United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
(4602)
EPA 440/6-89-002
April 1989
&EPA
Wellhead Protection Programs
Tools For Local Governments
-------
-------
WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAMS:
TOOLS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
OFFICE OF WATER
OFFICE OF GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APRIL 1989
-------
-------
Page i
FOREWORD
The 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) established a new Wellhead
Protection (WHP) Program to protect ground
waters that supply wells and wellfields that
contribute drinking water to public water supply
systems. Under SDWA Section 1428 each State
must develop a WHP Program that consists of
several elements.
At a minimum, each State's WHP Program
must:
(1) Specify roles and duties of State agencies, local
government entities, and public water suppliers,
with respect to WHP Programs;
(2) Delineate the wellhead protection area
(WHPA) for each wellhead;
(3) Identify sources of contaminants within each
WHPA;
(4) Develop management approaches to protect the
water supply within WHPAs from such
contaminants;
(5) Develop contingency plans for each public
water supply system to respond to well or
wellfield contamination;
(6) Site new wells properly to maximize yield and
minimize potential contamination; and
(7) Ensure public participation.
The Wellhead Protection Program requires the
participation of all levels of government. The
Federal government is responsible for approving
State Wellhead Protection Programs and for
providing technical support to State and local
governments. States must develop and implement
Wellhead Protection Programs that meet the
requirements of the SDWA Amendments. While
the responsibilities of local governments depend
upon the particular requirements of their State's
Wellhead Protection Program, localities are often
in the best position to implement measures to
ensure that wellhead areas are properly protected
from contamination.
Local governments typically implement zoning
decisions, develop land-use plans, oversee building
and fire codes, implement health requirements,
supply water and sewer services, and enforce police
powers. Each of these local powers may be used
to protect the quality of local aquifers.
Local cities and counties are also often the
innovators in developing wellhead protection
programs by applying combinations of management
techniques (e.g., zoning and source prohibitions) to
meet unique local conditions. Localities often
protect ground water as part of larger projects,
such as developing growth management plans or
economic development efforts. In close coopera-
tion with regional, State, and Federal agencies,
local governments can take positive steps to protect
their wellhead areas.
Because of the importance of local efforts to
protect ground water, EPA has prepared this
Technical Assistance Document. In general, this
document is directed at the fourth program
element noted above, the management of
contaminant sources within WHP areas. More
specifically, it shows how local governments, such
as cities and counties, have developed innovative
and effective wellhead protection programs, even
with limited resources and expertise. The
document describes ways in which local
governments may develop such programs, discusses
potential management tools, and provides examples
of local programs around the country.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection
(OGWP) by ICF Incorporated. Mr. Stan Austin and Mr. Steven Roy of OGWP served as Task Managers
for this project with assistance from Dr. Norbert Dee. ICF Incorporated staff who were principally involved
in preparing this document included Reid Harvey and Peter Linquiti, who served as Project Manager.
Marian Mlay
Director :
Office of Ground-Water Protection
-------
Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. USING THIS DOCUMENT 1
Organization of Document 1
Other Technical Assistance Documents 2
2. IDENTIFYING LOCAL NEEDS 3
Local Objectives 3
Wellhead Protection Area 3
Wellhead Delineation 3
Ground-Water Hydrogeology 4
Sources of Contamination 5
Inventory of Existing Sources 5
Potential for New Sources 7
Prioritizing Sources of Contamination 7
Local Resources 8
Administrative 8
Resources 8
Economic/Political 8
Legal 8
Existing Programs 9
Federal 9
State 10
Regional and Local 10
3. CHOOSING APPROPRIATE TOOLS FOR WELLHEAD PROTECTION 11
Overview 11
Zoning Ordinances 12
Subdivision Ordinances 18
Site Plan Review 19
Design Standards 21
Operating Standards 23
Source Prohibitions 25
Purchase of Property or Development Rights 26
Public Education 29
Ground-Water Monitoring 30
Household Hazardous Waste Collection ; 32
Water Conservation 33
Other Methods 34
4. IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL PROGRAM 36
Staffing 36
Communication 37
Enforcement and Oversight 38
-------
Page ui
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
5. FINDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION .
EPA Regional Ground-Water Representatives
State Ground-Water Protection Contacts
Other Sources of Information
ENDNOTES
39
40
41
46
49
-------
Page 1
USING THIS DOCUMENT
This Technical Assistance Document (TAD)
describes how localities can, as a part of a State
Wellhead Protection Program, develop and
implement effective techniques for the protection
of ground water. The document emphasizes
innovative wellhead protection methods that have
been used by local communities, discusses
combinations of programs that have worked well,
and presents several factors that affect the success
of local wellhead protection programs, such as
budgetary constraints and legal issues. Examples
of the ways in which some communities are using
management tools to protect ground water are
highlighted in the text in bold face print or in
shaded boxes. Contacts for more information on
these local programs are listed at the end of the
document.
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE
T&KJNO- STIES TO F80TEOr
WATER
The town of Rib Mountain, Wisconsin, is a
good &ctmpfe *>/<* mtx&ts^t tae&t&wmm&tt
ground-water protection frigwฎ* 8$
-ซ nye&ageefagiG '" analysis
detemfaed foot its @vmdwatee wtta
susceptible to toatamfyatian became of
htgty? pemea&te atpfifc* In September 1385,
after re&fring aswfance foot ffi$
adopted^ zoning regtlatxms to protect its farm
niwMpti water supply mtts, '" Ihe t#m
prohibited industrial and mmer&al df&efap-
mmt in Mgkfy'g&meetbfe w&ts emtybtg the
town's aquifer mdj in Jess susceptibite areas,
based on speci&t permit^*
Organization of Document
This TAD is organized as follows:
Section 2 (Identifying Local Needs) highlights
several issues localities may want to consider as
they develop local wellhead protection programs:
Establishing local objectives;
Delineating wellhead protection
areas;
Evaluating sources of contamina-
tion; and
Examining implementation issues
(e.g., funding, legal authority).
Section 3 (Choosing Appropriate Tools for
Wellhead Protection) describes several management
tools, provides examples where they have been
successfully applied, and notes how tools can be
combined effectively.
The management tools described here include:
Zoning ordinances: Direct land
development and regulate land
uses;
Subdivision ordinances: Protect
land divided for development;
Site plan review: Helps ensure
compliance with development
plans;
Design standards: Prevent
ground-water contamination by
setting design and construction
standards;
Operating standards: Help
regulate potentially hazardous
practices;
Source prohibitions: Prohibit
development or materials that
threaten ground water;
Purchase of property or develop-
ment rights: Ensures control of
land uses in wellhead areas;
Public education: Builds support
for ground-water protection
activities;
Ground-water monitoring: Helps
assess ground-water quality,
-------
Page 2
Household hazardous waste col-
lection: Reduces threats to ground
water from hazardous waste
disposal;
Water conservation: Reduces
contamination from salt-water
intrusion; and
Other methods: Can meet local
needs (e.g., by combining other
management tools).
Section 4 (Implementing a Local Program)
presents program management issues to consider
in implementing a wellhead protection program.
Local wellhead protection programs rely on skilled
staff, communication with the public, and
enforcement of requirements. Expertise may be
available at the local level. Alternatively, outside
agencies, such as universities or State agencies, may
provide staff or other technical support to local
programs. A range of techniques may be used to
communicate with the public, including meetings,
flyers, and other advertising. Localities can also
protect ground water through active enforcement
of regulations.
Section 5 (Finding Additional Information)
provides additional sources of information on
wellhead protection management techniques and
local ground-water protection programs. Contacts
in States and EPA Regional offices are listed and
other references on ground-water protection and
hydrogeology are provided.
document, for State and local governments
interested hi developing Wellhead Protection
Programs:
Developing A State Wellhead
Protection Program: u4 User's
Guide to Assist State] Agencies
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(July 1988);
Model Assessments for Delineating
Wellhead Protection Areas (May
1988);
State Wellhead Protection Program
Question and Answer Fact Sheet
(June 1987); ;
Guidance For Applicants For State
WettheadProtection Program Assis-
tance Funds Under \The Safe
Drinking Water Act (June 1987);
i
Guidelines For Delineation Of
Wellhead Protection Areas (June
1987); and
Wellhead Protection: A Decision
Makers' Guide (May 1987).
To obtain copies of these or other EPA materials,
contact the EPA Regional ground-water repre-
sentative (listed hi Section 5). ,
Other Technical Assistance
Documents
In response to the 1986 SDWA Amendments,
EPA's Office of Ground-Water Protection has
developed several TADs, in addition to this
-------
SECTION 2
Page 3
IDENTIFYING LOCAL NEEDS
This section reviews the typical questions that
localities have considered before developing a
wellhead protection program:
Local objectives: What must be
accomplished?
Wellhead protection areas: What
areas should be protected?
Sources of contamination: What
are the threats to ground water?
Local resources and constraints:
What can be accomplished?
Existing programs: What other
programs need to be considered?
An evaluation of these issues may help guide
development of a wellhead protection program.
Local Objectives
By clearly specifying objectives in adopting a
wellhead protection program, localities may be
better able to:
Investigate programs adopted
elsewhere to meet similar goals;
Decide what program options
make sense and which do not;
and
Tailor the program to the specific
objectives.
A variety of factors, including dependence on
ground water, availability of alternative sources of
drinking water, local commitment to a program,
and other factors discussed in this section, will
combine to determine the local objectives in well-
head management. Some communities may wish
to provide complete protection against any
contamination of their aquifer through use of the
various land-use tools. Others may wish to give
highest priority to current or future problems
stemming from particular sources, such as
underground storage tanks, or agricultural practices.
EPA's Guidelines for Delineation of Wellhead
Protection Areas identifies several operational goals
for wellhead protection:
Providing a remedial action zone
around a wellhead to act as a
safety buffer that allows time to
respond to an accidental contam-
inant release;
Creating an attenuation zone to
reduce concentrations of known
contaminants in ground water
before they reach the well; and
Using wellfield management zones
to regulate activity in all or part
of the recharge area.
Although the goals can often be identified
before evaluating the other issues discussed in this
section, localities should be careful not to restrict
the program unnecessarily. Further consideration
may reveal that initial goals could be expanded
upon, or should be modified.
Wellhead Protection Area
For the purposes of this document, wellhead
protection area refers to the area that will be
managed by a community in order to protect
ground-water resources. Under the Safe Drinking
Water Act, a wellhead protection area is defined
as "the surface and subsurface area surrounding a
water well or wellfield, supplying a public water
system, through which contaminants are reasonably
likely to move toward and reach such water wefl
or wellfield."
WELLHEAD DELINEATION
The method by which this area is defined may
differ from one community to the next. The
objective is to identify a defined geographic area
that is significant for the protection of water
quality. Various documents and other resources
are available to assist in making this determination,
including EPA's Guidelines for Delineation of
Wellhead Protection Areas.
Communities with sufficient resources may
wish to hire hydrogeologic consultants to delineate
the boundaries of these areas. A community need
-------
GROUN0-WA3ER THREATS
The Cape Cod Aquifer- Management Project
(CCAMP), a project jointly sponsored by the
U,S, Environmental Protection Agency, the
U.S. Geological Survey, the,Massachusetts'"
Department of Environmental Qualify
Engineering, and the Cape Cad Planning and
Economic Development Commission, was
charged witft developing an integrated approach
to ground-water management for any setting,
using two towns located on Cape Cod and for
Cape Cod as a region, CCAMP identified the
Geographic Information System (GIS) as a
potential management tool and chose to
demonstrate its capabilities' using these
locations on Cape Cod as case studies,
GIS is a computerized data manager and
mapping system that has the ability ia
incorporate data on hydrogeologic conditions
and the location of potential contaminant
sources, GIS thus allows analysis of a wide
range of ground-water management issue's;*
CCAMP, for example, used GIS to identify
appropriate locations for a new public water
supply, to determine the threatt&gfound water
posed by complete development under existing
zoning regulations, and to rank the risks posed
by underground storage tanks and landfills**
not, however, have the resources of a large
metropolitan area to obtain an adequate delineation
of their wellhead protection area. EPA's
Guidelines present a range of methods for
delineation of wellhead areas, some of which are
straightforward and unlikely to require significant
time or resources.
State offices responsible for protection of water
resources may be particularly useful sources of
information. Contacts at these State agencies are
listed in Section 5. These agencies will, in many
cases, have information available on the geology
and hydrology of areas in the State.
Massachusetts, for example, maintains a
hydrogeologic information matrix that lists all
relevant State, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
and consultant reports, indexed by geographic
location.
In addition, communities can contact represen-
tatives of the local water utilities, the Soil
Conservation Service, the Extension Service of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), or the
District Office of the U.S. Geological Survey.
Individuals associated with these agencies often
possess knowledge of the local j geology that will
assist in determining the appropriate level of
protection. Local expertise may also be available
from other sources, including juniversity faculty,
local residents, or local industries willing to offer
their services. j
GROUND-WATER HYDROGEOLOGY
About half the U.S. population, and about 95
percent of rural America, defends on ground
water. Rain and snow infiltrating through the soil,
and water from streams and! rivers, recharge
underground aquifers. Aquifers! may be localized
or cover several towns or counties. Ground water
generally moves from areas of recharge to areas of
discharge. '
Ground-water wells affect the flow of ground
water by lowering water levels in an area around
the well, known as the zone ofj influence or cone
of depression, as depicted in Exhibit 1. The full
recharge area to the well is often called the zone
of contribution. The zone of influence and the
zone of contribution may constitute a fraction of
an aquifer's area, or go beyond individual aquifers
to inter-connected aquifers. The wellhead protec-
tion area may constitute all or part of the zone of
influence or zone of contribution. Wellhead
protection areas range in size, usually from tens of
acres to several square miles, and, in some cases,
to tens of square miles.
Ground water can become contaminated by
many hazardous materials, such as pesticides,
fertilizers, organic chemicals, and human wastes.
The degree of contamination: depends on soil
characteristics, contaminant characteristics, ground-
water flow, and other factors, j Porous soils, such
as sand, located over shallow aqtiifers generally are
quite susceptible to contamination, while deep
aquifers located in heavy clay soil areas are less
susceptible. Once contaminated, aquifers are
difficult and expensive to clean! up. For example,
localities or responsible parties may have to pay for
site studies, remediation, and i property damage.
The most cost-effective approach is to prevent
contamination before it occurฃ, rather than at-
tempting to remedy existing contamination.
