United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (4606)
Washington, D.C.
EPA-816-R-99-016
October 1999
EPA Safe Drinking Water Act,
Section 1429
Ground Water Report to Congress
-"
-*v%*=-^t>J».
* j*V*V-
.
c «4
e e*
s a C
* * *
-*^B»n*«
* a "-* ***"!**
^ _/./; .:
Internet Address (URL) http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (20% Postconsumer)
-------
Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1429
Ground Water Report to Congress
-------
-------
Acknowledgments
The Ground Water Report to Congress was developed with the help of many people from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), state governments and
state water associations. The project manager and chief editor of this document was Denise Coutlakis of
the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) within the Office of Water (OW). Many EPA
staff within OWand other EPA program offices assisted with and contributed to the document along the
way. EPA would especially like to thank the federal/state workgroup that was critical in the development
of this report. The workgroup consisted of representatives from the Ground Water Protection Council
(GWPC), the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), the Association of State and
Interstate Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), and other state governments, EPA, and the
USGS, as follows:
State Representatives and the National State-Based Organizations They Represent
Rick Cobb
Jon Craig
Sonja Massey
Mike Baker
Kirk Cook
Ken Harris
Fred Van Alstyne
Sara Pillsbury
Emory Cleeves
Rodney Dehan
Mike Paque
Dave Terry
Robbi Savage
Arlene O'Donnell
Vanessa Leiby
EPA Representatives
Denise Coutlakis
Mike Bechdol
Wendy Melgin
Bob Barles
Roger Anzzolin
Chuck Evans
Chris Lewicki
Ken Lovelace
Leah Evison
Sylvia Horwitz
USGS Representatives
Bill Wilbur
Mike Focazio
IL
OK (ASDWA)
AL (ASIWPCA)
OK (GWPC)
WA
CA
NY
NH
MD (Association of State Geologists)
FL (National Water Quality Monitoring Council (WQMC) - Ground Water
Focus Group co-chair)
GWPC - Executive Director
GWPC - President
ASIWPCA - Executive Director
ASDWA - President
ASDWA - Executive Director
OGWDW (Workgroup Leader)
U.S. EPA Region 6
U.S. EPA Region 9
OGWDW (Prevention and Support Branch)
OGWDW (Information Mgt, 305(b) Report Lead)
Office of Pesticide Programs
Office of Wetland, Oceans, and Watersheds
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of General Counsel
(National Water Quality Assessment Program & NWQMC - GW Focus
Group co-chair)
(USGS liaison to U.S. EPA/OGWDW)
Special thanks goes out to Mike Paque and the staff at GWPC for their work with ASDWA, ASIWPCA and
their state members in developing the Summaries of State Ground Water Conditions that are included as
an addendum to this document. EPA thanks each of the state ground water managers and authors for
their time and diligence in preparing the fact sheets that further elucidate the progress of each state in the
protection of their ground water resources.
-------
Contractor support was provided under Contract No. 68-C7-0056 with Tetra Tech Inc. (TT), a
subcontractor of Research Triangle Institute (RTI). Bill Ward of TT gave critical support in developing this
document, as did many others who lent support at Tetra Tech and RTI. Roger Anzzolin managed the
work assignment under this contract for EPA. His help was greatly appreciated.
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
Executive Summary
Section 1429 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Administrator to make grants to the states for
the development and implementation of programs to
ensure the coordinated and comprehensive
protection of ground water resources. Under this
authority, EPA is also required every three years to
evaluate funded state programs and report to
Congress on the status of ground waterquality in the
United States and the effectiveness of state programs
for ground water protection.
SDWA Section 1429(e) Evaluations and
Reports
"Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1996, and every 3 years
thereafter, the Administrator shall evaluate the
State ground water protection programs that are
the subject of grants awarded pursuant to this
section and report to the Congress on the
status of ground water quality in the United
States and the effectiveness of State programs
for ground water protection."
Under the 1996 Amendments to SDWA, Congress
authorized up to $15 million for each of fiscal years
1997 through 2003 to support these state programs,
although these funds have not been appropriated for
fiscal years 1997 through 1999. This report reviews
the status and effectiveness of state ground water
programs and examines our nation's approach to
protecting ground water.
Over the past fifteen years, numerous reports have
documented the need for more effective coordination
of ground water protection programs at the federal,
state, and local levels. Similar efforts in surface
water programs have led many states to adopt
watershed-based management approaches that
coordinate the activities of agencies and prog rams that
play a role in water quality protection. At the federal
level, the 1998 Clean Water Action Plan is designed
to promote similar coordination among federal
agencies. While the Clean Water Action Plan and
some state watershed protection approaches address
ground water, true coordination of ground water
management efforts has not been achieved in most
states.
Nevertheless, progress has been made in the
protection of the nation's ground water resources. For
example, 47 states have approved wellhead
protection programs. These programs are now being
expanded under the Source Water Assessment and
Protection provisions of the 1996 SDWA amendments.
Although wellhead and source water protection focus
solely on drinking water sources, more
comprehensive protection programs that address the
entire ground water resource are also being
developed by the states. Virtually every state has
indicated that they are undertaking some component
of a comprehensive ground water protection program,
including enacting protection legislation and
regulations, coordinating activities of various agencies
responsible for ground water management,
performing ground water mapping and classification,
monitoring ambient ground waterquality, developing
data management systems, and implementing
remediation and prevention programs. However, more
comprehensive planning needs to be done to make
the best decisions regarding remediation and the
efficient use of ground water efforts.
Federal support is available for comprehensive ground
water protection planning, primarily through the Clean
Water Act (CWA) and SDWA. However, the vast
majority of federal resources allocated forground water
have been devoted to ground water remediation.
Millions, and in some cases hundred of millions, of
dollars from public and private funds have been spent
in each state on clean-up activities, or government
oversight of clean-up performed by private parties.
The need for such spending will continue. In 1994,
the National Academy of Sciences estimated that over
a trillion dollars, or approximately $4,000 per person
in the U.S., will be spent in the next thirty years on
clean-up of contaminated soil and ground water.
However comparatively few of those clean-up
resources will be used to manage future threats to the
resource in a comprehensive way that may prevent
the need for future, costly clean-up efforts. A
comprehensive protection program would help
determine the most significant threats to the resource,
help establish the local priorities and direct funds to
those programs that would deal with the most
significant threats first.
Although there is no targeted source of funding for
state ground water protection programs, EPA
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
guidance encourages states to use 15 percent of their
grant funds appropriated under Section 106 of the
CWA for ground water protection. Also, states may
set aside funds from the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to finance source water
assessment and protection activities. This includes
three possible set-asides: (1) up to 10% of a state's
allotment for the DWSRF to administer or provide
technical assistance for Source Water Protection
programs within the state; (2) up to 15% of the state's
capitalization grant for more than one of several Source
Water Protection activities (i.e., land acquisition/
easements, voluntary protection and petition activities,
source water assessments [available for FY 1997
grants only], and Wellhead Protection); and (3) up to
2 percent of the state's allotment for additional
technical assistance to small Public Water Systems
(PWS).
Funds may also be allocated through Public Water
Supply Supervision (PWSS) grants for assisting with
compliance of federal and state drinking water
regulations. Although these grants are targeted to
assist in implementation of drinking water regulations,
including several new federal regulations, states could
potentially use these funds for comprehensive ground
water protection if they can make a direct correlation
to PWS compliance with drinking water regulations.
This report presents the findings that EPA has
developed in consultation with a workgroup of state
ground water managers, the Ground Water
Protection Council, the Association of State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, and
the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators regarding how our federal and state
ground water protection programs can more effectively
prevent ground water contamination problems in the
future. In this initial report prepared under Section
1429, EPA programs are the focus of the discussion
of federal ground water management activities. The
next report to be prepared in three years will include a
broader discussion with more information about other
federal programs. U.S. EPA is grateful to our
partners, the states, for their help in developing this
report.
Ground Water and the Health of the Nation
Maintaining access to clean, plentiful ground water
sources is critical to protect the health and welfare of
all parts of the country. Today, we rely on ground
water more than ever:
ground watersupplies drinking waterto half of the
nation and virtually all people living in rural areas,
ground water supports many billions of dollars
worth of food production and industrial activity, and
ground watersupplies the majority of streamflow
in large areas of the country and provides much
of the water in lakes and wetlands.
Ground water is used in every state and accounts for
about one-quarter of all freshwater used in the United
States today.
Ground Water Quality
Information about the extent and condition of ground
water quality is limited at the national and state level,
especially when compared to our understanding of
surface water quality. In contrast to surface water
quality monitoring, ground water monitoring is
more expensive and time consuming, and ground
water quality and vulnerability are more difficult to
characterize beyond the local level. Furthermore,
monitoring data to characterize the overall quality of
the resource have not been collected in a consistent
way. Without consistent, long-term monitoring data,
our ability to characterize ground water quality and
how land use affects ground water is limited,
particularly on a national scale.
However, based on the data that have been collected
to date, ground water quality appears to be generally
good nationwide (that is, ground water contaminant
levels are usually below applicable drinking water
standards). Locally, however, ground waterquality is
being threatened by a variety of land uses. Although
ground water appears to be of higher quality than
surface water throughout the United States,
contamination incidents and over-pumping remain a
problem for numerous localities.
A variety of agricultural, industrial, commercial, and
waste disposal practices are known to contaminate
ground water. The occurrence of nitrates, pesticides,
organic chemicals, and other contaminants reveal the
impact of certain land uses on ground water quality.
Over-pumping can limit water availability to nearby
wells; reduce ground water flow to streams, lakes, and
wetlands; permanently damage aquifer storage
capacity; and induce salt water intrusion to
freshwater aquifers. Because no one federal, state,
or local authority can manage all of these threats, a
coordinated approach for ground water management
is needed.
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
Ground Water Management
Many states are working toward aspects of a more
comprehensive resource-based approach to ground
water protection, but much remains to be done.
In order to better manage the resource, increased
efforts towards such activities as data gathering,
coordination and integration of programs, and
comprehensive priority-setting must be achieved.
These planning activities, however, are often lacking
due to budget constraints and institutional barriers that
prohibit effective communication between agencies
and groups that have control over activities that
impact ground water.
Federal, state, and local governments need to
reexamine the current approach to ground water
management to assess the future direction of federal
and state programs. The critical question for many
states is how to increase efforts to prevent new ground
water contamination while managing the clean-up of
resources that were contaminated in the past. While
the liability for clean-up may act as a deterrent to
polluting ground water and programs like the Toxics
Release Inventory create public relations incentives
for reducing pollution, these types of programs alone
do not fully address our need to manage ground
water resources in a sustainable manner. Supporting
the comprehensive management efforts that are
emerging in the states will best serve the nation's need
for maintaining sustainable ground water resources
into the future.
Findings
Ground water is a critical resource to maintain
public health, the economy, and the environment.
From what we know at most locations around the
country, ground water is generally of good quality
but continues to be threatened by point and
non-point sources, as well as over-pumping.
States have made considerable progress in
implementing federal and state programs aimed
at specific contamination concerns.
Most states agree that a more comprehensive,
resource-based approach holds greater potential
for accomplishing effective ground water
protection and many states are pursuing key
aspects of such an approach.
Much still remains to be done to achieve a more
comprehensive approach.
About a dozen states have developed an
EPA-approved Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Program (CSGWPP) that
promotes a more strategic, resource-based
approach to ground water protection, and
more than half the States are undertaking
efforts that are essential to a comprehensive
approach to ground water protection.
However, only a few states have been able
to complete, or have begun to develop, a
comprehensive list of ground water
protection priorities. Even fewer states have
indicated that they have identified available
program funding sources to address their
comprehensive ground water protection
priorities in a systematic, consistent way.
States have identified three primary barriers to
achieving a more comprehensive approach:
1) Fragmentation of ground water programs
impedes effective management. Most state
and federal ground water protection
programs are fragmented among and within
agencies. At the state level, authorities to
manage the resource are often held among
different state agencies with conflicting
priorities and goals. Communicating and
coordinating among departments with ground
water responsibilities can be difficult. In turn,
these barriers can create an impediment to
accessing funds for comprehensive planning
efforts.
2) There is a lack of understanding of ground
water resources locally and regionally (e.g.,
the extent and condition of the resource, the
physical nature of the aquifer, the behavior of
contaminants within and their movement
through aquifers, the influence of surface
water to ground water and vice versa).
Better information to assess the effectiveness
of ground water protection efforts and to
determine the impact of certain land uses on
ground water is needed to set priorities for
ground water protection efforts. The states
need to support the development of
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
coordinated, comprehensive approaches for
ground water monitoring that includes priority
setting.
3) Lack of funding targeted directly to ground
water is the reason most often cited by states
for limited efforts at undertaking a more
comprehensive resource-based approach.
Ground water protection is often not a high
priority for funding; mandated programs
usually prevail for funding. Most states
indicate that the mandates under other
federal programs often preclude the state from
exercising flexibility to use funds for
non-mandated ground water protection
priorities. This is particularly the case under
the Clean Water Act (CWA), where states
have the opportunity to pursue ground water
activities, including more comprehensive
resource assessment and planning, utilizing
State Water Quality Program Grants,
Non-point Source Grants or the non-point
source projects supported by the CWA State
Revolving Fund loans.
While the funds are relatively limited, most states
believe that funding of SDWA Section 1429 grants
would support more coordinated state planning
and priority setting for ground water protection as
a first step toward solving some of these
problems. States believe that by providing a
source of targeted funding, states will be able to
better address the issues of program
fragmentation within the state and basic program
needs, such as monitoring, resource
characterization, and the development and
implementation of protection programs.
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
List of Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols
AFO Animal feeding operations
AST Above ground storage tank
AU Animal unit
BMP Best management practice
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CSGWPP Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program
CWA Clean Water Act
EDMS Environmental Data Management System (Idaho)
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
CIS Geographic information system
GWFG Ground Water Focus Group
IGPA Illinois Groundwater Protection Act
ITFM Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality
MCL Maximum contaminant level
MTBE Methyl terf-butyl ether
mg/L Milligram per liter
NAWQA National Water Quality Assessment
NWQMC National Water Quality Monitoring Council
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
DIG Underground injection control
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
UST Underground storage tank
VOC Volatile organic compounds
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
ug/L Microgram per liter
-------
VI
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
This page left intentionally blank.
