Public Comment and Review Draft

Contract No. 68-01-5O33

August 1979

Public Comment and Review Draft
Contract No. 68-01 -5033

August 1979

                         TABLE OF CONTENTS


                              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
      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
      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

                         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
      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

                         CONTENTS (Continued)

          1.   Drinking Water	     93
          2.   In-stream Quality  	     97
          3.   Groundwater Pollution  	    103
          4.   Summary/Findings 	    105
              References	    107
      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
      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

                         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
      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

                       CONTENTS (Continued)

         3.  Groundwater Management  	   155
         4.  Small Water Supply Systems  	   156
         5.  Issues Not Selected	   156
                              PART TWO

              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

                         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
     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

                         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
     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

                         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
     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

                        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
             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

                         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
            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
            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

                      LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

               "1975" CONDITIONS 	    41

Figure 3.2     WATER RESOURCES REGIONS 	    44

               BY FUNCTIONAL USE	    47





               (MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE)  	    98

               (DISPERSED)	    99


               FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES  	   102









                     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

















                    ILLUSTRATIONS (Concluded)



                          LIST OF TABLES

Table III-l    STREAMFLOW FREQUENCY - "1975" 	    43

               OVERDRAFT:  "1975"	    46

               REGIONS:  "1975", 2000	    48


               CONTERMINOUS U.S	    53

               PROJECTED USE	    54




               TREATMENTS — 1975	    85

               REMOVAL)	    87


               TREATMENT PROCESSES 	    90

               CAL MCL 	    '94


               SOURCE	101

                         TABLES (Continued)


               SYSTEMS	122

               (BY POPULATION SIZE)  	  123

               MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY  	  126




                INTAKES	162

                WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT 	  163

 Table IX-1      MUNICIPAL WATER  USES  IN 1975	214





                RECYCLING  AND  REUSE	239






                        TABLES (Continued)




              SERVED, MAXIMUM USE, AND NUMBER OF SYSTEMS, 1978  .  301

              PRIMARY SOURCE  	  303

              OWNERSHIP	305


              OF SMALL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS 	  307

              COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS   	  308



              SERVATION POTENTIAL  (National Averages)	A-2


              (ECONOMICS)	A-6



              (ECONOMICS)	A-9


                         TABLES (Continued)

              CONSERVATION  	  B-10

     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


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.

                             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


        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

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.

        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
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.

     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



     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

        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-

      .   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.


        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.

     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

     .   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


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.

     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.

     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


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


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
     .  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


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
      .  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.

     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

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

        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

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

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

        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-


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.


                               Chapter II

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

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,

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

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

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

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
      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

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

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

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.

      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

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
      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.

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;

          "Requiring development of water conservation programs
          as a condition of contracts for storage or delivery
          of municipal and industrial water supplies from federal
          "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
          "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

Agriculture (ibid,  January 1979) to provide better coordination between
environmental, water quality and water quantity issues among these
      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.

      "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

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


          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-

          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.

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.

                         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).

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.

                               Chapter III
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"

                     Atmospheric moisture—
                     40,000 bgd
Streamflow to
300 bgd

   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
Gulf of Mexico—
920 bgd
                                                                   ;, Subsurface flow-
                                                                     75 bgd
                             Streamflow to Mexico—1.6 bgd

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
      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


                                              Table III-l

                                     STREAMFLOW FREQUENCY - "1975"
            Water  resources
             region  and  No.
                                                         Stream-flow, in billion  gallons  per day
Percent exceedance
 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)

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

                                              Table III-2

              Water  resources
               region  and  No.
                  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




                                     1-  9



Source:  WRC (1978a)




£ 250


§ 200

=  150


   120 |	



    90  _

 f 80

  I 70

  a eo

 = 50





                     1975 TOTAL
                                                              2000 TOTAL
                   1960     1965     1970
                             1975 TOTAL
              1955     1960
                                                  2000 TOTAL
               Domestic and Commercial