For detailed information on the hydrogeologic
framework of the wellhead protection program,
localities may wish to examine; some of the EPA
materials or other ground-water references listed
in Section 5 of this document, j
-------
Page S
EXHIBIT 1
GROUND-WATER
!- DIVIDE
LAND SURFACE
CONE OF
DEPRESSION |
WATER TABLE
BEDROCK
ZOI Zona of Influence
ZOC Zone of Contribution
or Recharge Area
Sources of Contamination
Many communities have evaluated both existing
and potential sources of contamination before
considering methods to prevent future problems.
INVENTORY OF EXISTING SOURCES
An inventory of the number and diversity of
easting activities can serve a two-fold purpose for
wellhead protection:
It provides local officials with an
understanding of the potential for
contamination; and
It provides basic information that
can be useful for designing dif-
ferent controls and determining
the areas in which they should be
applied.
The extent and focus of an inventory can vary
from town to town depending on specific local
concerns, resources available, and the variety of
potential contamination sources. A local
community may decide to inventory all of the
potential sources within its political boundaries or
may decide to expand the inventory beyond these
boundaries to encompass contaminant sources that
pose a potential threat. Oakley, Kansas, for
instance, in cooperation with the county govern-
ment, is conducting a review of land-use practices
both inside and outside the city limits that may
affect municipal wells. Even if a community does
not have the legal authority to regulate the sour-
ces outside its boundaries, property owners, water
utilities, or adjacent regulatory officials may be
willing to cooperate in an effort to prevent con-
tamination.
In addition, a community may determine that
specific sources pose a threat to the water supply
and focus on these threats wherever they may be
found. In agricultural communities, the focus may
be on the storage and application of fertilizers and
pesticides. Other communities may decide to
concentrate on underground storage tanks, dry
cleaners, or specific industrial activities. After
assessing the risks, communities that choose to
focus on either specific areas or sources can
expand then- program in the future to encompass
additional areas or activities at a later date.
Exhibit 2 identifies specific sources of
contamination that could be addressed hi an
inventory. EPA or State officials can provide
information on how to conduct an inventory and
local agencies, such as fire departments, can assist
in identifying potential sources (e.g., underground
storage tanks).
-------
Page 6
EXHIBIT 2 i
i
SOURCES OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION3
CATEGORY I - Sources designed to discharge
substances
Subsurface percolation (e.g., septic tanks and
cesspools)
Injection Wells
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste (e.g., brine disposal and
drainage)
Non-waste (e.g., enhanced recovery, artificial
recharge solution mining, and in-situ mining)
Land application
Waste water (e.g., spray irrigation)
Wastewater byproducts (e.g., sludge)
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
CATEGORY II - Sources designed to store,
treat, and/or dispose of substances; discharge
through unplanned release
Landfills
Industrial hazardous waste
Industrial non-hazardous waste
Municipal sanitary
Open dumps, including illegal dumping (waste)
Residential (or local) disposal (waste)
Surface impoundments
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Waste tailings
Waste piles
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Materials stockpiles (non-waste)
Graveyards
Animal burial
Aboveground storage tanks
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Non-waste
Underground storage tanks
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Non-waste
Containers
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Non-waste
Open burning sites
Detonation sites
Radioactive disposal sites
CATEGORY III - Sources designed to retain
substances during transport or transmission
Pipelines i
Hazardous waste \
Non-hazardous waste
Non-waste j
Materials transport and transfer operations
Hazardous waste ',
Non-hazardous waste
Non-waste ']
CATEGORY IV - Sources discharging substances
as a consequence of other planned activities
Irrigation practices (e.g., return flow)
Pesticide applications
Fertilizer applications
Animal feeding operations '
De-icing salts applications
Urban runoff
Percolation of atmospheric pollutants
Mining and mine drainage
Surface mine-related \
Underground mine-related
CATEGORY V - Sources providing conduit or
inducing discharge through altered flow patterns
Production wells
Oil (and gas) wells
Geothermal and heat recovery wells
Water supply wells !
Other wells (non-waste) ,
Monitoring wells
Exploration wells i
Construction excavation
CATEGORY VI - Naturally occurring sources
whose discharge is .created and/or exacerbated
by human activity i
Groundwater - surface water interactions
Natural leaching
Salt-water intrusion/brackish water upconing (or
intrusion of other poor-quality natural water)
-------
After the inventory has been completed, the
local government will evaluate the data gathered in
the inventory. Communities have mapped the
location of sources and calculated distances to wells
or aquifer recharge areas. Sources may be
categorized by type or by degree of potential harm
to ground water. In addition, the inventory could
categorize sources by the degree of local regulatory
authority over the source (e.g., local ordinances
may regulate subdivision development, while State
and Federal regulations govern hazardous waste
management practices).
POTENTIAL FOR NEW SOURCES
Identification of existing contamination sources
may address immediate concerns about protection
of the local water supply. To ensure that the
supply remains uncontaminated, communities have
also anticipated growth areas and future activities
to maintain the quality of the water supply.
PRQTECTJNC; GROUND WATJ&
- maw mxwm
. .
ftfettpta? competing 'we$
in an area. adjacent fa the soufo shore of^the
Airpog* *Ihe area is^tfseg far municipal
mppfy but is exmntfy befog promoted for
industrial development artd frartqportatioit
impmemmt, Mecog^gmecotiftltftoggatas
and potential for fitture problems* the city
developed: A water #ซ% protection $m. As
part of this process, the risks from both mating
andfitture activities m& eyatwted, mittgaffaK
measures were mtityz&d, and a, plan was
adopted Pfanitii&on or eontrol ofMgfc risk
activities* long use. and bui(4ing regsiaftort^
traffic control moment and emtainmnnf of
runoff, monitoring of surface and su$mr/a&e
water qualify, and emergency mponw w&
cleanup programs are among the measures
included in thegl&n< DewfopmentorftuMtog
applications must contain a iist ofhazardam
tnateriate potentially faceted
Communities in rapidly growing areas, for
example, have examined land-use patterns and
directed industrial development or other potential
sources of contamination to areas that do not pose
a threat to the water supply. Where land-use
controls alone were insufficient or not appropriate,
communities have adopted design and operating
standards to protect ground-water quality. Where
Page?
particularly sensitive areas have been identified,
communities have decided to ban activities that
pose a large risk of contamination in those areas.
The advantage of planning prior to develop-
ment is that localities can specify growth locations
and development procedures that will minimize
later problems with ground-water quality. Taking
steps before a problem arises has the added
advantage of avoiding disruptions to existing land
use and possible legal challenges (e.g., claims of
discriminatory actions).
PRIORITIZING SOURCES OF
CONTAMINATION
Identification of the potential sources of
contamination is one of .the first steps in wellhead
protection. As mentioned above, a community
may decide to focus its inventory on specific
sources based on a perception of local threats or
needs. Even if a complete survey has been made
of all potential sources of contamination, a locality
may still wish to prioritize the sources based on
the degree of threat and the need for controls.
PRIORITIZING SOURCES OF
,/or indewg && potential risk of ground-water
jMlbttionr T7ti$ system awigts risk factors t&
sources based on considerations sfteh as
toxfcitfr eQmetitftition, nafumt protection, tevei
ofcontralsi fnd distance jeom water, wgpliest
&i$efw& mas for eachgottutim smw& me
factored w to esfablfrh a community mkmdex
comctiott of '.problems
Some activities that present a risk to ground-
water quality may be adequately regulated by
existing controls and, thus, not require further
oversight. Moreover, limits on available resources
may dictate that local governments address more
significant threats to the water supply immediately
and address additional sources as resources become
available. Some communities have developed
methods to evaluate the risk potential of sources.
Federal and State officials also may be able to
assist local governments La setting such priorities.
-------
Local Resources
A ground-water management program should
be tailored to fit the specific needs and capabilities
of a community. Therefore, many communities
have evaluated local resources that may affect the
implementation of local programs.
ADMINISTRATIVE
Most of the management tools that are
discussed in this document require some degree of
administrative activity in order for the program to
be effective. Zoning, for example, requires an
analysis of the local land-use patterns to determine
growth areas; site plan review requires a means of
reviewing applications; and design and operating
standards may require review of applications and
inspection of operations. These activities can^be
handled by a planning commission, site plan review
committee, or health or building departments in
many communities. Before adopting a particular
management tool, therefore, a community may
wish to decide who will be responsible for
implementation of the program and ensure that
the responsible agency has the time and expertise
necessary to do the job effectively.
RESOURCES
Before adopting a management tool, local
governments may wish to consider the resources
available for implementation. For example,
although volunteers can conduct a certain amount
of the ground work in identifying potential sources
and by participating in planning and site plan
review activities, they will not be able to conduct
inspections.
Similarly, programs that require the time of
health department, building department, or other
municipal personnel must be evaluated in light of
the current staffing needs and staff levels of that
department If the building department, for
instance, is already stretched to its capacity, it may
be unable to provide review of the use of new
design standards in building permit applications
without additional staff.
In some cases, current personnel do not have
the necessary expertise in the subject. The
availability of training should be looked into before
adopting particular tools or hiring new staff with
the needed skills.
ECONOMIC/POLITICAL j
Regulation of activities in the! wellhead protec-
tion area, if it is to stand up to i local review and
be accepted in the community, must recognize both
existing regulatory programs and pressures for
development. A program may be more easily
accepted by the population if it can be tied into a
program that is already in place jor can be tied to
existing local concerns. If the community has had
experience with ground-water problems in the past,
it may be more receptive to preventive steps. A
community that is actively pursuing an industrial
base, on the other hand, may be reluctant to
impose restrictions on such development if poten-
tial threats to ground-water quality are low.
LEGAL
i
Legal authority and the extent of that authority
must be considered when evaluating management
options. The police power! of the States,
established by the Tenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, has been delegated to local govern-
ment by most States. The police power encompas-
ses a broad power to legislate | on behalf of the
public health, safety, and welfare, and thus can
include regulations to protect ground water from
contamination. There are limits to this power,
based on the actions of Federal and State
regulatory authorities, the language of the enabling
laws, and Federal and State court rulings. Local
communities operate under some constitutional
constraints on their power to lact, including the
need to provide equal protection, due process of
law, and just compensation for property taken for
public use. The city attorney or other local
government attorneys can evaluate whether planned
local regulations or actions would constitute a
taking. In general, though, actions protecting
public health and safety are given broad latitude by
courts before such actions are considered takings.
Most local governments possess the power to
establish and enforce zoning and subdivision
regulations, and to protect drinking water.
Other legal issues that may affect local
management options include:
State/Federal preemption;
Delegations of local powers;
Authorities granted, or restricted
by statutes; and
Specific limitations within the
municipal charter. ;
-------
These legal issues are discussed below.
State/Federal Preemption. Courts have found
that some matters are of such general concern that
laws passed at the State or Federal level will take
precedence over local regulation. This doctrine
generally applies, however, only when the State or
Federal government has actually adopted legislation
in the specific area that local government is seeking
to regulate.
Delegations of local powers. State constitutions
are the means by which States typically delegate
police powers to local governments. Another
common source of authority is through the grant
of home rule power either by legislation or
constitutional amendments. This delegation may,
for instance, limit local police power to regulations
that do not conflict with the general laws of the
State. In many cases, the delegation may be so
broad as to be unclear. Where there appears to
be a valid case to be made for an interpretation
favoring regulation, localities may wish to weigh the
risk of a contrary interpretation by the courts and
the associated legal costs against the potential
ground-water protection benefits. Questionable
delegations of power can be referred to the State
Attorney General for clarification.
Statutes. State legislation may specifically
grant local governments the authority to adopt
ground-water protection programs. For example,
Illinois authorized local creation of a setback zone:
"The corporate authorities of each
municipality served by a com-
munity water supply well may
perform a groundwater protection
needs assessment, and may by
ordinance adopt a minimum or
maximum setback zone around a
wellhead..." Illinois Groundwater
Protection Act (PA. 85-863) ง11-
125-4.
In addition, States may reserve the authority
to regulate in certain areas. Some States, for
example, restrict the authority of localities to
regulate pesticide use.
Charter. Some communities receive their
authority to govern by a charter, granted by the
State. In such a case, the charter will be specific
as to powers. This will generally include the
authority endowed by police power.
A community may wish to conduct a pre-
liminary investigation of local needs, evaluate
Page 9
management options, and request an analysis of
preferred alternatives by the municipal attorney or
a local land-use attorney.
Existing Programs
Existing programs in a community may already
address local concerns. In addition, some Federal,
State, or regional and local programs may provide
useful information and guidance.
FEDERAL
There are several Federal statutes that govern
various aspects of ground-water protection:
SDWA (the Safe Drinking Water
Act) regulates the use of wells for
waste disposal and establishes the
Wellhead Protection Program.
Sole Source Aquifer designation
provides an additional level of
review for some Federal activities.
In addition, the SDWA provides
EPA and the States with authority
to ensure that drinking water
supplied by public water systems
meets minimum health standards.
RCRA (the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act) sets stan-
dards for the design, operation,
and cleanup of hazardous waste
facilities. RCRA also regulates
underground storage of petroleum
and other hazardous substances,
and municipal solid waste landfills,
CERCLA (the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Com-
pensation, and Liability Act), also
known as Superfund, was
established to clean up abandoned
hazardous waste sites, including
those that threaten drinking water
supplies.
SARA (Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act) Title HI
requires businesses to notify
governments of potentially
hazardous substances stored or
managed on-site. This information
can be useful in identifying
potential contamination sources.
-------
Page 10
CWA (the Clean Water Act) is
currently limited to ground water
shown to have a connection with
surface water and sets standards
for allowable pollutant discharges.
HFRA (the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act)
was established to set standards
for pesticides. Pesticides are
potential contaminants of ground-
water supplies, especially in rural
areas.
Local officials should contact Regional EPA
personnel, and State ground-water officials (see
Section 5) to obtain information on how these laws
and programs may affect local wellhead protection
plans.
STATE
State governments, under the requirements of
SDWA, are to designate a lead agency and develop
a wellhead protection program at the State level.
Officials responsible for administering this program
can provide guidance for meeting State
requirements and establishing local programs.
States can assume some of the authorities
created by RCRA, SDWA, and CWA by adopting
legislation and a regulatory program at least as
stringent as the Federal program. The State
agencies responsible for administering these
programs may be able to help determine if
enforcement of existing regulations could alleviate
local concerns, and if expertise is available to assist
local governments. Many States also have
programs related to ground-water protection that
may already provide some form of regulation of
wellhead protection areas.
REGIONAL AND LOCAL i
Local ordinances and by-laws may already be
sufficient to accomplish local goals. Local
communities may wish to examine existing local
programs to decide if stringent enforcement or
additional changes will be sufficient to accomplish
the desired goals. Finally, many States have a
network of regional agencies, | such as planning
agencies or conservation districts, that address
ground-water protection or can provide information
or assistance to local governments.
