Jnited States
3lrotecti'on
jency
EPA MO/6-87-008
May 1987
State and Territoria
Use of
in*
Section 106 Clean Water Act)
lilf ''I?14* ?#»r;?B4WiW«*
ft^.)^^^^^W^K4^
^K'^-^K^m^iffltf1
iSiitt
Is
, M*S*M«« ..
™¥r»»H ™*In!ii!il'l'iii'1J>l:= »W:i*:'*4i * kH'W h wrBll*1*** 'i'h i
:sii»H*w«V*'!li,A,,]Vi'l|iHl11"" !'r'j'j-i|li|! "i" '^'^ ,«.i*'(i*'Tiiiii5i'iri"!Ji •'
. j.&:ll.,i'Jiii1rfJJ..p!l,\jl:.i1j:il!^i , iv i „*',> /M ..ifai-ili,-*,;. i.1.,)
liglilfe:^
^*-sm^
sfismsf,
aiii
liilliilll
''siS'S
SSlL'iSSSt^S'tSsijSS
K.^S«
i^^jp-Mt;
IPPPIII1
iwiSlFiSi'SlisSs
JW**m^&»
llgUfci
ipsi
Bl?;Si
WiSWfeiiM
"^issiif1**
pr.TiiimH], MiiwryBiiii:,!1]!"11™11" •I1""J"'!'1 "W^lt
fST^Kf!."^:'!1;,^,^?
DISPLAY COPY
-------
-------
STATE AND TERRITORIAL USE OF
GROU3SID-WATER STRATEGY GRANT FUNDS
(SECTION 106 CLEAN WATER ACT)
May 1987
Office of Ground-^Water Protection
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
STATE AND TERRITORIAL USE OF
GROUND-WATER STRATEGY GRANT FUNDS
(SECTION 106 CLEAN WATER ACT)
Introduction
In August, 1984, responding to a growing concern among local, State
and Federal officials of the widespread hazards presented by ground-water
contamination, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued its offi-
cial Ground-Water Protection Strategy. Designed to provide a camon
reference for those responsible for ground-water management, the strategy
sets forth a number of goals that address critical needs with respect to
ground-water quality. Foremost among these goals is to provide much
needed support for ground-water program development and the build-up of
institutions at the State level. Specifically, the strategy encourages
States to engage in "...necessary program development and planning, the
creation of needed data systems, assessment of legal and institutional
impediments to comprehensive State management, and the development of
State regulatory programs such as permitting and classification."
Since 1984, a principal source of financial support for such
activities has been State Ground-Water Strategy Grants (SGWS grants
or SGWSG funds) appropriated under section 106 of the Clean Water Act.
Nearly $14 million dollars in SGWSG funding was provided to States in FYs
85-86 to support both program development and implementation activities.
Although a number of States had initiated ground-water protection measures
prior to 1984, very few had constructed a comprehensive and well-
coordinated framework for overall ground-water protection. SGWS funding
provided many States with an opportunity to either begin instituting a
viable program or to expand and strengthen their existing programs.
Perhaps more importantly, the accomplishments made possible by SGWS
grants may be the foundation upon which States will be able to develop
Wellhead Protection Programs in accordance with the 1986 Amendments to
the-Safe Drinking Water Act.
Funding Overview
Ground-^Water Strategy Grants to States and Territories totalled $7
million in FY 85 and $6.7 million in FY 86. Exhibit 1 presents the dis-
tribution of these grants to the States and Territories. Each fiscal
year, as a basis for receiving its full allotment of SGWSG funds, each
State must prepare and attain EPA approval of a consolidated ground-water
work program i An adequate work program must address all ground-water
program development and implementation activities funded under the SGWS
grant. To assist the States in the preparation of their work plans,
EPA's Office of Ground-Water Protection (OGWP) has issued a Section 106
-------
(2)
State Ground-Water Strategy Grant Guidance. This document provides instruc-
tions for the development of State work programs and also describes the
objectives of EPA's support (i.e., SGWS grants) of these programs. The guid-
ance gives primary emphasis to the preparation of a State ground-water protec-
tion strategy, which may then be employed as the conceptual foundation of a
coordinated State program. With a well-developed strategy in place, a
State can proceed more expeditiously with program development and implementa-
tion activities.
