REPpRT TO CONGRESS
Public Comment and Review Draft
WATER SUPPLY-WASTEWATER
TREATMENT COORDINATION STUDY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF DRINKING WATER
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Contract No. 68-01-5O33
August 1979
-------
REPpRT TO CONGRESS
Public Comment and Review Draft
WATER SUPPLY-WASTEWATER
TREATMENT COORDINATION STUDY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF DRINKING WATER
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Contract No. 68-01 -5033
August 1979
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xii
LIST OF TABLES xv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xix
PART ONE
Chapter I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
A. Scope 1
B. Recommendations 4
1. Strengthen the Water Quality Management Program ... 4
2. Designate a Lead Federal Agency for Municipal Water
Conservation 5
3. Modification to the Construction Grants Program ... 6
4. Synthesize and Coordinate Assistance to Small Water
Supply Systems 6
5. State and Local Initiatives 7
6. Improvements in Ongoing Activities and Programs ... 7
C. Study Process and Organization of This Report 8
D. Part 1 Assessment: Major Findings 9
1. Drinking Water Availability 9
2. Water Quality 10
3. Conservation and Reuse 12
4. Interrelationships and Institutions 13
E. Part 2 Priority Analysis: Major Findings 14
1. Coordination Through the Construction Grants Program. 14
2. Coordination Through the Water Quality Management
Program 15
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
3. Municipal Water Conservation 16
4. Reuse of Municipal Effluents 17
5. Groundwater Management and Integration with Surface
Waters 18
6. Small Water Supply Systems 19
Chapter II EXISTING LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK 21
A. Legal/Administrative Overview 21
1. State Water Law 21
2. Federal Authority on Water Allocation 24
3. Federal Water Quality Law 26
4. State Water Quality Law/Administration 27
B. Institutional Overview 28
1. Water Supply 28
2. Wastewater Treatment 30
3. Executive and Legislative Demands 31
C. President's Water Policy 32
D. Summary/Findings 36
References 38
Chapter III THE AVAILABLE WATER RESOURCE AND ITS USE
A. National Availability 40
B. Present and Projected Use 45
1. "Offstream" Water Use 45
2. In-Stream Uses 51
C. Comparison of National Availability and Use 53
D. Regional, Subregional, and Local Availability and Use . . 53
E. Domestic and Commercial Water Quantity Problems 57
-n-
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
1. Inadequate Water Supply 59
2. Groundwater 61
3. Drought 63
4. Population Growth 64
5. Conservation 64
6. Reuse 66
7. Water Consumptive Waste Management Technologies .... 66
F. Summary/Findings 67
References 70
Chapter IV PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF WATER QUALITY 72
A. Key Legislation and Programs 72
1. Federal Legislation 72
a. Safe Drinking Water Act (1974/77) 72
b. Federal Water Pollution Control Act/
Clean Water Act (1972/77) 73
c. Other Acts 74
2. Federal Programs 75
a. Federal Water Pollution Control Act/Clean Water Act
Programs 75
b. Safe Drinking Water Programs 77
B. Water Quality Standards 78
1. Drinking Water Regulations and Standards 78
2. In-Stream Water Quality Standards 82
C. Treatment Technology 84
1. Water Supply 84
2. Municipal Wastewater Treatment 86
3. Nonpoint Source Control 92
D. Water Quality Problems 93
-in-
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
1. Drinking Water 93
2. In-stream Quality 97
3. Groundwater Pollution 103
4. Summary/Findings 105
References 107
Chapter V WATER QUANTITY/QUALITY RELATIONSHIPS 109
A. Overview of Relationships 109
1. Surface Waters 109
2. Groundwater Ill
B. Planning Activities 112
C. Water Allocation/Water Quality Coordination Study .... 113
D. Problem Areas in Water Quantity/Water Quality Coordination 114
1. Groundwater Withdrawals 114
2. Surface and Groundwater Relationships 114
3. Artificial Recharge of Groundwater 115
4. Treatment Technology • 117
5. Intake-Discharge Locations 118
E. Summary/Findings 119
Chapter VI COST, FINANCING AND ENERGY CONSIDERATIONS 120
A. Water Supply 120
1. Cost 120
2. Financing Water Systems 124
a. Federal Financing 124
b. State Financing Sources 125
B. Wastewater Management 125
1. Costs 125
2. Financing Wastewater Treatment Systems 129
-iv-
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
a. Federal Financing 129
b. State Financing 133
C. Energy Considerations 133
D. Opportunities and Problems 134
1. Coordination Opportunities 134
2. Coordination Constraints 135
3. Water Supply Availability 136
E. Summary/Findings 138
References 140
Chapter VII PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN SELECTING PRIORITIES 141
A. Introduction 141
B. Regional Workshops: Involving the Public in the Study
Process 141
1. Preparation/Dissemination of Discussion Paper .... 141
2. Structuring the Workshop Format 142
3. Data Collection and Synthesis 142
4. Coordinating Public Views with Study Team Efforts. . . 143
C. Public Views: Highlights and Observations 144
1. Adequacy and Dependability of Water Supplies for
Domestic Use 144
2. Safety of Drinking Water Supplies 145
3. Conservation and Reuse 147
4. Coordination as a Condition to Construction Grants . . 149
D. Summary/Findings 152
E. Focusing the Study 153
1. Coordination Through Major Existing Federal Programs . 154
2. Municipal Conservation and Reuse 155
-v-
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
3. Groundwater Management 155
4. Small Water Supply Systems 156
5. Issues Not Selected 156
PART TWO
Chapter VIII INVESTIGATION OF COORDINATION OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH
MAJOR FEDERAL PROGRAMS 158
A. Introduction 158
1. Types of Coordination Opportunities 159
2. National Extent of Opportunities 159
B. Coordination Through the Construction Grants Process .... 163
1. Existing Mechanisms 163
a. Project Identification and State Priority List . . . 166
b. Grant Application and Award 166
c. Facility Plan 167
d. Final Review and Approval 168
e. Summary 169
2. Case Studies 169
a. St. Petersburg, Florida 169
b. Sacramento, California 172
c. Northglenn, Colorado 176
3. Effectiveness and Constraints 180
a. Coordinated Planning for a Common Surface and/or
Groundwater Unit 181
b. Coordinated Facility Planning for Overlappying
Service Areas 182
c. Reuse of Municipal Wastewater 183
d. Municipal Water Conservation/Wastewater Flow
Reduction 184
-vi-
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
4. Summary 185
C. Coordination Through Water Quality And Water Resources
Planning 185
1. Existing Federal Mechanisms 185
a. Water Quality Management Planning 186
b. Level B (Section 209) Planning 189
2. Examples 192
a. Old Colony Planning Council 208 192
b. Spokane 208 Aquifer Study 195
c. Twin Cities (Minnesota) Level B 197
3. Evaluation 200
D. Major Findings 202
References 204
Chapter IX MUNICIPAL WATER CONSERVATION AND REUSE 206
A. Introduction 206
B. Municipal Water Conservation 207
1. Present Status 208
a. Federal Activities 208
b. State and Local Initiatives 212
c. Fixture Manufacturers 213
d. Summary Status 214
2. Amounts of Municipal Water Use 214
3. Potential for Municipal Conservation 215
4. Realistic Conservation 219
5. Conservation Impacts 220
6. Implementation Mechanisms 224
7. Impediments 226
8. Findings 228
-vn-
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
C. Reuse of Municipal Effluents 230
1. Present Status of Municipal Wastewater Reuse 231
a. Reuse Now Occurring 231
b. Examples of Reuse 233
c. Federal Activities 234
d. State Activities 237
e. Summary Status 238
2. Potential for Reuse 238
3. Advantages of Reuse 241
4. Impediments to Reuse 242
5. Findings 246
References 248
Chapter X GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRATION WITH SURFACE WATERS 250
A. Overview 250
1. Relationship to Parts 1 and 3 250
2. Types of Problems 250
3. Relationship to Other Studies 251
a. President's Water Policy 251
b. Groundwater Interagency Task Force 252
c. Water Allocation/Water Quality Coordination Study . 253
d. Groundwater Policy Committee of EPA 254
B. Extent and Severity of Problems 254
1. Overdrafting 254
a. Disruption of Water Supplies 255
b. Land Subsidence 256
c. Saltwater Intrusion 256
2. Contamination by Waste Disposal 261
a. Impoundments 261
-vi
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
b. Landfills and Dumps 266
c. Undergound Injection Wells 269
d. Nonpoint Sources 276
3. Surface Water Interactions 277
4. Impact of Problems on Drinking Water 281
C. Case Histories 283
1. Quantity Problems 283
a. San Bernardino Valley, California 283
b. Fresno Irrigation District, California 285
c. Northeastern Illinois Regional Water Supply Plan . . 287
2. Quality Problems 289
a. Edwards Underground Reservoir 289
b. Long Island Groundwater 290
D. Major Findings 292
References 295
Chapter XI SMALL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS 300
A. Introduction 300
B. Profile of Small Systems 300
1. Population Served and Number of Systems 301
2. Regional Distribution 303
3. Source of Water 303
4. Ownership 305
C. Extent and Severity of the Problems 305
1. Quality Problems 305
2. Quantity Problems 309
D. Factors Affecting Problem Recognition and Correction .... 310
1. Recognition of Inadequate Conditions 312
-IX-
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
a. Self-Monitoring 312
b. Regulatory Agency Monitoring and Inspection 313
c. Routine Operation and Maintenance 314
d. Physical Plant Failure or Capacity and Pressure
Shortages 314
e. Management and Supervision 315
2. Correction of Inadequate Conditions 315
a. Capital Improvements 315
b. Increased Operating Expenditures 317
c. Source Protection or New Source Development 317
d. Improved Operation and Maintenance Capabilities . . . 318
e. Regionalization/Consolidation 319
f. Identification and Evaluation of Options 320
E. Current Sources of Assistance 320
1. Financial Assistance 320
2. Technical/Administrative Assistance 321
3. Operation and Maintenance Training and Certification . . 324
4. Regionalization/Consol idation Assistance 326
F. Major Findings 326
References 331
PART THREE
Chapter XII FORMULATION OF PRIORITY ACTIONS AND SYNTHESIS OF
RECOMMENDATIONS 333
A. Introduction 333
B. Context for Formulation of Actionable Items 333
1. Institutional and Legal Framework 334
2. Public Workshop Results 335
C. Formulation of Priority Actions 336
-x-
-------
CONTENTS (Concluded)
1. Coordination Opportunities in EPA Programs 336
2. Opportunities for Municipal Conservation 338
3. Opportunities for Municipal Reuse 341
4. Opportunities to Improve Groundwater Management .... 343
5. Opportunities to Assist Small Water Supply Systems . . . 345
D. Synthesis of Recommendations 347
1. Strengthening the Water Quality Management Program . . . 347
2. Modify the Construction Grants Program 348
3. Designate a Federal Lead Agency for Municipal Water
Conservation 350
4. Synthesize and Coordinate Assistance to Small Public
Water Supply Systems 350
5. Encourage State and Local Initiatives 351
6. Improve Ongoing EPA Programs and Activities 352
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Appendix A BASES FOR ESTIMATING MUNICIPAL WATER CONSERVATION
POTENTIAL A-l
1. Residential In-House Conservation Potential A-l
2. Residential Outside Conservation Potential A-5
3. Conservation Potential in Other Municipal Uses A-10
References A-l 2
Appendix B DETAILED ANALYSES OF THE "REALISTIC" WATER CONSERVATION
SCENARIO B-l
1. Typical Family of Four B-l
2. The Community B-2
a. With No Population Growth and Large Fixed Costs for Water
Supply B-2
b. With Moderate Growth and Need for New Capacity B-3
c. Regarding Community Balance of Payments B-8
References B-ll
-xi-
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 3.1 WATER BUDGET OF THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES
"1975" CONDITIONS 41
Figure 3.2 WATER RESOURCES REGIONS 44
Figure 3.3 TOTAL FRESHWATER WITHDRAWALS AND CONSUMPTION
BY FUNCTIONAL USE 47
Figure 3.4 IN-STREAM FLOW APPROXIMATIONS FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE
AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL STREAMFLOW 52
Figure 3.5 INADEQUATE SURFACE WATER SUPPLY AND RELATED PROBLEMS 56
Figure 3.6 GROUNDWATER OVERDRAFT AND RELATED PROBLEMS .... 58
Figure 4.1 QUALITY OF DRINKING WATER PROBLEMS 95
Figure 4.2 SURFACE WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS FROM POINT SOURCES
(MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE) 98
Figure 4.3 SURFACE WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS FROM POINT SOURCES
(DISPERSED) 99
Figure 4.4 SURFACE WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS — EUTROPHICATION 100
Figure 4.5 BASINS AFFECTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY POLLUTION
FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES 102
Figure 4.6 GROUNDWATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS 104
Figure 8.1 WATER-WASTEWATER INTERACTIONS: SURFACE WATERS. . . 160
Figure 8.2 WASTEWATER-WATER INTERACTIONS: GROUNDWATER .... 161
Figure 8.3 THE FACILITY PLANNING PROCESS 165
Figure 8.4 CASE STUDY OF ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA 171
Figure 8.5 CASE STUDY OF SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 174
Figure 8.6 CASE STUDY OF NORTHGLENN, COLORADO 177
Figure 8.7 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT UNDER NEW EPA REGULATIONS 187
-xn-
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)
Figure 8.8
Figure 8.9
Figure 8.10
Figure 9.1
Figure 10.1
Figure 10.2
Figure 10.3
Figure 10.4
Figure 10.5
Figure 10.6
Figure 10.7
Figure 10.8
Figure 10.9
Figure 11.1
Figure 11.2
Figure 11.3
Figure 11.4
STUDY AREA FOR OLD COLONY PLANNING COUNCIL 208 . . 193
EXTENT OF SPOKANE VALLEY - RATHDRUM PRAIRIE
AQUIFER 196
WATER QUALITY IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER BELOW
MINNEAPOLIS-SAINT PAUL ASSUMING 7-DAY, 10 YEAR
LOW FLOW AND COMPLETION OF PLANNED WASTEWATER
FACILITIES 199
AVERAGE U.S. COMMUNITY DOMESTIC AND COMMERCIAL
WITHDRAWALS PER CAPITA 216
MAP SHOWING AREAS WITH GROUNDWATER MINING AND
POTENTIAL FOR SALTWATER INTRUSION 258
BRINE DISPOSAL METHODS USED IN THE MAJOR OIL
PRODUCING STATES 259
USE OF IMPOUNDMENTS 263
LOCATION OF IMPOUNDMENT SITES BY STATE 264
SLUDGE VOLUME DISPOSED OF IN MUNICIPAL AND INDUS-
TRIAL LANDFILLS 267
USE OF INJECTION WELLS IN 1979 272
LOCATION OF CLASS I INJECTION WELLS BY STATE ... 274
LOCATION OF DOMESTIC SEPTIC SYSTEMS 278
LOCATION OF RIVER VALLEY AQUIFERS 280
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF SMALL COMMUNITY AND
NONCOMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS 304
RANGE OF PROBLEM RECOGNITION AND CORRECTION MECH-
ANISMS FOR WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS 311
COMPARISON OF TYPICAL FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
FOR COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS 316
OCCURRENCE OF REGIONAL-TYPE WATER SUPPLY ENTITIES 327
-XI11-
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS (Concluded)
Figure B.I IMPACT ON WATER SUPPLY OF 20 PERCENT CONSERVATION
IN A COMMUNITY WITH MODERATE GROWTH B-4
Figure B.2 IMPACT ON WASTEWATER OF 20 PERCENT CONSERVATION
IN A COMMUNITY WITH MODERATE GROWTH B-5
Figure B.3 ESTIMATES OF WATER-RELATED MONEY FLOW IN A TYPICAL
COMMUNITY WITHOUT CONSERVATION B-9
-xiv-
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table III-l STREAMFLOW FREQUENCY - "1975" 43
Table III-2 GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS AND PERCENTAGE OF
OVERDRAFT: "1975" 46
Table III-3 TOTAL FRESH WATER WITHDRAWALS AND CONSUMPTION,
BY FUNCTIONAL USE, FOR THE 21 WATER RESOURCES
REGIONS: "1975", 2000 48
Table III-4 TOTAL FRESH- AND SALINE-WATER WITHDRAWALS: "1975" . 50
Table 111-5 COMPARISON OF WATER AVAILABILITY AND USE IN THE
CONTERMINOUS U.S 53
Table III-6 COMPARISON OF REGIONAL WATER AVAILABILITY AND
PROJECTED USE 54
Table IV-1 PRIMARY DRINKING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 79
Table IV-2 PROPOSED SECONDARY DRINKING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 80
Table IV-3 IN-STREAM WATER QUALITY MINIMUM STANDARDS 83
Table IV-4 PERCENT OF SYSTEMS USING VARIOUS STANDARD
TREATMENTS — 1975 85
Table IV-5 EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT METHODS IN REMOVING
BACTERIA, VIRUSES AND TURBIDITY (APPROXIMATE PERCENT
REMOVAL) 87
Table IV-6 EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT METHODS FOR REMOVING
INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS (APPROXIMATE PERCENT REMOVAL) 88
Table IV-7 APPROXIMATE PERCENT ORGANICS REMOVED BY WATER
TREATMENT PROCESSES 90
Table IV-8 STATUS OF COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM COMPLIANCE WITH
PRIMARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS FOR MICROBIOLOGI-
CAL MCL '94
Table IV-9 STATUS OF SURVEYED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS 96
Table IV-10 PERCENTAGE OF BASINS AFFECTED BY TYPE OF NONPOINT
SOURCE 101
-xv-
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Table VI-1 COMPARATIVE COSTS OF WATER SUPPLY 121
Table VI-2 BREAKDOWN OF OPERATING COSTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE
SYSTEMS 122
Table VI-3 AVERAGE AGE OF WATER SYSTEMS IN 1976
(BY POPULATION SIZE) 123
Table IV-4 STATE PROGRAMS FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY 126
Table IV-5 AVERAGE COST OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT 128
Table IV-6 WASTEWATER FACILITIES NEEDS 130
Table VI-7 STATE PROGRAMS FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER FACILITIES 132
Table VIII-1 DISCHARGED WASTEWATER REACHING SURFACE WATER SUPPLY
INTAKES 162
Table VIII-2 IDENTIFIED NEEDS - MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY AND
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT 163
Table IX-1 MUNICIPAL WATER USES IN 1975 214
Table IX-2 MUNICIPAL WATER CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 218
Table IX-3 WATER USE RESULTS WITH REALISTIC CONSERVATION ... 221
Table IX-4 MAJOR FAMILY COMMUNITY AND NATIONAL IMPACTS OF
REALISTIC MUNCIPAL CONSERVATION 223
Table IX-5 PRESENT REUSE OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER 232
Table IX-6 PRESENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE SIGNIFICANCE OF
RECYCLING AND REUSE 239
Table X-l TYPES OF SALTWATER INTRUSION PROBLEMS BY STATES . . 256
Table X-2 MAJOR CONSTITUENTS IN OIL FIELD BRINES 260
Table X-3 EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION - IMPOUNDMENTS 265
Table X-4 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF DIGESTED DOMESTIC SLUDGE . 268
Table X-5 EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION BY LANDFILLS 270
-XVI-
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Table X-6 SELECTED WASTE COMPONENTS BY INDUSTRY 275
Table X-7 SURVEY OF AQUIFER CONTAMINATION BY NONPOINT SOURCES 276
Table X-8 LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL MEASURES . . 282
Table XI-1 DISTRIBUTION BY WATER SYSTEM CATEGORY OF POPULATIONS
SERVED, MAXIMUM USE, AND NUMBER OF SYSTEMS, 1978 . 301
Table XI-2 DISTRIBUTION OF SMALL COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS BY
PRIMARY SOURCE 303
Table XI-3 DISTRIBUTION OF SMALL COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS BY
OWNERSHIP 305
Table XI-4 IPDWR VIOLATIONS FOR COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS ... 306
Table XI-5 MICROBIOLOGICAL VIOLATIONS AND DISINFECTION PRACTICES
OF SMALL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS 307
Table XI-6 ESTIMATES OF POPULATION AFFECTED BY IPDWR VIOLATIONS,
COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS 308
Table XI-7 FEDERALLY SPONSORED SOURCES OF TECHNICAL OR ADMIN-
ISTRATIVE ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS 322
Table XI-8 STATES PARTICIPATING IN NRWA PROGRAM BY EPA REGION 323
Table A-l MUNICIPAL, RESIDENTIAL IN-HOUSE WATER USE AND CON-
SERVATION POTENTIAL (National Averages) A-2
Table A-2 RESIDENTIAL IN-HOUSE CONSERVATION POTENTIAL .... A-3
Table A-3 RESIDENTIAL IN-HOUSE CONSERVATION POTENTIAL
(ECONOMICS) A-6
Table A-4 OUTSIDE WATER USE FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF RESIDENCES . A-7
Table A-5 RESIDENTIAL OUTSIDE CONSERVATION POTENTIAL A-8
Table A-6 RESIDENTIAL OUTSIDE CONSERVATION POTENTIAL
(ECONOMICS) A-9
Table B-l TYPICAL FAMILY OF FOUR — CONSERVATION RETROFITTING
FOR THE REALISTIC SCENARIO B-2
-XVTI-
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Table B-2 ECONOMIC IMPACTS FROM REALISTIC CONSERVATION
SCENARIO IN A GROWING COMMUNITY B-7
Table B-3 COMMUNITY BALANCE OF PAYMENTS CHANGES DUE TO
CONSERVATION B-10
-xvm-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study and report to Congress was the overall responsibility
of George W. Denning, Project Officer and Staff Economist of EPA's
Office of Drinking Water. Mr. Denning coordinated both with the con-
tractor and with the EPA Task Force, and monitored the day-to-day work
effort. The Task Force, established by Thomas C. Jorling, Assistant
Administrator for Water and Hazardous Wastes, was under the leadership
of Chairman James H. McDermott, Senior Physical Science and Engineering
Advisor in the Office of Drinking Water. Responsible for coordinating
various offices within EPA Headquarters and with the Regional Offices,
and for providing policy direction to the Project Officer and the
contractor, Task Force members from Headquarters included: Steve Cordle,
Office of Air, Land and Water Use; Richard Hager, Office of Regional
and Intergovernmental Operations; Alan Magazine, Office of Planning and
Management; Myron Tiemens (Alternate, Carol Wegrzynowicz), Office of Water
Program Operations; Peter Wise (Alternate, Jerry Kotas), Office of Water,
Planning and Standards. Regional representatives on the Task Force
included: Frank Covington, Water Division Director, Region IX; Gary
Hutchinson, Water Supply Chief, Region IV; Paul Walker, Engineering
Branch Chief, Region VI. Several Task Force members played important
roles in the organization and delivery of, as well as synthesis of,
findings from the regional workshops.
Contractor on the study was INTASA, Inc. of Menlo Park, California.
Subcontractors and consultants were: Hydrocomp, Inc., Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.,
Tetra Tech, Inc., Joe G. Moore, Jr., and Ray K. Linsley. Nicolaos
V. Arvanitidis, President of INTASA and Study Manager was responsible
for directing the technical team, coordinating with EPA and the Task
Force, organizing the Public Workshops, and synthesizing recommendations
to Congress in coordination with EPA, the technical team, and consultants
and in response to Congressional request and public participation results.
A Core Management Group, responsible for leading the work effort in
their respective firms, providing advice to the Study Manager, and meeting
-xix-
-------
periodically with the technical team included: Frank L. Burton, Metcalf
& Eddy, Marc C. Lorenzen, Tetra Tech, Joe G. Moore, Jr. and Ray K. Linsley.
Key technical team members, responsible for coordinating with pro-
ject personnel in the respective firms and for maintaining quality control
during the day-to-day assessment, public participation, analysis, syn-
thesis and report writing phases of the study included: Bill Betchart
and Sally Davenport of INTASA, Don Schroeder of Metcalf & Eddy, and Karen
Summers, Tetra Tech.
In addition to their role in the Core Management Group, Messrs.
Moore and Linsley provided support during the writing phases of the study
and on legal/institutional issues, water supply and water quality concerns,
policy options, and the final recommendations.
EPA regional support in the public workshops was provided by personnel
in Regions II, IV, V, VI and IX. Those who played a key role in organi-
zing workshops in the respective regions include (in order of sequence
in which workshops were held): Beverly Reed and Rick Hoffman, San Fran-
cisco; Ken Kirkpatrick and Warren Morris, Dallas; Hagen Thompson, Atlanta;
Andrea Schlarew and Margaret Davis, New York; Ken Banaszek, Chicago.
Participation in the public workshops and input to the study team
and EPA was provided by personnel from Federal, state, regional and local
agencies, public and privately-owned utilities and industry as well as
by representatives of the public at large.
-xx-
-------
Chapter 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Scope
This report is submitted to Congress by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act (Section
1442(c)) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the
Clean Water Act (Section 516(e)). It documents a national assessment
and analysis of issues related to: (1) the adequacy and dependability
of safe drinking water supplies, including quantity, quality, cost, and
treatment processes; and, (2) opportunities to coordinate water supply
and municipal wastewater treatment plans. The study builds on recent
data and results of public workshops held throughout the country to
address more specifically: (1) coordination mechanisms available through
major Federal programs; (2) advantages and disadvantages of conservation
and reuse; (3) contamination of groundwater resources and management
improvements needed; and, (4) problems unique to small water supply
systems. Options for modification of program emphasis, revision of
existing legislation, or appropriation of funds are also discussed. This
responds to the following statutory directives:
"Not later than eighteen months after the date of enactment
of this subsection, the Administrator shall submit a report
to Congress on the present and projected future availability
of an adequate and dependable supply of safe drinking water to
meet present and projected future need. Such report shall in-
clude an analysis of the future demand for drinking water and
other competing uses of water, the availability and use of
methods to conserve water or reduce demand, the adequacy of
present measures to assure adequate and dependable supplies
of safe drinking water, and the problems (financial, legal,
or other) which need to be resolved in order to assure the
availability of such supplies for the future. Existing inform-
ation and data compiled by the National Water Commission and
others shall be utilized to the extent possible." (PL 93-523
Section 1442(c) as amended by PL 95-190 Section 3(3).
-------
"The Administrator, in cooperation with the states, includ-
ing water pollution control agencies, and other water pol-
lution planning agencies, and water supply and water re-
sources agencies of the States and the United States shall
submit to Congress, within two years of the date of enact-
ment of this section, a report with recommendations for
legislation on a program to require coordination between
water supply and wastewater control plans as a condition to
grants for construction of treatment works under this Act.
No such report shall be submitted except after opportunity
for public hearings on such proposed report." (PL 92-500
Section 516(e) as amended by PL 95-217 Section 72).
The scope of these legislative directives is quite broad. In sev-
eral instances there is overlap with other Congressional requests for
reports or with current activities which are addressing specific prob-
lem areas. In those cases, this report and, in particular, the recom-
mendations defer to the reports and activities that are more narrow in
scope and, consequently contain more depth. Major ongoing activities
which supplement this report include:
. Water Allocation/Water Quality Coordination Study -- an
EPA report to Congress, in response to Section 102(d) of
the Clean Water Act, addressing the relationship between
programs under that Act and programs which state and
Federal agencies use to allocate quantities of water.
Draft copies of the report are available and the final
report will be completed in September 1979.
. Water Utility Financing Study -- an EPA report to Congress
in response to Section 1442(a)(3)(B) of the Safe Drinking
Water Act estimating the cost of compliance with primary
drinking water regulations for both large and small com-
munities and studying potential financing mechanisms.
The study is underway and should be completed by Septem-
ber, 1979.
. Proposed Orgam'cs Regulations — an EPA activity now in
progress to update the interim primary drinking water regu-
lations relative to trihalomethanes and synthetic organic
chemicals. It is expected that by the end of the year
EPA will promulgate a THM regulation and will repropose
regulations to control synthetic organic chemicals.
. Strategies for Funding of Multiple Purpose Projects -- EPA
guidelines being developed on the extent of wastewater
-2-
-------
construction grant funding elibihility of projects which
include other purposes such as urban drainage (in conjunc-
tion with combined sewer problems), co-incineration of
wastewater sludge and solid waste, or water supply (through
wastewater reuse). A report with seven options has been"
completed. Seminars are now being held for the public.
. Improvement of Groundwater Planning and Management — a
recently initiated EPA effort to develop a unified techni-
cal basis and policy direction for several mandates re-
garding groundwater quality under the Safe Drinking Act,
the Clean Water Act and the Resources Conservation and
Recovery Act.
. Review of Level B Study Impacts -- a review by the Water
Resources Council (WRC) of past Level B plans in response
to a request by the Office of Management and Budget to
assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the program
through case study analyses of the objectives, results and
impacts of such plans. The WRC has just completed a draft
report that is likely to undergo revisions.
. The President's Water Policy Initiatives — several aspects
of these initiatives, presently being considered by Congress
or being further developed or implemented by the Executive
Branch, are related to the present report, including:
- Additional funds for WRC Title III planning assistance
grants to states for comprehensive state water manage-
ment programs.
- New funds for grants to states to establish water con-
servation technical assistance programs.
- Study of urban water supply and distribution problems
being initiated by the new Intergovernmental Water
Policy Task Force.
Reports of the water conservation policy implementation
task forces, particularly the report on present grant
and loan programs for water supply and wastewater treat-
ment facilities.
In addition to the above, the scope of this report was influenced
by Congressional concern for drinking water supplies and municipal waste-
water control plans explicit in Sections 1442(c) and 516(e) respective-
ly. Broader water supply/water resources plans and water quality manage-
ment efforts are addressed only when they are relevant to these statutory
directives.
-3-
-------
B. Recommendations
Recommendations developed during this study are believed to be re-
sponsive to Sections 1442(c) and 516(e) as well as sensitive to the pre-
vailing public preference, as expressed in the public workshops, for full
implementation of existing statutory authorities before resorting to new
legislation, and widespread citizen dissatisfaction, as reported in the
media, with increasing governmental regulations and new Federal programs.
In addition consideration was given to the fact that existing programs
have only been operational for a short time; thus results have not been
fully realized and therefore cannot be evaluated. Furthermore, Congress
devoted considerable time in amending the Clean Water Act and Safe Drink-
ing Water Act in 1977, and therefore extensive reexamination is premature.
The following provides recommendations for Congressional considera-
tion and reports actions which the Administrator intends to take. Major
findings in support of these recommendations and actions are presented in
subsequent sections.
1. Strengthen the Water Quality Management Program
EPA activities in response to Sections 106, 208, and 303 of the Clean
Water Act have recently been consolidated into a new "Water Quality Man-
agement Program" (WQM) and regulations have been streamlined and revised.
Emphasis has been shifted in the program and new regulations from plan
development to implementation of plans, continued water quality planning
within the states and designated areas, and formalizing each state's
commitment to progress through a State-EPA Agreement which is a prerequi-
site to EPA's yearly obligation of planning and management funds to the
states. It is recommended that:
. The Administrator should act under his present authority to
slightly expand the scope of the WQM program by requiring
WQM plans to contain program areas which address: (1) water
conservation, recycling and reuse as they pertain to water
quality; (2) integrated quality/quantity planning for surface
and groundwaters and for their interactions as related to
water quality; (3) public water supply and wastewater manage-
ment plan coordination; and (4) water quality management and
hazardous waste disposal plan coordination.
-4-
-------
Congress should provide increased and stabilized appro-
priations under Section 208 of the Act so that: (1) con-
tinued progress can be made towards managing and refin-
ing the implementation of present WQM plans; and, (2)
the increased scope as noted immediately above can be
accomplished.
Adoption of the above will increase opportunities for coordination in re-
sponse to 516(e) prior to Step 1 planning of wastewater facilities, build
upon EPA-State-local partnerships already established through initial
rounds of 208 and 303 planning, improve opportunities to provide adequate
quantities and qualities of drinking water in response to Section 1442(c),
and identify opportunities to implement conservation or reuse and improve
groundwater management.
2. Designate a Lead Federal Agency for Municipal Water Conservation
This study focused on municipal water conservation in response to
Congressional concerns discussed above. It is recommended that:
The President should designate a lead Federal agency for
municipal water conservation. This agency should be re-
sponsible for directing research efforts and relevant data
gathering, for synthesizing and presenting practical, com-
prehensive information on the advantages and disadvantages
of municipal conservation, and for providing technical assist-
ance to other Federal agencies, to states, and to relevant
national organizations.
Congress should provide appropriations for the designated
agency to carry out this responsibility.
It is noted that a similar action may be warranted for agricultural and
industrial conservation. It (and the extension to include agricultural
and industrial conservation) would be an important supplement to the
President's Water Policy Initiative of providing grants to states for
programs of technical assistance to local entities interested in con-
servation. Successful implementation of a program would provide oppor-
tunities to improve the adequacy of water supplies in response to Section
1442(c), effect water quality benefits, reduce facilities and construc-
tion and operation and maintenance costs in response to 516(3), reduce
national energy costs for households and communities, and reduce nation-
al energy imports and the balance of payments deficit.
-5-
-------
3- Modification to the Construction Grants Program
The EPA construction grants program mandated by the Clean Water Act
and providing funds for planning and constructing publicly owned treatment
works, and related funding programs of FmHA? EDA and HUD, can easily con-
tribute toward better coordination of water supply and wastewater treat-
ment plans. Recommendations are:
The Administrator should reemphasize existing facilities
planning guidance (Step 1) to assure earlier and more
complete identification and consideration of interactions
between wastewater management alternatives and area water
supplies, especially public supplies and groundwater.
. Congress should authorize provision of a construction grants
bonus of up to 5 percent (i.e., 80 percent of eligible costs
rather than 75 percent) to communities with demonstrated
success in achieving water conservation/wastewater flow re-
duction; or up to a 5 percent penalty should be applied to
funding of projects in communities with excessive per capita
wastewater flows.
Implementation will encourage coordinated planning in response to 516(e)
and promote water conservation in response to 1442(c); the cost for waste-
water facilities would be equal to or less than under present requirements.
4. Synthesize and Coordinate Assistance to Small Water Supply Systems
Small Water supply systems have been singled out as having a unique
set of difficulties in supplying adequate quantities of water and meeting
quality regulations. It is recommended that:
The Administrator, in cooperation with the appropriate Fed-
eral agencies and the states, should intensify actions to
assist small systems (i.e., serving less than 10,000 per-
sons) including but not limited to: (1) development and im-
provement of operator training material and delivery methods;
(2) consolidated packaging and delivery of technical/planning/
management assistance information; and (3) increased support
to states for expansion of surveillance programs.
This recommendation is within EPA's statutory authority and responsibility
under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Implementation will improve the capa-
bilities of small systems to deliver an adequate and dependable supply of
safe drinking water, and will increase the visibility and accessibility
to Federal capital improvement assistance presently available to these
systems.
-6-
-------
5. State and Local Initiatives
Many problems will not be easily resolved by direct Federal action
as they are properly part of the state and local decision making process.
The following are suggested for special attention through state and local
initiative:
States should review their water laws to remove disincen-
tives to water conservation and to require integrated sur-
face and groundwater quantity and quality management as
appropriate. Furthermore, water laws should recognize
basic interactions between surface and groundwater and
should address groundwater contamination problems.
. States should participate in the Administration's proposed
expansion of the Water Resources Council's Title III pro-
gram, the Level B program (with pending improvements), and
the proposed technical assistance program on conservation.
. To protect the quality and quantity of groundwaters,
states and municipalities should develop permit regula-
tions for injection wells and waste disposal facilities,
guidance for constructing, maintaining and/or terminating
such facilities, and requirements for technical controls
of depletion where needed. In addition, routine inspec-
tion and monitoring programs should be established.
. The states should develop or improve assistance programs
to small water supply systems, coordinate such programs
with complementary Federal efforts, and facilitate small
system applications for available Federal financial assist-
ance.
. States, with Title III assistance, should in concert with
regional planning agencies, develop coordinated framework
plans for water quality management including groundwater pro-
tection, water quantity management including conservation and
hazardous waste disposal.
6. Improvements in Ongoing Activities and Programs
Several findings point toward improvements within existing EPA pro-
grams which should be possible within present authorities and budgets.
These include:
. The Administrator will continue to work with the Office of
Water Research and Technology of the Department of the
Interior to improve (1) the state of knowledge on potential
health effects of nonpotable reuse, and (2) to identify case
examples on the practical potential of reuse under various
generic circumstances, especially information on costs and
water quality impacts.
-7-
-------
The Administrator should obtain guarantees that state and
local agencies will maintain indirect water quality enhance-
ment (such as lower in-stream waste loads) obtained through
use of construction grants support for wastewater management
projects featuring wastewater reuse and recycling of nutrients.
. The Administrator should conduct training workshops for
the states on the Resources Conservation and Recovery
Act and Underground Injection Control implementation.
. The Administrator should encourage state public water
supply supervision agencies to work with and to make
full use of information in sister agency files on the
dependable quantities and qualities of each source and
its vulnerability to droughts.
. The Administrator should improve technology transfer re-
garding technical control measures to minimize ground-
water contamination from waste disposal operations and
reuse technologies.
C. Study Process and Organization of This Report
The range of topics and issues associated with water supply and
water quality is broad and there is a plethora of data, oftentimes con-
flicting or incomplete, on water use, availability, quality, funding,
regulation and institutional arrangements. The need to focus on prob-
lems and opportunities of priority to the public and within EPA's pur-
view prompted a study process which emphasized intra-agency coordination
and public participation.
A Task Force, comprised of representatives from the various EPA
offices responsible for programs under the Clean Water Act and the Safe
Drinking Water Act, was established to select the contractor and inter-
act with the study team throughout the study.
Public participation was initiated in the first phase of study by
distributing a discussion paper and conducting two-day workshops in San
Francisco, Dallas, Atlanta, New York and Chicago. Results of these work-
shops, the initial exploratory analysis of a broad range of issues, and
direction from the Task Force were used to focus the study on topics (1)
of major concern to the public, (2) within the scope of the study, (3)
nonduplicative or preemptory of specific ongoing studies and reports,
(4) nationwide in significance, and (5) within or closely related to
EPA's major program areas.
-8-
-------
This report is organized to reflect the study process followed:
Part 1 presents an exploratory assessment of the current situation with
respect to water supply and water quality as well as public concerns;
Part 2 provides an analysis of priority issues; Part 3 develops explicit
options and recommendations.
. Part 1 deals with the institutional/legal framework
(Chapter II), availability and uses of the water re-
source (Chapter III), measures to protect and enhance
drinking water quality and in-stream quality (Chapter IV),
water quantity/quality relationships (Chapter V), cost,
financing and energy considerations (Chapter VI) and
public involvement in selecting priority issues (Chapter
VII).
. Part 2 addresses opportunities to coordinate water sup-
ply and municipal wastewater treatment planning within
EPA's Construction Grants (Section 201) and Water Qual-
ity Management (Section 208) Programs and Water Resources
Council's Level B.Planning (Section 209) Program (Chapter
VIII), municipal conservation and reuse (Chapter IX),
groundwater management and interaction with surface water
(Chapter X), and small water supply systems (Chapter XI).
. Part 3 reviews the findings of Part 2, describes the pro-
cess that the study followed in screening policy options,
formulates priority actions and synthesizes recommenda-
tions(Chapter XII).
D. Part 1 Assessment: Major Findings
The range of findings, resulting from the technical assessment and
investigation of public views, are reported in Chapters II through VII
and synthesized at the end of each chapter. The following presents the
major outcome of the exploratory assessment which influenced the selec-
tion and detailed assessment of priority problems in the subsequent phase.
1. Drinking Water Availability
Fron a national perspective, the United States is water rich; domes-
tic and commercial use, which includes most drinking water, is a very
small portion of the total. By the year 2000, it is anticipated that
national domestic and commercial withdrawals will be only about five
percent of the once-in-twenty-year drought streamflow. However, local
drinking water shortages have been reported on a widespread basis in the
-9-
-------
Water Resource Council's Second National Assessment — i.e., in over
half of the 106 water resources subregions (see Figure 3.5). These
shortages are not concentrated in the traditionally water-short areas of
the country. They are sometimes due to inadequate water quality, failure
to develop water supply facilities, and financial difficulties as opposed
to more obvious causes such as local water scarcity or competition with
other users. However, competition for water is intense and that intensity
is increasing and spreading to many sections of the country. One result
of increased demand is groundwater overdraft (pumping in excess of natural
recharge; see Figure 3.6) in extensive areas of the U.S. Another is deple-
tion of streamflows and the emerging major national concern for protecting
in-stream uses. Still another is partial displacement of some present uses
by other uses (such as domestic and commercial, which can usually afford
to pay more for water or are sometimes given higher priority). More spe-
cific findings are:
. Localized drinking water shortages are not adequately docu-
mented in terms of severity or cause by existing Federal
and state data programs.
. Water shortages are often made worse by state water allo-
cation systems which continue to permit (and may even en-
courage) development of additional surface and groundwater
supplies even after the sustainable yield of the resource
has been far exceeded; in some states, management of ground-
water withdrawals is totally neglected.
Small drinking water systems (i.e., those serving less than
10,000 people) are believed to have more problems with short-
ages than large systems because they are more vulnerable to
local scarcities, experience more volatile changes in demand,
and are less able to provide financing to develop distant
sources or overcome quality problems.
2. Water Quality
The past ten to fifteen years have seen surface water quality emerge
as an issue of national importance. The first and most obvious commit-
ment was the abatement of point source discharges. Although significant
progress has been made, much remains to be done and success is very de-
pendent on continued Federal funding.
-10-
-------
The most important step with regard to drinking water quality was
passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974 which extended Federal
authority to all public systems through regulations to be implemented at
the local level consistent with directions issued by state supervisory
programs. Significant progress has been made through the State-EPA approach
to initiating compliance with the Act but much work still remains. For ex-
ample, the process of establishing primary regulations for implementation
through state programs is slow and difficult and requires lengthy deliber-
ations as exemplified by the presently proposed organics regulations.
Until recent years groundwater quality has received considerably less
Federal attention, even though it is the source of drinking water for ap-
proximately 47 percent of the nation's total population and, when contam-
inated, cleanup is either extremely expensive or impossible because of
slow groundwater movement and interaction of pollutants with aquifer mater-
ials. Recent legislation has addressed some aspects of groundwater quality,
notably Underground Injection Controls under the Safe Drinking Water Act
and controls over solid and hazardous waste impacts on groundwater under
the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act. These groundwater provisions
are in the early stages of implementation. More specific findings are:
A strong public view was registered by the public at five re-
gional workshops in favor of the implementation of existing
statutory authority as opposed to the passage of additional
legislative authority. The possible exception to this view
is the adequacy of laws to prevent groundwater degradation.
. Small water supply systems have significantly more problems
in complying with the interim primary drinking water regula-
tions than larger systems do. For example, according to a
preliminary assessment of 1978 data, nearly one-fourth of
the small community (year-round) systems failed to comply
with the regulation in contrast to one-tenth of the large
community systems. Small non-community (seasonal) systems,
such as those in recreation areas, are believed to have even
greater difficulties.
. The costs of implementing the present interim primary drink-
ing water regulations, which will be finalized as part of
EPA's Water Utility Financing Study (see page 2), is only
about two to three percent of the money needed to meet Clean
Water Act commitments for in-stream water pollution control.
11-
-------
3. Conservation and Reuse
Both conservation (moderation of water demand) and reuse of effluents
have received attention recently as a result of the Clean Water Act amend-
ments, the President's Water Policy, and major droughts. Both have an in-
tuitive appeal which arouses people's interest. However, beyond this first
reaction, the situation is more complex.
Consider, for example, the definition of the term conservation. It
is commonly used to refer to supply rather than demand management. This
emphasis encourages structural solutions such as dams and reservoirs to
manage water. Current administrative and legislative initiatives focus
more on demand. If a primary concern is to save water so that more is avail-
able for other uses, priority consideration should be applied to agricul-
tural irrigation. On the other hand, from a demand management perspective,
water conservation can save much energy and money in addition to saving
water; in the case of municipal and industrial water use, such savings include
major surface or groundwater supply, water treatment, distribution and pump-
ing, and wastewater treatment operations. The situation is, however , compli-
ted because the advantages of conservation vary from location to location.
In coastal locations where fresh water is withdrawn, used once and discharged
to the ocean, a savings in withdrawal can make water available for another
use or uses. Similarly, reuse of wastewater can substitute for fresh water
supplies. Inland, savings in consumption (i.e., consumptive loss due to
evaporation) are more important than reduced withdrawals since it is only
consumed water that is not available for another use. An overall effective
conservation effort may also create problems in times of drought since ad-
ditional drought-induced reductions could then be difficult to achieve
without hardship. Over the long term, municipal conservation could reduce
or delay the need to expand water supply or wastewater treatment facilities.
For the short term, however, and in the absence of a phased program, if a
utility's water sales decrease, it might have to raise rates to meet its
financial obligations.
The complexities of reuse also need to be recognized. Reuse is al-
ready widespread on an indirect basis wherein wastewater discharged to a
natural water course by one user is withdrawn downstream by another. Such
-12-
-------
indirect reuse can account for as much as one gallon out of five of a
municipality's water supply at downstream water intakes. Similarly, down-
stream agricultural users are also often involved and wastewater may be
put through several cycles of indirect reuse.
Direct reuse, which involves a pipeline or similar conduit from one
user to the next, also occurs widely. Approximately 536 projects utilize
about 760 million gallons of wastewater per day, mostly for agricultural
and landscape irrigation, and industrial cooling purposes. Clearly,
direct reuse is feasible in some locations but requires site specific
analyses of technical, economical and institutional alternatives. Since
it depends greatly on local circumstances, the overall desirability for
expansion is difficult to extimate. In addition, direct reuse may en-
counter water rights restrictions since downstream flows may be reduced,
and possibly inadequately understood health risks create barriers. Spe-
cific findings are:
People in a position to implement conservation or reuse
have difficulty making a judgment on its potential for
their situation.
. This is largely due to the inadequacy of presently avail-
able information regarding the balance between advantages
and disadvantages of conservation and/or reuse which are
likely to be encountered in typical situations.
4. Interrelationships and Institutions
The importance of recognizing interrelationships among various as-
pects of the resource has increased dramatically. As a result of intense
surface water resource development and programs impacting water quality,
coordinated management approaches are generally hampered by the many
agencies, at all levels of government, having different mandates and ob-
jectives for managing the same resource. Most states, for example, have
one agency responsible for water supply and another for water pollution
control. This split often hampers coordination. Because surface water
development has already been intense, additional sites (which are econom-
ical, physically feasible, and environmentally acceptable) for new develop-
ment are harder to find; thus additional supply has been sought from ground-
water without due recognition that surface and groundwater are parts of
-13-
-------
one and the same resource. Observed effects of this uncoordinated insti-
tutional approach to withdrawal and use of groundwater include unavail-
ability of water to seep into streams during low flow periods, decreases
in surface water availability, and saline contamination of aquifers when
water withdrawal exceeds safe yield.
Similar examples of an uncoordinated approach to water quality man-
agement can be cited. Emphasis has been on controlling waste discharges
as the obvious "cause" of poor water quality during summer low flow and
although impressive results have been achieved in abating the most blatant
municipal and industrial pollutant loadings, poor water quality during
low flow periods is still a problem. Thus attention is now shifting to
the low flow itself, often the result of many upstream diversions, as a
contributing cause. However within the existing institutional framework
such diversions may be growing with the prospect of progressively lower
streamflows and nonattainment of water quality standards. Major findings
relative to the existing institutional framework include:
. The quantity and quality relationships of surface and ground-
waters and the interactions between them are not adequately
accounted for in present water resource and water quality
plans.
. Water supply and wastewater treatment projects are separate-
ly planned, financed, and constructed at all levels, usually
by different agencies, which often overlook key interrela-
tionships that may result in mutual benefits.
E. Part 2 Priority Analysis: Major Findings
Findings from the initial assessment and investigation of public
views as well as the statutory directives were used to identify priority
problems and opportunities for more detailed analysis in the second phase
of study: (1) improved coordination, (2) conservation and reuse, (3)
groundwater management and interaction with surface waters, and (4) small
water supply systems. Major findings are summarized below and further de-
tail is provided in Chapters VIII through XI.
1. Coordination Through the Construction Grants Program
EPA's program for assisting municipalities through wastewater con-
struction grants is a three-step process: planning, detailed design, and
-14-
-------
construction. Steps 2 and 3 are implementation phases; any attempt to
strongly influence the project by coordinating with other functional plan-
ning efforts or dealing with problems other than wastewater treatment must
occur earlier in the process. During the Step 1 "facilities planning", a
local wastewater agency with a special water pollution control need is pro-
vided a Federal grant to identify the best approach for responding to that
need. Since the project is so specific to the local agency and the partic-
ular need, emphasis is usually placed on developing and comparing several
technical alternatives for dealing with the local problem and this empha-
sis is proper. Interagency and interarea issues should be resolved prior
to the technical planning. Other agencies and issues can influence the
planning through the problem definition phase; e.g., through the in-stream
water quality standards and the wasteload allocation or effluent standards
which must be met by the alternative. The facility plan is also subjected
to normal environmental impact reviews. Drinking water supplies are one
important consideration in establishing these standards and reviewing the
plan, but do not necessarily guarantee that all relevant coordination with
water supply will occur automatically. Thus it is easy to overlook signi-
ficant interactions or opportunities for nutual savings which were not
identified prior to facilities planning and it is often difficult to make
major adjustments during review. Specific finds are:
. There are substantial opportunities during Step 1 facili-
ties planning to achieve improved coordination with water
supply including items such as population projections,
service area extensions, water use/conservation/wastewater
production estimates, water availability, reuse opportunities,
and early and continued attention to effluent disposal im-
pacts on downstream and groundwater sources of public supplies.
. One factor which discourages facility planning from seriously
developing approaches responsive to a broader range of con-
cerns is the present restriction of Step 2 and 3 funding to
only facilities which are physically part of wastewater col-
lection, treatment and disposal works. Even if a change to a
downstream water supply would save money on wastewater facil-
ities, construction grants funds could not be used for the
change.
. Although significant opportunities for coordination exist
in facilities planning and can be further enhanced, much
coordination must be accomplished by a more broadly based
planning program before facilities planning starts.
-15-
-------
2. Coordination Through the Hater Quality Management Program
EPA's Water Quality Management (WQM) Program is a consolidated effort
under Sections 106, 208 and 303 of the Clean Water Act to address broad
water quality issues on state and regional levels through continuing plan-
ning and management effort. Although aspects of the program have been
difficult to implement, the program now incorporates the most workable
planning approach in use by Federal programs: Federal policy direction
and sense of priorities are provided together with planning funds but plan-
ning is the responsibility of state and local authorities; a mechanism to
assure accountability is provided by the emphasis on reviewing planning
results and implementation progress through the State-EPA Agreements. In
addition, the program is familiar to the public from initial 208 planning,
it has broad state and local involvement because it is responsive to state
and local concerns, it has developed workable interagency relationships
on the state and local level, and a sense of partnership among EPA-state-
local institutions is developing. More specific findings are:
WQM planning provides the most workable vehicle now in exist-
ence for recognizing and addressing water quantity/quality
interactions and relationships between water supply and
wastewater management.
The program scope which has evolved is strongly oriented
toward water quality -- so strongly that it is weak in
dealing with water supply or water quantity issues which
are interrelated with water quality problems.
Present unstable and low funding for the program threatens
to weaken the continued development of the EPA-state-local
planning partnership and to preclude consideration of im-
portant water quantity/quality relationships.
3. Municipal Water Conservation
Since municipal water use is relatively small compared to the aggre-
gate use including agriculture and industry, the advantages of conserv-
ing municipal supplies are not often apparent. Moreover, recent droughts
have highlighted several situations where conservation resulted in in-
creased water rates to the consumer. Recognizing these factors this
study emphasized a more comprehensive view of advantages and disadvantages
of municipal water conservation, including savings in dollars and energy
-16-
-------
through delayed capital expenditures. It also emphasized a relatively
slow implementation of conservation, where utility water sales might not
decrease but instead simply stay constant or grow more slowly. Under
these emphases and conservative assumptions, municipal water conservation
appears quite attractive. More specific findings are:
. Nationwide implementation of a modest municipal water con-
servation program over a 15 to 20 year period could result
in annual energy savings (primarily from less use of hot
water) equivalent to about three percent of present energy
imports.
Even in a community where water conservation causes de-
creased water sales, the energy savings can pay for needed
increases in water rates.
. Municipal conservation is especially attractive for grow-
ing communities since expenditures to expand both water
supply and wastewater facilities can be postponed with
substantial savings in interest and future operating costs.
Municipal water conservation is on a threshold; it could
be widely and enthusiastically received in the next sev-
eral years if clear and comprehensive information is made
available on its overall advantages and disadvantages,and
how these vary among regions,so that communities can make
informed decisions attuned to their specific situations.
Improved Federal incentives for municipal water conserva-
tion would call attention to its possibilities and help
overcome the present inertia in local agencies and con-
sumers .
4. Reuse of Municipal Effluents
Municipal effluents are being directly reused on a widespread and
increasing basis, primarily for agricultural and landscape irrigation
and for industrial cooling: present direct reuse is approximately three
percent of the nation's municipal effluents in the context of more than
536 specific projects, primarily in the water-short areas of the south-
central and southwestern states. A significant incentive for municipal
reuse was recently provided by the innovative and alternative provisions
of the 1977 Clean Water Act amendments which are now beginning to result
in 85 percent Federal funding of reuse projects that address clearcut
water pollution control needs. Funding policies for reuse projects with
-17-
-------
indirect water quality benefits are also being considered. One present
estimate is that between 10 and 15 percent of municipal effluents might
be directly reused for nonpotable purposes by year 2000. More specific
findings are:
. The economics of reuse is a major factor which will limit
the extent of its implementation. It tends to require
costly conveyance and treatment facilities, and to be
energy intensive in operation due to pumping, chemical
and treatment needs. Alternative supplies or the al-
ternative of doing without additional water supply tends
to be strongly competitive economically.
. There are uncertainties on potential health effects
associated with various types of direct nonpotable reuse
and the degrees of treatment needed to protect against
risk. Relaxation of treatment requirements, if this
could be demonstrated to be prudent would improve the
economic potential of reuse as a function of specific
health requirements of the anticipated use.
. Where Federal funding of reuse is to result in indirect
water quality benefits such as decreased pollutant load-
ings on streams (beyond requirements for water quality stan-
dards) or increased stream-flows (by avoiding new water supply
development), there is a danger that these benefits will be
lost through other water diversion or development projects.
5. Groundwater Management and Integration with Surface Waters
Groundwater is a source of drinking water for about 103 million
people in the U.S., about 47 percent of the total population, and an
estimated 95 percent of the rural population. It is usually a relative-
ly dependable source, less costly to develop than surface water, and pure
enough for drinking with minimal treatment. Groundwater overdraft or
mining is the most common quantity problem: it is estimated that about
20 billion gallons per day, or one-fourth of all groundwater withdrawn,
is not replaced by natural or artificial recharge; many aquifers will
therefore be exhausted with major problems foreseen in the next ten to
twenty years. High salinity concentrations, often a consequence of over-
draft, are a dominant groundwater quality problem. More important, how-
ever, increased volumes of waste are being handled in ways which can re-
sult in groundwater pollution: of great concern are the more than 130,000
surface impoundments of wastewaters, more than 20,000 landfills and more
-18-
-------
than 40,000 injection wells as well as the many relevant nonpoint sources,
Specific findings on groundwater are:
Recent Federal legislation has provided some tools to begin
addressing the threats to groundwater quality posed by
wastewater disposal practices. In particular, Underground
Injection Control regulations recently proposed will address
injection wells. A surface impoundments inventory and assess-
ment is being conducted, and the Resources Conservation and
Recovery Act provides a basis for controlling those which
contain hazardous wastes. Dumps and landfills will also be
controlled under this Act. Both the Sole Source Aquifer pro-
vision of the Safe Drinking Water Act and 208 planning under
the Clean Water Act provide additional management opportun-
ities. EPA is fully committed to implementing these manage-
ment tools in cooperation with the states; implementation is
now in its preliminary phases. Additional Congressional in-
volvement may be needed a-s implementation difficulties are
encountered.
Regulation of groundwater mining falls within the author-
ity of the states to establish water law. Many states
have no such laws specifically regulating the use of ground-
water and where such laws exist, vigor of enforcement varies.
Strong special interests tend to resist any effort to more
intensively manage groundwater as a fragile resource.
Both groundwater quality and quantity are neglected by
most governmental units in terms of data, analysis, pro-
tection from degradation and regulation of use. The inter-
relationships between quality and quantity aspects of ground
and surface waters are usually ignored. Although some poli-
tical units have addressed groundwater management where water
supply is short or the quality of existing supplies is poor,
this is the exception. It is expected that groundwater man-
agement and integration with surface water programs will be
a topic for increasing Congressional attention.
6. Small Water Supply Systems
Approximately 15 percent of the nation's population rely on small
community water supply systems which serve at least 25 but less than
10,000 people on a year-round basis. This involves approximately 58,000
distinct small systems or 95 percent of all community water systems in
the country. In addition "small systems" include approximately 160,000
noncommunity public systems serving seasonal populations primarily in
parks and recreation areas. Approximately 85 percent of the small
community systems and 90 percent of the noncommunity systems use ground-
19-
-------
water sources. Preliminary national aggregates of incomplete data show
that approximately 25 percent of small community systems have violated
the microbiological maximum contaminant level (MCL). About 35 percent
violated the reporting and monitoring requirement. This compared with
15 percent (MCL) and 25 percent (monitoring) violations for medium to
large community systems. Data on compliance/violations are not yet avail-
able for noncommunity systems. More specific findings are:
. Although reporting in response to the Safe Drinking Water
Act provides solid data on public water system violations
of MCLs and monitoring requirements, inventory data are
generally unavailable on system characteristics, operating
and capital problems, source type, adequacy and reliability,
and so forth. This information is particularly sketchy for
small systems.
Violations of drinking water regulations are estimated to
be only a symptom of small system problems. Needs for
capital improvements, inadequate budgets for operation and
maintenance, inadequate operator skills, and inadequate
management and planning skills are believed to be very ser-
ious problems for the vast majority of small systems.
. Although state and EPA efforts to assist with operator and
management training and technical assistance are oriented
toward real problems, they tend to reach primarily medium
to large systems.
State supervision programs are unable to adequately assist,
inspect, or regulate small systems because of their very
large number in relation to available state supervision pro-
gram resources.
-20-
-------
Part 1: ASSESSMENT
-------
Chapter II
EXISTING LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
A. Legal/Administrative Overview
1. State Water Law
The right to use water has certain attributes of a property right;
how such rights to surface water may be exercised in the United States
is determined largely by the historical evolution of the right to the
land in connection with which the water is to be used. Generally, the
eastern states, having derived their system of property rights from the
English common law, apply the "riparian doctrine". Under this concept,
as applied when agriculture represented the primary use of land, a
landowner adjacent to a water course is entitled to use sufficient
surface water to meet his domestic needs and the needs of household
animals necessary to his use of his land. The right applies only to
water used on land within the watershed from which the riparian derives
a claim.
"Riparian rights are incident to ownership of riparian land, are
not acquired by use, and are not lost by nonuse" (Corker, 1971). As
industrialization occurred, the concept was expanded to allow use of
adequate quantities of water for manufacturing, so long as neither the
quantity nor the quality of water available to a downstream riparian
user was impaired. Damages can be sought from an upstream polluter or
surface water user in a judicial proceeding by a downstream user who
claims the quality or quantity has been diminished by the upstream user.
The judicial remedy is tedious and expensive, however, and often the
winner is the party with the most resources and time.
In the western states much of the land was acquired through the
Louisiana Purchase (1803), annexation of the Republic of Texas (1845),
the Oregon Treaty (1846), the Mexican Cession (1848) and the
-21-
-------
Gadsen Purchase (1853) (Myers, 1971). In this region water was often in
short supply or even unavailable to support economic activity without
storage and distribution systems. The Federal government actively
promoted settlement of these acquired lands through legislation fa-
vorable to the new settlers. In furtherance of this national policy,
special legislation relating to western lands generally recognized state
legal systems for surface water allocation (Myers, 1971). Development
of available water supplies, utilizing storage reservoirs and distribu-
tion systems was subsidized by the Federal government. Subsequent court
cases (for example, California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Cement Co.,
295 US 142 [1935]) not only confirmed the predominance of state appro-
priative surface water rights systems but also established the concept
of Federal "reserved water rights" for land withdrawn from the public
domain for a designated Federal purpose (Arizona v^ Cal ifornia, 363 US
546 C1963]). In the latter instance, the U.S. government is said to
have "reserved" a right to any unappropriated surface water necessary to
provide for the development of the land withdrawn, and this right takes
precedence over subsequent appropriators under state allocation systems.
There are three essential elements to an appropriative surface
water right: (1) "first in time is first in right," thus senior appro-
priators have superior rights in the event of shortage; (2) the appro-
priator must use the quantity of surface water for which there is a
valid right in a fixed number of years within a stated term (say, 7 out
of 10 years) or risk having the right reduced to the volume actually
used; and (3) there usually must be a diversion from the watercourse.
Whether the holder of a water right is entitled to reuse return flow
from the initial use depends upon the legal rule within the authorizing
state and whether the initial source, surface or groundwater, is subject
to state allocation. There is a trend for states with limited supplies
to want to regulate disposition of return flows where the initial use is
regulated (Corker, 1971). States sometimes also prescribe a "priority
of use" with the intent that a lower priority use can be preempted by a
higher one in the event of shortage. For example, the State of Texas
code provides the following order: domestic and municipal use,
-22-
-------
industrial use, irrigation, mining, hydroelectric power, navigation,
recreation and pleasure, and "other beneficial uses" (Vernon's Texas
Code Annotated).
The seventeen western states -- Washington, Oregon, California,
Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico,
Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota and North Dakota -- are
generally regarded as those with predominately appropriative surface
water rights doctrines. Some of these states, however, have "mixed"
systems, i.e. some riparian concepts for traditional household and
domestic animal uses and the appropriative doctrine for all others. In
some cases, Texas for example, riparian right's holders were required by
a 1967 statute to convert riparian to appropriative rights. California
is just now attempting to reconcile these "two radically different kinds
of water rights on a single stream" (Governor's Commission, 1978).
Groundwater is sometimes treated differently from surface water in
state law and allocation systems, despite the obvious interdependence
between the two. Physical characteristics do provide some complications;
for example, groundwater aquifers can intersect and contribute to the
flow of more than one surface water basin through underflow and flowing
springs. These relationships are further discussed in Chapter V-
The general legal principle initially applied to groundwater was
the English common law "rule of capture". A landowner could drill as
many wells and pump as much water as he could without waste; he would
not be liable in damages to his neighbors for depleting the groundwater
supply under their land so long as he applied the water to a "beneficial
use". Some state jurisdictions have developed the concept of "safe
annual yield" (Corker, 1971) and have provided a system for allocating
that volume among users. Other states, such as New Mexico,., administer
claims to groundwater in much the same manner as appropriative rights to
surface water. Where groundwater taking is not restricted to some
determinable quantity related to the amount of recharge, however imper-
fect the methodology for such allocation, there is always the risk of
groundwater "mining", i.e. yearly withdrawals that exceed yearly re-
charge. Mining can occur intermittently because of inadequate rainfall
-23-
-------
during a drought, or regularly and deliberately as is occurring each
year in California as well as in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas and
Colorado where the water level in a prehistoric underground aquifer, the
Ogallala, declines each year as massive withdrawals far exceed the minor
volume of recharge. Where groundwater mining occurs in coastal or some
inland areas there is always the danger of contaminating the remaining
supply because of saltwater being drawn into the space previously occu-
pied by the withdrawn freshwater. In these cases, saltwater intrusion
is sometimes retarded or prevented by artificial recharge using treated
wastewater. A classic example is the recharge project by the Orange
County Sanitation District in California.
2. Federal Authority on Water Allocation
Despite the fact that most major (and many minor) water supply
projects involve some form of Federal financing or require some type of
Federal permit, they normally proceed within the statutory and judicial
water rights framework of the state -- or states -- in which they are
located. Providing flood control and facilitating navigation have
historically been primarily Federal functions with project costs for
these purposes borne almost entirely by the public at large. In recent
years, one-half the estimated benefits from water based recreation on
Federally funded water projects is deducted from project costs, thereby
reducing the cost allocated to local project sponsors. Under the Clean
Water Act, Section 102 (b), Federal agencies are authorized to give
consideration "to inclusion of storage for regulation of streamflow";
the costs of reservoir space for such water quality storage are borne by
the public "if the benefits are widespread or national in scope". EPA
must determine the need for and value of such storage, but no such
positive determination has been made to date.
Most major water supply projects are constructed by agencies of
the Federal government using tax revenues appropriated by the Congress
with certain costs reimbursable by the beneficiaries; water rights for
these projects are secured and held by local sponsors or by states. The
Federal construction agencies -- the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of
-24-
-------
Reclamation and the Soil Conservation Service -- do not apply for, nor
do they hold, permits or rights for the allocation of water in the
reservoirs although they construct and operate them until the non-
Federal cost share is repaid or the Federal interest fulfilled. Their
arrangement with the water users is a contractual one as prescribed by
the Congress in authorizing legislation.
The Federal "reserved rights" to water previously mentioned are
restricted to the Federal lands withdrawn from the public domain for
national forests and parks, historical monuments, military installations
and Indian and other reservations. These water rights are based upon
the principle that "when public lands are withdrawn or reserved from the
public domain, quantities of the then unappropriated water necessary to
fulfill the purposes for which the land is withdrawn are also reserved
and exempted from appropriation under state laws. As a result, an
Indian or Federal reservation acquires reserved water rights which vest
on the date the reservation was created and are superior in right to
future appropriations under state law (Comptroller General, November 16,
1978). Not all these rights have been quantified and those unresolved
Indian and other reservation water claims represent a unknown demand
upon state administered water rights systems. The Federal involvement
in Indian rights exists because of the position of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs within the Department of Interior and its role as the trustee of
Indian interests.
Federal agency water resource planning, to the extent that it
determines hydrologically the available surface or groundwater quantity
and quality, can influence water allocation by the states. Where there
is no competing state or local water resource planning capability, the
Federal agencies can have significant impact; they do not, however,
except indirectly, significantly influence state water rights systems.
Where water allocation becomes an interstate or international
question, the Congress does exercise some influence on water availa-
bility. Interstate compacts are subject to Congressional approval;
where these allocate water as between the states, Congress must approve
the allocation in the process of approving the compact. While only the
-25-
-------
affected states are normally represented on the Compact Commission (as
with the Ohio River Sanitation Commission), the compact may specify
a Federal representative (as with the Delaware River Basin Commission).
For the northern U.S. boundary with Canada, the United States represen-
tative on the International Joint Commission is named by the President;
the IJC can impact both water quantity and water quality in the states
along the border where water courses and water bodies are shared by the
two nations. The International Boundary and Water Commission has been
extensively involved in both quantity and quality issues as they have
arisen on two major rivers shared with Mexico -- the Colorado and the
Rio Grande. While not all the Nation's geography is included within
River Basin Commissions authorized under the Water Resources Planning
Act of 1965, as amended, some of these have impacted interstate regional
water quantity and quality planning -- the New England River Basin
Commission and the Missouri River Basin Commission, for example. These
Commissions do provide a forum in which interstate differences can be
aired.
