charleston, WV 25301 Austin Moorehead FAX: 512-239-6050 PHONE: 304-558-2981 Virgin Islands DPNR/DEP EMAIL: bcross@tnrcc.state.tx.us FAX: 304-558-0691 Water Gut Homes 1118 WEB SITE: http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/water/ wu/swap EMAIL: wtoomey@wvdhhr.org Christiansted, St. Croix 00820-5065 PHONE: 340-773-0565 WISCONSIN UTAH Sumner Newman / Dan Hall Je Helmuth Utah Department of Environmental Quality Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Division of Drinking Water Bureau of Drinking Water and Groundwater P.O. Box 144830 P.O. Box 7921 150 North 1950 West Madison, WI 53707-7921 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4830 PHONE: 608-266-5234 FAX: 608-267-7650 PHONE: 801-536-4195 / 4206 EMAIL: helmuj@dnr.state.wi.us FAX: 801-536-4211 WEB SITE: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/ EMAIL: snewman@deq.state.ut.us / dhall@deq.state.ut.us water/dwg/gw/SWP.HTM State Source Water Protection Contacts 49 Notes 1. George E. Dissmeyer, Drinking Water from Forests 11. U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Pollution: The Nation's and Grasslands: A Synthesis of the Scientific Literature (South- Largest Water Quality Problem, National Water Quality Inven- ern Research Station, Forest Service, United States tory 1994 (United States Environmental Protection Department of Agriculture, 2000), General Technical Agency, 1996), EPA841-F-96-004A. Retrieved Janu- Report SRS-39. ary 2004 from http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/facts/ 2. Adjusted R Squared was .55 for single regres- point1.htm. sion and .50 for multiple regression, including other 12. Kimberley Roy, U.S. EPA, O ce of Water landuse percentages such as cropland, pasture, and (Personal communication, November 2003). residential/commercial. 13. Luna B. Leopold, Water, Rivers and Creeks (Sausa- 3. Chris S. Crockett and Chad E. Pindar, Tools lito, CA: University Science Books, 1997). and Techniques for Modernized Source Water Protection 14. Jim Sedell et al., Water and the Forest Service (For- (Philadelphia Water Department, O ce of Water- est Service, United States Department of Agriculture, sheds-Source Protection Program; prepared for the 2000), FS-660; Macara Lousberg and Jon D. Witten, American Water Works Association-Source Protec- Tools for Water Resource Protection (Materials from local tion Symposium, 2003). government workshop, May 2002, at Midland Uni- 4. U.S. EPA, Our Built and Natural Environments: versity, Washington, DC). A Technical Review of the Interactions between Land Use, 15. FISRWG, Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Transportation, and Environmental Quality (Development, Practices and Processes (Federal Interagency Stream Community, and Environment Division, United Restoration Working Group, FISRWG, 1998), States Environmental Protection Agency, 2001), retrieved January 2004 from http://www.usda.gov/ EPA 231-R-01-002. agency/stream_restoration. 5. According to a recent report produced by the 16. Leopold. World Wildlife Fund and the World Bank, Running 17. Sedell et al. Pure, protecting forests-which reduce erosion and 18. Dissmeyer. sediment, improve water quality, and in some cases 19. World Water Council, World Water Vision (Lon- capture storm water-is an e ective way to clean don: Earthscan, 2000); Dudley and Stolton. drinking water and reduce treatment costs. Nigel 20. American Rivers, Paving our Way to Water Short- Dudley and Sue Stolton, Running Pure: The Importance of ages: How Sprawl Aggravates the E ects of Drought (American Forest Protected Areas to Drinking Water (Washington, DC: Rivers, August 28, 2002), p. 5. The World Bank and WWF Alliance for Forest Con- 21. Leopold. servation and Sustainable Use, 2003), Retrieved Janu- 22. American Rivers, p. 5; U.S. EPA, Clean Water ary 2004 from http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ Through Conservation (April 1995), EPA 841-B-95- ESSD/envext.nsf/80ByDocName/ProtectedAreas 002; R. Sakrison, Water Use in Compact Communities: The ProtectedAreasManagementRunningPure. E ect of New Urbanism, Growth Management and Conservation 6. National Research Council, Assessing the TMDL Measures on Residential Water Demands (Seattle: University Approach to Water Quality Management (Washington, DC: of Washington, 1997); T. Schueler, "The Peculiarities National Academy Press, 2001). of Perviousness," Watershed Protection Techniques 2:1 7. Dissmeyer. (1995). 8. U.S. EPA, National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 23. American Rivers, p. 5. Report to Congress (United States Environmental Protec- 24. Dissmeyer. tion Agency, 1998), EPA841-R-00-001. 25. Ibid. 9. Stephanie Von Feck, U.S. EPA, O ce of Water 26. National Research Council, Safe Water from Every (Personal communication, November 2003). Tap: Improving Water Service to Small Communities (Commit- 10. U.S. EPA, Report to Congress-Paying for Water tee on Small Water Supply Systems, Water Science and Quality: Managing Funding Programs to Achieve the Greatest Technology Board, Commission on Geosciences, Envi- Environmental Benefit (O ce of Water, United States ronment and Resources, National Research Council; Environmental Protection Agency, 2003), EPA 832- Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997). R-03-003. Retrieved January 2004 from http:// 27. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency www.epa.gov/OW-OWM.html/cwfinance/cwsrf/ defines a small water system as one that serves fewer rtc0703.pdf. than 10,000 people. 50 28. U.S. EPA, Community Water System Survey 2000 46. Erickson. (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 47. National Research Council, Identifying Future 2002), EPA 815-R-02-005A. Retrieved January Drinking Water Contaminants. 2004 from http://www.epa.gov/safewater/cwssvr. 48. USGS, The Quality of Our Nation's Waters: Nutrients html. and Pesticides-A Summary (United States Geological Sur- 29. National Research Council, Safe Water from Every vey, Department of the Interior, 1999), FS-116-99. Tap: Improving Water Service to Small Communities. NRC Retrieved January 2004 from http://water.usgs.gov/ also recommends purchasing from a nearby utility, nawqa; United States Congress, Federal Incentives Could if possible, before investing in new technologies. Help Promote Land Use That Protects Air and Water Quality 30. Jennifer Palmiotto, Northeast Rural Water (United States General Accounting O ce, Report to Association (Personal communication, October Congressional Requesters, 2001), GAO-02-12. 2003). 49. Dudley and Stolton. 31. Je rey K. Gri ths, Why Are We Protecting Source 50. Adjusted R squared was .55 for single regression Water?: The Public Health Connection (Graduate Programs and .50 for multiple regression, including other land- in Public Health, Tufts University School of Medicine; use percentages, such as cropland, pasture, and resi- presented at the 2003 National Source Water Protec- dential/commercial. tion Conference sponsored by the U.S. Environmental 51. Ruth Samuelson, County Commissioner, Protection Agency, June 2003). Mecklenburg County (Personal communication, 32. Ibid. September 2003). 33. Timothy E. Ford and Rita R. Colwell, A Global 52. Caryn Ernst, Richard Gullick, and Kirk Nixon, Decline in Microbiological Safety of Water: A Call for Action "Protecting the Source: Land Conservation as a (Washington, DC: American Academy of Microbiol- Source Water Protection Tool," Opflow (American ogy, 1996). Retrieved January 2004 from http:// Water Works Association, May 2004). www.asmusa.org/acasrc/acal.htm. 53. These are the averages for the 27 respondents 34. National Research Council, Identifying Future in the survey, which included only suppliers using pri- Drinking Water Contaminants (1998 Workshop on marily surface water. Emerging Drinking Water Contaminants, Water Sci- 54. Kirk Nixon, San Antonio Water System (Per- ence and Technology Board, Board on Environmental sonal communication, August 2003). Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Geosciences, 55. Bruce A. McCarl, Costs of Water Treatment Due to Environment, and Resources; Washington, DC: Diminished Water Quality: A Case Study in Texas (College National Academy Press, 1999). Station: Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas 35. Dissmeyer. A&M University, 1997), p. 2. 36. National Research Council, Identifying Future 56. Federal Register 68, no. 154 (August 11, 2003). Drinking Water Contaminants. 57. O'Connor. 37. Ibid. 58. For more information, see Maureen Costello, 38. Griffiths. "Cost to Clean Town's Water Goes Up, Voters Will Be 39. Chris Crockett, Philadelphia Water Depart- Asked to Borrow Funds for Plants," The Boston Globe, ment (Personal communication, October 2003). October 5, 2001. 40. Britt E. Erickson, "Analyzing the Ignored Envi- 59. Lousberg and Witten. ronmental Contaminants," Environmental Science and 60. Timothy E. Ford and Rita R. Colwell, A Global Technology 36(7):140A­45A (April 2002). Decline in Microbiological Safety of Water: A Call for Action 41. U.S. EPA, The Incorporation of Water Treatment (Washington, DC: American Academy of Micro- E ects on Pesticide Removal and Transformations in Food Quality biology, 1996). Retrieved January 2004 from Protection Act (FQPA) Drinking Water Assessment (O ce http://www.asmusa.org/acasrc/acal.htm. of Pesticide Programs, United States Environmental 61. Ed Holland, Orange Water and Sewer Author- Protection Agency, 2001). ity (Personal communication, April 2003). 42. USGS, USGS Recent Highlights-Environmental 62. Bruce Peterson, "Control of Nitrogen Export E ects on Human and Wildlife Health: Pathogenic Microorga- from Watersheds by Headwater Streams," Science nisms in Public Water Supplies (United States Geological 292:86­90 (2001). Survey, Department of the Interior, 1997), FS-189-97. 63. Ibid. Retrieved April 2001 from http://www.usgs.gov/ 64. Dissmeyer. themes/FS-189-97/. 