OGWP's guidance encourages recipients of SGWS grants to initiate an
array of activities necessary for effective State ground-water protection
strategy development and implementation. These activities can be grouped
into several categories. They include the creation of a mechanism to promote
interagency coordination, an assessment of whether the State's legislative/
regulatory framework is adequate for program needs, efforts to classify, map
and otherwise assess the State's ground-water resources, and expansion of the
State's data management capacity and capabilities.
The intent of this paper is to characterize the accomplishments of the
State Ground-Water Strategy Grants Program during the first two years of its
existence by reviewing the extent to which SGWSG funds have supported activi-
ties consistent with the categories presented above. The information was
derived from periodic reports issued by the EPA Regional Ground-Water Program
Offices and telephone interviews with Regional Office personnel. The next
section provides a general overview of State activities in FYs 85 and 86 (and
planned for EY 87). More specific discussions of the types of State activi-
ties funded through SGWS grants comprise the latter part of the report.
Sunmary of State Activities
Every State and all but one Territory has participated for at least one
year in the State Ground-Water Strategy Grants Program, and all but three
have participated for two years. The impact these grants have had, however,
in the development and implementation of State programs varies widely among
the recipients. At one end of the spectrum are States such as Indiana,
Kentucky, Utah and Nevada, each of which created a ground-water protection
framework almost exclusively with SGWSG funds. The grants truly functioned
as "seed money" for their ground-water protection efforts. In other cases,
the grants were used effectively to expand and increase the scope of existing
programs that pre-date the SGWSG program. In general, most States and Terri-
tories credit their most significant achievements in ground-water charac-
terization and preservation to -the availability and use of SGWSG funds.
Although areawide water management plans developed with funds authorized under
section 208 of the Clean Water Act provided a few States with support for
ground-water protection, groundwater was rarely a priority concern within
such plans. SGWS grants helped to propel ground-water issues to a higher
position on environmental agendas.
-------
(3)
Generalizations concerning the use of State Ground-Water Strategy Grants
by the States and Territories must be drawn carefully, since the range of
ground-water protection activities which the grants have funded is extensive.
However the evidence supports at least the following general observations:
1) Consistent with EPA guidance, SGWSG funds have played a critical
role in the development of State ground-water protection strategies.
Prior to 1985, only eleven States and Territories had completed such
strategies. Since that time, close to forty more have used the grants to
initiate strategy development, and five of the eleven have used SGWSG funds
to revise their current strategies. These efforts have usually been charac-
terized by high level involvement and concern within and across State agencies.
That is, they have not simply been delegated to staff within an existing
ground-water office. Also, most strategies clearly reflect an attempt to
develop a comprehensive, long-range framework for ground-water protection,
not just a temporary series of mitigation measures or sampling activities.
They seek, in other words, to institutionalize ground-^water protection at the
State and local levels. Other themes evident within the various strategies
include the desire and need for greater public awareness and education concern-
ing the threat of ground-water contamination, and the importance of having
State agencies provide technical assistance to counties and local governments.
2) Many States and Territories have perceived the need for better coordina-
tion among the various agencies involved in ground-^water protection and
have used SGWS grants to address this need.
Twenty-eight States and Territories have used SGWSG funds to institute
oversight committees, task forces or advisory groups to oversee strategy
development and manage the implementation of ground-water protection measures
called for within the strategies. The need for such an institution has
become increasingly urgent as State Ground-Water Protection Programs, expand-
ing through the impetus of SGWS grants, have grown more comprehensive and
complex.
3) The SGWSG Program has contributed significantly to State and Territorial
efforts to create an accomodative legislative and regulatory framework
for their maturing ground-^water protection programs.
The increased priority and attention given to ground-water quality issues
in recent years, to which the SGWSG program has contributed, has encouraged
many States to examine their existing legislative/regulatory framework for
ground-water quality protection. Approximately thirty States and Territories
have used grant funds to study the adequacy (i.e., scope and strength) of
their legislative and regulatory authorities, and a number have drafted or
revised rules and regulations in accordance with program needs.
