Protecting the Source

Land Conservation and the Future of America’s Drinking Water

published by the Trust for Public Land and American Water Works Association

Wat

er P

rote

ctio

n Se

ries

“The health of our waters is the principal measure of how we live on the land.”

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

largest organization of water professionals in

the world. AWWA advances public health, safety,

and welfare by uniting the eΩorts of the full

spectrum of the drinking water community.

Through our collective strength we become

better stewards of water for the greatest good

of the people and the environment.

Written by Caryn ErnstEdited by Kim Hopper and David Summers

Copyright 2004 by the Trust for Public LandAll rights reserved

cover photo left © 2001 Al Fuchscover photo right © 1999 Bill Silliker, Jr.

Quotation on front cover by Luna Leopold,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 oΩers 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.

Land Conservation and the Future of America’s Drinking Water

P R OT EC T I NG T H E S OU R C E

t h i s r e p or t wa s p r odu c e dw i t h f u n di ng f r om t h e

f ol l ow i ng or g a n i z at ion s

Henry Phillip Kraft Family Memorial Fundof the New York Community Trust

Aquarion Water Company

CASE STUDIES

Suffolk County, New York 12

Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 13

Brick Township, New Jersey 14

West Groton Water Supply District, Massachusetts 15

Carroll County, Georgia 18

City of Lenexa, Kansas 19

New York, New York 23

Salem, Oregon 24

Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Carrbaro, North Carolina 26

San Antonio, Texas 27

Philadelphia Water Department, Pennsylvania 30

Nashua, Massachusetts 33

Columbus, Georgia 34

Seattle, Washington 36

Austin, Texas 37

Assawompsett Pond Complex, Massachusetts 38

New York/New Jersey Northern Highlands 39

North Carolina 40

Ohio’s Restoration Sponsorship Program 41

Rockaway Township and Morris County, New Jersey 43

Contents

Foreword 4

Acknowledgments 5

Executive Summary 6

part one: Making the CaseProtecting 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 PracticesUnderstand 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

n 1997, the Trust for Public Land (TPL) re-leased the first edition of Protecting the Source. The

report promoted the strong interrelationshipbetween land and water resources and the ab-solute necessity of landuse planning in watershedmanagement. Over 15,000 copies of the reportwere distributed to communities across the coun-try. This new edition of Protecting the Source is the re-sult of a partnership between TPL and the Amer-ican Water Works Association (AWWA) to lookmore closely at the case for land conservation as asource water protection strategy.

The release of the 1997 report coincided withthe 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Wa-ter Act that mandated a state source water as-sessment and planning process—and, we think,created a renewed interest in a multiple-barrierapproach to source protection. By the mid-1990s,TPL was increasingly working with local govern-ments and water suppliers on land conservationstrategies for water quality protection. Based onpublic surveys testing voter support for new taxesto support land conservation, it was clear to us bythe late 1990s that the public was greatly inter-ested in using land conservation as a tool to ad-dress water quality.

In 2002, TPL formed a partnership withAWWA to revisit the ideas in the first edition ofProtecting the Source and to provide a stronger caseand a set of best practices for using land conserva-tion for source protection. AWWA’s Source Pro-tection Committee, composed of volunteer prac-titioners and scientists, has worked diligently tosupport TPL’s eΩorts to ferret out research andfield practice regarding the value and practice ofland conservation for protecting drinking waterquality.

AWWA has long promoted the idea of sourceprotection. Reporting on the results of a major1991 AWWA Research Foundation watershedmanagement study, the AWWA Journal assertedthat “the most eΩective way to ensure the long-term protection of water supplies is through landownership by the water supplier and its coopera-tive public jurisdictions.” At that time, the Journal

4

Foreword

I

Will Rogers

Jack HoΩbuhr

noted, the median percentage of watershed landsowned by water utilities nationwide was only 2percent. That number has not changed signif-icantly over the past decade.

TPL and AWWA’s partnership on this edi-tion represents the first eΩort in a collaboration topromote suppliers’ ability to turn EPA-mandatedsource water assessments into protection strate-gies. Both organizations are strongly committedto source protection. In the summer of 2003,AWWA’s board rea≈rmed its commitment to se-curing drinking water from the highest qualitysources available and to “actively and aggressively”protecting those sources. Land conservation iscentral to TPL’s mission, and over 30 years ofpartnering with local and state governments onland protection strategies make it well suited topartnerships with water suppliers.

The original edition of Protecting the Source in-troduced the issue of source protection to landuseplanners—and revisited historical eΩorts. It high-lighted the increasing pressure on supplies as de-velopment sprawls into drinking watersheds. Thisnew edition builds on earlier case-making withmore detailed information on cost benefits, on theincreasing challenges to water treatment, and on agrowing body of knowledge regarding the use ofland conservation for source protection.

For 60 years, the safety of most of America’sdrinking water has been dependent on technology.Today, water suppliers are revisiting the idea thatwatershed protection—the first barrier againstcontamination—needs to, once again, be an inte-gral part of their water quality protection strategy.The information and best practices in this reportwill ensure that suppliers will be well prepared totake on this challenge.

Will Rogers Jack W. HoΩbuhrPresident Executive Director

TPL AWWA

© P

HIL

SC

HE

RM

EIS

TE

RC

OU

RT

ES

Y O

F A

ME

RIC

AN

WA

TE

R W

OR

KS

AS

SO

CIA

TIO

N

he Trust for Public Land (TPL) would like to thank the many people who helped to make this report possible. In particular, we would

like to thank the members of the American WaterWorks Association (AWWA) Source Water Pro-tection Committee and TPL’s Source Water Pro-tection Advisory Committee for their supportthroughout this project and the untold hours theycommitted to conference calls and reviewingdrafts to help TPL “get it right.” AWWA’s SourceWater Protection Committee Chairperson, Rich-ard Gullick, deserves special recognition for sup-porting this project since its outset, not only withtechnical insight and editorial assistance, but alsoby providing a much needed water utility perspec-tive. Special thanks also to Gary Logsdon, for hisdetailed, thoughtful, and technically proficientreview comments, and to Grantley Pyke, for hisextensive references, data sources, and guidancewith our water supplier surveys. Without the wis-dom of our many advisors, TPL could not haveproduced this report or its companion report,Source Protection Handbook: Using Land Conservation toProtect Drinking Water Supplies.

TPL’s Source Water Protection Advisory Committee

Scott Abrahamson, New York State,Department of Environmental Conservation

Paul Barten, University of MassachusettsKathy Blaha, Trust for Public LandSuzanne Chiavari, American Water Chris Crockett, Philadelphia Water DepartmentScott Emry, Hampton Roads Planning District

CommissionStephen Gasteyer, Rural Community Assistance

ProgramRichard Gullick, American Water

Ed Holland, Orange Water and Sewer Authority,North Carolina

Pam Kenel, Black and VeatchGary Logsdon, Black and VeatchWalton Low, U.S. Geologic Survey, National

Water Quality Assessment ProgramKirk Nixon, San Antonio Water SystemK. C. Price, Startex, Jackson, Wellford and

Duncan (SJWD) Water DistrictGrantley Pyke, Hazen and SawyerCarol Storms, New Jersey American Water

CompanyBrian Thompson, Aquarion Water Company of

Connecticut

TPL would also like to thank the many watersuppliers who participated in our survey, whichsurfaced critical information on the link betweenforest cover and treatment costs. We would like toconvey our special appreciation to the many mu-nicipalities, water utilities, and state and federalagency representatives who provided extensivematerials for our case studies and background datafor making the case. EPA staΩ at the O≈ce ofGround Water and Drinking Water, especiallyDebra Gutenson, supported TPL’s fieldwork,where many of our best practices and case studiesoriginated. We are grateful for their partnershipand support of our work.

Special appreciation is due to Kathy Blaha, Se-nior Vice President of National Programs at TPL,for her support, guidance, and countless hours of reviewing and revising drafts. Thanks also toKathryn Lanouette for her research assistance andher tenacious eΩort to collect water supplier sur-veys, and to Kyle Holland for his assistance withresearch and other editorial details.

TPL is especially grateful for the financial sup-port provided by the Henry Phillip Kraft FamilyMemorial Fund of the New York Community Trustand by the Aquarion Water Company, withoutwhich this report would not have been possible.

5

Acknowledgments

T

n 1896, shortly after constructing its first public water supply system, Seattle leaders agreed on

a long-term plan to eventually own the en-tire Cedar River Watershed, thus permanentlyprotecting and securing Seattle’s drinking watersource. With a 100,000-acre watershed, it was abold vision.

One hundred years later, Seattle’s original vi-sion had finally been achieved. By taking advan-tage of opportunities, creating dedicated localfunding, and patiently sticking to a long-term vi-sion, the City of Seattle has permanently pro-tected one of the most pristine sources of drinkingwater in the country. Seattle made a cost-eΩectiveinvestment in clean source waters that will neverbe threatened by pollution from roads, sewers, orurban runoΩ. It is an investment that will continueto pay oΩ many times over through reduced treat-ment costs and a safe supply of water for genera-tions to come.

Unfortunately, watersheds in many other fast-growing communities remain unprotected andthreatened by development. New roads, homes,and commercial development can abruptly alter alandscape and generate nonpoint source pollutionthat contaminates drinking water supplies. Ac-cording to the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, the leading cause of water quality degra-dation is nonpoint source pollution (NPS)—over60 percent of pollution in U.S. waterways comesfrom runoΩ from lawns, farms, cities, and high-ways, as well as leachate from rural septic systemsand landfills. While point sources of pollution—which emit from pipes, canals, or municipalwastewater treatment plants and industrial facili-ties—have been closely monitored and regulatedsince the 1970s, the management of nonpointsources of pollution has only recently become anational priority.1

Advances in treatment technologies allowmost suppliers to meet current drinking waterstandards, yet the constantly expanding diversityof contaminants, coupled with greater pollutantloads and fewer natural barriers, has made treat-ment more di≈cult and expensive, and it has in-

creased the chances that contaminants will reachour tap. Some of the treatment challenges faced bysuppliers drawing from intensively used sourcelands include:

1.The emergence of new contaminants thatsuppliers may not be prepared to test or treat

2.Spikes in contaminant loads due to stormsand flooding that make treatment morechallenging

3.Constantly changing standards andregulations regarding new contaminants,which are present in the water long beforethey are identified as threats to public health

4.Increased treatment and capital costs due tohigher pollutant loads and changing waterquality standards

The loss of natural lands to development im-pacts not only the quality of our drinking water,and therefore the cost of treating it, but also thequantity. That’s because development increases de-mand for drinking water while decreasing theability of water to infiltrate the ground and re-charge water supplies. Sprawling suburban-styledevelopment contributes even more to waterscarcity than does compact development, as itpromotes more lawn areas and larger lots plantedwith turf grass, requiring significantly more waterthan homes with smaller lots.

Watershed Management—The First Barrier in a Multiple-BarrierApproach to Source Water Protection

The considerable threats to our drinking waterrequire an integrated and comprehensive re-sponse. Governments and water suppliers aretasked with protecting each droplet of water.Starting in the watershed or aquifer recharge ar-eas, continuing through the treatment process,and extending to the distribution system, suppli-

6

E X EC U T I V E S U M M A RY

Water is the most

critical resource issue

of our lifetime and

our children’s lifetime.

The health of our waters

is the principal measure of

how we live on the land.

—Luna Leopold

I

ers must safeguard the water from contamination,erecting multiple barriers of protection at everystage from source to tap. It is a multiple-barrier ap-proach; each method of protection acts as a barriersafeguarding water from contamination.

Watershed protection is the first and mostfundamental step in a multiple-barrier approachto protecting drinking water. Healthy, functioningwatersheds naturally filter pollutants and moder-ate water quantity by slowing surface runoΩ andincreasing the infiltration of water into the soil.The result is less flooding and soil erosion, cleanerwater downstream, and greater groundwater re-serves.

When communities invest in land protectionas a way to protect their drinking water, they areinvesting in the long-term health and quality oflife of their citizens—guiding growth away fromsensitive water resources, providing new park andrecreational opportunities, protecting farmlandand natural habitats, and preserving historic land-scapes. Many communities don’t realize the cost-saving benefit of source protection and the poten-

tially dramatic increase in treatment costs that canresult from the loss of forests, grasslands, and wet-lands, and the natural filtration these landscapesprovide. A study of 27 water suppliers conductedby the Trust for Public Land and the AmericanWater Works Association in 2002 found thatmore forest cover in a watershed results in lowertreatment costs. According to the study, for every10 percent increase in forest cover in the sourcearea, treatment and chemical costs decreased ap-proximately 20 percent, and approximately 50 to55 percent of the variation in treatment costs canbe explained by the percentage of forest cover inthe source area.2

This report presents a series of best practicesto guide communities’ source protection eΩortsand to showcase those communities that are al-ready linking land and water protection eΩec-tively. Protecting the Source serves as a reference andresource for those seeking best practices in devel-oping and maintaining the highest level of waterquality and, at the same time, preserving our lim-ited natural land resources.

E x e c u t i v e Sum m a ry 7

The Geauga Park District acquired574-acre Bass Lake Preserve at theheadwaters of the Chagrin River,25 miles east of Cleveland, Ohio, in2003 to help protect regional waterquality. Watershed protection fundsfrom the Ohio EnvironmentalProtection Agency made thetransaction possible.

© KEN SHERMAN

Best Practices—Guiding Implementation in the Field

The following five best practices provide a frame-work for developing and implementing a sourceprotection plan for city planners, government of-ficials, and water suppliers.

1.Understand your watershed: An eΩective sourceprotection plan is built upon an understand-ing of your watershed and aquifer rechargeareas. Scientific data and watershed analysesare essential to define an eΩective sourceprotection plan and build public support for its implementation.

2.Use maps and models to prioritize protection:Municipal water supply managers andconservation agencies routinely face questionsand problems when choosing where to investin conservation and restoration strategies.Using maps and models to identify high-priority land for protection and restoration is critical, as funding is always limited andmultiple demands are often made upon avaluable piece of land.

3.Build strong partnerships and work watershed-wide:The support and cooperation of a variety ofpublic and private partners will be required to eΩectively implement a source protectionplan, as most communities’ source areas liepartially, if not entirely, outside of theirjurisdiction. EΩective source water protectioncan be achieved by influencing others to acton your behalf, utilizing existing initiativesand frameworks, and finding common goalswith others.3

4.Create a comprehensive source protection plan:Creating a comprehensive source waterprotection plan is an opportunity to pulltogether everything learned from analyzing a watershed, assessing the threats to drink-ing water, mapping high-priority land forprotection and restoration, and developingpartnerships. Such a plan should incorporate:

•Strategies for both managing threats andprotecting natural resources

•A combination of voluntary and regulatorystrategies

•A long-term vision, short-term actionstrategies, and measurable goals•A strategy to fund the plan

5.Develop and implement a “funding quilt”:Implementing a comprehensive source water protection plan requires a significantand steady stream of funds. Successfulcommunities secure funds from a variety ofsources—federal, state, local, and private—creating a “funding quilt.” By tapping into arange of sources, communities can raise andleverage significant amounts of money andavoid reliance on a single revenue stream.

Moving Forward

The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Wa-ter Act reflected a renewed national focus onsource protection as a tool to prevent the contam-ination of drinking water supplies. Instead of fo-cusing on water treatment, emphasis is placed on contamination prevention and on the inte-grated management of source areas by requiringall states to develop Source Water AssessmentPlans (SWAPs), which identify threats to everypublic water supply in the state. These forward-thinking amendments mark a return to a set ofhistoric best practices in watershed protectionand management.

Local water suppliers support the notion thatwatershed planning and protection activities arekey to a multiple-barrier approach. Voters sup-port it too, with poll after poll showing support fornew taxes for land conservation that protects wa-ter quality. States are also creating programs andusing federal Clean Water Act dollars more cre-atively to support more comprehensive ap-proaches to addressing threats from nonpointsource pollution. State and federal support,through increased and more flexible funding op-tions, new tools and technologies, and incentivesto promote the creative use of existing programs,will be key in ensuring their success.

With the completion of the Source Water As-sessment Plans, local communities are poised tomove forward on implementing source protectionstrategies. The best practices outlined here oΩer aguide to success for local communities.

8 Pr ot e c t i ng t h e S ou r c e

s we grow, the land around us changes forever.Sometimes this happens dramatically as new

roads, homes, and commercial develop-ment abruptly alter our landscape. Other times itis subtle, and we recognize that we’ve lost farm-land, forestland, and open space over the years.

The numbers confirm the story. Urbanizedland—land with houses, businesses, or industry—has quadrupled since 1954. From 1992 to 1997, thenational rate of land development more than dou-bled to three million acres per year, and urban landarea increased more than twice as fast as did pop-ulation between 1950 and 1990.4 These changesimpact our communities, our quality of life, andour natural resources—the air and water we needto survive.

Increased sprawl and development brings in-creased pressure to develop land in drinking wa-ter source areas. Once development infringes onsource areas, the controls designed to protect wa-ter quality become stressed. Although advances in treatment technologies allow most suppliers to meet current drinking water standards, thechallenges of storm water runoΩ from agriculturaland developed lands make treatment more heavy-handed, complex, and expensive. Compoundingthe problem is the loss of wetlands, forestlands,and grasslands, which naturally filter water andserve as buΩers to water supplies.5

The considerable threats to our drinking wa-ter require an integrated and comprehensive re-sponse. Consider for a moment that a drop ofwater often traverses many miles through bothnatural and manmade systems before reachinghousehold drinking taps. Governments and watersuppliers are tasked with protecting this dropletduring its travels—beginning in the watershed or aquifer recharge area, continuing at the treat-ment facility, and extending through the distribu-tion system—ensuring the purity of each glass ofdrinking water poured by the consumer. Theprocess is a multiple-barrier approach; each method ofprotection acts as a barrier safeguarding waterfrom contamination.

Considering the water droplet’s journey, thefirst opportunity to protect it from contaminants

is at its source—the point at which water falls toearth, either seeping into the ground and into un-derground aquifers, or winding its way across theearth through surface waterways. The reservoir orwaterway itself is the next protection point. Then,barriers are needed to remove impurities as thewater is processed in treatment plants and flowsinto canals, pipes, wells, and holding tanks, andfinally to the tap.

Historically, protecting source lands—the wa-tersheds that supply surface water and the aquiferrecharge areas that cover groundwater sources—has been an essential part of a multiple-barrierapproach to clean drinking water. Cities such asSeattle, San Francisco, Boston, and New York ini-tiated source water protection eΩorts in the 1800sas a primary tool for protecting public health be-fore chlorination and other treatment technolo-gies were available. Understanding the value of aprotected source, they continue to employ sourceprotection methods today.

Many newly developing midsize cities andsuburbs have not been as proactive about protect-ing their source areas. “Authorities face toughchoices between building houses for growingpopulations, chopping down forests for timber, orconserving them to help secure the water sup-ply,” say Chris Elliot, Director of World WildlifeFund’s Forest for Life Program.

Fortunately, source protection is receiving arenewed focus. With the passage of the SafeDrinking Water Act, Congress and the U.S. EPAemphasized the protection of source waters as akey component of our national eΩorts to safe-guard America’s drinking water. It is increasinglyclear to many at the federal, state, and local levelsthat land conservation and watershed manage-ment practices are necessary to reduce pollutantloads to aquifers, rivers, and reservoirs in our com-plex watersheds.

This report makes a case for land conservationas an essential element of the multiple-barrier ap-proach to water protection. It does so by present-ing a series of best practices to guide communi-ties’ eΩorts in the field, and by highlighting thosecommunities that already link their land and

9

A

PART ONE

M A K I N G T H E C AS E

Protecting Water Resources

water protection eΩorts. Protecting the Source servesas a reference and resource for those seeking best practices in protecting their precious waterresources and preserving their sensitive naturallands.

The Trust for Public Land has also produced acompanion report, Source Protection Handbook: UsingLand Conservation to Protect Drinking Water Supplies,which provides detailed guidance on how to im-plement each of the best practices presented inProtecting the Source. Copies of the handbook can beordered from TPL’s Web site, www.tpl.org.

Nonpoint Source Pollution—The Primary Threat

Point sources of pollution—which emit frompipes, canals, or municipal wastewater treatmentplants and industrial facilities—have been closelymonitored and regulated since the 1970s, but themanagement of nonpoint sources of pollution(NPS) has only recently become a national prior-ity.7 NPS pollution includes runoΩ from lawns,farms, forests, cities, and highways, as well as

leachate from rural septic systems and landfills. Aswater from rainfall or snowmelt flows over theground, it carries with it natural and human-madepollutants. Eventually, these pollutants reach ourlakes, rivers, oceans, and even undergroundsources of drinking water, as they seep into theground.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency, the leading cause of source waterdegradation is nonpoint source pollution.8 Al-though agriculture is currently the greatest non-point source threat to drinking water quality,urban runoΩ is the fastest-growing threat nation-wide. The development of formerly forested landcan also exacerbate existing agricultural pollu-tion, for it removes the natural buΩers that oncetrapped and filtered those pollutants before theyreached waterways. In Carroll County, Georgia,Commission Chairman Robert Barr has seen thatchange firsthand. “In our county there has been arapid shift from agricultural landuse to suburbanlanduse,” explains Barr. “Row crops are no longera major landuse. The greatest new contributor towater quality degradation is accelerating residen-tial and commercial development.”

The impact of NPS on the quality of un-

Despite the expenditure

of hundreds of billions

of dollars over the last

30 years, the 1972 Clean

Water Act goals of fishable

and swimmable waters

have not been achieved,

largely because contaminants

from diΩuse [nonpoint]

sources have not been

controlled successfully.

National ResearchCouncil, 20016

10 Pr ot e c t i ng t h e S ou r c e

ongress passed mandates for drinking water protection in the 1980s that form

the basis for modern water protection activi-ties. Although these laws focus on mitigat-ing existing pollution and constructing orupgrading wastewater and drinking watertreatment plants, the Clean Water Act andSafe Drinking Water Act can potentiallyfund initiatives focused on protectingsource waters via land conservation.

Clean Water Act: The goal of the CleanWater Act is to restore and maintain thechemical, physical, and biological integrityof the nation’s waters so that they can sup-port the protection and propagation of fish,shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in andon the water. Under the Clean Water Act, theEPA funds three water quality programs:9

• Clean Water State Revolving Fund(SRF) (Section 212): Provides loans forwater quality improvements and hastraditionally been used for wastewatertreatment infrastructure, but it can alsobe used to fund the implementation ofnonpoint source management plansand the development and implementa-

tion of estuary plans. In 2003, stateswere awarded $1.29 billion and pro-vided $4.7 billion in assistance forwastewater, nonpoint source, and estu-ary projects. Currently, only about 5percent of the Clean Water SRFs areused for mitigating nonpoint sourcepollution, with 95 percent going towardwastewater treatment infrastructure.10

• Nonpoint Source Program (Section319): Provides grants for projects thataddress nonpoint source pollution,such as implementation of best man-agement practices, restoration, andpublic education. Approximately $237.5million in grants was distributed for thisprogram in 2002. The Nonpoint SourceProgram receives only 17 percent ofclean water funding, despite the factthat NPS pollution now accounts for 60percent of all pollution in U.S. water-ways.11

• National Estuary Program (Section320): Funds projects that protect orimprove estuaries. The program distrib-uted $17 million in 2002.

