United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA 813-K-95-001
May 1995
Office Of Water
(4602)
Why Do Wellhead
Protection?
Issues and Answers in Protecting
Public Drinking Water Supply Systems
                Printed on Recycled Paper

-------

-------
Why Do Wellhead
Protection?
Issues and Answers in Protecting
Public Drinking Water Supply Systems
Ground Water Protection Division
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                 Acknowledgments:


 This document was prepared under the direction of Barbara Elkus,
Director, Ground Water Protection Division (GWPD), and written and
     designed by GWPD Project Manager Kevin McCormack.

-------
               What is Wellhead Protection?
                                                 ellhead protection

               may  be broadly defined as a program that reduces the

               threat to the quality of ground water used for drinking water

               by identifying and managing recharge areas to specific

               wells or wellfields.  Wellhead protection  measures may
A Wellhead Protection (WHP)
               range from simple practices involving basic housekeeping
Program protects  the quality of
               procedures around rural farmsteads, to extensive and
public drinking water supplies...
               comprehensive land use planning and restrictions in major

               cities, towns, and communities.  A Wellhead  Protection

               (WHP) Program protects the quality of public drinking water

               supplies by means of a phased approach which includes

               development of the program, submittal to EPA for approval,

               and implementation of the approved Program.
                                                               1

-------
Is There a Legal Requirement for WHP?

Aside from the obvious human health and welfare  reasons for protecting ground water
through wellhead protection, a legal mandate exists for the development and implementation
of WHP Programs.  The 1986 Amendments to  the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
established the WHP Program. Under SDWA Section 1428, each State must  prepare a
WHP Program and submit it to EPA for approval. Although the law requires that every
WHP Program must contain specific elements.  EPA allows States considerable flexibility
in tailoring Program details to best suit their individual needs.  Accordingly, States then
have a legal obligation to develop and implement  WHP Programs.

EPA Policy Integrates WHP with
State Programs

Protection of public water supply wells through  WHP activities is  also considered  an
important component of  a Comprehensive State  Ground Water Protection Program
(CSGWPP).  In 1991, EPA established a set of ground water protection principles which
recognizes that the primary  role for ground water protection should be vested with the
States. These principles also call for the development and implementation of CSGWPPs
as a focal point for all programs related to ground  water protection. Through its efforts to
support the development  of  CSGWPPs, EPA is providing funds to States  to undertake
necessary WHP activities and programs as a critical component of a  CSGWPP.

How Many States Have Approved
WHP Programs?

By the end of September, 1994, a total of 35 States and territories  had approved WHP
Programs. An additional 10 States are expected to  submit programs for approval by the
end of 1995.  EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water is currently working with 5
other States in developing their programs for submittal and approval. This demonstrates
that the  process  of developing an EPA-approved WHP  Program at the State level is
expanding. Working with Regional Water Management and EPA Headquarters Staff, these
States have successfully  developed programs that are custom-designed to meet their
individual needs.

Arizona, Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware,  Guam, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,  Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Tennessee, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas,  Utah,  Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin all have  EPA-approved WHP Programs in place.
The broad geographic dispersion and the diverse  climate, topography, and hydrogeology
which were taken into account in designing, developing, and implementing these programs
are indicative of the successful application of the basic principles of WHP in satisfying the
uniquely local requirements of protecting public drinking water supply systems.

-------
                                                                 Puerto Rico
L

-------
Issues and Answers on the Wellhead Protection  Program
EPA
          first began efforts to implement the WHP Program on a national level by working
directly with States through EPA's ten Regional offices. Seminars, workshops, individual
meetings,  and training sessions were  held throughout the country.  In the process, a
number of  central issues surfaced that illustrate the need for WHP Programs at the State
level.  Listed below are some of the issues and answers encountered during the process.
      CHANGING  TRENDS IN EPA'S  GROUND WATER PROTECTION  POLICY
       ISSUE
It's well known that EPA has
revised its overall Ground
Water Protection policy over
the  last   few  years  to
incorporate WHP as a key
principle affecting ground
water regulation, but what
has EPA specifically done to
enhance integration  of the
WHP  Program with other
programs at the State level,
where responsibility for
implementation really lies?
                            A number of changes in EPA's  regulatory program are
                            being implemented or evaluated  for adoption, including:

                              Under the WHP Program, a State having authority for
                               carrying out federal drinking water regulations can use its
                               EPA-approved WHP Program  for contingency planning
                               for public water supplies drawn  from ground water
                               reserves in the event of a water service emergency;

                              A local WHP Program can contribute to completing a
                               watershed control  program as a step in avoiding
                               filtration  requirements for public  water supply systems;

                              WHP is identified as one of the complementary means
                               of achieving levels of total  coliform contamination
                               below the established drinking  water standards;

                              States  with  potential  Superfund (abandoned,
                               uncontrolled hazardous waste)  sites  may  receive
                               additional points for these sites in priority ranking for
                               federal funds if they are in or near WHP areas;

                            In addition to the above, EPA is considering use of the survey
                            of   potential  contaminant  sources  and  differential
                            management approaches used in  WHP Programs as a
                            possible ranking factor in  States'  applications to waive
                            certain  monitoring requirements for synthetic  organic
                            chemicals, which could save localities time and money by
                            conducting  one assessment  and  potentially  avoiding
                            monitoring for these chemicals if their wells are adequately
                            protected.

-------
       ISSUE
In States where the federal
government  operates  or
maintains large facilities or
areas of land,  how is the
subject of compliance with
the WHP Program addressed
in terms of federal versus
State authority?
Under  the  SDWA  Amendments of  1986,  any
department or agency of the federal government having
jurisdiction over any potential source of contaminants
within a wellhead protection  area (WHPA) identified
by a State WHP Program is subject to, and must
comply with, all requirements of the State's Program.
This includes the payment of reasonable charges and
fees levied in connection  with the management or
remediation of potential sources of ground water
contamination within  WHPAs.
       ISSUE
Because  comprehensive
ground water  protection
(CGWP) programs are  so
broad, why do you need a
WHP component?
WHP  focuses  on  limited  geographic  areas within
aquifers which  may be managed through a broader
scheme;

Wellhead protection areas (WHPAs) are at high risk
because  sources  or activities within  WHPAs may
contribute  to  potential contamination of wells,
depending on time of travel (TOT) of contaminants to
the well.  Differential management of these sources
and activities within WHPAs addresses these concerns.

Wellhead protection areas account for more than 10%
of the geographic areas defined in CGWP programs
aimed at  protecting current and potential sources of
ground water used for drinking water.
       ISSUE
EPA seems to be the only
federal agency offering any
incentives to State and local
participation in the  WHP
Program.  Are any other
agencies interested enough
in WHP to assist the States
and  locals  in   actively
participating   in    the
program?
One agency is taking a major role: the US Department
of Agriculture, under the  1990 Farm Bill, provides
assistance to farmers and ranchers in adopting
practices to  reduce risks to ground water from
agricultural chemicals or livestock production activities
that might pose a threat to  public drinking water
supplies.  Under  the Farm Bill,  USDA plans to
encourage participation in  WHP Programs as part of
this assistance.

-------
The USDA also plans to target farmers in WHP areas
for participation in the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP). Under the CRP, farmers are asked to remove
land from production for the control of soil erosion and
off-site pollution.   In exchange for discontinuing
agricultural  production,  producers receive an annual
rental payment from the federal government.  Some
States have "sweetened" the  federal payment to
encourage greater participation in the CRP in sensitive
areas, such as WHP areas.

In addition to the CRP, USDA is also implementing a
new program that provides incentive payments  and
cost share payments to farmers to implement farm-
level water quality protection plans.  Producers
participating in the  program  also receive  technical
assistance for implementing water quality protection
practices; this program is targeted to WHP  areas.

