4983
810R77101
CLEAN WATER AND THE LAND:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JANUARY 1977
-------
CLEAN WATER AND THE LAND:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
The 208 Water Quality Management Program 1
Local Government's Role 2
WATER POLLUTION AND THE LAND
What Nonpoint Sources Do 3
Land Use Practices 6
WHAT CAN BE DONE 8
Nonpoint Source Pollution: Problem-Solving Techniques 9
Local Experience 15
Summary 18
208: THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WATER QUALITY 19
Getting Involved in the Program 19
Summary 22
Who to Contact 22
This publication was prepared by the American Society of Planning Officials
under EPA Contract No. 68-01-1969. The project was directed by Michael J.
Meshenberg with assistance from Stephen B. Friedman and Antoinette McAllister.
For EPA, William Lienesch of the Water Planning Division, Program Development
Branch, served as project officer.
-------
INTRODUCTION
A multi-billion dollar program to clean up our nation's polluted waters
is now underway. While largely funded by the federal government, the program
involves all levels of government, and many state and regional agencies that
are doing much of the planning.
The most expensive part of the cleanup program is building new sewer
systems and treatment plants, and upgrading existing systems that are below
standard. The sewage that is now poured into the water in untreated or par-
tially treated form is the major contributor, overall, to the water pollution
problem. This sewage is called a "point source" because the pollution comes
out the end of a pipe. As the major source, it makes sense to focus much of
the money on stopping pollution discharges from point sources.
But even as point sources begin to contribute less to the pollution
problem, the problem is far from solved. So-called "nonpoint sources" remain,
and in some places severely pollute rivers, lakes, and streams. Nonpoint source
pollution is generated over wide areas such as forests, fields, streambanks,
roadways, or parking lots. The agencies now doing the planning are giving a
great deal of attention to these sources .
Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments in
1972 that established a national goal to provide, wherever attainable, "water
quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish,
and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water" by 1983. Speci-
fic amounts of permitted point source discharges and treatment levels were
established for 1977 and 1983 to help meet this goal. The act also recognized
that identifying and controlling nonpoint sources would be necessary to achieve
the goal.
The act is a milestone in efforts to expand and coordinate both cleanup
and prevention of water pollution. First, it recognizes to a degree not recog-
nize before that improved water quality will result not only from building
sewers and treatment plants, but also from changes in land use and management
practices that contribute to water pollution. Second, Section 208 of the act
creates a comprehensive Water Quality Management Program to deal explicitly
with both treatment and prevention of water pollution.
The 208 Water Quality Management Program
The 208 program differs from most other federally funded planning
efforts. It includes a process for meeting the established water quality
goals, by abating pollution from both point and nonpoint sources. But it does
not stop there. The plans that are prepared must show that management institu-
tions exist with adequate financial and legal authority to carry out the plan,
or that new ones will be created.
These plans are being prepared on two levels—state and areawide. State
plans are being drafted by official state agencies. For the most part, area-
wide plans for metropolitan communities are being prepared by designated metro-
-1-
-------
-2-
politan agencies such as councils of government and, in rural areas, by re-
gional planning agencies or the state. The two-year planning effort currently
is underway in all regions of the country.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must approve each plan and
management strategy. This approval is critically important to local govern-
ments because it becomes the basis for federal grants for wastewater collec-
tion and treatment, and for issuing National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits.
Local Government's Role
Although Congress can articulate national objectives and provide most
of the funds, the water pollution problem cannot be solved by the federal
government alone. State and local participation is necessary. In the case of
nonpoint sources of pollution and the 208 program, cooperative effort is even
more critical and could spell the difference between success and failure.
Decisions about land use, construction and landscaping practices, street clean-
ing, storm drainage, and other municipal planning and management questions
affect nonpoint source pollution. While many local governments have taken
actions to control nonpoint source runoff, concerted and cooperative efforts
throughout entire watersheds are needed to really solve the problems.
The 208 program with its areawide structure creates an important oppor-
tunity to solve water quality problems and provides a number of specific oppor-
tunities for local officials, among them:
—gaining improved access to technical information useful for solving
local water quality problems;
—developing intergovernmental programs to solve problems that individ-
ual localities cannot correct alone, which in turn assures that local
actions are effective;
—finding lower-cost solutions to water quality problems than might
otherwise be known;
—maintaining eligibility for financial aid after the areawide plan is
completed; and
—assuring that water quality plans and other plans and objectives for
local development are consistent.
These are compelling reasons for local officials to participate in the
program.
This booklet has been prepared to show local officials how the 208
program can be used to coordinate their efforts to abate nonpoint source
water pollution. Nonpoint source problems and solutions to them are empha-
sized here because of a growing awareness of the magnitude of the problem and
the relative lack of information about it, but most important because it is a
problem that can be dealt with very largely by local governments, often without
huge capital outlays.
-------
-3-
WATER POLLUTION AND THE LAND
Nonpoint sources are major contributors to water pollution. Their
contribution will remain even when treatment of point source discharges is
improved. While on a national level actual amounts are hard to determine,
it has been estimated that even after the 1977 treatment requirements estab-
lished by the 1972 Act are achieved (actually later than 1977) substantial
waste loads would remain—largely due to nonpoint sources. Table 1 summa-
rizes these estimates:
Table 1: National Summary of Waste Loads Remaining
After the 1977 Requirements Are Achieved
Variable
BOD ultimate
Suspended Solids '
Total Nitrogen'
Total Phosphorus >
Fecal Coliformt
Total Coliformf
Oi I/Grease f
Cadmium §
Zinc §
Point
Source*
24.0
11.9
7.4
1.7
1.95
15.0
3.9
6.4
67.6
Nonpoint
Source
13.9
145.6
28.3
1.93
87.85
1,268.0
0.5
1.5
51.4
Total Point
and
Nonooint
37.9
157.5
35.7
3.63
89.8
1,383.0
4.4
7.9
119.0
Percentage Remaining
After 1977
Requirements are met
37
92
79
53
98
99
11
19
43
Estimated load remaining after achievement of the 1977 requirement
t In million pounds per day
f In number of bacteria — 10l5/day
§ In thousand pounds per day
Source: Hydroscience, Inc., "An Overview of Waste Loads and Urban-Suburban
Stream Quality Response" (August 1975) as reprinted in Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, January 1976.
