United States Office of April 1987
Environmental Protection Ground-Water Protection
Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
Water
& EPA Improved Protection of Water
Resources from Long-Term and
Cumulative Pollution:
Prevention of Ground-Water
Contamination in the United States
Prepared for the
Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development
-------
IMPROVED PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES FROM LONG-TERM AND
CUMULATIVE POLLUTION
PREVENTION OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION
IN
THE UNITED STATES
Prepared for the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OFFICE OF GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
OFFICE OF WATER
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APRIL 1987
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD i
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Ground-Water Resources of the U.S. 4
B. Use of Ground Water 4
C. Ground-Water Depletion and 7
Contamination
D. Protection Efforts 8
II. MAJOR SOURCES OF POLLUTION 10
A. Ground-Water Quality 11
B. Sources of Contamination 14
C. Regional Trends 18
III. MANAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS 25
A. Institutional Instruments 26
B. Legal Instruments 30
C. Regulatory Instruments 34
D. Economic Instruments 39
E. Other Instruments 41
IV. MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS 45
A. Spatial Complexity 45
B. Lack of Information 46
C. Coping with Uncertainty 46
V. CASE STUDIES 50
A. Considerations for Case Studies 50
B. Case Study Recommendations 52
VI. REFERENCES 59
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Following
Page
1-1 Productive Aquifers and Withdrawals from 4
Wells in the U.S.
1-2 Ground-Water Regions in the U.S. 4
1-3 Trends in Ground-Water Withdrawals, 1950-1985 5
1-4 Water Use By Sector, 1980 5
1-5 Ground-Water Withdrawals By Water 6
Resources Subregions, 1980
I-6 Relative Water Depletion 7
II-l Sources of Ground-Water Contamination 11
in the U.S.
II-2 Waterborne Disease In The U.S. Due To 11
Bacterial, Viral And Parasitic Contamina-
tion Of Ground Water, 1945-1980
II-3 Inorganic Substances Found In Ground Water 11
II-4 Summary Of Inorganic Elements In Rural 11
Water Wells
II-5 Types Of Adverse Health Effects Associated 12
With Cadmium, Lead, and Mercury
II-6 Concentrations Of Toxic Organic Compounds 12
Found In Drinking Water Wells And Surface
Water
I1-7 Volatile Organic Compounds Examined In The 12
Five National Surveys
II-8 Pesticides Found In Ground Waters Of 23 13
States
I1-9 Known And Potential Radionuclides In Ground 14
Water By Mode of Decay
11-10 Contaminant Sources By Category 15
11-11 Profile Of Waste Generators And Management 15
Sources
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued)
Following
Page
11-12 Profile Of Commercial/Production Sources 16
11-13 Profile Of Chemical Application Sources 16
11-14 Profile Of Other Sources 17
II-15 Major Sources Of Ground-Water 18
Contamination Reported By States
III-l Federal Agencies With 27
Ground-Water Protection Roles
III-2 Description of Ground-Water Roles of 27
Selected Federal Agencies
III-3 Organization Of U.S. EPA 27
III-4 Ground-Water Activities of EPA Offices 27
III-5 Federal Laws Related To The Protection 32
Of Ground-Water Quality
III-6 Regulatory Instruments By Source 34
III-7 Existing And Proposed Drinking Water 35
Standards
III-8 State Ground-Water Classification 36
Systems And Standards
III-9 Examples Of Land Use Controls For 38
Ground-Water Protection
111-10 Protective Ground-Water Zones 38
III-ll Sample Of State Waste-End Tax Systems 40
111-12 Ground-Water Monitoring Provisions 43
Of Federal Statutes
111-13 Federal Ground-Water Quality- Research 43
And Development
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued)
Following
Page
IV-1 Average Annual Precipitation in the U.S. 45
and Puerto Rico
IV-2 Classification Decision Process 47
-------
FOREWORD
In 1986 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) initiated a major "Project on Policies to
Improve Surface and Ground-Water Management." OECD selected
three problem areas for detailed investigation:
Sub-Proiect One: Improved Integration of Water
Resources With Other Government Policies
Sub-Proiect Two: Improved Water Demand Management
Sub-Proiect Three: Improved Protection of Water
Resources from Long-term and Cumulative Pollution.
This report is the U.S. national report for sub-project three to
be discussed at the May 1987 meeting of the Group on Natural
Resource Management of OECD's Environment Directorate.
The Office of Ground-Water Protection/ Office of Water, of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency led the preparation of
this report based on guidelines from OECD:
Chapter I- Introduction provides an overview of U.S.
ground-water resources, ground-water quality, and
governmental responsibilities for ground-water
protection
Chanter II- Maior Sources of Pollution discusses the
contaminants and sources of concern in the U.S., with
particular attention to regional trends
Chapter III- Management Instruments describes the
various policies, tools, practices, and measures
currently used or being considered for ground-water
protection in the U.S.
Chapter IV- Management Problems identifies recent
efforts to improve ground-water protection programs
despite continued uncertainty due to the localized
nature of the problem and the lack of complete
information
Chapter V- Case Studies briefly recommends several
possible cases and the rationale for their selection
Chapter VI- References cites all documents used to
prepare the report, so that others may obtain copies.
-------
Numerous individuals participated in the preparation of the
report. EPA's Office of Ground-Water Protection circulated it
to other offices within the Agency, to the U.S. Department of
Interior and its U.S. Geological Survey, and to a representative
of a private foundation and an academic institution. Booz,
Allen & Hamilton Inc. assisted in assembling the report.
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Ground water in the United States is a vital, economically
important national resource. Over the past three decades, its
value as a reliable source of clean water has become evident,
and in some places it is the only source of water. As of 1985,
ground water provided almost one-quarter of the fresh water used
daily in the U.S., and every state used ground water to meet
some of its water needs. Ground water is the source of drinking
water for approximately one-half of the total population of the
U.S. and for 97 percent of the residents of rural areas. Agri-
cultural operations and industry also account for substantial
uses of ground water in the U.S.
In addition to meeting the nation's demand for water, ground
water plays an important environmental function. For example,
ground water sustains many aquatic wetlands and terrestrial
ecosystems. It also accounts for about one-third of the flow of
all surface waters in the U.S. and provides 100 percent of the
flow in some regions during periods of low flow.
Most ground water in the U.S. is clean and available in
sufficient quantities to meet future needs, but some local and
regional problems have arisen. In a few areas, ground-water
declines have been documented, with the rate of withdrawals
exceeding the rate of replenishment.2 Additionally, varying
concentrations of a wide array of contaminants have appeared in
a number of locales. Agricultural chemicals, such as fertil-
izers and pesticides, and industrial chemicals including heavy
metals and solvents, have received the most attention in the
press, but federal and state government surveys and investiga-
tions have found more than 200 separate substances in the
nation's ground waters.
Although only trace levels of these substances have been
found in most areas tested, a number of communities have closed
public wells serving millions after finding excessive concentra-
tions of contaminants. Public officials are particularly
concerned that ground-water contamination may be more widespread
than reported to date and that it may steadily increase unless
adequate control measures are adopted.
Scientific limitations preclude both a comprehensive
identification of ground-water quality and assessment of the
health effects of detected contaminants. The nature of ground
water itself demands precision in selecting sampling locations.
Moreover, analytic testing techniques are neither generally
available nor affordable for unknown, unspecified substances.
Further, contaminants are often present in minute concentra-
-1-
-------
tions, below the detection limits of many common technologies.
Finally, there are limits in the ability to estimate both acute
and chronic health effects of exposure to contaminants in ground
water. Despite these limitations, it is important to proceed
with the initiation and development of ground-water protection
programs.
Development of effective programs is greatly challenging the
ingenuity and institutional capacity of all levels of government
in the U.S., because ground water for many reasons is
substantially more difficult to address than other resources
such as surface water and air. Protection of air quality, for
example, involves the regulation of a small number of automobile
manufacturers, a few thousand large industries, and a somewhat
greater number of smaller industrial and commercial activities.
Ground-water protection, by contrast, involves the control of
tens of thousands of hazardous waste sites, millions of
underground storage tanks, and billions of tons (billions of
kilograms) of pesticide and fertilizer application. The
potentially regulated community consists of not just a
relatively few large industries but also countless small
businesses, farmers, and individuals.
While prevention is a complex undertaking, cleanup is even
more difficult. For surface water and air, merely halting the
discharge of contaminants effectively dilutes them to safe
ambient levels. Such measures are less effective for ground
water, because ground water moves so slowly, natural attenuation
processes are so limited, and contaminants adhere to the soils.
Additional steps are necessary to prevent the contamination of
drinking water supplies. Cleanup techniques involve extracting
and treating the contaminated ground water before using it or
reinjecting it into the aquifer. These methods can be
enormously expensive and are not always very effective. Treat-
ment at the tap also is possible in some cases but sometimes the
only viable, though costly, solution is to abandon the
contaminated ground-water supply and replace it with another
source of water.
The diversity of institutional characteristics across the
country also complicates ground-water protection efforts. No
two regions, for example, have the same combination of ground-
water uses, land uses, contaminants and sources, and ground-
water management instruments. Superimposed on this regional
diversity is a rapidly evolving federal government role.
In the late 1970s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) recognized a need to better articulate its own approach to
the growing problem of ground-water contamination. The Agency's
Ground-Water Protection Strategy, issued in 1984, acknowledged
-2-
-------
the absence of overriding federal leglislation and recognized
that states should have the principal responsibility for
ground-water protection because of their legal and historical
roles in land use, water allocation, and public health pro-
tection.4 It also recognized that the federal government's
roles were to control certain contaminants and sources, provide
technical and financial assistance to the states, and to provide
coordination for research, resource characterization, and
information management.
Since the issuance of EPA's Ground-Water Protection
Strategy, both the federal and state governments have continued
to make substantial progress in strengthening protection of
ground water. Programs to manage waste sources such as
abandoned waste sites, landfills, land application of sludge and
wastewater, injection wells, surface impoundments, and waste
piles have received considerable attention in the past three
years. New programs to address previously unregulated sources
such as underground storage tanks are in the early stages of
development, and existing programs governing pesticides and
toxic substances are increasing their consideration of ground
water. In addition to these source-specific activities, many
initiatives focus on the overall protection of ground-water. At
the federal level, some examples of these measures include EPA1s
establishment of a new Office of Ground-Water Protection,
Congressional enactment of ground-water amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act, and EPA ground-water grants to states to
build their ground-water programs. Other federal activities
include data collection and interpretation under the U.S.
Geological Survey's (USGS) Federal-State Cooperative Program,^
the Regional Aquifer System Analysis (RASA) Program,6 and a
wide array of research projects.
States, in turn, have realized significant achievements in
the ground-water arena. By the end of 1986, close to forty
states had either completed or initiated development of
ground-water protection strategies that will guide their future
policymaking and program development efforts. In addition, like
the federal government, states have perceived the need for
better interagency coordination and have established a variety
of oversight committees, task forces, or working groups to
address this need. Many states have reexamined their statutory
and regulatory authorities, identified needed changes, and have
developed new laws and regulations, other significant activi-
ties have included mapping ground-water resources, developing
ground-water classification systems and standards, sponsoring
technical workshops and training, and upgrading the collection
and management of ground-water data.
3
-------
A. GROUND-WATER RESOURCES IN THE UNITED STATES
Every day approximately 4.2 trillion gallons (16 trillion
liters) of precipitation fall on the continental United States.
About two-thirds of that precipitation evaporates, about 61
billion gallons (232 billion liters) soak into aquifers, and the
rest runs off directly to streams and rivers. Estimates of the
ground-water resources of the U.S. found within one-half mile
(0.8 kms) of the land surface range from 15 to 100 quadrillion
gallons (57 to 380 quadrillion liters). These resources are 50
times greater in volume than all the nation's surface waters at
any given point in time. Economically usable ground-water
resources are 35 times the total annual surface runoff and 400
times the country's total water withdrawals.
Major aquifers (Figure 1-1) underlie most of the land area
of the U.S.;8 however, they vary significantly in size, yield,
interconnectedness, permeability, and flow velocity. Some of
these aquifers or aquifer systems cover small, localized areas,
while others encompass thousands of square miles and cross the
geopolitical boundaries of several states. Generally, the
larger aquifers have greater geological and hydrological
complexity and present correspondingly intricate management
problems. Management of these large aquifers is even further
complicated by diverse, sometimes incompatible state and local
management instruments, and the lack of interjurisdictional
coordination mechanisms.
The richest ground-water resources are found in the
mid-Atlantic, the Gulf Coast, the Great Plains, and the Central
Valley of California. These resources are estimated to yield
hundreds to thousands of gallons (liters) of fresh water per
minute. Less extensive aquifers that yield smaller quantities
of water are found throughout the country. Because of the
relative scarcity of surface water in the far West, however,
that area depends heavily on ground water.
In order to broadly characterize ground-water conditions in
the U.S., the USGS has identified 15 ground-water regions
(Figure 1-2) . Within each of these regions, the composition,
arrangement, and structure of rock units are more or less
similar. Permeabilty and vulnerability may vary within and
across these ground-water regions.
B. USE OF GROUND WATER
Although surface water still serves most of the daily water
needs of the U.S., ground water is used increasingly to meet
these needs. The USGS has published estimates of water use
every five years from 1950 to 1980; the 1985 data presently are
-4-
-------
Figure 1-1
Productive Aquifers and Withdrawals from
Wells in the U.S.
(V8/
x
-Hf
EXPLANATION
5D
Watercourse related aquifers
ALASKA
ZOO 400 MIL
200
200 400 600 KILOMETERS
Areas of extensive aquifers that
yield more than 50 gallons per
minute of freshwater
Areas of less extensive aquifers
having smaller yields
0 200 400 600KIOMCTER!
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Synthetic Fuels Development. Earth Sciences
Considerations (Denver, Colo.: U.S. Geological Survey, 1979), p. 24.
-------
Figure 1-2
Ground-Water Regions in the U.S.
9. North^staN1- \Ranges
M f I >
Nbn&laciated
Centra) regiort
2. Alluvial Basin
si7l G'aciated
* Central
region
ty»tr47eayn
";v
14. ALASKA \ t.
13.
HAWAII
15. PUERTO RICO
AND
VIRGIN ISLANDS
500 MILES
—i—'—i—r1
800 KILOMETERS
,6. Nonglaciated
Central
region
Alluvial Valleys (Region 12) Ground-Water Region
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Ground-Water Regions of the
United States. Water-supply Paper 2242 (Reston, Va.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1984), pp. 17-18.
-------
Figure 1-2
Ground-Water Regions in the U.S.
(Continued)
ALASKA
PUERTO RICO AND
VIRGIN ISLANDS
-------
being compiled, and the data will be available in late 1987.
Between 1950 and 1980, total fresh water withdrawals increased
from 174 to 372 billion gallons per day. Nearly one-quarter of
this fresh water (82 billion gallons per day/312 billion liters
per day) was from ground-water sources, more than double the
1950 level of 34 billion gallons per day (129 billion liters per
day).10 Preliminary estimates for 1985 suggest that between
1980 and 1985, total fresh water withdrawals decreased by nine
percent from 1980 and that ground-water withdrawals dropped by
seven percent (Figure 1-3).
Off-stream water usage in the U.S. typically is described in
terms of four sectors:
Public water supplies are water withdrawals by public
and private water suppliers, which are delivered to a
variety of users for domestic, public, industrial, and
commercial use
Rural water supply consists of self-supplied domestic
use, drinking water for livestock, and other uses such
as dairy sanitation, evaporation from stock-watering
ponds, cleaning, and waste disposal
Irrigation is primarily the agricultural use of water
to supplement natural rainfall and, to a lesser extent,
water used to maintain park lands
Self-supplied industrial water refers to water industry
withdraws from sources other than public supplies.
Industries that depend upon self-supply include, but
are not limited to, steel, chemical and allied
products, mining, petroleum refining, and thermo-
electrical power.
For all four sectors, the ground-water withdrawals were higher
in 1985 than in 1950, but growth trends were distinctly
different by sector.
The most significant increases in ground-water usage
occurred in the irrigation and public supply sectors, with only
modest increases during those three decades in industrial
self-supply and rural supply. Irrigation consistently has
remained the largest user of ground water and rural supply the
smallest user. Public supply has consistently increased.
Within each sector, ground water also varies as a percentage of
total water usage (Figure 1-4). Rural supply depends upon
ground water more than any other sector, receiving 79 percent of
its total water from ground-water sources. By contrast,
self-supplied industry is the least reliant on ground water,
with fresh and saline ground-water withdrawals constituting only
-------
Figure 1-3
Trends in Ground-Water Withdrawals, 1950-1985
LU
t 30
LU
y&'JXoWfetf industrial^.,- —
-—•—supply ^ Rural_supp|Y
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR
Source: Wayne B. Solley, U.S. Geological Survey, Written
Communication, 1987.
-------
Figure 1-4
Water Use By Sector, 1986, In Percent
SOURCE
SOURCE
Public Supplies
34 bgd withdrawn
SOURCE
Irrigation Industry
150 bgd withdrawn 260 bgd withdrawn
Ground water
Surface water
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1980,
U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1001 (Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey, 1983).
Rural Supplies
5.6 bgd withdrawn
SOURCE
68
Fresh
0.5 Saline
4.5 Fresh
-------
five percent of its total water withdrawals. Ground water
provides 34 percent and 40 percent respectively of the tot
water used by the public supply and irrigation sectors.12
Use of ground water also varies greatly (Figure 1-5) within
each region of the U.S. This variability is due to climate,
hydrologic conditions, and economic activities. Rural and
agricultural areas are the heaviest users of ground water.
Moving from west to east across the continent, areas of
extensive agriculture are the Central Valley in California; the
Snake River Plain in Idaho; Southern Arizona; and the High
Plains extending to Nebraska. In fact, approximately two-thirds
of ground-water pumpage in the U.S. was concentrated in the
agricultural regions of eight states — Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas.