Safe Drinking Water Act: Under the SafeDrinking Water Act, the EPA awards grantsto states to fund Drinking Water StateRevolving Funds (DWSRFs). State Revolv-ing Funds provide eligible public water sys-tems with loans and other assistance tofinance infrastructure projects. Up to 31percent of these capitalization grants canbe set aside to administer the SRFs andstate source protection programs and tofund source water protection activities,including land acquisition. Up to 15 percentof the set-aside can be used for land con-servation and voluntary, incentive-basedprotection measures, with no more than 10percent used for a single type of activity,such as land protection. In 2003, stateswere awarded $787.4 million and wereprovided $1.3 billion in loans for infrastruc-ture improvements. Since the act’s incep-tion, only $2.7 million in assistance hasbeen used by systems to protect less than2,000 acres of land under the set-asides.12

CLEAN WATER ACT AND SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

C

treated water depends on several factors, includ-ing the amount of pollutants carried by runoΩ(pollutant load) and the pathway the water takeswhen it flows through the source area. If waterflows quickly over the surface of the land, most ofthe pollutants it carries will reach the main bodyof water. If the water flows more slowly or infil-trates the ground, more of the pollutants will befiltered out, either by adhering to plants and soilor by being absorbed through plants’ root systems.Pollutants are carried between surface water andgroundwater, which means that both resourcesmust be monitored and protected.

Water resource protection requires an under-standing of the interconnection between ground-water and surface water. The terms “surface wa-ter” and “groundwater” refer to the same waterregardless of its source. They merely clarify the lo-cation of the water at a particular time.13 Accord-ing to a national study performed by the U.S. Ge-ologic Survey, an average of 52 percent of streamflow nationally is provided by groundwater. Thegroundwater contribution can vary tremendouslydepending on the season and watershed charac-teristics, but the important point is that ground-water pollution, chemistry, and flow can directlyimpact surface water quality, as surface water pol-lution can impact groundwater quality. In areaswhere supply wells are located in shallow aqui-fers adjacent to streams or lakes, supply wells canreverse the direction of groundwater flow underpumping conditions, and they can induce aquiferinfiltration through stream and lake bottoms.

The close relationship between ground andsurface water makes it imperative that water sup-pliers understand what percentage of their supplycomes from each in dry and wet seasons, and thatthey act to protect those resources. A closer lookat just how ground and surface water sources areimpacted by nonpoint source pollution follows.

Su r fac e Wat e r a n d Non p oi n t S ou r c e Pol l u t ion

Surface water is precipitation that does notinfiltrate the soil. Instead, the water moves asoverland flow to streams and rivers. The land areafrom which water drains into a surface water sup-ply—a stream, reservoir, or lake—is called a water-shed. In a watershed with natural groundcover,about 50 percent of precipitation infiltrates theground and only about 10 percent flows over theland surface as runoΩ. In a highly developed wa-tershed, with its impervious surfaces and lack ofvegetation, about 15 percent infiltrates and ap-proximately 55 percent becomes surface runoΩ,

carrying sediment and pollutants to surface waterbodies.14

The riparian zone is the area where streams in-teract with the land, and it is a stream’s best de-fense for keeping nonpoint source pollutants outof its waters. The riparian zone protects waterquality by processing nutrients, filtering contami-nants from surface runoΩ, absorbing and graduallyreleasing floodwaters, maintaining fish and wild-life habitats, recharging groundwater, and main-taining stream flows.15

G r ou n dwat e r a n d Non p oi n t S ou r c e Pol l u t ion

Water moves underground through pores in thesoil and cracks in surface rocks. An aquifer is rockor soil that contains and transmits water and thuscan be a source of underground water.16 In a con-fined aquifer, layers of impermeable clay or rock,above and below the aquifer, protect the waterfrom some contaminants and restrict the water’smovement. The recharge area for a confined aqui-fer, where surface water infiltrates the land and re-supplies the aquifer, may be miles from a well thatdraws water from it.

In an unconfined aquifer, water can infiltratedirectly from the surface to the aquifer, carry-ing landuse contaminants with it. The extent to

Pa r t On e : Ma k i ng t h e C a s e 11

SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS

n 1996 the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was amended, placing a new focus on source water protection. The law requires every state to

examine existing and potential threats to the quality of all public water sup-plies and to develop a Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP). Theassessments’ purpose is to inform and motivate local source water protec-tion activities, which the EPA considers the critical initial component in theSDWA multiple-barrier protective scheme. Instead of focusing on watertreatment, the amendment emphasizes contamination prevention and theintegrated management of multiple supplies that share one source area.

As part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s requirementthat states conduct source water assessments on all source areas withintheir jurisdiction, states have identified all of the source areas that supplypublic tap water, inventoried potential contaminants, and assessed sus-ceptibility to contamination. At the completion of the SWAPs, states mustinform the public of the results. Although some resources were provided to the states to conduct assessments, no resources were authorized orappropriated for implementing protection strategies, and no mandate thatit occur has been given. Implementation will have to be locally driven andcreatively funded. Contact your local water supplier or your state sourcewater protection office for more information and for a copy of the SWAP foryour water supply. Contact information for state source protection officescan be found at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/protect/contacts.html.

I

which contaminants are filtered from groundwa-ter as it passes through the soil depends on howporous the soil is. Where the soil is sandy orporous, water flows more quickly below the sur-face, and fewer contaminants are removed.

Reservoirs, lakes, aquifers, and other standingbodies of water tend to act as sinks for contami-nants. When these water supplies are damaged,useable water resources are lost.17 Some communi-ties already connect more than one potentialsource to their treatment facility so as to choosewhich source to use at a particular time, dependingon shifts in source water quality and the ability totreat substances in the water. In extreme cases,drinking water sources must be abandoned be-cause water quality has become unsafe or toocostly to treat, causing communities to invest tre-mendous resources in developing new sources.Wetlands and forested land, if left undeveloped,can help slow and filter water before it gets to lakes,rivers, and aquifers, keeping these drinking watersources cleaner and making treatment cheaper.

CASE STUDY

SuΩolk County, New York

Located at the eastern end of Long Island,SuΩolk County contains much of New York’spremier ecosystem, the Pine Barrens, under-neath which is the island’s largest supply of freshdrinking water. SuΩolk County Water Authorityis the largest groundwater supplier in the nation,serving 1.2 million residents from this federallydesignated sole source aquifer. Heavy develop-ment in the aquifer recharge area in recentdecades led to concern about damage to thissensitive and unique ecosystem and the threat of nonpoint source pollution seeping into the groundwater.

In response to this concern, in 1987 SuΩolkCounty voters overwhelmingly approved (83percent to 17 percent) the continuation of aquarter-cent of the county’s sales tax to purchasecritical watershed areas through a new DrinkingWater Protection Program. As part of this pro-gram, the county acquired watershed lands inone of the Special Groundwater ProtectionAreas (SGPAs); seven SGPAs are designatedwithin the deep aquifer recharge areas of thecounty. Since the inception of the program, over $220 million has been spent on land acqui-sitions. When the program was due to expire in2000, voters once again voiced their support fordrinking water protection by extending the pro-gram through December 2013. By leveragingfunding from their sales tax, SuΩolk County alsoreceived a $75 million loan in the late 1990s andanother $62 million in 2003 from New York’sClean Water State Revolving Fund to acquireland in priority watershed and aquifer rechargeareas.

In the early 1990s, even as voters wereapproving the use of sales tax revenues to protectthe Pine Barrens, several hundred developmentprojects were being proposed in the central PineBarrens. If these projects had been successful,the ecological integrity of the Long Island PineBarrens would have been severely compromised.A grassroots advocacy eΩort by the Long IslandPine Barrens Society to educate the public andelected o≈cials about the ongoing threats to thePine Barrens led to the passage of the LongIsland Pine Barrens Protection Act in 1993.

The legislation established a Central PineBarrens Commission to oversee the develop-ment and implementation of a ComprehensiveManagement Plan (CMP). The plan delineatedtwo major regions within the 100,000-acrearea—a 52,000-acre core preservation areawhere no new development is permitted and

DRINKING WATER TREATMENT

rinking water treatment is one of the most critical barriers in a multiple-barrier approach, as it provides a direct barrier against

disease agents and is considered essential in protecting public health.Whether drinking water comes from groundwater sources or surfacewater supplies, it is likely treated before it reaches the tap. Even in themost pristine watersheds, natural pollutants such as animal waste andorganic matter can impair the quality of water.

Modern drinking water treatment can reduce most source water con-taminants to acceptable levels before water is delivered to consumers.The types of treatment necessary depend on the quality of the sourcewater and the pollutants encountered. Water quality standards are cre-ated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency based on extensivepublic health research. These standards guide the amount and type oftreatment needed for all ground and surface water supplies.

A wide variety of treatment methods are currently in use, and newtechnologies are employed regularly to ensure drinking water meets cur-rent standards. Treatment costs can increase significantly when more rig-orous treatment is needed to cleanse contaminated source water.18

Most suppliers of surface water clarify the water through a sedimenta-tion process (letting particles settle out), then filter water through sand orhigh-tech membranes in order to remove particles and microorganisms.Some facilities treat water with carbon or mix it with air to remove pollu-tants or reduce taste and odor. The final treatment state is disinfection,often using chlorine, to kill disease-causing microorganisms. All surfacewater supplies must be disinfected, although a small number of highlyprotected supplies are not required to be filtered. Many groundwatersupplies are disinfected, though some are used without any treatment.For more information on how drinking water is treated or on treatmentstandards, go to www.epa.gov/safewater/DWH/Treat/.html.

D

12 Pr ot e c t i ng t h e S ou r c e

a 48,000-acre compatible growth area where lim-ited, environmentally compatible development is allowed. The CMP also recommended that 75 percent of the core preservation area be pre-served through public acquisition. The plan wasadopted by the Pine Barrens Commission in1995. Various landuse and zoning tools are usedto accomplish the preservation goals of the act,including transfer of development rights, clusterzoning, and conservation easements.

CONTACT: Tom Isles, Planning Director

ADDRESS: Suffolk County, 100 Veterans Highway,

Havtiange, NY 11788-0099

PHONE: 631-853-5190

FAX: 631-853-4044

EMAIL: Tom.Isles@co.suffolk.ny.us

CASE STUDY

Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Mountain Island Lake (MIL), a section of theUpper Catawba River that has been shaped by aseries of dams, is a meandering lake that dividesCharlotte-Mecklenburg County from Gastonand Lincoln Counties in the southern piedmontof North Carolina. Although it receives some of its flow from Lake Norman, to its north, itreceives most of its flow and pollutants from the Mountain Island Lake Watershed, a 69-square-mile watershed of which 72 percent liesin Charlotte-Mecklenburg County. The lakesupplies drinking water to about 600,000 peo-ple in Charlotte-Mecklenburg County and inGastonia and Mount Holly, both in GastonCounty.

In the past decade, rapid development in theMIL Watershed raised alarms with local leaders,who feared that what they had taken for grantedfor so many years—clean water from MountainIsland Lake—was threatened by increasing sedi-ment and fecal coliform from new development.In 1997, in response to this growing concern, theFoundation for the Carolinas convened a groupof partners to create and implement a plan toprotect the MIL Watershed, which becameknown as the Mountain Island Lake Initiative.The initiative’s formation coincided with thestate’s creation of the North Carolina CleanWater Management Trust Fund (CWMTF),the first state-funded program in the nationdedicated to funding activities to protect andimprove waterways statewide. The CWMTF’sfirst grant was $6 million for the MIL Initiative’seΩort to protect a large tract on the westernshore of the lake.

To ensure that future investments in the pro-tection of MIL had the greatest impact on cleanwater, the MIL Initiative created GIS models ofthe watershed to help them identify the highestpriority areas for conservation. Modeling showedthat although protection of the lakeshore andregulated floodplain was important, protectionof the smaller streams and tributaries in theheadwaters was equally important. As a result,the MIL Initiative set a goal to protect both 80percent of the lakeshore and 80 percent of itstributaries. In 1999 Charlotte-MecklenburgCounty passed a $220 million land-bankingbond to preserve land countywide for futurepublic needs, including open space, parks, green-ways, and schools. Fifteen million dollars of thebonds were directed to preserve land within theMIL Watershed. Over the next few years, theCity of Gastonia, the City of Charlotte, and theNorth Carolina CWMTF also contributedfunds to support land protection in the MILWatershed. These years of focused protectioneΩorts have protected 74 percent of thelakeshore and 20 percent of the tributaries.Since 1999, more than $31 million has beenspent in Charlotte-Mecklenburg County forland acquisition. Approximately 4,009 acreshave been acquired in this county, includingdonations of floodplains for greenways. Over $9 million has been spent in Gaston and LincolnCounties. Today more than 6,000 acres ofwatershed land is protected.

In addition to land conservation strategies,regulatory protections of landuse and pointsources of pollution are also needed in a water-shed where much of the land is already devel-oped. In 1996, in response to declining waterquality conditions and the need for a broader setof watershed protection tools, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Board of Commissionerstook a stand in support of clean, useable creeksand lakes by directing staΩ to develop a plan toensure that all surface waters in the county werefishable and swimmable, a daunting task consid-ering only about 15 percent of the county’s creeksthen met the criteria. The Surface WaterImprovement and Management (S.W.I.M.) Pro-gram was created, and it has been instrumentalin the adoption of a countywide stream buΩersystem, implementation of streamside forestryand restoration projects, the 70 percent reduc-tion of fecal coliform through reduction of sewerdischarges, and the reduction of sedimentthrough improved inspection and enforcementof erosion control from construction sites.

Since the MIL Initiative and the S.W.I.M.Program were created, water quality has measur-

The South CentralRegional Water Authority(SCRWA) in Connecticutclosed an aging treatmentplant on Lake Whitneybecause it could no longereffectively treat the rawwater, which had degradedsignificantly due to heavydevelopment in thewatershed. Almost adecade after the plantwas shut down, the waterauthority is investingsubstantial resources inbuilding a facility withmore advanced treatmentand filtration capacity thatwill again make LakeWhitney a safe and viablesource. Because theyunderstand the challengesand costs associated withtreating degraded water,the SCRWA is now oneof the most progressivesuppliers in the state whenit comes to protectingsource water, investingin land conservation andwatershed managementstrategies to protectwater resources.

Pa r t On e : Ma k i ng t h e C a s e 13

ably improved throughout the MIL Watershedand Charlotte-Mecklenburg County as a whole.Current eΩorts focus on raising additional fundsto protect the remaining high-priority streams,through acquisition and easements and byimplementing the second and third phases of the S.W.I.M. Program.

CONTACT: Nancy Brunnemer

ADDRESS: Mecklenburg County Real Estate

Department, 1435 West Morehead Street,

Suite 120, Charlotte, NC 28208

PHONE: 704-336-8828

EMAIL: brunnnm@co.mecklenburg.nc.us

WEB SITE: http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/

LUESA/Water+and+Land+Resources/

Programs/Water+Quality

Protecting Water Quantity

The loss of source lands impacts not only the qual-ity of our drinking water, but also the quantity.Development increases demand for drinking wa-ter while decreasing the ability of land to rechargewater supplies.

When water infiltrates soil, the ground itselfbecomes a temporary storage tank; rather thanevaporating into the atmosphere or flowing out tothe ocean, water is stored underground for days,weeks, or years, slowly supplying our water sources.Rainfall needs to infiltrate the ground and re-charge groundwaters in order to maintain suppliesduring dry seasons. Where land is developed, wa-ter infiltrates less and moves more rapidly and inmuch greater volume than under natural condi-tions. The result is a decrease in groundwaterflows into streams, less recharge into aquifers, anincrease in the magnitude and frequency of se-vere floods, and high stream velocities that causesevere erosion, damaging water quality, aquatichabitat, and infrastructure.20 Additionally, remov-ing groundwater at a faster rate than recharge canreplace it causes permanent loss of groundwaterstorage capacity, increased movement of contam-inated groundwater into clean groundwater, moresaltwater intrusion into coastal basins, and reduc-tions in stream flow.21

In addition to decreasing infiltration, sprawl-ing suburban-style development also contributesto water scarcity because it promotes more lawn ar-eas and larger lots planted with turf grass. Accord-ing to the EPA, an average of 32 percent of resi-dential water use is for outdoor purposes. A studyin the Seattle metropolitan area found significantdiΩerences in water use among suburban-stylehousing. Large suburban properties consumed as

much as 16 times more water than did homes on amore traditional urban grid with smaller lots. Percapita use of public water is about 50 percenthigher in the western United States than in theeast, due to the amount of landscape irrigationneeded to maintain lawns in more arid regions.22

Increased imperviousness, over-appropriatedrivers, and excessive groundwater pumping have become serious problems across the UnitedStates. Many eastern communities are now fac-ing frequent water shortages similar to those oftheir western counterparts. For much of the mid-Atlantic region, 2002 was the driest year in over100 years of record-keeping, as communities upand down the coast declared drought emergenciesand implemented water restrictions.

A recent American Rivers report looked at thechange in the amount of impervious, or paved,surfaces from 1982 to 1997 in cities around thecountry. American Rivers sought to estimate theamount of water “lost” to runoΩ and evaporationas a result of increased development and impervi-ous surfaces. A key finding was that the potentialamount of water lost annually ranged from 57 bil-lion to 133 billion gallons in the Atlanta metropol-itan area alone. Atlanta’s losses in 1997 amountedto enough water to supply the average daily house-hold needs of 1.5 million to 3.6 million people peryear.23

“In the past, water barely even entered into ourcalculations,” says J.T. Williams, chairman of Kil-learn, Inc., which has developed thousands of golfcourses and clubhouse community homes in theAtlanta metro area in recent years. But now, Mr.Williams admits, “People in the development in-dustry are a little nervous,” with water wars brew-ing in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida.24

CASE STUDY

Brick Township, New Jersey

The Brick Municipal Utility Authority (MUA)provides drinking water to more than 100,000residents in Brick Township and Point PleasantBeach, drawing 75 percent of its raw water fromthe Metedeconk River and 25 percent from deepand shallow wells. Throughout the MetedeconkWatershed, seven other communities also drawtheir drinking water from wells.

The Metedeconk River Watershed, with itsheadwaters in Turkey Swamp Wildlife Manage-ment Area, has benefited from extensive wet-lands that cover 30 percent of the watershed,relatively intact riparian forests, gentle topogra-phy, and sandy, well-drained soils. As a result,

14 Pr ot e c t i ng t h e S ou r c e

In the past 100 years the

world population tripled,

but water use for human

purposes multiplied sixfold!

World WaterCouncil, 200019

Pa r t On e : Ma k i ng t h e C a s e 15

he more than 45,000 small commu-nity water systems in the country serve

fewer than 3,300 people each. Over30,000 of these systems are very small,serving fewer than 500 people each.Because of less stringent disinfectionrequirements and the large number ofsmall, rural groundwater supplies, ground-water sources for small communities vio-late drinking water standards for microbesand chemicals almost twice as often asthose serving larger communities—58 per-cent of outbreaks as opposed to 33 per-cent25—leaving people served by thesesystems even more vulnerable to out-breaks of waterborne illness.26

The vast majority of small water sys-tems use groundwater supplies, which arethreatened primarily by bacteria from ruralseptic effluent. It can be particularly chal-lenging and costly for small water sup-pliers to upgrade treatment technologies to address contamination threats and tomeet increasingly strict drinking waterstandards.27 A $100,000 capital investmentis considered minor for a system thatserves over 300,000 people, yet it may beout of reach for a system serving fewerthan 5,000 people. In 2000, almost 40 per-cent of privately owned community watersystems serving fewer than 500 peoplesuffered financial losses, as compared to only 5 percent of those serving over100,000 people.28

According to the Committee on SmallWater Supply Systems assembled by theNational Research Council, “small watersuppliers should seek the cleanest watersupply available and protect that resourcebefore investing in new treatment tech-nologies, other than disinfection.”29

The National Rural Water Association(NRWA) assists small suppliers aroundthe country with planning and implement-ing source protection strategies in order toprotect public health and avoid costly treat-ment upgrades. According to JenniferPalmiotto of the Northeast Rural WaterAssociation, a regional office of NRWA,

small rural water systems are facedwith increasingly complex challenges.In order to safeguard public health,water systems must meet the require-ments of ever-growing regulations andmonitoring demands while struggling tomake ends meet. Many of these ruralsystems are managed by volunteerboards and have one operator, who isalso often a volunteer with limited time

and limited training. Rates tend to bevery low and there is very little will toinvest in system upgrades unless thereis a crisis, as rural residents assumetheir raw water is clean. At NeRWA, we try to help small systems addressthese challenges with on-site technicalassistance in operation, maintenance,finance, governance and source pro-tection planning.30

CASE STUDY

West Groton Water Supply District,Massachusetts

The West Groton Water Supply Districtsupplies water to approximately 520 house-holds in West Groton, Massachusetts. Thesole source of drinking water is a well fieldlocated in a shallow, sand-and-gravel-stratified drift aquifer with 47 intercon-nected wells. The aquifer is only 30 feetdeep and is directly under the influence ofsurface water. It is thus highly susceptible tocontamination from inappropriate landuse.

For years the West Groton Water Sup-ply District has been proactive about pur-chasing and protecting land in its Zone Isource protection area (a 250-foot buΩeraround the well field), and critical parcels in its secondary Zone II source protectionarea. Because it is a small district with lim-ited resources, it needs to be strategic aboutwhen and how to acquire land and financeits long-term protection.

In 1985, the Water Supply Districtdetected trace amounts of Trichloroethylene(TCE) solvents (a petroleum by-product)in its source water. A machine shop in theZone II protection area was identified as the source. The TCE was no longerdetected shortly after the machine shop wasclosed. Fifteen years later, the landownerdecided to sell the 1.5-acre commerciallyzoned property. In order to avoid potentialfuture contamination from commercial useof the property, the Water Supply Districtdecided to acquire it. The Water SupplyDistrict had only $60,000 in reserves tospend, which was not nearly enough tocover the $250,000 asking price and theneed for environmental assessments andpotential clean-up. In order to protect theproperty, the Water Supply District neededa creative solution.

Aside from the machine shop, the onlyother building on the lot was a small house,

which was not deemed a source waterthreat. The Water Supply District wantedto control only the commercial portion ofthe site but could not buy it separately fromthe rest of the property. If it bought theentire parcel as a public entity, the WaterSupply District would not be able to resellany portion of it to recoup costs.

To solve the dilemma, the Water SupplyDistrict created the West Groton WaterSupply District Realty Trust to own andmanage the land. This allowed it to pur-chase the property, subdivide it, and resellthe house. The house was subsequentlyplaced back on the tax rolls, and mostimportant, the Water Supply Districtrecouped $200,000 of its $260,000 invest-ment. The district continues to control thecommercial site, using it for storage, and thecreek that runs through the property and ishydrologically linked to their well fields.