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
Vll
Table of Contents
Executive Summary i
List of Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols v
Table of Contents vii
List of Exhibits viii
1.0. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose of this Report 1
1.2 Report Development Process and Content 1
2.0 THE IMPORTANCE OF GROUND WATER TO THE HEALTH OF THE NATION 3
2.1 Ground Water Uses 3
2.2 Ground Water Characteristics 6
3.0 GROUND WATER QUALITY: A RESOURCE AT RISK 11
3.1 The Quality of the Nation's Ground Water 11
3.2 Threats to Ground Water 11
3.3 What These Ground WaterThreats Mean to the Nation 18
4.0 GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT 21
4.1 Federal Ground Water Management Programs 21
4.2 State Ground Water Management Programs: Building on Federal Authorities 24
4.3 Comprehensive Ground Water Management and Sustainable Ground Water Quality 32
5.0 FINDINGS 35
References A-1
Glossary of Terms B-1
Addendum: State Fact Sheets (Exit EPA)
-------
vm
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
LIST OF EXHIBITS
2-1 Categories of Ground Water Use (USGS 1998a) 3
2-2 Percentage of Population Relying on Ground Water as a Drinking Water Source by State
(USGS1998a) 4
2-3 Volume of Ground Water Used by the States (Mgal/d) and Percentage of Total Ground Water
Withdrawals Occurring in Each State (USGS 1998a) 5
2-4 Principal Aquifers of the United States (USGS 1998b) 6
2-5 Ground Water Contributions to Surface Water in 10 Hydrologic Regions Around the Country
(USGS1998a) 7
2-6 Agricultural Irrigation (Marty Link, NDEC) 8
2-7 The Hydrologic Cycle 10
3-1 Animal Feeding Operation (AFO) 14
3-2 Confirmed Underground Storage Tank Releases as of February 28, 1999 16
4-1 Percentage of States That Have begun Implementing Components of a Comprehensive
Ground Water Protection Program 25
4-2
State Wellhead Protection Programs 32
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
1.0. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of this Report
Section 1429 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Administrator to make grants to the states for
the development and implementation of programs that
ensure the coordinated and comprehensive
protection of ground water resources. Under this
authority, EPA is also required every three years to
evaluate funded state
ground water protection
programs and report to
Congress on the status of
ground water quality in
the United States and the
Section 1429 of the
Safe Drinking Water
Act requires EPA to
prepare a Report to
Congress on ground
water protection
programs.
effectiveness of state
programs for protecting
ground water.
Congress enacted SDWA to protect the quality of
drinking water in the United States. The Act has
become one of the principal authorities for managing
and protecting ground water resources by controlling
the underground injection of waste, providing
authority and support for wellhead and drinking water
source protection, and recommending the
development of comprehensive state programs for
ground water management.
Section 1429 of the Safe Drinking Water Act requires
EPA to prepare a Report to Congress on ground
water protection programs.
Under the 1996 amendments to SDWA, Congress
added Section 1429 to the Act, which authorized up
to $15 million for each of fiscal years 1997 through
2003 to support state programs for comprehensive
ground water protection. Funds under this authority
have not been appropriated for fiscal years 1997
through 1999. This report addresses the current sta-
tus and effectiveness of state ground water programs
and examines our nation's approach to protecting
ground water.
1.2 Report Development Process and Content
EPA convened a work group of state and federal
ground water experts to develop the findings presented
in this report regarding approaches to protect and
sustain the nation's ground water.
To support this effort, EPA and the work group used
the following two principal sources of information:
Q Existing literature and research reports developed
by federal agencies, the states, universities, and
private research organizations; and
Q A report of state ground water management
agencies completed in April 1999 (GWPC1999a)1.
Information sources, which support EPA and work
group findings, are cited throughout this report.
This report is organized in the following five sections:
Q Section 1, Introduction, which discusses the
purpose of this report and its organization
Q Section 2, Ground Water's Importance to the
Health of the Nation, which summarizes ground
water characteristics and uses
Q Section 3, Ground Water Quality, which discusses
threats to the nation's ground water
Q Section 4, Ground Water Management, which
discusses federal, state, and local government ap-
proaches and programs for protecting ground
water
Q Section 5, Findings, which discusses ground
water and management approaches to protect and
sustain the nation's ground water
In addition, this report contains two appendices:
Appendix A cites references used to prepare this
report and Appendix B presents a glossary of terms
used in this report. A summary of state ground water
management programs is included as an addendum
to this report.
1 The report of state ground water management agencies was completed under the sponsorship of the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC),
the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), and the Association of State Drinking Water Adminis-
trators (ASDWA). GWPC, ASIWPCA, and ASDWA compiled information from 26 states for this report.
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
This page left intentionally blank.
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
THE IMPORTANCE OF GROUND
WATER TO THE HEALTH OF THE
NATION
Beneath the surface of the earth, a huge supply of
fresh water is available to support the health and
economic well-being of the nation. This ground water
is generally of good quality2 and, unlike surface
water, it can in many cases be used safely without
treatment. Although ground water is largely a hidden
resource, it is critical to our public health and
economic welfare as a source of drinking water; a key
agricultural, industrial, and ecological resource; and a
large source of recharge water for our lakes, streams,
and wetlands.
Ground water is the source of drinking water
supply for half of the nation; is a key component
of the economy; and maintains our streams,
lakes, and wetlands.
Maintaining access to clean and plentiful ground
water is therefore critical. Today, we rely on ground
water more than ever, as illustrated by the following:
Q Ground water supplies drinking water to half of
the nation and virtually all people living in rural
areas.
Ground water uses and characteristics are discussed
below.
2.1 Ground Water Uses
In the United States, ground water is used for
agricultural, domestic, industrial, and commercial
purposes. The primary uses of ground water are for
drinking and bathing, irrigation of croplands, livestock
watering, mining, industrial and commercial uses, and
thermoelectric cooling applications. Exhibit 2-1
illustrates ground water use among these categories
(USGS 1998a). As shown, irrigation and public water
supply are the largest ground water uses, accounting
for 64 and 20 percent of all fresh ground water
withdrawals.
About 77.5 billion gallons of ground water are
withdrawn daily for use in this country. In 1995, USGS
reported that ground watersupplied 50 percent of the
nation with drinking water either through a public or
private water supply3. USGS also estimates that 42
million Americans living in rural areas, or 16 percent
of the U.S. population, drinkground waterdaily (USGS
1998a) (see Exhibit 2-2.).
Ground water supports public health, economic, and
ecological needs, as discussed below.
Ground water supports many billions of
dollars worth of food production and
industrial activity.
Ground water supplies the
majority of streamflow in
large areas of the country
and provides much of the
water in lakes and
wetlands.
Mining
1.4%
Thermoelectric
0.7%
Public Supply
19.8%
Domestic
4.4%
Irrigation
64.1%
Exhibit 2-1: Categories of Ground Water Use Source: USGS (1998a)
2 When contaminants for which there are drinking water standards are found in ground water, they are usually at levels that are below the drinking
water standard.
3 In this report, private water supplies refer to wells operated by individuals for domestic use.
-------
New Hampshire
61.7%
Massachusetts
45.7%
Rhode Island
26.5%
Connecticut
54.1%
Delaware
66.1%
D.C.
0.0%
8
I
X
o
p
I
a,
!
Virgin Islands
62.7%
Exhibit 2-2: Percentage of Population Relying on Ground Water as a Drinking Source by State Source: USGS (1998a)
I
111
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
Public Health
Economic Needs
The average person does not often think about ground
water because it is hidden beneath the land surface,
has historically been plentiful, and is generally of good
quality. In fact, we have come to expect that clean,
abundant ground water will always be available.
Ground water is used in every state and accounts for
close to one-quarter of all fresh water used in the
United States today. Over half of the people in this
country use ground water for all or part of their
drinking water supply. In rural areas, virtually all
water used in homes is ground water from private
wells.
Plentiful, clean ground water is also critical to our
economy. Nationally, over 40 percent of all water used
for crop irrigation or livestock watering and over 20
percent of water used by industries is ground water
(USGS 1998a). Every state uses some amount of
ground water to fulfill its water resource needs.
Seventeen states obtain greater than 25 percent of
their overall water supply from ground water, and
seven states obtain greater than 50 percent of their
total water supply from ground water (USGS 1998a).
As a portion of total freshwater use, ground water
withdrawals during 1995 were highest in the western
United States, where the water was used primarily to
supply increasing population and to sustain important
agricultural activities. Exhibit 2-3 shows the volume
of ground water withdrawn by states for all uses.
California
14,700 (Mgal/d)
18.97%
So. Dakota
322 (Mgal/d)
0.42%
New Hampshire
81 (Mgal/d)
0.11%
Vermont /
50 (Mgal/d)
0.07%
Connecticut
166 (Mgal/d)
New Jersey 021%
580 (Mgal/d)
0.75%
Kansas
3,510 (Mgal/d)
New Mexico 4-53%
1,700 (Mgal/d)
2.19%
Kentucky Rorida
226 (Mgal/d) 4]340 (Mga|/d)
°-29/0 5.60%
Georgia
1,190 (Mgal/d)
1.54%
Maryland
246 (Mgal/d)
0.32%
So. Carolina
322 (Mgal/d)
0.42%
D.C.
0.5 (Mgal/d)
0.01%
Exhibit 2-3: Volume of Ground Water Used by the States (Mgal/d) and Percentage of Total Ground Water
Withdrawals Occurring In Each State
Source: USGS (1998a)
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
Ecological Needs
The abundance and quality of surface
water is directly linked to ground water
quality and quantity. Ground water
entering rivers and lakes helps maintain
surface water levels during dry periods.
As a result, ground water plays a critical
role in maintaining fish habitat and other
critical ecological resources, such as
wetlands, estuaries, and coastal
marshlands (USGS 1998b).
2.2 Ground Water Characteristics
Ground water does not rest; it moves
continuously but often very slowly to areas
of natural discharge. Except for water
removed by wells, ground watertravels until
it reappears naturally as springs or
empties into rivers, lakes, wetlands, or
oceans.
Ground water constitutes an enormous
quantity of the fresh water found on Earth.
Ninety-six percent of all fresh water on earth
is ground water (EPA 1998a). As ^_
illustrated in Exhibit 2-4, major
ground water aquifers are located
all over the country. Besides
these major aquifers, smaller
aquifers exist at the regional level
either above or below these
major or principal aquifers. Awell
can be drilled just about
anywhere in the country at some
depth to supply enough water to
support a household.
Ground Water and Surface Water: One Resource
Ground water does not remain underground forever. Not only
do we pump it to the surface through wells, ground water also
comes to the land surface through springs and seeps into
rivers, lakes, and other water bodies. In some portions of the
country, especially arid regions, aquifers contribute a large
portion of the water found in streams. Overall, up to half of the
water flow in ourstreams comes from ground water. This source
of surface water recharge (see Exhibit 2-5) is especially
important in sustaining stream flow during dry periods.
Reductions in surface water flow can have adverse impacts on
the ecology of a watershed, recreational potential, the use of
surface waterways for transportation, and the availability of
drinking water and water for other uses. Ground water
depletion has eliminated surface water flows altogether in some
areas. Ground water also supports plants and animals that live
in certain wetlands or along certain streambanks.
Because baseflow in the nation's streams is derived from ground
water, ground water is increasingly becoming recognized as a
conduit for nonpoint source contamination to surface water.
Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the states
have identified over 20,000 lakes and stream segments whose
contaminant levels exceed one or more water quality standards.
Unconsolidated sand and gravel
Semiconsolidated sand
Sandstone and carbonate rock
Basalt and other volcanic rock
Sandstone
Carbonate rock
Not a principal aquifer
Exhibit 2-4: Principal Aquifers of the United States
Source: U.S. Geological Survey (1998b)
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
C9
I. Orestimba Creek, CA
©
J. Duckabush River, WA
A. Dismal River, NE
B. Forest River, ND
AJ
Groundwater contribution
to streamflow
C. Sturgeon River,
\
, \/
Shaded relief from Thelin and Pike
digital data 1:3,500,000 1991
Albers Equal-Area Conic projection
0
250 500 MILES
H. Santa Cruz River, AZ
D. Ammonoosuc River, NH
G. Dry Frio River, TX E. Brushy Creek, GA
F. Homochitto River, MS
In the conterminous United States, 24 regions were delineated where the interactions of groundwater and surface water are
considered to have similar characteristics (i.e., ground water accounts for a similar proportion of surface water discharge within
each region). The estimated groundwater contribution to stream flow is shown for specific streams in 10 of the regions.
Exhibit 2-5: Ground Water Contributions to Surface Water in 10 Hydrologic Regions Around the County
Source: USGS(1998g)
-------
SDW4 Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
Although the ground water resource is extensive, it is
also vulnerable to contamination and locally
vulnerable to over-pumping and loss of aquifer
capacity. Recognition of these threats to our ground
water resources has prompted the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) to refocus its strategic direction to
support assessments of ground water vulnerability.
Ground water vulnerability is governed by a variety of
factors, including the amount of soil or other geologic
materials overlaying ground water, the depth and
geologic characteristics of the aquifer, and the time it
takes to replenish the aquifer. On average, every
gallon of water withdrawn from the ground takes 280
years to replace (Heath 1983). By comparison,
surface water is replaced shortly after withdrawal from
a lake or stream. Agricultural activities account for
the majority of ground water use in this country.
Irrigation is important for maintaining yields from
cropland throughout the nation, with the greatest
volume of irrigation water use occurring in the
western and southeastern United States
(Exhibit 2-6). Approximately 75 percent or more of
harvested cropland in many of the western United
States is irrigated.
Exhibit 2-6: Agricultural Irrigation
Source: Marty Link, Nebraska Department of Environmental Conservation
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
Watering of livestock also accounts for significant
withdrawals of fresh ground water. Of all the states,
California uses the greatest volume of ground water
supplies to support agriculture 80 percent of all fresh
ground water withdrawn in the state is used for
agriculture.
Ground water use between 1950 and 1995 has
followed national trends in total water use. From 1950
through 1980, ground water withdrawals increased,
which coincided with a steady increase in total water
withdrawals. Although recent USGS studies indicate
a possible decrease in the amount of ground water
used in the United States due to water conservation,
over-pumping continues to threaten many ground
water supplies at the local and state level, leading to
problems such as salt water intrusion, loss of discharge
to surface water, and loss of aquifer capacity (USGS
1998b).
Factors Making Ground Water Vulnerable to Contamination -
The Puget Sound Basin, Washington
Ground water vulnerability is a relative measure of the risk that ground water will be
contaminated by a particular chemical, such as nitrate. Nitrate contamination of ground water
primarily results from fertilizers, septic systems, and urban runoff. In the Puget Sound Basin of
Washington State, shallow wells screened in aquifers that have coarse-grained glacial deposits
at the surface and a high percentage of urban (residential, commercial, and industrial) or
agricultural land use are most vulnerable to nitrate contamination. For example, shallow wells in
agricultural areas overlying coarse-grained glacial deposits, such as much of the Lower Nooksack
Valley, and urban areas overlying such deposits, like parts of Tacoma and Olympia, have a
greater than 50 percent probability of nitrate concentrations at or above 3 mg/L. Nitrate
concentrations at these levels are well above naturally occurring levels in the Puget Sound
Basin and indicate that a man-made source of nitrate is contaminating ground water. Areas
containing wells with elevated levels of nitrate should be closely monitored to ensure that the
nitrate drinking water standard of 10 mg/L is not exceeded.
