Final Draft 12/12/97
CITIZEN'S GUIDE
TO
ASSESSMENT AND PROTECTION
OF DRINKING WATER SOURCES
Rro t e c 11 o n
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region 4 - Atlanta
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
BACKGROUND 1
SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (SWAP) 2
Required Elements 2
Statutory Deadlines : 3
Information Gathering 3
Advisory Committees 3
SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM (SWPP) 4
BENEFITS OF SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT AND PROTECTION 5
GETTING INVOLVED 6
APPENDLX A-GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS 7
APPENDLX B - KEY QUESTIONS AND ISSUES FOR ADVISORY COMMITTEES .... 9
APPENDLX C - DRINKING WATER PROTECTION - REGION 4 EXAMPLES 12
APPENDLX D - REGION 4 STATE SOURCE WATER CONTACTS 17
-------
CITIZEN'S GUIDE
TO
ASSESSMENT AND PROTECTION
OF DRINKING WATER SOURCES
INTRODUCTION
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - Region 4 has designed this
document to assist its State counterparts in developing citizen and stakeholder participation in
the protection of local sources of drinking water. Citizen and stakeholder involvement is crucial
ia assisting states to fulfill their responsibilities under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act,
which mandates the assessment of public drinking water supplies. This guide explains ways
citizens and local stakeholders can become actively involved in the assessment efforts and how
to use the assessment information to develop source water protection programs. A glossary of
terms and acronyms is presented in Appendix A.
EPA-Region 4 is comprised of the following eight southeastern states: Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
BACKGROUND
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was reauthorized by Congress on August 6, 1996.
Before 1996, the SDWA primarily regulated the treatment and distribution of drinking water
from public water systems. With the 1996 reauthorization, the SDWA now requires States to
develop a Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) and encourages States to develop a
Source Water Protection Program (SWPP) that includes management measures to prevent
pollution of drinking water.
Public drinking water supplies have always been important to the location and
development of communities. Historically, a good source of drinking water was a key factor in
determining the location of centers of population. One early American example of the
importance placed on maintaining a clean source of water is Lord Delaware's proclamation for
Jamestown, issued in 1610:
There shall be no man or woman dare to wash any unclean linen,
wash clothes,... nor rinse or make clean any kettle, pot or pan, or any
suchlike vessel within twenty feet of the old well or new pump. Nor shall
anyone aforesaid within less than a quarter mile of the fort, dare to do the
necessities of nature, since by these unmanly, slothful, and loathsome
immodesties, the whole fort may be choked and poisoned.
Today, states, municipalities, water suppliers, citizens, and local stakeholders are
-------
working together to protect the drinking water supplies of their communities. Involvement of
local citizens and other stakeholders in these efforts is critical to the success of these programs.
SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (SWAP)
Source Water Assessment Programs are required by Congressional mandate for the
protection and benefit of drinking water sources throughout the United States. These sources
include both ground water and surface water supplies. Every State that is directly responsible for
regulating public water suppliers is required to develop and implement a Source Water
Assessment Program (SWAP). The State, or the State's delegated entity, will use the SWAP to
assess local drinking water sources so that the local citizen, his/her community, and the public
water system will have enough information to take action to prevent contamination of the
drinking water source.
Required Elements
The SWAP provisions of the SDWA require States regulating public water suppliers to
assess all ground water and surface water drinking water sources and identify activities in the
source wate:r protection area that could potentially degrade the water quality. To meet the
requirements, each State must accomplish the following:
1. Delineation of Source Water Protection Area - Defining the land area upstream of a
surface or ground water drinking water source in which contaminants could potentially
be released and move to reach the source water intake of a public water supply system.
2. Contaminant Inventory - Locating and identifying the land uses and activities within
the source water protection area that could potentially release contaminants to the source
wate:r and degrade its quality.
3. Susceptibility Analysis - Evaluating the contaminant inventory to determine the
relative potential of a contaminant reaching a source water intake in an amount that will
adversely impact the public water system's ability to deliver safe drinking water.
4. Public Access - Ensuring that all information collected for the SWAP is available to
the public. Maps must be developed and made available to the public. These maps must
show the delineated areas, the location of the existing and potential sources of
contamination, and the results of the susceptibility analysis.
5. Public Participation - Ensuring that the public has an opportunity to provide input into
the assessment and protection programs as they are developed. States must form
advisory committees and hold public workshops around the State to gather input on the
development and implementation of these programs.