-------
SECTION 3
Page 11
CHOOSING APPROPRIATE TOOLS FOR WELLHEAD PROTECTION
Overview
A number of commonly used land-use controls,
source controls, and other tools have been found
to be useful for protecting wellhead areas. Al-
though most of these tools have been used tradi-
tionally for other purposes, many are now being
used to protect ground water.
This section describes briefly some tools used
successfully by local governments throughout the
country for ground-water protection. The purpose
here is to introduce these tools, explain how they
have been used in the past, how communities can
find innovative ways to apply them to wellhead
protection areas, and what considerations
communities should be aware of in adapting and
implementing them. This discussion is not an
exhaustive review, but simply an introduction to
what is available and what to look for. For more
information, check the written sources listed in
Section 5 or contact EPA or State ground-water
protection agencies.
The management tools described here are:
Zoning Ordinances (page 12). Zoning or-
dinances typically are comprehensive land-use
requirements designed to direct the development
of an area. Many local governments have used
zoning to restrict or regulate certain land uses
within wellhead protection areas.
Subdivision Ordinances (page 18). Subdivision
ordinances are applied to land that is divided into
two or more subunits for sale or development.
Local governments use this tool to protect wellhead
areas in which ongoing development is causing
contamination or there is inadequate well recharge.
Site Plan Review (page 19). Site plan reviews
are regulations requiring developers to submit for
approval plans for development occurring within a
given area. This tool ensures compliance with
regulations or other requirements made within a
wellhead protection area.
Design Standards (page 21). Design standards
typically are regulations that apply to the design
and construction of buildings or structures. This
tool can be used to ensure that new buildings or
structures placed within a wellhead protection area
are designed so as not to pose a threat to the
water supply.
Operating Standards (page 23). Operating
standards are regulations that apply to ongoing
land-use activities to promote safety or environ-
mental protection. Such standards can minimize
the threat to the wellhead area from ongoing
activities, such as the application of agricultural
pesticides or the storage and use of hazardous
substances.
Source Prohibitions (page 25). Source
prohibitions are regulations that prohibit the
presence or use of chemicals or hazardous activities
within a' given area. Local governments have used
restrictions on the storage or handling of large
quantities of hazardous materials within a wellhead
protection area to eliminate the threat of
contamination.
Purchase of Property or Development Rights
(page 26). The purchase of property or develop-
ment rights is a tool used by some localities to
ensure complete control of land uses in or sur-
rounding a wellhead area. This tool may be
preferable if regulatory restrictions on land use are
not politically feasible and the land purchase is
affordable.
Public Education (page 29). Public education
often consists of brochures, pamphlets, or seminars
designed to present wellhead area problems and
protection efforts to the public in an
understandable fashion. This tool promotes the
use of voluntary protection efforts and builds public
support for a community's protection program.
Ground-Water Monitoring (page 31). Ground-
water monitoring generally consists of sinking a
series of test wells and developing an ongoing
water quality testing program. This tool provides
for monitoring the quality of the ground-water
supply or the movement of a contaminant plume.
Household Hazardous Waste Collection
(page 32). Residential hazardous waste
management programs can be designed to reduce
the quantity of household hazardous waste being
disposed of improperly. This program has been
used in localities where municipal landfills
potentially threaten ground water due to improper
household waste disposal in the wellhead area.
Water Conservation (page 34). Water conser-
vation can encourage individual or commercial/
industrial users to limit their water use. This tool
-------
age
may reduce or eliminate contamination of ground-
water supplies through saltwater intrusion.
Other Methods (page 35). Many communities
are using innovative methods that combine
elements of the previous management tools. Some
create new management tools of their own.
Zoning Ordinances
DESCRIPTION
Zoning is a tool that traditionally has been
used to control development in a comprehensive,
planned manner. A locality might be able to
modify an existing zoning ordinance, or draft a
new ordinance, to incorporate wellhead protection
areas into a comprehensive plan. This section
describes briefly how zoning has been used and
then discusses how localities can meet specific
wellhead area protection needs.
Zoning consists of dividing a municipality into
districts and applying land-use regulations uniform-
ly throughout each district. Traditionally, zoning
has been used to separate incompatible land uses,
such as residential, commercial, and industrial uses.
Applied in this manner, zoning both defines what
kind of general land use can occur within a given
district and specifies a set of applicable regulations
for that district.
Exhibit 3 presents a hypothetical locality with
a typical zoning ordinance in place. In this ex-
ample, the zones were not assigned with municipal
well sites in mind and hence the area surrounding
the wells was zoned for light industrial use.
Because this parcel of land has not yet been
developed, several options for better protection of
the wellhead area may be available. This same
exhibit will be modified further in the text to
illustrate how down-zoning may be applied to the
community and how overlay zoning may be used
in the wellhead protection area.
Zoning has been used as a tool to protect
wellhead areas from contamination or inadequate
ground-water recharge in a number of ways,
depending on the level of development surrounding
the wellfields. Zoning is useful primarily for
directing future development in a planned fashion,
as opposed to changing existing, developed condi-
tions. Once an area is developed for industrial
use, it may be difficult to re-zone that area for
commercial or residential use.
If a wellhead area currently is undeveloped
and unzoned, the most direct approach for protect-
ing that area is to zone the area for some use
more compatible with ground-yater protection.
Many communities have found that uses that are
compatible with ground-water protection include
low-density residential use (with limited or
prohibited septic system use) and open space.
These uses are generally compatible with wellhead
protection because they typically do not involve the
use or transport of large quantities of hazardous
materials. Also, these uses typically do not create
large areas of impervious surfaces that might
hinder ground-water recharge. Other uses, such as
light industrial activities, might be compatible if
communities take precautions against the improper
storage or use of hazardous substances.
Down-zoning. If a wellhead area is already
zoned but is not yet developed, the community
could "down-zone" that area fco a use more
compatible with ground-water protection. Down-
zoning refers to changing an established zone to a
use that is less intensive (i.e;., with a lower
allowable density) than the originally designated
use. Exhibit 4, for example, illustrates how the
hypothetical community presented in Exhibit 3
could down-zone the zones surrounding its wells to
promote better wellhead protection. In this
hypothetical example, the town would change the
light industrial use designation of the zone
surrounding the well sites to residential use.
Phase-ins. If a wellhead area is zoned and
developed in a manner not readily compatible with
wellhead protection, some protective measures may
be possible by phasing-in zoning requirements over
time. If the wellhead area is surrounded by heavy
industrial plants, for example, a j community could
require that no new industrial plants can locate
within the wellhead area and that^ once then- useful
lives were complete, all existing facilities must be
shut down and decontaminated. Moreover, existing
facilities might be barred from expanding their
operations. Although this approach may take some
time to be implemented fully, it does allow the use
of zoning despite existing, incompatible
development patterns. Other management tools,
such as source restrictions, can ialso be phased-in
to avoid disruptions in developed areas.
i
In addition to these relatively simple zoning
approaches, a wide variety of more specialized and
sophisticated zoning methods might also be useful
for wellhead area protection. As noted above,
zoning typically involves both designating allowable
general land uses, such as residential use, and
further specifying particular regulations, such as
-------
EXHIBIT 3
Locality With
Typical Zoning Ordinance
Page 13
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
(Undeveloped)
Scale: 1" = 1 mile
Legend:
Municipal Water Supply Well
Ground-Water Flow
5r3 Wetland
-------
14
EXHIBIT 4
Zoning Modified to Change From
Light Industrial to Residential
RESIDENTIAL
(Undeveloped)
RESIDENTIAL
(Undeveloped)
Scale: 1" = 1mile
Legend:
Municipal Water Supply Well
Ground-Water Flow
Wetland
-------
limiting the use of septic systems. The zoning
variations presented here either emphasize one
aspect of this process or combine zoning with other
land management tools to allow effective wellhead
area protection. The remainder of this section
briefly describes these zoning variations and then
offers some general considerations for the use of
zoning for wellhead area management and
protection.
Large-lot zoning. Large-lot zoning applies to
residential use zones and requires, for example, 5-
to 20-acre or larger lot sizes. Communities have
found that such zoning is particularly useful for
reducing the quantity and impact of septic system
leachate to a water supply aquifer or for preserv-
ing open land in order to facilitate aquifer
recharge.
Conditional Zoning. Conditional zoning may
apply within a standard zone or may be used in
the absence of clearly delineated zones. The idea
behind this technique is that certain land uses (e.g.,
single family housing) are allowed while other uses
(e.g., apartment complexes) are allowed only under
specified conditions (e.g., no multi-family structure
may use a septic sytsem). The purpose of this tool
is to clarify tie acceptability of different land uses
and to ensure that potentially harmful activities are
addressed adequately. This tool is probably most
effective if used in combination with site plan
review, which is discussed in more detail below.
Floating Zones. Floating zones are defined by
specified land conditions and may not necessarily
be dearly delineated on a zoning map. The
specified conditions that might bring floating zone
restrictions into effect might include, for example,
the presence of wetlands or a wellhead area.
Typically, developers must demonstrate either that
their projects do not lie within an area subject to
floating zone limits or, if they do, that applicable
restrictions are being met by the proposed
development. Because the burden of proof is on
the developer, floating zones might be a useful
way to protect wellhead areas without actually
defining those areas on a map. For example, a
community could specify that development may not
occur within a five-year time of travel area
surrounding a well and then require developers to
demonstrate whether they fall into such a zone.
The use of a site plan review in combination with
a floating zone requirement might help to ensure
that undesirable activities are not occurring within
wellhead areas or that adequate precautions are
being taken.
Page 15
Cluster Zoning and Planned Unit Develop-
ments (PUDs). Cluster zoning, used primarily to
control residential development, involves increasing
densities within sections of a single zone while the
remaining areas of the zone are left in open space.
Development that increases the density of the area
is allowed only if the average density throughout
the entire zone remains at or below the designated
density for that zone. For example, as long as the
average density within a zone remains at five units
per acre, it does not matter whether those units
are spread evenly throughout the zone or
"clustered" in a corner of the zone. PUDs are
essentially cluster zoning developments on a large
scale. The purpose of both of these methods is to
increase density while maximizing open space.
Incentive or Bonus Zoning. Incentive zoning
typically is used as a way of promoting the use of
clustered zones. Incentive zoning might work by
allowing 15 houses per acre rather than 10 houses
per acre (thus producing a five-house bonus for
the developer) as long as the developer takes
actions to protect a wellhead area, such as
increasing recharge by maximizing open space.
This tool can be useful if clustering is not required.
Overlay Zoning. Overlay zoning involves
taking an existing zoned area and overlaying
additionally defined zones for environmental or
other purposes. Overlay zones need not conform
to the boundaries of existing zones. Overlay zoning
typically is administered by plotting an opaque map
that delineates existing zones (e.g., residential,
commercial, industrial) and then using transparent
maps to delineate the overlay zone itself (e.g., a
wellhead protection area). This tool may be
particularly useful for adopting wellhead protection
zones and regulations in a municipality that already
has a standard zoning ordinance.
Exhibit 5 illustrates the use of an overlay zone
for the hypothetical community presented in Exhibit
3. In this example, the overlay zone is the
wellhead protection area itself. Only those areas
actually within the overlay zone become subject to
special wellhead protection measures. In this case,
the areas within the wellhead protection area are
designated as a wellhead area protection district in
addition to the original designation. Creating a
wellhead area protection district may involve, for
example, restricting the use of septic systems or
requiring lower density residential development.
One advantage of using an overlay zone is that it
can target changes to wellhead areas alone and
allow uses outside the overlay zone to continue.
Several of the land management tools discussed
below, such as site plan reviews, design and
-------
EXHIBIT 5
Wellhead Protection Overlay Zone Is
Added to Existing Zoning
RESIDENTIAL
(Undeveloped)
Legend:
Municipal Water Supply Well
Flow
'
Overlay District
Wetland
-------
Pagel?
operating standards, and source prohibitions, might
be especially effective when applied within wellhead
area overlay zones.
CONSIDERATIONS
Any one of the above zoning methods may be
useful in protecting wellhead areas if a community
already has a zoning ordinance in place or if it is
seeking the kind of comprehensive land-use
planning that zoning facilitates. In choosing the
appropriate approach, a locality should consider its
own needs and resources carefully and tailor its
efforts accordingly (e.g., down-zoning is less
effective in developed areas). Moreover, regardless
of the zoning method chosen to protect the
wellhead area, several aspects of zoning in general
should be considered.
There are a number of other legal issues to
consider. Be aware that ordinances which are
unnecessarily restrictive or discriminatory, especially
if they exceed local home rule powers, may be
struck down by the courts. Moreover, stringent
regulations that cause excessive diminution of
property values can be deemed a "regulatory
taking" by the courts, thus necessitating the
payment of "just compensation" to affected parties.
One way to prevent litigation is for the local
government's legal counsel to review regulatory
programs for unnecessary stringency.
Zoning should be given some practical
consideration as well. As noted above, zoning is
primarily a tool for directing the development of
land in a desirable manner. If local wellhead areas
are already largely developed, down-zoning may not
be the most effective or timely approach for
protecting the wellhead areas. Nonetheless, down-
zoning or one or more of the zoning variations
described above may be useful for the reduction of
potential contamination threats in already
developed wellhead protection areas.
A final aspect of zoning to consider is its
political feasibility. Although one of the oldest
and most established land-use tools throughout the
United States, zoning involves telling people what
they can and cannot do with their land. Enacting
a zoning ordinance, therefore, can be politically
contentious. Moreover, because one political
benefit that zoning produces is the knowledge that
land use in a given area will be stable and
consistent, changing an existing zoning designation
may prove to be more contentious than creating
the zone in the first place.