Source: Erwin, M.L. and Tesoriero, A.J., 1998 (USGS Fact Sheet 061-97).
-------
10
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
The Movement of Water on the Earth
When precipitation falls on the surface of the earth, the water may either (1) run off the land surface to the nearest
stream, (2) be taken up by plants, (3) be lost to evaporation, or (4) soak into the soil (see Exhibit 2-7). Water that
soaks into the soil may continue to percolate through open spaces to deeper subsurface geologic formations. The
water that enters these subsurface areas is considered ground water. Certain types of geologic formations can
store and hold large quantities of ground water because of their physical characteristics. These formations are
called aquifers. However, even the waterthat does percolate into the soil will eventually flow into lakes, streams, or
oceans.
CONDENSATION
GROUNDWATER FLOW
Exhibit 2-7: The Hydrologic Cycle
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
11
GROUND WATER QUALITY:
A RESOURCE AT RISK
This section discusses the key threats to ground
water quality that occur nationwide and the available
data to characterize those threats.
3.1 The Quality of the Nation's Ground
Water
Ground water is a valuable natural resources.
Because of filtration through vegetation, soil, and
geologic materials, ground water is generally
considered to be a more naturally protected resource
than surface water. In addition, unlike surface water
bodies (such as streams, rivers, and lakes) that are
only found in discrete areas, ground water is present
across the nation at various depths below the ground
surface. Because of these characteristics, the public
has come to expect ground water to be generally
available and of high quality. Although the nation has
come to rely strongly on this resource, the threats
discussed in this section pose significant management
challenges for state and federal ground water
management programs.
Ground water quality in this country is generally
good, but many local activities threaten the
resource.
National and local studies increasingly indicate that
many activities adversely impact ground water
quality. Contamination incidents and impairment from
over-pumping, such as permanent loss of aquifer
storage capacity and land subsidence, remain a
local problem because of the relatively slow rate at
which ground water travels. A variety of agricultural,
industrial/commercial, and waste disposal practices
are known to contaminate ground water. The
occurrence of nitrate, pesticides, volatile organic
chemicals (VOCs), and other contaminants in ground
water all reveal the impact of land use on ground
water quality. Over-pumping can impair nearby wells;
reduce ground water flow to streams, lakes, and
wetlands; permanently damage aquifer storage
capacity; and induce salt water intrusion to
freshwater aquifers. Because no one federal, state,
or local authority can manage all of these threats, a
coordinated approach for ground water management
is needed.
This section includes an overview of many of these
threats and provides general findings regarding the
quality of ground water in the nation today. Although
the nation is just beginning to gather national-scale
data on the occurrence of a limited number of
chemicals in ground water, our knowledge of ground
water quality and the threats to the resource is
growing1. As discussed below, information about
trends in ground water quality is preliminary because
the nation has not assessed ground water quality
nationwide on a consistent basis. However, we do
know that certain land use changes result in more
widespread occurrences of contamination in the
nation's ground water.
3.2
Threats to Ground Water
Over the past twenty years, thousands of local ground
water contamination incidents have been identified and
the nation has devoted many billions of public and
private dollars to clean-up these problems. Although
these efforts have protected many people from
exposure to ground water contaminants released from
sources such as hazardous waste sites and leaking
underground storage tanks, some incidences of
ground water contamination have not yet been fully
cleaned up. In some instances, ground water
remediation can take a decade or more to be
completed. Furthermore, in many parts of the
country, we are using ground water at a faster rate
than it can be replenished through natural recharge,
and, in some cases, we are permanently losing future
storage capacity. As a result, while we are not yet
facing a ground water crisis, current trends in ground
water quality and ground water use point to the need
fora more coordinated ground water protection effort
in this country.
1 The USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, discussed below, is designed to assess changing ground water quality
conditions as they relate to land use. While sufficient data sets are not yet available to monitor for ground water quality trends in a consistent,
systematic manner, NAWQA will serve to identify changing ground water quality conditions in important agricultural and urban settings
overlying aquifers used for public and domestic supply. This information may allow for the development of trend models that states and others
can use to improve the design of future sampling efforts.
-------
12
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
Various federal, state, and academic information
relates agricultural, industrial, waste disposal, and
other land uses with ground water degradation.
Certain land uses are known to impair ground water
quality, but the ability to predict the level of
impairment from specific activities is difficult,
especially over long periods of time.
The U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) Program is the principal source
of information on ground water quality available in the
United States today and provides the basis for the
findings presented in this section.
Under the NAWQA program, USGS collects new
water quality data in 60 special study regions of the
country, conducts retrospective analyses of existing
data (such as state data), and prepares national-scale
syntheses of the results. U.S. EPA relied on the most
recent NAWQA reports in preparing this discussion.
In addition, U.S. EPA prepares summary reports on
ground water quality. In the Biennial Water Quality
Inventory Report to Congress (also known as the
"305(b) Report"), EPA synthesizes a national picture
of ground water quality and protection programs by
consolidating state-level water quality assessments.
The 1998 report represents only the second cycle of
data synthesis, and is a compilation of individual state
reports. As state reporting matures, improvements in
data comparability, coverage, and better
representation of actual conditions are expected.
EPA is also developing a National Contaminant
Occurrence Database (NCOD) to track contaminants
in ground water and surface water sources of
drinking water supply. The NCOD will aid in the
identification and selection of contaminants for future
drinking water regulations, support regulation
development or other appropriate actions, and assist
in the review of existing regulations for possible
modification. The NCOD will also inform the public
about contaminants in drinking water. The NCOD will
incorporate data of documented quality from existing
federal databases on regulated and unregulated
physical, chemical, microbial, and radiological
contaminants, and other contaminants that are known
or are likely to occur in the source and finished waters
of public water systems of the United States and its
territories.
These studies and reports are important for national
policy decision-making. Some study results are
highlighted below, as well as information on
contaminant sources known to significantly impact
ground water quality.
Preliminary findings from NAWQA studies regarding
the impact of certain land uses and contaminants on
ground water are presented in this section. The
greatest volume of national data is available to
characterize nitrate occurrence in ground water.
Because nitrate is often found in conjunction with other
nutrients and pesticides, nitrate is often used as an
indicator of the impact of agricultural and residential
land use on ground water quality. In addition, the
characteristics of the major contaminant sources are
described. This section does not present a
comprehensive list of land uses or contaminants that
affect ground water, but it does provide an illustration
of common threats and their impacts.
Major Sources of Ground Water
Contamination (from the 1996 305(b) Report)
In the 1996 305(b) Report, 37 states reported
on potential sources of ground water
contamination. Those sources most frequently
cited as being of greatest concern include
underground storage tanks, landfills, septic
systems, hazardous waste sites, surface
impoundments, aboveground storage tanks,
industrial facilities, spills, fertilizer and pesticide
applications, pipelines and sewer lines,
agricultural chemical facilities, shallow injection
wells, salt water intrusion, animal feedlots, land
application, mining, urban runoff, salt storage and
road salting, and hazardous waste generators.
Source: EPA (1998a)
Agricultural Practices
Food production in this country has become highly
dependent on the use of agricultural chemicals,
including fertilizers and pesticides. When these
chemicals are applied to the land, they may be
transported through the soil and into ground water.
The impact of agricultural chemical use on ground
water may be especially severe in areas with the
following characteristics:
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
13
(1) high rainfall, snowmelt, or excessive irrigation,
especially following recent agricultural chemical
application;
(2) well drained and permeable soils that are
underlain by sand and gravel or fractured
bedrock, which enable rapid downward
movement of water;
(3) crop-management practices that slow runoff
and allow more time for water to infiltrate into
the ground; and
(4) soils low in organic matter and high levels of
dissolved solids
Ground Water Quality
On the basis of preliminary findings, the NAWQA
program has found that the highest concentrations of
pesticides, primarily herbicides, and nitrate detected
in ground water are in areas overlain by agricultural
activities (USGS 1996, 1998d, 1998e, 1998f, 1999b,
and 1999c). Specific findings from the NAWQA
studies with regard to pesticides and nitrate are
discussed on the following pages:
Pesticides
Concentrations of individual pesticides in ground
water generally are low and rarely exceed most EPA
drinking water standards and guidelines. In less than
1 percent of wells sampled in the NAWQA program,
pesticide concentrations exceeded standards or
guidelines (USGS 1999c). Concentrations of some
herbicides (a type of pesticide), including herbicides
used to control weeds and vegetation on lawns, golf
courses, and along roads and rights-of-way, were
elevated in samples collected from streams and
shallow ground water in urban areas, although these
concentrations were found to be slightly higher
overall in agricultural areas. (USGS 1999c).
NAWQA study results also show that although
pesticide concentrations do not exceed drinking
water standards frequently, this assessment may be
incomplete with regard to the overall health and
environmental risks associated with the presence of
pesticides in shallow ground water (USGS 1998d,
1998e, 1999c). Drinking water standards for the
protection of human health have only been established
for25 of the 46 pesticide compounds examined. These
drinking water standards only consider the effects of
individual compounds and do not account for the
presence of more than one pesticide compound; some
studies indicate that combinations of pesticide
compounds may exhibit additive or even synergistic
toxic effects. Seventy-three percent of the sampling
sites where pesticides were detected had two or more
compounds present, 25 percent had four or more, and
6 percent had six or more compounds present.
Other pesticide compounds for which drinking water
standards or surface water quality criteria have not
been developed, particularly pesticide degradates,
have been detected in ground water. It has not yet
been determined whetherthese compounds may have
adverse health effects.
Nitrate
Nitrate concentrations in ground water are highest in
samples collected from wells in agricultural areas.
Contamination from nitrate occurs most frequently in
shallow ground water (less than 100 feet below the
land surface) and in aquifers located in geologic
settings that allow the rapid movement of water.
Furthermore, high levels of nitrate may serve as an
early warning of possible future degradation of older,
underlying ground water, commonly a primary source
for public-water supply.
Nitrate in Ground Water in Oklahoma
In the mid-1990's, 5,677 water samples from
privately-owned wells were analyzed by the
State of Oklahoma. These water samples were
collected from homeowners with private wells.
Of the 5,677 samples, nitrate concentrations of
at least 3 mg/L were detected in 3,687 samples
(i.e., 65 percent). In general, a nitrate
concentration at or above 3 mg/L is indicative of
human impacts on ground water quality. In
addition, 1,462 of the collected samples (i.e.,
27 percent) contained nitrate above the drinking
water standard of 10 mg/L. In the extremes,
36 samples contained nitrate in excess of
100 mg/L, with one sample at 625 mg/L.
Source: Ground Water Protection Council (1999)
-------
14
SDW4 Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
Concentrations in about 12 percent of domestic-
supply wells in agricultural areas exceeded the
drinking water standard of 10 mg/L. Regional
differences are related to soil-drainage properties and
other geologic characteristics, and agricultural
practices. Nitrate in ground water is highest in areas
of well-drained soils and intensive cultivation of row
crops, such as corn, cotton, or vegetables. Low
concentrations of nitrate are found in areas of poorly
drained soil and where pasture or woodland is
intermixed with cropland.
Contaminant Sources
As mentioned above, a variety of fertilizers and
pesticides are used in agricultural operations. In
addition, the high volume of wastes associated with
animal feeding operations are also being
recognized as a potential threat to ground water.
Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs)
AFOs are agricultural operations where animals are
kept and raised in concentrated areas. AFOs
congregate animals, feed, manure and urine, dead
animals, and production operations in a small land
area. Because of the high concentration of animals
and the large amount of animal manure and
wastewater generated, it is widely recognized that
AFOs can pose a number of risks to water quality and
public health. Approximately 450,000 agricultural
operations nationwide confine animals.
Exhibit 3-1: Animal Feeding Operation (AFO)
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
15
Manure and wastewater from AFOs have the
potential to contribute pollutants such as nutrients (for
example, nitrogen and phosphorus), pathogens,
hormones, and antibiotics to ground water. Nitrogen
in the form of nitrate can contaminate ground water
drinking water supplies. In areas where nutrient-rich
ground water discharges to surface water, excess
nutrients in surface water can also result in or
contribute to eutrophication, anoxia, and hypoxia (low
levels of dissolved oxygen), toxic algal blooms that
may be harmful to human health, and outbreaks of
microorganisms such as Pfiesteria piscicida.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and EPA
jointly published a Unified National Strategy for
Animal Feeding Operations. The Unified Strategy
discusses the relationship between AFOs and
environmental and public health and establishes a
national performance expectation for all AFO
owners and operators. The Strategy presents a
series of actions to minimize public health impacts and
improve water quality while complementing the long-
term sustainability of livestock production. In
particular, the Strategy states the expectation that all
AFO owners and operators will develop and
implement technically sound and economically
feasible site-specific Comprehensive Nutrient
Management Plans.
Industrial and Commercial Practices
Raw material extraction, primary and secondary
product fabrication, and certain retailing and service
industries manage a wide range of potential ground
water contaminants. Heavy industrial practices, such
as large-volume petroleum and chemical production
and storage facilities, are well documented potential
sources of contamination and are subject to
extensive regulatory and management controls. Other
light industrial and commercial practices, such as
electroplaters, auto repair shops, and dry cleaners,
may also manage products or waste materials that
can contaminate ground water (EPA 1990).
There are three common types of chemical
contaminants that may be associated with industrial
and commercial activities, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), other organic compounds, and inorganic
compounds. Although the most commonly found
contaminants in ground water are VOCs, inorganic
contaminants are commonly found in contaminated
ground water at Superfund National Priority List sites.
Inorganic contaminants, however, are rarely found
above drinking water standards away from these sites.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water in areas with industrial and commercial
activities can become contaminated by releases of
chemicals. Based on preliminary NAWQA findings
(USGS, 1998c, 1999a), 46 (out of 60 selected for
analysis) different VOCs have been detected in ground
water nationwide, however, these detections are
generally below the applicable drinking water
standards. VOCs are most frequently detected in
shallow ground water in urban areas. Approximately
54 percent of samples taken in shallow ground water
in urban areas contained one or more VOCs.
Chemical solvents (such as trichloroethylene,
perchloroethylene, and carbon tetrachloride) are a type
of VOC that is used in a wide variety of industrial and
commercial facilities for cleaning or degreasing
purposes. Some of these chemicals are very mobile
in the subsurface environment. As a result, solvents
are common sources of ground water contamination.