Public/Rural Water Supplies
Ground-water sources supply the fresh water needs of
approximately 4 0 percent of the population receiving public
water supplies. Of a population of 186 million served by public
systems in 1980, 112 million received fresh water drawn from
surface water, and 73.7 million received fresh water drawn from
ground water.13 Data on rural fresh water use are difficult
to obtain, since rural self-supplied systems are rarely metered
to measure withdrawals. USGS determines the number of people
served by self-supplied systems by subtracting the total number
of people served by public supply systems from the total esti-
mated U.S. population. This difference shows that approximately
44 million people obtained water through their own water supply
systems in 1980.14 Both public and rural supplies experienced
consistent growth in ground-water withdrawals between 1950 and
1980, a trend that appears to be continuing in 1980-1985.15
The combined usage of ground water through public and rural
supplies leads to more than half of the nation's population
being dependent on ground water for its drinking water. This
dependency is likely to remain high, since ground water is
relatively accessible, resistant to the short-term effects of
drought, and of high quality in most areas.16
Irrigation
Irrigation is by far the largest consumer of ground water
annually. In the United States, there are 58 million acres (24
million hectares) of irrigated land. Of the 150 billion gallons
(495 billion liters) of fresh water withdrawn every day to
irrigate this land, approximately 40 percent (60 billion gallons
per day/228 billion liters per day) comes from ground water.17
-6-
-------
Figure 1-5
Ground-Water Withdrawals
By Water-Resources Subregions, 1980
ALASKA
Source:
U.S. Geological Survey, National Water
Summary 198 3 — Hydrologic Events and Issues,
USGS Water-Supply Paper 2250 (Reston, Va.:
U.S. Geological Survey, 1984), pp. 38-39.
° <10
10-100
O 101 -1000
PUEBT0 RICO
(J 1001-2000 r~—"*—
(~\ * ISLANDS
\^J 2001-4000 ' j ^
j > 4000
% Water used for irrigation
O Water used tor all other purposes
(A solid blue circle indicates that more
than 90 percent of the ground-water
withdrawals are used tor irrigation.)
EXPLANATION
Ground water withdrawals, by
water-resources subregion.
in million gallons per day
\
v *9 \
*
S '
* rO
HAWAII
-------
After a 25-year period of growth In withdrawals for
irrigation (1950-1975)/ withdrawals since 1975 have declined to
1970 levels. Withdrawals for irrigation climbed from 20 to 57
billion gallons per day (76 to 217 billion liters per day)
between 1950 and 1975, an increase of 185 percent. Since 1980,
use of ground water for irrigation declined by 7 billion gallons
per day (27 billion liters per day) or 13 percent. Factors
contributing to this decline include a moderate decrease in
irrigated acreage (hectares) in the period 1978 to 1982,
unusually high rainfall in 1983-1985, increasing energy costs
(which lead to higher pumping costs), and a decline in the
prices of agricultural goods. 8
Self-Supplied Industrial
Although self-supplied industrial systems, mainly for
thermoelectric generation, withdraw the largest amounts of
water, ground water constitutes only a minute portion of this
sector's total withdrawals. Between 1960 and 1980, withdrawals
of ground water for the self-supplied industrial sector
experienced a modest upward trend. During that period,
withdrawals increased 68 percent from 6.9 to 11.6 billion
gallons per day (26 to 44 billion liters per day). Since then,
there has been a modest downturn, with withdrawals declining
about 34 percent. 9
C. GROUND-WATER DEPLETION AND CONTAMINATION
Long-term management of ground-water resources requires
attention to two potential problems: depletion and contamin-
ation. At the present time, neither depletion nor contamination
are widespread problems, but there are some localized problems
as well as particular concerns over the potential for increased
contamination. Ground-water availability is a significant issue
in almost every state. The development of ground-water re-
sources has led to declining ground-water levels in a number of
areas in the U.S. (Figure 1-6).
Although little ground water in the U.S. is contaminated,
every state has documented some incidents of contamination.
EPA's Ground-Water Protection Strategy reported that 8000
private, public, and industrial wells suffered from substantial
levels of contamination20. The Council on Environmental
Quality reported that hundreds of wells affecting millions of
people closed between 1971 and 1978 because of excessive
contamination.21
More than 200 different substances have been found in U.S.
ground waters, according to the Office of Technology Assessment
(OTA), the research arm of the U.S. Congress. Of these
-7-
-------
Figure 1-6
Relative Water Depletion
Areas of water-table decline or artesian water-level decline in excess of 40 feet in at least one aquifer since
predevelopment.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Summary 1983 —
Hvdroloaic Events and Issues, USGS Water-Supply Paper
2250 (Reston, Va.: U.S. Geological Survey, 1984), p.
40.
-------
substances, approximately 175 were organic chemicals, and over
50 were inorganic chemicals, biological organisms, and radionuc-
lides.22 At certain levels of exposure, a number of these
have tested positive in animal studies for reproductive and
birth defects; impairment of the liver, kidneys, and central
nervous system; and cancer.
D. PROTECTION EFFORTS
Protection of the nation's ground water challenges the
capabilities of all levels of government in the U.S. The
cooperative effort of federal and state agencies in this arena
is guite different from their partnership in cleaning up the
nation's suface water and air resources. Legislation enacted in
th early 197 0s to protect those resources mandated the federal
establishment of protection goals and the delegation of admin-
istrative responsibility to qualified states. Comparable
federal authority to set ground-water protection goals does not
exist. The task of establishing as well as implementing these
goals is largely left to each state, with the federal government
retaining some authority to regulate contaminants and sources of
national concern.
Ground-water protection programs in the U.S. typically are
shaped by each state's unique combination of physical, social,
and economic characteristics. Hydrogeological conditions can
range from complex and variable in some geographic regions to
simple and/or homogeneous in others. Use of ground water varies
considerably from the arid west to the east where water is more
plentiful. Economic characteristics and land use patterns, like
hydrogeologic conditions, can be either homogeneous or hetero-
geneous within a single governmental jurisdiction. Some
communities are essentially agricultural and rural, while others
are a complex mixture of rural and urban, industrial and agri-
cultural. Collectively, these factors determine the types and
numbers of sources and contaminants in a given area, the likeli-
hood of contaminants reaching the ground water, and the extent
of human exposure to that contamination.
Institutional capabilities are as diverse as ground-water,
land use, and economic characteristics. Federal agencies have
responsibilities and authorities for information-gathering and
control of some, but not all, contaminants and sources. A few
states devised ground-water protection strategies several years
ago, but most have adopted or begun preparing them within the
past three years. Local units of government within these states
have varying authority for independent action, and state and
local ground-water protection programs across the country are at
different stages of development and implementation. Some
ground-water programs primarily borrow policies and management
8
-------
instruments from surface water, air quality, and waste
management programs. A small number also have begun to adopt
innovative approaches to ground-water protection centered on
land use controls. All are grappling with the complex nature of
ground-water protection, the lack of sufficient information
about the problem, and the resulting uncertainties.
Within this physical and institutional context, the central
ground-water policy issue the U.S. has been debating is the
appropriate level of protection to set for ground water under
various circumstances. Ancillary issues are what level of
government has responsibility for ground-water protection and
who pays the potentially enormous sums required for both
prevention and cleanup.
The remainder of this report is divided into the five
chapters requested by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development. Chapter II is an overview of major sources of
ground-water contamination in the U.S. It summarized what is
known about ground-water quality and sources of contamination.
Chapter III reviews the management instruments available to
protect ground-water quality and the extent to which they are
currently used. Chapter IV explores how government officials
are coping with the management issues of spatial complexity,
lack of information, and the ensuing uncertainty. Chapter V
recommends case studies for Phase II of this project, and
Chapter VI lists the references used to prepare the report.
-9
-------
MAJOR SOURCES OF POLLUTION
-------
II. MAJOR SOURCES OF POLLUTION
Ground-water contamination has occurred in various locations
throughout the U.S., and the discovery of more contamination is
likely now that public and governmental attention is focused on
the problem. The types of substances found in ground water
range from conventional biological organisms to complex, highly
toxic synthetic organic chemicals.
Many diverse sources are responsible for the presence of
these substances in ground water. Some substances occur
naturally, but many are the result of a wide variety of common
agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial activ-
ities. sources can be stationary, with specific discharge points
(i.e., point sources), or they can be broad geographic areas
with undefined discharge points (i.e., non-point sources).
Individual sources in the U.S. vary in size, from large waste
management sites to small underground storage tanks or septic
systems. Most types of sources are associated with more than
one class of contaminant, and multiple sources often are respon-
sible for a single type of contaminant. Contaminants from
septic systems, for example, may include microorganisms, ni-
trates, and solvents. Nitrates in ground water, though, are
attributable not only to septic systems but also to fertilizer
application on farmlands, among other sources.
Both the types of contaminants and the sources of contam-
ination vary from one region of the U.S. to another, and the
actual threat an individual source poses to the ground water and
ultimately to human health depends upon a complex set of fac-
. tors. Local hydrogeology, for example, determines the ground
water's general vulnerability to contamination and the extent of
transport and attenuation of contaminants. The siting, design,
and operation of the source determine whether contaminants will
be released and, and if so, the types and amounts of the contam-
inants that may reach the ground water. If contaminants do
reach the aquifer, their inherent toxicity, the existence of
natural attenuation processes* and the extent of human exposure
all determine the severity of the impact on human health.
The extent of contamination and number of individual sources
of contamination are two perplexing questions that still must be
addressed. A national inventory of contaminants and sources is
not feasible, but several publications have compiled the
available information. EPA's Ground-Water Protection strategy
summarized some of this information in order to provide a
starting point for strengthening and broadening the Agency's
efforts to address particularly troublesome or previously
ignored sources. Shortly thereafter, the Office of Technology
10-
-------
Assessment published a major report summarizing available
information on the quality of the nation's ground water and the
known or suspected sources of contamination. This report linked
the more than 200 substances found in ground water with 33
principal categories of sources (Figure II-l).
A. GROUND-WATER QUALITY
In the U.S., ground-water contaminants generally are
addressed according to four categories: microbiological
organisms, inorganic chemicals, organic chemicals, and radio-
nuclides. EPA has established or proposed health-based drinking
water standards for those substances most frequently found in
public drinking water supplies. Under recent amendments to the
Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA will expand its standard-setting
efforts over the next few years to address 89 substances.
Biological Contaminants
Information about the incidence of pathogens in ground water
within the U.S. is limited. There have been reports, however,
of typhoid, tuberculosis, cholera, and hepatitis. During the
past 10 years, ground water serving over 100 million people, or
10 percent of public water supplies from ground-water sources,
reportedly exceeded EPA's drinking water standard for micro-
microbiological contaminants. Small systems had the most
prevalent violations.
Data on the outbreaks of waterborne disease, including
outbreaks from contaminated ground water, are maintained by the
Centers for Disease Control and EPA's Health Effects Research
Laboratory. These data are based on reports from states, and
probably understate the situation.
According to EPA's data, 158 recorded outbreaks from
bacterial, viral and parasitic contamination of ground water
reported between 1945 and 1950 were responsible for 31,350 cases
of illness (Figure II-2). Between 1971 and 1982, contaminat-
ed ground-water was the cause of about one-half of all reported
outbreaks of acute waterborne disease in the U.S.3
Inorganic Substances
Some 37 inorganic substances have been found in ground water
in the U.S., including 27 metals (Figure II-3).4 Between
1975-1985, about 1,500 to 3,000 public water supplies out of
40,000 using ground water exceeded EPA's national primary or
secondary drinking water standards for inorganic substances.5
The most common problems were fluoride and nitrates. A variety
of inorganic substances also were found in rural residential
wells (Figure II-4).6
-11-
-------
Figure II-l
Sources of Ground-Water Contamination in the U.S.
Organic chemicals Inorganic chemicals Biologicals Radionuclides
Hydro-
Aroma- Oxy- carbons
tic genated with Other
hydro- hydro- specific hydro-
carbons carbons elements carbons
Metals/ Nonmetals) Inorganic
cations anions acids
Category 1
Subsurface percolation
^ph
l B
1
Injection wells
-*=3 -—1 B
¦D 1^1
Land application"
a Wastewater
¦S3
t> Wastewater byproducts
¦D
c Hazardous waste
^—I I
Category II
Landfills
¦»-> —-1 —n C3
—1-i
Open dumps
K3 ass KS B
——i
¦S3
Residential disposal
^"1 ¦'I B9 BEJ
¦^1
es
Surface impoundments
¦a ks aea men
¦S3 K9
¦S3
Waste tailings
"^1
¦p-n
Waste piles
en B9
Materials stockpiles
Graveyards
Animal burial
—=a —=3
—=3
Above-ground storage tanks
-t —i —am
—s=3 .^---1 —==3
—=3
¦
Underground storage tanks
¦S K9 K9 BE9
—=3
Containers
— —:=a
¦ —=3 —=3
—s=3
Open burning and
I
detonation sites
Radioactive disposal sites
1
¦D
Key
Contaminant in class has been found in groundwater associated with source.
Potential exists for contaminant in class to be found in groundwater associated with source
Source:
Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Protecting the Nation's
Groundwater From Contamination. (Washington, D.C.: Office of Technology
Assessment, October 1984), pp. 48-49.
-------
Figure II-l
Sources of Ground-Water Contamination in the U.S.
(Continued)
Organic chemicals Inorganic chemicals Biologicals Radionuclides
Hydro-
Aroma- Oxy- carbons
tic genated with Olher
hydro- hydro- specific hydro-
carbons carbons elements carbons
Metals/ Nonmetals/ Inorganic
cations anions acids
Category III
Pipelines
—-t
Materials transport and
- 1 BH
—i ——1
transfer operations
Category IV
Irrigation practices
—-n
Pesticide applications
Fertilizer applications
E
—-i
—i
Animal feeding operations
--==3
De-icing salts applications
-—i
Urban runoff
-—-¦ —« wtzn —i
—'i K9
K3
Percolation of
atmospneric pollutants
Mining and mine drainage
¦B HS3 Kl
B
Category V
Production wells
a. Oil
ea
¦s in
b. Geothermal and heat recovery
PFH E
c. Water supply
Other wells
^£3 -—1
—-1 —-*¦ „—l
^—1
Construction excavation
-^=3 —=3
Category VI
Groundwater-surface water
—-i i
.r-1
—"~f
interactions
Natural leaching
¦s ea
man
Salt-water intrusion
¦Based primarily on University of Oklahoma, 1983. Additional information from Colton, et al. 1979; Metropolitan Area Planning Council, 1982; Ridgley. et al. 1982, San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1983; and Kaplan, et al, 1983.
"Documentation was not avaiiaDle on the land application of non-hazardous «astes
-------
Figure 11-2
Waterborne Disease in the U.S. Due to Bacterial, Viral, and
Parasitic Contamination of Ground Water, 1945-1980
PATHOGEN OUTBREAKS CASES OF ILLNESS
Bacteria 94 26,041
Viruses 55 3,291
Parasites 9
-------
Figure 11-3
Inorganic Substances Found in Ground Water
CONCENTRATION
SUBSTANCE (milligrams per liter)
Aluminum
0.1-1,200
Ammonia
1.0-900
Antimony
-
Arsenic
0.01-2,100
Barium
2.8-3.8
Beryllium
less than 0.01
Boron
-
Cadmium
0.01-180
Calcium
0.5-225
Chlorides
1.0-49,500
Chromium
0.06-2,740
Cobalt
0.01-0.18
Copper
0.01-2.8
Cyanides
1.05-14
Fluorides
0.1-250
Iron
0.04-6,200
Lead
0.01-56
Lithium
--
Magnesium
0.2-70
Manganese
0.1-110
Mercury
0.003-0.01
Molybdenum
0.4-40
Nickel
0.05-0.5
Nitrates
1.4-433
Nitrites
.
Palladium
,
Potassium
0.5-2.4
Phosphates
0.4-33
Selenuim
0.6-20
Silver
9.0-3330
Sodium
3.1-211
Sulfates
0.2-32,318
Sulfites
Thallium
Titanium
Vanadium
243.0
Zinc
0.1-240
Source: The Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection (Washington, D.C.:
The Conservation Foundation, 1987), p. 69.
-------
Figure II-4
Summary of Inorganic Elements in
EPA Rural Water Survey
NORTHEAST
NORTH-CENTRAL
I
WEST
SOUTH
Element
Laval
Exceeded
img/l)
Nationwide
in % of Rural Houaeholda
Meat North-Central Northeaat
South
Mercury
0002
24.1
10.4
31.8
22.0
25.0
Iron
0.3
iar
70
282
16.0
170
Cadmium
001
16.8
271
20.7
16
173
Lead
009
16.6
16.9*
10.8*
96*
23.1*
Manganese
009
142
4 7
19.9
16.9
123
Sodium
<00
14 2
15.0
192
60
141
Selenium
001
H7
413
25.7
0.0
21
Silver
005
47
2 1
37
48
48
Sulfate*
2500
40
11 7
74
05
0.7
Nitrata-N
<00
27
40
58
03
13
Fluoride
1 4
25
62
18
00
27
Arsenic
005
08
21
18
00
00
Banum
10
03
00
00
00
0.7
Magnewum
'250
01
05
01
00
00
Chromium
005
' *
00
00
00
00
Boipn
r
' may be disio^ea „0«»ards
" ndt detected
t not tMWd
Sourcas Tha Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection
(Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1987),
p. 70
-------
Concern over the health effects of inorganics has focused on
toxic metals, such as mercury and lead, although nitrates and
other salts also have received some attention. The precise
effects of these substances on human health has not been conclu-
sively established. For example, some of these metals may be
beneficial in trace amounts, but also may produce a range of
both acute and chronic effects at various doses (Figure
II-5) . Even among the better understood toxic metals such as
cadmium, lead, and mercury, the significance of ground water as
an exposure pathway is not clear. There is some indication, in
fact, that other exposure routes may be far more significant
than ground water. For cadmium, the most significant pathways
appear to be diet, smoking, and breathing air near industrial
areas. By contrast, drinking water is emerging as a principal
route of human exposure to lead, but that exposure is due to
decomposing lead pipes in the delivery system rather than to
contamination of the ground-water source.