-------
These elements are required to be part of the State's assessment program, but States have
some discretion in determining how each of these elements will be accomplished. The State
SWAP could provide guidelines or requirements to local communities to assist in protecting the
drinking water.
To receive a complete copy of the State Source Water Assessment and Protection
Programs Final Guidance, publication number EPA 816-R-97-009, dated August 1997, please
call the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791 or access EPA's home page at
www. epa. gov/ogwdw/swp/s wappg. html.
Statutory Deadlines
States have a limited amount of time to develop and implement the SWAP. Program
submittals are due to EPA by February 1999. States are required to document all public
participation activities and comments during the development of the program.
In the SWAP submittal, States are required to propose a timetable for implementing and
completing assessment within the State. The proposed timetable must be no more than 2 years
after EPA approves a State program. EPA may grant a State's request for an extension of the
time available for completion of assessments up to 18 months after the original 2-year period.
Thus, State completion of the assessment could be a maximum of 3-1/2 years from EPA
approval.
Information Gathering
Since 1986, many States have developed a Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP) to
protect ground water sources of drinking water. Within these States, many of the activities
required for the SWAP, such as delineations, contaminant inventories, and susceptibility
determinations for ground water sources of drinking water, may have already been completed.
If so, States may use this existing information to meet SWAP requirements. Data needed to
conduct assessment activities may be available from many different federal, state, and local
agencies. In such cases, the SWAP provides the opportunity for the State to gather this existing
data into one place in order to map the information and make it available to the public.
Advisory Committees
The State must form at least one advisory committee to assist in developing its SWAP.
Each committee should be composed of concerned citizens, local stakeholders, environmental
officials, water system personnel, and State representatives. It must also have members that can
evaluate the technical and the policy portions of the SWAP. Technical members will provide
input on the technical feasibility and effectiveness of the SWAP. States must try to obtain
representation on the committees from a wide cross section of citizens and stakeholders.
-------
Advisory committee members are responsible for evaluating the State's draft SWAP to
determine if the program will result in the protection and benefit of public water systems and
whether enough information will be provided for each source water protection area so that local
community Members and water supply utilities can develop and undertake local protection
efforts. The time and financial resources available to each State to conduct the assessment
program must be taken into consideration. Short time frames and limited financing may require
States to prioritize the areas that will receive more in-depth work. For example, States may
require a different level of effort for the largest public water systems serving the most people,
compared w: th the smallest public water systems.
Advisory committee members may be asked to evaluate the priorities that the State has
proposed. In the SWAP submittal to EPA, Slates are required to describe the advisory
committee's advice regarding the key Issue Questions and Issues (see Appendix B). States will
also need to include a responsiveness summary showing how the public comments were used in
developing the assessment program.
The following factors may be considered by the State when prioritizing which types of
systems or aieas of the State will receive more detailed assessments than other areas:
1. Previous assessment efforts - Some drinking water sources may already be assessed.
2. Type and extent of threats - Some areas may be more vulnerable to contamination
than others.
3. Type and size of PWSS - Some systems, based on type or size, may require more
detailed assessments than others. For example, a State may decide that public
water systems (PWSSs) that serve a large number of people may need more
detailed assessments, or that smaller PWSSs with fewer resources and potentially
more risk, may need more detailed assessments.
4. Qijecliyes - Assessments could be varied according to the program objectives. For
example, areas where future protection efforts will be undertaken may require
more detailed assessments.
SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM (SWPP)
While the SDWA does not explicitly mandate that each State develop a Source Water
Protection Program (SWPP), the EPA believes that Congress intended for States to protect
drinking water sources from contamination. Consequently, EPA strongly encourages States to
develop and Implement a SWPP.
In their SWAP reports, States are being required to describe whether they will be
developing a 1SWPP and if they will be undertaking protection activities. States are also asked to
describe how the information collected through the SWAP will be used to further pollution
prevention efforts. While the SWAP is mandatory, States are not required to develop SWPPs
However, EPA hopes that, through active and meaningful advisory committee participation,
-------
most States will choose to develop a SWPP.
A State SWPP could provide guidelines or requirements to local communities to assist in
protecting their drinking water. Local protection efforts could be promoted by having State
representatives speak at board or community meetings, by providing educational materials to
assist community members, and/or by providing technical assistance. Also, a State protection
program could provide financial resources in the form of grants or loans to communities to assist
in drinking water protection efforts. The two components of a SWPP are:
1. Better internal coordination of State regulatory programs on those regulated activities
within source water protection areas.