Some municipal and private wells have had to shut
down as the result of solvent contamination.
Methyl fert-butyl ether (MTBE)
MTBE is a VOC that is added to gasoline to
increase octane levels and to reduce carbon
monoxide and ozone levels in the air. MTBE is
identified as a potential human carcinogen by
EPA. Under the NAWQA program, MTBE was
detected in 21 percent of 480 wells located in
areas that use MTBE in gasoline to abate air
pollution. In the rest of the nation, MTBE was
detected in 2 percent of ground water samples
(2,263 wells sampled) . Most of the MTBE
detections have been at levels below the EPA
drinking-water advisory of 20 to 40 micrograms
per liter (ug/L). Sources of MTBE in ground water
include gasoline released from accidental spills,
leaking underground storage tanks, pipelines,
and watercraft emissions.
Source: USGS (1999a)
-------
16
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
Contaminant Sources
Underground Storage Tanks
Leaking underground storage tanks (UST) are of
special concern at commercial and industrial facilities.
As of February 28,1999, about 386,000 releases from
regulated UST systems have been reported.
These releases have contaminated soil and
potentially ground water. Gasoline leaking from UST
systems at service stations is one of the most
common sources of ground water contamination.
Because the released petroleum products contain
many potential hazardous and toxic chemicals (e.g.,
benzene), many of these releases have posed
serious threats to human health and the environment.
Some municipal and private wells have had to shut
down as the result of gasoline contamination.
As of December 1998, regulated USTs were required
to be upgraded to prevent leaks to ground water or be
closed (40 CFR Part 280).
Waste Disposal
According to 1997 EPA Toxic Release Inventory data,
U.S. industries reported that over 840 million pounds
of toxic materials were disposed on the land or in
underground injection wells. In addition, large volumes
of waste materials are also disposed by households
and other small commercial and industrial facilities in
septic systems and underground injection wells. The
likelihood of contaminants from these sources
reaching ground water is highly site-specific, and state
and federal waste disposal regulations are intended
to prevent such problems.
Ground Water Quality
The inappropriate disposal of wastes from various land
use activities, including residential, industrial, and
commercial activities, may pose serious
contamination threats to ground water. Improperly
sited or maintained septic systems, improper waste
disposal into the ground through shallow wells,
OtoS.OOO
r/n 5,001 to 10,000
EZl 10,001 to 34,000
Exhibit 3-2: Confirmed Underground Storage Tank Releases to Soil and Potentially Ground Water as of
February 28,1999
Source: EPA (1999)
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
17
mismanagement of wastes from AFOs, and waste
disposal at landfills and open dumps have
contaminated ground water. In addition to chemical
contaminants, some disposal activities introduce
microorganisms such as bacteria and disease-
causing viruses into ground water.
Contaminant Sources
Septic systems and Class V underground injection
wells are discussed below as sources of ground
water contaminants. In addition, the impact of
over-pumping on ground water quality and availability
is discussed.
Septic Systems
According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Census
(1997) and information collected by the National Small
Flows Clearinghouse (1999a), over 23 million U.S.
households rely on septic systems for their domestic
wastewater disposal (National Small Flows
Clearinghouse 1999a). In addition, millions of
commercial and industrial facilities use septic systems
for wastewater disposal. Septic system effluent
represents a significant source of ground water
contamination and has resulted in waterborne disease
outbreaks in the United States. In 1993 and 1994,
17 states and one territory reported 30 disease
outbreaks associated with drinking water, affecting an
estimated 405,000 people. Twenty of the outbreaks
were caused by septic contamination of well water
(Kramer et al., 1996). Bacteria and viruses in
household wastewater are principal causes of acute
gastrointestinal illness and Hepatitis A, and thus pose
a significant threat to drinking water supplies. In
addition, recent studies suggest that up to 10 percent
of septic systems in the U.S. have major failures
annually, releasing as much as 4 million gallons of
untreated septage.
Septic systems are usually regulated locally through
health ordinances that require a separation distance
or setback between the septic system and a private
well. EPA has data that suggest there is a significant
risk of illness from drinking fecally contaminated
ground water. Fecal contamination of ground water
is associated with human waste or animal waste which
enters the ground water from sources such as
leaking sewer lines, septic systems, improperly treated
sewage treatment plant discharge, or leakage from
AFOs. Fecal contamination contains viruses and
bacteria that cause illnesses, such as diarrhea, and
have been associated with even more severe
diseases, such as congential heart disease. EPA
believes there is the potential for significant risk from
drinking untreated and partially treated ground water
due to the large number of ground water systems in
the nation (over 156,000). EPA expects to issue a
new regulation in the year 2000 called the "Ground
Water Rule" (GWR). EPA plans to propose the GWR
in order to reduce the risk of illness from viruses and
bacteria for people drinking ground water from public
water systems.
Class V Injection Wells
Class V injection wells are typically shallow disposal
systems used to place a variety of nonhazardous
fluids underground. These fluids can contaminate
ground water and threaten public health if they are
present in high levels. These injection wells, along
with other classes of injection wells, are regulated by
EPA and the states through the Underground
Injection Control (UIC) program to protect underground
sources of drinking water from contamination.
EPA estimates that from 700,000 to one million Class
V injection wells are currently used in the United
States. Class V injection wells are located in every
state, especially in unsewered areas where the
population is likely to depend on ground water for its
drinking water source. Fluids released by certain types
of Class V wells have a high potential to contain
elevated concentrations of contaminants that may
endanger drinking water. These high-risk wells are
commonly used, for example, by motor vehicle repair
shops, commercial printers, and a wide range of light
industries (EPA 1998c).
Under existing federal regulations (40 CFR144), Class
V injection wells are "authorized by rule", which means
that they do not require a permit if they do not
endanger underground sources of drinking water and
comply with UIC program requirements. Because EPA
believes that certain high-risk Class V injection wells
are posing a threat to underground sources of
drinking water, it is formulating strategies to ensure
the protection of drinking water. In 1998, EPA
proposed new regulations to address high-risk Class
V injection wells (i.e., motor vehicle waste disposal
wells and large-capacity cesspools). A final Class V
rule regulating these wells is expected in late 1999.
Also, a study is underway to examine other high-risk
-------
18
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
wells to determine those additional categories of wells
that need to be regulated.
Ground Water Over-Pumping
Ground water is pumped for municipal (drinking
water and other household uses), agricultural
(irrigation and livestock), industrial (manufacturing),
mining, and other uses. If these withdrawals exceed
the rate at which ground water is recharged, they
result in the lowering of ground water to levels that
may impair the use of the resource. In some cases,
ground water levels have dropped by hundreds of feet.
Impacts from over-pumping may include the
following:
Q Neighboring wells may dry up requiring
construction of new, deeper wells, or significant
changes to existing wells.
Q Compaction of aquifer materials causing land
subsidence that may damage buildings and
infrastructure (such as, pipelines, roads, and
canals).
Q Compaction of aquifer materials can also cause
permanent loss of aquifer capacity. This can
result in higher pumping cost and a decrease in
well yields.
Q Changes in the volumes and direction of ground
water flow can induce flow of salty water and
undesirable water (water of lower quality) into a
well.
Q Lower stream baseflows can dry up wetlands and
cause adverse impacts on ecological systems that
are dependent on ground water discharge.
3.3 What These Ground Water Threats Mean to
the Nation
Ground water contamination or depletion have
many impacts on our society and may result in
the public health, economic, and ecological
impacts discussed below.
Public Health Impacts
Both short-term illness and chronic health impacts are
associated with the consumption of contaminated
drinking water. For example, the presence of
pathogenic microorganisms can cause acute
gastrointestinal illness, Hepatitis A, and other diseases.
Carcinogenic chemicals can increase the incidence
of cancer. Other chemicals can adversely impact the
growth and development of children. For instance,
high levels of nitrate in drinking water consumed by
newborns can lead to a fatal condition known as "blue
baby syndrome." Once ground water is contaminated
with certain compounds, certain treatment processes
such as disinfection with chlorination used by public
water systems, can transform these compounds into
chemicals that may also pose concern (such as
trihalomethanes, a group of carcinogenic disinfection-
byproducts), thereby exposing the population to other
health risks. Also, some contaminants, such as
nitrates, are expensive to treat and may be very costly
to remove through home treatment.
Ground water contamination in rural areas is a
particular public health concern. Rural homes often
take their drinking water from shallow ground water
Salt Water Intrusion - Salinas Valley, California
Located 100 miles south of San Francisco, the Salinas Valley supports a major portion of California's and the
nation's vegetable production. Virtually all of the water used for municipal, industrial, and agricultural
purposes is ground water. Throughout the years, saltwater has intruded into valley aquifers because of
excessive pumping and dewatering of the aquifers. In and around Castroville, a highly productive agricultural
area about two miles from the Monterey Bay Sanctuary, the saltwater intrusion has made ground water too
salty for agricultural and drinking water use. The salt water layer has actually moved 6 miles inland at a depth
of 180 feet. If left unchecked, salt water intrusion will continue to move up the Salinas Valley toward the City
of Salinas, thereby rendering all ground water in the area unusable.
One solution is a 30,000 acre-foot per year water recycling plant to recycle wastewater and a 45-mile long
pipeline and well project to use recycled water on crops and thereby reduce ground water pumping. Congress
has appropriated $15.7 million for these two projects from 1995 to 1999.
Source: Monterey County Resource Agency and Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (1999).
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
19
systems, which are vulnerable to contamination by
agricultural chemicals. As a result, rural families may
be unknowingly exposed to a variety of hazardous
substances in their drinking water.
EPA has promulgated drinking water maximum
contaminant levels (MCL) for 90 substances to set
safe limits for public water supplies. However, many
contaminants in drinking water have no MCLs.
Furthermore, combinations of chemicals in drinking
water can have health impacts that are not well
understood. As a result, preventing ground water
contamination used as the source of drinking water
supply is a critical concern.
Economic Impacts
Ground water contamination can also impair the
economic well-being of the nation through the
following:
Q Removal of contaminants from drinking water
sources through remediation or at the point of
supply through treatment can be very costly.
Q Relocating wells and finding new ground water
supplies is expensive and may not be technically
feasible.
Q The presence of contaminants in ground water
adds liability to the land owners of the property
that is the source of the contamination.
Q Loss of ground water due to over-pumping and
contamination can lead to loss of drinking water,
agricultural and industrial supplies, and
recreational uses.
In 1995, EPA examined costs associated with six
communities that had experienced actual or imminent
Ground Water Treatment and
Well Replacement Costs - Massachusetts
The State of Massachusetts has spent millions
of dollars in state funds to clean-up and treat
contaminated public water supply wells. For
example, the Town of Easthampton, MA, in
conjunction with the state, has spent
$1.7 million fortreating a 5 million gallon perday
wellfield. The Town of Millis, MA has spent
$750,000 treating a 1.5 million gallon per day
wellfield.
Source: New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission (1996)
contamination of the ground water supplying their
public water systems (EPA 1995b).
The costs associated with alternative water supplies,
water treatment, and contaminant source removal or
remediation ranged from over $0.5 million to about
$2.4 million. A 1992 analysis by EPA indicated that
for 51 selected communities with contaminated or
threatened drinking water systems, the cost of
remediation averaged $5.9 million per community
water system, with most costing between $1 million
and $10 million (EPA 1992a).
According to the National Research Council (1994),
as much as $1 trillion in public and private funds may
be needed to clean-up soil and ground water in this
country over a period of 30 years. The Ground Water
Protection Council estimated $14 billion is needed
annually to remediate ground water and soil at
Superfund sites, hazardous waste sites with
corrective actions, leaking LIST sites, Department of
Defense and Department of Energy waste sites, and
other contaminated sites (Ground Water Protection
Council 1996). Furthermore, the potential liability
associated with contamination, including ground
water contamination, at former industrial or
commercial sites with known or suspected
contamination is often one of the greatest deterrents
to site redevelopment. EPA and state Brownfield
initiatives are designed to address concerns over site
redevelopment of contaminated sites by, in part,
promoting innovative approaches to address
contamination.
Ecological Impacts
Ground water is also critical to the ecological health
of the country. Loss of ground water can lead to
reduction of stream flows (especially during low flow
conditions), which in turn negatively affects surface
water ecosystems. Contaminated ground water
discharging into surface water can degrade surface
water quality and affect surface water ecosystems.
Ground water provides many ecological benefits
through its linkage with surface water. The
interrelationships of ground waterwith wetlands, lakes,
ponds, and streams are complex. In areas where
ground water has been contaminated (by domestic
wastewater or industrial discharges), ecological
impacts can be detected in the form of eutrophication
and loss of native fish and plants.
-------
20
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
This page left intentionally blank.
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
21
4.0 GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT
Responsibility for ground water management is
shared by a large number of federal, state, and
local programs.
Ground water management in this country is highly
fragmented, with responsibilities distributed among a
large number of federal, state, and local programs.
At each level of government, unique legal authorities
allow for the control of one or more of the ground
water threats described in Section 3.0. These
authorities need to complement one another and
allow for comprehensive management of the ground
water resource. If these authorities are to be used
effectively, the implementing agencies must
coordinate and share information on the following
topics:
Q Ground water characteristics and quality.
Q The locations of ground water threats.
Q Resources and regulatory authorities to control
threats and remediate existing problems.
Q Means for establishing common management
priorities.
This section describes approaches that have been
taken at the federal and state levels to promote
coordination as a means of improving the
effectiveness of ground water management programs.
4.1 Federal Ground Water Management
Programs
Over the past 25 years, federal laws, regulations, and
programs have come to reflect the growing importance
that the nation places on using ground water wisely
and protecting the resource. Federal legislation and
programs to manage ground water are discussed
below.
Beginning with the 1972 amendments to the federal
Water Pollution Control Act, and followed by the Safe
Drinking Water Act in 1974, the federal government's
role in ground water protection has increased. With
the passage of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976 and the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 1980,
the federal government's current focus on ground
water remediation was established. These federal
remediation programs require parties responsible for
contamination to pay for clean-up activities. Since the
passage of those Acts, the federal government has
directed billions of dollars in public and private
resources toward clean-up of contaminated ground
water at Superfund sites, RCRA corrective action
facilities, and leaking underground storage tanks.
To date, federal, and related state, ground water
programs have focused primarily on clean-up of
existing contamination, rather than on pollution
prevention. These programs have been very costly.
As such, remediation programs have provided
considerable incentives for pollution prevention efforts
by responsible parties.
Furthermore, where ground water has already been
contaminated, clean-up can help protect otherground
water resources from further degradation by
containing the migration of contaminants within an
aquifer and to lower aquifers.