3. Federal Water Quality Law
Federal activity in the water quality field was initiated with a
modest program in 1948 and culminated in the detailed 1972 and 1977
Federal Water Pollution Control Act and Clean Water Act. The national
program began within the Department of Health, Education and Welfare as
an adjunct to the concern for public health, proceeded to the Department
of Interior in 1966 by Executive Reorganization Act Order and was again
transferred to its current location within the Environmental Protection
Agency by Executive Order in 1970. Because there developed a general
consensus within the Congress that states were not proceeding aggres-
sively enough to correct water pollution, the Federal role was gradually
expanded with the most dramatic changes occurring between 1965 and 1972.
In the latter year, Congress also shifted the regulatory system from one
based on ambient water quality standards for interstate waters (enforced
by a lengthy conference process with appeal to court available on a
trial de novo basis) to a combination of technology-based and water
-26-
-------
quality standards-related limitations on effluent incorporated into
Federal permits for every discharger of wastewater into any of the
Nation's waters (with direct Federal enforcement where states fail to
take action after a reasonable time). The Federal role is now predom-
inant; however, the EPA is in the process of negotiating with all states
hoping to arrive at "State-EPA Agreements" that will contractually ob-
ligate the states to perform as many as possible of the environmental
regulatory functions Congress assigned to EPA, including those under the
Clean Water Act. Specific Federal statutory authority exists for assign-
ment to the states of administration of construction grants for publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs) and the national pollution discharge
elimination system (NPDES) permits.
Regarding drinking water quality, prior to 1974, the Federal role
was limited -- i.e., the EPA was authorized to prescribe Federal drinking
water standards only for water supplies used by interstate carriers.
With passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974 EPA is now authorized
to establish Federal standards to control the levels of all harmful
contaminants in the drinking water supplied by public water systems. It
also establishes a joint Federal-state system for assuring compliance
with these standards. The primary drinking water standards, proposed
secondary standards, and other EPA actions undertaken or pending in
response to the Act are discussed extensively in Chapter IV.
4. State Water Quality Law/Administration
Despite the dominant Federal role prescribed by Congress in the
national water pollution control program, the states perform significant
implementing functions, particularly in construction grants, enforcement
and the development of ambient water quality standards, which are still
part of the Federal program. Many states have reorganized their admini-
strative agencies to duplicate the Federal Environmental Protection
Agency. Between 1967 and 1974, 32 major state reorganizations occurred
(National Commission on Water Quality, 1975). Twelve states mirrored
the Federal EPA and fifteen states created environmental super agencies
encompassing some of the state's natural resource management and/or
27-
-------
conservation functions as well as environmental regulation. Sixteen
states included pollution control in their health departments.
States can adopt, and the EPA approve, water quality standards so
high that more stringent treatment requirements than the minimum pre-
scribed by EPA under the Clean Water Act are necessary. In those areas
where such standards are in effect, POTWs may have to provide advanced
waste treatment (AWT) which is more expensive than treatment necessary
to conform to minimum EPA requirements. These projects are still eli-
gible for 75 percent of Federal funding, although they require personal
approval of the EPA Administrator pursuant to an October 1978 directive
of the Appropriations Conference Committee.
B. Institutional Overview
1. Water Supply
While the need for municipal water is local, all but the simplest
projects often involve Federal -- and sometimes state -- agencies as
well. Surface water supply reservoirs and wholesale distribution sys-
tems can be constructed by the Soil Conservation Service of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture, the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of
Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers of the Department of Defense
depending upon size and geographical placement. Soil Conservation
Service reservoirs are limited to 25,000 acre feet of total storage of
which no more than 12,500 acre feet can be flood detention leaving the
same maximum quantity for all other uses, one of which can be municipal
water supply. Operations of the Bureau of Reclamation are restricted
generally to the geographical area west of the 100th meridian; municipal
water supply projects in that area are usually constructed by the Bureau,
while those east of that line are usually built by the Corps.
Two agencies within the Department of Interior provide information
or influence the formulation of municipal water supply plans. The U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), obtains and publishes national water quantity
and quality data, sometimes through joint USGS-State-local financing.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service analyzes the potential effect of
proposed projects upon fish and wildlife resources and can initiate
-28-
-------
actions leading to mitigation requirements to minimize adverse effects.
The cost of these measures is borne by the water users.
Federal financial assistance for municipal water supply is avail-
able from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the
Economic Development Administration (EDA), the Bureau of Reclamation,
the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) and the Small Business Administration (SBA). When water supply
for a local community or city is included in a Federal water project
constructed by the Bureau or the Corps, initiating repayment of the
local share of the cost can be postponed for certain statutory periods;
interest costs for money needed to pay expenses during construction are
borne by the national taxpayers. The type and terms of Federal assis-
tance programs are discussed in Chapter VI as are State financial assis-
tance programs.
Two Federal agencies review many Federal surface water supply
projects designed to meet municipal needs -- the Water Resources Council
(WRC) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The former is
responsible for developing and updating "Policies, Standards, and Pro-
cedures in the Formulation, Evaluation and Review of Plans for Use and
Development of Water and Related Land Resources" as well as formulation,
with the Department of Commerce, of the national data base and procedure
for economic projections upon which population projections and water
needs can be estimated. The CEQ oversees the requirement for prepara-
tion of environmental impact statements (EIS) by every Federal depart-
ment or agency contemplating legislation or other major Federal action
significantly affecting the human environment.
Water supply projects that involve some Federal interest are
subject to Congressional authorization and appropriation as well as
changes in Presidential policies. Thus, years can be consumed from
conception to fruition; a moderately sized reservoir can take 10 to 20
years. Constructing such projects without Federal involvement might
shorten the time, but the local cost would, in most cases, be higher
because of the cost benefits provided under Federal law.
-29-
-------
Reservoirs constructed by Federal agencies are operated by those
agencies during the pay-back period and to achieve any Federal purpose;
operating conditions are fixed by Congress upon recommendation of these
agencies and tend to be inflexible. Rarely can a series of reservoirs
constructed at different times under individual legislative mandates be
operated as a system to achieve optimum water conservation and use
without special legislation.
2. Wastewater Treatment
Federal participation in the funding of POTWs through grants
administered by EPA under the Clean Hater Act are now at 75 percent of
eligible costs for traditional treatment systems and 85 percent for
"treatment works...utilizing innovative or alternative wastewater treat-
ment processes and techniques referred to in section 201(g)(5)..."
(Clean Water Act, 1977). Federal funds have been provided since 1957,
but the amount never exceeded 250 million dollars yearly until 1970.
Prior to the substantial increase in the Federal percentage in 1972, the
degree of Federal participation was increased if states also assisted
with funding. In addition to EPA, the FmHA has a grant and loan program
for the construction of wastewater collection and treatment systems in
rural areas and HUD makes grants to cities for sanitary sewer systems
•but not for treatment works. Federal and State financial assistance is
further discussed in Chapter VI.
Under the Clean Water Act, physical facilities for wastewater
treatment were intended to be in conformity with "areawide waste treat-
ment management plans" prepared by designated planning agencies, cer-
tified by State Governors and approved by the EPA under Section 208.
Because of the time required to initiate the 208 program and erratic
availability of construction grant funds, these two activities have
generally proceeded in reverse order -- treatment plants planned,
designed and constructed followed by development of 208 plans. Facili-
ties plans are also required as an integral part of each construction
grant application under Sections 201 and 203 of the Act. In addition,
"Level B" basin plans described in the Water Resources Planning Act are
required to be prepared under the auspices of the WRC by January 1, 1980
-30-
-------
under Section 209 of the Clean Water Act, and each state is required to
maintain "a continuous planning process" to assure compliance with the
Act under Section 303(e). Publicly owned treatment works are also
required to comply with these plans. As of June 1979 EPA has developed
proposed regulations for Water Quality Management Planning consolidating
many of its planning programs as will be further discussed in Chapter
IV.
3. Executive and Legislative Demands
Both Federal water supply and wastewater treatment works con-
struction programs are subjected to extensive review by various Com-
mittees of the Congress. In addition to the appropriation process and
oversight, and to investigative and government operations committees in
both Houses of Congress, the responsible agencies report to a diverse
group of committees. A water supply project may fall within the purview
of House Committees on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs; Public Works
and Transportation; Interior and Insular Affairs or Agriculture and the
Senate Committees on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; Environment and
Public Works; Energy and Natural Resources and Agriculture, Nutrition
and Forestry, depending upon the source of funding. Wastewater treatment
construction grant programs are within the jurisdiction of all the same
committees except House Interior and Insular Affairs and Senate Energy
and Natural Resources.
Even after the form of these various programs has been specified
and the money appropriated by these Committees in both Houses, and
differences resolved by Conference Committees, the President can control
the actual expenditure of funds through the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). This same staff also reviews the various programs through
the executive budgeting process.
In recent years, the Comptroller General also has exerted an
increasing influence in the program review process. He responds to
Congressional requests regarding review of the grants program process
and also performs legislative reviews under his own initiative.
-31-
-------
C. President's Water Policy
In his environmental message sent to Congress on May 23, 1977,
President Carter directed the OMB, WRC and CEQ to initiate, under the
Chairmanship of the Secretary of Interior, a review of Federal water
policy and make recommendations for change. Various proposals were
presented by the WRC through publication in the Federal Register on
July 15, and 25, 1977, for discussion at hearings to be held throughout
the country. This review process culminated in the President's Water
Policy Message sent to Congress on June 6, 1978. Among the proposals
were the following relating to water supply and wastewater treatment:
"A directive to the Water Resources Council to improve
implementation of the Principles and Standards govern
ing the planning of Federal Water projects... to provide
"equal emphasis" to national economic development and en-
vironmental quality..."
"(Improve)... the Principles and Standards... by adding
water conservation as a specific component of both the
economic and environmental objectives..."
"Projects should stress water conservation..."
"Funding for mitigation of fish and wildlife damages
should be provided concurrently and proportionately
with construction funding..."
"For project purposes with vendible outputs (such as
water supply...), States would contribute 10 percent
of the costs, proportionate to and phased with Federal
appropriations. Revenues would be returned to the
States proportionate to their contribution.
"Making appropriate community water conservation mea-
sures a condition of the water supply and wastewater
treatment grant and loan programs of the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture and
the Department of Commerce;
"Integrating water conservation requirements into the
housing assistance programs of the Department of Hous-
ing and Urban Development, the Veterans Administration
and the Department of Agriculture;
-32-
-------
"Requiring development of water conservation programs
as a condition of contracts for storage or delivery
of municipal and industrial water supplies from federal
projects;...
"Require that new and renegotiated contracts include
provisions for recalculation and renegotiation of water
rates every five years;
"Preparation of legislation to provide $25 million an-
nually in 50%-50% matching grant assistance to States
to implement water conservation technical assistance
program;
"Proposing a substantial increase from $3 million to
$25 million annually in the funding of State water
planning under the existing 50%-50% matching program
administered by the Water Resources Council...;
"A directive to Federal agency heads to provide in-
creased cooperation with States and leadership in
maintaining in-stream flows and protecting ground-
water..." (Federal Water Policy, 1978).
The President charged Secretary Andrus, Secretary of Interior,
"with the lead responsibility to see that these initiatives are
carried out promptly and fully" (Federal Water Policy, 1978). Nineteen
task forces were created with "175 representatives from the Departments
of Interior, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, and the Army,
Water Resources Council, Environmental Protection Agency and General
Services Administration" (Environment Reporter, November 1978). Work-
shops were conducted during March 1979 to consider preliminary reports
from "10 of the 19 Federal interagency task forces (ibid, February
1979); and final reports are due in June, 1979 (ibid, December 1978).
Meanwhile, on January 4, 1979, the President by Executive Order
(No. 12113, 44FR 1955) directed that preauthorization reports, proposals
and plans "be submitted to the Water Resources Council for review by the
Council to assure compliance with current principles, standards and
procedures for planning and evaluating such projects (ibid, January
1979). Interagency agreements have also been executed between EPA and
the Department of Interior, as authorized by Section 304(j) of the Clean
Water Act (ibid, December 1978), and between EPA and the Department of
-33-
-------
Agriculture (ibid, January 1979) to provide better coordination between
environmental, water quality and water quantity issues among these
agencies.
Two analyses of the President's proposed policies have already
been completed for the Congress. One (Library of Congress, 1978) lists
five problems "relative to institutions": (1) water subsidies which
provide "competitive advantages of uses such as irrigation, navigation,
and recreation over other uses and values"; (2) "impairment of environ-
mental values by water-related laws and management"; (3) "groundwater
and surface water interrelationships"; (4) "inflexibility in water
allocation and use;" and (5) "lack of access for public involvement in
water programs." Another (Comptroller General, 1978b) criticized some
of the President's suggestions: (1) "Wastewater treatment construction
projects use a large portion of the Federal water budget, but the En-
vironmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not required to economically
justify them under the (Water Resources Council) principles and stan-
dards...we still believe their costs should be justified in terms of
expected benefits..."; (2) "WRC includes the Secretaries of the De-
partments under which the water resources agencies are located and is
chaired by the Secretary of the Interior; therefore, WRC is not inde-
pendent of member agencies' influence..."; (3) "there are, however, cost
sharing inconsistencies and inequities which the policy did not ad-
dress—including the many variations in cost sharing requirements of the
various Federal water resource programs;".
The National Governor's Association responded to discussion of
proposed new policies in February 1978 by adopting 11 principles:
"1. States have primary responsibility for water management.
"2. The proper federal role is to establish a framework of
national objectives and to assist states in the develop-
ment of programs to meet those objectives.
"3. Water management should be more comprehensively approached
at all government levels.
"4. Federal actions must be consistent with state and inter-
state water plans and programs.
-34-
-------
"5. There must be continuity in federal support for water man-
agement programs.
"6. Greater flexibility in the federal support system for water
management is needed.
"7. Criteria for federal water program and project evaluation
should be refined and uniformly applied.
"8. Financing, cost-sharing, and cost recovery policies should
be revised to eliminate inequities toward water problem
solutions and to promote equal consideration of structural
and nonstructural alternatives.
"9. Water conservation must be a fundamental consideration.
"10. Federally supported water research should be expanded and
made more responsive to state concerns.
"11. Indian and Federal reserve water rights claims should be
initially addressed within the framework of state legal
systems" (Committee on Natural Resources and Environmental
Management, 1978).
A Council of State Governments (November 1978) publication listed as
"Problems and Issues": water scarcity, groundwater losses (mining),
surface water pollution and groundwater contamination, Federal reserved
rights, competing demands between energy and agriculture for water in
the Western states, cost sharing, institutional reform, concern that
conservation measures would reduce water from existing projects for
irrigation, and a Presidential (Executive) bias against water projects.
After discussing these various problems, the report concludes:
"While it is reasonable for the states to insist that the rhetoric
of partnership be translated into open communication and balanced coop-
eration between the states and federal agencies, the states should them-
selves improve their policy and management processes...To win a more re-
sponsible role in determining national water policy administration,
states should convince environmental protection interests that environ-
mental quality will not be sacrificed if states gain a stronger role in
national water policy...they should be persuaded that the alternative to
centralized government solutions offered by Congress and federal agencies
is the possibility of innovation, the sensitivity to local conditions,
and the responsiveness to local preferences that is represented in the
states...Through strengthening their own organizations and management
capacity, and playing an effective role in multistate institutions deal-
ing with regional issues, the states can reduce the threat of federal
-35-
-------
interference and intrusion. However, any realistic appraisal of the
nation's water problems would suggest that there is a substantial role
for the federal government. The basic issues are national and are an
integral part of national economic, environmental, urban, agricultural,
and energy policies..."
As to conservation initiatives, (1) they were supported, but "our
broader recommendations and matters we identified for further study have
not yet been adequately addressed"; (2) enhanced Federal-State coopera-
tion in water management was commended, but "we believe consideration
should also be given to the benefits of establishing a clearinghouse to
support the conservation grant program..., and of establishing policy
guidance on the federal role in solving the emerging urban water supply
problems"; and (3) "the issue of water quality was not adequately ad-
dressed" (Controller General, November 6, 1978).
D. Summary/Findings
Under existing institutional arrangements and Federal-state-
regional-local government policies, the following emerge as problem
areas:
Efficient operation of Federal reservoirs in a water-
shed as a unified system is often precluded because
they are built by different agencies with differing
operating requirements set by Congress.
Quantitative and qualitative analyses of groundwater,
regulation of its use and its protection from degrada-
tion have been neglected by most political units except
where water supply is short or the quality of existing
supply is poor.
The interrelationships and interdependence between the
quantity and quality of groundwater and surface water is
too often ignored in water quantity allocation and water
quality protection systems.
Available surface waters are sometimes committed to pre-
sent demands without regard to future drinking water sup-
plies.
Allocation of some streamflow to in-stream uses such as
water quality and fish and wildlife maintenance has re-
ceived low priority in the past; if these uses are to be
accorded higher priority in the future, major adjustments
to institutional mechanisms will be required.
-36-
-------
Coordination of water quantity and water quality planning
at any governmental level often requires time-consuming
interagency cooperation under pressure from above with
indifferent results unless, as is rarely the case, a
single agency is responsible for both functions at the
state, regional or local level.
Water supply and wastewater treatment projects are separ-
ately planned, financed and constructed by different
agencies under different statutes and regulations to
achieve different purposes without regard to their inter-
acting effects or possible mutual savings or advantages.
-37-
-------
References: Chapter II
Clean Water Act. 1977. Section 202(a)(2).
Committee on Natural Resources and Environmental Management, (National
Governor's Association). June 1978. Proposed policy statement re:
Fundamental Principals for a National Water Policy.
Comptroller General. November 16, 1978a. Reserved Water Rights for
Federal and Indian Reservations: A Growing Controversy in Need of
Resolution. Report to the Congress. CED 78-176, p. 4.
, November 6, 1978b. Review of the President's June 6. 1978,
Water Policy Message. Report. CED-79-2, pp. 3-7.
Corker, Charles E. 1971. Groundwater Law, Management and Administra-
tion. Final Report (Review Draft); Legal Study 6. Prepared for
National Water Commission. Report. NCk-L-72-026, p. 112, p. 119, and
p. 162.
Environment Reporter, Bureau of National Affairs, November 10, 1978,
p. 1294.
, February 23, 1979, p. 2006.
, December 15, 1978, p. 1465, and p. 1456.
, January 12, 1979, p. 1705, and January 26, 1979, p. 1786.
"Federal Water Policy Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents".
Monday, June 12, 1978. Volume 14 - Number 23, pp. 1043 ff., and
p. 1046.
Governor's Commission to Review California Water Rights Law. August
1978. Draft Report, p. 7.
Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Environmental and
National Resources Policy Division. June 1978. The Water Resources
Policy Study: An Assessment. Prepared for the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate. Publication No. 950108, pp. 27-28.
Myers, Charles J. 1971. Functional Analysis of Appropriation Law.
Legal Study No. 1, prepared for National Water Commission. Report NWC-
L-71-006, p. 26.
, citing 14 Stat 251 (1866), as amended 43 USC. 661 (1964);
16 Stat 217 (1870), as amended 43 USC. 661 (1964); and Stat 377 (1877),
as amended, 43 USC. 321 (1964).
-38-
-------
National Commission on Water Quality. August 1975. Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972. Institutional Assessment, Construction Grants.
NTIS 9B 244-804. pp. III-G-II, III-G-12.
Vernon's Texas Code Annotated. Water Code 5.024. Formerly Vernon's
Texas Civil Statutes, Article 7471.
-39-
-------
Chapter III
THE AVAILABLE WATER RESOURCE AND ITS USE
A. National Availability
The conterminous U.S. receives an average of 30 inches of rain an-
nually. About two-thirds of this water is evaporated to the atmosphere
from lakes, streams, and swamps or transpired by vegetation as is illus-
trated in Figure 3.1. The remaining 10.3 inches becomes either stream-
flow (6.4 inches) or recharge for the Nation's groundwater (3.9 inches).
About 2.7 inches of the groundwater accretion goes to shallow aquifers
which sustain the Nation's streams during dry periods so that, in the
end, some 9.1 inches of surface streamflow is observed and only 1.2
inches reaches the deep aquifers (WRC, 1978a).
The 10.3 inches or 1450 billion gallons per day (bgd) of surface
flow and groundwater recharge constitute the freshwater resource of the
conterminous states. Under current ("1975") conditions of use, 9.3
inches flows to the oceans or adjoining countries (8.6 inches as stream-
flow and 0.7 inches as sub-surface flow from groundwater), 0.1 inch
evaporates from reservoirs, and the remaining 0.9 inches is consumptive-
ly used.
Development and use of the full 1450 bgd is neither possible nor
desirable. Variations in precipitation create periods of floods and
droughts. Only if all flood flows could be stored for use in future dry
years would it be physically possible to utilize all of this water.
With existing storage reservoirs the U.S. Water Resources Council (WRC,
1978a) estimates that only about 675 bgd can be considered to be avail-
able in 95 out of 100 years. In other words if the Nation attempted to
develop and consume 675 bgd, water shortages would be expected in one
year out of twenty.
The "usable resource" (675 bgd) can be increased by providing ad-
ditional storage but not to the full amount of the "natural supply"
-40-
-------
Atmospheric moisture—
40,000 bgd
Streamflow to
Pacific
Ocean—
300 bgd
Subsurface
flow—
25 bgd
Streamflow to
Canada—6 bgd
Evaporation from wet surface—2,750 bgd
Reservoir net evaporation
15 bgd (measured)
Consumptive use—106 bgd
Streamflow to
Atlantic Ocean
and
Gulf of Mexico—
920 bgd
;, Subsurface flow-
75 bgd
Streamflow to Mexico—1.6 bgd
Figure 3.1 WATER BUDGET OF THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES, "1975" CONDITIONS
Source: WRC (1978a)
-------
(1450 bgd). In some regions the necessary reservoir sites are not
available, in others the great increase in reservoir surface area re-
quired would result in substantial depletion of the available water by
evaporation. Additional storage would also be increasingly costly and,
at some point, would be economically infeasible.
In addition to the physical and economic reasons which preclude
full development of the natural supply, the approximately 100 bgd of
groundwater outflow to the oceans and the 8 bgd of surface flow to
Canada and Mexico is largely unavoidable. It is also essential to leave
considerable flow in the streams to support aquatic life, wildlife and
riparian vegetation, permit recreational use and navigation, and main-
tain scenic values. Finally surface flow must also be permitted to
reach the oceans to maintain conditions in estuaries suitable for the
marine life which begins its life cycle there, and to prevent intrusion
of salt water to the water intakes of many coastal cities. While it
is not possible to state exactly the amount of water which can be
considered as a "usable" resource, it is greater than the 675 bgd
estimated for 1975 conditions but less than the 1450 bgd of natural
supply.
The preceding discussion of the water resource has considered the
conterminous 48 states as a whole. Table III-l summarizes the mean
natural supply for all water resource regions shown in Figure 3.2,
including 18 in the conterminous states and the Alaska, Hawaii and
Caribbean Islands regions. It is noteworthy that Alaska alone has a
mean annual supply equal to three-fouths that of the conterminous states.
Table III-l also presents estimates of the flows at various probability
levels. Percent exceedance equals the number of years per century in
which the indicated flows will be equaled or exceeded. For example, on
the average, a total flow for all WRC regions of 2119.7 bgd will be
equaled or exceeded in 50 out of the 100 years.
Groundwater poses a special assessment problem. As indicated in
the preceding discussion of the national water balance, annual accretion
to groundwater is estimated at 3.9 inches of which 2.7 inches are dis-
charged to the streams and included in the summary of surface water
-42-
-------
Table III-l
STREAMFLOW FREQUENCY - "1975"
Water resources
region and No.
Stream-flow, in billion gallons per day
Mean
Percent exceedance
5
50
80
95
New England (1) 78.2 107.7 77.4 62.7 48.3
Mid-Atlantic (2) 79.2 115.1 77.8 61.2 48.4
South Atlantic-Gulf (3) 228.0 356.6 219.3 164.1 121.8
Great Lakes (4) 72.7 103.9 71.7 57.3 44.9
Ohio (5) 178.0 254.0 178.0 141.0 105.0
Tennessee (6) 40.8 57.9 40.8 35.9 31.4
Upper Mississippi (7) 121.0 189.0 121.0 91.8 65.3
Lower Mississippi (8) 433.0 757.0 433.0 282.0 202.0
Souris-Red-Rainy (9) 6.0 11.4 5.6 3.4 1.8
Missouri (10) 44.1 74.3 43.2 29.9 17.6
Arkansas-White-Red (11) 62.6 120.7 59.1 37.4 21.6
Texas-Gulf (12) 28.3 62.4 22.9 12.3 6.3
Rio Grande (13) 1.2 4.4 .6 .3 .2
Upper Colorado (14) 10.0 15.6 10.0 7.0 3.9
Lower Colorado (15) 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.2
Great Basin (16) 2.6 4.7 2.4 1.6 1.2
Pacific Northwest (17) 255.3 344.7 254.3 213.3 179.7
California (18) 47.4 87.4 44.3 29.8 19.5
Total, Regions 1-18 1,233.4 1,956.9 1,210.9 889.4 675.3
Alaska (19) 905.0 1,030.0 898.0 795.0 705.0
Hawaii (20) 6.7 10.3 6.3 4.9 3.8
Caribbean (21) 4.9 7.1 4.5 3.3 1.6
Total, Regions 1-21 2,150.0 3,004.3 2,119.7 1,692.6 1,385.7
(italic numbers not included in total because these
are inflows to another region)
Source: WRC (1978a)
-------
Figure 3.2 WATER RESOURCES REGIONS
Source: WRC (1978a)
-------
availability in Table III-l. Another 0.7 inch flows to the ocean leav-
ing only 0.5 inch of average annual recharge. The total volume of ground-
water underlying the U.S. has been estimated at 50 times the annual
surface runoff. This water has accumulated over centuries, particularly
in the arid regions of the west. Withdrawals at a rate exceeding the
recharge can result in rapid depletion of the stored water. For example
in the High Plains of west Texas the small amount of rainfall results in
an annual recharge which has been estimated at about one-quarter inch.
The use of 36 inches annually for irrigation represents a withdrawal of
water which may have taken nearly 150 years to accumulate. Water levels
are dropping rapidly and continued depletion could soon force much land
out of production (National Water Commission, 1973).
Hence, while the Nation's groundwater reserves are large, local
exhaustion is occurring as a result of "mining" just as it does for
petroleum or minerals. To specify the "available" groundwater at an
average annual rate in the same way as for surface water requires a
decision as to the acceptable rate of mining. The safe yield without
depletion of reserves is equal to the average recharge of 0.5 inch or
about 60 bgd. As indicated in Table III-2 approximately 81 bgd was
withdrawn in the conterminous states in 1975 which means that safe yield
is being exceeded by 35 percent. If a national decision is made that
some groundwater can be mined without serious problems of depletion,
then the "available" groundwater is an equivalent amount more than the
60 bgd (Linsley, 1979).
B. Present and Projected Use
1. "Offstream" Water Use
Trends in freshwater use by diversion from streams or groundwater
are shown by functional category in Figure 3.3 and are summarized in
Table III-3. Total withdrawals of freshwater in 1975 were 338 bgd.
Only about 107 bgd of this water was consumed. An additional 60 bgd of
saline water was withdrawn from estuaries and the ocean mostly for
cooling water. The WRC projects that total withdrawals will decline as
a result of improved efficiency of use in industry, agriculture and
-45-
-------
Table III-2
GROUNDWATER WITHDRAHALS AND PERCENTAGE OF OVERDRAFT:
'1975"
Water resources
region and No.
Total
withdrawal
(mgd)
Overdraft
Subregions
Total
(mgd)
Percent
Number Number Range in
in with overdraft
Region Overdraft (percent)
New England (1) 635 0
Mid-Atlantic (2) 2,661 32
South Atlantic-Gulf (3) 5,449 339
Great Lakes (4)-- - — 1,215 27
Ohio (5) 1,843 0
Tennessee (6) 271 0
Upper Mississippi (7) 2,366 0
Lower Mississippi (8) 4,838 412
Souris-Red-Rainy (9) 86 0
Missouri (10) 10,407 2,557
Arkansas-white-Red (11) 8,846 5,457
Texas-Gulf (12) — 7,222 5,578
Rio Grande (13) 2,335 657
Upper Colorado (14) 126 0
Lower Colorado (15)- 5,008 2,415
Great Basin (16) — — - 1,424 591
Pacific Northwest (17) 7,348 627
California (18) 19,160 2,197
Regions 1-18— -- 81,240 20,889
Alaska (19) 44 0
Hawaii (20) — 790 0
Caribbean (21)-- - 254 ]3_
Regions 1-21-- - - 82,328 20,902
0
1.2
6.2
2.2
0
0
0
8.5
0
24.6
61.7
77.2
28.1
0
48.
41
8.5
11.5
.2
.5
25.7
0
0
5.1
25.4
6
6
9
8
7
2
5
3
1
11
7
5
5
3
3
4
7
_7
99
1
4
2
106
0
3
8
1
0
0
0
3
0
10
7
5
4
0
3
4
6
__5
59
0
0
JL
60
1- 9
2-13
30
7-13
4-36
2-76
24-95
22-43
7-53
7-75
4-45
7-31
1-95
1-95
Source: WRC (1978a)
-------
400
350
300
£ 250
"O
I
§ 200
c
O
= 150
CD
100
1955
140
130
120 |
110
100
90 _
f 80
£
I 70
a eo
§
= 50
m
40
30
20
10
0
1975 TOTAL
WITHDRAWALS
2000 TOTAL
1960 1965 1970
1975 TOTAL
CONSUMPTION
1975
1955 1960
1965
193
37
198E
2000
2000 TOTAL
Domestic and Commercial
Agriculture
Steam Electric Generation
1970 1975 1985
Manufacturing and Minerals
Public Lands and Other
2000
Figure 3.3 TOTAL FRESHWATER WITHDRAWALS AND CONSUMPTION BY FUNCTIONAL USE
Source: WRC (1978a)
-------
TABLE III-3
TOTAL FRESH WATER WITHDRAWALS AND CONSUMPTION, BY FUNCTIONAL USE,
FOR THE 21 WATER RESOURCES REGIONS: "1975," 2000
(million gallons per day)
Total Withdrawals
Functional Use
Fresh Water:
Domestic:
Central (municipal)
Noncentral (rural)
Commercial
Manufacturing
Agriculture:
Irrigation
Livestock
Steam electric generation
Minerals industry
Public lands and others3
Total Fresh Water
Saline water, total
Total Withdrawals
"1975"
21,164
2,092
5,530
51,222
158,743
1,912
88,916
7,055
1,866
338,500
59,737
398,237
2000
27,918
2,400
6,732
19,669
153,846
2,551
79,492
11,328
2,461
306,397
118,815
425,212
Total Consumption
"1975"
4,9,76
1,292
1,109
6,059
86,391
1,912
1,419
2,196
1,236
106,590
2000
6,638
1,436
1,369
14,699
92,506
2,551
10,541
3,609
1,731
135,080
a. Includes water for fish hatcheries and miscellaneous uses.
Source: WRC (1978a)
-48-
-------
steam electric generation. Actual consumption is expected to increase
about one-fourth, with the largest increases in the same sectors --
industry, agriculture and steam electric generation.
The distribution of the present withdrawals among the water re-
sources regions is indicated in Table III-4. Note that water use in
Alaska, Hawaii, and the Caribbean constitutes only a small portion of
the above totals.
Domestic and commercial withdrawals, which include most drinking
water, are about 29 bgd and are expected to increase to 37 bgd in 2000.
Consumption by these uses is about 7 bgd and is projected to be 9 bgd.
Obviously, domestic and commercial water needs are small compared to
other uses. For example, agriculture is responsible for about 47 per-
cent of fresh withdrawals and 83 percent of consumption.
Changes in projected use result from population growth and other
factors. Conversion of WRC information on present and projected off-
stream freshwater use to a per capita basis (WRC, 1978b) provides the
following insights:
The WRC has assumed per capita domestic and commer-
cial withdrawals and consumption will remain constant,
in spite of the trend for increase shown by data from
the past two decades. (Murray and Reeves, 1977).
Irrigation water use per capita is projected to de-
crease both for withdrawals (22 percent) and consump-
tion (14 percent). This is due to: (1) the lack of
new, economical irrigation water sources to keep pace
with population growth; (2) anticipated loss of irri-
gation water sources where excessive groundwater min-
ing is now occurring; (3) expected increases in agri-
cultural yields; and, (4) increased efficiency in ir-
rigation practices. Increased irrigation efficiency is
projected to result in decreases of both water with-
drawal (15 percent) and water consumption (5 percent)
on a per irrigated acre basis.
Steam electric water use per capita is projected to
have a 27 percent decrease in withdrawals but a 460 per-
cent increase in consumption. These changes are due to:
(1) a projected increase in per capita electricity gen-
eration of 300 percent; (2) extensive recycling of cool-
ing water through cooling ponds and towers; and, (3) an
increase in water consumption of 50 percent due to re-
cycling.
-49-
-------
Table III-4
TOTAL FRESH- AND SALINE-WATER WITHDRAWALS: "1975"
Withdrawals, in million gallons per day
Water resources
region and No.
Surface
Fresh water
Ground
Total
Saline
water
Total
en
o
i
New England (1) - 4,463
Mid-Atlantic (2) 15,639
South Atlantic-Gulf (3) 19,061
Great Lakes (4) 41,598
Ohio (5) 33,091
Tennessee (6) 7,141
Upper Mississippi (7) 10,035
Lower Mississippi (8) 9,729
Souris-Red-Rainy (9)- - 250
Missouri (10) 27,609
Arkansas-White-Red (11) 4,022
Texas-Gulf (12) 9,703
Rio Grande (13) 3.986
Upper Colorado (14) 6,743
Lower Colorado (15) 3,909
Great Basin (16) 6,567
Pacific Northwest (17) 30,147
California (18) - 20,476
Total, Regions 1-18 254,169
Alaska (19) 261
Hawaii (20) 1,089
Caribbean (21) 653
Total, Regions 1-21 256,172
635
,661
,449
,215
,843
271
,366
,838
86
10,407
8,846
2.
5,
1
1
2,
4,
7,
2,
5,
1,
7,
222
335
126
008
424
348
19,160
81,240
44
790
254
82,328
5,098
18,300
24,510
42,813
34,934
7,412
12,401
14,567
336
38,016
12,868
16,925
6,321
6,869
8,917
7,991
37,495
39,636
335,409
305
1,879
907
338,500
5,
19,
1..
1
,216
,625
,460
0
0
0
0
,253
0
0
0
9,163
0
0
0
0
131
14,569
57,417
57
1,139
1,124
59,737
10,314
37,925
31,970
42,813
34,934
7,412
12,401
15,820
336
38,016
12,868
26,088
6,321
6,869
8,917
7,991
37,626
54,205
392,826
362
3,018
2,031
398,237
Source: WRC (1978a)
-------
Manufacturing water use per capita is projected to have
withdrawals decrease by 69 percent but consumption in-
crease by 96 percent. These changes are due to: (1)
an increase in per capita manufacturing production of
TOO percent; (2) a slight shift to less water consump-
tive manufacturing processes or products; and, (3) ex-
tensive recycling of water in manufacturing processes.
In summary, the most significant changes expected appear to be due to
increased efficiency in agriculture and increased per capita demand for
electricity and manufactured goods.
2. In-Stream Uses
The extent to which the water resource in the streams is being
"used" is difficult to quantify. In-stream uses include water needed
for fish and wildlife, recreation, hydroelectric power, waste assimila-
tion, navigation, freshwater flow to estuaries, maintenance of riparian
vegetation and floodplain wetlands, and conveyance of water to down-
stream diversion points. The latter item includes water which must be
delivered from one region to another or to an adjoining country as a
result of a treaty or interstate compact.
Water needed for in-stream uses must obviously remain in the
stream, but it is not consumptively used except for some small evap-
oration losses from hydroelectric reservoirs and transpiration by
riparian vegetation. Thus, in-stream use is a true multiple use of
water and the desired minimum streamflow is determined by that use
needing the largest flow. If the flow is adequate to satisfy this use,
all other uses should find the flow sufficient. The WRC has completed a
preliminary examination of in-stream needs as part of the Second National
Assessment and has found streamflows for fish and wildlife maintenance
are usually the dominant need. They have developed "in-stream flow
approximations" which are the percent of average annual streamflow
desired for fish and wildlife at the outflow point(s) of each of the 106
WRC subregions as illustrated in Figure 3.4. These estimates will be
refined by future work and techniques must also be developed for estima-
ting and displaying in-stream needs at other points in the subregions.
-51-
-------
Explanation
| | 0-25%
[ | 51-75%
C U 76-100%
I | Over 100%
Figure 3.4 IN-STREAM FLOW APPROXIMATIONS FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE,
AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL STREAMFLOW
Source: WRC (1978a)
-------
C. Comparison of National Availability and Use
As a first step in assessing the adequacy and dependability of
drinking water supplies, the national resource is compared to present
and WRC projected use (Table III-5). This comparison indicates that, on
a nationwide basis, streamflow and interactive groundwaters represent
more than twice the total withdrawals estimated for either 1975 or 2000
and over five times the estimated consumption.
If attention is focused upon domestic and commercial uses, it is
seen that anticipated withdrawals in 2000 are only about 5 percent of
the once-in-20-year drought streamflow. Such a comparison does not show
an imminent nationwide shortage of drinking water; instead, it tends to
highlight an apparent national richness in water.
Table III-5
COMPARISON OF WATER AVAILABILITY AND USE IN THE CONTERMINOUS U.S.
(in bgd)
Availability 1975 2000
Streamflow (Average Year) 1,230
Streamflow (Once-in-20-year-drought) 675
Total Off-Stream Freshwater Use
Withdrawal 335 303
Consumption 106 134
Domestic and Commercial (Drinking) Use
Withdrawal 28 36
Consumption 7 g
Source: WRC (1978a)
D- Regional, Subregional, and Local Availability and Use
The national perspective masks the regional variability in both
available supply and expected use; these must be examined to determine
whether regional deficiencies exist. Table III-6 compares the mean
-53-
-------
Table III-6
COMPARISON OF REGIONAL WATER AVAILABILITY
AND PROJECTED USE
(in bgd)
Water Supply
Year 2000 Total Off-
Year 2000 Domestic and
01
Region
1. New England
2. Mid-Atlantic
3. South Atlantic-Gulf
4. Great Lakes
5. Ohio
6. Tennessee
7. Upper Mississippi
8. Lower Mississippi
9. Souris-Red-Rainy
10. Missouri
11. Arkansas-White-Red
12. Texas-Gulf
13. Rio Grande
14. Upper Colorado
15. Lower Colorado
16. Great Basin
17. Pacific Northwest
18. California
19. Alaska
20. Hawaii
21. Caribbean
Mean
Streamflow
78.1
79.2
228.0
72.7
178.0
40.8
121.0
433.0
6.0
44.1
62.6
28.3
1.2
10.0
1.6
2.6
255.3
47.4
905.0
6.7
4.9
Once-In-20-Year
Drought Streamfli
48.3
48.4
121.8
44.9
105.0
31.4
65.3
202.0
1.8
17.6
21.6
6.3
.2
3.9
1.2
1.2
179.7
19.5
705.0
3.8
1.6
Stream Water
Use
Withdrawal Consumpl
3.2
13.9
28.3
25.6
16.9
6.0
7.9
24.8
0.6
44.4-
13.3
15.0-
5.6-
7.5-
7.9"*
7.3-*
33.8
41.3-
0.7
1.3
0.9
1.1
3.5
10.1
4.7
4.3
1.1
2.7
5.5
0.4
19.9
8.9
10.5-
4.0'
3.2
4.7-
4.0
15.2
29.7
0.5
0.7
0.3
Commercial
Water Use
Withdrawal Consumpl
1.8
6.0
4.3
5.3
2.9
0.5
2.4
1.0
0.1
1.5
1.1
1.9
0.4-*
0.1
0.8
0.5
1.3
4.4
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.3
1.0
1.5
0.7
0.5
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.2-
0.0
0.4
0.2
0.3
1.8
0.0
0.1
0.1
Source: WRC (1978a)
-------
natural supply and the once-in-20-year drought stream-flow with projected
year 2000 water withdrawals and consumption for the 21 WRC regions.
Also listed are projected domestic and commercial withdrawals and con-
sumption.
Water supplies are most dependable in the Northwest, Northeast and
Southeast because the drought flows are a high percentage, on the order
of 50-70 percent, of the mean annual supply. The greatest variations,
and least dependable supplies, occur in the semi-arid Southwest and
Southcentral regions where drought flows are a small percentage, less
than 40 percent of the mean supply. However, even in the humid regions
of the country serious drought conditions can result from a series of
dry years as evidenced by the 1961-65 drought in the Northeast. Thus,
specific consideration of drought conditions and their frequency of
occurrence is an important aspect of water availability throughout the
country.
In comparing projected withdrawal and consumption with the once-in-
20-years streamflow, the arrows in Table III-6 indicate potential
limitations of supply in the Missouri, Texas-Gulf, Rio Grande, Upper and
Lower Colorado, Great Basin and California regions. It is noted that
the Arkansas-White-Red region also experiences shortages, but these are
masked by the dryness of the upper basins as compared with the relative
wetness of the lower basins. It is apparent that the geographic and
temporal variations in water availability combine to make water supply a
major concern in the Southwest and Southcentral portions of the country.
In comparing projected regional domestic and commercial water use
with the once-in-20-year streamflow as an indication of the adequacy and
dependability of drinking water supplies, the Rio Grande Region is the
only one which indicates a significant imbalance.
A further regional comparison of mean streamflow with "in-stream
flow approximations" for fish and wildlife shows major shortages in the
Rio Grande, Lower Colorado and Great Basin regions (WRC, 1978a).
A subregional comparison of available surface supplies and pro-
jected use is presented in Figure 3.5. Distinction is made between
subregions which may be water-short during an average year and others
-55-
-------
Explanation
Subregion with inadequate streamflow ("1975"-2000)
V///A 70 percent depleted in average year
I _] 70 percent depleted in dry year
I I Less than 70 percent depleted
Specific problems (as identified by Federal and State/Regional study teams)
•A- Conflict between offstream and instream uses
Inadequate supply of fresh surface water to support-
Offstream use
• Central (municipal) and noncentral (rural) domestic use
Z Industry or energy resource development
A Crop irrigation
Instream use
Fish and wildlife habitat or outdoor recreation
Hydroelectric generation or navigation
Boundaries
Water resources region
Subregion
Figure 3.5 INADEQUATE SURFACE WATER SUPPLY AND RELATED PROBLEMS
Source: WRC (1978a)
-------
which may have problems during dry years based on the once-in-five-year
streamflow level (WRC, 1978c). In general the 26 subregions shown in
the Figure as having problems with inadequate streamflow are the ones
that have intensive water developments withdrawing a large percentage of
available supplies and also making extensive use of water for irrigation.
More severe droughts, such as the once-in-20-year occurrence, result in
shortages in other subregions scattered throughout the U.S.
The water-short subregions are also those which depend most strongly
on groundwater for supplies and, as noted, some regions are seriously
depleting this resource by mining. As Figure 3.6 shows, groundwater
depletion is widespread in the Texas-Gulf, Rio Grande, Arkansas-White-
Red, Missouri, Lower Colorado and California regions, plus portions of
the Upper and Lower Mississippi and the South Atlantic Gulf regions.
Continuation of mining could ultimately exhaust local supplies and
create severe shortages, including shortages of drinking water.
Even the quantitative data for the WRC subregions do not show the
spectrum of problems involving adequacy and dependability of water sup-
plies. This is shown by the variety of other problems indicated by the
markings in Figures 3.5 and 3.6.
E. Domestic and Commercial Water Quantity Problems
Problems of national significance regarding water availability
occur on a regional, subregional, or local basis as opposed to being of
national scope. The national significance is that they sometimes occur
in many different localities.
From a supply viewpoint, major regions of the country are using
water in excess of their presently sustainable resource. Some areas are
entirely dependent on groundwater mining. Other areas, where surface
waters are used, have been able to satisfy growing demands by means of
the relatively high yields from normal and wet-year streamflows. When
droughts occur, however, it is often found that increases in demand have
eliminated the drought protection which the system was designed to
provide. As a result of these droughts, or when groundwater mining
evolves into dwindling of available supplies, severe economic, social,
-57-
-------
Explanation
Area problem
^ Area in which significant ground-water overdraft is occurring
| ~| Unshaded area may not be problem-free, but the problem was not considered major
Specific problems (as identified by Federal and State/Regional study teams)
• Declining ground-water levels
4 Diminished springflow and streamflow
A Formation of fissures and subsidence
• Saline-water intrusion into fresh-water aquifers
Boundaries
— Water resources region
_ Subregion
Figure 3.6 GROUND-WATER OVERDRAFT AND RELATED PROBLEMS
WRC (1978a)
-------
and political repercussions are often cited as the basis for national
intervention to rescue affected areas. In effect, national taxpayers
are called upon to subsidize state and local governments who failed to
plan satisfactorily for an adequate and dependable water supply. To
avoid such occurrences is a national concern.
On the use side the problem is increasing competition among uses
for the limited supplies within various regions and subregions. This
competition is most intense in water-short subregions of the Southwest
and Southcentral U.S. where agriculture withdraws and consumes large
quantities. New water uses intensify this competition; examples are
coal liquefication and oil shale development. Perhaps most significant
is the increased recognition given to in-stream uses such as fish and
wildlife. Competition also occurs in the water-rich Northeast where
growing metropolitan areas compete for the upstream supplies which are
preferred as drinking water sources. The variety of uses, combined with
their tendency to grow in magnitude, makes competition for water a
continuing nationwide problem. The WRC (1978a) provides more detail on
the overall competition for water and its regional study teams address
the problem on a more local basis.
Even in those subregions of the country where general water quan-
tity problems exist or can be expected in the next two decades, it is
postulated that domestic and commercial water needs could always be met
with only small reductions in other uses. This does not mean, however,
that water availability problems do not exist for these uses. Rather,
these problems are local problems, hidden in the broader regional pic-
ture; but they are no less important because they are local. Typical
problems are discussed below as are possible opportunities for solving
them.
1. Inadequate Water Supply
Many large urban areas have already exhausted the natural fresh-
water supply within their environs and have built aqueducts reaching
some distance away to augment their supply. Boston, New York, Denver,
Phoenix, San Francisco and Los Angeles are examples.
-59-
-------
To illustrate the predicament, New York City imports an average of
1421 mgd from the Upper Hudson and Delaware areas. This has caused
water quality problems for the exporting regions by allowing salt water
to extend farther up the Hudson and Delaware Rivers. It is estimated
that without a conservation program the deficit between demand and safe
yield in the New York metropolitan area could reach more than 500 mgd in
2000 (WRC, 1978d).
Although Chicago has a large supply source in Lake Michigan, it is
limited to 2,068 mgd from this source by a Supreme Court Ruling and the
pressure on this limited supply is increasing rapidly, while groundwater
use is exceeding the recharge capability of the aquifer (WRC, 1978e).
Many smaller cities and rural water districts face similar prob-
lems but lack the resources to construct aqueducts or have no place to
go for supplies. Figure 3.5 identifies severe domestic shortages from a
local viewpoint in over half of the WRC subregions. These problem
identifications are based on the knowledge of the Federal and State/Reg-
ional study teams which participated in the WRC's Second Assessment. It
is suspected, however, that many small community systems with supply
problems were not included on the map. A more detailed reading of
regional assessment data indicates the lack of specific information.
Even when problems are identified, the precise nature or location is
frequently not revealed as the following problem statements exemplify:
New Hampshire Coastal Area, "...by 1980 water supplies in
several area communities, among them Epping and Raymond,
will not be sufficient to meet the demands placed upon them"
(WRC, 1978f).
Tennessee Region. "Some smaller communities located near
the rim of the basin develop water supply problems during
times of drought. Marion, Grundy, Cumberland, and Morgan
Counties in Tennessee are four counties where the problem
is most pronounced. Except for Crossville, Tennessee, most
of the affected communities are under 1,000 in population.
Streamflows in these locations are generally intermittent
because of the very small drainage areas, and the ground-
water is unreliable because of the small recharge areas
and type of aquifers" (WRC, 1978g).
-60-
-------
Texas Gulf Region. "A significant portion of the Region's
population still resides in rural areas and recent trends
indicate that the population of these areas is beginning to
increase after decades of decline. Rural water systems gen-
erally have difficulty in, meeting drinking water standards
and in providing a dependable, uninterrupted service, be-
cause of their relatively small size and low density of ser-
vice-area population result in high costs per customer"
(WRC, 1978h).
Ohio Region. "Except for a few localized areas, there ap-
pears to be an abundant availability of water resources
(ground and surface) to meet the demands of the Basin.
The existing problems are usually related to the local dis-
tribution system except for a few rural areas where quan-
tity problems exist" (WRC, 1978i).
Pacific Northwest Region. "Thus, in spite of the large
annual supply of water in the Region, water requirements
in many areas are not adequately met largely because sup-
plies are not available when and where they are required"
(WRC, 1978J).
In addition to persons served by large and small "community" water
systems, 10 to 15 percent of the Nation's population is served by indi-
vidual sources, usually wells. An additional 2 percent has no running
water at all. Although some of these people almost certainly experience
water shortages, there is no direct indication of their extent.
2. Groundwater
Groundwater is an attractive source of domestic and commercial
water. It is usually pure and small supplies are relatively inexpen-
sive. Many small community systems, and some large ones, suffer supply
difficulties as regional groundwater levels drop under sustained over-
drafts involving larger users such as agriculture. Other cities draw
from small local aquifers which could at one time supply adequate water
but as population grows the capacity of the source is exceeded. Often
supplemental water must be brought long distances. In some instances
depletion of streamflow has decreased the recharge to an aquifer below
a level sufficient for the water system using the aquifer.
Declining water tables have permitted movement of ocean water into
aquifers on the Nation's coasts and withdrawals in some interior aquifers
-61-
-------
have permitted saline water from an adjacent aquifer to enter a fresh
water aquifer. Such penetration may make the source unsuitable for
domestic use. This problem is insidious in the sense that penetration
occurs slowly over long periods of time and it is difficult to flush the
saline water out of the aquifer except over equally long time periods.
Continuing irrigation of land overlying an aquifer can cause a slow
increase in salinity. Salts in irrigation water are concentrated by
evaporation and can be leached back to the underlying groundwater.
Domestic supplies drawn from the same aquifer become progressively less
desirable and may become unusable. Groundwater of the Wei ton-Mohawk
project near Yuma, Arizona and in the San Joaquin Valley of California
are examples of this problem.
As was indicated in Table 111-2, groundwater overdraft is occurring
in 12 of the 18 WRC regions in the conterminous states. The seriousness
of this situation is highlighted by the following examples:
Nearly 10 million acres or almost 20 percent of the
presently irrigated acres overlying the Ogallala
aquifer in the High Plains of West Texas and Eastern
New Mexico are threatened by depletion of the aquifer.
This underlying water supply is expected to be ex-
hausted within 30 to 50 years (WRC, 1978h). Essen-
tially all community water supply systems in the area
rely on this source as well and they will also be ad-
versely affected.
Under present rates of pumping in Southeast Georgia,
groundwater quality is threatened in the Savannah area
and salt water intrusion is beginning in the Brunswick
area. Groundwater withdrawals are expected to double
between 1970 and 2000. Some small domestic users of
these aquifers do not have access to public water sys-
tems and will have to go deeper with their wells to
reach uncontaminated sources which will in turn ag-
gravate salt water intrusion into lower aquifers.
(WRC, 1978k).
Users in California are currently withdrawing 2.2 bgd
annually which is in excess of recharge. Based on esti-
mates of the amount that can feasibly be withdrawn from
groundwater aquifers it appears that they could exhaust
groundwater within the next 50 years. The range in de-
depletion of 7 to 31 percent in the five out of seven
-62-
-------
California subregions indicates that the impact will be
felt considerably before that 50 year median number
(WRC, 1978c). Indeed, the San Joaquin Valley, with the
largest groundwater overdraft of any area in the state
has resulted in increased pumping costs, threat of
quality degradation in some locations and land subsidence
in others (WRC, 1978k). Domestic users will again feel
the shortage as well.
3. Drought
Most communities are subject to the risk of drought. Generally
speaking it is difficult and costly to provide a system which can cope
with all possible droughts. Those communities using groundwater as a
source are usually in the most favorable position since the supply does
not usually decrease rapidly and can be augmented fairly quickly through
construction of a new well. The exception to this generalization is
source aquifer depletion by mining but, even in this case, droughts
should not interrupt the community's supply until the aquifer is de-
pleted to the point where it is no longer a feasible source.
Communities depending on surface streamflow can always expect a
drought period in which available supplies present serious problems.
Such an occurrence is more likely to happen in the regions where current
use is a substantial fraction of available supply but it can happen in
any part of the country. Local problems are sometimes accentuated by
failure of the community to keep its system expansion on a par with
increasing demand or by its failure to discourage growth if supplies
cannot be increased. Such was the case in the water shortage for some
Northeastern areas during the early 60's and some Western areas during
the mid 70's.
There is an absence of detailed data on community water systems and
their hydrologic supply characteristics. Thus a nationwide or even
regional assessment of community water supply dependability and problems
under drought conditions is not possible at this time. While shortages
created by drought are annoying, they do not usually create insurmount-
able problems for most communities. Emergency supplies and public
education leading to reduced use have seen many communities through
relatively severe drought without serious consequences.
-63-
-------
4. Population Growth
The impact of population growth on available supply is illustrated
Hood County, Texas which has been largely a rural agricultural area
drawing groundwater to meet its needs. In 1969 the Brazos River Author-
ity completed Lake Granbury which surrounds the County Seat on three
sides. With the lake as an attraction Hood County is becoming a bedroom
community for Ft. Worth about 40 miles away. The expanding population,
with a higher per capita water demand than the rural residents, is
rapidly exceeding the available groundwater sources. Although Lake
Granbury is close, its water has 1400 mg/1 of salt compared to the 500
mg/1 standard for drinking water. A new source must be found and devel-
oped which will be costly, or a supply must be purchased from some large
supplier in the area (Ruesink, 1979).
Many small suburban communities are encountering this problem.
They are outgrowing their supply and face high costs to develop new
sources.
5. Conservation
Conservation offers an opportunity to extend the utility of lim-
ited supplies. It would appear that the timing is ideal for implementa-
tion of conservation measures, because of the recent attitudinal change
toward environmental awareness and because additional developable supplies
are increasingly expensive. More and more frequently conservation is
likely to be recognized as one of the most economical means for satisfying
water needs associated with increased population or production. Follow-
ing are examples of savings that might be anticipated from conservation
(Metcalf & Eddy, 1976):
Domestic in-house use might be reduced by between 30 and 50
percent of present average values with the use of pressure-
reducing valves, flow-limiting shower heads and dual-cycle
toilets. Such changes could be achieved easily in new and
remodelled homes.
Metering of domestic central supplies may reduce outdoor uses
at presently unmetered houses by 50 to 80 percent, and will
also enable the assessment of losses due to leakage in the
distribution system, which may amount to between 30 and 50
percent in some instances.
64-
-------
Additional conservation measures oriented toward sprinkling
should be able to realize a 10 percent reduction in yard use
with no significant sacrifice in landscaping.
Conservation on the part of commercial and industrial users of
municipal supplies could achieve a 5 percent reduction simply
based on good housekeeping. Adoption of additional measures
such as water conserving toilets, changes in production proces-
ses and recycling should provide substantial additional water
savings.
The benefits of conservation vary. In coastal locations where
water supply diverted from mountain streams is used only once and then
discarded to the ocean, any savings in withdrawal are important since
they make water available for a different use, or perhaps a whole se-
quence of uses. On the other hand, with inland users, savings in water
consumption are more important than water withdrawn since it is only
consumed water which is unavailable for downstream uses. An important
aspect of any conservation strategy may be to not go too far. For
example, normal-year sprinkling use may provide a crucial buffer which
allows domestic users to reduce their demands during drought periods
enabling reduced municipal supplies to satisfy the vital uses.
Industrial recirculation provides an opportunity to reduce compe-
tition for water supplies in some localized settings. To the extent
that headwaters or groundwater withdrawals are not developed by in-
dustry, they can be made available to other users such as domestic
users. Recirculation is now being extensively implemented as a result
of water quality regulations. The additional possibility of industrial
conservation through process changes which decrease consumption may be
helpful in special local situations and should not be overlooked.
Irrigation use is a prime candidate for conservation because of
the relatively large quantities of water involved and the possibility
for releasing conserved water to other uses such as domestic. However,
agricultural practices are very sensitive to cost changes and the in-
creased efficiencies projected by the Second Assessment will require
intensive efforts. In general, it may be more important for agriculture
to lessen consumptive losses rather than to decrease overall withdrawals.
-65-
-------
Agricultural conservation is being addressed in detail by a Task Force
working to implement President Carter's Water Policy.
6. Reuse
A second use of water discarded by a first user is defined as
reuse. It may occur either indirectly, after water has been discharged
to a natural water course, or directly when the first user's effluent is
piped directly to the second user. Reuse is 'distinguished from recircu-
lation, which involves reuse of effluent by the first user, and from
conservation which involves a decrease in either gross water use or
consumption. A recent draft assessment of reuse potential indicated
that about 173 bgd of wastewater is presently available for reuse and
that the total of present uses which could accept wastewater as a supply
is 331 bgd (Culp/Wesner/Culp, 1978). However less than one bgd is
presently being directly reused. These figures do not account for
indirect reuse-- i.e., where water withdrawn from the stream has been
used before--which can account for as much as one gallon out of five
withdrawn for municipal water supply (National Water Commission, 1973).
It appears that present technology is sufficient to allow consider-
able expansion of wastewater reuse for nonpotable purposes with the cost
of alternative sources being a major determining factor. Many reuse
processes will increase consumption, a factor which needs to be considered
in specific cases. However, environmental considerations to reduce or
eliminate pollutant discharges are factors to be considered in promoting
reuse. The health concerns regarding wastewater reuse for potable
purposes (e.g., virus, asbestos, new toxic chemicals) require additional
research before direct reuse for drinking water supplies can be considered
safe.
7. Water Consumptive Waste Management Technologies
Management of wastewater by land treatment and disposal methods or
by evaporation lagoons, or its reuse for irrigation are reasonably
attractive and economical in some parts of the country. However, care
must be taken in some states since such techniques may interfere with
-66-
-------
downstream water rights. If such prior rights exist, diversion of the
wastewater to land treatment or other consumptive use must usually be
preceded by negotiation for or purchase of water rights. These costs
can significantly impact the economics involved in the wastewater man-
agement decision. Land treatment now constitutes less than 2 percent of
national municipal wastewater treatment capacity and is projected under
present conditions, to grow to about 5 percent by 1990 (Metcalf and
Eddy, 1978). Thus, even in 1990, and assuming 50 percent consumption,
it would constitute only about 0.5 percent of projected national water
consumption. Although this is not a magnitude that warrants recognition
as a national water quantity problem, the situation emphasizes the
importance of allowing local communities to decide on systems most
suited for their situation and needs rather than an effort to urge
implementation of a standard technique throughout the country.
F. Summary/Findings
The preceding assessment of water availability and use, as related
to domestic and commercial supplies and wastewater coordination, is
summarized in two sets of findings -- those peripherally related to com-
munity activities involving other major uses, and those which primarily
involve community water supply or wastewater management.
With regard to those primarily involving other uses:
Although the Nation as a whole is water rich, competi-
tion for water is intense in many locations and this
intensity is increasing. Competition is most intense
in water-short subregions of the Southwest and South-
central U.S. where agriculture withdraws and consumes
large quantities. New water uses such as coal lique-
faction and oil shale development will intensify this
competition. Competition also occurs in the water-rich
Northeast where metropolitan areas compete for upstream
supplies.
Groundwater mining and resultant depletion poses a major
threat to all water users. Overdraft is occurring in
12 of the 18 regions, and 59 of the 99 subregions, in the
conterminous states, while groundwater depletion is wide-
spread in the Texas Gulf, Rio Grande, Arkansas-White-Red,
Missouri, Lower Colorado, and California regions, plus
-67-
-------
portions of the Upper and lower Mississippi and the South
Atlantic Gulf regions. As noted in Chapter II, this is
primarily due to the lack of institutional and legal mech-
anisms to control additional development of the resource,
even when its substainable yield has been substantially
exceeded.
Agricultural water use is not only a major factor in the
intense competition for water but also in groundwater min-
ing. This use is a prime candidate for potential savings
through conservation and increased efficiency of produc-
tion. As noted, such changes in agricultural use have
been projected by WRC's Second Assessment (1978a).
In-stream uses of water are important and are complica-
ted by the large quantities involved, by their relative-
ly recent recognition due to adverse impacts from total
diversion of streamflows for off-stream uses in some
localities, and by their uncertain legal status. Major
shortages for in-stream use occur in the Rio Grand,
Lower Colorado and Great Basin regions (WRC, 1978a).
Water consumptive technology (cooling ponds and towers)
in steam electric and manufacturing sectors is not as
important in determining future water consumption as
are the projected per capita increases in consumption
of electricity and manufactured goods.
The above issues are all of national concern and are being addressed in
several forums, including:
The WRC Second Assessment (1978a).
The implementation task forces for President Carter's Water
Policy (Martin, 1979).
The EPA report on water allocation/water quality coordina-
tion in response to Section 102d of the Clean Water Act (EPA,
1979).
The Office of Technology Assessment's 1979 priority list which
assigns the "Impact of Technology on National Water Supply and
Demand" top priority (U.S. Congress, OTA, 1979).
The second group of findings focus on domestic and commercial water
supplies and wastewater treatment. They include:
Aquifer depletion by groundwater overdraft/mining may have ex-
treme adverse impacts on community and domestic rural water
supplies. Further information on these potential impacts is
needed.
-68-
-------
Although all types of communities may encounter problems in
obtaining adequate quantities of supply, the problems appear
to be most severe in small communities which must rely on
closer sources and tend to experience more rapid growth and
more volatile demands. In particular, the WRC's Second As-
sessment (1978a) points toward a disturbing number of local
shortages (i.e. in over half of the subregions) on a wide-
spread basis. These potential shortages need to be more
specifically characterized.
Municipal conservation appears to offer significant poten-
tial for alleviating water demand and water competition
problems in localized areas, particularly in growing com-
munities. However, information which adequately quanti-
fies this potential, and identifies advantages and disad-
vantages, is not readily available.
Reuse of municipal effluents appears to offer additional
potential to ease the competition for water through ap-
plication to such nonpotable uses as agricultural and
landscape irrigation, groundwater recharge, and industrial
uses. However, the economics of reuse are presently un-
certain.
The dependability of community water supplies in the face
of droughts cannot be assessed on a national or regional
basis using available information.
Although water consumptive community wastewater treatment
technologies do not pose problems of national significance,
they do point to the need for flexibility of national pro-
grams so that local situations can be adequately considered.
-69-
-------
References: Chapter III
Culp/Wesner/Culp. 1978. Evaluation of National and Regional Hater Re-
use Needs and Potential (Review Draft).Prepared for U.S. EPA.
Washington, D.C.
Linsley, R.K. 1979. Personal Communication.
Martin, G. 1979. "Second Progress Report on the Implementation of the
President's Water Policy Initiatives." U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Of-
fice of the Secretary. Washington, D.C.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1978. Current and Potential Utilization of Nutri-
ents in Municipal Wastewater and Sludge.(Unpublished Draft).Prepared
for U.S. EPA. Pa to Alto, California.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1976. Water Savings. Prepared for the Santa Clara
County Water District. Palo Alto, California.
Murray, C.R. and E.B. Reeves. 1977. Estimated Use of Water in the
United States in 1975. Geological Survey Circular 765. U.S. Geological
Survey, Branch of Distribution. Arlington, VA.
National Water Commission. 1973. Water Policies for the Future. U.S.
Govt. Printing Office. Washington, D.C.
Ruesink, L.E. (ed). 1979. "City Water Woes." Texas Water Resources.
5:1. Texas A&M University. College Station, Texas.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1979. OTA Priorities,
1979. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Water Allocation/Water
Quality Coordination Study: A Report to Congress in Response to 102(d)
of the Clean Water Act (Preliminary Draft). Washington, D.C.
U.S. Water Resources Council. 1978a. The Nation's Water Resources--
1975-2000. Volume 1: Summary. U.S. Govt. Printing Office. Washington,
D.C.
, 1978b. The Nation's Water Resources -- The Second National
Water Assessment. Part III: Functional Water Uses(Preliminary:For
Review Only)Washington, D.C.
, 1978c. The Nation's Water Resources: Summary Report
(Draft, Review Copy). Washington, D.C.
-70-
-------
, 1978d. The Nation's Water Resources: Mid Atlantic Region
(Preliminary: For Review Only).Washington, D.C.
, 1978e. The Nation's Water Resources: Great Lakes Region
(Preliminary: For Review Only). Washington, D.C.
, 1978f. The Nation's Water Resources: New England Region
(Preliminary: For Review Only) Washington, D.C.
, 1978g. The Nation's Water Resources: Tennessee Region
(Preliminary: For Review Only).Washington, D.C.
, 1978h. The Nation's Water Resources: Texas Gulf Region
(Preliminary: For Review Only). Washington, D.C.
. » 19781. The Nation's Water Resources: Ohio Region
(Preliminary: For Review Only).Washington, D.C.
, 1978j. The Nation's Hater Resources: Pacific Northwest
Region (Preliminary:For Review Only).Washington, D.C.
, 1978k. The Nation's Mater Resources: Part II Water Manage-
ment Problem Profiles (Preliminary:For Review Only).
-71-
-------
Chapter IV
PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF WATER QUALITY
A. Key Legislation and Programs
1. Federal Legislation
The decade of the 70's saw considerable activity in the field of
water quality management. A sizeable body of legislation has been
created for protection or improvement of the quality of water in the
U.S., including in-stream quality and the quality of drinking water. Key
legislation is discussed below.
a. Safe Drinking Hater Act (1974/77)
The Safe Drinking Water Act delegates regulation of the quality
of drinking water supplies to EPA and the states. The major provisions
of the Act and associated administrative actions to control drinking
water quality include:
National interim primary drinking water regulations
to protect public health.
Proposed primary regulations for organic chemicals.
Requirements for notification of consumers and states
if water supply systems are not in compliance with a
pertinent regulation.
Emergency powers for the Administrator to act to pro-
tect the public health.
Review of state implementation programs allowing states
primary enforcement responsibility.
Regulations for state underground injection control
programs.
Regulations for designation of sole source aquifers.
Research and demonstration projects including: carci-
nogens, current standards, costs, waste disposal
-72-
-------
practices and effects on groundwater, fertilizer and
pesticide impact on groundwater, availability of
present and future supplies, and rural water supplies.
Establishment of and consultation with the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council.
b. Federal Water Pollution Control Act/Clean Hater Act
(1972/77)
These two acts are the primary legislation covering point and
nonpoint discharges to surface water. The major provisions of the acts
relating to water quality protection are:
Definition of desired water quality in terms of
"water quality standards".
Issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System (NPDES) permits to assure compliance
with water quality standards and effluent limita-
tions. Specifically: a permit is required for all
point source discharges to surface water; indus-
trial dischargers must use best practicable control
technology (BPT) for all pollutants by July, 1977 --
a deadline which may be extended under certain cir-
cumstances; industrial dischargers must use best
conventional control technology (BCT) for conven-
tional pollutants defined as biochemical and chemical
oxygen demand, total suspended solids, total phos-
phorus, oil and grease; for other pollutants best
available technology economically achievable must
be used by July 1, 1984; publicly-owned treatment
works (POTWs) must use secondary treatment by July,
1977, 1977 or July 1, 1983 for best practicable
wastewater treatment technology (BPWTT).
Effluent guidelines for major industries set allow-
able loading in Ibs per day.
New Source Performance Standards for 27 industries.
Maximum permissible concentrations for 129 toxicants.
Pretreatment of industrial waste before discharge to
municipal treatment systems.