               Steam Electric Generation
                     1970     1975              1985

                                Manufacturing and Minerals

                                Public Lands and Other
        Source:  WRC (1978a)

                               TABLE III-3
             FOR THE 21  WATER RESOURCES REGIONS:  "1975,"  2000
                        (million gallons per day)
Total Withdrawals
Functional Use
Fresh Water:
Central (municipal)
Noncentral (rural)
Steam electric generation
Minerals industry
Public lands and others3
Total Fresh Water
Saline water, total
Total Withdrawals




Total Consumption






a.   Includes water for fish hatcheries and miscellaneous uses.
Source:  WRC (1978a)

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-

                                                      Table  III-4

                                  TOTAL FRESH-  AND SALINE-WATER  WITHDRAWALS:   "1975"
                                                 Withdrawals,  in  million  gallons  per  day
               Water resources
                region and No.
                                          Fresh water
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










        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.


                       |     | 0-25%

                       [     | 51-75%

                       C U 76-100%

                       I     | Over 100%

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
                                (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

                                                          Table III-6

                                            COMPARISON  OF REGIONAL  WATER AVAILABILITY
                                                       AND PROJECTED  USE
                                                            (in  bgd)
                                      Water  Supply
                                                               Year  2000  Total Off-
Year 2000 Domestic and

 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
Drought Streamfli
Stream Water
Withdrawal Consumpl
Water Use
Withdrawal Consumpl
         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-
     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
     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


     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

Water resources region
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,

     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
— Water resources region
    _ Subregion
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
     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.

      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,  " 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).

          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

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

          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.

      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
      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.


          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
      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.

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
      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

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
          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

          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

          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,

          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

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-

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.

                        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,

          , 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.

          ,  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).

                               Chapter IV

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
              Regulations for designation of sole source aquifers.
              Research and demonstration projects including:  carci-
              nogens, current standards, costs, waste disposal

              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


          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

              existing POTWs and ranking of need for any new
              waste treatment works.
              Areawide Wastewater Management Planning (Section
              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
          The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976) seeks to
promote reuse and recycling and to regulate hazardous and solid waste

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
           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

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
          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

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

          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.

                                        Table  IV-1
                                        Annul1 Average
                                        Maximum Dally
                                       Air Temperature
Inorganic  Chemicals
   Lead   ....
   Mercury  •  •  •
   Nitrate (as N)
   Selenium   •  •
   Silver   .  .  .
                              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
   Chlorophenoxys:  2,4-D, (2, 4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid)
                   2, 4, 5-TP Silvex  (2,  4,  5-Trichlorophenoxy-
                   propionic acid)


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)

                     Table IV-2
      Maximum Level
 Total Dissolved Solids
       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
 *Methylene blue active substances.
 Source:  EPA (1977b)

      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

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.

                              Table IV-3

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
No visible films of  oil or grease
No settleable solids from waste  discharges
Specific Criteria
Total coliforms
Fecal coliforms
Dissolved oxygen



Gross beta particle activity
      Class A
<200/100 ml
- 5 mg/1

       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
  Cold-10  JU
  Warm-50  JU
_Secchi  disc-lm     - Secchi  disc-lm
_500 mg/1  or  1/3
  more  than natural
  1/3  more than natural

Source:  National Technical Advisory Committee on Water Quality Criteria (1968)

      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.,
      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

                                                  Table  IV-4


                                                             Population Category

Pre Chlorination
Fluoride Adjustment
<_n Corrosion Control
Taste and Odor
Lime Soda
Iron Removal
Activated Alumina
Ion Exchange

















>1 Million


Average for
All Systems


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,

                                                        Table IV-5
                                      EFFECTIVENESS  OF  TREATMENT METHODS IN REMOVING
Plain Sedimentation
Rapid Sand Filtration
Slow Sand Filtration
Diatomite Filtration
Reverse Osmosis
Chlorine Dioxide
Activated Carbon
significant amounts
up to 98

                                                                           up to 90
                 Source:  National Academy of Sciences,(1977)