2ONMฎ CAN BE AN
WELLHEAD AREA PROTECTION TOOL
Jefferson County, Wisconsin, enacted % zoning
ordfoame in l%75 (hat wattim a conditional w&
patriot for locating animal feet&tg operations in
order to protect neighborfag wtd md wat&
auality, "The ordinance, vthidh employs a cam-
bfaatfott &/ wnje& f&
A mm&er of mtiwr pwbfem$ have, be&t
encountered m&i this ordinance* for example,
th& Zoning AdmM$tratdrt$ tkm*$&$6n office
was swamped witJt data. Also, smalt acreage
feedtet operations on less than 35 tare* am not
included wffiin me^ordmanve although they are
responsible far considera&fe manure disposal
and water quality problems. Al$a> ^easftlsg
feedtots are not regulated by the otdtoatui&
atthottgfa they are responsible for considerable
mmure disposal md water quaฎฎ ptobtem,
Moreover* fhe State of Wisconsin incorporated w
ti& WP&ES permit approval process wtes md
requirements that preempt the county'? rules yet
leave a gap in coverage. , ,
Despite these problems* mostfarmm have been
Miffing fa cooperate* The County Zoning
Adtninismt&r is attempting to resolve the
problems by simplifying and organising the
necessary data handling and attatysis, Also, he
is 'requesting that small acreage farms? be regu-
lated and that the gap in coverage between foe
State law and the county ordinance be closed,ฎ
-------
Subdivision Ordinances
DESCRIPTION
Another tool that local governments might be
able to adapt for protecting wellhead areas is a
subdivision ordinance. Like zoning, the authority
to impose subdivision regulations to control land
use is delegated by the State to a locality. Unlike
zoning, however, subdivision regulations apply only
when land is actually divided for sale or
development. Subdivision ordinances, therefore,
are useful primarily for controlling future
development. Subdivision ordinances also require
less effort by the municipality, and may be less
objectionable to town residents, because such
ordinances typically do not involve the comprehen-
sive planning and control required by zoning. If
a comprehensive planning effort is unnecessary or
infeasible, a subdivision ordinance might be a
useful tool for controlling development and perhaps
applying other protective regulations within
wellhead areas. This section describes how
subdivision ordinances typically work and how
communities might adopt subdivision ordinances to
meet local wellhead area protection needs.
Subdivision ordinances are ordinances that
apply when a parcel of land is divided into two or
more lots for sale or development and are often
implemented as part of an overall zoning program
(e.g., in metropolitan areas). The primary purpose
of subdivision regulation is to control development
to ensure that growth does not outpace local
infrastructure (e.g., roads, schools, and fire
protection). Traditionally, the benefits of sub-
division ordinances have been their requirements
for improvements to the infrastructure, reservation
of land for public parks or schools, and the use of
design and construction standards.
Often the only form of land-use control in
rural areas, subdivision ordinances can be applied
to a certain size of development (i.e., the number
of the lots being created), or the timing of
development (ie., all at once versus a small
number of parcels per year). Moreover, the types
of requirements made, such as how much land
must be set aside for open space, and the types of
exemptions allowed, such as land transfers within
families, can vary widely depending on what the
locality's development goals are.
As noted above, a subdivision ordinance used
for wellhead area protection will resemble a zoning
ordinance in a number of ways. For example, a
subdivision ordinance will be useful for directing
the development of an area but will not be useful
for changing existing development; patterns. Also
like zoning, a subdivision ordinance can be tailored
to apply only in certain areas, such as wellhead
areas, and impose basic density: or open space
requirements for the sake of preventing wellhead
area contamination and promoting aquifer recharge.
Finally, both zoning and subdivision ordinances can
be combined easily with other, more specialized or
sophisticated land management tools, such as site
plan reviews, design and operating standards, or
source prohibitions, to create effective wellhead
area protection programs.
If local wellfields are located hi an
undeveloped area that might be subject to future
subdivision and development, local governments
might be able to protect wellhead areas effectively
by using a subdivision ordinance. One approach
that has been used requires that any subdivision
occurring within a wellhead protection area follow
minimum density standards, such [as five-acre lots,
or use low leakage sewers and; advanced water
treatment facilities.
USJJSNS SUBDIVISION OICDINANCES
WATJ2&
Austin,
that teeo&xtetis: fame &ff&ฎt& tme$ w*Wป
<3?V? wafer &tppfy aqazjfar nmhwrgp
Austin's sttUtotufott ordinance,
fe allowed ft? ocmr wtftfn "(zriftVa? water
few d&itfty
dweloprnwi; is atftomd within
If some degree of development already has
taken place around a wellhead area, or if a
hydrogeologic study indicates that the wellhead
protection area is in danger of being contaminated,
subdivision ordinances also can be combined with
source control regulations. For example, a
community could prohibit the placement of
hazardous materials storage containers in the
wellhead area and could also require that any new
or additional subdivision and development taking
place in the wellhead areas incorporate appropriate
design and operating standards.
In general, the usefulness of a subdivision
ordinance will depend primarily on the extent of
development surrounding well sites and whether
future development will entail the subdivision of
existing land parcels. With little or no
development within large parcels of undivided land,
-------
Page 19
a wide variety of subdivision ordinance options
may be available. Alternatively, if an area is fully
subdivided into small units, a subdivision ordinance
will be of limited utility in protecting a wellhead
area.
CONSIDERATIONS
A subdivision ordinance designed for wellhead
protection will likely be similar to a zoning
ordinance in that regulations will be applied to
development activities in limited or specified areas.
If a community's primary goal is to ensure only
that whatever development takes place does not
threaten wellhead areas, and not to control land
use outside of wellhead areas, then a subdivision
ordinance might be more appropriate than a
comprehensive zoning ordinance. On the other
hand, subdivision regulations only apply, by defini-
tion, when a parcel of land is divided for develop-
ment purposes. If the concern is to address any
kind of development regardless of whether the land
is actually divided into subunits, then zoning might
be a more effective wellhead area protection tool
than a subdivision ordinance. Larger metropolitan
areas often combine subdivision ordinances with
zoning programs.
Establishing a subdivision ordinance has legal
implications for a community. As with zoning,
subdivision regulations can be challenged in court
for being discriminatory or exclusionary if they are
not applied consistently within an area or across
residential or industrial uses. Moreover, a
subdivision ordinance that causes a significant
diminution of property values might be construed
as a "regulatory taking" and so require just
compensation to affected parties. Regulations that
are especially stringent also might be litigated for
exceeding the locality's home rule powers, unless
the locality can demonstrate that the regulation is
reasonable and necessary to protect the public
welfare.
A final aspect of subdivision regulation that
should be considered is its political feasibility. As
with zoning, subdivision regulation is a common
and generally accepted municipal land-use control
authority. Nonetheless, subdivision ordinances limit
what land owners can do with their land and so
can be contentious. Any effort to enact a
subdivision ordinance could be accompanied by an
active effort to explain why wellhead areas need
protection and why the ordinance being proposed
is appropriate.
GROWTH M&NA<3iMBNT ,,
A untgtte tippmatfo toot mtgftt Jซ? meftA far
protesting wellhead areas, iftt is within m^area
fftat kt& n&t yet kewt tiewtoj&4 is'&wtfo
management ' A gqwitt management progtont
em be implemented vsittg a zoning ordinance,
subdivision ordinance, or bath.
gvwtii management
haw &#w wed to mm*
projects, suck ait resldenM developments or
of an adequate infrastructure* Developments
wkj&t to phased gmQi fe^tt^em6mf for-
example, might be required fa demonstrate tfiat
schools either exist already or will be provided 0s
of this regulatory approach is (hat development
otcur& in stable, reMvety discrete phases ow a
nttmfrer of yews rather than a& at. ow&
A grawfft manojgemmt progam might be,
to pwtect mtihwd moat* m a mtmtoe? of wajss
For example? a local government might stipulate
that development can tote place $$tfป a,
weflh&id area onfy if ewsfaig wisfe)wt&<
toilectim md -treatment systems
-------
Jtragc
standards, or simply might have to meet a general
condition, such as a requirement that new
developments must be compatible with surrounding
land uses. If the reviewing authority determines
that the proposed plan represents an incompatible
use, does not meet required standards, or would
otherwise overwhelm the infrastructure, then the
board usually either will reject the plan outright or
accept the plan upon conditional modifications.
A site plan review requirement can be an
exceptionally useful tool for implementing a
wellhead protection program because it is an
effective mechanism for reviewing and enforcing
other requirements. If a site plan review is
required as part of a zoning or subdivision or-
dinance, for example, then the site plan review
becomes the means for ensuring that, before any
development begins, it will comply with the various
requirements of that ordinance. Some of the more
important requirements of the zoning or subdivision
ordinance, in turn, might be design and operating
standards or source prohibitions designed to protect
wellhead areas from contamination or adverse
impacts on ground-water recharge.
Moreover, the more sophisticated and complex
a wellhead area protection ordinance is, the more
useful a comprehensive review process will be for
ensuring that all aspects of the regulations are
being addressed. This is especially true when site
plan reviews are required with conditional or
floating zoning, where various land uses are
allowed only under specified conditions.
CONSIDERATIONS
Communities have encountered several
constraints in the use of a site plan review
requirement for wellhead area protection efforts.
First, because a site plan review ordinance requires,
by definition, that plans be submitted for review,
a locality must have sufficient administrative
resources and technical expertise to actually
perform the review. Even though a key advantage
of a site plan review requirement is that the
burden of proof is placed on the developer, the
more technically complex the site plan review
requirements, the more time and expertise
reviewers must have.
A second aspect of the site plan review process
to consider is that the less precise the requirements
being reviewed, the more difficult it will be to
evaluate reviews consistently and the more likely
it is that requirements will be
sura;
REVIEWS cm
Vestal, Kew 1?Qrf$ & <* medium-sized town
located in fhe ewftal pott of ffte State, During
the tatฎ ISWs and into the earfy IP80*s> fae
Town Board faeme t&nc&ned about tit*
protection a/ its water vujppty aqw/er became of
fodustttet spffls. of ttaaaf&ws mat&t&ts and #t&
tawn*s grawjwg industrial
In response to these canvem% hydrogeologic
a&ttiotts were MtteteA and, !ป 198% on
ifir District Map w& completed tdentiftfag
recharge md #th& sensijivt wn& that
pratection' In addition, the tf&w &oard
passed an wdinwee to Pebrwy
establishing a site ptan ซn*?w and
process f&? new &ฎ>efo$ment, t
w&twte rfwtimn a. spectolprnntofor my
new
when the me metis w &%<&& aw of
Maww ft) any 4evvfep*nent$ real property
has toefinat
aiifltarity to grant the"permift denp the permit OF
grant foe permit with st&ted tonMons, 3%fe
ffies the Town Roard authority to reqwm steps
to retime hazards ossodated with w#
san&rttetioti and facilities^ If tfie permit is
panted, the applicant if reguiretf, to use fhe best
available means io prevent contamination ctfthe
aquifer, fh& Tom Board retains the authority
to r&qtire ffie applicant to improve &d$ting
fatfMes or commit new ones whm a potential
hazard is identified or to keep up with the
state of technot(>g?&
-------
Page 21
- SEONMG &NB sim
PLAN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
Mount Airy, Maryland, is a smattt primarily
wrt& torn mat of BsMtnote foot &ซ been
experiencing rapid and generally uncontrolled
devefopmmt over the pwtsevemt yew*- Metent
hydrngeotogic stadias indicate that additional
development wffitin Afc Aity*& mttfteltf. wthatse
areas, even to densities otherwise permitted, could
be &@ected to te&tce permeable surface areas
sufficiently to reduce natural recharge and result
in wafer shortages, "
Tom, Council, tn response to this siftfationr
amended the Town's subdivision regulations ta
give the Council authority to regulate the density
of development based on anticipated demands
and impacts on the water supply and quality,
Aquifer recharge areas were identified, md an
ov&jteylzonfag district w<& e$tt&Mte& T3t&
ordinance also requires that a site plan be
prepared by <* professional bydrogeotqgst md
renewed and approved by the Town Council
md- Plait&teg Commission, 33te plm must
delineate the development within the recharge
amtt wd contain a projection of water demand
and its effect upon aquifer recharge rates. If the
Council determines that the development does
not Jfe wtthm. any zeeharge area,, the developer
map pmceed with tite nomtat processing of foe
development plan*
T!h& Council or the Planning Commmmi may
reject any ptans wMch impose adverse or negative
impacts upon the aquifer recharge rate or wafer
gttd%ซ The; developer is $ten the tight to adjust
plans and re-submit them for review* Plans
ปMch eause more tkw a IQp¢ de&ease in
u sitefs recharge rate axe refected immediate!}?.
flam also are rejected for development that
would me enough water to create a, water
demmdm the stteg-eatertHftn foe grom&water
reckon^ rate. The Town &mncit and Planning
Commission also mo? wjeet plow based on
othere
-------
Page 22
adverse weather to prevent an accidental release of
materials. Yet another design standard that would
be useful for ensuring that a wellhead area has
adequate recharge might be to limit the area of
impervious surfaces.
VARIOUS DESIGN S3&NDARDS-
CAN m USED m HtoTJscT
GRGBND WATER
Jn the earfy IWPs, Meridian Towttsftlp,
Mfehlgani etyerimced a period of rapid gwwfa
As a result, residents and various tqufoshtp
agencies believed (hat *fc?> growth wouM *$e<#
adversely the shallow aquifers which wppty the
township with *& potcfrte water sttppfy* Specific
concern way expressed regarding development of
critical argas necessary for aquifer recharge*
Based on (his concern, the township adopted a
zoning ordinance that ttfriWiafeft m wertay
zoning district with tandrwe resttictfarts. focusing
on type? of development and design standards
for storage of hazardous mat&tittter XtiaMtion,
design Standards and construction restrictions,
suc/t as providing compensating, excavation for
any fill placed m the flood plow^ were jtsed to
reduce the magnitude and frequency of flooding.
these standards at$
-------
Page 23
Facilities managing nuclear
materials; and
Surface mines.
For information on the Federal or State programs
applicable to these potential sources, contact
Regional EPA Ground-Water Representatives or
State ground-water protection agencies (listed in
Section 5).
Another factor to consider when drafting a
design standard is that design standards as a land-
use tool may not address existing conditions
effectively because they generally apply only to the
design and construction of new development
projects. Nonetheless, design standards may be
useful for controlling any modifications to existing
developed areas or other land uses.
A final consideration with regard to design
standards concerns coordination with operating
standards to ensure the continued effectiveness of
protection efforts. Communities using both types
of standards have designed both standards at the
same time to make sure they are compatible. For
example, an operating standard requiring the
periodic testing of secondary containment systems
may be useful if such systems are required as a
design standard.
Operating Standards
DESCRIPTION
An operating standard requirement along with
a design standard requirement might be a useful
tool for protecting a wellhead protection area. As
with design standards, operating standards, such
as those applied to handlers or transporters of
toxic chemicals, are designed to ensure the safety
of workers or other parties. Operating standards
can also be used to protect the environment by
preventing or controlling releases of contaminants.
If wellhead areas are surrounded by land-use
practices that involve the storage or use of hazar-
dous materials, communities may use operating
standards effectively to protect those wellhead
areas.