2. Assistance to local communities.
Generally, while a State may provide guidance and assistance, the active protection of
drinking water is ultimately the responsibility of the people who drink the water, working in
coordination with their public water supplier. Local protection efforts within the community are
the key to protecting drinking water supplies.
In addition to the five elements of a source water assessment (delineation, source
inventory, susceptibility determination, etc.), a local source water protection effort hinges on
three key steps:
1. Local teams of concerned citizens and other stakeholders
2. Management measures for managing potential contaminant sources to reduce or
eliminate the potential threat to drinking water supplies and providing for notification of
the public water supply system if release occurs.
3. Contingency planning to develop and implement both long- and short-term drinking
water replacement strategies for supplying safe drinking water to the consumer in
the event of contamination or physical disruption.
BENEFITS OF SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT AND PROTECTION
Two benefits immediately stand out for conducting assessment and protection programs.
The first benefit is a more secure and safe drinking water supply for the the community and for
its future generations, especially if the information collected during the SWAP is used to protect
the drinking water source by developing and implementing a SWPP.
The second benefit is the possible reduction of costs associated with treating and
distributing drinking water. If the results of the SWAP indicate that the drinking water source is
adequately protected from contamination, the public water supplier and the consumer may be
-------
able to save money by having to collect and analyze fewer water quality samples, in addition to
obtaining other types of regulatory relief.
Examples of the benefits of source water assessment and protection are presented in
Appendix C. Projects from each of the Region 4 States describe successful actions taken to
protect drinking water obtained from both ground water and surface water sources.
GETTING INVOLVED
Before any meaningful approach to source water protection can be developed, a local
team of responsible individuals needs to be assembled to guide the process in a cohesive,
efficient manner. These individuals need to focus on the primary objective of protecting
drinking water sources, but they must also recognize other activities in the watershed, and the
opportunities to support other watershed objectives, such as water conservation and habitat
restoration.
Ideally, an advisory committee will always have at least one representative who is
actually employed by a public water supplier. Getting local citizens Involved in source water
protection efforts heightens a sense of ownership in protecting the resource. After all, it is the
local citizens who drink water that comes from a public water system while at home, school, or
work. The pwticipation of citizen groups such as retired volunteers has proven very effective in
drinking water protection activities.
Local citizens and/or stakeholders may own a business or conduct an activity within the
source water protection area that may be considered a significant potential contaminant source
that could contribute contaminants to the drinking water. If so, these people may be asked by
the communily or the public water system to reduce the chance that those contaminants will
reach the drinking water source. Involvement in the source water assessment process (SWAP)
will help citizens and stakeholders understand if their activities could be listed as a significant
potential contaminant source and how to obtain information on reducing the threat of
contamination.
Citizeiis interested in being actively involved in the protection of local drinking water
sources should contact their public water supply system to express their interest in participating
in any advisoiy committees or local source water protection teams. Interested citizens should
also attend any public hearings being offered and volunteer to actively participate in any source
water assessment and protection activities. Information on the location and scheduling of public
hearings can be obtained local newspaper advertisements or from the appropriate State Source
Water contact identified in Appendix D.
6
-------
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS
Contaminants - All raw water (before treatment) contaminants regulated under the Safe Drinking
Water Act plus the protozoa Cryptosporidium.
Contaminant source inventory - A listing showing the identification and location of actual and
potential sources of contamination within the source water protection area.
Contaminant sources - The activities that have contaminants that, if released, could degrade
source water quality, such as waste water treatment plants, urban runoff, dry cleaning
establishments, underground storage tanks, agriculture, etc.
Delegated entity - States may require or allow other entities, such as public water systems, local
agencies, etc., to perform some or all of the assessment activities.
Drinking water source - The ground water or surface water that is used for drinking water supply
by a public water system. This does not include individual or private wells.
DWSRF - Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Under Section 1452 of the SOW A, the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency awards capitalization grants to states to develop drinking
water revolving loan funds to help finance drinking water system infrastructure improvements,
source water protection, and to enhance operations and management of drinking water systems.
Ground water - Generally, any water found under the land surface.
Public participation - States are required to establish procedures, including but not limited to the
establishment of technical and citizens advisory committees, to encourage the public to
participate in developing the protection program for wellhead areas and SWAPs. Public
participation activities, such as public hearings, local meetings, and citizen advisory committees,
are expected to build public support and responsibility for local water supplies.