                                                Table  IV-6
Cadmium  (soluble forms)
Cadmium  (insoluble forms)
Chromium (soluble forms)
Chromium (+3) (insoluble forms)
Chromium (+6) (insoluble forms)
Lead (soluble forms)
Lead (insoluble forms)
Mercury  (inorganic forms)
Mercury  (organic forms)
Selenium (+4)
Selenium (+6)
Beta and photon emitters
Total dissolved solids
Ferric Sulfate
90-99 (pH 6-8)
90 (pH 6-7)
Lime Softening
88-95 (pH 10-11)
Lime Softening
  90 (pH>8)                               98

  98 (pH 6-9)       90-98 (pH 7-9)         70-98
98-99 (pH 7-9)

95-97 (pH 6-9)      80-97 (pH 6-9)           98
66-97 (pH 7-8)                       60-80 (pH 10-11)

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)
  95 (pH 4-6)
95 (pH 4-6)

                                            Table  IV-6   (Continued)



Cadmium (soluble  forms)

Cadmium (insoluble forms)

Chromium (soluble forms)

Chromium (+3)  linsoluble forms)

Chromium (+6)  (insoluble forms)


Lead (soluble  forms)

Lead (insoluble forms)

Mercury (inorganic forms)

Mercury (organic  forms)


Selenium (+4)

Selenium (+6)


Ra d 1 urn

Beta and photon emitters





Total  dissolved sol ids


fair to  good


fair to  good

up to 99







Source:   Black and Veach,  Inc.,  1977; U.S. EPA, 1977a;  Volkert, 1974.

                                                                    Table  IV-7

Coagulation, filtration

Coagulation, filtration, and
adsorption with:

  Powdered activated
  carbon, mg/1:



  Granular activated carbon,
  7-5-minute full bed
  contact time


  Chlorine, mg/1:


  Ozone, mg/1:


Potassium permanganate,

                                                                                                              2, 4-D Reduction




                        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

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
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
loading from agricultural areas (982 kg/km /yr) and the lowest from
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)

      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-
      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

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
                                             Population Served
                                              (in thousands)
Systems in violation,
as % of all systems in
size category
- 10
- 100
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.

     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
	Water resources region
   — Subregion
Source:   WRC  (1978)

                               Table IV-9

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.

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

     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
— Water resources region
 Source:   WRC (1978)

     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
^^— Water resources region
Source:   WRC  (1978)

      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

• Water resources region

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
                         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.

         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
     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


                  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.

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-

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

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.

                         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.

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.

          , 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

	, 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

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.

                                Chapter V

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

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

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
      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
      Many aquifers were once below sea level as the oceans have advanced
and receded over geologic time.  Either salt water  or salt deposits may


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
      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.

      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

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

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

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.

      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

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


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


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.

                               Chapter VI
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


                                Table VI-1
                                         Population Served

Pop. Served
cents/1000 gal .
-on h^ /I nnn „-,!
<1000 1000-10,000
22,954 8992
6.6 26.7
77 60
15 10


 cents/1000 gal.
Assets - Mean
Dollars per
 Privately Owned Systems
Source:   Temple,  Barker and Sloane (1977)

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
                   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

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

          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)

In some cases, facilities such as primary transmission conduits, major
storage, or treatment facilities, may require significant improvements
or replacement, at very large cost.
     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

              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

              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

          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

                               Table VI-4

                        TO MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
Region I

Region II
  None in Region
Region III

Region IV
  Georg ia
  North Carolina
  South Carolina

Region V
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

Region VI


Region VII


Region VIII

  North Dakota


Region IX


Region X



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)

                              Table VI-5
                           (cents/1000 gallons)
Level of

Primary 17.6
Trickling filter 21.2
Activated sludge 31.6
Advanced 45.4
Costs b
treatment 56.8
Greater than secondary
treatment 86.5
Upgrade primary
to secondary 32.7
Upgrade secondary
to advanced 22.2
Population Served
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