Although deaths due to nitrate ingestion are rare, at least
one infant death occurred in 1986 as a result of formula made
with water from a nitrate-tainted well. Other possible, but
not conclusively documented, effects of some inorganics include
impairment of the nervous system, risk of cancer, and birth
defects.
Organic Compounds
Within the U.S., a number of organic compounds are found in
commonly used household products such as dyes, food additives,
detergents and other cleansers, cosmetics, plastics, solvents,
paint, and pesticides. Public officials are particularly
concerned that the concentration of these synthetic organic
contaminants in ground water substantially exceeds their
concentrations in surface water (Figure II-6).10
Data compiled by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
in 1981 illustrate the frequent occurence of contamination from
organics. CEQ identified major problems from toxic organics in
some wells in almost all states east of the Mississippi River as
well as in some sparsely populated states in the West.
Trichloroethylene was the contaminant most frequently found in
2,984 wells tested in 18 states, with a total of 33 contaminants
detected.
Five surveys EPA conducted over the past decade (Figure
11-7)12 examined 14 of the most common volatile organic
compounds and have provided some insights into the national
pattern of ground-water contamination from these substances.13
All five surveys found at least some incidence of carbon tetra-
-12-
-------
Figure 11-5
Types of Adverse Health Effects
Associated with Cadmium, Lead, and Mercury
ENVIRONMENTAL AGENTS &
SOURCES OF EXPOSURE
TYPES OF HEALTH EFFECTS
CADMIUM
LEAD
MERCURY
Cancer
•
o
Cardiovascular system
o
•
Respiratory system
•
Brain & nervous syslem
•
•
Gastrointestinal system
o
Urinary system
•
•
•
Reproductive system
o
o
Skeletal system
o
Circulatory System
o
•
Eye System
•
•
Endocrine system
o
Injury to embryo/fetus
•
•
Psychological (affective)
disturbances
•
•
Notes: # indicates the relationship is established in humans
O indicates a weak or questionable association in
humans
Source: Tha Cnnsan/fltinn Foundation. Groundwater Protection (Washington. D.C.: The Conservation
Foundation, 1987), p.93.
-------
Figure 11-6
Concentrations of Toxic Organic Compounds
Found in Drinking Water Wells and Surface Water
GROUND-WATER HIGHEST SURFACE
CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION WATER CONCENTRATION
(ppb)* REPORTED (ppb)
Trichlorethylene (TCE)
900-27,300
160
Toluene
55-6,400
6.1
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
965-5,440
5.1
Acetone
3,000
Nl
Methylene chloride
47-3,000
13
Dioxane
2,100
Nl
Ethyl benzene
2,000
Nl
T etrachloroethylene
717-1,500
21
Cyclohexane
540
Nl
Chloroform
67-490
700
Di-n-butyl-phthalate
470
Nl
Carbon tetrachloride
135-400
30
Benzene
30-330
4.4
1,2-Dichloroethylene
91-323
9.8
Ethylene dibromide (EDB)
35-300
Nl
Xylene
69-300
24
Isopropyl benzene
290
Nl
1,1-Dichloroethylene
70-280
0.5
1,2-Dichloroethane
250
4.8
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
170
Nl
DBCP (1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane)
68-137
Nl
T rifluorotrichloroethane
35-135
Nl
Dibromochloromethane
20-55
317
Vinyl chloride
50
9.8
Chloromethane
44
12
Butyl benzyl-phthalate
38
Nl
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
22
Nl
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
20
Nl
Bromoform
20
280
1,1-Dichloroethane
7
0.2
Alpha-BHC
6
Nl
Parathion
4.6
0.4
Delta-BHC
3.8
Nl
ppb = parts per billion, 1 ppb - 1/1000 ppm; 1 ppm - mg/l; Nl - not investigatlgated
Source: The Conservation Foundation. Groundwater Protection
(Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1987), p.83.
-------
Figure 11-7
Volatile Organic Compounds Examined
in Five National Surveys
APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF
GROUNDWATER SYSTEMS SAMPLED
NORS
NOMS NSP
CWSS GWSS
16
18 12
330 945
Trichloroethylene
• •
• •
Tetrachloroethylene
• •
• •
Carbon Tetrachloride
•
• •
• •
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
• •
• •
1,2-Dichloroethane
•
• •
• •
Vinyl Chloride # £
Dichloromethane 99 £
Benzene
• •
• •
Chlorobenzene
• •
Dichlorobezene(s) f ^
Trichlorobenzene(s) # # #
1,1-Dichloroethylene 0 ^
cis - or trans-1,2-Dichlorethylene
•
• •
SOURCE: Adapted from Rip G. Rice, ed., Safe Drinking Water: The Impact of Chemicals nn a l imited
Resource (Alexandria, Virginia: Drinking Water Research Foundation, 1985) p. 164 in The
Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection (Washington, D.C.: The Conservation
Foundation, 1987).
-------
chloride and 1,2 dichloroethane. The five most frequently
detected compounds in the Ground Water Supply Survey were
trichloroethylene ? 1,1,1-trichloroethane ? tetrachloroethylene;
cis/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene; and 1-1-dichloroethane.1,1
This same study showed that about 20 percent of all public water
supply wells and 30 percent of wells in y?ban areas showed trace
levels of at least one volatile organic.15
Recent state investigations demonstrate that toxic organic
contamination of ground water is occurring in widely separated
areas of the country. A 1985 California study, for example,
detected trace levels of 3 3 organic chemicals in 18 percent of
3,000 drinking water wells surveyed, but only 165 of these wells
had contaminant levels that exceeded state drinking water
standards. In another study, conducted over a five-year period,
Nebraska detected volatile organic compounds in 10 percent of
its community water supplies. 6
Public oficials also have been examining the extent of
ground-water contamination from organic pesticides. A number of
published studies conducted during the past five years reveal
different facets of the extent of pesticide contamination. In a
background document published in 1985, EPA confirmed that normal
agricultural usage had contributed to contamination from at
least 17 pesticides in at least 23 states (Figure II-8).17
Although found only at trace levels, there was concern that
these pesticides were present at all in ground water.
Some state investigations indicate that pesticide contami-
nation may actually be higher when all sources of pesticides are
taken into consideration. California reported in 1985 that 57
different pesticides detected in the state's ground waters were
responsible for contaminating an estimated 2,887 wells. The
study attributed the contamination not only to normal pesticide
application but also to spills and leaks from a variety of
sources.18 In New York, over half of 8,404 wells tested on
Long Island for aldicarb were found to have trace levels of the
chemical. As a result, the pesticide manufacturer provided
activated carbon filters to the owners of over 2,000 wells with
concentrations of aldicarb in excess of state drinking water
standards.19
In addition to aldicarb, DBCP and EDB are two of the most
prevalent pesticides found in ground water. California found
DBCP, a nematicide, in more than 8,000 wells tested between 1979
and 1982, and the pesticide also has been detected in the ground
waters of Arizona, Hawaii, South Carolina, and Maryland.20
EDB, another nematicide, has been found in the ground water of
eight states, including nearly 11 percent of 8,000 wells tested
in Florida as of 1984.21
13-
-------
Figure 11-8
Pesticides Found In Ground Waters Of 23 States
TYPICAL
POSITIVE,
PESTICIDE USE* STATE ppb**
Alachlor
H
MD, IA, NE, PA
0.1-10
Aldicarb
!,N
AR, AZ, CA, FL,
1-50
(sulfoxide &
MA, ME, NC, NJ,
sulfone)
NY, OR, Rl.TX,
VA, WA, Wl
Atrazine
H
PA, IA, NE, Wl,
0.3-3
MD
Bromacil
H
FL
300
Carbofuran
I.N
NY, Wl, MD
1-50
Cyanazine
H
IA, PA
0.1-1.0
DBCP
N
AZ, CA, HI, MD
0.02-20
SC
DCPA (and acid products)
H
NY
50-700
1,2-Dichloropropane
N
CA, MD, NY, WA
1-50
Dinoseb
H
NY
1-5
Dyfonate
I
IA
0.1
EDB
N
CA, FL, GA, SC,
0.05-20
WA, AZ, MA, CT
Metolachlor
H
IA, PA
0.1-0.4
Metribuzin
H
IA"
1.0-4.3
Oxamyl
l,N
NY, Rl
5-65
Symazine
H
CA, PA, MD
0.2-3.0
1,2,3-T richloropropane
N
CA, HI
0.1-5.0
(impurity)
* H = herbicide; I « insecticide; N ¦ nematicide
** ppb = parts per billion; 1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm; 1 ppm * 1 mg/l
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection, Pesticides in
Ground Water: Ra^karound Document (Washington. D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, May 1980), p. 9.
-------
EPA recognizes that available figures on pesticide contam-
ination are somewhat outdated and is establishing a computerized
bibiliography of pesticide monitoring studies so that both the
Agency and the states can keep informed of expanding monitoring
efforts. Even with this bibliography, it is clear that avail-
able data have not provided a national picture, so EPA currently
is conducting a nationwide survey that will examine the occur-
rence of over 60 pesticides in ground water and the hydrogeo-
logic characteristics and pesticide usage practices that promote
or mitigate leaching to ground water.
At the present time, available data do not conclusively link
pesticide contamination of ground water in the U.S. with
specific incidents of illness or disease. To collect additional
information on health effects of human exposure to pesticides in
the U.S., EPA is using the provisions of the Federal Insecti-
cide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to ask pesticide
registrants for a full complement of environmental fate data on
pesticides suspected of leaching to ground water.
Radionuclides
Approximately 20 different radionuclides have been detected
in the nation's ground water (Figure II-9). Most of these
substances emit a combination of alpha and beta radiation, and
generally are found in concentrations well below those likely to
pose major health problems. Another problem emerging as a
greater risk to human health is ground-water contamination from
radon. Investigations are underway to examine the extent the
radon exposure in the U.S. and the relative contribution of each
pathway of exposure.
B. SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION
The 33 sources on OTA's list generally can be grouped into
four basic categories:
Waste generation and management generally refers to
facilities, operations, or practices that create or
generate waste (such as animal feedlots or burial
sites) and treat, store, or dispose of waste
The commercial/production category encompasses the
storage, handling, transport, or development of
resources, materials, and finished products
Chemical application refers to the land application of
substances for beneficial purposes (such as pesticides,
fertilizers, and road deicing salts)
14-
-------
Figure 11-9
Categorization of Known and Potential
Radionuclides in Ground Water by Mode of Decay
RADIONUCLIDE b and 9
a b combined g
Antimony-125
X
Barium-140
X
Cesium-134
X
* Cesium-137
X
* Chromium-51
* Cobalt-60
X
lodine-129
X
* lodine-131
X
* lron-59
X
* Lead-210
X
* Phosphorus-32
X
* Plutonium-238
X
* Plutonium-243
X
* Radium-226
X
* Radium-228
X
Ruthenium-103
X
* Ruthenium-106
X
* Scandium-46
X
Strontium-89
X
* Strontium-90
X
Strontium-131
X
* Thorium-270
X
* Tritium
X
Uranium-230
X
* Uranium-238
X
* Zinc-65
X
Zirconium-95
X
* Radionuclides marked with an asterisk are known to have contaminated groundwater
a - alpha radiation
b « beta radiation
g - gamma radiation
Source: The Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection (Washington, D.C.: The Conservation
Foundation, 1987), p. 83.
-------
A miscellaneous category covers other sources such as
salt-water intrusion.
Some sources, such as underground storage tanks and injection
wells, fit more than one category (Figure 11-10).23
Waste Generation and Management
Waste generation and management historically have been
regarded as the most significant long-term sources of ground-
water contamination in the U.S., and these sources continue to
receive the most attention at all levels of government.
Landfills have been the most highly visible but are not the only
waste sources of ground-water contamination. Of the 33 types of
sources OTA listed, in fact, two-thirds (22) fall into this
waste generation and management category.
The magnitude of the potential problem from these sources is
apparent from a profile of their numbers, contaminants, and
geographic distribution (Figure 11-11). Collectively, these
sources number in the millions: over 23 million septic systems,
with one-half million new ones added annually; between three and
10 million steel and fiberglass tanks; about 281,000 active
injection wells; nearly 200,000 surface impoundments; and about
17,000 landfills. Waste generation and management sources in
the U.S.contribute to the presence of all four types of ground-
water contaminants, and at least 16 of the sources are associ-
ated with at least three of the four contaminant categories.
Some types of sources, such as road deicing salts or saltwater
intrusion, are concentrated in just a few areas, but many other
sources are distributed nationwide. 4
The siting, design, construction, operation, and closure of
waste generation sources are the key factors affecting the like-
lihood and severity of ground-water contamination. Many of the
millions of waste generation and management sources already in
operation were sited at a time when there was little concern
over ground-water quality. Closure of these facilities will not
entirely ameliorate the problem, because the wastes will remain
in the ground for many years and continue to discharge leachate
to the aquifer.
For these "existing" sources, EPA has taken special
corrective steps, while concurrently initiating preventive
programs to more effectively manage new sources. EPA has banned
wells that inject hazardous wastes into shallow formations, for
example, because mitigation measures would not sufficiently
protect drinking water supplies. Surface impoundments have been
of concern because many are located in hydrogeologically vulner-
able areas and in proximity to current sources of drinking
-15-
-------
Figure 11-10
Contaminant Sources By Category
SOURCE
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
COMMERCIAL/
PRODUCTION
CHEMICAL
APPLICATION
OTHER
1.
Subsurface percolation
V
2.
Injection wells
V
V
3.
Land application
... .... V
1
4.
Landfills
V
•• •; ; . <•. •
5.
Open dumps
V
l| § II III •: :
6.
Residential disposal
V
7.
Surface impoundments
V
8.
Waste tailings
V
V
9.
Waste piles
10.
Materials stockpiles
V
V
11.
Graveyards
V
12.
Animal burial
V
13.
Aboveground storage tanks
V
V
14.
Underground storage tanks
v
V
15.
Containers
V
V
16.
Open burning/detonation
V
17.
Radioactive disposal sites
18.
Pipelines
V
19.
Materials transport
V
20.
Irrigation
V
21.
Pesticide application
. v
22.
Fertilizer application
» :
: V
• . .
23.
Animal feedlots
V
24.
De-icing
V
25.
Urban runoff
w
26.
Perc. of atmospheric pollutants
V
V
27.
Mining/mine drainage
V
28.
Production wells
V
29.
Other wells (monitoring & explor.)
V
30.
Construction excavation
V
31.
Ground/surface water interaction
32.
Natural leaching
V
33.
Salt water intrusion
V
34.
Abandoned waste sites
V
35.
Nuclear facilities
V
-------
Figure 11-11
Profile of Waste Generators and Management Sources
SOURCE POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS NUMBER7VOLUME GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION
Subsurface percolation
Injection wells
Land Application
Landfills
Open Dumps
Residential Disposal
Organics, metals, nitrates,
phosphates, micoorganisms
Organics, metals, inorganic
acids, microorganisms,
radinouclides
Nitrogen, phosphorous, metals
organics, microorganisms
Organics, inorganics, micro-
organisms, radinouclides
Organics, inorganics, micro-
organisms
Organics, metals, other
inorganics, microorganisms
22 million domestic
25,000 industrial
280,752 active
2,463 POTWs — sludge application
1,000 POTWs — land treatment
250 hazardous waste land treatment
units
18,889 non-hazardous units
16,416 landfills
9,284 municipal
3,155 industrial
1,856 - 2,396
Unkown
Highest concentration in Eastern
third of country and portions of
West Coast
Varies by well type
— Class I (hazardous waste) -
Gulf Coast and Great Lakes
— Class II (oil/gas) - throughout
the U.S.
— Class III (mining) - Southwest
— Class V - agricultural wells in
LA, ID, TX, CA; industrial
wells in NY and NJ
Unkown
Urban locations nationwide
55 states and territories
Nationwide
-------
Figure 11-11
Profile of Waste Generators and Management Sources
(Continued)
SOURCE POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS NUMBER/VOLUME GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION
Surface Impoundments
Waste Tailings and Piles
Material Stockpiles
Graveyards
Animal Burial
Aboveground Storage
Organics, metals and other
inorganics, microorganisms,
radionuclides
191,822 surface impoundments
16,232 industrial
-- 2,426 municipal
17,159 agricultural
— 19,813 mining
- 125,074 oil and gas
11,118 other
70% in hydrogeologically
vulnerable areas
37% over current ground-water
sources of drinking water
Highest number of non-hazardous
are in AR, KS, LA, MN, OH, OK,
PA,TX, WV
Arsenic, sulfuric acid, copper, Total mining - 2.3 billion tons/yr. Unknown
selenium, molybdenum, uranium, — Metal - 250 million tons/yr.
thorium, radium, lead, — Uranium - 215 million tons/yr.
manganese, vanadium Hazardous waste - 0.39 billiion tons
Metals, inorganics, radio-
nuclides
Metals, nonmetals, micro-
organisms
Organics, inorganics, micro-
organisms, radionuclides
Annual materials production -
3.4 billion tons/yr.
Stockpiles - 700 million tons/yr.