Requirement for states to develop implementation
schedules for effluent limitations and in-stream
water quality standards, prepare an inventory of
-73-
-------
existing POTWs and ranking of need for any new
waste treatment works.
Areawide Wastewater Management Planning (Section
208.)
Basin planning (Section 209).
Clean Lakes Program.
Guidelines for control of nonpoint source pollution.
Grants to states for construction of wastewater
treatment facilities.
Research and development programs on control of
surface mining pollution, disposal of waste oil,
technology to reduce water consumption and thus
sewage flows, rural sewage systems.
Studies on estuaries, control of thermal discharges,
water quality inventory, water supply and waste-
water coordination.
Water Pollution Control Advisory Board.
Some point source dischargers have been unable to meet the
1977 goals because of delay in funding of construction grants for POTWs,
disputes over the proposed effluent guidelines, and delay in formulating
the guidelines and treatment standards. Effluent guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards have been set for most industries. Regula-
tions covering pretreatment of industrial waste were promulgated in
June, 1978, although the specific maximum concentrations of toxicants
have not been completed. The 208 plans for most areas are currently
being reviewed by the states and EPA.
c. Other Acts
The Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) regulates the testing,
manufacture and distribution of toxic chemicals. The specific require-
ments are to be outlined in additional regulations which have not been
completed.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976) seeks to
promote reuse and recycling and to regulate hazardous and solid waste
-74-
-------
disposal. A major concern is to minimize the impact of landfill or dump
leachate on groundwater aquifers. Under this act an inventory of open
dumps will be made; the goal is to close or upgrade these dumps by 1983.
Guidelines for establishing sanitary landfill sites and types of waste
that should be disposed in them were developed in February, 1978.
Under the Clean Air Act (1977) EPA set air quality standards,
new source performance standards for new plants, and emission limits for
existing stationary sources. Sludges, a by-product of most air quality
control technology, must be disposed of so as to avoid pollution of
drinking water supplies.
The National Environmental Policy Act (1969) requires that
before commencing construction or operation, all Federal agencies pre-
pare an Environmental Impact Statement for all major Federal or Federally
funded projects significantly affecting the human environment. The
impact of the project on nearby drinking water supplies would be assessed
and, if necessary, mitigating measures identified.
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (1977) authorizes
the Office of Surface Mining to regulate surface mines based on final
regulations published in December, 1978. This Act is intended to reduce
pollution from new and existing mines and also sets up an abandoned mine
reclamation fund for use in abating pollution from abandoned mines.
2. Federal Programs
A number of Federal programs have been initiated in response to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act/Clean Water Act and the Safe
Drinking Water Act. These are discussed below.
a. Federal Water Pollution Control Act/Clean Water Act
Programs
NPDES Program. As previously noted, effluent limitations are
imposed on dischargers primarily through the NPDES permit program auth-
orized under Section 402 of PL 92-500. Permits generally consist of
limitations on volume and concentration of pollutants and schedules of
compliance, although they may also specify operating procedures. They
are usually imposed for five-year periods. Authority for administering
-75-
-------
the permit program can be transferred from EPA to the states, and 32
states now administer the program. EPA retains the authority to review
individual permits issued by states for consistency with the Act.
404 Permit Program. The Clean Water Act includes other permit
programs besides NPDES, the most important of which is the Section 404
permit program for discharges of dredged or fill material. Activities
regulated by this program include the construction of dams, diversions
and impoundments, the filling of wetlands, and the disposal of dredged
spoil. The 404 permit program is presently administered by the Corps of
Engineers, although the 1977 amendments to PL 92-500 authorize transfer
of this responsibility to the states. Permit applications are evaluated
for compliance with environmental guidelines developed by EPA, in con-
junction with the Corps, under Section 404(b)(l).
Construction Grants Program. Section 201 of the Clean Water
Act authorizes Federal grants for planning, building and improving
publicly-owned sewage treatment works and sewers. Federal financial
assistance is available for three steps: (1) planning the facilities,
(2) design specifications, (3) actual construction. The program is
jointly administered by EPA and the states; EPA is authorized to dele-
gate many of its responsibilities for administering the program to the
states.
As indicated earlier, POTWs must achieve secondary treatment
standards, or more stringent treatment related to water quality stan-
dards, by July 1, 1977, and BPWTT by July 1, 1983. More stringent
requirements based on state authority may also be imposed under Section
510 of the Act. EPA defines secondary treatment as numerical values
for BOD, suspended solids, and acidity. BPWTT involves an analysis of
alternatives, including land application and water reuse, as well as a
minimum requirement for secondary treatment. The evaluation of alterna-
tives takes place in the process of facilities planning. EPA's actions
in funding construction based on these plans are subject to environmental
review under NEPA.
Water Quality Management Planning. The Clean Water Act estab-
lishes a variety of planning programs. Section 303(e) provides for the
-76-
-------
State Continuing Planning Process, which includes implementation of
water quality standards. Section 208 establishes areawide waste treat-
ment management planning, which provides for control of all sources of
pollution, point and nonpoint, to the extent practicable. 208 plans are
developed either by areawide agencies designated by the state, or by the
State itself in areas which have not been designated. Section 106
provides for grants to the states for carrying out various programs
under the Act. EPA has developed regulations consolidating programs
respondinq to Sections 303(e), 208 and 106. Section 209 provides for
the development of Level B Studies for all basins in the United States
under the Water Resources Planning Act.
Nonpoint Source Programs. Section 208 provides for States and
local governments to establish programs to control nonpoint sources of
pollution. Nonpoint sources can include runoff from activities such as
agriculture, forestry, mining, construction, saltwater intrusion, urban
stormwater, and residual wastes. States may assume the responsibility
for planning for nonpoint sources from areawide agencies.
b. Safe Drinking Water Programs
Underground Injection Control Program. The Underground Injec-
tion Control (UIC) Programs of the states are intended to protect poten-
tial drinking water supplies from contamination by injection wells. The
definition in the act is broad and includes industrial and municipal
waste disposal wells, storage, mining and geothermal wells, and wells
used for barriers, subsidence control, and recharge. The proposed
regulations state that all aquifers with "total dissolved solids" (TDS)
concentrations below 10,000 mg/1, and those presently used as drinking
water supplies are to be protected unless prior use, contamination, or
impractical development precludes its use as a drinking water supply.
The primary mechanisms for control are proposed regulations covering
well construction and operation, a permit system for deep injection
wells (Class I), and rules covering requirements for other classes of
welIs.
-77-
-------
Sole Source Aquifer Program. The Sole Source Aquifer desig-
nation is a measure designed to protect large regional aquifers. New
proposed guidelines for designation include:
Source providing more than 50 percent of public
water supply.
Contamination could result in significant hazard
to public health.
Alternative, acceptable water supply sources are
not available.
If an aquifer is declared a sole-source aquifer, then an EIS Impact
Statement on groundwater effects following NEPA guidelines must be
prepared for all federally-funded projects. Four areas have been
declared sole-source aquifers: The Edwards Plateau in Texas, the
Rathdrum Valley aquifer in Spokane, Washington, the northern island
of Guam, and Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island, New York.
Areas currently under study include: Biscayne, Florida; Cape
Cod, Massachusetts; Tenmile Creek, Maryland; Twin Cities and the karst
region of Minnesota; and Fresno and Scott's Valley in California.
B. Water Quality Standards
1. Drinking Water Regulations and Standards
The interim primary drinking water regulations, including specific
maximum contaminant levels (standards), are based on human health consid-
erations and apply to all public systems -- i.e., those serving at least
25 people or having at least 15 service connections and which are utilized
at least 60 days per year. These standards, covering ten inorganic
chemicals, chlorinated hydrocarbons, bacteria, and radionuclides are
presented in Table IV-1.
The proposed secondary standards address the aesthetic and prag-
matic factors involving drinking water rather than public health. They
include factors which affect taste, odor and the corrosion properties of
the water (see Table IV-2). These standards are not Federally enforce-
able but are considered guidelines which the states are expected to use.
-78-
-------
Table IV-1
PRIMARY DRINKING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Annul1 Average
Maximum Dally
Air Temperature
Parameters
Inorganic Chemicals
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead ....
Mercury • • •
Nitrate (as N)
Selenium • •
Silver . . .
Fluoride
53.7 and below 12.0 and below
53.8 to 58.3 12.1 to 14.6 .
58.4 to 63.8 14.7 to 17.6 .
63.9 to 70.6 17.7 to 21.4 •
70.7 to 79.2 21.5 to 26.2 .
79.3 to 90.5 26.3 to 32.5 .
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Endrin (1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 10-hexachloro-6, 7-epoxy-l, 4, 4a, 5,
6, 7, 8, 8a-octahydro-l, 4-endo-5, 8-dimethano naphthalene)
Lindane (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6-hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma isomer)
Methoxychlor (1,1, 1-Trichloroethane) 2, 2-bis (p-methoxyphenyl)
Toxaphene (CioH-|nCl8-Technical chlorinated camphene, 67-69 percent
chlorine)
Chlorophenoxys: 2,4-D, (2, 4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid)
2, 4, 5-TP Silvex (2, 4, 5-Trichlorophenoxy-
propionic acid)
Maximum
Level*
0.05
1.
0.010
0.05
0.05
0.002
10.
0.01
0.05
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
0.0002
0.004
0.1
0.005
0.1
0.01
Turbidity (for surface water sources)
Coliform Bacteria
Membrane filter technique:
Fermentation tube with 10 ml portions:
Fermentation tube with 100 ml portions:
1 TU up to 5 TU*
1/100 ml mean/month
4/100 ml in on« sample if <20 samples/month
4/100 ml in more than 51 1f >20 samples/month
no conforms in >10% of portions/month
no coliforms in >3 portions/sample if <20 samples/month
no coliforms in >3 portions of 5% of samples if >20 samples/month
no coliform bacteria in >60% of portions/month
no coliform in 5 portions in one sample if <5 samples/month
no coliform in 5 portions in 20% of samples if >5 samples/month
Radioactive Material Level
Combined radium 226 and radium 228 5 pCi/1
Gross alpha particle activity** 15 pCi/1
Beta particle and photon radioactivity from man-made radionucl ides 4 mill irem/year
Tritium for total body 20,000 pCi/1
Strontium-90 in bone marrow 8 pCi/1
mg/1 unless otherwise stated.
•Includes Ra excludes Radon, Uranium.
"If meet special requirements.
Source: EPA (1977a)
-79-
-------
Table IV-2
PROPOSED SECONDARY DRINKING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Parameter
Maximum Level
Chloride
Color
Copper
MBAS*
H2S
Iron
Manganese
Odor
pH
Sulphate
Total Dissolved Solids
Zinc
Corrosion
250
15
1
mg/1
c.u.
mg/1
0.5 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.3 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
Threshold Order Number 3
6.5 - 8.5
250 mg/1
500 mg/1
5 mg/1
Non-Corrosive
*Methylene blue active substances.
Source: EPA (1977b)
-80-
-------
Specific monitoring requirements including frequency and analytical
techniques were mandated in the primary regulations with some discretion
allowed the states. Actual monitoring is a local responsibility; analyses
must be performed by an EPA or state approved laboratory. The monitoring
is more frequent for systems using surface water sources than those
using groundwater sources. There are also differences in monitoring
depending on the population served by the system and whether it is a
community (public system with year-round use) or noncommunity water
supply system. If monitoring shows a violation of a primary standard
which is confirmed by additional sampling, both the state and the public
must be notified. If a significant health hazard exists, emergency
provisions for supply would be made.
Organic Chemicals. New standards for organic chemicals were pro-
posed on February 9, 1978 covering trihalomethanes and synthetic organic
chemicals. Trihalomethanes (THM), principally chloroform, were isolated
from community water supplies in the U.S. in 1974. It has been estab-
lished that the major source of precursors which react with chlorine
during water treatment (disinfection) are the naturally occurring humates
in surface waters (i.e., nonpoint source input of decayed vegetation and
aquatic material) which react with chlorine to produce haloforms in yg/1
concentrations. Other organic compounds in raw water sources are from
municipal and industrial point source discharges and from urban and
rural nonpoint sources.
Organics which have been identified in drinking water in very
small quantities are toxicants, carcinogens, mutagens and teratogens as
indicated by animal bioassay tests conducted at high doses. The full
effect on humans of long-term ingestion of very low levels of organic
chemicals in drinking water is not known. Researchers, workshops, and
symposia have been studying the health effects of chlorination and other
alternatives for disinfection. Candidates are ozone or chlorine dioxide
although no final conclusions have been made.
The concern over THM's in drinking water supplies relates to their
carcinogenicity as identified by the National Institute of Health. One
proposed organic regulation is a maximum contaminant level of 0.10 mg/1
-81-
-------
for THM. This standard was set for total THM, not just chloroform,
since other halogens can combine with organics. Communities over 75,000
people, or 52 percent of the population served by community systems,
would be required to monitor for THM's within three months and comply
with the proposed standard within 18 months. Communities with 10,000 to
75,000 people would begin monitoring within six months. Of the 390
systems serving over 75,000 people, 86 systems are estimated to exceed
the THM standard. A second regulation proposes the required use of
granular activiated carbon (GAC) for all systems serving over 75,000
people in areas of significant contamination by synthetic organic chemi-
cals. The EPA estimates that 61 systems will need to install GAC treat-
ment in response to the two regulations (U.S. EPA, 1978 a, b).
The position of the American Water Works Association (AWWA) on the
proposed regulations for organics in drinking water is that the EPA
should set a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 0.3 mg/1 for chloroform,
the primary THM formed after disinfection, not all THMs. Also, the AWWA
proposes that the EPA establish MCLs for 23 organic contaminants in
drinking water rather than require treatment with GAC. The AWWA feels
that the expense of GAC is not warranted given the uncertainties in
determining the hazards of low level exposure, high cost of treatment,
and possible side-effects of the treatment itself such as desorption and
GAC introduction of substances due to the regeneration process.
2. In-Stream Water Quality Standards
Federal standards for in-stream water quality have been derived
based on Class A for water contact recreation and Class B for protection
of fish, wildlife and other aquatic life, and are used in evaluating
NPDES permits and applications. The Federal standards shown in Table IV-3
are minimum levels, and states may set higher standards and include more
use categories.
These standards and criteria have been derived primarily through
bioassays on fish, with consideration of human health on the standards
for coliforms based on exposure by swimming. Where states have developed
other use classes they may have set more stringent standards appropriate
to that use.
-82-
-------
Table IV-3
IN-STREAM WATER QUALITY MINIMUM STANDARDS
General Criteria
Free from sludge deposits
No floating materials from municipal or industrial discharges
No color or odor from municipal or industrial discharges
No toxic concentrations of substances from municipal or industrial
discharges
No visible films of oil or grease
No settleable solids from waste discharges
Specific Criteria
Total coliforms
Fecal coliforms
Dissolved oxygen
Temperature
PH
Color
Turbidity
TDS
Gross beta particle activity
Radium-226
Strontium-90
Class A
<200/100 ml
- 5 mg/1
590°F
6,5-8,3
Class B
< 100,000/100 ml
<200/100 ml
- Trout _ 6 mg/1
> 5 mg/1
Trout-68°F, or 5° rise
Other streanrs-90°F, 5°
rise for stream, 3° rise
for impoundments
6-9
Cold-10 JU
Warm-50 JU
_Secchi disc-lm - Secchi disc-lm
_500 mg/1 or 1/3
more than natural
conditions
1/3 more than natural
conditions
<1000pCi/l
<3pCi/l
<10pCi/l
Source: National Technical Advisory Committee on Water Quality Criteria (1968)
-83-
-------
The in-stream standards bear no specific relationship to drinking
water standards since the parameters (e.g. dissolved oxygen and temper-
ature) are designed to protect fish and wildlife. Water which meets the
in-stream standards is in no sense safe for drinking; for example, it
may contain high concentrations of metals. This is not to suggest that
more stringent in-stream standards are needed in the interests of safe
drinking water. Even if all point source discharges were treated to
drinking water standards, natural and nonpoint source pollution reaching
the stream would require treatment of the water before domestic use.
However, to the extent in-stream standards keep toxic material and oils
and greases from the water, treatment for drinking water is made easier
and more reliable since some toxic materials might not even be detected
at the intake of the water supply system.
C. Treatment Technology
1. Water Supply
Conventional water treatment technologies commonly use mechanical
methods such as sedimentation and filtration to remove suspended material
from the water, and chemical disinfection — most commonly with chlorine •
to control bacteria and viruses. Chemical processes may be added such
as coagulation to enhance the effectiveness of sedimentation, and chemical
softening to remove dissolved salts responsible for hardness. These pro-
cesses may also be effective against some heavy metals and radionuclides.
(AWWA, 1971; Gulp and Culp, 1974; Sorg, July 1978; Volhert and Assc.,
1974).
Other nonconventional processes have been used to remove various
inorganic constituents regulated by the primary standards including ion
exchange for nitrate and fluoride removal (Sorg, Feb. 1978) and reverse
osmosis, which is effective in significantly reducing the levels of most
dissolved solids (Sorg, July, 1978; Feb. 1978). The nonconventional
treatment processes are relatively expensive and have not been used
extensively. It is frequently more cost effective to develop an al-
ternative source of water supply than to remove inorganic constitutents
which exceed the standards. Table IV-4 summarizes data on percent of
systems by population size using various standard treatments. More
-84-
-------
Table IV-4
PERCENT OF SYSTEMS USING VARIOUS STANDARD TREATMENTS—1975
Population Category
Treatment
Disinfection
Coagulation
Sedimentation
Filtration
Pre Chlorination
Fluoride Adjustment
i
oo
<_n Corrosion Control
i
Taste and Odor
Aeration
Lime Soda
Iron Removal
Ammoniation
Activated Alumina
Ion Exchange
Other
25-
99
30
.7
1
6
1
.7
2
0
2
3
4
0
.7
0
2
100-
499
40
1
4
9
4
2
3
1
2
2
6
.8
.4
1
2
500-
999
56
8
8
18
6
19
12
6
15
6
15
0
2
2
1
1,000-
2,499
61
10
11
20
13
13
13
4
11
8
10
.9
4
4
.8
2,500-
4,999
79
21
27
31
19
24
29
6
15
10
16
0
3
5
2
5,000-
9,999
71
20
20
34
39
27
41
12
17
7
22
2
2
7
2
10,000-
99,999
79
32
33
39
32
33
36
18
14
18
15
4
5
6
2
100,000-
999,999
92
62
62
69
62
54
68
44
25
22
20
20
9
3
5
>1 Million
100
100
91
82
73
73
91
55
9
18
9
27
0
0
18
Average for
All Systems
60
20
22
28
22
20
25
13
11
9
13
5
3
3
3
Source: Temple, Barker, Sloan, 1977.
-------
recent data are currently being reported by states and stored in the
Federal Reporting Data System. This information, when available, will
present a more accurate and complete picture of the types of treatment
used throughout the country. Table IV-5 shows the effectiveness of
various treatment methods in removing bacteria, viruses, and turbidity.
Table IV-6 presents information on the relative effectiveness of con-
ventional and nonconventional treatment methods for removing inorganic
contaminants, while Table IV-7 shows percent of organics removed by
water treatment processes.
2. Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Conventional methods of wastewater treatment employ mechanical
operations and biological processes. Screening and sedimentation are
used to remove suspended and floating solids. Biological treatment is
then used to reduce oxygen demand by microbial consumption and oxidation
of some of the organics in the waste. Many different systems are avail-
able to accomplish the microbial action and oxidation including trickling
filters, activated sludge, and stabilization ponds or lagoons. Chlorina-
tion may also be used to reduce the bacterial and viral count, and to a
limited extent to provide further oxidation.
When these processes are not adequate to meet in-stream standards
a variety of advanced processes are available, although usually at a
considerable increase in both first and operating costs. Advanced pro-
cesses include filtration, nitrification, denitrification, chemical
precipitation, stripping, ion exchange, and carbon adsorption. These
unit processes can be added to or combined with a secondary treatment
plant in any combination to form an advanced treatment system. The
individual processes are quite selective in their removals, but the
combined advanced system can remove many constitutents. For example,
biological denitrification removes nitrate-nitrogen but has little
effect on other constituents. An advanced system of chemical precipi-
tation, nitrification, denitrification, and filtration can remove BOD,
suspended solids, nitrogen, and phosphorus down to very low levels.
Advanced systems have been used to provide water for reuse in sever-
al dual water systems including Irvine Ranch Water District, California,
-86-
-------
Table IV-5
EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT METHODS IN REMOVING
BACTERIA, VIRUSES AND TURBIDITY (APPROXIMATE PERCENT REMOVAL)
I
CD
Process
Plain Sedimentation
Coagulation
Rapid Sand Filtration
Slow Sand Filtration
Diatomite Filtration
Microscreening
Chlorination
Ozonation
Reverse Osmosis
Chlorine Dioxide
Activated Carbon
Bacteria
Viruses
Turbidity
0-90
significant amounts
0-99
85-99
85-90
50-80
99
99
99
99
-
90-99
0-99
-
up to 98
-
99
99
99
_
50-95
80-99
80-99
80-99
80-99
50-80
-
-
-
up to 90
Source: National Academy of Sciences,(1977)
-------
Table IV-6
EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT METHODS FOR REMOVING INORGANIC
CONTAMINANTS (APPROXIMATE PERCENT REMOVAL)
Contaminant
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium (soluble forms)
Cadmium (insoluble forms)
Chromium (soluble forms)
Chromium (+3) (insoluble forms)
Chromium (+6) (insoluble forms)
Fluoride
Lead (soluble forms)
Lead (insoluble forms)
Mercury (inorganic forms)
Mercury (organic forms)
Nitrate
Selenium (+4)
Selenium (+6)
Silver
Radium
Beta and photon emitters
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Sulfate
Total dissolved solids
Zinc
Color
Ferric Sulfate
Coagulation
90-99 (pH 6-8)
Alum
Coagulation
90 (pH 6-7)
Lime Softening
60-90
88-95 (pH 10-11)
Excess
Lime Softening
95
90
Activated
Alumina
Adsorption
99
90 (pH>8) 98
98 (pH 6-9) 90-98 (pH 7-9) 70-98
98-99 (pH 7-9)
90
95-97 (pH 6-9) 80-97 (pH 6-9) 98
66-97 (pH 7-8) 60-80 (pH 10-11)
85
85-90 (pH 6-7)
70-90 (pH 7-9) 70-90 (pH 6-8) 70-90
80-90 (pH>10)
90-99 (pH 9.4)
90-99 (pH 9.4)
98
98
30-70
98
70-90
87-96
95
95 (pH 4-6)
95 (pH 4-6)
-88-
-------
Table IV-6 (Continued)
Contaminant
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium (soluble forms)
Cadmium (insoluble forms)
Chromium (soluble forms)
Chromium (+3) linsoluble forms)
Chromium (+6) (insoluble forms)
Fluoride
Lead (soluble forms)
Lead (insoluble forms)
Mercury (inorganic forms)
Mercury (organic forms)
Nitrate
Selenium (+4)
Selenium (+6)
Silver
Ra d 1 urn
Beta and photon emitters
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Sulfate
Total dissolved sol ids
Zinc
Color
Granular
Activated
Carbon
fair to good
80
>80
good
fair to good
100
Ion
Exchange
55-99
95
95-99
95
95
95
95-98
95-98
97-99
95-97
95-97
95
95-98
75-96
95
95
95
97
up to 99
95
100
Electro-
dialysis
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
50-90
80
Reverse
Osmosis
90-97
90-97
90-98
90-97
90-97
90-99
90-97
90-97
90-97
90-97
90-97
90-97
95
90-99
90-97
90-99
90-99
99
80-99
90-99
99
Diatomite
Filtration
99
50-95
Aeration
90
90
Source: Black and Veach, Inc., 1977; U.S. EPA, 1977a; Volkert, 1974.
-89-
-------
Table IV-7
APPROXIMATE PERCENT ORGANICS REMOVED BY WATER TREATMENT PROCESSES
i
to
o
I
Process
Coagulation, filtration
Coagulation, filtration, and
adsorption with:
Powdered activated
carbon, mg/1:
5-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
70-79
Granular activated carbon,
7-5-minute full bed
contact time
Oxidation:
Chlorine, mg/1:
5
8
50
100
Ozone, mg/1:
11
38
Potassium permanganate,
mg/1:
10
40
Endrine
Reduction
35
85
92
80
94
98
>99
Lindane
Reduction
Toxaphene
Reduction
2, 4-D Reduction
Sodium
Salt
Isopropyl
Ester
Butyl
Ester
Isooctyl
Ester
30
55
80-90
99
>99
93
90
90
97
98
90
97
90
97
55
Source: U.S. EPA, 1977a.
-------
St. Petersburg, Florida, and Grand Canyon Village, Arizona. These reuse
systems also accomplish conservation of potable water supplies. The
only instance of direct reuse for potable purposes is at Windhoek,
Namibia. The advanced system employed at Windhoek includes polishing
ponds, pH adjustment, algae flotation with alum, foam fractionation,
lime flocculation, breakpoint chlorination, sedimentation, rapid sand
filtration, activated carbon absorption, and chlorination. The re-
claimed water is blended with the normal potable supply.
The principal problems associated with advanced treatment processes
are high cost of construction and operation, increased complexity of
operation, large requirements for resources such as energy and chemicals,
and increased amounts of wastewdter sludge that require disposal.
Land treatment processes offer an alternative approach to waste-
water treatment with significant advantages in some locations. These
processes can result in either a percolation of treated effluent to
groundwaters or a discharge to surface waters. The three principal
processes -- slow rate, rapid infiltration, and overland flow -- are
defined as follows:
Slow rate is the application of wastewater to croplands,
forest lands, or landscaped areas for treatment or reuse
by irrigation. Treated water percolates to groundwater
or it may be collected in underdrains for surface dis-
charge such as at Muskegon County, Michigan.
Rapid infiltration is the application of wastewater to
permeable soils for treatment as it passes through the
soil. Treated water usually percolates to groundwater
or is indirectly discharged to surface water by lateral
flow and seepages. Wells or underdrains may be used to
recover the water for surface water discharge or reuse.
Overland flow is the application of wastewater to rela-
tively impermeable soils for treatment as it flows in a
thin sheet down vegetated slopes. Treated water is col-
lected at the bottom of the slopes and discharged to sur-
face waters.
Land treatment processes require relatively large areas of land
and are feasible only when suitable land is available at reasonable
-91-
-------
cost. If a crop can be produced, income from sale of the crop can
offset other costs. A significant disadvantage in some areas is the
fact that land treatment is water consumptive and its use may deprive a
downstream user of water which is his under state law as discussed in
Chapter III. When otherwise suitable, land treatment can produce an
effluent superior to that from other advanced treatment processes at
a substantial saving in cost.
3. Nonpoint Source Control
Pollution from nonpoint sources includes products of decaying
vegetation and salts dissolved from the rock and soil; sediment eroded
from the land; pesticides, fertilizers and other chemicals introduced by
agriculture and silviculture; washoff from roads and streets by storm
runoff; and various compounds from mine drainage.
In terms of volume, sediment is generally the major contaminant
from all types of nonpoint sources. However, other pollutants which
constitute a potential health hazard are more important with respect to
the deterioration of drinking water supplies. In this context, the
major pollutants from nonpoint sources include pesticides, nitrates,
pathogens, organic chemicals, and heavy metals, especially lead. The
impact of a particular pollutant depends on the nature of the contam-
inant, the levels at which it is present, and the effectiveness of water
supply treatment methods. Some idea of the magnitude of nonpoint source
pollutants can be gained by comparing the export of phosphorus and
nitrogen from selected basins in the Northeast. Mean phosphorus loading
2
for agricultural areas was highest at 31 kg/km /yr with urban areas at
? 2
30 kg/km /yr and forested areas the lowest at 8 kg/km /yr (EPA, 1975).
Nitrogen loading showed the same general relationship with the highest
2
loading from agricultural areas (982 kg/km /yr) and the lowest from
o
forest (440 kg/km /yr) (EPA, 1975). The relative pollutant contribution
of nonpoint versus point sources will vary from one state to another
depending on land use, geology, climate and other factors. One study in
Iowa showed that over 90 percent of the annual phosphorus and nitrogen
loads in most of the state's rivers was from nonpoint sources (EPA, 1975)
-92-
-------
Controls to minimize nonpoint pollution are usually management
practices. Management practices to minimize pollutant discharges in
urban runoff range from prevention measures such as litter control and
street sweeping to retention and treatment of the stormwater. The
benefits of the preventive measures are cleaner neighborhoods as well as
reduced surface water pollution. The potential benefits of stormwater
retention and treatment in water-scarce areas include reuse of the water
for recreational lakes, groundwater recharge, or water supply augmenta-
tion.
Management practices in agriculture include minimum tillage, ter-
racing, diversions, stripcropping, contouring, and grassed waterways to
minimize erosion. Erosion can remove nutrients and pesticides with the
sediment. Application of the minimum necessary amount of agricultural
chemicals, and avoiding overspray on streams, are also important manage-
ment practices.
Successful implementation of management practices may require
legislation, ordinances, or public education to increase public aware-
ness of the problem. Some states have passed appropriate legislation on
soil erosion. Other states have passed laws to regulate mining and
reclamation activities and to control abandoned mines. Other improve-
ments in nonpoint source problems can be implemented through Federal
legislation, such as the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and
the Clean Water Act -- i.e. Areawide Wastewater Management Planning
(Section 208) -- and specific EPA enforcement actions.
Another consideration in nonpoint pollution control is the effect
of controlling the activity which is causing the pollution. Examples of
such tradeoffs are loss in food production if less chemical fertilizers
and pesticides are used and lower coal output of strict environmental
regulations for coal mines are enforced.
D. Water Quality Problems
1. Drinking Water
Establishing standards does not automatically guarantee compliance.
For example, the most recent information on compliance with the
-93-
-------
microbiological MCL in the Primary Drinking Water Standards is sum-
marized in Table IV-8. It is clear that water supply systems of all
Table IV-8
STATUS OF COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM
COMPLIANCE WITH PRIMARY DRINKING WATER
STANDARDS FOR MICROBIOLOGICAL MCL
Population Served
(in thousands)
Systems in violation,
as % of all systems in
size category
1
1
- 10
10
- 100
100
All
Systems
24
23
12
8
23
Source: Federal Reporting Data system (1979)
sizes have some difficulty meeting drinking water standards, and further-
more, smaller systems in general have greater difficulties. Further
evidence of both of these points is provided in the results of a 1969
Community Water Supply System Study (USPHS, 1969) as shown in Table IV-9.
The "mandatory" and recommended limits correspond fairly closely to the
primary and secondary standards presently in use or proposed.
Evidence of the extent of drinking water source pollution is con-
tained in WRC (1978) which identifies water quality problems for domestic
supply as reported by Federal and State/Regional Study Teams. An indica-
tion of the problem locations is given in Figure 4.1. As shown in the
Figure, saline water is the most common problem with drinking water;
i.e., in the Southwest U.S., Great Basin, and Great Plains, natural salt
springs and saline groundwater are common, causing both surface and
groundwater to exceed the standards. Saline return flows from agriculture
augment this natural salinity. In the Eastern U.S., locations with
heavy metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons and industrial chemicals are
evident in Figure 4.1 and generally represent a potential for violations
of one or more of the primary standards.
-94-
-------
Explanation
Area problem
] Area in which existing or potential pollution of domestic water supply
was reported
~j Unshaded area may not be problem-free, but the problem was not
considered major
Specific sources of pollution
• Industrial chemicals other than chlorinated hydrocarbons
4 Chlorinated hydrocarbons from treatment processes and energy development
A Heavy metals (e.g., mercury, zinc, copper, cadmium, lead)
it Coliform and other bacteria
• Saline water
m General municipal and industrial wastes
Boundaries
Water resources region
— Subregion
Figure 4.1 QUALITY OF DRINKING WATER PROBLEMS
Source: WRC (1978)
-------
Table IV-9
STATUS OF SURVEYED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
Number of Systems: 446 501 22 969 (total)
Population Group Served: <.5 .5-100 >100 18,203
(in thousands)
Evaluation of Systems:
. Met standards 50% 67% 73% 59%
Exceeded recommended
limits 26% 23% 27% 25%
. Exceeded mandatory
limits 24% 11% 0 16%
Study Population 88 4,652 13,463 18,203
(in thousands)
Source: U.S. Public Health Service (1968)
Dissolved salts, heavy metals, and chlorinated hydrocarbons are
relatively difficult to remove from water and the organics are difficult
to detect, especially in low concentrations. The smaller water systems
are at a special disadvantage with respect to these materials. Removal
of dissolved salts requires relatively expensive desalting equipment
such as for electrodialysis or reverse osmosis processes. When salinity
of a water supply is only moderately above the recommended limit of 500
mg/1 and the supply has been in use for many years, it is difficult to
convince either operator or consumer that the expense is warranted. If
salinity reaches levels which are offensive to taste, corrective mea-
sures are usually taken such as at Key West, Florida, Coalinga, Califor-
nia, and in the Virgin Islands.
The pollutants from industry and/or mining -- organic compounds,
heavy metals, and industrial chemicals — are a much different problem.
Such compounds are potential health hazards. They are also relatively
difficult to detect and may require expensive processes for removal.
-96-
-------
The very largest systems with well-equipped laboratories and large
treatment plants are generally able to detect and remove these pollu-
tants. However the smaller systems usually have no laboratory and
monitor their product by sending one sample monthly to a commercial
laboratory. They are much less likely to detect the presence of pol-
lutants and, if detected, their treatment system which may consist of a
settling basin to remove turbidity and chlorination to control coliform
bacteria would be unable to remove contaminants such as heavy metals.
2. In-stream Quality
Figures 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 identify areas of surface water pollution
as reported to the WRC by Federal and State/Regional Study Teams.
Pollutants, introduced by point sources, are primarily nutrients and
coliform bacteria from municipal waste or feedlot drainage, and are
primarily found in the eastern states where isolated cases of heavy
metals and industrial chemicals are also reported (see Figure 4.2). As
shown, Alaska also has problems with nutrients and coliform bacteria.
Pollution from nonpoint sources (see Figure 4.3) is dominated by herbi-
cides, pesticides and other agricultural chemicals in the eastern states
with acid mine drainage in second place. Hawaii also has problems with
agricultural pollutants. In the western states the primary nonpoint
pollutants are dissolved salts derived from irrigation return flows with
a few cases of agricultural chemicals in second place.
Eutrophication (see Figure 4.4) is the result of build-up of
nutrients in a lake or slow moving stream. These nutrients support a
vigorous crop of algae and shoreline vegetation. Decomposition of dead
vegetation releases more nutrients to the water and may also seriously
deplete oxygen. Eutrophication is frequently a natural process which
may be accelerated by nutrients introduced by man. This "cultural"
eutrophication has occurred to some extent in nearly all parts of the
country, but it could be controlled.
Nutrients released to the streams come primarily from municipal
wastes, agricultural drainage, industrial wastes and feedlot drainage
and these sources are augmented by natural nutrients delivered to
-97-
-------
Explanation
Area problem
] Area in which significant surface-water pollution from point sources is occurring
| | Unshaded area may not be problem-free, but the problem was not considered major
Specific types of point-source pollutants
• Coliform bacteria from municipal waste or feedlot drainage
* PCS (polychlorinated biphenyls), PBB (polybromated biphenyls), PVC (polyvinyl chloride),
and related industrial chemicals
A Heavy metals (e.g., mercury, zinc, copper, cadmium, lead)
• Nutrients from municipal and industrial discharges
O Heat from manufacturing and power generation
Boundaries
— Water resources region
Subregion
Figure 4.2 SURFACE-WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS FROM POINT SOURCES
(MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE)
Source: WRC (1978)
-------
Explanation
Area problem
] Area in which significant surface-water pollution from nonpoint sources
is occurring
^ Unshaded area may not be problem-free, but the problem was not
considered major
Specific types of nonpoint-source pollutants
* Herbicides, pesticides, and other agricultural chemicals
A Irrigation return flows with high concentration of dissolved solids
• Sea-water intrusion
• Mine drainage
Boundaries
^^— Water resources region
Subregion
Figure 4.3 SURFACE-WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS FROM NON-POINT SOURCES (DISPERSED)
Source: WRC (1978)
-------
Explanation
Area problem
~\ Area in which significant eutrophi-
cation of manmade and natural
water bodies is occurring
| | Unshaded area may not be
problem-free, but the problem was
not considered major
Specific causes of eutrophication
Low levels of dissolved oxygen
High levels of nutrients
Natural sedimentation from
streambank, cropland, and other
natural erosion
Man-induced sedimentation from
urban, industrial, and construc-
tion/earth moving activities
Heat from manufacturing and power
generation
Boundaries
• Water resources region
Subregion
Figure 4.4 SURFACE-WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS - EUTROPHICATION
Source: WRC (1978)
-------
the stream as a result of man-induced erosion. Removal of these mater-
ials from wastewater requires special treatment procedures.
The reasons for water pollution in excess of standards are mani-
fold. In some cases industries or cities have not yet completed treatment
systems required for compliance with NPDES permits. A completed treat-
ment plant requires a skilled operating staff which is not yet available
to all plants. Inadequate pretreatment of industrial wastes may bring
pollutants to a municipal plant which are not detected and, hence, not
removed. Control of nonpoint sources is especially difficult. The 1977
Water Quality Inventory (EPA, 1977e) reports 246 basins affected by
nonpoint source pollution distributed among sources as indicated in
Table IV-10.
Table IV-10
PERCENTAGE OF BASINS AFFECTED BY
TYPE OF NONPOINT SOURCE
Source Percent
Urban Runoff 52%
Construction 9
Hydro!ogic Modification 15
Silviculture 15
Mining 30
Agriculture 68
Solid Waste Disposal 14
Onsite Waste Disposal 43
(Septic Tanks)
Clearly agriculture, urban runoff, onsite waste disposal and
mining are the four leading causes of nonpoint pollution. Very few of
the watersheds in the U.S. escape pollution from one of these sources
(see Figure 4.5). Criteria for agricultural management practices are
needed and enforcement will be required. Some controls on urban runoff
are also required but must be introduced selectively since they will be
quite expensive in some cases.
-101-
-------
o
ro
i
Figure 4.5 BASINS AFFECTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY POLLUTION FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES
Source: National Water Quality Inventory, 1977 Report to Congress
-------
Onsite individual disposal of wastewater, most commonly by septic
tanks, can be reduced by provision of central wastewater treatment
facilities. Again this will prove costly because of collection prob-
lems. The problem also focuses on the small towns and villages where
per capita costs may be very high. Not all septic systems are deficient
and need replacement and widely dispersed systems in rural areas may not
be problems, but newly developing suburban areas with closely spaced
housing can be problems especially if slopes are steep and soils are
thin.
The fourth major cause of nonpoint pollution is mining -- both
surface mining and underground. For the most part this can be regulated
with proper laws requiring control and recent legislation should be
effective as soon as programs are implemented. Abandoned mines are,
however, a special problem as there may be no owner against whom laws or
regulations can be enforced. The Abandoned Mine Fund under the new
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act should help this problem.
With regard to the other nonpoint sources shown in Table IV-10, it
is expected that the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act will lead to
reduction in pollution from solid waste sites. Construction activities
and hydrologic modification are primarily responsible for erosion.
State and local ordinances requiring appropriate controls can greatly
reduce the pollution from these causes. Erosion from improperly construc-
ted logging roads is also one of the major sources of pollution from
silviculture and is controllable.
3. Groundwater Pollution
Groundwater pollution problems reported to the WRC are displayed in
Figure 4.6. Large areas of the country have highly mineralized ground-
water from natural causes. Other areas may have moderately high mineral
content as a result of leaching salts from agriculture into the ground-
water. Leachate from landfills, injection wells, and surface impound-
ments are the primary factors in the remaining cases of groundwater pol-
lution. The latter type problems are controllable. Groundwater pollution
problems will be decreased with proper monitoring and enforcement of
-103-
-------
I
o
I
Lofjond
Arooi with Qreatost Total Impact
1. j -J Areas thot have ground water contamination.
§ Arena with saline water intrusion (actual or potential) or natural oollnity,
%; Aroaa with high levels of mlnoralg nr dissolved solids In ground water.
Location of Specific Impact*
• Contamination reuniting from loachlno of municipal and Induolrlol waotoa and
waste runoff through oil and gas fields and other excavations.
F1
-------
programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act and Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. Because many small water systems depend on groundwater
as a supply, these programs are especially important in mitigating their
problems. Water systems using groundwater as a source often have little
or no treatment, thus making source protection even more important.
4. Summary/Findings
A sizeable body of Federal legislation aimed at
cleaning up and protecting the quality of the
Nation's water resources was created between
1972 and 1977. The laws are broad and strongly
mandate that firm controls on pollution be estab-
lished, in particular as these controls relate
to point source polluters. Considerable progress
has been made especially with respect to surface
water. However full implementation will require
more time and resources, improvements in technol-
ogy, the information base, and in the state-of-
the-art as it relates to water quality planning/
management, and a continuing commitment to achieve
the objectives provided for in the legislation.
Groundwater has not been as well protected as sur-
face water. As noted in Chapter III, groundwater
overdraft has resulted in quality problems with re-
spect to salinity and as observed in this Chapter
adverse effects have also resulted from land fills
or dump leachate, injection wells, surface impound-
ments and leaching salts from agriculture. Ground-
water is a primary source of supply for many small
community systems, some large systems, and for much
of the rural population; adequate protection is a
national concern as exhibited by legislation such
as the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. It is important to
obtain a better understanding of priority ground-
water pollution problems and to pinpoint actions
which can be taken under present mandates to ame-
liorate them.
The primary and secondary drinking water standards
are being reviewed by the National Academy of Sci-
ence and others. Until the results of these studies
and other ongoing research efforts related to health
effects on humans or present margins of safety are
known, evidence is inconclusive for changing the stan-
dards.
-105-
-------
Although it is most probable that land treatment
can produce an effluent superior to that from
advanced treatment at less cost, it is water con-
sumptive and may adversely impact on a downstream
user's water rights. In addition economic bene-
fits are sensitive to other local circumstances
such as availability of land at a reasonable price
and opportunities to use the effluent for crop
irrigation.
Problems in meeting the drinking water standards and
monitoring/reporting requirements occur in water
supply systems of all sizes. However, small water
supply systems have more difficulties in correcting
problems due to factors such as lack of operator
training and insufficient funding.
-106-
-------
References: Chapter IV
American Water Works Association. 1971. Water Quality and Treatment.
McGraw-Hill. New York.
Black and Veach, Inc. August 1977. State of the Art of Small Water
Treatment Systems. Prepared for EPA.
Gulp, G.L. and R.L. Gulp. 1974. New Concepts in Water Purification.
Von Nostrand Reinhold. New York.
Federal Reporting Data System. 1979.
McDermott, J.H. 1978. Ensuring the Public's Drinking-Water Welfare.
Water and Sewage Works, Vol. 125, No. 10. October, p. 30-32.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. November 1978. Current and Potential Utiliza-
tion of Nutrients in Municipal Wastewater and Sludge. Volume 1 -
Executive Summary. First Draft. Prepared for the U.S. EPA.
National Academy of Sciences. 1977. Drinking Water and Health.
National Technical Advisory Committee. 1968. Water Quality Criteria.
Sorg, Thomas J. and Gary S. Logsdon. July 1978. "Treatment Technology
to Meet the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Inorganics:
Part 2." Journal of the AWWA. Vol. 70, No. 7.
Sorg, Thomas J. February 1978. "Treatment Technology to Meet the In-
organic Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Inorganics."
Journal of the AWWA. Vol. 70, No. 2.
Temple, Barker, and Sloane, Inc. 1977. Survey of Operating and
Financial Characteristics of Community Water Systems. For EPA.
April.
U.S. EPA. 1978a. Federal Register. February 9.
, 1978b. Federal Register. July 5.
> 1977a. National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regula-
tions. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
» March 1977b. National Secondary Drinking Water Regula-
tions - Proposed Rules. Federal Register, V. 42, No. 62.
-107-
-------
, 1977c. National Safe Drinking Water Strategy. One
Step At a Time.
, May, 1977d. Manual of Treatment Techniques for Meeting
the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
, 1977e. 1977 Report to Congress National Water Quality
Inventory.
, 1975. 1975 Report to Congress National Water Quality
Inventory, Office of Water Planning and Standards. EPA-440/9-75014.
U.S. Public Health Service. 1969. Community Water Supply System
Study.
U.S. Water Resources Council (WRC). 1978. The Nation's Water
Resources: The Second National Water Assessment. Summary Report.
Washington, D.C.
Volhert and Associates. August 1974. Monograph of the Effectiveness
and Cost of Water Treatment Processes for the Removal of Specific Con-
taminants. Prepared for EPA.
Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1977. Wastewater Treatment Process and Systems,
Performance and Cost. Prepared for the U.S. EPA as Appendix H of the
Areawide Assessment Procedures Manual.
-108-
-------
Chapter V
WATER QUANTITY/QUALITY RELATIONSHIPS
A. Overview of Relationships
Water quantity and water quality are closely related under natural
conditions and this relationship generally persists even when quantity
or quality are influenced by human activity. The following subsections
discuss quantity/ quality relationships as they pertain to surface water
and to groundwater. The discussion is drawn from information presented
in Chapters III and IV.
1. Surface Waters
Under natural conditions the water quality in a stream will often
be at its poorest near the end of a summer dry spell when streamflow is
low and temperatures are high. Dissolved oxygen decreases as water
temperature increases. Hence during warm periods, the risk of oxygen
depletion is higher. Low flows on most streams come from the groundwater
and usually contain significant dissolved minerals. Hence, it is at low
flows that the mineral content of surface water is highest. Poor conditions
will also be observed during and immediately after a rainstorm which
produces surface runoff. Under this condition pollutants which are on
the ground surface, or on vegetation, will be washed into the stream.
Sediment will be the most plentiful pollutant, but agricultural chemicals,
rubber, oil and grease from cars, and any other material which may have
accumulated on the ground can be present. Commonly sediment which is
available in unlimited quantities increases as flow increases, but other
pollutants present in limited quantities may be largely removed from the
land by a moderate rain and, hence, do not increase indefinitely with
increasing flow rates.
In the lower river reaches there is a kind of equilibrium attained
between the flow of freshwater into an estuary and the movement of
-109-
-------
saline water upstream under tidal action. In periods of low flow the
salt water front will penetrate farther inland and during periods of
flood, freshwater is found much farther downstream in the estuary.
Depletion of the freshwater flow by diversion of water upstream during
low flow periods can result in further excursion of the salt water
upstream, past intakes which normally receive freshwater. The effect
may be augmented by flood water storage which reduces the extent of
freshwater "flushing" normally experienced in the estuary during floods.
The problem is especially serious during drought. The water intake for
Philadelphia was threatened by saline intrusion in the Delaware estuary
during the drought of the early 60's. Industrial and agricultural
intakes along the Sacramento River estuary and in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta of California are threatened with salt water during dry
years and many intakes have been abandoned. Similar problems have
occurred in other estuaries along the U.S. coast.
The common practice of setting in-stream quality standards in
terms of the 10-year, seven-day low flow is responsive to the first
condition cited above -- i.e. poor water quality conditions near the
end of a summer dry spell — and in particular by pollution with high
BOD. In some conditions, however, the worst pollution conditions may
occur as the result of storm washoff for which the low-flow standard
will be inappropriate.
The assimilative capacity of a stream causes pollutant levels to
decrease by one of several mechanisms or processes. As water flows
through a stream system some pollutants may settle to the stream bed and
be removed, at least temporarily, from the water. Other pollutants may
be taken up by vegetation or aquatic life and removed from the water.
Oxygen, absorbed through the stream surface, may help to satisfy oxygen
demand. These are the processes of self purification. Depletion of
streamflow for off-stream uses generally reduces the assimilative capac-
ity and the rate of self purification. In some streams, summer flows
are almost entirely effluent discharged to the stream, i.e. without the
effluent the stream might go dry. In this case, if a consumptive waste
treatment process is introduced -- e.g. land treatment, reuse for
110-
-------
irrigation, or lagoon evaporation -- the effluent returned to the stream
is decreased and the flow could be reduced to zero.
2. Groundwater
Quantity and quality are also interrelated in the case of ground-
water and this relation extends to surface water. Pumping groundwater
from wells near a stream may in effect be a diversion of flow from the
stream such as along the Platte River in Colorado. Conversely, reduc-
tion of streamflow by an upstream diversion may reduce the recharge of
an aquifer. Hence, it is not always possible to solve a local water
supply problem by shifting from a surface source to groundwater or vice
versa.
The quality of groundwater is very directly affected by the quality
of water which recharges the aquifer. Movement of polluted water through
the soil may strain out the suspended matter including bacteria but
dissolved salts will generally remain unaffected. Recharge of groundwater
with polluted water can occur in several ways: e.g., injection of pol-
luted water into the aquifer through a waste disposal well, percolation
from land disposal systems for wastewater, percolation from a polluted
stream, leaching of salts from irrigated farm land, leaching of salts
from land fills, from solid wastes, or deliberate recharge of an aquifer
with storm or reclaimed water to augment the groundwater supply. Chemi-
cals applied to the land may also be washed into an aquifer with perco-
lating water. This can occur on agricultural land where the watertable
is fairly close to the surface. It has also occurred in many locations
in the northern states where salt is applied to roads and streets for
deicing. Wastewater cesspools and septic tanks can also lead to pollu-
tion of the groundwater.
Overdraft of the groundwater may also lead to pollution of the
aquifer. Coastal aquifers which extend under the sea are susceptible to
intrusion of sea water if the water table in the aquifer is drawn down.
Such intrusion has occurred in Southern California and Long Island, New
York.
Many aquifers were once below sea level as the oceans have advanced
and receded over geologic time. Either salt water or salt deposits may
-111-
-------
remain in those aquifers. Excessive overdraft on an adjacent freshwater
aquifer may permit the intrusion of saline water from the saline aquifer
into the freshwater aquifer. Such intrusion has been noted in Texas,
Oklahoma, and California.
Groundwater is not, therefore, uniformly a source of pure and safe
drinking water. It can be polluted both by natural processes and by the
activities of man. Constant surveillance is necessary to avoid conditions
under which such pollution occurs.
B. Planning Activities
The U.S. has been engaged in planning for the management of water
resources since the turn of the century and a number of planning programs
exist. This section augments information presented in Chapter II and IV.
Under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act, two percent of the money
allocated to a state for construction grants, or $400,000 whichever is
greater, may be available to the state for planning of pollution control
activities in general -- i.e., "State Management Assistance Funds". The
principal use for such money is the management of the construction grant
program but it may also be applied to the NPDES and wetlands permit
programs, and management of the 208 statewide water quality planning
program.
Section 208 of the Clean Water Act provides for an extensive
planning process. Regional planning agencies, where they exist, are
responsible for preparing 208 plans, while the states are responsible
for planning outside the areas covered by regional planning agencies.
The 208 plan was intended to be a comprehensive study of all point and
nonpoint pollution sources leading to the development of a cost-effective
plan to control these pollution sources using land management, land use
controls, and other nonstructural measures as well as conventional waste
treatment. A round of 208 studies was completed in 1978 and these
studies are still under review by EPA. Periodic updating of the 208
plan is provided for in the Act. As mentioned earlier, EPA has developed
regulations for Water Quality Management Planning which consolidate the
Section 106, 208, and 303(e) planning programs.
-112-
-------
In 1965 Congress passed PL 89-80, the Water Resources Planning Act
which established the U.S. WRC and a mechanism for creating River Basin
Commissions. The WRC was to establish policies and standards for water
resource planning, while the Commissions were to develop river basin
management plans. One level of planning specified by the WRC was Level
B Plans. These plans are regional or river basin plans at reconnaissance
level and are intended to identify long range problems and to resolve
them by recommending actions to be taken by various agencies. Section
209 of the Clean Water Act requires preparation of Level B plans for all
basins by 1980. These Level B plans could identify problems (or conflicts)
between water quantity plans and water quality plans and could screen
possible solutions.
C. Water Allocation/Water Quality Coordination Study
Section 102(d) of the Clean Water Act provides: "The Administrator,
after consultation with the states, and River Basin Commissions estab-
lished under the Water Resources Planning Act, shall submit a report to
Congress on or before July 1, 1978 which analyzes the relationship
between programs under this Act, and the programs by which state and
Federal agencies allocate quantities of water ". Section 102(g)
provides further that "...the authority of each state to allocate
quantities of water within its jurisdiction, shall not be superseded,
abrogated or otherwise impaired by this Act ".
The above-referenced report is under preparation but a final draft
has not been released. Some examples of the relationship between the
control of water quality and the allocation of water quantity have
already been noted in this report but perhaps bear repeating here.
Consumptive waste treatment technologies could reduce streamflow below
the level needed to satisfy existing water rights. Pollution of ground-
water from any cause could make the water unfit for use and, in effect,
deprive prospective users of the ability to use the groundwater. Re-
strictions in discharges to a stream, especially during drought periods
could reduce flows below those desirable for in-stream uses. The report
-113-
-------
also reviews state water rights law and points out implications for
water quality.
D. Problem Areas in Water Quantity/Water Quality Coordination
1. Groundwater Withdrawals
As has been noted earlier, excessive withdrawals of groundwater
(mining) not only deplete the water resource and increase energy use for
pumping but also create a situation in which pollution of the aquifer
may be introduced by intrusion of saline water, induced percolation of
polluted water from streams or induced percolation of water seeping
through landfills and dumps. Such pollution of the groundwater can make
it unfit for many uses. For example highly saline water can be unsuitable
for domestic use, for irrigation, for process water in many industries,
for boiler feedwater and even for cooling water.
Although many would argue that mining of groundwater may be no
more inherently wrong than mining for minerals, there is general agreement
that mining in such a way as to induce pollution and degrade the resource
is wrong. Indeed it has been argued that the states should have appropriate
provisions in their water codes to preclude such an event. Several
technical procedures are available to avoid induced pollution. Limiting
the rate of groundwater withdrawal to a level such that induced pollution
will not occur is generally preferable, but elimination of the pollution
source is effective if feasible. Wells can also be located so as to
avoid, or at least delay, the development of conditions leading to
induced pollution. The use of artificial recharge to augment the water
yield of the aquifer and at the same time to minimize the likelihood of
an intrusion of polluted water is also possible in many cases.
2. Surface and Groundwater Relationships
Groundwater and surface water are closely related phases of the
hydrologic cycle. In many areas natural recharge to groundwater takes
place primarily through the seepage of water from surface stream channels
to the groundwater. This is a common condition in most of the arid
Southwest. On the other hand, streamflow may be groundwater fed to
-114-
-------
the stream from springs or seeps. Without such groundwater flow to
sustain the streams, most of them would be dry during protracted dry
periods unless reservoir storage was used to sustain the flow.
As noted in Chapter II, most water codes treat the surface and
groundwater as if they were separate and unrelated. Thus it is possible
to obtain an appropriative right to divert water from a surface stream
and, hence, to reduce the recharge of the groundwater. It is also
possible to obtain a permit to pump water from wells adjacent to a
stream and thus to deplete the surface streamflow. In some states it
would not even be necessary to apply for a permit for the well. This
situation poses a special threat to small water supply systems who may
note a progressive depletion of their source which the supplier cannot
control. To counteract this problem, water codes would have to recognize
the relationships between surface and groundwater and treat them in such
a way that the best use of the total resource is assured.
3. Artificial Recharge of Groundwater
Depletion of the groundwater occurs in some cases because the
natural recharge is very low despite the availability of a relatively
abundant surface supply. This condition will occur when the opportunity
for recharge is restricted. Any condition that makes for low rates of
infiltration through the soil will limit recharge of groundwater to that
which can percolate from stream channels. Heavy clay soils, relatively
firm unweathered rock, terrain that has been compacted by heavy vehicle
traffic, or the process of urbanization which increases the land covered
by impervious surfaces, will reduce or eliminate significant infiltration
of rainfall. If the bed and banks of the streams are also relatively
impermeable for any of these reasons, most of the rainfall will leave
the area as surface flow, often as flood flow. Practices which encour-
age infiltration such as forestation, and contour plowing or terracing
of agricultural land, are examples of deliberate steps to encourage
percolation of runoff which will increase the recharge to groundwater.
There are other more elaborate practices designed to increase the
recharge of groundwater. Water can be pumped into an aquifer. Where
-115-
-------
the aquifer or a connecting pervious soil layer is near the surface,
excavation of a pit down to the pervious material may provide a mech-
anism for increased percolation of water. Scarifying the land surface
or stream beds to break up thin layers of impermeable material, and
ponding water on natural outcrops of pervious soil or rock which can
convey the water to the groundwater, are possible means of recharge.
If the lack of natural recharge results mostly from a lack of
rainfall and surface water, artificial recharge will require that the
recharge water be imported from an area of surplus. The various means
mentioned above can be used to percolate the imported water. Areas of
true water surplus are becoming rare in the U.S. and importation may not
necessarily be feasible. In principle, water should not be exported
from an area if it is needed to maintain in-stream uses, recharge ground'
water, or to provide a "cushion" against drought.
Artificial recharge projects are often large, requiring relatively
costly facilities and continued careful operation. They require careful
planning including investigation of the underlying geology, analysis of
the adequacy of water supply and a study of the quality of available
water. A high bacterial count may lead to bacterial slimes which can
plug well screens. Fine sediments can plug stream gravels or the soil
and rock of a recharge area. Dissolved salts in the recharge water will
penetrate the groundwater and may increase the salt content depending on
the source of recharge water. This may include toxic compounds as well
as the more common dissolved minerals. Boron compounds from soaps may
make the water unsuitable for agricultural use. Nitrates in sewage
effluent are a health hazard for infants.
If all features of the project are sound, land application of
wastewater can be a far cheaper method of keeping pollutants out of the
streams than an AWT alternative. Additionally in some instances land
application of wastewater represents a savings in water use, contributes
some nutrients to the soil, and may offer a source of income from the
crops produced.
-116-
-------
4. Treatment Technology
Several different treatment systems are available for the management
of wastewater quality and each has a different impact on quantity.
Broadly they fall into two classes: biological treatment which is
nonconsumptive, and water consumptive treatment systems. The effluent
from biological treatment is discharged to a stream or other water body
carrying with it a small residual of the original pollutants or their
transformed products. The material removed from the wastewater during
treatment remains as a sludge which must be disposed of or becomes a gas
which is released to the atmosphere or, in the case of methane may be
used as a fuel.
Consumptive treatment consists usually of removing suspended
materials followed by spreading the remainder over land or holding it in
a lagoon. The liquid effluent is largely evaporated or transpired to
the atmosphere from the soil or lagoon. Some of the water spread on
land may percolate into the soil and reach the groundwater or be dis-
charged to a stream. In its travel through the soil most of the sus-
pended matter will be removed but dissolved material will be carried
with the water. The evaporated water leaves as vapor and the material
which was dissolved in it will be left in the soil or lagoon. Because
of the evaporation, a significant part of the wastewater is removed from
the hydrologic cycle, i.e. is consumed, and need not be discharged to a
water body. By reducing the streamflow within a watershed, the concen-
tration of materials in the remaining flow may be increased to levels in
excess of that permitted by stream standards. Generalization regarding
the consequences of the various waste treatment alternatives is uncertain
because the performance is very much affected by the local conditions.
Heat is considered a pollutant and a specific example of the water
consumptive-nonconsumptive alternatives is found in the case of disposal
of waste heat from a thermo-electric power plant. The system widely
used in the past has been to take water from a river or lake, pass it
through the condensers where it absorbs heat, and discharge the heated
water immediately back to the stream or lake which was its source. This
-117-
-------
is known as once-through cooling. The hot water mixes with the cooler
water of the source and there is relatively little additional evapora-
tive loss as a result of the heating. Evaporative loss in once-through
cooling is estimated at 2 percent of withdrawal.
As a replacement for once-through cooling, cooling towers or
cooling ponds are required. These alternatives dissipate heat primarily
by the evaporation of water from the surface of the cooling ponds or the
cooling tower. Thus the consumptive use of water is increased substan-
tially. General guidelines indicate that wet cooling towers would
consume approximately 30 cfs per 1000 MWe, once-through systems from 1-
10 cfs per 1000 MWe and cooling lakes from 10-20cfs per 1000 MWe depend-
ing on ambient temperatures, humidity and wind speed. (USGS Circular
745, 1977).
5. Intake-Discharge Locations
Water intake vis a vis wastewater discharge location is a less
straightforward topic than it appears to be at first glance and a com-
plete characterization of the relationship depends on site-specific
circumstances. One argument advanced is that a higher level of treat-
ment at the point of discharge could reduce the cost of treatment at the
water supply intake. However, even if a municipal wastewater were
treated to the purity of distilled water before it is discharged into a
stream, a downstream water utility would still have to provide treatment
for the water it diverts and in most cases their cost of treatment would
not be greatly changed. Nonpoint source pollution in the intervening
reach would force such treatment. Only if the intake is a short dis-
tance downstream of the wastewater discharge and is a major fraction of
the flow does the degree of wastewater treatment make a significant
difference in the required treatment for the water supply. Even then
the problem could be solved by moving the intake upstream of the waste-
water discharge.
It is important that toxic materials such as organic poisons or
heavy metals such as lead and mercury be prevented from reaching the
stream as these materials might easily pass through a water treatment
plant. Beyond this, wastewater treatment is primarily for the purpose
-118-
-------
of maintaining a specified water quality in the stream so that the goal
of "fishable and swimmable waters" can be attained. Since the toxic
compounds impair the attainment of this goal, they should be prevented
from entering the receiving water in any case. It can generally be
said that if wastewater flows are treated to a level which meets
desirable in-stream standards, there will be little reason to increase
the treatment level to achieve a better water supply, except in special
situations.
E. Summary/Findings
This chapter discusses the relationships between water quantity/
quality of surface and groundwater and gives examples of areas where
interactions occur. Findings include:
The major areas of overlap for surface waters are
the impacts on quality of large diversions, con-
sumptive waste treatment, groundwater withdrawals,
and recharge.
The major areas of overlap for groundwater are the
impacts on quality of excessive pumping, artificial
recharge, urbanization, and consumptive waste treat-
ment technology.
The location and flow magnitude of a water supply in-
take relative to a wastewater discharge location is
another area where interrelationships can occur.
-119-
-------
Chapter VI
COST, FINANCING AND ENERGY CONSIDERATIONS
A. Water Supply
1. Cost
The delivery of an adequate and dependable supply of drinking
water entails a number of costs, from source development, withdrawal
and transmission through treatment, storage and distribution. To put
these costs into perspective, it is instructive to first examine very
briefly the water supply "industry". The most recent estimates place
the number of community water systems (those serving 25 or more people,
or having at least 15 service connections) at slightly more than 61,000
(FRDS, 1979) and of noncommunity public systems (serving primarily
transient population) at about 160,000. Of the population served by
community water systems, over 80 percent is supplied by about 5 percent
of the systems, while the remaining 95 percent of the systems are rela-
tively small, each serving less than 10,000 population. It is estimated
that publicly owned systems make up 56 percent of the total and serve 84
percent of the population, while private or investor owned systems make
up the remaining 44 percent but serve only 16 percent of the population
(Temple, Barker, and Sloane, 1977). Privately owned systems predominate
only in the very small systems serving less than 500 people.
There are a variety of accounting systems in use in the water
supply industry making a detailed comparison of costs difficult. Table
VI-1 presents some estimates based on a recent study of 984 water sys-
tems (Temple, Barker and Sloane, 1977). Data have been grouped by size
of system to show how costs change as size changes. Both publicly
owned and investor owned systems were included in the survey; although
costs for privately owned systems were slightly higher than for the
public systems because of taxes, data on both types are aggregated
in Table VI-1. Operating expenses such as for energy, labor, and chemi-
cals range from 77 cents per 1000 gallons served for the small systems
to 31 cents per 1000 gallons for the largest systems. Interest and
-120-
-------
Table VI-1
COMPARATIVE COSTS OF MATER SUPPLY
Population Served
Number
Pop. Served
(Millions)
Operation
cents/1000 gal .
Interest
-on h^ /I nnn „-,!
<1000 1000-10,000
22,954 8992
6.6 26.7
77 60
15 10
10,000-100,000
2442
73.8
40
7
>100,
243
85
31
5
000
.1
Depreciation
cents/1000 gal.
21
Assets - Mean
Dollars/1000
gal./yr.
14.52
9.47
4.84
3.49
Assets
Dollars per
Connection
342
382
Privately Owned Systems
Source: Temple, Barker and Sloane (1977)
482
505
-121-
-------
depreciation range from 36 cents per 1000 gallons to 9 cents per 1000
gallons or from 48 to 38 percent of operating costs with the highest
capital expense burden on the smaller systems.
A comparison of mean assets per system as a function of system
size per 1000 gallons of water delivered annually, shows assets varying
from $14.50 for the smallest systems to $3.40 for the largest. If
assets are expressed as cost per connection, costs are greater for the
large systems.
Another study (Clark, Gillean, and Adams, 1977) found that oper-
ating costs for medium to large systems averaged about 29 cents per 1000
gallons in 1975. This cost is distributed by purpose in Table VI-2.
Table VI-2
BREAKDOWN OF OPERATING COSTS FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE SYSTEMS
Purpose Cost: (£/1000 gal.
Support services 9.0
Acquisition 6.7
Treatment 3.5
Power and pumping 5.2
Transmission and
distribution 4.4
Total 28.8
For the small sample of systems investigated, capital costs are about 30
percent of operating costs and treatment costs are only about 12 percent
of total operating costs. Monitoring costs are usually included in the
treatment costs.
The cost of complying with the new primary drinking water regu-
lations and the proposed regulations for organic contaminants is not yet
firmly estimated. A study in response to Section 1442(a)(3)(B) of the
Safe Drinking Water Act is currently underway which should provide some
useful estimates. The best available estimate at this time places the
capital costs of meeting the primary standards between $1.1 and $1.8
billion and annual operation and maintenance, including monitoring, at
-122-
-------
about $250 million (Energy Resources Co., 1975). Estimates for the use
of GAC to meet the proposed regulations for organic contaminants vary
from $831 million in a study prepared for EPA to industry estimates up
to $5 billion (McDermott, 1978). The main difference between the esti-
mates is in the number of locations requiring the GAC treatment, but
differences also exist in design criteria and cost assumptions.
It is clear that the smaller systems will pay relatively higher
costs for GAC than the larger systems. Treatment costs for a system
serving a population of one million will be approximately half that of a
system serving only 100,000 people (Temple, Barker and Sloane, 1978).
Especially for the very small plants serving less than one mgd (popula-
tion of 5 to 10,000) cost of on-site carbon regeneration would be es-
pecially high if GAC treatment was found to be needed in the future.
The availability of a central processing facility could help to reduce
this cost. While GAC may ultimately be required for a number of systems
threatened with significant contamination by synthetic organics in the
raw water, reduction of trihalomethanes alone may be accomplished at a
lower cost in some systems through the use of alternative disinfectants
and/or modifications to the sequence of treatment operations.
Another consideration in the financial ability of water utilities
to deliver an adequate and dependable supply is the cost associated with
maintaining, repairing or replacing large facilities as they reach or sur-
pass their usable life. Many water systems, particularly the large sys-
tems in older metropolitan areas, have average ages of 75 to 100 years
as shown in Table VI-3 (adapted from Temple, Barker and Sloane, 1977).
Table VI-3
AVERAGE AGE OF WATER SYSTEMS IN 1976 (BY POPULATION SIZE)
25- 100- 500- 1,000- 2,500- 5,000- 10,000- 100,000-
99 499 999 2,499 4,999 9,999 99,999 999,999 ] milllon
Average Age (years)
Public
Private
All
30
18
18
30
21
24
36
20
32
42
25
38
48
40
47
48
22
46
62
75
64
77
97
81
100
72
95
-123-
-------
In some cases, facilities such as primary transmission conduits, major
storage, or treatment facilities, may require significant improvements
or replacement, at very large cost.