Certain federal and state programs are intended to
prevent ground water contamination; however, those
programs tend to focus on a narrow set of
contaminants or contaminant sources. For example,
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the federal government
establishes regulations to prevent ground water
contamination resulting from pesticide use. Under
RCRA, the federal government also has promulgated
standards for the "cradle to grave" management of
hazardous and solid wastes and the management of
waste site operations and underground storage tanks
that will reduce the likelihood of ground water
contamination.
Underthe SDWA, EPA is developing a regulation that
will require public water supplies to increase
monitoring and/or treat their source waters derived
from ground water sources that could be
contaminated by microbial pathogens (see discussion
of "The Ground Water Rule" in Section 3.0).
The Source Water Assessment and Protection
Program, authorized under Section 1453 of the SDWA,
should lead to better management of potential
drinking water contaminant sources within drinking
water source protection areas, such as potential
pathogenic sources like sewer lines, septic systems
or animal feeding operations.
-------
22
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
Federal Laws Administered by EPA Affecting Ground Water
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Ground water protection is addressed in Section 102 of the CWA, providing for the development of federal,
state, and local comprehensive programs for reducing, eliminating, and preventing ground water
contamination.
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Under the SDWA, EPA is authorized to ensure that water is safe for human consumption. To support this
effort, SDWA gives EPA the authority to promulgate Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) that define safe
levels for some contaminants in public drinking water supplies. One of the most fundamental ways to ensure
consistently safe drinking water is to protect the source of that water (i.e., ground water). Source water
protection is achieved through four programs: the Wellhead Protection Program (WHP), the Sole Source
Aquifer Program, the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, and, under the 1996 Amendments, the
Source Water Assessment Program.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
The intent of RCRA is to protect human health and the environment by establishing a comprehensive
regulatory framework for investigating and addressing past, present, and future environmental contamination
or ground water and other environmental media. In addition, management of underground storage tanks is
also addressed under RCRA.
Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
CERCLA provides a federal "Superfund" to clean-up soil and ground water contaminated by uncontrolled or
abandoned hazardous waste sites as well as accidents, spill, and other emergency releases of pollutants and
contaminants into the environment. Through the Act, EPA was given power to seek out those parties
responsible for any release and assure their cooperation in the clean-up. The program is designed to recover
costs, when possible, from financially viable individuals and companies when the clean-up is complete.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
FIFRA protects human health and the environment from the risks of pesticide use by requiring the testing and
registration of all chemicals used as active ingredients of pesticides and pesticide products. Under the
Pesticide Management Program, States and Tribes wishing to continue use of chemicals of concern are
required to prepare a prevention plan that targets specific areas vulnerable to ground water contamination.
This approach to ground water protection at the
federal level has left the management of many
contaminant threats to state and local government
authorities. Examples of these threats include
hazardous material or product use by light industry,
such as dry cleaners, printers, or auto maintenance
facilities; above-ground tanks; and certain types of
waste disposal or drainage wells. Also, other ground
water threats, such as over-pumping, are not
generally addressed under federal law and are left to
be managed by states and local governments.
In the absence of a federal regulatory framework, the
degree to which states and local governments address
ground water concerns varies considerably. Some
states have well-coordinated, effective ground water
protection programs. However, in many states, gaps
exist in state management of some contaminant
sources (e.g., above ground storage tanks of product
rather than waste). This often occurs because there
is no federal program with which states can align their
programs. In other words, state efforts may be
hampered by the absence of a federal program
targeted to fill in the gaps among federal programs
beyond those that address specific sources of ground
water contamination, such as, RCRA, LUST, and
Superfund. State and local governments may also
need to give priority to mandates prescribed by
existing federal programs even though, from a
comprehensive resource protection viewpoint, these
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
23
Chronology of EPA Ground Water Protection Activities
1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
1972 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
1980 Underground Injection Control Program established
1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response and Compensation and Liability Act (Superfund)
1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA
1984 U.S.EPA Ground Water Strategy and Office of Ground Water Protection established
1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act: Underground Storage Tank Program
1986 SDWA Amendments: Wellhead Protection and Sole Source Aquifer Programs
1987 Clean Water Act
1991 EPA Ground Water Strategy Revised
1992 Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program Guidance
1992 Interagency Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (through 1996)
1993 Pesticide State Management Plans under FIFRA
1996 SDWA Amendments: Source Water Assessment and Protection Program
1996 FIFRA Amendments under the Food Quality Control Act of 1996
1997 National Water Quality Monitoring Council formed
1998 Clean Water Action Plan
1998 Underground Storage Tank Closure/Upgrade Requirements
1999 (planned) Class V Underground Injection Control Final Rule
2000 (planned) Ground Water Final Rule
mandates may not address the most pressing ground
water protection concerns of a particular community
or area.
In 1984, EPA established the Office of Ground Water
Protection to serve as a focus for a more
comprehensive ground water resource protection
approach with the responsibility for developing
Agency-wide, comprehensive ground water strategies
and to lead programs aimed at protection of ground
water as a resource. Such programs include the
Wellhead Protection and Sole Source Aquifer
Programs, which were established by Amendments
to the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1986. The
Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP) encourages
communities to protect their ground water resources
used for drinking water. The Sole Source Aquifer
Program limits federal activities that could
contaminate important sources of ground water.
However, in spite of these and other programs, the
need for a more comprehensive approach to ground
water protection was documented through a series of
private studies in the late 1980s, such as the
Conservation Foundation's (1987) "Groundwater:
Saving the Unseen Resource" Report and the Urban
Institute's review of state ground water management
programs (Liner et al. 1989).
In response to the need for stronger ground water
management programs, EPA established a Ground
Water Strategy in 1991 to place greater emphasis on
comprehensive state management of ground water
as a resource. EPA supported these state efforts
through the promotion of Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs) and
better alignment of federal programs with state ground
water resource protection priorities -- EPA's
encouragement of state Pesticide Management Plans
being the prime example of this new approach. In
participation with other state and federal agencies,
EPA also promoted the need for improved and more
comprehensive ground water resource data collection
and management practices through the Interagency
Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (see below).
The 1996 amendments to SDWA also provided new
resources to implement Source Water Assessment
and Protection Programs, which supports the
Wellhead Protection Program and a comprehensive
-------
24
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
approach to assess threats and protect ground water
used as a source of drinking water supply. Finally,
recent Agency efforts to support watershed
protection activities underthe Clean Water Action Plan
call for comprehensive ground water protection, as a
vital component of watershed protection.
Because of the growing awareness that a wide range
of land use practices can impair ground water quality,
the need for coordinated, state-led management
programs is growing in importance. The federal
government's emphasis on contaminant or
contaminant source-specific approaches, with a
focus on remediation, has led to considerable
achievement in correcting past contamination and
preventing further misuse of the resource. However,
comprehensive state ground water management
programs are critical to truly achieve more
comprehensive, effective and efficient protection to
ensure sustainable, long-term use of this valuable
national resource.
Prevention of ground water contamination is
largely the responsibility of state and local
governments.
4.2 State Ground Water Management
Programs: Building on federal Authorities
Each state is implementing one or more components
of a comprehensive ground water protection program.
However, because ground water characteristics and
ground water program priorities vary from state to
state, the structure and focus of state programs also
vary. Overall, the GWPC/ASDWA/ASIWPCA state
report found that states are committed to some type
of comprehensive planning process that addresses
existing ground water contamination problems and
works to prevent future resource impacts. Most states,
however, have not been able to fully implement these
plans.
This section (1) summarizes what is known about the
current status of state ground water programs,
(2) provides examples of comprehensive management
approaches that have been used in some states and
among federal agencies, including coordination
examples, and (3) outlines the common elements from
comprehensive programs that can serve as a model
for other state ground water protection efforts.
Fact sheets from each state describing specific state
ground water management activities were completed
by the states and compiled by GWPC/ASDWA/
ASIWPCA. This compilation is included as an
Appendix to this report.
Existing State Ground Water Protection Programs
Based on data reported by the states in 1996 and 1998
in their 305(b) Reports, Exhibit 4-1 shows the
percentage of states that have begun implementing
key ground water management program components
(each component is discussed below). Although most
states have begun implementing components of a
comprehensive program, many states report that much
work remains to be completed (GWPC 1999).
Funding, lack of agency coordination, and an absence
of priority-setting mechanisms are obstacles most
frequently identified by the states to explain the lack
of comprehensive planning and coordination.
The GWPC/ASDWA/ASIWPCA report examined the
state's level of achievement in implementing the
components of a comprehensive ground water
protection program. With regard to the states' ability
to analyze ground water, in terms of the extent of the
resource, its quality, and vulnerability to
contamination, approximately half of the states that
responded indicated that comprehensive assessment
programs are in place, but only just over half of each
state's aquifers have been mapped. Furthermore,
the states also report that the ambient water quality in
less than 40 percent of their ground water is
monitored.
In the state survey, the states were asked whether
they have sufficient information to identify priority
ground water management issues with regard to
preventing degradation of or restoring ground water
quality, preventing over-pumping, or restoring aquifer
capacity. Less than half of the states indicated that
all of the programs involved with managing these
threats use ground water resource assessment
information to set priorities for ground water
management. Furthermore, virtually all of the states
reported that they have no process in place to set
priorities for ground water management involving other
state, federal, or local government organizations.
The states were also asked to identify their needs for
better assessing their ground water resources,
setting priorities for management, and coordinating
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
25 \
management activities with other organizations.
Every state reported a need for additional funding to
better implement these program activities. Most states
surveyed also identified the need for mechanisms to
better coordinate inter-agency activities.
Examples of Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Approaches
While the states are making progress in developing
theirground water programs, lessons can still be drawn
from other comprehensive water resource
management efforts.
Over the past several years, it has become apparent
that water quality and quantity protection problems
cannot be managed by one agency or level of
government. As a result, both state and federal
government are developing and implementing
coordinated approaches for water resource protection.
Although many of these programs emphasize surface
waters and need to integrate ground water
management for a truly comprehensive approach to
water resource management, they provide models for
better coordination and integration.
At the federal level, the Clean Water Action Plan
(CWAP) emphasizes the importance of a
comprehensive approach to restoring and protecting
waters among nine federal agencies (EPA,
Department of Interior, Department of Defense,
Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture,
Department of Transportation, Department of
Commerce, Department of Justice, and Tennessee
Valley Authority). The nine agencies signed a
Memorandum of Understanding to support and assist
states, Tribes, and local communities to protect and
restore the nation's drinking source waters on
November 13,1998.
The Clean Water Action Plan is both a vision
statement and a blueprint for the future. The Clean
Water Action Plan focuses on (1) promoting water
quality protection and restoration on a watershed
basis and (2) strengthening core clean water programs
to protect human health, increase natural resources
stewardship, reduce polluted runoff, and provide
citizens and officials with crucial information. Through
CWAP, an agreement was signed with the
participating agencies to encourage federal
partnerships with state and local efforts to protect their
sources of drinking water, particularly within existing
federal water quality initiatives.
Federal agencies are also working to better
coordinate water quality monitoring and data sharing
activities. The Intergovernmental Task Force on
Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM) was established
Program/Activity
Ground Water Legislation
Ground Water Regulations
Interagency Coordination
Ground Water Mapping and
Classification
Ground Water Monitoring
Comprehensive Data
Management System
Prevention Programs
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage
* Based on 30 states
Exhibit 4-1: Percentage of States that Have Begun Implementing Components of a Comprehensive
Ground Water Protection Program as Reported by the States in the 305(b) report
-------
26
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
in 1992 and given the charge of reviewing water
quality monitoring nationwide and developing an
integrated national monitoring strategy. In 1995, ITFM
produced The Strategy to Improve Water-Quality
Monitoring in the United States. In 1997, the National
Water Quality Monitoring Council (NWQMC) was
formed as a successor to ITFM. During overall
strategy development, a Ground Water Focus Group
(GWFG) concentrated on issues related to ground
water and aquifer systems. The GWFG recommended
that water quality monitoring mustconsiderdifferences
in spatial, temporal, and other characteristics between
ground and surface water resources. The GWFG
recognized that many agencies do not have the
capability or sufficient resources to undertake
complete ground water quality monitoring efforts.
Therefore, it was recommended that the agencies work
together by combining resources and talents to begin
a systematic process of sampling highest priority
aquifers forthe full set of indicators identified for each
aquifer.
Many states are also moving to a more coordinated,
comprehensive approach for surface water resource
protection at the watershed level. State Watershed
Protection Frameworks are designed to coordinate
existing resource management programs and build
new partnerships that result in more effective and
efficient management of land and water resources.
These frameworks provide a mechanism for
coordinating not only the point and nonpoint source
management activities that have been the historic
focus of state water quality programs, but also can
provide a forum for meeting the objectives of ground
water, wellhead, and drinking source water protection
programs. Many state Watershed Protection
Frameworks incorporate a priority-setting and
targeting mechanism to focus resources on
watersheds requiring the highest degree of
management to remediate existing problems or
address emerging threats.
To date, approximately one-half of the states are mov-
ing toward the development and implementation of
statewide watershed frameworks. Unfortunately, few
of these states are using the Frameworks to
coordinate the management of both surface water and
ground water. As a result, coordinated ground water
management is still a critical need in those states.
Finally, the state Source Water Assessment
Programs established under the 1996 Amendments
to the Safe Drinking Water Act provide an additional
coordination mechanism for state programs. The
states are required in their Source Water Assessment
Programs to assess the degree to which all public
water systems (PWS) in the state are susceptible to
contamination. These assessments will be
accomplished by (1) delineating the sources of water
supply to the PWS, (2) inventorying the contaminants
and contaminant sources within that delineated area,
and (3) assessing how susceptible the PWS is to those
sources of contamination. In many states, these
assessments will be accomplished through
cooperative efforts, involving several state agencies,
local governments, and private water suppliers.
Key Elements of Comprehensive Ground Water
Protection Programs
One of the key lessons learned by agencies and
organizations implementing these comprehensive
water resource protection approaches is the need for
coordination with other federal, state, and local
authorities.
As described in Section 4.1, existing federal programs
provide guidelines for various prevention and
remediation activities authorized under federal law.
However, states that are beginning to implement
comprehensive ground water programs must work with
a broad range of other federal, state and local
agencies to characterize the resource and manage
ground waterthreats. This problem is complicated by
the fragmentation of authorities for managing ground
water that is found in many states. Often, authority
for implementing the federal and state mandated
ground water protection programs that address the
threats outlined in Chapter 3 is spread across more
than one state agency. A formal coordination
mechanism is essential to ensure that these programs
are working towards common goals, hold similar
priorities, and use federal and state funds with
maximum efficiency. Some states are implementing
coordination mechanisms on an informal basis. Other
states, like Illinois, have passed specific legislation and
have adopted formal approaches to better
coordinate their ground water management activities
(see next page).