During negotiations with the landowner,the Water Supply District completed an envi-ronmental assessment of the property anddiscovered leaking underground oil tanks.The Massachusetts Department of Environ-mental Protection immediately removed thetanks and began clean-up. By controlling thesite, the Water Supply District was able toavoid the future contamination of their wellfields and the potentially significant publichealth threat and clean-up costs.

CONTACT: Gordon NewellADDRESS: West Groton Water Supply

District, P.O. Box 246, West Groton, MA 01472

PHONE: 978-448-3711FAX: 978-425-9372

CHALLENGES FOR SMALL WATER SYSTEMS

T

Source water protection is critical for small communitiesdependent on local groundwater supplies.

© ERNEST BRAUN

storm water runoΩ is slower, infiltrates more eas-ily, and is cleansed naturally by large wetlandforests. With urban development now covering35 percent of the watershed, rainwater flowsoverland and out to the ocean, instead ofinfiltrating into the ground and recharging theshallow aquifer. In this way it is lost as a poten-tial freshwater source. Although Brick MUAdraws most of its water from the MetedeconkRiver, it is almost completely dependent on theshallow aquifer for its supply, as 60 to 80 per-cent of the Metedeconk’s baseflow comes fromgroundwater.

After almost four years of drought condi-tions, water quantity has become a critical issuefor local water suppliers and residents alike. In2002, severe restrictions had to be placed on

water use to ensure that water supplies wouldlast into the fall, when authorities could onlyhope for rain. The restrictions included a man-datory ban on all nonessential outdoor water use,including no watering of lawns and gardens; nowashing of cars, buildings, sidewalks, and drive-ways; and no outdoor use of water for ornamen-tal or aesthetic purposes, including fountains. Italso banned serving water in restaurants, unlessspecifically requested by the patron. Eventually,low rainfall caused salt water intrusion into theMetedeconk River, forcing Brick MUA to shutdown its surface water intake and rely solely ongroundwater 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 totheir water supply, creating greater support forwatershed protection. The Brick MUA is takingadvantage of this increased interest and of theincentives provided by new storm water manage-ment regulations, and is expanding its sourceprotection activities. In 2002, Brick MUA hireda Watershed Coordinator to facilitate activitieswith the seven townships and two counties inthe watershed and is looking at ways to buildpartnerships and provide incentives for water-shed protection and growth management. BrickMUA plans to work with other jurisdictions todevelop storm water management plans, edu-cate the public, and implement protection andrestoration activities. Additionally, in order tobetter understand their watershed and to guideand support protection strategies, Brick MUAhas implemented a Watershed ManagementModel to estimate runoΩ and pollutant loads.

Building on Brick MUA’s monitoring andmodeling program, priority areas for protectionand restoration have been mapped throughoutthe watershed. In 2001, the Trust for PublicLand, working in partnership with FreeholdTownship in Monmouth County and JacksonTownship in Ocean County, purchased over1,794 acres adjacent to Turkey Swamp WildlifeRefuge, expanding the refuge’s boundaries andprotecting critical wetlands and forests in theheadwaters. Brick MUA will continue to workwith TPL and others to protect land critical togroundwater recharge, ensuring the quality andquantity of future supplies.

CONTACT: Rob Karl, Source Water Administrator

ADDRESS: Brick Municipal Utility Authority, 1551

Highway 88 West, Brick, NJ 08724

PHONE: 732-458-7000, ext. 271

EMAIL: LGialanella@brickmua.com

WEB SITE: http://www.brickmua.com

16 Pr ot e c t i ng t h e S ou r c e

New Jersey’s Turkey Swamp

Wildlife Management Area,

which expanded in 2001 to include

the Metedeconk River and Toms

River headwaters, safeguards the

Barnegat Bay watershed and

the region’s water supply.

© 2001 CLARK JONES

Drinking Water and Public Health

Throughout history, the contaminants in sourcewaters have changed, as has our understanding ofwhat is safe and what is not. The introduction ofchlorine in the early 20th century, combined withfiltration, dramatically reduced waterborne dis-ease in the United States and has made the Ameri-can water supply one of the safest in the world. Butthese technological advances have caused peopleto question the importance of protecting sourcelands. “The bargain made by some communities ofa century ago was to trade source water protectionfor a future reliance on water treatment. The wis-est choice is to marry the two together wheneverpossible,”31 according to Dr. JeΩrey Gri≈ths, Di-rector, Graduate Programs in Public Health, TuftsUniversity School of Medicine.

Some of the treatment challenges faced bysuppliers drawing from intensively used sourcelands include:

1.The emergence of new contaminants thatsuppliers may not be prepared to test for or treat

2.Spikes in contaminant loads due to stormsand flooding that make treatment morechallenging

3.Constantly changing standards andregulations regarding new contaminants,which are present in the water long beforethey are identified as threats to public health

This section takes a close look at these publichealth challenges. With an understanding of thethreats comes an ability to provide clean and plen-tiful drinking water supplies into the future. Keepin mind that local governments and water suppli-ers have the most critical responsibility wheresource protection is concerned. Public and privatewater suppliers are responsible for providingdrinking water that meets Safe Drinking WaterAct standards; both can and should take action toensure the ongoing safety and availability of theirsource water.

Emerging Contaminants

The threat to public health from emerging con-taminants presents the most compelling reason to protect drinking water sources. Emerging con-taminants are contaminants that either are new to the environment (new diseases or chemicals)

or have only recently been identified as potentialhealth threats.

In the 1980s, Cryptosporidium, a waterbornepathogen, was first identified as a potential threatto human health. By the early 1990s multiple largeoutbreaks of cryptosporidiosis were traced to in-fected drinking water sources. Although somesuppliers had been required by the EPA to test forCryptosporidium and some were testing volun-tarily, it was not until 2002 that rules were passedrequiring all suppliers to test for and treat Cryp-tosporidium.

Emerging pathogens pose one of the greatestwaterborne threats to public health. According toepidemiologists, recently emerging pathogens,such as Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and HepatitisE,32 share similar characteristics. They tend to be:33

• Resistant to chlorination or disinfection• Resistant to antibiotics or have no medical

treatment• Spread by animals as well as humans• Highly infectious—small numbers of

microbes can cause illness

That last characteristic means that isolatedand chronic waterborne diseases can go unde-tected or unrecognized, because current methodsof detection may not be suitable to detect low lev-els of microbe infiltration.34 A nationwide study ofwaterborne disease outbreaks found that epi-demic outbreaks of waterborne disease have beenrecognized only after thousands of acute caseswere reported.35

In addition to pathogens, emerging contami-nants include chemicals, metals, and pharmaceu-ticals. According to Daniel Okun, a leading envi-ronmental engineer at the University of NorthCarolina, new knowledge about the health im-pacts of chemicals has made them a primary con-cern among epidemiologists studying emergingthreats in drinking water.36

Industries invent and put on the market newchemical compounds daily, such as pesticides foragriculture, pharmaceuticals, and chemicals forplastics. Because we increasingly live and work inour drinking water watersheds, these manmadechemicals eventually reach our water sources viaseptic systems, storm sewer overflows, and runoΩfrom lawns and farms.

With the increasing diversity of manmadechemicals reaching our waterways, and with theneed for special testing methods to identify andmeasure them, these emerging contaminants cango undetected.37 A recent study by the U.S. Geo-logical Survey included a list of potential emerg-ing contaminants that have largely been ignored

Pa r t On e : Ma k i ng t h e C a s e 17

Clean water, clean food,

and sewerage have led to

two-thirds of the increase

in life span from 1900 to

today. Drinking water

degradation is a critical

threat to the foundation

of our societies.38

Dr. Jeffrey Griffiths,MD MPH & TM, Tufts UniversitySchool of Medicine

by researchers to date, such as nonprescriptiondrugs and plasticizers, and it developed new mon-itoring techniques to measure these contami-nants’ prevalence in our waterways. Through na-tionwide monitoring, researchers found steroidsand nonprescription drugs in over 80 percent ofthe 139 streams tested. The highest concentra-tions were of detergents, steroids, and plasticiz-ers. This monitoring eΩort represents significantprogress in identifying and measuring emergingcontaminants in our waterways, but it points tothe fact that our ability to identify and measurecontaminants will always be behind their emer-gence as a threat.40

Conventional treatment processes, such asclarification and filtration, remove many knownand as yet unknown contaminants, yet they typi-cally do little to remove most pesticides or phar-maceuticals. Not much is known about the toxic-ity of these substances at low levels and in complexmixtures, making it di≈cult to predict even po-tential health eΩects on humans. Also, we don’tknow much about how common processes, such asdisinfection, alter the structure of many of thesechemicals and the types and toxicity of the by-products that may be produced.41

CASE STUDY

Carroll County, Georgia

The Upper Little Tallapoosa River Watershed islocated in Carroll County, about 50 miles west of Atlanta, Georgia. A series of small reservoirson the Little Tallapoosa River provide drinkingwater for 30,000 people. The fertile lands of theLittle Tallapoosa River Watershed have enabledCarroll County to become the second leadingproducer of beef cattle in Georgia, but develop-ment, moving west from Atlanta, is quicklyencroaching on agricultural lands. No publicsewer exists in much of the county, and individ-ual on-site septic systems are proliferating.

The first known major outbreak of Cryp-tosporidium in the world occurred in the UpperLittle Tallapoosa Watershed in the city of Car-rollton and Carroll County in January 1987.Immediately following the outbreak, watertrucks had to be brought in to serve the resi-dents, and restaurants imported ice and waterfrom Alabama. “There was a period of timewhen you couldn’t get a drink of water from a restaurant in Carrollton,” says Curtis Hol-labaugh, a longtime resident and universityprofessor at West Georgia College, where the outbreak was first discovered.

In response to the outbreak, U.S. EPA and

Georgia EPA inspectors worked with City ofCarrollton engineers to evaluate the cause of theoutbreak and to upgrade the filtration system toaddress the problem. The costs to upgrade the sys-tem came to almost $280,000—a significant costfor a relatively small supplier. Though many in thecity and county were left sickened by water, in theyears that followed the outbreak the public main-tained a heightened awareness and understandingof watershed activities and water quality.

Although the new treatment processes initi-ated after the outbreak successfully controlled the threat from Cryptosporidium and other path-ogens, in the seventeen years since the outbreak,increasing sediment and organic loads, most likelyfrom cattle in the streams and new development,have made treatment more difficult and expen-sive. The increased treatment needed to addresshigh organic loads has contributed to an increasein unwanted disinfection by-products (DBPs). In recent years, DBPs have on occasion exceededwater quality standards. Because DBPs are a by-product of the disinfection process, one of thebest ways to reduce them is to reduce organicpollutant loads in the raw water, thereby decreas-ing the degree of disinfection required. Basically,cleaner water requires less treatment and resultsin fewer treatment by-products.

In 2002, Carroll County applied for andbecame a demonstration site for the Trust forPublic Land and U.S. EPA to study source waterprotection activities that could result in cleanerwater. Led by County Chairman Robert Barr, theUpper Little Tallapoosa Steering Committee hasembraced a series of recommendations from thestudy that focus on better watershed managementfor safe drinking water. Some of the source pro-tection eΩorts under way as a result of this studyinclude the development of watershed protectionordinances, a plan for managing wastewater andon-site septic systems, outreach to farmers on best management practices, the acquisition oflands critical to protecting source water, and theestablishment of a dedicated local funding sourcefor land protection. In November 2003, votersapproved new funding via a local sales tax that willdirect about $20 million toward land acquisitionfor source water protection and public recreation.

CONTACT: Amy Goolsby

ADDRESS: Carroll County Department of Community

Development, Carroll County

Administration Building, P.O. Box 338,

Carrollton, GA 30117

PHONE: 770-830-5800

FAX: 770-830-5992

EMAIL: agoolsby@carrollcountyga.com

WEB SITE: http://www.carrollcountyga.com

18 Pr ot e c t i ng t h e S ou r c e

“It is di≈cult to know whatnew contaminants mightbe in the watershed that

could make it to the treat-ment facility, and thereforewhat treatment process will

be most eΩective at safelyremoving them,” explainsChris Crockett, Manager

of Philadelphia WaterDepartment’s Source

Water Protection Program.“From a public health

perspective, it is prudent to manage and protect the

source area to the degreepossible to prevent con-taminants from reaching

the raw water sourcein the first place.”39

Spikes in Pollutant Loads

Spikes in pollutant loads are caused by the accu-mulation of pollutants in the watershed over timeand the transport of those pollutants to waterwaysduring rainfall or snowmelt. These pollutants areeventually flushed into a receiving body of water,such as a lake, reservoir, or large river, via stormwater runoΩ or storm sewer overflows. Becausespikes usually occur during heavy rains, and be-cause the pollutants accumulate throughout thewatershed and over a period of time, it is verydi≈cult to accurately target sources and to meas-ure the impact of pollution on water quality andpublic health.

As forests in our watersheds and aquifer re-charge areas are replaced by development, morewater runs over the surface of the land at greaterspeeds, quickly carrying heavy loads of pollutantsto our water treatment plants. Even though the se-ries of barriers in a modern water supplier’s infra-structure should eΩectively prevent these pollu-tants from reaching consumers, the failure of evena single stage threatens the entire system. Conse-quently, spikes in pollutant loads can have seriouspublic health consequences. Various estimatessuggest that between 900,000 and two millionpeople become ill each year in the United States byingesting protozoan, bacterial, and viral patho-gens in incompletely treated and untreated drink-ing water from community water supplies.42

In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 1993, more than403,000 people became ill and an estimated 54people died as a result of an outbreak caused byCryptosporidium that contaminated the waterduring a rainstorm, which carried heavy pollutantloads to the treatment plant.43 In 1990 in Cabool,Missouri, four people died and 243 were strickenill from drinking water contaminated with he-molytic E. coli from pasturelands. In Walkerton,Ontario, in 2000, seven people died and morethan 2,300 became ill when the drinking watersystem became contaminated during a rainstormwith E. coli and Campylobacter jejuni, whichreached the intake from a nearby field recentlyfertilized with animal waste.44 In each of thesecases, spikes in pollutant loads from heavy sur-face runoΩ during rainstorms, combined with im-proper or insu≈cient drinking water treatment,were the likely causes of contamination. In somecases, the failure of monitoring systems, both atthe treatment plant and by the regulatory agen-cies, meant the outbreaks were not recognized oraddressed quickly enough to protect public health.

Occasional spikes in pollutant loads can bevery expensive for water suppliers, who mustupgrade their treatment facilities to deal with

maximum loads. The city of Decatur, Illinois, forinstance, spent $8.5 million on a nitrate removalfacility in 2001, which is only used to addressspikes in pollutant loads during heavy rainfall orstorm events. During years with low rainfall, thefacility is scarcely used.

CASE STUDY

City of Lenexa, Kansas

Lenexa is a community of over 40,000 residentslocated in Johnson County, Kansas, in the south-western Kansas City metropolitan area. Thecity’s location and accessibility have fueled itsgrowth as a business center and resulted in asignificant retail base. Three of the city’s fivemain watersheds drain to tributaries of theKansas River, less than one mile upstream fromthe county’s main water supply intake. Because50 percent of Lenexa’s storm water runoΩ drainsto the county’s water supply intake, there is aneed for a progressive approach to storm watermanagement and the protection of naturalresources.

Because storm water runoΩ from the citydirectly impacts the quality of source water forthe entire county, local communities are veryinterested in managing storm water runoΩ,flooding, and resulting spikes in pollutant loads.Working with consultants from the Black andVeatch Corporation, the city undertook anextensive community planning process todevelop a storm water management plan thatreduces the risk of flooding and of spikes in pol-lutant loads to the water supply intake, whileproviding ancillary community amenities, suchas parks and greenways. The watershed-basedapproach to storm water management that wasdeveloped through this planning process incor-porated strategies to minimize flooding and dealwith storm water runoΩ by creating a system ofin-stream wetland treatments and a chain oflakes and wetlands to provide flood retentionand improved water quality. The system of lakesand wetlands includes wetland and riparianfilters as well as the implementation of upstreambest management practices, such as infiltrationbasins, aggressive erosion and sediment controlpractices, stream restoration and conservation,and regional storm water detention. This projecthas been part of a larger eΩort to inventory andprotect stream corridors with high habitat qual-ity in the developing western portion of the cityof Lenexa.

Lenexa is leveraging opportunities created

Pa r t On e : Ma k i ng t h e C a s e 19

by the storm water management plan to providerecreational amenities for residents. With themotto “Rain to Recreation,” dry-bottom deten-tion basins will be constructed to double assports fields, and new lakes and protected ripar-ian corridors will be connected to residential and commercial areas via a new greenway trailsystem.

Implementation of conservation and resto-ration activities began in the fall of 2000. Thecity is combining these activities with a mix ofincentives and regulations to encourage a moreconservation-oriented approach to development.With the U.S. EPA’s storm water management

rules in eΩect since the fall of 2003, the city ofLenexa has already met many of the require-ments and serves as a model for other communi-ties looking for innovative ways to meet federalstorm water management requirements.

CONTACT: Jim Finlen, Lenexa, Kansas

ADDRESS: Parks and Recreation Department,

134 20 Oak Street, Lenexa, KS 66215

PHONE: 913-541-8592

FAX: 913-492-8118

EMAIL: jfinlen@ci.lenexa.ks.us

WEB SITE: http://www.ci.lenexa.ks.us

Changing Standards

Since the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act,the EPA has continued to identify compoundsthat hold the potential to cause cancer and otheradverse health eΩects, and it has set maximumcontaminant levels in drinking water for each sub-stance. The establishment of such standards hashad a dramatic impact on the quality of drinkingwater in this country. However, “as any analyticalchemist knows, what you see depends on what youlook for,” says Lynn Roberts, a professor of envi-ronmental chemistry at Johns Hopkins Univer-sity.46 What you see also depends on the resourcesand time available to researchers. The inherentchallenges of establishing and adapting contami-nant standards are as follows:

• The seemingly endless number of known,and as yet unknown, contaminants that needto be identified and studied

• Limited resources available for such research

• The di≈culty of drawing clear conclusionsabout cancer-causing agents, as the onset ofcancer may require decades-long exposureand extensive and complex epidemiologicalresearch

• The di≈culty of assessing health eΩects from simultaneous exposure to multiplecontaminants

It is particularly challenging to set contain-ment standards, as new chemical compounds areconstantly reaching our water sources, and theirpublic health risks may not be understood. Untilrecently, long-term exposure has been the primaryconcern with chemical compounds and disinfec-tion by-products (DBPs); measuring the impactof average doses over many years has been consid-ered adequate. Current research, however, isshowing potential impacts on reproductive sys-tems (endocrine disruptors) that can result from

20 Pr ot e c t i ng t h e S ou r c e

“There are a large number of chemical compounds that are used extensively inour day-to-day lives and our use of the land and, therefore, occur frequently in

the aquatic environment. Because many of them are unregulated in drinkingwater, their occurrence and concentration in the environment raises water-

quality and human-health concerns,” explains Carol Storms, Manager of WaterQuality, with American Water. “At American Water we understand that

regulation of a contaminant is always somewhat behind its occurrence in theraw water, so we monitor extensively to identify potential contaminants of con-

cern and to ensure that our treatment process is adequately removing them.”45

Number of drinking water contaminants regulated bythe U.S. government. The large increase in regulatedcontaminants that begins after 1976 is due toregulations issued under the Safe Drinking Water Actand its subsequent amendments. Adapted, withpermission, from Okun (1996). © 1996, the AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers.

1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

150

125

100

75

50

25

0NU

MB

ER

OF

CO

NTA

MIN

AN

TS

RE

GU

LAT

ED

PHS EPA

exposure to chemical compounds and DBPs overperiods as short as three months.47

Drinking water standards and treatmentguidelines have been established for numerouschemicals. However, many chemical compoundsdo not have standards, and current standards donot yet account for exposure to complex mixturesfor long periods at low concentrations, or for sea-sonal spikes in concentrations.48

The Costs of NotProtecting Source Waters

Treatment and filtration, land conservation, newdevelopment, and infrastructure—each has a pricetag that impacts decisions about drinking waterprotection. For municipalities and water suppli-ers, budget constraints and the bottom line factorin throughout the process. What’s important ismaking informed assessments about the costs,both long- and short-term, of source protection inrelation to other approaches.

Landuse and protection decisions are oftenbased on short-term (one to five years) revenueand expense projections for local governments, aselected o≈cials decide how to balance land pro-tection policies based on current budgets. How-ever, the impacts of development on water qualityand treatment costs are realized over the longterm—five to ten years and longer—and are oftenignored in landuse planning processes. The short-term costs for protection of source lands can behigh, and water suppliers, who understand thelong-term cost and public health impacts of wa-tershed development, are not usually involved inlanduse or land protection decisions.

It is di≈cult to establish the impact of landusealone on water quality. By the time water qualitydegradation has become apparent and treatmentmethods need to be upgraded, it is often too latefor municipalities and suppliers to choose sourcewater protection as a means for addressing theproblem. “For many cities, time is running out,”said David Cassells, a World Bank forest special-ist. “Protecting forests around water catchmentareas is no longer a luxury but a necessity. Whenthey are gone, the costs of providing clean and safedrinking water to urban areas will increase dra-matically.”49

Many communities that have experienced theincreased treatment and capital costs of degradedwater and the quality-of-life impacts of fastgrowth are now implementing regulatory andnonregulatory strategies to protect land and en-

courage more sustainable development patterns.These communities are learning that while landconservation is a big investment, it may also be abargain compared to the long-term costs of treat-ment and contamination. This section summa-rizes the potential costs of not protecting a com-munity’s source lands.

Increased Treatment Costs

The development of watershed and aquiferrecharge lands results in increased contaminationof drinking water. With increased contaminationcome increased treatment costs. The costs can beprevented with a greater emphasis on source pro-tection.

A study of 27 water suppliers conducted by theTrust for Public Land and the American WaterWorks Association in 2002 found that the moreforest cover in a watershed, the lower the treat-ment costs. According to the study:

• Approximately 50 to 55 percent of thevariation in treatment costs can be explainedby the percent of forest cover in the sourcearea.50

• For every 10 percent increase in forest coverin the source area, treatment and chemicalcosts decreased approximately 20 percent, up toabout 60 percent forest cover.