Unknown
Unknown
Unkown
Nationwide
Nationwide
Unknown
Nationwide
-------
Figure II-11
Profile of Waste Generators and Management Sources
(Continued)
SOURCE POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS NUMBER/VOLUME GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION
Underground Storage Organics, inorganics, micro-
organisms, radionuclides
Steel - 2.4 - 4.8 million tanks Nationwide
Fiberglass - 0.1 million tanks
Total capacity - 25 billion gallons
Hazardous storage - 2,032 tanks
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection, EPA Activities Related to Sources of Ground-Water
Contamination (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987).
-------
water. Ssptic systems have the potential to contsminsts ths
ground water both because they often have been installed in
unsuitable locations and are not always properly operated and
maintained.
Commercial/Production Sources
Commercial/production sources have been of increasing
concern in recent years, particularly since 70 percent of the
sources in this category also fall into the waste generation and
management category. The three sources unique to this category
are materials transport, production wells, and other wells
(e.g., monitoring and exploration wells).
These sources are receiving increased attention because of
their large numbers, widespread geographic distribution, numer-
ous contaminants, and large volumes of potential contaminant
leaks and discharges (Figure 11-12). Materials transport, for
example, involves 10,000-16,000 spills per year, production
wells number in the millions, billions of tons (kilograms) of
materials are stockpiled, underground storage tanks also number
in the millions, and there are hundreds of thousands of
injection wells and miles of pipelines.
Federal and state roles for managing each of these sources
are quite different, with programs in varying stages of develop-
ment and implementation. EPA, for example has regulated some
types of injection wells for many years, but is only just
beginning to consider developing regulations for others under
the Underground Injection Control Program of the Safe Drinking
Water Act. Until the amendments to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act in 1984, underground storage tanks largely were
neglected as a source of ground-water contamination, but under
Subtitle I of the Act, EPA is proposing regulations, and states
are readying to assume new program responsibilities. Implemen-
tation of EPA's authorities under Subtitle D of RCRA now covers
waste storage containers at facilities that treat, store, or
dispose of hazardous waste. States and their localities have
the principal responsibility for cleaning up transportation
leaks and spills not addressed by the responsible parties, but
can receive federal Superfund assistance if the incidents exceed
their technical and financial capabilities.
Chemical Application Sources
Chemical application sources are emerging as a ground-water
protection priority in many locales. Both the public and
government officials gradually have realized that the normal,
beneficial application of pesticides, fertilizers, and deicing
salts may have adverse consequences for ground water (Figure
11-13). in 1982, 552 million pounds (248 million kilograms) of
16
-------
FIGURE 11-12
Profile of Commercial/Production Sources
SOURCE
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS
NUMBER/VOLUME
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION
Injection Wells
Organics, metals, inorganic acids,
microorganisms, radionuclides
Active - 280, 752 active
-Varies by well type
-Class II (oil/gas) - throughout U.S.
-Class III (mining) - southwest
-Class V - agricultural wells in IA,
ID, TX, CA; industrial wells in NY,
NJ
Materials Stockpiles
Metals, inorganics, radionuclides Annual materials production - 3.4
billions tons
Stockpiles £?) - 700 million tons
Nationwide
Aboveground Storage Tanks Organics, inorganics, microorganisms, Unknown
radionuclides
Nationwide
Underground Storage Tanks Organics, inorganics, microorganisms
Containers
Organics, inorganics, microorganisms, 3,577 facilities used containers to
radionuclides store 0.16 billion gallons of
hazardous waste
Nationwide
Unknown
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection.
EPA Activities Related to Ground-Water Contamination. February 1987^
-------
FIGURE 11-12
Profile of Comnercial/Production Sources
(continued)
SOURCE
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS
NUMBER/VOLUME
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION
Pipe!ines
Microorganisms , organics, inorganics
175,000 miles of petroleum product
pipelines (1976) carrying 9.63
billion bbls
700,000 miles of sewer pipeline
(1976) carrying 5.6 trillion
gallons
Nationwide
Materials Transport
Organics, inorganics, microorganisms
10,000-16,000 spills per year spills
account for approximately 0.35
percent of 4 billions tons shipped
annually (1984)
Nationwide
Mining/Mine Drainage
Acids, metals, radionuclides
15,000 active coal mines (1986)
67,000 inactive coal mines
phospate mines Metalic ore mines
Varies by mining type
Production Wells
Organics, inorganics, microorganisms
548,000 oil wells produced approx-
imately 3.1 billion bbls crude oil
(1980)
Up to 1.2 million abandoned wells
376,000 irrigation wells for
126,000 farms
Oil Wells - nationwide
Geothermal wells - primarily CA, NV,
ID
Water wells - mostly in the Southwest,
Central Plains, Idaho, and Florida
Other wells (monitoring
and exploration)
Organics, inorganics, microorganisms
radionuclides
Unknown
Unknown
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection.
EPA Activities Related to Ground-Water Contamination. February 1987.
-------
FIGURE 11-13
Profile of Chemical Application Sources
SOURCE
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS
NUMBER/VOLUME
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION
Pesticide Application
Organics - 1,200-1,400 active
ingredi ents
552 million pounds of active
ingredients applied to crops
in 1982
17 pesticides confirmed in 23 states
(1986) due to normal agricultural
application
Approximately 280 million acre-
treatments annually
Fertilizer Applications
Nitrates, phosphates
Fertilizer use has declined from 54
million tons to 42.3 million tons
(1980-1983);
Highest fertilizer use in 1981-1982
CA, IL, IN, 10, TX
Fertilizers in 1981-
1982 contained 11 million tons of
nitrogen, 4.8 million tons of phosphates,
5.6 million tons of potash
Deicing
Salts
9.35 million tons dry salts, and
abrasives; 1.78 million gallons
liquid salts applied to U.S.
highways (1982-1983)
Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection.
EPA Activities Related to Ground-Water Contamination. February 1987.
-------
active pesticide ingredients were used on major U.S. crops
alone; additional amounts were used in forest lands,
recreational settings, and home gardens. Fertilizer usage in
the U.S. in 1983 was 42.3 million tons (38 billion kilograms),
down from 54 million tons (49 billion kilograms) in 1980, but
still a substantial amount. During the 1982-1983 winter, at
least 9.35 million tons (8.5 billion kilograms) of dry salts and
abrasives and 1.78 million gallons (6.8 million liters) of
liquid salts were applied to U.S. highways.
Sources in this category are subject to varying amounts of
governmental regulation. The federal government historically
has regulated pesticides, but not deicing salts or fertilizers.
Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), EPA must register pesticide products. This authority
allows EPA to prohibit pesticides outright or to restrict their
use in a number of ways. EPA's restrictions in the past prin-
cipally were designed to prevent unacceptable levels of dietary
exposure. In its registration decisions, EPA increasingly is
considering the potential for these pesticides to leach to
ground water. The Agency also has been developing an
Agricultural Chemicals in Ground-Water Strategy to more
effectively use existing statutory authorities to manage both
fertilizers and pesticides. State and local authority over
these chemical applications in theory is much broader, through
land use planning and control. Zoning, for example, can limit
the areas approved for agriculture and thus at least partially
influence the use of fertilizers and pesticides. Building
codes, in turn, can encourage methods of storing road deicing
salts that mitigate leaching to the ground water. Few
localities in practice utilize their land use authorities for
these purposes.
Miscellaneous Sources
Five sources currently fall into this category: irrigation,
percolation of atmospheric pollution, ground/surface water
interaction, natural leaching, and salt water intrusion (Figure
11-14).27 Information on the geographic distribution of these
sources and the potential extent of their impact on ground-water
quality is less complete than for the other categories of
sources.
Irrigation is probably the most widely studied of the five
sources. About 14 percent of all cropland in the U.S. is
irrigated, most commonly in the West, Central, and Southern
Plains. Common contaminants from irrigation are fertilizers,
pesticides, naturally occurring substances (e.g., selenium) and
sediment.28
-17-
-------
FIGURE 11-14
Profile of Other Sources
SOURCE
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS
NUMBER/VOLUME
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION
Irrigation Practices
Percolation of Atmospheric
Pollutants
Fertilizers, pesticides, naturally
occurring contaminants (e.g.,
selenium), sediment
Sulphur and nitrogen compounds,
asbestos, heavy metals
14 percent of cropland is irrigated
Unknown
West, Central, and South Plains,
Arkansas, Florida
Acid rain around Great Lakes,
Northeast
Distribution of other pollutants
varies
Ground Water/Surface Water
Interaction
Natural Leaching
Salt Water Intrusion
Organics, inorganics, micro-
organisms, radionculides
Inorganics, radionuclides
Inorganics, radionuclides
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown, very localized
Predominantly coastal areas --
CA, TX, LA, FL, NY, Southwest,
Central Plains
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection.
EPA Activities Related to Ground-Water Contamination. February 1987.
-------
A less well-studied source is salt-water intrusion which is
the migration of saline water into fresh water aquifers. Known
to occur predominantly in the coastal areas of the U.S.,
salt-water intrusion raises the salinity of and introduces
inorganics and radionuclides to fresh water aquifers.
Very little is known about the remaining three sources. OTA
reports that all four classes of contaminants potentially are
associated with ground water/surface water interactions, but
provided no information on the extent of the problem or its
geographic distribution. Similarly, natural leaching is known
to result in levels of radionuclides and inorganics, but based
on incomplete information the problem appears to be very
localized. Percolation of atmospheric pollutants (i.e., acid
rain) as a source of ground-water contamination is virtually
unstudied.
This group of sources currently appears to be the least
addressed by any level of government. EPA has sponsored some
special studies of these sources, but has no regulatory au-
thority. At the state and local level, control of these sources
is often closely linked to management of withdrawals.
C. REGIONAL TRENDS
The best indicator of source control priorities in the U.S.
is information from the states. In 1986, 52 states and ter-
ritories submitted data on their ground-water problems and
programs as required by section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act.
These reports illustrate some common trends nationwide and
also highlight the regional diversity characteristic of the
U.S. Collectively, the states and territories identified 16
major sources of ground-water contamination (Figure 11-15).
Seven of these — septic systems, underground storage tanks,
agricultural activities, on-site landfills, surface impound-
ments, municipal lagoons, and abandoned waste sites — were
major sources in more than one-half of the states and
territories. Twelve of the 16 also were cited as the primary
source in one or more states, but none was the leading source in
more than approximately one-quarter of the states. The most
frequently cited primary source was underground storage
tanks.32
A closer look at each of these types of sources illustrates
the magnitude, diversity, and complexity of ground-water
protection in the U.S.
-18-
-------
Figure 11-15
Major Sources of Ground-Water
Contamination Reported by States
SOURCE
TYPE
MAJOR SOURCE
PRIMARY SOURCE
No. States
% States
No. States
SEPTIC TANKS
46
89%
9
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
43
83%
1 3
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES
41
79%
6
ON-SITE LANDFILLS
34
65%
5
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
33
64%
2
MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS
32
62%
1
ABANDONED WASTE SITES
29
56%
3
OIL AND GAS BRINE PITS
22
42%
2
SALT WATER INTRUSION
19
37%
4
OTHER LANDFILLS
18
35%
0
ROAD SALTING
16
31%
1
LAND APPLICATION
1 2
23%
0
REGULATED WASTE SITES
1 2
23%
1
MINING ACTIVITIES
11
21%
1
UNDERGROUND INJECTION WELLS
9
17%
0
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
2
4%
0
NOTSS
* Four States did not report ground-water contamination sources
In their 305(b) submittals.
* * Based on a total of 52 States and Territories which reported
ground-water contamination sources In thler 305(b) submittals.
* * * Five States did not Indicate a primary source.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection,
Ground-Water Quality Chapter of Section 305(b^ Report, p. 7.
-------
Septic Systems
As of 1980, approximately 23 million domestic septic systems
were in operation in the U.S., discharging about 820-1,460
million gallons (3.1-5.6 trillion liters) of wastewater
annually. One-half million new systems are installed each
year, 4 with 64,000 new ones in Florida alone in 1984. 5 In
addition to the domestic systems, approximately 25,000
commercial and industrial ones discharge an estimated 1.2-1.9
billion gallons (4.6-7.2 billion liters) per year.
Several areas of the country, including California,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, and New York have
attributed their ground-water contamination at least in part to
failing septic systems.37 Among the seven sources of ground-
water contamination most frequently reported by the states and
territories, septic tanks seem to be of greatest concern. In
1986, 89 percent (46) identified failing septic systems as a
major source of contamination. Nine states also reported
septic systems as their primary source of ground-water
contamination.
Carefully managed systems can be highly beneficial without
harming the ground water. Septic systems are relatively low in
cost, require minimal maintenance, can recharge the aquifer, and
are especially effective in low density areas where public
sewers are neither available nor feasible.
The degree of potential risk depends upon local hydrogeology
and the size, design, installation, operation, and maintenance
of the system. Septic systems also raise issues of cumulative
pollution; effluent resulting from system densities of more than
40 per square mile (15 per square kilometer), for instance, have
the potential to overload the carrying capacity of the soils.
Infrequent inspections and pumping of the tanks can clog the
tank and interfere with both the decomposition of wastes and the
discharge of the effluent to the drainfield. A special problem
is the use of cleaning solvents which not only have been shown
to be ineffective but also are harmful to the tank and cause
toxic organics to seep into the ground water. A 1980 estimate
indicates that up to one-third of the nation's septic systems
may be operating improperly. 9
Underground Storage Tanks
Underground storage tanks have received much attention in
the past few years, with Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act focusing the energies of all levels of govern-
ment to address the problem. In 1986, 83 percent of the states
and territories identified this source as one of their major
-19-
-------
sources of concern, making it the second most frequently cited
source. In addition, about 25 percent reported underground
storage tanks to be the primary source of concern.40
Underground storage tanks are buried steel or fiberglass
tanks and associated piping systems used primarily for fuel
storage, but industry in the U.S. also uses them to store a wide
range of feedstock materials and other substances such as acids,
metals, solvents, chemicals, and wastes. The estimated cumula-
tive capacity of all non-waste tanks in the U.S. is 25 billion
gallons (95 billion liters), but the extent to which that
capacity is used is unknown. 1 Estimates of the number of
steel tanks in the y*S. range from as low as three million to as
high as 10 million. Approximately 1.3 million of these are
newly regulated and are used to store motor fuels at service
stations and non-retail businesses. The remainder are used
in a wide variety of other economic activities, including
farming operations, trucking operations, and government. About
100,000 fiberglass tanks are also used to store both petroleum
and non-petroleum products. 4
In addition to these non-waste tanks, approximately 2,031
tanks regulated under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act are used for the storage and treatment of
hazardous wastes.45 Figures are not available for other tanks
operating under surface water discharge permits.
Underground storage tanks, like septic systems, have several
benefits. They typically are used for safety reasons, to
minimize worker exposure to chemicals, to reduce clutter at the
work site, and to limit the potential for fire hazards.
Despite these benefits, underground storage tanks are
potentially harmful to ground water. The leading problem is
leaks, which may result from corrosion of the tank, improper
installation of or damage to the tank, and faulty piping.
Corrosion is thought to be the most significant one. The life
expectancy of a steel tank is 15-20 years. About 21 percent
(1.0 million of 4.8 million) of the tanks in the U.S. are over
16 years old,46 suggesting that without corrective action many
new incidents of contamination can be expected as the remainder
of the tank population ages.
Though a large number of tanks now are leaking and many more
have the potential to leak without remedial action, the effects
on ground water do not yet seem to be significant. As the
result of early detection, an estimated 85 percent of the
documented leaks at service stations have not gone beyond the
boundaries of the stations. Of the remaining 15 percent, about
10 percent did not substantially affect the underlying
aquifer.47
-20-
-------
Management of underground storage tanks requires a dual
approach: one set of measures for existing tanks and another
set for newly installed ones. For the former, typical control
measures consist of protecting the tank from corrosion, correct-
ive action for detected leaks, and backup containment such as
natural or synthetic liners, concrete vaults, or double walls.
Even with these measures it may be impossible to prevent
leakage. Measures for new tanks include design, construction,
and installation standards. In both cases, monitoring is
essential for the early detection and abatement of leaks.
Agricultural Activities
Agricultural activities ranked third among the states and
territories as a major source of ground-water contamination,
with 79 percent (41) identifying it as a major source and six
states (Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Iowa) citing
it as a primary source. 8
Common sources of ground-water contamination associated with
agricultural activities include infiltration and runoff from
pesticide and fertilizer application to croplands, irrigation,
return flows, and infiltration of runoff from animal feedlots
and burial sites. These sources are particularly difficult to
control because they often are dispersed geographically and
represent widely accepted farming practices.
In 1982, the U.S. had approximately 383 million acres (155
million hectares) devoted to crop production, with some crop-
growing in all 50 states. ^ This agricultural acreage is
heavily dependent upon pesticides and fertilizers and requires
significant irrigation as well.
About 50,000 pesticide products encompassing 600 different
active ingredients are available for agricultural use in the
U.S. Between 1966 and 1986, use of these products increased
substantially. Estimated 1984 usage of pesticides to ®9jor
crops was 1.08 billion pounds (0.5 billion kilograms).
While some pesticides were applied to forest lands, recreational
areas, and home gardens, about 69-72 percent of the pesticides
were used in agriculture.51
Fertilizer usage aJL§° increased substantially (300 percent)
between 1960 and 1980. Since then it has declined 22
percent from 54 million tons (49 billion kilograms! to 42.3
million tons (38 billion kilograms) in 1982-1983. 3 The five
states with the highest fertilizer use in 1981-1982 were
California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Texas. * Fertilizer
application has become a major concern because farmers often
apply two or three times the amount crops require, a practice
-21-
-------
that allows the level of nitrates in the soil to build up and
then leach into the ground water.
Irrigation practices intensify the problems associated with
pesticide and fertilizer application and also introduce the
added problem of salinity. An estimated 14 percent of all
cropland in the U.S. is irrigated. .Irrigation return flows
tend to concentrate salts, fertilizers, and pesticides.
