United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4606)
EPA 816-R-98-019
April 1999
&EPA Protecting Sources of
Drinking Water
Selected Case Studies in
Watershed Management
Internet Address: http://www.epa.gov/safewater & Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Foreword
Drinking Water Source
Protection: A New National
Focus >/K:
This document presents
17 drinking water utilities
that are incorporating
watershed management
and protection as an
integral part of their
business of providing
safe drinking water to their
customers.
^^^Boday, approximately 11,000
I community water systems
I serving over 160 million
people rely on lakes, reservoirs,
and rivers as their main sources of
drinking water. When these drink-
ing water sources become contami-
nated, the cost to industry and
public health is high due to addi-
tional treatment and clean up
needs. There is a growing recogni-
tion that effective drinking water
system management includes
addressing the quality and protec-
tion of water sources.
Drinking water source protection
extends beyond controlling indi-
vidual sources of contamination to
address problems and solutions on
a regional or watershed basis.
Many states, tribes and local
governments are already managing
water quality programs with a
watershed approach. However,
drinking water programs heavily
reliant on treatment technology to
make water safe to drink, have not
always been involved in these
efforts to protect or restore water
quality of lakes and rivers. This is
beginning to change.
We have reached a crossroads
where goals for safe drinking water
are converging with the goals for
clean water. Congress recognized
this connection in passage of the
Safe Drinking Water Act Amend-
ments of 1996. The Amendments
go beyond monitoring and treating
contaminated water to emphasizing
pollution prevention. They direct
state drinking water agencies to
examine the sources of drinking
water as an additional layer of
protection for our drinking water
supplies. States are required to
establish assessment programs to
delineate drinking water source
areas, complete inventories of all
potentially significant contaminant
sources, and determine the sus-
ceptibility of every public water
system to contamination from
these sources. These assessments
will provide drinking water sys-
tems, states, and local communi-
ties with more understanding of
the potential threats to each water
supply, and help to target necessary
protection measures.
The growing emphasis on drinking
water source protection means that
more water systems reliant on
surface water will implement
watershed management programs
for the first time. There are nu-
merous challenges to overcome
through this process. Many water
pollution problems are the result of
diverse sources within a water-
shed, and their solutions rely on
land and water resource manage-
ment that is often beyond the
control of a drinking water utility.
These are difficult issues to effec-
tively address without the involve-
ment of multiple stakeholders
including the general public.
Nonetheless, there are drinking
water utilities across the country
engaged in innovative and success-
ful source water protection pro-
-------
grams. Their solutions include
developing partnerships between
the water utility and local govern-
ments, working closely with local
watershed councils, entering into
land exchange agreements with
land management agencies, and
engaging with local farmers to
implement best management
practices aimed at protecting
sources of drinking water.
This document presents case
studies of 17 drinking water sys-
tems commited to extensive efforts
to incorporate source water man-
agement and protection as an
integral part of their business of
providing safe drinking water to
their customers. The authors
provide snapshots of lessons
learned in implementing four
aspects of source water protection:
partnerships, watershed assess-
ment, watershed land use man-
agement, and land acquisition.
Though diverse in their water-
shed management experiences,
there is a common thread among
all of the water systems: the
importance of cross-program
coordination. The coordination of
a drinking water utility's goals
with local watershed management
initiatives aimed at aquatic
ecosystem restoration and protec-
tion can boost the effectiveness of
program implementation for both
priorities.
While no program can directly
apply to another community's
situation, some pieces of pro-
grams may help others to develop
protection strategies. We hope
that the experiences detailed here
will prove useful to water system
managers as they engage in efforts
to protect their drinking water
sources and become involved in
local watershed management and
protection programs.
Cynthia C. Dougherty, Director
Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Diane VanDe Hei
Executive Director
Association of Metropolitan Water
Agencies
Though diverse in their
watershed management
experiences, there is a
common thread among
all of the water systems:
the importance of cross-
program coordination.
-------
r
Protecting
Sources of Drinking Water:
Selected Case Studies in
Watershed Management, is a joint
project by the EPA Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water and the
Association of Metropolitan Water
Agencies (AMWA).
Much of the information in this
document comes from three Source
Water Protection Workshops at-
tended by drinking water suppliers
from across the country. The
workshops were sponsored by EPA
and AMWA. A list of participants is
provided in Appendix A, along with
program contacts around the
country.
EPA and AMWA wish to thank the
individuals and drinking water
utilities who contributed case
studies as a result of the work-
shops:
Phillippe Boissoneault
Director of Watershed Protection
Portland Water District
(207) 774-5961, Ext. 3101
Dennis Bostad
Water Quality Director
Sweetwater Authority
(619) 475-9047, Ext. 102
Richard Denton
Water Resources Manager
Contra Costa Water District
(925) 688-8187
Stephen Estes-Smargiassi
Director of Planning
Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority
(617) 241-6215
Suzanne Flagor
Director of Watershed Management
Seattle Public Utilities
(206) 233-1510
Steve Leonard
Program Manager
San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission
(415) 554-0792
Dan Lowell
Operations Superintendent
City of Everett Water Department
(206) 259-8823
Mary Ann Mann
Engineer
Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California
(909) 392-5104
Mark Murphy
Water Plant Manager
Onondaga County Water Authority
(315) 673-4304
Robert W. Naef
Manager and Chief Engineer
Chester Water Authority
(610) 876-8185
Howard Neukrug
Director of Planning and Technical
Services
Philadelphia Water Department
(215) 685-6319
-------
Pankaj Parehk
Regulatory Affairs Manager
Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power
(213) 628-8303
John Przepiora
Commissioner
Syracuse Department of Water
(315) 473-2609
Florence Reynolds
Water Quality Administrator
Salt Lake City Public Utilities
Department
(801) 483-6864
Anne Seeley
Section Chief, Drinking Water
Quality Planning
New York City Department of
Environmental Protection
(718) 595-5346
Janet Senior
Senior Planner - Water Resources
Portland Water Bureau
(503) 823-4287
Tina Schweickert
Water Resources Program
Coordinator
Salem Public Works Department
(503) 588-6211
Glenn Singley
Northern District Engineer
Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power
(619) 873-0223
Environmental Protection
Agency
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water oversees
the implementation of the Safe
Drinking Water Act and coordi-
nates with other programs that
protect drinking water. To learn
more about EPA's drinking water
program, visit www.epa.gov/
safewater, or call the Safe Drinking
Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791.
Association of Metropolitan
Water Agencies
The Association of Metropolitan
Water Agencies, based in Washing-
ton, DC, is a nonprofit organization
representing the nation's largest
publicly owned drinking water
providers. AMWA members collec-
tively serve over 100 million people
with clean, safe drinking water. For
more information about AMWA,
visit the association's web site at
www.amwa-water.org, or call (202)
331-2820.
-------
Chapter 1
Creating Partnerships
Instituting drinking water protection with a source water
protection program involves balancing competing interests and
conflicting demands within the watershed. This can be done
through watershed planning committees, or simply by
establishing good, long-term relationships among the partners, which
encourages a level playing field for reconciling the community's needs.
To create a viable source
water protection plan, all
interested agencies and
organizations must be
identified and efforts must
be made to resolve their
competing missions.
The affected parties must share
information effectively. Water
utilities, local and state govern-
ments, watershed councils and
grassroots organizations are among
the players in watershed manage-
ment strategies. By sharing infor-
mation, formal or informal partner-
ships can be established.
Often, water systems must work
with local, state and federal govern-
ments that have jurisdiction over
watershed lands, but whose mis-
sions and institutional interests
may be different than those of the
water system. Such cases require
a different form of partnership, one
that acknowledges the legal man-
dates of all parties.
For example, when a drinking
water system's source water lies
almost entirely within a national
park, the system's need to protect
its source may conflict with the
U.S. National Park Service's mis-
sion of promoting outdoor recre-
ation. That was the situation
facing one case study subject, the
San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission. They addressed these
issues through a process of com-
prehensive stakeholder involve-
ment and formal partnerships.
If a water utility demonstrates
interest in the youth of the com-
munity, customers are more likely
to accept watershed regulations
and restrictions on land uses
within a watershed. Watershed
programs also help train a new
generation of water-conscious
consumers. Seattle Public Utilities
invest in watershed and utility
tours, classroom presentations,
water experiments, and poster
contests. They have heightened
the awareness of watershed issues
in the community and increased
the stature of the utility among its
customers.
-------
Creating
Partnerships with
Groups and
Individuals
Chester Water Authority
Chester, Pennsylvania
• Primary Source of Water: Octoraro
Reservoir
•Watershed Area: 140 square miles
• Population Served: 200,000
• Treatment: Filtration, post-chlorination,
fluorination, ammonia, activated carbon,
potassium permanganate, post-lime
• Partners: Conservation Commissions,
Farmers, Octoraro Watershed Associa-
tion, Partners for Wildlife, Pennsylvania
Fish and Boat Commission, Pennsylva-
nia Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources
To protect the water quality of its
Octoraro Reservoir, the Chester
Water Authority has forged a strong
and lasting partnership with the
Octoraro Watershed Association.
This partnership bridges the gap
between the citizens who get their
drinking water from the Octoraro
Reservoir but do not live in the
watershed, and the farmers and
landowners who live in the water-
shed but do not get their drinking
water from the Octoraro Reservoir.
The Octoraro Watershed Associa-
tion was formed nearly 30 years
ago by local property owners inter-
ested in protecting the watershed.
Recognizing the potential of such
an association, the Authority allied
with it shortly after it was formed.
Over the years, the Authority and
the Association have jointly sup-
ported many education and out-
reach programs.
In recent years, the Authority has
solidified its ongoing relationship
with the Watershed Association by
providing a meeting place and
administrative support services.
Promoting Agricultural Best
Management Practices
The Octoraro Watershed Associa-
tion promotes streambank fencing,
barnyard management, crop rota-
tion, and the establishment of
forested riparian buffers through-
out the watershed. By visiting
farms, grange halls, and other
venues, the Association builds
trust among the area's farmers,
who are encouraged to adopt vari-
ous best management practices
(BMPs.)
The Association stresses that
watershed protection BMPs are
flexible and can be modified to
meet the farmers' concerns. For
example, the Association supports
the installation of buffer strips that
are narrower than textbooks rec-
ommend because farmers working
small subsistence farms are con-
cerned about losing the use of too
much land.
One of the Octoraro Watershed
Association's greatest challenges
has been convincing farmers that
BMPs will benefit them and the
watershed. In a booth at a recent
regional agricultural fair, the
Association displayed "before and
after" pictures of farms that had
adopted BMPs. The Association
also relies on success stories to
spread the word among farmers.
Partnerships with Farmers:
Overcoming Skepticism
The 140-square-mile Octoraro
watershed is home to a large
Amish community. An enthu-
siastic Amish farmer who
recreated a wetland on his
property with support from the
Association and "Partners for
Wildlife" has become an effec-
tive spokesman for BMPs. Citing
erosion prevention, fishing, and
other benefits, the farmer contin-
ues to build his own projects,
and his experience is
helping other Amish farm-
Citing erosion
prevention, fishing, and
other benefits, an
enthusiastic Amish farmer
continues to build his own
projects. Other Amish
farmers are becoming
more receptive to
watershed protection.
-------
In the Upstate New York
Watershed, the water
utility has partnered with
state regulatory agenices
and helped to increase
community awareness of
environmental regulations
within the watershed.
ers become more receptive to the
association's watershed protection
efforts.