-------
(4)
4) Persistent emphasis in the use of SGWS grants has been given
to technical activities designed to map and characterize ground-
water resources, develop classification schemes, and implement
quality standards.
Many States employed SGWSG funds to acquire ground-jwater characterization
data for the first time. The grants have been used to support a variety of
technical programs, and to sponsor technical workshops and training seminars.
In general, SGWS grants have influenced this area of State programs more than any
other, save perhaps for strategy development.
5) Concurrent with the growing array of technical activities funded by
SGWS grants is the increasing need for more advanced data base manage-
ment systems. SGWSG funds have played an important role in States'
actions to address this need.
As State ground-water protection programs have expanded, many have found
their existing data collection and their capabilities for data base management
to be inadequate. Close to forty States have used SGWSG funds to enhance their
data-carrying capacity by upgrading their data management systems. Specific
activities the grants have supported include acquiring access to the STORET
system, evaluating and updating programming capabilities, and developing a
PC-based data management network.
Furthermore, the evidence implies that SGWS grants provided an impetus to
seme State legislatures to assign greater priority and to provide more State
monies for ground-water protection programs. The grants, in effect, served as
a catalyst for the expansion of interest in and understanding of ground-water
problems and issues. In States where ground-water problems have been a priority
concern of public officials for seme time, such as Nebraska, Florida and
California, SGWS funds provided additional support to an already solid framework
for resource management.
As a final observation, SGWSG appear to have been instrumental at times
in overcoming significant obstacles to the development of State strategies
and to the implementation of State programs. Beyond the obvious problems con-
cerning scarcity of funds, SGWSG funds also helped overcome bureaucratic
inertia, assisted in clarifying the roles of competing agencies through the
establishment of coordinating committees, and helped stem opposition from
some industry groups. Nebraska, for example, used its grants in part to provide
staff resources and funding for ;work with and education of the agricultural
chemical industry, which has major concerns regarding the implementation of
the State ground-water strategy.
-------
(5)
,The following sections address each of the general categories of activ-
ities cited previously in this report. Greater detail concerning States' use
of SGWSG funds vis-a-vis these categories is provided, and a number of
illustrative examples are used to represent trends among the States and
Territories. Resource characterization activities (i.e., classification,
mapping, standards development, etc.) are discussed in the same section as
data base management activities, since an increase in the former generally
implies a greater need for the latter.
State Strategy Development
EPA is convinced that a well-defined strategy is the cornerstone of an
effective State ground-water protection program. The Agency issued its
Ground-Water Protection Strategy to conceptualize Federal responsibilities in
this area, and has, in its guidance to State Ground-Water Strategy Grant recip-
ients, encouraged States and Territories to do the same. A State strategy
should present the State's policy, and direct or chart out ground-water
protection activities, on a multi-year or long-term basis. Additional
elements should include identification and ranking of problem areas, recctmien-
dations for program elements or management techniques, and a pragmatically
structured implementation plan. In effect, the strategy serves as the frame-
work around which an effective State program can be constructed.
As noted in the previous section, SGWS grants have been a vehicle for
strategy development or revision for approximately 90% of the grant reci-
pients. Exhibit II reveals the status of these efforts nationwide. Approx-
imately ten States and Territories had prepared a strategy or policy (i.e.,
some type of overall protection framework) prior to the availability of SGWS
grants. Some were developed under the CWA section 208 program, a few with
section 205(j) funds and/or State monies. Several of these, such as Oregon,
Idaho and Minnesota, are currently using SGWSG funds to revise their existing
policy framework to provide more comprehensive and effective coverage of
problem areas that have only recently gained widespread attention. The
remaining States and Territories have used SGWS grants to initiate their
attempt to develop and attain approval of a strategy, and about ten have com-
pleted the effort to date. The rest are at different stages of strategy
development.
