United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Environmental
Processes and Effects Research
Washington DC 20460
Research and Development
EPA/600/S5-86/001 Jan. 1987
Project Summary
Ground Water Quality
Protection: State and Local
Strategies
At the request of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, the National Research
Council established a Committee on
Ground Water Quality to provide guidance
on developing and enhancing ground-
water protection programs. Summaries
are presented of ten state and three local
programs that represent a range of situa-
tions, problems and solutions. Those sign-
ificant technical and institutional features
that show progress and promise in pro-
viding protection of ground-water quality
are identified. While no single program
was held out as a model for others to
follow, the committee found many dif-
ferent practices in the programs reviewed
that provide an array of alternative pro-
gram designs. Approaches are described
for information management, classifica-
tion, standards, source control and
implementation.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Office of Research and Develop-
ment and Office of Water, Washington,
DC, to announce key findings of the re-
search project that is fully documented in
a separate report of the same title (see
Project Report ordering information at
back).
Introduction
In response to a November 1984 re-
quest from the Office of Research and
Development and the Office of Ground
Water Protection of the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, the National
Research Council established a Commit-
tee on Ground Water Quality Protection.
The committee was asked to identify state
and local ground water protection pro-
grams and review the preventive aspects
of these programs for their scientific
bases, their performance over time, their
administrative requirements, and their
legal and economic framework.
To determine how well the ground water
protection programs were working in
these states, the committee conducted
personal interviews in several states, in
addition to interviewing the state repre-
sentatives invited to Committee meetings.
Those interviewed represented not only
state and/or environmental health depart-
ments but industry, environmental law
firms, consulting engineers and public in-
terest groups among others. The objective
was to identify those ground water pro-
tection practices and procedures that have
been successful, have experienced diffi-
culty, or might be worth watching in the
future. From interviews, discussions, and
literature reviews, the committee reached
the conclusions and recommendations
presented in the full report.
States Selected for Review
In selecting state and local programs for
review, the committee attempted to
include those programs that are rep-
resentative of the range of source types
affecting ground water, the hydrogeologic
characteristics, contamination problems,
institutional arrangement for protection
and the types of protection strategies
found across the United States. Where
possible, the committee selected those
programs which have been in existence for
a sufficient period of time to permit some
level of experience in the programs.
Following is a list of the programs selected
for review and the principal reasons for
their selection:
Arizona A state with important
quality and quantity issues and a
newly established ground water man-
agement program.
-------
California A large state with a
wide range of problems and pro
grams with emphasis on agriculture-
and industry-related pollution and an
extensive and unique intergovern-
mental structure for protection
programs.
Colorado A state with important
quality and quantity issues with em-
phasis on agriculture, residential and
commercial development and mining
related problems and a ground water
strategy including a ground water
classification system in the beginning
stages of implementation.
Connecticut A small densely pop-
ulated state with a variety of prob-
lems and one of the first state-wide
water classification systems that af-
fects land use and siting of poten-
tially polluting facilities.
Dade County, Florida A densely
populated and rapidly growing area
with a local approach to ground
water management including some
comprehensive and restrictive laws
on source and land use control.
Florida A state with special hydro-
geologic characteristics generally
highly vulnerable to ground water
contamination, rapid residential and
commercial growth, widespread use
of agricultural chemicals, and which
has enacted broad legislation for
ground water protection as well as
controls on hazardous wastes and
deep well injection.
Kansas A state with oil produc-
tion, industrial and agricultural prob-
lems and a long-standing manage-
ment program.
Massachusetts At the state level,
an innovative local assistance pro-
gram including funds for aquifer pro-
tection, aquifer mapping and a clas-
sification system.
Cape Cod, Massachusetts A frag-
ile hydrologic system, under consid-
erable development pressure. Devel-
oped and implemented numerous ef-
fective local approaches to ground
water protection.
New Jersey A state with a rela-
tively long-standing monitoring pro-
gram, and thus well-documented or-
ganic chemical contamination prob-
lems, a comprehensive industrial and
municipal permitting program, and in-
novative land use controls.
New York a large state with a vari-
ety of land use and industrial prob-
lems which has completed statewide
ground water protection programs.
Long Island, New York A densely
populated region with unique hydro-
geologic characteristics, extensive
contamination problems; a multi-
agency regional approach to ground
water management, and innovative
laws on land use controls; extensive
and diverse ground water contamina-
tion sources and problems.
Wisconsin A state with a variety
of contamination sources, compre-
hensive statewide controls and a new
multitiered approach to water quality
standard setting.