Often, the Association helps willing
farmers seek financial aid for their
BMPs. They turn to local, state, and
federal partners such as Conserva-
tion Commissions and the Pennsyl-
vania Fish and Boat Commission's
"Adopt a Stream" program for
financial and technical assistance.
The Partners for Wildlife also helps
match proposals with funding
sources. Recently, the Association
received a matched grant with
$20,000 from the Pennsylvania
Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources to fund a com-
prehensive watershed study.
Cross-Jurisdiction a I
Cooperation: Utility
and Government
Partnership
Syracuse Water Department
Syracuse, New York
• Primary Source of Water: Skaneateles
Lake
• Watershed Area: 73 square miles
• Population Served: 160,000
• Treatment: Chlorination, fluorination
• Partners: County Board of Health,
Local Governments, New York State
Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion
To protect Skaneateles Lake, the
Syracuse Water Department (SWD)
has negotiated agreements with
local, county, and state authorities
that have jurisdiction in the Up-
state New York watershed. The
water system participates in
numerous governmental delibera-
tions affecting the watershed's
health and in return helps these
governments meet their responsi-
bilities.
State Environmental
Department Partnership
The SWD and the New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) have
formed a symbiotic relationship:
the water system helps the
NYSDEC uncover watershed prob-
lems, while the state lets the
utility review and comment on any
shoreline disturbance permit that
affects the lake. Rarely does the
NYSDEC approve a permit within
the watershed without consulting
with the utility.
This arrangement began when
SWD staff began reporting water-
shed violations they found during
site visits to NYSDEC conservation
officers. SWD staff are constantly in
the watershed, while the NYSDEC
cannot always patrol the watershed
for violations. The SWD staffs
knowledge of the watershed laws
and regulations partnered with the
state conservation department's
regulatory mission helps watershed
residents to know more about the
regulations.
County Board of Health Partners
Perhaps SWD's closest working
relationship is with the County
Board of Health (BOH). The SWD
has been designated as the
Boards's official representative for
observing required septic system
percolation tests for septic systems.
Any septic system violation found
by SWD staff is reported to the BOH
for enforcement, which may in-
clude a letter of violation, a hearing
before the health commissioner, or
a fine.
Additionally, most towns cannot
approve a building permit without
the Board of Health's agreement.
The strong partnership between
the water utility and the Board of
Health has resulted in inclusion of
SWD staff in the review of building
permits to make sure that they are
not in conflict with concerns for
water quality.
-------
Local Government Partners
The Skaneateles Lake watershed
is located in three counties, seven
towns, and one village. The Town of
Skaneateles, which is closest to
the SWD intakes, has the largest
watershed population and the most
potential for urban development.
Prompted by town residents' con-
cern that the lake's high water
quality be maintained,
Skaneateles recently rewrote its
zoning laws authorizing the SWD to
review applications for building
permits, subdivision actions, and
other zoning issues to ensure
compliance with the SWD's Water-
shed Rules and Regulations. The
SWD does not have authority to
deny permits, but its recommenda-
tions to ensure compliance with
the Watershed Rules must be
incorporated in the zoning actions.
Skaneateles is the only community
that has a formally codified agree-
ment with the SWD; the utility's
arrangements with other towns
such as Niles, Scott, Sempronius,
and Stafford are informal.
Turbidity Prompts
Federal and State
Cooperation
Salem Public Works Department
Salem, Oregon
• Primary Source of Water: North
Santiam River
•Watershed Area: 600 square miles
• Population Served: 150,000
• Treatment: Slow sand filtration
• Partners: North Santiam Watershed
Forum, Local Governments, U.S. Army
Corp of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of
Land Management, U.S. Forest
Service
Strong partnerships are critical in
the North Santiam Watershed
because both public and private
land management decisions affect
water quality. Most of the 600
square mile North Santiam Water-
shed is public forest managed for
timber and recreational use by the
U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), and
Oregon Department of Forestry.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
operates a reservoir for flood con-
trol, power, and recreation in the
center of the watershed. There is
also a small amount of private
forest and farm land in six small
communities.
Formalizing Partnerships
Persistent turbidity during two
consecutive winters of high rainfall
and flooding disrupted Salem's slow
sand filtration, forcing the city to
use alternate water sources, install
temporary treatment systems, and
curtail water use. The situation
highlighted the importance of the
city's source water and prompted
the City of Salem Public Works
Department and the U.S. Forest
Service to negotiate an agreement
on the management of Forest
Service land in the city's water-
shed.
The Memorandum of Understand-
ing (MOU) clarifies the manage-
ment responsibilities and activities
of Salem and the U.S. Forest Ser-
vice to maintain high-quality water
for the city's use. As a result, the
U.S. Forest Service and Salem
agreed upon a joint monitoring
program in the watershed, and
share equally the costs of operating
ten sampling sites. Program details
are available on the Internet at
http://nwp71 .nwp.usace.army.mil/
NSRC/Main.html. This monitoring
will provide critical information on
the quality of the source water and
target the areas most in need of
management actions.
This monitoring program is already
expanding to other parts of the
watershed as more agreements are
being negotiated with the Oregon
Forestry Department, the Corps of
Engineers, and BLM. These agree-
ments will coordinate watershed
protection efforts, clarify roles and
A partnership with the
Forest Service has led to
increased monitoring of
the Santiam River - a task
difficult to fund without
joint cooperation.
-------
Active participation in the
North Santiam Watershed
Forum has resulted in
more agreement among
community members as
to the importance of
drinking water protection.
responsibilities, and promote the
parties' greater participation in
management decisions affecting
water quality.
Watershed Forum Partnership
Besides cooperating with public
land managers, the Salem Public
Works Department has been active
in the North Santiam Watershed
Forum, a voluntary watershed
council established under Oregon
law. The group represents such
interests as timber production,
agriculture, local enterprise, cities
within the watershed or dependent
on it, environmentalists, recre-
ation, and local residents. It is
guided by a 13-member interest-
based steering committee with a
mission to "provide opportunities
for stakeholders to cooperate in
promoting and sustaining the
health of the watershed and its
communities."
Salem City Partnership
Salem Public Works wants the
North Santiam River to remain a
high-quality water source. This
has been the catalyst for coopera-
tion in all of these efforts. Local
communities joined in after realiz-
ing that cooperation can give them
a greater voice in reducing poten-
tial local economic and ecological
impacts. Public and private land
managers believe that cooperation
will help assure the public that,
although past practices may have
harmed water quality, new
management practices are
more sound. They are looking
to the cooperative monitor-
ing program and formal
agreements such as the
memorandum of under-
standing as a means to
work with the commu-
nities so dependient on
their lands for drinking
water.
Landuse Planning
Partnerships
San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission
San Francisco, California
• Primary Sources of Water: Tuolumne
River; Rattlesnake, and Moccasin
Creeks (Hetch-Hetchy Watershed
System)
•Watershed Area: 760 square miles
• Treatment: 3 reservoirs filtered, 3
reservoirs unfiltered
• Partners: California Department of
Health Services, California Highway
Patrol, Community Health Service
District, County Planning and Environ-
mental Health Organizations, Hetch-
Hetchy Watershed Working Group,
National Park Service, Regional Water
Quality Control Board/Central Valley
Region, U.S. Bureau of Land Manage-
ment, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
The San Francisco Public Utilities
depends upon six reservoirs in the
Hetch-Hetchy watershed system.
Four of the reservoirs are in water-
sheds that include Yosemite Na-
tional Park, the Stanislaus Na-
tional Forest, and the National
Forest System's Emigrant Wilder-
ness.
As of 1998, three reservoirs are
considered high-quality water
sources. These reservoirs are
exempt from filtration require-
ments under the condition that
there are effective local controls on
human activity that may have an
adverse impact on the microbiologi-
cal quality of the source water.
Effective management is critical to
maintaining water quality. To
continue meeting the require-
ments of the Federal Safe Drinking
Water Act Surface Water Treat-
ment Rule and maintain the
filtration avoidances, the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commis-
-------
sion (SFPUC) conducted a water-
shed sanitary survey and has
developed a watershed manage-
ment plan.
Stakeholder Involvement
The plan calls for a watershed
working group to begin meeting
periodically until the management
plan is well underway. The philoso-
phy of the Hetch-Hetchy Watershed
Working Group is to include any
potential stakeholder in the group.
Informing un-interested parties is
better than to risk excluding a
potential stakeholder. The water-
shed working group has solicited
input from the numerous stake-
holders involved. The management
plan's success depends on coordi-
nation between the key watershed
partners and other agencies with
watershed-related responsibilities.
Some of the partners are agencies
that administer the watershed
lands: the National Park Service
(NFS); U.S. Forest Service (USFS);
and the U.S. Bureau of Land Man-
agement.
Recognizing the burden of coordi-
nating the numerous partners and
constituents affected by the work-
ing group's decisions, SFPUC
provides staff to develop background
information on technical issues,
coordinate exchanges of informa-
tion, and keep the watershed
management plan's components on
schedule.
The watershed workgroup will
investigate such issues as the
availability of funds, the amend-
ment of the Stanislaus National
Forest Land and Resources Man-
agement Plan to provide specific
direction for the Emigrant Wilder-
ness, the benefits and constraints
of designating a watershed a
"Sensitive Watershed," and an
identification of "data gaps" within
the watershed system.
Formal Partnerships with the
National Park Service
The Raker Act of 1913 laid out
certain recreational use guide-
lines. For example, building a fire
and disposing of wastes are prohib-
ited within 300 feet of a waterway,
and contact recreation is banned.
However, the utility and the
National Park Service, are working
on a formal memorandum of under-
standing (MOU) because of the
potentially competing missions of
the utility and NFS. Protecting
drinking water quality is foremost
for SFPUC, while encouraging
access and recreational use are
goals of the NFS. Some potential
conflicts involve horse corrals
within the watershed, improperly
functioning toilets in the park, and
responsibility for water quality
monitoring.
The current agreement has prin-
ciples and stated objectives taken
from other working documents
including the NFS charter and
SFPUC's planning document. The
California Department of Health
Services will give advice on the
MOU during its final stages of
preparation. The MOU will be a
formal, signed agreement, enforce-
able at the State level.
Extending to Other Partners
After the MOU with the National
Park Service is complete, the
utility will begin work on an MOU
with the Forest Service regarding a
potential future water supply on
Forest Service land. The reservoir
on USFS lands represents only a
small portion of San Francisco's
water supply and has been used
The philosophy of the
Hetch-Hetchy Watershed
Working Group is to
include any potential
stakeholder in the group.
Informing uninterested
parties is better than to
risk leaving anyone out.
6
-------
Approximately 10,000
students a year visit
Seattle's source
watershed to learn the
connection between their
drinking water and land
use.
only twice for drinking water use
during droughts. During those
times, the Forest Service was very
cooperative in restricting boats on
the reservoir. However, a formal
MOU will result in a common set of
water quality standards intended to
protect drinking water sources.
Local Involvement
A benefit to working at a local level
and involving community members
in assessment efforts is that it has
increased public support of drink-
ing water protection measures.
Since many of the critical protec-
tion tools are under local control,
particularly regarding landuse
management, public support is
important.