-------
                         GROUND WATER-PROTECTION
       ISSUE
Doesn't the soil's  natural
filtration capacity eliminate
all but the most persistent
organic contaminants from
reaching ground water?
Not really; for many years, it was believed that public
water supply systems which relied on ground water for
drinking water supplies enjoyed a type of  built-in
"immunity" from contamination, because it was thought
that multiple layers  of soil,  sand and  rock acted as
filters,  trapping contaminants before they reached
ground water reserves used for drinking water Within
the past 20 years, however, reported cases of ground
water related disease outbreaks  and associated
illnesses have risen dramatically, and  contamination
plumes  have been detected in areas  and soil types
not expected to be conducive to transport of ground
water  pollutants, based  on past hydrogeologic
assumptions.
       ISSUE
If our community relies on
deep  aquifers with  the
"natural  protection"   of
confining layers, might we
also need WHP?
Layers previously thought to be highly confining may
contain natural (e.g. fractures) or manmade  (e.g.,
boreholes), which are highly transmissive pathways
that permit the introduction of contaminants into the
underlying aquifer. Such a phenomenon may be the
cause  of contamination recently found in aquifers in
New York  (Long Island), New Jersey, Louisiana,
Hawaii, California, and Nebraska. A WHP Program is
needed to assess the actual "protectiveness" of these
confining layers,  and to prioritize attention to sources
of contamination located near these openings.
                          PUBLIC HEALTH  PROTECTION
          ISSUE
 Municipalities usually do a
 good  job of  monitoring
 potential  ground  water
 threats  to their drinking
 water supplies, and most of
 these have worked well over
 time.  Aren't these  efforts
 sufficient to protect  the
 public health?
 In many cases, they are  not.  For example, despite
 the existence of an aquifer protection boundary and
 an underground storage tank (UST) overlay district in
 place since 1984, the town of Oak Bluffs, on Martha's
 Vineyard, MA, discovered a previously unknown and
 abandoned UST leaking petroleum fuel less than 500
 feet from a wellfield containing five public water supply
 wells in 1986.  This case of undetected  prior UST
 location and condition could have been prevented by
 a thorough contaminant source inventory as part of  a
 WHP Program, followed by appropriate removal
 activities.

-------
                                 In a survey conducted by EPAto estimate the occurrence
                                 of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in drinking water,
                                 analysis  of finished water samples from 945 suppliers
                                 using ground water as a drinking water source showed
                                 that over 10% of the sources sampled showed levels of
                                 VOC  contamination.   The results of  this  survey are
                                 especially significant  because the States participating
                                 in the survey were encouraged to choose water supplies
                                 for the nonrandom samples for which no prior VOC data
                                 were available.  These samples were known to  have a
                                 higher than normal probability of contamination by
                                 VOCs, based on the State agency's knowledge of local
                                 conditions (e.g., proximity to landfills, industrial and
                                 agricultural activity, etc.).  Thus, the  State agency's
                                 prediction that  VOC contamination could  occur from
                                 these sources was confirmed, even though no prior VOC
                                 data were available.

                                 Public Drinking Water Systems monitored for compliance
                                 with Maximum Contaminant Levels established by EFA's
                                 Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water for chemical
                                 and bacterial contamination showed that contamination
                                 above these limits occurs on a widespread scale  in
                                 Public Water Supply Systems.  In 1992,  of the 47,898
                                 active community ground water systems reporting, 4,179
                                 had 1  or more MCL violation(s). In 1993, out of 46,880
                                 reporting, 4,435  had 1 or more violation(s).

                                 States reported in 1991 that 14,000 drinking water wells
                                were either closed or restricted, an 87% increase since
                                 1987.
            COST  OF PREVENTION VERSUS COST OF REMEDIATION
        ISSUE
The cost  of cleanup  in
ground water contamination
incidents is usually high,
but  the routine  cost  of
preventive measures often
overburdens a municipality
in terms of capital outlay.
Are   these   "fail-safe"
measures really justified?
In late 1977, gasoline leaking from a USTin Truro, MA,
on Cape Cod, forced the immediate closure of nearby
Proviricetown's South Hollow Wellfield to prevent
contamination of  the town's drinking water supply.
Emergency aboveground water pipes were installed
and an on-site treatment plant was constructed.  The
aquifer rehabilitation program initally was funded by
$1.9 million in State grants, with Provincetown
spending  over $1 million  in direct expenses  and
borrowed funds in the undertaking.  Now, over 16 years
and $4 million later, State and local officials are in the
last stages of testing to determine whether continued
treatment  is still necessary.  Even if treatment is no
longer  necessary, daily monitoring may be required