V
2. Financing Water Systems
Water supply is a capital intensive enterprise; water systems, both
public and private, depend heavily on long-term debt to fund their
capital needs. Long-term debt represents from one-third to one-half of
the assets of most systems. Traditionally, public water systems have
been financed at the local level. As of 1971 it was estimated that 83
percent of total expenditures had been made by local and state govern-
ments, 10 percent by private sources and 7 percent by the Federal gov-
ernment (National Water Commission, 1973). Public water supply systems
rely most frequently on the use of bonds to finance capital expenditures
and depend on revenue from water sales to meet operating costs. Some
systems pay small amounts in lieu of taxes into the municipal treasury
and some rely on ad valorem taxes to meet part of their operating ex-
penses. Privately owned water systems also issue bonds to fund capital
expense, but may also use stock sales or retained earnings. Both cost of
capital and operating expenses must be met by revenue from water sales
or the utility will operate at a loss.
Although most capital costs and all operating expenses must be
financed and recovered by the individual utility, some assistance in
capital funding is available through Federal or State Programs. These
are briefly summarized in the following subsections.
a. Federal Financing
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). The FmHA can
make grants or loans to communities of less than
10,000 people, with priority given to rural com-
munities with less than 5,500 population, to
cover up to 75 percent of the cost of renovating
an existing water system or building a new one.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). In conjunction
with its program for small flood control reservoirs,
the SCS may provide assistance for storage of muni-
cipal water, but not for transmission, treatment or
distribution.
-124-
-------
Corps of Engineers. The Corps is authorized to in-
clude storage for municipal water supply in its
multipurpose reservoirs. The municipality is ex-
pected to repay its share of the cost of these
facilities.
Economic Development Administration (EDA). The EDA
can provide grants up to 50 percent of project C9$t
to assist economically depressed areas in improving
their situation.
Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau is authorized to
provide loans to irrigation districts for projects
which may include municipal water supply. Projects
must have been authorized and be located in the 17
western states. Up to 10 percent of project costs
must be contributed by the grantee and water supply
costs must be repaid with interest.
Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA can pro-
vide loan guarantees for privately-owned water systems
if regular commercial lending sources will not provide
funds.
b. State Financing Sources
Seventeen states have programs which provide financial as-
sistance for water supply. These programs range from assistance in
construction costs to upgrading of water treatment facilities to plan-
ning with funding provided via grants or loans. Table VI-4 summarizes
the state programs that existed as of July 1978 (EPA, 1978).
B. Wastewater Management
1. Costs
The costs involved in wastewater management are broad-ranging,
from collection, treatment and disposal or reuse of municipal and in-
dustrial point source discharges to structural controls and management
practices for nonpoint source discharges. This section focuses princi-
pally on the costs associated with municipal wastewater.
Typical costs for municipal wastewater collection and treatment
taken from recent surveys (Dames and Moore 1978a, 1978b) are presented
in Table VI-5. The data have been arranged in terms of cents per
-125-
-------
Table VI-4
STATE PROGRAMS FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
TO MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
Region I
Massachusetts
Vermont
Region II
None in Region
Region III
Pennsylvania
Region IV
Georg ia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region V
Indiana
Ohio
Grants for 30% of total eligible construction costs;
Grants for 30% of annual principal payment for treat-
ment facilities
Matches local contribution with grants
Grants of up to 75% or $75,000 to systems with less than
12,000 population for planning;
Grants of up to 50% of project cost
Grants of up to $150,000 for upgrading of publically-
owned water systems
$110 million appropriation for water supply grants
$200,000 annual allocation to small communities for
matching Federal funds
100% loans for construction and expansion
Loans of up to $150,000 over 20-year period to commun-
ities with 1,250
Loans of up to $500,000 for water supply improvements
to communities 5,000
(continued)
-126-
-------
Region VI
Texas
Region VII
Missouri
Region VIII
North Dakota
Wyoming
Region IX
California
Region X
Alaska
Oregon
Washington
100% of project cost loans
Grants to upgrade only water systems improvements
not necessary to satisfy primary requirements
Loans to rural water districts with FmHA funding
to meet cash flow
Loans and grants for water systems
Loans of up to 100% of project cost
Grants of 50% of eligible cost or 50% of eligible cost
not Federally financed
Loans for water storage, irrigation pumps, and secondary
M&I water
Loans for 100% of planning and engineering; grants for 40%
of eligible construction costs
Source: EPA (1978)
-127-
-------
Table VI-5
AVERAGE COST OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
(cents/1000 gallons)
Level of
Treatment
8,000-40,000
Operating
Costs
Treatment
Primary 17.6
Secondary
Trickling filter 21.2
Activated sludge 31.6
Advanced 45.4
Collection9
Capital
Costs b
Secondary
treatment 56.8
Greater than secondary
treatment 86.5
Upgrade primary
to secondary 32.7
Upgrade secondary
to advanced 22.2
Population Served
All
40,000-150,000 >150,000 plants
13.7 4.7 15.9
16.2 9.5 19.6
16.5 14.9 26.8
25.1 13.6 39.8
14.5
46.4 41.9
82.5
32.4 32.2
19.2 17.4
a. Average of all collection system and pumping O&M costs for systems with
separate sewers and treatment
b. Includes construction plus all
6-5/8%, 20 years.
facilities.
non-construction costs amortized at
Source: Dames and Moore (1978a, 1978b)
-128-
-------
thousand gallons for various service population categories in order to
draw some comparisons with the data previously presented for water
supply costs. Economies of scale are also evident in this situation.
Operation and maintenance costs appear similar for both water supply and
wastewater management, particularly when the level of treatment is
secondary or advanced. Total capital or construction costs appear
significantly higher for wastewater treatment, if compared to the
typical interest expense borne by water supply utilities as a measure of
capital financing. However, the fact that nearly all of the municipal
wastewater treatment costs are eligible for Federal and often state
funding, means that the actual share assumed by the local wastewater
agency is only one-fourth or less of that shown in Table VI-5.
The 1978 EPA Needs Survey (EPA, 1979a) estimates a capital cost of
$125 billion to bring national wastewater disposal facilities up to
requirements for 1977, with an additional $42 billion needed to meet
expanded requirements by the year 2000. The latter costs, detailed in
Table IV-6, are for meeting 1983 interim goals of the Clean Water Act
and do not include the cost of eliminating the discharge of pollutants,
the target for 1985.
More than one-third of the costs in Table VI-6 are for stormwater
control, a major component of nonpoint source pollution. No comparable
estimates are available for control of other components of nonpoint
pollution discussed in Chapter IV. The total national cost for control
of nonpoint source pollution will be large but requires further study.
A comprehensive inventory will be required before the net cost can be
estimated. Alternates to chemical pesticides could ultimately provide
effective pest control at no greater cost than at present and simulta-
neously eliminate a source of pollutants. Management practices which
control erosion also help to control washoff of chemicals.
2. Financing Wastewater Treatment Systems
a. Federal Financing
The EPA Construction Grants Program for POTWs has been dis-
cussed briefly in Chapters II and IV. As of February 28, 1979, a total
-129-
-------
Table VI-6
WASTEWATER FACILITIES NEEDS
FOR YEAR 2000
(billions $)
Needs Category
I (Secondary Treatment)
II (More Stringent Treatment)
A. Secondary Levels
B. Advanced Secondary
C. Advanced Treatment
Year 2000 EPA
Assessment
15.09
(n.o)
( 6.8)
( 2.7)
Backlog
Estimate
9.66
Total Category II
IIIA (Infiltration/Inflow)
IIIB (Replacement and/or Rehab.)
IVA (New Collector Sewers)
IVB (New Interceptor Sewers)
V (Combined Sewer Overflow)
Total I, II, IVB
Total I-V
VI (Control of Stormwater)
Total I-VI
20.51
10.63
2.44
4.88
19.02
18.47
25.74
54.07
106.15
61.67
167.82
2.44
4.87
19.02
6.69
25.74
26.98
79.05
45.70
124.75
Source: EPA (1979a)
-130-
-------
of $20.8 billion had been obligated for construction since enactment of
PL 92-500, with $19.0 billion of this total representing grants still
active as of March 9, 1979. Of the total obligations, approximately
equal amounts of about $670 million were obligated to Step 1 Planning
and Step 2 Design, respectively, with the remaining $19.3 billion obli-
gated for actual facilities construction (Step 3).
Grants under section 201 are made directly to the local imple-
menting agency, and in most states the EPA region is the primary review
and approval agency. However, as of March 1979, eleven states had been
delegated grant review and approval authority under Section 205 of the
Act.
The regulations governing the Construction Grants Program are
lengthy and complex. Basically, however, the grants are for facilities
to meet water pollution control objectives; project features which serve
other purposes are not eligible for grants. For example, a pipeline
conveying effluent to a point of use for irrigation is eligible only if
the irrigation is viewed as a land treatment process used in lieu of
conventional treatment required prior to discharge, and the overall
project in the most cost-effective solution. The cost-effective guide-
lines provide a 15 percent "bonus" for innovative and alternative
processes such as reuse through land treatment. Multi-purpose projects
are encouraged; i.e., agricultural or industrial reuse, groundwater
recharge, energy recovery, urban drainage, recreation or land reclama-
tion. Presently in such multi-purpose projects, the portion of cost
eligible for grant funding is determined on a case-by-case basis based
largely on the least costly conventional pollution control option.
Funding of multiple purpose projects has been under study by an EPA task
force since November, 1978.
In addition to EPA, the Farmers Home Administration of the
Department of Agriculture makes grants up to 75 percent and loans for
the construction of wastewater collection and treatment systems in rural
areas; highest priority is given to projects in rural communities of
less than 5,500 population and no part of a city with a population in
excess of 10,000 can be included. The Department of Housing and Urban
-131-
-------
Development (HUD) makes grants to cities for sanitary sewer systems but
not for treatment works; it can provide financial assistance for treat-
ment works to a nonprofit corporation to serve a population of less than
10,000 if there is no public body to construct and operate the works.
b. State Financing
Thirty two of the states assist the local municipalities in
raising the 15 to 25 percent share (i.e. depending on whether the alter-
native qualifies for bonus funding in which case the lower percentage
would prevail) to combine with the Federal assistance. This assistance
may be in the form of grants or loans. A summary of the relative per-
centages of state assistance available is provided in Table VI-7.
C. Energy Considerations
In water supply systems, energy is used primarily for pumping in
one or more of the following functions: pumping groundwater; pumping
water from a surface supply; pumping water through the treatment plant;
pumping water through the distribution system. Wherever feasible the
engineer designing a water supply system will use gravity for moving
water. Thus in a few cases no pumping is required, but these are the
topographically favored surface water systems with water available at a
sufficiently high elevation so that water can be fed by gravity through-
out the system. On the other hand most systems relying on groundwater
require energy for delivery to and distribution within the service area
as well as pumping from the well.
Conventional water treatment methods do not usually require large
amounts of energy for process operations although various mechanical
devices in the usual treatment plant are motor driven. A major energy
related cost in water treatment is chemical cost. Use of large quan-
tities of lime, alum, etc. (especially if lime sludge is recalcined)
entails a significant expense. Carbon production and regeneration are
also energy intensive.
A special case of large energy consumption is encountered when the
water is high in dissolved salts and reverse osmosis or electrodialysis
is employed to desalt it. In this case it may be desirable to desalt
-132-
-------
Table VI-7
STATE PROGRAMS FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
TO MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER FACILITIES
Region I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Region III
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Hest Virginia
District of
Columbia
Region IV
Georgia
N. Carolina
Tennessee
15',
15c;
20:,
15\-
1 5',
12.5',
25';
25',
2)
2)
10',
12.5',
12.5', of eligible
Step 1
Hardship grants
up to 15\:
5-15', plus Step 1
and 2 funding
25',
2)
Up to $150,000
for upgrading
12.5',
25',
Region V
Illinois - has own program of 75'- grant
Indiana 101
Michigan Si-
Minnesota 151
Wisconsin - has own program of 601 grants
Region VI
New Mexico 12.51
Region VIII
51
12^51
Region VIII
None in region
Region IX
Iowa
Missouri
Nebraska
California
Hawaii
Amer. Samoa
Tr. Terr, of
Pac. Isld.
Guam
12.!
1 01
251
25?;
251
-o;
.
*-'
2)
2)
Region X
Alaska
Idaho
Washington
up to 50
15C,
15',
, 3)
1) May decrease due to lack of funds
2) Applicant same as state
3) Lesser of 50', of eligible cost or 50', of eligible cost not financed
by Federal government
Source: EPA (1979b)
-133-
-------
only water used for drinking and cooking by providing a three pipe
system in the house -- hot, cold, and desalted. It has been argued that
population growth in such areas should be limited to that necessary to
carry on those functions which can only be performed at the location.
Whenever possible, a wastewater treatment plant and final disposal
are located such that the collecting sewers can deliver sewage to these
facilities by gravity. Frequently, however, topography does not permit
such an arrangement, and energy for pumping is required in the collec-
tion system, at the treatment plant, and occasionally prior to final
disposal. Wastewater treatment, on the other hand, can be significantly
more energy intensive than water treatment, particularly in the activated
sludge process and many advanced treatment processes. Water conservation
and optimal design of the facilities are most likely to be effective in
energy conservation. Occasionally, delivery of treated wastewater for
reuse may involve pumping long distances and over significant elevations.
Careful siting of the treatment facility offers the greatest opportunity
for energy saving in this case, if a new facility is to be provided.
D. Opportunities and Problems
Given the preceding background in cost and energy implications,
several opportunities and problems emerge in terms of coordination
between water supply and wastewater plans, and water supply availa-
bility.
1. Coordination Opportunities
In some cases, coordination between planning for water supply
systems and wastewater management facilities can or has achieved sig-
ficant savings in cost and/or energy. The following presents some
examples of possible cost or energy benefits from coordination:
When multiple agencies utilize a water basin - either
surface or groundwater - for both water supply and
wastewater disposal, close coordination can be impor-
tant in terms of achieving cost effective solutions.
This can apply to the location of sites for water sup-
ply intakes and wastewater outfalls, or to the planning
of required treatment for either purpose. A recent EPA
-134-
-------
study (Gulp, Wesner, Gulp, 1978) provides insight into
some of the considerations involved for surface water
planning, and suggests, for example, that in some cases
it may be more cost-effective to provide additional
water treatment rather than advanced wastewater treat-
ment.
Because of scale economies consolidated wastewater treat-
ment may be a cost efficient alternative to many small
treatment plants. On the other hand, if the effluent
were to be reused for any purpose, smaller dispersed
plants might be the most efficient because of reduced
pumping and pipeline costs from a plant to point of
use.
Conservation of water can delay the need for new in-
vestment in water supply and wastewater treatment.
Reduced water use meaps less wastewater per capita
and a potential saving in capital and operating costs
as well as energy. Coordinated planning can help
realize such savings.
In some cases, conservation of the resource might be
achieved through reuse and water rights exchange. If,
for example, higher quality water was rescued for
municipal use, with returned wastewater guaranteed for
agricultural use, a savings in total withdrawal is
achieved, and potentially a significant reduction in
the cost of developing an additional domestic supply
source or condemning agricultural rights.
2. Coordination Constraints
The above are only a few examples demonstrating the potential cost or
energy savings of coordination between water supply and wastewater system
planning -- values which have been realized on occasion in the past and
should be available in the future. Coordination is not, however, without
constraints. Commonly the planners are working as two separate groups
and may not even be aware that they are working on situations which
intersect until a "final" plan is released by one group. Many times it
will be found that planning for only one function is underway and thus
wastewater planning would have nothing with which to interact. In other
cases coordination of water supply and wastewater planning could be
enhanced through the use of a common set of population and land use
projections but the municipality's land use plan is nonexistent, out of
-135-
-------
date, or developed without due regard for the water supply situation or
wastewater facilities requirements and thus not very realistic. A
related problem is that the municipality may have failed to capture the
economic benefits of a comprehensive community conservation strategy
(e.g. to conserve water, reduce per capita wastewater flows, decrease
energy requirements, guard against "leap frog" development and protect
prime agricultural lands) because land use and growth plans have not
integrated water and wastewater systems plans.
Funding mechanisms may also lack sufficient incentives to encourage
effective coordination. For example, if grant funds are not available
for relocation of a water intake, which would avoid a more costly
wastewater treatment and discharge alternative, there is little incen-
tive to make the wastewater planners willing to consider this alternative.
Similarly, the cost of irrigation water may not be such as to encourage
an irrigator to consider reclaimed water at relatively high cost coupled
with the attendant possibility of a liability claim because of his use
of reclaimed water. The point is that exploration of alternatives in
planning is not free. Each alternative requires time for evaluation and
possibly some field investigation to provide facts. If planning organi-
zations are inadequately funded they will be reluctant to explore alter-
natives which offer their function little or no advantages.
Constraints such as those cited above may not be valid reasons for
not obtaining effective coordination since most of them could be elim-
inated by more flexibility in planning and financing water supply and
wastewater systems, and in providing incentives for a comprehensive
conservation strategy. However it must also be recognized that opportu-
nity for coordination does not occur in every planning situation, i.e.
in many cases there is no impact between wastewater and water supply,
perhaps because water supply is from groundwater or if from a surface
stream, there are no wastewater sources upstream. Hence, a blanket
requirement for coordination may not be a useful solution.
3. Water Supply Availability
Water supply systems can experience a variety of financial problems
-136-
-------
but an overall review of the current situation suggests that there are
several major ones which dominate. These are the problems of the small
water utility, the problems of aging water supply systems, and the costs
of controlling organics in drinking water.
It has been noted that small systems generally suffer from the
problems of scale economies. On the average, capital and operating
costs are two to three times greater for the small system than for the
large systems. Averages tend to hide the exceptions, however, and each
system is unique in its physical and economic setting. Some small sys-
tems, such as small groundwater systems, have a large source of pure
water and a compact service area such that costs are quite low. On the
other hand, some small systems may find the only easily accessible
source of water is too saline for use without relatively costly treat-
ment. Some small water services operate without any paid staff and,
hence, have little available manpower and generally no available techni-
cal skills. Deficiencies in either quantity or quality of water deliv-
ered by small systems is frequently linked to either inadequate capital
or operation and maintenance funding.
As also mentioned, many water supply systems, particularly the
large urban and metropolitan systems, are quite old. Major components
of such systems may be in need of rehabilitation or replacement. The
costs for this work may be far more than that of maintenance and repair
required under normal circumstances. Under the present financing struc-
ture, subsidy mechanisms for needed improvements are limited, and the
bulk of financing capital costs would be borne by the individual utility
and, ultimately the customers. This problem has been recognized by the
Intergovernmental Water Policv Task Force. A Subcommittee on Urban
Water Supply, under the leadership of the Secretary of the Army, is
undertaking a study to evaluate existing assistance programs, institu-
tional and financial problems, and propose policy or program changes.
The task force report is expected to be completed in late 1979.
The cost of controlling organics in finished drinking water will
undoubtedly prove quite expensive for some utilities. There is still
debate about proposed regulations for GAC Treatment, and unresolved
-137-
-------
questions remain regarding the extent of the systems ultimately in-
volved, the most cost-effective method of control for THM's and/or
synthetic organics for any given water system, and the degree of reg-
ulations/requirements that are necessary. For the systems for which
additional control procedures are necessary, however, the increased
capital and operating costs may be very significant and will be passed
on to the consumer.
E. Summary/Findings
The preceeding discussion of cost and energy considerations leads
to the following findings:
Capital costs for wastewater facilities tend to be
greater than water supply facilities on a per gal-
lon basis. However, Federal and State funding pro-
grams significantly reduce the local economic im-
pact of wastewater facilities construction.
Operation and maintenance costs are similar for
water supply and wastewater management on a per gal-
lon basis, and on the average show definite economies
of scale.
Wastewater facilities funding needs to meet the goals
of the Clean Water Act are two orders of magnitude
greater than the estimated water treatment needs to
meet the Interim Primary Drinking Water regulations.
A variety of potential opportunities, as well as
constraints, exist for arriving at cost-effective
and coordinated solutions to meet wastewater and
water supply needs. These are, however, dependent
on local and State characteristics such as institu-
tional arrangements, legal structure, physical fea-
tures, and social values.
There are several potential cost-related problems
facing the national ability to deliver adequate
and dependable safe drinking water supplies. These
include the financial capabilities of the numerous
small water supply systems, rehabilitation/replace-
ment needs of aging urban water systems, and the
ultimate cost impacts on water supply systems need-
ing significant modifications to control organic
contaminants. The problems of rural water supply
systems are being addressed in a Rural Water Survey
in response to Section 3 of the Safe Drinking Water
Act; however information is lacking on the needs of
-138-
-------
small community systems. Similarly, studies are
underway on the cost of controlling organic contam-
inants and on needs for rehabilitation of large
urban systems.
-139-
-------
References: Chapter VI
Clark, R.M., Gillean, J.I. and Adams, W.K. 1977. The Cost of Water
Supply and Water Utility Management, U.S. E.P.A. 600/5-77-0152
Gulp, Wesner and Culp. 1978. Guidance for Planning the Location of
Water Supply Intakes Downstream from Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Facilities. U.S. E.P.A. 68-01-4473
Dames and Moore. 1978a. Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Plants: 1973-1977. U.S. E.P.A. 430/9-77-MCD-37
,1978. Analysis of Operation and Maintenance Costs for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems"! U.S. E.P.A. 4 30/9-77-015,
MCD-39
Energy Resources Co., Inc. October 1975. Economic Evaluation of the
Promulgated Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. E.P.A.
570/9-75-003
U.S. E.P.A., Office of Drinking Water. 1978. Unpublished Summary of
State Programs for Water Supply Financial Assistance.
, Office of Water Program Operations. 1979a. 1978 Needs
Survey - Cost Estimates for Construction of Publicly-Owned Wastewater
Treatment Facilities.
_, Office of Water Program Operations. 1979b. "Clean
Water Fact Sheet."
Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS). 1979. Public Water Supply
System Data.
McDermott, J. 1978. Tampa Paper.
National Water Commission. 1973. Water Policies for the Future. U.S.
Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.
Temple, Barker and Sloane, Inc. 1977. Survey of Operating and
Financial Characteristics of Community Water Systems. U.S. E.P.A.
-570/9-77-003
, July 1978. Revised Economic Import Analysis of Proposed
Regulations on Organic Contaminants in Drinking Water, E.P.A.
Contract 68-01-4778
-140-
-------
Chapter VII
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN SELECTING PRIORITIES
A. Introduction
Answers to the questions posed by Congress which this study is
addressing could have far reaching effects on factors that weigh heavily
in the political decision making process—equity, change in balance of
power, impact on present and future quality of life to name a few. By
necessity, then, the initial scope of work called for an approach that
was part technical and analytical, and part nontechnical and investiga-
tive. The analytical portion of the study is documented in other chap-
ters of the report; this chapter reports on findings that emerged from
investigating what concerns people have about "adequate and dependable
supplies of safe drinking water" and a requirement for "coordination
between water supply and wastewater control plans as a condition to
grants...".
B. Regional Workshops: Involving the Public in the Study Process
1. Preparation/Dissemination of Discussion Paper
Recognizing the value of having a background document to help the
public enter into the study process as soon as possible, the contractors'
efforts during the first two months of this study concentrated on an
exploratory analysis of issues/questions surrounding various aspects of
the questions raised by Congress, and preparation of a discussion paper
based on that cursory review of available data. Concurrent with this,
the Office of Regional and Inter-governmental Operations (ORIO) in EPA
headquarters coordinated with the Regions to develop a list of possible
participants in public workshops, to invite these persons to attend, and
to provide the contractor with a mailing list for the background discus-
sion paper. The dates and locations of these workshops were also published
-141-
-------
in the Federal Register and requests for the paper generated as a result
of this announcement were added to the mailing list. In all about 2,000
papers were distributed during the first week of January and at the
workshops. Dates and locations of the workshops are as follows:
San Francisco -- January 17 and 18
Dallas -- January 24 and 25
Atlanta -- January 31 and February 1
New York City -- February 7 and 8
Chicago -- February 14 and 15
2. Structuring the Workshop Format
The EPA Task Force and the contractor agreed that every attempt
should be made to provide an open atmosphere in the workshops where
people would feel free to express their views. Thus the contractor had
a lead role with responsibility for preparing the presentations, provid-
ing workshop leaders, surveying proceedings during plenary and small
group sessions, and synthesizing and analyzing public input. On the
other hand, EPA played a key role by arranging facilities, and providing
workshop moderators and small group facilitators. Finally, participants
played both lead and support roles by serving on panels, speaking out in
plenary and small group sessions, acting as recorders for the small
group discussions and reporting their findings at the end of the day in
plenary session, and expressing "minority views" in the event that a
small group did not arrive at consensus regarding its conclusions and
recommendations.
3. Data Collection and Synthesis
Data gathering by the contractor took the form of tape recording
at the plenary sessions, note taking at these sessions, attendance and
note taking in as many small groups as possible, discussion with indi-
vidual participants, collection of recorder's notes, and request for and
collection of memos from the workshop leaders and small group leaders.
In addition written comments from participants were invited.
-142-
-------
All raw data described above was transcribed and typed, organized
in regional notebooks, and synthesized and analyzed by the contractor.
Copies of these working documents were forwarded to EPA Headquarters and
the respective host Regions. A national summary and analysis which
contained as appendices the regional summaries/analyses from the note-
books was also prepared by the contractor and forwarded to Headquarters.
4. Coordinating Public Views with Study Team Efforts
The initial analytical phase--!.e. discussion paper—as well as
the investigative phase--i.e. public workshops—indicated that a myriad
of technical, legal, institutional and social issues arise when consid-
ering water use, availability, safety, quality, funding, regulation and
responsibility. This was hardly a surprise. However, the task for the
study team following the workshops was to decide on priority issues for
further analysis, present these issues to the Task Force for modifica-
tion and/or concurrence, and develop a detailed work plan for addressing
them. Thus the following criteria were established for screening the
many issues/questions that could be analyzed in order to arrive at a set
of priorities:
The topic is of significant concern to the public as evi-
denced by the workshop response.
It is within the specific scope of the study: (1) ade-
quacy and dependability of safe drinking water supplies;
(2) municipal water supply and wastewater management
coordination.
It is complementary with rather than duplicative of other
ongoing studies and reports.
It may be local in nature but because of its widespread
occurrence or its magnitude it is of national signifi-
cance.
As indicated by the above, the public workshop results had a
direct influence on the course of this study by assisting the contractor
and the Task Force to arrive at a focus for analysis and by serving as a
touchstone for the study team to use in melding the less tangible and
-143-
-------
nontechnical aspects of the issues with the more quantifiable and tech-
nical considerations.
C. Public Views: Highlights and Observations
The workshops were well attended despite poor weather conditions
with the ratio of participation to invitation running about one in
three. Participants came from 43 states, from Puerto Rico and from
Canada. Approximately 11 percent of the participants were affiliated
with Federal agencies, 20 percent with State agencies, 23 percent with
local agencies or utilities, 12 percent with industry and 12 percent
with special interest groups, 10 percent with Regional Councils or
Commissions, 5 percent with universities and the remainder either un-
identified or registered as individual citizens. Although as previously
noted the participants spoke to numerous subjects, the following presents
a composite of that discussion in particular as it relates to priority
topics raised in the wording of 1442(c) and 516(e). Where appropriate,
regional views are indicated.
1. Adequacy and Dependability of Water Supplies for Domestic
Use
There was widespread and strong support for continuing to entrust
responsibility for the adequacy and dependability of municipal water
supply to the local level, even though there was widespread agreement
that domestic water supply problems are prevalent and that these are
hidden in national data. It was felt that, in general, the water utili-
ties whether publically or investor owned have exhibited a trustworthi-
ness in terms of providing sufficient supplies and that no new wholesale
Federal program is needed or wanted. There were exceptions to this
general sentiment, however, which must be noted.
Of concern was the plight of small community or rural systems.
Putting the safety or quality issue aside for the moment, there was a
prevailing attitude that small systems may already have problems with
adequacy and dependability due, for example, to heavy reliance on wells
and lack of financial ability to go deeper for water in the event of
drought or other factors which lower the groundwater table. Rural
communities were not well represented in the workshops, however, and it
-144-
-------
was not possible to extract the full dimensions of this problem al-
though several public health officials who work in rural areas expressed
significant concern. There was also not concurrence on what should be
done to assist small systems. Suggestions ranged from direct financial
aid in hardship cases to low cost loans to market rate loans. Neither
was it clear who should be responsible for administering assistance
programs although there was considerable support for allocating such
responsibility through existing agency programs such as those under the
purview of the FmHA, EDA and HUD. There was in general not a clear
understanding of what type of assistance these agencies provide or how
the assistance relates to the adequacy and dependability question.
A second exception to the general attitude of leaving municipal
supply responsibility at the local level surfaced in the New York work-
shop. Here there was concern expressed about rehabilitating and/or
reconstructing antiquated urban water systems in the Northeast. Related
recommendations were to include "drinkable" along with "fishable and
swimmable" in the 1983 goal of the Clean Water Act, to redirect funds from
existing programs presumably including the 201 facilities program to system
rehabilitation, and to provide low cost loans to be repaid by users. It
should be noted that there was opposition expressed to this viewpoint by
those who believe that users should be responsible for maintaining a
system and paying the maintenance costs. On the other hand there was a
rather broad concern that quantity problems exist in the water-rich
Northeast in contrast to the semi-arid Western States and that problems
unique to this region are seldom brought to the attention of Congress.
Finally in the Dallas workshop it was noted that in order to
assure an adequate and dependable supply of water for all uses it is
necessary to anticipate needs and develop water resources to meet those
needs in water-short areas like Texas. A spokesperson for Arkansas
further noted that in water-rich areas there is a need to develop dis-
tribution systems to get water to the people which may require Federal
assistance.
2. Safety of Drinking Water Supplies
The question of safety frequently turned into discussion about the
efficacy of Federal standards and treatment requirements rather than
-145-
-------
safety per se. In the Atlanta workshop, for example, spokespersons for
utilities in one of the small groups strongly stated their position that
Americans have the safest water in the world thanks to the water supply
industry. In Dallas the proposed regulations for GAC were labeled as
irresponsible and in San Francisco it was suggested that the Federal
government should pay for implementing ridiculous Federal regulations.
However a public health official in the Dallas workshop raised the
question about why participants, given their affiliations, had any
expertise to speak to the issue of health impacts. While the regula-
tions are being studied by other on-going efforts, and research is
continuing on health effects of constituents in drinking water supplies,
the vehemency of comments made warrants mention in this report.
Of direct interest to this study, however, are two topics which
came up in all workshops: safety of supplies in small systems and
source protection. Regarding small systems public health officials in
the Atlanta workshop noted that rural residents frequently suffer
health effects due to polluted domestic supplies, and in the San Fran-
cisco workshop a State official observed that small systems in parks and
recreation areas are inadequately treated due to lack of personnel and
funding. Others observed that all Americans deserve to have safe sup-
plies. A minority view expressed in the Dallas workshop was that people
in rural areas should be willing to pay for adequate treatment or move
to the cities where users do pay for safe drinking water supplies.
Similar to the adequacy and dependability subject there was not a
consensus on how the safety of small system supplies can or should be
assured. For example suggestions in the New York workshop ranged from
direct Federal assistance, assistance to the States for allocation on a
priority basis, providing subsidies for regional labs to monitor and
test water supplies, public education on waste disposal methods which
protect individual supply sources, to beefinq up existing Federal
programs for technology transfer and technical assistance. A suggestion
in the San Francisco workshop was to switch to bottled water.
The second major concern—source protection—related primarily to
groundwater although persons in the New York workshop also mentioned
surface supplies and watershed protection. The inadequacy of
-146-
-------
groundwater protection was raised in all workshops. In San Francisco,
for example, it was observed that agricultural policies may be in con-
flict with groundwater protection due to dangers of intrusion of chemi-
cals into the groundwater (or for that matter into surface supplies
through nonpoint source runoff), that FmHA subsidies for water supply do
not account for quality impacts and have resulted in systems that are
now below standard, and that present sludge disposal policies may have
adverse effects on groundwater. In Atlanta a similar concern was ex-
pressed over the impact of agricultural expansion and irrigation tech-
niques on both quantity and quality of groundwater, and over the pref-
erence accorded to land treatment in the Clean Water Act which may
contaminate this supply source.
While source protection in general, and groundwater source pro-
tection in particular appear to be a nationwide concern, the most ac-
ceptable mechanisms for protection are not readily apparent. In the
Chicago workshop, for example, recommended mechanisms included enforce-
ment/implementation of existing laws and programs such as: regulation
of point source discharges of toxic and hazardous wastes under the Clean
Water Act; implementation of Title III of the Water Resources Planning
Act; reexamination of impact of land treatment on water supply; shifting
of funds from Construction Grants to programs such as Rural Clean Water,
Surface Mine Reclamation, and Toxic and Hazardous wastes. Some New York
workshop recommendations were similar, but others included: increasing
public awareness of the importance of protecting supply sources and
mechanisms available to do so (e.g. land use planning to protect water-
sheds and aquifer recharge areas); requiring the polluter to pay to
remove pollutants from supply sources; technical assistance from EPA and
other Federal agencies, if requested, to the local level in order to
assure more thorough consideration of source protection in local plans.
3. Conservation and Reuse
Notions about conservation vary from region to region as might be
anticipated. While there was little disagreement that the concept of
conservation as an ethic is a good one, there was widespread agreement
that a mandatory Federal policy with national standards and regulations
-147-
-------
would not be acceptable. Little if any quantitative information was
forthcoming in any of the workshops, although examples of conservation
were set forth with the caveat that these came about as a result of
special circumstances and economic incentives at the state/local level
and not from Federal pressure. It was also observed that conservation
frequently results in higher prices for water, so it is not clear what
the economic incentives are. Energy savings were cited in the Chicago
workshop, savings in terms of learning to live within the limits of an
existing septic system was mentioned in Atlanta, and possible cost
savings in wastewater treatment v/ere noted in San Francisco and New
York.
Neither was there universal agreement on a workable definition for
conservation with a rather clear distinction between the semi-arid and
water-rich regions. In San Francisco, for example, one group noted that
a holistic view of conservation--e.g., energy requirements, crop pro-
duction—needs to be taken in contrast to merely talking about conserv-
ing water. It was also observed in that workshop that conservation has
reached its limit in many areas of the west and that mandatory measures
could induce hardship--e.g. farmers have long known the value of water
and have practiced conservation in the sense of preserving it for its
highest use in terms of crop production. In the Dallas workshop one of
the small groups came up with its own definition: "the wise and ef-
ficient development and use of the total water resource in light of
present and future demand". It was also noted in that workshop that
Texas has a metering policy which has proven to be an effective conser-
vation mechanism.
As the workshops preceded east, attitudes toward conservation
changed although the notion that conservation policy is a state/local
decision did not. In Atlanta it was deemed important for state water
plans and policies to have conservation elements (Georgia has recently
adopted a policy to require water conserving devices in new develop-
ment). This would seem to imply a working definition slanted toward
reduction in use.
-148-
-------
If there was not broad consensus on the meaning of conservation
neither did a distinctive conservation mechanism emerge. In New York
recommendations from the various small groups included: a national
plumbing code (with an implementation decision at the local level);
contingency plans for conservation during drought; public education;
adjustments to rate structures; metering. Opposing views were presented
to two of these recommendations: installation of metering in New York
City would be prohibitively expensive; rate structures should be asso-
ciated with cost of service not level of use. In Chicago, some recom-
mendations were similar to those in New York but others included: leak
detection pilot programs; national policy that Federal agencies should
not provide water for new development thereby promoting growth and
increased water consumption.
Similar to conservation, reuse was viewed as a good concept but
one that must be determined by location specific circumstances and
needs. In San Francisco it was observed that the highest and best reuse
might be discharge to the Bay to prevent salt water intrusion. It was
also observed that care needs to be taken to avoid creating a new use,
that further research is needed to identify the impacts of using treated
wastewater on various types of crops and that treated wastewater is
simply not cost competitive with groundwater or reservoir water. In
Dallas it was noted that wastewater is already counted as part of water
supply and thus Texas practices reuse. There was little substantive
discussion of reuse in the other workshops.
4. Coordination as a Condition to Construction Grants
While there was little disagreement that coordination in and of
itself is a good thing, and some surprise that it did not occur as a
matter of course, the word "condition" raised the ire of most workshop
participants. The opposition to any further requirements or conditions
was vehement and at times stood in the way of identifying and discussing
possible advantages. The depth of sentiment warrants a consolidation of
comments on a region by region basis.
In San Francisco it was observed that there are numerous vehicles
presently on the books which mandate or provide an opportunity for
coordination; examples include the NEPA process and the A-95 review
-149-
-------
process. It was further noted that local coordination does take place
when there is a need for it, but that coordination at the top is not
nearly so apparent. Numerous needs for improved coordination were
mentioned including: between Federal research and development and local
decision making requirements; among various agencies using different
population, density and land use projections; within 208 planning but
with the caveat that a national "cook book" approach to such planning is
not feasible; between regional characteristics, including water use, and
standards under the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. One
positive recommendation for local implementation was development of a
system by which wastewater treatment would be billed in proportion to
the amount of water used and both charges would appear on one invoice.
In Dallas a coordination requirement was opposed because it pre-
sumes that there is no local and state level coordination which is not
the case; any additional requirements for a construction grant will
possibly halt construction or cause further delays in meeting the
Congressional goal for abatement of pollution; conditions are tantamount
to control and the Federal government already has too much control over
local affairs; EPA already has enough to do without getting involved in
municipal water supply. Suggestions for moving toward achievement of
more coordination included: evaluation of existing programs and pro-
cesses for coordination before embarking on a new law/program; where it
has not been achieved, implementation of coordination through the 208
process; encouraging/requiring water supply and wastewater planners to
use a common data base with such data derived at the local level.
Atlanta echoed San Francisco and Dallas in observing that mech-
anisms exist for coordination and no new laws or programs are desired.
It was noted however that processes such as 208 planning should be
revised to include water supply, 209 planning should be implemented to
obtain a comprehensive view of all functional planning, states should
have primary responsibility for in-state coordination and for delegating
such authority to substate levels, and the 208 review process should be
150-
-------
accelerated so 201 planning will have something with which to coor-
dinate. In contrast to adding more conditions to the Construction
Grants process it was felt that it should be modified to provide more
flexibility and to speed up implementation; an example of flexibility
was to allow funding of a water supply component of a least-costly
wastewater treatment plan. Participants were also highly favorable to
requiring use of a common data base although there was no consensus on
who should choose that base.
In New York, the working groups developed some rather specific
recommendations for coordinating water supply and wastewater planning
including: coordinating goals and budgets under the Clean Water Act and
the Safe Drinking Water Act with an eye toward economic efficiency;
further enforcement of NPDES permits in view of water supply concerns;
modify the Construction Grants Program to ensure adequate review of
water supply concerns prior to funding; reallocate existing funds under
the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Acts to include funding for co-
ordinated planning and sufficient funding of Federal agencies to allow
them to provide technical assistance to local planning efforts; require
coordination of water supply projections with wastewater treatment pro-
jections. It was also noted that 201 funding is oriented to engineering
approaches when nonstructural solutions might be less costly and of more
overall benefit. One example given was that of combining a low flow
augmentation plan for in-stream water quality with a plan to allow
natural processes of dilution of wastewater.
Chicago followed the trend of other workshops with recommendations
for no new coordination requirements tacked on to the 201 grant process,
fuller implementation of existing laws/programs such as increased fund-
ing to states for 209 planning and a strengthened Water Resources Coun-
cil, modifying the 208 process to require consideration of water supply
issues, and using State-EPA Agreements as a vehicle for coordination.
It should be noted that most of the participants felt rather
strongly that Federal agencies need to coordinate both among themselves
and with local plans/policies (where population growth is considered
to be a local policy issue) and further that EPA programs need to be
-151-
-------
better coordinated. In fairness it should be noted that participation
data indicate that there was not a large representation from the Federal
government and thus recent attempts at coordination such as those in-
itiated in response to the White House Initiatives of July 6, 1978 were
never raised.
D. Summary/Findings
The following summarizes key findings that emerged as a result of
public input to this study during the public workshops and in subsequent
correspondence to EPA and the contractor:
There is strong and widespread sentiment against any new
Federal legislation and programs, and any significant in-
crease in Federal involvement related to municipal water
supply. Workshop participants across the country pointed
out that Federal involvement generally results in laws
and programs which ignore very real differences that
exist within various regions, prescriptive regulations
and standards that inhibit local solutions to local prob-
lems, and "cook book" procedures that are inefficient and
inflationary.
Despite the above, there appears to be considerable con-
cern over adequacy, dependability and safety of small
water supply systems—community, rural, and park and rec-
reation systems. There is not consensus on what should
be done but there is general agreement that some action
should be taken in cases of critical need and that any
such action should take place within the existing insti-
tutional/legal framework.
There is a marked difference between eastern and western
attitudes on priorities in Federal spending and policy
regarding water supply and water quality: participants
from eastern states suggested that there is a need for
Federal assistance to rehabilitate antiquated munici-
pal systems and that funds from existing programs should
be redirected to this need; participants from western
states did not raise this issue and input suggests that
the attitude there is that appropriations for Federally
authorized water quality funding should be ensured as
outlined in the Clean Water Act.
-152-
-------
Source protection, in particular as it relates to
groundwater sources, is a major concern. Strength-
ening existing programs and implementing legisla-
tion already on the books are seen as imperative
to providing adequate protection of these supply
sources. Provision of technical assistance, when
requested, to the local/state levels is also viewed
as important.
As an ethic, conservation is widely supported; how-
ever a blanket Federal conservation policy or pro-
gram that ignores regional and local differences
is not and it appears likely that any such attempt
would run into strong opposition. Comment on re-
use suggests that it comes about when there is an
economic incentive and when location-specific cir-
cumstances warrant it. However, similar to conser-
vation, reuse is not seen as appropriate on a na-
tionwide basis.
The opposition to any additional requirements tacked
on as a condition to section 201 funding of publicly
owned treatment works is vehement. Not only is the
existing construction grants process considered by
some to be overburdened with requirements but also
any additional requirements are seen to be infla-
tionary, counterproductive to Congressional goals
and timeframes for achieving desired in-stream water
quality, and redundant since mechanisms for coor-
dinating water supply and water quality planning are
provided in present programs and procedures such as
NEPA requirements, A-95 review process, and section
209 planning. Furthermore it is believed that coor-
dination can and does come about at the local level
as a result of voluntary institutional arrangements
and need, and that coordination needs to start at
the top of the governmental hierarchy rather than
the other way around.
E. Focusing the Study
Results of both the technical analysis and the investigation of
public views were presented to the EPA Task Force who had to decide on
an appropriate focus for further in-depth analysis. It was recognized
that considerable work would be required to develop results that would
be substantive, meaningful for option formulation and decision making,
and attainable within the time constraints imposed. Thus the criteria
-153-
-------
presented in Section B.4 of this chapter were used to screen through
problems and opportunities identified in the exploratory phase of the
study in order to pinpoint those that appeared to warrant priority in
subsequent analysis efforts. The following subsections discuss the
issues selected, the rationale for their selection, and the reason why
some issues though important were not considered further.
1. Coordination Through Major Existing Federal Programs
Clearly the Congress has requested EPA to develop recommendations
on a requirement to coordinate water supply and water quality planning
as a condition to grants under section 201 of the Clean Water Act.
Moreover, in line with the criteria, this issue was selected for further
analysis for the following reasons:
Coordinated planning could result in benefits such as
implementation of a municipal conservation program
through mechanisms like single billing for water and
wastewater, protecting drinking water sources by in-
cluding this objective in facilities siting and treat-
ment technology decisions, or designing a waste treat-
ment facility with a design capacity that is in bal-
ance with the available water supply.
While any benefits of coordination appear to be highly
dependent on local characteristics and values, the ag-
gregate benefit to the Nation of encouraging such coor-
dination could be significant.
Although the public is vehemently opposed to additional
conditions to 201 funding, there is a strong sentiment
that existing programs could be used to encourage coor-
dination when it would result in tangible benefits at
the local level.
Closer coordination of Federal programs with local goals
and needs, as well as with physical and economic charac-
teristics, is a nationwide concern.
As a result of section 208 planning efforts, local insti-
tutions have been involved in water quality and to a far
more limited extent in water quantity planning. Section
201 planning could be modified to address water supply in
a search for overall water management plans that are
-154-
-------
cost efficient. Section 209 river basin planning is ;
another vehicle for coordinated planning. Thus it appears
that there are mechanisms within the existing institutional
framework that could be used to encourage coordination.
2. Municipal Conservation and Reuse
Municipal conservation and reuse are an explicit concern in
section 1442(c) and implicit in 516(e). In addition:
Reducing the amount or at least the rate of growth in I
per capita municipal water use, and applying municipal ,,
wastewater to nonpotable uses, are attractive in theory ;
but quite dependent on local characteristics in practice;
as noted in the public workshops. In addition, municipal!
water use is a small percentage of the total and there is
no consensus on what the national benefits of municipal j
conservation are. '
Conservation and reuse have many potential benefits:
e.g., lessen intensive competition for water among the
various users; keep demand within the safe yield of a
groundwater supply source or the capacity of a supply
system; release agricultural or industrial supplies by
substituting municipal effluents to serve those needs;
leave more water in streams for in-stream uses; make
more efficient use of resources by recycling nutrients;
overall energy savings to consumers. The costs asso-
ciated with achieving such benefits are less well un-
derstood.
Nationwide conservation and/or reuse policies and stan-
dards are not viable options in the eyes of the public.
Policies to encourage more efficient use of resources
rather than to reward inefficient water supply and waste-
water treatment systems would be more palatable.
3. Groundwater Management
Improvement of groundwater management to protect municipal water
supply and water quality is relevant to both section 516(e) and 1442(c)
In addition:
Technical analysis and public workshop results suggest
that problems such as overdrafting and contamination
of groundwater sources are local and regional in nature
but nationwide in scope.
-155-
-------
There is substantial information available from recent
and on-going studies related to groundwater. While the
state-of-the-art in measuring, monitoring and testing
groundwater needs substantive improvement, there is suf-
ficient information to study the relationship between
safe drinking water supply and known or suspected ground-
water problems.
EPA has a number of programs related to groundwater pro-
tection. Thus a framework exists for encouraging improved
groundwater management practices.
4. Small Water Supply Systems
Dependability and adequacy of municipal drinking water supply,
an issue of 1442(c), appears to be more of a problem for small sys-
tems than for larger ones. It may require a more coordinated planning
effort to assure safety of such supplies, a concern of both 1442(c) and
516(e). In addition:
A large number of small systems have or could have fi-
nancial problems in meeting Federal standards and regula-
tions. In addition existing data suggests that although
the problems are local in nature they are nationwide in
distribution.
Assistance programs are available to deal with some spe-
cific problems but a broader overview is desirable to ex-
amine methods for strengthening or coordinating such as-
sistance.
The public expressed concern over the plight of small
systems but there was little agreement on what should
be done.
5. Issues Not Selected
Findings from the assessment and the public workshop point to
issues that were dropped from further consideration after screening them
against the criteria. These include:
Non-municipal conservation. In contrast to municipal use,
other uses such as for agriculture are orders of magnitude
larger and thus appear to have greater potential for con-
servation. However, non-municipal conservation is judged
to be outside of the scope of this study in so far as in-
depth analysis is concerned. In addition, many of the
-156-
-------
implementation Task Forces, established in response to
the President's Water Policy Initiatives, are addressing
aspects of non-municipal conservation.
Rehabilitation of Antiquated Urban Systems. This issue
is of considerable concern to the public, in particular
in the east. As noted, however, it is being studied by
an Intergovernmental Water Policy Task Force under the
leadership of Secretary of Interior Cecil Andrus in
response to the Presidential initiative. Thus it is
not considered further in this study.
Organics Control. EPA's proposed regulations for organics
are a topic of public debate. Since the proposed regula-
tions were first issued there have been many studies aimed
at developing more substantive information on costs and
benefits, and, as mentioned, there is some on-going work.
Thus the issue is not considered further,
Municipal Drought Supplies. There is little hard data that
reflects the dependability of municipal supplies during
drought. What information there is is largely local and
it is not possible to extrapolate a national picture from
it. As this study is required to use available data, this
issue is dropped from further analysis, but with the recom-
mendation that an adequate information base be developed.
-157-
-------
Part 2: PRIORITY ANALYSIS
-------
Chapter VIII
INVESTIGATION OF COORDINATION OPPORTUNITIES
THROUGH MAJOR FEDERAL PROGRAMS
A. Introduction
As indicated in the assessment section, the present framework for
addressing water-related problems is often one of distinct legal and in-
stitutional structures to deal with each of the areas of water quantity
planning, water quality protection and pollution control, and the safety
of drinking water supplies. Coordination in the broad sense is planning
or implementing actions that integrate more than one of these areas to
achieve an improved beneficial use of the resource. Numerous examples
exist in which some degree of coordination is achieved. Nonetheless,
conflicting goals and objectives, political and financial considerations,
timing constraints, and other factors can and do create barriers to
well-coordinated solutions in some situations.
The thrust of this chapter is to investigate existing or potential
opportunities for coordination within selected Federal programs. These
include the Construction Grants Program and Water Quality Management
Program in response to the Clean Water Act, and Level B Basin Planning
in response to the Water Resources Planning Act. The Construction
Grants Program is discussed separately, in direct response to Section
516(e) and because it is a grant program for facilities, in contrast to
the other two planning programs. Two basic questions are addressed for
each of the program areas: What specific mechanisms exist and have been
used to successfully achieve coordinated solutions? What constraints
and conflicts exist?
Before covering these Federal programs, it is desirable to narrow
the definition of coordination to specific types of opportunities that
appear important, and briefly review the national extent of the op-
portunities.
-158-
-------
1. Types of Coordination Opportunities
The specific types of opportunities on which this and sections of
later chapters focus include:
Coordinated planning of wastewater facilities, water
supply facilities, and water quality measures for a
common surface and/or groundwater hydrologic unit.
Coordinated water and wastewater facility planning
for overlapping service areas.
Reuse of wastewater either to improve and protect a
water body or to make additional supplies available.
Conservation of water through moderation of use to
reduce energy and facility requirements for both
water supply and wastewater.
There is some overlap between this chapter and the following two.
Detailed analyses of the potential for municipal water conservation and
wastewater reuse are presented in Chapter IX. Chapter X contains a re-
view and analysis of the major quality problems and quality-quantity re-
lationships involving the use of groundwater, especially as a drinking
water supply. This chapter examines these specific types of coordination
in the context of implementation within the Federal programs identified.
2. National Extent of Opportunities
Using information from the assessment section, as well as other
sources, the extent of possible interactions between municipal water
supplies and wastewater discharges is presented in Figures 8.1 and 8.2
for surface and groundwater, respectively. There are about 13,400 mun-
icipal outfalls discharging to inland surface waters and about 6,100
community water supply systems withdrawing directly from inland surface
waters. An additional 3,900 community water systems purchase surface
water from these direct withdrawers. Approximately 20 bgd of surface
water is withdrawn for public water supplies, or about 4 bgd more than
the quantity of municipal wastewater discharged to inland waters. By
contrast, only 400 municipal facilities treat and discharge wastewater
via land, compared with over 49,000 community water systems withdrawing
-159-
-------
INLAND SURFACE WATERS
AVERAGE NATURAL STREAM
FLOW 1,400 bgd
Figure 8.1 WATER-WASTEWATER INTERACTIONS
SURFACE WATERS
-160-
-------
INDIVI DUAL ON-SITE
WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
20 M SYSTEMS
4 bgd DISCHARGED
65 M PEOPLE SERVED
PUBLIC AND RURAL WATER SUPPLIES
51,000 COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
15.2 bgd WITHDRAWN
103 M PEOPLE SERVED
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
DISCHARGES
400 FACILITIES
0.4 bgd DISCHARGED
4 M PEOPLE SERVED
FRESH GROUNDWATER
TOTAL STORAGE: 15,000 X 10 ga\
Figure 8.2 WASTE-WATER INTERACTIONS
GROUNDWATER
161-
-------
groundwater. An additional 1,000 systems purchase groundwater from
these other systems.
Similarly, the municipal wastewater treated and discharged to land is
only about 0.4 bgd, of which only a fraction may actually reach ground-
waters, compared with about 15.2 bgd withdrawn from groundwaters. Also
shown in Figure 8.2 is an estimate of 4 bgd discharged from about 20
million onsite domestic wastewater systems (septic tanks).
The overall potential for interaction between municipal wastewater
discharges and public water supplies appears much greater for surface
waters than for groundwaters. There is a greater likelihood, however,
for interaction between groundwater supplies and individual, onsite
systems. The figures also suggest that in the aggregate only a small
fraction (1 to 2 percent) of total streamflow is discharged wastewater
or water supply, and an insignificant fraction of the total usable
groundwater is affected by wastewater or water supply. Such generali-
ties do not take into account local situations. Additional potential
for groundwater interactions is discussed further in Chapter X.
A better indication of the magnitude of surface water interactions
locally is provided in a study currently being completed for the EPA
(SCS Engineers, 1979). This study attempts to quantify the wastewater
impacts on specific surface water supply intakes by summarizing all
known upstream discharges. The data shown in Table VIII-1 are extracted
from the study results. It is possible to estimate the total population
Table VIII-1
DISCHARGED WASTEWATER REACHING
SURFACE WATER SUPPLY INTAKES
Wastewater in
stream flow is
greater than -%
1
5
10
20
Total population affected,
At avg stream flow At low
20
1
0.4
0.2
millions
stream flow
25.2
19.4
15.3
7.6
Source: SCS Engineers, 1979.
-162-
-------
using water from surface sources, in which a given percentage of flow is
wastewater discharged upstream. For example, 19.4 million people use
surface water that may contain greater than 5 percent wastewater flow at
low streamflow conditions. Furthermore, the study indicates the rela-
tive severity for various river basins and specific cities.
To this point, the information presented here has provided a
picture of the existing situation in terms of facilities and quantities.
Of equal importance to this study is a brief comparison of the known or
potential planning efforts for municipal water supply and wastewater
treatment. Several pertinent items from the assessment section and
other sources are summarized in Table VIII-2. Numerous planning ac-
tivities are clearly required including planning in water supply to meet
growing demand and quality requirements and planning in wastewater to
meet expansion requirements and water quality goals.
Table VIII-2
IDENTIFIED NEEDS MUNICIPAL WATER
SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
Water supply
• Municipal supply to increase by 8.3 bgd by 2000
• Municipal shortages in 50% of subregions
• Facility upgrading required to meet IPDWR
• 136 new water treatment plants planned in 1979
Wastewater management
• Wastewater discharges to increase by 4 bgd by 1990
• 8,354 treatment plants planned or needed as of 1979
• 4,962 new outfalls planned by 2000
B- Coordination Through the Construction Grants Process
1 - Existing Mechanisms
The Construction Grants Program is involved in the entire process
of placing a municipal treatment works in operation, from initial iden-
tification and ranking of potential projects and establishing priorities
for planning grant funding, to startup of the treatment plant. However,
-163-
-------
the identification of coordination opportunities, and the broadest scope
of decision-making occurs in the earliest phases, especially in the Fa-
cility Planning (Step 1) stage. Questions such as funding eligibility
of plan components have the greatest impact in the construction stage,
but this impact will affect the decisions made in facility planning.
The following discussion focuses primarily on existing mechanisms for
coordination during facility planning.
Figure 8.3 provides a simple model of the facilities planning
process and the activities immediately preceding and following this
step. It is intended to highlight steps within the process where coor-
dination opportunities are, or could be, pursued. Prior to starting a
facility plan, a need for a project must be identified and placed on the
state project priority list. Once the project is high enough on the
list to be eligible for funding in a given year, the local agency or
grantee applies for and, if approved, receives a Step 1 Grant. The
facility planning process then proceeds through a logical sequence of
tasks, as shown in the figure, to the final objective of selecting a
recommended plan. Upon completion of the facility plan, final review
and approval by the state and the EPA is required before proceeding with
the Step 2, design, and Step 3, construction, phases.
In practice, the process is considerably more complex than Figure
8.3 suggests. Lengthy and detailed guidelines and memoranda have been
issued to provide direction to the process, and it is even possible for
states, as in the case of California, to adopt their own guidelines if
they have been delegated primary responsibility for administering the
program. Regulations and guidelines, by definition, place conditions on
the process. An approximate count from the Construction Grants Handbook
of Procedures (EPA 1976) shows about 33 requirements or conditions that
currently must be met from initial grant application through completion
of Step 1, and nine different review procedures for the same process.
The following subsections briefly explore opportunities for coor-
dination in the steps depicted in Figure 8.3.
-164-
-------
STATE
PRIORITY
SYSTEM
NEPA
•4—fc
EPA
AND
STATE
REVIEW
GRANT
APPLICATION
AND
AWARD
STEP 1 FACILITY PLANNING
en
i
t
1
REVIEW
STEP 2
DESIGN
I DENTI FY
EFFLUENT
LIMI TATIONS
ASSESS
CURRENT
SITUATION
ASSESS
FUTURE
SITUATION
DEVELOP AND
EVALUATE
ALTERNATIVES
SELECT
PLAN
Figure 8.3 THE FACILITY PLANNING PROCESS
-------
a. Project Identification and State Priority List
Identification of needs and possible projects results most
often from state and areawide Water Quality Management (WQM) plans. If
an identified water quality problem involves protection or improvement
of a receiving water used for drinking water supply, a coordination need
can clearly be identified. Needed projects are then assigned a priority
for funding by the state. Both the law, and the guidelines give states
significant latitude and sole authority for specifying priorities.
Determination that a pollution problem impacts a drinking water supply
could be cause for placing a project high on the priority list. For
Step 2 and for Step 3 Grants, innovative and alternative technologies,
of which wastewater reuse is one category, may specifically be given
higher priorities under the guidelines. The state priority list is also
the first point in time that needed projects are identified for public
review and comment, one vehicle for soliciting input from water supply
interests.
b. Grant Application and Award
The basic plan of study (POS) prepared by the grantee for
approval should contain enough information to indicate the needs and the
possible range of alternatives to be explored. This is the first
opportunity for proposing concepts that would include elements of water
supply planning or other specific types of coordination with water
supply. Approval of funding for Step 1 costs has traditionally been
fairly liberal, including some latitude to study activities not neces-
sarily eligible for Step 2 or 3 funding. For example a "multiple
purpose" project may be proposed, in which a plan element, possibly a
water supply element, is part of the alternative. Decisions are made
after Step 1 is completed on the portions of design (Step 2) or actual
construction (Step 3) that are eligible for Federal funding.
The approval process for the POS is subject to the OMB A-95
clearing house comments process, in which Federal agencies involved in
water supply planning would have a chance to indicate activities which
might overlap.
-166-
-------
c. Facility Plan
The facility planning process itself is a logical sequence of
steps which culminate in preparation of a final document(s). Activities
within these steps can be complex and time consuming. Proceeding from
left to right on the bottom half of Figure 8.3, the following points out
opportunities to coordinate within each step.
Recognition of water supply impacts can occur early if the
identified effluent limitations have taken adequate consideration of
such impacts. The next two steps, assessing the current and future
situation without the project, have some provision in the guidelines for
addressing water supply. To the extent necessary, existing quality,
quantity and uses of surface and groundwater are normally described.
Consistency between population projections used to assess the future
situation and those used for water resources management is encouraged.
The most significant step in the process is the development
and evaluation of alternatives. Coordination mechanisms in this step
include planning and evaluation methods that permit or encourage discus-
sion of coordination opportunities, and cost-effectiveness and eligi-
bility rules that affect the decision-making process. Items that encour-
age evaluation of solutions which may achieve some degree of coordina-
tion include (1) the legal as well as regulatory requirement to consider
wastewater reuse, and (2) capacity sizing guidelines that require a
cost-effectiveness analysis of water conservation and wastewater flow
reduction techniques whenever an average base per capita flow greater
than 70 gpcd is predicted. Equally important, the grantee is generally
permitted to develop and evaluate a wide range of solutions, such as the
multiple purpose projects mentioned earlier.
Although various alternatives may be developed in which types
of coordination have been carefully considered, these alternatives must
be screened and evaluated against criteria such as cost and eligibility.
A project must first be considered cost-effective within the guidelines
to receive funding. Then the local cost share, as determined by the
extent to which each project component is eligible for Federal funds, is
of considerable interest to the local agency.
-167-
-------
Some existing provisions can be used to permit favorable evaluations of
coordinated solutions. Projects which use innovative and alternative
technologies (of which wastewater reuse is a major category) are given a
15 percent bonus over conventional treatment technologies under cost-
effectiveness guidelines and are then eligible for 85 percent funding
under the law.
A second provision is the requirement that wastewater flow
reduction (e.g. conservation) be considered unless present per capita
flow or population is below a certain level. Unfortunately, however,
local agencies sometimes consider only measures with limited impacts.
There are also obstacles which make implementation of flow reduction
very difficult or impossible — often because the local water supply
agency is independent from the wastewater agency and cannot be convinced
to implement water conservation measures. Thus, implementation of this
provision requires strong coordination among water supply and wastewater
agencies, coordination which is not presently a frequent occurrence.
Evaluation and final selection of the plan must include a
number of considerations in addition to costs, in particular environ-
mental impacts and public input. A least-cost alternative might not be
considered cost effective if the quality or quantity impacts on drinking
water supply are significant. Public involvement, including interested
water supply agencies, provides another occasion for identifying oppor-
tunities or impacts with regard to drinking water supply.
d. Final Review and Approval
Although this step is late in the decision-making process,
some mechanisms exist to further identify coordination opportunities or
problems. These include: (1) review of the selected plan through the A-95
clearinghouse process, as well as through state and local clearinghouses,
(2) final state certification of conformance with WQM plans, and (3) a
NEPA environmental review to either issue a negative declaration or
require a full Environmental Impact Statement.
-168-
-------
e. Summary
The preceding sections indicate that there are a number of
mechanisms, expressed or implied, within the existing Construction
Grants Program and facilities planning process that have potential for
identifying, evaluating, and selecting coordinated plans. The following
section presents case studies to illustrate how some of these mechanisms
have been used, and to gain insight into some existing constraints and
limitations.
2. Case Studies
A useful tool for evaluating the effectiveness and limitations of
the Construction Grants Program in achieving coordination with water
supply planning is to draw upon actual examples and case studies.
St. Petersburg, Florida, Sacramento, California, and Northglenn,
Colorado are selected to illustrative cases. These three were chosen to
illustrate a variety of possibilities for, and constraints to achieving
coordination. The studies are intended to highlight a few key points
unique to each and thus the background and technical aspects are pre-
sented only to the extent necessary to illustrate the coordination
concept. Of equal significance is the role played by the construction
grants process in each.
a. St. Petersburg, Florida
Reuse of wastewater for the purposes of meeting water quality
goals as well as providing a supplemental source of water for landscape
irrigation is the key technical feature of this project. The city
obtains its potable water supply through the West Coast Regional Water
Authority from well fields as far as 60 miles inland. Several factors
have combined to place severe demands on the available supply in recent
years, including below average rainfalls, development and increasing
seasonal population, and gradual abandonment of coastal aquifers.
Furthermore, urban irrigation demands in the St. Petersburg service
areas can account for up to 40 percent of the peak water demand, water
quality problems in Tampa Bay have occurred, and advanced treatment is
required for any discharge to the Bay.
169-
-------
A schematic drawing of the alternative selected to address
both water supply and wastewater quality needs is provided in Figure
8.4. When fully implemented, four wastewater treatment plants with a
total capacity of about 62 mgd will serve sections of the city and
nearby areas. The plants will provide secondary treatment, filtration,
and disinfection. A key feature of the project is the construction of a
nonpotable water distribution system within each quadrant of the city.
Treated effluent will then be made available to public and private lands
for landscape irrigation at approximately one-seventh the cost of potable
water. Meters will be provided for each service connection. Over 7,000
acres of green spaces have been committed for effluent irrigation by the
year 2000, and 4 mgd of effluent has been requested for industrial
reuse. The most important aspect is that peak demand on potable water
supplies will be reduced substantially. It is estimated that use of the
effluent may delay the need for additional fresh supplies by 10 to 15
years.
A second feature of the project is that effluent which is not
used for irrigation, as in periods of high precipitation, will be
injected and stored in a deep aquifer beneath the city. This aquifer is
no longer usable as a public supply. The thinking is that stored water
could eventually be withdrawn and reused in the future if there is addi-
tional demand for nonpotable water.
The St. Petersburg project illustrates how the construction
grants process has been important in providing an implementing mechanism.
Various stages of planning, design, and construction for some of the
facilities have occurred since 1972. The most recent facilities plan,
completed in 1978, addresses a number of issues including revised popu-
lation growth, service area planning, and facility capacities. In
addition, this plan includes the effluent distribution system to serve
the regional treatment plants.
Several aspects of the role played by the construction grants
process are of interest. The effluent reuse portions of the project
were considered grant eligible because the overall project was shown to
be more cost effective than providing full advanced wastewater treatment
-170-
-------
t T T T
AREA SERVED BY
POTASLE SUPPLY
INLAND
SUPPLY
WELLS
t
POTABLE SUPPLY
r t'
t
t
,„!
— T
ST. PETERSBURG
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
PLANTS
NONPOTABLE
GROUNDWATER
INJECTION
Figure 8.4 CASE STUDY OF ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA
-------
and continued discharge to the receiving waters. Previous grant eligi-
bility levels were set at 75 percent funding. The city is now trying to
get approval for 85 percent funding for remaining portions of the work
based on the fact that the project represents an innovative and alterna-
tive concept. The input of construction grant funds has helped to make
the cost of reclaimed water very attractive to users.
Other factors are also important in the successful culmination
of this planning. Strong local political commitment and extensive public
education since 1972 have been critical to gaining support and acceptance
of the concepts. An extensive research effort, funded almost solely by
the city, was conducted, particularly with respect to virus control.
Institutionally, water supply, wastewater management, and the reclaimed
water system are under the control of the City of St. Petersburg, Depart-
ment of Public Utilities except for the small areas outside the city
that discharge to the regional treatment plants. This arrangement
provides close coordination and control over all aspects of the use of
the water and simplifies implementation of the project.
In summary, St. Petersburg represents an example of coordina-
tion through reuse that is being carried out. Strong local identification
of needs and concepts has been instrumental in implementation of the
project. Because a clear water quality problem was identified, the
construction grants process was a workable vehicle to achieve the coor-
dination.
b. Sacramento, California
Sacramento illustrates a case where aspects of surface water
supply played significant roles in a regional wastewater planning pro-
cess. A previous study examined many details of the legal, institutional,
and technical framework surrounding the planning and decisionmaking
process that spanned several years in the early 1970's (NSF, 1976). The
purpose here is to focus only on the interactions with water supply in
Sacramento's regional wastewater planning effort.
The City of Sacramento and surrounding Sacramento County are
situated at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers. Both
-172-
-------
are major water courses with fully regulated flow regimes. Following
rapid growth since the 1940's, the city and county populations have
reached 260,000, and 690,000, respectively. The number of wastewater
treatment facilities in the metropolitan area had proliferated to 21
plants by the late 1960s, discharging to both the Sacramento and Ameri-
can Rivers. The location of these plants is shown in Figure 8.5.