Virtually all of the remaining coliform, for example—the bacterial
contaminant that forces beaches to be closed because of the danger to health—
is from nonpoint sources. Ninety-two per cent of the remaining suspended sol-
ids, largely silt from eroded soil, is estimated to be from nonpoint sources.
What Nonpoint Sources Do
Nonpoint source pollutants cause many of our most common and familiar
pollution problems, including polluted well water; polluted and clogged rivers
and streams; an overgrowth of weeds and algae, plus sediment in lakes and ponds;
and loss of wildlife. A description of these problems will demonstrate why we
-------
-4-
must give unprecedented attention to a balanced control program that includes
both treating point sources and limiting discharges from nonpoint sources.
Polluted Well Water; When the groundwater that supplies municipal and
private wells becomes polluted, the water can no longer be used for drinking
without costly treatment—treatment that may be impractical in the case of
private wells. Over 50 per cent of the nation's population depends on ground-
water for its drinking water supply. Groundwater becomes polluted when bac-
teria, chemicals, or salts find their way into aquifers, the water-bearing
underground rock formations.
A primary source of bacterial pollution of groundwater is septic tanks.
Septic tanks often are placed where the soil cannot do its proper filtering
job because it is either too hard (like clay) or too wet. Disease-carrying
bacteria may get into the water supply. Similarly, leaks that develop in
sewer pipes—and they often do—will contribute to groundwater pollution.
Improperly located, designed and managed landfills, feedlots, chemical
or petroleum storage facilities, mining operations, and facilities for deep-
well injection of liquid wastes also may contribute to both chemical and
bacterial groundwater pollution. The concentration of pollutants works its
way through the soil and reaches the aquifer. And especially in coastal
areas, freshwater wells may turn brackish as the water that is revoved is
replaced by the ocean's salt water.
Polluted and Clogged Streams; Pollution of rivers and streams and
the accumulation of silt or other sediment is a serious problem in many areas.
When organic matter is washed into streams, there is an increased demand for
oxygen (biological oxygen demand or BOD), which reduces the oxygen available
for fish and other aquatic life, sometimes to a point where the water can no
longer support life. It also may make the water unfit for swimming or other
recreational uses.
A stream that is filled with sediment can no longer support aquatic
life, supply reliable amounts of water, and offer boating and other recrea-
tional opportunities. Since rain water and melting snow must go somewhere,
a sediment-choked stream may also cause serious downstream flooding.
While much stream pollution comes from inadequately treated point
source waste discharges, a substantial amount comes from the following non-
point sources:
• Urban storm runoff carries with it debris; concentrations of chemi-
cals and fertilizers that have accumulated on the earth's surface
during dry weather; leaves, twigs and other organic matter; grease
and spilled gasoline from roads, parking lots, and gas stations;
animal droppings; and during winter thaws, salt used to melt ice
on streets and sidewalks. The extent of pollution from urban run-
off is partly due to the large areas of impervious surfaces which
increase runoff water and do not allow contaminants to be absorbed
into the soil where they can be filtered.
-------
-5-
• Agricultural runoff from croplands, feedlots, and pastures carries
sediment, fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and animal waste into
the water.
• Construction sites, where the land has been stripped of soil-holding
vegetation, may erode and contribute locally heavy sediment.
• Forestry (silviculture) practices that destroy underbrush and disturb
the soil , can result in a heavy contribution of sediment and organic
matter from the forest floor.
• Hydrographic modif icatiori, i.e., changing the character of the stream
itself by such measures as channelizing, building reservoirs, or re-
moving groundwater may lead to increased flooding in unprotected
downstream areas or modifying of fish and wildlife habitats.
* Solid waste sites (including landfills and dumps) , chemical or petro-
leum storage areas, or mining operations, if poorly designed and op-
erated, may contaminate both surface and underground water supplies
with toxic chemicals or bacteria.
Weeds, Algae, and Sediment in Lakes and Ponds; Weeds and algae in lakes
and ponds have a number of unpleasant effects. Besides disrupting the ecolog-
ical balance of the water body and reducing fish production, excessive weed
and algae growth interferes with swimming and boating, and it is generally un-
pleasant to look at. Algae smells as it decays. Excessive sediment can sig-
nificantly reduce the depth of lakes, eventually filling them in. Adding too
many organic nutrients to the water accelerates the eutrophication or aging
process of lakes: the growth and decay of weeds and algae is speeded up,
using up the oxygen supply and killing off fish and other water life.
The nonpoint sources that contribute to this problem are similar to
those contributing to stream pollution:
runoff carries lawn fertilizer and organic matter such as
leaves into the lake , providing additional nutrients that encourage
the growth of weeds and algae .
• Fertilizer and animal wastes^ from agricultural operations add nutri-
ents with the same effect.
• Septic tanks that are located too close to shorelines or are malfunc
tioning add inadequately treated human wastes to the water, increas-
ing the oxygen demand placed on the water body.
Adding to this problem is the loss of almost half of the nation's wet-
lands in the last 100 years. Wetlands such as swamps and marshes are like
nature's treatment plants. They act as retention basins and filtering sys-
tems, removing and storing many of the nutrients in agricultural and urban
runoff before they reach lakes. By filling wetlands deliberately to make
land for development, or unintentionally by sedimentation, runoff and flood-
ing has increased, and the natural system's capacity to deal effectively with
-------
-6-
such runoff has decreased. Disturbing the stored-up nutrients releases them
into the water supply. By interfering with the efficient natural system, we
have had to create new, expensive, and often less successful systems to re-
place what nature orginally provided for free.