PWSS (public water supply system) - A system, publicly or privately owned, that supplies
drinking water to at least 25 individuals or has 15 service connections.
SDWA - The Safe Drinking Water Act (amended in 1986 and 1996). This is the federal law that
regulates PWSSs.
Source water intake - A ground water well or surface water intake through which a PWSS draws
its raw water. After water is withdrawn, it is typically treated and then enters the distribution
system where it goes to homes, businesses, etc. for consumption.
-------
Source water protection area (SWPA) - The land area surrounding a ground water or surface
water drinking water source through which contaminants could move and reach the well or
intake. The SWPA delineation, the contaminant source inventory, the susceptibility analysis,
public access, public participation, and any protection activities are focused on the source water
protection area.
Stakeholders - Anyone that may be affected by this assessment program or who drinks water
supplied by a public water system. Included are the general public, industry, health agencies,
vulnerable populations (e.g., very old, very youg, people with HIV/AIDS or other diseases),
agriculture, water utilities, and environmental groups, etc.
Surface water - Generally, water found on the surface of the land, such as reservoirs, lakes,
rivers, streams, etc.
Susceptibility analysis - An evaluation of the contaminant inventory to determine the relative
potential of a contaminant reaching a source water intake in an amount that will adversely
impact the public water system's ability to deliver safe drinking water. This evaluation includes
locating significant potential sources of contamination and determining the susceptibility of the
public water supplies in the source water protection area to contamination from these sources.
This analysis will assist the State in determining which potential sources of contamination are
"significant."
SWAP - Source Water Assessment Program
SWPP - Source Water Protection Program
Watershed - The land or surface area from which water drains to a lake, river, stream, or ocean.
A line can be drawn around this area within which the assessment activities would be conducted.
For the assessment program, States must delineate the entire watershed, upstream from the
intake to the State boundary.
Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) - The surface and subsurface area surrounding a well or well
field, supplying a public water system (PWS), through which contaminants are reasonably likely
to move toward and reach such water well or well field. A line can be drawn around this area,
within which the contaminant source inventory, susceptibility analysis, and protection activities
would be conducted.
Wellhead Protection Program - A program established by the Safe Drinking Water Act that
emphasizes the prevention of ground water contamination and consequent protection of drinking
water as the primary goals, rather than relying on the correction of contamination after it occurs.
-------
APPENDIX B
KEY QUESTIONS AND ISSUES FOR ADVISORY COMMITTEES
The following questions and issues, taken from the SWAP Guidance Manual, are being
included to assist advisory committee members in evaluating the State's proposed assessment
program. States must describe in their SWAP submittal to EPA the committee's advice
developed from these questions.
Public Participation
1. Should the State do more to provide adequate opportunity for stakeholder groups to
participate in the development of the program? If so, how?
2. Should the State do more to receive recommendations from both technical and citizen's
perspectives?
3. What should the State do for ongoing public participation in implementing assessments once
the State's SWAP is approved?
State's Strategic Approach
1. Has the State done an initial review of all data sources available and determined the scope of
the need for additional information?
2. What level of exactness/detail should be achieved by each assessment to be considered
"complete?"
3. Should the level of assessment provide for the protection and/or benefit of the public water
supply(s)?
4. What should be the basis for differential levels of assessments to be completed for different
public water supplies or categories of public water supplies? System type or size? Preliminary
information about the existence of threats? Other?
5. How will the State SWAP be coordinated among various environmental and other State
programs (e.g., PWSS, water quality, water resources, agriculture, land use, information
management, geologic)?
6. How would the State's SWAP lead to State watershed approaches and link to wellhead and
other protection programs?
-------
Delineation, Source Inventory, and Susceptibility
1. What del ineation method and criteria will be used for systems using ground waters? Where
shall recharge areas not be included and why?
2. What contaminants that are not currently regulated by EPA should be part of the State's
SWAP?
3. Should the State segment source water protection areas for more focused source inventories?
What should be the basis for such segmentation?
4. How should the State define and identify significant potential contamination sources and how
should the Slate undertake its inventory within source water protection areas?
5. How will t?ie results of the susceptibility analysis be characterized?
Boundary Waters, Multi-State Rivers, and the Great Lakes
1. What agreement should the State maintain or initiate with other States, tribes, or nations to
gain more complete and consistent source water assessments?