Criteria for Effective Ground Water
Programs
The following criteria are considered by
the committee to be necessary com-
ponents of a comprehensive ground water
protection program.
Goals and Objectives
The goals, objectives, scope and priori-
ties of a ground water protection program
should be clearly defined; they should
reflect a comprehensive understanding of
the ground water resource problem; and
they should be based on adequate legal
authority. The program should have objec-
tive mechanisms for periodic evaluation of
the program's success and a process for
achieving needed modifications.
Information
A successful program must be founded
on an information base that allows proper
definition of the resource and the problems
and evaluation of prevention strategies.
Many decisions must be made with limited
data and scientific uncertainty. However,
a prevention program should be based on
adequate surveys of (a) water resources
and their location, (b) ground water basin
characteristics with respect to the poten-
tial for contamination and (c) current and
anticipated land and surface water uses
that can affect ground water. Information
on water resource conditions and new
ground water research must be easily
available to decision makers.
Technical Basis
Effective ground water protection pro-
grams require a sound technical basis. Pro-
grams should be based on (a) appropriate
physical, social and behavioral assump-
tions; (b) physical, chemical, engineering
and hydrologic principles; and (c) sound
relationships linking mandated actions
with desired results. For instance, pro-
grams should account for the interconnec-
tion of atmospheric, land and surface
water and ground water resources.
Source Elimination and Control
In the long term, ground water protec-
tion programs should eliminate or reduce
the sources of ground water contamina-
tion. Simply transferring the problem to
another medium such as the air or surface
water must be avoided. Sources can be
reduced or eliminated by (a) prohibition of
certain harmful activities or products; (b)
the rational siting of activities and facilities
that threaten ground water away from
sensitive areas (by land use controls, per-
mits, or regulations); (c) incentives for use
of products and technologies less threat-
ening to ground water quality; and (d) in-
centives for recycling and reuse of waste
products.
Intergovernmental and Interagency
Linkages
Ground water protection programs must
link local, state, and federal activities into
coherent coordinated action to be effec-
tive. Ground water is affected by a wide
variety of human activities and land uses.
Moreover, ground water is affected by
and, in turn, affects all other environmen-
tal media land, surface water, and air.
Consequently a strong, coherent intergov-
ernmental program is essential in protect-
ing ground water.
Effective Implementation and
Adequate Funding
Ground water protection programs must
have adequate authority and resources
and stable institutional structures to be ef-
fective. These must include (a) adequate
legal authority to take action; (b) adequate
long term funding in light of the serious-
ness of the ground water problem and ef-
forts necessary to reach objectives; (c)
sufficient personnel with adequate train-
ing, expertise, and skills and with an ongo-
ing program for professional development;
and (d) funding mechanisms and strate-
gies to sustain activity over time.
Economic, Social, Political, and
Environmental Impacts
A preventive program is based on the
assumption that prevention of ground
water contamination is the least costly
protection strategy in the long run. There-
fore, protective actions should be evalu-
ated in terms of their economic, environ-
mental, social and political impacts. The
following factors should be weighed: (a)
the feasibility and costs of control, the
value of the resource to be protected: (b)
the alternative sources, land uses, environ-
mental and economic impacts that would
result from controls; and (c) the potential
effects on public health and the
environment.
-------
Public Support and
Responsiveness
Ground water programs must be respon-
sive and credible to interested groups of
people and to the general public. Programs
should (a) foster public understanding and
support, (b) involve the public in program
design and evaluation, (c) balance expedi-
tious exercise of authority and consulta-
tion with affected parties, and (d) consider
the equity of the distribution of benefits,
costs, and burdens and the relative ability
of various classes and groups of people to
bear them.
While no single program can be held out
as a model for others to follow, many dif-
ferent practices used within each state
and local area comprise a reasonable ar-
ray of alternative ground water protection
program designs with features the com-
mittee believes show much promise in pro-
tecting ground water quality.
Selected Highlights
The report emphasizes the need for
elimination and reduction of the sources
of ground water contamination and re-
commends ways to help eliminate or
reduce both hazardous and nonhazardous
waste. Some of the ground water protec-
tion programs examined by the commit-
tee prohibit the land disposal of hazardous
wastes. However, many states lacked any
methods for hazardous waste manage-
ment and treatment. These prohibitions
and shortcomings usually resulted in ex-
portation of hazardous wastes to other
states which allowed their treatment and
disposal. A key recommendation to states
is that they develop a plan for treating,
storing, or disposing of hazardous wastes
within their own boundaries, rather than
exporting to other states. The committee
believes that exportation of hazardous
wastes is a temporary expedient which
generally increases risks associated with
transportation and decreases the assured
overall level of environmental protection.