Educating Children
About the Watershed
Seattle Public Utilities
Seattle, Washington
• Primary Source Watersheds: Cedar
River Watershed, South Fork Tolt
Watershed
• Watershed Areas: 90,495 acres (Cedar
River), 13,390 acres (South Fork)
• Population Served: 1.2 million
• Treatment: Chlorinated, unfiltered
• Partners: Friends of the Cedar River
Watershed, Seattle Schools
The educational program of the
Seattle Public Utilities (SPU)
focuses on fourth and fifth graders
in the city's schools. The utility
brings about 10,000 students a year
in to the watershed, where for over
3 hours they participate in hands-
on activities related to watersheds,
the water cycle, wildlife, history,
erosion, and forestry.
The utility also provides opportuni-
ties for middle and high school
students to visit the South Fork
Tolt Watershed. This program
focuses on water quality, water
treatment, and cooperative land
management.
SPU hopes to expand its educa-
tional program and construct an
educational center in the water-
shed in partnership with the
nonprofit Friends of the Cedar
River Watershed. They will be
instrumental to gaining public
support and raising funds.
Program Costs
Approximately $250,000 is spent
annually on education and public
programs. The Seattle Education
and Public Programs section re-
quires three full time staff, two
naturalists and the public programs
supervisor. This number is ex-
pected to increase to five full-time
staff over the next few years.
-------
Watershed Assessment
A comprehensive
monitoring plan can help
identify watershed
problems or demonstrate
a project's success.
An integral part of a strong watershed protection program is
an assessment of the area. Watershed delineation and
assessment will help identify potential problem areas and
target protection efforts. Many utilities use Geographic Information
Systems (CIS) to delineate their watersheds. Afterwards, local
managers can use zoning maps to identify land use patterns within the
watersheds and identify potential sources of contamination that pose
threats to the drinking water supply.
A comprehensive monitoring plan
also can help identify watershed
problems. For example, a monitor-
ing station that consistently de-
tects elevated nitrate levels could
be used to identify a local source of
contamination.
Monitoring information can also
demonstrate a project's success. A
site that historically had elevated
nitrate levels that shows a distinct
decrease after an upstream farm
implemented best management
practices (BMPs), can convince
community members and local
governments that BMPs have
tangible benefits.
The case studies of Boston, Port-
land, and Philadelphia describe the
delineation, assessment, monitor-
ing, and planning approaches that
they have taken to develop water-
shed protection programs.
Planning with
Geographic
Information Systems
Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority
Boston, Massachusetts
• Primary Sources of Water: Quabbin and
Wachusett Reservoirs
•Watershed Area: Quabbin, 187 square
miles; Wachusett, 110 square miles
•Population Served: 1,932,000
The Massachusetts Water Re-
sources Authority (MWRA) treats
and distributes water from 3 sur-
face sources to more than 2 million
people in Boston and 45 neighbor-
ing communities. Another agency,
-------
the Metropolitan District Commis-
sion (MDC), is responsible for
managing and protecting the
watersheds.
Watershed Mapping
Geographic Information Systems
(CIS) help MWRA and MDC staff
create maps and analyze data. For
example, the agencies use GIS to
identify pollution sources and
prepare watershed protection plans;
support the passage and implemen-
tation of watershed protection
legislation; and target for purchase
parcels of land important for water-
shed protection.
From 1988 to 1992, MWRA and MDC
staff extensively studied the 400
square miles of watershed that
provide water to the city—identify-
ing, mapping, and ranking existing
or potential pollution threats.
Among them were septic systems,
recreational activities, storm water
runoff, logging, petroleum storage,
and natural impacts such as
erosion and animal populations.
Based on this analysis, planners
drew up watershed protection
plans, which included recommen-
dations for addressing current and
future contamination sources.
Assessment to Legislation
In 1992, following six years of
debate, the Massachusetts legisla-
ture passed the Watershed Protec-
tion Act. The intensive mapping
effort aided passage of the Act by
showing the relatively small size of
the proposed buffers and the impor-
tance of protecting these areas,
according to the MWRA's planning
director.
The Act prohibits any land-disturb-
ing or polluting activities, including
most new construction, within 400
feet of drinking water reservoirs
and 200 feet of tributaries and
surface waters. It also restricts
certain activities, such as the
storing of harmful materials, in an
area 200 to 400 feet from tributar-
ies and surface waters, flood plains,
over some aquifers, and within
bordering vegetated wetlands.
GIS Benefits for Management
Mapping tools have also helped
during implementation of regula-
tions. For example, the MWRA gave
a map to each watershed commu-
nity showing the parcels of land
affected by the regulations. The
authority also used this informa-
tion to inform the 5,000 to 6,000
owners of land within the buffer
zones about the new restrictions.
The notifications took several
years, and the effort paid off in good
relations with the communities
and the affected property owners.
The MWRA, MDC, and other state
agencies have used GIS to identify
land that should be purchased to
aid watershed protection and other
activities. The software enables
users to compare parcels based on
specified characteristics and to
rank land for which they have GIS
data to identify "high value" lands
for purchase. Such targeting is
necessary because agencies often
must meet the market prices
offered by developers, and state
funds for land acquisition are
limited.
Monitoring Data to
Support Protective
Water Quality
Standards
Portland Water Bureau
Portland, Oregon
• Primary Source of Water: Bull Run
Watershed
•Watershed Area: 102 square mile
drainage area above intake, 40 square
miles of buffer lands
• Population Served: 800,000
• Treatment: Screened, disinfected,
unfiltered
The Portland Water Bureau draws
its water from the Bull Run River
in the Mt. Hood National Forest.
The watershed is administered by
the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
Mapping and
assessment aided the
passage of the
Massachusetts
Watershed Protection Act
by showing the relatively
small size of the
proposed buffers and the
importance of protecting
these areas.
8
-------
Monitoring has led to
better management and
cut costs incurred from
sediment entering the
unfiltered water system
during storm events.
under several legal authorities
including the Bull Run Manage-
ment Act (P.L. 95-200) and the
recently amended Oregon Re-
sources Conservation Act, which
tightly restricts timber harvesting
in the watershed.
The Bull Run Management Act sets
the production of pure, clean, raw,
potable water as the principle
federal management objective for
the area. Specific water quality
standards established under the
Act are more stringent than the
Forest Service's national stan-
dards. Consequently, the Forest
Service must adopt standards
specific to the Bull Run watershed
that provide a greater level of
protection.
Monitoring Responsibilities
The USFS, the Portland Water
Bureau, and the U.S. Geologic
Survey (USGS) share responsibility
for sampling, data collection and
analyses, and database manage-
ment. The Portland Water Bureau
pays for all lab analyses and shares
equally with the USGS the costs of
streamflow data collection and
management. The USGS partici-
pates in the program because it
furthers the survey's mission to
collect streamflow and water qual-
ity data.
Monitoring Objectives
Monitoring is critical to unfiltered
water systems, serving as an early
warning of turbidity-producing
events such as landslides and
storm-induced erosion. By track-
ing turbidity levels during and after
these events, facility operators can
either divert heavily contaminated
waters or temporarily switch to an
alternative ground water source.
The key monitoring stations are at
the mouths of five major sub-
basins of the Bull Run River. Four
are on major tributaries, and the
fifth is where water from the river
is diverted into water supply con-
duits. Some monitoring is done
weekly, while some is automated
and flow-based. Flow-based monitor-
ing collects random samples; the
Monitoring Objectives
Turbidity
• Anticipating, including the use of
probability analysis, and tracking high-
turbidity events.
• Determining source water turbidity
compliance.
• Evaluating the potential for generating
turbidity within the Bull Run reservoirs;
tracking changes in turbidity with
drawdown.
Demand and Supply
• Tracking the effects of management
activities in order to modify current
practices and to inform future man-
agement decisions.
• Tracking, forecasting, and improving
the forecasts of seasonal supply.
• Monitoring the effects of releases from
Bull Run Lake.
• Assessing Bull Run Lake safety (risk
of overtopping).
Microbial Risks
• Assessing and improving understand-
ing of microbial risks.
• Tracking and (limited) controlling of
factors related to bacterial regrowth in
the distribution system.
Other Water Quality Problems
• Tracking seasonal changes in factors
that affect disinfection efficacy.
• Determining levels and trends in the
concentration of disinfection byproduct
precursors.
• Tracking seasonal changes in factors
that affect corrosion control.
• Evaluating the potential for aesthetic
water quality problems to develop.
• Detecting long-term shifts in water
quality that could affect the quantity or
quality of water delivered, or that could
require treatment adjustments or
other operational changes.
probability of a sample being
collected increases at higher flows.
-------
Abandoned Road Management
There are thousands of miles of
roads within national forests that
are in disrepair. In many cases,
these are impacting on water
quality. These roads are being
prioritized for de-commissioning,
which can mean anything from full
restoration to merely planting trees
to control erosion.
The Portland Water Bureau has
installed temporary monitoring
stations located above and below
abandoned road management
project locations in the Bullrun
Watershed. The utility is collecting
data to estimate the sediment
loading from these management
efforts to identify which decommis-
sioning techniques have the least
impacts on water quality as well as
help quantify the extent to which
abandoned roads that are neither
maintained nor decommissioned
impact upon the water quality.
Assessing Potential
Contaminants:
Monitoring and
Modeling
Philadelphia Water Department
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Primary Sources of Water: The Delaware
River and Schuylkill River watersheds,
which include nine local streams and
several reservoirs.
• Watershed Area: The Delaware River and
Schuylkill River watersheds are 13,000
and 1,892 square miles respectively
•Population Served: 1,500,000
• Treatment: Disinfection, filtration
The Philadelphia Water Depart-
ment (PWD) participates in partner-
ships with state and federal studies
of the Wissahickon Creek. A
collaborative effort to develop an
integrated environmental monitor-
ing and data management system
has led to a stronger understanding
of the contaminant threats in the
watershed.
The Wissahickon Creek Study:
Linkages Between Land Use
and Micro-Organisms
The Wissahickon Creek is an
urban and suburban watershed
which has seen significant devel-
opment over the last quarter
century. The land use changes
have included the loss of almost all
the agricultural land and increases
in single and multiple family
dwellings.
The 22-mile long creek currently
has approximately 21 permitted
discharge facilities, including 5
township or municipal wastewater
treatment plants. Water quality,
biological conditions, and sediment
loads have not been adequately
characterized.
To address these watershed health
issues, the utility became involved
in the Wissahickon Partnership.
This group includes approximately
120 stakeholders commited to data
collection to better understand the
watershed.
One partner is the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental
Protection's (PADEP). The
Department's Southeast Regional
Office and Bureau of Labs began a
Wissahickon Creek water quality
study to determine the sources,
occurrence, fate, and transport of
the mirco-organisms Giardia and
Cryptosporidium in the watershed.
Microbial Research
Cryptosporidium and Giardia, are of
great concern to the drinking water
industry because they can cause
serious gastrointestinal disease.
More information about the occur-
rence and removal of these micro-
organisms from sources of drinking
water is crucial.
The results of the Wissahickon
Creek study complement a growing
Monitoring results are
helping to support de-
commissioning of
abandoned roads that
are significantly impacting
water quality.
10
-------
The results of a
Wissahickon Creek water
shed assessment
complemented a growing
body of research sug-
gesting that wastewater is
a constant and significant
source of Cryptospo-
ridium and Giardia in a
watershed.
body of research suggesting that
wastewater is a constant and
significant source of Cryptospo-
ridium and Giardia in a watershed
and can contribute detectable
amounts of the protozoa to the
water column during stable flow
periods.