2. What contingency plans should be pursued?
3. What coordination/facilitation activities should the State request of EPA?
4. Are compatible and complimentary assessments being done in watersheds shared with other
States and countries?
Making the Results of Assessments Available to the Public
1. What should be included in the results of the assessments, what should be the format of an
understandable report on results, and when should the results be made available?
2. How and when should the State make available all the information collected during each
assessment when someone requests it?
3. What type of maps should be developed to display the results of the assessments?
4. How and when should the State make public all information collected during each assessment
for a PWS(s)?
5. How should the State or delegated entities provide wide notification of the availability of the
results and other information collected?
10
-------
State Program Implementation
1. What should be the timetable for State SWAP implementation?
2. How much should the State spend on SWAP development and implementation, and should
the resources come from the DWSRF and/or other resources?
3. Should the State delegate aspects of the assessments? If so, to whom? Should funding be
provided to delegated entities?
4. How should State agencies coordinate with each other and with other State, federal, and local
stakeholders when implementing assessment programs?
5. How and what should the State report to EPA regarding SWAP implementation?
6. When and how should the State update assessments?
11
-------
APPENDIX C
DRINKING WATER PROTECTION - REGION 4 EXAMPLES
ALABAMA
The Tuscumbia Fort Payne Aquifer Protection Program is a cooperative effort to protect
one of Alabama's most vulnerable sources of drinking water. Located in northern Alabama, the
Tuscumbia Fort Payne Aquifer is a karst aquifer and a drinking water source for over 108,411
connections. The combination of karst geology, a growing population, and heavy agricultural
use makes the protection of this aquifer a priority for Alabama.
The Aquifer Protection Program is funded through a Section 319 Nonpoint Source
Program grant. The program builds on several existing programs, such as the rural residential
well sampling and analysis program, the creation of a regional GIS database, and the
involvement of public water supply systems (PWSSs) through the local Wellhead Protection
Program (WHPP).
There are 12 PWSSs in the region that are dependent on ground water. The wellhead
delineation and contaminant inventories are complete for all of these systems, and two of the
systems have completed Local Wellhead Protection Management Plans (LWHPPs). All of the
systems will have completed LWHPPs by the year 2000.
A regional educational campaign was initiated in the spring of 1997. This campaign
includes countywide Ground Water Festivals, the first of which is scheduled for March 20, 1998,
in Madison County. In addition, the Cooperative Extension Service will provide a series of
countywide ground water protection workshops that will focus on small businesses, fanners, and
gardeners. The workshops will begin early in 1998. In cooperation with the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), Community Based Environmental Committees (CBECs) will be
established in each county, and the meetings will begin early in 1998.
• The last phases of the program will be implemented in the summer of 1998. The last
steps to finalizing the comprehensive protection program will be to establish Best Management
Practices for on-site sewage in cooperation with the County Health Departments and to create
countywide aquifer protection plans based on consultation with and recommendations from the
CBECs.
FLORIDA
In 1988, one of the public supply wells in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, was found
to be contaminated with tetracholoroethylene (PCE) and had to be taken off-line. PCE is used in
dry cleaning and also as an industrial degreaser. At about this time, Florida's Department of
Community Affairs mandated that every community and country government hi the State
12
-------
develop and submit a comprehensive, community development plan covering the next 5, 10, and
20 years. One specific item to be addressed by each plan was wellhead protection.
By 1990, seven of Tallahassee's 25 wells had been taken off-line due to low-level PCE
contamination. These wells were fitted with granulated activated carbon filters and placed back
on-line at a capital cost of $2,500,000 and an annual operating cost exceeding $110,000. This
expensive experience enhanced the City's awareness of its dependence on the highly vulnerable
Floridian Aquifer, its primary source of drinking water. The Tallahassee-Leon County
Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1990, and an Aquifer/Wellhead Protection Ordinance went
into effect in 1992.
Inventorying the potential contaminant sources in the county offered an unique
opportunity to involve the citizens of Leon County. The local Retired and Senior Volunteer
Program (RSVP) provided volunteer assistance for door-to-door surveys of businesses. In
addition to identifying possible sources of contamination, these volunteers also educated
business owners about their potential impact on local water resources. Involvement of local
senior volunteer groups in the development of wellhead protection programs has proven to be an
invaluable resource, both for the actual physical work and as persons knowledgeable about the
historical aspects of the area.
The following documents have been published as a result of the Tallahassee/Leon County
wellhead protection program:
Characterization ofKarst Development in Leon County, Florida, for the Delineation of
Wellhead Protection Areas, December 1992.