Fish Kills, Poisoned Fish, and Loss of Wildlife; A severe consequence
of nonpoint problems is the loss of wildlife. Wetlands, for example, offer
habitat and spawning grounds for many types of wildfowl and fish. Filling
and polluting the wetland habitats reduces wildlife populations, with an
attendant loss of hunting and fishing opportunties. When water is heavily
polluted game fish such as trout may be replaced with such scavenger fish as
carp, that feed off waste and can survive under more adverse conditions.
Siltation similarly reduces wildlife diversity and further upsets the balance
of life. This loss is particularly tragic in urban areas where wetlands are
filled for development. In many cases these wetlands could have provided a
near-home recreational resource, something of growing importance in an era of
prospective energy shortage.
Usually the damage occurs slowly, such as when pesticides run off crop-
land. Sometimes it is dramatic: a flood carrying large quantities of sedi-
ment, or an overload of toxic chemicals such as pesticides can kill fish or
make them inedible. In a number of cases, commercial fishing has been ordered
to cease with a significant income loss, and sport fishing has been abruptly
restricted or stopped.
Land Use Practices
Most of these problems are caused by relatively few practices, most of
which have to do with the way we use the land. Our choice is to use land
wisely by either limiting the production of pollutants or to keep pollutants
from entering the water and affecting its quality. Or land can be used poorly,
as it often is, and lead to serious and expensive consequences.
A list of poor land use practices, those that lead to lowered water
quality, includes the following:
—Using unnecessarily large areas of pavement in cities and suburbs
which increases urban runoff.
—Cleaning streets infrequently, with the possible result that the
"first flush" after a storm in an urban area carries large quanti-
ties of chemicals, debris, and organic materials.
—Overusing lawn fertilizer or road salt, or piling leaves in the gutters
of urban streets.
—Overusing agricultural fertilizers, allowing animals direct access to
streams, and other agricultural practices.
—Failing to take measures to reduce soil erosion during construction,
or during agricultural and forestry operations.
-------
-7-
—Failure to take measures to reduce or prevent mine wastes and petro-
leum and chemical spills from reaching the waters.
—Locating housing with septic tanks on unsuitable soils.
—Filling and using wetlands for urban development and agriculture.
—Locating and designing waste disposal sites so that they leach (filter
down) into water sources.
Efforts to clean up and prevent water pollution from nonpoint sources
are aimed at halting or remedying these kinds of practices. These solutions
focus on the major sources of nonpoint pollution, grouped into nine categories:
—Urban runoff
—Agricultural runoff
—Construction activities
—Mining
—On-site disposal systems
—Forestry
—Hydrographic modification
—Surface and subsurface disposal of liquid and solid waste
—Saltwater intrusion
The next section offers some examples of techniques that have been used
and are now being further explored by many 208 agencies to deal with these
sources. Case studies of communities that have taken effective corrective
actions also are presented.
-------
WHAT CAN BE DONE
The solutions to water quality problems flow out of a simple premise:
all water in the ground and on the surface is part of a single system. Since
the same water is constantly being recycled, what we do in one part of the
system affects other parts. The water that we collect for domestic or indus-
trial use, for example, must be returned to the same system for others to use.
If it is returned dirty, it must be cleaned before it can be reused.
The water system has a great capacity to clean itself by using the
soil or bedrock as a filter, by dilution, or by natural chemical or biologi-
cal action. But the capacity is not unlimited. When it is overloaded with
too much waste, we have to accomplish mechanically what the natural system
can no longer handle: filter it, add more water, or collect and treat it.
These processes are all very costly. For some uses of water, like fishing
or swimming, such solutions are impractical or prohibitively costly.
Solutions to point source pollution problems almost always lie in treat-
ing the waste before it is returned to the water system. Treatment is expen-
sive, but is is practical and necessary if water quality goals and standards
are to be met.
Solutions to pollution problems from nonpoint sources tend to be more
varied. Many options are available to growing suburbs; these generally in-
volve preventive measures through land use controls and related management
practices. In built-up cities, there are fewer options, and sometimes the
only real answers are costly. For example, most cities deal with the drain-
age problem by building a storm sewage system. This system usually is sepa-
rate from the sanitary sewage system. We are now learning that the water
that runs off a city's streets and parking lots can be badly contaminated
with oils, grease, animal waste, and auto exhaust bi-products, as well as
debris. Lawns treated with fetilizer and pesticides can add to a further
deterioration of water quality.
In the cities with separate drainage and sanitary systems, stormwater
receives no treatment. Here, street sweeping, auto pollution controls, litter
prevention programs, and controls on lawn care may pay off. Diversion of the
water that runs off at the beginning of a storm ("first flush") into the treat-
ment system may be considered, but is likely to be prohibitively expensive.
Cities with combined storm and sanitary systems have a different problem.
Both stormwater and sewage receive the same treatment. But the first flush
may produce a terrific wasteload, exceeding the capacity of the treatment sys-
tem. When this happens, both the excess runoff and raw sewage are released
untreated directly into the river or lake.
In Chicago, with its combined system and high level of treatment, sewer
overflows occur at least a dozen times a year. Few fish exist in the Chicago
river. Swimming is unsafe and boating, to say the least, is unpleasant. Huge
tunnels now are being built deep underground by the Metropolitan Sanitary
District to hold the water during storms and treat it later. The project will
cost upwards of $1 billion.
-8-
-------
-9-
In largely built-up parts of metropolitan areas, such dramatic and ex-
pensive measures, although not necessarily on this scale, may be necessary to
deal with the runoff problem, in combination with other controls and management
techniques.
Less built-up and newly-developing areas can choose the most appropriate
of a wide variety of remedies. These generally follow from a single principle:
keep the water where it falls and use the land's natural capacity to absorb
water and filter out pollutants. This principle leads to a number of regula-
tory, management, and, where needed, construction techniques. The 208 program
in each area is charged with exploring these options and choosing the best ones,
those that will be most effective and least expensive.