-------
       ISSUE
In cases of documented con-
tamination, can't affected
users simply have new wells
installed or be hooked-up to
existing suppliers?
following the completion  of the aquifer rehabilitation
program. The "Truro Spill" as it has come to be known,
has focused attention on the regulatory, institutional,
and educational programs needed to ensure the lasting
usefulness of the aquifer in the  face  of intensified
growth pressures and land-use activities, and the need
to monitor  threats which may originate outside one
town's jurisdiction  but threaten another's drinking water
supply.   In this instance, financial commitment and
cooperation between local jurisdictions in developing
Wellhead Protection Programs for protection of adjacent
ground water reserves used for drinking water would
have been time and money well spent when compared
with the clean-up  costs.

 In  contamination cases where the only  feasible
 alternative is drilling new wells, installing new distribution
 systems, or connecting users to existing PWSSs, the
 cost  is substantial.  Records of Decision (RODs) for
 cleanup of 40 Superfund Sites where public water
 supplies were affected showed that in cases where these
 alternatives were necessary, costs ranged from $70
 thousand to over  $2.3 million, depending  on extent of
 contamination and population served.  In addition, given
 the current hydrogeologic studies necessary, the cost of
 installing, developing, and connecting to service a new
 PWSS well now represents one of  the most costly line-
 item expenses of  any municipality.

-------
                 BENEFITS OF TARGETING  RESOURCES IN WHP
        ISSUE
 What advantages does WHP
 have   over  the  normal
 exercise of State and  local
 funding   initiatives   for
 protection of PWSSs?
 WHP provides a structured, organized means of
 focusing  federal,  State,  and  local government
 resources, which are usually limited, on areas of
 greatest concern in providing for public drinking water
 supplies, An effective WHP Program clearly sets forth
 the real purpose of the Program, helps identify gaps
 n management roles and  duties of participating
 agencies, provides technical assistance in delineating
 wellhead  protection  areas, suggests differential
 management strategies for dealing with contaminant
 sources,   provides  guidance  in   inventorying
 contaminant sources within these areas, helps develop
 contingency planning for water supply contamination
 or disruption, assists in the decision making process
 for siting new public water  supply wells, and  offers
 comprehensive opportunities for public participation
 m the development  and  implementation of wellhead
 protection programs at the State  and local level.
        ISSUE
If a WHP Program is put into
place, where will the "teeth"
in the implementation phase
come from?   Won't those
persons not  interested  in
WHP just ignore it?
Effective implementation  of a WHP Program under
these elements can be greatly facilitated by exercising
existing municipal  authorities, such as  inspections,
permitting,  enforcement,  zoning,  and land  use
restrictions.  By exercising these authorities  and
controls at the local level,  a community serves notice
that WHP is a "real" program that makes good common
sense, and that persons responsible  for sources or
activities within WHPAs which may be potential threats
to grouno water based drinking water supplies may be
held accountable in  managing  these sources  and
activities effectively. WHP can benefit the municipality
on a broad scale in terms of safeguarding the public
health as well as ensuring economic viability for the
community on a long-term  basis through a preventive
approach to protecting public drinking water supplies.
10

-------
x::x::x::x::x::x::x::x::x:::




x::x::x::x::x::x::x::x.;!;!;!;!;!;!;!; !|!;!:x"