For the majority of States, creation of a well-conceived strategy has
been the first step towards building an infrastructure for ground-^water
protection. In Utah, for instance, SGWSG funds are perceived as the jjnpetus
behind the development of the State strategy, and the strategy is considered
to be the launching mechanism for what is planned to be a comprehensive
ground-water protection program. Utah, like Nevada, Kansas, Missouri and
several other States and Territories, had no ground-water program to speak of
prior to the availability of SGWS grants. Consistent with EPA guidance,
-------
(6)
they have all begun their efforts to build such a program by first developing
a strategy. In contrast, a few States had instituted ground-water protection
measures long before the advent of the SGWSG Program, yet lacked a comprehen-
sive and cohesive strategy. SGWS grants have provided these States with an
opportunity to address this need, and thus create a more adequate conceptual
framework for their ground-water program.
A number of general themes traverse the numerous State strategies funded by
SGWS grants. One of the most persistent is the effort to institutionalize ground-
water protection within the State. That is, the strategies provide policy
direction for the creation of ongoing State programs designed for long-term
preservation of the resource, and address pragmatic needs such as staffing,
financing and interagency coordination. Virtually all assign priority to devel-
oping classification schemes and attainable use designations for major aquifers,
supported by quality standards, effective source control measures and monitoring
programs. In this way, the strategies appear to promote the construction of an
effective framework for resource management analogous, as noted by one EPA
Regional Official, to those that exist "for surface water and air. The State of
Maryland, for example, has prepared a comprehensive and flexible strategy that
EPA Region III 'officials consider a model for other States in the Region.
Initiated through a legislative mandate, Maryland's strategy exemplifies a dynam-
ic approach to ground-^water protection in that it calls for annual review of
State ground-water programs. Kentucky's strategy calls for the creation of a new
branch office within the Division of Water containing 3 new sections and 21 new
staff positions, with technical support. This truly signifies a firm conniitment
to an ongoing State program.
Another recurrent theme is the desire for greater public awareness and
the need for grass-roots education concerning the threat of ground-water con-
tamination. Several States began the push towards increased public awareness of
and involvement in ground-water protection by providing the general population an
opportunity to participate in the creation of the State strategy. Utah, for
instance, held ten public hearings thoughout the State and conducted an elaborate
technical review process wherein 500 copies of its Strategy were mailed to the
public, affected industries and government agencies. Private citizen involvement
was also extensive throughout the developmental stages in Indiana, West Virginia
and New York. Other States have opted, in contrast, to limit the public's role
in the development of the strategy, and instead launch an extensive public
information/awareness campaign after a near-final draft has been prepared.
Examples include Kentucky, Maryland, and to some extent, Nebraska.
Many State strategies also stress the need for State agencies to provide
technical assistance to counties and local governments, so that certain ground-
water program responsibilities might become less centralized. The State of
Washington, for example, calls for the provision of technical laboratory assis-
tance to municipalities. And in Vermont, the newly drafted State strategy
-------
(7)
gives special emphasis towards encouraging local involvement in ground-
water management. This theme is very characteristic of Vermont's use
of SGWSG funds.
It is also important to note that support for the development of a compre-
hensive State ground-water protection strategy generally extends well into the
higher levels of the Executive and Legislative branches of State governments.
A number of States began their efforts under a legislative mandate while for
others the impetus was provided by an Executive Order from the governor.
Overall, the construction of State ground-water strategies has received
close attention from high-ranking agency executives and elected officials,
and has not been delegated to staff.
Interagency Coordination
State and Territorial programs to protect ground-water resources have
grown increasingly more mature and complex as a result of the availability
of SGWS grants. It was therefore a logical next step, especially for
States which divide the responsibilities for ground-water protection among
a number of agencies, to address the need for better cooperation and coordina-
tion among these agencies. Hence, many States have used SGWSG funds to
finance the creation of one or more quasi-governmental organizations to
channel information, oversee the development of State strategies, and assign
roles and responsibilities to competing agencies. The use of SGWS grants for
this purpose is consistent with EPA's guidance to grant recipients, which
encourages States to remove institutional barriers (i.e., overlapping respon-
sibilities , inefficient transfer of information, etc.) to comprehensive
ground-water protection.