The study did not gather enough data on sup-pliers with over 65 percent forest cover to drawconclusions; however, it is suspected that treat-ment costs level oΩ when forest cover is between70 and 100 percent. The 50 percent variation in

Pa r t On e : Ma k i ng t h e C a s e 21

“When rapid developmentin Mecklenburg Countybegan to impact theMountain Island LakeWatershed, whichprovides drinking water to 600,000 countyresidents, it was a wake-up call to the communitythat we needed to act now to protect ourdrinking water,” says RuthSamuelson, MecklenburgCounty Commissioner.“In addition to the cost oftreatment for a degradedwater supply, the loss ofour forests and naturallandscapes threatened the quality of life in ourcommunity. Today,Mecklenburg Countyowns over 4,000 acres, an eighth of the total of Mountain Island Lake Watershed.”51

data used in regression analysisoutlying data points not used

$160

$140

$120

$100

$80

$60

$40

$20

$00 20 40 60 80 100

PERCENT OF WATERSHED FORESTED

CO

ST

S P

ER

MIL

LIO

N G

ALL

ON

S

y=0.0174x2 – 2.7531x + 140.77

R2=0.5518

treatment costs that cannot be explained by thepercent forest cover in the watershed is likely ex-plained by varying treatment practices, the size ofthe facility (larger facilities realize economies ofscale), the location and intensity of developmentand row crops in the watershed, and agricultural,urban, and forestry management practices.52

The table above shows the change in treatmentcosts predicted by this analysis, and the averagedaily and yearly cost of treatment if a suppliertreats 22 million gallons per day—the average pro-duction of the surveyed suppliers.53 (The percent-age change in costs starts at zero percent forestcover: from zero percent forest cover to 10 percentforest cover, treatment costs decrease 19 percent.)

A similar study was conducted in 1997 by the

Department of Agricultural Economics at TexasA&M University.55 From a sample of 12 geograph-ically representative suppliers with three years ofdata, researchers found that:

• Suppliers in source areas with chemicalcontaminants paid $25 more per milliongallons to treat their water than suppliers insource areas where no chemical contaminantswere detected.

• For every 4 percent increase in raw waterturbidity, treatment costs increase 1 percent.Increased turbidity, which indicates thepresence of sediment, algae, and othermicroorganisms in the water, is a direct resultof increased development, poor forestrypractices, mining, or intensive farming in the watershed.

Increased Capital Investment in New Treatment Technologies

The impact of development and loss of forestlandon water quality happens over time and is usuallygreatest during periods of heavy rainfall. At first,heavy pollutant loads are isolated events duringstorms. Gradually, larger and more complex pollu-tant loads appear with greater frequency andseverity until an acute event or revised water qual-ity regulations cause suppliers to alter treatmentstrategies or upgrade facilities.

Upgrading treatment systems can be extremelyexpensive. Between 1996 and 1998 the City ofWilmington, North Carolina, spent $36 million toadd ozonation and to expand its treatment facility,in part as a result of an increase in industrial andagricultural runoΩ in their watershed. In 2000,Danville, Illinois, invested $5 million in a nitrateremoval facility to deal with spikes in nitrogen re-sulting from agricultural runoΩ. In 2001, Decatur,Illinois, invested $8.5 million in a nitrate removalfacility, also to deal with agricultural runoΩ.

New water quality regulations are often thefinal impetus for treatment upgrades. However,suppliers with protected source waters are lesslikely to be forced to invest in major upgrades be-cause their pollution concentrations are morelikely to remain below maximum allowed levels.In fact, EPA’s proposed Long Term 2 EnhancedSurface Water Treatment Rule embodies theprinciple that higher quality waters require lesstreatment. This rule establishes additional treat-ment requirements for water treatment plantsthat draw from sources with elevated levels ofCryptosporidium.56

22 Pr ot e c t i ng t h e S ou r c e

TREATMENT AND WATERSHED CHEMICAL COSTS CHANGE AVERAGE TREATMENT COSTSFORESTED PER MG IN COSTS PER DAY PER YEAR

10% $115 19% $2,530 $923,450

20% $93 20% $2,046 $746,790

30% $73 21% $1,606 $586,190

40% $58 21% $1,276 $465,740

50% $46 21% $1,012 $369,380

60% $37 19% $814 $297,110

Some utilities understand that protected lands mean protected waterquality and are working to prevent future increases in treatment costs

through targeted land conservation. Kirk Nixon at San Antonio WaterSystem is developing ways to measure the water quality, quantity, and

financial benefits of their successful effort to protect approximately 15,888acres of aquifer recharge land over the past five years, the total acreagefrom both the San Antonio Water System Sensitive Land Acquisition

Program and the City of San Antonio Proposition 3 Initiative.

According to Nixon, “The benefits of these types of programs are quitedifficult to quantify. It is a difficult task to compare actual land development

and the associated storm water treatment required versus conserving landin a natural, undeveloped state. These are the very issues that we at the San

Antonio Water System, in cooperation with other entities, are striving toresolve. Through a cooperative agreement with USGS, we are conducting

pollutant loading studies, recharge and runoff estimation models, andhydrogeologic and vulnerability mapping projects. In the first phase of our

study, we’re establishing gauging and sampling stations on small, specificlanduse watersheds, collecting the data, and characterizing the impacts from

various landuses on the Edward’s Aquifer Recharge Zone. In the secondphase, we will calibrate a watershed model to predict runoff, constituentloads, and recharge on the Bexar County portion of the recharge zone.”54

Loss of Consumer Confidence—A High Price to Pay

When water quality causes illness or even just anunusual taste, odor, or color, the public quicklyloses confidence in the safety of its supply. An ero-sion of public trust costs both the supplier and thecommunity, often leading to broader economicimpacts in addition to treatment and capital costs.Residents begin buying bottled water and house-hold filtration systems, and local businesses thatrely on clean water install their own filtration sys-tems. In some cases, businesses and individualsmay choose not to live or work in a community be-cause they perceive it has poor water quality.

The impacts of contamination and water-borne disease outbreaks should not just be meas-ured economically. They should also be measuredin human terms. In an inquiry into an E. coli out-break in Walkerton, Ontario, in 2000, the inves-tigator wrote that the most important conse-quences of the outbreak were in the “suΩeringendured by those who were infected; the anxietyof their families, friends, and neighbors; the lossesexperienced by those whose loved ones died; andthe uncertainty and worry about why this hap-pened and what the future would bring.”57

CASE STUDY

New York, New York

New York City supplies the nation’s largest met-ropolitan area with surface water from 19 reser-voirs and three controlled lakes. It serves ninemillion users and delivers approximately 1.3 bil-lion gallons per day from a 2,000-square-milewatershed in parts of eight upstate counties. Pro-tecting the purity of this source water became aneven higher priority for the city with the SafeDrinking Water Act (SDWA) amendments inthe late 1980s that directed the EPA to developcriteria for filtration. The vast bulk of the city’sdrinking water (approximately 90 percent)comes from two systems known as the Catskilland Delaware water supplies. After allowing the city to operate supplies for a brief period oftime without filtration, the EPA put the city onnotice: develop and implement a comprehensiveprogram to protect the Catskill and DelawareWatersheds, or filter the water. At the time, thecity owned less than 8 percent of its watersheds.Faced with the prospect of spending $6 to 8 bil-lion on a new Catskill/Delaware filtration plantand $300 million in annual operating expenses,

the city chose to take on an aggressive watershedmanagement plan with land acquisition as itscenterpiece. A new filtration plant would haveresulted in the likely doubling of water rates.

In January 1997, the City of New York,through its Department of EnvironmentalProtection (NYC-DEP), entered into agroundbreaking Watershed Memorandum ofAgreement with some 76 signatories, includingthe EPA, the State of New York, virtually all ofthe counties, towns, and villages in its water-sheds, and a number of environmental and pub-lic interest organizations, including TPL. Thisagreement established a far-reaching program to protect all three of the city’s watersheds—Catskill, Delaware, and Croton—includingadoption of new watershed regulations, envi-ronmental and economic partnerships withwatershed communities, and a watershed landacquisition program. All together, the city pro-jects spending approximately $1.2 billion overthe first 10 years on a variety of watershedimprovements. The agreement, which by pro-tecting the watershed allows New York to avoidfiltration for its Catskill and Delaware plants,includes direct city investment in upstate waterpollution controls. Acknowledging that upstateusers are the stewards of city water, the cityrealized that providing financial and technicalresources to enable that stewardship was in the city’s best interest. For example, the city isspending approximately $270 million to bring all114 existing wastewater treatment plants in thewatershed up to tertiary treatment standards.

The city expects to purchase land in fee or to purchase conservation easements on land forwatershed protection. With 355,000 acres underconsideration, NYC-DEP had to establish pri-oritization criteria to determine which tracts aremost essential for maintaining pollution-freesource water. Through GIS modeling, plannersidentified the land with the most potentialimpact on water quality as acquisition priori-ties. Five priority areas were established for theCatskill and Delaware Watersheds and three for the Croton Watershed. In the Catskill andDelaware Watersheds, each priority area has cer-tain natural features criteria, including minimumparcel size, that define land that is eligible forpurchase. The city agreed to solicit percentagesof eligible land in each Catskill/Delaware prior-ity area, ranging from 95 percent in the highestpriority to 50 percent in the lowest.

Funding for these programs is expected tocome from utility user fees, bonding, and stateand federal funding sources, including SDWAfunding, U.S. Army Corps funding, and USDA

Pa r t On e : Ma k i ng t h e C a s e 23

Auburn, Maine, saved $30 million in capitalcosts, and an additional$750,000 in annualoperating costs, byspending $570,000 toacquire land in theirwatershed. By protecting434 acres of land aroundLake Auburn, the watersystems are able tomaintain water qualitystandards and avoidbuilding a new filtrationplant. Funding for theland acquisition camefrom a Drinking WaterState Revolving FundLoan to the AuburnWater Department.

The town of Maynard,Massachusetts, a rapidlydeveloping community inthe Boston metropolitanarea, experienced adramatic increase in the levels of iron andmanganese in theirgroundwater as a result of increased urban runoΩ.The water had becomediscolored, leading to asurge in complaints fromcustomers concernedabout the safety of thewater. Althoughdiscoloration from ironand manganese is not athreat to public health,expensive treatment isrequired to remove it. Asa result of public concern,the town voted to approvea new $4.6 milliontreatment facility.58

funding—and is expected to be far less than thecost of construction and operation for a filtra-tion plant. More importantly, the watershed pro-tection activities are beginning to show successin addressing water quality challenges. The phos-phorus loads from wastewater treatment plantsin the watershed between 1994 and 1999dropped by 65.7 percent. Of this reduction,about 77 percent appears to be due to treatmentperformance that has been aggressivelyaddressed by Department of EnvironmentalProtection staΩ. Treatment plant upgrades andstorm water management plans, including water-shed buΩers and wetlands protection, areexpected to lead to even better results in thefuture. As a result of these improvements, EPAagreed in November 2002 to extend filtrationavoidance for another five years.

CONTACT: Mark Hoffer, General Counsel

ADDRESS: New York City Department of

Environmental Protection, Bureau of

Legal Affairs, 59-17 Junction Boulevard,

19th Floor, Corona, NY 11368

PHONE: 718-595-6528

FAX: 718-595-6543

EMAIL: mhoffer@dep.nyc.gov

CASE STUDY

Salem, Oregon

The City of Salem’s water system currently sup-plies drinking water to approximately 170,000people. The city relies almost entirely on theNorth Santiam River for its water supply source.Salem’s watershed covers more than 490,000acres of land stretching from the Cascade Moun-tain peaks of Mount JeΩerson and Three-Fingered Jack to the city’s water intake aboveStayton. Approximately 80 percent of the landin the watershed is owned and managed by theUnited States Forest Service, the Bureau of LandManagement, and the Oregon Department ofForestry, which harvest timber on much of theland. A few small but growing communities with a combined population of about 2,700 arelocated along the river.

After unusual flooding on the North SantiamRiver in Oregon in February 1996, the City ofSalem was forced to take drastic steps to providepotable water to its customers. Salem’s watertreatment system relies on slow sand filtration,which is a very e≈cient and eΩective way to treatthe normally clear waters of the North SantiamRiver. However, high turbidity causes the filtersystem to plug quickly. The water intake fromthe river is normally shut down when turbidityexceeds 8 nephelometric turbidity units (ntu).During and after the February flood, the riverreached 140 ntu twice and did not fall below 8ntu until two months after the flood. Due to thesevere limitations on providing adequate watersupplies in the aftermath of the flood, the citywas forced to declare a water emergency. Theresulting cost for the city to keep water suppliedto customers was more than $200,000. Due tothe impacts from the 1996 flood, the city built apermanent Chemical Pretreatment System thatcost approximately $1 million. For a city thatspends less than $27 per million gallons fortreatment, an unexpected $1 million investmentis significant.

The U.S. General Accounting O≈ce (GAO)report Oregon Watersheds: Many Activities Contribute toIncreased Turbidity During Large Storms (July 1998,GAO/RCED-98-220) found that, although thewatershed seems well protected, timber harvest-ing and related road construction practices con-tributed to heavy soil erosion during the 1996storm. Also contributing to flooding and signifi-cant erosion on the 20 percent of land not inpublic ownership were agricultural, urban, andresidential development, including a highway thatparallels the city’s sole source of drinking water.

Since the 1996 flood, the city has worked

24 Pr ot e c t i ng t h e S ou r c e

By protecting the watersheds

supplying its nine million residents

with drinking water, New York

City expects to both improve water

quality and save money that would

have gone toward construction and

operation of a new filtration plant.

© KEN SHERMAN

closely with local, state, and federal agencies toimplement better watershed management prac-tices to protect its drinking water and avoidfuture episodes of contamination. The citysigned a Memorandum of Understanding withall federal agencies in the watershed that out-lines watershed protection goals and created anonline water quality monitoring program that is cost-shared with the U.S. Geological Survey(http://oregon.usgs.gov/santiam/). The city alsoparticipates in initial site assessments for all tim-ber sales with the Bureau of Land Management(BLM), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and theOregon Department of Forestry (ODF). Theresults of water quality monitoring to measurethe impact of watershed protection eΩorts canbe viewed in the first report by the U.S. Geologi-cal Survey on this eΩort at http://oregon.usgs.gov/pubs_dir/WRIR03-4098/. Althoughimproving water quality and maintaining treat-ment costs are the city’s long-term goals, the cityconsiders its positive relationships with theUSFS, BLM, and ODF to be an immediatebenefit of cooperative actions.

CONTACT: Libby Barg, Water Quality and Treatment

Supervisor, City of Salem Public Works

ADDRESS: 1410 20th Street SE, Salem, OR 97302

PHONE: 503-361-2224

FAX: 503-588-6480

EMAIL: lbarg@open.org

WEB SITE: http://cityofsalem.net/~swater

Watershed Management:The First Barrier in a Multiple-BarrierApproach

Watershed management is the first and most fun-damental step in a multiple-barrier approach toprotecting drinking water. Healthy, functioningwatersheds naturally filter pollutants and moder-ate water quantity by slowing surface runoΩ andincreasing the infiltration of water into the soil.The result is less flooding and soil erosion, cleanerwater downstream, and greater groundwater re-serves.

Watershed management is a multifaceted dis-cipline that involves conservation and restoration,landuse monitoring, proactive landuse regula-tions, on-site field inspections, education, plan-ning, emergency spill response, and incentives.Although all of these components are essential toimproving water resources, only the protection of

land prevents contamination by nonpoint sourcepollutants and costly clean-up of drinking water.

Land can and should be protected with bothregulatory and voluntary tools. Yet in the past,many communities have relied too heavily on reg-ulatory landuse strategies; although these are crit-ical to any land management plan, as a singularapproach they can place excessive burdens onlandowners in the source area. In addition, theymay be di≈cult or even impossible to implementfor communities that do not have the authority toregulate landuses within the source area they needto protect.

Voluntary tools include land conservation,best management practices (BMPs), and publiceducation. BMPs can be eΩective over time bychanging the behaviors and practices of those inthe watershed, but they may be insu≈cient ontheir own to protect water resources. Such volun-tary compliance strategies are usually most eΩec-tive when combined with other approaches, suchas landuse regulation or land conservation. Volun-tary land protection strategies provide permanentprotection for critical natural resources. Land anddevelopment rights are acquired from willing sell-ers in a process that is fair to both sellers and buy-ers. Specific tools include the acquisition of landor conservation easements and several leasingarrangements.

Given the array of protection tools, wheredoes land conservation work best? Protection ofnatural lands will benefit any ground and surfacewater sources, but conservation is particularlyeΩective in defined circumstances.

• Size. The smaller the drainage area, the easierit is to accomplish measurable water qualityobjectives. Water suppliers who choose landconservation as a primary strategy usuallyhave drainage basins or aquifer recharge areasof 300,000 acres or less.59

• Existing or potential landuses. Land conservationstrategies are more politically salient incommunities where tracts of unprotectedforest or grasslands are still privately owned,or where water quality has declinedmeasurably as a result of landuse, such as new development.

• Overlapping benefits. Communities that haveother land protection goals, such as growthmanagement or flood control, in addition to water quality, are more likely to supportfunding for land conservation.

New knowledge about watershed hydrologyand the flow of pollutants through the watershedis allowing communities to make smarter invest-

Pa r t On e : Ma k i ng t h e C a s e 25

The American Academy

of Microbiology, in their

1996 study on water safety,

argued that one of the

best tools for reducing

the transmission of

waterborne diseases is the

establishment of watershed

protection programs.60

ments in land conservation that have the greatestbenefit for drinking water resources. Land conser-vation can be used to protect both surface waterand groundwater resources.

Surface Water Protection

Traditional land protection strategies have fo-cused on protecting riparian areas along largerivers or reservoir shorelines, often ignoring thesmaller feeder streams. We now understand thatthe greatest volume of runoΩ water, and thereforethe greatest volume of pollutants, enters most wa-tersheds from small streams.

Within any particular watershed, smallstreams constitute up to 85 percent of the totalstream length and collect most of the surfacerunoΩ and pollutants from the land.62 Becausesmall headwater and tributary streams comprisemost of the drainage network in watersheds, theystrongly influence the quantity, timing, and qual-ity of streamflow. However, due to their size, smallstreams are rarely mapped by many local gov-ernments and are often ignored during planningprocesses.

Recent scientific studies show that protectingsmall streams and their riparian zones can have agreater impact on maintaining water quality andquantity than protection of larger tributaries.63

Watershed managers are beginning to target theprotection of small streams and their riparianzones.

Groundwater Protection

In the past, most groundwater protection eΩortshave focused on wellhead protection—protectingthe area immediately surrounding the wellhead,where contaminants can reach the treatmentplant quickly and with little time for detection.Although wellhead protection is important,pathogens and soluble pollutants, such as nitrate,can travel long distances in groundwater (in somecases very rapidly) and may even reach deepaquifers.64 Once water flows underground andsettles in an aquifer, it may remain there for hun-dreds to thousands of years. If pollutants reach anaquifer, particularly a deep aquifer, contaminationmay be essentially permanent.65 Protecting deepor confined aquifers from contamination requiresprotecting land in the aquifer recharge zone. Pro-tecting the wellhead may not be su≈cient to pro-tect the aquifer from contamination.

Shallow groundwater sources and unconfinedaquifers under the influence of surface water arevery susceptible to contamination from nonpointsource pollutants. Since water and pollutantstravel easily between surface waterways and shal-low aquifers, pollutants originating in the head-waters of a watershed can make their way to wellsfarther downstream. Therefore, shallow ground-water sources and unconfined aquifers need to beprotected in a similar manner to that of surfacewater sources, through the protection of forests,wetlands, small streams, and high-yield rechargeareas.

CASE STUDY

Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Carrboro, North Carolina

The University Lake Watershed is an importantdrinking water source for residents of Carrboro,Chapel Hill, and the University of North Car-olina at Chapel Hill. These communities, as wellas 90 percent of the watershed, are locatedwithin Orange County, which has experiencedsignificant growth during recent decades. By thelate 1980s it was clear that, unless more carefullymanaged, continued growth could have a seriouseΩect on the safety and availability of water inUniversity Lake.

In response to this growing threat, OrangeWater and Sewer Authority (OWASA) initiateda planning process with the four governmentalunits that had planning and zoning jurisdictionwithin the watershed (Orange County, ChathamCounty, and the Towns of Carrboro and ChapelHill). The goal was to develop a joint sourcewater protection agreement that incorporated avariety of voluntary and regulatory landuse tools.

A committee of elected o≈cials from eachjurisdiction negotiated a protection plan thatmet the interests and needs both of the residentsin the watershed and the consumers of thedrinking water. After two years of negotiation,water quality modeling, and extensive publicoutreach, the committee developed an agree-ment that was politically viable and technicallyjustified in all of the aΩected communities. Thisagreement creatively used a variety of regulatorytools, including minimum lot sizes, limits onimpervious surfaces, the prohibition of publicsewer extensions into the watershed, and thepotential for the transfer of development rightsbetween zones in the watershed.

During the negotiation process, it became

26 Pr ot e c t i ng t h e S ou r c e

Serving Chapel Hill andCarrboro, North Carolina,

Orange Water and SewerAuthority (OWASA) uses

their land acquisitionprogram to purchase the

most sensitive land in theirwatershed to protect their

drinking water sourcethrough negotiations with

interested landowners.By paying landowners for

the value of their property,OWASA “actually puts

money back into thepockets of watershed

landowners who moretypically perceive

themselves as ‘victims’ ofsource water zoning and

development restrictions.This has been a successful

response to the challengingissue of equity,” notes Ed

Holland, planning director.“Source water protection

has traditionally enjoyed ahigh level of support by theenvironmentally conscious

community we serve.Our Five-Year CapitalImprovements Budgettypically includes over

$2 million for watershedland and easement

acquisition.”61

clear that regulatory strategies alone would not be viewed as equitable by all communities in thewatershed. Rural watershed residents were per-ceived to be bearing the brunt of the protectionmeasures through down-zoning of their properties,without receiving any of the benefits, as they didnot drink the water from the lake and, under theprotection plan, could not receive sewer services.

In response, a land acquisition fund was cre-ated to redirect some of the resources from thecommunities that would benefit from thecleaner water—primarily Carrboro and ChapelHill—to the rural communities in the watershed.Rural landowners could choose to sell theirproperties at fair market value or sell the devel-opment rights, rather than lose value to down-zoning. OWASA created a line item in theirCapital Improvements Budget that authorizedspending a percentage of revenue each year topurchase sensitive lands. Since its inception in1991, the fund has spent $4 million on acquisi-tions and easements and leveraged that invest-ment to attract an additional $1.7 million ingrant funds from the North Carolina CleanWater Management Trust Fund.

CONTACT: Ed Holland, Planning Director

ADDRESS: Orange Water and Sewer Authority,

P.O. Box 366, Carrboro, NC 27510-0366

PHONE: 919-537-4215

FAX: 919-968-4464

EMAIL: eholland@owasa.org

WEB SITE: http://www.owasa.org

CASE STUDY

San Antonio, Texas

The San Antonio Water System (SAWS) servesapproximately 1.1 million customers via 92 wellsthat draw from Edwards Aquifer. In 1975, it wasthe first aquifer in the United States to receive asole source designation by the EPA.

In a May 2000 bond measure, San Antoniovoters approved a one-eighth cent sales taxincrease for land acquisition to protect theEdwards Aquifer and to create greenways alongsensitive creeks within the city. This measureraised approximately $65 million over the nextfour years. Of the four bond measures on theballot in 2000, including measures to increasetourism and attract new businesses, the water

quality measure was the only one approved bySan Antonio voters.