A Model Approach to Aquifer and Wellhead Protection in Florida, June 1996.
Local Wellhead Protection in Florida; Profiles of Six Local Ground Water Protection
Programs and Statewide Survey Results, September 1997.
To obtain copies of these reports or further information, contact Jay Johnson, P. D.,
Aquifer Protection Coordinator for the City of Tallahassee, at 850-891-1200.
GEORGIA
The Town of Watkinsville and Oconee County rely on ground water from numerous
wells and surface water that is purchased from, a neighboring city/county. During the winter
months, as much as 75% of the demand is supplied by ground water. A Wellhead Protection
Area ordinance was passed in 1993 to prevent ground water contamination from commercial and
residential growth, which has increased dramatically because of a population expansion of
Athens and Atlanta, Georgia.
Presently, the drinking water system in Watkinsville and Oconee County serves
approximately 12,000 people. The population served by the Oconee County Utility Department
13
-------
(OCUD) water system has doubled in the last four years. Because of this, a water conservation
plan has been implemented to control the amount of water that is purchased from Athens/Clarke
County.
Though the water department considers wellhead protection and water conservation
serious, local politicians have not supported efforts to control the pollution and demand that are
inevitable with the growth in this area of the state.
KENTUCKY
The Green River Area Development District (ADD) is preparing the source water
assessment and protection plans (called county water supply plans in KY) for seven counties in
the northwestern part of the State. For surface water supplies on smaller streams, hydrologic
sub-regional boundaries were first determined from topographic maps. Protection Area Zone 1
was then defined as a radius from one mile upstream to 1/4 mile downstream from the point of
intake. This is defined as the most immediate/critical protection area. Protection Area Zone 2
was defined using topographic maps with a minimum upstream distance of two miles, while
considering locations of stream divergence points and their drainage areas. These protection
areas are meiuit to be quick reference starting points for siting future industry, etc. and are the
areas within which potential contaminant inventories were carried out.
For each county, all potential contamination sites within the designated protection areas
were identified from the State Department for Environmental Protection and other agencies,
databases, and local knowledge. Site locations were ground-truthed and, if within a protection
area, plotted on a GIS base map of the county. Relative susceptibility of each site was tabulated
as short- or long-term hazard; chance of release (high, moderate, or low); and hazard of
contaminant 'high, moderate, or low) for each possible contaminant based on proximity to the
water source, nature of the contaminant, ability to treat, and soil association maps of each
county.
Protection plans include using state and federal regulatory measures, such as spill
containment ;3lans, monitoring wells, etc., combined with better communication of the
information in these plans to local Disaster and Emergency Services offices and local officials so
that the protection areas can be taken into consideration when making local development
decisions. Some areas of Kentucky are discussing protection ordinances and much expanded
public awareness programs.
MISSISSIPPI
Alcom State University, the oldest historically predominantly Black Land Grant
University in the United States, is located in Lorman, in rural Claiborne County in southwestern
Mississippi on the border of the Mississippi River. The university has an enrollment of
approximately 3,000 students and employs approximately 165 faculty and 700 full-tune and
14
-------
part-time staff members. Like many of the state universities in Mississippi, Alcorn State
operates its own public water supply system, which consists of three shallow wells and a water
treatment facility.
In an effort to protect its drinking water source, the administration at Alcorn State
responded favorably when approached by the MS Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
to consider development of a local Wellhead Protection (WHP) Plan. After the DEQ performed
a hydrogeological assessment of the surrounding area, the university established an effective
Wellhead Protection Advisory Council that included faculty, student, administration, and
support personnel representatives. The committee provided valuable guidance during the
project, as well as field assistance during the potential contaminant source inventory.
With assistance from the DEQ, the Advisory Council developed a management strategy
that included the following elements: (1) An assessment of existing contamination; (2) physical
improvements to the wells; (3) identification and implementation of best management practices
for the inventoried PCS sites (where needed); (4) initiation of remediation activities at those PCS
sites (where required); (5) development of a WHP video for free distribution; (6) hosting a
Wellhead Protection Day on campus; and (7) development of a WHP Emergency Contingency
Plan in conjunction with the Claiborne County Civil Defense office. The successful project has
also served as a springboard for addition projects where Alcorn State and the DEQ jointly
provided assistance for the development of WHP Plans for two additional public water supply
systems in the county.