65. Ibid. 43. Neil J. Hoxie et al., "Cryptosporidium-Asso- 66. Steve Specht, Brick Municipal Utility Author- ciated Mortality Following a Massive Waterborne ity (Personal communication, October 2003). Outbreak in Milwaukee, Wisconsin," American Journal of 67. Chris Crockett, Philadelphia Water Depart- Public Health 87, no. 12 (1997). ment (Personal communication, November 2003). 44. Dennis R. O'Connor, Report of the Walkerton 68. U.S. EPA, Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Inquiry: The Events of May 2000 and Related Issues (Toronto: Assessment Program (Assessment and Watershed Protec- Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, Queen's tion Division, O ce of Wetlands, Oceans and Water- Printer for Ontario, 2002). shed, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 45. Carol Storms, New Jersey American Water 2003), EPA 841-B-03-003. Retrieved January 2004 Company (Personal communication, October 2003). from http://yosemite.epa.gov/ncepihom/nsCatalog.nsf/ Note s 51 EPATitle?SearchView&Query=Field+MediaISBNs 79. Suzanne Flagor, Seattle Public Utilities (Per- +Contains+841B03003. sonal communication, November 2003). 69. Chris Crockett (Personal communication, 80. Trust for Public Land, Landvote 2003 (Washing- October 2003). ton, DC: The Trust for Public Land and the Land 70. Carol Storms (Personal communication, Trust Alliance, 2004); Trust for Public Land, Landvote November 2003). 2002 (Washington, DC: The Trust for Public Land and 71. Chris Crockett (Personal communication, the Land Trust Alliance, 2003). October 2003). 81. U.S. EPA, Report to Congress-Paying for Water 72. Charles L. Convis, Jr., Conservation Geography: Quality: Managing Funding Programs to Achieve the Greatest Case Studies in GIS, Computer Mapping, and Activisim (Red- Environmental Benefit (O ce of Water, United States lands, CA: ESRI Press, 2001). Environmental Protection Agency, 2003), EPA 832- 73. Crockett and Pindar. R-03-003. Retrieved January 2004 from http:// 74. Ibid. www.epa.gov/OW-OWM.html/cwfinance/cwsrf/ 75. Chris Crockett (Personal communication, rtc0703.pdf. October 2003). 82. For more information, see "Loan's Aim Is 76. Billy Turner, Columbus Water Works (Per- Cleaner Water: EPA Incentive Gets Attention in Ver- sonal communication, October 2003). million," Plain Deal Reporter, September 25, 2000. 77. Crockett and Pindar. 83. Jason Corzine, Trust for Public Land (Personal 78. Ed Holland (Personal communication, Febru- communication, October 2003). ary 2003). Design, composition, and production by Wilsted & Taylor Publishing Services, Oakland, California 52 Protecting the Source P u b l i c a t i o n s b y Order your copies online at www.tpl.org/publications Local Greenprinting for Growth Using Land Conservation to Guide Growth and Preserve the Character of our Communities A four-part series guiding agencies and conservation professionals pro- tecting open space. The handbooks focus on Greenprinting, a long-term strategy for guiding development and growth. The four volumes include: an overview; defining a conservation vision; securing conservation funds; and acquiring and managing park and conservation lands. By Kim Hopper $15 for each volume $25 for set of four Conservation Easement Handbook AVA I L A B L E FA L L 2 0 0 4 Published with the Land Trust Alliance Conservation easements are the premier legal tool for addressing strategic land conservation priorities in America's communities. This expanded hand- book-an update of the 1988 original-is the definitive practical and techni- cal resource on conservation easements and best practices for their use. For conservation professionals navigating the legal complexities of easements. By Elizabeth Byers and Karin Marchetti Ponte $40 Conservation Finance Handbook How Communities are Paying for Parks and Land Conservation Between 1996 and 2003, TPL's Conservation Finance Program helped states and communities design and promote ballot measures that created more than $35 billion in new park and open space funding. Now TPL conservation finance experts have created a handbook for communities seeking to raise conservation funds at the ballot box-from initial demographic research to post election analysis. Topics Include: measuring public opinion, designing a winning measure, and running a conservation campaign. By Ernest Cook and Kim Hopper $21.95 AVA I L A B L E FA L L 2 0 0 4 Source Protection Handbook Using Land Conservation to Protect Drinking Water Supplies Local governments, water suppliers and agencies, and community drinking water advocates will benefit from this new how-to handbook containing guidance for identifying source water con- servation opportunities, implementing source water conservation programs, and acquiring and protecting the lands that will help keep drinking water clean. By Kim Hopper and Caryn Ernst $25 6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235 tel 800-926-7337 / fax 303-347-0804 www.awwa.org $15.00 ISBN 1-932807-02-0 116 New Montgomery Street, Fourth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 tel 800-714-5263 / fax 415-495-4103 www.tpl.org printed on recycled paper