In general, comprehensive planning and assessment
of ground water is a critical step to effectively protect
this resource. Although only 11 states have
EPA-endorsed Comprehensive State
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
27
Illinois Ground Water Protection Act
The Illinois Ground Water Protection Act (IGPA), adopted in 1987, responds to the need to manage
ground water quality by a prevention oriented process, and is a comprehensive law relying on a state
and local partnership. The IGPA responds to the need to protect ground water quality and establishes
a unified groundwater protection program using the following elements:
Sets a ground water protection policy
Enhances cooperation
Establishes water well protection zones
Provides for surveys, mapping and assessments
Establishes a groundwater education program
Establishes a priority regional ground water planning process
Establishes authority for recharge area protection
Requires new ground water quality standards
Requires new technology control regulations
The groundwater policy sets the framework for management of this vital resource. The law focuses
upon uses of the resource and establishes statewide protection measures directed toward potable
water wells. In addition, local governments and citizens are provided an opportunity to perform an
important role for groundwater protection in Illinois.
This comprehensive ground water protection approach is also supported by a state Natural Resources
Coordinating Committee, which serves as a planning committee for the six, major natural resource
management agencies in Illinois. The Coordinating Committee has standing committees to address
not only ground water issues, but other surface water, land use, and natural resource management
issues.
Ground Water Protection Programs in place, with
another 11 working towards endorsement, many other
states have developed programs that utilize this
concept of comprehensive planning across to align
their priorities across state and federal programs.
The key benefit derived from comprehensive ground
water management approaches is the ability to
establish coordinated priorities among the many
groups involved in ground water management. To
support this need, the following key components are
common to successful state programs:
Q enacting legislation,
Q promulgating protection regulations,
Q establishing interagency coordination with surface
water and other programs,
Q performing ground water mapping and
classification,
Q monitoring ambient ground water quality,
Q developing comprehensive data management sys-
tems, and
Q adopting and implementing prevention and
remediation programs.
Each component is discussed below. These findings
are largely based upon information reported by the
states in their 1998 305(b) reports. Successful
examples of each component are also provided in text
boxes.
Ground Water Legislation
State legislation may be developed in response to
federal mandates and state and local concerns, but in
most cases, states enact legislation to establish policy
and associated protection programs with the purpose
of restoring and maintaining ground water quality. In
general, State ground water legislation focuses on the
need for program development, increased data
collection to support decision making, and public
education activities.
-------
28
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
Ground Water Regulations in Georgia
Georgia's ground water regulatory programs follow an anti-degradation policy under which regulated activities
will not develop into significant threats to the state's ground water resources. This anti-degradation policy is
implemented through three principal elements:
Pollution prevention.
Management of ground water quantity.
Monitoring of ground water quality and quantity.
Prevention of pollution includes (1) the proper siting, construction, and operation of environmental facilities
and activities through a permitting system; (2) implementation of environmental planning criteria by
incorporation of land-use planning by local government; (3) implementation of a Wellhead Protection Program
for municipal drinking water wells; (4) detection and mitigation of existing ground water problems;
(5) development of other protective standards, as appropriate, where permits are not required; and
(6) education of the public to the consequences of ground water contamination and the need for ground water
protection. Management of ground water quantity involves allocating the state's ground water, through a
permitting system, so that the resource will be available for present and future generations. Monitoring of
ground water quality and quantity involves continually assessing the resource so that changes, either good or
bad, can be identified and corrective action implemented when and where needed.
Ground Water Protection Regulations
State governments protect ground water quality by
instituting regulations to control business, agricultural,
and community activities that could adversely impact
ground water. Regulations frequently stipulate
controls for the management of specific sources of
contamination. Controls include Best Management
Practices (BMPs), nonpoint source controls, and
discharge permits.
Regulations may also specify standards for chemical
constituents in ground water as applicable to its
appropriate use (for example, drinking water
standards, surface water standards, and irrigation
water standards). Standards may be used to apply
limits on allowable discharges from contaminant
sources or to set contaminant concentration targets
orthreshold levels forground water clean-up. Although
federal MCLs are often used as ground water
protection standards, states may independently
develop and use more restrictive standards.
Interagency Coordination
Ground water protection programs have historically
been overseen by many different agencies within the
states, Territories, and Tribes, making coordination
difficult. As discussed above, coordinating the
activities of these agencies to ensure efficient ground
water protection program has become a top priority in
many jurisdictions. Implementing a CSGWPP or
similar program is an example of establishing
interagency coordination.
Interagency Coordination in Alabama
The State of Alabama recognized the need to
coordinate the management of ground water
programs. As a result, The state set up the
Ground Water Programs Advisory Committee
(GWPAC) in 1994. The committee includes
representatives of state and federal agencies,
consultants, water system representatives, and
others who work in ground water related fields.
The committee members meet to dispense
ground water program information, receive
feedback, and coordinate ground water projects.
Ground Water Mapping and Classification
A ground water mapping and classification program
systematically sets priorities for ground water
management. States are developing ground water
mapping and classification systems to aid in the
protection and management of aquifers by better
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
29
Ground Water Mapping and Classification in
Hawaii
The Hawaii Department of Health and Water
Resources Research Center (WRRC) identified
and classified aquifers in the state. The WRRC
identified general aquifer sectors and smaller
aquifer systems for the islands of Kauai, Oahu,
Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii. Each aquifer
system was divided into aquifer types that were
characterized in accordance with (1) hydrologic
factors such as basal, high level, unconfined,
confined, and confined/unconfined conditions;
and (2) geologic factors such as flank, dike,
perched, sedimentary, or combination aquifer
types. They also identified the status of the
aquifer types through identification of their
development stages, potability/salinity, utility,
uniqueness, and vulnerability to contamination.
The vulnerability determination was based on
geographical limits of the resource,
interconnection among ground water sources,
time of travel, and familiarity with environmental
conditions. Vulnerability was ranked high,
moderate, or low.
Source: Mink and Lau 1990a, 1990b, 1992a,
1992b, 1993a, and1993b
understanding the inherent quality of different
aquifers, their vulnerability, and the uses of the water
taken from the aquifer.
Mapping and classification systems can be used as a
basis for the maintenance and restoration of ground
water quality, the development of ground water
quality standards, and land use and pollution source
management and regulation. The systems are
designed to redirect human activities that have the
potential to degrade ground water to areas overlying
lower quality aquifers, thereby protecting the most
vulnerable and ecologically important ground water
systems. Most states that have mapping and
classification systems apply them to the permitting of
discharges or potential discharges to ground water,
the remediation of contaminated ground water, the
development of new supplies, or to site certain types
of industries.
Ground Water Monitoring
Various ground water monitoring programs are used
by states to collect data on ground water quality.
Ambient monitoring programs measure background
or existing water quality and can be used to track
long-term trends in contaminant concentrations.
Compliance monitoring programs are required by
federal or state regulations generally at or near
facilities where ground water contamination has
occurred or where there is a potential for release.
Compliance monitoring activities measure for specific
constituents to ensure that their concentrations in
ground water are below regulated levels. States may
also rely on monitoring data collected by federal
agencies to assess ground water quality.
Comprehensive Data Management Systems
Traditionally, data from monitoring programs is
managed by, and is only available to, the specific state
agency responsible for its collection, which is not
necessarily the same agency with responsibility for
ground water protection. Data management has been
a limiting factor in monitoring the condition of the state's
principal aquifers and the general quality of the Nation's
ground water resources. States are now making
progress in developing comprehensive data
management systems. These systems will
encourage interagency sharing of data and
cooperation in planning and implementation of
monitoring programs. The interactive database
systems that are an integral part of the data network
also allow for the use of state-of-the-art technologies
such as geographic information systems (CIS) to
display and evaluate data spatially.
Prevention and Remediation Programs
Under several statutory provisions, states have
developed programs to prevent and reduce
contamination of ground water. They serve to:
analyze existing and potential threats to the
quality of public drinking water,
focus resources and programs on drinking water
source protection,
prevent pollution at the source wheneverfeasible,
manage potential sources of contamination, and
tailor preventive measures to local ground water
vulnerability.
-------
30
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
Prevention programs may provide local communities
with technical assistance, educational programs, or
economic incentives. Examples of programs that fully
or in part address pollution prevention include: Source
Water Assessment Program (SWAP), Wellhead
Protection Program (WHPP), Underground Injection
Control (DIG) Program, aquifer vulnerability
assessments and vulnerability assessments of
drinking water/wellhead protection under SDWA;
Pesticide State Management Plan under FIFRA; and
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) Title III Program. Prevention programs are
critical to the effective long-term management of
ground water resources.
In addition to prevention, states also take a lead role
in implementing ground water remediation activities,
either under federal or state authorities. For example,
states may have primary responsibility for
implementing RCRA corrective action and
underground storage tank remediation and closure
programs. Furthermore, while CERCLA remedial
actions are a federal responsibility, many states, such
as New Jersey, have established their own programs
to remediate abandoned waste sites. Other states,
such as Illinois, are also aggressively promoting
voluntary site clean-ups and the return of brownfield
sites to beneficial public uses.
State Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Programs
A 1997 study (EPA 1997a) described the nine key
components of a state ambient water quality
monitoring program and the associated costs:
Monitoring program design addresses the
geographic area covered by the program, the
number of wells needed to characterize ambient
conditions, the number and frequency of wells
sampled, and the water-quality constituents to be
analyzed.
Monitoring network installation includes well
procurement, installation, or refitting.
Monitoring network maintenance consists of
well integrity inspections and repairs to correct well
anomalies.
Ground water sampling incorporates labor,
materials, and expenses for collecting monitoring
samples and transporting them to a laboratory for
analysis.
Ground water sample analysis entails
laboratory analysis of ground water samples fora
set of constituent elements.
Ground water analyte data management
includes collecting ground water analysis results,
compiling data into a database, and formatting
data for analysis and interpretation.
Ground water analyte data interpretation
involves examining data to assess the general
ground water quality throughout the study area.
Communication of ground water monitoring
results informs the public about the status of the
ground water quality and the effects of
contamination.
Program evaluation and redesign assesses
effectiveness and deficiencies after comparison
of program results and program goals.
Monitoring Programs in Kansas
The Kansas ground water quality monitoring network was established in 1976 as a cooperative program
between the USGS and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). The KDHE assumed
sole responsibility forthis program in 1990. Since that time, the program has gathered data suitable to identify
changes in ground water quality associated with alterations in land use, the implementation of nonpoint source
best management practices, changes in ground waterwithdrawal rates, and shifts in climatological conditions.
Currently, the Kansas monitoring network is comprised of 242 wells used for public or private (domestic) water
supply, irrigation, livestock watering, and/or industrial purposes. During the period 1996-1997,267 well samples
were analyzed for common inorganic chemicals, heavy metals, and pesticides; 43 for volatile organic
compounds; and 38 for radionuclides.
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
31
The study presented the costs associated with each
of the nine components of ambient ground water
quality monitoring programs forthe States of Arizona,
Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland,
Minnesota, and North Dakota. The total costs ranged
from $18,585 per year in Arkansas to $474,666 per
year in Florida.
Prevention Programs: Wellhead Protection and
Source Water Assessment and Protection
The 1986 Amendments to SDWA established the
Wellhead Protection (WHP) Program. It is essentially
designed to provide a pollution prevention program
for underground sources of drinking water. Under
Section 1428 of the SDWA, each state must develop
a WHP Program to protect wellhead areas from
contaminants that may have an adverse effect on
human health. Protection measures include (1) the
identification of areas around public water supply wells
that contribute ground water to the well, and (2) the
management of potential sources of contamination in
these areas to reduce threats to the resource. As of
April 1,1999, 47 of the states and two territories have
developed and implemented EPA-approved WHP
Programs and 3 states are continuing their efforts to
develop their approved WHP Program. See Exhibit
4-2 for a summary of the number of community-based
WHP programs that are being implemented.
The 1996 Amendments to the SDWA initiated source
water protection through the creation of state Source
Water Assessment and Protection Programs. Under
Section 1453, states have developed programs for
delineating source water areas for public water
supply systems and assessing the susceptibility of the
source water to contamination. The WHP Program
has become the cornerstone in development of state
Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs
because the design of these programs builds on
components of existing state WHP Programs,
including source water area delineation, contaminant
source inventories, management measures, and
contingency planning. States with EPA-approved WHP
Programs in place have met the ground water-based
requirements for the Source Water Assessment
Program (SWAP). States have started to develop and
implement their SWAPs. Assessments must be
completed for all public water supply systems within
3.5 years of EPA approval of the state's programs.
Comprehensive Data Management in Idaho
Idaho's Ground Water Quality Plan recognizes an Environmental Data Management System
(EDMS) as the State's comprehensive data management system to include data from past,
present, and future ground water quality monitoring. Although the EDMS is currently in use, not
all relevant ground water quality data is routinely submitted to and entered into the system and
there is a backlog of past data that could be incorporated into the system. Recent efforts to help
increase the amount of data routinely submitted to EDMS include development of a compatible
Access database structure that can be placed on individual computers and utilized for project or
program specific data. Once the data is entered into the Access database, it can be transferred
into EDMS.
-------
32
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
4.3 Comprehensive Ground Water
Management and Sustainable Ground
Water Quality
To make better decisions about ground water
management, the activities of many federal, state, and
local programs must be coordinated. Better
prevention now could reduce the high costs of ground
water remediation in the future. Because resources
available for ground water management are limited,
(no program has unlimited funds,) upfront planning and
prioritizing are critical activities to ensure the best, most
efficient use of the resources available.
These planning activities, however, are sometimes
lacking due to budget constraints and
institutional barriers that prohibit effective
communication between agencies and groups with
control over activities that impact ground water.
States have made considerable progress and need to
continue to work to fully implement and integrate com-
prehensive planning processes.
Q State ground water managers have reported
(GWPC/ASDWA/ASIWPCA report) that state
programs would be more effective if
comprehensive ground water management
programs were supported by consistent laws,
planning, and funding.
State and local governments need to
work together to protect ground water.
Although remediation programs are often critical, they
do not fully address our need to manage ground
water resources in a sustainable manner. Supporting
the comprehensive management efforts that are
emerging in the states will best serve the nation's need
for maintaining sustainable ground water resources
into the future.
I 8,000
1997
Getting Started 3 Source Management
Delineation Contingency Planning
Source Identification
Exhibit 4-2: State Wellhead Protection Programs
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
Comprehensive Ground Water Management in Massachusetts
The Canoe River Aquifer Advisory Committee is a regional group comprised of fifteen locally-appointed
members, three each from the towns of Easton, Mansfield, Norton, Foxborough, and Sharon,
Massachusetts. Their goal is to protect the shared Canoe River aquifer which supplies drinking water to the
towns.