Operating standards designed to protect
wellhead areas probably would take the form of
agricultural or industrial/commercial best manage-
ment practices. Best management practices
(BMPs) generally define a set of standard
operating procedures that can be used in a
particular industry or commercial activity to limit
BMPs CAH BE
CTSEB TQ PftOTBCT GRQBNfl WATER
The farming and grazing area In the central
portion of M&mtet Qtawd Grand Mwd is
facing a serious problem of elevated nitrate
may stem /mm overuse of commercial fertilizer*
In response to this problem^ the Central Platte
a three-phase water protection program* Phase
1 mas we tho&& ซ*ft gvwd:>mter
concentrations of nitrate less than 123 parts per
miflfon (ppm), mtgttfy4t0rfat&ป foe Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL> To protect these
or ea&tlw use of cammmiatf&tiHz&s during the '
is not allowed on sanity soils*
Phase 2 areas &e those having ground-water
von&mtitct&QW ety dollar spent on sompMg
and analysis., four dollars are saved in fertilizer
'tests. Becattte the prog-am has been in effect
for ority one yea^ however, actual decreases in
th& nitrate totteenfraMow in th& ground water
have not yet been observed^!-
-------
Page 24
the threat to the environment posed by ongoing
processes, such as pesticide application or the
management of hazardous substances. Localities
can either impose mandatory BMPs or request the
voluntary use of BMPs. Although mandatory
BMPs are potentially more effective, they require
enforcement and may raise political and legal
opposition. Voluntary BMPs, on the other hand,
may be more politically acceptable but also may
require incentives or an educational campaign to
promote their use. Because the ongoing
management or use of hazardous substances can
pose a significant threat to wellhead areas, BMPs
might be an integral part of a protection program.
Intensive agricultural practices, where large
quantities of tone pesticides, herbicides, and
fertilizers are applied to the land and can infiltrate
within local wellhead areas, represent one land use
that might be addressed successfully by BMPs,
such as integrated pest management. These BMPs
might also include minimal chemical application,
chemical application only during dry periods when
infiltration is slow, and erosion and sedimentation
controls.
Another land use that might threaten wellhead
protection areas and could be mitigated by operat-
ing standards or BMPs is activities that require
the storage or handling of hazardous materials.
Such activities include dry cleaners, auto service
stations, industrial plants, trucking and railroad
facilities, and airports. Standards that might be
useful for these types of activities might include
restrictions on hazardous materials storage or dis-
posal, limits on or collection systems for the use of
road salts and de-icing chemicals, and requirements
for periodic testing and system checks.
EPA and several States have produced a
number of publications describing the kinds of
agricultural and industrial/commercial activities
that might pose a threat to ground water and what
kinds of BMPs may be used to reduce those
threats (e.g., CCAMP's Guide to Contamination
Sources for Wellhead Protection, July 1988). As a
locality develops its wellhead protection program,
it might review the ongoing activities within
wellhead areas, review publications discussing
contamination threats and appropriate BMPs, and
devise an operating standard with voluntary or
mandatory BMPs that could minimise or eliminate
potential threats.
DESIGN AND Q*EMTM<|. STANDARDS
CAN C>MPXฃ5MEJtt EACH OTHER
Rcnton, Washington, is a small industrialized
city of appwtfmatety 3$06& resident* located
near Seattle* Menfon re~K.es on ,the Cqdap River
$Af&, wMcti is wlmrabte to contamiaatim,
/ซ 1083, * tanker truck carrying hazardous
material overturned an ft *o<*4 witbm ItiQfeet of
the m&M While this toOte* 'W not affect
wafer quafity it did force &te <% to
tit !0$4 Renfan mdate4 a program foe&sfng an
hydrog&ol&gc characterization, tonttmfamt
source inventory, preventive measvm an4
ordinance development, mdpatffc educa&m to
protect the townfy gvitnd-water suppty $oan
after tstabtidtfog a monitoring jpM&am, tit* ety
discovered&owd-Wter<;ontaminati(>n in several
locations. This contatnfoatfm'wais traced bank
fa ซ fealang fuel storage tank and several smatf
businesses. Including 'garages and dry cleaning
facilities;, which were disposing of hazardous
waste imptoperty, fa adMon, teaks were
ered at several petroleum pipelines*
In response to these problems, feenfan developed
three wdinmces focusing on Imfcus* controls
and other preventive measwe& In addition fa
tirdfamcat esttibttshing agttff&lpr&tec8m zones
and regulations foritew hazardous waste storage
facilities, Retitan enacted it secondary
containment ordinance employing two important,
wmpt&nentttiy design (wd op&atfog stwtilarfa
directed of protecting ffte water quality of the
wetiftelet, Ftt&t, the ordinance 'applies Win&tnt
construction standards, including a requirement
for secondary 'containment $mmm far new
facilities that store hazardous material. Second^
the ordinance applies special monitoring
standards for existing faciii^ including a
tequtwient far monitoring 'mlti and water
testing. As of September 1988, both ordinances
awaiting final approval and have yet to b&
CONSIDERATIONS
Localities considering the use of an operating
standard requirement might also consider several
additional aspects of operating standards. First,
like design standards, drafting of operating
standards may require considerable technical
expertise.
-------
Page 25
Second, again like design standards, operating
standards are most effective when used as part of
a comprehensive wellhead protection approach that
is based on zoning or subdivision ordinances and
combined with site plan reviews. This integrated
combination of took is likely to provide a more
effective program than would be possible with the
use of a single tool. Operating standards are often
effectively implemented through by-laws, board of
health regulations, or performance standards.
Useful operating standards might follow
directly from development projects that incorporate
design standards, such as secondary containment
systems, that might require periodic testing and
replacement. Design and operating standards can
complement each other and each should be
designed with the other in mind.
Source Prohibitions
DESCRIPTION
Source prohibitions, where the storage or use
of dangerous materials is prohibited from a defined
area, have become a common method for
protecting human health and the environment.
For example, hazardous chemicals that are highly
volatile, caustic, or toxic often are prohibited from
use or storage in large quantities in residential
areas. Many localities also are now prohibiting
the storage or handling of hazardous materials
where the release of those chemicals could pose a
threat to surface or ground-water supplies. Where
a wellhead area is sufficiently vulnerable so that
design and operating standards would not be fully
protective, or where there is no development in the
wellhead area, source prohibitions have been shown
to be a useful wellhead protection tool.
Source prohibition regulations generally take
the form of either prohibitions against certain kinds
of activities that typically require the use of
hazardous materials or restrictions on the use of
specific hazardous materials. Activities that typi-
cally involve the use of hazardous materials and so
might be prohibited within the wellhead protection
area include:
Agriculture;
Junk yards;
Machine shops;
Landfills; and
Septic systems.
Communities can refer to the list of sources that
commonly pose a threat to ground water presented
SOURCE PROHIBITIONS OFTEN ARE
APPLIED tVETHIN A
foe wrty mtfs, Brokings, Souife
a population of about l^tiQQ, Became
tmc&ned ab&ut iwr&tstog titrate terete
discovered in private welts. A study undertaken
to identijfr potential sowm &f cotttamteatim
determined that the aquifer was susceptible fa
agicuMtd and iAduslrial pottu&m, M W84, a
warehouse storing over 1QO,DQ& pounds of
pesfeides ma h&ftidd&t catigtt fire, the
chemicals mixed with water, and threatened
neafoy sfrwm w& ponds, %PA designated ffte
area around the warehouse as a Supetfiind site,
md cfemup me&sitwf mre impfansnted^ foot
saved the aquifer /mm severe
In response to &tese events, the Town Comnas-
sfon- cutr&ttty is fynpt&nettting ซ series of
ordinances that peas on zoning and land-use
emirate (0 protect ffte *p$r from other
potential pollution sources* Specific emphasis
is ftoc&& on wgutotittg tight industry, especiatty
electronic manitfaetaeers and others that stare
large quantities of kazardtm materials* md
warehouses that store faAtizers and pesticides
far farming, JTป 1985, tydrageofogtc studies wm
completed, and #n Aquifer Cri&cal /mjpaet Zone "
was established, Within this zone, tfw 8wir&)tt&
Material Ordinance prohibits 8t use, including tt
map of where the chemical? are
in Section 2 of this document (Exhibit 2), from
which the above list was drawn, to determine
whether any of these activities may be allowed
within wellhead areas. Specific hazardous materials
that might be prohibited within the wellhead area
include:
Heavy metals;
Solvents;
Petroleum products; and
Radioactive materials.
The list in Exhibit 2 is not exhaustive and, although
several sources were noted, many activities might
use or produce these kinds of substances.
Handbooks and guidance from EPA, States, and
regional agencies may help determine the kinds of
materials localities might consider restricting in
wellhead areas.
-------
CONSIDERATIONS
While source prohibitions are highly effective
for removing a contamination threat, they are also
stringent regulations. Before source prohibitions
are established, therefore, localities might want to
perform initial hydrogeologic studies in order to
determine whether aquifers are vulnerable to
contamination. This is especially true if sources
subject to prohibition already exist within the
wellhead protection area.
One way to mitigate the adverse impacts of
source prohibitions is to phase-in the requirements
over time. In dealing with underground storage
tanks, for example, communities could ban the
placement of new tanks within the wellhead
protection area while not requiring that existing
tanks be removed immediately. Replacement of
existing tanks at the end of their service lives could
be prohibited. This phased approach limits the
economic impact of the prohibition.
Finally, while source prohibitions will work by
themselves, they probably are most effective when
used as part of a comprehensive program and are
applied, for example, only in the most vulnerable
areas of the wellhead protection area.
Purchase of Property or
Development Rights
DESCRIPTION
Meaningful protection of ground-water
resources requires control over activities on lands
that feed water to an aquifer. Wellhead protection
areas can encompass large amounts of land (e.g.,
a protection area with a radius of two miles around
a well is over 8,000 acres). The surest method for
a community to establish control over a parcel of
land is through purchase of the property.
Ownership of land can be thought of as a "bundle
of rights," including surface use rights, mineral
rights, air rights, and the right to control access to
the land. In seeking to acquire land, local
governments may target the entire bundle of rights
(full or "fee simple" title) or a more limited set of
rights (partial interests). The choice depends on
practical factors, such as the purpose of the
acquisition and local financial resources.
Whatever the type of property interest to be
acquired, local government officials have two basic
means of acquiring land:
SOซRE
AS
A
PROGRAM
*
Nassau ปM Suffolk Cซซtatleซ, New Yor^ have
been, innovators in ffie development of growd-
a&, protection- programs. nto interest and
activity lias targety been fa response to
contamination tt&0ctote4ytfitt yfoaniitaiim md
agriculture,. Portions of &e mtl#-tayer$$ txgittfm
under$>ingL0n8&tan& rime kofo Nassau md
Suffolk Gaunties are toeate^ are eofttaramated
wd cm m fonger be used its potabfe water
supplies* "..
Bffiffis'in these counties to protect graqnd water
focus m two primary otyectim; (1) measures
that prevent potential pollution /ซ ftpse areas
where &&un# water meets drteMng water
standards, w4 (2) measures thatprofapte miter
cQft&ewitilan an&maximfce Afefc guatity mfoat&t
in area? whfcti are Grjtictil ta fttgiifer recharge.
In addition 10 &>ning md other land
t(mtwt$> Nassau and SuffoBt Counties htm
incktdetf fo titejr Smitarf M& prohibit the
establishment &r apawion
-------
Page 27
controversy that can undermine political support
for public land acquisition.
Acquisition of fee simple interests. As a fee
simple owner, a local government has the fullest
measure of control over land uses. The community
can benefit by establishing parkland, recreation
facilities, or other community-oriented land uses.
The property can also be set aside for resource
conservation purposes, with public access restricted
to a greater or lesser degree depending on the
impact of human activities on the resources to be
protected. Numerous communities around the
country, for example, have acquired lands identified
as critical for water supply protection purposes,
.including Manchester, New Hampshire;
Schenectady, New York; and Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania.
Acquisition of partial interests. Short of
purchasing land outright, localities may be able to
protect ground-water resources by purchasing
partial interests in properties located in wellhead
protection areas. Acquisition of partial interests
typically takes one of two forms acquisition of
conservation easements (sometimes referred to as
"purchase of development rights") and restrictive
covenants. While partial interests do not convey
total control over a parcel of land, there are
certain advantages over fee simple interest:
The community is not burdened
with maintaining the property,
The property remains on the tax
rolls; and
Lower costs allows the community
to obtain interest in more parcels.
Conservation easements are a form of "neg-
ative easement," so called because they convey to
the easement holder the right to prevent a
landowner from taking specified actions on the
property covered by the easement. Negative
easements are highly flexible legal instruments that
can be used to protect a wide variety of resources,
including ground water, while permitting land-
owners to continue many productive uses of their
land. An easement used for wellhead protection
must be carefully crafted to ensure that the
restrictions embodied in the easement control
surface land uses that will threaten ground-water
resources. The specific restrictions embodied in
an easement might prohibit certain kinds or den-
sities of development altogether (e.g., by permitting
only open space land uses such as agriculture and
forestry) or prohibit or limit certain threatening
HJRC8ASB Of
TBฃ DIRECT CQJSTRQL OF
WELLHEAD AREAS
last Orange, New Jersey, is facated la the
northern port of itie State in a regton that has
&@&ieftced extensive groutt&water confamitffr
tion< The city depends on ground wafer for all
of i& &M&ig water n&eds.
3Jt& city* mtt/telds were first established to W6t
$everatyears later, a farmer faok the city to court
over && depletion of tfo water taUe under ftis
property. In ike Meeker v& City of East Pranga
ease, foe cam rated that the d$ must twMain
th$ water Jevet of ytoperties adjacent to the
wetiftelsb. Jh& d# &<$&& that &e moฎ
economical approach was to buy iffe adjacent
around it$ weltfields. This practice continued for
maty years before foe city realized that
purchasingpTaperty would also protect the gu&titp
Cumtity, East Ofwge0wi$ appraximtttety 3,300
acres fraggjity 3*6 square miles) surrounding fi?
, ฅhe onfy construction the dfy
in $s& area has vectored in the
and the constnu&on cfjeyerai small roads a
otie mafa? highway, JJte <% fr trying to
fuavhase more land but has been limited in this
effott by foereasttig property values, - -
TfaE&st Qwtg& Wmet&eptfftmentbetieveii that
this pragam has been relatively saccess^st w
protettiag ffte quality of its water suppfy,
Cunmtfy the wtflftelds or? iteittg affected fry
tegtoaai emtamimtioaj bttt. to a much lesser
extent than neighboring iwmeipali&es. J3te wetfs,
that are m&st affected are those nearest the
boundaries of the wettfiefd property* Some of
these are contaminated &tfft iadwffial solvent
The welts that ar& in. fhe center of the protected
field, however, am sfilt producing high
human activities such as the use of hazardous
materials or septic systems for sewage disposal.
Easements apply to ail subsequent landowners for
the full term of the easement, which may be a
finite number of years or forever.