Although there were no chronic water quality problems in the rivers
owing to their large volumes, a number of items pointed toward a need
for improved wastewater management in the area. These included hydraulic
and organic overloading at the City Main Plant (Number 13) as well as
others that contributed to localized water quality problems and odors,
and combined sewer overflows that bypassed the treatment plants and
discharged directly to the rivers. To remedy these problems and plan
for the future, both the city and county originally proceeded indepen-
dently with planning efforts. Eventually the efforts were combined with
the formation of the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District.
The master alternative finally selected was one in which
essentially all existing treatment plants in the greater Sacramento area
are replaced by one large regional facility adjacent to the City Central
Treatment Plant (Number 15). Secondary treatment will be provided with
the flexibility of later adding nitrification if necessary. A new
interceptor system will transport the wastewater of the area to the
regional plant, as shown in Figure 8.5. Only the City Main Plant will
be retained to provide treatment for combined sewer overflows. As of
early 1979, construction of many of the facilities is nearing completion.
A number of factors led to the selection of this plan over
others. Of particular interest to this study, however, was the decision
made by the California Department of Public Health and the Regional
Water Quality Control Board to prohibit any wastewater discharges within
several miles above local water supply intakes. There are several existing
or proposed surface water intakes in the area, as shown in the Figure
8.5. This decision favored the regional wastewater plant alternative
compared to other options which would have required an extended outfall
to a point below the proposed water supply intake. A second consideration
-173-
-------
EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT
EXISTING WATER SUPPLY INTAKE
PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY INTAKE
CONSOLIDATED TREATMENT PLANT
NOTE: OUTFALL AND DIFFUSES
AT FRECPOHT
Figure 8.5 CASE STUDY OF SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
Source: Weston (1975)
-174-
-------
was that formal opposition to wastewater reuse for irrigation was ex-
pressed in neighboring Yolo County, an item that had been an advantage
of one slightly more cost-effective option.
In addition to the consideration of wastewater discharge
impacts on local drinking water supplies, a different form of inter-
action with water supply planning was also evident. Water quality
planning is greatly affected by the river flows, which in turn depend on
present or future planned river regulation and diversion. Important de-
cisions which would alter the flow regimes of both rivers were uncertain-
ies at the time of planning. These included possible construction of
the Peripheral Canal and alteration of flows in the American River by
the Bureau of Reclamation. This had some impact on the decision to
provide maximum treatment flexibility such as the future ability to
nitrify at one regional treatment plant.
Although wastewater planning for Sacramento began before PL
92-500 was enacted, the law was in effect by the time the final project
report was prepared. All of the eligibile design and construction have
since been funded under the Construction Grants Program. The prohibi-
tion of discharges within a few miles above water supply intakes in this
situation is a legal perogative of the State of California in setting
discharge requirements. Therefore, a cost-effective solution that
complies with this requirement is a project eligible for Federal fund-
ing. Water supply considerations definitely did affect the wastewater
facility plan chosen.
On the other hand, more integrated and cost-effective solu-
tions may have been possible if improved planning mechanisms had existed
or special coordination efforts had been made. For example, it may have
been possible to plan the proposed water supply intake for a different
location with a significant shortening of length for the wastewater
outfall or interceptors. However the grantee (local agency), working
within the framework then available, preferred to avoid any interference
with the proposed intake. This may have been for any one or a combina-
tion of several of the following reasons: (1) simply to avoid the
painful and time consuming negotiations that "coordination" appeared to
-175-
-------
entail, (2) perceived difficulties in establishing appropriation water
rights for the intake at an alternative location, or (3) a local view
that the funding of any increased expenditures involving water supply
components would r/equire 100 percent local funding and that this was
likely to be much greater in terms of dollars than the 12.5 percent
local funding required for wastewater interceptors or outfalls eligible
for support under the Construction Grants Program.
Thus, there was an awareness of water supply considerations in
the case of Sacramento, especially in terms of setting in-stream water
quality standards and discharge prohibitions and in recognizing future
flow uncertainties due to proposed major water projects. The planning
process used did not, however, develop a joint water supply/wastewater
analysis in its search for a facilities plan and such an analysis was
not already available. This may indicate: (1) an inadequacy of earlier
broad water resources/water quality planning which should establish a
more definitive context for wastewater management prior to facilities
planning; (2) the need for a slightly broader view in facilities plan-
ning itself; (3) development of artificial limitations to the scope of
analysis due to institutional or funding considerations; or (4) a com-
bination of these.
c. Northglenn, Colorado
From a conceptual standpoint, the proposed Northglenn project
represents an innovative approach to solving a municipal water supply
problem and managing municipal wastewater in one project. At the same
time, it serves as an example of complex legal and institutional issues
and some limitations of the Construction Grants Program.
The basic concept is illustrated in Figure 8.6. Currently,
the City of Northglenn receives all water and sewer services from the
neighboring City of Thornton. Under the proposed plan, Northglenn has
entered into an agreement with an irrigation company to aquire rights to
ultimately divert up to 7,800 acre-feet of water annually from nearby
Standley Lake. A water supply pipeline and water treatment plant will
be constructed to supply this water to the city. Collected wastewater
-176-
-------
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
FACILITY
WINTER
STORAGE
RESERVOIR
WASTEWATER
CONVEYANCE
PIPELINE
NORTHGLENN BOUNDARY-
WASTEWATER
PUMPING
STATION
SOUTH PLATTE
WELL FIELD-
WATER
SUPPLY
PIPELINE -
WATER
TREATMENT
FACILITY —
V
STORMWATER
RESERVOI
STANDLEY
LAKE
Figure 8.6 CASE STUDY OF NORTHGLENN, COLORADO
-177-
-------
will be pumped approximately 10 miles north of the city to the site of a
wastewater treatment plant and storage reservoirs. The treated waste-
water will then be released into an adjacent canal to be used by farmers
during the growing season. Supplemental wells will be developed to
provide makeup water (approximately 35 percent of withdrawals from
Standley Lake) to replace the estimated 20 to 25 percent consumptive
municipal use, plus an extra 10 percent bonus as a further incentive to
the irrigation company. An urban stormwater retention basin which can
also be pumped into the wastewater management system is an additional
part of the project. Under the concept, Northglenn would have full
control over all aspects of water supply and wastewater management.
Although the concept is straightforward, the planning and im-
plementation process has been difficult and has involved not only the
construction grants process, but also the 208 (WQM) process. In the
original areawide water quality management plan for the Denver Council
of Governments, Northglenn was treated as part of the Thornton system,
and ultimate plans called for treatment of this wastewater within the
Denver Metropolitan system. At the same time, Northglenn elected to
pursue other solutions for economic and political reasons, as well as a
concern over plans to condemn agricultural water rights by the City of
Thornton. Northglenn completed a planning effort in 1977 to examine
water and wastewater alternatives without the use of construction grants
funding. At this point there was no identified water quality or waste-
water treatment need to allow placing the project on the state priority
list. Out of this planning, a basic water management system was devel-
oped. In July of 1977, the electorate approved a $31 million bond issue
to underwrite the costs of the project.
At this point, Northglenn took its proposed plan to the State
Water Quality Control Commission to request that the project be placed
on the state priority list for construction grants funding for the
wastewater facilities. State approval was eventually given but was
contingent in part on revision of the 208 plan. A plan revision was
ultimately approved in 1978, although there was considerable technical,
economic, and political controversy over the plan modification. In
-178-
-------
the meantime, Northglenn proceeded to prepare a formal facility plan
document without receiving a Step 1 grant. Subsequently, the city
completed much of the design work and has the project essentially ready
for construction as of early 1979.
While the state has given approval for retroactive Step 2
funding and Step 3 funding, several issues have delayed EPA approval of
the grants:
The Step 2 grant approval is waiting a legal de-
cision on the consultant procurement procedures
used, an item not related to the technical as-
pects of the project but which resulted from de-
sign being done without prior Step 2 grant ap-
proval .
Although water rights have already been pur-
chased from the eastern slope, a water rights
adjudication process is still necessary. The
EPA regional office sees this as a significant
hurdle. Northglenn officials believe it is a pro
forma procedure and argue that in any case they
have other possibilities as backup. Although
Northglenn would like to proceed, EPA is expec-
ted to insist on prior completion of the legal
process which may take up to one year.
The environmental appraisal for the project,
tentatively issued earlier with a negative dec-
laration, must be reconsidered and revised by
the EPA regional office. Several issues have
been newly identified or can now be addressed
more specifically:
The treatment facilities and storage site
are now site specific so a more accurate
appraisal of environmental impacts is now
possible.
Secondary environmental impacts may occur
on farm production due to transfer of water
from one sub-basin to another and this pos-
sibility must be addressed.
A potential has been identified for future
small community withdrawal of drinking
water supplies from irrigations ditches pro-
posed to carry Northglenn effluent; this
possibility must also be addressed.
-179-
-------
It is estimated that four to six months will
be required to complete this appraisal.
The amount of funding eligibility for project
construction (step 3) remains to be resolved.
Although EPA views the project as primarily a
water supply project, the agency did agree to
consider funding those portions of the project
which enhance water quality in the environment.
Construction grant eligibility will probably
be determined based on the least costly conven-
tional pollution control alternative.
Several observations can be made in summarizing the Northglenn
situation. Basic motivation for the project was a locally perceived
need for alternative solutions for both water supply and wastewater
management purposes. The solution represents a technically and en-
vironmentally sound integration of water and wastewater planning (as-
suming the remaining environmental issues are resolved favorably).
Institutional and legal issues have been complex (e.g., negotiating a
water rights transfer agreement), but local initiative has succeeded in
overcoming most constraints. Construction grants funding will apparently
be used to partially support construction of the wastewater facilities,
but the planning process and proposed plan have tested the legal limits
of the program. Some of the detailed constraints have already been
pointed out. The basic problem, however, would appear to be that the
motivation for the project, though technically and environmentally
attractive, was not principally a response to an existing water pollu-
tion problem. Legally, the Construction Grants Program is basically a
remedial program and is not intended to provide for future growth.
3. Effectiveness and Constraints
Referring back to the four general types of coordination activi-
ties listed in the introduction, this section will draw upon the case
studies, other examples, and the existing mechanisms presented in Sec-
tion 1 to assess the effectiveness and constraints to achieving coor-
dination through the construction grants process.
-180-
-------
a. Coordinated Planning for a Common Surface and/or
Groundwater Unit
To fully coordinate water and wastewater planning for a common
water unit, the planning and decision-making activities must have the
capability to: (1) recognize the opportunities or problems and (2) have
tools to implement a solution. Opportunities should be recognized as
early as possible in the planning process. Under facilities planning,
this includes identification of any potentially affected water supplies,
and establishing quality criteria for use in evaluating alternatives.
Identification of potentially affected water supplies should ideally
occur in developing background information on the current or future
situation. There is provision in the current guidelines for identifi-
cation of present quality and uses of water within the planning area,
and this may be sufficient in many cases. However, potentially affected
water supplies outside the immediate planning area may not be as readily
identified. In the case of Northglenn, for example, the possible impact
on a potential future drinking water supply downstream in the canal
(whether or not this proves significant) was not identified until very
late in the review process. In the case of land application of waste-
water or sludge, the hydrologic characteristics and location of supply
wells of the area must be thoroughly understood in order to identify any
potentially affected water supplies. Identifying future water supply
planning may prove more difficult in cases when the water supply agency
is a totally separate entity from the wastewater planning agency.
Establishing criteria for wastewater discharges potentially
impacting water supplies is often a greater problem than simply identi-
fying the potential. General discharge requirements for which alterna-
tives may be developed are usually based on receiving water quality
standards which may not consider direct impacts on water supply. On the
other hand, stringent requirements may be established in relation to
specific alternatives. In the case of Sacramento, the final decision to
prohibit all upstream discharges within several miles was not made until
after many other alternatives were evaluated. Another published case
study of the Huron River in Michigan shows how a complex and involved
-181-
-------
process of evaluating potential water supply impacts ultimately led to
the rejection of a wastewater management alternative (Gulp, Wesner, and
Culp, 1978). Identifying quality relationships and impacts on water
supplies from wastewater alternatives is complex and may constrain or
complicate wastewater facilities planning.
With regard to the tools for implementing a solution, construc-
tion grants can be a vehicle although opportunities for some cost-
effective solutions may be missed. Projects can be funded that clearly
meet the objective of protecting a drinking water source, as in the
Sacramento example. Another example of a project that used construction
grant funding and resulted in protection of both drinking water quality
and quantity is the Occoquan, Virginia Wastewater System (Culp, Wesner,
and Culp, 1978). In this case, extensive advanced treatment and process
reliability were incorporated into the project. The lack of Federal
funding for water supply components, either through wastewater construc-
tion grants or any other program, may inhibit other solutions, as pointed
out by the Sacramento example. Another example in which relocating a
water supply intake might have been more cost effective is in the case
of Hopewell, Virginia. A recent study indicates that, under several
theoretical conditions, providing 6AC treatment for water supply might
be less costly and more beneficial than providing advanced wastewater
treatment upstream (Culp, Wesner, and Culp, 1978). The lack of Federal
funding, however; would generally preclude this from being seriously
considered as a wastewater management alternative in the facilities
planning process.
b. Coordinated Facility Planning for Overlapping Service
Areas
St. Petersburg and Northglenn both provide examples of this
type of coordination. However, there are other, less obvious ways in
which coordinated planning may have some benefits, and the Construction
Grants Program may or may not be able to play a role. These are the use
of common planning, population and land use assumptions for both water
supply and wastewater planning. Facilities planning requires that
population projections be established and land use plans be reviewed or
-182-
-------
estimated as part of assessing the future situation. Ideally, these
should be consistent with water supply planning assumptions to provide
benefits such as balanced sizing of facilities or common planning for
future service areas.
Except as relevant to flow reduction (water conservation)
measures, however, such coordination is not a condition to facilities
planning. Difficulties with incorporating such a condition in the
process include: (1) water supply planning may be done by an entirely
different agency, (2) water supply planning may not be occurring at the
same time, (3) water supply planning may be based on very optimistic
projections of growth and (4) the water supply agency may project dif-
ferent locations of growth. One potential means for requiring coor-
dination would be in the case where another Federal agency is involved
in water supply planning. Such is the case in the Atlanta area where
wastewater facility planning and water quality management planning have
been occurring simultaneously with water resource planning under the
Corps of Engineers. Another item to be noted is that the facilities
planning guidelines do not specifically require identification of the
future availability by source of the quantity of water supply to support
the projected population and wastewater flows. Such considerations may
surface in the identification of secondary environmental impacts.
c. Reuse of Municipal Wastewater
Evaluation of wastewater reuse as an alternative water pol-
lution control method, is clearly encouraged under the Clean Water Act
and in facilities planning. This is the case in St. Petersburg, where a
reuse project that has the effect of supplementing municipal water sup-
plies is a cost effective solution to a water quality problem. Incen-
tives exist both in terms of cost effectiveness guidelines and funding
eligibilities. Elements of the project such as the effluent distribu-
tion pipeline network are eligible for funding.
There are other types of reuse projects, however, for which
the use of Construction Grants Program funding is much more constrained.
This occurs when a reuse project has as a main purpose of supplementing
-183-
-------
water supplies, or is not cost effective in terms of meeting a water
quality need only. Currently, fairly liberal funding is available to
consider a variety of reuse alternatives under Step 1 planning, but
grant eligibility is largely restricted to pollution control and based
on the cost of the most cost-effective alternative. Such projects are
the subject of EPA's multiple Purposes Guidelines task force study.
V
d. Municipal Water Conservation/Wastewater Flow Reduction
Although none of the case examples dealt specifically with the
issue of water conservation in relation to the construction grants pro-
cess, several observations can be made. It was previously pointed out
that analysis of flow reductions measures which include water conser-
vation techniques must be a part of the cost-effectiveness analysis pro-
cedures when average daily base flows exceed 70 gpcd (communities less
than 10,000 population are exempted). The regulations further provide
that implemented programs must be "cost effective, supported by the pub-
lic and within the implementation authority of the grantee or another
agency willing to cooperate with the grantee". The latter part of the
statement recognizes the constraint that a number of wastewater agencies
may have little authority to implement water conservation measures. For
example, a regional sanitary district may serve several cities and unin-
corporated areas, all of which provide their own water supply.
A second drawback is the fact that the Construction Grants
Program provides no funding for implementing a water conservation pro-
gram other than a public information program. On the other hand, other
flow reduction measures such as correction of excessive infiltration are
eligible. In the absence of other demonstrated benefits or incentives,
reducing the size of wastewater treatment facilities (and therefore the
amount of the Federal grant) alone is not an incentive for a strong,
locally funded water conservation program. But reduction of the local
share, operation and maintenance costs, and household costs are real
local incentives if they are understood as such. Increased interest in
these savings might be generated by a construction funding bonus or some
other reward for communities which have voluntarily undertaken strong
-184-
-------
water conservation programs so that flows have been reduced below 70
gpcd, but this incentive is not now available.
4. Summary
The present construction grants process contains legal and admini-
strative measures for enabling a significant amount of coordination to
take place between wastewater and water supply planning. If opportunities
are going to be realized, they need to be recognized during the facili-
ties planning process, and incentives must be available to allow coordina-
ted solutions to be evaluated and selected. Examples of constraints and
limitations include: (1) not recognizing potential impacts on water
supply early in the planning, (2) not having adequate water quality/dis-
charge requirements identified with respect to water supply impacts, (3)
lack of flexibility of Federal funding of water supply components, (4)
water supply and wastewater planning being conducted by separate entities,
(5) limits to grant eligibility for certain reuse projects, and (6)
insufficient positive incentives for promoting water conservation.
C. Coordination Through Hater Quality And Water Resources Planning
The Construction Grants Program is very specifically oriented
toward building the publicly-owned facilities needed to control munici-
pal water pollution. In contrast, water quality and water resources
planning are expected to take a broader view of overall water- and
environment-related needs and interrelationships. Indeed, if these
broader planning programs are working well, they should identify most
needs for facility construction and should provide reliable information
for prioritizing them. Given this orientation, the broad planning
programs may provide the best opportunity to identify cases where water
supply/wastewater management coordination should occur and to orient
facility planning toward the types of coordination which appear to be
most fruitful.
1. Existing Federal Mechanisms
Two major Federal planning programs are discussed in this section
to identify coordination which presently occurs and additional coordina-
tion opportunities which might be captured. These programs are:
-185-
-------
EPA's Water Quality Management Planning (WQM) and
WRC's Level B (or Section 209) Planning.
There are, of course, other planning programs which make important
contributions, e.g., Corps Urban Studies, Bureau of Reclamation General
Investigations, WRC Title III Support to States, and State Water Resources
Planning in general. The two programs selected above are representative,
however, and they have key differences which provide useful insights.
a. Water Quality Management Planning
As an evolution and consolidation of EPA's planning and manage-
ment programs under the Clean Water Act, new comprehensive regulations
for Water Quality Management were recently promulgated. These regulations
further implement the requirements of Sections 106, 208 and 303 of the
Act with emphasis on the continuing planning and implementation phase
of state and local activities begun under earlier, superseded regulations.
Figure 8.7 illustrates the several activities and products which now
constitute Water Quality Management. The following items in the overall
WQM program deserve special mention with respect to water supply/waste-
water management coordination:
The Water Quality Problem Assessment activity required
annually may be expanded to an overall environmental
problem assessment, for example, encompassing the
Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. This provides the oppor-
tunity to identify water supply and wastewater problems
which are related to each other and require coordinated
solutions.
The State Strategy prioritizes the problems identified
through assessment and develops a five-year approach
for addressing them including tentative assignments of
responsibilities, cost estimates and funding sources.
Since the strategy is used as a preview document and
basis for discussion in developing the annual State/EPA
Agreement, it may also be prepared as a joint, integrated
strategy under the above referenced legislation. This
allows related water supply and wastewater problems to
be programmed for joint consideration.
-186-
-------
Activities
Products
(The WQM Process)
I
I—•
00
I
Water Quality Assessment (annually)
(may be part of WQM Planning)
Water Quality Management Activities
Other Than Planning
(e.g., implementation, see
S35.1513-5(c))
Water Quality Management Planning
(annually; see S35.1521-3)
Continuing Planning Process Document
(describes WQM Activities and Products,
updated only when process is changed)
State 305(b) Report on Water Quality
(biennially)
State Five-Year Water Quality Strategy
(updated annually)
State/EPA Agreements (annually)
. Negotiated budget, Activities and
Products under planning and management
provisions of CWA, SDWA, and RCRA
. Includes State WQM Work Program
Areawide WQM Work Programs (annually)
WQM Plans (updated or certified annually;
see S 35.1521-4)
Figure 8.7 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT UNDER NEW EPA REGULATIONS.
-------
The State//EPA Agreement is a decision document which spe-
cifies what the state is to do using EPA funds during the
upcoming fiscal year. It includes all management and plan-
ning activities and moneys under the Clean Water Act, Safe
Drinking Water Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. It relates the agreed-upon work elements to the pri-
ority problems to be addressed. One component of the Agree-
ment is the WQM work program which specifies outputs, bud-
gets and time schedules for each work element. If water
supply/wastewater coordination is to occur, this is the
place which determines how and when a coordinated solution
will be found.
Water Quality Management Planning is the one WQM work ele-
ment (out of approximately 16) which is most likely to be
the vehicle to find coordinated solutions to water supply/
wastewater management problems or interactions. Specific-
ally:
The relationship of water quality to land use and
water resources must be considered while address-
ing the various WQM Plan program areas.
Coordination is required with potentially affected
agencies including general purpose units of local
governments, proposed and designated management
agencies, and other affected state and Federal
agencies (e.g., recreation, air, solid waste, drink-
ing water and fish and game offices).
Within the "Municipal and Industrial Needs" program
area, the plan must set forth information appropriate
to support subsequent facility planning including
proposal of appropriate programs to support municipal
water conservation.
Within the "Water Quality Standards" program area the
plan is to suggest revisions to state water quality
standards as appropriate to meet water quality goals
which may be based on the water body's use as a drink-
ing water source.
Within the "Conservation" program area, the plan is
to identify water conservation needs and practices to
achieve and maintain water quality standards and to
ensure efficiency in municipal wastewater treatment.
Beyond these major components and provisions of WQM, there are several
overall properties of the program which must be recognized:
-188-
-------
A strong partnership between EPA and the state or areawide
agencies is emphasized. Within this partnership theme, the
substantive goals and requirements of the Clean Water Act are
made clear, major procedural requirements are defined, a sense
of Federal priorities is given and financial support is avail-
able. The state and areawide agencies are then given the re-
sponsibility for doing the planning and management; i.e. for
addressing the local problems, finding solutions (which re-
spond to the Federal requirements and have state/local sup-
port) and implementing them. State and local accountability
is maintained by cultivating a strong state/local interest
in having a workable partnership.
WQM is a continuing program with an ongoing planning and im-
plementation component rather than a one-time "comprehensive"
plan which is developed and then forgotten. This continuing
nature allows efforts to be focused on the most important
problems first and later efforts to be devoted to other rele-
vant topics; thus the program is kept manageable. It allows
an EPA/state/areawide partnership to develop and it creates
a strong state/local interest in performing responsibly be-
cause future Federal assistance and continued delegation of
responsibilities depend on it.
WQM emphasizes implementation. The planning activities are
closely related to the management activities. Indeed, the
State/EPA Agreement and Work Program specifies a combina-
tion of planning and implementation activities for the year.
Thus there is a combined commitment to and accountability
for planning and implementation. Furthermore, the planning
component is required to identify specific management agen-
cies for implementing each plan program, to develop an im-
plementation schedule, and to obtain their commitment to do
so. Clearly, the management/implementation agencies must
believe in the plans developed and to do so they must be
involved throughout the planning.
Unfortunately, during the initiation of planning and management
under PL 92-500, some of the intended emphasis on continuing, stable
programs and on implementation was not achieved. Improvement in these
areas has been a primary objective of recent regulation revisions and
EPA is committed to and enthusiastic about WQM program success with
these renewed emphases.
b. Level B (Section 209) Planning
In response to the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965
(PL 89-80), the Water Resources Council guides and, in some cases,
-189-
-------
conducts multi-agency water and related land resource programs. Section
209 of the Clean Water Act calls for the President, acting through WRC,
to prepare Level B plans for all basins in the U.S. by January 1, 1980.
Level B planning is an intermediate level of planning between
Level A studies (which are geographically extensive and very broad in
scope) and Level C studies (which are project oriented). Level B is
intended to resolve critical near-term (next 15 years) and mid-term (15-
25 years) issues through integrated consideration of water quality,
water supply, flood damage reduction and other relevant water and rela-
ted land resource programs as well as institutional coordination at all
governmental and private levels (WRC, 1976). The planning is conducted
under the guidance of the WRC Principles and Standards (1973, 1979) with
strong emphasis on both national economic development and environmental
quality objectives.
The following are highlights on how Level B planning is done in
terms of the four major outputs produced and what opportunities are
present for water supply/wastewater management coordination:
A Proposal to Study (PTS) is developed in response to
a perceived regional or river basin need which is be-
yond the scope of present agencies or programs; for
example, a conflict may exist between water supply de-
velopment and water quality maintenance and the agencies
primarily responsible for each may view Level B as a
vehicle for achieving resolution. The PTS is submitted
to WRC by the River Basin Commission or, where no com-
mission exists, by the regional sponsor working with
WRC in assessment activities. WRC then decides whether
to include the study in its budget request by evaluat-
ing the proposal in light of eight major criteria which
stem from national policies, statutes, and objectives
(WRC, 1976):
Policy conflicts: Are essential water and related
land activities hindered or prevented by conflicts
of policy which could be resolved through Level B
studies?
Water use conflicts: Can a Level B study help to
resolve conflicts in allocation of water supplies?
-190-
-------
Agreement with Water Resources Council Policy:
Will studies be conducted consistent with WRC Policy
on study management, funding levels, use of Princi-
ples and Standards, adequacy of data, etc.?
Urgency: Can the results of the proposed Level B
study permit a timely response in resource decision-
making from a national and regional perspective?
Non-Federal support: Will State and local agencies
actively participate in the study, in addition to
providing financial support?
Energy: Can potential water resources proposals
help meet national and regional energy requirements?
Water Quality: Do the areas have substantial water
quality management,problems, particularly those that
are a consequence of urban-industrial concentrations
(Sections 208-209)?
Land use vs. growth pressure: Do the areas where
Level B studies are needed have water and related
land resources problems associated with local or
regional growth pressures?
Opportunities to address problems and conflicts and to
achieve coordination between water supply and wastewater
management are particularly apparent in light of the
four criteria on policy conflicts, water use conflicts,
water quality, and land use versus growth pressure.
If funding occurs, a Plan of Study (POS) is developed
to provide additional information and clarification on
the specific issues or problems to be addressed, how
they are to be approached, and what specific activities,
products, budget and time schedule are involved. The POS
is developed within the first three months of the study.
Special emphasis occurs during POS development on identi-
fying, characterizing, and assessing the major conflicts,
problems or opportunities which cut across traditional
functional and agency boundaries. Then the Level B ef-
fort is focused on a few of these in order to achieve
meaningful results within realistic time and budget.
Clearly, resolution of water supply/wastewater management
conflicts is a prime candidate for POS emphasis.
First Cut Plans are developed and published within six ad-
ditional months. These include an initial plan (which
projects the future assuming no action is taken to change
191-
-------
present trends), a plan emphasizing national economic de-
velopment and a plan emphasizing environmental quality.
The idea is to present a range of possibilities very early
in the study in order to stimulate interest and comment.
The Draft Report with a recommended plan and a specific
implementation program is then produced within another
six months.
Within the structure established by these four major outputs and
the Principles and Standards. Level B is able to give strong emphasis
to the several features designed to allow its special type of contribu-
tion:
Any functional area pertinent to water and related land
resources can be addressed.
Any Federal, state, or local agency with an interest in the
problems being addressed is invited to be an active partici-
pant on the study team.
Minimal restrictions are placed on what the Level B study
must or must not address; the study team has wide discretion
to initiate creative, practical, implementable approaches for
resolving problems.
2. Examples
In order to more tangibly illustrate abilities and weaknesses of
the broad planning programs in water supply/wastewater management coor-
dination, the following specific examples are presented.
a. Old Colony Planning Council 208
Ten towns in eastern Massachusetts belong to a regional
planning council (Figure 8.8). The planning area is 172 square miles
with a 1975 population of 200,000. The topography of the area is flat
with swamps and a few lakes. Glacial till, sand and gravel are the
major formations. Five of the ten towns use surface water supplies as a
drinking water source, but these ponds are fed by groundwater in the
underlying sand and gravel deposits. Public wells in the other towns
also tap these sand and gravel aquifers. Some private wells obtain
water from glacial till and bedrock supplies, although flow rates are
-192-
-------
BOSTON
OJ
I
Figure 8.8 STUDY AREA FOR OLD COLONY PLANNING COUNCIL 208
-------
limited to a few gallons per minute. Most of the area is served by on-
site wastewater disposal systems (i.e. septic tanks).
Some water shortages have been experienced due to unequal dis-
tribution of supplies and water quality problems. High nitrate levels
forced the closing of the largest public supply well in Bridgewater in
early 1975. Other supply wells had high concentrations of sodium, iron,
and manganese.
Planning was underway for a regional sewerage facility.
Public opposition centered on the questionable need for the system in
view of the potential loss of recharge to the groundwater, stimulus for
increased water use and possible contamination of the sand and gravel
aquifer from the sewer interceptor. There was also doubt about whether
the septic tanks were a leading cause of the nitrate pollution in the
area's groundwaters. Other possible sources of contamination included
cranberry bogs, other agricultural land, and landfills.
The 208 program (which has now evolved into WQM planning) pro-
vided a mechanism to review water supply availability and quality, to
identify pollutant sources, and to evaluate the need for the sewerage
facility. Outside contractors were hired to provide information on the
extent of groundwater aquifers, location of recharge areas, and surface
water quality. The Old Colony Planning Council compiled data on water
use, land uses, and groundwater quality. Legal and institutional
aspects were investigated for controlling pollutant sources. The con-
clusion reached by the Council was that "existing laws were sufficient
for control of both point and nonpoint sources and both surface and
groundwater pollution, but that the problem was one of will and ability
to enforce the laws" (Pojasek, 1977).
The approach taken to resolve the groundwater supply/waste-
water management problem was to combine best management practices and
critical area approaches. Well recharge zones were identified. Within
these areas land use controls would be used to limit fertilizers and
pesticides on agricultural land, to eliminate siting of landfills and
salt storage piles in the recharge zones, and to maintain a buffer zone
of about 10 feet between the bottom of sand and gravel quarries and the
-194-
-------
water table. Study of the nitrate levels indicated that septic tanks
could be used if residential zoning was at least a half acre per single
family dwelling. This approach emphasizes local ordinances although the
existence of the 208 plan may encourage cooperation among the state
agencies and nearby towns.
Clearly, water supply/wastewater management coordination was
accomplished in this case. However, the major thrust of the 208 study
toward water supply protection was considered borderline since PL 92-500
language and EPA guidance emphasized other topics such as urban and
agricultural runoff. However, the Old Colony Planning Council really
had no choice; no water quality plan could have achieved public credi-
bility without emphasizing a coordinated solution of the groundwater
protection and wastewater management problems.
b. Spokane 208 Aquifer Study
A larger-scale example of water supply/wastewater management
coordination is the Spokane 208 Study of the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum
Prairie Aquifer (see Figure 8.9). This 208 study was totally focused on
characterizing threats to aquifer water quality and developing of a
program to protect aquifer quality for drinking purposes.
The aquifer is very extensive, with a recharge area of approxi-
mately 350 square miles and a "streamflow source zone" of about 5,000
square miles which contributes recharge water through runoff and subse-
quent percolation. It consists of unconsolidated glacial deposits which
have a high capacity to store and transmit water and to do so in large
quantities. The aquifer is the principal source of drinking water for
approximately 338,000 people and it is considered vulnerable to con-
tamination, primarily because the glaciated soils are so highly perme-
able. There is evidence of localized contamination from industrial
sources and septic tanks (Costle, 1978). The aquifer was recently
designated as a "Sole Source Aquifer" under 1425(e) of the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
The 208 study has been organized into two major phases:
195-
-------
CT>
I
SPOKANE
Hayden Lake
Figure 8.9 EXTENT OF SPOKANE VALLEY - RATHDRUM PRAIRIE AQUIFER
-------
A Cause/Effect Report on Aquifer Water Quality. This
report has been developed based on extensive water
sampling, review of earlier studies and analysis of
land use and development activities. It has concluded
that, although aquifer water quality is consistently
within drinking water standards, there are variations
in quality which are indicative of the land uses.
These include higher concentrations of dissolved solids
as one progresses downstream in the aquifer or approaches
the periphery and concentration variations with depth.
Spokane River waters were also found to interact with
the aquifer and influence its water quality. Continu-
ing development will continue to degrade the aquifer
unless mitigating measures are implemented. The report
concludes that the aquifer is particularly vulnerable to
contamination by waste disposal or spills and that use
of hazardous and toxic substances, even in small amounts,
are a special risk (Esyelt, 1978).
A Management Program to Protect the Aquifer. This program
of controls is in the final stages of development and ap-
proval and is expected to specifically address (Spokane,
County of, 1979):
Spills and transport of toxic and hazardous materials.
Industrial waste disposal practices.
Solid waste disposal practices.
Control and reclamation of pits such as from gravel mining.
Sanitary wastewater handling, treatment and disposal.
Development impacts on stormwater runoff, percolation
and potential contaminants.
Again, in this example, local interest and initiative was able to
give the 208 program a strong orientation toward protection of a drinking
water source. The effectiveness and the practicality of the management
program developed and the degree to which it is implemented will, of
course, be the true test on whether water supply/wastewater management
coordination is actually accomplished.
c. Twin Cities (Minnesota) Level B
Through the Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission (1978) a
Level B study has been conducted of the seven county, 3,000 square mile
-197-
-------
metropolitan area including and surrounding Minneapolis and St. Paul.
A water supply/wastewater management issue addressed in the study dealt
with the impacts of extreme low flows in the Mississippi River, includ-
ing:
. . Inadequate cooling water for power generation.
Inadequate flow to operate navigation locks.
Shortage of water to meet peak municipal demands.
Deterioration of water quality in Mississippi River Pool
No. 2.
At the seven-day, once-in-ten-year low flow, the Mississippi
River provides adequate water to meet all of the needs -- about 1400 mgd.
As Figure 8.10 illustrates, water quality standards for dissolved oxygen
(DO) will just be maintained at such flows assuming that planned waste-
water treatment facilities are constructed.
At lower flows, however, the above impacts begin to be felt and,
for example, during the 30-day, once-in-100-year low flow (about 300 mgd)
they would be critical. For example, combined Minneapolis and St. Paul
water supply withdrawals are projected to be about 380 mgd. In addition,
225 mgd are needed in the river to operate navigation locks. Two of the
local power plants would have less than 50 percent of the needed cooling
water available to them. And water quality would deteriorate markedly.
These impacts would be lessened by augmentation of extreme low
flows. Several schemes to provide additional water under such circum-
stances were identified and some were eliminated; e.g. diversions from
Lake Superior or Lake St. Croix were shown to be impractical. Other
possibilities appeared to have more promise; these include operation of
the existing, very large headwater reservoirs to supplement low flows or
use of off-stream reservoirs. The resolution of the issue required more
detailed information than the Level B study could provide, thus it was
recommended that a Level C study be conducted to provide firm solutions.
Again, the true test of whether this coordination effort was
effective, will be determined by future action or inaction on the
-198-
-------
Metro WWTP (835)
Northwestern Refinery (830)
Rosemount WWTP (825)
-------
recommendation. The Level C study was scheduled for the period 1980 to
1982; therefore the test will occur soon.
3. Evaluation
The foregoing descriptions and examples of WQM and Level B plan-
ning give an impression of how water supply/wastewater coordination
might occur within present mechanisms. Clearly, it can be made to occur
through either program if the problem is serious or urgent and if local
agencies or the public push hard enough. Further evaluation provides
some additional insight.
A positive aspect of EPA's Water Quality Management program is its
theme of a strong partnership with state and areawide agencies. The
public workshops (see Chapter VII) provided evidence that this theme is
appreciated on the state and local level and that many people believe
WQM can evolve into a workable and effective program for achieving a
reasonable combination of national water quality goals and local objec-
tives. There are also weaker aspects to the program, however:
The scope of WQM is limited in ways which often prevent
water supply/wastewater management coordination. For
example, the legislation and regulations are very strongly
oriented toward the "fishability/swimmability" goal
of the Clean Water Act and toward point and nonpoint
pollution sources. Use for drinking water does receive
consideration through water quality standards. However,
relationships between water quantity and water quality
do not receive strong emphasis, nor do the interactions
between wastewater management activities and water sup-
ply activities. Thus, coordination issues may be over-
looked.
State and local agencies are sometimes reluctant to take
needed control actions. There are at least two dominant
reasons for this:
When locals adopt WQM recommendations and commit them-
selves to implementing them in an "EPA Plan," they
feel like they are giving up control. There is a
tendency to resist this and thus to make recommenda-
tions as weak as possible.
In addition, strong actions usually require funding,
and state and local agencies are hesitant to commit
themselves to implementing a program they do not
-200-
-------
believe they can afford and for which they do not
see other funding.
Unstable and decreasing Federal funding has made circum-
stances more difficult in terms of both planning and im-
plementation. Planning efforts are more narrowly defined
to meet budget constraints making coordination a less
likely topic and the plans themselves are more bland, an-
ticipating the absence of implementation funds. In addi-
tion the funding crunch threatens the progress made in
building a strong EPA/state partnership to conduct on-
going water quality planning and implementation on a con-
tinuing basis.
With WRC's Level B planning, the most positive aspect is the broad
range of topics it can address, particularly interactions between func-
tional areas (e.g., water supply and wastewater management) and agencies
(e.g., state water resource and water quality agencies). This is a
prime opportunity to accomplish coordination but, again, there are
difficulties:
With a scope that is so broad, Level B studies tend to
become all encompassing and unmanageable. A Level B
study has broad authority to address water and related
land resource problems and is supposed to integrate
functional areas and coordinate agencies. However, it
does not need to do everything in a single, one-year
study. Instead it could focus on a few important
interaction/coordination problems. The WRC (1976) has
begun to address this problem by developing draft guid-
ance which has the primary theme of narrowing down the
study -- of focusing on the important issues.
Level B planning is regarded as a one-time study effort.
This increases the tendency to try to do everything --
to have the plan cover all functional areas and all the
agencies. This can mean that everything gets discussed
but no problems get solved.
Implementation is particularly difficult. Level B study
teams are organized for the duration of the study and then
disbanded. Although the participating agencies may follow
through on particular recommendations, there is no commit-
ment to do so. The WRC has recently initiated a review
of eight Level B studies to examine what changes they have
implemented and whether specific changes can be identified
which will make Level B implementation more effective.
-201-
-------
Funding has been limited. Although Congress mandated
completion of Level B studies for the whole country
by Janaury 1, 1980 (Section 209, PL 92-500), only a
few studies have been started each year and complete
coverage is far from being achieved.
D. Major Findings
This chapter has reviewed EPA's Construction Grants Program and
broader planning through EPA's Water Quality Management Program and
WRC's Level B Planning Program. As a result of this review, the fol-
lowing is ascertained:
A number of mechanisms to encourage or effect coordina-
tion are contained within the current Construction Grants
Program. These include means to identify potential oppor-
tunities and to implement solutions through grant funded
facilities.
Recognition of opportunities most often occurs in response
to locally recognized needs rather than to imposed condi-
tions or requirements.
Constraints to achieving coordination through the Con-
struction Grants Program with respect to a common water
unit may include: (1) late recognition of impacts on
present or future water supplies, (2) difficulty in deter-
mining water quality/discharge requirements based on water
supply impacts within facility planning, (3) lack of fund-
ing flexibility to adequately consider alternatives which
include water supply components.
Constraints to achieving coordination through the Construc-
tion Grants Program with respect to planning for overlap-
ping service areas include: (1) separate planning entities,
(2) timing may not coincide, and different assumption on
(3) population growth or (4) land use planning may be used.
A limitation to achieving coordination through the Construc-
tion Grants Program with respect to wastewater reuse is re-
striction of funding largely to those projects addressing
a water pollution control need.
Constraints to achieving coordination through the Construc-
tion Grants Program with respect to water conservation in-
clude: (1) the mutual independence of water supply and
wastewater agencies; (2) current facility planning require-
ments are not positive incentives toward implementing strong
water conservation measures.
-202-
-------
Broader water quality or water resources planning (rather
than wastewater facility planning) is often the suitable
mechanism for addressing specific problems in water sup-
ply/wastewater management coordination.
EPA's Water Quality Management Program is one mechanism
which can be effective; it has broad state and local sup-
port because it is responsive to state and local concerns.
The new WQM regulations place renewed emphasis on WQM's
ongoing nature and on implementation. Its primary remain-
ing weaknesses are:
A scope which is strongly oriented toward water
quality and may miss important water supply or
water quantity factors which interact with water
qua!ity.
Unstable and low funding which makes development
and maintenance of the continuing EPA/state part-
nership very difficult.
WRC's Level B program is another mechanism which can be ef-
fective; it has a broad authority to identify and resolve
coordination and integration problems. Its primary weak-
nesses are:
Study teams represent many agencies. As a result
there is a tendency to address each agency's in-
terests and include its projects in the plan. A
more effective Level B plan would focus on ways
to resolve a few important issues.
There is too little commitment to implementation
of Level B study results.
The WRC is now addressing both of these weaknesses.
-203-
-------
References: Chapter VIII
Costle, D.M. 1978. "Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer:
Determination." (43 FR 5566, Feb. 9, 1978). Washington, D.C.
Gulp, Wesner and Gulp. April 1978. Guidance for Planning the Location
of Water Supply Intakes Downstream from Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Facilities. EPA Contract No. 68-01-4473.
Esvelt, Larry A. 1978. '208' Water Quality Results and Cause and Effect
Relationships for Water Quality in the Spokane-Rathdrum Aquifer. County
of Spokane '208' Program. Spokane, Washington 99260.
Goldrosen, J. 1977. "The Role of Section 208 Planning in Protecting
Drinking Water Sources." in R.B. Pojasek.ed. Drinking Water Quality
Enhancement Through Source Protection. Ann Arbor Science. Ann Arbor,
Mich. pp. 39-61.
National Science Foundation (NSF). February, 1976. The Sacramento
Regional Wastewater Management Program: A Case Study. Interpretive
Summary. NSF 76-500.
Pojasek, Robert B. Ed. 1977. Drinking Water Quality Enhancement Through
Source Protection. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. Ann Arbor,
Michigan 48106.
Roy F- Weston, Inc. 1975. Sacramento Regional Wastewater Programs
Policy Issues and Recommendations. National Science Foundation Contract
No. NSF-C-1065.
SCS Engineers. February 1979. Wastewater in Receiving Waters at Water
Supply Abstraction Points. EPA Contract No. 68-03-2592. Draft.
Spokane, County of. 1979. "The Spokane Aquifer -- Recommended Policies
for Water Quality Management." Spokane, Washington.
Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission. 1978. Minneapolis/St. Paul
Water and Land: Future Perspectives and Plans. Twin Cities, Minnesota.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 1976. Handbook of
Procedures. Construction Grants Program for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Works.
U.S. EPA. July 1979. "Multiple Purpose Guidelines" (Draft). Task
force study.
U.S. EPA. July 1979. "Regulations for Water Quality Management"
-204-
-------
U.S. Water Resources Council. 1973. Principles and Standards for Plan-
ning Water and Related Land Resources. (38 FR 24788. Sept. 10.1973)
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Water Resources Council. 1976. Proposed Guidelines for Regional
or River Basin Planning (Level B) (for field evaluation; subject to
revision).Washington, D.C.
U.S. Water Resources Council. 1979. Manual of Procedures for Evaluating
Benefits and Costs of Federal Water Resources Projects (Draft).
Washington. D.C.
-205-
-------
Chapter IX
MUNICIPAL WATER CONSERVATION AND REUSE
A. Introduction
Water conservation is a concept with a range of meanings, some
very broad and others much more specific. For example, a broad defini-
tion might be stated in terms of the wise development, protection, and
use of water resources, including (1) development of dams and reservoirs
to capture, control, and supply water to the maximum extent feasible,
(2) development and protection of groundwater sources so their future
utility is not impaired, and (3) use (and reuse) of available supplies
in an intensive and efficient manner. An even broader definition might
explicitly recognize the many other resources involved or affected by
water supply and use (e.g., energy, manpower, capital, water quality),
and the viability of impacted natural ecosystems.
In contrast, a very narrow definition could be adopted; for
example, by focusing on the per capita daily amount of water required by
residential users for toilet flushing or showers and their associated
expenditures for water and conservation devices. This has been the
tendency in many recent studies.
The objectives of this chapter are to synthesize information on
the broad advantages and disadvantages of municipal conservation and
reuse and to highlight its implications for national policy. These
objectives point toward specific definitions for the purposes of this
chapter:
Water conservation means reducing (or slowing the
rate of growth of) per capita demand for munici-
pal water supply.
Reuse means use of municipal effluents for some
nonpotable purpose.
In embarking on such a broad discussion of beneficial and adverse
impacts and in trying to establish a national overview, it is important
-206-
-------
to remember that the consequences of conservation and reuse will be
quite variable depending on local circumstances. For example:
Conservation in San Francisco is different from
Cincinnati. San Francisco's water system with-
draws from high mountain sources and wastewater
discharge is to the bay and ocean. Consequently,
reduced municipal use may augment mountain stream-
flows, improve water quality, provide water for
other uses (perhaps several cycles of use), or al-
low increased groundwater recharge in the San
Joaquin Valley. In contrast, the Cincinnati sys-
tem withdraws water from the Ohio River and dis-
charges wastewater back to the river some distance
downstream. In this case municipal conservation
would provide insignificant advantages in terms
of in-stream flows or other supplies and only
slight improvements in water quality.
Reuse in Texas is different from in Baltimore. In
Texas reuse often occurs indirectly and naturally;
when municipal effluent is discharged to a stream,
it is frequently diverted a short distance down-
stream for agricultural irrigation. If direct re-
use were implemented, for example by constructing
a pipeline to some other nearby farm, it would in-
volve an additional expense for the pipeline, it
might eliminate in-stream flow and water quality,
and it would interfere with the indirect reuse down-
stream. In contrast, Baltimore's wastewater is
directly reused for cooling Bethlehem Steel. In
this case no indirect use was being made of Balti-
more's wastewater (it was discharged to Chesapeake
Bay) and the wastewater was a valued, higher qual-
ity replacement for the saline bay and groundwater
which Bethlehem had been using.
Thus although emphasis will be placed on "typical" cases and on synthe-
sizing an aggregate national picture, the existence of significant local
and regional variations must be constantly kept in mind.
B. Municipal Water Conservation
This discussion of possibilities for slowing the rate of growth or
reducing the per capita water demand experienced by community (municipal)
water systems has three main emphases:
-207-
-------
Consideration of water demand in contrast to the tradi-
tional primary concern with supply.
Consideration of all community uses—residential, com-
mercial, public, community-supplied industrial, and
leakage.
Consideration of all benefits and costs—economic,
environmental, energy, etc.
1. Present Status
a. Federal Activities
In light of the increasing cost of water supply projects and
the severe drought experienced in the Western U.S. during the summers of
1976 and 1977, water conservation is very much on people's minds.
Responding to and intensifying this public interest is President Carter's
Water Policy Message of June, 1978, which identifies water conservation
as warranting national emphasis. Although the overall policy is much
broader, several specific initiatives bear directly on municipal water
conservation:
Directives have been sent to Federal agencies to:
Make appropriate community water conservation measures
a condition of water supply and wastewater
treatment grant and loan programs.
Integrate water conservation requirements into
housing assistance programs.
Provide technical assistance on how to conserve
water through existing programs.
Require development of water conservation pro-
grams as a condition to storage or delivery of
municipal or industrial water supplies from
Federal projects.
Require establishment of water conservation
goals and standards in Federal buildings and
facilities.
Draft legislation is being prepared to allow States
to implement conservation pricing for municipal
and industrial water supplies from Federal projects.
-208-
-------
Draft legislation has been prepared to provide $25
million matching funds to states to implement water
conservation technical assistance programs.
A task force of Federal, State, and local officials
has been created to continue addressing water-related
problems, one being possible assistance to rehabilitate
leaky urban water systems.
Several implementation task forces have been established to respond to
these initiatives under direction from the Secretary of the Interior.
Those of most relevance to this discussion are:
Task Force ll--Water Conservation Provisions in
Grant and Loan Programs for Water Supply and
Wastewater Treatment.
Task Force 9--Water Conservation in Housing Assis-
tance Programs.
Task Force 10--Water Conservation in Federal Facil-
ities (operated by GSA).
Task Force 6a--Water Conservation.
Task Force 7--Conservation Pricing.
Since the work of these task forces is ongoing at the time of this
writing, final results cannot yet be reported. However, interim task
force reports are available.
These interim reports provide the following highlights of the
ongoing and intended Federal programs which are most relevant to munici-
pal water conservation as defined for the present discussion:
As a part of EPA's wastewater Construction Grant's
Program, §204(a)(5) of the Clean Water Act requires
that approvable amounts of reserve capacity take
into account "efforts to reduce the total flow of
sewage and unnecessary water consumption." In re-
sponse, the Construction Grant Program's cost-
effectiveness guidelines require evaluation of
flow-reduction measures such as plastic toilet
dams and low flow showerheads; changes in laws,
ordinances, or plumbing codes requiring instal-
lation of water-saving devices in future habita-
tions; and water pricing changes. The grantee
must develop a recommended flow reduction pro-
-209-
-------
gram featuring a public information program plus
cost-effective measures for which the grantee
has implementation authority or can obtain coop-
eration from an entity with such authority. Ex-
empted from these requirements are those communi-
ties with a population less than 10,000 or with
average daily base flows, excluding infiltration/
inflow and industrial flows, for treatment works
design of less than 70 gallons per capita per day
or with ongoing flow reduction programs.
The above legislative provision was part of the
1977 amendments and the new guidelines were ef-
fective June 26, 1978; it is therefore too early
to assess their effect on municipal water conserva-
tion. EPA does intend to prepare a "Flow Reduc-
tion Handbook" to enhance the effectiveness of
this guideline.
Another part of EPA's Construction Grants Program
is oriented toward industrial pretreatment and
user charges based on the volume and strength of
wastewaters discharged to publicly-owned systems.
Where such industries are supplied by community
water systems, these provisions provide signifi-
cant incentives for water use reduction and for
in-plant recirculation, both of which will re-
duce the industrial portion of community water de-
mand.
As part of EPA's Water Quality Management Planning
Program, in response to SS 106, 205(g), 208, and
303(e) of the Clean Water Act, new comprehensive
regulations have recently been published in which
water conservation is explicitly recognized:
They require consideration of water conserva-
tion needs related to water quality in the
water quality assessment process (S 35.1511-1(a))
They suggest proposal of municipal water con-
servation programs in the context of defining
municipal and industrial wastewater facility
needs (§ 35.1521-4(d)).
They suggest that the plan identify (where
appropriate in light of funding and priori-
ties) water conservation needs and practices
to achieve and maintain water quality stan-
dards and to ensure efficiency in municipal
wastewater treatment (S 35.1521-4(h)).
-210-
-------
These regulations became effective May 23, 1979;
thus it is too early to assess their contribu-
tion toward municipal water conservation.
As part of the EPA's Research and Demonstration
Program and in response to S104(o) of the Clean
Water Act, investigations are conducted into
devices, systems, incentives, pricing policy
and other methods for reducing wastewater flow.
Results are communicated to Congress as part of
the reports under S516(a). In light of funding
limitations and the higher priority placed on
health effects research, the progress made under
this 1972 provision has been limited.
As part of the Farmers Home Administration Grant
and Loan Program for Water and Waste Disposal Sys-
tems for Rural Communities, water meters have re-
cently been required for each connection on water
facilities financed under FmHA programs except on
specific variance granted by the State FmHA Dir-
ector.
As part of the Economic Development Administration
grant programs which can finance water and waste-
water systems, metered water systems are now re-
quired under several programs; it is intended to
extend this requirement to all water and sewer
projects and to allow water metering facilities as
an eligible project cost.
Several programs under the Department of Housing
and Urban Development provide funds which can be
used in water and wastewater construction or plan-
ning. It is HUD's interpretation of its legisla-
tive authority that primary emphasis in these pro-
grams is to provide discretion to local agencies
and thus, that explicit encouragement of water con-
servation would not be appropriate.
Other HUD programs assist with housing development
and, as part of these programs, Task Force 9 (1979)
has identified several water conservation actions
(e.g., low flow showerheads) which HUD intends to
implement through such means as their Minimum Prop-
erty Standards. Other actions have been identified
for further study and potential future implementa-
tion.
-211-
-------
The General Services Administration several years
ago adopted the 3.5 gallons (or less) per flush
water-use standard for water-saving toilets in new
GSA buildings. Since that time, this standard has be-
come the rule of thumb commonly accepted in other
water conservation programs. As reported by Task
Force 10 (1978) GSA is continuing to aggressively
identify practical water conservation opportunities.
The Office of Water Research and Technology, as part
of its general water research program, has established
water conservation as a priority area with FY79 funds
of $750,000. Although agricultural and other water
conservation research will receive support from these
funds, it is expected that some projects will be ori-
ented toward the socio-economic, institutional and
legal aspects of municipal conservation. In addition,
OWRT has supported important research projects on mu-
nicipal water conservation through the water resources
research institutes located at universities in each
state.
In summary, Federal programs relevant to municipal water conservation
are now in a state of flux. Most of the significant actions are either
recent or imminent and it is difficult to assess their effectiveness. How-
ever, it appears that in many cases effectiveness will be limited due to
agency commitment to its primary mission, its priorities in light of that
mission, and funding limitations.
b. State and Local Initiatives
Several state and local governments have acted to encourage or
require water savings in municipal settings. This is particularly true
in the west as a result of the recent drought. For example,
California now requires installation of water con-
serving toilets in new construction and authorizes
municipal water districts to require stronger con-
servation measures as a prerequisite to new connec-
tions. As an energy conservation measure, low flow
showerheads and faucets are also required in all new
installations.
The Goleta County Water District in Santa Barbara
County, California, requires installation of water
conserving fixtures for all toilets, faucets, and
-212-
-------
other water using devices in new and replacement
construction and has other stringent rules which
promote water conservation.
The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission has
revised local plumbing codes to require pressure-
reducing valves, water saving toilets, low-flow
showerheads and maximum allowable faucet flows
in new and replacement construction. This has
been combined with maintenance of a list of ap-
proved water-saving devices and an extensive pub-
lic education and retrofitting program. It is
widely recognized as one of the most effective
programs in the county. The program was motivated
by the limited capacity of water and wastewater
systems, difficulties in expansion, and consequent
impediments to new building.
These are simply examples of the many state and local conserva-
tion initiatives which occur throughout the country. Although many are
considered effective, they have usually been precipitated by local cri-
ses such as drought or rapid community growth and limited water and
wastewater capacity. In most cases their effectiveness on long term
water use remains to be established.
c. Fixture Manufacturers
With the increased interest in municipal water conserva-
tion over the past four to five years, most leading manufacturers have
developed and made available a line of water-saving fixtures. This has
been a necessity for economic survival given such initiatives as the GSA
low-flush toilet standard and the California law adopting the same
standard for new construction. There was some apparent reluctance on
the part of manufacturers to design fixtures for lower water use; some
attempted minor modifications on conventional fixtures instead. However,
the National Association of Plumbing Manufacturers is now revising its
standards. Still, there are no readily accessible data on what propor-
tion of present fixtures manufactured can be classified as "water sav-
ing".
-213-
-------
d. Summary Status
Municipal water conservation is very much on a threshold.
There has been adequate interest and experience to recognize its advan-
tages in some circumstances, but application has been limited. If long
term conservation has widespread advantages, they have not yet been made
obvious. This could occur during the next several years.
2. Amounts of Municipal Water Use
The national average amount of water supplied by community systems
in 1975 was about 190 gallons per capita-day. Of this, about 41 gpcd
were supplied to industries and are classified as "manufacturing" use in
the Second Assessment (WRC, 1978a). The remainder, about 149 gpcd, is
traditionally called the "domestic and commercial" portion of municipal
water,demand (WRC, 1978b).
A more detailed breakdown of the 1975 municipal uses is provided
in Table IX-1. As indicated, the "domestic" portion (118 gpcd) is
Table IX-1
MUNICIPAL WATER USES IN 1975
(approximate national averages)
Use Category gpcd
Commercial
Residential In-House
Residential Outside 28 { 118 "Domestic"
Public (Fires, School, etc.)
Losses (10% of Domestic & Commercial)
Total "Domestic and Commercial" 149
Industrial (Municipally Supplied) 41
Total Municipal Use 190
Source: WRC (1978 a & b)
defined to include public usage for schools, parks, public buildings,
fires, etc., and system leakage as well as residential uses. Although
-214-
-------
good data are not available as a basis for all these numbers, they are
drawn heavily from WRC's Second Assessment and approximate several
estimates presented in the literature.
Figure 9.1 synthesizes data on past domestic and commercial per
capita water use and displays the projections adopted by the WRC in its
First and Second National Water Assessments. Data points are from the
USGS series of reports on water use (e.g., Murray and Reeves, 1975) and
from the 1965 and 1975 tabulations presented by the two WRC assessments.
The differences between the USGS and WRC data points in 1965 and 1975
provide an indication of data accuracy. In addition, it is noted that
some assumptions and calculations were required to remove the industrial
portion of demand from the USGS data. Given these qualifications, the
following is observed:
Available data indicate significant increases in per
capita demand, especially for the period 1965-1975.
Both WRC projections assume these increases will stop,
an assumption which can be questioned based on its lack
of success in the WRC's First Assessment.
Inconsistencies in the data and projections cannot be
easily resolved with available information; for exam-
ple, the projection of constant per capita use for the
future assumes that the tendency toward increases due
to water using appliances (garbage disposals, dish
washers, etc.) will be counterbalanced by some conser-
vation program, but the magnitude of these two forces
is not indicated.
In any case, a major conservation effort may be required
simply to stabilize per capita demand.
3. Potential for Municipal Conservation
It is estimated that average national per capita municipal water
demand could be reduced by 20 to 40 percent, and perhaps more, without
making significant changes in lifestyles and without adopting advanced
technology. Furthermore, these results could be realized with net ec-
onomic savings and significant benefits in terms of energy savings and
environmental quality.
-215-
-------
ro
en
i
Q
CO
'5.
CO
O
«5
0.
in
CO
CO
(0
-
O
O
•a
CO
O
0)
O
O
E
E
o
O
160 •
140 -
120 -"
100
80 •
WRC II
USGS
WRC I
Legend
• data point
O estimate for future
1950
60
70
80 90 2000 10
Year
—i—
20
Figure 9.1 AVERAGE U.S. COMMUNITY DOMESTIC AND COMMERCIAL WITHDRAWALS PER CAPITA
-------
Table IX-2 synthesizes the above estimates of overall municipal
conservation potential based on the best estimates presently available
(see Appendix A for more detail). Even though the ranges used do allow
considerable room for uncertainty, some estimates require further re-
search to provide improved data. These results should be interpreted
cautiously as indicated by the following observations:
Is is clear that per capita municipal water use will
not decrease by 20-40 percent overnight, or even over
a couple of years. These estimates are of long-term
potential savings: for example, they assume that pre-
sent clothes washers and dishwashers eventually wear
out and are replaced with water-efficient models.
Thus it may take 15 to 30 years to implement all the
changes visualized.
Potential is based on technical and economic feasi-
bility of relatively simple, passive devices and
actions using present research results and assuming
universal implementation. Clearly, further research
may alter these estimates and full implementation may
never be realized.
Present day per capita use is a baseline use for com-
parison. This does not mean that national municipal
water use, average per capita use, or even the amount
of water sold by any specific utility will ever be
less than today if conservation is implemented. The
long time frame and regional differences in implemen-
tation may mean that:
per capita savings simply offset per capita in-
creases occurring over time due to other factors
(e.g., more dishwashers, more landscape watering,
or just a higher standard of living),
decreases in per capita use simply offset overall
increases in water use due to population growth, or
less savings are achieved in some areas (e.g., water
rich areas) than in other areas where conservation
is more intensively applied.
Each conservation action has been found economically
feasible under some part of the conditions considered
(e.g., new construction, high water savings estimate,
low cost estimate).
-217-
-------
Table IX-2
MUNICIPAL WATER CONSERVATION POTENTIAL
Else
Residential In-House
Residential Outside
Conmercial
Public
Industrial
Losses
Reduction in Total
Municipal Use:
but say
Percent Reduction
in Each Type of
Per Capita Demand
25-45
30-50
20-40
20-40
20-40
20-40
Basis
Water saving plumbing and
appliances, pressure reducers,
meters, and avoid waste.a
Meters, pressure reducers,
drought resistant vegetation,
avoid overwatering, and
avoid waste.3
Water saving devices
analogous to residences, self-
closing faucets, and avoid
waste."
Same reasoning as commercial.
Wastewater treatment and pre-
treatment requirements, waste-
water user changes, changing
water supply rate structures.b
Experience in Oakland
California (Laverty, 1979)
and anticipated leak repair
in older systems.
23-43 percent
20-40 percent to round off and be conservative
a. See Appendix A for detailed support of this estimate
b. Potential water savings for these categories have not been analyzed
on a comprehensive basis in the technical literature. Estimates are
the result of this author's extrapolation of the residential estimates
and of the limited technical information now available.
-218-
-------
Many of the actions are very attractive even with low
estimates of water savings and high estimates of con-
servation device cost.
More detail is provided in Appendix A on the basis for these
estimates of conservation potential. The associated energy savings and
monetary benefits and cost are also explored to provide a preliminary
assessment of cost-effectiveness for each action.
4. Realistic Conservation
Although the preceding section is thought to present a reasonable
estimated range of the overall potential for water savings from munici-
pal conservation, the fact is that full potential is not likely to be
achieved. Therefore, as a basis for further discussion, a less ambitious
"realistic" conservation scenario is defined in this section. It incor-
porates the following assumptions:
Only simple, passive conservation measures are employed
(e.g., not even dual cycle toilets are recognized).
No change in lifestyle or habits is assumed; this means
that the same length of time is spent in showers and
that no conservation is achieved through education pro-
grams oriented toward avoiding waste.
The low estimate from the range of potential water sav-
ings is used in each case (see Appendix A and Table IX-2).
The high estimate from the range of potential conserva-
tion costs is used in each case (see Appendix A).
A long implementation/transition period is assumed
(approximately 15 years).
As a result of more intensive implementation in some
areas and less in others, this gives an approximate
estimate of achievements nationwide.
The following program requirements are assumed to be part of the
"realistic" scenario:
In new construction the following are required:
3.5 gallon/flush toilets,
3 gallon/minute limit on shower flow,
-219-
-------
1.5 gallon/minute limit on faucet flow,
Pressure reducing valves--50 PSI (maximum),
Water meters.
In present buildings:
Retrofitting as above is required except for meters,
Variances are available based on practicalities or
economics.
On appliances, the following are required and result in the
realization of modest water savings, primarily by raising
the awareness of manufacturers:
Water use labeling,
Energy use labeling (including hot water energy).
For nonresidential uses, the above requirements and
other moderate actions (e.g., water supply leak de-
tection, car wash recirculation, etc.) achieve 20
percent water savings.
These assumptions, paired with the water savings and cost esti-
mates from Appendix A imply an overall water savings of 20 percent as
shown by the resulting water uses listed in Table IX-3. Even with the
above assumptions, (e.g. low saving and high cost), the B/C ratios of
the individual actions included range from 1.0 to 6.6.
5. Conservation Impacts
To better understand the opportunities associated with conserva-
tion, it is helpful to analyze the "realistic" conservation scenario
from several points of view. Four viewpoints are discussed:
The residential user—a typical family of four.
The community.
The nation.
Water quality agencies.
^220-
-------
Table IX-3
WATER USE RESULTS WITH REALISTIC CONSERVATION
(gpcd)
Location/Activity
Toilet
Bath/Shower
Lavatory Sink
Laundry
Dishwashing
Cooking/Drinking
Outside
Total Residential
Other Municipal
Total Municipal 190 152
a. Assumes 20% savings
b. Assumes 10% of water saved
Without
Conservation
25
20
3
9
4
4
28
93
97
With
Conservation
17
17
2.5
7
3.5
3
24
74
78a
Hot Water
Saved
0
1.5
0.2
1.0
0.3
0.3
0
3.3
1.7b
-221-
-------
Table IX-4 summarizes the impacts seen from these viewpoints.
The 3 percent decrease in national energy imports and corresponding
7 percent decrease in balance of trade deficit deserve special note from
the broad national viewpoint; all the small contributions possible are
needed to overcome these vexing national problems. Of special import-
ance from EPA's viewpoint are the water quality impacts, particularly
the potential for:
Decreases (or smaller increases) in groundwater
withdrawals in regions of overdraft with a cor-
responding decrease in such problems as salt
water intrusion.
Decreases (or smaller increases) in withdrawals
from groundwater which interact with stream-
flows so that this groundwater is more avail-
able to maintain summertime and drought period
in-stream flows with associated improvements in
water quality.
Decreases (or smaller increases) in high mountains
and upstream surface water withdrawals so that these
waters are also more available for maintaining in-
stream flows, water quality, and aquatic life during
low flow periods.
Decreasing the amount of money needed for reserve
capacity and future expansion of wastewater treat-
ment facilities.
Other specific highlights of the impact analyses are:
For a typical family of four, which implements the
conservation program, the net savings would be about
$16 per year and the benefit to cost ratio would be
about 2.7 to 1.
Even in a community with no population growth and
90 percent of its water supply costs fixed, the
savings in water heating and residual water supply
costs are adequate to provide net benefits for the
family (i.e., B/C ratio is greater than one).
Especially in a community which is growing and reach-
ing the capacity limits of its present water supply
and wastewater facilities, municipal water conserva-
tion is extremely advantageous. (A hypothetical ex-
ample showed a benefit to cost ratio 7.2).
-222-
-------
Table IX-4
MAJOR FAMILY COMMUNITY AND NATIONAL IMPACTS OF
REALISTIC MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION
Water Use
Family of Four
-20%
(-76 gpd)
Community
-20%
(Delay Expansion)
Nation
-2% Withdrawals
(-7 bgd)
Energy Use
-2% Total
(-1.3 barrels/year)
-15% WS & WW Utilities
(20 BTU/gallon)
-3% Imports
(-90xl06 barrels/year)
Money
ro
oo
i
-7% Water-Related
Expenses
(-$16/year, net)
-13% Net Imports for
Water and Wastewater
(-$8/capita- year)
-7% Net Imports
($2 billion/year)
Less need or more
rapid progress for
Wastewater Construction
Grants ($150 million/
year)9
Water Quality
Improved nearby
. recreation
. fish and
wildlife
a. Tiemens and Graham, 1978
Less use of water sources
providing better buffer
for quality:
. groundwater savings
accumulate all year
. surface waters are
less needed and more
easily augmented
during low flows
. improved stream resource,
especially in areas
immediately upstream
from community
Improve water quality
especially in crucial
regions:
. groundwater overdraft
with associated quality
problems
. surface water problems
where flows are frequently
below those needed to
maintain water quality
standards
Source: Calculations by author as provided in Appendix B
-------
In looking at water conservation impacts on a hypo-
thetical community's balance-of-trade, it was found
that less money would flow out of the community; the
smaller payments for energy and equipment more than
make up for the decreased size of Federal wastewater
construction grants.
Although the 20 percent decrease in municipal water
supply withdrawals is only a 2 percent decrease in
overall national withdrawals, the difference is sig-
nificant and would be very welcome in regions where
the alternative is groundwater overdraft, elimination
of some other beneficial use, or complete depletion
of streamflow.