An array of committees, work groups, task forces and advisory councils
have been formed within the States. Maryland, for example, was directed by
its legislature to form a ground-water steering committee comprised of the
Secretaries of Health, Agriculture and Natural Resources, and to develop a
plan which would integrate and coordinate the State's approach to the protec-
tion of its ground-water quality and quantity. Also required were recommenda-
tions to the legislature concerning existing and potentially new legislative
policies, with a further charge to review current ground water impacts on an
annual basis. Similar committees have been formed in Virginia, West Virginia,
Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky and Delaware. Two very active organizations
in Utah, the Ground-JWater Work Group and the Ground-Water Steering Committee,
lent valuable assistance to the development of the State's ground-water
strategy. Both bodies helped formulate the concepts and ideas outlined
within the strategy and also contributed to the preparation of technical
appendices. California maintains three separate, permanent committees to
help coordinate the planning and implementation of the State's ground-water
program. The first, an Interagency Coordinating.Committee, seats representa-
-------
(8)
tives of all State agencies with jurisdiction in ground—-M Lei:, plus EPA and
the USGS. The second is the State Regional Board Coordinating Conrnittee,
composed of representatives of the State Water Resources Control Board and
its nine regional boards. Finally, the local Implementing Agency Committee
coordinates input from local governments and water districts.. Together, the
three organizations provide an effective forum for the exchange of information
and the assignment of responsibilities.
Another entity created to ensure coordination and efficiency in ground-
water protection efforts is the Wisconsin Ground-Water Coordinating Council.
Established under chapter 160 of the Wisconsin Statutes and partially funded
with SGWS grants, the Council consists of a representative of the Governor's
office plus the directors of all State agencies with responsibility for
ground-water management. Its mandate is to "advise and assist State agencies
in the coordination of non-regulatory programs and the exchange of information
related to groundwater,..." Its areas of concern include, but are not
limited to, agency budgets for ground-water programs, ground-water monitoring,
data management, public information and education, laboratory analysis and
facilities, research activities and the appropriation and allocation of State
funds for research. Just as the State's ground-water standards assure a
coordinated State effort in regulatory programs for ground-water protection,
Wisconsin's Ground-Water Coordinating Council assures the non-regulatory
aspects of the State framework are efficiently managed as well.
In Vermont, the principal authority for ground-water issues is the
Ground-Water Management Section of the Department of Water Resources and
Environmental Engineering, which is part of the State's Agency for Environmen-
tal Conservation (AEC). The State has established a permanent advisory body,
the Ground-Water Coordinating Conmittee, to assist the Secretary of the .AEC
in the disposition of ground-jwater program affairs. Since a number of State
agencies in addition to the AEC participate in ground-^water resource manage-
ment in Vermont (e.g., Departments of Health, Transportation, Agriculture,
etc.), the Coordinating Conmittee performs a valuable function.
The operational mechanics of the kind of organizations exemplified above
tend to differ from State to State. Some employ formal procedures to expedite
their responsibilities such as Memoranda of Understanding, Memoranda of Agree-
ment or official directives. Others operate informally and offer guidance
more than explicit direction. In any event, it is clear that such organiza-
tions are needed if comprehensive and wide-ranging State ground-^water pro-
grams are to be managed effectively. Most SGWS grant recipients are
cognizant of this fact, and have devoted a portion of their grant funds to
this purpose.
-------
(9)
Legislative/Regulatory Actions
State programs for ground-water protection cannot be effectively imple-
mented and enforced without an acccmodative legislative and regulatory frame-
work. It is for this reason EPA has encouraged States and Territories to use
SONS grants to assess the strength and scope of their existing legal author-
ities as part of their overall program development effort. In the event that
existing laws were found to be be inadequate and presented a barrier to effec-
tive preservation measures, states were encouraged to enact appropriate legis-
lation and/or promulgate enforceable regulations.
Using FYs 85 and 86 SGWS grants, approximately 30 States and Territories
funded studies and assessments of their existing legal framework which led,
in a number of cases, to the adoption of new laws, rules and regulations.