Years of public education eΩorts by the SanAntonio Water System had laid the groundworkfor the measure by educating residents on watersupply issues within their community. But theimpetus and popular support necessary to passthe bond measure came from grassroots eΩortsto mobilize voters and educate the public aboutthe threat to their water supply brought by rapiddevelopment within the aquifer’s recharge zone.

SAWS initiated its sensitive Land Acquisi-tion Program (LAP) in 1997 specifically to pro-tect and preserve the quality and quantity ofwater in the aquifer recharge zone. The programprotects lands that are predisposed to geologicsensitivity and possible contamination, such aspoint recharge features (caves, solution cavities,and sink holes). Criteria used to determine eligi-bility for acquisition include maximum thicknessof Edwards limestone on the property; presenceof streams or rivers; presence of faulting; pres-ence of major features; and availability andaΩordability of the property.

Funding for the LAP is allocated through aportion of the Water Supply Fee. Since 2000,SAWS and its partners have preserved over10,000 acres of land, at a cost of over $5.6 mil-lion. The cost to SAWS was just $1.8 million, asit eΩectively leveraged its funding with fundingfrom the city, state, and private funding sources.

The Trust for Public Land, The Nature Con-servancy, Texas Parks and Wildlife, and theBexar Land Trust are working as a team withSAWS to protect and manage these lands. TexasParks and Wildlife took title to one of the firstmajor acquisitions, Government Canyon, creat-ing Government Canyon State Natural Area.Land for this first acquisition came from morethan a dozen public agencies and private groups.The Trust for Public Land, The Nature Conser-vancy, and the Bexar Land Trust work coopera-tively with landowners to negotiate and contractfor many of the fee and easement acquisitionsand, in some cases, to help with ecological inven-tories and land management strategies.

CONTACT: Kirk Nixon, Manager

ADDRESS: San Antonio Water System, 1001 East

Market Street, San Antonio, TX 78298

PHONE: 210-704-7305

EMAIL: knixon@saws.org

WEB SITE: http://www.saws.org

Pa r t On e : Ma k i ng t h e C a s e 27

“Our watershed is on the central coast of NewJersey, where the soils are sandy and water cantravel underground about150 feet per day,” notesSteve Specht with theBrick Municipal UtilityAuthority. “We draw ourdrinking water from bothsurface and groundwatersources, but with 70percent of the river watercoming from the ground,we know our surface andgroundwater resources areone and the same. We’reactively working with the state, counties, andsurrounding communitiesto protect the wetlands in our headwaters. We believe this is one of the main reasons our water quality is stillgood, despite increaseddevelopment upstream.”66

28

ith the national rate of land development increasing twice as fast as population, com-

munities need to be proactive about pro-tecting natural resources, particularly their sourceof drinking water. Although investments in main-taining and upgrading treatment systems will al-ways be critical to protecting public health, theseremedial approaches need to be balanced withinvestments in source protection. Communitiesthat invest in land protection as a way to protecttheir drinking water are investing in the long-termhealth and quality of life of their citizens—guidinggrowth away from sensitive water resources, pro-viding new park and recreational opportunities,protecting farmland and natural habitat, and pre-serving historic landscapes.

The emphasis on source protection haschanged over time and continues to evolve. Thecongressional mandate for state Source Water As-sessment Plans (SWAPs) in the 1996 amend-ments to the Safe Drinking Water Act provided acritical national focus on watershed health as acomponent of preserving safe drinking water.SWAPs are a comprehensive initiative designedto inform communities about the location of theirdrinking water resources and about threats totheir water’s quality and quantity in order to en-courage and assist local protection activities, in-cluding land conservation. The call for SWAPsacknowledged the increasing challenges and costsfacing public water systems, and the value of pro-moting source protection as part of a multiple-barrier approach.

Though not mandated, public water suppliersand local communities are now expected to de-velop management measures to protect theirdrinking water sources. Armed with data fromtheir SWAP process, many communities are nowfocusing on watershed management issues, in-cluding landuse planning, public education andoutreach, land management, and conservation.Yet the tools, best practices, funding, and part-nership for implementation are currently limited.Networks for sharing information are only justdeveloping via eΩorts by the Environmental Pro-tection Agency, American Water Works Associa-

tion, National Rural Water Association, Associa-tion of State Drinking Water Administrators, andothers.

The series of best practices and case studiesoutlined here are designed to fill this gap, oΩeringsuppliers and municipalities a set of guidelinesand funding strategies for using land conservationas part of a comprehensive approach to source wa-ter protection. The following five best practicesprovide a framework for developing and imple-menting a source protection plan. They can guidecity planners, government o≈cials, and water sup-pliers through a process that begins with develop-ing a comprehensive understanding of landusethreats to drinking water and leads to funding ac-tual land protection strategies.

The best practices we explain here are:

1.Understand your watershed2.Use maps and models to prioritize protection3.Build strong partnerships and work

watershed-wide4.Create a comprehensive source protection

plan5.Develop and implement a “funding quilt”

The Trust for Public Land has also produced acompanion report, Source Protection Handbook: UsingLand Conservation to Protect Drinking Water Supplies,which provides detailed guidance on how to im-plement each of the best practices presented.Copies of the handbook can be ordered fromTPL’s Web site, www.tpl.org.

Best Practice: Understand yourwatershed

An understanding of your watershed and aquiferrecharge areas is the foundation upon which aneΩective source protection plan is built. Such anunderstanding involves the collection and analy-sis of scientific data about source lands, landown-

W

PART TWO

B E S T P R AC T IC E S

ership, growth and development patterns, and the health of watershed lands. Scientific data andwatershed analyses are essential to define an eΩec-tive source protection plan and build public sup-port for its implementation. That’s because zon-ing and other public policy changes need to beboth technically and legally justifiable, and theyrequire political support from elected o≈cials;land conservation strategies, although voluntary,require public support and usually the commit-ment of public funds.

In many watersheds and aquifer recharge ar-eas, water quality data is being, or has been, col-lected by more than one organization, and water-shed analyses have been conducted at the local,state, or federal level. Often, these varied sourcesof information have not been brought togetherinto one source water assessment. The first step in understanding your watershed is to compile ex-isting information in order to understand thecurrent and likely future threats to your drinkingwater.

Comprehensive water quality monitoring isanother key to understanding watershed healthand tracking the impacts of changing landuse onwater quality. Monitoring is a technical processthat can help you understand the fundamentalhealth of your watershed, where landuse is im-pacting water quality, and where conservation,restoration, or best practices are eΩectively miti-gating those impacts.67

A comprehensive monitoring program shouldinclude (1) sampling on all major tributaries

throughout the watershed, (2) sampling at tar-geted sites to test the impacts of specific landuseactivities, (3) physical, chemical, and biologicalsampling methods, and (4) monitoring duringboth wet and dry weather.68 A monitoring pro-gram should be implemented consistently acrossall jurisdictions in the watershed in order to es-tablish a baseline of past and current watershedhealth and to document the impact on water qual-ity from changes in landuse or management.

In most watersheds, multiple organizationshave collected data at diΩerent times. This datacan be consolidated and analyzed as a single re-source. An analysis of existing data that is physi-cally and conceptually accessible to the public,elected o≈cials, and other stakeholders will helpcreate a shared understanding of current and fu-ture threats to water resources and can lead to ashared commitment to action.

“If you don’t understand the baseline and nor-mal water quality range in your source area, youhave no way to identify where landuse is impact-ing water quality and where restoration or bestpractices are eΩectively mitigating those impacts,”says Chris Crockett with the Philadelphia WaterDepartment. “In every other industry, the rawmaterials are so important they are tested repeat-edly to ensure the quality of the final product. Wa-ter treatment needs to be approached similarly bycreating comprehensive monitoring programsthat eΩectively track the quality of water through-out the source area.”69

Although there will always be a need for ad-

Pa r t Two : B e s t Pr ac t ic e s 29

The rapidly growing population

in the vicinity of Florida’s Indian

River Lagoon, an estuary stretching

more than 150 miles down the East

Coast, is expected to reach nearly

one million by 2010. EΩorts to

protect the area’s water quality

through land acquisitions have

been underway since the 1970s.

© DUDLEY WITNEY

ditional data, improved analysis, and better datacollection methods, waiting until every outstand-ing question is answered can stall valuable imple-mentation strategies to address known threats.“We found that although it is important to con-tinuously improve our understanding of the wa-tershed and the threats to our drinking water, it is equally important to begin acting on the infor-mation we have,” explains Carol Storms, Mana-ger of Water Quality with New Jersey American Water.70

CASE STUDY

Philadelphia Water Department, Pennsylvania

The Philadelphia Water Department (PWD),which provides drinking water to 1.5 million peo-ple, draws its water from three drinking waterintakes in the Delaware River Watershed, whichdrains from 13,000 square miles of land stretch-ing from Pennsylvania and New Jersey all theway to New York state. This extremely complexwatershed incorporates dozens of urban areasthroughout the mid-Atlantic, such as Philadel-phia and Trenton.

Despite the size and complexity of its water-shed, the Philadelphia Water Department hasbeen proactive about finding out what is in theirsource water, where it is coming from, and howthey and their partners can mitigate pollutantloads throughout the watershed. Philadelphia ison the cutting edge of identifying, monitoring,understanding, and treating emerging contami-nants. Chris Crockett, manager of Philadelphia’sSource Water Protection Program, says,

The balancing act is, how do we stay at the frontedge of emerging contaminants and prepare forthe future without overreacting to something orwasting resources? Our strategy is to (1) identifypotential sources of contamination from monitor-ing data, landuse information, and literaturereview; (2) determine the future potential impactof those sources on treatment, public health, andaquatic life; (3) identify what existing practices can be used to address this future threat; and (4) determine what amount of resources will beneeded. Our systematic approach to understand-ing and addressing emerging threats helps us tar-get our resources most eΩectively.

For example, if monitoring data and literaturereviews point to antibiotic-resistant bacteria orpathogens from animals as a growing threat inparticular sub-basins, we look for ways to increase

our stream bank fencing and manure managementtechniques, which we know are eΩective at keepingthose contaminants out of the water. It gets morecomplicated when we look at pollutants such asendocrine disruptors and pharmaceutical residualsfrom humans, because even if we could estimateloadings through monitoring and modeling, thereis limited knowledge of public health impacts andno water quality standards to guide our remedia-tion eΩorts. But just knowing the pollutant isthere and understanding its source is critical toprotecting public health.71

The Philadelphia Water Department workswith governmental and nonprofit partners tocollect monitoring data throughout the water-shed to measure pollutant loads, identify poten-tial sources, and develop strategies for addressingthose sources. Their partnership with the Schuyl-kill Action Network is an example of this processin action. The partnership includes over 200stakeholders, from community and watershedgroups to regulatory agencies. PWD providestechnical coordination and planning to the net-work by compiling information on water quality,stream impairment, landuse, source activities,compliance, funding and protection activities,and data analysis in order to prioritize areas forrestoration and protection. Stakeholders then re-view the information to determine the actionsnecessary to address priority sites and how theycan be integrated eΩectively with existing initia-tives. By working collaboratively, they addressmultiple stakeholder objectives and bridge CleanWater Act and Safe Drinking Water Act goals.

CONTACT: Chris Crockett, Manager, Source Water

Protection Program

ADDRESS: Philadelphia Water Department,

1101 Market Street, 4th Floor,

Philadelphia, PA 19107

PHONE: 215-685-6234

FAX: 215-685-6043

EMAIL: chris.crockett@phila.gov

Best Practice: Use maps and models to prioritize protection

Municipal water supply managers and conserva-tion agencies routinely face questions and prob-lems when ranking conservation and restorationpriorities. Which forested parcels should receivethe highest priority for conservation? Which areasare in need of restoration using creekside forest

30 Pr ot e c t i ng t h e S ou r c e

buΩers? Where will storm water managementpractices likely yield the greatest improvements inwater quality? Identifying high-priority land forprotection and restoration is critical, as funding is always limited and multiple demands often aremade on a valuable piece of land.

A number of characteristics make some landsmore important to protect or restore than others.Parcels with steep slopes and erodable soils, in for-est or other natural cover, and close to a waterwayor encompassing small streams are the most criti-cal to protect; development on these sites is morelikely to degrade water quality. Geographic Infor-mation System (GIS) maps and models can bevery helpful in identifying these critical parcelsand showing where protection or restoration willhave the greatest benefit for water quality. GISsoftware can be used to identify high-prioritylands in a number of diΩerent ways, including:

• Identifying landuse and features (such asstreams or slopes), or locating parcels of land or contaminants using existing datasources.

• Creating ranking systems and operationalmodels that rank parcels based on a set of characteristics. These models requiredigitized data layers for the characteristics of greatest interest, such as slope, land cover,and distance to stream.

• Developing quantitative models that canpredict potential impacts from landuse onwater quality, such as pesticide concentration,nutrient loading, or total suspended solids instream water. These models require long-term, research-grade weather, streamflow,water quality, and watershed data fordevelopment, testing, and validation.

As our understanding of the impacts of land-use on water quality improves and the GIS map-ping software becomes more sophisticated andaccessible, prioritizing areas in a watershed is be-coming more feasible even for communities withlimited resources and technical capabilities. Thesimplest use of GIS—mapping landuse, munici-pal, or parcel boundaries, or locating contaminantsources—can be very helpful in integrating infor-mation into one watershed map that can becomea shared resource and guide for remediation orprotection. For small communities with limitedresources, this can be an excellent first step inunderstanding threats to drinking water andmapping out a strategy for protection. For moreinformation on how to create such a tool, see Us-ing Technology to Conduct a Contaminant Source Inven-tory: A Primer for Small Communities, a publication by

the Groundwater Foundation (www.groundwater.org).

Complex GIS applications, such as quantita-tive models that predict impacts on water qualityfrom landuse change, can be very useful and accu-rate. Yet they require more significant resources,technical expertise, and data than many commu-nities may have. Environmental consulting com-panies are excellent resources in thinking throughwhether and what quantitative models are themost appropriate tools for reaching your goals.

Ranking systems, which are easier to imple-ment than quantitative models, are a widely usedGIS tool for identifying high-priority areas forprotection and restoration. Ranking systemscombine information on land characteristics suchas soil type, slope, landuse, and zoning, rankingeach characteristic in importance. For example, a large forested parcel that encompasses smallstreams with steep slopes and highly erosive soilswould rank higher for protection or restorationthan a level parcel with good soils that is far froma water source. Where digitized parcel data isavailable, each parcel can be given a numeric scoreindicating its value for conservation or restora-tion. Ranking systems can e≈ciently generateland protection priority lists. When combinedwith local knowledge and field inspections, theresulting priority lists are accurate and eΩectivedecision-making tools. For more information oncreating a GIS-based ranking system for your wa-tershed, see the Source Protection Handbook: Using LandConservation to Protect Drinking Water Sources.

The EPA’s Southeast Regional O≈ce has de-veloped a Watershed Characterization Systemthat provides a wealth of information for organi-zations operating in the Southeast. This softwareincorporates extensive state-level data on landuse,soils, slope, and water quality, all of which can beused for targeting on-the-ground strategies.

Some communities have combined GIS-based ranking systems with other analyses, such ascost-benefit. For example, Orange County Waterand Sewer Authority, working in partnership withTetra Tech, Inc., has developed an e≈cient andcost-eΩective way to prioritize parcels for acquisi-tion by using formulas to estimate potential phos-phorous loads from future development at eachsite, and then weighing phosphorous loads againstthe cost for either acquisition or easements. Thisstrategy allows them to identify the parcels withthe greatest potential phosphorous load and thelowest cost, which are highest priority for protec-tion.

For more information on the many ways GIScan be used, refer to Conservation Geography: CaseStudies in GIS, Computer Mapping, and Activism.72

Pa r t Two : B e s t Pr ac t ic e s 31

Groundwater Conservation, Restoration, and Storm WaterManagement Priority Indices for the Squannacook andNissitissit River Watersheds, Massachusetts and NewHampshire. The enlarged areas are centered on (left)Townsend, Massachusetts, and (right) Brookline, NewHampshire. Conservation Priority level was based onwhether forested or wetland, type of soil, transmissivity, andwhether there is a public water supply. This map includes allCommunity Water Systems with more than 25 users, withZone I and Zone II source protection areas in gray.

CASE STUDY

Nashua, Massachusetts

The Nashua River Watershed extends through31 communities in northeastern Massachusettsand southern New Hampshire. The Squanna-cook and Nissitissit sub-basins make up thenorthern portion of the Nashua Watershed,where it crosses the state borders. These sub-basins comprise approximately 133 square milesand include portions of four counties, two states,and five towns in Massachusetts and six towns inNew Hampshire. They are primarily rural andforested and have been recognized for their pris-tine water and important and unique habitat.There are approximately 12 community watersystems in the Squannacook and Nissitissit sub-basins, all of which draw their water from wells.

The Nashua River Watershed Association(NRWA), which has been working since 1969to protect and improve the ecosystem of theNashua River Watershed, recognized that pro-tecting drinking water sources was critical to thehealth of the watershed community, and thatsource protection strategies could eΩectivelystrengthen and support their broader cleanwater and habitat goals. In 2001, the NRWAapplied to participate in an EPA-fundeddemonstration project to study the Squannacookand Nissitissit sub-basins and identify ways thatland protection and management strategiescould be used to protect drinking water sources.

As part of this demonstration eΩort, the Uni-versity of Massachusetts produced maps thatidentified areas of the watershed that were high-est priority for conservation and restoration.Because all of the communities in the Squanna-cook and Nissitissit sub-basins drink ground-water, maps and models were developed thatcombine data on groundwater wells, soils, slope,landuse, and pumping rates to identify the high-est priority lands for protecting and improvinggroundwater. The Nashua map shows in grayareas of the watershed that are high priority forconservation, with highest priority areas in darkgray. Recharge areas for groundwater wellsranked high, along with areas with shallowgroundwater under the influence of surfacewater. Similar maps were produced to identifyhigh-priority areas in the watershed for the pro-tection of surface water supplies.

By overlaying parcel lines, the NRWA is able to identify individual landowners whoseproperty is critical to the quality and quantity of groundwater supplies. Using these maps,NRWA staΩ is conducting outreach to landowners to discuss options for participa-

tion in state forest stewardship programs, whichoΩer tax breaks for implementing forest man-agement plans, and ways that landowners canconserve their property through state and federaleasement and cost share programs.

CONTACT: Al Futterman

ADDRESS: Nashua River Watershed Association,

592 Main Street, Groton, MA 01450

PHONE: 978-448-0299

EMAIL: alfutterman@nashuariverwatershed.org

WEB SITE: http://www.nashuariverwatershed.org

Best Practice: Build strong partnershipsand work watershed-wide

EΩectively implementing a source protection planrequires the support and cooperation of a varietyof public and private partners. That’s becausemost communities’ source areas lie partially, if notentirely, outside of their jurisdiction and, in mostcases, cross multiple jurisdictions and even statelines. And although few suppliers have the au-thority to directly control activities on land intheir source area, most have the ability to plan andpartner with other communities and stakeholderswho can directly influence landuse and land man-agement. Source water protection can be achiev-able and eΩective when you influence others to acton your behalf, utilize existing initiatives andframeworks, and find common goals with othersto build partnerships.73

Potential pollution sources must ultimately bemanaged at the local level, where most landuse de-cisions are made. Partnerships can be built withlocal jurisdictions, nonprofits, and other stake-holders by identifying common goals and plan-ning ways to achieve them together. Farmersbenefit from clean water for cows in order to re-duce disease. Recreational users benefit from im-proved fish habitat and safe swimming opportuni-ties, and upstream townships might benefit bymeeting obligations for existing regulatory initia-tives, such as Phase II Storm Water Regulationsor Total Maximum Daily Loads, or simply by im-proving local quality of life.74 “We have found thatsometimes simply finding a way to help a partneraddress a nagging local issue can make a projectsuccessful,” notes Crockett.75

When thinking about who needs to be in-volved in a source protection planning process, thekey is to consider who will ultimately be needed to successfully implement a plan. “Too often we count the success of a planning eΩort based on how

Pa r t Two : B e s t Pr ac t ic e s 33

many people were at the table, particularly howmany residents or members of the general publicshowed up to our meetings,” says Billy Turner, di-rector of the Columbus Water Works. “Instead,we need to think about what our ultimate goal isand who will be needed to implement that goalonce the planning has ended.”76

It may not be clear at the beginning of theprocess exactly who will be needed for successfulimplementation, but it will be clear that:

• Local, state, and federal funding will be needed. • Landowner groups will be important, such as

farmers, developers, and woodlot owners, if nonpoint source pollution is the primarythreat.

• The municipalities that reside in the watershedor manage the local water supply willultimately have to implement regulatorychanges or fund acquisition.

• Business and industry groups, which maycontribute to water quality problems, need to be part of finding solutions. Theirearly substantive involvement is critical to developing successful and broadly supported protection strategies.

• If supplies are managed privately, thosesuppliers can be involved in funding andimplementing strategies to protect theirsource.

• Local land trusts, watershed associations, and othernonprofits can be key to public outreach andeducation and, potentially, to implementingstrategies with their constituent groups.

Other jurisdictions and stakeholders will of-ten support and contribute to source water pro-tection eΩorts that meet their goals and objectives

and that build on initiatives they already have un-der way, if the information they need to guidetheir actions is made available to them. Most wa-tershed and community organizations, and evensome municipalities, lack the technical knowledgeor resources to direct their activities at the highestpriority needs. Stakeholder relationships can bedeveloped through the exchange of data, maps, orother technical or scientific information. If theutility or municipality does not have the capabilityto provide this data themselves, they can workwith other municipalities, local colleges, planningcommissions, or river basin commissions to helpthem create the needed resources.77

Although local municipalities and suppliersplay an important role in coordinating source pro-tection eΩorts, federal and state governments andnongovernmental organizations (NGOs) playcritical roles in planning, financing, and imple-menting source protection strategies. Involvingstate and federal representatives in source protec-tion planning facilitates the local communities’access to additional data, funding sources, andtechnical assistance, all of which contribute tosuccessful implementation.

In some source areas, voluntary watershed as-sociations and other NGOs are beginning to takeon the role of coordinating entities. As indepen-dent third parties, they can often bring togetherlocal municipalities and counties that may nothave planned cooperatively in the past and helpthem to plan for the protection of regional re-sources. Nongovernmental organizations oftenbring unique skills and organizational flexibilitythat can leverage new resources and encouragenew strategies.

CASE STUDY

Columbus, Georgia

Columbus Water Works (CWW) is in its finalyear of a three-year program studying waterquality in the Middle Chattahoochee RiverWatershed. The study is an eΩort to assess totalmaximum daily load (TMDL) allocationsthrough the calibrated Better Assessment Sci-ence Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources(BASINS) developed in the Middle Chatta-hoochee study. This work will help provide com-munities with assistance in their regulatory andstewardship programs, including source waterassessment and protection.

CWW serves approximately 200,000customers in an estimated 74-square-mile areaon the river about 120 miles southwest of

34 Pr ot e c t i ng t h e S ou r c e

A coalition of groups is working to

protect a 180-mile greenway along

the banks of Georgia’s Chattahoochee

River from development pressures.