Additional details on the analysis of impacts from the "realistic"
conservation scenario are provided in Appendix B.
The striking factor about municipal water conservation impacts is
that they are so overwhelmingly positive from most viewpoints. The
economic costs are recoverable by several fold and there are important
energy and environmental benefits besides. This is very rare in projects
or actions considered today.
6. Implementation Mechanisms
Assuming that water conservation is attractive to a community as
a result of analyses similar to the foregoing, six generic types of
techniques are available to imlement a municipal water conservation
program. These include:
Plumbing Code Modifications. This is probably the
most effective mechanism to achieve long term im-
plementation of water conservation measures. For
example, if the passive conservation measures iden-
tified for the "realistic" scenario are required in
all new construction and, as appropriate, in exten-
sive remodelling, one would expect full implementa-
tion over a period of 30 to 50 years. Some major
code changes have already been made (e.g., in the
Washington, D.C. area and in California), but most
have been in localized areas responding to specific
growth or water shortage problems. Many localities
adopt the "Uniform Plumbing Code" as the local stan-
dard. Although changes in this national code are
being discussed, they are not yet a reality nor can
-224-
-------
they be expected without further definitive research
results to better establish practical design stan-
dards.
Pricing. There is a trend toward either a fixed
price per gallon or an increasing price per gal-
lon with increasing water demand. These pricing
structures, when carefully developed and applied
to the various classes of use, can be an equitable
and effective incentive to avoid excessive water
use or waste. Such a price structure is almost
essential if it is hoped to have the water user be
aware of potential water savings and to actively
participate in conservation. In general, however,
price alone is not an adequate mechanism to imple-
ment water conservation in a municipal setting.
Metering. During the past 20 years most community
water systems have required installation of water
meters, at least on new connections. Although these
meters require significant expenditures for purchase,
installation, maintenance, reading and billing, they
are crucial to the type of pricing structure mentioned
above and to any real awareness of amounts of water
used. Unfortunately, meters are very expensive to in-
stall in existing, unmetered residential connections
in comparison with the value of water and other savings.
However, equity considerations may warrant such instal-
lations anyway, especially where significant outside
water use occurs.
Education. Public information campaigns can achieve
significant conservation results, especially in emer-
gency situations such as drought. For long-term con-
servation, they are probably more valuable to simply
create consumer awareness of meter readings, rate
structures, and the tangible consumer advantages of
conservation. The Washington Suburban Sanitary Com-
mission provides a prime example of conducting an ef-
fective education program for implementing long-term
conservation.
Retrofit Programs. Modification of existing facilities
and fixtures can be accomplished on two distinct bases:
(1) voluntary modification by the property owner in re-
sponse to pricing and education programs or other incen-
tives, (2) a cooperative program between the utility and
property owners where needed changes are performed and
checked by utility personnel or contractors. Although
voluntary programs were extremely effective in the cri-
sis atmosphere of a drought (e.g., Marin County,
-225-
-------
California),achieving anything close to full implemen-
tation in a long-term program may require onsite util-
ity involvement in making necessary modifications.
Incentives. Beyond the obvious incentive of water sup-
ply price structure, incentive programs for municipal
water conservation are still relatively recent or
are now in formative stages. Examples include the fol-
1owi ng:
User charges and pretreatment requirements which
are part of EPA's Construction Grants Program are
a significant incentive, especially in the indus-
trial sector where they are usually applicable.
The flow reduction requirements, which are a con-
dition of the construction grant in situations
where wastewater flow is excessive, are also a
strong conservation incentive although they may not
be totally effective because of limited wastewater
agency authority to implement conservation.
Other Federal agencies are incorporating similar
incentives into their programs in response to the
President's water policy as described in Section
B.I.
Other incentives could be developed; for example,
tax credits such as those now used to encourage
energy conservation.
In summary, various implementation mechanisms are available.
However, those to be used in a particular community should be based on
the specific conservation accomplishments and time frame desired and
their suitability in the local setting.
7. Impediments
Five notable impediments to implementation have surfaced based on
this review of past experiences and ongoing activities and the analysis
of a conservative, national-average overview of municipal conservation:
There is a lack of clearly organized, comprehensive in-
formation on overall beneficial and adverse impacts:
For nationally typical situations.
For regional or special local circumstances.
-226-
-------
There is considerable uncertainty in:
Present water use data and patterns, especially
within each consumer group.
Cost estimates for conservation actions.
The extent to which a conservation device can reduce
flow and still be satisfactory and practical.
Water supply and wastewater expenditure patterns.
Marginal costs of water supply and wastewater management.
There is considerable inertia to overcome if municipal water
conservation is to be extensively implemented:
People and utilities would need to put effort into im-
plementing it and a modest financial investment would
be required.
Since water utilities have a relatively high percent-
age of fixed costs, conservation would have to be im-
plemented very carefully to avoid losses of water rev-
enues. People would probably resist conservation if
they felt it would necessitate increased water rates,
even if such increases were compensated for by less
water use and lower water heating bills.
There is a tendency, from past practices, to concen-
trate on supplying all the water that municipal users
will use rather than attempting to hold down demand;
indeed, there is some incentive for utilities to en-
courage increases in water demand in order to raise
more revenue without increasing water rates.
Institutional factors, such as plumbing codes, or
water utility-enthusiasm for conservation, change
slowly.
The present incentives which influence municipal water con-
servation decisions are not completely effective in some
cases and discourage conservation in others:
Consideration of wastewater flow reduction in cost-
effectiveness analysis (as required by Construction
Grants Regulations) often does not receive its de-
served emphasis because the wastewater agency may
not be able to implement a strong conservation pro-
gram; it must often depend on cooperation from a
-227-
-------
water supply utility which is skeptical about con-
servation advantages.
The costs of municipal water supply are frequently
subsidized through participation in Federal or State
projects; thus the potential savings from conserva-
tion are not fully seen from a local viewpoint.
Metering of customer use is costly, but is important
for creating customer awareness of water use. Espe-
cially in existing residential areas where meters are
not now used and lawn watering is heavy, the expense
to install meters (and their necessity from an equity
viewpoint) may prevent adoption of an effective water
conservation program.
Water law is, itself, a major impediment. It encourages
excess withdrawals to establish larger water claims and
then discourages any reduction in use since claims could
be lost. Only when potential supplies are fully developed
would the water utility begin to try accomodating growing
needs through more efficient use.
8. Findings
The findings which result from this discussion can be highlighted
as follows:
Municipal water conservation is often disregarded because:
It is not one of the largest national uses of water.
Many regions have no shortage of municipal supplies.
It is feared that conservation will simply result in
water rate increases without significant cost savings
to the consumer.
Water utilities tend to be skeptical or, at best, luke-
warm toward conservation.
Water conservation is actually discouraged by present
situations such as water supply subsidies or the high
cost of installing meters where they are not now used.
This overlooks some major monetary advantages of conservation:
Energy savings.
Delayed expansion of water and wastewater facilities.
-228-
-------
When all benefits and costs are considered, at least a
moderate conservation program appears to be justified in
any typical community.
The energy savings alone are adequate to justify a hot
water conservation program in a typical non-growing,
water-rich community.
There are significant Federal advantages to implementing
municipal water conservation as well:
Energy savings in hot water heating and in water supply
and wastewater systems can result in small but welcome
reductions in energy imports (90 million barrels less
per year) and the balance-of-trade deficit (2 billion
dollars less per year).
In specific locations, smaller municipal withdrawals
can have significant beneficial impacts on water qual-
ity, especially in cases of groundwater overdraft or
low streamflow.
Smaller volumes of wastewater treated to present ef-
fluent quality would mean decreased discharge of pol-
lutants.
Conservation would also result in a reduced need for
wastewater construction grants (by approximately 150
million dollars per year) or, alternatively, more
rapid compliance with present effluent requirements
and in-stream quality standards.
Water saved would be available to supply other off-
stream uses in areas where it was not allocated to
in-stream use or improvements in groundwater manage-
ment.
There are also notable impediments to conservation:
Lack of clear information on comprehensive advantages
and disadvantages.
Uncertainty in numbers needed to adequately calculate
impacts.
Inertia in local agencies and consumers.
The bias toward over appropriation and overuse in
western water law.
-229-
-------
Municipal conservation is on a threshold. Its future
depends on actions taken in the next few years to over-
come the impediments. Actions now being implemented do
not appear adequate to create real enthusiasm at the
local level.
C. Reuse of Municipal Effluents
This discussion focuses on the direct reuse of municipal waste-
water effluents for nonpotable purposes. The following points are
emphasized to clarify the definition of terms and to distinguish this
discussion from other, closely related topics:
Examples of the direct reuse of municipal effluent
(as the term is defined herein) include those for
landscape and agricultural irrigation, industrial
processes or cooling, recreation, and groundwater
recharge.
Direct reuse implies existence of a pipe, or some
other manmade conduit, for delivering the first
user's effluent to the second user or use.
Indirect reuse, through discharge of an effluent
to a stream and withdrawal downstream, is recog-
nized to be important but is not a primary focus
of this discussion (see SCS Engineers, 1979, for
a discussion on this topic).
Direct, potable reuse is not considered here be-
cause further research and demonstration is re-
quired to provide additional assurances of safety
and these programs will take several years before
implementation can be seriously contemplated.
Effluent use for groundwater recharge is recognized
as a special type of direct reuse -- the "direct"
portion referring to its conveyance to and applica-
tion through recharge facilities. It is recognized
that this could also be viewed as a type of indirect
reuse (through groundwater aquifers) which may in-
volve potable supplies.
Recycling or recirculation, in contrast to reuse, in-
volves only one user or use; the effluent from the use
is captured and redirected back into that use scheme.
The Second National Assessment (WRC, 1978 a & b) and
a recent study sponsored by OWRT (Gulp, Wesner & Gulp,
1979) address recycling with regard to the steam elec-
tric, manufacturing, and minerals water use categories.
-230-
-------
Especially in steam electric and manufacturing in-
dustries, recycling is expected to increase dramat-
ically. In general, it is expected that the salt
content of the ultimate discharges from these sec-
tors will have become relatively high and that they
will not be extensively sought for further reuse.
Municipal effluents are considered here to be only
reusable and not recyclable. For example, where
treated effluent is provided for landscape irriga-
tion through a dual distribution system, this is
a different use than general, potable municipal
use, and the reuse label therefore applies.
Again, as in the case of the conservation discus-
sion, emphasis is placed on consideration of all
relevant benefits and costs of municipal effluent
reuse.
1. Present Status of Municipal Wastewater Reuse
a. Reuse Now Occurring
Total municipal wastewater discharges in the U.S. amounted to
about 24 billion gallons per day in 1975 (Metcalf & Eddy, 1978). In
comparison, approximately 0.7 bgd, almost all of which is municipal
effluent, are directly reused in the context of 536 separate projects
(Culp/Wesner/Culp, 1979). Table IX-5 summarizes the distribution of
this reuse among purposes. Most of the water volume and projects are
for agricultural irrigation and there area few relatively large projects
which supply industrial cooling and process waters. Although other
reuse is small by comparison, it is important -- for example, 33 mgd are
reused in 60 projects which are known to be for landscape irrigation.
The majority of reuse projects, accounting for the largest
volume of wastewater, are located in the Southwest and South-Central
Regions of the country, primarily in Arizona, California, and Texas
(Culp/Wesner/Culp, 1979).
The data in Table IX-5 do not include the wastewater reuse
that occurs incidentally as part of land treatment (e.g., in Muskegon
County, Michigan). In land treatment systems, a portion of the waste-
water is reused even in humid climates. In arid climates, it is often
-231-
-------
Table IX-5
PRESENT REUSE OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
Use
Irrigation
Agricultural
Landscape
Not Specified
Industrial
Process
Cooling
Boiler Feed
Percent of
Wastewater
29
5
28
9.5
21
1
62
31.5
Percent of
Projects
28
11
49
Groundwater Recharge
Other (Recreation, etc.)
1.5
100.0%
= 0.7 bgd
= 3% of municipal
effluents
2
5
100.0%
536 projects
Source: Gulp, Wesner and Gulp (1979).
-232-
-------
difficult to distinguish between reuse and land treatment. Addition of
this incidental reuse might raise the 1975 amount to about 1 bgd or
about 4 percent of municipal effluents.
b. Examples of Reuse
The previous chapter provided detailed discussions on two
important examples of reuse for irrigation (i.e., landscape irrigation
in St. Petersburg, Florida, and an agricultural reuse project at North-
glenn, Colorado). The following examples, drawn primarily from Gulp/
Wesner/Culp (1979) and the AWWA Research Foundation (1978) supplement
these.
Lubbock, Texas, has been the site of wastewater
reuse for agricultural irrigation since 1938.
Presently, 10 to 12 mgd are used for watering
cotton, milo, grains, corn and pasture grasses.
In Orange County, California, the Irvine Com-
pany uses 3.2 mgd of disinfected secondary ef-
fluent to irrigate orchards and row crops. A
reduced need for fertilizer application has
been noted.
Part of the Colorado Springs, Colorado efflu-
ent is provided tertiary treatment (filtration)
and disinfection and then used for landscape
irrigation of college and industrial grounds,
a golf course, and a cemetery.
Bethlehem Steel has used Baltimore, Maryland
wastewater since 1942. Presently, 107 mgd are
used for cooling and processing in steel pro-
duction. This is 15 percent of all current
municipal wastewater reuse in the U.S.
In Las Vegas, Nevada, municipal effluent is
used to provide 35 percent of the needed cool-
ing makeup water.
At Whittier Narrows, east of Los Angeles, about
29 mgd of disinfected secondary effluent is con-
veyed from three wastewater treatment plants
(Whittier Narrows, San Jose Creek, and Pomona)
through flood control channels to percolation
basins/spreading grounds where it is blended
-233-
-------
with imported water and used for groundwater
recharge. The reclaimed water constitutes about
10 percent of basin recharge. The groundwater
is subsequently used for municipal, industrial,
and agricultural purposes.
In Orange County, California, about 5 mgd of
highly purified wastewater effluent is used via
injection wells to create a fresh groundwater
barrier against salt water intrusion.
In Santee, California, east of San Diego, a
project with capacity for 4 mgd of wastewater
reclamation was developed to provide water in-
put to a series of recreational lakes.
Each of the above is a classic example of municipal reuse. These and
many other reuse projects have been developed in a pioneering spirit and
thus their main significance may be to serve as a foundation for future
reuse projects.
c. Federal Activities
Federal encouragement and sponsorship of wastewater reuse
occurs primarily within EPA, the Office of Water Research and Tech-
nology, and the Bureau of Reclamation. Specific activities include:
EPA Construction Grants Program. Provisions
in the 1977 Clean Water Act which encourage
innovative and alternative technologies for
wastewater treatment are the most significant
factors affecting reuse. Under these provi-
sions, reuse qualifies for cost-effectiveness
and funding bonuses which are significant in-
centives for reuse implementation. Land
treatment is also encouraged creating an ad-
ditional possibility of incidental reuse. The
main uncertainties in the present program are
the criteria and rules which will be used to
determine funding eligibility. Specifically,
If a new wastewater treatment project is
needed to meet or maintain water quality
standards and if a reuse project is cost-
effective under the 115 percent rule, it
is clear that reuse portions of the pro-
ject are eligible for the 85 percent Fed-
eral funding.
-234-
-------
It is not clear what rules will apply in
cases where additional treatment works
are not required to meet effluent require-
ments or water quality standards. This
topic is presently being addressed by EPA's
work group in Funding of Multiple Purpose
Projects. Of particular concern are several
cases in the west (especially in California)
where secondary treatment plants were previ-
ously built to meet the 1977 deadline for
wastewater treatment and reuse facilities
were anticipated or are now being proposed
as a subsequent phase. The main difficulty
in establishing policy is the desire to avoid
diverting funds from the primary mission
(water pollution control) while still encour-
aging innovative and alternative approaches,
particularly those which reuse water and nu-
trients and move toward the 1985 goal of the
Clean Water Act.
EPA Water Quality Management Planning. Although
reuse is not given specific emphasis in the new
WQM regulations, consideration of reuse should
occur. In particular, the WQM plan must address
the following areas:
Municipal and industrial needs (S35.1521-3(d)).
WQM planning must consider whether specific
treatment needs should be identified and, if
fulfilling specific needs becomes part of the
plan, they must be recognized by the needs in-
ventory and priority system. Furthermore, the
WQM plan is required to set forth information
to support subsequent facility planning, in-
cluding information on municipal facilities,
suggested regional approachs, and programs to
support municipal water conservation. This as-
signment is broad enough to accomodate identifi-
cation of reuse opportunities and if it is well
done, reuse will be considered.
Conservation (S35.1521-3(h)). Where appropriate,
the plan is to identify water conservation needs
and practices to achieve and maintain water qual-
ity standards and to ensure efficient wastewater
treatment. Conservation should be interpreted
broadly in this context, thus providing the op-
portunity to identify reuse schemes, particularly
schemes which increase low streamflows or reduce
-235-
-------
pollutant discharges in ways which enhance
conformance with water quality standards.
EPA Office of Research and Development. Basic
information on the impacts of reuse is being
sought through EPA's Office of Research and De-
velopment. Primary emphasis is placed on poten-
tial effects on human health.
The Water Quality Health Effects Program in-
cludes work on health impacts of using waste-
water and sludges in agricultural irrigation
and application by spraying (EPA, ORD, 1979).
The EPA Research and Development Act of 1978
(PL 95-155) requires the agency to spend $25
million per year in the form of 65-75 percent
cost-sharing grants for the purpose of assist-
ing in the development and demonstration (in-
cluding construction) of any project which will
(a) demonstrate a new or improved method, ap-
proach or technology for providing a depend-
able safe supply of drinking water to the pub-
lic; or (b) investigate and demonstrate health
and conservation implications involved in the
reclamation, recycling and reuse of wastewaters
for drinking and the processes and methods for
preparing safe and acceptable drinking water
(AWWA Research Foundation, 1978). The primary
thrust of these funds is toward potable reuse
demonstration as exemplified by a $7 million
project in Denver.
Office of Water Research and Technology. In re-
sponse to the Water Research and Development Act
of 1978 (PL 95-467), OWRT conducts an extensive
program of reuse research as documented by its
synthesis of project abstracts (U.S. Dept. of the
Interior, OWRT, 1979). Although many of these
projects focus on treatment processes to facili-
tate reuse, there are others which address plan-
ning, management, institutional, and legal/social
impediments involved.
Bureau of Reclamation. Under its statutory author-
ity beginning with the Reclamation Act of 1902, the
Bureau conducts general investigations to plan con-
servation and efficient use of water and related
-236-
-------
land resources in the 17 Western states. Reclama-
tion of wastewaters for reuse clearly falls within
the scope of this mission and is considered.
d. State Activities
California has the most active and ambitious wastewater reuse
program in the Nation. About 165 mgd of wastewater was reused in the
state in 1977 when, as a result of the severe drought, a goal of trip-
ling wastewater reuse by 1982 was established (Wasserman, 1978). The
Office of Water Recycling was created within the State Water Resources
Control Board to pursue this goal, and projects now being planned, de-
signed or considered for funding will come close to achieving it. Such
achievement would increase national reuse by about 50 percent. The
state anticipates that most of these projects will be funded under EPA's
Construction Grants Program, but this is highly dependent on the multiple-
purpose funding policy which EPA adopts.
Another effort in California with Federal, State and local
participation, is studying the three main coastal urban areas (San Fran-
cisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego) to determine the feasibility of
large-scale reuse projects. These studies are oriented toward a particu-
larly valuable type of reuse -- salvaging of freshwater now discharged
to the ocean. They could ultimately lead to new reuse projects which
would total about one billion gallons per day.
In other sections of the country, interest in reuse is still
evolving. Water-short areas such as Texas and Arizona are implementing
reuse with an intensity which approaches that of California. There are
also important projects underway or pending in the water-rich regions.
On Long Island in Nassau County, New York construction is progressing on
a six mgd advanced waste treatment/injection well/percolation basin
project to replenish groundwater supplies and prevent nitrate contamina-
tion and salt water intrusion. And in Chicago, Illinois funding is
being sought to perform planning studies on wastewater injection for the
purpose of renewing potable groundwater supplies.
-237-
-------
e. Summary Status
Reuse of municipal effluents for nonpotable purposes is now in
an evolutionary phase. Interest has been increased considerably by
financial incentives provided through the Clean Water Act provisions for
innovative and alternative technologies (such as reuse and land treat-
ment) and by the publicity given to earlier successful projects. Many
projects are in the discussion or planning stages and wastewater reuse
is expected to increase significantly within the next few years.
2. Potential for Reuse
The only available nationwide assessment of recycling and reuse
potential is a recent study by Culp/Wesner/Culp (1979) -- an assessment
which builds directly on WRC's Second National Water Assessment. Table
IX-6 summarizes their results, the following of which are particularly
important:
Even though water withdrawals are projected to de-
crease in the next 20 years, gross water use is ex-
pected to increase more than 140 percent due pri-
marily to large increases in the steam electric and
industrial use categories.
WRC anticipates that these increases in steam elec-
tric and industrial use will be served primarily by
intensive recycling (i.e., these combined sectors are
expected to increase recycling by about 520 percent
while decreasing withdrawals by about 7 percent).
There are large amounts of water withdrawals which
could substitute reuse of wastewater and, similarly,
there are large amounts of wastewater which are avail-
able for reuse.
There are some extremely important practical considera-
tions which have limited development of reuse in the
past and will continue to do so in the future; specific
limitations recognized in Gulp, Wesner & Gulp (1979)
include:
The relative geographic locations of dis-
chargers and potential users, and the re-
sultant expense of transporting water from
one to the other.
-238-
-------
Table IX-6
PRESENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE
SIGNIFICANCE OF RECYCLING AND REUSE
1975 2000 Percent
(in bgd) (in bgd) change
Gross Hater Use (Withdrawals &
Recycling & Reuse!
Domestic and Commercial 29 37 +28
Agricultural Irrigation 183a I78 ~3
Steam Electric 146 597 +310
Industrial 140 380 +170
Other _! -5 +25
Total 502 1197 +140
Water Use Served By Recycling
Agricultural Irrigation NAa NAa NAa
Steam Electric 57 517 +810
Industrial _§2 348 +320
Total 139 865 +520
Water Withdrawals Which Might
Use Effluents Instead
Agricultural Irrigation I83 I78 ~3
Landscaping 1 1 +"
Steam Electric S9 8° -1°
Industrial ^8 _JLL ~47
Total 331 290 -12
Effluents Available For Reuse
Municipal 21 27 +29
Agricultural 14 11 -21
Steam Electric 88 70 -20
Industrial 50 13 -74
Total 173 121 -30
Actual Present and Realistic
Future Direct Reuse 0.7 4.8 +590
a. Although intensive recycling of agricultural irrigation waters is thought
to occur in some locations, no data are available on its magnitude; thus
only withdrawals and reuse are included
Source: Gulp, Wesner & Gulp (1979); numbers are based on WRC Second Assessment
estimates for dry-year conditions
-239-
-------
The relative timing of discharges and water
demand, and the resultant need for storage
facilities with the associated expenses.
The availability and relative cost of al-
ternative sources; indeed, most potential
uses identified are already served by near-
by sources and existing facilities.
Even considering the practical factors identified above,
there is a potential for large increases in wastewater
reuse, with Gulp, Wesner and Culp estimating that about
a 590 percent increase is feasible by year 2000.
Recycling (i.e., in the steam electric and industrial sectors as
indicated by WRC projections) is anticipated to be the main source of
"new supplies" over the next 20 years. This is expected because strin-
gent industrial wastewater treatment requirements make recycling of the
resultant clean water very practical (i.e., it is an ideal supply in
terms of location, quantity, timing and dependability).
Reuse potential is also of significance, however. Especially in
water-short areas of the western U.S., but also in eastern areas where
new industrial and steam electric facilities will be located, wastewater
will increasingly be viewed as a dependable and relatively inexpensive
source of new supplies. Municipal effluents will be particularly attrac-
tive: i.e.,
They are growing in volume.
They are of markedly improved quality due to pollu-
tion control programs.
They will not be subject to salt buildup due to re-
cycling like steam electric and industrial effluents
will be.
They are dependable on a day by day basis in contrast
to agricultural discharges which are highly seasonal.
Thus where location and timing are compatible, where effluents are
economically competitive with alternative supplies, and where insti-
tutional issues such as water rights can be worked out, municipal ef-
fluents will be directly reused on an increasing basis. This reuse may
-240-
-------
amount to 15 to 20 percent of available municipal effluents by year 2000
as compared with the present reuse of approximately 3 percent.
3. Advantages of Reuse
Although the new emphasis on reuse in the Clean Water Act Amend-
ments of 1977 provide a strong incentive, there is more behind the pres-
ent enthusiasm for reuse than simply the desire to receive larger Feder-
al wastewater treatment grants. The most significant advantages include:
Hater Quality. To the extent that discharges are re-
duced in volume, the pollutants contained by those
discharges are also lessened, they may be recycled,
and the country comes closer to realizing its water quality
goals.
In-stream Uses. To the extent that the demand for
new water supply development grows more slowly or
is lessened, waters can be left in their natural
setting with consequent improvements in water qual-
ity, fish and wildlife habitat and recreation, espe-
ially during dry periods.
Groundwater Protection. When reuse reduces demand
for groundwater in areas of overdraft, it prolongs
the utility of the resource both by spreading the
available quantity of water over an increased number
of years and by decreasing the likelihood of contam-
ination such as by salt water intrusion. When reuse
results in increased groundwater recharge (e.g., land
treatment, irrigation, percolation, or injection) and
is done carefully to avoid contaminating the aquifer,
it increases the resource available for future use,
especially during dry periods.
Water Supplies. In regions which are water-short,
reuse can simply increase usable water supplies.
This is especially important in areas where water
demands are growing; e.g. where population growth
creates the need for increases in domestic and
commercial supplies. Reuse of municipal effluents
can be a significant vehicle for accommodating this
growth even when the effluents themselves are not
used for potable supplies. For example, municipal
effluent might be exchanged for an agricultural or
industrial supply of potable quality (see the North-
glenn example in Chapter VIII), or municipal efflu-
ent might be substituted for industrial or land-
scape irrigation uses which have previously used
-241-
-------
municipal supplies (see the St. Petersberg example
in Chapter VIII).
Economic Savings. Even with advantages such as those
listed above, reuse must usually provide economic
savings in order to be implemented and it often does.
For example, where wastewater treatment beyond sec-
ondary would be required to meet stream standards,
reuse using secondary effluent can provide important
savings in wastewater management costs. Even higher
savings are possible if primary effluent can be util-
ized, for example, in irrigating foder, fiber or seed
crops. Wtih undeveloped water sources becoming scarce
and more expensive to tap, significant expenditures to
develop new water supplies may also be avoided. It is
also possible that reuse will provide an especially de-
pendable supply and that prevention of shortages may
preclude associated economic losses. All of these sav-
ings can be legitimate motivations for implementing
reuse.
4. Impediments to Reuse.
Cost is the main impediment to reuse but there are also
several others. These disadvantages include:
Cost. Both capital and operating expenditures for reuse
tend to be high and stem primarily from two factors:
Transportation and storage of reclaimed ef-
fluents are usually required. Pipelines
often have to move the water uphill with as-
sociated pumping costs and the route may be
through urban or semi-urban areas; these fac-
tors can increase transportation costs dra-
matically. The seasonal demand for irriga-
tion water has significant implications for
storage costs as well. For example, in a
San Francisco Bay Area reuse study which is
presently underway, the range of transporta-
tion and storage costs for the preliminary
alternatives is $130 to $340 per acre-foot
(.40 to $1.04/1000 gallons) (Harnett and
Hall, 1979).
Treatment of reclaimed water prior to the
next use is often required; treatment re-
quirements may be as stringent as for ef-
fluent discharge and sometimes they are
more stringent. The treatment costs may
be about as much as the transportation
and storage costs.
-242-
-------
The feasibility of any particular reuse project
is extremely sensitive to the above costs.
Competition from Alternative Source. Water sup-
plies can often be provided at less expense than
would be required for wastewater reuse. This is
primarily due to five factors:
Present supplies are usually from rela-
tively easy sources, which were developed
at pre-inflation prices. Thus, there is
little economic incentive to make a major
investment in reuse as a substitute for
present supplies, even if that would mean
protection of in-stream uses or ground-
water resources.
Where present supplies are inadequate,
new supplies may be cost-competitive with
reuse because large transportation, treat-
ment or storage costs associated with reuse
may be avoided. For example, a stream chan-
nel might be used as a free conveyance fa-
cility for the new water supply or, a ground-
water supply usually does not require storage
or treatment.
Large subsidies are often provided both for
present water supplies and those which may
be developed in the future. When a reuse
project is analyzed, its desirability is
strongly affected by the magnitude and
sources of these subsidies.
Conservation (the reduction of water demand)
is being increasingly recognized as an inex-
pensive way to meet "growing" water needs. It
may even cost less to reduce water use per
capita or per ton of product than it would to
provide additional water through reuse to sat-
isfy growing population or production needs.
The primary markets for use of reclaimed
water (e.g.. agricultural irrigation,
steam electric and industrial cooling)
are often the users willing to pay the
least amount for water. They might find
it more economical to switch products or
production methods or simply not to pro-
duce rather than to pay the cost of re-
claimed wastewater.
-243-
-------
As one example of the cumulative significance of
the above factors, the price presently paid for
agricultural irrigation water in the Sacramento
San Joaquin Delta ($ll/acre-foot) can be compared
with the $130 to $340/acre-foot range being found
for large-scale reuse projects (Harnett and Hall,
1979). From another point of view, new water sup-
ply projects are about as expensive as reuse with
an estimated cost range of $110 to $295/acre-foot.
This may simply emphasize the issue of whether ad-
ditional water use is justified.
Health Risks. There is still significant uncer-
tainty regarding the health effects of some types
of reuse (e.g., irrigation of food crops, contam-
ination of groundwater sources used for drinking,
body contact recreation, aerosol transport with
spray irrigation). Treatment required prior to
reuse in response to these uncertainties is viewed
by some to be overly conservative with consequent
increases in reuse cost. As an example of pres-
ent treatment requirements, the following summar-
izes those in effect in California (Calif. Dept.
of Health Services, 1978):
Primary treatment is required for irriga-
tion of livestock feed, seed crops, and
orchards.
Secondary treatment and disinfection are
required for irrigation of food crops,
milk-animal pastures, and landscaping and
for groundwater recharge through percola-
tion ponds.
Advanced waste treatment and disinfection
are required for park and playground irri-
gation, body contact recreation, and ground-
water recharge by injection.
The above requirements are formal standards for irri-
gation and recreation reuse, and although the treat-
ment requirements for groundwater recharge are deter-
mined on a case-by-case basis, they usually conform
with the above summary. The advanced waste treatment
for groundwater is oriented primarily to solids removal
to maintain the aquifer's transmissibility. Some of
these requirements might be reduced if further research
and demonstration makes a strong case that health risks
would be minimal with less conservative standards.
-244-
-------
Energy Consumption. The potential need for pump-
iftg recI aimed water to the use site may make a
proposed reuse project relatively energy-consump-
tive. The treatment required and construction of
facilities for transportation and treatment also
consume significant amounts of energy. Clearly,
energy implications must be evaluated primarily
on a case-by-case basis. Results will depend
on the energy required to develop an alternative
source.
In-stream Uses. Reuse may be beneficial to in-
stream uses by lessening the extent to which a
source is developed and thus leaving more water
in source streams. However, there is presently
no assurance that such beneficial effects will
continue. After a short period some other user
might divert the water for his use, and the in-
stream uses would then be just as bad off as be-
fore, perhapd even worse off. In-stream uses may
also be adversely affected by removal of a prior
wastewater discharge. Flows with the discharge
may be adequate to support a fishery or to main-
tain downstream wetlands. However, without the
discharge, these features may be more vulnerable
during dry periods.
Water Rights. Off-stream users located downstream
from a wastewater discharge may be harmed if that
discharge is eliminated or reduced by reuse. In
this case, however, the downstream user may have
legal recourse. Depending on the specific cir-
cumstances, he may have as strong a claim to the
discharged water as he would have to a natural
streamflow that he had developed and for which
he had filed water rights.
Psychological. Public perceptions and acceptance
of wastewater reuse are particularly intangible and
volatile. These aspects present a two fold problem
to contend with in promoting reuse: (1) a real re-
luctance to use wastewater and (2) the strong possi-
bility of either over- or under-estimating the re-
luctance or misinterpreting it. Clearly, the impor-
tance of these psychological aspects must not be ne-
glected and an extensive educational effort may-be
necessary to overcome them.
-245-
-------
5. Findings
The foregoing analysis of reuse of municipal wastewater effluent
for nonpotable purposes leads to the following findings:
Reuse is being given significant attention by the
Federal government, especially in EPA's Construc-
tion Grants Program which gives financial support
to reuse projects through the innovative and alter-
native provisions of the Clean Water Act. These
provisions, their legislative history, and the im-
plementing regulations make clear the national in-
tention to achieve greater reclamation and reuse
of water, productive recycling of wastewater con-
stituents, and recovery of energy and to otherwise
eliminate the discharge of pollutants.
Reuse of municipal effluents has several advantages:
It can be a source of relatively high
quality water, and is particularly at-
tractive when compared to the expected
salt buildup in intensively recycled
steam electric and industrial efflu-
ents.
It is increasing in volume and quality
in contrast to most other potential
sources of supply.
It is a dependable supply and is even-
ly distributed over time and located
near urban areas. These can be favor-
able characteristics for steam elec-
tric and industrial supplies and, to a
lesser extent, for landscape irrigation.
Even when disregarding reuse as a source
for potable supplies, it can provide a
vehicle (through substitution or exchange)
for obtaining potable water from other uses
to supply the needs of growing municipal-
ities.
Reuse has particular appeal from a resource
management viewpoint in water-short and
coastal areas where it may significantly
supplement supplies and postpone the loss
of relatively high quality freshwater to
saline environments.
-246-
-------
It can also provide important environmental
benefits in terms of improved surface water
quality, protection of groundwaters, and en-
hancement of in-stream uses.
There are also significant impediments to widespread
implementation of reuse:
It tends to be costly.
Alternative water supplies or alternatives to
additional water supply are often less costly.
There are uncertainties about potential health
effects and the degrees of treatment needed to
protect against them.
In-stream uses and water quality may benefit
only for a short time or may be adversely af-
fected.
Downstream water rights may have claim on dis-
charges.
Psychological acceptance of reuse is critical.
Much of the presently available information on reuse
is on the use and effectiveness of various treatment
techniques prior to reuse. In contrast, information
on the realistic potential of reuse, its general ec-
onomic feasibility, and the actual risks of health
effects has only recently been given emphasis.
Since the beneficial impacts of reuse on in-stream
flows and water quality may be lost after a short
period of time by appropriation of flows for off-
stream use, there is a danger that Clean Water Act
funds will not have made their intended contribution
toward enhanced water quality.
-247-
-------
References: Chapter IX
American Water Works Association (AWWA) Research Foundation. 1978.
Water Reuse Highlights. Denver, Colorado.
California, State of, Department of Health Services. 1978.
"Wastewater Reclamation Criteria," an excerpt from the California
Administrative Code. Title 22, Division 4, Environmental Health.
Sacramento, California.
California, State of, Department of Water Resources. 1976. Water
Conservation in California. Bulletin No. 198. Sacramento,
California.
Chan, M.L. e_t jil_. 1976. Household Water Conservation and Wastewater
Flow Reduction. Prepared by Energy Resources Co., Inc., for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Culp, Wesner and Culp, Inc. 1979. Water Reuse and Recycling, Volume 1:
Evaluation of Needs and Potential. Prepared for U.S. Dept. of the
Interior, OWRT. Washington, D.C.
Harnett, H.S. and P.G. Hall. 1979. "Wastewater Reclamation for the
San Francisco Bay Region." Presented to the Symposium on Wastewater
Reuse, March 1979. Arlington, Virginia.
Laverty, G.L. 1979. "Leak Detection: Modern Methods, Cost and Benefits,"
JAWWA 71: 61-63.
Metcalf & Eddy. 1978. Current and Potential Utilization of Nutrients
in Municipal Wastewater and Sludge"(Volumes 1 & 2, Draft). Prepared
for the U.S. EPA. Palo Alto, California.
Murray, C. Richard and E. Bodette Reeves. 1977- Estimated Use of
Water in the United States in 1975. Geological Survey Circular 765.
U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
SCS Engineers. 1979. Wastewater in Receiving Waters at Water Supply
Abstraction Points. EPA Contract No. 68-03-2592. Draft.
Task Force 6a. 1978. Water Conservation: Preliminary Proposals for
Federal Agency Program Changes. U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C.
Task Force 9. 1979. Water Conservation in Housing Assistance Programs.
U.S. HUD. Washington, D.C.
Task Force 10. 1978. Progress Report: Water Conservation at Federal
Buildings. General Services Administration. Washington, D.C.
-248-
-------
Task Force 11. 1979. Grants and Loans for Municipal Water Supply and
Wastewater Treatment Systems. U.S. EPA. Washington, D.C.
Tiemens, M.F. and P.M. Graham. 1978. "Role of Water Conservation in the
Construction Grants Program." Presented at U.S. EPA Conference on
Water Conservation, October 4,1978. Chicago, Illinois.
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Water Research and Technology (OWRT).
1979. OWRT Water Reuse Research and Development Program: Project Abstracts,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. 1979. ORD Program Guide,
FY79. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Water Resources Council (WRC). 1968. The Nation's Water Resources.
(First National Assessment.) U.S. Govt. Printing Office. Washington,
D.C.
,1978a. The Nation's Water Resources: The Second National
Assessment, Part III: Functional Water Uses. (Draft).Washington, D.C.
,1978b. The Nation's Water Resources: 1975-2000. Volume 1:
Summary. (Second National Water Assessment.) U.S. Government Printing
Office. Washington, D.C.
Wasserman, K. 1978. "Water Conservation through Wastewater Reuse."
Presented to U.S. EPA National Conference on Water Conservation and
Municipal Wastewater Flow Reduction, November 28 and 29, 1978.
Chicago, Illinois.
-249-
-------
Chapter X
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRATION WITH SURFACE WATERS
A. Overview
1. Relationship to Parts 1 and 3
Groundwater is a source of drinking water for approximately 103
million people in the United States, including an estimated 95 percent
of the rural population. Based on the finding in Part 1 that groundwater
has not been addressed adequately, this chapter reviews quantity and
quality problems and selected case histories of management approaches to
these problems. Part 3 then identifies actionable items for better pro-
tecting and managing groundwater.
2. Types of Problems
The various quantity and quality problems which affect groundwater
have been grouped into three sections - overdraft, contamination from
waste disposal, and surface water interactions. This chapter discusses
both quantity and quality aspects in each of these sections. The
overdraft section (i.e., withdrawal of groundwater at rates greater than
replenishment) discusses problems due to inadequate supplies, land
subsidence, salt water intrusion, well interference, and induced contam-
ination. The contamination potential from surface impoundments, land-
fills and dumps, injection wells, and nonpoint sources are discussed in
the waste disposal section. Surface water interactions described in-
clude natural and artificial recharge, excessive pumping of groundwater,
and inflow of contaminated surface water.
As the variety of problems listed above indicates, there are many
direct and indirect pathways to groundwater. The flow in most aquifers
is slow, on the order of a few feet perdayor less. Thus, if pollutants
reach an aquifer, a long time is required to flush the aquifer. The
-250-
-------
contaminated groundwater may not be discovered until the plume reaches
a well or surface water. Clean-up operations are costly, difficult, and
in some cases impossible. Because of these factors, groundwater protec-
tion is essential. Another factor which stresses the need for protection
of aquifers used for drinking water sources is that many people use
groundwater with little or no treatment.
3. Relationship to Other Studies
Several studies and task forces are currently investigating ground-
water in response to the President's Water Policy, the Safe Drinking
Water Act and the Clean Water Act. Input from these studies has been
obtained where possible. The President's Water Policy is briefly dis-
cussed and three studies are summarized below which involve developing
policy options or actions that the Federal government can take to better
protect groundwater quality and to encourage integrated management of
surface and groundwater. Although numerous reports on groundwater
problems were reviewed for this study, the purpose in highlighting the
three aforementioned studies is to include their recommendations so that
present efforts to improve groundwater management and protection are
properly identified.
a. President's Water Policy
The President's Water Policy, presented to Congress on June 6,
1978, includes as primary concerns: Federal water programs, conser-
vation of water, environmental protection, and improved Federal/state
cooperation in water planning and policy development. The implementing
directive on Environmental Quality and Water Management of July 12, 1978
includes several references to groundwater as an integral part of the
Nation's water resource.
The Secretary of the Interior was delegated the responsibility
for implementing the Water Policy. Nineteen interagency task forces
were set up to develop plans and recommendations. One of these task
forces addressed groundwater supply issues with subtask groups to look
at Federal/ state cooperation, water resource projects, and budgets.
-251-
-------
The work and recommendations of the Groundwater Task Force is reviewed
in more detail in the next section. The Groundwater Task Force in
conjunction with the Instream Flows Task Force prepared a summary by
agency of Federal technical assistance and information available to
states on groundwater and in-stream flows (U.S. EPA, 1979a). Another
joint project was the compilation of general information on FY 1980
Federal agency programs and budgets relating to groundwater and in-
stream flows.
b. Groundwater Interagency Task Force
This task force included representatives from the Department
of Interior, EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Agriculture,
Tennessee Valley Authority, and three representatives from outside of
the Federal government.
Their objective was to develop recommendations for implement-
ing the Water Policy as it relates to groundwater. The main points in
the Environmental Quality and Management directive were: (1) to ensure
that the environmental impact and potential use of groundwater are
considered in the planning process for Federal water resource projects,
(2) to identify groundwater problems in the states and to ensure that
Federal actions do not contribute to these problems, and (3) to coordi-
nate Federal/state actions to avoid or to alleviate groundwater prob-
lems.
The Groundwater Task Force concludes that impacts affecting
supply and quality may result from many types of Federal actions and
programs, and that guidelines for consideration of groundwater in the
planning process should be applied to all Federal agencies, not just to
major water resource projects. The primary concerns addressed by the
task force were groundwater depletion, quality degradation, planning and
management deficiencies, legal problems, and relationship of groundwater
to in-stream flows. Mechanisms that the Federal government can employ
to alleviate these problems by direct action or by assistance to state
and local government were also reviewed.
-252-
-------
The final recommendations of the task force (EPA, 1978b and c;
1979b) have not been completed. The preliminary recommendations for
Federal actions include (1) to modify the Water Resources Council "Prin-
ciples and Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Resources" and
associated guidelines and procedures manuals to include groundwater
in the planning process, (2) to evaluate groundwater as a possible
substitute for Federal surface water projects, and (3) to identify
impacts the proposed projects might have on the quantity or quality of
groundwater. A groundwater assessment report would be prepared for each
project. Other Federal actions suggested were effective management of
groundwater by agencies with control of Federal lands, further ground-
water research and data collection efforts, and establishment of an
Interagency Coordinating Committee. Preliminary suggestions for com-
plementary state actions include development of legal and administrative
measures to protect groundwater, integrated management of surface and
groundwater, and encouragement of conservation.
c. Water Allocation/Water Quality Coordination Study
A study by the Water Planning Division of EPA was made to ex-
amine the relationships between the Clean Water Act's pollution control
programs and water allocation programs of the states and Federal govern-
ment. The study is required by Section 102(d) of the Act. In addition
to analyzing these relationships, the study is to include recommendations
for coordination of pollution control efforts and management of the
water resource. A draft report (U.S. EPA, 1979d) was prepared in January,
1979 but recommendations are not yet available.
The study reviewed the Clean Water Act programs, the intent of
Section 101(g), Federal and state laws governing water allocation, and
laws applicable to Federal/state conflicts and interstate conflicts.
The draft report summarizes potential quality/quantity conflicts, exist-
ing Federal authority over groundwater, and effects of state laws affect-
ing allocation.
-253-
-------
d. Groundwater Policy Committee of EPA
A task force has been set up within EPA to develop actions to
improve groundwater protection. A contractor will assist the Groundwater
Policy Committee to review existing EPA responsibilities and programs
and to make recommendations on ways to better protect groundwater quality.
The contractor will review legislation, existing EPA and state programs,
groundwater problems, and several recent case histories. The case
histories will be used to identify problems and develop suggested plans
for improvements. The study may identify ways to coordinate state and
EPA actions to protect groundwater quality and areas where problems with
hazardous materials exist that may not be adequately covered.
B. Extent and Severity of Problems
Three principal groundwater problems are discussed in this section:
overdrafting, contamination by waste disposal operations, and surface
water interactions. The purpose is to outline the extent of these and
related problems on a national and regional basis and to identify the
impacts on aquifers used as drinking water sources.
1. Overdrafting
Extensive mining of groundwater depletes the supply faster than the
water can be replenished by precipitation or recharge, and uncontrolled
pumping may lead to water supply shortages, land subsidence, or quality
problems. Groundwater mining provides approximately 20 of the 80 bgd of
groundwater withdrawn (WRC, 1978a). (Regions where overdrafting occurs
are identified in Part 1, Chapter III.) In some areas, such as the
Texas High Plains, mining of the Ogallala aquifer supplies nearly 50
percent of the water consumed. Of eleven hydrologic basins in California
eight are withdrawing groundwater at rates above the safe yield of the
basin. The groundwater mining accounts for 30 percent of the total
groundwater withdrawn or 2.2 million acre feet/year (2 bgd) (California
Department of Water Resources, 1974).
-254-
-------
a. Disruption of Water Supplies
Extensive pumping of an aquifer may deplete the supply by
lowering the water level below economically feasible pumping lifts,
causing shallow wells to go dry, and increasing well interference.
In areas such as those mentioned above, it is likely that much irrigated
agriculture now dependent on groundwater mining will eventually have to
abandon or greatly reduce irrigation. In the meantime most rural domes-
tic and community wells in these areas will have to be repeatedly aug-
mented (at major expense) as water levels fall simply to maintain pres-
ent withdrawals. In some areas, water levels have been falling rapidly
enough to warrant serious concern:
In the south-central Arizona area, groundwater levels
are presently declining on an average of 8 to 10 feet
per year (WRC, 1978b).
In the high plains area of Texas, New Mexico, Okla-
homa, Kansas, Nebraska and Colorado, the Ogallala
aquifer is the predominant source of water supply
and is being severely overdrafted. In the 15 county
area of Texas served by High Plains Underground
Water Conservation District No. 1 the average rate
of water-level decline averaged over the total area
and a ten-year period has been about 2 feet per year.
(Smith, 1979). In the Texas and New Mexico areas
which are irrigated, the underlying groundwater ta-
ble has been declining at approximately 3.5 feet per
year on the average (WRC, 1978c). In more limited
(but still extensive) areas, the average rate of de-
cline can be as high as 10 feet per year (Smith,
1979). Depletion of the Ogalla aquifer is now the
subject of a major Federal study through the Depart-
ment of Commerce.
In the San Joaquin Valley of California groundwater
overdraft continues at about 2.0 million acre-feet
per year (Peters, 1979). Although overdraft and
groundwater level decline have been significantly
lessened in some areas by Federal and state water
projects (California DWR, 1975 & 1976) additional
land has been brought into production with resul-
tant increases in overdraft in other areas (Peters,
1979). Rates of water table decline still approach
8 feet per year (California DWR, 1974) in extensive
areas, especially in Kern and Fresno Counties.
-255-
-------
b. Land Subsidence
The loss of water, particularly from fine grained aquifers,
can cause compaction of the aquifer material resulting in land subsi-
dence. This is a major problem in Arizona, California, Louisiana,
Nevada, and Texas. In the San Joaquin Valley, California piezometric
heads have declined by 200 to 600 feet resulting in a drop of land-
surface elevation of at least one foot over 4,200 square miles. The
maximum land subsidence in the western part of the area was 28 feet
(Comptroller General, 1977). Land subsidence in the Houston-Galveston,
Texas area of a maximum of eight feet has caused flooding and structural
damage to roads and buildings.
c. Saltwater Intrusion
Water quality degradation may occur from overdrafting by
causing the flow of saline water into aquifers. In coastal areas the
saline water comes from estuaries, bays, or oceans. Inland areas may
also have saltwater intrusion from saline aquifers which are below the
freshwater aquifers. Table X-l summarizes the types of saltwater intru-
sion problems found in 43 states.
Table X-l
TYPES OF SALTWATER INTRUSION PROBLEMS BY STATES
Number of States*
Affected Type of Salt Water Intrusion
27 Lateral intrusion caused by excessive pumping
11 Vertical intrusion caused by excessive pumping
8 Improper disposal of oil field brines
6 Intrusion caused by faulty well casings
5 Surface Infiltration
5 Layers of salt water in thick limestone formations
2 Vertical intrusion caused by dredging
2 Irrigation return flow
*
States may have more than one kind of problem.
Source: Newport (1977)
-256-
-------
Although the most severe problems were in coastal areas, 22 inland
states had saltwater intrusion problems. The potential for inland
problems is apparent considering that one-third of the U.S. has aquifers
less than 1,000 feet deep with IDS concentrations over 1,000 mg/1 and
another third has deep aquifers over 1,000 mg/1. Figure 10.1 shows the
regions where groundwater mining is occurring within the saline aquifer
zones including Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, New Mexico, and parts of
Arizona, California, Louisiana and Michigan. Groundwater mining with-
in the coastal zones is occurring in parts of Florida, Georgia, South
Carolina, and California in addition to the inland areas of the above
states.
There are various control measures which can be used to help
remedy saltwater intrusion problems. Freshwater barriers have been used
in the Los Angeles County region in addition to management of the ground-
water basin. Artificial recharge has been used in Santa Clara County,
California and may be used in Cocoa Beach, Florida. Reduced pumping is
the most common approach and has been used in six coastal states and two
inland states. In some areas wells had to be relocated, including sites
in eight coastal regions and two inland areas.
Saline water may also enter a freshwater aquifer by movement
through damaged casings or abandoned wells or from improper disposal of
oil field brines. Proper plugging of an abandoned oil well near Terre
Haute, Indiana and subsequent pumping of the supply wells 2,000 feet
away, reduced the chloride concentration from 550 ppm in 1955 to between
62 and 14 ppm in October, 1958 (Newport, 1977). This kind of solution
would be applicable only to localized saline water problems.
Brine disposal may be injection into the oil producing for-
mation or other saline aquifers; by use in enhanced recovery operations;
by discharge to surface water, sealed or unlined pits; or by other meth-
ods. The types of disposal methods used in the major oil producing
states and numbers of saltwater disposal wells and impoundments are
shown in Figure 10.2. The total number of saltwater disposal wells and
oil and gas related impoundments are estimated to be 40,000 (ADL, 1979)
and 71,632, respectively (Geraghty and Miller, 1978). As shown in
-257-
-------
Percent Mined
0- 9% f 1 40-69%
1 0-39% F^ i70%
I
ro
en
00
I
SALTWATER '1,000 FT DEEP
Figure 10.1 MAP SHOWING AREAS WITH GROUNDWATER MINING AND POTENTIAL FOR SALTWATER INTRUSION
Sources: Groundwater Mining Map: Water Resources Council (1978); Saltwater Aquifer Map based on EPA
(1976a).
-------
I
ro
en
oo f,,aO"
MAJOR OIL PRODUCING STATES
Piorlucinq 72 MCO
Mlf) •" of Salt V.'ai.'ir Disposal Wells (ML, I97'5)
i'OO ? of Salt W.iLcr Disposal Impounrlir.nnts (G'jr,n]hty ,uH Mi
Disposal Methods
I - Injection 5 - Surface Water
P - Pits R - Reuse
^Impoundments Assoc. with Oil and Gas Production
E - emergency usi? only
C - f npv/n Containinj t iun Case.
Figure 10.2 BRINE DISPOSAL METHODS USED IN THE MAJOR OIL PRODUCING STATES
-------
Figure 10.2, the highest number of brine disposal wells is in Texas and
the highest number of saltwater disposal impoundments is in Louisiana.
Contamination of water supplies has occurred from disposal of
oil field brines in the states identified in Figure 10.2. Some con-
tamination resulted from earlier practices such as large unlined seepage
pits. The major constitutents in oil field brines and the range of
concentrations are listed in Table X-2.
Table X-2
MAJOR CONSTITUENTS IN OIL FIELD BRINES
Parameter Amount, mg/1*
Chloride 30 - 403,200
Sulfate 0 - 2,300
Carbonate 0 1,200
Bicarbonate 60 - 1,850
Sodium 20 - 66,300
Calcium 5 - 206,300
Magnesium 1 - 7,300
TDS 1,000 - 642,800
*
Based on samples from 12 areas
Source: EPA (1977c)
Three constituents listed in Table X-2 are included in the secondary
drinking water standards—chloride, sulfate, and TDS. TDS concentra-
tions of the entire range exceed the standard of 500 mg/1. The chloride
standard of 250 mg/1 was exceeded in ten of the 12 areas. The sulfate
standard of 250 mg/1 was exceeded in four of the 12 areas. In addition
to these factors the high sodium concentrations would be harmful to
people with heart trouble. The contamination potential from saltwater
disposal wells is considered highest of all oil and gas related wells
(ADL, 1979).
-260-
-------
2. Contamination by Waste Disposal
Waste disposal either on land or directly into aquifers can result
in degradation of groundwater quality and even loss of the supply as a
drinking water source. This section discusses the national and regional
extent of several types of disposal including impoundments, landfills
and dumps, underground injection and nonpoint waste sources. The impact
of the waste on drinking water supplies depends on the volume, the
chemical and physical properties of the waste, the disposal method, the
characteristics of the soil and geologic formations at the disposal
site, the type of aquifer, the depth to groundwater, and the flow regime.
A qualitative assessment of the impacts of these disposal operations on
aquifers used as drinking water sources is made based on number and
concentrations of sites, volume and toxicity of wastes, and known
contamination cases.
a. Impoundments
Surface impoundments under the Safe Drinking Water Act include
any natural or man-made pits, ponds, lagoons, or depression with its
width greater than its depth and used primarily for disposal of liquid
wastes (U.S. EPA, 1978a). Impoundments may be used for disposal of
wastes by evaporation, seepage, or containment; for treatment of wastes
by aeration, oxidation, stabilization, or settling; or for temporary,
permanent, or emergency storage of wastes.
The actual number of impoundments is not known. A detailed
surface impoundment assessment (SIA) is being conducted by the states
with grants under the Act but will not be completed until June, 1980.
The SIA will provide data on number of impoundments, type and volume of
waste, location, and user. The data are to be entered into a data base
with a preliminary evaluation of potential for contaminating water
supplies. The evaluation system, based on a modified Le Grand System,
rates the unsaturated zone, groundwater availability and quality, and
waste hazard potential, and from these factors estimates the overall
groundwater contamination potential and the endangerment to water sup-
plies. In lieu of the SIA data base the preliminary survey of
-261-
-------
surface impoundments (Geraghty & Miller, 1978) is used in this
report.
The total number of impoundment sites is estimated as 132,712.
If the average number of impoundments per site is two to three, the
number of impoundments would be between 265,400 and 398,100. The esti-
mated volume of waste disposal through industrial, municipal, insti-
tutional, and oil and gas impoundments is 11,643 billion gallons per
year (bgy). Volume estimates for farm and private/commercial impound-
ments are not available. The number of impoundment sites and waste
volumes by user and types of industry are shown in Figures 10.3a and
10.3b, respectively. Industries dispose of the largest volumes of waste
in impoundments although petroleum extraction operations have the
largest number of sites. The breakdown by type of industry shows that
while the paper, chemical, and metal industries have only a small number
of sites (about 2,064) the volumes of waste are high (about 7,000 bgy).
This concentration of waste at relatively few sites increases the contam-
ination potential for drinking water supplies.
The relative number of impoundments by state is shown in
Figure 10.4. The numbers of manufacturing and mining establishments by
state are also shown to give an indication of the use of the impound-
ments. The large number of impoundment sites and waste volumes in the
Gulf Coast and Rocky Mountain states are associated with oil and gas
extraction with the next highest volumes associated with the chemical
and paper industries. Ohio has a large number of impoundment sites
associated with oil and gas extraction but the largest volumes are
disposed of by the metal and chemical industries. Of these the metal
and coal mining and processing industries use the largest number of
impoundment sites and the largest volumes. The Pacific Northwest and
Southeast regions dispose of high volumes of paper and chemical industry
waste. The Western Great Lakes region discharges high volumes of waste
from the metal mining and processing industries along with agricultural
and paper waste.
Contamination of aquifers from surface impoundments has been
described in several reports (Geraghty and Miller, 1978; Miller, et al.,
-262-
-------
10,000-
8,000-
6,000-
VOLUME,
BGY
4,000-
2,000-
n
I
Ik
1
!
1
//
\
\
r 70, 000
-50,000
No, OF
SITES
•30,000
-10,000
^ \c>9 ^\o^ QV^ c^- ^ ^
\^ ^°
CH VOLUME ^ NO. OF SITES
a. Volume and Number of Impoundment Sites by User
100-
80-
60-
PERCENT
BY
VOLUME
40-
20-
I
\
r
I
I
7771
rrn
rrr, 1 WA
rlOO
- 80
- 60
PERCENT
BY No,
OF SITES
- 40
- 20
PERCENT VOLUME ^ PERCENT NO, OF SITES
b. Breakdown by Type of Industry
Figure 10.3 USE OF IMPOUNDMENTS
Source: Geraghty and Miller (1978)
-263-
-------
cn
4=.
N
182 MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS
~ MINING ESTABLISHMENTS
Based on data from Geraghty and Miller, 1978.
TOTAL IMPOUNDMENTS
D
\\
\\\
<500
501-1,000
1,000-5,000
>5,001
Figure 10.4 LOCATION OF IMPOUNDMENT SITES BY STATE
-------
1974; EPA, 1977b and c). Table X-3 summarizes 85 cases obtained from 29
states for the preliminary surface impoundment survey. The greatest
number of cases occurred in the chemical products industries which was
also responsible for the highest number of water supply wells contam-
inated. The second largest number of cases occurred in the primary
metals industry. The chemical and metal products industries also ac-
counted for the most contamination cases out of 57 cases in the North-
east region (Miller, ejt al_., 1974). The contaminants which may be
present in industrial waste will be discussed at the end of this section
on waste disposal methods.
Table X-3
EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION - IMPOUNDMENTS
Contam. Cases % of Cases % of Cases
Industry # % Where Site Aband.* Wells Lost**
Mining 33
Paper Products 67 11 7
Chemical Products 26 31 22 43
Primary Metals 15 18 22 14
Oil & Gas 12 14 45 22
POTW 67
Agric. Processing 78
Misc. Waste 10 12 - 14
Disposal
TOTAL 85 100 100 100
* Number of Cases = 22
** Number of Cases - 12 but several wells could be lost per case.
In addition to lost wells groundwater degradation occurred in
69 other cases
Source: Geraghty and Miller (1978)
-265-
-------
Another study (EPA, 1977b) sampled 50 industrial waste dis-
posal sites in the eastern U.S. for organics and heavy metals and found
metal concentrations above background in 43 sites and organic contam-
inants in 40 sites. The constituents most often found above background
concentrations from highest to lowest were selenium, barium, cyanide,
copper and nickel. The least frequently found constituents were lead,
mercury, and molybdenum.
b. Landfills and Dumps
Solid waste may be disposed of in sanitary landfills, dumps,
or the ocean. As mentioned in Part 1, Chapter IV, one of the goals of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is to close all open dumps
within five years after the solid waste disposal site inventory is
completed or to upgrade the existing facilities to sanitary landfills.
The phasing out of ocean disposal of sludges by December, 1981 may in-
crease the volumes of sludge disposed of on land.
The volumes of sludge disposed of in municipal and industrial
landfills by percent are shown in Figure 10.5. The total sludge from
domestic wastes disposed of in municipal landfills was about 135 million
tons per year (mty) (EPA, 1977c). The largest contribution of sludge is
from secondary wastewater treatment plants since the highest population
is served. In addition some industrial waste is presently disposed of
to municipal landfills. The number of municipal landfills was estimated
as 18,500 (EPA, 1977c). These are distributed throughout the country
although more sites are located in the heavily populated regions includ-
ing the East, Gulf, and West Coasts and the Great Lakes region. The
major constituents in digested domestic sludge are listed in Table X-4
with the expected concentration ranges. The concentrations of some
metals can be quite high such as 50,000 ppm zinc and 30,000 ppm chromium
partly due to the inclusion of some industrial waste.
The total volume of industrial sludge including pollution
control residuals was estimated as approximately 260 mty based on data
for 1971 to 1975. The breakdown by type of industry on a percentage
basis is included in Figure 10.5. The chemical products industries have
-266-
-------
MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS
69 PERCENT SLUDGE
(48)PERCENT POPULATION SERVED
PETROLEUM
INDUSTRIAL LANDFILLS
Figure 10.5 SLUDGE VOLUME DISPOSED OF IN MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL
LANDFILLS
Source: EPA (1977c)
-267-
-------
Table X-4
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF DIGESTED DOMESTIC SLUDGE
CONSTITUENT RANGE. PERCENT OF TOTAL SOLIDS
Grease and Fats 5-20
Nitrogen 1-6
Phosphorus 1-4
Potash 0-3
Iron 3-8
Silica 10-20
Source: EPA (1977c)
Zinc 500-50,000
Copper 250-17,000
Nickel 25-8,000
Cadmium 5-2,000
Boron 15-1,000
Lead 100-10,000
Mercury <1-100
Chromium 50-30,000
Alkalinity 2,500-3,500
Organic Acids (as HAc) 100-600
pH 6.5-7.5
PPM
-268-
-------
the largest volumes of sludge and coal-fired utilities have the second
largest volumes. Projections from these data to 1977 show a total
sludge volume for all industries of 396 mty of which 6.8 mty is hazard-
ous waste.
Contamination cases have occurred from both municipal and
industrial landfills as shown by a summary of cases in the northeast
(Table X-5). Water supply wells were affected in 25 out of the total of
60 cases (41 percent) and the wells abandoned in 9 cases (15 percent).
The type of contamination differed between municipal and industrial
landfills in that toxic substances were the primary pollutants in 78
percent of the industrial landfills and only 12 percent of the municipal
*
landfills. Under adverse geologic and hydrologic conditions wide-spread
contamination of aquifers can result such as occurred at a landfill
located in a gravel pit which caused the loss of 33 residential wells, 8
public supply wells, and 3 industrial wells (EPA, 1977c). Costs to
provide alternative water supplies and take the corrective action of
pumping out the contaminated water in this case were more than $2 million.
c. Underground Injection Hells
Protection of groundwater used for drinking water sources is
included in the Safe Drinking Water Act. The regulations covering the
technical criteria and standards for the Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Program were reproposed and published in the Federal Register on
April 20, 1979 (40 CFR Part 146). The regulations covering the permit
procedures will be included in the new consolidated regulations for
NPDES permits, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the UIC
program (40 CFR Parts 122-124) to be published soon. The injection
practices to be included in the UIC program are divided into five clas-
ses as follows:
"Class I includes industrial and municipal disposal
wells and nuclear storage and disposal wells that
inject below all underground sources of drinking
water in the area.
-269-
-------
Table X-5
EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION BY LANDFILLS
Type of Landfill
Contamination Cases
Number of Cases
Percent of Cases
Landfills Abandoned
Number of Cases
Percent of Cases"1"
Water Supply Wells Affected
Number of Cases
Percent of Cases4"
Water Supply Wells Abandoned
Number of Cases
Percent of Cases+
Municipal
42
70
6
43
16
64
4
44
Industrial
18
30
8
57
9
36
5
56
Combined
60
100
14
23
25
42
9
15
+Percentages based on number of cases in the category except for
Combined Landfills which is based on total number of cases.
Source: Miller, et al., 1974
-270-
-------
Class II includes all injection wells associated
with oil and gas storage and production.
Class III includes all special process injection
wells, for example, those involved in the solu-
tion mining of minerals, in situ gasification of
oil shale, coal, etc., and the recovery of geo-
thermal energy.
Class IV includes wells used by generators of
hazardous wastes or hazardous waste management
facilities to inject into or above underground
sources of drinking water.
Class V includes all other injection wells.
Generally, wells covered by this Subpart inject
non-hazardous fluids into strata that contain
underground sources of drinking water. It in-
cludes but is not limited to the following types
of injection wells; waste disposal wells, such
as dry wells, non-residential septic system wells,
and sand backfill wells; and recharge wells, such
as drainage wells, cooling water return flow wells,
air conditioning return flow wells, salt water bar-
rier wells and subsidence control wells (not asso-
ciated with oil and gas production)." (40 CFR
Part 146, April 20, 1979).
The proposed definition of underground drinking water sources
is aquifers with less than 10,000 mg/1 IDS or aquifers presently used as
drinking water sources. States may exclude all or portions of aquifers
which cannot serve as drinking water sources due to severe contamination,
use for producing oil, minerals, or geothermal energy, or depth or
location if use of water for drinking is technologically or economically
impractical.
The estimated number and volumes of waste injected into ground-
water are given in Figure 10.6. The data are best estimates only. As
the UIC program is implemented these estimates will be improved, particu-
larly for Classes IV and V. Injection wells in Classes II and V account
for about 97 percent of the total wells and 90-95 and 3 percent of the
volume, respectively. The Class I wells make up less than 1 percent of
the total number of wells but inject 1 to 5 percent of the volume.
-271-
-------
250,000 ,
200,000 •
150,000 •
Number of
Wells
100,000
50,000
40,
44
304 5_ES
115,000
000
^N
N
X
N
^
^
|
|
1
•o
|
|
^
10 3 1987 J^ 7(L^° ^
30
O3U
680
510
Estimated
Volume of
Injection,
bgy
340
. 170
0
° *• £ * i ^* # n v ^ •£• nl # !V v
//// // •/-*/ ^ *
^ ^ ^ •-? 4- /? .s> *- .V ^
304
KEY
Number of Wells
Estimated Volume
Maximum Est. Volume
I Well Class
*In addition to injection wells used in oil and gas operations
there are an estimated 2 million producing or abandoned wells
which would be affected by the UIC regulations under the area
of review concept.
Sources: Temple, Barker and Sloane, Inc.(1978); Arthur D.
Little, Inc. (1979); Geraghty and Miller (1978);
Hartley (1978)
Figure 10.6 USE OF INJECTION WELLS IN 1979
-272-
-------
The number of the operating and drilled Class I wells by state
is shown in Figure 10.7. The wells are concentrated in the Gulf states
and the southern Great Lakes region. The states not shown as needing a
UIC program will be included either in May, 1979 or May, 1980. Most of
the Class II wells are located in the major oil producing states (see
Figure 10.2 for the number of brine disposal wells per state). The
wells used for enhanced recovery and hydrocarbon storage occur primarily
in California, Kansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Texas (ADL, 1979).
Solution mining wells are used for uranium, copper, sulfur, salt, and
potash. Most of these wells are located in Louisiana, Michigan, Texas,
and Wyoming. Geothermal injection wells are presently located in
California, Idaho, and New Mexico. Development in other states may
occur in the next few years including Hawaii, Maryland, Nevada, and
Oregon. Class IV and V wells occur throughout the country but specific
locations are not known at present.