46.4 41.9


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.
non-construction costs amortized at

Source:  Dames and Moore (1978a, 1978b)

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

                                   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

   ( 6.8)
   ( 2.7)

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
Source:   EPA (1979a)

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
          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

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

                               Table VI-7


Region I

  New Hampshire
  Rhode Island

Region II

  New Jersey
  New York
  Puerto Rico
  Virgin Islands

Region III



  Hest Virginia

  District of

Region IV


  N.  Carolina
1 5',
12.5', of eligible
  Step 1
Hardship grants
  up to 15\:
5-15', plus Step 1
  and 2 funding
Up to $150,000
  for upgrading
     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



     Region VIII

None in region

     Region IX
Amer. Samoa
Tr. Terr, of
Pac. Isld.
1 01
                    Region X

               up to  50
                        ,  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)

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-
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

          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-

          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

          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

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

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

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


small  community systems.   Similarly, studies are
underway on the cost of controlling organic contam-
inants and on needs for rehabilitation of large
urban  systems.

                      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,

Energy Resources Co., Inc.  October 1975.  Economic Evaluation of the
Promulgated Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. E.P.A.

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.

	, July 1978.  Revised Economic Import Analysis of Proposed
Regulations on Organic Contaminants in Drinking Water, E.P.A.
Contract 68-01-4778

                               Chapter VII
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
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

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
      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.

      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
          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-
      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

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
      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


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
      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

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


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

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
      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.

      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

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

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

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

          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.

          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

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

          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-

          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.

          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

          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-

          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

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.


                              Chapter VIII
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-

      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

FLOW 1,400  bgd
               SURFACE WATERS

          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
0.4  bgd  DISCHARGED

 TOTAL  STORAGE: 15,000 X 10    ga\
                Figure  8.2   WASTE-WATER  INTERACTIONS

 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
Wastewater in
stream flow is
greater than -%
Total population affected,
At avg stream flow At low
stream flow
          Source:  SCS Engineers, 1979.

 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
             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,

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.


                                                             STEP  2
                 I DENTI FY
                 LIMI TATIONS
                                       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
          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.

          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.

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.

          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
      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.


          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
          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

                                t       T       T       T
r t'
— T

                       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-
          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

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

                                   EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT

                                   EXISTING WATER SUPPLY INTAKE

                                   PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY INTAKE

                                   CONSOLIDATED TREATMENT PLANT

                                   NOTE: OUTFALL AND DIFFUSES
                                        AT FRECPOHT
Source:   Weston (1975)

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

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

                          NORTHGLENN BOUNDARY-
                                                            SOUTH  PLATTE
                                                            WELL FIELD-
                              FACILITY —

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

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

                  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.

              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.

          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

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
          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


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

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.
          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

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:

          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

          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.

                      (The WQM Process)

                Water Quality Assessment (annually)
                  (may be part of WQM Planning)

                Water Quality Management Activities
                  Other Than Planning
                  (e.g., implementation, see
                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
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)

          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-

              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:

          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,

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
              Water use conflicts:  Can a Level B study help to
              resolve conflicts in allocation of water supplies?

    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

          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-
          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

                        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

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:

                                                                                    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

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-
          .   . 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

          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-

          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

              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


          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.

          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

          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.

    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

        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.

                       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"

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.

                               Chapter  IX
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
          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

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:

          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

          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


              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

              Draft legislation is being prepared to allow States
              to implement conservation pricing for municipal
              and industrial  water supplies from Federal projects.


              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-

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-

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)).

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-

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-

              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

          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

              The Goleta County Water District in Santa Barbara
              County, California, requires  installation of water
              conserving fixtures for all toilets, faucets, and

              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-

          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
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

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.





                 160  •
                 140  -
120  -"
                  80  •
                                                                                           WRC II
                                                                                         WRC I

                                                                        •   data point

                                                                        O   estimate for future
80          90         2000          10



      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).