The original 1996-1997 Pennsylva-
nia study focused on contribution of
Giardia and Cryptosporidium by
point sources, such as wastewater
treatment plants, under stable flow
conditions. To provide a better
understanding of protozoa contribu-
tion, fate, and transport, research
in 1998 and 1999 will measure the
contributions of the Schuylkill
River and Wissahickon Creek to
giardia and cryptosporidium occur-
rence at the drinking water facility
intake.
Total Maximum Daily Loads
The state of Pennsylvania selected
the Wissahickon Creek as a pilot
site to be the first watershed in
Pennsylvania to develop a Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that
includes nonpoint source controls.
These nonpoint source watershed
activities could potentially impact
Philadelphia's drinking water
supply at the Queen Lane Water
Treatment Plant. Accurate TMDL
modeling will help to identify some
of the pressing threats to the
drinking water supply.
Watershed Modelling
Lending to the watershed study,
the National Institute for Environ-
mental Renewal (NIER) is develop-
ing a watershed model for the
Wissahickon Creek. NEIR hopes
the model will address the
watershed's myriad of water quality
problems, as well as help quantify
the geomorphology and hydrology of
the watershed. This includes an
inventory of storm water discharge
pipes, obstructions, channelization
features, and nonpoint sources of
pollution.
11
-------
Chapter 3
Land Use in Watersheds:
Rural, Urban, and Natural
Resource Management
pp
No matter where the source of drinking water, challenges arise
concerning the predominant land uses in the area. Rural,
urban, forested and/or farmed lands present different
challenges.
The most useful solution
for any water system will
depend on many factors,
including the particular
land use issues it faces
and the intensity of the
threats posed to the
system's source water.
Utilities whose water
sources are in a for-
ested area usually
must contend with
logging, erosion, and
timber management. Systems
whose sources are in rural or
suburban areas may need to deal
with septic systems, agricultural
run-off and erosion, or recreational
uses such as swimming, hiking,
and mountain biking. Utilities that
have water sources in urban areas
need to address issues such as
storm water drainage, run-off from
pavement, and increasing develop-
ment.
This chapter looks at agricultural
land use, urban storm water man-
agement, septic systems and waste
management, and habitat conser-
vation. The solutions range from
simple, creative ideas that other
systems can easily adopt, to capi-
tal-intensive projects which re-
quire significant funding commit-
ments. The most useful solution for
any drinking water system will
depend on many factors, including
the particular land use issues it
faces and the intensity of the
threats posed to the system's
source water.
Agricultural Land Use Issues
Water systems in primarily agricul-
tural areas face a host of issues
different from those that confront
their urban counterparts. Nonpoint
source pollution from irrigated and
nonirrigated crops, feedlots, and
animal waste management areas
can threaten drinking water
sources. Other agricultural activi-
ties such as the application of
fertilizer or pesticides can intro-
duce nutrients, pathogens, and
toxic chemicals into drinking
water. Tillage practices can con-
tribute to erosion, which can lead
to problems with surface water
turbidity.
Contaminant source management
is one means to reduce agricul-
tural nonpoint source pollution.
Some of the case studies in this
chapter show how utilities have
implemented best management
practices (BMPs) to deal with
pollution and erosion, or have
15
-------
developed ways of involving and
educating the farming community
in source water protection.
Storm Water Management
Systems whose water sources are
in or near urban areas are chal-
lenged by storm water runoff.
Runoff from impermeable surfaces
such as concrete and pavement,
may be contaminated with various
chemicals, including oil and grease
from motor vehicles and related
sources, as well as pesticides and
herbicides applied to lawns and
landscaping.
Waste Management
Where septic systems are the
primary method of treating sani-
tary waste, water systems have the
added concern of leaking or improp-
erly functioning septic tanks.
Poorly maintained septic systems
can contaminate ground water and
surface water with nutrients,
chemicals, and pathogens.
Habitat Conservation
The mission of a drinking water
utility is to provide clean, potable
water to its customers. This goal
often overlaps with other public
interests such as the restoration or
conservation of habitat for fish and
wildlife. Frequently, what is good for
habitat preservation is also good for
source water protection.
Agricultural Land
Use Management
Department of Environmental
Protection
New York City, New York
• Primary Sources of Water: Croton
Watershed; Catskill and Delaware
Watershed (includes 19 reservoirs)
•Watershed Area: 1,969 square miles
• Population Served: 9,000,000 (includes
some upstate communities in addition to
New York City)
• Treatment: Croton: Chlorinated, filtered
(scheduled); Catskill/Delaware: Chlori-
nated, disinfected, unfiltered
New York is one of the most
densely populated cities on the
planet, and its drinking water
comes from miles away in a rural
setting of forests, farms, and ham-
lets. Agriculture, especially dairy
and livestock operations, may be a
significant source of microbial
pathogens, nutrients, and other
surface water pollutants. Manag-
ing agricultural runoff is crucial to
the city's watershed protection
program.
Farmers Lead Council
To promote the use of agricultural
best management practices (BMPs),
the New York City Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP)
funds the voluntary Watershed
Agricultural Program.
Founded in 1993, this progam is
administered by a not-for-profit
Watershed Agricultural Council of
farmers. The leadership provided
by this council has been key to
gaining the acceptance of farmers
who have long mistrusted DEP.
The council determines how funds
will be spent and reviews and
approves whole farm plans. Whole
farm plans are prepared by local
teams made up of staff from the
county Soil and Water Conserva-
Founded in 1993, the
voluntary Watershed
Agricultural Program
involves stakeholders in
organizing, implementing,
and managing the
agricultural program in
the watershed.
16
-------
Establishing an
independent Watershed
Agricultural Council as
the program's central
administrative agent was
important to gaining
acceptance from the farm
community.
tion District, Cooperative Extension
Service, and the federal Natural
Resources Conservation Service.
Farmers play a major role because
local acceptance of the recom-
mended practices is crucial to the
plan's success.
The water utility has committed
$35.2 million to support the pro-
gram from 1995 to 1999. Among the
activities funded are whole farm
planning, design, and engineering;
implementation and construction
of BMPs; program management,
administration, and outreach; and
research and technical support for
the farmers. By 1997, 287 out of
350 eligible farms in the Croton
Watershed signed on to the pro-
gram. Of these, 155 completed
whole farm plans and signed imple-
mentation agreements.
The Multiple Management
BMP Approach
Whole Farm Planning takes a "multiple
management approach to best manage-
ment practice planning and implementa-
tion.
Examples of three barriers are:
1. Pollutant Source Controls. Herd
health maintenance, improvements in
sanitation and calf housing, soil
sampling, management of grass or
hay production to reduce the need for
excess fertilizer, and Integrated Pest
Management to reduce pesticide use.
2. Landscape Controls. Barnyard
improvements, manure storage,
scheduled and direct spreading of
manure, and composting to control the
application of animal waste to the
land.
3. Stream Corridor Controls.
Streambank stabilization, stream
crossings, animal watering systems,
and vegetated buffers to keep animals
out of watercourses and to slow and
reduce the transport of pollutants into
watercourses.
Best Management Plans
The Croton Watershed spreads
across many jurisdiction and water
quality is affected by multiple land
uses ranging from agriculture to
urban stormwater runoff. At the
start, institutional cooperation
across county lines and coordina-
tion among federal, state, and local
agricultural agencies was weak.
For example, historically there
were few ties between the Soil and
Water Conservation Districts and
the Cooperative Extension Service
offices. The former traditionally
worked with farmers on imple-
menting U.S. Department of Agri-
culture conservation practices,
while the latter focused on agro-
nomic issues such as maximizing
productivity and crop yields. Now,
staff from both agencies help
farmers develop whole farm plans,
using the Conservation District
staffs knowledge of BMPs and the
Cooperative Extension Service's
expertise in assessing the impact
of BMPs on a farm's economic
viability.
The economic advantages of BMPs
and whole farm planning are more
apparent as the program evolves.
Most of the BMPs conserve farm
resources while protecting New
York's source of drinking water.
More efficient use of fertilizer
reduces costs and nutrient concen-
trations in water. Similarly, im-
proved sanitary conditions for
livestock reduces disease in the
animals, which saves costs and
reduces pathogen levels, thus
protecting waterways.
Monitoring projects are underway
to measure the program's impact
on water quality in the watershed.
The results will be used to calibrate
individual, farm-specific models of
water quality impacts.
17
-------
The Interface of
Agricultural, Urban
and Wildlife Needs
Contra Costa Water District
Concord, California
• Primary Sources of Water: Sacramento
and San Joaquin Rivers
• Watershed Area: 18,500 acres (Los
Vaqueros Reservoir only)
• Population Served: 400,000
The northern California Contra
Costa Water District (CCWD)
supplies water to over 400,000
people in Contra Costa County. The
sources of the drinking water come
from the Central Valley, including
the Sacramento and San Joaquin
River watershed.
Regulatory Process Involvement
To address source water protection,
the Contra Costa Water District
incorporated a Water Resources
Group into the organization's
planning department. This group is
active in Central Valley source
water protection, participating in
hearings of the Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control
Board, which issues National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permits. CCWD also
participates in the National
Environmental Policy Act and
California Environmental Quality
Act public comment process to
address industrial and municipal
wastewater discharges.
Pollutant Discharge Reduction
Also, working with other stakehold-
ers, CCWD has sought to reduce
agricultural drainage and to mini-
mize pollutant loads from aban-
doned mines in those areas affect-
ing source water. The utility has
worked on numerous programs
ranging from incentives for the
mitigation of agricultural drainage
discharges, pilot studies to treat
agricultural drainage before dis-
charge into the Delta, mine drain-
age remediation, and land retire-
ment.
Voluntary Management:
Grasslands Bypass Channel
Project
High concentrations of naturally
occurring selennium in ecologi-
cally sensitive waters has been a
problem in the region for some
time. Agricultural drainage chan-
nels are one source of the
sellenium loading. An attempt to
address the problem was to con-
struct the San Luis Drain, a con-
crete channel to divert agricultural
irrigation discharges from sensi-
tive areas. However, the Bureau
of Reclamation halted construction
when it was found that the new
discharge area was being nega-
tively impacted.
A compromise was reached, which
allows farmers to use part of the
constructed San Luis Drain to
divert selenium-rich water from
the ecologically sensitive Grass-
land Wildlife Refuge. In exchange
for this right, the farmers accept
selenium load limits on their
discharges under a Waste Dis-
charge Requirement. These
permits have resulted in lower
selenium loadings to the San
Joaquin River, one of the sources of
drinking water for Contra Costa
County.
Based on the monitoring results for
the first two years and the signifi-
cant measures taken by the farm-
ers to reduce the quantity of sele-
nium in their disharges, the terms
of the 1996 Bypass Use Agreement
have been extended until 2001.
Los Vaqueros Reservoir Project
CCWD owns approximately 18,500
acres surrounding the Los Vaque-
ros Reservoir, newly constructed in
1998. The district is negotiating
land management agreements with
the owners of the remaining land
Agricultural drainage
management has led to
reductions of sellenium-
laden discharge to the
San Joaquin river.
18
-------
Grazing management
instituted to protect water
quality also provides
habitat for wildlife such as
the San Joaquin Kit Fox.
affecting the reservoir to protect
the water quality.