                                                11

-------
                            POLLUTION  PREVENTION
        ISSUE
 Do any indicators exist that
 show that the  essential
 elements of a WHP Program
 are  being  used to  prevent
 contamination of our ground
 water-based public drinking
 water supplies at the  local
 level?
        ISSUE
What action can  industry
take to embrace pollution
prevention techniques to
protect  public  drinking
water supplies?
Yes - there is currently a trend in the direction of new
light industrial and residential development towards
protecting ground water from pollution. Protection of
public drinking water supplies is becoming an issue
at the mayoral and county supervisor level.  Current
trends in area "Master Plans" for projected municipal
growth continue  to show incorporation of the basic
concepts of wellhead protection in  plans designed to
safeguard public drinking water supplies. For example,
signs announcing entry into wellhead, ground water,
and drinking water protection areas are being erected
along  local roads and interstate highways.  Highway
materials (salt  and other inorganics)  are being
relocated away from wells and wellfields.  In the long
term,  these planning and  management decisions
actually help attract business and industry to these
areas, creating more jobs and an expanding tax base.

Process modification, waste minimization, monitoring
and recycling are encouraged under WHP Programs
as part  of EPA's "Common Sense Initiative." This
industry-by-industry approach introduces a new policy
of protecting  human  health  and the environment by
12

-------
                               setting tough goals for industry, while at the same time
                               encouraging flexibility and innovation in how these
                               goals are met.  The "Common  Sense Initiative"
                               encourages the  development of new or  modified
                               manufacturing or operating strategies for industries
                               that want to locate, or to continue operating in, WHFfts.
                  AVOIDING THE HIGH COST OF REGULATION
       ISSUE
What advantages  can the
WHP  Program really  offer
the PWSS operator and the
consumer?
       ISSUE


Usually, documented cases
of drinking water  supply
contamination are cleaned
up to predetermined federal
or State  levels before ser-
vice  is  restored  to  the
consumer.  Why would WHP
make  any difference in the
ultimate price tag?
PWSS  rates are  more frequently being affected by
increasingly stringent drinking water monitoring
requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Compliance with these requirements costs  the PWSS
operator money, which is ultimately passed on  to the
consumer in higher water rates.  Participation in WHP
Program can help the PWSS operator reduce the cost
and frequency of monitoring.

Regulatory authorities implemented under  RCRA and
Superfund to clean up ground water contamination and
render public drinking water supplies usable afterwards
characteristically carry a high price tag in terms  of unit
cost increases to PWSS users. A review of RODs for
50 Superfund sites threatening public water supply
systems concluded that the  average costs of cleaning
up ground water  are $5.9 million to $7.3  million per
site. The National Research  Council estimated that
$" trillion will be spent over  the next 30 years to clean
up  ground waters at contaminated  sites.   The
preventive aspects of  WHP are designed to preclude
the need for such costly remediation measures, saving
the users money in the long run.
                          INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
       ISSUE
Aside from  catastrophic
pollution incidents such as
New York's Love Canal and
Times Beach, Missouri, what
real effect does  "normal"
industrial pollution, gener-
ated as a result of routine
industrial procedures, have
on the nation?
Ground water contamination resulting from industrial
pollution is a real and present threat to the economic
viability of States and individual communities.  In the
State of Minnesota alone, a survey of 21 cities and 18
companies yielded a conservative estimate of the true
dollar value of this reality: a total of $24,045,500 spent
m 17 cities, and  $43,026,500 expended by  18
                                                                           13

-------
          S  S  U E
Can't the remedial costs of
these periodic incidents be
handled as they always have
in the past; combined State,
federal,   and   municipal
assistance?
companies in coping with ground water contamination.
They  can, but the dollar cost of the cleanup and
remediation is only  the  tip of the iceberg.  The
increasing liability and high costs associated with
ground  water  cleanup and remediation  stresses
municipal resources to the point of effecting changes
n the pattern of business development within the State
or  municipality.  The costs and problems associated
with ground water contamination diminishes the
attraction of  these localities for redevelopment and
reuse  by outside  interests,  and  encourages
businesses to  abandon such sites.  Relocation  to
another  city or State  means a long-term loss to the
area in terms of jobs and tax base.
14

-------
How Can I Find  Out More About WHP?
 I he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
in Washington, DC, and all ten of EPA's Regional offices (listed below) provide technical
assistance in the development and implementation of  State WHP Programs.
For More Information Contact:
Ms. Jane Downing
Ground Water Management Sec.
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building (WGT-445)
Boston, MA 02203
617-565-3600