Figure 1 shows a way of illustrating and classifying the many land use
strategies to improve water quality and the techniques to carry them out. The
chart can help planners and public officials recognize that water quality prob-
lems must be dealt with in a comprehensive way, coordinated with other local
and regional programs. And while most land use practices focus on remedying
pollution problems from nonpoint sources, they can also help to "balance and
reduce point dishcarges^"
Nonpoint Source Pollution; Problem-Solving Techniques
The following section shows how land use and management techniques can
be applied to the nine major nonpoint sources. It is not an exhaustive list
and certainly careful stucly must go into selecting the best techniques. While
there may be relatively simple solutions to some specific problems, public
and private costs, methods of financing, the complex relationship between dif-
ferent parts of the water system and between the water quality problem and
other local goals, all must be weighed. This kind of study, analysis, and
decision making, including the coordination of local actions on a regional
basis, is an integral part of the 208 process.
Urban Runoff
Purposes: To retain as much rainwater and snowmelt as possible where it falls
to prevent both flooding and contamination of both ground and surface
water.
Techniques: To reduce both the volume of water that flows over impermeable
surfaces and the amount of contaminants in urban runoff. . .
. . . retain land in open space through purchase, tax measures, and pro-
tection of environmentally sensitive areas such as floodplains and hill-
sides;
. . . use zoning and subdivision controls to require buildings to be
clustered and to limit ground coverage by impermeable surfaces;
. . . adopt "performance regulations" limiting runoff after development
to the natural runoff before development (Tallahassee, Florida [see bolow]
is an example of this approach);
-------
-10-
Figure 1
The Role of Land Use Planning and Control
in Water Quality Management
BALANCE AND
HEDUCE POINT
DISCHARGES
GOALS
REDUCE AND
BALANCE
NON-POINT
DISCHARGES
CONSERVE
NATURAL
FEATURES
REGIONAL
STRATEGIES
" MODIFY
GROWTH RATES
• MODIFY GROWTH
DISTRIBUTION
" CONSERVE EN-
VIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE AREAS
& OPEN SPACE
• CONTROL SITING
OF "CRITICAL
USES"
STRATEGIES
SITE DEVELOP-
MENT STRATEGIES
• MODIFY SITE
LOCATION
PRACTICES
• MODIFY
PROJECT
SIZE & MIX
• IMPROVE SITE
PLANNING &
DEVELOPMENT
LAND MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES
• CONTROL CON-
STRUCTION RE-
LATED EROSION
• UTILIZE AGRI-
CULTURE & SIL-
VICULTURE
CONSERVATION
PRACTICES
• MANAGE FLOOD
PLAIN &
SHORELINE USES
• CONTROL
RESOURCE
EXTRACTION
ACTIVITIES
REGULATIONS
• ZONING
• SUBDIVISION
REGS
• BUILDING
CODES
• SPECIAL
ORDINANCES
• STATE LAND
USE REGS.
• STATE DIS-
CHARGE PERMITS
" HEALTH CODES
TECHNIQUES
INCENTIVES 81
DISINCENTIVES
• TIMBER
CONSERVATION
INCENTIVES
« DEVELOPMENT
BONUSES &
PENALTIES
• RELOCATION
SUBSIDIES
• DEVELOPMENT
DISINCENTIVES
« TAX DEFERMENT
ACQUISITION
PROGRAMS
» OPEN SPACE
ACQUISITION
• SCENIC &
CONSERVATION
EASEMENTS
• PARK
DEDICATION
• LAND
BANKING
» URBAN
RENEWAL
GRANT
PROGRAMS
• CONDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS
• FACILITY
DEVELOPMENT
• LAND ACQUI-
SITION
• PLANNING
• NEW TOWNS
INTER -GOVT
ARRANGEMENTS
& REVIEWS
« ZONING*
SUBDIVISION
REFERRAL
• NEW GOVT
FORMS
• A-95 REVIEW
» E.I.S.
VOLUNTARY
AGREEMENTS
& SERVICES
• LENDING
POLICIES
• INNOVATIVE
ENTREPRE-
NEURSHIP
• TRADE ASSOC.
GUIDANCE
PUBLIC
FACILITY
DEVELOPMENT
Si SERVICE
DELIVERY
• URBAN SERV-
ICE POLICY
• SCWER TAP
POLICY
• CAPITAL
IMPROV. POLICY
« MORATORIA
& BANS
Source: Environments for Tomorrow, Inter-Relationships of Land-Use Planning
and Control to Water Quality Management Planning/ U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1973, p. 95.
-------
-11-
. . . improve the techniques and frequency of street sweeping, install
waste receptacles on public streets, and enact regulations requiring
leaves and other yard debris to be bagged for pickup;
. . . limit fertilizers and pest control chemicals on lawns and open
spaces;
. . . institute these same management practices on public property to
control runoff pollution and to set an example of good practice.
Agricultural Runoff
Purposes: To reduce erosion and then sedimentation in receiving waters such
as lakes, ponds, and rivers; to reduce chemical and biological pollution
from fertilizers, pesticides, and animal wastes.
Techniques: To control erosion and sedimentation; limit fertilizer and pesti-
cide use; and control feedlots and other concentrated sources of animal
waste. . .
. . . adopt erosion and sediment control regulations, possibly models
developed by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service; selectively build
sediment retaining structures such as dams;
. . . educate farmers or give incentives to use such soil conservation
practices as contour plowing, strip cropping, crop rotation, or plant-
ing vegetative cover to bind topsoil or prevent streambank erosion;
. . . time the use of pesticides and fertilizers to reduce their runoff
(for example by not spreading manure on frozen ground), or ban the sale
or use of toxic pesticides;
. . . retain feedlot runoff and process water in holding ponds and then
spread it on agricultural land in keeping with sound agricultural prac-
tice.
Construction Activities
Purposes: To reduce erosion and construction activities by leaving the soil
exposed for as short a period as possible; to collect sediment and
debris before it enters receiving waters.
Techniques: To assure use of vegetation and catch basins. . .