                              Table  IX-2


Residential  In-House
Residential  Outside

Reduction in Total
Municipal Use:

             but say
Percent Reduction
in Each Type of
Per Capita Demand



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

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.

          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,

              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

          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.

                               Table IX-3

Lavatory Sink
    Total Residential
    Other Municipal
    Total Municipal           190               152
a.  Assumes 20% savings
b.  Assumes 10% of water saved
Hot Water

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).

                                                   Table  IX-4

                                    REALISTIC MUNICIPAL CONSERVATION
    Water Use
 Family of Four

    (-76 gpd)

(Delay Expansion)

-2% Withdrawals
      (-7 bgd)
    Energy Use
     -2% Total
 (-1.3 barrels/year)
-15% WS & WW Utilities
(20 BTU/gallon)
-3% Imports
(-90xl06 barrels/year)
 -7% Water-Related
 (-$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/
    Water Quality
Improved nearby
.  recreation
.  fish and
   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
. groundwater overdraft
  with associated quality
. surface water problems
  where flows are frequently
  below those needed to
  maintain water quality
   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

they be expected without further definitive research
results to better establish practical design stan-

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

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,


          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

              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.

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

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

              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.

    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-

    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-

There are also notable impediments to  conservation:

    Lack of clear information on comprehensive advantages
    and disadvantages.

    Uncertainty in numbers needed to adequately  calculate

    Inertia in local agencies and consumers.

    The bias toward over appropriation and overuse in
    western water law.

          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

          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.

          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
      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

                               Table IX-5

  Not  Specified

  Boiler Feed
Percent of
Percent of
 Groundwater  Recharge
 Other (Recreation,  etc.)
                                   =   0.7  bgd
                                   =   3% of municipal


       536 projects
Source:  Gulp, Wesner and Gulp (1979).

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


              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

          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.

    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

    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

              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.

          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


          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)

              The relative geographic locations of dis-
              chargers and potential users, and the re-
              sultant expense of transporting water from
              one to the other.

                              Table IX-6
                                       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

              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

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

          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

          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

      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.


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.

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

    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.

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

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.

      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-

              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-

              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.

    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-

    Downstream water rights may have claim on dis-

    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.

                       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,

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.

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,

	       ,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.

                                Chapter X
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

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.


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-
          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.

          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.

          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).


          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.

          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
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)

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
          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

                      Percent Mined

                  0- 9% f  1       40-69%

                 1 0-39% F^        i70%
                                                                                            SALTWATER   '1,000  FT DEEP
                       Sources:   Groundwater Mining Map:  Water Resources Council  (1978); Saltwater Aquifer Map based on EPA

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
               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).

     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

surface impoundments (Geraghty & Miller, 1978) is used in this
          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.,





r 70, 000
No, OF
                      ^   \c>9    ^\o^   QV^  c^-   ^ ^
                             \^                   ^°

                      CH  VOLUME          ^  NO. OF SITES
         a.  Volume  and Number of  Impoundment Sites by  User









rrr, 1 WA
- 80
- 60
BY No,
- 40
- 20
                      PERCENT VOLUME     ^  PERCENT NO, OF SITES
                   b.   Breakdown by  Type of Industry
Source: Geraghty and Miller  (1978)


                                                                182	MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS
                                                                 ~	MINING ESTABLISHMENTS
                                                                Based on data from Geraghty and  Miller, 1978.
                                  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


                  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
        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)

          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


Source:   EPA (1977c)

                              Table X-4


        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

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.

                              Table  X-5

                                            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+
+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

               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

          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.

250,000 ,
200,000 •

150,000 •

Number of


304 5_ES





10 3 1987 J^ 7(L^° ^


Volume of

. 170
° *• £ * i ^* # n v ^ •£• nl # !V v
//// // •/-*/ ^ *
^ ^ ^ •-? 4- /? .s> *- .V ^


   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

          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.

                 Upper number, operating wells;
                 Lower number, total number of wells,
                 including operating, shutdown,
                 drilled and not used.
              O Indicates state was listed for UIC Program.