The river provides drinking water

to half the state’s population.

© CHRIS LANCETTE

Atlanta. The river segment in this study areadivides Georgia from Alabama and encompassesthe growing cities of LaGrange, West Point, andOpelika. Metropolitan Columbus, located in thecenter of the study area, is growing within thecore areas of the drinking watershed. A key fea-ture of this study is CWW’s initiative in testingthe idea of interstate water resource coordina-tion with the creation of a stakeholder team thatincludes seven water companies, Georgia Power,Natural Resources Conservation Service, localuniversities, the Chattahoochee River Keeper,and state and federal agency representatives.

While CWW has primary responsibility for the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) con-trol, the comprehensive watershed study wasapproached as a partnership venture. The stake-holders are working together with CWW con-sultants, the EPA, and the Water EnvironmentResearch Foundation (WERF) on the water-shed study. They are coordinating a monitoringnetwork and an Internet-based GIS informationand communications network; discussing andimplementing source water protection policies;and integrating drinking water source protectionwith other regional goals for recreation, tourism,and economic redevelopment.

In 1993, CWW developed a vision, “to be thenation’s best water resources utility by 2000,”and it made significant progress toward that goalthrough its multi-jurisdictional partnership andaggressive public outreach eΩorts. In the early1990s, the citizens of Columbus were faced withsignificant increases in water/wastewater rates to rehabilitate the CSO system to meet staterequirements. Voters overwhelmingly supporteda 1 percent special local option sales tax to under-write the cost of the CSO program as well as anumber of associated community projects.

CWW used the funding to implement theCSO plan and to foster a comprehensive publiceducation initiative to develop and nurture along-term commitment to protecting drinkingwater supplies. The Oxbow Meadows Environ-mental Learning Center, the crown jewel of theoutreach initiative, provides environmental edu-cation to a broad spectrum of users and visitors.Two new treatment facilities were developedwith dual-use community features such as the8.2-mile Riverwalk and a two-block city parkbuilt over one of the treatment plants. Thesestrategies provide both recreational amenities to residents and needed treatment facilities.

The total cost of the CSO control programand parallel community projects like the River-walk was $95 million. Between 1997 and 1998, CWW’s total assets increased more

than $100 million to $382 million. During thesame time period, the operating budget reflecteda $1 million decrease from the previous year’sbudget of nearly $14 million, due to numerousmanagerial and operational improvements. Moreimportantly, Combined Sewer Overflow eventsmonitored since the fall of 1998 have demon-strated consistent compliance with water qualitystandards for the river.

CONTACT: Billy Turner, Director

ADDRESS: Columbus Water Works, P.O. Box 1600, Columbus,

GA 31902

PHONE: 706-649-3430

FAX: 706-327-3845

EMAIL: bturner@cwwga.org

WEB SITE: http://www.cwwga.org

Best Practice: Create a comprehensivesource water protection plan

Creating a comprehensive source water pro-tection plan is an opportunity to pull togethereverything learned from analyzing a watershed,assessing the threats to drinking water, mappinghigh-priority land for protection and restoration,and developing partnerships. Such a plan shouldbe developed with other partners and jurisdic-tions in a source area and should incorporate thefollowing:

• Strategies for managing threats, such as wastewater andagricultural runoΩ, and for protecting natural resources,such as forests and wetlands. In most drinkingwater watersheds, threats to water qualityexist from septic systems, agriculturepractices, lawn maintenance, undergroundstorage tanks, and other point and nonpointsources of pollution. Source water protectionplans should identify the greatest threats andoutline a plan to manage those threats in thefuture. Likewise, identifying and protectinghighly sensitive lands that are vulnerable to development allows communities to be proactive about protection and avoidcostly mitigation or restoration action in the future.

• A combination of voluntary and regulatory strategies,such as land acquisition and landuse regulation. Acomprehensive source water protection planshould combine voluntary and regulatorystrategies, along with best managementpractices. Landuse regulations should bebalanced with voluntary acquisition and

Pa r t Two : B e s t Pr ac t ic e s 35

cost-share programs in order to bepolitically viable and eΩective overthe long term. “No single manage-ment option can meet all of oursource water protection objectives;therefore, a combination of methodsis needed,” according to Ed Hollandwith Orange Water and SewerAuthority in North Carolina.78

• A long-term vision, short-term action strategies, andmeasurable goals. Plans are only as valuable asthe actions that result from them. Therefore,a long-term vision (extending as far as 30, 50,or even 100 years) should be accompanied by short-term action strategies. Such actionstrategies should be feasible and their resultsmeasurable, with timelines, budgets, and crit-ical partners identified, so that as fundingbecomes available or opportunities arise, they can be acted on.

• A strategy to fund the plan. Funding can comefrom a wide variety of sources that changeregularly, depending on the political andfinancial climate. Potential funding sourcesthat are identified up front can be pursuedwhen the time comes. Look for both existingfunding sources and new sources createdthrough public finance measures, fees, or other strategies.

“Start your plan early and stick with it,” advisesSuzanne Flagor, director of Watershed Manage-ment with Seattle Public Utilities. “The key toSeattle’s success in protecting our watershed wasin having a long-term plan and taking advantageof opportunities to make progress on that plan asthey arose. Funding availability and land owner-ship change regularly, creating unique opportuni-ties for action. If you are not prepared to take ad-vantage of those opportunities, they’ll be lost.”79

CASE STUDY

Seattle, Washington

In the late 1800s, residents in the small, coastalcity of Seattle, Washington, were drawing theirwater from a series of wells, springs, and privatewater companies dispersed throughout the city. In 1889, the Great Seattle Fire, which destroyedthe entire 64-acre business district, exposed theglaring inadequacies of the city’s water supply sys-tem, which had insu≈cient water or water pres-sure to suppress the blaze as it raged through town.

Immediately after the fire, residents voted tocreate a city-owned and -operated water system.

A bond was passed within a year to purchase twowater companies. By 1895, voters again approvedbonds to construct the Cedar River system, inthe mountains outside of town, which continuesto be Seattle’s primary water source today.

Shortly after constructing the water supplysystem, city leaders agreed on a plan to eventu-ally own the entire Cedar River Watershed, thuspermanently protecting and securing Seattle’sdrinking water. With a 100,000-acre watershed,it was a bold vision, yet the plan was simple:

• Buy land, not trees.

• Invest in the future by planting seedlings.

• Manage the land for water and wildlife.

The city’s first purchases were in 1898. At thetime, the watershed was owned by homesteaders,timber and mining companies, and the federalgovernment, all of whom were there to extractresources from the land. The city knew it wasbuying a “fixer-upper,” but that was part of theplan. The city negotiated agreements with tim-ber companies to allow them to harvest the treesand eventually sell the barren land to the city atincredibly low prices. Over the next 50 years, thecity purchased almost two-thirds of the water-shed through similar deals with private compa-nies and individual landowners.

The remainder of the watershed was ownedby the federal government, which is not permit-ted to sell land but can exchange it for land ofequal or greater value. Over the course of 60years, the City of Seattle purchased land in otherparts of the state that they knew was high prior-ity for the federal government, and they negoti-ated a series of land and timber exchanges thateventually led to the city’s ownership of almost100 percent of the Cedar River Watershed.

In 1996, the city’s original vision, createdover 100 years earlier, had finally been achieved.By strategically and creatively taking advantageof opportunities as they arose, and patientlysticking to a long-term vision, the City of Seattlehas secured for its residents the permanent pro-tection of one of the most pristine sources ofdrinking water in the country.

CONTACT: Suzanne Flagor, Director of Watershed

Management

ADDRESS: Seattle Public Utilities, 19901 SE Cedar

Falls Road, North Bend, WA 98045

PHONE: 206-233-1528

FAX: 206-233-1527

EMAIL: Suzanne.Flagor@seattle.gov

WEB SITE: http://www.cityofseattle.net/util/services/

Drinkingwater

36 Pr ot e c t i ng t h e S ou r c e

CASE STUDY

Austin, Texas

In 1998, the citizens of Austin, Texas, passedseveral bond measures for watershed protectionand parks, o≈cially launching the city’s SmartGrowth Initiative after years of grassroots advo-cacy. The Edwards Aquifer, on the western sideof Austin, is the sole source of drinking water forover 1.5 million people, including residents ofSan Antonio and Austin. The Barton Springssegment of the aquifer—the segment aroundAustin—has been identified as the most endan-gered aquifer in Texas. It is highly vulnerable topollution due to its relatively small size, its highporosity, and the region’s land-developmentboom.

In 1995 and 1996, a Citizens Planning Com-mittee studied landuse, transportation, and envi-ronmental concerns and developed the guidingprinciples for what in 1998 would becomeAustin’s comprehensive Smart Growth Initia-tive. During the process, it was determined thatthe city’s surface water needed protectionbeyond current regulatory restrictions. Buildingon that recommendation, the city council desig-nated the most sensitive third of the Austinregion—land that drains into Barton Springs andthe Highland Lakes—a “Drinking Water Protec-tion Zone.” The remaining two-thirds were des-ignated a “Desired Development Zone,” whichincluded the urban core, commercial corridors,and the central business district. This innovativelanduse plan directed development away fromsensitive groundwater recharge lands and towardtargeted urban growth centers. This enhancedeconomic and neighborhood developmentstrategies while protecting drinking water.

Even as Austin voters were trying tostrengthen development regulations, they werealso moving to protect the watershed throughland acquisition. A 1991 poll jointly sponsoredby the Trust for Public Land and Citizens forOpen Space revealed that Austin residentsfavored open space acquisition—particularly as ameans to protect water quality and secure recre-ation—and that they would approve increasedproperty taxes to pay for the land. In 1992, theyapproved a $20 million bond act for a new Bar-ton Creek Wilderness Park, which would protectthe most critical areas around the springs.

Since 1992, Austin voters have chosen tospend over $200 million to protect their water-shed. In 1997, after years of research, the city’sWatershed Protection Department publishedThe Barton Creek Report, which recommended

further conservation through the purchase ofland and development rights in order to protectdrinking water quality. In 1998, voters approvedseveral land-protection funding measures,including a $65 million revenue bond to pur-chase land and easements within the DrinkingWater Protection Zone and a $75.9 million bondto create and improve parks and greenways,partly as incentive for attracting new develop-ment to the Desired Development Zone. Mostrecently, in November 2000, Austin voters onceagain taxed themselves, approving $13.4 millionin bonding authority to protect land in the Bar-ton Springs Watershed.

CONTACT: Butch Smith, Senior Planner

ADDRESS: Parks and Recreation Department,

Municipal Building, 124 Eighth Street,

No. 111, Austin, TX 78701

PHONE: 512-974-2000

FAX: 512-974-1886

EMAIL: butch.smith@ci.austin.tx.us

WEB SITE: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us

Pa r t Two : B e s t Pr ac t ic e s 37

The Barton Creek Watershed

protects the water quality of

Edwards Aquifer, which is the

sole source of drinking water

for 1.5 million Texans.

© 1999 ERIC SWANSON

Best Practice: Develop and implement a “funding quilt”

The implementation of a comprehensive sourcewater protection plan requires a significant andsteady stream of funds. Successful communitiessecure funds from a variety of sources—federal,state, local, and private—creating a so-calledfunding quilt. By tapping into a range of sources,communities can raise significant amounts ofmoney and avoid reliance on a single, potentiallyunpredictable revenue stream.

On any specific project, a wide range of fund-ing sources may combine to meet funding require-ments, including a state grant matched by localfunding; local funding that is supplemented by aprivate fundraising campaign; and a private con-servation eΩort that leverages a federal grant. It isessential to use one funding source to leverageothers.

Yet despite the importance of quilting to-gether a combination of resources, local funding isthe foundation of any long-term land conserva-tion eΩort. Local funds allow for local control anddemonstrate the commitment needed to leverageother resources. Explore all funding options, butalways keep in mind that the largest burden restswith the local government.

This section outlines best practices for creat-ing a source protection funding quilt. Included areguidelines specifically designed for local watersuppliers and municipalities as well as broaderstate and federal frameworks. Only by under-standing the conservation and source protectionlandscape at all levels is the full funding of localconservation projects possible.

CASE STUDY

Assawompsett Pond Complex, Massachusetts

Through a combination of state, local, and pri-vate funding sources, nearly 4,000 acres of theAssawompsett Pond Complex was protected infast-growing southeastern Massachusetts. Thiscollaborative eΩort included acquiring the 480-acre Betty’s Neck property in Lakeville andsecuring conservation easements on 3,500 adja-cent acres already held as municipal watershedland. The Assawompsett Pond Complex is thesole source of drinking water for the Cities ofNew Bedford and Taunton and provides drink-ing water to Lakeville. It is also home to anabundance of wildlife species and oΩers scenic

beauty and recreational opportunities in thefastest-growing part of the state.

The majority of funding for this July 2002project was provided by the state’s Departmentof Environmental Protection Aquifer LandAcquisition Program, which made a $6.55 milliongrant and will receive a conservation easementon 3,500 acres. The state’s funding came fromthe 1996 Environmental Bond Bill. The Town ofLakeville contributed $1.1 million and the City ofNew Bedford contributed $600,000 toward theBetty’s Neck purchase. The City of Tauntonhopes to receive $600,000 from the StatewideRevolving Fund for that purpose. The Trust for Public Land also contributed $250,000 tothe project, thanks to an anonymous Bostonfoundation.

CONTACT: Badge Blackett

ADDRESS: TPL New England Regional Office,

33 Union Street, 4th Floor,

Boston, MA 02108

PHONE: 617-367-6200

FAX: 617-367-1616

EMAIL: Badge.Blackett@tpl.org

WEB SITE: http://www.tpl.org

Create and maintain dedicated local public funding sources

Local (preferably dedicated) funding is the foun-dation of any credible, long-term land conserva-tion eΩort. The competition for state and federalfunds is intense, and local funding is often neces-sary to secure these outside funds. Local funding isalso the only source that is completely within thecontrol of the local government, as federal andstate sources are frequently subject to significantfluctuations that make them less reliable.

Local funding can take the form of a generalfund appropriation or a legislatively approved taxincrease. Often, however, the price tag, the poli-tics, and the legal options warrant approval by vot-ers of a conservation spending measure. Hun-dreds of local governments have passed ballotmeasures in recent years. During 2002 and 2003—two years of slumping economic fortunes—205local governments across the United States passedballot measures that included funding for landconservation. Seventy-five percent (in 2002) and83 percent (in 2003) of local ballot measuresplaced before the voters passed around the coun-try.80

The Trust for Public Land has worked withdozens of local governments to pass ballot meas-ures, assisting with research and development,

38 Pr ot e c t i ng t h e S ou r c e

public opinion polling, and ballot language design,and has compiled lessons learned regarding thekey components to winning a land conservationmeasure. For more information on how to createa dedicated local funding source, see TPL’s LocalGreenprinting for Growth Workbook, Volume III: How toSecure Conservation Funds, which can be downloadedfor free from TPL’s Web site, www.tpl.org.

CASE STUDY

New York/New Jersey Northern Highlands

The Northern Highlands serve as the source of drinking water for 4.5 million people in NewJersey. The area includes a series of reservoirsystems—the Wanaque/Monksville system, thePequannock system, and the Boonton/Split Rocksystem. Over the past five years, within eachsystem, a range of funding sources has cometogether to protect thousands of acres.

Several factors underpin the success in landconservation eΩorts in the Highlands. First, NewYork and New Jersey have significant state fund-ing for land conservation—New York approvedthe $1.75 billion Clean Water, Clean Air Bond in1996, and New Jersey’s Garden State Preserva-tion Act (1998) provides $98 million annuallyfrom the state sales tax. Second, New Jersey hasprovided the legal framework for counties andmunicipal governments to initiate local openspace trusts and the incentives (via matchinggrants) to create them. As a result, all of NewJersey’s 21 counties and more than 178 local gov-ernments have open space trust funds. Finally,there are broad networks of private foundations,land trusts, and citizen supporters of conserva-tion in the area.

Local conservation finance measures havebeen approved in recent years in both Sussex andMorris Counties, home of the Pequannock andBoonton/Split Rock systems. Sussex Countyvoters approved their first-ever property tax levyin November 2000, which raises $1.6 millionannually, while Morris County voters increasedtheir levy in November 2001 to $25 million to$30 million annually.

The Hawkwatch project in RockawayTownship, New Jersey, is an example of the localgovernment funds helping to leverage otherfunding. Of the total $7 million for the project,Morris County and Rockaway Township con-tributed $1.5 million from their local propertytax levies, and $3 million came from the state’sGreen Acres Program with a mix of grants andloans. An additional $1 million came from the

federal Forest Legacy Program and the stategrant portion of the federal Land and WaterConservation Fund, with more than $1 millionfrom private foundations.

The most notable purchase within the High-lands was the 1998 purchase of 15,000 acres ofSterling Forest, a heavily forested area straddlingthe New York/New Jersey border. To reach thetotal cost of $55 million, Congress approved $17.5million; the state of New York, $16 million; andNew Jersey, $10 million. In addition, the LilaAcheson and DeWitt Wallace Fund for theHudson Highlands and the Doris Duke Chari-table Foundation contributed $5 million, whilethe Victoria Foundation contributed $1 million.Private donors provided the remaining funds.

CONTACT: Terrance Nolan

ADDRESS: Trust for Public Land, 20 Community

Place, 2nd Floor, Morristown, NJ 07960

PHONE: 973-425-0360

FAX: 973-425-0366

EMAIL: terrance.nolan@tpl.org

WEB SITE: http://www.tpl.org

Create substantial state funding and the right mix of policies to supportbroad-based land conservation in a state

While landuse and land conservation activities areprimarily the domain of local governments, thepublic policies established by state governmentsshape those decisions significantly. A good stateframework for clean water and watershed man-agement can give communities the flexibility,funding, and technical assistance they need to planand implement successful programs.

States can promote source protection andclean water programs with incentives and fundingprograms that help local communities meet theirwatershed protection goals. States can play anenormous role in local watershed planning activi-ties by putting forth an ambitious vision that cap-tures complementary goals for land conservationand water quality protection. They can also pro-vide key technical assistance with data collectionand management, GIS mapping, build-out analy-sis, and landuse analysis.

A clear vision for source protection and cleanwater can lead to partnerships and leveraging ofcomplementary federal funding, such as USDA’sNatural Resources Conservation Service and For-est Legacy Programs. As public water suppliersand watershed planners create their funding quilt,states can help support these programs with clear

Pa r t Two : B e s t Pr ac t ic e s 39

goals, blended funding streams, and program in-tegration that matches the kind of integrationhappening locally. Some of the steps states cantake to support local conservation for clean waterare outlined below.

1.Create substantial state investment. A dedicatedstate funding source pays for statewidesource protection projects and reinforces along-term conservation commitment andvision. Some existing state programs rely on a single revenue stream, while others use acombination of revenue sources. The mostcommon revenue streams used by states are general obligation bonds, sales tax, lottery income, real estate transfer tax ordeed recording fees, and general fundappropriations.

2.Enable and provide incentives for local financing. Stateenabling legislation gives local governmentsthe authority they need to raise local dollars.Incentives, often in the form of matchinggrants and low interest loans, encourage localgovernments and nonprofit conservationorganizations to develop programs andgenerate local funds while strengtheningpartnerships.

3.Leverage federal financing. State grants and loanscan be linked to federal Clean Water andDrinking Water State Revolving Funds toprovide grants or low-interest loans for landconservation eΩorts that protect waterresources.

4.Link multiple community priorities. State programsthat link water quality benefits with othercommunity goals, such as recreation, historicpreservation, and habitat protection, willattract greater support and funding from thepublic and elected o≈cials.

CASE STUDY

North Carolina

Following several high-profile water pollutionincidents, in 1996 North Carolina’s GeneralAssembly created the Clean Water ManagementTrust Fund. The fund is the first state fundingprogram in the country dedicated exclusively to water quality protection. It acts as a quasi-independent agency within the Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources, awardinggrants to projects addressing water pollutionproblems.

Nonprofit land conservation organizations,municipalities, and state agencies have received

grants supporting up to 100 percent of projectcosts. For example, in 1998, the fund grantedrural Gaston and Lincoln Counties the full $6.15million needed to buy 1,231 acres around Moun-tain Island Lake, key watershed land providingdrinking water for more than a half-millionCharlotte-area residents.

The Trust Fund has the option of requiring a 20 percent local match in funds. Projects mustenhance or restore degraded waters, protectunpolluted waters, or contribute toward a net-work of buΩers along riverbanks and greenwaysfor environmental, educational, and recreationalbenefits. Uses for the funds include land acquisi-tion, conservation easements, cooperative plan-ning eΩorts, stream restoration, and wastewaterand storm water projects.

The initial allocation for the program was 6.5 percent of the state’s unspent fund balance,which came to about $45,000. Five years later,the allocation had grown to $30 million per year.And within the program’s first decade, legisla-tion requires the allocation be increased to $100 million.

CONTACT: Bill Holman, Executive Director

ADDRESS: North Carolina Clean Water Management

Trust Fund, 1651 Mail Service Center,

Raleigh, NC 27699-1651

PHONE: 919-733-6375

FAX: 919-733-6374

EMAIL: bill@cwmtf.net

WEB SITE: http://www.cwmtf.net

Use state-directed federal funds more creatively

Three distinct types of federal funding for landconservation exist:

1.State-directed programs, in which statesreceive grants from the federal governmentbut are given broad discretion to allocatefunds (Clean Water and Drinking WaterState Revolving Funds)

2.Direct federal programs, in which the federal government makes direct grants inpartnership with states to local recipients,usually local governments (Forest LegacyProgram)

3.Direct federal acquisition (Forest Service orNational Park Service acquisition)

The first category, state-directed federal pro-grams, include the Clean Water State RevolvingFund (CWSRF), the Nonpoint Source Grant

40 Pr ot e c t i ng t h e S ou r c e

resources for water quality improvements.For example, a nonprofit can match a grantfrom an individual or foundation with anSRF loan to complete a conservation orrestoration project. Over a dozen states allowprivate borrowing, including California andIllinois.

3.Proactively promote the use of State Revolving Fundsand Nonpoint Source Grant Program Funds for a widevariety of water quality projects, including landconservation and restoration. Many potentialborrowers do not know that federal rulesallow these funds to be used for water-shed protection or restoration, estuarymanagement projects, and source waterprotection measures. State programs, such asOhio’s Restoration Sponsorship Program,have been very eΩective for promoting theuse of funds for nontraditional projects.

4.Provide state funding and mandates for implementingsource water protection plans. Currently there areno guidelines or provisions for implementingon-the-ground strategies, only a mandate to complete assessments. State funding ormandates could ensure that the eΩort thatwent into developing Source Water Assess-ment Plans results in actions to protectsource waters.

Local stakeholders can also impact how federalconservation programs are structured and howfunds are spent at the local level, particularly in thecategory of state-directed programs. Specifically,they can communicate with state program admin-istrators about how these funds could most eΩec-tively address high-priority water quality prob-lems. Generating applications for projects thataddress nonpoint source pollution and source wa-ter protection is another way to demonstrate localdemand for NPS funding. And finally, local gov-ernments can encourage states to implement in-novative grant and loan programs that leverageother local and state dollars. Where there has beena strong desire at the local level to use SRFs tofund nonpoint source projects, states have re-sponded with creative loan structures and highfunding levels.