. . . require developers to prepare erosion control plans before start-
ing construction and require them to post bonds as guarantees of per-
formance (this requirement often appears in subdivision regulations);
. . . require use of vegetative measures to retain soil through temporary
or permanent seeding, straw mulch, or sodding;
-------
-12-
. . . require use of mechanical measures such as staged grading activi-
ties, building channels to divert runoff from erodable slopes, or build-
ing temporary or permanent sediment basins.
Mining
Purposes: To prevent erosion from mining sites; to reduce drainage of acid
mine wastes (mainly from coal mines) into water bodies.
Techniques: To control erosion, sediment, and acid production from surface
mined lands ...
. . . require vegetative buffer strips along streams affected by erosion
from mines;
. . . require reclamation plans for worked-out extraction areas such as
strip mines and sand and gravel pits;
. . . prevent or control in-stream extraction of sand and gravel;
. . . require construction of holding basins for wastes from mining
operations.
On-Site Disposal Systems
Purposes: To keep contaminants in individual septic tanks, cesspools, and
other disposal systems from entering the surface or groundwater supply.
Techniques: To control the use, location, and operation of individual systems
so that their individual and cumulative effect does not endanger water
supplies. . .
. . . revise subdivision and sanitary regulations to prohibit individ-
ual systems on small lots, and in groundwater (aquifer) recharge areas,
floodplains, wetlands, and areas with wet, hard or otherwise unsuitable
soils;
. . . replace individual systems with public sewers where contamination
already exists or where it is projected, and where costs are not pro-
hibitive;
. . . establish minimum standards for septic tanks and assure their
acceptable performance by periodic inspection, by monitoring ground-
water quality, and by collecting data on septic tank failures.
Forestry (Silviculture) Activities
Purposes: To decrease the contribution of pollutants (chiefly sediment) to
surface waters from logging operations, logging road construction and
maintenance, and site preparation for reforestation.
-------
-13-
Techniques: To improve forestry practices while minimizing increased operat-
ing costs. . .
. . . require or encourage use of practices that reduce exposure of
bare soil, including patch cutting, reforestation of denuded sites,
sediment retention devices, and similar measures;
. . . prohibit logging of steeply sloped sites or other areas particu-
larly susceptible to erosion;
. . . purchase critical sites where logging should not occur.
Hydrographic Modification
Purposes: To prevent the changes in stream characteristics that might reduce
water quality.
Techniques: To limit channelization, water impoundments, the location and
type of development, and dredging and dredge spoil disposal. . .
. . . require that river and stream channels and their banks be preserved
in their natural state to the greatest degree possible to retain natural
flows;
. . . require the maintenance of stream bank vegetation (or replanting
if disturbed) to prevent pollutants from directly entering the water;
. . . use structural means such as levees, floodways, retarding basins,
and dams when there are no other satisfactory alternatives;
... in impoundments such as reservoirs and man-made ponds, use multi-
level outlets, aeration of releases, and devices to assure mixing of the
water to take full advantage of the water's dilution potential;
. . . enact controls to prevent organic wastes from entering the water,
which contributes to BOD and to the reduction of oxygen available for
fish and other aquatic life;
. . . use zoning and subdivision regulations to control the amount and
location of impervious surfaces on stream banks and consequently the
entrance of more urban runoff;
. . . require dredging permits to prevent, through proper disposal or
treatment, the reintroduction of polluted dredge spoil into the water
source;
. . . use management practices that puts soil to productive use by
creating wildlife habitats and, if appropriate, land reclamation.
-------
-14-
Surface and Subsurface Disposal of Liquid and Solid Waste
Purposes: To prevent ground and surface water pollution by limiting the
gradual flow of liquid pollutants and leaching of solid pollutants from
disposal sites.
Techniques: The measures vary depending on the nature and location of the
source. Selected practices include . . .
for liquid waste disposa^. . .
. . . design and locate disposal lagoons, basins, and pits to make best
use of the natural filtration capacity of the soil and dilution of the
water; avoid unsuitable locations;
. . . modernize, inspect, and repair sewers at regular intervals (five
years is recommended) to minimize leakage;
. . . use corrosion-preventing materials; automatic shutoff valves, and
regular inspections to prevent leakage from tanks and pipelines contain-
ing chemicals, oils, or other potential contaminants;
. . . require that the storage and disposal of brine, waste, and radio-
active materials is designed and located to prevent leaks.
for solid waste disposa^. . .
. . . select disposal sites where soil, groundwater, and geologic con-
ditions will filter and dilute toxic wastes sufficiently to maintain
acceptable water quality standards;
. . . divert streams around disposal sites;
. . . cover existing landfills or dumps with vegetation to minimize
transfer of pollutants by runoff;
. . . use sound landfill practices such as compacting each day's waste
and covering it with a layer of soil.
Salt Water Intrusion
Purposes: To maintain fresh groundwater supplies in coastal areas.
Techniques: To establish and maintain a limit on the amount of water that
can be withdrawn from coastal aquifers to prevent its replacement by
saltwater from the ocean. . .
. . . adopt legislation prescribing the amount of water that can be
removed from the groundwater, based on the rate of replenishment;
. . . inject treated wastewater into the groundwater to maintain the
separation'of freshwater from saltwater.
-------
-15-
Local Experience^
Each of these measures has been tried. Almost all are within the abil-
ity of local governments, through improved governmental practice, through
enacting laws that require private parties to take preventive or remedial ac-
tion, or through education. Some may require new state enabling legislation
and financial help from federal or state sources.
The underlying point is that ways to remedy nonpoint source problems
not only exist, but are generally far less costly than the alternative of
treatment, even when treatment is possible. Most involve land use regula-
tions to prevent one person's actions from harming others. At the same time,
regulations require the one who generates the waste to bear the cost of keep-
ing it out of the general water supply. Decisions to impose these regulations
involve questions not only of how much it will cost or save, but who is re-
sponsible for bearing the costs. These are certainly important issues for
local officials.