In May 1997, the CCWD Board of
Directors adopted a Watershed
Management Program to address
environmental, contractual, and
public safety requirements and to
guide land management activities
asosciated with the Los Vaqueros
Reservoir. One component of the
management plan involves agricul-
ture and grazing.
Grazing Management
The agriculture program allows for
a moderate amount of managed
grazing inside the reservoir water-
shed. CCWD manages and enforce
the grazing requirements on their
land. Grazing and farming is
allowed where biological resource
commitments and fire manage-
ment needs are critical and the
potential risks of water quality
degradation are low. For example,
CCWD is committed to maintaining
the habitat of the San Joaquin kit
fox; properly managed grazing will
provide habitat for the fox's prey.
Phase I of the agriculture program
specifies nine grazing leases,
encompassing approximately
11,000 acres. Most of these areas
have been grazed by ranchers for
hundreds of years. The program
consolidates and re-configures the
leases to minimize impacts to
environmental resources and
reservoir water quality. Fencing
along all major tributaries of the
reservoir keeps cattle out of the
water and provides a vegetative
buffer between the grazed areas
and the tributaries.
The effects of the program's first
phase on water quality and envi-
ronmental resources will be closely
monitored. A program to monitor
water quality for bacteriological,
nutrient, inorganic, and organic
parameters began in 1997 at five
key locations. The findings of the
water quality monitoring may lead
to legal changes in grazing within
the watershed.
Partnerships for Modeling
CCWD is a partner in the Bay-Delta
Modeling Forum, a statewide,
nonprofit, nonpartisan consensus-
building organization. CCWD staff
have served as officers on the
steering and technical committees.
The forum's mission is to increase
the usefulness of modeling for
analyzing water-related problems
in the San Francisco Bay, the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley,
and the Central Valley system. The
forum maintains a modeling
clearinghouse and assists in
mediating technical disputes and
provides educational opportunities.
Although the modeling forum has
yet to hold any workshops specifi-
cally on source water protection, its
workshops on the modeling of flow
and transport in the Delta help to
provide a better general under-
standing of the relationship be-
tween discharges and water quality
at urban intakes.
Control of Land Use
in the Drinking Water
Source Area
Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power
Los Angeles, California
• Primary Sources of Water: Owens River/
Mono Basin and Open Distribution
Reservoirs
• Watershed Area: about 2.2 million acres
• Population Served: 3.7 million
• Treatment: Chlorinated, aerated
Among the diverse components of
its water supply and delivery sys-
tem, the City of Los Angeles has
two components of the system that
pose unique water quality chal-
lenges: the Eastern Sierra water-
shed, comprised of the Owens
Valley and Mono Basin watersheds,
and in-City open distribution
reservoirs. The Eastern Sierra
watershed furnishes raw water
19
-------
from mountain snowmelt and
natural springs. The open distribu-
tion reservoirs in the city are
uncovered reservoirs that contain
finished water, but are subject to
on-site water quality degradation.
Eastern Sierra Watershed
Approximately 2.2 million acres of
Eastern Sierra watershed supplies
the city of Los Angeles with water.
The U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Bureau of Land Management and
the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power (LADWP) own 98
percent of this land. Of this, the
LADWP owns 314,000 acres, prima-
rily on the Owens Valley floor. The
LADWP leases 260,000 acres to
citizens for such diverse uses as
ranching, commercial ventures
and recreation.
Ranch Leases
Ranch leases comprise 247,000
acres of the Eastern Sierra land
leased out by the LADWP. Of that,
2,200 acres are under cultivation
with alfalfa, 20,000 acres are
irrigated pasturelands, and the
remainder is used for dry grazing.
Most LADWP ranch lessees also
have permits with the U.S. Forest
Service or U.S. Bureau of Land
Management for livestock grazing.
The LADWP lease is considered the
rancher's "base property." Without
it, a rancher cannot obtain a
federal permit.
Lease policies are set forth in the
Range Management Guidelines for
DWP Leased Lands, and are de-
signed to protect the City's water-
shed and water quality. In addition,
individual Ranch Management
Plans are being prepared jointly
with each of the lessees. Ranchers
serve as the land stewards of the
watershed, and the LADWP ensures
that their ranching practices are
compatible with the LADWP's
objectives. Department staff con-
duct informal, routine inspections
to ensure the guidelines' require-
ments are satisfied. Vegetation,
livestock use, and water quality are
monitored regularly.
Users of the leased land must follow
range management guidelines that
require all livestock, salts, and
supplements for animals to be kept
away from water sources and
riparian zones. They are required
to consult with LADWP prior to
initiation of water diversions, and
they must adhere to irrigation
practices that minimize runoff,
return flows, and erosion. The
county agricultural commissioner
administers pesticide and herbi-
cide use permits. A farm advisor
from the University of California
and a Federal Soil Conservation
Service representative periodically
consult with the lessees on crop
production and range management
issues.
Commercial Leases
Typically 5 years in duration,
commercial leases affect business
and commercial town properties in
the area. Urban expansion on
these lands conforms to Inyo
County's General Plan. This in-
cludes a land use policy to manage
the ground water basins to ensure
water quality and quantity for
beneficial uses. The county waste-
water policy follows the Uniform
Plumbing Code or the Regional
Board Guidelines for the proper
installation of septic tank systems.
Recreation
Activities in un-developed water-
shed areas in the Owens Valley
and Mono Basin are considered to
have minimal impacts on surface
water quality. Signs indicating
private property and prohibiting
overnight camping are clearly
posted throughout the city-owned
lands. Motor boats are allowed on
two reservoirs. Monitoring for the
gasoline addititive Methyl Tert-
Butyl Ether (MTBE) has been
conducted at these loca-
tions, however none was
detected. Waste recep-
tacles, portable toilets and
regular patrolling of the
reservoir perimeters help
protect water quality.
Of the 314,000 acres of
watershed owned by the
utility, 230,000 acres are
under land management
control through leases to
farmers or ranchers.
Restricting public access
has made it easier to
identify or trace potential
sources of contamination
in the source watershed.
20
-------
Land use management
by the Los Angeles
Department of Water and
Power has allowed
multiple use of the natural
resources to continue
while minimizing threats
to public health.
Open Distribution Reservoirs
LADWP is one of the few utilities
that have open distribution reser-
voirs to hold treated water. Four of
the LADWP's 10 open reservoirs are
influenced by surface runoff and,
therefore, are subject to the Sur-
face Water Treatment Rule.
LADWP's source protection program
for these four large distribution
reservoirs formally began in 1989.
LADWP will continue operating the
reservoirs under a compliance
agreement with the California
Department of Health Services
(DHS) until treatment facilities are
built. The reservoirs store almost 8
billion gallons, and their water-
sheds total 1,683 acres, mostly
LADWP property.
Although the treated water in the
reservoirs is chlorinated at each
reservoir outlet, the California DHS
designates the reservoirs as raw
source waters and has directed the
LADWP to develop a monitoring
program and watershed manage-
ment practices accordingly. LADWP
leaves undeveloped the land in the
watershed it owns at each reser-
voir, and has monitoring programs
at the reservoirs similar to a raw
source water monitoring program.
Restricted Access
Except for a jogging trail on one of
the watersheds, all access is
restricted to the public. The jogging
trail is isolated from the water by a
chain link fence and a small buffer
zone. Land use restrictions include
policies on the management of
vegetation, soil, and erosion, as
well as on the use of pesticides.
Fences between the watersheds
and most nearby land develop-
ments have significantly iso-
lated the reservoirs. This situation
has made it easier to identify or
trace potential sources of
contamination. LADWP
has implemented remote
systems to monitor the
reservoirs for indications of
potential water quality prob-
lems such as algae blooms.
Proactive Planning
for Urban Growth
Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California
Primary Sources of Water: California
State Water Project and the Colorado
River
Watershed Area: Lake Matthews, 39
square miles; Colorado River Basin,
150,000 square miles; California State
Water Project, 42,000 square miles
Population served: 16 million
Treatment: filtered, disinfected
Developed in cooperation with
representatives of the local county,
the Flood Control and Conservation
District, landowners, and a resi-
dential developer, the Metropolitan
Water District developed a drainage
management plan. This plan aims
to mitigate the impacts that devel-
opment of the surrounding water-
shed has on reservoir water qual-
ity. Although the Lake Matthews
Watershed and Colorado River
Basin are sparsely populated, they
lie in the path of expanding growth.
Urbanization of the watershed is
expected to increase loadings of
heavy metals, pathogens, sedi-
ments, oil, and grease.
The first phase of the drainage
management plan focuses on the
Lake Mathews reservoir. Lake
Mathews is an 180,000 acre termi-
nal reservoir for imported Colorado
River water. The surrounding 39-
square-mile watershed is drained
by Cajalco Creek, which feeds into
Lake Matthews.
One key element of the Lake
Matthews management strategy is
to use a series of wetlands to help
"cleanse" water from first-flush and
nuisance flows as well as to provide
wildlife habitat. Next, the water
would flow into a constructed water
quality pond to provide a first-flush
diversion facility, and then into a
sediment basin to capture bed load
21
-------
sediment before it enters Lake
Matthews. Lastly, there are plans
to construct a dam and detention
basin designed to regulate 100-year
peak flood flows from Cajalco
Creek.
Multiple Challenges
Require New Tools
Salt Lake City Corporation,
Department of Public Utilities
Salt Lake City, Utah
• Primary Source of Water: Wasatch
Canyons
• Watershed Area: 95 square miles (Provo
River Watershed is 500,000 acres)
• Population Served: 400,000
• Treatment: Disinfected, filtered
The Salt Lake City economy is
booming and development is un-
precedented. Recreational tourism
and changing land use practices,
construction of new homes and
exapnsion of urban areas, is affect-
ing water quality and impacting
public drinking water supplies.
Increased use is giving rise to
more coliform bacteria in canyon
streams. Although well within
acceptable limits, the increased
coliform counts indicate a degrada-
tion of water quality, raising con-
cerns over the future of the ecosys-
tem.
This is why Salt Lake City invests
in source water protection. Drink-
ing water source protection is
essential to the multi-barrier
approach to water quality. The
ability to provide high quality
drinking water depends on the
protection of raw water. Not only is
this protection essential, it is the
most cost-effective barrier to
waterborne disease.
History of Drinking Water
Source Protection
Salt Lake City's watershed protec-
tion efforts date back to the early
1900's. Sanitary surveys, water-
shed ordinances and canyon patrols
have been used by the city since
1911 to protect the quality of its
drinking water. Federal legislation
(Public Law 199) was passed by
Congress in 1914 requiring the
U.S. Forest Service to manage the
federal lands within the Provo River
watershed cooperatively with Salt
Lake City to protect the drinking
water supply from pollution. Vari-
ous court decrees have adjudicated
the water rights in the Salt Lake
valley.
Additionally, Salt Lake City has
numerous exchange agreements
with farmers who hold the early
water rights to the waters flowing
from the Wasatch Canyon water-
shed. Under these exchange agree-
ments, the city provides the farm-
ers with water stored in Utah Lake
in exchange for high-quality moun-
tain water for the city's drinking
water. The exchanges are mutually
beneficial to the city and the
farmers. The city needs the higher
quality water for municipal drink-
ing water, while the farmers need
a more dependable water supply to
mature their crops during the late
growing season and during
droughts.