One program highlighted in the report is
New Jersey's Environmental Cleanup Re-
sponsibility Act (ECRA) which places
responsibility for cleanup on industry
before sale of property to a new owner.
The committee found that this type of
legislation can provide an effective preven-
tion incentive as well as a remedial pollu-
tion control program and recommended
that other states consider adopting a
similar program.
The report recommendations also focus
on prevention of pesticide contamination
and the purposeful application of agricul-
tural chemicals to land. Several strategies
io reduce pesticide contamination of
ground water include (a) maintenance of
a pesticide use data base for each state;
(b) registration procedures for certain
chemicals that have potential for leaching
into and contaminating ground water; (c)
a pesticide tax to fund monitoring; (d)
cancellation of pesticide registration at
local levels; and (e) economic incentives,
legislation, and financial support for
source reduction.
The report recommends that state and
local programs obtain the necessary hy-
drogeological information for each region
and that the U.S. Geological Survey ex-
pand its technical assistance and
information-gathering programs to assist
states in this effort. Classification of
ground waters using a system as in Con-
necticut, was also seen as an effective
tool for optimizing ground water protec-
tion efforts and was recommended in con-
junction with a mapping program that
specifically identifies critical areas and
resources for special protection.
Another key recommendation is that
land use controls should be considered as
an essential part of a ground water pro-
tection program. Although land use con-
trols are best carried out at the local level,
the committee believes that state and fed-
eral governments can encourage land use
controls in combination with other meas-
ures to protect ground water. The effec-
tiveness of land use controls is limited by
preexisting development. Therefore, it is
recommended that land use controls be
implemented at early stages for vunerable
undeveloped areas.
Successful ground water prtection pro-
grams also require adequate legal author-
ity and substantial funding for planning
and design as well as implementation. It
was found that many of the more attrac-
tive programs examined (e.g., California,
Ljong Island, New York and Cape Cod, Mas-
sachusetts) have benefited from past
federal support under Sections 106 and
208 of the Clean Water Act and the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Therefore, the com-
mittee recommended that the federal gov-
ernment provide financial support for
development and implementation of state-
or basin-level programs; that states con-
sider a variety of funding mechanisms in-
cluding user and disposal fees as well as
general revenues for program support; that
states play a key role in expanding the
number of well-trained hydrogeologists by
providing more support of hydrogeologic
program in colleges and universities; and
that the federal government provide tech-
nical support to state and local govern-
ments through research on health and
environmental effects of ground water
contamination, fate and transport of pol-
lutants, and technologies and strategies
for ground water protection.
The report also addresses political mo-
bilization and public participation and sup-
port of ground water protection programs.
One of the key recommendations states
that attention should be directed to the
need to attract and develop high level
political leadership to shepherd ground
water protection legislation and ensure
commitment to continued funding and im-
plementation of ground water programs.
The committee believes that networks
must be established and maintained be-
tween ground water program managers
and the media. Media coverage of ground
water issues is more likely to be fair and
balanced when managers have estab-
lished a reputation for openness and ac-
curacy. In addition a public intervener type
program was recommended to states
when public confidence or interest is not
recognized or adequately incorporated in
ground water protection programs.
In its review of ground water programs,
the committee found no program which
conducted an economic analysis of costs
and benefits of ground water protection.
However, the committee believes that eco-
nomic analysis is one of the useful ways
programs and strategies can be judged
and recommended that economic
analyses be conducted of existing and pro-
posed ground water protection measures
so that experience can be gained with
techniques and data requirements, and
decision-makers can become fa> K with
the results of such analyses.
In summary, the committee believes that
the essence of prevention is anticipation,
planning, assessment, and preventive
action. These preventive efforts anticipate
adverse effects from chemical and land
use practices and the disposal of waste
and provide the necessary protection of
ground water with emphasis on prevention
of pollutants at the source.
Although the information in the printed
report was funded wholly or in part by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency un-
der Cooperative Agreement No. CR811815
to the National Research Council, it does
not necessarily reflect the views of the
agency and no official endorsement
should be inferred.
-------
The Project Summary was prepared by the Committee on Ground Water Quality
Protection, Washington, DC.
Steve Cordle is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Ground Water Quality Protection: State and Local
Strategies,"(Order No. PB86-241 387'/AS; Cost: $30.95, subject to change)
will be available from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
and
National Academy Press
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20418
(Code No. H20PRO; Cost: $24.50)
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Office of Environmental Processes and Effects Research
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA/600/S5-86/001
60604
------- |