CASE STUDY

Ohio’s Restoration Sponsorship Program

With funding from the federal Clean WaterState Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan program,the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency hascreated an innovative program to address threats

Pa r t Two : B e s t Pr ac t ic e s 41

Program (Section 319), and the Drinking WaterState Revolving Fund (DWSRF). The revolvingfunds provide water quality improvement grantsto states, which then make loans to local govern-ments, and in some cases nonprofits, private citi-zens, and others. States are given a great deal offlexibility in the allocation and management offunds in order to encourage innovation and to al-low them to address their most pressing waterquality problems.

Traditionally, the CWSRF was used to fundnew and upgraded wastewater treatment plants,and the DWSRF was used to fund new or up-graded drinking water treatment plants. Althoughthere continues to be a need for capital improve-ments in many communities, the primary threatto water quality in most of our nation’s waterwaysis no longer e√uent from wastewater treatmentplants but nonpoint source pollution. In fact,nonpoint source pollution now accounts for 60percent of all pollution in U.S. waterways, yet 95percent of CWSRFs go toward wastewater treat-ment upgrades.81 Federal rules allow a great deal of flexibility in the use of the CWSRF, but theDWSRF rules only allow states to set aside up to 15 percent of their loan pool to fund land con-servation or voluntary, incentive-based protec-tion measures. This set-aside is too small to covermany land protection projects, ranked separatelyfrom other projects, and it is not integrated withother capital investments.

So how can states more eΩectively use theirshare of state-directed federal funds to addressthreats from nonpoint source pollution at the lo-cal level? The following best practices highlightwhat’s working in many states.

1.Create an integrated priority ranking system. In orderto fund a wider variety of high-priorityprojects, particularly nonpoint sourceprojects, integrate Clean Water Act fundingprograms, including the CWSRF, theNonpoint Source Grant Program, and theEstuary Program, and prioritize fundingdecisions based on primary water qualitythreats. In 2002, approximately 26 statestook advantage of the flexibility in the CleanWater Act to create integrated priorityranking systems, including Minnesota,Oregon, and Washington. For moreinformation on integrated priority rankingsystems, refer to EPA’s publication: EPA-832-R-01-002, March 2001.

2.Allow private and public borrowing in the StateRevolving Fund, Nonpoint Source Grant, and EstuaryPrograms. Private borrowing by nonprofit landtrusts and other groups can leverage private

from nonpoint source pollution. Since its incep-tion, Ohio’s Water Pollution Control Loan Fund(WPCLF), which is funded through the federalCWSRF, has significantly reduced the impact ofwastewater treatment on water quality. However,nonpoint source runoΩ and habitat degradationare impeding that progress and are threateningto reverse water quality improvements if notaddressed.

Because of this growing threat, Ohio EPAo≈cials are taking a broader perspective onwater quality and how to protect and improve it.Rather than just looking at discharges fromsewage treatment plants, they are looking ateΩects on water quality from storm water wash-ing oΩ roadways, loss of forested land to newdevelopment, and degraded stream corridors.

In 2000, the Ohio EPA created the WaterResource Restoration Sponsorship Program,which oΩers drastically reduced loan rates toutilities and local governments for traditionalwastewater treatment work if the loan recipienteither implements or “sponsors” a watershedprotection or restoration project. “We’re tryingto get people to think more broadly to improveand protect water resources and at least to pro-vide an incentive financially to encourage them

to do that,” said Robert Monsarrat, a managerwithin the Ohio EPA’s division of environmen-tal and financial assistance.82

Communities applying to the WaterResource Restoration Sponsorship Program forwastewater treatment loans can either imple-ment their own watershed restoration project orsponsor a land trust, park district, or anotherentity’s watershed protection or restoration proj-ect. The loan recipient receives a reduced ratefor their loan equal to the principal and interestcosts of the project, plus an additional reductionof 0.1 percent as an incentive. The savings theyreceive through the reduced interest rate is thengranted to the watershed protection project. Theresult is the creation of new grant dollars forwatershed protection projects and a total repay-ment cost for loan recipients that is lower than if they had borrowed solely for a wastewaterproject.

For example, if a utility borrows $1 millionfor a plant upgrade or expansion, they receive astandard interest rate of about 3.8 percent andhave 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-tection project, their interest rate would drop to0.2 percent, resulting in a total loan repaymentof $1,422,000—a savings of $15,000 on the totalloan repayment. The utility can either use the$393,000 to implement the protection projectthemselves or grant it to a nonprofit partner toimplement the project. Projects eligible for theWater Resource Restoration Sponsorship Pro-gram include the purchase of easements onriparian corridors, stream channel restorationprojects, and wetland restoration and protectionprojects.

In the first two years of the program alone,communities used $24 million in loan funds toprotect and restore 1,850 acres of riparian landand wetlands and 38 miles of Ohio’s stream cor-ridors. EΩorts such as the protection of SawmillCreek, the drinking water source for 400,000Ohioans, and the protection of Edison Woods, a 1,300-acre reserve that is part of the NationalEstuarine Reserve System, illustrate the tremen-dous success of this innovative program in pro-tecting and improving Ohio’s valuable waterresources.

CONTACT: Robert Monsarrat, Section Manager

ADDRESS: Ohio EPA, Division of Environmental

and Financial Assistance, P.O. Box 1049,

Columbus, OH 43216-1049

PHONE: 614-644-3655

WEB SITE: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/defa

42 Pr ot e c t i ng t h e S ou r c e

Northern Ohio’s Edison Woods,located just south of Lake Erie,

was permanently protected withfunding from the Ohio EPA’sWater Resource Restoration

Sponsorship Program.

© 2001 AL FUCHS

CASE STUDY

Rockaway Township and Morris County, New Jersey

In Rockaway Township, New Jersey, fundingfrom multiple sources reached a $7 million goalto protect local water resources. Local propertytaxes in Morris County and Rockaway Townshipcontributed $1.5 million. The funding was sup-plemented by $2 million from the state’s GreenAcres program. The federal Forest Legacy Pro-gram and the state grant portion of the federalLand and Water Conservation Fund contributedanother $2 million, and private foundations con-tributed more than $1 million.

Rockaway Township’s success models howthe presence of one funding source can helpsecure other funding. New Jersey’s Departmentof Environmental Protection has successfullypartnered federal Clean Water State RevolvingFunds with state funding to finance the imple-mentation of various water supply, wastewater,storm water, and nonpoint source pollutionmanagement projects through low-interestloans.

The U.S. EPA provides annual grants tostates under a Clean Water State RevolvingFund. The money is generally used to provide

In addition to state-directed programs, federalconservation funds are made available to state andlocal governments and to nonprofit organizationsthrough appropriations, grants, and incentives.The Federal Funding Sources box below gives anoverview of some of the most common federalfunding programs for land conservation. Al-though none of these funding sources are directedspecifically at source protection activities, manycan be used for land protection strategies that pro-tect source waters. Communities need to thinkcreatively about how these funds can support theirsource protection goals.

Many of these programs require matchingfunds, underscoring the need to secure state, local,and private funds. Federal funds reach the locallevel in a variety of ways, depending on the pro-gram. Some funds are fully administered by stateagencies; in others, the federal agency takes a moredirect role. State agencies often provide informa-tion about federal funding sources, procedures,and contacts. For current and detailed informa-tion on federal funding sources for land acquisi-tion, search TPL’s Federal Programs at www.tpl.org.For detailed information on federal funds for all watershed protection activities use the EPA’sonline searchable Catalog of Federal FundingSources for Watershed Protection at www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf.html.

Land and Water Conservation Fund(LWCF) is the largest source of federalmoney for parks, wilderness, and openspace acquisition. The program’s fundingcomes primarily from offshore oil- and gas-drilling receipts. At the national level,funds are used to acquire and protect newnational forests, parks, wildlife areas, andother public lands. In FY 2002, Congressappropriated $429 million for specificacquisitions in these federal units. State-side LWCF is a matching grant programthat provides funds to states for planning,development, and acquiring land andwater areas. In FY 2000, Congress rein-stated funding for Stateside LWCF andfunded it at $144 million in FY 2002.

Forest Legacy Program is adminis-tered by the U.S. Forest Service under itsState and Private Forestry Division andprovides matching funds to states to assistin forest protection. States may receivefederal Forest Legacy grants of up to 75

percent of the total cost of the acquisition,with the remainder to be matched by non-federal funds. In FY 2002, Congressappropriated $65 million for this program.

The North American Wetlands Con-servation Act promotes voluntary public-private partnerships to conserve wetlandecosystems for waterfowl and other migra-tory birds. Acquired or restored habitat can be owned or managed by any federal,state, or nonprofit organization involved inland management. In FY 2002, Congressappropriated $43.5 million for this program.

The Cooperative Endangered SpeciesConservation Fund (Section 6 of theEndangered Species Act) provides match-ing grants to states for conservation proj-ects that benefit not only species listed asendangered but also those that are candi-dates, or proposed for the list, on state,private, and other nonfederal land. In FY2002, Congress appropriated more than$96 million for this program.

The Farmland Protection Program pro-vides federal matching funds for state andlocal farmland protection efforts. To be eli-gible, a state, county, or local jurisdictionmust have a complementary program offunding for the purchase of conservationeasements. The 2002 Farm Bill provides$600 million over six years for this pro-gram.

The Transportation Efficiency Act forthe 21st Century (TEA-21) provides stateswith funds to acquire land for historicpreservation, trails, scenic beautification,and water pollution mitigation related tosurface transportation through its Trans-portation Enhancements Program. TheRecreational Trails Program provides fundsfor bike and pedestrian trails, and the Con-gestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improve-ment Program funds projects that improveair quality.

FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES

Pa r t Two : B e s t Pr ac t ic e s 43

loans for wastewater treatment plants, but sev-eral states, including New Jersey, have used themoney to help local governments and nonprof-its purchase watershed land, restore watersheds,and reduce flooding. To qualify for the CWSRF,states must match federal funds with 20 percentof their own money. In addition to providingloans to public and private borrowers directlyfrom the CWSRF, states have the option ofpooling the grant money, from which bonds canbe issued to augment funds available for projects.

New Jersey also revised its conservationfunding selection criteria in 2002 so that proj-ects with a water supply protection benefitreceive three times the weight of other projects.Although the parcel must demonstrate waterquality benefits, it does not have to be a drinkingwater source.

In the fall of 2000, the combined CWSRFand Green Acres funding program received 34applications for the protection of 13,000 acres ofland, for a total cost of $250,000. According toprogram managers, between 15 and 20 of thoseapplications will probably be funded.

CONTACT: Terrance Nolan

ADDRESS: Trust for Public Land, 20 Community

Place, 2nd Floor, Morristown, NJ 07960

PHONE: 973-425-0360

FAX: 973-425-0366

EMAIL: terrance.nolan@tpl.org

WEB SITE: http://www.tpl.org

Conclusion

The protection of source lands provides manybenefits to a community: safe drinking water,natural resource protection, recreation ameni-ties, and growth management. Local communitiesacross the country are increasingly realizing suchbenefits, and source protection is gaining supportonce again as the cornerstone of the multiple-barrier approach to safe drinking water.

In fact, support for source protection is grow-ing at all levels, from the passage of Safe Drink-ing Water amendments at the federal level thatpromote source water protection to state pro-grams that encourage funding for nonpoint sourceprotection projects, including land conservation.Yet public health and the delivery of clean, safe

drinking water are ultimately local responsibilitiesthat demand a committed, comprehensive, andsustainable response from water suppliers and lo-cal government.

Careful planning, leadership, and partnershipsare essential. Local stakeholders must design andimplement a publicly and politically viable plan toprotect lands that provide critical drinking watersupplies. This requires a complete understandingof the watershed and its threats, the identificationand prioritization of key source lands, and the useof an array of conservation tools. To pay for theplan, local stakeholders should seek dedicated lo-cal funds that can leverage additional resourcesfrom federal, state, and private sources.

Local governments should also work with stateand federal partners to improve and better inte-grate federal Clean Water and Safe Drinking Wa-ter programs and to increase their eΩectiveness ataddressing nonpoint source pollution. Fundingflexibility is the key: more creative uses of federaland state dollars, such as the Drinking Water StateRevolving Fund and Section 319 of the Clean Wa-ter Act, allow local governments to secure morenonpoint source pollution funds for source pro-tection.

Partnerships among federal, state, local, andprivate stakeholders extend beyond funding, pro-viding opportunities to share essential planningdata and expertise. Networks, partnerships, andresources are growing and should be utilized atevery stage of the process. In many communities,innovative partnerships are also being forged withother local jurisdictions, landowners, watershedassociations, land trusts, and a variety of nonprofitorganizations.

Investments in watershed protection are be-coming more a necessity than an option. Stateprograms and local water suppliers support thenotion that watershed planning and protectionactivities are key to a multiple-barrier approach.Voters support it too, with poll after poll showingsupport for new taxes for land conservation thatprotects water quality. At the federal level, theEPA supports many of these activities in princi-pal, yet it can also work to enhance tools, promotenew technology, and create more flexible fundingoptions that help state and local programs makesource protection activities a key focus in themultiple-barrier approach.

44 Pr ot e c t i ng t h e S ou r c e

The City of San Antonio,Texas, in partnership withthe Trust for Public Land,was awarded a $3.5 milliongrant by the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service through

the Habitat ConservationPlan Land Acquisition

grant program, authorizedunder the Endangered

Species Act (ESA). Thegrant will be used to

protect land over theEdwards Aquifer

Recharge Zone thatprovides critical habitatfor nine federally listed

endangered invertebratespecies, as well as two

endangered songbirds,the black-capped vireo

and the golden-cheekedwarbler. “This grant

opens the door for thecommunity to makecritical additions to

existing parkland, protectsignificant endangered

species habitat and ensureclean drinking water for

San Antonio and beyond,”explains Jason Corzine

with the Trust forPublic Land.83

AquiferAn underground layer of rock, gravel, or sedi-ment containing water. An aquifer may beconfined between two impervious surfaces,or it may be unconfined.

Best Management Practices (BMPs)Regulatory or voluntary procedures that canreduce the threat to water supplies posed by normal activities in homes, businesses, or farms.

BioretentionA BMP that utilizes soils and both woodyand herbaceous plants to remove pollutantsfrom storm water runoΩ.

Emerging ContaminantsDiseases or chemicals that either are new to the environment or have been recentlyidentified as potential health threats.

GIS Mapping and ModelingTools that enhance geography-related deci-sion making. Maps and models are createdfrom spatial and attribute data, and they arehoused in a computerized Geographic Infor-mation System (GIS).

Nonpoint Source PollutionPollution that occurs when surface waterrunoΩ from rainfall or snowmelt movesacross or into the ground, picking up pollu-tants and carrying them into streams, lakes,wetlands, or groundwater.

PathogenAny microbiological agent capable of pro-ducing disease in healthy peoples, plants, or animals.

Physical, Chemical, and Biological MonitoringThree measurable components of water qual-ity monitoring: Physical measurements mayinclude temperature, flow, water color, andthe condition of streambanks and lakeshores.Dissolved oxygen, suspended sediments,nutrients, metals, oils, and pesticides areexamples of chemical measurements. Theabundance and variety of aquatic plant andanimal life are biological measurements.

Point Source PollutionPollution from a distinct, identifiable source,such as a feedlot or factory.

Purchase of Development Rights(PDR) and Easements

Agreement in which the residential, com-mercial, or industrial development rights of a particular parcel are transferred fromlandowner(s) to a diΩerent party. In mostcases, PDR and conservation easement areinterchangeable terms.

Riparian ZonesVegetated areas abutting lakes, rivers, andstreams that function as filters for pollutedrunoΩ, stabilize banks and channels, andprovide habitat for fish and wildlife.

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)The amount of a particular pollutant that astream, lake, estuary, or other body of watercan contain without violating state waterquality standards.

45

Glossary

46

ALABAMA

Joe Alan PowerPublic Water Supply BranchAlabama Department of Environmental

ManagementP.O. Box 301463Montgomery, AL 36130-1463

PHONE: 334-271-7773EMAIL: jp@adem.state.al.us

ALASKA

Sue BraumillerDrinking Water ProgramAlaska Department of Environmental

Conservation555 Cordova StreetAnchorage, AK 99501

PHONE: 507-269-3076EMAIL: sbraumil@envircon.state.ak.us

WEB SITE: http://www.state.ak.us/dec/deh/water/protect.htm

ARIZONA

Mary SimmererDrinking Water Monitoring and Assessment

SectionWater Quality Division, ADEQ3033 North Central AvenuePhoenix, AZ 85012-2809

PHONE: 602-207-4427FAX: 602-207-4634

EMAIL: simmerer.mary@ev.state.az.usWEB SITE: http://www.adeq.state.az.us/water/

safe/swap.htm

ARKANSAS

Lyle GodfreyArkansas Department of HealthDivision of Engineering4815 West Markham Street, Mail Slot 37Little Rock, AR 72205-3867

PHONE: 501-661-2623FAX: 501-661-2032

EMAIL: lgodfrey@mail.doh.state.ar.usWEB SITE: http://health.state.ar.us/eng/

swpframe.htm

CALIFORNIA

Alexis MileaO≈ce of Drinking WaterCalifornia Department of Health Services2151 Berkeley Way, Room 461Berkeley, CA 94704

PHONE: 510-540-2177FAX: 510-540-2152

EMAIL: hw1.amilea@hw1.cahwnet.govWEB SITE: http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/

dwsap/DWSAPindex.htm

COLORADO

Kim ParkerColorado Department of Health and

Environment WQCD-OA-B24300 Cherry Creek Drive SouthDenver, CO 80246-1530

PHONE: 303-692-3582FAX: 303-782-0390

EMAIL: kim.parker@state.co.usWEB SITE: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/

sw/swaphom.html

CONNECTICUT

Rob HustConnecticut Department of Environmental

ProtectionWater Management Bureau79 Elm StreetHartford, CT 06106-5127

PHONE: 860-424-3718FAX: 860-424-4067

EMAIL: Robert.Hust@po.state.ct.usWEB SITE: http://dep.state.ct.us

Lori MathieuConnecticut Department of Public Health410 Capitol AvenueMS#51 WATP.O. Box 340308Hartford, CT 06134

PHONE: 860-509-7343FAX: 860-509-7359

DELAWARE

John T. Barndt, P.G.Water Supply SectionDivision of Water ResourcesDelaware Department of Natural Resources

and Environmental ControlP.O. Box 1401Dover, DE 19903

PHONE: 302-739-4793FAX: 302-739-2296

EMAIL: jbarndt@dnrec.state.de.usWEB SITE: http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/

frames1.htm

FLORIDA

Donnie McClaugherty, P.G.Water Standards and Classifications SectionBureau of Water Resources ProtectionDepartment of Environmental ProtectionTwin Towers O≈ce Building2600 Blair Stone RoadTallahassee, FL 32399-2400

PHONE: 850-921-9438EMAIL: mclaugher_d@dep.state.fl.us

GEORGIA

Nolton JohnsonWater Resources BranchGeorgia Environmental Protection DivisionEast Floyd Towers, Suite 1362 205 Butler Street SEAtlanta, GA 30334

PHONE: 404-651-5168FAX: 404-651-9590

EMAIL: nolton_johnson@mail.dnr.state.ga.us

WEB SITE: http://www.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/environ/pdfdoc/swappl12.pdf

HAWAII

Bill WongSafe Drinking Water BureauHawaii Department of Health919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 308Honolulu, HI 96814

PHONE: 808-586-4258FAX: 808-586-4370

EMAIL: waterbill@aol.comWEB SITE: http://www.aloha.net/~will/

hiswap.html

State Source Water Protection Contacts

IDAHO

Lance NielsenDrinking Water and Waste Water BureauIdaho Division of Environmental Quality1410 North HiltonBoise, ID 83706

PHONE: 208-373-0502EMAIL: lnielsen@deq.state.id.us

WEB SITE: http://www2.state.id.us/deq/Water.htm

Scott ShortWellhead Protection ProgramIdaho Department of Health and WelfareDivision of Environmental Quality1410 North HiltonBoise, ID 83706

PHONE: 208-373-0542FAX: 208-373-0576

EMAIL: sshort@deq.state.id.us

ILLINOIS

Rick CobbDivision of Public Water SuppliesIllinois Environmental Protection AgencyP.O. Box 19276Springfield, IL 62794-9276

PHONE: 217-785-4787FAX: 217-782-0075

EMAIL: epa3188@epa.il.usWEB SITE: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/

source-waterassessment-and-protection/index.html

INDIANA

Lance MabryGround Water SectionIndiana Department of Environmental

ManagementP.O. Box 6015Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015

PHONE: 317-308-3318FAX: 317-308-3339

IOWA

Dennis AltIowa Department of Natural ResourcesWallace O≈ce Building900 East GrandDes Moines, IA 50319-0034

PHONE: 515-281-8998

KANSAS

Jim PenningtonKansas Department of Health and

EnvironmentBuilding 283, Forbes FieldTopeka, KS 66620

PHONE: 785-296-5505

KENTUCKY

Jack WilsonDivision of WaterNatural Resources and Environmental

Protection Cabinet14 Reilly RoadFrankfort, KY 40601

PHONE: 502-564-3410EMAIL: wilson_ja@mail.nr.state.ky.us

WEB SITE: http://water.nr.state.ky.us/dow/swap

LOUISIANA

Howard FieldingLouisiana Department of Environmental

QualityGround Water Protection DivisionP.O. Box 82215Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2251

PHONE: 225-765-0578EMAIL: howardf@deq.state.la.us

MAINE

Paul HuntMaine Drinking Water ProgramBureau of Health, Division of Health

Engineering10 State House StationAugusta, ME 04333-0010

PHONE: 207-287-6196FAX: 207-287-4172

EMAIL: paul.hunt@state.me.usWEB SITE: http://www.state.me.us/dhs/eng/

water/swappage1.htm

MARYLAND

John GraceWater Supply ProgramWater Management Administration2500 Broening HighwayBaltimore, MD 21224

PHONE: 410-631-3714EMAIL: jgrace@mde.state.md.us

WEB SITE: http://www.mde.state.md.us/health/swap

MASSACHUSETTS

Tara GallagherMassachusetts Department of Environmental

ProtectionDrinking Water ProgramOne Winter StreetBoston, MA 02108

PHONE: 617-292-5930FAX: 617-292-5696

EMAIL: tara.gallagher@state.ma.usWEB SITE: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/

dws/dwspubs.htm

MICHIGAN

Elgar BrownGround Water Supply SectionDrinking Water and Radiological DivisionMichigan Department of Environmental

QualityP.O. Box 30630Lansing, MI 48909-8130

PHONE: 517-335-8312FAX: 517-335-8298

EMAIL: BrownElg@state.mi.usWEB SITE: http://www.deq.state.mi.us/dwr/

swa/swa.htm

MINNESOTA

Bruce OlsenSpecial Services UnitDrinking Water Protection SectionMinnesota Department of HealthP.O. Box 64975St. Paul, MN 55164-0975