Salt Lake City, under state law,
has extraterritorial jurisdiction to
protect its watersheds and water
supply. Under this state authority,
ordinances have been passed and
enforced by the city to manage the
watershed lands that are not
municipally owned. It regulates
uses in the surrounding canyons
including Little and Big Cotton-
wood, City Creek, and Parley.
Hiking and camping are allowed,
but overnight campers must stay
200 feet from any water source. In
watershed areas, the city prohibits
dogs, horses, and grazing, and it
does not allow septic systems.
Economic development
poses challenges to
drinking water source
protection.
22
-------
Drinking water source
protection is essential to
the multibarrier approach
to water quality.
Seeking public input on
changes to the master
plan, the utility organized
a series of meetings and
publicized them on the
Internet, public access
television, in newspapers,
and in fliers.
Anyone caught polluting the city's
drinking water supply, regardless of
land ownership, may be fined.
New Challenges
Salt Lake City Public Utilities is
updating its 1988 watershed mas-
ter plan to reflect increasing
recreational use and development
of the watershed, which pose
challenges to the watershed's
protection. There is limited unap-
propriated water available in the
watershed, and there are growing
development pressures. For in-
stance, Little Cottonwood Canyon
has two world-class ski resorts, and
9,000 cars travel into the canyon
each winter day.
Private landowners in the water-
shed do not automatically own the
rights to water on their sites. Most
canyon water rights are owned by
Salt Lake City, either by title or
through exchange agreements.
Developers interested in watershed
property must obtain water rights
to build. Subject to certain restric-
tions, water sales agreements can
be made with Salt Lake City for
water from springs located on the
watershed property. Because of this
policy, the city is involved with
several law suits over water rights
issues.
Seeking public input on changes to
the master plan, the utility orga-
nized a series of meetings and
publicized them on the Internet,
public access television, in news-
papers, and by distributing fliers.
The utility also established a
management issues group which
solicits input from stakeholders
including the Salt Lake City Coun-
cil, the City/County Health Depart-
ment, the County Sheriffs Depart-
ment, which patrols the watershed,
and the U.S. Forest Service. The
group wants to know each party's
priorities for watershed protection
and management.
The utility also has hired an
environmental consulting firm to
examine the issues and help
prepare a new master plan.
These developments come during a
time of governmental belt-tighten-
ing. Budgets have been cut at all
levels of government. However,
despite limited resources, the
utility continues to partner with
land management and public
health agencies to address drink-
ing water source protection.
Managing Urban
Storm Water
Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority
Boston, Massachusetts
• Primary Sources of Water: Quabbin and
Wachusett Reservoirs
•Watershed Area: Quabbin: 187 square
miles: Wachusett: 110 square miles
•Population Served: 1,932,000
Drinking water source quality is
often adversely affected by storm
water runoff. After a large rainfall,
contaminant concentrations
increase significantly, further
stressing drinking water treatment
facilities. Although the Massachu-
setts Water Resources Authority
does not regulate storm water
releases from construction sites,
The Metropolitan District Commis-
sion (MDC) Division of Watershed
Management works with petition-
ers to review all plans for the
design and construction of storm
water and erosion control projects.
These control projects are required
under the state's Watershed Pro-
tection Act as well as the Wetlands
Protection Act.
Review Authority
The Massachusetts Watershed
Protection Act requires division
review of all proposed alterations in
watershed areas that are within
400 feet of designated tributaries,
wetlands, and flood plains. Propos-
als submitted to local conservation
commissions are reviewed by
division staff for water quality
concerns during and after con-
struction. Following their review,
23
-------
staff advise the commissions of
their findings.
During 1997, MDC division person-
nel reviewed 98 applications with
an eye toward erosion and sedi-
ment control and water-quality
issues. Each project's design
ultimately conformed to watershed
protection regulations and met
stipulated water quality standards.
Additionally, annual watershed
sanitary surveys help MDC staff
identify areas of concern. Once a
specific threat to human health is
identified, the MDC works with the
responsible party to mitigate the
situation. Several projects with the
state highway department began in
this way.
Watershed Approach to Storm
Water Management
Besides these ongoing activities,
the MDC has hired an environmen-
tal engineering firm to prepare an
in-depth storm water management
plan for the entire watershed. Once
completed, the plan will include a
series of pollutant-loading analyses
at the sub-basin level and recom-
mended best management prac-
tices (BMPs). The Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority and
MDC plan to conduct workshops to
help municipalities implement the
BMPs, and may provide technical
and financial assistance.
Community Ordinance Revision
The MDC Watershed Division also
provides technical assistance to
communities to help establish or
revise erosion and sediment
control bylaws and regulations, site
plan bylaws, and subdivision regu-
lations. Division staff are working
with one community to develop
model subdivision regulations for
use with other communities.
These regulations are intended to
foster a more progressive approach
that includes concerns for water
quality.
Urban Land Use:
Solutions to Address
Drinking Water and
Natural Habitat
Sweetwater Authority
Chula Vista, California
• Primary Sources of Water: Colorado
River, California State Project water,
Sweetwater River, ground water
•Watershed Area: 182 square miles
(reservoir watershed)
• Population Served: 165,000
• Treatment: Reverse osmosis for brack-
ish water/runoff treatment (planned)
In 1977, increasing urbanization of
the Sweetwater River Watershed
led the California Department of
Health Services to express concern
about potential impacts of urban
storm runoff on water quality in the
Sweetwater Reservoir. To deal with
these impacts, the Sweetwater
Authority, a municipal water
supplier, constructed an Urban
Runoff Diversion System (URDS) at
the reservoir to protect the surface
water supply from the impacts of
new development.
The first phase of the diversion
system, completed in 1991, inter-
cepts all low flows and the
Model subdivision
regulations are intended
to foster a more
progressive approach to
managing growth in
watersheds.
24
-------
Since 1991, the Urban
Runoff Distribution System
has kept 3,300 tons of
salt out of the reservoir.
Vegetation Management
Periods of drought significantly reduce
water levels in the reservoir fed by the
Sweetwater River. During these periods,
vegetation grows in sections of the
reservoir and woodland habitats develop.
Later, as the water level rises, this
vegetation becomes inundated, and
rotting plants cause water quality
problems. To avoid such problems, the
vegetation must be removed.
Although these areas can reduce water
quality, the developing habitats may also
become home to the least Bell's vireo, a
small songbird listed federally as an
endangered species. To minimize
impacts on the species, the Sweetwater
Authority and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service agreed to "rotate" the suitable
habitat out of the reservoir and into an old
sand pit upstream, which can be reveg-
etated and is contiguous with similar
habitat. Habitat acreage is not reduced
because vegetation is not removed from
the reservoir until new habitat is "quali-
fied" upstream.
The program has been very successful,
and the endangered songbird has
occupied the new habitat more quickly
than expected. The authority manages
140 acres of riparian woodland under
this revegetation effort. The program also
has enabled the authority and the Fish
and Wildlife Service to meet their goals
through a coordinated effort.
first flush runoff from the water-
shed. Thus far, the system pre-
vented the addition of 3,300 tons of
salt to the reservoir and has re-
duced loading from minerals,
nutrients, pathogens, and coliform.
The second phase, now under
construction, will complete the
water protection barrier. Ulti-
mately, the diverted runoff that
seeps into the lower ground water
basin will be treated in a plant
currently under construction. This
will provide a new water resource
for the community.
Comprehensive Funding
Approach
Phase one of the project cost $6.5
million, and Phase two will cost
$7.0 million. Water revenue bonds,
government grants, and
development fees fi-
nanced the construction.
Funding sources included
Title XVI grants from the
U.S. Bureau of Reclama-
tion, which are available
to water projects that use
reclaimed water. The
water utility also received
grants under section
205(j) of the Clean Water
Act, specifically alloted for
innovative construction
projects to treat waste
water.
The local development
fees resulted from a cost-
sharing agreement
between the Sweetwater
Authority and San Diego
County. The agreement
allows the authority to
impose a fee on develop-
ment permits in the
watershed's middle basin
to recover the costs of
controlling runoff from
new development, esti-
mated at 60 percent of the
total project cost. The fee
of $300 per equivalent
dwelling units, in 1984
dollars, is assessed on 2.9
dwelling units per acre for
commercial and other
non-residential uses. The author-
ity is negotiating with the county to
expand the fee program to recover
the costs associated with mitigat-
ing the impacts of urbanization.
Habitat Management Program
Controls Weeds & Predators
The Sweetwater Authority devel-
oped a program to manage 140
acres of endangered species habi-
tat affected by the Urban Runoff
Diversion System and reservoir
operations. The program includes
monitoring, re-vegetation, invasive
weed eradication, and predator
removal programs coordinated with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the California Department of
Fish and Game.
The authority re-designed portions
of the diversion system to mini-
mize or avoid impacts to environ-
mentally sensitive areas. The
current design protects the
Sweetwater Reservoir from the
effects of new development and
urbanization while protecting
habitat.
Previously, the plan called for a low-
flow barrier 2 miles upstream of
the reservoir, several miles of
diversion pipes, and three up-
stream ponds. However, some of
the property targeted for construc-
tion was identified as sensitive
habitat, so the authority elimi-
nated the upstream ponds and
added a larger downstream pipe and
an additional downstream pond.
Although the new design handles a
smaller volume of storm water, the
authority judged the compromise
adequate to balance environmental
impacts.
25
-------
Septic System
Management
Portland Water District
Portland, Maine
• Primary Source of Water: Sebago Lake
• Watershed Area: 450 square miles
• Population Served: 160,000
• Treatment: Ozonated, chlorinated,
unfiltered
Seasonal residential development
is a major threat to Sebago Lake,
the Portland Water District's pri-
mary source. About 3,000 cottages
are within 200 feet of the lake,
along the lake shore and on several
islands. To mitigate the effects of
individual septic systems, the
district relies on various controls
including charter legislation that
created the district in 1912, the
state's shoreland zoning regula-
tions and plumbing code, local
zoning ordinances, and agreements
with private landowners.
Under the district's charter legisla-
tion, septic systems must have a
permit if they are within 200 feet of
the high water mark of the lake.
Water District staff are required to
perform inspections of the systems.
They also may inspect septic
systems that are up to 1,000 feet
from the lake's tributaries.
When a landowner applies for a
town plumbing permit to install or
modify a septic system, the local
health department informs the
Water District, which will issue its
own permit. The district relies on
the state plumbing code for its
minimum requirements for septic
system design and installation.
Depending on soil conditions, the
district may impose even stricter
requirements. Local wastewater
disposal regulations also may
impose more stringent criteria for
system siting. District staff conduct
inspections during and after con-
struction, and regularly once the
system goes into operation. Re-
cently, district inspectors have
focused their attention toward
reseeding construction sites to
prevent erosion.
If the district and a town learn of a
malfunctioning or failed septic
system, the town usually takes the
lead on resolving the situation.
Although the district and towns
have legal authority to act, the
towns have handled these situa-
tions well in the past, and there
has been no need for enforcement
by the district.
Septic systems must
have a permit if they are
within 200 feet of the high
water mark of Sebago
Lake
i '^ *'v ' '
26
-------
Drops in Coliform
concentrations have
corresponded with
increases in Croton
Watershed citizens self-
reporting of septic system
integrity.