Similar to easements, restrictive covenants
attach to the property and apply to subsequent
landowners. Whereas easements are held by
-------
Page 28
another party, who can enforce their restrictions,
restrictive covenants can only be enforced by other
property owners similarly restricted. A local
planning board may require a restrictive covenant
that limits paved surfaces or home businesses as a
condition of granting site plan approval for a
proposed subdivision. Alternatively, a locality
might acquire a parcel outright, place restrictive
covenants on the title limiting future development
rights, for instance, and then sell the deed-
restricted property back to a private party. How-
ever such restrictions are implemented, they can
be used to prohibit specific land uses, densities, or
threatening activities in wellhead protection areas.
CONSIDERATIONS
While it protects wellhead and recharge areas,
acquisition is also costly for local governments.
Several strategies are available in seeking to control
the cost of acquiring aquifer protection lands:
Prioritizing the lands to be ac-
quired;
Carefully targeting the interest to
be acquired; and
Emphasizing donations and bar-
gain sales of interests where
possible.
Communities can prioritize the lands to be
acquired by carefully evaluating the recharge
capabilities of specific parcels as well as easting
land uses and development trends. Land with
permeable soils in relatively close proximity to a
shallow well might, for example, receive higher
acquisition priority than less permeable land. The
extent and pattern of existing development in a
wellhead protection area directly affects both the
price of land and the degree to which tie
acquisition of remaining undeveloped properties
can protect wells from contamination. Property
that is zoned industrial and faces imminent
development could pose a threat to the integrity
of ground-water resources, unless development
pressures are removed through public land
acquisition. In rural areas, where no such threat
is apparent, land-use regulations will probably
provide adequate resource protection. Localities
may want to monitor development and land price
trends carefully, however, since growing
development pressures will increase property values
and the resulting cost of acquisition.
Localities can mitigate the high cost of land
acquisition by targeting the real properly interests
to be acquired. On any given parcel, acquisition
of fee simple rights will be more expensive than
acquisition of partial interests, such as a conserva-
tion easement. In general, the more restrictive
the easement in terms of allowable land uses and
other surface and subsurface activities (such as
septic tank use and handling of hazardous
materials), the more the cost of an easement
approaches the cost of purchasing the property
outright. In choosing which type of real property
interest to acquire in a given area, localities could
consider the physical properties of the parcel (i.e.,
how much control over land use and surface
activities is necessary to prevent wellhead con-
tamination) as well as the interests of the private
landowner. A two-tiered approach may be ap-
propriate: full fee acquisition of parcels critical
for wellhead protection, and partial interest ac-
quisition on less critical parcels. The attitude of
landowners toward easements and other partial
interests will influence priorities as well; some
owners will resist negotiating the acquisition of an
easement, desiring to own their land outright or
not at all.
HAVE
Sw&at, Stws h
a State'imposed ml tutetฎ trattttfer
tax are available for purchasing
aquifer prot&ti6ป lands,
establish fees for withdrawal of
water*
-------
Page 29
Localities can also control acquisition costs by
attempting to negotiate donations and "bargain
sales" (purchase at less than full market value) by
private landowners. Motivated by charitable,
community-minded instincts, which are reinforced
by the Federal and State income and estate tax
benefits that can be derived from such transactions,
landowners may be willing to forgo full
compensation.
Because few communities will be able to
negotiate donations of all the land necessary to
protect their wellhead and aquifer recharge areas,
it may be necessary to find monies sufficient to
meet the residual acquisition costs. While it is
beyond the scope of this document to discuss in
detail all resources available to local governments,
several of the most significant include:
Increases in water and sewer rates
and fees;
Increases in local property or
property transfer taxes; and
Municipal bonds.
Public Education
DESCRIPTION
Many communities around the country have
developed innovative public education programs on
ground-water protection topics. The purpose of
these public education efforts has been to build
support for regulatory programs, such as controls
on pollution sources in special zoning districts, and
to implement voluntary ground-water protection
efforts, such as water conservation, used oil collec-
tion, and household hazardous waste management.
There are several public education approaches
localities could take:
Distributing press releases to
newspapers and radio stations;
Arranging press conferences on
ground-water protection topics for
local radio stations, newspapers,
and television stations;
Distributing ground-water protec-
tion information in local govern-
ment newsletters;
PROTECTION: WITH
EDUCATION
Rentoa, WasWปgftซ* is devetopfag a
edu&axati yrogqm to- complement &sr gratnid-
wetef pwt&xfott,
of fat tm$ tton*t$ far handling
wttt&te& 8t (Uffitkm* fa* <% ptms
me&mgsi wg workshops fa, iner&we ptfbjic
awareness md interest m protecting R&nion's
water supjpfy '^e m^s vdsteefan efforts ate
targeted (0
,
methods f& pwwttiog e&tttmituttlm from
improper we of
Developing slide shows or video
tapes on ground-water protection
for distribution to local schools
and community organizations;
Establishing voluntary committees
to assist local agencies implement
public education and ground-water
protection programs;
Providing speakers on ground-
water protection to local groups;
and
Developing brochures on ground-
water protection to include in
water or tax bills.
CONSIDERATIONS
The content of public education materials will
depend on local conditions and the target audience.
Localities may wish to target specific groups, such
as farmers or local gas station owners, or develop
a community-wide education program. Information
could include:
Explanations of the effect of
ground-water quality on public
health;
Methods for preventing ground-
water contamination by businesses
and homeowners (e.g., proper
hazardous waste disposal, mini-
-------
Page 30
adzing pesticide application, and
efficient fertilizer use);
Water conservation techniques in
agricultural, residential, and busi-
ness settings; and
Water purification technologies.!?
HJBMC
COMPONENT OF
AS A
Springfield, Mls$ou4 & located in' the
southwestern part of Missouri mdh.'
tion of approxtmatety 1$%$W> ?fa dp fr
dependent on boih surface and&ound water for
its drinKing supply. In response to a proposed
housing development on'ihe shore of one offoe
city's reservoirs, a task, farce was developed to
perform hydrogeototfc s(udiesf identify aiitea!
areas for aquifer recharge* make recommenda-
tions regarding land-use_ control and review
planning arid zoning proposed?- in response to
the task force's recommendations, a Watershed
Committee was established in 1&85 ft? continue
the efforts initiated by the task forced
One of the primary efforts #f the Watershed
Committee, whicf^cansists^f'both public officials
and private citizens appointed by the <%
Manager and the City Witty General Manager,
is the development and implementation of &
community education program. $he education \
program has been in ^ptoce tinm $$5 and
includes a newsletter that keeps the public up-
to-date on issues concerning municipal water
supplies. Information % provided for the
homeowner concerning household aetivities and
their effects on water quality. In addition,, an
annual conference is held for ihe genera! public
featuring State and local organizations. The
conference covers topics Concerning public
drinking Supplies and- what individual home-
owners can do to help avoid potential con-
tamination problems. The eommitteealso makes,
available a slide presentation concerning foe
protection ofpubtfcwatersupplies, with emphasis
on identifying potential sources of contamination
and discussions on ways in which these can he
avoided. This slide presentation & made
available to high schaofy civic groupsfoand other
interested groups and
One common approach many communities
have adopted to develop and i implement their
ground-water protection and public education
programs has been local advisory committees,
composed of representatives of; local businesses,
interest groups, the public, elected officials, and
local or State government agencies.
Although advisory committees can play a useful
role in local ground-water protection education
efforts, localities may wish to focus committee
efforts by placing limits on the role and life of the
committee, assigning deadlines for developing
recommendations, and selecting members
responsive to local priorities.
In addition, public education programs in
general will require time and resources to be
effective. Messages on ground-water protection
topics may need to be repeated periodically to keep
issues before the public. Moreover, staff time and
funds must be expended to develop public
education programs, such as writing newsletter
articles or developing slide shows.
Local communities could implement innovative
public education programs in combination with any
of the tools presented in this handbook. Zoning
changes or land purchase programs could be
highlighted hi locally-distributed publications.
Similarly, brochures explaining source prohibitions
and operating standards could be distributed to
businesses and residents within wellhead protection
areas.
Ground-Water Monitoring
DESCRIPTION
Some localities have established ground-water
monitoring programs to assess the quality of local
aquifers. Typically, a ground-water monitoring
program consists of a regular program of sampling
public and private wells for selected contaminants
(e.g., nitrates or pesticides). The ground-water
monitoring program can be confined to a limited
area, such as a wellhead protection area, or to a
broad geographic region, such as an entire county.
Localities may accomplish several objectives by
implementing a ground-water monitoring program:
To measure the effectiveness of
source controls (such as limitations
on underground storage tanks);
-------
Page 31
To measure compliance with
drinking water standards (e.g.,
Federal or State Maximum Con-
taminant Levels (MCLs)); or
To provide advance warning of
contaminants in ground water that
may threaten to infiltrate drinking-
water wells.
Ground-water monitoring programs are designed
to measure contamination in aquifers, not to
prevent or clean up contamination. Localities may
combine ground-water monitoring programs to
identify problems and then implement prevention
or cleanup approaches to solve or prevent future
problems.
CONSIDERATIONS
Water utilities monitor public drinking water
supplies at the tap for compliance with drinking
water standards (e.g., MCLs). In addition, owners
or operators of hazardous waste facilities, such as
landfills or surface impoundments, are required by
law to monitor ground-water near their facilities to
detect potential contamination. Most localities,
however, do not conduct their own ongoing ground-
water monitoring programs because monitoring
programs require technical expertise, access to
analytical testing laboratories, and sufficient
resources to pay for monitoring costs incurred in
well-drilling sampling and testing.
Some localities contract with State or Federal
agencies, such as State geologic agencies or the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), to conduct
ground-water monitoring of local wells. Localities
may wish to consider the following issues:
What is the scope of the program?
Determine the extent of the
problem and design the ground-
water monitoring program to meet
specific needs. Is the community
concerned, for instance, about
ground-water quality in the entire
community or in a concentrated
area? What contaminants threaten
the aquifer?
Can the locality take advantage of
existing data? State and regional
agencies may have water quality
data from wells in the area.
Similarly, well-drilling firms are
often required to test the water
quality of new private wells and
MONITORING ?O I QCITg
, GROUND-WATER MANAGEMENT
2% Orange County Water District* California,
lGC
At Tesptmst to &e$$ problems? tiie &%tri<$ hw
t&f&ots iff efforts
-------
Page 32
Sophisticated testing equipment is
rarely available in the community.
Outside analytical laboratories may
be expensive. In addition,
hydrologjcal consulting expertise
and drilling new monitoring wells
can be costly.
to mmtmti
*ROBฃBM AREAS ..
"
> Conaeeticiuk in a smattf manfr widen*
ffal town with- ซ population of appTmmate$\
17,000, The town is depended t&e^fym@fomd
water fa Us drinking water. WtRon fas been
running a- monitoring program far warty ten
yectry. TH& program* managed ty &e Tow's
Conservation Cbwmjfcsft^ ft A surface
scope. Through this mortitoringpwgram, several
sp&ifti yrobfan areas have been 'identified* &or
example, one neighborJioott wets discovered rift
high sodium concentrations an&ffuWicwaterwv
supplied, to these residents. %w Conservation
Commission also is eomemed about $te>,
potential for contamination from, leaMng
wder&oundstoragetantesbvtht¬ found any
hydrocarbons in monitoring weSs to ^ date.
Nonetheless,. the monitoring program serves* m
general, as a. means to assess the. water qttaSy
of the aquifers mdio identify' ^edfa$rv$etn& '
In addition to this monitoring
Wilton Tom Planning and Zoning Commission
construction of ft higfiway by passtftg
comprehensive Aquifer frate^on 0rtfmartve>
establishing an aquifer protection a%ttri& md
adapting existing regutatiens to protect the
stratified drift aquifer serving as the town's water.
supply. Th? Aquifer Protection Ordinance
prohibits certain landuses* stfett as the handling
and storage of certain hazardous materiafS) md
requires a special permit to fa approved by the
Commission for other w?% such as dzf cleaning
establishments, Jh order to appty for ซ pem%
the applicant must submit ahydrogeoJogc impact
assessment to the Commission for review m&
approval. Although 'this Aquifer Protection
Ordinance and the monitoring, program bofft
serve to protect &oun4 v/atert they are not tied
directfy to one
Household Hazardous
Waste Collection
DESCRIPTION
Household hazardous wastes are a potential
source of contamination of local ground-water
supplies. Common household wastes include:
Pesticides;
Solvents;
Herbicides;
Septic system chemicals;
Pool chemicals;
Paints; and
Art supplies.
Homeowners may dispose of hazardous wastes in
regular trash pickups or into sewers or septic
systems. These wastes may also be discarded in a
local landfill or in illegal roadside trash dumps.
Hazardous wastes may then leak into local ground-
water aquifers and contaminate drinking water
supplies. Wastes discharged injto sewers or septic
systems may also be introduced into aquifers.
One innovative method that several
communities have used to alleviate the threat of
contamination from these sources has been to hold
hazardous waste collection days. Marion County,
Indiana, for example, conducted a Tox-Away Day"
in 1985 that took in over 6,500 containers of
wastes.21 On specified days, a locality could
receive hazardous wastes from homeowners at a
central location and dispose of the wastes through
a licensed hazardous waste disposal firm.
Hazardous waste collection days provide a means
for people to safely dispose of hazardous wastes
and reduce the amount of wastes that will be
disposed in landfills and wastewater disposal
systems and threaten aquifers. Collection days
have been successful in several communities by
collecting wastes and alerting people to the dangers
of disposing hazardous wastes with household trash
or in wastewater systems. $ince 1983, several
communities on the Cape Cod, Massachusetts,
peninsula have participated in successful household
hazardous waste collection days, with average
quantities of 6,000 gallons of hazardous wastes
collected annually.22
CONSIDERATIONS
Hazardous waste collection days, however, can
be costly and may entail some legal liability for
the cost\of cleanups. A community will spend
time and money organizing the collection day,
-------
providing staff to handle wastes, and hiring a
hazardous waste management firm to transport
and dispose the wastes because the locality could
be legally liable for cleanup costs should the
disposal contractor fail to adequately treat or
dispose of the wastes.
Oi* A HOUSEHOLD
BAKARTXHIS WASTE COLLECTION '
PROGRAM
EroomeCounty, in swfit-central New KwfcJjtefcr
momd Mingumtont. inmted a ptogmi pom
1982 to 298$ fa caftect hcamkold hazardous
wastes to gwvent such wast&t $wn befog
in tite'to&il sanit&y iatttfflt qetd
of w&stes wr? held in 19ฎ,
1985, md 1986 m a j%fe <% e&ch spring at
a centred location. The total quantity &f waste
to representless than onepeneento/tite amounts
Gdsfittg fa dte howeh&tfa tiirougteuf foe wwt$
at me fane of wttectfon, Qnty obauf 9& 208
tousebotds pttttittp&ted in eatih ctfte&fon
fife
-------
rage
voluntary water conservation and have mandatory
conservation programs during times of drought.