Officials in the State of Nebraska, for instance, perceived the need for new
legislation during the development of the State strategy. The State Legis-
lature responded magnanimously by adopting four major pieces of ground-water
legislation. The new acts govern the control and regulation of chemigation,
special protection areas, underground storage tanks and well licensing/
construction/abandonment standards. By force of these actions, Nebraska's
umbrella of protection for its ground-water resources was extended con-
siderably. Utah employed SGWSG funds to assess its existing legal coverage
of the following areas: agriculture, on-site waste treatment, hazardous and
solid waste, mining, oil and gas and surface impoundments. In addition, the
Utah State Department of Health has announced plans to study the need for
specific legislation in areas not currently regulated. Utah has and will
continue to use its SGWS grants for this purpose.
Kentucky, in the context of its State strategy development, has drafted
regulations for a number of strategy-related activities. Most prominent are
those which govern the State' s recently Revised Water Well Drillers Program,
which has been funded mainly by SGWS grants. Regulations concerning all as-
pects of the program, including enforcement procedures, registration forms and
certification examinations, have been proposed. Furthermore, State officials
have announced plans to use FY 87 grant funds to develop draft classification
and ground-water quality standards regulations as well. Kentucky has given
considerable emphasis to ensuring the appropriate legal environment for its
ground-water protection program.
Another State in EPA's Region IV, Alabama, began its efforts to revise its
legislative framework in FY 85. A portion of the State's initial $155,000
grant for that year was used to initiate the development of draft impoundment
and monitoring well regulations. FY 86 funds were used in part to evaluate
legal/institutional barriers to Alabama's plans for program construction and
implementation. Activities planned for FY 87, for which the State's FY 87
grant will provide support, include the preparation of land application,
percolation pond, and ground-water classification regulations.
-------
(10)
Much of New Mexico's framework for ground-water protection pre-dates the
State Ground-Water Strategy Grants program, including numerical standards for
ground-water contaminants and a ground-water discharge permit system. It was
primarily through the use of its SGWSG funds, however, that New Mexico iden-
tified municipal landfills as a significant threat to ground-water quality,
and determined that the State lacked adequate authority to effectively control
these sites. As a result, the State Environmental Improvement Division (BID)
has been conducting a study of these landfills that will provide recommenda-
tions for appropriate regulatory actions. EID is also expending SGWS funds
to review ground-water related regulations administered by other divisions of
the State Government.
A major focus of Oklahoma's use of its State Ground-Water Strategy Grants
has been to evaluate the effectiveness of, and increase the consistency be-
tween, ^ the State's ground-water regulations. A number of State agencies are
participating in this effort; each is reviewing the laws and ordinances
relevant to its specific program responsibilities. The State Department of
Agriculture, for example, has concentrated on chemigation and feedlot regula-
tions. Other agencies conducting similar reviews include the Oklahoma State
Department of Health and Oklahoma Water Resources Board.
Efforts of this kind are consistent with the theme, discernible in many
State strategies, that States are seeking to institutionalize ground-water
protection within their jurisdiction. The will and authority to prohibit, re-
strict or regulate activities which threaten to contaminate ground-water re-
sources must be present for ground-water protection programs to succeed.
Resource Characterization/Classification/Data Management
The final consideration of this review of the State Ground-Water
Strategy Grants Program is the extent to which States and Territories have
used SGWSG funds to 1) generate ground-water characterization and assessment
data, 2) use that data to classify and institute standards for the protection
of ground-water resources and 3) develop or enhance their capabilities for
data base management. Specific activities include selected mapping of
important aquifers, determining the interconnection between aquifers, creat-
ing monitoring programs, assessing existing data files, and designing software
systems to manage data more effectively. The generation and management of
comprehensive and accurate ground-water characterization data are fundamen-
tally important to the creation of State ground-water programs. Without the
necessary technical data on which to rely, the development of aquifer classi-
fication schemes is not possible. Nor is it likely that State officials will
be able to devise sensible and judiciously-crafted protection measures.
-------
(11)
SGWS grants have influenced this area of State ground-water programs
more than any other, save perhaps for State strategy development. The only
States and Territories that have failed to initiate any activities in this area
are those few which EPA Regional officials have identified as "problem cases",
lagging far behind in all stages of program construction. Most other grant re-
cipients have expended significant portions of their SGWSG funds to acquire the
technical data needed to support classification schemes and quality standards,
and to develop an adequate system for managing that data. Louisiana, for in-
stance, a State of enormous hydrological' complexity, employed its grants to
assess existing monitoring networks, to map the recharge areas of major aqui-
fers, and to conduct a series of technical workshops on ground-water topics.