Wastewater
Management
Department of Environmental
Protection
New York, New York
• Primary Sources of Water: Croton
Watershed; the Catskill and Delaware
Watershed (includes 19 reservoirs)
•Watershed Area: 1,969 square miles
• Population Served: 9,000,000 (includes
some upstream communities)
• Treatment: Croton: Chlorinated, filtered
(scheduled); Catskill/Delaware: Chlori-
nated, disinfected, unfiltered
The New York City Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), is
providing more than $350 million
to fund septic systems and waste-
water management projects in the
Croton and Catskills-Delaware
watersheds.
To meet the standards and require-
ments set by the City's new rules
and regulations, New York City is
upgrading all of their wastewater
treatment plants to state-of-the-art
tertiary treatment facilities, at a
cost of more than $200 million.
Other wastewater treatment plants
in the Croton watershed and the
Catskills and Delaware River
watershed are also being upgraded
with assistance from the New York
DEP, budgeted at almost $80 mil-
lion.
Some other wastewater and septic
initiatives include:
• A New Infrastructure Program
to finance wastewater treat-
ment facilities, community
septics, and septic manage-
ment districts.
• A Sewer Extension Program to
address failing or potentially
failing septic systems.
• A Septic System Rehabilitation
and Replacement Program.
• A program for alternative design
septic systems.
• A Water Quality Program in
certain watershed counties for
county-based wastewater/septic
system initiatives.
• Funding for studies to assess
the feasibility of sewage diver-
sion to outside of one of the
watershed systems.
In the Catskill and Delaware River
Watershed, DEP is partnered with
the Catskill Watershed Corporation
(CWC). The CWC is a local non-
profit established to administer the
1997 Watershed Agreement be-
tween DEP and the state. Simi-
larly, in the Croton Watershed, the
DEP is working with county govern-
ments to develop program rules and
priorities for regional source water
protection initiatives.
Septic Systems
Regulation
Onondaga County Water Authority
Syracuse, New York
• Primary Source of Water: Otisco Lake
• Watershed Area: 44 square miles
• Population Served: 70,000
• Treatment: filtered
Because each residence in the
Onondaga County watershed has
its own septic system, their main-
tenance is a primary watershed
protection activity. The state
health commissioner has man-
dated that the Onondaga County
Water Authority carry out the
inspection program of septic sys-
tems. The authority and the county
health department also review
designs for new septic systems and
for changes to existing systems.
Every summer, authority staff
conduct a door-to-door survey of all
residences in the watershed to
update their information and
27
-------
inspect each septic system. They
also perform dye tests at one-third
of the residences located directly
on Otisco lake so that all the
residences are covered once every
3 years.
Watershed violations, such as a
positive dye test or a soggy spot in a
leach field, are handled initially by
the water authority. The resident
has 14 days to fix the problem. The
authority cannot provide financial
assistance, but usually recom-
mends that residents hire a con-
tractor to address the situation.
If a violation persists for more than
14 days, the county health depart-
ment takes over enforcement
under authority of the Onondaga
Sanitary Code. First, the depart-
ment sends a letter notifying the
homeowner of the sanitary code
violation. The letters warns that, if
the problem is not fixed within a
specified time period, the home-
owner will be called before the
health commissioner, who has the
power to impose a fine or order the
homeowner to take any steps that
are deemed necessary to fix the
problem.
Performing regular dye tests helps
the authority ensure that all the
septic systems near its source
water are in good working order.
The program also gives the author-
ity a high profile among landown-
ers, which works to its benefit.
Replacing Septic
Systems Throughout
the Watershed with
Sewers
Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority
Boston, Massachusetts
• Primary Sources of Water: Quabbin and
Wachusett Reservoirs
•Watershed Area: Quabbin: 187 square
miles: Wachusett: 110 square miles
•Population Served: 1,932,000
The Massachusetts Water Re-
sources Authority is funding the
installation of sewers to replace 40
percent of the septic systems in its
Wachusett watershed at a cost of
$58 million. Data on the remaining
7,000 systems are compiled in a
database.
To better manage the monitoring of
these systems, the Metropolitan
District Commission (MDC) funded
the development of model by-laws
for regional wastewater manage-
ment districts. Independent of
municipal government, these
districts would provide an overall
management structure for regular
inspection and maintenance of
septic systems. MDC is funding a
pilot region to the north of the
Wachusett reservoir, where older
cesspools are found.
28
-------
The City of Seattle is work-
ing towards establishing
an ecological reserve on
over 60% of the land that it
operates.
Habitat Management
Protects Endangered
Species and
Drinking Water
Seattle Public Utilities
Seattle, Washington
• Primary Sources of Water: Cedar River
Watershed and the South Fork Tolt
Watershed
• Watershed Area: 90,495 acres (Cedar
River), 13,390 acres (South Fork)
• Population Served: 1.2 million
• Treatment: Chlorinated, unfiltered
To protect and preserve the endan-
gered and threatened species in its
Cedar River Watershed, while
maintaining stringent water
quality standards, Seattle developed
a Habitat Conservation Plan. The
city recently distributed a "Proposed
Agreement in Principle" in which
Seattle commits to:
• Establish an ecological reserve
on about 64 percent of the land
it owns and operates.
• Develop a program to manage
the commercial harvest of
timber on lands not part of the
ecological reserve. The program
will be operated according to
principles that exceed fisheries
and wildlife protection stan-
dards.
• Create facilities for salmon and
steelhead trout to pass the
Landsburg Diversion Dam.
• Rebuild sockeye salmon habitat
and build a hatchery down-
stream of the dam.
• Implement an in-stream flow
program in the lower Cedar
River.
• Design a comprehensive re-
search and monitoring program
that will verify the plan's imple-
mentation, evaluate its effec-
tiveness, and provide informa-
tion on species of concern.
The purpose of the proposed agree-
ment is to provide a basis for
negotiations among local, state,
federal, and tribal agencies.
Plant Grant
Programs Provide
Citizen Incentives
for Source Water
Protection
Portland Water District
Portland, Maine
• Primary Source of Water: Sebago Lake
• Watershed Area: 450 square miles
• Population Served: 160,000
• Treatment: Ozonated, chlorinated,
unfiltered
In an effort to move beyond tradi-
tional regulation and involve more
lakeside residents in watershed
protection efforts, the Portland
Water District instituted three
innovative programs. These
programs promotes habitat resto-
ration and water quality protection,
and have been very popular with
property owners.
Plant Grant Program
Since 1995, the Plant Grant Pro-
gram provides $200 matching
grants to Sebago Lake-shore prop-
erty owners who buy plants and
establish buffers to control existing
erosion. Several nurseries supplied
over 665 recommended shrubs,
ground cover, and trees compatible
with lake-side erosion control
efforts and provided technical
assistance to participating resi-
dents. The Water District has
distribute $5400 in grants since
1995, and plans to continue this
program, including monitoring the
level of success of the lakeside
plantings.
29
-------
Master Gardener Program
The Master Gardener Program,
begun in 1997, partners lakeside
landowners with knowledgeable
staff from the Maine Cooperative
Extension Service. A master gar-
dener visits a shoreline home site
and teaches the owner environ-
mental gardening techniques.
Camp Grant Program
Another restoration effort, the
Camp Grant Program, provides
technical assistance and grant
funds to incorporate education and
erosion remediation at lakeside
camp sites. The district has do-
nated about $6,700 to buy supplies
for control measures at severely
eroded shoreline camps; these
efforts markedly improved condi-
tions.
Gardening and
lakeside planting have
increased citizen
awareness of drinking
water protection
issues with minimum
costs.
30
-------
Chapter 4
Land Acquisition
One way to solve the problem of competing land uses within a
watershed is to acquire all the land surrounding a water source.
Rather than negotiate with individual land owners, the system
buys the land surrounding a surface water source. This solution
is simple, yet often difficult to implement.
For example, the Portland Water
District in Portland, Maine encoun-
tered difficulties in administering
its land acquisition plan because
much of the land that the utility
wished to purchase was in a single
town.
The Salt Lake City Public Utilities
Department can purchase land only
at its appraised value, which puts
the utility at a disadvantage when
competing with developers, who are
free to pay more.
New York City's Department of
Environmental Protection, must
consult and partner with multiple
local governments to manage the
acquired lands.
Despite these obstacles, land
acquisition has turned out to be a
critical part of protecting the water
source, since ownership means
more control over landuse.
Land Aquisition to Control
Uses of the Watershed
Seattle Public Utilities
Seattle, Washington
• Primary Sources of Water: Cedar River
Watershed and the South Fork Tolt
Watershed
• Watershed Area: 90,495 acres (Cedar
River), 13,390 acres (South Fork)
• Population Served: 1.2 million
• Treatment: Chlorinated, unfiltered
To control the use of land within its
watersheds, the Seattle Public
Utilities (SPU) has made land
acquisition a top priority in the
Cedar River and South Fork Tolt
watersheds, which are the primary
sources of Seattle's drinking water.
The utility owns 99.9 percent of the
Cedar River Watershed and 70
percent of the South Fork Tolt
Watershed. Land acquisition is
funded with revenues from custom-
ers.
31
-------
Seattle Public Utilities and the U.S.
Forest Service began exchanging
land in 1962. This land exchange
arrangement was formalized with
passage of the Cedar River Water-
shed Act of 1992.
The law directs the U.S. Forest
Service to exchange critical Cedar
River Watershed lands to the
Seattle Public Utilities and places
deed restrictions on the property
prohibiting the City of Seattle from
reselling, harvesting timber from,
or developing (other than for rou-
tine maintenance) the parcels in
question. These restrictions were
instrumental to reducing the land's
value, enabling SPU to afford the
property through exchange of other
parcels it owned worth approxi-
mately $8 million. Without the
restrictions, the land was valued at
nearly $100 million.
This latest exchange brings the
utility's total acquisition in the
Cedar River Watershed over the
last 100 years, to 99.9 percent of
the land.
South Fork Watershed: 70
Percent of Lands Acquired
The other area critical to Seattle's
drinking water supply is the South
Fork Watershed. Working with
private industry, the utility com-
pleted a land exchange with the
Weyerhauser Company for some
SPU holdings in the North Fork Tolt
basin. These properties had once
been logged and are now in various
stages of young second-growth
forest.
This land exchange consolidates
the holdings of Seattle Public
Utility and Weyerhauser in the
North and South Fork Watersheds,
thus improving the management of
these lands. Although the utility's
land is surrounded by Weyerhauser
property, a signed agreement
shows the support of Weyerhauser
to protect water quality in the
watershed.
The remaining eastern end of the
South Fork Tolt is old-growth
timber owned by the U.S. Forest
Service. No logging is taking place
in this federally-owned area, since
there is an awareness of its value
to the drinking water supply of
Seattle.
Third Parties Aid
Land Acquisition
Salt Lake City Corporation,
Department of Public Utilities
Salt Lake City, Utah
• Primary Source of Water: Wasatch
Canyons
•Watershed Area: 185 square miles
(Provo River Watershed is 500,000
acres)
• Population Served: 400,000
• Treatment: Disinfected, filtered
Since the adoption of a master
watershed management plan in
1988, the Salt Lake City Public
Utilities has funded land acquisi-
tions with a monthly fee of $0.25
per water connection. The result
has been spending of $1,154,000 to
buy 1,000 acres of watershed land.
Under its present system, utility
staff identify and recommend to an
advisory board priority properties
for acquisition. The board, com-
posed of city and county residents
appointed by the mayor of Salt Lake
City, decides whether to go ahead
with the purchase.