Salinity of ground water can increase as a result of evapor-
ation, transpiration, and leaching of saline soils.
Municipal and On-site Landfills
On-site and municipal landfills were reported as major
sources of ground-water contamination by 65 percent and 62 per-
cent respectively of the states and territories. Five states
identified on-site landfills as their leading ground-water
contamination source, and one state identified municipal
landfills as the primary source.56
Landfills historically have been the most common method for
disposing of hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste in the U.S.
These land disposal facilities are either municipal or indus-
trial, and industrial landfills can be either at the waste gene-
ration site or off site. Municipal landfills handle solid waste
products that generally, but not always, are non-hazardous,
while industrial facilities typically receive hazardous wastes.
EPA estimated in 1986 that the U.S. has a total of 16,416
off-site landfills, including 9,284 municipal landfills and
3,511 industrial landfills. Included in this total are about
700 hazardous landfills at 136 facilities. ' In addition to
the off-site facilities, there are an estimated 75,000
industrial on-site landfills that may contain hazardous
wastes. 8 About 96 percent of all hazardous waste generated
in the U.S. is treated and disposed of in these on-site
facilities, but EPA estimates that thousands of municipal
landfills also may contain hazardous wastes.59
Surface Impoundments
In 1986, states and territories reported surface impound-
ments to be the fifth most significant major source of ground-
water contamination. Approximately 64 percent of the states and
territories identified surface impoundments as a major source,
with two states citing surface impoundments as their primary
ground-water contamination source. States with the highest
number of non-hazardous surface impoundments are Arkansas,
Kansas, Louisianna, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Texas, and West Virginia. 1
-22-
-------
Surface impoundments are natural depressions or manmade
holding areas such as excavations, lagoons, or dikes. Small
impoundments, commonly referred to as "pits" are used by
industries, municipalities, agricultural operations, and house-
holds for special purposes such as waste storage or sludge
disposal. Wastewater in impoundments is treated in several
ways: chemical coagulation and precipitation, pit adjustment,
biological oxidation, separation of susupended solids from
liquids, and temperature reductions. Some impoundments lose
liquid through evaporation and/or seepage into the soil. Other
impoundments discharge their liquid periodically or continuously
into streams, lakes, bays, or the ocean.
A 1986 EPA study reported that there are 191,822 surface
impoundments in the U.S. Types of impoundments include: 16,232
(8 percent) industrial, 2,426 (1.2 percent) municipal, 17,159 (9
percent) agricultural, 19,813 (10 percent) mining, 125,074 (65
percent) oil and gas and 11,118 (6 percent) other. In addition,
there are 3,184 known hazardous waste treatment, storage, or
disposal impoundments located at approximately 400 facili-
ties.62 Four industries — paper and allied products,
chemicals and allied products, petroleum and coal products, and
primary metals — are the major users of impoundments. 3 As
the numbers show, however, other widespread uses of impoundments
are storage and disposal of municipal sewage sludge, animal
feedlot and other farm wastes, oil and gas extraction wastes,
utility industry wastes, and cooling water.
Surface impoundments in theory can be managed in a way that
is protective of ground water, but in practice they often are
not. About 70 percent are located in hydrogeologically vulner-
able areas, and approximately one-third are located over aqui-
fers currently serving as sources of drinking water. ^
Liners, which can significantly lower the potential for contam-
ination, historically have been used at relatively few impound-
ments. Even where liners are in place, leaks can occur from
rips, deterioration, or cracks. Assuming a leakage rate of six
percent, OTA has estimated that impoundments release approxi-
mately 1,800 billion gallons (6.8 trillion liters) of liquid
wastes each year. 5
Abandoned Waste Sites
Over one-half of the states and territories identified
abandoned waste sites as a major source of ground-water
contamination, making it the seventh most frequently cited major
source. Three states cited abandoned waste sites as their
primary source of ground-water contamination. 6
Under its Superfund program to cleanup contamination that
threatens the public health and the environment, EPA has
-23-
-------
identified nearly 20,000 sites potentially requiring some cor-
rective action. 7 Based on preliminary investigations and
inspections of these sites, close to 900 have been placed on the
National Priorities List (NPL) for consideration for cleanup
using federal funds. Nearly all states have at least one
site on the list with the highest number of sites in NJ (91), NY
(57) and Michigan (56). 9 Approximately 75 percent of the
sites on the NPL have documented ground-water contamination.70
The large numbers of many different types of sources and the
varying geographic distribution of these sources means that
ground-water contamination problems often are highly localized
and require solutions tailored to local hydrogeologic, economic,
and institutional characteristics. In theory, numerous manage-
ment instruments are available to all levels of government for
preventing, detecting, and mitigating ground-water contamina-
tion. Many of these measures were established for other pur-
poses, however, and government officials gradually are adapting
them to the issue of ground-water protection.
-24-
-------
III. MANAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
-------
III. MANAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
Protection of ground-water resources for future generations
requires attention to both ground-water allocation and quality.
In the U.S., the approaches to these dual management issues have
evolved quite differently. States traditionally have had pri-
mary authority in governing ground-water allocation and usage.
The federal government manages ground-water supplies and usage
for about one-third of U.S. lands, which are publicly owned; and
must meet trust responsibilities for appoximately 50 million
acres, which are mostly Indian reservations. In the area of
protecting ground-water quality, the federal government has
begun to take the initiative in forging an intergovernmental
partnership.
Most of the policies and programs that specifically address
ground-water quality are relatively new and are undergoing con-
siderable change. Existing programs control some but not all of
the 33 types of sources identified by OTA. For many of these
regulated sources, however, requirements often are not fully
protective of ground water since few of the environmental sta-
tutes adopted over the past 15 years had ground-water protection
as their principal objective.
Escalating public concern over ground-water contamination
prompted environmental and health officials to apply existing
authorities more explicity for ground-water protection. At the
same time, the continuing national debate questioned the ade-
quacy of a rigid application of separate traditional regulatory
approaches such as ambient standards and discharge permits given
the locally unique combinations of hydrogeological conditions,
sources, land use patterns, and institutional capabilities
across the country. Concerns have also been voiced that an ex-
panded federal role might erode traditional state and local
control over water allocation and land use.
There was a gradual recognition that regardless of the re-
spective roles of each level of government, the U.S. needed to
move away from its focus on sources and towards protection of
the ground water itself. A first step in this direction was
EPA's publication in 1984 of its Ground-Water Protection
Strategy. Under that strategy, EPA has strengthened its inter-
nal organization for protecting ground water, has promoted the
use of a consistent policy for the prevention and cleanup of
ground-water contamination, and has begun to address a broader
range of sources. At the same time, the Department of Interior
(DOI) has continued its efforts to map and characterize the
nation's principal aquifers and has stepped up its efforts to
-25-
-------
help states by providing baseline information needed to create
ground-water programs. In many states, ground-water protection
for the first time captured the attention of state legislatures
and governors, resulting in the adoption of state ground-water
protection strategies, enactment of new laws, promulgation of
new regulations, and establishment of new ground-water agencies
or the reorganization of existing agencies to highlight their
new ground-water protection functions.
A second result has been the Congressional enactment of the
198 6 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act which encourage
states to adopt Wellhead Protection Programs. Under these pro-
grams, states will delineate wellhead protection areas (WHPAs)
around their public water supply wells and adopt whatever com-
bination of financial, regulatory, technical assistance, or
educational measures are necessary to prevent and mitigate con-
tamination that may adversely affect human health.
This chapter portrays the range of management instruments
currently used or under consideration for ground-water protec-
tion in the U.S. These instruments fall into five categories:
institutional, legal, regulatory, economic, and other.
A. INSTITUTIONAL INSTRUMENTS
The most common types of institutional instruments include
the administrative structure for ground-water protection, the
mechanisms for policymaking and coordination, and the partici-
pation of the public in decisionmaking. In the U.S., federal,
state, and local governments share responsibility for the devel-
opment and utilization of these instruments.
Administrative Organization
A complex network of federal, state, and local agencies en-
gage in a wide variety of activities designed to promote the
protection of ground-water quality. Some of these agencies have
had a role in ground-water allocation or protection issues for
many years. In other cases, existing agencies only recently
have added ground-water protection to their other responsibil-
ities. At the state level, some new agencies have been estab-
lished to handle the protection of ground water.
States and their localities have the lead responsibility and
authority for protecting ground water, a role that reflects his-
torical legal doctrines, land use practices, authorities for the
protection of public health, and the lack of overriding federal
legislation. Specific functions of the states and localities
typically include mapping their ground-water resources, inven-
torying sources, monitoring ground-water quality, and formu-
lating management strategies to protect drinking water supplies.
-26-
-------
The new Wellhead Protection and Sole Source Aquifer Demonstra-
tion Programs under the SDWA will provide additional opportun-
ities for states and localities to strengthen their capabilities
in these areas.
The federal government will continue to establish health-
based standards and formulate control programs for certain con-
taminants and sources, such as pesticides and landfills, that
are of national concern. Other federal functions include re-
search, data collection, and technical and financial assistance
to the states in their efforts to buila institutional capability
and formulate management strategies.
Eleven separate Federal agencies, and often multiple offices
within these agencies, have some jurisdiction over ground water
(Figure III-l).1 Each agency has a distinct and separate
ground-water role (Figure III-2). Of these agencies, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has lead responsibility
for the quality of the ground water and implements regulatory
and research programs designed to protect ground water. Among
its various responsibilities, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
an agency within the Department of Interior (DOI), has a prin-
cipal role in providing baseline data on the nation's aquifers
and ground-water usage. Other agencies within DOI, as well as
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), have responsibility
for protecting land and other natural resources (including
ground water) under their domain, and the Department of Defense
controls and mitigates potential sources of pollution at defense
installations.
Within EPA, ground-water protection has become an integral
part of many programs (Figure III-3) originally established to
meet other objectives (Figure III-4). For the most part, these
programs address one or more discrete sources of ground-water
contamination.2 The Office of Pesticide Programs, for ex-
ample, is now including ground-water quality considerations into
its decisions on old and new pesticide registrations and label
requirements. Programs originally established to promote waste
recycling and recovery, in order to reduce health risk from
dumps, municipal landfills, lagoons, and other wastereposi-
tories, now have a predominant ground-water protection orien-
tation.
The creation of the EPA's Office of Ground-Water Protection
(OGWP) in 1984 provided a focal point within the Agency for the
many separate, evolving ground-water programs. For the past
three years, OGWP has concentrated on providing leadership for
the formulation of EPA ground-water policy, for fostering
operational coordination within the Agency's regional offices,
and for launching programs that address ground water as a
resource.
-27-
-------
Figure 111-1
Federal Agencies with Ground-Water
Protection Roles
CABINET
LEVEL
SUB-CABINET
LEVEL
Dept. of Defense
Environmental
Policy
Defense
Environmental
Leadership Project
National Sclenca
Foundation
Tennessee Valley
Authority
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Environmental
Protection Agency
Public Health Science
DepL of the Army
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
PRESIDENT
Land and Natural
Resources
Policy, Legislation
and Special
Litigation
Environmental
Analysis
Office of
Environmental
Compliance
Environment, Safety
and Health
Dept of Energy
Dept. of Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration (FHA)
Office of
Environmental
Policy, FHA
Dept of Army/
Corps of
Engineers
Natural Resources
and Environment
Extension
Service
Soil Conservation
Service
DepL of Agriculture
Dept. of the Interior
Bureau of
Reclamation
Bureau of Mines
U.S. Geological
Survey
National Park
Service
Fish and Wildlife
Service
Bureau of Land
Management
Office of Surface
Mining
-------
FIGURE III-2
Ground-Water Roles of Selected Federal Agencies
AGENCY
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
- Agriculture Research Service
- Forest Service
Department of Commerce (DOC)
- National Bureau of Standards
Department of Defense (DOD)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Conducts limited number of research projects related to (1) ground-water recharge, (2)
impacts of agricultural activities on ground-water quality.
Conducts research projects on fate and transport of pesticides (under the National
Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program).
Responsible for projects on quality assurance standards used by other federal agencies
to monitor analytical performance of laboratories.
Participates in program to identify and evaluate hazardous waste disposal sites on
military installations, undertake remedial action (Installation Restoration Program).
Provides technical support in certain branches for the Installation Restoration
Program, conducts program related research.
Develops water quality criteria for certain munitions compounds.
With EPA, is working on design, construction, research for CERCLA-designated sites.
Develops and implements a wide range of source control programs, assesses the quality
of drinking water and sets national drinking water standards, conducts research on
contaminant movement and health effects as well as treatment technologies.
-------
FIGURE III-2
Ground-Water Roles of Selected Federal Agencies
(Continued)
AGENCY
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES
Department of Energy (DOE)
Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD)
Department of the Interior (DOI)
- Bureau of Land Management
- National Park Service
- U.S. Geological Survey
- Fish and Wildlife Service
Bureau of Indian Affairs
National Science Foundation (NSF)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Operates programs for identifying and decommissioning contaminated nuclear
materials storage and processing facilities, conducting site-specific hydrogeologic
investigations.
Conducts environmental assessments for housing projects, takes ground water
into account.
Inventories hazardous waste sites on public lands and manages ground-water resources
under these lands.
Conducts ground-water monitoring studies at national parks.
Collects and analyzes hydrogeologic information, conducts research on hydrogeology,
and coordinates federal activities on data gathering.
Inventories hazardous waste sites for all FWS lands and facilities.
Inventories hazardous waste sites on or near Indian reservations.
Supports research projects and diverse hydrogeology projects. Conducts policy-related
research.
Researches fate and transport of radioactive substances.
Source: Office of Technology Assessment, Protecting the Nation's Groundwater from Contamination (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress,
Office of Technology Assessment, 1984), p. 72.
-------
Figure 111-3
Organization Of U.S. EPA
M. ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR
:*OR WATER
OFFCEOF
EMERG04CY AND
STORAGE TANKS
SAN FRANCISCO
REGION 6
DALLAS
REGION 10
SEATTLE
KANSAS CITY
PHILADELPHIA
NEW YORK
AND EVALUATION
OFFCEOF
CONGRESSIONAL
OUALrTY PLANNNG
RESEARCH
OFFICE OF
OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
PROGRAM MGMT.
HEALTH AND ENV
ENV PROCESSES AND
EFFECTS RESEARCH
SOLID WASTE
of Pict of::
GROUNDWATER
PROTECTION
GRANTS. CONTRACTS.
AND GENERAL
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
RESOURCES MGMT.
OFFICE OF MGMT.
AND TECHNICAL
ASSIGNMENT
ENFORCEMENT?
AND ESTUARNE
OFFICE OF
STANDARDS AND
INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF
SPECIAL LITIGATION
OFFCEOF
ADMM6TRATION
POLLUTION CONTROL
RESOURCES MGMT
OFFCEOF
COMPLIANCE
OFFCEOF
¦ TOXIC SUBSTANCES
OFFCEOF
WASTE PROGRAMS
ENFORCEMENT
THE COMPTROLLER
AUDITS
LIAISON
POLCY ANALYSIS
OFFCE OF WATER
ENFORCEMENT
REGULATIONS
AND STANDARDS
OFFCEOF
mzm
ADO DEP08TT0N, 9JV.
OFfWOP
BRWKJNGWATER
ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR
RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT
ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR
AIR AND RADIATION
ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR
PESTICIDES AND
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR
SOLID WASTE AND
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
INSPECTOR
GENERAL
ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR
POLICY, PLANNING
AND EVALUATION
ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR
ADMINISTRATION AND
RESOURCES MGMT.
ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR
ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
FOR INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
FOR REGIONAL OPERATIONS
DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATOR
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
CIVIL RIGHTS
SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED
BUSINESS UTILIZATION
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
STAFF OFFICES
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Offices with
Ground-Water
Responsibilities
-------
FIGURE III-4
Ground-Water Activities of EPA Offices
OFFICE
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring (OECM)
Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances (OPTS)
Enforces provisions of all EPA-administered laws.
Office of Pesticides Programs (OPP)
Office of Toxic Substances (OTS)
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE)
Office of Research and Development (ORD)
Regulates the use of pesticides to protect the environment and human health.
Restricts use of pesticides that have significant potential to leach to ground water.
Participates in special surveys such as the one on pesticides in drinking water and
leads the development of the agricultural chemicals in the ground-water strategy.
Regulates the use in commerce of toxic chemicals. Examines ways to more
effectively use provisions of TSCA to protect ground water from toxic substances.
Participates, for instance, in the development of the agricultural chemicals in the
ground-water strategy.
Undertakes special projects to support EPA's policymaking. For example, it looks
at comparative risk from various sources of ground-water contamination, attempts
to delineate the dimension of the problem from some unaddressed sources, and
provides policy and economic expertise to other offices.
Conducts a wide variety of research projects to enhance EPA's understanding of the
movement of ground water and contaminants, to improve source/contaminant
detection, and to improve source controls.
-------
FIGURE III-4
Ground-Water Activities of EPA Offices
(Continued)
OFFICE
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER)
- Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (OERR)
- Office of Solid Waste (OSW)
Office of Underground
Storage Tanks (OUST)
Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement (OWPE)
Office of Water (OW)
- Office of Drinking Water (ODW)
Implements the Superfund program which encompasses both emergency response
and longer term remedial action to releases or threatened releases of hazardous
substances that pose an actual or potential threat to human health or the
environment, including ground water.
Regulates a variety of waste management sources of contamination such as
landfills, surface impoundments, land application, waste piles under the RCRA.
Sets requirements for transporters, generators and treatment, storage and disposal
facilities, including ground-water monitoring requirements for facilities.
Conducts the new program to prevent ground-water contamination from leaky
underground storage tanks.
Enforces the Superfund and RCRA programs. Inspects RCRA-regulated facilities
for compliance with regulatory requirements including those for ground-water
monitoring. Ascertains that private parties are fulfilling administrative orders
for Superfund-mandated cleanups.