The State maintains an anti-degradation policy, and is using SGWSG funds to
support the analyses needed to establish baseline standards to implement this
policy. New York has devoted most of its SGWSG allottment to technical
activities, including aquifer mapping and an elaborate pesticide evaluation of
upstate areas, which should reveal the extent of ground-water contamination
caused by the use of pesticides.
Arkansas established much of its ground-water protection structure using
grants authorized under section 208 of the Clean Water Act. However the State
used its BY 85 allottment from the SGWSG program to begin developing ground-
water monitoring systems. To determine the existence and possible sources of
ground-water contamination, five locations in the State were identified as
representative of the State's diverse geological regions, and prototype moni-
toring plans have been developed for each. Arkansas' Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology plans to implement one of the prototype plans, and authori-
ties "hope the monitoring activities will help establish a baseline for ground-
water classification and standards.
The State of Washington initiated or expanded a number of technical pro-
grams with its SGWS grants. Examples include programs for ground-water map-
ping, ground-water sampling, and geographical information systems (GIS) map-
ping. In addition, SGWSG funds were the impetus behind the expansion of the
State's surveillance program for well drilling practices. Although general
State funds were used to expand the program staff from one-half person to four,
the needs of the program came to light as a result of activities funded by
SGWS grants. Washington also employed its grants to modify its data management
system for easier access, and to enhance the system's capabilities.
In Nebraska, ground-water data was virtually inaccessible prior to the
availability of SGWS funds since the State had no computerized system on which
to rely. Approximately $15,000 was spent to access the STORET network and to
help consolidate the ground-water data, resulting in significantly greater
system capability. Nebraska also used its SGWS allottment to perform aquifer
mapping and to develop a classification/use scheme.
-------
(12)
Other States active in this area include California, which enhanced its
capability for managing its ground-water program inventory; Georgia, which
purchased additional access to STOKET; and North Carolina, which initiated an
"expert" ground-water modeling system to evaluate permit decisions and monitor
well siting. This is by no means an exhaustive list. As noted previously,
virtually every SOWS grant recipient has taken steps to characterize and assess
the quality of their ground-water resources, to begin classification efforts, and
to increase their data management capacity. Many have hired additional qualified
personnel such as hydrologists, geologists and computer programmers. Thus, it
appears that SGWS grants have contributed as much to the pragmatic, scientific
elements of State ground-water protection programs as they have to the underlying
strategic guidelines.
Nevertheless, there is considerable work yet to be done. In its recent
review of ten exemplary State ground-water protection programs, the National
Research Council pointed out that even these States have not yet achieved a
comprehensive effort, despite the excellent progress which has been made. Many
States are just beginning to develop these programs, and such efforts take many
years of institution building.
-------
EXHIBIT I
State Ground-Water Strategy Grant Funding by State
GRANT ALLOCATIONS ($OOOs)
REGION/STATE
Region I
CT
MA
ME
NH
RI
VT
Region II
NJ
NY
PR
Region III
DE
DC
MD
PA
VA.