The utility is at a disadvantage
when competing with land develop-
ers because the utility can pur-
chase property based only on the
land's appraised value. Often, the
utility cannot compete with a
developer's offer because the price
is too high. To get around this
problem, the utility works with
environmental groups who are not
required to buy the land at the
Using a monthly fee of
$0.25 per water
connection, the Salt
Lake City Public Utilities
has bought 1,000 acres
of critical watershed land.
32
-------
An advisory board of city
and county residents,
appointed by Salt Lake
City's mayor, decides
whether to purchase land
as recommended by
water system staff.
Fair market value will be
paid for all land, and DEP
pay property taxes on
the land it buys.
appraised value. They purchase
land for placement in private land
trusts.
Another disadvantage is that the
utility can bid only on land offered
to it by the landowner. Utility staff
would like to be able to seek out
land for purchase. When revising
the master plan, the utility hopes
to change these rules.
Land exchanges for reasons other
than protecting the natural re-
sources within the watershed are a
potential concern for supporters of
watershed protection. To further
assure that these types of transac-
tions don't impact the drinking
water supply, the utility, working
with city officials, passed a resolu-
tion recommending the US Forest
service -a major land manager in
the watershed - refrain from
selling watershed land to private
parties. This action hopefully will
help lead to further protection of
drinking water sources.
Land Acquisition
Program Targets
High Priority Parcels
New York City Department of
Environmental Protection
New York, New York
• Primary Source of Water: Croton Water-
shed, Catskill/Delaware Watershed
(includes 19 reservoirs)
•Watershed Area: 1,969 square miles
• Population Served: 9,000,000 (includes
towns along the distribution lines)
• Treatment: Croton: Chlorinated, filtered
(scheduled); Catskill/Delaware: Chlori-
nated, disinfected, unfiltered
New York City's water utility, the
Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP), has embarked on
a 10-year program of land acquisi-
tion within its watersheds.
DEP has committed $250 million to
acquire property associated with in
the Catskill and Delaware River
supply systems. The Catskill and
Delaware branches of the system,
which spread over 1,600 square
miles west of the Hudson River,
provides 90 percent of New York
City's water. An additional $10
million has been set aside for the
same purpose in the Croton Water-
shed, which lies east of the
Hudson. The state will provide an
additional $7.5 million to supple-
ment the Croton Watershed land
acquisition effort.
Each watershed has been divided
into priority areas, based on natu-
ral features and proximity to reser-
voirs, intakes, and DEP's distribu-
tion system. These priorities
determine the geographic focus for
acquisitions. Fair market value is
paid for all land, and DEP pays
property taxes on the land.
As part of a 1997 Watershed Agree-
ment, DEP has a 10-year water
supply permit from the New York
State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC). The
permit enables DEP to acquire,
through purchase or conservation
easements, undeveloped land near
reservoirs, wetlands, and water-
courses, as well as land possessing
other water-quality-sensitive
features.
No land will be taken by eminent
domain. The Watershed Agree-
ment allows towns and villages to
exclude certain parcels from acqui-
sition. Communities west of the
Hudson River may exclude speci-
fied amounts of land in certain
hamlets and up to 50 acres of land
for continued commercial and
industrial use in certain priority
areas.
Throughout the two watersheds,
DEP will consult with the commu-
nity in which the parcel is located
and will provide up to $20,000 to
each town to support the local
review process. Any disputes will be
referred to the NYSDEC for resolu-
tion.
33
-------
Land Acquisition
Requires Small
Town's Cooperation
Portland Water District
Portland, Maine
• Primary Source of Water: Sebago Lake
• Watershed Area: 450 square miles
• Population Served: 160,000
• Treatment: Ozonated, chlorinated,
unfiltered
The Portland Water District, small
in relative size to other utilities
involved in watershed acquisition,
has made significant use of this
management tool. Even with
limited resources and staff, in
1997, the utility spent $600,000 to
establish a buffer zone by purchas-
ing land within 1,000 feet of the
shoreline of Sebago Lake and its
tributaries. The district purchased
5 properties, at market value, from
willing sellers.
The money for the district's land
acquisition program comes from
1993 legislation allowing water
utilities to set aside up to 5 percent
of the prior year's revenues for
drinking water source protection.
Thus far, all of the district's pur-
chases have been made in the
town of Standish, Maine. This
prompted community concerns
about reduced tax revenues and
the perceived threat that the
district would buy all village land,
since the village center is within
1,000 feet of Sebago Lake.
To allay community concerns,
correct mis-apprehensions, and
promote communication, a commit-
tee of town selectmen and utility
trustees was formed. The team
helps to assure that everyone's
interests are addressed while
protecting the town's drinking
water supply.
In 1997, the utility spent
$600,000 to buy land
within 1,000 feet of the
shoreline of Sebago
Lake and its tributaries.
34
-------
Midix A
Source Water Protection
Workshop Participants
Southwest Source
Water Protection
Workshop
Participants in the Southwest
Source Water Protection Workshop,
held in Tempe, Arizona, were:
Ed Archuleta
General Manager
El Paso Water Utilities, Texas
Judy Bloom
U.S. EPA Region 9
Dennis Bostad
Water Quality Director
Sweetwater Authority, California
John Robert Carman
Metropolitan Water District of Salt
Lake City, Utah
Brad Cross
Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission
Richard A. Denton
Contra Costa Water District,
California
Barbara Gastian
Albuquerque Public Works
Department, New Mexico
Mike Gritzuk
Director
Phoenix Water Services
Department, Arizona
Michael Johnson
Southern Nevada Water Authority
Charlie Jordan
Public Affairs Director
Denver Water Department,
Colorado
Tim Kacerek
Central Arizona Project
Michele Kempel
City of Nogales, Arizona
Karl Kolhoff
Assistant Utilities Manager
Mesa, Arizona
Mary Ann Mann
Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California
Tom McCann
Central Arizona Project
Brendan Murphy
National Rural Water Association
Reed Oberndorfer
Central Utah Water Conservation
District
Ken Orton
National Rural Water Association
Pankaj Parehk
Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power, California
Dan Pedersen
American Water Works Association
35
-------
Florence Reynolds
Salt Lake City Public Utilities
Department, Utah
Glenn Singley
Northern District Engineer
Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power, California
Moncef Tihami
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
Gary Ullinskey
Phoenix Water Services
Department, Arizona
Northwest Source
Water Protection
Workshop
Participants in the Northwest
Source Water Protection Workshop
held in Portland, Oregon, were:
Dan Bradley
General Manager
South Fork Water Board, Oregon
Bill Brookes
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Bill Carr
United Water Idaho
Dave Clark
Director
State of Washington Drinking
Water Division
Sue Doroff
RiverNetwork, Riverlands
Conservancy Director
Suzanne Flagor
Seattle Public Utilities, Washington
Alan W. Fletcher
Clackamas River Water, Oregon
Bob Groncznack
City of Olympia Water Utilities,
Washington
Maryann Helferty
U.S. EPA Region 10
Ron Hunsinger
East Bay Municipal Utility District,
California
David Jennings
State of Washington Department of
Health
Bob Jones
Medford Water Commission, Oregon
Dave Leland
State of Oregon Drinking Water
Program Manager
Steve Leonard
San Francisco Public Utilities,
California
Bob Lewis
Deputy Director
National Association of Water
Companies
Dan Lowell
City of Everett Water Department,
Washington
Patty Mallett
San Francisco Public Utilities,
California
Frank Mauldin
Public Works Director
City of Salem, Oregon
Alan Medak
City of Tacoma Water Division,
Washington
Joe Meek
State of Montana Department of
Environmental Quality
Bruce Niss
Portland Water Bureau, Oregon
Tom Ortman
U.S. Forest Service
Tina Schweickert
City of Salem Public Works, Oregon
Janet Senior
Portland Water Bureau, Oregon
36
-------
Sheree Stewart
State of Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
Ty Wick
General Manager
Spokane County Water District No.
3, Washington
Howard Woods
State of Idaho Division of
Environmental Quality
Northeast Source
Water Protection
Workshop
Participants of the Northeast
Source Water Protection Workshop,
held in New York City, were:
Phillippe Boissonneault
Portland Water District, Maine
Tom Curtis
Natural Resources Group Director
National Governors' Association
Stephen Estes-Smargiassi
Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority
Patrick Fasano
Chester Water Authority,
Pennsylvania
Stephen Gould
U.S. EPA Region 2
Ed Holland
Orange Water and Sewer Authority,
North Carolina
Barker Hamill
Chief
State of New Jersey Bureau of Safe
Drinking Water
John Hroncich
United Water Resources
Harrington Park, New Jersey
Dale Long
U.S. EPA Region 3
Preston Luitweiler
Philadelphia Suburban Water
Company, Pennsylvania
Joseph McGinn
Metropolitan District Commission
Boston, Massachusetts
Mark Murphy
Onondaga County Water Authority,
New York
Howard Neukrug
Director of Planning & Technical
Services
Philadelphia Water Department,
Pennsylvania
John Przepiora
Commissioner
Syracuse Department of Water,
New York
Richard Rafanovic
General Manager and Chief
Engineer
Providence, Rhode Island
Philip Rossa
Passaic Valley Water Commission,
New Jersey
Anne Seeley
Section Chief, Drinking Water
Quality Planning
New York City Department of
Environmental Protection, New
York
Workshop
Organizers
The workshops were sponsored by
AMWA and co-managed with EPA's
Jeff Cohen. Facilitators for the
workshops were Clayton Creager
(Tempe and Portland) and the
Cadmus Group, Inc.'s Laurie Potter
(New York City). The consultant for
the workshops was Dr. Chi Ho
Sham.
37
-------
Appendix B
Source Water on the Web
U.S. EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water
www.epa.gov/safewater/protect.html
Provides information to facilitate the protection
of source water resources.
Nonpoint Source Control (U.S. EPA)
www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/index.html
Features highlights of Clean Water Act and
Coastal NFS programs and includes a list of
enforceable state mechanisms for NFS control.
Watershed Management Program (U.S. EPA)
www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/wtrshd.html
Includes dozens of links and information for
people interested in protecting their watersheds.
Clean Water Action Plan
www. cleanwater. gov
Describes the Clinton Administration's new
effort to address nonpoint source pollution prob-
lems.
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
www.amwa-water.org/
Provides background on the provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act that apply to source
water protection as well as links to other re-
sources.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
(USDA)
www.nrcs.usda.gov
Provides information to help people conserve,
improve, and sustain our natural resources and
environment.
Agriculture Research Service (USDA) and the
University of Maryland
www.nal.usda.gov/waic
A large site with many databases and articles on
the relationship between agriculture and water
quality.
U.S. Geological Survey
http://water.usgs.gov/index.html
Contains links to just about everything the
USGS is doing in water, including a great site
with real-time water flow data from thousands of
stations.
Surf Your Watershed (U.S. EPA)
www.epa.gov/surf
Describes watershed conditions in over 2,000
watersheds nationwide.
RiverNetwork
www.rivernetwork.org
Contains information for local watershed protec-
tion groups.
Watershed Academy (U.S. EPA)
www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/
fund.html
Lists sources of federal funding to support vari-
ous watershed protection projects and local
watershed projects.
Watershed Lessons Learned
www.epa.gov/OWOW/lessons
Describes the Top 10 lessons learned by water-
shed practitioners working on watershed protec-
tion plans and other watershed work, and pro-
vides real-world examples to illustrate each
lesson.
38
------- |