Ms. Dore LaPosta
Ground Water Management Sec.
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 842
New York, NY 10278
212-264-5635

Ms. Virginia Thompson
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-2786

Ms. Mary Kay Lynch
Ground Water Protection Branch
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
404-347-3379
Ms. Jerri-Anne Garl
Ground Water Protection Branch
Water Division
U.S. EPA, Region V
230 S. Dearborn St. (5WG-TUB8)
Chicago,  IL  60604
312-353-1441

Ms. Erlece Allen
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue (6-W)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
214-655-6446

Mr. Robert Fenemore
Office of Ground Water Prot.
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-551-7745
Ms. Patricia H. Denham
Ground Water Branch
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region VIII
999 18th Street (8WMGW)
Denver, CO 80202-2405
303-294-1164

Ms. Doris Betuel
Source Water Protection Sec.
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street (W-6-3)
San Francisco, CA 94015
415-744-1835

Mr. Roger Mochnik
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region X
1200  Sixth Avenue (WD-139)
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-1216
                                                                                       15

-------

-------
Appendix:  State and Territory
Wellhead Protection Agencies
Alabama
Delaware
AL Department of Environmental Management
1751 Congressman W.L Dickinson Drive
Montgomery, AL  36130

Alaska

AK Department of Environmental Conservation
P.O. Box 0
Juneau, AK  99811-1800

Arizona

AZ Department of Environmental Quality
Groundwater Monitor Unit
2005 North Central, Room 202-A
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Arkansas

AR Department of Health
4815 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201

California

Ground Water Unit
CA State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 944213
Sacramento, CA  95814

Colorado

Water Quality Control Division
CO Department of Health
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, CO 80220-3716
Division of Water Resources
Ground-Water Management Section
DE Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Contamination
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE  19903

Florida

FL Department of Environmental Regulations
Bureau of Drinking Water and
Ground-Water Research
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone  Road
Tallahassee, FL  32399-2400

Georgia

GA Geologic Survey, EP
Department of Natural Resources
Room 400,19 Ml. King, Jr. Drive, S.W.
Atlanta, GA  30334

Hawaii

Groundwater Protection Program
HI Department of Health
5 Waterfront, Suite 250
500 Alamoana Boulevard
Honolulu, HI 96813

Idaho

Water Quality Bureau
ID Division of Environmental Quality Statehouse
ID Department of Health and Welfare
450 West State Street
Boise, ID 83720
Connecticut
Illinois
Bureau of Water Management
CT Department of Environmental Protection
Room 117, State Office Building
165 Capital Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
ILEPA
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL  62706

Indiana
                                             Drinking Water Branch Chief
                                             IN Department of Environmental Management
                                             105S. Meridian/P.O. Box 6015
                                             Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015

-------
 Iowa

 IA Department of Natural Resources
 Henry Wallace Office Building
 900 East Grand
 Des Moines, IA 50319

 Kansas

 KS Department Health and Environment
 Landon State Office  Building, 9th Floor
 900 S.W. Jackson
 Topeka, KS  66612-1290

 Kentucky	

 Department of Environmental Protection
 Division of Water
 Ground Water Branch
 18 Reilly Road
 Frankfort, KY 40601

 Louisiana

 Department of Environmental Quality
 P.O. Box 44066
 Baton Rouge, LA 70804

 Maine
Drinking Water Program
Division of Health Engineering
ME Department of Human Services
State House Station 10
Augusta, ME 04333

Maryland

Water Supply Program
MD Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD  21224

Massachusetts	

Division of Water Supply
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
1  Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
 Michigan	

 Ml Department of Public Health
 P.O. Box 30035
 Lansing, Ml  48909

 Ml Department of Natural Resources
 Stevens T. Mason Building
 P.O. Box 30028
 Lansing, Ml  48909

 Minnesota

 MN Department of Health
 P.O. Box 59040
 Minneapolis, MN 55459

 Missouri	

 Public Drinking Water Program
 MO Department of Natural Resources
 P.O. Box 176   
 Jefferson City, MO  65102