WV
Region IV
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
sc
TN
Region V
IL
IN
MI
MN
OH
WI
FY 1985
106
142
100
100
100
100
158
280
90
100
57
112
234
149
100
155
150
176
103
104
199
126
119
130
159
132
390
65
271
FY 1986
106
142
100
100
100
100
151
268
86
96
54
108
224
142
96
155
150
176
103
104
199
126
119
162
169
220
246
0
129
-------
EXHIBIT I (Continued)
GRANT ALLOCATIONS ($OOOs)
REGION/STATE
Region VI
AR
IA
KM
OK
TX
Region VII
IA
KS
MO
NE
Region VIII
CO
MT
ND
SD
OT
WY
Region IX
AZ
CA
HE
NV
GU
1ME
TT
Region X
AK
ID
OR
WA
BY 1985
107
113
100
100
200
102
100
117
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
203
300
100
117
42
35
0
0
145
134
132
FY 1986
107
113
96
96
111
102
100
117
100
96
96
96
96
96
96
105
55
96
111
50
60
55
75
108
63
70
-------
EXHIBIT II
STATUS OF STATE GROUND-WATER PROTECTION STRATEGIES
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARKANSAS
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
D.C.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
a
UJ
a. "~ z
< 0 S
i|"i
to T =
FULLY DEVELOPED
EITHER THROUGH
PROGRAM OR WITI
SOURCES OF FUND
V
V
V
V2
V
\
•M
FULLY DEVELOPED
AWAITING FINAL
APPROVAL
V3
V
V
V
fe-
DRAFT FORM,
UNDERGOING REVI
REVISION
V
V
V
DRAR UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
V
V1
V3
1
Zj
_ _
PRE-DEVELOPMENl
STAGE, CONCEPTl
V
DELAYS CAUSED BY ENACTMENT OF NEW LEGISLATION, REORGANIZATION OF STATE AGENCIES
"FORMAL" STRATEGY DOCUMENT IS NOT YET COMPLETE, BUT STATE HAS ELABORATE AND EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN SYSTEM
WHICH FUNCTIONS AS STRATEGY.
STRATEGY DEVELOPED IN 1983, BEING REVISED WfTH SECTION 106 FUNDS.
-------
EXHIBIT II (Continued)
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEWYORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHD
0
U
a "~ 2
9; Z CC
cc z ui
O 3 CC
V
V
V
ll
c 1
2 o
a u
V
V
s
V
V
V
V
2
'ELOPMENT
CONCEPTUALI2
SS
ujS
S u>
V
V
CURRQJTSnnRATEGY WAS DEVELOPED WITH SECTION 208 FUNDS, NEEDS TO BE REVISED.
STRATEGY CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT IS BASED ON FRAMEWORK DEVELOPED IN 1983 USING CWA SECTION 205fl) FUNDS.
-------
EXHIBIT II (Continued)
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
a
Ul
<§2
FULLY DEVELOPED AND
EITHER THROUGH SECTI
PROGRAM OR WITH ALT
SOURCES OF FUNDING
V
7
FULLY DEVELOPED,
AWAITING FINAL
APPROVAL
V
V
V
V
V
v
DRAFT FORM,
UNDERGOING REVIEW,
REVISION
6
V
Y
V
DRAFT UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
v
V
V
V
z
PRE-DEVELOPMENT
STAGE, CONCEPTUALIZI
OREGON HAS A WELL-DEVELOPED GROUND-WATER POLICY, WHICH IS EXPANDING TO INCORPORATE A CLASSIFICATION SCHEME,
GROUND-WATER STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
WYOMING DOES NOT HAVE A FORMAL STRATEGY PER SE, BUT DOES MAINTAIN AM EFFECTIVE, PERMIT-BASED GROUND-WATER
PROTECTION PROGRAM. SECTION 106 FUNDS ARE BEING USED FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF VARIOUS MEASURES.
-------
EXHIBIT II (Continued)
PUERTO RICO
GUAM
NORTHERN MAR1ANNA
ISLANDS
TRUST TERRITORIES
VIRGIN ISLANDS
AMERICAN SAMOA
0
UJ
hi
FULLY DEVELOPED AND AP
EITHER THROUGH SECTION
PROGRAM OR WITH ALTERI
SOURCES OF FUNDING
V
V8
FULLY DEVELOPED,
AWAITING FINAL
APPROVAL
DRAFT FORM,
UNDERGOING REVIEW,
REVISION
DRAFT UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
V
V
V
PRE-DEVELOPMENT
STAGE, CONCEPTUALIZING
V
DEVELOPED STRATEGY WITH SECTION 205fl) FUNDS. NEEDS EXTENSIVE UPDATE AND REVISION.
-------
slPlwIW
.'AW'^wa^jtVSir '*!!"''i'*! 'itiiiif^.fei1"1 '«'|!,Xf ^1 itji*!:*^ t
|SllJ|sS?'S^?S*ISe|
«in'i.'4IM'W'lA P ',, VTO Tj^'ff „;
i,Sa ii£»: iii; lutf Mi
-------
------- |