Contamination from underground injection operations depends on
site, well, and waste characteristics and varies from one class to
another. The discussion of type of contamination from oil and gas
operations and municipal waste in earlier sections pointed out that the
pollutants are mostly constituents included in the secondary drinking
water standards (e.g., chlorides, TDS). The pollutants from industrial
and mining activities include these constituents as well as a variety of
heavy metals and toxic substances (Table X-6). Whether these substances
will reach an aquifer depends partly on the behavior of the constituent
in the soil and formation material. A general indication of the mobility
of some constituents is also shown in Table X-6. A waste disposal
operation which is sited and constructed with the soil characteristics
in mind may minimize the potential contamination. Other factors influ-
encing the contamination potential from injection wells are the mechani-
cal integrity of the well, whether freshwater zones are cased off and
cemented, and whether the fluid is injected under pressure or not. The
proposed UIC regulations will include specifications on well construc-
tion and cementing designed to minimize the contamination potential.
-273-
-------
ro
Upper number, operating wells;
1
8\
Lower number, total number of wells,
including operating, shutdown,
drilled and not used.
O Indicates state was listed for UIC Program.
209
•r- Represents nationwide estimates.
Figure 10.7 LOCATION OF CLASS I INJECTION WELLS BY STATE
Source: Reeder, ejt aJL (1977) and Temple, Barker and Sloane (1978).
-------
Table X-6
SELECTED WASTE COMPONENTS BY INDUSTRY
10
z
AMMONIUM SALTS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC**
ASBESTOS**
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BIOLOGICAL WASTE
CADMIUM*/*
CHLOR.
HYDROCARBONS**
CHROMIUM**
COBALT**
COPPER**
CYANIDE
FLUORIDE**
• **
LEAD
MAGNESIUM**
MANGANESE**
MERCURY*/**
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL**
OIL
ORGANICS, MISC.**
PESTICIDES (ORGANO-
PHOSPHATES)**
PHENOL
PHOSPHORUS**
RADIUM**
SELENIUM**
SILVER**'*
VANADIUM
ZINC*,**
SULFER**
NITROGEN*
CHLORIDE*
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS*
e>
•z.
LU
E:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PRIMARY METAL
PHARMACEUTICA1
X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
INORGANIC CHEI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
LU
X
<_>
trt
0 0
•z. 1— 1—
< in z
C3 ^ *-"•
or _i <
CD 0- CL.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
XXX
PETROLEUM REF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ex.
UJ
Q_
D_
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'MOBILE CONSTITUENT IN SOILS
"ATTENUATED BY ADSORPTION ON CLAYS, ORGANICS OR FE, AL COMPOUNDS
+FORMS COMPLEXES (E.G., CL)
++IRREVERSIBLY BOUND TO SOIL.
Source: Geraghty and Miller (1978); EPA (1977c); Summers, et. al.(1979)
-275-
-------
Specific contamination cases were described in several reports involving
cesspools, brine disposal wells, abandoned mines, sewage disposal wells,
storm runoff recharge wells, air-conditioning wells, industrial waste
disposal wells, and pesticide disposal (Geraghty and Miller and Temple,
Barker and Sloane, 1978; and EPA, 1977c).
d. Nonpoint Sources
Contamination of aquifers also occurs from nonpoint sources
including agriculture, mining, silviculture, construction, urban runoff,
residential septic systems, highway salting and storage facilities.
These sources and ways to control them were discussed in Part 1. Re-
sults of a survey of 809 contamination cases by the USGS in all 50
states showing the breakdown by source are presented in Table X-7.
Table X-7
SURVEY OF AQUIFER CONTAMINATION BY NONPOINT SOURCES
Source
of Contamination
Mine Drainage
Runoff
Agriculture
Spills & Leaks
Highway Salt
Abandoned Wells
Point sources
Saltwater intrusion
Subtotal
Total
Percent
of Contamination Cases
2
5
6
12
6
10
41
45
Jl
100
Source: EPA (1977c)
-276-
-------
Some of the problems caused by abandoned wells and mines will be covered
by the UIC program. The Areawide Waste Management (Section 208,
PL 92-500) programs addressed nonpoint sources in some areas including
Long Island which will be discussed in the case histories section.
Contamination from septic systems has resulted in some areas
changing to sewer systems and wastewater treatment plants. The number of
domestic septic systems is estimated to be 2 million (Metcalf and Eddy,
1979). The location of domestic systems at densities greater than 10
units per square mile is shown in Figure 10.8. Most of the areas with
high densities are located in the east with a few areas in California,
Oregon, and Washington. Rural and small town populations throughout the
country are also using individual septic systems. The total population
served by these systems is presently about 29 percent.
Contamination problems occur mostly in areas of very permeable
aquifers such as sand and gravel and where densities are high. In the
case of Long Island over a million people were served by septic systems
and the shallow glacial aquifer composed of sand and gravel was contam-
inated by nitrate. The Old Colony Planning Council in Massachusetts in-
vestigated the nitrate contamination under their 208 program and deter-
mined that individual septic systems would not be a problem if the
number of systems was restricted to a single unit per one-half to one
acre. Local contamination problems may occur in areas with individual
water supply wells if the groundwater flow directions are not considered
when the well and septic system are constructed. A new manual on con-
struction and use of septic systems is due to be published by EPA this
year.
3. Surface Water Interactions
Ground and surface waters may have both quantity and quality inter-
actions. Quantity interactions include direct exchange with unconfined
aquifers and exchange in the recharge area of confined aquifers. The
flow direction depends on the difference in water elevation between the
groundwater level and the depth of water in the river if the two are
hydraulically-connected. If the groundwater level is below the river
-277-
-------
ro
~g
CO
UNITS/SO.Ml. UNITS/SO.KM
< 10 < 3. 8
10-40 3.8- 15.4
>40 > 15.4
after EPA, 1977c
Figure 10.8 LOCATION OF DOMESTIC SEPTIC SYSTEMS
-------
bottom (no hydraulic connection) the water in the river may seep
through the bottom sediments where the permeability is not too low.
Surface water can also be used to artifically recharge the ground-
water through basins, spreading areas, or injection wells. In some
areas stormwater runoff is used for this purpose which can affect the
quality if high concentrations of metals, fertilizers, pesticides or
other pollutants are present.
Another quantity interaction is caused by heavy pumping of ground-
water in the vicinity of a stream. The cone of depression of the well
may expand to intersect the stream causing surface water to enter the
well. If this surface water is contaminated, the water quality of the
aquifer will be degraded. In some states this situation may not be
stopped because the allocation systems and water rights laws are dif-
ferent for ground and surface waters. Colorado law has a tributary
groundwater definition which protects the groundwater that flows to the
stream (i.e., baseflow). Decreased streamflow may occur after sewering
an area if the recharge from septic systems is large as happened in
Nassau County, Long Island (Cohen, e_t a]_, 1968).
Quality interactions take place in the instances cited above. If
either the surface or groundwater contains high concentrations of pol-
lutants, quality in the other source will be affected. In some areas
there may be seasonal water quality changes depending on the percentages
of baseflow and runoff. Landfills and dumps located in floodplains may
contaminate the surface water during floods. The surface water may
later contaminate the groundwater through recharge. Contamination of
the Biscayne aquifer in Florida occurred due to seepage from canals
carrying saltwater (Newport, 1977). In the Rathdrum Valley aquifer in
Spokane some contamination has occurred due to recharge from surface
water containing mine drainage and septic waste.
These types of interactions may occur in alluvial river valleys
and near lakes and ponds. The location of the major river valleys where
groundwater can be recharged by the rivers is shown in Figure 10.9. The
major valley aquifers are in the Northeast and Central regions. In the
glaciated part of the country these valleys are composed mostly of sand
-279-
-------
nilxcourses where ground waier can
tn replenished by perennial streams
FIGURE 10.9 LOCATION OF RIVER VALLEY AQUIFERS
Source: W.H. Thomas Conservation Foundation from Geraghty, et_ al_. (1973)
-------
and gravel which can yield large volumes of water but are easily con-
taminated. In the Central region the valley aquifers are composed of
thick alluvial sequences of sand, silt, and clay which do not yield such
large volumes of water. In areas where the regional groundwater move-
ment is toward a stream the surface water will also be affected.
4. Impact of Problems on Drinking Water
The descriptions of quantity and quality problems in the above
sections show that drinking water supplies are affected by overdraft,
waste disposal, and surface water interactions. Figure 10.10 compares
the areas impacted most by these problems with the usage of groundwater
by region. The map shows the percent of total withdrawals supplied by
groundwater along with the population using this source for drinking
water. Three regions have the highest potential for contamination --
California, Florida, and the southwest-Gulf states of Texas, Oklahoma,
Louisiana, New Mexico,Mississippi and parts of Kansas and Arkansas.
More than 90 percent of the population in Florida, New Mexico and
Mississippi use groundwater as a source of drinking water. More than 60
percent of the populations in the remaining states except California (46
percent) use groundwater as a source of drinking water. The southern
Great Lakes region has a high potential for contamination and the per-
cent of the populations served by groundwater ranges between 30 and 60
percent. As previously noted, California, Florida and southwest-Gulf
states are also subject to saline water intrusion problems (see Figure
10.1).
The existing legislative and administrative control measures and
applicable laws are reviewed in Part 1 and summarized in Table X-8.
These measures ensure some protection and will result in less quality
degradation. The permit processes can offer more protection if the
requirements are based on technical considerations such as soil char-
acteristics and depth to groundwater. The permit processes can also be
used to require or encourage use of technical control measures such as
liners and casing. Inspection of the permitted facilities is often not
done and would ensure that the procedures were followed.
-281
-------
Problem
Saltwater
Intrusion
Table X-8
LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL MEASURES
Agency
State/Local
Measure
Management
Status
21 cases/43 states
Surface
Impoundments
Federal
Federal
State
State Assessment
(SDWA)
RCRA Permits
NPDES Permits
To be completed
1980
Regulations proposed
32 States
Landfills,
Dumps
Federal
State
RCRA Permits
Close open Dumps
Permits
Regulations proposed
5 years after inventory
44 States
Injection Wells Federal
State
UIC Permits Regulations proposed
Well Regulations 43 States
Feedlots
Fed/State
NPDES Permits
Large lots only
Septic Systems Federal
State/Local
RCRA Permits- New
Permits
Multi-dwelling only
Regulations proposed
Most States
POTW (pipes)
Fed/State
CWA 201, NPDES
Permits
All States
Mining
Federal
Fed/State
Surface Mining Act Regulations proposed
NPDES Permits All States
-282-
-------
In addition to the permit type programs other measures have been
used to minimize quantity and quality problems. These include desig-
nating areas as groundwater management districts or critical areas, or
prohibiting waste disposal operations in aquifer recharge zones. The
next section describes several examples.
C. Case Histories
Several case histories are selected to illustrate some of the
management programs that have been used. Groundwater management has
helped to solve some quantity and quality problems. The methods include
regional water supply planning, local planning, 208 Areawide Hastewater
Management planning, and the Sole Source Aquifer Program of the Safe
Drinking Water Act. The case histories and major programs that were im-
plemented are identified below:
Quantity Problems
San Bernardino, California - State/Local Planning
Fresno, California - Integrated Surface/Groundwater Manage-
ment
Northeast Illinois - Regional Water Supply Planning
Quality Problems
Edwards Underground Reservoir, Texas - Sole Source Aquifer
Long Island, New York - Sole Source/208
For each case history a brief description of the problem is given
together with the management program and implementation mechanism selected.
1. Quantity Problems
a. San Bernardino Valley, California
The San Bernardino Valley of California is located in a semi-
arid region approximately 60 miles east of Los Angeles. In 1954, the
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) was organized to
plan for a long-range water supply for the San Bernardino area. The
district's total population was about 316,000 in 1970 and is expected to
increase to 690,000 by 1990.
-283-
-------
The principal water supply source for this area is an ex-
tensive groundwater aquifer ranging in thickness from 100 to 1200 feet.
In 1960, locally pumped groundwater supplied nearly 80 percent of the
water demand of the region (California DWR, 1970). The aquifer in this
region is alluvium consisting largely of sand, gravel, and boulders
interspersed with lenticular silt and clay deposits. Moreover, the
aquifer is cut by a complex system of faults and barriers across which
the flow of groundwater is generally restricted. Extensive pumping has
resulted in serious overdraft of the groundwater basin. Since about
1945, water levels have declined more than 100 feet and formerly swampy
lands have dried up and are now highly urbanized (Hardt & Hutchinson,
1978). This dramatic decline in water levels has caused additional
problems of land subsidence. Groundwater quality problems also occur in
some areas of the San Bernardino Valley as nitrate concentrations (N03-N)
above 10 mg/1 are found in some water supply wells. The probable sources
of this nitrate include fertilizer used for citrus and field crops, and
artificial recharge of sewage effluent discharged either to sewage
lagoons or to the Santa Ana River (USGS, 1977).
To alleviate the depletion of local groundwater supplies, the
SBVMWD contracted with the California Department of Water Resources for
an annual entitlement of 48,000 acre-feet of California Aqueduct water
beginning in 1973 and increasing to 102,000 acre-feet by 1990. Annual
deliveries from 1973 to 1976 averaged about 1,800 acre-feet (Hardt and
Hutchinson, 1978). The 208 plan for this area considered the impacts of
artificial recharge of imported water. The recharge of imported Northern
California water may cause groundwater levels to rise again in the area
that was formerly a swamp. This may cause structural damage to building
foundations. Accordingly, the SBVMWD has contracted with various consul-
tants to study the detailed relationshp between artificial recharge and
aquifer response. It is hoped that management alternatives, such as
varying recharge location, distribution, and amount can be identified
which would avoid excessive water level rises.
Nitrogen fertilizer application has been significantly reduced
in recent years due to the implementation of better agricultural manage-
ment practices. Section 201 facilities plans currently being formulated
-284-
-------
may identify ways to reduce nitrate inputs to the groundwater basin
arising from recharge of sewage effluent.
b. Fresno Irrigation District, California
Fresno Irrigation District was formed in 1920 as a successor
to a company which had been diverting water from Kings River since 1871.
The District's rights to Kings River water average about 415,000 acre-
feet (AF) per year. In addition, the District has a contract with the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for 75,000 AF of water. The average annual
supply of Federal Central Valley Project (CVP) water is presently
64,000 AF of which 60,000 AF goes to the City of Fresno. Neither the
City of Fresno, the water works districts, nor the City of Clovis have
treatment facilities to enable the direct use of surface water for
drinking. The District contains approximately 245,000 acres which is
essentially fully developed in a wide variety of high revenue crops and
urban and suburban lands. About 160,000 acres (or 65 percent) of this
land receive surface water. Available surface water is supplemented by
private pumping for irrigation use. The District does not provide
direct service to urban and suburban entities.
Substantial urbanization has occurred in the District since
1945 and it now has a population estimated at more than 300,000 people.
All water served by Fresno, Clovis, and the county water works districts
serving unincorporated areas, is supplied from groundwater sources. As
a result of heavy concentrations of pumping, particularly by the City of
Fresno, a substantial cone of depression developed. This adverse con-
dition led to the establishment of a cooperative water resource management
plan between the District and the City of Fresno.
An extensive water resource management program has been developed
through the cooperative efforts of the Fresno Irrigation District, City
of Fresno, City of Clovis, 15 county water works districts, and the
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (San Joaquin Valley Agricul-
tural Commission, 1979). The program involves the integrated use of
surface and groundwater, storm water control, and wastewater management
in an area where productive agricultural land is undergoing urbanization.
-285-
-------
The District delivers about 15,000 AF of the City of Fresno's
supply of CVP water to an artificial recharge basin in the Fresno.
Metropolitan area. This basin (117 acres) overlies the cone of depres-
sion previously created by overpumping of city wells. Additionally,
the District provides surface water to locations which would benefit
from recharge (i.e., decrease withdrawal rates, or increase groundwater
supplies). A similar arrangement is performed with the City of Clovis
utilizing a 70-acre artificial recharge basin owned and operated by that
city. Through these cooperative efforts, an efficient combined-use op-
eration is maintained, eliminating the necessity for construction of ex-
pensive water treatment and duplicate conveyance facilities. The Dis-
trict also cooperates with the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
by utilizing (during the irrigation season) five artificial recharge ba-
sins constructed by the Flood Control District for the percolation of
storm water during the rainy season. Plans include the addition of re-
charge basins to the program as funds become available.
Of particular interest is the cooperative arrangement between
Fresno Irrigation District and the City of Fresno regarding wastewater
management and reclamation. Wastewaters, including winery still age
wastes subject to secondary treatment, are discharged to a 2,000 acre
infiltration bed which percolate to groundwater thereby effecting ter-
tiary treatment. The City extracts groundwater from beneath the infil-
tration beds through a series of 21 wells which discharge into the Fresno
Irrigation District canal system. In turn, for each two acre-feet of
water pumped into the District canal system by the City, the District fur-
nishes about one acre-foot of fresh water from its surface supplies. This
water is delivered to the eastern portion of the District and in areas that
can best use it to recharge the City's groundwater supply. In 1978, enabl-
ing state legislation provided a means by which charges could be levied on
lands undergoing urbanization to generate funds for recharge facilities.
This bill (SB 2046) was supported by and will benefit the District and City
of Fresno in their continuing cooperative programs.
-286-
-------
c. Northeastern Illinois Regional Water Supply Plan
The Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) area
includes six metropolitan and suburban counties in the Chicago metro-
politan area: Cook, DuPage, Lake, Will, Kane, and McHenry counties,
Illinois. NIPC has estimated that these counties will grow from a
current population in excess of seven million to over nine million
people by the year 2010 (Keifer, et al_., 1979). About 200 communities
in NIPC's six-county planning area now rely on two major sources for
their domestic water supply: (1) surface water from Lake Michigan, and
(2) groundwater from both the deep and shallow aquifer systems of the
region. Neither source is unlimited. The amount of water Illinois can
divert from Lake Michigan was limited to 3,200 cubic feet per second
(cfs) by a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decree (U.S. Supreme Court, 1967).
The City of Chicago, 74 adjacent communities, and 36 other entities now
utilize 1,739 cfs of the total, 54 percent of Illinois' allotment.
Other uses that account for the remaining 1,461 cfs includes lockage
flows, water lost as leakage through three controlling structures on
the Chicago River System, navigational make-up, discretionary diversion
water for maintenance of water quality standards in the Chicago River
System, and storm water runoff. There is little likelihood that new
water users can be supplied with lake water, unless the volume demand
for one or more of the existing Lake Michigan water uses is modified
(Keifer, et al_., 1979).
The remaining communities rely on groundwater. Groundwater
resources are developed from four systems: (1) sand and gravel aquifers
of the glacial drift; (2) shallow dolomite aquifers of Silurian and
Ordovician age; (3) the Cambrian-Ordovician Aquifer, of which the Ironton-
Galesville and Glenwood - St. Peter Sandstones are the most productive
formations; and (4) the Mt. Simon Aquifer which consists of sandstone
beds of the Mt. Simon and Eau Claire Formations of Cambrian age (Suter,
et_al_., 1959; Walton, 1970). More than half of the supply from ground-
water sources comes from the deep sandstone aquifers (3) and (4) above.
This source, although widely productive, often contains high mineral
contents which require costly treatment practices. Pumpage of the deep
-287-
-------
sandstone aquifer has exceeded recharge for nearly 20 years with recent
data indicating that water withdrawal rates are three times greater than
replenishment rates (ISWS, 1976). Some communities rely on the shallow
aquifer systems which are very site-specific and not widely productive
at yields required for municipal water supply despite having large esti-
mated volumes of water available. Also, extreme variation in mineral
content of this shallow source in some areas makes costly treatment ne-
cessary. In 1974 pumpage rates from the shallow aquifer were only one-
fourth of its estimated potential yield (ISWS, 1976).
These limitations on current water supplies together with the
projected growth increases of Northeastern Illinois prompted the develop-
ment of a long-range water supply plan to ensure an adequate future
supply of water for this large metropolitan area. A planning study was
conducted by Keifer and Associates, Inc. for the NIPC through an urban
planning grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Development of the regional water supply plan was based on a set of
technical planning policies, grouped into four specific areas of concern;
(1) use of Lake Michigan water, (2) use of groundwater supplies, (3) use
of inland surface water supplies, and (4) general management of water
resources.
A digital computer model was developed to determine the ap-
parent cost-effective sources of water supply for each entity in the
six-county study area. Evaluations were made of nine different scenar-
ios, which examined the various alternatives for utilizing the four
available supply sources. Using the technical planning policies for
guidance and the computer modeling results, a preliminary regional water
supply plan was developed to meet the 2010 water demands for the six-
county area. The plan includes eight regional systems which are sup-
plied with water from the available surface waters and other areas
served by groundwater.
-288-
-------
2. Quality Problems
a. Edwards Underground Reservoir
The Edwards Underground Reservoir is located in South Central
Texas. The Edwards Aquifer lies within the physiographic provinces of
the Edwards Plateau and Western Gulf Coastal Plain, which are separated
along the Balcones fault zone. The aquifer is the sole source of supply
for about one million people in San Antonio and surrounding cities and
towns. In addition, discharges from this aquifer provide a substantial
amount of the base flow of the major river systems of the region (U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 1973).
The Edwards Underground Reservoir is an extremely fractured
and cavernous limestone aquifer, having a major water-bearing thickness
varying from 350 to 550 feet. Two distinct groundwater aquifers can be
identified, an unconfined zone in the Edwards Plateau through which most
of the recharge enters and an artesian aquifer in the Balcones fault
zone. The southern limit of the aquifer is an imaginary "bad water
line" beyond which the groundwater contains excessive amounts of hydrogen
sulfide and total dissolved solids.
The groundwater quality in the Edwards Underground Reservoir
is generally very good, aside from the moderate levels of hardness to be
expected in a limestone aquifer. However, there is some evidence of
temporary groundwater quality degradation in the recharge zone of the
unconfined portion of the aquifer following storm periods. In these
cases, moderate levels of turbidity, coliforms, and pesticides have been
observed. Such water quality changes indicate that the Edwards Aquifer
is vulnerable to pollution through its recharge zone. Water migration
through limestone aquifers occurs primarily through solution channels
and caverns. Hence, once introduced into the aquifer, pollutants may
travel rapidly with little attenuation.
Because of the extreme importance of the Edwards aquifer as a
water supply and its high vulnerability to contamination, a coalition of
local interest groups petitioned the EPA Administrator to designate the
Edwards Underground Reservoir as a sole source aquifer under the provisions
-289-
-------
of Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This designation
provided a means by which this critical groundwater source could receive
special attention and protection. In 1975, the Edwards Underground
Reservoir became the first of the sole source aquifer designations.
b. Long Island Groundwater
"Groundwater beneath Nassau and Suffolk Counties is the only
source of fresh water supply for almost three million people. The
quality and quantity of this water is modified by regional and local
water supply development policies and waste disposal practices" (Nassau-
Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1978 p. 5).
Two main water bearing units, the Upper Glacial and Magothy
aquifers, are the principal sources of water supply. The Lloyd aquifer,
a relatively unexploited source of water, lies beneath these two upper
formations. The three aquifers combined contain over 60 trillion gallons
of water (Cohen, ejt al_., 1968). There is not a problem with total
available supply although the uneven distribution of withdrawals has
created localized problems. Contamination of the groundwater has resulted
from a variety of sources including systems designed to discharge to the
ground (septic tanks, sewage treatment plant effluent, industrial waste
discharges, storm water recharge basins, incinerator quench water, and
scavenger waste disposal). In addition, a number of other activities
such as landfill,leaching, sanitary sewer leaking, animal wastes, ceme-
taries, highway deicing, sand and gravel mining, use of fertilizers and
pesticides, and spills and leakage contribute to pollution of the ground-
water.
Contamination of the groundwater, particularly the Upper Gla-
cial aquifer has been observed. Nitrate-nitrogen concentrations have
increased, although in most cases concentrations are still below the 10
mg/1 standard. Heavy metals are widespread in the shallow groundwater
although concentrations are generally below Primary Drinking Water
Standards. Enteric viruses were not found in a brief study of water
supply wells. Organic chemicals, including substituted benzene compounds,
napthalenes and various butylphtalates were found during special studies
-290-
-------
conducted as part of the 208 program. Partly as a result of potential
contamination, many of the shallow wells have been abandoned in favor of
less vulnerable supplies from deeper aquifers.
Long Island also exhibits close interactions between ground
and surface waters. The island has numerous perennial streams which are
largely groundwater fed. The stream habitat as well as the salinity
regime of the bays is largely dependent on these flows. Therefore
practices which affect the elevation of the groundwater table can have a
marked effect on both stream and bay ecology.
In general, groundwater has "not been developed according to
any scientific plan or long-term program with the objectives of protect-
ing water quality, maximizing the available resource, or minimizing the
impact on streams or bays" (Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board,
1978). The Nassau-Suffolk 208 program (1978) has found that fragmentation
of responsibility among numerous water supply units which are controlled
by local economic and political factors has hindered adoption of water
management proposals. The planning board further concluded that water
and waste management schemes can be most effectively implemented if
decisions are approached on an island-wide basis.
The Nassau-Suffolk 208 program developed and analyzed a large
number of wastewater management alternatives. From these a set of "preO
ferred plan alternatives" was recommended. The preferred alternatives
include measures for control of stormwater runoff, proper functioning of
on-lot waste disposal systems, reduction of fertilizer usage, reduction
of landfill pollution, control of animal wastes, control of industrial
waste, product storage and transportation, promotion of water conserva-
tion, and development of alternatives to ocean disposal of municipal
sludge.
The plans include, for the most part, nonstructural measures
and call for the institution or continuation of Best Management Prac-
tices. The plans include monitoring and demonstration programs.
Existing county and state agencies are now implementing many
monitoring, regulatory, and operational waste treatment programs. Some
-291-
-------
land use controls currently exist but nonpoint source control is weak.
Although, all the necessary agencies to implement the 208 plan now
exist, there are a number of options for organization and responsi-
bility. For example, water production and supply in Nassau County are
currently managed by 46 separate independent water companies.
The Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board (1978) has recom-
mended that specific county and state agencies be assigned responsibility
for various facets of operations, management, and planning.
D. Major Findings
The findings of this chapter are intended to point out major
quantity and quality problems and some observations on the management
and control programs currently in use. Potential changes are discussed
in Part 3. The major findings are:
Groundwater is the source of drinking water for about 47
percent of the Nation's population including 95 percent
of it's rural population. It is commonly less costly to
develop than surface water and is usually pure enough for
drinking with minimum treatment.
The most common quantity problem with respect to ground-
water results from overdraft or mining of the source.
As long as the quantity removed from an aquifer each year
is equal to or less than the average recharge to the aq-
uifer, the groundwater supply is theoretically permanent
and inexhaustible. If withdrawal exceeds the recharge,
the groundwater is being mined in the same sense as for
all minerals and the supply progressively diminishes un-
til the aquifer is exhausted. When overdraft ceases, re-
covery of the groundwater begins but in the drier areas
of the country, recharge is so low that centuries will
pass before the aquifer is refilled. Twenty billion gal-
lons per day of groundwater is now being mined in the
United States -- one fourth of the annual groundwater
pumpage.
Subsidence of the land with attendant disruption of over-
lying structures has occurred in many areas of overdraft
and represents a further economic cost of groundwater min-
ing. Subsidence also decreases the storage capacity of
the aquifer.
-292-
-------
Lowering of the groundwater levels as a result of mining
permits salt water from the oceans or from adjacent
aquifers to enter an aquifer. Thus groundwater mining
can cause or at least augment the pollution of the aq-
uifer being mined.
Groundwater has been a preferred source of drinking water
because of its purity. Increasing volumes of waste are
now being disposed of in ways which lead to pollution of
the groundwater. Because the groundwater moves very slow-
ly through most aquifers, many years may be required for
pollution once within the aquifer to pass through the sys-
tem. Unless it is economically feasible to correct the
pollution problem by pumping the polluted water from the
aquifer, a polluted groundwater source may be out of use
for decades.
Sources of pollution.in the groundwater include:
Over 130,000 surface impoundments of polluted water.
More than 20,000 landfills and dumps handling over 500
million tons of waste annually.
In excess of 400,000 injection wells used to inject
more than 900 bgy of wastes into the ground.
Nonpoint sources including agricultural and silvicul-
tural chemicals, mining waste, residential septic tank
systems, highway salting for snow control, and urban
storm runoff.
Surface impoundments are a serious problem due to the
large number of sites and volumes of waste, the fact that
it reaches the shallow aquifers used for drinking water
supplies relatively quickly, and the presence of a head
differential which can cause the waste to infiltrate
faster.
The various types of shallow injection wells present more
potential for contamination of currently used drinking
water supplies than the deep injection wells due to the
larger numbers and less control of siting and construction
for the shallow facilities.
Recent Federal legislation has provided some authority to
begin addressing the threats to groundwater quality posed
by wastewater disposal practices. In particular, Under-
Injection Control regulations recently proposed will ad-
dress injection wells. A surface impoundments inventory
-293-
-------
and assessment is being conducted, and the Resources
Conservation and Recovery Act provides a basis for con-
trolling those which contain hazardous wastes.
Dumps and landfills will also be controlled under this
Act. Both the Sole Source Aquifer provision of the
Safe Drinking Water Act and 208 planning under the Clean
Water Act provide additional management opportunities.
EPA is fully committed to implementing these management
tools in cooperation with the states; implementation is
now in its preliminary phases. Thus it is too early for
a detailed evaluation of results. Additional Congres-
sional involvement will undoubtedly be needed a imple-
mentation difficulties are encountered.
Regulation of groundwater mining falls within the author-
ity of the states to establish water law. Many states
have no laws specifically regulating the use of ground-
water and where such laws exist, vigor of enforcement
varies. Strong special interests tend to resist any
effort to more intensively manage groundwater as a fra-
gile and renewable resource.
Both groundwater quality and quantity are neglected by
most governmental units in terms of data, analysis, pro-
tection from degradation and regulation of use. The in-
terrelationships between quality and quantity aspects of
ground and surface waters are usually ignored. Although
some political units have addressed groundwater manage-
ment where water supply is short or the quality of exist-
ing supplies is poor, this is the exception. It is expec-
ted that groundwater management and integration with sur-
face water programs will be a topic for increasing congres-
sional attention.
-294-
-------
References: Chapter X
Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1979. Draft Final Report: Underground
Injection Control Program Estimated Cost of Compliance.
California Department of Water Resources, 1974. The California
Water Plan Outlook in 1974. Bulletin No. 160-74.
, 1970. Meeting Water Demands in the Bunker Hill-San
Timoteo Area. Bulletin 104-5.
California, State of, Department of Water Resources. 1974. The
California Water Plan: Outlook in 1974. Bulletin No. 160-74.
Sacramento, California.
, 1975. California's Ground Water. Bulletin No.
118. Sacramento, California.
, 1976. Hydrologic Data: 1975. Volume IV: San
lyd ro
ITetT
Joaquin Valley. Bulletin No. 130-75.Sacramento, California.
Cohen, P., O.L. Franke, and B.L. Foxworthy, 1968. An Atlas of
Long Island's Water Resources. New York Resources Commission
Bulletin 62.
Comptroller General, 1977. Groundwater: An Overview Report to
Congress No. CED-77-69.
, 1978. Waste Disposal Practices - A Threat to
Health and the Nation's Water Supply. Report to Congress No.
CED-78-120.
Coulson, F. and E. Mrak, 1977. Water Quality Proceedings of an
International Forum. New York: Academic Press.
Federal Register, 1979. (40CFR Part 146). Water Programs:
State Underground Injection Control Programs. Vol. 44, No. 78.
Friday, April 20th, p. 23638-23767.
Geraghty, J.J., and others, 1973. Water Atlas of the United
States. Water Information Center, Port Washington, New York.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc. and Temple, Barker, and Sloane, Inc.,
1978. Final Report: Underground Injection Control Regulations
Subpart F Injection Well Practices.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1978. Surface Impoundments and Their
Effects on Groundwater Quality in the United States—A Prelim-
inary Survey. EPA 560/9-78-004.
-295-
-------
Governor's Commission to Review California Water Rights Law,
1978. Final Report.
Hardt, W.F. and C.B. Hutchinson, 1978. "Model Aids Planners in
Predicting Rising Groundwater Levels in San Bernardino, Cali-
fornia." Groundwater. V. 16, No. 6, pp. 424-431.
Hartley, R.P., 1978. Pollution Control Guidance for Geothermal
Energy Development. EPA Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory Office of Research and Development. EPA-600/7-78-
101.
Illinois State water Survey (ISWS). March, 1976, Testimony of
William C. Ackermann Regarding Water Resources of Illinois with
Respect to Allocation of Lake Michigan Diversion Water. Chicago,
Illinois.
Jenks, Adamson, and Santa Clara Valley Water District, 1974. A
Program for Water Reclamation and Groundwater Recharge, Pre-
design Report.
Keifer, C.J., D.E. Westfall, D.A. Pagan, and F.C. Neal, 1979.
Regional Water Supply Planning Study for Northeastern Illinois,
Water Resources Bulletin, V. 15, No. 1, pp. 17-29.
Metcalf and Eddy, 1979. Personal communication, April 15th.
From Don Schroeder to update 1976 Needs Survey done by Metcalf
and Eddy.
Miller, D.W., F.A. DeLuca, and T.C. Tessier, 1974. Groundwater
Contamination in the Northeast States. EPA 660 2-74-056.
Nassau Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1978. Summary Plan 208
Areawide Waste Treatment Management Interim Report Series: 7.
Newport, B.D., 1977. Salt Water Intrusion in the United States.
EPA-600/8-77-011.
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC), 1976.
Estimated Future Water Supply Demands for Northeastern Illinois.
Prepared for the Illinois Department of Transportation, Division
of Water Resources, Chicago, Illinois.
Peters, J., 1979. Personal Communication. California Department
of Water Resources. Sacramento, CA.
Pojasek, R.B., ed., 1977. Drinking Water Quality Enhancement
Through Source Protection. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ann Arbor
Science Publishers, Inc.
-296-
-------
Reeder, L.R., J.H. Cobbs, J.W. Field, W.D. Finley, S.C. Vokurka,
and B.N. Rolfe, 1977. Review and Assessment of Deep-Well
Injection of Hazardous Waste. EPA 600-2-77-029a.
Roberts, et_ al_., 1978. Groundwater Recharge by Injection of
Reclaimed Water in Palo Alto. Stanford University, Civil
Engineering Technical Report No. 225.
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, 1972. Water:
A Pledge and a Promise Fulfilled.
San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Water Committee, 1979. Water
Resources Management in the Southern San Joaquin Valley,
California. Prepared by Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, Inc.
Silka, L.R. and T.L. Swearingen, 1978. A Manual for Evaluating
Contamination Potential of Surface Impoundments. EPA Groun-
water protection Branch Office of Drinking Water. EPA 570/9-
78-003.
Smith, D., 1979. Personal Communication. High Plains Under-
ground Water Conservation District No. 1. Lubbock, Texas.
Summers, K., S. Gherini, and C. Chen, 1979. Screening Meth-
odology for Groundwater Contamination from Geothermal Energy
Development. Prepared for U.S. EPA.
Suter, M., et_ a]_., 1959. Preliminary Report on Groundwater
Resources of the Chicago Region. Illinois State Water Survey
and Geological Survey Cooperative Groundwater Report No. 1.
Temple, Barker and Sloane, Inc., 1978. Final Report: Analysis
of Costs Underground Injection Control Regulations Subparts C
and E.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973. Edwards Underground
Reservoir, Guadelupe, San Antonio and Nueces River and Tribu-
taries, Texas.
U.S. EPA, 1976a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement—State
Underground Injection Control Program. Proposed Regulations
(40 CFR Part 146).
, 1976b. A Manual of Laws, Regulations, and Insti-
tutions for Control of Groundwater Pollution. EPA-440/ 9-76-
006. Prepared by National Water Well Association.
, 1977a. Water Quality Management Accomplishments
Compendium I. EPA-1530-SW/634.
-297-
-------
, 1977c. Waste Disposal Practices and Their Effects
on Groundwater. Report to Congress.
U.S. EPA, 1978a. Guidance for the Conduct of the Surface
Impoundment Assessment. SIA Technical Guidance No. 1.
, 1978b. Management Actions Required to Solve Ground-
water Problems. Draft Report of Groundwater Supply Working
Group.
, 1978c. Draft Guidelines for Groundwater Assess-
ment. Draft Report of the Groundwater Supply Task Force.
, 1979a. Federal Assistance Available to States on
Groundwater Supply and Ihstream Flows. Prepared by Groundwater
and Instream Flows Task Groups. Office of the Secretary,
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
, 1979b. Federal Water Policy Implementation. Draft
Report of Groundwater Supply Task Force 2b.
, 1979c. Draft Consolidated Permit Program Regula-
tions.[40 CFR Parts 6, 122-125). February.
, 1979d. Water Allocation/Water Quality Coordination
Study Preliminary Draft Report to Congress.
, 1979e. FY80 State EPA Agreement Guidance.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1971. Subsidence in the Bunker Hill-
San Timotoe Area. USGS Open File Report.
, 1977. Distribution of Nitrate in Groundwater,
Redlands, California. USGS Water Resources Investigations 76-
117.
U.S. Water Resources Council, 1978. The Nation's Water Re-
sources; Part IV Water Supply and Water Quality Considerations.
, 1978b. The Nation's Water Resources: The Second
National Water Assessment.Lower Colorado Region (15),
(Preliminary:For Review Only). Washington, D.C.
1978c. The Nation's Water Resources: The Second
National Water Assessment."Texas Gulf Region (12)" (Preliminary:
For Review Only).Washington, D.C.
United States Supreme Court, 1967. Wisconsin, ejt a_l_., versus
Illinois, et al_., U.S. Reports, V. 88, p. 426. June 12.
-298-
-------
Walton, W.C., 1970. Groundwater Resource Evaluation. McGraw-
Hill Book Company: New York.
White House, 1978. Rural Development Initiatives: Making
Water and Sewer Programs Work.
-299-
-------
Chapter XI
SMALL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
A. Introduction
The assessment section of this report indicates that providing an
adequate and dependable supply of safe drinking water at the local level
in small water supply systems is a critical problem nationwide. The
objective of this chapter is to focus on the types and extent of problems
experienced by small water systems; examine why the problems can be more
severe on these systems; review the currently available assistance
programs; and present several findings.
B. Profile of Small Systems
To place the problems of small water systems in perspective, the
brief discussion of the water supply industry in the U.S. presented in
Chapter VI is expanded. For this discussion, municipal or domestic
water supply systems are divided into the four categories shown in Table
XI-1. The first three categories are all public water systems having at
least 15 connections or serving at least 25 people regularly, as defined
and covered by the Safe Drinking Water Act. The National Interim Pri-
mary Drinking Water Regulations (IPDWR) subdivide public systems into
community and noncommunity systems. Community systems serve permanent
or year-round residents while noncommunity systems serve their "regular"
customers at least 60 days per year. The remaining systems are classi-
fied as rural and consist principally of individual wells serving one or
a few residences.
Community water systems are further subdivided into two size
categories: small, serving less than 10,000 people, and medium-large,
serving more than 10,000 people. This cut-off is the upper eligibility
level for rural water and sewer development funding under the Farmers
Home Administration (FmHA) and does not necessarily represent a distinct
change in the severity of problems encountered. The severity of
-300-
-------
problems between a system serving 9,500 persons and one serving 100
may be much greater than between the former and one serving 15,000. The
The definition, therefore, must be recognized as somewhat arbitrary for
any given water system, and is used primarily to provide a general basis
of comparison.
Table XI-1
DISTRIBUTION BY WATER SYSTEM CATEGORY OF
POPULATIONS SERVED, MAXIMUM USE, AND
NUMBER OF SYSTEMS, 1978
Category
Estimated
permanent population Maximum daily use, Number of
served, millions persons, millions systems^
Public systems
Medium large
community systems
(>10,000 served)
Small community
systems
(<10,000 served)
Noncommunity
systems
Rural systems
176
39
23
23
3,000
58,000
160,000
Unknown
a. Extrapolated from Temple, Barker, and Sloane, 1977.
b. Adapted from Energy Resources Co., 1975, Appendix B.
c. Federal Reporting Data System, April 1979.
1. Population Served and Number of Systems
As shown in Table XI-1, an estimated 57 million people, or about
25 percent of the national population, are served by small or rural
water systems. Of these, approximately 34 million people are served by
community water supply systems. The estimate of 23 million people
served by rural systems is derived by subtracting the estimate of
population served by community systems in a recent survey (Temple,
Barker, and Sloane, 1977) from the estimated total national population.
This estimate is lower than some others -- e.g., 33 million (WRC, 1978)
and 36.4 million (SCS, 1975); therefore, the exact number is uncertain.
-301-
-------
In the latter study it was estimated that only 177 million people were
served by community systems, referred to as central systems in the
study.
The estimate of maximum daily use in Table XI-1 represents the
permanent population served plus the maximum seasonal and transient
population that might be served daily. In the aggregate, community
systems serve 10 to 15 percent additional transient population at peak
periods, although the national totals tend to mask the local impact of
seasonal populations, particularly in resort areas. The seasonal popu-
lation may actually be greater than the permanent population served by
some small community systems (Temple, Barker, and Sloane, 1977). The
most dramatic statistic is the large maximum daily use of noncommunity
systems that serve a very small permanent population. These include
systems serving parks, campgrounds, motels, restaurants, and industrial,
institutional, and commercial establishments with their own water sup-
ply. The estimate of 10 million people is calculated from data con-
tained in a previous study (Energy Resources Co., 1975) but is approx-
imate and probably conservative. Recent preliminary estimates reported
by states (FRDS, 1979) have indicated a total as high as 97 million
served by noncommunity systems, but this figure probably includes both
daily and total annual estimates.
Although about 75 percent of the population is served by medium-
large public systems, small water systems account for 95 percent of the
number of community systems. Furthermore, the number of noncommunity
systems is more than twice the number of community systems, and the
number of rural systems is a much greater, though unquantified number.
Thus, relatively few systems serve much of the population, and a vastly
greater number serve the remaining 25 percent.
While it is recognized that a significant population is served by
rural systems, this report will focus mainly on public water systems
that are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The problems and
needs of rural water systems are being addressed in detail as part of
the Rural Water Survey currently underway in response to Section 3 of
the Act.
-302-
-------
2. Regional Distribution
Small water supply systems are distributed nationally, as shown in
Figure 11.1. Differences in the number of systems reflect primarily the
total population distribution between the regions. The figure does not
reflect that small community systems represent a uniformly high percent-
age -- i.e. 93 to 97 percent -- of total community systems in all
regions.
3. Source of Water
The predominant source of water for small systems is groundwater,
as shown in Table XI-2. Over 90 percent of the systems serving less
than 100 people use groundwater as a primary source, and over 85 percent
of all small systems use groundwater either directly or as a purchased
supply. Noncommunity systems also rely heavily on groundwater; data
compiled from a number of sources (Energy Resources Co., 1975) indicate
that close to 90 percent of these systems used groundwater.
Table XI-2
DISTRIBUTION OF SMALL COMMUNITY
WATER SYSTEMS BY PRIMARY SOURCE
(Percent)
Primary
source
Size of population
<100 TOO 999 1,000 - 9,999 All systems <10,000
Ground
Surface
Purchased
93
4
84
7
65
21
84
8
Ground
Surface
1
2
2
7
3
11
2
6
Source: FRDS, April 1979.
-303-
-------
i
CO
o
50
40
30
20
10
o
03
.L
ill!
"M^
•v ; ;.;.;
NONI
PUBl
SOURCE: PROS, 1979
( PRELIMINARY )
SOURCE: ENERGY RESOURCES, 1975
IV
VI
VI
VI
IX
EPA REGION
Fioure 11.1 REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF SMALL COMMUNITY AND NONCOMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
Sourcts: FRDS (May,1979) and !:ner«y Resources Co. (1975)
-------
4. Ownership
As indicated in Table XI-3, most small water systems are publicly
owned except for those serving less than 500 people. Private ownership
is particularly common for those serving less than 100 people.
Table XI-3
DISTRIBUTION OF SMALL COMMUNITY
WATER SYSTEMS BY OWNERSHIP
(Percent)
Size of population
Ownership 25-99 100-499 500-999 1,000-2,499 2,500-4,999 5,000-9,999
Public
Private
8
92
42
58
81
19
86
14
86
14
93
7
Source: Temple, Barker, and Sloane, 1977.
C. Extent and Severity of the Problems
Two levels of analysis are used to discuss the problems that small
water supply systems have in delivering an adequate and dependable
supply of safe drinking water. This section presents a brief description
and quantitative assessment, when possible, of performance problems;
i.e., the ability to meet water quality requirements and quantity demands.
The subsequent section analyzes some of the reasons why small systems
may have more difficulty meeting the performance requirements placed on
them.
1. Quality Problems
The basic measures of adequate and safe quality are the IPDWR and
the Proposed Secondary Standards, as discussed in Chapter IV. As of
1978, community water systems had to monitor and report on microbiolog-
ical quality for all systems, and turbidity and inorganic chemicals for
surface water systems. Some compliance information is now available in
the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS) through annual State Compliance
-305-
-------
Reports, and is the main source for this analysis. The data on ground-
water quality are incomplete. The other comprehensi-ve data are from the
U.S. Public Health Service Community Water Supply Study conducted in
1969 (PHS, 1969) which reviewed compliance with recommended and mandatory
limits as well as other system deficiencies for a limited number of
systems.
Both maximum contaminant level (MCL) violations, and reporting and
monitoring violations reported by the states, are summarized in Table
XI-4. The first three categories of violations are taken directly frow
the information available from FRDS as of April 1979. Inorganic constitu-
ents MCL violations for groundwater systems are from a 1975 economic
evaluation of the regulations (Energy Resources Co., 1975), which is
based in part on data from the aforementioned Public Health Service
study. Values provided in the table represent the systems violating a
given requirement as a percentage of all systems in the same size and
source categories. For example, 36 percent of all small systems using
surface water violated the reporting and monitoring requirement.
Table XI-4
IPDWR VIOLATIONS FOR COMMUNITY
WATER SYSTEMS
(Percent)
Violations, % of systems
Size of
system
Small
Medium-
large
All sources
Microbiological3
Reporting
and
MCL monitoring
24 35
14 24
Surface waters
Turbidity3
Reporting
and
MCL monitoring MCL
10 36 7
9132
only
Inorganic
chemical3
Reporting
and
monitoring
8
5
Groundwater only
Inorganic
chemical b
Reporting
and
MCL monitoring
9 n/a
17 n/a
a. Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS) April 1979.
b. Adapted from Energy Resources Co., 1975, and FRDS information on surface
water systems.
-30.6-
-------
Some general observations can be made in view of this information.
The most commonly violated standards are the microbiological MCL and
monitoring requirements. Small systems show a significantly greater
percentage of violations than do large systems, and over one-third of
the small systems have not met the monitoring and reporting require-
ments. MCL violations occur in other standards for small systems, but
are not as severe as microbiological violations. The violations in
other standards also do not appear to exhibit a significantly higher
percentage than the violations for systems in the medium-large category.
On the other hand, reporting and monitoring violations for turbidity are
high for small systems using surface water. Since turbidity requires
daily monitoring, it is not surprising to find a large number of viola-
tions.
Another aspect of the microbiological violations is noted in Table
XI-5. Approximately 30 percent of small water supply systems employ or
have the capability of disinfection. However, the violation rate for
systems with disinfection facilities is over 20 percent and only slightly
lower than the rate for systems without disinfection facilities. This
demonstrates that having the necessary treatment capability does not
necessarily ensure better performance.
Table XI-5
MICROBIOLOGICAL VIOLATIONS AND DISINFECTION PRACTICES
SMALL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
(Percent)
Existing treatment capability
Disinfection No disinfection
Systems having stated
capability 30 70
Systems in violation (percentage
of those having the stated
capability) 21 25
Source: FRDS, 1979.
-307-
-------
Another way of looking at the quality data is to estimate the
relative population affected by noncomplying systems— This information
can be estimated by using the violation data by system size category li-
(Table Xl-4) and the estimated mean population served by size category
from a 1976 survey (Temple, Barker, and Sloane, 1977). The results ar«
shown in Table XI-6. A sizable population is affected by small systems
in violation of the drinking water standards, although, in absolute
numbers, a greater total population is affected by medium and large
systems in violation of standards. A much higher percentage of the
population served by small systems is affected than for medium and larft
systems.
Table XI-6
ESTIMATES OF POPULATION AFFECTED BY
IPDWR VIOLATIONS, COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS
Small systems
Total population served
Microbiological violations3
MCL
Reporting and monitoring
Turbidity violations'*
MCL
Reporting and monitoring
Inorganic chemical
violations'5
MCL
Reporting and monitoring
Inorganic chemical
violationsc
MCL
Reporting and monitoring
Population
Mill ions
34.0
10.0
14.0
0.8
1.9
0.2
0.4
3.8
n/a
affected
%
...
30
41
2
6
<1
1
11
Medium-large
systems
Population affected
Millions
161.0
20.0
28.0
6.7
8.1
0.9
4.0
10.2
n/a
%
--
12
17
4
5
<1
?
6
Notes: MCL = Systems violating maximum contaminant levels.
Reporting and monitoring = Systems violating reporting and
monitoring requirements.
n/a = Not available.
a. All systems.
b. Surface water systems only.
c. Groundwater systems only.
-308-
-------
Although compliance with primary regulations is the principal
indicator of the safety of drinking water supplies, a number of supplies
may be inadequate because they exceed one or more of the secondary or
recommended standards (Note: some of these may in fact be mandatory
limits in some states). As discussed in Chapter IV, high salinity is
one of the most common drinking water quality problems identified in the
WRC Second National Assessment, and many small systems may have this
problem because they depend on groundwater. Among the systems surveyed
in the Public Health Services Study (1969), about 24 percent of the
systems serving less than 10,000 people exceeded recommended but not
mandatory limits. However, certain constituents, such as nitrate and
turbidity are now primary standards, but were considered recommended
limits under the 1962 Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards
when the study was conducted. Therefore, this estimate of systems and
the current estimate of systems in violation of primary standards prob-
ably overlap.
Recent data on the quality of water served by noncommunity systems
are not available, because initial reporting of IPDWR compliance for
those systems was not required by 1978. Limited information from a
number of sources has previously been compiled (Energy Resources,
1975). In that sampling of data, about 7 percent of the noncommunity
systems exceeded an inorganic chemical MCL, and about 17 percent of the
systems exceeded the coliform MCL.
2. Quantity Problems
As indicated in Chapter III, severe local municipal and rural do-
mestic water supply shortages were identified in over half of the WRC
subregions. Although shortages clearly occur for small systems, it is
difficult to assess quantitatively the extent and severity of the prob-
lem since no national data base exists for water system needs other than
the quality information discussed previously. An unpublished study by
the FmHA in 1970 identified about 14,000 communities with central water
systems needing enlargement or improvement, but this study does not
-309-
-------
provide an accurate or recent estimate of quantity problems specifi-
cally. The FmHA is beginning a National Rural Communities Facilities
Investment Study that will attempt to quantify infrastructure needs, in
14 services, including water supply.
The shortages may reflect an inadequate source of supply to meet
average or peak demands, or a lack of treatment, storage or distribution
capacity to deliver the water that is needed. In many cases, an insuf-
ficient source of water results from quality or economic factors rather
than a complete lack of any available water supply. That is, the costs
to develop a new supply (e.g., drill a deeper well), or provide addition-
al treatment, may be the barrier to providing the needed quantity of
supply, particularly for small water systems. Inadequate distribution
or storage capacity may often be the single greatest barrier to improv-
ing the overall delivery capacity of the system. The cost of construct-
ing storage or replacing undersized distribution lines can be more
expensive than increasing well capacity, for example.
Most small systems depend on groundwater, and overdrafting is oc-
curring in many regions, as discussed in Chapter III. Declining water
tables often first affect small systems that use shallow wells. Or small
resort communities that depend heavily on surface water may run into
problems as on the Oregon coast. The financial and technical capabil-
ities of such systems to develop adequate surface storage to meet peak
demands are limited. Thus, while the national extent of quantity prob-
lems cannot be specifically assessed, numerous examples indicate that
many small systems experience water shortages.
D. Factors Affecting Problem Recognition and Correction
Deficiencies in quantity, quality, or both occur in many water
supply systems and in order to solve an inadequate performance condition
any water supply utility must be able to: (1) recognize that an inade-
quate condition exists and identify the extent of the problem, and (2)
take corrective action. (A simple illustration of this process is
provided in Figure 11.2.) In many cases, the corrective action will
involve evaluation of alternatives -- such as between installing
-310-
-------
MANAGEMENT & SUPERVISION
SELF MONITORING
REGULATORY AGENCY
MONITORING & INSPECTION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
INCREASED OPERATING
EXPENDITURES
SOURCE PROTECTION OR
NEW SOURCE DEVELOPMENT
PHYSICAL PLANT FAILURE
ROUTINE OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE
CAPACITY OR PRESSURE
SHORTAGES
CORRECTION
OF
INADEQUATE
(M1T10NS
IMPROVED OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE CAPABILITIES
REG IONALIZAT I ON/CONSOLIDATION
OF FUNCTIONS
IDENTIFICATION AND
EVALUATION OF SOLUTIONS
-e 11.? RANGE OF PROR! FM RFCORNITION AND CORRECTION MECHANISMS
FOR MATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
-311-
-------
treatment equipment or developing a new source -- and decision making
based on the outcome of such an assessment. While this process applies
to all utilities, the following sections explore reasons why it can be
more difficult for small systems.
1. Recognition of Inadequate Conditions
The top half of Figure 11.2 depicts several mechanisms for rec-
ognizing an inadequate performance condition. In practice timely rec-
ognition of a problem is not always as straightforward as it seems in
the illustration as is discussed in the following subsections.
a. Self-Monitoring
The first level of identification of water quality problems is
in routine self-monitoring. Some monitoring is required by the IPDWR,
and states may establish additional requirements. However, as the data
presented in Table XI-4 indicated, about 35 percent of the small systems
did not properly report and monitor for the microbiological standard,
and about the same percentage of small surface water systems violated
the routine turbidity monitoring requirement. As presented in Table
XI-4, a system is considered in violation if it fails to monitor or
report, or both, on any one of its required occasions during a year,
e.g., during any one month for microbiological sampling or for any one
day for turbidity sampling.
A uniform monitoring requirement may be somewhat arbitrary.
For systems with deep wells and well-protected aquifers, monthly sam-
pling may be more than necessary while for other systems with real
source problems, the limited number of monthly samples required may not
be sufficient. However, the standard represents a reasonable minimum
for most systems, and monitoring at least in conformance with these
standards is a first step to recognizing quality problems.
Several factors contribute to a lack of adequate monitoring.
The first is a lack of basic knowledge of the requirements. The burden
of communicating as well as enforcing the monitoring requirements falls
principally on the state or county health agencies or both (the dif-
ficulties these agencies face in dealing with small systems are
-312-
-------
discussed in the following section). Secondly, although most systems
are probably aware of the requirements, the actual sampling and analysis
may be hampered by a lack of manpower, laboratory facilities, or money.
Sampling is basically the responsibility of the individual system,
although sampling by health officials may be done occasionally, for
example, as part of a sanitary survey. Limited skill, knowledge, or
available time by operating personnel may contribute to missed or im-
proper sampling. Few small systems have the capability to perform tests
other than possibly chlorine residual and turbidity. Thus, analyses
must be done by commercial or state laboratories. Surveys taken in 1975
indicated that a number of states perform a high percentage of the
inorganic analyses, and at least half of the coliform analyses (Energy
Resources Co., 1975). The same study estimated that per capita monitor-
ing costs for small systems were much higher than for larger systems.
b. Regulatory Agency Monitoring and Inspection
Quality monitoring, as well as physical inspection by state,
or in some cases county agencies with responsibility for drinking water
supervision, is a second means of identifying problems. States gener-
ally have programs for periodic sanitary surveys, and, in fact, are
required to have a program in order to assume primary enforcement re-
sponsibility of the IPDWR. The greatest difficulty faced by many states
is adequately covering the very large number of small community and
noncommunity systems. For example, it has been estimated that four man-
days of field time is required per system to adequately survey community
systems annually (Jeffrey, 1972). While this estimate may be somewhat
high, it indicates that the ideal surveillance needs for small systems
would be about 230,000 man-days compared with 11,000 man-days for
medium-to-large systems.
An even more basic indication of the problem of state regu-
lation and monitoring is knowledge of the existence of systems. This is
shown in the recent estimates of approximately 61,000 community water
-313-
-------
systems reported by the states as of 1979 (FRDS, 1979). This number is
about 50 percent greater than the 1975 Inventory and presumably repre-
sents a more accurate assessment of how many systems exist and require
regulation. Significantly, the greatest increase is in systems serving
less than 100 people and 100 to 1,000 people.
c. Routine Operation and Maintenance
Routine operation and maintenance functions are another means
of identifying both quality and quantity problems early. Check sampling
and visual inspection of water quality, observation of available instru-
mentation, inspection and preventive maintenance of physical facilities
are all examples. Unfortunately, the lack of sufficient manpower or
skills or both has frequently been cited as a significant problem for
small water systems (Johnson, 1979; EPA. 1979). The most common cause
is generally inadequate operation and maintenance funding because of the
diseconomies of scale discussed in Chapter VI. Small systems operate
with limited and often part-time staff. In fact, volunteer labor is
common in the very small, privately owned systems. Operator skill
levels, particularly in terms of technical knowledge on why things are
done in a particular way is significantly lower than for staffs of
larger systems.
d. Physical Plant Failure or Capacity and Pressure Shortages
Chronic low pressure or capacity, or both, as well as facility
failures (inoperative treatment equipment, pipeline breaks) are symptoms
of system deficiencies. They are not unique to small water systems but
because small systems frequently lack adequate operation and maintenance
staffing or skills, such problems may go undetected for long periods.
Physical correction may, therefore, be more complex and costly than if
potential problems had been identified earlier.
-314-
-------
e. Management and Supervision
In a well-staffed utility, management and supervision are im-
portant in taking overall responsibility for the specific items discussed
previously. Understanding the need for, and adequately conducting, mon-
itoring, routine operational maintenance, periodic inspections, and ad-
vanced planning is important for recognizing inadequate conditions
early. Few small systems, public or private, have full-time managerial
or administrative staff. Even when a small utility has an identified
managerial staff (often part-time), average salaries reported for small
systems are about one-half that for medium size utilities and about one-
third or less the averages reported for large systems serving over
100,000 people (AWWA, 1976).
2. Correction of Inadequate Conditions
Equally important, and ultimately of greater concern is the action(s)
taken to address and correct deficiencies once they have been recognized.
In the following subsections some of the problems involved in achieving
a solution are explored. Again, the process and problems are not unique
to small systems, but the distinction is generally in the degree of
capability.
a. Capital Improvements
Physical improvements to a water system are usually the most
obvious solution. These may be (1) additional or upgraded treatment
facilities; (2) expanded raw water delivery or well capacity (assuming
additional safe yield exists); or (3) improved distribution system and
storage capacity. Assuming that the specific need can be identified,
justified, and designed, the major obstacle for small systems is often
the financing. Diseconomies of scale have previously been mentioned in
this report, but it is instructive to review some of the data in slightly
different terms. In Figure 11.3, several financial characteristics of
small and medium-large systems are illustrated.
As shown in the figure, typical capital expenditures for the
smaller systems are more than twice as high on a gallons produced basis.
-315-
-------
UJ
o
=3
a
o
£C
a.
80
60
20
0
76.1
i 5C
SMALL SYSTEMS
67.5
1.0
3!
'
3.0
Jf J
L
MtU 1 UM-LHKbt 515 ItM
24.3
13.4 i
7
9.7
.1 :i::::
Z LU CO
«t •=> LU
LU Z >—
Z C3 Ul
«t Z CO
UJ — Z
ac x
Ul LU
LU a.
i— X
z uj
UJ _l CO
C3 4; UJ
-------
Capital expenditures can be financed either by long-term indebtedness
(e.g., bonds or loans) or directly out of operating revenues. Interest
expense, an indicator of long-term indebtedness, is also significantly
greater for small systems. Finally, revenue rates, which include the
cost of either direct financing of improvements or indebtedness, average
about 50 percent higher for small systems serving under 10,000 people.
The revenue differences generally become more pronounced for small
systems serving, for example, less than 1,000 people.
Establishing adequate rates to cover financing costs is one
problem for small systems, particularly in view of the high rates
already charged. Another critical problem is simply obtaining the
initial source of long-term capital. Bond sales are one source but may
be limited or more costly for small systems. Federal loan and grant
sources are available for publicly owned systems, but privately owned
systems must rely almost exclusively on commercial sources for external
financing.
b. Increased Operating Expenditures
An increase in operating expenditures, either alone or in
conjunction with capital improvement, may be necessary to effect improve-
ment. Examples are upgrading treatment, such as increasing chlorine
dosage, or increasing operating manpower. The difficulties in increas-
ing operating expenses are similar to those described for capital finan-
cing. Mean operating expenses are more than 50 percent greater on a per
gallon basis for small systems and are the largest share of total system
expenses, as shown in Figure 11.3. Increased operating expenses must be
funded totally out of revenues and, therefore, ultimately require rate
increases.
c. Source Protection or New Source Development
Source protection measures are one possible solution for
improving raw water quality. Small water supply systems depend heavily
on groundwater (some of the problem areas relative to groundwater
contamination were discussed in the previous chapter). Many of the
potential methods for protecting groundwater are either not fully
-317-
-------
implemented at present or are beyond the technical and legal capabili-
ties of small systems.
If natural raw water quality is poor, e.g., not meeting one or
more of the inorganic chemical MCLs, or if available source protection
measures are not adequate, another option is to develop a new source of
supply. This would also apply to the case of an existing source with
inadequate safe yield to meet system demands. The range of this option
may be severely limited for many small systems because of the major
costs generally associated with new source development. Major water
import projects can be developed for the Southern California area, for
example, at a lower cost to the consumer than importing higher quality
water to any of the 500 small and medium water systems in Texas with
excessive fluoride in groundwater (Bernard Johnson, Inc., 1977). In
addition, new source development may entail acquisition of water rights.
Small systems may be at a particular disadvantage in terms of financial
and legal capabilities.
d. Improved Operation and Maintenance Capabilities
In many cases, improved operation and maintenance capabilities
rather than major capital improvements may substantially improve the
performance of small systems. As shown in Table XI-5, about 20 percent
of the small systems that have disinfection facilities still have prob-
lems meeting the microbiological standards, indicating a need for im-
proved performance rather than new treatment capability.
One option is to expand manpower or improve skill levels
through staffing or salary increases or both. The difficulties small
systems face in significantly increasing expenditures have already been
mentioned. Another, less costly, option is to obtain training for the
available personnel. A number of factors affect the ability of small
systems to obtain training for their personnel and of organizations to
deliver programs to the small systems. The large number, geographic
distribution, and frequently remote location of small systems hamper
efforts to deliver formal training programs. Systems with part-time or
volunteer staffing and very limited budgets may provide little incentive
-------
for individual training. One individual may wear many "hats" --
not only in water system operation and maintenance, but wastewater or
other public works responsibilities. Training in this case must be
broad in scope but perhaps limited in depth. Turnover may be high and
competent workers may be lost to larger utilities.
e. Regionalization/Consolidation
Various concepts for regionalizing, consolidating, or sharing
functions have been used or proposed in an effort to reduce operating
costs of individual water systems (EPA, 1979). This option is most
feasible and attractive for small systems. The possibilities encom-
passed by this basic concept are wide-ranging and, thus, there are no
widely accepted definitions. The term regionalization in this report
will refer to the merging of ownership, administrative, and operation
functions and, when desirable, of physical facilities, between two or
more water supply systems. An example would be the formation of a
county water district to assume the functions of many smaller utilities.
Consolidation will refer to the sharing of functions or services without
necessarily transfer or merging of ownership. An example would be shar-
ing of operation and maintenance manpower. Variations of the latter in-
clude concepts such as a "circuit rider," and equipment manufacturer or
consulting organization service contracts (EPA, 1979). Another approach
is to have investor-owned groups owning and operating multiple systems.
Although all of these concepts may offer some advantages,
there has not, historically, been a large-scale move toward regionali-
zation or consolidation. Several factors have tended to restrict such a
move. One survey found that a major barrier is political autonomy and an
unwillingness by a small utility to release traditional independent
control (ASCE, 1977). Regionalization can frequently mean that small
utilities merge into a larger utility or district. In this case, a
problem may be unwillingness on the part of the larger utility to assume
what may be a physically substandard system (unless it is upgraded) and
a lack of funds to upgrade or a fear of "bigness" on the part of the
small system or both. A third major factor is the lack of authority or
-319-
-------
incentive for any one agency to assess the opportunities and merits of
regionalization/consolidation concepts in a given situation.
f. Identification and Evaluation of Options
Subsections a through e have examined specific solutions to
system deficiencies. This subsection looks at how a water system evalu-
ates and selects from those options. In many cases, various potential
solutions may exist: new source development, additional treatment (with
several variations), improved operational capability, regionalization,
or even more extreme solutions such as bottled water or point-of-use
treatment (EPA, 1979). To select the most feasible solution, technical,
economic and other factors should be evaluated. Then, if the solution
requires physical improvements or legal arrangements as in the case of
regionalization, a wide range of activities may be necessary such as
engineering, approvals, permits, legal processes, and contracting.
In planning, evaluation, and implementation, small systems are
often at a distinct disadvantage. Larger utilities will generally have
some in-house capabilities or the budget to contract out for engineering
services. Small water systems can also employ consulting services, but
budgetary constraints frequently limit this approach.
E. Current Sources of Assistance
1. Financial Assistance
External financial assistance for capital improvements, such as
loans or grants, is available through some Federal and state agencies.
(The basic programs are described in Chapter VI.) Federal programs of
particular interest to small water supply systems include those under
FmHA, HUD, EDA, and SCS, with FmHA historically providing the greatest
source of funding aimed exclusively at small communities. In addition
to actual construction costs, FmHA loans and grants can cover miscel-
laneous engineering, legal and financing costs, purchase of existing
systems, and initial operation and maintenance expenses. All of these
sources are available only to publicly owned systems or communities.
-320-
-------
The only potential, though seldom used, source of assistance for pri-
vately owned small systems is loans through the SBA.
Until recently, funding, approval, and review procedures through
the various Federal agencies were fragmented and sometimes overlapping.
As a result of the Rural Development Initiatives (White House, 1978),
several agreements have been completed between a number of agencies
including EPA, FmHA, HUD, EPA, DDL, CEQ, and CSA. As these agreements
are implemented, beginning in 1979, it is expected that the process for
seeking and securing Federal funding sources for rural water and sewer
facilities will be simplified and expedited.
Of the existing State loan and grant programs (see Chapter VI,
Table VI-3) 5 out of 17 are specifically tailored to small systems. It
can be assumed that many of the others use financial situation as a
priority criterion and, therefore, would also provide help to small
systems. Unlike Federal programs, some state financial assistance
programs are not limited to publicly owned systems. Some states, such
as Pennsylvania and Washington, provide assistance for planning as well
as engineering and construction.
Methods of financing for water systems to comply with the primary
drinking water regulations are a prime subject of a report being pre-
pared by the EPA under Section 1442(a)(3)(B) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act. This section requires that separate cost and financing considera-
tion be given to small water supply system. Further comment on the
adequacy of current financial assistance is deferred to the findings of
that report.
2. Technical/Administrative Assistance
In addition to capital improvements, many other problems or needs
were suggested in Section D in the areas of management, administrative,
and operational capabilities. Some of the existing or planned assis-
tance sources for these functions are briefly described in this section.
Several Federally sponsored programs or information sources applicable
to small water supply systems are listed in Table XI-7.