Local government has had great experience identifying the problems and
their sources, developing effective and economical solutions using all avail-
able financial sources, and carrying them out. The following examples show
how different localities responded to particular nonpoint problems.
Urban Runoff from New Development. To prevent pollutant-carrying runoff
and sediment from reaching streams, Tallahassee and Leon County, Florida adopted
standards requiring that runoff from new developments not exceed natural flow.
A developer may use a variety of methods to achieve this effect, including re-
taining a portion of land in vegetative cover, constructing parking lots and
roads from porous materials such as gravel, or constructing retention facili-
ties. These measures keep the runoff on-site where it is absorbed into the
ground. The result is a need for a less extensive and expensive stormwater
drainage and treatment system.
Construction Erosion. Michigan instituted controls on construction site
runoff to protect waterways from filling with sediment and hence prevent clogged
channels and maintain aquatic life. A soil erosion plan must be approved
before a permit can be issued for a development of one or more acres or one
within 500 feet of a lake or stream. The plans are based on several princi-
ples: development should fit the topography of the site; the smallest prac-
tical land area should be exposed for the shortest possible time (accomplished
through improved scheduling and coordination of construction operations); and
both on-site and off-site erosion should be minimized with vegetative buffers,
surface roughening, and temporary or permanent runoff controls structures (for
example, diversion ditches, sediment basins, and sediment traps constructed
with sand bags or bales of straw).
County agencies generally enforce the legislation with approval of their
program by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. The law also allows
capable local governments to create an enforcement agency. The enforcement
agency may prepare manuals, design requirements, and permit criteria. Public
agencies such as the highway department enforce sedimentation controls on
their own projects. Administrative costs of county agencies are covered by
permit fees.
-------
-16-
Septic Tanks and Other Sources Affecting Groundwater. The Edwards
Aquifer near San Antonio, Texas, is subject to pollution from a number of
sources, including septic tanks and polluted streams in its recharge area.
Elected officials from several counties served by the Alamo Area Council of
Governments (AACOG) have been involved in a continuina effort to protect the
quality of the aquifer. In March 1974, the Texas Water Quality Board issued
an order to control waste disposal facilities in the recharge zone and strength-
en septic tank regulations. The Edwards Task Force, appointed by the AACOG
executive committee, objected to that order as too weak. They proposed that a
number of stronger proposals be considered:
1. Areas adjacent to recharge zone; The task force urged that controls
apply to certain areas located near the recharge zone. Urban activities in
these "buffer zones" pose a threat to the aquifer's water quality.
2. Effluent standards; To protect the high quality of the water in
the aquifer, the task force has urged adoption of much higher effluent stan-
dards for wastes discharged in the recharge zone. At present, the ground-
water is of such high quality that the only treatment it needs is chlorina-
tion.
3. Construction standards: The task force urged that comprehensive
construction, testing and inspection procedures be required for projects in
the recharge zone and adjacent areas to prevent such mishaps as leakage from
sewer mains carrying raw sewage.
4. Stream standards; Water from the streams flowing across the zone
serves as the major recharge source for the aquifer. The task force proposed
a set of standards for streams entering the recharge zone that would provide
a way to identify pollution sources upstream, to protect the water that flows
across it, and to maintain the present excellent stream quality.
5. Development standards: The task force members feel that minimum
development standards, including minimum sizes for lots with individual wells
and septic tank systems, are necessary before permits are issued for develop-
ment in the recharge zone.
In January 1975, the Texas Water Quality Board adopted an order that re-
solved some of these questions. But local officials in this area continue to
take a highly active role to further protect their groundwater supply. Working
together they have developed a comprehensive proposal, with an imaginative com-
bination of techniques.
Agricultural Erosion and Sedimentation. Conservation practices to re-
duce agricultural erosion have been widely applied through the efforts of the
U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The Latah Soil Conservation District
in Northern Idaho, in cooperation with the SCS and the University of Idaho,
has carried out a program to protect its prime agricultural land from soil
erosion and loss of nutrients. The program combines five conservation prac-
tices to protect the rolling hill farmland: minimum tillage, contour farming,
row cropping, seeding of critical areas, and elimination of summer fallow.
Water quality will be improved by cutting soil erosion between 75 and 90 per
cent on more than 26,000 acres of wheatland.
-------
-17-
Eighteen farms adopted the practice of dividing steep slopes by annually
alternating heavy stubble crops (such as wheat) at higher elevations and
plants with little residue (e.g. peas) below. The Agricultural Stabiliza-
tion and Conservation Service (ASCS) provided some financial aid to these
farmers. ASCS paid $5 per acre for the first year of practice only to farmers
who agreed to maintain the practice for five years. Consideration now is being
given to additional cost-sharing measures.
While it is more expensive to divide the slopes, it has been estimated
that each inch of soil loss is equivalent to a $5 per acre loss of productiv-
ity. As a result of these savings, ether farmers have adopted some of the
practices.
Urban Runoff, Flooding, and Sedimentation. Flooding invariably brings
with it sediment and debris, and when floodwaters pass through an urban area,
oil,,grease, and other urban waste. This may contaminate water downstream by
adding to the organic waste load, depleting the oxygen supply, and disrupting
habitat. Control of flooding, therefore, plays a key role in water quality
improvement, and prevents the loss of property and sometimes life that com-
monly accompanies floods.
Wilmore, a central Kentucky town of 3,500 has suffered from periodic
flood damage that instigated a rash of citizen demands for action. The mayor
felt that some action should be taken, and first considered adding more drain-
age pipes in the main flood-prone area. The consulting planner and engineer
pointed out that such an action would simply pass the problem downstream and
increase the flooding problems of neighboring communities. Consequently, the
city asked their consultants to develop a three-part stormwater management
plan, that included a stormwater facilities plan, a floodplain zoning ordi-
nance, and an application for HDD's Federal Flood Insurance Program.