 Mississippi	

 Ground-Water Quality Branch
 MS Bureau of Pollution Control
 P.O. Box 10385
 Jackson, MS 39289-0385

 Montana	

 Water Quality Bureau
 MT Department  of Health and  Environmental
 Sciences
 Cogswell Building, Room A206
 Helena,  MT 59620

 Nebraska

 NE Department of Environmental Control
 Statehouse Station
 P.O. Box 98922
 Lincoln, NE 68509-8922

 Nevada	

Ground-Water Protection Program
 NV Division of Environmental Protection
 123 West Nye Lane
Carson City, NV  89710

-------
Appendix:  State and Territory
Wellhead  Protection Agencies  (continued)
New York
Oklahoma
NY Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Water,  Room 306
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY  12233-0001

New Jersey	

Bureau of Water Supply, Planning and Policy
NJ Department of  Environmental Protection
CN029
Trenton, NJ  08625-0029

New Hampshire	

Ground-Water Protection Bureau
NH Department of Environmental Services
P.O. Box 95
Concord, NH 03301

New Mexico	

NM Health and Environment Department
1190 St. Francis Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87503

North Carolina	

Ground-Water Section
NC Department of Environmental Health and
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC  27611

North Dakota	

Environmental Health Section
ND Department of Health
P.O. Box 5520
Bismarck, ND 58502-5520

Ohio	

Division of Ground Water
OH EPA
1800 Water Mark  Drive/Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43266-0149
Pollution Control Coordination Board
OK Department of Pollution Control
P.O. Box 53504
Oklahoma City, OK 73152

Oregon	

Water Quality Division
OR Department of Environmental Quality
811 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-1334

Pennsylvania	

Division of Water Supplies Bureau of Community
Environmental Control
PA Department of Environmental Resources
P.O. Box 2357
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2357

Rhode Island	

Rl Department of Environmental Management
291  Promenade Street
Providence,  Rl 02908-5767

South Carolina	

Bureau of Water
Supply and Special Programs Department of  SC
Natural Resources and Community Development
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201

South Dakota	

Division of Environmental Regulation
SD Department of Water and Natural Resources
Joe Foss Building
523 E. Capitol
Pierre, SD  57501

Tennessee	

TN Department of Health and Environment
Division of Water Supply
150 Ninth Avenue, North
Nashville, TN  37219-5404

-------
Texas

TX Department of Health
1100 West 49th Street
Austin, TX  78756

TX Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087, Capitol Station
Austin, TX  78711-3087

Utah	

Burea of Drinking Water and Sanitation
UT Department of Health
288 North 1460 West
Salt Lake City, UT  84116-0690

Vermont

Division of Environmental  Health Water
Supply Program
VT Department of Health
60 Main Street
Burlington, VT 05401

Virginia

Ground Water Program  Manager
VA Water Control Board
P.O. Box 11143
Richmond, VA 23230-1143

Washington

LD-11
WA Department of Health
Olympia, WA 98504

West Virginia
Environmental Engineering Division
WV Office of Environmental Health Services
Capital Comp. Building 3,  Room 550
1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East
Charleston, WV  25305

Wisconsin
Wyoming	

WY DEQ - Water Quality Division
Herschler Building, 4th Floor
122 West 25th
Cheyenne, WY 82002

American Samoa

American Samoa EPA
Office of the Governor
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799

Guam

Guam EPA
Government of Guam
Harmon Plaza Complex Unit D107
130 Rojas Street
Harmon. Guam 96911

Mariana Islands

Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
Division of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box  1304
Saipan. Mariana Islands  96950

Palau	

Palau  Environmental Quality Protection Board
P.O. Box  100
Koror, Palau  96940

Puerto Rico

Water Quality Area
PR Environmental Quality Board
Box 11488
Santurce, PR  00910

Virgin Islands	

VI Department of Planning and Natural Resources
179 Altonaand Welgunst
St. Thomas, VI 00820
Division of Environmental Standards
Wl Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wl  53707

-------