-------
Table XI-7
FEDERALLY SPONSORED SOURCES OF
TECHNICAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANCE FOR
SMALL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
Item
Implementing/
sponsoring agency
Status
National Rural Water NRWA/EPA
Association Training
and Technical
Assistance Program
State-of-Art of EPA
Small Water Treatment
Systems (Technical
Publication)
Manual for Small CSSE/EPA
Water Supply Systems
Serving the Public
SDWA Workshop and AWWA/EPA
Seminar Materials
Handbook for Non- AWWA/EPA
Community Suppliers
Course on Sanitary CSSE/EPA
Surveys for Small Systems
Operating in 23 states
as of 3/79. Funded
through 1979.
Published August 1977.
Published July 1978.
Produced 1978.
Anticipated completion 1979.
In preparation.
The most comprehensive program is the National Rural Water Asso-
ciation (NRWA) Program. A brief description prepared by NRWA follows:
Through EPA grants to the National Rural Water Association,
member state rural associations are funded to design and oper-
ate a grassroots training and technical assistance program
which will reach small rural water systems operators, board-
members and managers through a series of one-day workshops
held throughout each participating state. The emphasis is
on coordinating the efforts of the state FmHA staff, the
state safe drinking water agencies, the regional EPA drink-
ing water program staff, elected officials, and private con-
tractors to work through the workshops. In conjunction with
these workshops, a technical assistance network is developed
using these same groups and coordinated by the state rural
water association program manager/trainer.
-322-
-------
The program has been operating since 1977 and has congressional
funding through 1979. As of March 1979, 23 state associations, listed
in Table XI-8, were active and participating.
Table XI-8
STATES PARTICIPATING IN NRWA PROGRAM
BY EPA REGION
EPA region States
EPA region States
I None VI
II New York VII
III None VIII
IV North Carolina, South Carolina, IX
Alabama, Mississippi,
Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia
V Indiana, Minnesota, Illinois X
Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas,
Louisiana, New Mexico
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska
North Dakota, South Dakota
None
Oregon
It is estimated that the state associations have about 5,000
active member water systems and, additionally, many very small systems-
that are not members are also reached through the program (NRWA, 1979).
The second and third items in Table XI-7 are available publica-
tions. The State-of-Art is a fairly technical document on treatment
methods and costs, while the manual gives relatively comprehensive
coverage of planning, design, operation, maintenance, and administrative
suggestions for very small systems. The American Water Works Association
(AWWA) offers an extensive package of training, seminar, and workshop
materials explaining the requirements and implications of the Safe
Drinking Water Act. One item is a self-study training course that is
designed especially for small systems in lieu of formal classroom train-
ing. The handbook for noncommunity suppliers will serve a similar
function but will be much briefer and more simplified. The Conference
of State and Sanitary Engineers (CSSE) course will be aimed at training
state or local health personnel to better monitor and assist small
-323-
-------
systems through effective sanitary services. While all of this
material is or will be available soon, distribution to all small sys-
tems is not automatic. Funds must be available for states to purchase
and distribute the material or for the individual system to purchase it
directly.
3. Operation and Maintenance Training and Certification
Although this chapter focuses on water supply, training and
certification is equally important in wastewater management. Coor-
dination between the two fields in training and certification is not
only possible but already closely linked in many states. Much of the
following discussion can apply equally to water or wastewater operator
training in small communities.
The primary responsibility for training of personnel is generally
assumed by each state. The methods of training and the source of mate-
rials vary widely from state to state, as evidenced from a survey con-
ducted by the CSEE in 1977 and 1978 (unpublished). Of the approximately
30 states responding in detail to the survey, approximately one-half
reported the use of one or more of the following delivery methods:
self-study, correspondence, or field training. Such methods, particu-
larly field training, may be more effective in reaching some of the
personnel in small utilities than formal classroom training. The survey
does not indicate, however, to what extent such training actually reaches
the personnel in small systems. Onsite informal training and advice is
also to be accomplished as part of routine or follow-up sanitary surveys
and inspections. For example, New Mexico reported a dramatic drop in
microbiological violations over the first full year of required monitor-
ing under IPDWR and attributed much of this to vigorous follow-up in the
form of site visits and advice (Garcia, 1979). Other states have probably
experienced similar results.
Other organizations help to train or develop technical materials.
AWWA has a number of publications available and conducts training courses
through state sections. Some materials, such as the items previously
mentioned under technical assistance, are tailored toward small water
-324-
-------
systems, and contain practical operating advice. In general, however,
AWWA does not reach or represent the small utilities to any great extent.
Operation training and advice is a significant part of the NRWA techni-
cal assistance program, as previously mentioned. The Association of
Boards of Certification (ABC), while not directly conducting training,
has as one of its primary functions to help states develop an effective
combination of training and certification programs through information
exchange, development of model training organization, and model certifi-
cation programs. The ABC recognized in 1974 that "training is not
available to operators in remote areas, and many times is poorly located
to serve most of those who should be participating" (ABC, 1976).
One program originating from the Rural Development Initiatives
(White House, 1978) is an inter'agency agreement between the Department
of Labor and the EPA to provide job opportunities and training for water
and wastewater personnel through the CETA program. The program will op-
erate in at least 12 states during 1979 and 1980. It is intended to
provide jobs and training for 1,000 persons and training to an addi-
tional 500 currently employed operators. It is estimated that rural
areas currently employ 105,000 operators in water and wastewater and
that an additional 13,000 to 15,000 job openings will be available
nationally in the near future.
Operator certification programs are the exclusive responsibility
of the states, and have the objective of certifying a level of profi-
ciency in operating personnel. As of 1975, 38 states required certifi-
cation of all operators of public or investor-owned water systems serv-
ing the public (ABC, 1977). The ABC, sponsored in part by grants from
the EPA, is very active in developing, testing, and working with states
to implement uniform certification programs and promoting reciprocity
between states. The certification program's classification systems rec-
ognize various levels of responsibility and utility size. Certification
programs are certainly an important mechanism to improve and regulate
the capability of operating personnel. However, to be effective, training
programs must be an integral part of certification and, in turn, the
training must be adequate to reach the small system operators.
-325-
-------
4. Regionali zation/Consoli dation Ass i stance
Although there are no programs or even the authority to actively
implement regionalization or consolidation plans at the Federal or state
level, a number of mechanisms do exist to encourage this option. The
FmHA loan and grant program specifically gives priority to projects that
involve merging of ownership, if this results in more efficient and ec-
onomical service. Many states have statutory authority or policies to
encourage regionalization and district formation. The most complete
coverage of this subject is contained in an ASCE survey of state agen-
cies (ASCE, 1977). Thirty-four of the fifty states and territories re-
sponding reported a written or unwritten policy encouraging regionaliza-
tion, and 36 respondents indicated planning or district enabling legis-
lation. However, in 29 of these states, the implementation is strictly
voluntary, while only 4 states can achieve district formation through
planning regulation and only three states have mandatory enforcement
powers. A number of regional-type water supply entities (as defined in
the survey) do exist, as shown in Figure 11.4.
F. Major Findings
The following findings summarize the status of small water supply
systems, particularly in terms of their special problems in satisfying
requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Potential changes are
discussed in Part 3 (Chapter XII).
Approximately 57 million people, or about one-fourth
of the Nation's population obtains drinking water
from either small public or rural water supplies.
On a peak-day basis, such systems may serve about
one-third of the population.
Rural supplies, which serve about 23 million people
(10 percent of the population) are being assessed
by the Rural Water Survey in response to the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
Small public water systems constitute about 98.6
percent of all public water systems regulated under
the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Interim Pri-
mary Drinking Water Regulations (IPDWR). They in-
clude:
,326-
-------
1 5 i—
10
17
16
1-10 11-20 21-50 >50
NUMBER OF REGIONAL WATER ENTITIES PER STATE
SOURCE: ASCE. 1977
Figure 11.4 OCCURRENCE OF REGIONAL-TYPE WATER SUPPLY ENTITIES
-327-
-------
Approximately 58,000 small (under 10,000 peo-
ple), community (year round) water supply sys-
tems which are about 95 percent of all commun-
ity systems.
Approximately 160,000 noncommunity (seasonal)
systems such as in parks or other recreation
areas.
The most prevalent documented quality problem for
small community water supply systems is in meeting
microbiological maximum contaminant levels; approxi-
mately one-fourth of the systems violated this stan-
dard in 1978. Furthermore, small systems appear to
have a significantly greater problem than larger sys-
tems in meeting monitoring and reporting requirements;
over one-third of the small systems violated the bac-
terial monitoring and reporting requirements in 1978.
Small community systems utilizing surface water sources
also experience significantly more violations of tur-
bidity and inorganic chemical regulations than larger
systems do, especially in terms of monitoring and re-
porting.
Violations data for noncommunity, public systems (e.g.
parks) in response to the Safe Drinking Water Act and
IPDWR are not yet available.
There are virtually no data on the quantity problems
experienced by small systems. Since 84 percent of
small systems utilize groundwater as their source,
it can be safely assumed that many small systems ex-
perience periodic problems as water tables decline
because of drought or as part of a regional decline
resulting from mining of groundwater.
Solid data on the capital structure of small water
systems are also limited. Most systems are very
small (i.e. less than 1,000 customers) and the in-
vestment covers a pipe distribution system, a well
or other source, pumps if required and sometimes
distribution reservoirs (water tanks). The general
inability to raise new capital tends to restrain
small systems from all but the most urgent capital
improvements for correcting either quantity or qual-
ity deficiencies. The adequacy of available sources
of capital funding for small systems will be evalua-
ted in the report to Congress under Section 1442
(a)(3)(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
-328-
-------
Small systems typically have a very small staff for
operation and maintenance. For many systems the op-
erating staff consists of a single person, often on
a part-time or as needed basis. While some system
deficiencies might be corrected through improved op-
eration and maintenance, this is not likely to occur
without more staff.
Only a relatively small fraction of the operators of
small water systems have had formal training for their
task. Typically, the engineer who designs the original
system provides both oral and written instructions to
those initially in charge of the system. Over time
these are handed down to replacement personnel and are
commonly progressively reduced to "do this" instructions
with little or no "why". Training and technical assis-
tance programs are available, although they tend to
reach primarily the larger systems; adequate and appro-
priate methods of delivery of training are often not
available for small systems.
The lack of training manpower means that small systems
often are not aware of deficiencies until serious and
obvious problems develop. Training programs should in-
clude instruction on how to recognize problems. Once
recognized, the operator can seek advice on its correc-
tion.
The present lack and probable permanent impractical -
ity of small systems having significant management-
and planning skills or manpower makes it difficult
for these systems to be aware of, and evaluate alter-
native solutions for correcting system deficiencies.
Available technical and management assistance pro-
grams are not adequate to reach many of the small sys-
tems.
Benefits often can be shown for various concepts of
regionalization, consolidation or sharing of func-
tions, and methods exist to encourage such activi-
ties. Actual planning and implementation, however,
is restricted by local political resistance motivated
by the desire to maintain local autonomy, lack of ob-
vious incentive or capability to pursue joint programs,
and lack of state authority to motivate it. It must
also be recognized that, in some areas, regionaliza-
tion or consolidation may be impracticable because of
physical and cost reasons. There is currently too lit-
tle information on which to base a preliminary judge-
ment on the applicability of regionalization or consoli-
dation in particular situations.
-329-
-------
The ability of states to regulate and assist small water
supply systems is extremely limited by the very large
number of these systems and the restricted resources of
regulatory and assistance programs. The usual result is
for priority to be placed on medium and large systems and
for small systems to be largely neglected.
-330-
-------
References: Chapter XI
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), The Regionalization Task
Committee, Water and Resources Management Committee, Environmental
Engineering Division. April 1977. Survey of State Programs and Attitudes
on Regionalization for Public Water Systems.
American Water Works Association, Committee Report. 1978. Utility
Salaries, Wages, and Employee Benefits: A Survey. JAWWA, 70:670.
Association of Boards of Certification (ABC). July 1976. Roles and
Responsibilities for Developing a Comprehensive State Water and Haste-
water Operator Training Program.
, 1977. A Status Report on Operator Certification. JAWWA,
69:422.
Bernard Johnson, Inc. August 1977- Economic Impact of the Safe Drinking
Water Act on the State of Texas. Prepared for the Texas Water Develop-
ment Board.
CSSE-U.S. EPA. 1977 and 1978. Public Water Supply Training Survey,
Unpublished.
Energy Resources Co., Inc. October 1975. Economic Evaluation of the
Promulgated Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA-570/9-75-
003
Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS). April 1979. (U.S. EPA)
Garcia, Francisco, New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division.
Telephone Conversation. May 10, 1979.
Jeffrey, E.A. 1972. Water Supply Training and Manpower Needs. Journal
of New England Water Works Association. Washington, D.C.
Johnson, R.K. National Rural Water Association. April 1979. Correspondence.
Public Health Service (PHS). July 1970. Community Water Supply Study.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS), U.S.D.A. 1975. Domestic Water Use
from Non-Central Systems. 1975 National Water Assessment, Special
Projects Division.
Temple, Barker and Sloane, Inc. April 1977. Survey of Operating and
Financial Characteristics of Community Water Systems. EPA-570/9-77-003
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Work Group Reports. Small
System Water Treatment Symposium (November 28-29, 1979). Draft-
-331-
-------
Water Resources Council (WRC). April 1978. The Second National Water
Assessment Summary Report. Draft.
The White House. December 1978. Rural Development Initiatives, Making
Water and Sewer Programs Work.
-332-
-------
Part 3: SYNTHESIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS
-------
Chapter XII
FORMULATION OF PRIORITY ACTIONS
AND SYNTHESIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Introduction
Findings of the assessment and public participation phase are
reported in Part 1 and of the priority issue analyses in Part 2. This
Part 3 describes the context within which major findings and associated
options for action are screened, and priority actions are formulated.
The intent is to describe the process followed in developing actionable
items, and to provide a reference point between this study and Admini-
stration priorities, other Federal activities, ongoing or recently com-
pleted EPA-sponsored studies and activities, and results of public par-
ticipation. Subsequently major findings of the study are discussed and
related to actions considered by EPA to be feasible, within the context
of the existing institutional/legal framework, and sensitive to findings
from the public workshops. These actions are then synthesized into gen-
eric types of recommendations that can be taken to address two or more
problem areas identified as warranting priority. Recommendations syn-
thesized in this Chapter are further consolidated in the Executive Sum-
mary, Chapter I.
B. Context for Formulation of Actionable Items
Within a subject area as broad as national water resources --
quantity and quality -- it was anticipated that the investigation would
result in many findings each of which could be addressed by any number
of options. To narrow the range of findings, and avoid ending up with
an unwieldly number of option sets, was a concern. This was handled in
two ways: (1) a number of key considerations were established to screen
through findings and select those of priority, and (2) options developed
in response to these priority findings were first screened by the Task
-333-
-------
Force, then reformulated and revised, subsequently screened a second time
by EPA executives, and finally crystallized into actionable items discussed
herein.
Key considerations which guided the initial screening of findings, and
ultimately the formulation of priority actions, are based on explicit recog-
nition of the existing institutional and legal framework (including recent
changes in EPA programs and continuing or pending activities within the Fed-
eral government) and on public participation results.
1. Institutional and Legal Framework
The basic foundation for this study is clearly provided by the enabling
legislation -- S516(e) and 1442(c) -- which focuses on public water supplies
and coordination of municipal water supply and wastewater treatment plans.
Building upon this foundation, the following factors provided a framework with
in which priority actions were formulated.
Hierarchy of Responsibilities. Although the institutional arrangements
for water supply and water quality are fragmented, they are well established.
Since this is a national report, developed by EPA for Federal action, it is
considered important to develop options which are within the purview of the
Federal government and scope of EPA authority to adopt.
Administration Priorities. The President's Water Policy Initiatives
of July 6, 1978 resulted in several activities which could affect major
findings that surfaced in the technical analyses and/or public participation
phases of this study. Actions addressing such findings are considered to be
preemptive of Congressional or Executive Branch initiatives, specifically:
The need for Federal aid to states in the form of grants,
loans and/or technical assistance for improved comprehen-
sive water management and water conservation programs was
established by public workshop results: these topics are
being addressed by the Initiatives and are not considered
further herein.
Although far from unanimous, workshop results indicate a
public concern for Federal assistance to rehabilitate
-334-
-------
aging urban systems. The Institute of Water Resources,
Corps of Engineers, is initiating a comprehensive study
of needs of urban water supply systems and the role of
the Federal government in providing assistance and thus
recommendations are deferred to that study.
A Groundwater Interagency Task Force is in the process
of developing final recommendations for implementing
National Water Policy as it related to groundwater; thus
action formulation herein focuses on improvements in ex-
isting EPA programs.
U.S. Water Resources Council Level B (§209) Program. Public support
for this program was registered in the workshops; analysis results indicate
that it could provide a vehicle for coordinating water supply and water
quality planning; and, it is being reviewed by WRC in response to OMB request
and revisions/modifications are anticipated. EPA supports this effort as
well as proposed expansion of WRC's Title III Program but recognizes that a
decision to provide funding for Level B studies and/or the Title III Pro-
gram will be made by Congress. Thus an action calling for use of the Level
B Program as a vehicle for coordination is not further considered.
Current EPA-Sponsored Studies. Other issues resulting from the assess-
ment and raised in the workshops include:
Cost of complying with primary drinking water regulations.
Difficulties — cost and other -- encountered by small systems
in providing adequate and dependable supplies of safe drinking
water.
Interrelationship between water allocation decisions and water
quality programs.
Cost of compliance and financial difficulties encountered by small systems in
complying are being studied in response to S1442(a)(3)(B) of the Safe Drink-
ing Water Act. The third above-referenced issue has recently been addressed
by a study in response to §102(d) of the Clean Water Act. This study defers
action formulation to those detailed studies and incorporates by reference
recommendations developed therein.
Revision of EPA Regulations. Regulations for trihalomethanes and syn-
thetic organic chemicals in public water supplies, and grant eligibility of
-335-
-------
multiple purpose projects are controversial public issues. They are both
being addressed by EPA in separate activities; thus these issues are not
addressed in the action formulation phase.
2. Public Workshop Results
Public workshop results indicate a strong preference for taking ad-
vantage of coordination opportunities that exist in current Federal programs
and an aversion to increasing the complexity of the Construction Grants (§201)
funding process by adding new requirements for funding eligibility (see Chapter
VII). Also expressed was a desire to adopt a wait-and-see approach regarding
existing legislation and programs before embarking on new laws and programs.
These concerns as well as national concern over inflation and energy are prag-
matic considerations in developing realistic actionable items.
It is also recognized that Congress devoted considerable time to amend-
ing the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act in 1977 -- an observation
that runs parallel to public concern that programs and regulations responding
to the amendments should be allowed to stand the test of time. EPA acknow-
ledges the legitimacy of public concerns and the fact that extensive reexamina-
tion of programs and regulations presently being implemented and of the en-
abling legislation is premature. This recognition provided a further caveat
for action formulation.
C. Formulation of Priority Actions
As mentioned earlier, priority actions were formulated and agreed upon
during several iterations between the contractor and EPA executives as well
as Task Force members. These respond to major findings documented in Parts
1 and 2 which were screened according to key considerations discussed above.
The resulting actionable items are discussed in the following subsections.
1. Coordination Opportunities in EPA Programs
Water quantity and water quality are typically planned under distinct
and separate legislative mandates to serve different purposes and without re-
gard to their possible interrelationships. To bridge the gap between quantity
and quality planning has been an issue for many years. Increased recognition
of interrelationships, and the explicit mandate of §516(e) has rekindled in-
terest.
-336-
-------
This study found that in as much as opportunities for better coor-
dination exist, in reality coordination rarely takes place. When it does,
it is generally because quantity-quality planning is under the aegis of
a single agency or because the need for coordination has been identified
and pursued at the local level. Similarly, there are opportunities for
better coordination within EPA's Construction Grants Program and the
Agency's new Water Quality Management (WQM) Program (an offshoot and con-
solidation of earlier programs responding to §208, 106 and 303(e) of the
Clean Water Act).
Based on these findings and others as documented in Chapter VIII,
priority actions are:
(1) Make use of the Construction Grants process (i.e.
specifically the Step I wastewater facility plan-
ning guidance) to emphasize early identification
of coordination opportunities and more comprehen-
sive consideration of interactions between waste-
water treatment alternatives and public water sup-
plies.
(2) Utilize the new WQM Program to identify more oppor-
tunities for coordinating planning of public water
supply and wastewater treatment systems.
(3) Issue guidance to expedite identification and imple-
mentation of coordination opportunities with due re-
gard for local, state and regional differences.
The existing Step 1 planning guidance does contain several milestones
where need for or advantage of coordination can be identified (see Chapter
VIII). The guidance can be supplemented with additional direction which em-
phasizes data such as: existing quality and quantity of water sources serv-
ing the wastewater planning area; per capita use of water vis a vis capacity
of facilities; surface and groundwater sources serving other areas but po-
tentially affected by any wastewater treatment alternative, including the
"no project" alternative; ongoing water supply planning in or around the
wastewater planning area; and, consolidation of data on interrelationships
during the initial planning stages. By so supplementing the existing guidance
it will be possible to further assure that a local need/opportunity to coor-
dinate is identified (when such an opportunity exists) without making
-337-
-------
coordination an across-the-board requirement for grant eligibility, further
complicating Step 1 planning, and possibly slowing municipal progress in
meeting national water quality goals.
Regarding EPA's Water Quality Management program, the existing scope
can be expanded beyond its present emphasis on water quality so as to assure
that: interactions with water supply are identified; the need or opportunity
to coordinate is assessed; and, institutional arrangements are established.
If such an expanded scope is to be realizable and effective over the long
term it will be necessary to provide stable funding for developing and up-
dating WQM plans, and for effectuating EPA-State Agreements to assure confor-
mance to such plans and continuing progress in their implementation.
All of the above actions are within the scope of EPA's present authority
and none would entail a concerted effort to revise existing regulations, amend
current legislation, or implement a new and unfamiliar program. Each would
contribute to further coordination of municipal quantity-quality planning with-
in EPA's programs. Although new funding authorizations may not be required,
stabilized appropriations are important if the program is to achieve its full
potential. Based on these observations and the findings of this study, these
actions are feasible and implementable.
2. Opportunities for Municipal Conservation
The conservation ethic (i.e. demand management) has been receiving in-
creased recognition as a desirable alternative to increased shortages or al-
ternatively, increased structural solutions to such shortages, inflated
prices, and environmental degradation. The lack of consensus on how to con-
serve and who should do the conserving can be inferred from the ongoing debate
on National and State Water Policy. This failure to manage demand has been a
factor in some situations for causing undesirable conditions such as ground-
water mining, inadequate streamflow for in-stream uses, increased competition
for available sources, and increased expenditures for water supply and munici-
pal wastewater treatment.
This study focuses on municipal water conservation and finds that it is
often disregarded because it is a relatively small use in the overall picture,
-338-
-------
municipal shortages are by no means universal, and it is feared that water
rate increases would outweigh savings from reduced water use. Following
an approach which looks at synergistic effects of water conservation, the
study finds flaws in the conventional wisdom. Specifically, analysis re-
sults of a moderate (i.e. no change in life style) and widespread municipal
conservation program, as documented in Chapter IX, point to: a potential
Three percent reduction of energy imports and corresponding reduction in
balance-of-trade deficit (as a result of energy savings in hot water heating
and in water supply and wastewater systems); a potential savings of $150 mil-
lion annually in wastewater facilities construction grants or, alternatively,
a speed-up in the timetable for municipal compliance with Clean Water Act
goals; and, a favorable benefit-cost ratio associated with municipal conser-
vation even in a no-growth, water-rich community.
Despite these favorable portents for municipal conservation this study
learned that available information is neither readily accessible nor suffi-
ciently clear and comprehensive to enable municipalities to weigh the advan-
tages and disadvantages of conservation, and to devise a strategy suited to
local characteristics. This observation is supported by public workshop data
as is the desirability for technical assistance and leadership from the Federal
level.
In examining EPA programs it is found that increasing the emphasis on
water conservation in the new WQM program can make it an attractive vehicle
for improving water quality as well as for achieving savings in water, energy,
and money. Further this investigation of EPA programs discovered that although
Construction Grants does require a municipality to develop a water conservation
and/or wastewater flow reduction program under certain circumstances, it does
not explicitly reward a community having low per capita flows nor penalize a
grant recipient when the reverse is-true.
Based on these findings and other supporting data provided in Chapter
IX, the following are considered to be actionable items:
(1) Redirect or improve Federal data gathering efforts related
to water supply and water quality so as to improve the data
base on advantages and disadvantages of municipal conserva-
tion under different assumptions reflecting local character-
istics.
-339-
-------
(2) Synthesize municipal conservation data in a form amenable
to the needs of State and local decision makers.
(3) Devise a mechanism for consolidating and transferring in-
formation (e.g. on conservation technologies and techniques,
costs, benefits) to states, among Federal agencies, and to
national organizations.
(4) Use the WQM Program to address interrelationships between
municipal conservation and water quality.
(5) Create an explicit mechanism for providing financial incen-
tives to conservation-minded communities through Construction
Grants as well as disincentives for excessive per capita waste-
water flows, and for encouraging more widespread adoption of
municipal conservation strategies and technologies.
Federal data gathering on water use and public water supplies has
intensified as exemplified by references made throughout this report to
recent or ongoing studies and Federally-sponsored research efforts. To
effectuate actions one through three, these efforts will need to be:
directed to provide information on significant location-specific parameters
of municipal conservation; coordinated so as to assure consistency in data
(e.g. similar units of measurement and definitions, consistent assumptions);
analyzed and synthesized with an eye toward the intended user-audience for
such data; and, made available in the form of technical assistance to deci-
sion makers in the public and private sectors.
Implementation of actions one through three would require presidential
action in the form of appointing a lead Federal agency for carrying out basic
data gathering, research, and technical assistance activities. Such action
would supplement the aforementioned Presidential Water Policy Initiatives
(i.e. to provide $25 million annually for technical assistance to States)
and strengthen implementation of a national water conservation strategy. A
modest appropriation of funds would need to be made by Congress.
Supplemental guidance could be added to new revised regulations for
the WQM Program and a WQM plan could be required to include a water conser-
vation element in order to implement action four. Emphasis would be on an-
alyzing the quantitative impacts of conservation (e.g., reduced water pol-
lution control costs or decreased pollutant discharges) as well as those less
-340-
-------
amenable to quantitative analysis (e.g. improved in-stream quality, re-
duced risk of overdeveloping surface water sources or depleting ground-
water, or increased streamflow during low flows). Implementation of
this action is within the scope of EPA's present authority.
Regarding provision of incentives for conservation through Construc-
tion Grants, public participation results indicate a perception that Feder-
al programs generally neglect to reward communities with well maintained
water and/or wastewater systems (i.e. an effective if indirect conservation
mechanism) and/or with water conservation programs. Adoption of action five
would help to dispel this notion and could provide momentum to municipal con-
servation, in particular in communities with identified needs for wastewater
facilities and hence eligible for funding. Specific actions seen to be par-
ticularly useful include providing a bonus/penalty system to discourage exces-
sive per capita wastewater flows, and making water conservation technology
eligible for funding. Implementation of action five would require Congress to
authorize a bonus/penalty system, and to amend the Clean Water Act so as to
provide funding for conservation technology through EPA's Construction Grants
Program.
In combination adoption of all of the above actions would be a signifi-
cant force in moving municipal conservation across the threshhold without
making major legislative changes, creating new Federal programs, and/or in-
creasing national costs for pollution control. They are all feasible within
the existing institutional/legal framework desirable from a national view-
point, and of priority.
3. Opportunities for Municipal Reuse
Direct reuse currently accounts for about three percent of municipal ef-
fluents in the U.S. and its future potential is thought to be significant (see
Chapter IX). It has received considerable support from the Federal government,
in particular through "innovative and alternative" provisions of the Clean
Water Act as these relate to bonusas available through Construction Grants.
Municipal effluent can be a dependable source of relatively high
quality water. This study found that the location of facilities near urban
areas is particularly attractive for steam electric and industrial uses, and
-341-
-------
that as a water treatment strategy reuse alternatives have significant
appeal in water-short and coastal areas. Although use of municipal ef-
fluents for potable purposes is not considered, reuse can provide a mech-
anism for obtaining potable supplies from another use by exchanging/sub-
stituting treated effluent. Reuse can also be beneficial if it allows
for increased streamflow and/or reduced discharges and hence improved
in-stream quality. These less tangible benefits can be lost, however,
if the in-stream water "saved" is appropriated by another use.
Despite these advantages, and the availability of information on
use and effectiveness of various treatment techniques, this investigation
uncovered several serious impediments to widespread implementation. Fore-
most is cost of reuse relative to the cost of other sources of supply and/or
alternatives to additional supply, as well as cost and high energy use of
the technology itself. Such costs result from location-specific character-
istics for which there are significant gaps in existing data.
A second leading and more global constraint is uncertainty over risks
to human health from using treated wastewater for nonpotable purposes. As-
sociated with this constraint is lack of scientific consensus on degree of
treatment needed to protect against such risks. Finally there is the question
of psychological acceptance of reuse, an issue with no easy or obvious answers.
EPA and the Office of Water Research and Technology (OWRT), U.S. Department
of Interior, sponsor basic research and development projects which will shed
light on present uncertainties about reuse of municipal effluents.
There are provisions within EPA's §201 program to encourage reuse
projects in response to Congressional intent in the Clean Water Act amendments,
and the aforementioned Multiple Purpose Funding Guidelines study will clarify
which types of reuse components of a wastewater treatment alternative are eli-
gible for funding. This study found that most reuse projects have been imple-
mented as a result of local recognition and local need, and thus that a mechan-
ism for identifying an opportunity prior to Step 1 funding could provide a
further boost to reuse and recycling of nutrients.
Based on these findings and others as documented in Chapter IX, action-
able items are:
-342-
-------
(1) Utilize the WQM Program to provide a mechanism for iden-
tifying reuse opportunities and establishing institu-
tional arrangements prior to Step 1 facilities planning.
(2) Require assurance from grant recipients that any improve-
ment of water quality which results from a grant funded
project featuring reuse will be maintained.
(3) Improve and consolidate the data base, thereby enhancing
the analytical basis for decision making, on the health
effects of reuse for nonpotable purposes.
(4) Illustrate, through demonstration cases, the advantages
and disadvantages of reuse under various circumstances.
(5) Analyze and display the impacts of alternative reuse
scenarios, in particular economic effects and impacts
on water quality.
(6) Provide technical information on control measures for
mitigating or minimizing groundwater contamination from
reuse technologies.
The first action could be implemented by requiring a WQM plan to iden-
tify reuse and recycling opportunities and to address the relationship between
such opportunities and water quality. Action two could be adopted by the Ad-
ministrator and implemented through EPA-State Agreements. Options three through
six would require continuation and improvement of current EPA-OWRT research
activities, and EPA's present technology transfer programs.
All actions are within EPA's present mission, and none would require
a significant shift in funds or program emphasis. In combination they would
augment other EPA efforts (e.g. bonus §201 funds for innovative and alternative
technologies such as reuse and recycling) and clear up some of the foremost un-
certainties which stand in the way of wider implementation of reuse technology.
Thus they are all judged to be feasible, in the national interest, and of
priority.
4. Opportunities to Improve Groundwater Management
Groundwater (quantity and quality) has been less well understood and
less stringently managed and protected than surface water. The importance
of protecting groundwater in the U.S. is underscored by the finding (see
Chapter X) that about 47 percent of the Nation's population rely on
-343-
-------
groundwater as a drinking water supply source. Heading the list of
potential quantity problems is the finding that 25 percent of annual
groundwater pumpage constitutes mining; in addition to quantity prob-
lems, mining can cause or at least augment pollution of an aquifer.
Threats to groundwater quality are many and varied including:
over 130,000 surface impoundments of polluted water; more than 20,000
landfills and dumps handling over 500 million tons of waste annually;
and, over 400,000 injection wells introducing in excess of 900 billion
gallons of wastes into the ground annually. In addition there are ser-
ious threats from nonpoint sources.
The study also found that while the above-referenced sources of
groundwater pollution are being addressed by recent legislation and Fed-
eral programs, implementation is still in progress and assessment of ef-
fectiveness is premature. In addition, some states regulate groundwater
with varying degrees of enforcement, but many do not; such regulation is
up to a state to initiate.
At the Federal level, EPA has recently proposed Underground Injec-
tion Control regulations in response to the Safe Drinking Water Act; these
will address injection wells. The Sole Source Aquifer provision of the
same Act provides an additional opportunity to improve groundwater manage-
ment. EPA's WQM program is yet another vehicle for identifying needs for
improved groundwater management, planning accordingly, and implementing
plans in a systematic fashion. The WQM program also addresses nonpoint
sources of pollution.
Another significant piece of legislation is the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. Under this Act a surface impoundments inventory and assess-
ment is being conduct; there are provisions for controlling those which con-
tain hazardous wastes. Landfills are also included in proposed regulations
under the Act (i.e. regulations which will be consolidated with those of the
Underground Injection Control program) and closure of dumps upon completion
of a landfill/dump inventory will address these potential sources of ground-
water pollution.
-344-
-------
Based on the above findings, and others provided in Chapters IV
and X, actionable items are:
(1) Progressively implement and monitor current EPA programs
designed to improve groundwater management and protection.
(2) Utilize the WQM program to address integrated quantity/
quality planning for surface and groundwaters and for their
interactions as these relate to water quality.
(3) Require coordination between a WQM plan and a hazardous
waste control plan.
(4) Provide technical assistance to the states for implementing
provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and
the Underground Injection Control Program.
Adoption of the first action only requires a renewed commitment from
EPA to carrying out Congressional mandates, and the other three actions are
within EPA's authority to adopt. While these actions could improve Federal
programs for groundwater protection, and are considered to be of priority,
it is explicitly noted that the states have considerable authority and re-
sponsibility for managing and protecting these sources.
5. Opportunities to Assist Small Water Supply Systems
This study focuses on opportunities to address problems other than
financial that small public systems may face and defers the financial anal-
ysis task to the aforementioned EPA study in response to S1442(a)(3)(B) of
the Safe Drinking Water Act. It is noted for the record, however, that dur-
ing the initial assessment of issues and investigation of public views it
was found that small systems typically experience capital and operating costs
that are two to three times greater than for large systems, and that there is
considerable public concern over the plight of small systems (see Chapters VI
and VII).
This study found that small systems -- i.e., those serving under 10,000
people ~ constitute over 98 percent of all public water systems, serve approxv
mately 57 million people on a daily basis, and may serve up to one third the
population on a peak day. Preliminary estimates, based on aggregated and
-345-
-------
incomplete national data, indicate that a significantly higher percent
of small community systems violated microbiological maximum contaminant
levels and bacterial monitoring and reporting requirements than did large
systems. Data are not available on violations by noncommunity systems
(e.g. in parks); as there are about 160,000 of these types of small sys-
tems the states have difficulty in adequately monitoring and regulating
them.
A data search revealed that data on water quantity problems experi-
enced by small systems is extremely limited, although it can be assumed that
since the vast majority rely on groundwater many of these systems experience
periodic shortages. Similarly there is limited data on the capital structure
of small systems. It is found that small systems could benefit from improved
operating training materials and increased access to such materials. Similarly
it is found that although many Federal and some state agencies provide assis-
tance to small systems, information transfer on available technologies and ve-
hicles for planning and management should be increased.
Based on these and other findings as documented in Chapter XI, actionable
items are:
(1) Intensify current Federal actions aimed at developing and
improving operator training materials.
(2) Consolidate information existing in various Federal agencies
on available technology, and planning and management tech-
niques relevant to small public systems.
(3) Improve delivery methods and/or increase accessibility to
small systems of the above educational and informational
material.
(4) Provide increased support to states for expanding their sur-
veillance programs.
Adoption of the above actions could be accomplished under existing authori-
ties by interagency agreement. A coordinated thrust by Federal agencies which
do provide assistance to small community systems could improve the ability of
these systems to identify their problems, develop options for resolution of
such problems, and implement a chosen alternative. In turn this would further
assure adequate and safe supplies for all of the population. Thus these actions
are judged to be feasible, in the national interest, and of priority.
-346-
-------
D. Synthesis of Recommendations
Actionable items developed in the previous section are regrouped
in this section and synthesized into one of the following generic recom-
mendation categories:
Those which relate to improvements in EPA's Water Quality
Management Program.
Those which relate to modifications to EPA's Construction
Grant Program.
Those which respond to the conservation thrust of the
President's Water Policy Initiatives.
Those which respond to Presidential Initiatives for Rural
Development.
Those which require state or local initiative.
Those which enhance achievement of basic mandates in several
EPA programs.
The resulting recommendations are further consolidated in the Executive
Summary, Chapter I.
1. Strengthening the Water Quality Management Program
A first round of S208 Areawide Wastewater Planning has provided an
opportunity for local/state involvement in implementing national water
quality goals and a foundation upon which to build an EPA/state/local
partnership. The new consolidated WQM program, which as noted features
revised and streamlined regulations for combining S208, 106, and 303(e)
activities is intended to overcome many weaknesses that were identified in
EPA's retrospective evaluation of initial results from the various program
activities.
Because the WQM program is comprehensive, is familiar to local/state
agencies (and to an extent the public at large through public participation
activities), and has been tested and revised, EPA believes that it is the
most appropriate planning vehicle for responding to §516(e) and many concerns
implicit in 1442(c). In addition the programs now encompassed by the WQM
program were responsive to the Clean Water Act thereby enabling the EPA
-347-
-------
Administrator to act under existing authorities and to strengthen the
WQM program so as to address findings of this study. Specifically the
Program should be modified to encompass the following actionable items:
Address interrelationships between municipal water
conservation and water quality.
Address interrelationships between recycling and
reuse, and water quality.
Investigate opportunities to integrate quality/
quantity planning for surface and groundwaters
as well as their interactions related to water
quality.
Address coordination of public water supply and
wastewater management plans.
Address coordination of water quality management
and hazardous waste disposal plans.
Requirements to incorporate the above in a State or Designated Area WQM
Plan would help to bridge the gap between water quantity and water quality
plans, motivate establishment of working relationships between diverse
agencies, provide additional opportunities to identify need or opportunity
to coordinate plans, and enhance continued achievement in meeting national
in-stream water quality and safe drinking water goals. Implementation of
these requirements will require increased and stabilized funding.
2. Modify the Construction Grants Program
EPA's Construction Grants Program provides a unique opportunity to
mesh results of WQM planning with an implementation action -- i.e., con-
struction of facilities -- in particular when a need to coordinate facili-
ties plans with water supply has been identified prior to Step 1 planning.
Even if such a need has not been identified, or there is no approved WQM
plan, the existing Step 1 planning guidance provides opportunities to iden-
tify coordination needs and establish cooperative arrangements with water
supply agencies. EPA believes that the Construction Grants Program combined
with a strengthened WQM Program can produce synergistic results thereby im-
proving the effectiveness of both programs in terms of achieving national
goals.
-348-
-------
The program also provides a unique opportunity to enhance coor-
dinated planning while simultaneously encouraging municipal water con-
servation policies. As it now stands, EPA can require a municipality
to develop a water conservation and/or wastewater flow reduction pro-
gram if per capita flows are more than 70 gpd. By strengthening this
requirement through specific financial incentives, EPA believes the
program will better motivate municipal conservation initiatives.
Based on the above observations, the Construction Grants Program
should be modified to encompass the following priority actions:
Reemphasize the need for early and more complete
identification of interactions between wastewater
management alternatives and areawide public water
supplies and more comprehensive consideration of
such interactions.
Reemphasize the importance of examining the inter-
actions between wastewater management alternatives
and groundwater.
Provide a construction grants bonus of up to 5 per-
cent for communities which can demonstrate a suc-
cessful water conservation/wastewater flow reduc-
tion program and a penalty of up to 5 percent when
per capita wastewater flows are excessive.
Adoption of the first two minor modifications (i.e. rewrite of exist-
ing planning guidance to focus a grant recipient's attention on water quality-
quantity interactions) would increase the probability that coordination op-
portunities are identified and acted upon early enough in the Step 1 process
to influence formulation and evaluation of wastewater treatment alternatives.
Implementation will require direction from the EPA Administrator.
Provision of financial incentives for municipal water conservation
would enhance achievement of national water quality goals while simultan-
eously encouraging demand management as a means of assuring adequate and
dependable drinking water supplies. Implementation will require Congress
to authorize a bonus/penalty system for conservation and wastewater flow
reduction.
-349-
-------
3. Designate a Federal Lead Agency for Municipal Water Conservation
In response to the water conservation thrust of the Presidential
Water Policy Initiatives, the major Federal water resources agencies are
examining present programs with an eye toward removing disincentives and
providing incentives for municipal water conservation within existing leg-
islative authority. EPA believes that a united and coordinated front is
required in order to make a quantum jump from traditional emphasis on sup-
ply management to water demand management, and further that to achieve this
change from business-as-usual, a Federal lead agency is needed to orchestrate
a coordinated national effort. The most significant contribution that this
lead agency could make at this time is to synthesize a comprehensive data base
with emphasis on providing information oriented toward local decision makers.
Based on the above observations, the President should take action to:
Designate a lead Federal agency for municipal water con-
servation.
Instruct that agency to direct relevant research and data
gathering efforts.
Direct that agency to synthesize practical, concise and
clear information on the advantages and disadvantages of
municipal water conservation.
Make such information available to states, other Federal
agencies, and relevant national organizations.
Provide technical assistance to potential user groups at
the national and state levels.
In addition to Presidential action, implementation of the above would
require Congress to provide appropriations to the designated agency to carry
out its responsibility. Successful and widespread adoption of municipal
conservation strategies would provide multiple local and national benefits
which would greatly exceed the cost of the program.
4. Synthesize and Coordinate Assistance to Small Public Water
Supply Systems
Several Federal agencies and some states have programs attuned to the
needs of small water supply systems. EPA believes that the effectiveness of
-350-
-------
these programs could be enhanced several fold by entering into a Federal -
state partnership and intensifying efforts to assist public systems .serv-
ing 10,000 or less persons. Based on this observation, the EPA Admini-
strator, in cooperation with the appropriate Federal agencies and the
states, should take action to:
Develop and improve operator training material.
Improve delivery methods to achieve a more widespread
distribution of these materials.
Synthesize and consolidate existing information avail-
able from the relevant agencies on planning and manage-
ment techniques, on available technologies, and oppor-
tunities for Federal/state assistance.
Improve delivery methods to achieve a broader awareness
of available assistance by type and to increase the acces-
sibility to Federal financial assistance available to
small systems.
Increase support to states for expansion of surveillance
programs.
Adoption of the above (and other actions to be agreed upon once the cooperative
venture is underway) could provide a more unified approach for assisting small
systems in meeting drinking water quality regulations and delivering adequate
quantities of water. Implementation is within EPA's present authority under
the Safe Drinking Water Act and responsive to Presidential Initiatives for
Rural Development.
5. Encourage State and Local Initiatives
Various issues impeding national progress in more rapid achievement
of goals in the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act are primarily
resolvable at the state and local levels. EPA recognizes this division
of responsibility and believes it is important to encourage state and local
governments in addressing these issues by highlighting those believed to be
significant. Based on the findings of this and other recent studies, EPA
encourages state and local initiatives to:
-351-
-------
Revise state water law where needed in light of
recent findings and changing national priorities.
Improve state/local capabilities in comprehensive
water resource planning and demand management by
participating in WRC's Title III Program, its Level
B Program, and Technical Assistance Program on Con-
servation (as proposed by the Administration).
Develop programs and regulations to protect ground-
water from contamination by injection wells and
waste disposal facilities.
Develop or improve assistance programs for small
public water supply systems in concert with com-
plementary Federal programs.
Develop, with Title III,assistance, coordinated
framework plans for integrated quantity-quality
planning.
6. Improve Ongoing EPA Programs and Activities
Several of the priority actions developed in the previous section
require fine tuning or reinforcement of present EPA programs in contrast
to changes in program emphasis or scope, changes in legislative mandates,
0^ Presidential action. Actionable items that should be adopted include:
Continue to work closely with OWRT to improve the
scientific data base on health effects of nonpotable
reuse, on its practical potential in various settings,
and emphasizing advantages and disadvantages particu-
larly as they relate to cost and water quality.
Obtain guarantees from grant recipients that indirect
improvements in water quality resulting from grant
funded reuse and recycling projects will be maintained.
Provide training seminars to the states on implementing
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Under-
ground Injection Control regulations.
Encourage state water supply agencies to develop, making
maximum use of available data, and maintain information
on dependable quantity and quality of in-state sources
under average and drought conditions.
Improve delivery of information on technical control
measures to minimize groundwater contamination from
waste disposal operations and reuse technologies.
-352-
-------
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
-------
Appendix A
BASES FOR ESTIMATING MUNICIPAL WATER CONSERVATION POTENTIAL
1. Residential In-House Conservation Potential
Present water use in residences served by municipal water supplies
is about 65 gpcd as a national average. The distribution of this amount
among various in-house uses is presented in the first two columns of
Table A-l by percentage and by gpcd. Although these numbers are not
based on nationwide statistics, the total fits well with data on total
domestic water production from WRC's Second Assessment (see Table IX-1)
and with the 60 to 75 gpcd range of literature estimates for total in-
house use. The indicated distribution of water among in-house uses is
drawn from several sources but is based more on the collective judgment
of those sources than on strong data. Still, any change in distribution
which would result from "perfect" data could not be large.
The third column of Table A-l indicates a range within which the
national average for each in-house use might fall if selected conser-
vation measures were implemented to their full, reasonable potential
nationwide. This range is generally about 55 to 75 percent of estimated
present use, indicating that there is a potential to save 25 to 45
percent.
The detailed basis for each of these estimates is given in Table
A-2. The "improved design" specifications are primarily from the Cali-
fornia Department of Water Resources (1976) bulletin on water conservation
but are confirmed by other references and are those specifications
generally being adopted in municipal conservation programs. These
specifications are judged to be conservative; further research and
improved fixture design may show that more savings can be easily achieved.
For example, there are some indications that a 2.5 or 3 gallon per flush
toilet and a 2 or 2.5 gallon per minute showerhead may be adequate and
practical (Pennsylvania State University, 1975). This remains to be
seen, however.
A-l
-------
Table A-l
MUNICIPAL, RESIDENTIAL IN-HOUSE WATER USE
AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL
(National Averages)
Fixture/Activity
Toilet
Bath/Shower
Lavatory Sink
Laundry
Dishwashing
Cooking/Drinking
Totals
Percent of
Present Use
40
30
5
15
5
5
Present
usea
(gpcd)
25
20
3
9
4
4
Potential Range
with Conservation0
(gpcd)
14-17
13-17
2-2%
3-6
2-3
2-2h
100
65L
36-48
Precent Reduction
25-45%
a. Based on Deb (1978); Metcalf & Eddy (1976); Flack et. al_. (1977);
and Bailey et al_. 0969).
b. The range from various references is 60 to 75 gpcd.
c. Summary of Table IX-4.
A-2
-------
Table A-2
RESIDENTIAL IN-HOUSE CONSERVATION POTENTIAL
Location/Activity
Toilets
Showers
Kitchen & Lavatory Faucets
Pressure Reducing Valve
Hot Water Pipes
Clothes Washer
Dish Washer
Education
Totals
Improved
Design
3.5 Gal/Flush
3 Gal/Min (Max)
1.5 Gal/Min (Max)
50 PSI (Maxl
Shorter/Insulated
16-19 Gal/Load
7.5 Gal/Load
Avoid Waste
Water Saved
Percent of
Conventional Use
30-55
25-50
10-30
15-25
gpcd
8-11
2%-5*
Jg-1
3-6b
(of in-house use)
4-12
(of hot water)
35-65
0-50
10-25
(of faucet use)
1-2
3-6
17-291
Water
Energy Saved
(IP3 BTU/Capita-Day)
0
1.1-2.2
.2- .4
1.1-2.2
.8-1.5
1.5-3.0
.4
.2- .6
4.5-8.9d»c
a. Low estimate to allow for 50% baths.
b. Low estimate to lessen double counting.
c. Low estimate to allow for households without dishwashers.
d. Assumes pressure reducers applicable to 30% of residences.
e. Assumes 100% energy efficiency, this is a conservative estimate of energy savings.
-------
The estimated percentage of water saved compared with conventional
use (third column from the left in Table A-2) also draws heavily on the
California DWR bulletin but depends on other sources, as well. Shower
savings are an especially important item because of associated hot water
energy savings; for this estimate the recent work by Sharpe (1978) is
used. This column of estimates is a crucial part of the analysis.
There are two main reasons for this:
Although it is relatively easy to compare the design
characteristics of a conventional fixture and a water-
saving device, this is not the same as comparing the
way the two devices are used. For example, some conven-
tional showerheads have flow capacities greater than 12
gallons per minute. However, replacing these with a
3-gallon per minute showerhead does not mean a 75 percent
reduction in water use. Indeed, the conventional shower-
head may have been used primarily in the 3 to 5 gallon per
minute range; the new showerhead could reduce water use by
25 percent or perhaps even less. Very few data are avail-
able on how conventional fixtures are now used and even
less is known about how water-conserving fixtures would be
used.
Although the typical range of design characteristics of
conventional fixtures and appliances is known, few data
are available on the distribution of existing items over
that range. For example, although one source states that
most showerheads have maximum discharge rates of 5 to 10
gallons per minute, few other references make comparable
claims.
Relatively conservative assumptions have been used in translating
these percent reductions into national average per capita daily water
savings (fourth column from left in Table A-2). This makes allowance
for the above difficulties and also takes into account other important
considerations (such as the quantity of bathing water used for baths as
opposed to showers) as has been indicated in the table's footnotes.
Although double counting could have been a problem in summing the water
savings, only the pressure reducing valve and education to avoid waste
would involve water which also is used in the other categories. Thus
very conservative assumptions were adopted for savings from these actions
and it is estimated that double counting has been eliminated (although
A-4
-------
detailed analysis to verify removal of this type of error has not been
performed).
The economic feasibility of each of these conservation actions is
addressed in Table A-3 both for new construction and remodelling and
for retrofitting. Costs of each action are estimated, and water and
energy savings are then compared with costs in terms of benefit cost
ratios. It is noted that only three actions are shown to be econom-
ically infeasible:
Insulation of hot water pipes as part of a retrofitting
program.
Replacement of clothes washers before they wear out.
Replacement of dishwashers before they wear out.
2. Residential Outside Conservation Potential
Available information on residential outside use of water and on
conservation potential is less reliable than it is for in-house use.
However, a working estimate of the national average outside use is 28
gallons per capita per day. This figure is the residual obtained by
first estimating and then subtracting the other components from WRC's
(1978) total domestic use indicated in Table IX-1 (Chapter IX). It fits
well with the data in Table A-4 on outside use for various types of
residences which were reported in the late 1960's and is the best avail-
able information on present use. It is estimated that 90 percent of
outside use is for landscape sprinkling (Calif. DWR, 1976).
Using the above estimate as a starting point and making assump-
tions on conservation in a manner similar to the preceding section
results in Table A-5 which indicates a potential savings of 30 to 50
percent.
The estimated impacts of metering and pressure reduction are from
Metcalf and Eddy (1976) and Flack et_ al_. (1977). Sprinkling and landscape
estimates are drawn primarily from California DWR (1976).
The economic feasibility of each proposed action is examined in
Table A-6. It is interesting that both water meters and pressure reduc-
ing valves appear to be justified in new construction but other water
A-5
-------
J=
I
Location/Activity
Toilets
Showers
Kitchen & Lavatory
Faucets
Pressure Reducing
Value
Hot Water Pipes
Clothes Washer
Dish Washer
Education
Table A-3
RESIDENTIAL IN-HOUSE CONSERVATION POTENTIAL (ECONOMICS)
Additional Cost/Fixture
New, Remodel or
Routine Replacement
0-6
0-5
0-2
30
0-20b
Material (+ Labor)
1-5 (+5)
1-5 (+4)
0-2 (+2)
30 (+20)
50 (+80)
20-30 300 (+20)
0-10 300 (+10)
$2/Residence-Year
Benfit/Cost Ratio9
New, Remodel
or Repalce
6.2—
6.6-°°
2.1-°°
3.3-6.6C'd
2.0-°°
2.9-8.6
2.0-°°
Retrofit
3.7-8.5
3.7-13.2
1.0-4.1
2.0-3.9C'd
0.3-0.6
0.3-0.6
0.1
0.6-1.8
a. Assumes 7% interest, 20 year life, energy at 25
-------
Table A-4
OUTSIDE WATER USE FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF RESIDENCES
Gal/Day
Type of Residence Residence gpcd
Metered Public Water and Public Sewers
West (10 areas) 186 49.0
East (13 areas) 80 19.5
Metered Public Water and Septic Tanks
(5 areas in East). 42 10.2
Flat-Rate Public Water and Public Sewers
(8 areas in West) 420 113.0
Apartment Areas
(5 areas both East and West) 18 6.9
Total of 41 Areas 160 42.0
Source: Linaweaver ejt aj_. (undated)
A-7
-------
OO
Location/Activity
Meters
Pressure Reducing Valve
Efficient Sprinkling
Table A-5
RESIDENTIAL OUTSIDE CONSERVATION POTENTIAL
Improved
Design
Water Saved
Percent of
Conventional Use
gpcd
Metered
50 psi (Max)
Approx. Evapotranspiration
50 of unmetered sprinkling or ?5-40
30 of unmetered residential use
10-20 of outside use
10-15 of remaining outside
use
Drought Resistant Vegetation Major Landscaping Consideration 20-25 of remaining outside
use
3-6
2-3c
3-4c
Education
TOTAL
Avoid Waste
5-10 of remaining outside
use
9-141
a. Low estimate to lessen double counting.
b. Assumes 10% residences now unmetered and 30% need pressure reducing valve.
-------
Table A-6
RESIDENTIAL OUTSIDE CONSERVATION POTENTIAL (ECONOMICS)
Additional Cost/Residence
(in $)
Location/Activity
Meters
Pressure Reducing Valve
Efficient Sprinkling
Drought Resistant Vegetation
Education
New or Extensive
Remodeling
100
30
25-300
35-200
Retrofit
Material (Labor)
100 (+300)
30 (+ 20)
100-300 (+100)
500-1000(+500)
$2/Residence-Year
Benefit/Cost Ratio
New or Remodel Retrofit
2.3-3.7 0.6-0.9
3.3-6.6b 2.0-3.9b
0.1-l-.lc 0.1-0.23
0.1-1.1 0.0
0.2-0.4C
a. Assumes 7% interest, 20 year life, and water at 60
-------
conserving actions (e.g. drought resistant vegetation) appear to be
marginal at best. Unfortunately, the numbers used to derive this table
do not yet have a strong research basis, thus these results must be
viewed with caution. The cost estimates particularly need to be im-
proved.
3. Conservation Potential in Other Municipal Uses
Even less information is available as a basis for estimating the
conservation potential for the commercial, public, industrial, and
losses (due to leakage) portions of municipal water supply. To a great
extent these estimates must be based on extrapolation of the findings
for residential potential.
As a first characterization of the conservation potential for
these other uses, it is estimated that 20 to 40 percent savings could be
achieved on the average by nationwide application of reasonable conserva-
tion measures. The following are the main reasons behind this estimate:
Public and commercial uses involve many of the same fixtures
and activities that residential uses do — e.g., toilet flush-
ing, showers, dishwashing, landscape watering, etc.
In addition, there are other opportunities for savings in com-
mercial water use -- e.g., a large portion of the water for
car and bus washing can be recirculated.
In industrial use there is also the opportunity for toilet
flushing and shower water conservation and there are three
other factors pointing toward conservation as well:
Industries must meet increasingly strong standards
both in terms of treating the wastewater they dis-
charge to the environment and pretreating the waste-
water they discharge to public sewers.
Industries which discharge to public sewers now pay
sewer user charges based on the volume and strength
of their wastes.
Water suppliers are increasingly moving toward rate
structures which penalize avoidable use and other
users insist that this pricing philosophy be applied
to industries as well.
A-10
-------
Water system losses are also the subject of increasing atten-
tion including significant concern with leakage in the older dis-
tribution systems found in some eastern cities. The American
Water Works Association recently (February, 1979) chose leak
detection and repair as the theme for an issue of its monthly
journal. Although quantitative information is sparse, one
indication of potential is the new leak detection program of
the East Bay Municipal Utility District encompassing Oakland,
California, and adjacent areas. Laverty (1979) estimates that
leakage detection and repair equals 4 percent of total metered
usage and that 2.5 of these 4 percent have been due to new em-
phasis on leakage control. This compares well with the 2 to 4
percent which is implied by the conservation potential estima-
ted above, especially since other communities are believed to
have more leakage to start with.
A-ll
-------
References: Appendix A
Bailey, J.R., e_t al_. 1969. A Study of Flow Reduction and Treatment of
Waste Water from Households. NTIS.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1976. Water Conserva-
tion in California. Bulletin No. 198. Sacramento, California.
Deb, A.K. 1978. Multiple Water Supply Approach for Urban Water Manage-
ment. Western Environmental Consultants-Designers. West Chester, PA.
Flack, J.E. ejt al_. 1977. Achieving Urban Water Conservation: A Hand-
book. Colorado Water Resources Research Institute. Completion Report
No. 80. Colorado State University. Fort Collins, Colorado.
Laverty, G.L. 1979. "Leak Detection: Modern Methods, Cost, and Bene-
fits,: JAWWA 71: 61-63.
Linaweaver, F.P., e_t al_. Undated (1967?). A Study of Residential Water
Water Use. Prepared for the Federal Housing Administration. U.S. Govt.
Printing Office. Washington, D.C.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1976. Water Savings. Prepared for the Santa Clara
Valley Water District. Palo Alto, CA.
Pennsylvania State University. 1975. Proceedings - Conference on Water
Conservation and Sewage Flow Reduction with Water-Saving Devices. Insti-
tute of Land and Water Resources. University Park, PA.
Sharpe, W.E. 1978. "Water and Energy Conservation with Bathing Shower
Flow Controls," JAWWA 70: 93-97.
U.S. Water Resources Council. 1978. The Nation's Water Resources:
1975-2000. Volume 1: Summary. (Second National WAter Assessment). U.S.
Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.
A-12
-------
Appendix B
DETAILED ANALYSES OF THE "REALISTIC" WATER CONSERVATION SCENARIO
1. Typical Family of Four
A foremost question to be asked in determining what changes will
be necessary to convince the public to support water conservation is:
"Would the typical family of four have more discretionary income as a
result of a conservation program?" To address this question within the
context of the realistic scenario (high cost and low savings), the fol-
lowing additional assumptions beyond those in Section IX. B.4 are made:
Retrofit is done for toilets (e.g., using tank inserts),
showers and faucets, and a pressure reducing valve is
installed where appropriate.
Water price per gallon is not affected by conservation;
the family is assumed to be deciding on its own whether
to conserve and it presumes that the number of families
conserving will not significantly lessen total community
water demand or cause increases in water rates (this
assumption will be changed in the next section).
Water price is 60
-------
Change in gas bill -- Savings = 9.03
Net Savings -- 16.23
B/C ratio — 2.7
From a benefit/cost ratio point of view, these actions appear
quite attractive. It seems questionable, however, how much the net
annual savings of $16.23 would motivate the family to do in the way
of conservation. Note that the savings in energy costs are due to
the hot water saved.
Table B-l
TYPICAL FAMILY OF FOUR --
CONSERVATION RETROFITTING COSTS FOR
THE REALISTIC SCENARIO
Action Material Labor Total
Toilet Inserts (2) $10 $10 $ 20
Showerheads (2) 10 8 18
Lavatory Faucets (2) 4 4 8
Kitchen Faucet 224
Pressure Reducer 30 20 50
Totals $56 $44 $100
2. The Community
a. With No Population Growth and Large Fixed Costs for Water
Supply
An important question to ask in determining effective incentives for
conservation is: "Do water rate increases wipe out the family's conserva-
tion savings"? This phenomenon has been observed recently in communities
which have successfully reduced water demand very rapidly in response to
drought. Reduced demand has led to higher rates because of the utilities'
high proportion of fixed costs.
B-2
-------
To investigate this phenomenon, consider the net savings to the
typical family of four in a community experiencing no growth and under the
following assumptions:
The same conservation program is implemented.
It is implemented throughout the community.
90% of the water utility costs are fixed (thus if water
demand decreases, the price of water must be raised).
Gas price per therm is not affected by water conservation.
Residential wastewater charges are by flat rate and don't
change.
The impact of these conditions is a water rate increase from 60<£ to
74<£/1000 gallons. Consequently, the family's net savings fall from
$16.23 to $1.25 and the corresponding benefit/cost ratio falls from
2.7 to 1.1. Note that even under the very conservative assumptions
used, the conservation program is still economically advantageous.
b. With Moderate Growth and Need for New Capacity
In contrast, the case of a community with moderate growth leads
to a pertinent question: "What is the cost advantage of being able to
postpone capital expenditures"? The following assumptions imply the
impact on water supply depicted in Figure B-l and on wastewater in
Figure B-2:
Community size -- 50,000.
Growth rate — 2%/year.
Water supply average annual capacity -- 10.5 mgd.
Present demand (equals national average in Table
IX-1, 190 gpcd) — 9.5 mgd.
20% conservation is implemented over a 15-year
period so demand is never less than 9.5 mgd.
Cost per residence for conservation retrofit -- $100
Cost per new residence to include conservation -- $50
B-3
-------
T3
cn
Ol
to
Gi-
ro
CL
O.
Zi
uo
OJ
25
20
15 -
WATER SUPPLY
10
Without Conservation
. Capacity
. Use
With Conservation
. Capacity
. Use
I I I I I I I I I I
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (in years)
Figure B.I IMPACT ON WATER SUPPLY OF 20 PERCENT CONSERVATION IN A COMMUNITY WITH MODERATE GROWTH
B-4
-------
T3
CD
fO
Q-
S-
res
01
25
20
15 _
10 _
WASTEWATER
Without Conservation
. Capacity
. Flow
With Conservation
. Capacity
. Flow
10
15
I
30
35
I
40
20 25
Time (in years)
Figure B.2 IMPACT ON WASTEWATER OF 20 PERCENT CONSERVATION IN A COMMUNITY WITH MODERATE GROWTH
50
B-5
-------
Cost of conservation for other municipal uses is
the same cents per gallon saved as for the resi-
dential use.
Wastewater treatment capacity -- 9.0 mgd.
Wastewater flow (equals national average, 160 gpcd,
Metcalf and Eddy, 1978) -- 8.0 mgd.
Water supply capital cost for new expansion --
$1,000,000/mgd.
Water supply operation, maintenance, and replacement
costs (Temple, Barker, and Sloane, 1977) — 40 cents/
1000 gallons.
3 _
Hot water energy savings (5 gpcd) -- 6.82 X 10 BiU/
capita-day.
Energy cost -- $20/barrel of oil equivalent.
Wastewater capital cost for treatment capacity expansion
(Dames and Moore, 1978a) — $2,000,000/mgd.
Wastewater treatment capital savings from 20% conserva-
tion are assumed to be only 5% due to higher wastewater
strengths (after Tiemens and Graham, 1978).
Extra savings occur during the first wastewater treatment
expansion because hydraulic capacity does not need to be
modified.
Capital savings on interceptor and trunk sewer sizes --
assumed to equal treatment savings (after Tiemens and
Graham, 1978).
Wastewater treatment and sewer system operating, main-
tenance and replacement costs ($20/capita-year, Dames and
Moore, 1978b) - 34^/1000 gallons.
Wastewater treatment and sewer system operating, mainten-
ance and replacement savings from 20% conservation are
assumed to be only 5% due to higher wastewater strength.
Detailed computations of monetary savings due to conservation were
made under the above assumptions and results are summarized in Table B-2.
By virtue of the relatively small cost to implement conservation and the
B-6
-------
Table B-2
ECONOMIC IMPACTS FROM REALISTIC CONSERVATION
SCENARIO IN A GROWING COMMUNITY
(Present Population, 50,000; Growth, 2 percent/year)
Present Value
(million dollars)
Costs to Implement Conservation
Retrofit present residences, commercial
and public buildings, industries, and
repair leaks 1.51
Incorporate water conservation in all
new construction 0.35
Present Value of Total Construction Cost $1.86 million
Dollar Savings from Conservation
Water supply cpaital expenditures delayed 2.17
Water supply operation and maintenance savings 3.64
Water heating energy savings 5.40
Wastewater capital expenditures savings 1.61
Wastewater operation and maintenance savings 0.59
Present Value of Total Conservation Savings $13.41 million
Benefit to Cost Ratio for Conservation 7.2
B-7
-------
combined savings especially due to less need for future water supply
and for energy to heat water, the conservation program is extremely
attractive. With the conservative assumptions used, the benefit to
cost ratio is 7.2. In actually implementing such a program, it is
likely that the ratio will be even more attractive.
c. Regarding Community Balance of Payments
An associated question pertinent at the community level is:
"Does conservation mean less money (e.g., wastewater construction grants)
coming into the community?" The following assumptions underlying the
community money flow model in Figure B-3 lead to the changes in the com-
munity balance of payments displayed in Table B-3:
All water supply, water heating and wastewater
expenditures must be allocated to in or out of
community.
All operation labor expenditures stay in the community.
Half of the construction labor expenditures stay in and
half flow out of the community.
All interest expenditures flow out.
All energy expenditures flow out.
All construction materials and equipment expenditures
flow out.
All other operating expenditures flow out.
The bottom line of this modular representation is that realistic water
conservation will provide a significant (13%) reduction in the community's
payments deficit for water-related services under the fairly conservative
assumptions used.
B-8
-------
Other Operating
Expenses
12.00
Construction
Labor
12.00
Construction
Materials &
Equipment
2.60
Interest
, 5.30
Water Supply Utility
(190gpcd)
Con- I Qper-
struction J ators
1.40 I 10.60
Labor
Force
Other
Users
Residential
Users
Energy
Utility
4.80 8.00
Wastewater Utility
(160gpcd)
Other
Operating
Expenses Construction Construction
6.50 Labor Materials &
4-°° Equipment
13.70
Interest
2.80
Federal
Grants
22.10
Figure B.3 ESTIMATES OF WATER-RELATED MONEY FLOW IN
TYPICAL COMMUNITY WITHOUT CONSERVATION
($/CAPITA-YEAR)
B-9
-------
Table B-3
COMMUNITY BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
CHANGES DUE TO CONSERVATION
(In dollars/capita-year}
Without With
Money Inflow Conservation Conservation
Water Supply 0 0
Wastewater 22.10 21.20
Total In: 22.10 21.20
Money Outflow
Water Supply 23.10 20.50
Wastewater 29.40 28.10
Residential Energy 23.60 18.90
Other User Energy 9.40 7.50
Conservation Equipment _g 1.60
Total Out: 85.50 76.60
Net Outflow 63'40 55-40
Net Change: $8/capita year less flow out equals 13% reduction
in payments deficit.
B-10
-------
References: Appendix B
Dames and Moore, Inc. 1978a. Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Plants: 1973-1977. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Water Pro-
gram Operations. EPA 430/9-77-013, MCD-37. Washington, D.C.
, 1978b. Analysis of Operations & Maintenance Costs for Munici-
pal Wastewater Treatment Systems. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Water
Program Operations. EPA 43019-77-015, MCD-39. Washington, D.C.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1978. Current and Potential Utilization of Nutri-
ents in Municipal Wastewater and Sludge!(2 volumes, draft).Prepared for
U.S. EPA, Office of Water Program Operations. Washington, D.C.
Temple, Barker and Sloane, Inc. 1977. Survey of Operating and Financial
Characteristics of Community Water Systems. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office
of Drinking Water. EPA 570/9-77-003. Washington, D.C.
Tiemens, M.F. and P.H. Graham. 1978. "Role of Water Conservation in the Con-
struction Grants Program." Presented at U.S. EPA conference on Water Conser-
vation, October 4, 1978. Chicago, Illinois.
B-ll
------- |