Administers the Underground Injection Control Program, which is designed to
protect underground sources of drinking water from contamination from unsound
injection wells.
-------
FIGURE III-4
Ground-Water Activities of EPA Offices
(Continued)
OFFICE
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES
Office of Drinking Water (ODW)
(continued)
Office of Ground-Water
Protection (OGWP)
\
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)
- Office of Radiation Programs (ORP)
Implements the public water supply program under the SDWA, setting and
enforcing primary and secondary drinking water standards and water supply
monitoring requirements.
Carries out the goals of the Ground-Water Protection Strategy, which are:
• Building ground-water institutions at the state level
• Assessing the problems from unaddressed sources of contamination
• Issuing guidelines for EPA decisions affecting ground-water protection and
cleanup
• Strengthening EPA's organization for ground-water management at the
Headquarters and Regional levels and strengthing EPA's cooperation with
federal and state governments.
Implements two state grant ground-water protection programs established by the
SDWAA. These are the Sole Source Aquifer Demonstration Program and the
Wellhead Protection Program.
Implements grants to states under the Clean Water Act to develop state ground-
water protection strategies and adopt measures to control nonpoint sources.
Participates in investigations of radionuclides and radon in the nation's ground
waters and in standard-setting to protect health.
-------
All 50 states have been quite active during the past two
years in instituting administrative structures that have ex-
plicit responsibility for ground-water protection. A few
states, like Arizona, Maine, Georgia, and Oklahoma, have cen-
tralized all surface and ground-water quality issues in a single
state agency. Others, such as Kansas, concentrate responsi-
bility at the state level, but divide functions among several
agencies. Some states have delegated many of their responsibil-
ities to local agencies. Only a small number of states
closely coordinate ground-water quantity and quality issues,
even when a single agency administers both allocation and pro-
tection programs. One exception is Georgia, where functions
previously split among the Departments of Mining and Health and
the State Water Quality Board are now concentrated in the En-
vironmental Protection Division of the Department of Environ-
mental Protection.
The U.S. has more than 91,000 units of local government,
including cities, counties, townships, and special districts.
Local governments, by and large, are creatures of the state and
have no power in their own right. The extent of state control
over localities varies from state to state and even within
states acccording to the different forms of local governmental
units. Home rule amendments to state constitutions or home rule
legislation has authorized some local governments to operate in-
dependently to address issues not expressly preempted by state
law.
Local governments typically can influence ground-water use
and quality through their responsibility for public water supply
and their land use and zoning powers. Local government adminis-
trative arrangements for managing ground water vary according to
the traditional distribution of authority, responsibility, and
resources within each state.
Policymaking and Coordination
In the U.S. power and responsibility are shared among the
legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.
The President, as chief executive, and the Congress cooperate
and compete in the making of national policy. Congress shapes
policy in exercising its authorities for adopting laws and mar-
shalling resources through the annual appropriation process.
Executive agencies propose policy positions, prepare budgets for
Congressional consideration and approval, and interpret and
carry out legislation enacted by Congress. The evolution of
national policies for ground water has followed this pattern.
Policymaking for ground-water protection in the U.S. is in a
period of transition, with Congress and federal agencies examin-
ing the issue more closely. Throughout the late 1970s and early
-28-
-------
1980s, Congressional hearings and a number of special federal
studies, surveys, and investigations attempted to begin to an- *
swer basic questions about the extent and causes of contamina-
tion and the consequences for human health. During this period,
the federal government sought ways to broaden its use of exist-
ing legislative authorities and acquired some new ones.
To the unitiated observer, the process of change in the U.S.
may seem confusing, and even chaotic, but in fact some consensus
is emerging on the key policy issues. Debate continues, of
course, on how to solve those issues, but a number of coordinat-
ing mechanisms at and between each level of government are pro-
viding a forum within which to examine the issues.
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and Interagency Agreements
(IAGS) are the principal formal mechanisms available to federal
agencies to coordinate policymaking and other activities of
mutual interest. In 1985, the EPA and DOI negotiated a two-part
MOU establishing areas of cooperation on ground-water protec-
tion. One part of the MOU addresses the respective roles of EPA
and the USGS in ground-water research and developement, monitor-
ing, and technical assistance. The second part focuses on the
responsibilities of EPA and the Bureau of Reclamation in the
High Plains Recharge Demonstration Program. EPA and several
other agencies also have entered into MOUs to implement provi-
sions of some of EPA's many ground-water related programs. In
the Superfund program, for example, EPA has entered into MOUs
with the Coast Guard, the Department of Health and Human Ser-
vices, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. While these
MOUs are not specific to ground-water protection, they cover
areas of responsibility that often involve the cleanup of aban-
doned waste sites that have created a ground-water contamination
problem.
Interagency committees and work groups offer another avenue
for coordination of policy, research, and other activities. The
Federal Interagency Ground-Water Protection Committee is an
informal committee comprised of representatives of 11 different
departments and agencies with some role in ground-water
management and protection. Chaired by EPA's Assistant
Administrator for Water, the committee serves as a forum for
exchanging information on many ground-water issues.
States in which multiple agencies still have overlapping
ground-water protection roles also have instituted coordination
mechanisms such as councils, committees, task forces, and
working groups. Some of these coordinating entities have been
transient, while others have long-term, ongoing functions. In
Maryland, for example, a committee with long-term responsibility
for implementing the state's completed ground-water protection
-29-
-------
strategy replaced the temporary task force that developed the
strategy. California has established three permanent committees
to promote coordination among federal, state, and local
agencies; and in Wisconsin, a permanent advisory committee
composed of representatives of the Governor's office and several
state agencies has far-reaching advisory powers that include
budgets, ground-water monitoring, data management, research, and
laboratory analysis.
Public Participation
Public involvement in environmental decisionmaking is an
important institutional concept in the U.S. Many environmental
statutes, including those which address ground-water protection,
usually contain provisions for public participation. The
Administrative Procedures Act also specifies substantive and
procedural requirements for the public's participation in
regulatory development. Formal, statutory requirements include
governmental notification to the public of pending actions,
opportunity for public comment on regulatory or other actions,
and public hearings or community meetings. Informal approaches
consist of public workshops, community relations or public
information programs, and a variety of other communication
techniques.
Over the past decade, the public has become increasingly
sophisticated in its demand for participation in environmental
decisionmaking. EPA's hearings in January 1981 on its
ground-water strategy, for instance, attracted almost 900
attendees, 172 witnesses who offered testimony, and written
comments from 390 additional individuals and organizations.
Implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments already
has included two major EPA-sponsored workshops; moreover, the
legislation itself requires states to adopt a public
participation process in planning their new ground-water
protection programs.
B. LEGAL INSTRUMENTS
A number of legal instruments play a role in regulating
ground-water ownership and usage, as well as the diverse
activities that may affect ground-water quality. These include
constitutional law, statutes, regulations, executive orders, and
enforcement tools such as permits, administrative orders,
judicial orders, and citizen suits. In addition to the
instruments associated with environmental laws, there are also
the common law doctrines of nuisance and torts.
-30-
-------
Ownership and Allocation of Ground Water
Two distinct legal doctrines govern water ownership,
withdrawal, and usage. The first, found primarily in the 31
eastern states, is based on various interpretations of the rule
of reasonable use. This rule basically assumes that the ground
water is owned by the owner of the overlying property. One
interpretation of "reasonable use" is that this owner may
withdraw water for the benefit of the land immediately overlying
the aquifer, but not for some distant land. A second variation
of "reasonable use" is the correlative rights rule, under which
the landowner is entitled to a portion of the ground water that
reflects the size of the property in relation to the total land
area overlying the aquifer.
The 17 contiguous western states and Alaska, by contrast,
operate under the doctrine of prior appropriation. In these
states, all natural waters belong to the public or to the state,
not to the overlying landowners. States may grant private
individuals the right to appropriate water for their own
beneficial use. Typically, appropriation is accomplished
through permitting. Permit reviewers ascertain that the
proposed source of water is unappropriated and that the
requested appropriation will not infringe on other water rights
or be contrary to the public interest. The withdrawal permit
specifies the place and purpose of the ground-water use, the
point of diversion, and the facility to be constructed, but does
not guarantee the availability of sufficient water. Priorities
among competing uses for the same source of water generally are
resolved in favor of the user with the earliest appropriation,
but a prior appropriation can be set aside when a new proposed
use is socially preferred. State statutes typically give
preference to domestic and municipal uses, followed by
agricultural and industrial use.
Constitutional Framework
In the U.S., constitutions at both the national and state
level serve as the fundamental legal instruments, establishing
the division of powers among the federal, state, and local
levels of government. The U.S. Constitution delegates certain
specifically enumerated legislative, executive, and judicial
powers to the federal government. In addition, the federal
government holds various implied powers, i.e., those powers that
may be reasonably inferred from expressly delegated powers.
States are given all powers that are not delegated to the
national government, except those expressly denied to them.
These constitutional principles have had important implications
for the management and protection of the nation's ground-water
resources.
-31-
-------
Although the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly address
protection of the environment, it indirectly authorizes the
federal government to act in this arena under the constitutional
authority Congress has to regulate interstate commerce.
Expansively interpreted by the Supreme Court, the federal
"commerce clause" has provided the constitutional basis for
federal measures to protect the quality of the nation's air and
surface water resources. A 1982 Supreme Court decision
(Sporhase v. Nebraska, 458 U.S. 941) extended this authority to
ground water by confirming that ground water is an article of
interstate commerce subject to regulation by Congress.
The authority reserved to the states under the federal
constitution is itself governed by state constitutions. Most
state constitutions are similar to the U.S. Constitution and do
not contain specific provisions for safeguarding the environment
in general or ground water in particular. Although a few state
constitutions include provisions granting citizens a general
right to a healthy environment, the majority of state measures
for environmental protection have been based generally on
inherent state police powers. That is, the state constitutions
confer to the states authority to take actions necessary to
protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of its
citizens. This broad authority enables states and their
political subdivisions (i.e., municipalities and counties) not
only to establish police and fire departments but also to enact
legislation and create agencies to administer ground-water and
other environmental protection programs.
Statutory Instruments
Legislation that protects ground water is found at all three
levels of government. At the federal level, there is no single,
overriding ground-water statute. Rather, sixteen separate laws
address ground water in some way (Figure III-5). 0 Many were
not originally written for ground-water protection but over time
have been broadly interpreted and expanded to cover this issue.
A number of these federal statutes control specific
contaminants and sources of ground-water contamination, while
others establish programs to preserve or restore the ground
water. In order to implement this legislation, federal agencies
develop and promulgate regulations, setting forth their
interpretation of the requirements and obligations imposed under
each statute. These regulations have the full force and effect
of law and are important legal instruments which establish the
specific requirements involving the control of private and
public activities affecting ground-water quality.
-32-
-------
FIGURE III-5
Federal Laws Related to the
Protection of Ground-Water Quality
STATUTES
Atomic Energy Act
Clean Water Act
Coastal Zone Management Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (and associated
mining laws)
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
National Environmental Policy Act
Reclamation Act
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
Toxic Substances Control Act
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
Water Research and Development Act
Source: Office of Technology Assessment, Protecting the Nation's
Groundwater from Contamination (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1984), p. 65.
-------
In many respects, state legal instruments parallel federal
ones in that state laws and regulations provide the primary
legal basis for state protection of ground-water resources.
Under federalism, though, diversity is the hallmark of state
approaches to ground-water protection." Many states have
specific legislation that establishes water ownership principles
and the attendant rights, obligations, and limitations; and
several states have legislation that sets goals for protecting
the states' ground waters.
Additionally, like the federal government, states have
enacted their own statutes designed to address specific sources
of ground-water contamination. For sources that also are
regulated under federal law, states typically enact laws that
are at least as stringent as federal ones, in order to receive
authority from EPA to administer the programs and to qualify for
federal financial assistance. When not preempted by federal
law, some states have adopted requirements that exceed federal
statutory requirements or which address sources that are
unregulated by the federal government. These federal and state
laws may also be supplemented by local ordinances.
Judicial Instruments
Most federal and state environmental statutes, as well as
local ordinances, contain enforcement provisions. These may
consist of either or both administrative and judicial remedies.
Several of the statutes EPA administers grant the Agency the
authority to issue administrative orders requiring compliance,
imposing penalties for noncompliance, or specifying remedial
measures. If these administrative measures are not effective,
or if the violation is sufficiently severe in the first place,
EPA also has the option of seeking judicial relief through civil
or criminal actions. The outcome of these actions may include
judicial orders, under which a court mandates a violator to take
specific corrective actions within a specified time frame, pay
financial penalties, or even face a jail term.
Yet another judicial instrument authorized ty many federal
environmental statutes is the citizen suit. Established as a
backup for federal enforcement authority, the "citizen
enforcement" provisions empower private citizens, environmental
groups, and others to bring suit in federal court against
alleged violators of federal environmental requirements or even
against the governmental agencies administering the laws for
failure to carry out their legal responsibilities.
The states have authority under their own constitutions to
enforce their own statutes and regulations for ground-water
protection, but they often employ a more limited range of
-33-
-------
administrative and judicial remedies for enforcement. In the
past, for example, many state laws did not authorize the use of
administrative orders or civil penalties in environmental
enforcement cases. During the last decade, a number of states
have expanded their enforcement instruments to reflect more
closely the federal range of administrative and judicial tools,
including recourse to "citizen suits."
In addition to these judicial instruments authorized by
statutes, judicial remedies based on traditional principles of
American common law are available to both public and private
parties. The most common ones are the doctrines of public and
private nuisance and the emerging area of toxic tort litigation.
C. REGULATORY INSTRUMENTS
The use of regulatory instruments to protect the quality of
ground water is evolving. Most of the instruments used to date
were established for other purposes and have been adapted to
ground-water protection. They largely deal with the control of
specific contaminants or types of sources, although a few are
beginning to focus on the overall protection of the ground-water
resource. Types of regulatory instruments that are in use or
under consideration include standard-setting, source controls,
product controls, and land use controls. At the present time,
not all of these instruments are used uniformly to address the
types of sources described in Chapter II (Figure III-6).
Standard-Setting
Standards either limit the permissible concentrations of a
substance in ground water or limit the permissible amount or
concentration of a substance to be discharged from a particular
source. There are two variations on the first type: a single
concentration limit for all ground waters, or variable
concentration limits based on the type of water use (e.g.,
drinking, agricultural, industrial). Most standards are
numerical, expressed as parts per million or billion, but
sometimes standards are qualitative such as "adequate to support
aquatic life."
None of the federal laws described above establish national
ground-water quality standards. Under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA), though, EPA establishes standards for public
drinking water supplies. As national concern with ground-water
contamination has mounted, these drinking water standards have
become a surrogate for ground-water standards.
The SDWA establishes two types of national drinking water
standards. Primary standards, known as Maximum Contaminant
-34-
-------
Figure 111-6
Regulatory Instruments
SOURCE CONTROLS
PRODUCT
CONTROLS
LAND USE
CONTROLS
SOURCES
PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
TECHNICAL
STANDARDS
BEST
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
PROJECT REVIEW
Category I
Subsurface percolation
Injection wells (waste)
Injection wells (non-waste)
Land application
Category I
Landfills
Open dumps (including
illegal dumping)
Residential (or local)
disposal
Surface impoundments
Waste tailings
Waste piles
Materials stockpiles
Graveyards
Animal burial
Aboveground storage tanks
Underground storage tanks
Containers
Open burning/detonation
sites
Radioactive disposal sites
Category*
Pipelines
Materials transport/transfer
operations
Category IV
Irrigation practices
Pesticide applications
Fertilizer applications
Animal feeding operations
Deicing salts applications
Urban runoff
Percolation of atmospheric
pollutants
Mining and mine drainage
Category V
Production wells
Other wells (non-waste)
Construction excavation
Category VI
Ground water-surface water
interactions
Natural leaching
Salt-water intrusion/brackish
water upconing
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
>/
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
-------
Levels (MCLs), are health amd technology based, include
monitoring requirements, and are enforceable. Secondary
standards protect the public welfare by providing guidelines on
the water's taste, odor, color, and other non-aesthetic
characteristics. EPA also issues Health Advisories, which
identify potentially hazardous contaminants and contain
information on the health effects of those contaminants as well
as analytical measurement techniques and control technologies.
These Health Advisories are designed to help state officials
administer their drinking water programs before MCLs are
formally adopted.
For each regulated pollutant, MCLs establish the maximum
concentration allowed in tap water provided by public water
supply systems. These MCLs are based on ideal health goals,
previously described as Recommended Maximum Contaminant Levels
(RMCLs), and now called Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
(MCLGs). MCLGs are set at levels that present no known or
anticipated health effect, with a margin for safety. The
purpose of MCLGs is to set a target for revising existing and
establishing new MCLs. MCLs are supposed to be set as close as
is "feasible" to MCLGs. Factors affecting feasibility include
the availability and cost of treatment technology.
Under the SDWA of 1974, EPA was required to issue its MCLs
on an interim basis and to revise them periodically. To date,
EPA has set interim MCLs for 2 6 contaminants and a final MCL for
one contaminant. EPA also has proposed MCLGs for 31
contaminants, put final MCLGs in place for seven, and has
proposed MCLs for eight contaminants. EPA also is considering
setting MCLS for radon and uranium and revising its interim MCLs
for other radionuclides.11 Figure III-7 summarizes the status
of existing and proposed national drinking water standards.
EPA's standard-setting efforts will encompass these as well as
additional efforts in order to implement the requirement under
the SDWA Amendments to set standards for 83 specified
contaminants within three years. The limitation on drinking
water standards is that they apply only to public supplies that
serve 25 or more individuals and not to supplies from private,
residential wells.