PHONE: 612-215-0796FAX: 612-215-0979

EMAIL: bruce.olsen@health.state.mn.usWEB SITE: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/

eh/dwp/swp/swp.pdf

MISSISSIPPI

Bill WallDivision of Water SupplyMississippi State Department of Health2423 North State StreetP.O. Box 1700Jackson, MS 39215

PHONE: 601-960-7518EMAIL: billwall@mail.misnet.com

MISSOURI

G. Lawson PennyPublic Drinking Water ProgramMissouri Department of Natural ResourcesP.O. Box 176JeΩerson City, MO 65102

PHONE: 573-526-5449WEB SITE: http://www.cares.missouri

.edu/swap

MONTANA

Joe Meek / Russell L. LevensSWAP Section, Pollution Prevention BureauMontana Department of Environmental

QualityMetcalf Building, Box 200901Helena, MT 59620-0901

PHONE: 406-444-4806 / 0471FAX: 406-444-1374

EMAIL: jmeek@mt.gov / rlevens@mt.gov

Stat e S ou r c e Wat e r Pr ot e c t ion C on tac t s 47

NEBRASKA

Marty Link / Stephanie VapNebraska Department of Environmental

QualityP.O. Box 98922, State House StationLincoln, NE 68509-8922

PHONE: 402-471-4270 / 7784EMAIL: deq076@deq.state.ne.us /

deq244@mail.deq.st.ne.usWEB SITE: http://www.deq.state.ne.us/

GroundW/nsf/TOC

NEVADA

Jon PalmState Health DivisionBureau of Health Protection Services1179 Fairview Drive, Suite 201Carson City, NV 89701-5405

PHONE: 775-687-4750 ext. 229FAX: 775-687-5197

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sarah PillsburyNew Hampshire Department of

Environmental ServicesWater Supply Engineering Bureau6 Hazen DriveP.O. Box 95Concord, NH 03302

PHONE: 603-271-1168FAX: 603-271-2181

EMAIL: s_pillsbury@des.state.nh.usWEB SITE: http://www.state.nh.us/des

NEW JERSEY

Sandy KreitzmanNew Jersey Department of Environmental

ProtectionBureau of Safe Drinking Water, CM426East State StreetTrenton, NJ 08625-0426

PHONE: 609-292-5550EMAIL: skreitzman@dep.state.nj.us

WEB SITE: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/swap.html

NEW MEXICO

Darren PadillaDrinking Water BureauNew Mexico Environment DepartmentP.O. Box 26110Santa Fe, NM 87501

PHONE: 505-827-7536EMAIL: darren_padilla@nmenv.state.nm.us

NEW YORK

Claudine Jones RaΩertyNew York State Department of Health2 University Place, Room 410Albany, NY 12203

PHONE: 518-458-6743EMAIL: cfj02@health.state.ny.us

WEB SITE: http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/water/swap.htm

NORTH CAROLINA

Robert MidgettePublic Water Supply SystemNorth Carolina Department of

Environmental, Health, and NaturalResources

P.O. Box 29536Raleigh, NC 27626-0536

PHONE: 919-733-2321EMAIL: robert_midgette@mail.enr.state

.nc.usWEB SITE: http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/

pws/index.htm

NORTH DAKOTA

Dave GlattGround Water Protection ProgramDivision of Water Quality1200 Missouri AvenueBismarck, ND 58504

PHONE: 701-328-5217FAX: 701-328-5200

EMAIL: dglatt@state.nd.usWEB SITE: http://www.health.state.nd.us/

ndhd/environ/wq/gw/gwindex.htm

OHIO

Mike BakerDivision of Drinking and Ground WatersOhio Environmental Protection AgencyP.O. Box 1049Columbus, OH 43216-1049

PHONE: 614-644-2752FAX: 614-644-2909

EMAIL: mike.baker@epa.state.oh.usWEB SITE: http://www.epa.ohio.gov/ddagw/

pdu/swap.html

OKLAHOMA

Mike Houts / Mike HarrellWater Quality DivisionOklahoma Department of Environmental

Quality1000 NE 10th StreetOklahoma City, OK 73117-1212

PHONE: 405-702-8100EMAIL: michael.houts@OKLAOSF.state

.ok.us / mike.harrell@OKLAOSF

.state.ok.us

OREGON

Dennis NelsonOregon Department of Human ServicesDrinking Water Program442 A StreetSpringfield, OR 97477

PHONE: 541-726-2587FAX: 541-682-7499

EMAIL: dennis.o.nelson@state.or.usWEB SITE: http://www.ohd.hr.state.or.us/cehs/

dwp/swp.htm

Sheree StewartDrinking Water Protection ProgramOregon Department of Environmental

Quality811 SW 6th AvenuePortland, OR 97204-1390

PHONE: 503-229-5413FAX: 503-229-6037

EMAIL: sheree.stewart@state.or.us

PENNSYLVANIA

Joseph LeeDivision of Water Supplies, 11th FloorPennsylvania Department of Environmental

Resources400 Market Street, Box 8467Harrisburg, PA 17105-8467

PHONE: 717-772-4018EMAIL: lee.joseph@a1.dep.state.pa.us

WEB SITE: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wsm/WSM_DWM/SrceProt/TACSWPSM.htm

RHODE ISLAND

Clay CommonsRhode Island Department of HealthO≈ce of Drinking Water Quality3 Capital HillProvidence, RI 02908-5097

PHONE: 401-222-6867 ext. 2237FAX: 401-222-6953

EMAIL: clayc@doh.state.ri.usWEB SITE: http://www.health.state.ri.us/

environment/swaphome.htm

SOUTH CAROLINA

David Baize, DirectorBureau of WaterSouth Carolina Department of Health and

Environmental Control2600 Bull StreetColumbia, SC 29201-1708

PHONE: 803-734-5323EMAIL: baizedg@columb32.dhec.state.sc.us

WEB SITE: http://www.state.sc.us/dhec/srcewtr.htm

48 Pr ot e c t i ng t h e S ou r c e

SOUTH DAKOTA

Anita Yan / Tricia SebesSouth Dakota DENRJoe Foss Building523 East CapitolPierre, SD 57501-3181

PHONE: 605-773-3296FAX: 605-773-6035

EMAIL: anitay@denr.state.sd.us /tricias@denr.state.sd.us

WEB SITE: http://www.state.sd.us/denr/DES/Ground/Sourcewater/sourcewater.htm

TENNESSEE

Tom MossGround Water Management SectionDivision of Water SupplyDepartment of Environment and

Conservation401 Church StreetNashville, TN 37243-1549

PHONE: 615-532-0170EMAIL: tmoss@mail.state.tn.us

WEB SITE: http://www.state.tn.us/environment/dws/index.html

TEXAS

Brad CrossPublic Drinking Water Section (MC-155)Texas Natural Resource Conservation

CommissionP.O. Box 13087Austin, TX 78711-3087

PHONE: 512-239-6020FAX: 512-239-6050

EMAIL: bcross@tnrcc.state.tx.usWEB SITE: http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/water/

wu/swap

UTAH

Sumner Newman / Dan HallUtah Department of Environmental QualityDivision of Drinking WaterP.O. Box 144830150 North 1950 WestSalt Lake City, UT 84114-4830

PHONE: 801-536-4195 / 4206FAX: 801-536-4211

EMAIL: snewman@deq.state.ut.us /dhall@deq.state.ut.us

VERMONT

Elizabeth HuntWater Supply DivisionDepartment of Environmental Conservation103 South Main StreetWaterbury, VT 05671

PHONE: 802-241-3409FAX: 802-241-3284

EMAIL: elizh@dec.anr.state.vt.usWEB SITE: http://www.anr.state.vt.us

VIRGINIA

Gerald PeaksO≈ce of Water Programs1500 East Main Street, Room 109Richmond, VA 23219

PHONE: 804-371-2882EMAIL: gpeaks@vdh.state.va.us

WASHINGTON

David JenningsDivision of Drinking WaterDepartment of HealthP.O. Box 47822Olympia, WA 98504-7822

PHONE: 360-586-9041FAX: 360-586-5529

EMAIL: dgj0303@hub.doh.wa.gov

WEST VIRGINIA

Bill ToomeyWest Virginia Department of HealthEnvironmental Engineering Division815 Quarrier Street, Suite 418Charleston, WV 25301

PHONE: 304-558-2981FAX: 304-558-0691

EMAIL: wtoomey@wvdhhr.org

WISCONSIN

JeΩ HelmuthWisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesBureau of Drinking Water and GroundwaterP.O. Box 7921Madison, WI 53707-7921

PHONE: 608-266-5234FAX: 608-267-7650

EMAIL: helmuj@dnr.state.wi.usWEB SITE: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/

water/dwg/gw/SWP.HTM

WYOMING

Kevin Frederick / Beth Pratt / Maggie Davison

Wyoming Department of EnvironmentalQuality

Water Quality DivisionHerschler Building122 West 25th StreetCheyenne, WY 82002

PHONE: 307-777-5985 / 7079 / 7092FAX: 307-777-5973

EMAIL: kfrede@missc.state.wy.us /bpratt@missc.state.wy.us /mdavis@missc.state.wy.us

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Sharon GonderDC Department of HealthWater Quality Division2100 Martin Luther King Drive, Suite 200Washington, DC 20020

PHONE: 202-645-6601 ext. 3087FAX: 202-645-5622

EMAIL: sgonder@mail.environ.state.dc.us

PUERTO RICO

Olga I. RiveraPuerto Rico Department of HealthPublic Water Supervision ProgramP.O. Box 70184Edificio A. Centro MedicoSan Juan, PR 00909

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS

Austin MooreheadVirgin Islands DPNR/DEPWater Gut Homes 1118Christiansted, St. Croix 00820-5065

PHONE: 340-773-0565

Stat e S ou r c e Wat e r Pr ot e c t ion C on tac t s 49

50

1. George E. Dissmeyer, Drinking Water from Forestsand Grasslands: A Synthesis of the Scientific Literature (South-ern Research Station, Forest Service, United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, 2000), General TechnicalReport SRS-39.

2. Adjusted R Squared was .55 for single regres-sion and .50 for multiple regression, including otherlanduse percentages such as cropland, pasture, andresidential/commercial.

3. Chris S. Crockett and Chad E. Pindar, Tools and Techniques for Modernized Source Water Protection(Philadelphia Water Department, O≈ce of Water-sheds—Source Protection Program; prepared for theAmerican Water Works Association—Source Protec-tion Symposium, 2003).

4. U.S. EPA, Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the Interactions between Land Use,Transportation, and Environmental Quality (Development,Community, and Environment Division, UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency, 2001), EPA 231-R-01-002.

5. According to a recent report produced by theWorld Wildlife Fund and the World Bank, RunningPure, protecting forests—which reduce erosion andsediment, improve water quality, and in some casescapture storm water—is an eΩective way to cleandrinking water and reduce treatment costs. NigelDudley and Sue Stolton, Running Pure: The Importance ofForest Protected Areas to Drinking Water (Washington, DC:The World Bank and WWF Alliance for Forest Con-servation and Sustainable Use, 2003), Retrieved Janu-ary 2004 from http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/envext.nsf/80ByDocName/ProtectedAreasProtectedAreasManagementRunningPure.

6. National Research Council, Assessing the TMDLApproach to Water Quality Management (Washington, DC:National Academy Press, 2001).

7. Dissmeyer.8. U.S. EPA, National Water Quality Inventory: 1998

Report to Congress (United States Environmental Protec-tion Agency, 1998), EPA841-R-00-001.

9. Stephanie Von Feck, U.S. EPA, O≈ce of Water(Personal communication, November 2003).

10. U.S. EPA, Report to Congress—Paying for WaterQuality: Managing Funding Programs to Achieve the GreatestEnvironmental Benefit (O≈ce of Water, United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency, 2003), EPA 832-R-03-003. Retrieved January 2004 from http://www.epa.gov/OW-OWM.html/cwfinance/cwsrf/rtc0703.pdf.

11. U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source Pollution: The Nation’sLargest Water Quality Problem, National Water Quality Inven-tory 1994 (United States Environmental ProtectionAgency, 1996), EPA841-F-96-004A. Retrieved Janu-ary 2004 from http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/facts/point1.htm.

12. Kimberley Roy, U.S. EPA, O≈ce of Water(Personal communication, November 2003).

13. Luna B. Leopold, Water, Rivers and Creeks (Sausa-lito, CA: University Science Books, 1997).

14. Jim Sedell et al., Water and the Forest Service (For-est Service, United States Department of Agriculture,2000), FS-660; Macara Lousberg and Jon D. Witten,Tools for Water Resource Protection (Materials from localgovernment workshop, May 2002, at Midland Uni-versity, Washington, DC).

15. FISRWG, Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles,Practices and Processes (Federal Interagency StreamRestoration Working Group, FISRWG, 1998),retrieved January 2004 from http://www.usda.gov/agency/stream_restoration.

16. Leopold.17. Sedell et al.18. Dissmeyer.19. World Water Council, World Water Vision (Lon-

don: Earthscan, 2000); Dudley and Stolton.20. American Rivers, Paving our Way to Water Short-

ages: How Sprawl Aggravates the EΩects of Drought (AmericanRivers, August 28, 2002), p. 5.

21. Leopold.22. American Rivers, p. 5; U.S. EPA, Clean Water

Through Conservation (April 1995), EPA 841-B-95-002; R. Sakrison, Water Use in Compact Communities: TheEΩect of New Urbanism, Growth Management and ConservationMeasures on Residential Water Demands (Seattle: Universityof Washington, 1997); T. Schueler, “The Peculiaritiesof Perviousness,” Watershed Protection Techniques 2:1(1995).

23. American Rivers, p. 5.24. Dissmeyer.25. Ibid.26. National Research Council, Safe Water from Every

Tap: Improving Water Service to Small Communities (Commit-tee on Small Water Supply Systems, Water Science andTechnology Board, Commission on Geosciences, Envi-ronment and Resources, National Research Council;Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997).

27. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencydefines a small water system as one that serves fewerthan 10,000 people.

Notes

28. U.S. EPA, Community Water System Survey 2000(United States Environmental Protection Agency,2002), EPA 815-R-02-005A. Retrieved January2004 from http://www.epa.gov/safewater/cwssvr.html.

29. National Research Council, Safe Water from EveryTap: Improving Water Service to Small Communities. NRCalso recommends purchasing from a nearby utility, if possible, before investing in new technologies.

30. Jennifer Palmiotto, Northeast Rural WaterAssociation (Personal communication, October2003).

31. JeΩrey K. Gri≈ths, Why Are We Protecting SourceWater?: The Public Health Connection (Graduate Programsin Public Health, Tufts University School of Medicine;presented at the 2003 National Source Water Protec-tion Conference sponsored by the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, June 2003).

32. Ibid.33. Timothy E. Ford and Rita R. Colwell, A Global

Decline in Microbiological Safety of Water: A Call for Action(Washington, DC: American Academy of Microbiol-ogy, 1996). Retrieved January 2004 from http://www.asmusa.org/acasrc/acal.htm.

34. National Research Council, Identifying FutureDrinking Water Contaminants (1998 Workshop onEmerging Drinking Water Contaminants, Water Sci-ence and Technology Board, Board on EnvironmentalStudies and Toxicology, Commission on Geosciences,Environment, and Resources; Washington, DC:National Academy Press, 1999).

35. Dissmeyer.36. National Research Council, Identifying Future

Drinking Water Contaminants.37. Ibid.38. Griffiths.39. Chris Crockett, Philadelphia Water Depart-

ment (Personal communication, October 2003).40. Britt E. Erickson, “Analyzing the Ignored Envi-

ronmental Contaminants,” Environmental Science andTechnology 36(7):140A–45A (April 2002).

41. U.S. EPA, The Incorporation of Water TreatmentEΩects on Pesticide Removal and Transformations in Food QualityProtection Act (FQPA) Drinking Water Assessment (O≈ce of Pesticide Programs, United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 2001).

42. USGS, USGS Recent Highlights—EnvironmentalEΩects on Human and Wildlife Health: Pathogenic Microorga-nisms in Public Water Supplies (United States GeologicalSurvey, Department of the Interior, 1997), FS-189-97.Retrieved April 2001 from http://www.usgs.gov/themes/FS-189-97/.

43. Neil J. Hoxie et al., “Cryptosporidium—Asso-ciated Mortality Following a Massive WaterborneOutbreak in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,” American Journal ofPublic Health 87, no. 12 (1997).

44. Dennis R. O’Connor, Report of the WalkertonInquiry: The Events of May 2000 and Related Issues (Toronto:Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, Queen’sPrinter for Ontario, 2002).

45. Carol Storms, New Jersey American WaterCompany (Personal communication, October 2003).

46. Erickson.47. National Research Council, Identifying Future

Drinking Water Contaminants.48. USGS, The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters: Nutrients

and Pesticides—A Summary (United States Geological Sur-vey, Department of the Interior, 1999), FS-116-99.Retrieved January 2004 from http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa; United States Congress, Federal Incentives CouldHelp Promote Land Use That Protects Air and Water Quality(United States General Accounting O≈ce, Report toCongressional Requesters, 2001), GAO-02-12.

49. Dudley and Stolton.50. Adjusted R squared was .55 for single regression

and .50 for multiple regression, including other land-use percentages, such as cropland, pasture, and resi-dential/commercial.

51. Ruth Samuelson, County Commissioner,Mecklenburg County (Personal communication,September 2003).

52. Caryn Ernst, Richard Gullick, and Kirk Nixon,“Protecting the Source: Land Conservation as a Source Water Protection Tool,” Opflow (AmericanWater Works Association, May 2004).

53. These are the averages for the 27 respondentsin the survey, which included only suppliers using pri-marily surface water.

54. Kirk Nixon, San Antonio Water System (Per-sonal communication, August 2003).

55. Bruce A. McCarl, Costs of Water Treatment Due toDiminished Water Quality: A Case Study in Texas (CollegeStation: Department of Agricultural Economics, TexasA&M University, 1997), p. 2.

56. Federal Register 68, no. 154 (August 11, 2003).57. O’Connor.58. For more information, see Maureen Costello,

“Cost to Clean Town’s Water Goes Up, Voters Will BeAsked to Borrow Funds for Plants,” The Boston Globe,October 5, 2001.

59. Lousberg and Witten.60. Timothy E. Ford and Rita R. Colwell, A Global

Decline in Microbiological Safety of Water: A Call for Action(Washington, DC: American Academy of Micro-biology, 1996). Retrieved January 2004 fromhttp://www.asmusa.org/acasrc/acal.htm.

61. Ed Holland, Orange Water and Sewer Author-ity (Personal communication, April 2003).

62. Bruce Peterson, “Control of Nitrogen Exportfrom Watersheds by Headwater Streams,” Science292:86–90 (2001).

63. Ibid.64. Dissmeyer.65. Ibid.66. Steve Specht, Brick Municipal Utility Author-

ity (Personal communication, October 2003).67. Chris Crockett, Philadelphia Water Depart-

ment (Personal communication, November 2003).68. U.S. EPA, Elements of a State Water Monitoring and

Assessment Program (Assessment and Watershed Protec-tion Division, O≈ce of Wetlands, Oceans and Water-shed, United States Environmental Protection Agency,2003), EPA 841-B-03-003. Retrieved January 2004from http://yosemite.epa.gov/ncepihom/nsCatalog.nsf/

Not e s 51

EPATitle?SearchView&Query=Field+MediaISBNs+Contains+841B03003.

69. Chris Crockett (Personal communication,October 2003).

70. Carol Storms (Personal communication,November 2003).

71. Chris Crockett (Personal communication,October 2003).

72. Charles L. Convis, Jr., Conservation Geography:Case Studies in GIS, Computer Mapping, and Activisim (Red-lands, CA: ESRI Press, 2001).

73. Crockett and Pindar.74. Ibid.75. Chris Crockett (Personal communication,

October 2003).76. Billy Turner, Columbus Water Works (Per-

sonal communication, October 2003).77. Crockett and Pindar.78. Ed Holland (Personal communication, Febru-

ary 2003).

79. Suzanne Flagor, Seattle Public Utilities (Per-sonal communication, November 2003).

80. Trust for Public Land, Landvote 2003 (Washing-ton, DC: The Trust for Public Land and the LandTrust Alliance, 2004); Trust for Public Land, Landvote2002 (Washington, DC: The Trust for Public Land andthe Land Trust Alliance, 2003).

81. U.S. EPA, Report to Congress—Paying for WaterQuality: Managing Funding Programs to Achieve the GreatestEnvironmental Benefit (O≈ce of Water, United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency, 2003), EPA 832-R-03-003. Retrieved January 2004 from http://www.epa.gov/OW-OWM.html/cwfinance/cwsrf/rtc0703.pdf.

82. For more information, see “Loan’s Aim IsCleaner Water: EPA Incentive Gets Attention in Ver-million,” Plain Deal Reporter, September 25, 2000.

83. Jason Corzine, Trust for Public Land (Personalcommunication, October 2003).

52 Pr ot e c t i ng t h e S ou r c e

Design, composition, and production byWilsted & Taylor Publishing Services,

Oakland, California

Local Greenprinting for GrowthUsing Land Conservation to Guide Growth and Preserve the Character of our Communities

Conservation Easement HandbookPublished with the Land Trust Alliance

A four-part series guiding agencies and conservation professionals pro-tecting open space. The handbooks focus on Greenprinting, a long-termstrategy 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 Finance HandbookHow Communities are Paying for Parks and Land Conservation

Between 1996 and 2003, TPL’s Conservation Finance Program helped statesand communities design and promote ballot measures that created morethan $35 billion in new park and open space funding. Now TPL conservationfinance experts have created a handbook for communities seeking to raiseconservation funds at the ballot box—from initial demographic research topost election analysis. Topics Include: measuring public opinion, designing awinning measure, and running a conservation campaign.

By Ernest Cook and Kim Hopper $21.95

Conservation easements are the premier legal tool for addressing strategicland 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. Forconservation professionals navigating the legal complexities of easements.

By Elizabeth Byers and Karin Marchetti Ponte $40

Local governments, water suppliers and agencies, and community drinking water advocates willbenefit from this new how-to handbook containing guidance for identifying source water con-servation opportunities, implementing source water conservation programs, and acquiring andprotecting the lands that will help keep drinking water clean.

By Kim Hopper and Caryn Ernst $25

Order your copies online at www.tpl.org/publications

P u b l i c a t i o n s b y

AVA I L A B L E FA L L 2 0 0 4

AVA I L A B L E FA L L 2 0 0 4Source Protection HandbookUsing Land Conservation to Protect Drinking Water Supplies

printed on recycled paper

116 New Montgomery Street,Fourth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105tel 800-714-5263 / fax 415-495-4103www.tpl.org

6666 West Quincy Avenue,Denver, CO 80235tel 800-926-7337 / fax 303-347-0804www.awwa.org

ISBN 1-932807-02-0

$15.00