See Section 5 for sources of information on specific
methods for implementing water conservation in
the community.
WIimป
PROMOTE WATER
Water usage in Nassau County which. is located.
on Long Island, New Yofy te Mguteied by
Withdraw?! caps that impose strict pumping
limitations on water .wppti&s to pwwt
overpumping and protest water suppffw from
saltwater intrusion. These capping ttmUatitm
were imposed by the ttew Yoft State Department
of Environmental Consermtion^KC} mderihe.
authority of its welt p&mit program*. Jfa response
to these limitations, Nassau County itself has
passed a Water Conservation Ordinance* In
addition, individual water wppBerst such astom
wafer districts, hove passed their awn vesjfrittfons
on residential and commerdot users:,' including
periodic bans on car washing the use of water
to fill swimming pools, and restrictions on
springing lawns. Several towns are wrrenffy
developing ordinances that would me individual
meters to regulate water use based an the number
of individuals living fo a household,*?
CONSIDERATIONS
Communities have found that water users in a
community can be persuaded or compelled to
increase their water conservation efforts.
Persuading people to voluntarily comply (e.g., by
reducing lawn watering or installing efficient
irrigation equipment) requires spending
considerable time educating water users on the
need to conserve and the results are often short-
lived. Some steps localities have taken to initiate
a water conservation effort include:
Educating the public, elected offi-
cials, and the press in the area to
gain wide support;
Enlisting citizens early
establishing a citizen advisory
committee or task force with links
to major water users (e.g.,
homeowner's associations, farmer's
groups, environmental groups, local
chambers of commerce);
Seeking support from other public
agencies Federal, State, county,
or other local government offices
hi the area may provide advice,
assistance, or other support;
Starting small and expanding over
time building on successes and
learn from failures; and
Encouraging voluntary conservation
efforts now to prevent mandatory
requirements later.
Localities may run into obstacles hi
implementing conservation programs. It takes time
for people to change their habits and to install
water-efficient fixtures. Changes may occur slowly
over time, except hi times of severe drought. In
Marin County, California, for example, the 1977
drought caused local water users to cut back
drastically their use of water. Water users may
have to be reminded periodically of conservation
requirements (e.g., through annual mailings hi
water bills).
Legal obstacles may also cause certain water
users, such as farmers, to resist voluntary conser-
vation efforts, especially hi Western and South-
western States reliant on ground water for irriga-
tion. Water laws hi many of these States provide
that the right to ground water depends on past
uses of the water. By adopting conservation
measures, irrigators use less water and face the
potential risk of losing their legal right to their
previous ground-water withdrawals. As a result,
conservation poses a "use it or lose it" dilemma
for some irrigators. Communities have overcome
this sort of reluctance by offering property tax
incentives or other innovative inducements to
reduce usage.
Other Methods
Many communities have found innovative ways
to apply common land-use controls and regulatory
tools, such as zoning and design standards, to meet
unique local ground-water protection needs. By
assessing local ground-water problems and tailoring
the wellhead protection program to meet those
needs, localities may successfully prevent future
ground-water contamination. Because communities
face different ground-water problems, no single
wellhead protection tool or combination of tools
can be prescribed as best for ah1 communities.
-------
Sometimes, a relatively simple approach will
work. In an agricultural area, for example, where
the only threat to ground water comes from
livestock operations, a single tool, such as operat-
ing standards for animal feedlots, may be sufficient
to protect a wellhead area. Similarly, in an
undeveloped wellhead protection area with affor-
dable land prices, a program of land acquisition
may be the most effective means of ensuring the
quality of the ground water.
In other situations, a more complex program
may be needed. For example, a community could
create a wellhead protection district as an overlay
zone to existing zoning areas. Within the overlay
zone, new septic systems could be prohibited and
new construction could be subject to individual
site-plan reviews. Or, if the community is con-
cerned about potential leaks from underground
storage tanks, it could assist State agencies with
enforcement of tank regulations by mobilizing
community resources, such as volunteers, to
inventory tanks and report suspected leaks.
_______^_ Page 35
Similarly, the locality could develop effective
public education programs to encourage ground-
water protection in die community through best
management practices, for example, or water
conservation. All it takes to get started is an
understanding of local hydrogeologic conditions, a
familiarity with the appropriate wellhead protection
tools, and the motivation to protect the wellhead
area.
Because the list of tools presented in this
document is not comprehensive, other tools may
be more appropriate for a community. For more
information, contact EPA, the State ground-water
protection agency, or check the references listed in
Section 5.
-------
SECTION 4
IMPLEMENTING A LOCAL PROGRAM
This section highlights some of the key ele-
ments in implementing a local ground-water
protection and source control program. The
management tools used for ground-water protection
are often complex and must be specifically tailored
to local needs and conditions. Indeed, for a small
local government, an innovative and carefully
designed approach to program implementation may
be the only way to produce an effective program.
This section discusses some of the considerations
involved in developing a qualified staff,
communicating with the local community, and
identifying appropriate enforcement and monitoring
methods.
Staffing
Local staff will need to have some knowledge
about ground water and a degree of expertise in
the particular regulatory methods chosen. The
more familiar the staff is with ground-water issues,
the easier it may be for them to make informed
decisions. Knowledgeable staff will be able to:
Understand why certain areas need
ground-water protection;
Evaluate the risks of pollution;
Enforce effectively local
requirements;
Identify critical problems within
the program; and
Evaluate whether or not the
program is making progress.
Staff having experience with the type of
management tool being used will have a better
idea of which management and administrative
techniques are best suited for the program. They
will also be able to set realistic goals and their
knowledge will aid in developing enforcement and
oversight methods. The skills and experience of
the staff are often invaluable assets, particularly in
the development of an innovative wellhead
protection program designed to meet local needs.
People in local government, however, will not
have extensive experience in all aspects of ground-
water protection because it is a relatively new
concern. There are at least three ways to
strengthen personnel resources:
Hire additional staff with special-
ized training or experience. The
addition of new staff will increase
salary costs and it may take some
time for new staff to become
familiar with local conditions.
New staff can, however, bring
significant new talents to a
program.
Broaden the skills of existing staff
with formal training in areas such
as hydrogeology, environmental
law, or land-use planning. Such
courses may be available at local
universities, through State or
national associations, or from EPA
or State environmental agencies.
Use informal means to increase
the skills of your existing staff
(e.g., by sharing a "circuit rider"
employee among several localities).
Staff can "borrow" expertise from
other agencies or universities,
particularly when looking for
information during development of
the program, researching specific
technical information, or searching
for references and sources of
information.
Localities may be able to obtain information and
support from outside entities such as:
Departments of health;
Water control boards or depart-
ments;
Universities;
State environmental agencies;
Divisions of soil and water con-
servation;
Departments of agriculture;
Departments of housing, com-
munity development, or planning;
-------
Page 37
Associations of counties;
Regional planning agencies;
EPA's Regional offices;
The District Office of the U.S.
Geological Survey; and
The U.S. Soil Conservation Ser-
vice.
Communities should not overlook the
possibility that a neighboring jurisdiction may have
developed a wellhead protection program and may
be willing to share its expertise and experience.
Such support may be particularly helpful if the
hydrogeologic and land-use conditions are similar
in both jurisdictions.
Transfer of knowledge among the staff is
important for continuity and avoids wasting resour-
ces rediscovering what has already been learned in
the past. There are several techniques that may
be useful for this purpose:
Developing and organizing infor-
mation sources, such as guidance
manuals and handbooks, will
provide quick reference material
for staff members. For example,
a standard protocol can be
developed for inspection of com-
mercial and industrial operations.
Similarly, a formal checklist may
be useful for review of site plans.
Documenting actions, such as the
reasons for making particular
decisions, provides an institutional
knowledge that will remain even
if some staff members leave the
program. If, for example, a
locality is systematically purchasing
development rights within a
wellhead protection area, it may
prove useful to develop a format
written strategy that includes the
criteria used to select land for
acquisition and provides the
rationale for determining offering
prices.
One-on-one training for new
people is a simple way to transfer
the knowledge of staff members
before they leave the program.
Communication
Successful communication can contribute to an
effective program. Publicity can be used to both
inform and to build support. By providing people
who might be regulated by the program, as well
as people who might participate hi monitoring and
enforcement, with clear and concise material on
their responsibilities and on the rationale for the
program, a locality can increase the awareness and
understanding of the program. These contacts will
also provide an opportunity to answer questions
and to respond to complaints or requests.
Involvement of the entire community will ease the
burden on the ground-water staff. For example,
educated citizens will often enforce watering
restrictions within their neighborhoods.
Localities trying to reach out to the community
at large may want to consider techniques such as:
Mailings, advertisements, and
flyers may be an effective way to
reach a broad section of the
population with minimal expense.
This would be a good method to
remind people that an existing
water restriction program is still
in effect.
Community meetings can be used
to provide information to and
receive input from members of
the community that have a specific
interest in ground-water issues.
Questionnaires, mailed to a large
number of residents, are useful in
getting a message out as well as
obtaining feedback on ground-
water issues.
Localities trying to communicate with people
or firms directly regulated by the wellhead pro-
tection program may want to consider:
Mailings can be targeted at
specific types of recipients, such
as gas stations, dry cleaners, or
other small businesses that are
likely to engage in activities or
handle hazardous substances that
are subject to regulation.
Advertisements in trade journals
to reach specific types of firms
can be useful. Advertisements
hi local newspapers, while less
-------
precisely targeted, may also prove
effective.
The Chamber of Commerce may
also provide a means of reaching
local businesses either by using
their membership lists for mailings
or their meetings for presentations.
Seminars may be used to com-
municate detailed information to
a small target group. Although
seminars may involve greater effort
and expense, a seminar might be
a useful way to inform industry of
newly developed operating
standards.
An example of an innovative approach to
communication is the method used in a program
to reduce nitrate contamination through controls
on fertilizer application. As cited earlier, the
Central Flatte Natural Resources District in Grand
Island, Nebraska used several demonstration farm
fields to show that fanners could save on fertilizer
costs while simultaneously reducing concentrations
of nitrate in ground water. By demonstrating the
effectiveness of the program, farmers have been
supportive of the program restrictions. A good
relationship with the community may help avoid
many difficulties and increase the degree of
program compliance.
Enforcement and Oversight
One way to ensure that the resources invested
in a wellhead protection program are used
efficiently is through active enforcement and
oversight of program requirements. The program
will have fewer enforcement and oversight
problems if the requirements of the program are
detailed and clear, and if there are standards or
other ways of measuring when requirements have
been met Compliance is often encouraged by
providing either incentives or sanctions, such as
permits for industry operation or fines for
violations of design standards.
A locality should clearly designate who will be
conducting oversight and when this will occur, as
well as who will take action and what steps will be
taken when a violation occurs. Enforcement and
oversight methods that might apply to a local
program include techniques such as:
Permits;
Licenses;
Fines;
Management plans;
Publication of specific rules;
Clearly stated objectives;
Reports demonstrating compliance;
Inspections; and
Ground-water monitoring.
One innovative way of limiting the costs of
enforcement and oversight activities is to look for
opportunities to combine these activities with other
local government programs. The agency
responsible for issuing building permits, for ex-
ample, may be able to ensure that design standards
intended to protect ground water are met during
new construction or major renovations.
Another approach is to rely on self-enforce-
ment of standards. Under this approach, regulated
firms that are subject to, for example, operating
standards, document their compliance activities on
a regular basis. These records must be maintained
for some period of time (perhaps one year) and
must be made available if requested by a local
official. This approach eliminates the burden of
ongoing enforcement but provides methods for
certifying compliance.
In short, effective implementation is a key
element in a successful wellhead protection
program. While many of these issues simply reflect
common sense, they are important nonetheless.
The best-designed program, for example, will have
little effect if there is not sufficient staff to enforce
it. Localities considering different approaches to
a wellhead protection program should evaluate how
each approach could be implemented and whether
it will actually achieve the desired results.
-------
SECTION 5
Page 39
FINDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Ground-water contamination is a national
problem with Federal, State, and local efforts
needed to protect present and future ground-water
supplies. Although this document has focused on
local methods for protecting ground water, Federal
and State agencies have active ground-water
protection programs that localities may wish to
contact for more information. For information
from EPA's Office of Ground-Water Protection,
please contact a Regional Ground-Water Repre-
sentative, as listed in Exhibit 6, or EPA's Office of
Ground-Water Protection in Washington, D.C. at
(202) 382-7077.
State agencies responsible for developing and
implementing State wellhead protection programs
are also listed in this section. This list does not
include all the agencies in each State responsible
for ground-water protection, but it does provide an
initial contact. In addition, other State and
regional groups may be able to help establish a
local wellhead protection program, including
universities, associations of cities or counties,
national associations (e.g., the American Planning
Association), and geological survey offices.
A list of written sources of information that
may also be useful starts on page 46.