At the state level, there has been diverse but not
widespread activity in setting ground-water quality goals and
standards. This activity generally has taken four forms:
establishing narrative ground-water standards, adapting state
surface water quality criteria and/or standards to ground water,
adopting federal drinking water standards, and adopting drinking
water standards for contaminants not yet covered by federal
regulations. State's that have established standards for ground
water have taken different approaches. Some states, such as
-35-
-------
FIGURE III-7
Existing and Proposed National Drinking Water Standards
CONTAMINANT INTERIM FINAL PROPOSED FINAL
CATEGORY MCLS MCLS MCLGs MCLs MCLGs
MICROBIOLOGICAL Total Coliform
Giardia lamblia
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nitrate/Nitrite
Selenium
Silver
Fluoride
Arsenic
Asbestos
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nitrate
Nitrite
Selenium
ORGANICS
(SYNTHETIC)
Endrin
Lindane
Methoxychlor
2,4-D
2,4,5-TP Silvex
Toxaphene
Acrylamide
Alachlor
Aldicarb, aldicarb
sulfoxide, aldicarb sulfone
Chlordane
Carbofuran
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP)
1,2-Dichloropropane
Epichlorhydrin
Ethyl Benzene
Heptachlor
Heptachlorepoxide
Pentachlorophenol
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
-------
FIGURE III-7
Existing and Proposed National Drinking Water Standards
(Continued)
CONTAMINANT INTERIM FINAL PROPOSED FINAL
CATEGORY MCLS MCLS MCLGs MCLs MCLGs
ORGANICS
(SYNTHETIC)
(Continued)
ORGANICS
(VOCs)
ORGANICS
(Other)
4 types of Trihalo-
methanes
Styrene
Toluene
Xylene
Chlorobenzene
Trans-l,2-dichloro
ethylene
Cis-l,2-dichloro
ethylene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
p-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,1,1-Tricholoro-
ethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1.1-Dichloroethylene
1.2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Vinyl Cloride
RADIONUCLIDES Gross alpha
particle activity
Beta particle and
photon radioactivity
from man-made
radionuclides
Radium-226
Radium-228
EPA is considering
MCLS for radon and
uranium
-------
FIGURE III-7
Existing and Proposed National Drinking Water Standards
(Continued)
CONTAMINANT INTERIM FINAL PROPOSED FINAL
CATEGORY MCLS MCLS MCLGs MCLs MCLGs
Miscellaneous Sodium monitoring and reporting
Monitoring of distribution systems for corrosion and other problems
Secondary pH, Chloride, Copper, Foaming Agents, Sulfate, Total Dissolved Solids (Hardness), Zinc, Color, Corrosivity, Iron,
Manganese, Odor
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Protecting Our Drinking Water", EPA Journal. September 1986 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protecion Agency, 1986), pp. 27-28.
-------
Connecticut, have adopted a differential protection policy which
establishes variable standards according to the use
classification of the ground water. Other states have a policy
of either uniformly protecting all around waters or allowing
limited degradation (Figure III-8). 2 Wisconsin has adopted
the distinctive but increasingly popular approach of taking
enforcement action against sources when ambient monitoring
detects contamination at a specified fraction, called a
"preventive action level," of the health-based gr«und-water
standard. The intent is to prevent contaminant concentrations
from reaching the point at which public health or the
environment are threatened.
Discharge standards for the 3 3 principal types of sources of
ground-water contamination are not widely used either.
Most of the standards that do exist are surface water
standards limiting the contaminants in effluent from sources in
the waste management and commercial/production categories, in
addition, some states and localities limit dicharges from large
residential or industrial septic systems.
Source Controls
Three types of controls generally are available to limit the
contamination a source releases and the potential for that
contamination to reach the ground water:
Technical standards specify design and construction
techniques as well as pollution control technologies
(i.e., best available control technology)
Best management practices (BMPs) include the
management, operation, and maintenance of a source or
facility. Some examples include restrictions on
operating hours, limitations on process materials, or
requirements for inspection and maintenance
Project review examines the impacts proposed projects
may have on the environment.
The first two types of controls typically are established and
enforced through a permitting process.
Technical standards seem to be the most commonly used
approach to controlling major sources of ground-water
contamination regulated under existing federal and state laws.
Federal statutes and regulations govern the siting, design,
construction, and closure of underground injection wells,
landfills, surface impoundments, and waste piles, while state
-36-
-------
FIGURE III-8
State Ground-Water Classification Systems and Standards
GROUND-WATF.R CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SAMPLE OF
Number of Criteria for GROUND-WATER QUALITY
STATES Classes Classification STANDARDS
ALASKA
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
CONNECTICUT
FLORIDA
HAWAII
IDAHO
N/A N/A
4 Based on use, quality,
land use, and flow system
4 Highest protection for
single-source and
potable aquifers
2 Fresh water and saline
water
2 Special-resource water-
protection against
degradation, unless
social or economic fac-
tors override; potable-
water supplies—protec-
tion as drinking water
without treatment
13 contaminants
Any contaminant that would interfere with current or future
uses of ground water
Inorganic salts
EPA drinking water standards; include taste, odor, and color
Primary and secondary drinking water constituents, MCLs
for 8 other organics, and natural background levels for
other constituents
N/A
Primary and secondary drinking water standards
-------
FIGURE III-8
State Ground-Water Classification Systems and Standards
(Continued)
GROUND-WATER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SAMPLE OF
Number of Criteria for GROUND-WATER QUALITY
STATES Classes Classification STANDARDS
ILLINOIS
Domestic use, limited
use, or general non-
domestic use or limited
use
N/A
IOWA
Based on vulnerability
to contamination by
considering hydrogeo-
logic characteristics
N/A
KANSAS
Fresh, usable, and
brine water
Federal drinking water standards, inorganic chemicals
MAINE
Suitable for drinking
water supplies; suit-
able for everything
else
N/A
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
N/A
Drinking water quality,
saline, below drinking-
water quality
Federal drinking water standards
N/A
-------
FIGURE III-8
State Ground-Water Classification Systems and Standards
(Continued)
GROUND-WATER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SAMPLE OF
Number of Criteria for GROUND-WATER QUALITY
STATES Classes Classification STANDARDS
MINNESOTA
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
Based on present and
potential beneficial uses
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Full protection of
ground water with less
than 10,000 mg/1 TDS;
ground water with more
than 10,000 mg/1 TDS
not covered by standards
Fresh ground water;
saline ground water
with chloride concen-
trations in excess of
1,000 mg/1 or TDS
greater than 2,000 mg/1
National primary and secondary drinking water standards.
All drinking-water parameters and all substances
deleterious to beneficial uses
Federal primary drinking water standards and most of the
secondary drinking water standards
Nutrients, metals, and organics
35 numerical standards, plus a generic "toxic pollutant"
standard defining acceptable levels of protection for
human and animal health
83 contaminants
-------
FIGURE III-8
State Ground-Water Classification Systems and Standards
(Continued)
GROUND-WATER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SAMPLE OF
Number of Criteria for GROUND-WATER QUALITY
STATES Classes Classification STANDARDS
NORTH CAROLINA 5 Fresh ground water used 19 contaminants
as the primary source
of drinking water (GA);
brackish waters at
depths greater than 20
feet below the land
surface that recharge
surface and ground water
(GSA); fresh water at
depths less than 20
feet that recharge sur-
face and ground water
(GB); brackish waters
at less than 20 feet
(GSB); contaminated
water technically or
economically infeasible
for upgrading to a
higher class (GC)
OKLAHOMA N/A Beneficial uses have Primary standards, including 10 inorganic chemicals and 5
been designated for 21 radiological contaminants and secondary standards
ground-water basins and
formations, but standards
being developed for each
beneficial use
-------
FIGURE III-8
State Ground-Water Classification Systems and Standards
(Continued)
GROT IND-WATER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SAMPLE OF
Number of Criteria for GROUND-WATER QUALITY
STATES Classes Classification STANDARDS
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGIN ISLANDS
WEST VIRGINIA
WYOMING
N/A N/A
2 Ground waters that
supply or could supply
community water
4 Ranked categories of use
N/A N/A
7 Domestic; agricultural;
livestock; aquatic life;
life; industry; hydro-
carbon and mineral
deposits; unsuitable
for any use
N/A
Regulations from SDWA.
Less stringent than federal drinking-water standards
N/A
Maximum 26 contaminants, depending on class, pH, and TDS
Source: The Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection (Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1987), pp. 174-175, 180.
-------
and local laws are beginning to establish similar requirements
for septic systems and a variety of other sources not yet
addressed by federal law. BMPs are less frequently used, partly
because they are the hardest to enforce due to the extensive
monitoring required.
Project review is limited at the federal and state level,
but is the principal tool for source control at the local
level. At the federal level, the preparation of Environmental
Impact Statemements under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), as well as the review of certain projects under the Sole
Source Aquifer program of the Safe Drinking Water Act provide
government officials with the opportunity to review the
environmental impacts of federally-assisted projects. At the
state level, the extent of project review typically depends upon
the existence of state environmental impact laws comparable to
the federal NEPA. Review at the local level is fairly
extensive, largely in connection with the evaluation of site and
subdivision plans. Historically, these reviews have focused
more on transportation, public safety, air, surface water, and
wetlands issues than on ground-water protection.
Product Controls
Product controls are slowly beginning to emerge as a means
of protecting ground water. In recent years, for example, a few
states and localities have banned or limited the sale and use of
septic system cleaning solvents because these products are known
to be ineffective, as well as harmful to ground water. At the
federal level, EPA is taking a number of steps to restrict
chemicals and pesticide products that have significant potential
to leach to the ground water.
One step is EPA's development of an Agricultural Chemicals
in Ground Water Strategy, establishing a long-term framework for
the control of fertilizers and pesticides. As part of its
strategy development, EPA is examining how to better employ its
current statutory authorities under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the Toxic Substances Control
Act, Superfund, and the Safe Drinking Water Act to protect the
quality of ground water. At the same time, both the pesticide
and toxic substance control programs have begun to incorporate
ground-water considerations into their decisions on registering
chemical and pesticide products, other controls include
improved pesticide product labels, providing users with more
explicit directions on how to safeguard the ground water, and
limiting use to certified applicators.
-37-
-------
Land Use Controls
Patterns of land use have significant implications for the
long-term use of ground water. New growth and development
increase the rate of ground-water withdrawals and the likelihood
of substances leaching into the ground water. State and local
governments are beginning to more fully appreciate the
relationships between land use and ground-water quality, but to
date only a few have adapted traditional land use instruments
for ground-water protection.
Typical land use instruments are eminent domain, comprehen-
sive planning, zoning, land acquisition, easements, and
subdivision regulations. Eminent domain is the governmental
power to acquire land needed for public purposes upon payment of
reasonable compensation to the owner. Comprehensive planning is
a process local governments use to direct future growth in an
orderly fashion, and zoning establishes districts in which
specified land uses are permitted, subject to various
conditions. Land acquisition is the purchase of fee simple
title to a legally delineated parcel of land, and easements are
legal agreements between property owners or between a property
owner and a public agency. An easement may grant access to
someone other than the property owner or may restrict the use of
the property. Subdivision regulations complement zoning
ordinances by specifying requirements that developers must meet
in order to utilize their land. These requirements may include
proper arrangment of streets, adequate open space, and control
of population densities.
In combination, these instruments can promote ground-water
protection by restricting activities within sensitive areas. Of
these techniques, zoning is probably the one most easily adapted
to, although still rarely used for, ground-water protection.
Zoning techniques may include reducing development densities to
prevent intensive use over recharge areas, thereby indirectly
limiting the density of septic system discharges in a given area
and employing zoning overlay districts to establish protective
zones around recharge areas and well heads1 . Presently 12
states and localities have adopted protective zones around well
heads (Figure III-9),13 and many more are likely to establish
them under EPA's new Wellhead Protection Program. The various
methods that can be used to delineate these protective zones
largely reflect each area's unique combination of
hydrogeological characteristics, potential sources of
contamination, and the institutional capabilities to manage such
sources.
There are a small but growing number of examples of the use
of other land use tools for ground-water protection (Figure
111-10). One that is particularly innovative is
-38-
-------
FIGURE III-9
Examples of Land Use Controls
for Ground-Water Protection
LOCALE
INSTRUMENT
DESCRIPTION
Southampton Township,
Long Island, New York
Brookhaven, Long Island,
New York
Pinelands, New Jersey
Barnstable, Massachusetts
Austin, Texas
Required minimum lot size
Rezoning
Restrictions on density of septic systems
Zoning overlay district
Protective zones around recharge areas
Five-acre lots are required for development on
25,000 acres of the Pine Barrens to protect
ground-water quality.
Large portion of industrial land rezoned to
residential use, which is less intense, to protect
ground-water quality.
Septic drain fields must meet certain specifications
so as to limit nitrogen loadings.
District consists of zones of contribution to existing
and future supply wells because the area relies
solely on ground water to meet its needs.
Separate ordinances created three zones: the
critical water quality zone, the buffer zone, and the
upland zone to protect the watersheds in the
Edwards Aquifer recharge area.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection, Background Information on Sole Source
Aquifer and Wellhead Protection Program Development (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1986), pp. 2-30, 2-39, 2-47. Frank DiNovo and Martin Jaffe, Local Ground-Water Proteciton Midwest Region (Chicago:
American Planning Association, 1984), p.110.
-------
FIGURE 111-10
Protective Ground-Water Zones
STATE/LOCALITY
ZONING FOR GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
CONNECTICUT
Geologic/geomorphic mapping
FLORIDA
Calculated fixed radii
- Dade County
10, 30, and 210 day travel times or a 1-foot drawdown
- Broward County
10, 30, and 210 day travel times or a 1-foot drawdown
- Palm Beach County
30, 210, and 500 day travel times or a 1-foot drawdown
ILLINOIS
1000 feet fixed ring
MASSACHUSETTS
Geologic/geomorphic mapping
- Cape Cod
Uniform flow approach and subregional flow system
Duxbury
Uniform flow approach and aquifer boundaries
Edgartown
Uniform flow approach and aquifer boundaries
NEBRASKA
Arbritrary fixed radii
VERMONT
Geologic/geomorphic mapping
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection, Workshop on Guidance for the Wellhead
Protection and Sole Source Aquifer Demonstration Programs: HydrogCPlPgig Criteria (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1987), p. IV-2.
-------
Massachusetts Aquifer Land Aquisition program, in which the
state established a fund to assist localities in the purchase of
land to protect aquifers. Massachusetts requires localities to
establish ground-water protection zones and submit applications
to obtain grants for land purchase funds. The State establishes
funding priorities according to the value and use of the
resource, cost-effectiveness of the proposed project, and degree
of resource protection proposed by an applicant.
D. ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS
Economic instruments have the potential to protect ground
water in three ways. They can provide disincentives for
noncompliance with source-specific controls. Conversely, they
can serve as incentives for completely replacing or at least
minimizing the controlled activity. Finally, economic
instruments can help finance ground-water protection programs.
Examples of common economic instruments include financial
penalties, disposal fees or taxes, financial responsibility
requirements, special taxes, and grants. Economic instruments
largely are used as part of the overall regulatory scheme for
controlling major sources of contamination, such as injection
wells, landfills, lagoons, and abandoned waste sites.
Originally established to achieve objectives other than
ground-water protection, they are slowly being adapted for this
new purpose.
Financial Penalties
All major federal and state environmental statutes set
financial penalties for failure to comply with specified
statutory requirements. These fines typically are intended to
discourage the lack of compliance with source or contaminant
controls or to compel corrective action. Although the specific
penalties vary from statute to statute, there are some common
characteristics. Typically, fines are assessed for each day of
each violation. The statute may establish a specific amount or
a range of the fine, with some laws establishing administrative
or judicial discretion in tailoring the penalty according to the
seriousness of the violation and the extent of good faith
efforts to comply with regulatory requirements.
Penalities can be civil or criminal. Criminal penalties are
far more strigent than civil fines. Under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), for example, an
administrative compliance order may set a civil penalty of
$25,000 per violation, per day. Failure to comply with the
terms of the administrative order can result in an additional
-39-
-------
$25,000 fine. Criminal penalties, on the other hand, are up to
$50,000 per day for knowingly violating the law and $250,000 for
knowingly endangering public health and the environment.
State Disposal Taxes
As of 1984, at least 11 states required direct taxes or fees
on hazardous wastes either at the point of generation or
disposal (Figure III-ll). Commonly referred to as waste-end
taxes, a principal objective is to provide industry with an
economic incentive to use waste management practices such as
recycling and incineration that are more environmentally
desirable than land disposal, which has a high potential for
contaminating the ground water.15
Financial Responsibility
Some federal environmental laws require owners and operators
of certain regulated facilities to demonstrate that they have
sufficient financial resources to operate their facilities
properly and to pay for the costs of proper closure and
post-closure maintenance. Provisions requiring financial
responsibility are in the SDWA, RCRA, and the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act.
Although these requirements vary somewhat among statutes,
generally the regulated entity has a number of options for
demonstrating financial responsibility. Owners and operators of
active hazardous waste managment facilities regulated under RCRA
must have sufficient insurance to cover both sudden and
non-sudden releases of contaminants. Closure and post-closure
requirements can be met through letters of credit, escrow
accounts, surety bonds, and financial worth tests.
Trust Fund Taxation
Both the Superfund and UST programs utilize special taxes to
finance trust funds that are used to prevent or mitigate
releases of hazardous substances that threaten the environment
or public health. The original Superfund law established a $1.6
billion trust fund financed largely through a tax on petroleum
and 42 chemicals used commercially. Reauthorization of the fund
through the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
of 198 6 expands the trust fund to $8.5 billion and restructures
the taxation scheme. In addition to taxes on chemical
feedstocks, a new broad-based environmental tax on corporations
and an increased tax on petroleum help finance the trust fund.