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
In 1992, a major gas spill occurred in Elloree, South Carolina, a half mile from each of
Elloree's three wells and threatened to contaminate the town's water supply. Although the
clean-up proceeded smoothly, the near-disaster raised public awareness of the need to protect the
community's water supply, especially since the wells are shallow and vulnerable to
contamination.
With the help of a small grant from EPA, the Town of Elloree voluntarily began putting
a wellhead protection (WHP) plan into effect, making it the first community in South Carolina
to do so. Wellhead protection enables communities to take charge of protecting the quality of
their drinking water by identifying and carefully managing areas that supply ground water to
public water supply wells and wellfields. The Town of Elloree developed a list of contaminants
in the area, such as a gas station in close proximity to the drinking water supply. The area
around the wells was fenced, and samples were taken of the land in different places within
certain areas of the wells. Everything in the wellhead area is monitored to ensure that nothing
gets into the drinking water supply.
15
-------
In developing the WHP plan, Elloree has taken a significant step to ensure a continued
supply of good quality water for its citizens. By offering protection for this resource, the plan
also improves Elloree's position in attracting new businesses to the area.
TENNESSEE
Aware of contamination incidents occurring in nearby towns, officials of Germantown,
Tennessee, realized the necessity of developing and implementing a Wellhead Protection
Program to protect its ground water. Early in the planning stage a Germantown City Committee
was created consisting of the Director of Development, the City Engineer, the
Environmental/Public Services Director, and officials with the Ground Water Institute at the
University of Memphis.
The Wellhead Protection Program in Germantown is based on EPA's WHP A Model
using 40-year time of travel (TOT). With the help of the Ground Water Institute, potential
contaminant sources are entered into GIS maps of the area. Appropriate city ordinances are
currently being developed for a WHP management plan.
The Crermantown WHP program is innovative because it is GIS based, involves the
Shelby County Ground Water Board for city/county ordinance considerations, and the Ground
Water Institute of the University of Memphis. The 40-year TOT area delineation goes well
beyond the minimum 10-year TOT area required by the State.
16
-------
APPENDIX D
REGION 4 STATE SOURCE WATER CONTACTS
ALABAMA
Joe Allan Power, Director
AL Department of Environmental Management
1751 Congressman W. L. Dickinson Drive
P. O. Box 301463
Montgomery, AL 36130-1463
334-271-7770
E:MAJL: jp@adem.state.al.us
FAX: 334-279-3051
FLORIDA
Donnie McLaugherty
FL Department of Environment Protection
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
850-921-9438
E:MAIL: mclaugher_d@dep.state.fl.us
FAX: 850-921-5655
GEORGIA
Nolton Johnson, Manager
GA Department of Natural Resources
Drinking Water Program
Floyd Towers East
205 Butler Street, S.E., Suite 1362
Atlanta, GA 30334
404-651-5168
E:MAJJL: noltonjohnson@mail.dnr.state.ga.us
FAX: 404-651-9590
17
-------
KENTUCKY
Jack Wilson
Division of Water
KY Department for Environmental Protection
14 Reilly Road, Fort Boone Plaza
Frankfort, KY 40601
502-564-3410
E:MAIL: wilsonja@mail.nr.state.ky.us
FAX: 502-564-4245
MTSSTSS1PW
Jamie Crawford (Ground Water)
MS Department of Environmental Quality
P. O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
601-961-5354
E :MAIL: j am ie_crawford@deq. state, ms .us
FAX:
Bill Wall (Drinking Water)
MS State Department of Health
Division of Water Supply
P. O. Box 1700
2423 North State Street
Jackson, MS 39215-1700
601-960-7518
E:MAIL: billwall@mail.misnet.com
FAX: 601-354-6115
NORTH CAROLINA
Jessica Miles, Chief
NC Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Health
P. O. Box 29536
Raleigh, NC 27626-0536
919-733-232^
E:MAIL: Jessicajniles@mail.ehnr.state.nc.us
FAX: 919-715-3242
18
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA
David Baize, Chief
SC Department of Health and Environmental Control
Bureau of Water
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
803-734-9141
E:MAJL: baizedg@columb32.dhec.state.sc.us
FAX: 803-734-4661
TENNESSEE
Tom Moss
TN Department of Environment and Conservation
401 Church Street
Nashville, TN 37243-1549
615-532-0170
E:MAIL: tmoss@mail.state.tn.us
FAX: 615-532-0503
19
------- |