              •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


• **

























0 0
•z. 1— 1—
< in z
C3 ^ *-"•
or _i <
CD 0- CL.






















  Source: Geraghty and Miller  (1978);  EPA (1977c); Summers,  et. al.(1979)

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
 of Contamination
   Mine Drainage
  Spills & Leaks
   Highway Salt
 Abandoned Wells

 Point sources
 Saltwater intrusion
of Contamination Cases

Source:  EPA (1977c)

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
     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

                                                                            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

       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
      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.


                             Table X-8
21 cases/43 states

State Assessment
RCRA Permits
NPDES Permits
To be completed
Regulations proposed
32 States
RCRA Permits
Close open Dumps
Regulations proposed
5 years after inventory
44 States
Injection Wells    Federal
                    UIC Permits         Regulations proposed
                    Well Regulations    43 States
NPDES Permits
Large lots only
Septic Systems     Federal
                    RCRA Permits- New
                    Multi-dwelling only
                    Regulations proposed
                    Most States
POTW (pipes)
All States
Surface Mining Act  Regulations proposed
NPDES Permits       All States

      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-
              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.

          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

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.

          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.

          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

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
          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.

      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

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-
          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

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
          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

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

          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.

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 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

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

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.

                   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
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.

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.

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-

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,

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.

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.

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-

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.

           , 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

	, 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-

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.

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.

                               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

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
                          NUMBER OF SYSTEMS,  1978
                 permanent population  Maximum daily use,  Number of
                  served, millions    persons, millions   systems^
Public systems
 Medium  large
 community systems
 (>10,000 served)
 Small community
 (<10,000 served)
Rural systems



 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.

In the latter study it was estimated that only 177 million people were
served by community systems, referred to as central systems in the
      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.

      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
      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
                         Size of population
<100  TOO  999  1,000 - 9,999  All systems <10,000
  Source: FRDS, April 1979.




•v ; ;.;.;




       (  PRELIMINARY  )
                                                         EPA REGION
            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
                        WATER SYSTEMS BY OWNERSHIP
                            Size of population
  Ownership   25-99  100-499  500-999  1,000-2,499  2,500-4,999  5,000-9,999
 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
      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

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
      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
                               WATER SYSTEMS
Violations, % of systems
Size of
All sources
MCL monitoring
24 35
14 24
Surface waters
MCL monitoring MCL
10 36 7
Groundwater only
chemical b
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.

      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-
      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
                        SMALL  WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
                                 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.

      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
                                  Table XI-6
Small systems

Total population served
Microbiological violations3
Reporting and monitoring
Turbidity violations'*
Reporting and monitoring
Inorganic chemical
Reporting and monitoring
Inorganic chemical
Reporting and monitoring
Mill ions








Population affected








    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.

      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

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

                                                            PHYSICAL  PLANT FAILURE
                                                                 ROUTINE  OPERATION
                                                                 AND  MAINTENANCE
                           CAPACITY  OR PRESSURE
                        IMPROVED OPERATION  AND
                        MAINTENANCE CAPABILITIES
                       OF FUNCTIONS
                              IDENTIFICATION  AND
                              EVALUATION OF  SOLUTIONS

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

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

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.

          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
          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.


i 5C





Jf J

MtU 1 UM-LHKbt 515 ItM
13.4 i
.1 :i::::
«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
          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
          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

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

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.

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
                          SMALL WATER  SUPPLY SYSTEMS
sponsoring agency
National Rural Water          NRWA/EPA
Association Training
and Technical
Assistance Program

State-of-Art of              EPA
Small Water Treatment
Systems (Technical

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.

      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
                               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,
          North Dakota, South Dakota
      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

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
      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

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.

      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-

         1 5 i—
                                1-10          11-20         21-50          >50
     SOURCE:  ASCE. 1977

    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

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-

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.

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-

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-

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.

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.