The Committee includes local Water Suppliers; Board of Health, Board of Selectmen, Conservation
Commission, and Planning Board members and staff; and members of land trusts and other local groups.
The Committee has no annual budget but has successfully established a reputation as a credible,
productive group by conducting extensive public outreach and by effectively involving residents, local citizen
groups, and state and Federal agencies in local ground water protection.
The group started meeting in 1987 due to concerns about the vulnerability of the public wells within the
Canoe River aquifer and shortly after pursued and achieved adoption of state legislation to establish a
charter and formal recognition of the Committee. Coordinated efforts with state and federal agencies have
included:
State designation of the aquifer as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC);
co-sponsoring of land use management workshops and other public education events, including a
popular annual Canie River Awareness Day;
arranging guest speakers for the Committee's monthly meetings;
formation of volunteer Shoreline Stream Team to monitor and report on river conditions;
receipt of grants, including fund to identify and map land parcels abutting the river with the goal of
creating a protective riparian buffer; and
Federal EPA designation as a Sole Source Aquifer.
Additional information about the Canoe River Aquifer Advisory Committee can be obtained by contacting
Chairman Wayne Southworth at (508) 238-3641.
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
Comprehensive Ground Water Management in South Dakota
South Dakota has had a comprehensive ground water protection program in place since 1989, although the
state has not formally submitted a document to EPA for approval. South Dakota law states that ground
water related programs, activities and funds are components of the state ground water protection strategy
and that departments, agencies, and programs responsible for ground water protection activities shall
coordinate their efforts to ensure that comprehensive ground water protection and management is
performed efficiently.
Most major ground water protection and clean-up activities are located in the South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Within DENR, most ground water protection and clean-up
activities are centered in the Ground Water Quality Program, which consists of the following programs:
Wellhead Protection, Source Water Protection, Underground Injection Control, Superfund, Underground
Storage Tanks, Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, and Community-Right-to-Know. The Ground
Water Quality Program tracks all spills and discharges from sources that pollute or have the potential to
pollute the waters of the state and ensures that proper assessments, remediation, and monitoring are
performed until case closure. The state has classified and prioritized ground water bodies. The Ground
Water Quality Program reviews plans and specifications for new facilities to help ensure ground water
protection and enforces state ground water quality standards, state ground water discharge permits, and
state above ground storage tank regulations. Those few programs that are not DENR's responsibility are
coordinated through memoranda of understanding. For example, the South Dakota Department of
Agriculture and DENR coordinate their activities to regulate all aspects of fertilizer and pesticide use and
disposal.
This approach has provided a framework for coordinating state ground water protection and clean-up
activities. It also provides a one-stop-shopping approach for industry, business, and the public. For further
information on South Dakota's approach to ground water protection and clean-up, visit their website at
http://www.state.sd.us/state/executive/denr/DES/Ground/groundprg.htm.
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
35
5.0 FINDINGS
Based upon the literature synthesis,
GWPC/ASIWPCA/ASDWA report, and contributions
from the state workgroup, the following findings are
made with regard to ground water and management
approaches to protect and sustain its use for the
nation:
The State of the Resource
Q Ground water is a critical resource to maintain
public health, the economy, and the environment.
Ground water is an important freshwater
resource that is critical fordrinking, irrigation,
industry, and maintaining lakes, streams, and
wetlands. Approximately 133 million people
rely upon ground water for drinking, and
agriculture uses over 51 billion gallons of
water daily to irrigate cropland and water
livestock. Ground water feeds streams and
wetlands especially during dry periods to
sustain surface water flows.
Q From what we know, in most locations around the
country, ground water is generally of good quality
but continues to be threatened by point and
nonpoint pollution sources, as well as
over-pumping.
Ground water quality is generally good
(i.e., when contaminants are found, they are
usually at concentrations below drinking
water standards at most locations). Certain
land use activities, however, including
agriculture, industrial, commercial, and waste
disposal, all have the potential to contribute
contaminants to ground waterthat range from
pesticides and nutrients to organic chemicals
and waterborne pathogens. In some
locations, these contaminants have and may
continue to threaten public health. Ground
water is also over-pumped in parts of the
country, resulting in depletion of the resource,
loss of aquifer storage capacity, and reduced
recharge to surface water. Overall, ground
water management may not be occurring in a
way that will ensure its sustainable use well
into the future.
The Status of Ground Water Management Efforts
Q States have made considerable progress in
implementing federal and state programs aimed
at specific contamination concerns.
Most states have made progress in carrying-
out the requirements of several federal laws
aimed at remediating or preventing specific
types of ground water contamination
problems. Evidence of this progress can be
found by examining the federal and state
programs addressing various ground water
concerns, such as wellhead protection,
underground storage tanks, pesticides, and
hazardous waste management and
remediation.
Q Most states agree that a more comprehensive,
resource-based approach holds greater potential
for accomplishing effective ground water
protection and many states are pursuing key
aspects of such an approach.
Most states believe that greater flexibility to
address the highest priority ground water
concerns from a more comprehensive,
resource-based approach would be effective
and efficient. Such an approach requires: a
good technical understanding of the resource;
determinations of its relative use, value and
vulnerability in different locations;
identification of potential threats, agreement
on priorities for addressing these threats, and
coordination of resources and efforts to
effectively and efficiently address those
priorities across the various federal, state and
local agencies and programs with relevant
responsibilities.
Q Efforts to achieve a more comprehensive
approach are underway in many states, but more
work needs to be done.
Today, only about a dozen states have
developed an EPA-approved Comprehensive
State Ground Water Protection Programs
(CSGWPP) that promotes the above aspects
of a more strategic, resource-based approach
to ground water protection. However, a
-------
36
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
recent report compiled from a survey of 26
states by the Ground Water Protection
Council, the Association of State Drinking
Water Administrators, and the Association of
State and Interstate Pollution Control
Administrators, indicates that more than half
the states surveyed are undertaking efforts
that are essential to a comprehensive
approach to ground water protection; these
states are working to differentiate their ground
water resources based on use/value and
vulnerability and, most of the surveyed states
are identifying their ground water problems
or concerns on a geographic basis. These
states also reported that they are keeping the
various federal and state agencies with
ground water responsibilities aware of their
comprehensive analysis and findings.
Some states have completed, or have begun
to develop, a comprehensive list of ground
water protection priorities.
States have identified three primary barriers to
achieving a more comprehensive approach:
Fragmentation of ground water programs
impedes effective management.
Most state and federal ground water
protection programs are fragmented among
and within agencies. At the state level,
authorities to manage the resource are often
held among different state agencies with
conflicting priorities and goals.
Communicating and coordinating between
departments with ground water
responsibilities can be difficult and ineffective.
Additionally, because of this fragmentation,
there is not a unified effort in most states to
acquire available state and federal funds for
comprehensive ground water protection
activities.
Overall, authorities to manage the resource
are not comprehensive, and the programs that
have developed are structured under specific
legislative authorities that, for the most part,
have a narrow focus regarding ground water
management.
The lack of understanding of ground water
resources (e.g., the extent and condition of
the resource, the physical nature of the
aquifer, the behavior of contaminants within
and their movement through the aquifer, the
influence of surface waterto ground water and
vice versa)
Better information to assess the effectiveness
of ground water protection efforts and to
determine the impact of certain land uses on
ground water is needed to set priorities for
ground water protection efforts. The states
need federal support to develop coordinated,
comprehensive approaches for ground water
monitoring that includes priority setting.
Lack of funding targeted directly to ground
water is the reason most often cited by states
for limited efforts at undertaking a more
comprehensive resource-based approach.
Ground water protection is often not a high
priority for funding; mandated programs
usually prevail for funding.
In the state Survey, the lack of a targeted
source of funding was cited by nearly all states
as a reason why various aspects of a more
comprehensive, resource-based approach to
ground water protection was not underway or
was limited in scope. While States have the
flexibility to use funds under several federal
programs to pursue ground water protection
efforts, they often choose not to or to do so in
only a limited way. Additionally, because of
this fragmentation, there is not a unified effort
in most states to take advantage of existing
available state and federal funds for
comprehensive ground water protection
activities.
Most states indicate that the mandates
under other federal programs often preclude
the state from exercising flexibility to use funds
for non-mandated ground water protection
priorities. This is particularly the case under
the Clean Water Act, where states have the
opportunity to pursue ground water activities,
including more comprehensive resource
assessment and planning, and to utilize state
Water Quality Program Grants and Non-point
Source Grants.
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
37
Funds are available for ground water
activities in drinking water source areas as
defined by a state in their Source Water
Assessment and Protection Plans, if the states
chooses to set-aside funds received from their
DWSRF capitalization grant. Most states set-
aside funds to delineate and assess these
areas (which include ground water and
surface water sources) in FY1997 and 1998,
the only years that funds could be set-aside
for these purposes. Fewer states have
chosen to set-aside funds from the DWSRF
for other ground water activities, although it
is unclear at this time, exactly how those funds
were used.
Over the last 25 years, federal, state and
local governments, and private parties have
spent billions of dollars to clean-up
contaminated ground water. According to the
National Research Council, as much as
$1 trillion may be needed to clean-up soil and
ground water contamination over the next 30
years. As a result, the resources devoted to
remediation vastly exceed the resources
devoted to protection.
The ability of states to use funds from
remediation programs for more
comprehensive ground water assessment
and planning is very limited. Greater
emphasis on prevention is needed to sustain
ground water into the future.
While the funds are relatively small, most states
believe that funding of SDWA Section 1429 grants
would support more coordinated state planning
and priority setting for ground water protection as
a first step toward solving some of these
problems.
Furthermore, the states believe that by providing
a source of targeted funding, states will be able to
better address the issues of program
fragmentation within the state and basic program
needs, such as monitoring, resource
characterization, and the development and
implementation of protection programs.
New federal funds have been available to the
states to address some of the key
components of comprehensive ground water
protection that have been missing. The
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund has
made money available for some ground
water activities in high priority drinking water
source areas through the Source Water
Protection and Wellhead Protection
set-asides. Also, funds are available for states
to work on critical comprehensive ground
water activities through the Clean Water Act
Section 319 and the Section 106 grants. (EPA
recommends that states use 15% of their
Clean Water Act Section 106 grant for ground
water activities.) Funds may also be
available to the states through Public Water
Supply Supervision grants for assisting with
compliance of federal and state drinking
water regulations. Although these grants are
targeted to assist in implementation of
drinking water regulations, including several
new federal regulations, states could
potentially use these funds for
comprehensive ground water protection if they
can make a direct correlation to PWS
compliance with drinking water regulations.
It is too early to know how or if the states are
using and will continue to use these funds for
ground water activities.
In these early years of the Drinking Water
State Revolving Funds, states are making
important decisions on competing priorities;
the states must decide how to best use these
funds to protect public health and the
environment. As required by the 1996 SDWA
amendments, EPA will be conducting an
evaluation of the DWSRF over the next few
years.
-------
A-l
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
REFERENCES
Conservation Foundation, 1987. Groundwater
Protection, Groundwater: Saving the Unseen
Resource. The Final Report of the National
Groundwater Policy Forum, A guide to
Groundwater Pollution: Problems, Causes, and
Government Responses, Washington, DC.
Erwin, M.L. and Tesoriero, A.J., 1998. Predicting
Ground-Water Vulnerability to Nitrate in the Puget
Sound Basin. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet
061-97.
Ground Water Protection Council, 1996. Superfund
Setaside: Prevention of Contamination (white
paper). Ground Water Protection Council,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Ground Water Protection Council, 1999. Survey
Results on State's Comprehensive Approach to
Ground Water Protection. Ground Water
Protection Council, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Heath, R.C. 1983. Basic Ground-Water Hydrology.
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper2220.
Idaho Department of Water Resources, 1996.
Environmental Data Management System
(www.idwr.state.id.us/idwr/planpol/techserv/
gwmon/edms/ed mshome.html).
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water
Quality, 1995. The Strategy for Improving
Water-Quality Monitoring in the United States.
Final Report of the Intergovernmental Task Force
on Monitoring Water Quality, available from the
U.S. Geological Survey (water.usgs.gov/wicp/
itfm.html).
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water
Quality, 1997. Conceptual Frameworks for
Ground-Water-Quality Monitoring. By Franke, O.L.
and the Ground-Water Focus Group of the
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring
Water Quality, available from the U.S. Geological
Survey (webserver.cr.usgs.gov/publications/
reports/gwfocus.pdf).
Jehn, P., 1995 The National Ground Water Status
Report. The Interstate Ground Water
Management Network.
Kramer, M.H. etal., 1996. "Waterborne Disease: 1993
and 1994." Journal of the American Waterworks
Association, Vol. 88, no.3, March 1996.
Liner, B.E., Morley, E., Hatry, H.P., Dusenbury, P. and
Hoch, S., 1989. State Management of
Groundwater: Assessment of Practices and
Programs. The Urban Institute. Washington, DC.
Mink, J.F. and Lau, L.S. 1990a. Aquifer Identification
and Classification for O'ahu: Groundwater
Protection Strategy for Hawaii. Water Resources
Research Center of the University of Hawaii,
Technical Report No. 179.
Mink, J.F. and Lau, L.S. 1990b. Aquifer Identification
and Classification for Maui: Groundwater
Protection Strategy for Hawaii. Water Resources
Research Center of the University of Hawaii,
Technical Report No. 185.
Mink, J.F. and Lau, L.S. 1992a. Aquifer Identification
and Classification for Kaua'i: Groundwater
Protection Strategy for Hawaii. Water Resources
Research Center of the University of Hawaii,
Technical Report No. 186.
Mink, J.F. and Lau, L.S. 1992b. Aquifer Identification
and Classification for Moloka'i: Groundwater
Protection Strategy for Hawaii. Water Resources
Research Center of the University of Hawaii,
Technical Report No. 187
Mink, J.F. and Lau, L.S. 1993a. Aquifer Identification
and Classification for Lana'i: Groundwater
Protection Strategy for Hawaii. Water Resources
Research Center of the University of Hawaii,
Technical Report No. 190.
Mink, J.F. and Lau, L.S. 1993b. Aquifer Identification
and Classification for the Island of Hawaii:
Groundwater Protection Strategy for Hawaii.
Water Resources Research Center of the
University of Hawaii, Technical Report No. 191.
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
A-2
Monterey County Resource Agency and Monterey
Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, 1999.
Salinas Valley Reclamation Project and the
Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project. Monterey,
California.