Two options were considered for stormwater facilities. The first in-
volved a maintenance program to remove sediment, debris, and vegetation from
existing pipes and channels, and installation of detention basins to hold back
stormwater until it could be released safely. The basins also would retain on
site many of the pollutants that otherwise would be carried into the stream.
The second option was building more underground storm sewers. The first option
was selected at an estimated savings in capital costs of 53 per cent, or $800,000
less than concentrating on storm sewers. The maintenance program was put into
effect, detention basins were completed, and indications are that the flooding
problem is on the way to being solved.
Approximately 30 to 40 property owners received direct benefits from
reduced flooding. Others, particularly those downstream, will receive bene-
fits in improved water quality. The same kinds of measures—maintenance of
stormwater collection systems and detention basins—are important in control-
ling the nonpoint source pollution from urban runoff.
Agricultural Runoff and Sedimentation. In Chariton, Iowa, sedimentation
from agricultural runoff had reduced Lake Morris by more than a fourth of its
capacity, stimulated algae growth, and generated bacterial pollution. The
lake was the city's source of potable water. In cooperation with the Chariton
-------
-18-
Valley Resource Conservation and Development Committee, local electad officials
developed a plan to build seven earthen dams to control erosion and keep most
of the polluting sediment out of the lake.
The Soil Conservation Service selected the dam sites based on drainage
patterns, and land rights were obtained by the city through negotiations by
the city manager. The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
financed the dams at a cost of $178,000 as an alternative to reconstructing
the lake at a cost of $700,000. Costs to the city were limited to the costs
of fencing around the ponds at each dam to keep out animals, and stocking
the ponds with fish. The city expects to save $8,000 annually in water treat-
ment costs due to the improvement in water quality. And a portion of adjacent
U.S. .Highway 34 no longer washes out during storms, thus reducing road main-
tenance and reconstruction costs.
Summary
Neither this list of methods nor the examples show all the solutions to
nonpoint source problems. They do show that solutions are possible, and that
localities are implementing them now through careful planning and management,
cooperation among governmental officials and citizens, and use of available
powers and financial aids.
The examples clearly indicate that in almost every case solutions can
be found close to the source. Most important, these solutions are less costly
to the public and private landowners than the alternative of major construc-
tion or treatment. For example, it was far less costly in Chariton, Iowa, to
build erosion control dams than to reconstruct the lake. In many cases there
are secondary benefits from controls at the sources In Wilmore, Kentucky the
program improved both flood control and water quality. In Latah, Idaho agri-
cultural productivity is maintained. Moreover, the actions to solve these
problems were initiated by local officials and could not have succeeded without
their efforts.
Finally, there is some evidence that cleaning up waterways will increase
the value of nearby property. Along the Willamette River near Portland, Oregon,
a major cleanup effort has raised riverfront property values by as much as
25 per cent. It has been estimated that cleaning up all our waterways would
raise residential and recreational property values by as much as $3 billion
nationally.
The 208 program can provide tha forum to examine and carry out these
kinds of programs throughout the country. The final section of this booklet
tells how 208 works and how local officials can become involved in the program.
-------
208: THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WATER QUALITY
The 208 program is designed to combine the strengths and knowledge of
all levels of government to find the best possible solutions for our most
pressing water pollution problems. Although the planning is now being con-
ducted at the state and areawide levels, local government holds the key to
successful action. By getting involved, local officials can help shape the
results. And it is in the interest of areawide and state agencies to involve
them so the program will work.
Areas and plannning agencies for the 208 program usually are designated
by the governors after consulting with locally elected officials. EPA
approves the designation if the area is one "which, as a result of urban indus-
trial concentration or other factors, [has] substantial water quality control
problems." In most cases, the designated planning agency is one that already
exists in the area—a regional planning commission, a council of governments,
or other body. In a few cases, the existing agency's area does not conform
to the problem area (for example, a watershed) and a special agency has been
established by joint efforts of state, local and federal officials. In the
other areas—often referred to as nondesignated areas—the state assumes
direct planning responsibility.
Each 208 program's structure will vary within the general guidelines
provided by EPA but all offer opportunities for local officials to get in-
volved in decision making. In designated areas, there usually are several
important bodies and activities: the designated agency and its board, a policy
advisory committee, citizen and technical advisory committees, and a public
participation program. For designated substate areas, states must establish
at least one policy advisory commitee which must include local elected offi-
cials.
Getting Involved in the Program
Designated Areawide Agency. The designated areawide agency, and its
board or council plays a central role in the 208 program. This agency must
manage the planning program, carry out the citizen participation activities,
and work with local decision makers in developing the plan and management
program. This process may include developing model regulations and other
measures for solving nonpoint source pollution problems. The agency and its
board must approve the plan before submitting it to the governor or state
agency and then to the EPA.
The designated agency's board must be composed at least partly of local
government officials, who are thus assured a major role in the overall direc-
tion of the program and in the final decisions. Many important questions that
set the stage for decisions are considered by advisory committees, and it is
important for local officials to become involved in these aspects of the pro-
gram as well.
-19-
-------
-20-
Policy Advisory Conunittees. The designated planning agencies must create
a policy advisory committee (PAC) to help the staff obtain the views of know-
ledgeable agencies and citizens. This committee normally includes represen-
tatives of federal departments such as Agriculture, Interior, and the Army,
as well as the state and general public and a large representation of local
officials (at the state level, at least half the members of the PAC usually
must be local officials.) The committee also may include representatives
from agencies, including local government, responsible for other environmental
programs, particularly those that may help manage the chosen program.
Citizen and Technical Advisory Committees. Citizen and technical advi-
sory comittees will be established in most programs to enable the agency to
seek special help or advice on specific issues: In some cases, they may be
bubcommittees responsible to the policy committee; in others they may be es-
tablished by the designated agency's board or may be standing committees of
the "parent" agency.
Public Participation Activities. A well-developed and effective public
participation program is a requirement of 208 agencies. EPA's 208 guidelines
prdvicTe that the elected officials and representatives of local, state and
federal agencies who must approve or disapprove the final plan should be in-
volved in all significant planning decisions. Forms of public participation
will include the work of advisory committees, informational meetings, hearings
and other activities.