                       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,

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,

Energy Resources Co., Inc.  October 1975.  Economic Evaluation of the
Promulgated Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations.  EPA-570/9-75-

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-

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.


                               Chapter XII
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

Force, then reformulated and revised, subsequently screened a second time
by EPA executives, and finally crystallized into actionable items discussed
      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

          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
          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

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-

      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-
      (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

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,

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
      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-

      (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

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
      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

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:

      (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
      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


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.

      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

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
      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
      (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.


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
          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
      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


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
          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


      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

      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-
          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

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
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:

          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

      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.


                               Appendix A

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
      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.


                               Table A-l
                      AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL
                         (National Averages)

Lavatory Sink

Percent of
Present Use
Potential Range
with Conservation0
    Precent Reduction
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.

                                           Table A-2
Kitchen & Lavatory Faucets
Pressure Reducing Valve
Hot Water Pipes

Clothes Washer
Dish Washer

                             3.5 Gal/Flush
                             3 Gal/Min (Max)
                             1.5 Gal/Min (Max)
                             50 PSI (Maxl


                             16-19 Gal/Load
                             7.5 Gal/Load
                             Avoid Waste
                                                        Water Saved
Percent of
Conventional Use
(of in-house use)
 (of hot water)
 (of faucet  use)

    Energy Saved
(IP3 BTU/Capita-Day)
       .2- .4


       .2-  .6
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

          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

      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

detailed analysis to verify removal of this type of error has not been
      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
          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
      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

Kitchen & Lavatory
Pressure Reducing
Hot Water Pipes
Clothes Washer
Dish Washer
                                                     Table A-3

                                         Additional  Cost/Fixture
  New, Remodel  or
Routine Replacement


Material  (+ Labor)
   1-5 (+5)
   1-5 (+4)
   0-2 (+2)

    30 (+20)
                                                             50 (+80)
                                      20-30                 300 (+20)
                                       0-10                 300 (+10)
                                                                             Benfit/Cost Ratio9
New, Remodel
or Repalce
        a.  Assumes 7% interest, 20 year life, energy at 25
                              Table A-4
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)



     Pressure Reducing Valve

     Efficient Sprinkling
                                                Table A-5

                                                                                      Water Saved
            Percent of
          Conventional Use

                              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
Drought Resistant Vegetation  Major Landscaping Consideration  20-25 of remaining outside

                              Avoid Waste
 5-10 of remaining  outside
     a. Low estimate to lessen double counting.

     b. Assumes 10% residences now unmetered and 30% need pressure reducing valve.

                                           Table A-6
                                     Additional  Cost/Residence
                                            (in  $)
Pressure Reducing Valve
Efficient Sprinkling
Drought Resistant Vegetation
New or Extensive
Material (Labor)
100 (+300)
30 (+ 20)
100-300 (+100)
    Benefit/Cost Ratio

New or Remodel   Retrofit
 2.3-3.7         0.6-0.9
 3.3-6.6b        2.0-3.9b        0.1-0.23
 0.1-1.1           0.0
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-


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.

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.

                         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.

                               Appendix B


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 --
                          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
     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.

     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
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

     15 -
                        WATER SUPPLY
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)


      15 _
      10 _

Without Conservation
  .  Capacity
  .  Flow
                                                       With Conservation
                                                         .  Capacity

                                                         .  Flow
                                      20         25
                                          Time  (in years)

              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 --

              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/

              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

              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

                                Table B-2
          (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

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
              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.

                 Other Operating
                            Materials &
                                            , 5.30
                                          Water Supply Utility
                                                               Con-    I Qper-
                                                               struction J ators
                                                               1.40    I 10.60
                                                               4.80   8.00
                                           Wastewater Utility
                     Expenses  Construction  Construction
                        6.50        Labor     Materials &
                                    4-°°      Equipment
                        Figure B.3  ESTIMATES OF WATER-RELATED MONEY FLOW IN
                                   TYPICAL COMMUNITY  WITHOUT CONSERVATION

                                Table B-3

                       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.

                         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.