National Research Council, 1994. Alternatives for
Ground Water Cleanup. Committee on Ground
Water Cleanup Alternatives, Water Science and
Technology Board, Commission on Geoscience,
Environment, and Resources, National Research
Council. National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C.
National Research Council, 1997. Valuing Ground
Water: Economic Concepts and Approaches.
Committee on Valuing Ground Water, Water
Science and Technology Board, Commission on
Geoscience, Environment, and Resources,
National Research Council. National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C.
National Small Flows Clearinghouse, 1999a. Septic
Stats: An Overview. Environmental Services and
Training Division, Morgantown, West Virginia.
National Small Flows Clearinghouse, 1999b. Septic
News. Environmental Services and Training
Division, Morgantown, West Virginia
(www.estd.wvu.edu/nsfc/NSPC_
septic_news.html).
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission. Source Protection: A Guidance
Manual for Surface Water Supplies in New
England. 1996.
U.S. Bureau of Census, 1998. Estimates of Housing
Units, Households, Households by Age of
Householder, and Persons per Household: July
1, 1996. Population Estimates Program,
Population Division (www.census.gov/population/
estimates/housing/prhuhhtl .txt).
U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Draft
Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding
Operations, (www.epa.gov/cleanwater/afo)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990. A
Review of Sources for Ground-Water
Contamination from Light Industry - Technical
Assistance Document. Office of the
Ground-Water Protection, Washington, DC. EPA
440/6-90-005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991.
Protecting the Nation's Ground Water: EPA's
Strategy for the 1990s. Office of the
Administrator, Washington, DC. EPA21Z-1020.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992a. Clean
Water and the American Economy, An Overview:
Perspectives on Ground Water. Office of Water,
Pre-Conference Papers. Arlington, Virginia.
October 19-21,1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992b. Final
Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection
Program Guidance. Office of the Administrator,
Washington, DC. EPA 100-R-93-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a.
Protecting Our Ground Water. Office of Water,
Washington, DC. EPA 813-F-95-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995b.
Benefits and Cost of Prevention: Case Studies of
Community Wellhead Protection. Office of Water,
Washington, DC. EPA813-B-95-005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997a.
Ambient Ground Water Quality Monitoring Cost
Analysis. Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA
816-12-97-013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997b.
Water on Tap: A Consumer's Guide to the Nation's
Drinking Water. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA815-K-97-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998a.
National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to
Congress, Ground Water Chapters. Office of
Water, Washington, DC. EPA816-R-98-011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998b. Ground
Water Rule: Ground Water Microbial Occurrence
Studies. Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water, Washington, DC. (www.epa.gov/OGWDW/
standard/occur.html).
-------
A-3
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998c.
Proposed Regulatory Requirements As Part of a
Comprehensive Management Strategy for Class
V Injection Wells. Office of Water, Washington,
DC. EPA 816-F-98-009 (www.epa.gov/OGWDW/
uic/cv-fs.html).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998d. Clean
Water Act Plan: Restoring and Protecting
America's Waters. Office of Water, Washington,
DC. (www.epa.gov/cleanwater).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999.
Underground Storage Tanks Corrective Action
Measures for 1st Half FY '99 (as of 2/28/99).
Office of Underground Storage Tanks,
Washington, DC (www.epa.gov/swerust1/cat/
camarchv.htm).
U.S. Geological Survey, 1996. Pesticides in Ground
Water, National Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) Program, Pesticide National
Synthesis Project, U.S. Geological Survey Fact
Sheet FS-244-95 (water.wr.usgs.gov/pnsp/gw/
gw_1.html).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997.
Ambient Ground Water Quality Monitoring Cost
Analysis. Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA
816-R-97-013.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1998a. Estimated Use of
Water in the United States in 1995, by Solley,
W.B., Pierce, R.R., and Perlman, H.A., U.S.
Geological Survey Circular 1200 (water.usgs.gov/
watuse/pdfl 995/html).
U.S. Geological Survey. 1998b. Strategic Directions
for the U.S. Geologic Survey Ground-Water
Resources Program: A Report to Congress. U.S.
Geological Survey Report to Congress.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1998c. Volatile Organic
Chemicals (VOCs) in Ground Water of the United
States: Preliminary Results of the National
Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program,
VOC National Synthesis Project, U.S. Geological
Survey, January 1998 (wwwsd.cr.usgs.gov/
nawqa/vocns/datasum91 .html).
U.S. Geological Survey, 1998d. Pesticides in Sur-
face and Ground Water of the United States:
Summary of Results of the National Water Qual-
ity Assessment (NAWQA) Program, Pesticide
National Synthesis Project, U.S. Geological
Survey, July 22, 1998 (water.wr.usgs.gov/pnsp/
allsum).
U.S. Geological Survey, 1998e. Occurrence of
Pesticides in Shallow Ground Water of the United
States: Initial Results from the National Water
Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program,
Pesticide National Synthesis Project, U.S.
Geological Survey, by Kolpin, D.W, Barbash, J.E.,
and Gilliom, R.J. [adapted from an original article
published in the Environmental Science and
Technology, v. 32,1998, p. ] (water.wr.usgs.gov/
pnsp/ja/est32).
U.S. Geological Survey, 1998f. A National Look at
Nitrate Contamination of Ground Water, by Nolan,
B.T., Ruddy, B.C., Hitt, K.J., and Helsel, D.R.
[article appeared in the January 1998 issue of
Water Conditioning and Purification, v. 39, no. 12,
pages 76-79], U.S. Geological Survey Circular
1136.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1998g. Ground Water and
Surface Water: A Single Resource by Winter, T.C.,
Harvey, J.W., Franke, O.L., and Alley, W.M. U.S.
Geological Survey Circular 1139.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1999a. MTBE in the Nation's
Ground Water, National Water-Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) Program Results, by Paul
J. Squillace, U.S. Geological Survey, April 29,
1999 (wwwsd.cr.usgs.gov/nawqa/vocns/brp-pjs-
handout.hmtl).
U.S. Geological Survey, 1999b. Nutrients in the
Nation's WatersToo Much of a Good Thing? by
Mueller, O.K. and Helsel, D.R., U.S. Geological
Survey Circular 1136 (wwwrvares.er.usgs.gov/
nawqa/circ-1136).
U.S. Geological Survey, 1999c. The Quality of Our
Nation's Waters, Nutrients and Pesticides, U.S.
Geological Survey Circular 1225.
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
B-l
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Ambient Ground Water Monitoring - Ambient
ground water monitoring programs measure
background or existing water quality and are used to
track long-term trends in contaminant concentrations.
Anoxia - A condition or environment without oxygen.
Aquifer - An underground geologic unit that stores
ground water.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) - Structural and
management practices used in agriculture, forestry,
urban land development, and industry to reduce the
potential for damage to natural resources from human
activities.
Brownfields - Abandoned, idled, or under-used
industrial and commercial facilities where expansion
or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived
environmental contamination.
Carcinogen - An agent capable of inducing a cancer
response.
Class V Injection Wells - Shallow disposal systems
that are used to place a variety of fluids below the
land surface, into or above underground sources of
drinking water.
Clean Water Act - Enacted in 1972, the Clean Water
Act is the primary federal law that protects our nation's
waters, including lakes, river, aquifers, and coastal
areas. Its primary objective is to restore and maintain
the integrity of the nation's waters.
Clean Water Action Plan - An initiative, released in
February, 1998 that aims to achieve clean water and
aquatic habitat by strengthening public health
protections, targeting community-based watershed
protection efforts at high priority areas, providing
communities with new resources to control polluted
runoff, enhancing wetlands and natural resource
stewardship, and improving public access to
environmental information.
Compliance Ground Water Monitoring -
Compliance monitoring programs are required by
federal or state regulations generally near facilities
where ground water contamination has occurred or
where there is a potential for release. These
activities measure for specific constituents to ensure
that their concentrations in ground water are below
regulated levels.
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) - A law
that established a national program to respond to past
releases of hazardous substances in to the
environment. CERCLA created the Superfund for
financing remedial work not undertaken by
responsible parties.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
(CAFOs) - Agricultural operations where animals are
kept and raised in confined areas. CAFOs
congregate animals, feed, manure and urine, dead
animals, and production operations on a small land
area.
Contamination (Water) - Waterthat contains disease-
causing or toxic substances.
Discharge - The volume of waterthat passes a given
location within a given period of time.
Ecosystem - A community of interdependent
organisms together with the environment they inhabit
and with which they interact.
Eutrophication - An increase in the concentration of
nutrients in an aquatic ecosystem, causing: an
increased productivity of green plant, leading to the
blocking out of sunlight; elevated temperatures within
the water body; depletion of the water's oxygen
resources; increased algal growth; and reduction in
the level of and variety offish and animal life.
Evaporation - The changing of liquid water from
rivers, lakes, bare soil and vegetative surfaces into
water vapor.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) - A consumer protection statute passed
in 1947 to regulate the manufacture, sale,
distribution, and use of pesticides. FIFRA protects
human health and the environment from the risks of
pesticide use.
Freshwater - Water that contains less than 1,000
milligrams per liter (mg/L) of dissolved solids;
-------
B-2
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
generally, more than 500 mg/L of dissolved solids is
undesirable for drinking and many industrial uses.
Ground Water - The subsurface water beneath the
water table in soils and geologic formations that are
fully saturated.
Hydrologic Cycle - The constant process of water
movement from the Earth to the atmosphere by
evaporation and transpiration, and from the
atmosphere to the Earth in various forms of
precipitation. This term includes movement of water
on and beneath the Earth's surface.
Hypoxia - A condition or environment with very low
oxygen concentrations.
Industrial Wastes - Any waste that results from
manufacturing or other industrial processes. These
wastes often contain hazardous chemicals which
require special treatment processes.
Irrigation - The controlled application of water for
agricultural purposes through manmade systems to
supply water requirements not satisfied by rainfall.
Land Subsidence - The loss of surface elevation due
to removal of subsurface support. One cause of
subsidence is over-pumping ground water.
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) - The
maximum amount of a compound allowed in drinking
water under the Safe Drinking Water Act. MCLs are
set by considering both health effects of the compound
and technical feasibility of removing the compound
from the water supply.
Monitoring Well - Wells used to collect ground water
samples for the purpose of physical, chemical, or
biological analysis. They are generally installed where
ground water contamination exists or has a potential
to exist.
Nitrate - The most oxidized form of inorganic
nitrogen and a contaminant commonly associated with
septic systems and agriculture activities. High
concentrations of nitrate and nitrite in drinking water
are know to cause methemoglobinemia in infants.
Nonpoint Source Pollution - Pollution discharged
over a wide land area, not from one specific location.
These are forms of diffuse pollution caused by
sediment, nutrients, organic and toxic substances
originating from land-use activities, which are carried
to lakes and streams by surface runoff. Non-point
source pollution is contamination that occurs when
rainwater, snowmelt, or irrigation washes off plowed
fields, city streets, or suburban backyards. As this
runoff moves across the land surface, it picks up soil
particles and pollutants, such as nutrients and
pesticides.
Over-pumping - The reduction of ground water
storage that occurs when withdrawals from an aquifer
exceed recharge.
Pathogens - Microorganisms potentially harmful to
humans or animals, including parasites, bacteria, and
viruses.
Percolation - The downward movement of water
through layers of soil or rock.
Precipitation - The process by which water vapor
condenses in the atmosphere or onto a land surface
in the form of rain, hail, sleet, or snow.
Recharge - The replenishment of ground water by
seepage (deep percolation) of precipitation and
runoff. Also stated as the process of addition of water
to the saturated zone.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
- A law that regulates monitoring, investigation, and
corrective action at operating hazardous treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities.
Runoff - The portion of precipitation or irrigation
water that moves across land as surface flow and
enters streams or other surface receiving waters.
Runoff occurs when the precipitation rate exceeds the
infiltration rate.
Safe Drinking Water Act - The law passed in 1974
that required the setting of standards to protect the
public from exposure to contaminants in drinking
water.
Salt Water Intrusion - The migration of salt water
into fresh water aquifers underthe influence of ground
water development.
-------
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress
B-3
Section 1429 - Section 1429 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) authorizes the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Administrator to make grants to the States for the
development and implementation of programs to
ensure the coordinated and comprehensive
protection of ground water resources.
Septic System - An on-site waste disposal system.
Septic systems are constructed using conventional,
alternative, or experimental system designs. Septic
tanks are used to detain domestic wastes to allow the
settling of solids priorto distribution to a leach field for
soil absorption. Septic tanks are used when a sewer
line is not available to carry them to a treatment plant.
Sinkhole - The cavities in bedrock that are open to
the atmosphere. These usually result from the
collapse of overlying soil or geologic material.
Sole Source Aquifer - A ground water aquifer which
is the sole or principal drinking water source for an
area and which, if contaminated, would create a
significant hazard to public health.
Stormwater - Rain water and snow melt that runs off
the land and enters streams, rivers, and lakes.
Surface water - The water from all sources that
occurs on the Earth's surface either as diffused water
or as water in natural channels, artificial channels, or
other surface water bodies.
Treatment - Remedial techniques or actions used to
restore contaminated ground water.
Underground Injection Well - A well through which
fluids are injected into the subsurface.
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) - Any system
having 10 percent of the total tank volume below
ground.
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) - An organic
chemical that volatilizes (evaporates) relatively easily
when exposed to air.
Water Quality - The chemical, physical, biological,
and radiological condition of a surface or ground
water body.
Watershed - The land area that drains water to a
particular stream, river, or lake. It is a land feature
that can be identified by tracing a line along the
highest elevations between two areas on a map,
often a ridge. Large watersheds, like the Mississippi
River basin contain thousands of smaller watersheds.
Water Table - The top of the subsurface zone that is
saturated with ground water.
Well (water) - An artificial excavation put down by
any method forthe purposes of withdrawing waterfrom
the underground aquifers. A bored, drilled, or driven
shaft, or a dug hole whose depth is greater than the
largest surface dimension and whose purpose is to
reach underground watersupplies or oil, orto store or
bury fluids below ground.
Wellhead Protection Area - A designated surface
and subsurface area surrounding a well or well field
that supplies a public watersupply and through which
contaminants or pollutants are likely to pass and
eventually reach the aquifer that supplies the well or
well field. The purpose of designating the area is to
provide protection from the potential of contamination
of the water supply. These areas are designated in
accordance with laws, regulations, and plans that
protect public drinking watersupplies.
Wetlands-A land area that is inundated orsaturated
by surface and/or ground water with a frequency and
duration sufficient to support an abundance of
water-loving plants or other aquatic life that require
permanently saturated or seasonally saturated soil
conditions for growth and reproduction. Examples
include swamps, marshes, bogs, sloughs, potholes,
wet meadows, river overflow areas, mud flats, and
natural ponds.
------- |