A call to the 208 agency should be sufficient to find out what roles a
local official can play in public participation activities. Most agencies
have hired public participation specialists to provide information to and
seek the help of both public officials and the general public. In many cases
the agency will have sought out local officials early and they already will
be involved. In others, the sheer number and complexity of local governments
coupled with the problems of starting up a new program will indicate that
local officials should take the initiative.
In the nondesignated areas, the state 208 agency should be contacted
for detailed information.
The Planning Process. Issues of vital concern to local communities
will be considered throughout the planning process. These questions will be
considered by the public at large, the advisory committees, and the agency
board. Involvement in each phase is very important. Decisions made and con-
clusions reached at one stage will affect the next stage. While local govern-
ment has a final review opportunity, their review of suggestions in the early
stages will greatly affect the outcome. The process most often will have
several stages.
1. Establishment of goals and objectives: This is the stage at which
basic information is collected and initial priorities set for solving various
water quality problems. Even this early stage is likely to include considera-
tion of the use of land use controls, regional treatment, land disposal of
sludge, and other actions. While choices and priorities may change, decisions
here will shape the final results and merit much attention. Here is where
communities will begin to see how water quality objectives can reinforce, or
-------
-21-
in some cases conflict, with other local objectives. For example, there may
be the traditional conflicts between the environmental goals of the 208 pro-
gram and local economic development goals that will need resolving early, and
as plans progress.
2. Design of alternatives: The agency must consider a variety of
solutions to both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. For nonpoint
sources, the agency will have to consider the use of various land use control
measures such as zoning or sedimentation controls, changes in municipal prac-
tices on such matters as street cleaning, and the other measures discussed
earlier. The roles of various agencies as ongoing management bodies for im-
plementing different aspects of the plan will also be considered. For point
sources, alternatives will relate to location, impact, timing, and level of
treatment including the issue of regional treatment facilities.
Since many solutions are likely to be areawide in nature and require
consistent actions in several localities, the intergovernmental questions
considered at this point will have a great impact on local government. Full
involvement in this debate is essential if a practical and acceptable combina-
tion of local and areawide implementation is to be developed.
3. Impact assessment: The social, economic, environmental, financial,
and institutional impacts of the alternative plans are to be assessed before
the agency chooses a recommended plan. The Environmental Protection Agency
recommends that the selected plan be the least costly one, and that it in-
corporates the best management practices for nonpoint sources—unless there
are other significant impacts that logically suggest that some other plan is
superior. In addition, the final recommendations may cover financing methods,
recommended changes in local ordinances, and other local government actions.
It is particularly important to consider the impact of potential nonpoint
source solutions on local development plans and management practices during
this phase. It is also critical to assure that the proposed financing and
regulatory schemes are within local capabilities, and that new proposed manage-
ment systems have support.
The Approval Process. Following the assessment of impacts, the agency's
board will select a plan. It then will submit this plan to each local govern-
ing body which will have 30 days to review and forward its comments to the
agency. It it takes no action, a favorable recommendation will be assumed.
Local review is not a veto, however. Even if one or more localities disapprove,
the agency may submit the plan along with local comments to the state review-
ing agency or the governor for review and certification of approval. EPA
strongly encourages the 208 agency to resolve all local concerns before the
plan is submitted to the state.
Following state certification, the plan is submitted to EPA and, if
accepted and approved by the agency, becomes the basis for all future waste-
water treatment grants and for the issuance of National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permits. In other words, the plan has real authority be-
hind it because both the grant money and the permits must be consistent with
it. EPA will consider local comments and will not approve any plan that does
not include the proposed designation of management agencies.
-------
-22-
The review and approval process provides one last opportunity for local
government involvement in the planning program. If, however, there has not
been full participation at earlier stages, it is unlikely that a plan and pro-
gram that satisfies local needs will be formulated. The earlier activities
will set the agenda for the final plan. Getting involved at the end of the
process, rather than at the beginning, may either limit opportunities to in-
fluence the result, or make it impossible to produce a plan within the two
years provided.
Summary
The 208 program has been structured to provide several opportunities for
local officials to assure that their problems, needs, and views are incorpor-
ated in the recommended plan for improving water quality. The area planning
agencies include local official on their governing body; the policy and tech-
nical advisory committees provide an opportunity for additional public offi-
cial input; the citizen or public participation activities mandated are exten-
sive and open. It is important that meaningful local government involvement
take place.
There is a great opportunity to solve major local problems in the area
of water quality; there is an equally great danger that without local involve-
ment the recommendations will prove impractical because many of the solutions,
especially controls on nonpoint sources, will require action by local govern-
ment. Involvement in most programs will involve initiation by the designated
agency, but even where that does not occur, local officials should take the
initiative to ensure that they have maximum possible impact on the plan and
recommendations—and that they receive the most help possible in solving the
water pollution problems of their communities.
Who to Contact
Governmental: 208 Agencies, Regional Agencies, Council of Governments,
Regional Economic Development or Transportation Agencies
State Offices, Water Resources Division
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Regional Offices
Non-Governmental:
National Association of Counties (NACO) (or your state league)
1735 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 785-9577
-------
-23-
National Association of Regional Councils (NARC)
1700 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 296-5253
National Conference of State Legislatures
1405 Curtis Street, 23rd Floor
Denver, Colorado
(303) 623-6600
National League of Cities (or your state league)
1620 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 293-7300
National Recreation and Parks Association
1601 N. Kent Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
(703) 525-0606
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 797-6800
Izaak Walton League of America
1800 N. Kent Street, Suite 806
Arlington, Virginia 22209
(703) 528-1818
League of Women Voters of the United States
1730 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 296-1770
Sierra Club
1050 Mills Tower
San Francisco, California 94104
(915) 981-8634
Urban Environment Conference
1714 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 462-0660
. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 1977-241-037/17
------- |