-------
Page 40
EXHIBIT 6
EPA Regional Ground-Water Representatives
Robert Merrctoza
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA. Region I
JFK Building, Room 2113
Boston. MA 02203
(617) 565-3600
John Maiiock
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York. NY 10278
(212) 264-5635
Stuart Kerzner
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA. Rogton III
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 597-2788
Stallings Howell
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
US. EPA. Region IV
345 Courtiand Street NE
Atlanta. GA 30365
(404) 347-3866
Jerri-Anne Gari
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region V
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago. IL 60604
(312) 886-1490
Erlece Allen
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA. Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas. TX 75202-2733
(214) 655-6446
Timothy Amsden
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA. Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 236-2970
James Dunn
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA. Region VIII
999 18th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202-2405
(303) 293-1703
Patricia Eklund
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA. Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 974-0831
William Mullen
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region X
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 442-1216
-------
Page 41
STATE GROUND-WATER PROTECTION CONTACTS
Alabama
Director, Department of
Environmental Management
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
(205) 271-7700
Alaska
Commissioner, Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation
P.O. Box 0
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800
(907) 465-2600
Arizona
Assistant Director for Environmental Health
Services
Arizona Department of Health Services
2005 North Central
Room 202-A
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
(602) 257-2300
Arkansas
Director, Division of Engineering
Department of Health
4815 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205-3867
(504) 661-2623
California
Executive Director, State Water Resources
Control Board
901 "P" Street
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 445-1553
Colorado
Chief, Drinking Water/Ground Water Section
Department of Health
4210 East llth Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
(303) 332-4534
Connecticut
DEP Assistant Deputy Commissioner
Department of Environmental Protection
Room 117, State Office Building
122 Washington Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
(203) 566-3245
Delaware
Delaware Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Ground-Water Section
Supervisor, Water Supply Branch
P.O. Box 1401, 89 Kings Highway
Dover, Delaware 19903
(302) 736-4793
Florida
Assistant Bureau Chief
Department of Environmental Regulations
2600 Blakstone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-3601
Georgia
Department of Natural Resources
Suite 1252
205 Butler Street, S.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
(404) 656-3500
Hawaii
Supervisor, Drinking Water Section
Department of Health
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, Hawaii 96801
(808) 548-2235
Idaho
Chief, Water Quality Bureau
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
Division of Environment
Boise, Idaho 83720
(208) 334-5867
-------
Illinois
Director, Illinois Environmental j
Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
(217) 782-9540
Indiana
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Environmental Management
105 S. Meridian
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
(317) 232-8595
Iowa
Administrator, Environmental Protection
Division
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Wallace State Office Building
Des Monies, Iowa 50319
(515) 281-5211
Kansas
Secretary, Department of Health
and Environment
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, Kansas 66620
(913) 862-9360
Kentucky
Director, Division of Water
Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Cabinet
18 Reilly Road
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
(502) 564-3410
Louisiana
Secretary, Department of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 94381
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-4066
(504) 342-7015
Maine
Ground-Water Coordinator
State Planning Office
State House Station 38
Augusta, Maine 04333
(207) 289-3261
Maryland
Inspection and Compliance Program
Maryland Department of the Environment
Office of Environmental Programs
201 West Preston Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(301) 631-3625
Massachusetts
Director, Division of Water Supply
Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering
1 Winter Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
(617) 292-5770
Michigan
Chief, Waste Management Division
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan 48909
(517) 373-1947
Chief, Water Supply Division
Michigan Department of Public Health
3423 North Logan Street
P.O. Box 30035
Lansing, Michigan 48909
(517) 335-8318
Minnesota
Director, Division of Environmental Health
Minnesota Department of Health
717 Delaware Street, S.E.
P.O. Box 9441
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440
(612) 623-5320 '
-------
Page 43
Mississippi
Bureau of Pollution Control
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, Mississippi 39209
(601) 961-5171
Missouri
Public Drinking Water Program
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
(314) 751-5331
Montana
Director
Montana Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences
Cogswell Building, Room C 102
Helena, Montana 59620
(406) 444-2544
Nebraska
Water Quality Division Chief
Nebraska Department of Environmental
Control
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 94848
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-4848
(402) 471-2186
Nevada
Administrator, Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection
201 South Fall Street
Carson City, Nevada 89710
(702) 885-4670
New Hampshire
Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Services
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
(603) 271-3503
New Jersey
Assistant Director, Water Supply and Watershed
Management Element
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Protection
1474 Prospect Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08638
(609) 292-7219
New Mexico
Director, New Mexico Environmental
Improvement Division
1190 St. Francis Drive
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0968
(505) 827-2919
New York
Director, Department of Environmental
Conservation, Division of Water
50 Wolf Road, Room 306
Albany, New York 12233-3500
(518) 457-6674
North Carolina
Director, Division of Environmental
Management
Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
(919) 733-7015
North Dakota
Chief, Environmental Health Section
Bismarck, North Dakota 58505
(701) 224-2200
Ohio
Chief, Division of Ground Water Management
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
1800 Water Mark Drive, Box 1049
Columbus, Ohio 43226-0149
(614) 481-7183
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Department of Pollution Control
Northeast 10th and Stonewall
P.O. Box 53504
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152
-------
Oregon
Director, Department of Environmental
Quality
811 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 229-6295
Pennsylvania
Associate Deputy Secretary
Office of Environmental Management
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources
Fulton Building, 10th Floor
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
(717) 787-5028
Rhode Island
Director
Department of Environmental Management
9 Hayes Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
(401) 277-2771
South Carolina
Chief, Bureau of Water Supply and Special
Programs
Department of Health and Environmental
Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
(803) 734-5310
South Dakota
Division Director
Division of Environmental Quality
Department of Water and Natural Resources
Joe Foss Building
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
(605) 773-5047
Tennessee
Administrator, Office of Water Management
T.E.R.RA. Building
150 Ninth Avenue North
Nashville, Tennessee 37219-5404
(615) 741-3657
Texas
Chief, Ground-Water Conservation Section
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-7830
Utah
Bureau of Water Pollution Control
Department of Health
288 North 1460 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116-0700
(801) 538-6146
Vermont
Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Health
60 Mam Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401
(802) 863-7220
Virginia
Assistant Director of Operations
Virginia Water Control Board
P.O. Box 11143
Richmond, Virginia 23230-1143
(804) 257-6384
Washington
Department of Social and Health Services
Olympia, Washington 98504
(206) 753-7039
West Virginia
Director
Environmental Engineering Division
Office of Environmental Health Services
1800 Washington Street, East
Charleston, West Virginia 25305
(304) 348-2981
Wisconsin
Administrator, Division of Environmental
Standards
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
101 South Webster, 2nd Floor
Madison, Wisconsin 53702
(608) 267-7651
-------
Page 45
Wyoming
Administrator
Water Quality Division
Department of Environmental Quality
Herschler Building
122 W. 25th Street
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
(307) 777-7781
Guam
Administrator, Guam Environmental Protection
Agency
P.O. Box 2999
Agana, Guam 96910
(671) 646-7579
Northern Mariana Islands
Chief
Division of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 1304
Saipan, CM 96950
(670) 234-6114
Puerto Rico
Chairman, Environmental Quality Board
Box 11488
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00910
(809) 725-5140
Virgin Islands
Commissioner, Department of Planning and
Natural Resources
179 Altona and Welgunst
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00820
(809) 774-3320
-------
OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Born, Stephen M., et aL A Guide to Groundwater Quality Planning and Management for Local Governments.
(Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History
Survey, 1987).
Bom, Stephen M., et aL Wellhead Protection Districts in Wisconsin: An Analysis and Test Applications.
Special Report 10. (Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Geological
and Natural History Survey, 1988).
Bureau of Environmental Services. Columbia South Shore Hazardous Materials Containment Facilities Design
Handbook. (Portland, OR: Bureau of Environmental Services, 1988).
Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project. Guide to Contamination Sources for Wellhead Protection. (Cape
Cod, MA: CCAMP, July 1988).
Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency. Guide to Groundwater and Aquifer Protection. (Bristol CT:
Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency, 1981).
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, Division of Water
Supply and Office of Planning and Program Management. Groundwater Quality and Protection: A Guide
for Local Officials. (Boston, MA: DEQE, 1985).
Conservation Law Foundation of New England Inc. Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks: Local Regulation
of a Ground-Water Hazard. (Boston, MA: CLF, 1984).
Dickinson, Mary Ann, and Harrison, Ellen Z. Protecting Connecticut's Ground Water. (CT: Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection, 1984).
DiNovo, Frank, and Jaffe, Martin. Local Groundwater Protection. (Washington, D.C.: American Planning
Association, 1987).
Freeze, R. Allan and Cherry, John A. Groundwater. (Englewood, NJ: Prentice HalL 1979).
Getzels, J. and Thurow, C., ed. Rural and Small Town Planning. (Washington, D.C.: American Planning
Association, 1979).
Hrezo, Margaret, and Nickmson, Pat. Protecting Virginia's Groundwater: A Handbook for Local Government
Officials. (Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, 1986).
King County Resource Planning, and Washington State Department of Ecology. Ground Water Resource
Protection: A Handbook for Local Planners and Decision Makers in Washington State. (WA: Hall and
Associates, Ruth Dight, Planner Applied Geotechnology, Inc., 1986).
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. Massachusetts Hydrogeologic Information
Matrix. (Boston, MA: DEQE, 1986).
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. Pesticides and Drinking Water. (Boston,
MA: DEQE, 1987).
Moss, Elaine, ed. Land Use Controls in the United States: A Handbook on the Legal Rights of Citizens.
(New York, NY: Natural Resources Defense Council/The Dial Press, 1977).
MulUkm, Elizabeth B. An Ounce of Prevention: A Ground-Water Protection Handbook for Local Officials.
(Morrisville, VT: Vermont Departments of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, Health,
and Agriculture, 1984).
-------
Page 47
National Research Council. Ground Water Quality Protection: State and Local Strategies. (Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press, 1986).
Page, G. William, ed. Planning for Groundwater Protection. (Orlando, EL: Academic Press, Inc., 1987).
Randall, Jeffrey H., and Brown, Stuart M. Aquifer Protection - One Washington City's Experience. National
Water Well Association, Focus Conference on Northwestern Ground Water Issues. (Portland, OR:
May 5-7, 1987).
Robinson, Nicholas A. Environmental Regulation of Real Property. (New York, NY: Law Journal Seminars-
Press, 1988).
Spokane Water Management Program Coordination Office and Technical Advisory Committee. Critical
Materials Handbook. (Spokane, WA: Water Quality Management Program, 1986).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute of Water Resources. Handbook of Methods for the Evaluation of
Water Conservation for Municipal and Industrial Water Supply. (Ft. Belvoir, VA: Prepared by the Greeley-
Polhemus Group, Inc., October, 1985).
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. National Handbook of Recommended Methods for Water
Data Acquisition. (Reston, VA: USGS, 1977).
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. A Primer on Ground Water. (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1976).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Ground-Water Protection Strategy for the Environmental Protection
Agency. (Washington, D.C.: EPA, 1984).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection. An Annotated Bibliography on
Wellhead Protection Programs. (Washington, D.C.: OGWP, 1987).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection. Developing A State Wellhead
Protection Program: A User's Guide to Assist State Agencies Under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
(Washington, D.C.: OGWP, 1988).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection. EPA Activities Related to Sources
of Ground-Water Contamination. (Washington, D.C.: OGWP, 1987).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection. Guidelines for Delineation of
Wellhead Protection Areas. (Washington, D.C.: OGWP, 1987).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection. Guidance for Applicants for State
Wellhead Protection Program Assistance Funds Under the Safe Drinking Water Act. (Washington, D.C.:
OGWP, 1987).
U.S, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection. Model Assessments for Delineating
Wellhead Protection Areas. (Washington, D.C.: OGWP, 1988).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection. Protecting Ground Water:
Pesticides and Agricultural Practices. (Washington, D.C.: OGWP, 1988).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Protection of Public Water Supplies from Ground-Water Contamina-
tion. (Cincinnati, OH: Center for Environmental Research Information, 1985).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection. State Program Briefs: Pesticides
in Ground Water. (Washington, D.C.: OGWP, 1986).
-------
Page
48
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection. State Wellhead Protection Program
Question and Answer Fact Sheet. (Washington, D.C.: OGWP, 1987).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection. Wellhead Protection: A Decision-
Makers' Guide. (Washington, D.C.: OGWP, 1987).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection and Office of Pesticide Programs.
Cross-Program Summary: Pesticides Under EPA Statutes. (Washington, D.C.: OGWP and OPP, 1987).
Zaporozec, A. ed. Groundwater Protection Principles and Alternatives for Rock County, Wisconsin. (Madison,
WI: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, 1985).
-------
Page 49
ENDNOTES
1. See Wellhead-Protection Districts in Wisconsin: An Analysis and Test Applications, Stephen M. Born,
Douglas A. Yanggen, Allan R. Czecholinski, Raymond J. Tierney, and Ronald G. Hennings, Wisconsin
Geological and Natural History Survey, Special Report 10, (Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, 1988), p. 52. See also Planning for Groundwater Protection, G. William Page, ed.,
(Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1987), p. 255.
2. Contact: Lee Steppacher, Region 1, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (617) 565-3605.
3. Source: U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, Protecting the Nation's Groundwater from Contamination,
October 1984.
4. Contact: Bob Glascock, Portland, OR, (503) 796-7700.
5. Holman, David. "A Ground-Water Pollution Potential Risk Index System," Proceedings of a National
Symposium on Local Government Options for Ground Water Pollution Control. (Norman, OK: University
of Oklahoma, June 1986), p. 25.
6. Contact: Bruce Haukom, Jefferson County Zoning Administrator, (414) 674-2500.
7. Butler, Kent S. "Urban Growth Management and Groundwater Protection: Austin, Texas", in Planning
for Groundwater Protection, G. William Page, ed., (Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1987), p. 261-287.
8. Contact: Don Bulman, Department of Engineering Services, Town of Vestal, (607) 748-1514.
9. Contact: Linda Boyer, Mayor, Town of Mt. Airy, (301) 795-6012.
10. Contact: Richard Harlow, Meridian Township Department of Development Control, (517) 349-1200.
11. Contact: Ron Bishop, Central Platte Natural Resources District Grand Island, NE, (308) 381-5825.
12. Contact: Ronald Olsen, City of Renton Utility Engineering, (206) 235-2631.
13. Contact: Bob McGrath, Brookings Health Department, (605) 692-6629.
14. Contact: Dr. Edith Tannenbaum, Long Island Regional Planning Board, (516) 360-5189.
15. Contact: Tony Scillia, East Orange Water Department, (201) 266-5100.
16. Contact: Ronald Olsen, City of Renton Utility Engineering, (206) 235-2631.
17. Topics suggested in the Texas Ground Water Protection Strategy, Texas Ground Water Protection
Committee, January 1988.
18. Contact: Springfield Watershed Commission, (417) 866-1127.
19. Contact: Nick Richardson, Orange County Water District, (714) 963-5661.
20. Contact: Penelope C. Sharp, Wilton Conservation Commission, (203) 834-9255.
21. Parrett, Cynthia L. "Marion County, Indiana: Dealing with Ground Water Protection," Proceedings of
a National Symposium on Local Government Options for Ground Water Pollution Control. (Norman,
OK: University of Oklahoma, June 1986), p. 233.
-------
rage 50
22. Nickerson, Susan. "Local Participation in Regional Ground Water Management: A Cape Cod Example,"
Proceedings of a National Symposium on Local Government Options for Ground Water Pollution Control.
(Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma, June 1986), pp. 242-243.
23. Contact: Claudia Stahnan, Household Hazardous Waste Program, (607) 772-2114.
24. This list is drawn from Timothy Herbert, Dominic Forcella, and W. David Conn, Household Hazardous
Waste Management in Virginia: A Guide for Local Governments (Blacksburg, VA: Household Hazardous
Waste Management Project, 1986) as cited in Margaret Hrezo and Pat Nickinson, Protecting Virginia's
Groundwater A Handbook for Local Government Officials. (Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Water Resources
Research Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1986).
25. Contact: Dr. Edith Tannenbaum, Long Island Regional Planning Board, (516) 360-5189.
ttU.S. GOVERIWEOT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995-615-003/21025
-------
-------
------- |