Additional sources of funds are Congressional appropriations,
interest, and the federal government's recovery of cleanup cso«ts
from private responsible parties.
-40-
-------
FIGURE III-11
Sample of State Waste-End Tax Systems
STATE
TAX DESCRIPTION
PURPOSE OF TAX
CONNECTICUT
OHIO
ILLINOIS
FLORIDA
KENTUCKY
SOUTH CAROLINA
MINNESOTA
Tax on waste generators.
Tax on commercial disposal facilities. Only
land disposal is taxed.
Tax on commercial disposal facilities.
Specified hazardous wastes are exempt.
Tax on offsite disposing generators. Disposal
facilities, government facilities, and recyclers
are exempt.
Tax on generators shifted in 1984 to a tax
on disposal facilities.
Tax on generators who dispose of waste by
land disposal.
Tax on generators. Small quantity generators
can be exempted.
Raise revenue for the Superfund match and
hazardous waste cleanup.
Fund the state's hazardous waste regulatory
program.
Raise revenue to fund the cleanup of hazardous
waste sites.
Match federal Superfund.
Raise revenue for hazardous waste cleanup.
Raise revenue for cleanup of uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites.
Raise revenue to operate the state's hazardous waste
regulatory program.
-------
FIGURE III-ll
Sample of State Waste-End Tax Systems
(Continued)
STATE TAX DESCRIPTION PURPOSE OF TAX
MISSOURI Four separate taxes on:
Generators producing more than 10 tons
of hazardous waste a year
The state's only commercial landfill
Landfill wastes over 10 tons
Each person employed by a generator.
Fund administrative costs of the state's hazardous
waste program.
Same as above.
Raise revenue to clean up inactive hazardous waste
sites.
Same as above.
Source: U.S. General Accounting Office, State Experience with Taxes on Generators or Disposers of Hazardous Waste
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1984), pp. 47-49.
-------
Financing of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
under Subtitle I of RCRA is completely different. The $500-
millon UST Trust Fund will rely on a tax of 1/10 of one cent on
certain petroleum products, primarily motor fuels.
Federal Grants
Many of the major environmental laws EPA administers have
contained provisions for federal grants to states. Typically,
these grants have been designed to assist states in financing
new treatment facilities, such as sewage treatment plants, or
new environmental programs. At the present time, federal laws
provide authorization for three different and distinct
ground-water grant programs. Under section 106 of the Clean
Water Act, EPA has awarded nearly $2 0 million to states and
territories to assist them in devising ground-water protection
straegies that would guide all future ground-water protection
efforts. The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act also
establish ground-water grants for non-point sources. Two grant
programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act are specifically
oriented toward comprehensive protection of ground-water
resources. Under the first, EPA will share with states the cost
of developing and implementing programs to establish and manage
wellhead protection areas. The second will share with eligible
applicants the financing of demonstration projects to protect
the ground-water resources of Critical Aquifer Protection Areas
(CAPAs) within approved Sole Source Aquifers.
E. OTHER INSTRUMENTS
A variety of other instruments are used by federal and state
governments to protect ground water. These instruments include
ground-water classification, data collection and management,
monitoring, and research and development.
Ground-Water Classification
In 1984, EPA issued the Ground-Water Protection Strategy,
setting out the Agency's plans for enhancing ground-water
protection efforts. A central feature of the strategy is a
policy framework for Agency programs which accords differing
levels of protection to ground water based on its use, value to
society, and vulnerability to contamination. The strategy
divides ground water into three classes:
Class I: Special Ground Waters are those that are
highly vulnerable to contamination because of the
hydrogeological characteristics of the areas under
which they occur and are also characterized by either
of the following two factors: irreplaceable, in that
-41-
-------
no reasonable alternative of drinking water is
available to substantial populations; or ecologically
vital, in that the aquifer provides the base flow for a
particularily sensitive ecological system that, if
polluted, would destroy a unique habitat.
Class IX: Current and Potential Sources of Drinking
Water and Waters Having Other Beneficial Uses are all
other ground waters that are currently used or are
potentially available for drinking water or other
beneficial use.
Class III: Ground Waters Not Considered Potential
Sources of Drinking Water and of Limited Beneficial Use
are ground waters that are heavily saline, with Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels over 10,000 mg/L, or are
otherwise contaminated beyond levels that allow cleanup
using methods reasonably employed in public water
treatment. These ground waters also must not migrate
to Class I or II ground waters or have a discharge to
surface water that could cause degradation. 6
In December 1986, EPA issued Draft Guidelines for
Ground-Water Classification Under the EPA Ground-Water
Protection Strategy to implement its differential protection
policy-1-'. These draft Guidelines further define the classes,
concepts, and key terms related to the classification system
outlined in the strategy and describe the procedures and
information needs for classifying ground water. The guidelines
are intended for use by EPA in its national programs. Over the
next six months specific implementation policies will evolve,
but some programs already have adopted classification. Under
Superfund, for example, classification contributes to the
designation of sites for the National Priorities List for site
cleanup and the formulation of cleanup policies.
Monitoring and Data Management
Several federal and state agencies monitor ground water.
The monitoring may include sampling of the ground water, tap
water, or releases from a source. Supplemental data often
include information about the number, types, and location of
sources.
USGS has the primary responsibility for collecting data
about the quality of water. The major part of this work is
carried out by ground-water investigations in the Federal-State
Cooperative Program. In 1982, USGS also began a national
program to study toxic wastes and their behavior and fate in
aquifer systems. The data collection carried out for this
-42-
-------
program is designed to examine the relationship between
ground-water quality and land use.
Other federal efforts have consisted of national surveys of
contaminants drinking water supplies or sources. These surveys
help EPA decide what regulations to develop and what specific
measures to adopt. To support the adoption of national drinking
water standards, for example, EPA has conducted five surveys on
the quality of drinking water supplies that use ground-water
sources. At the present time, surveys on radionuclides and
pesticides are still in progress. Under RCRA and Superfund, EPA
together with the states have identified the number, location,
and contamination potential of open dumps, surface impoundments,
and hazardous waste sites.
At least eight separate federal statutes require
ground-water monitoring for specific sources (Figure
111-12)• Thirty-eight states monitor ground-water quality
or are developing monitoring programs. Some localities, too,
are sponsoring or undertaking monitoring with the help of USGS.
States are required to monitor public drinking water supplies
under the SDWA so that drinking water standards are met.
Forty-six states conduct inventories of potential sources of
contaminants, and forty-nine states monitor sources for
potential contamination.
In 1985, EPA formulated a national Ground-Water Monitoring
Strategy designed to coordinate many of these disparate
monitoring efforts. It supports the goals of the Agency's
Ground-Water Protection Stragetv and contains seven monitoring
objectives and an implementation plan.19
Research and Development
At least 2 6 federal offices are involved in research and
development (R&D) on ground water (Figure 111-13). 0 The most
extensive R&D activity is undertaken by EPA's Office of Research
and Development (ORD). In a 1986 survey of EPA ground-water
activities, ORD reported projects that addressed specific types
of contaminant sources as well as general scientific support.
Examples of projects include the application of geophysical and
remote sensing methods to detect sources of contamination,
assessment and development of improved techniques for prevention
and cleanup of contamination, and development of models to
predict movement of ground water and contaminants.
Resource Characterization
Aquifer mapping and assessment are two well-established
activities. For many years, the primary objective of these
-43-
-------
FIGURE III-12
Ground-Water Monitoring Provisions of Federal Statutes
STATUTE MONITORING OBJECTIVES GROUND -WATER
MONITORING PROVISIONS
Atomic Energy
Act (AEA)
Obtain background water
quality data and evaluate
ground-water contamination.
Monitoring for low-level radioactive
disposal sites. Facility licenses
must specify monitoring requirements
for the source.
Confirm geotechnical and Conduct monitoring related to develop-
design parameters and ensure ment of geologic repositories.
that design of geologic
repositories accommodates
actual field conditions.
Characterize contamination
and select and review
corrective measures.
DOE may conduct monitoring on
remedial actions at storage and
disposal facilities for radioactive
substances.
Clean Water Act (CWA)
- Sections 201
and 405
- Section 208
Evaluate ground-water
contamination,
plant by products.
Characterize contamination
and select and review
corrective measures.
Monitoring for land appli-
cation of sewage treatment
No requirements established.
Some ongoing monitoring of
agricultural practices.
Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA)
No source regulations authorized
-------
FIGURE in-12
Ground-Water Monitoring Provisions of Federal Statutes
(Continued)
STATUTE MONITORING OBJECTIVES GROUND-WATER
MONITORING PROVISIONS
Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and
Liability Act
Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act - Section 3
Characterize a contamination
problem.
Characterize a contamination
problem.
Monitoring by EPA and States as
necessary for responding to hazardous
substances releases.
No monitoring required for pesticide
users. EPA may monitor contamination.
Federal Land Policy
and Management Act
(and Associated Mining
Laws)
Obtain background water quality
data.
Monitoring for geothermal recovery
operations on federal lands at least
one year prior to production.
Monitoring for mineral operations on federal
lands not specified. Bureau of Land Manage-
ment may require monitoring.
Hazardous Liquid
Pipeline Safety Act
No monitoring provisions.
Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act
No monitoring provisions.
National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)
No provisions for development of source
regulations.
-------
FIGURE m-12
Ground-Water Monitoring Provisions of Federal Statutes
(Continued)
STATUTE MONITORING OBJECTIVES GROUND-WATER
MONITORING PROVISIONS
Reclamation Act
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA)
- Subtitle C
Obtain background water quality
data and evaluate ground-water
contamination.
Obtain background water quality
data, determine ground-water
contamination, determine
compliance with standards,
evaluate corrective action
measures.
No explicit requirements; monitoring may
be conducted as part of water supply develop-
ment projects.
Monitoring specified for all hazardous
wastes land disposal facilities.
Interim Status monitoring required
until receipt of final permit. Owner/
operator can waive monitoring requirements
if a qualified geologist/engineer determines
low potential for waste migration.
Fully permitted facilities must have a
program for:
- detection monitoring
- compliance monitoring
- corrective action monitoring.
Exemptions may be granted in low-risk
situations.
- Subtitle D
State solid waste programs may require
monitoring. Federal govt, recommends State
programs require monitoring.
-------
FIGURE III-12
Ground-Water Monitoring Provisions of Federal Statutes
(Continued)
STATUTE MONITORING OBJECTIVES GROUND-WATER
MONITORING PROVISIONS
Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA)
- Part C (Underground
Injection Control)
Evaluate ground-water
contamination.
Monitoring may be specified for
- injection wells used for
in-situ or solution mineral
mining where injection is
into a formation containing
< 10,000 mg/1 TDS.
- wells injecting beneath the
deepest underground sources
of drinking water.
Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act (SMCRA)
Obtain background water
quality data and evaluate
ground-water contamination.
Monitoring is specified for surface
and underground coal mining opera-
tions. Monitoring of a particular water-
bearing stratum may be waived if it is
determined that the stratum is not part
of the project's cumulative impact area.
Toxic Substance
Control Act (TSCA)
- Section 6
Obtain background water
quality data.
Monitoring is required prior
to commencement of disposal
operations for PCBs.
-------
FIGURE 111-12
Ground-Water Monitoring Provisions of Federal Statutes
(Continued)
STATUTE MONITORING OBJECTIVES GROUND-WATER
MONITORING PROVISIONS
Uranium Mill
Tailings Radiation
Control Act (UMTRCA)
Obtain background water
quality data, evaluate
ground-water contamination,
determine compliance, evaluate
corrective action measures.
Requirements, for the most part, are
similar to RCRA Subtitle C.
Water Research
and Development Act
Obtain background water quality
data, characterize
contamination.
Optional monitoring of inactive
sites to determine contamina-
tion problems and select remedial actions.
No provisions for development
of source regulations.
Source: Office of Technology Assessment, Protecting the Nation's Groundwater From Contamination (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress,
Office of Technology Assessment, 1984), pp. 156-158.
-------
FIGURE III-13
Federal Ground-Water Quality
Research and Development8
Categories of groundwater quality R&D"
Federal organization ]—2 2 4 S £ 1 8 2 Lfl_
National Science Foundation X X X
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Services X X
Forest Service X
Soil Conservation Service XX X
Department of Commerce
National Bureau of Standards X
Department of Defense
Army Corps of Engineers X XX X X
Army Medical Bioengineering R&D Laboratory . X
Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency. . X X
Department of Energy X
Department of Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs X
Bureau of Land Management X
Bureau of Reclamation X X
Fish and Wildlife Service X
Geological Survey X X X X X X
National Park Service X X
Office of Surface Mining X X
Office of Water Policy X X X X
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory . . X X
R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory ... X
Environmental Research Laboratory X
Office of Pesticide Programs X
Office of Radiation Programs X X
Office of Research and Development XX X XX
Office of Solid Waste X
Office of Water X
Nuclear Regulatory Commission X X
¦The listing is not exhaustive but covers principal programs and activities related to groundwater quality R&D. Examples
of other Federal R&D activities omitted here address quantity estimates, use patterns, source inventories, recharge
information exchange, socioeconomic effects of alternavie supples, and environmental effect of contamination.
bKey for categories of groundwater research and development:
1 - Standards certification, quality assurance, and water quality criteria.
2 - Hydrogeologic investigations and dynamics of groundwater flow.
3 - Subsurface fate and transport of contaminants.
4 - Background monitoring of groundwater quality.
5 - Detection of groundwater contamination from various sources.
6 - Salt-water intrusion and salinity problems.
7 - Surface water-groundwater interactions.
8 - Control of groundwater contamination from various sources.
9 - Treatment technologies.
10 - Evaluation of alternatives.
Source: Office of Technology Assessment, Protecting the Nation's Groundwater frntn
Contamination (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,
1984), p. 85.
-------
efforts was to characterize the quantity of ground water
available nationwide as well as in particular regions.
Recently, ground-water characterization activities have
emphasized the definition of regional ground-water systems.
The USGS has lead responsibility for characterizing all of
the nation's surface and ground-water resources. These studies
range from broad regional studies and national overviews to
site-specific investigations. In addition to the national
scale efforts of USGS, there are special federal programs and
projects to conduct region or site-specific assessments of
ground-water resources. One example is the effort to
characterize the Ogallala aquifer that underlies eight states in
the High Plains region. Other efforts include site-specific
ground-water assessments under the RCRA and Superfund programs.
The states, too, have undertaken some resource
characterization activity. A recent EPA analysis of state
progress in building ground-water programs shows that most of
the states and territories have undertaken a variety of
activities related to resource characterization. These
activities have included mapping aquifers and their recharge
areas, preparing detailed reports of state ground-water
resources, and conducting detailed site assessments.
The U.S. clearly has an extensive array of management
measures it can bring to bear on the complicated task of
ground-water protection, although many of these measures were
not developed for that purpose. Consequently, policymakers and
other government officials face a major challenge in adapting
these instruments and weaving them together in a way that
promotes some national consistency while accommodating the
vastly different needs of the 50 states and their local
governments.
-44-
-------
MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS
-------
IV. MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS
Ground-water protection is an exceptionally complex and
challenging environmental issue in the U.S. The diversity of
hydrogeologic settings, land uses, and institutional
capabilities nationwide complicates efforts to ascertain the
extent and severity of ground-water contamination. Varying
institutional capabilities makes it difficult to fashion
effective ground-water protection measures. The fact that
ground-water policies have been shaped by different levels of
government based on statutes not necessarily passed with ground
water in mind further complicates the picture.
Within this context, the U.S. is debating several basic
public policy issues. They include: what ground water should
be protected? What level or levels of protection should be
established? What levels of government should assume
responsibility for prevention and cleanup, and finally, who
should pay for preventing contamination or mitigating its
consequences?
A. SPATIAL COMPLEXITY
Both the natural and manmade environments in the U.S. are
highly varied and complex. The more than three million square
miles that comprise the U.S. are characterized by coastal and
non-coastal wetlands, forests, mountains and river valleys,
plains, and deserts. Elevations range from a low of 281.9 feet
(85.9 meters) below sea level to a high of 20,320 feet (6,193.5
meters) above sea level. Precipitation varies annually, ranging
from a few tenths of an inch in the desert areas in the
southwest to 400 inches (1016 centimeters) per year in some
locations in Hawaii (Figure IV-1). Accompanying this varied
topography and climate are diverse and abundant natural
resources. Timber, fertile soil, water, and a wide array of
minerals have shaped a complex economic system that encompasses
agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and a variety of services.
Ground-water resources and land use patterns are highly
variable and closely linked. While most of the U.S. population
resides in metropolitan areas, most of the nation's land area
remains rural in nature, with some areas of the country
comprising an intricate web of urban and non-urban land uses.
These use patterns determine the types and numbers of potential
sources of contamination and the population at risk from
incidents of ground-water contamination. Hydrogeologic
characteristics in turn determine the likelihood of source
discharges contaminating an aquifer. The greater the complexity
and variability of ground-water characteristics and land use
-45-
-------
FIGURE IV-1
Average Annual Precipitation in the
United States and Puerto Rico
PUERTO RICO
Precipitation varies from
30 to 210 inches
EXPLANATION
Precipitation,
in inches
I I 0-10
I I 10 20
I I 20 30
I I 30 40
I I 40-60
HI 60-100
¦H >100
ALASKA
HAWAII
Precipitation varies from
16 to 400 inches
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Summary
198 3—Hvdrologic Events and Issues. USGS Water-Supply
Paper 2250 (Reston, Va.: U.S. Geological Survey,
1984), p. 14.
-------
activities in a given jurisdiction, the more difficult it is to
develop effective protection programs. Shaping a national
public policy or approach that is suitable in all or even the
great majority of situations is even more difficult.
B. LACK OF INFORMATION
Relatively little is known about ground-water properties,
since ground-water has only recently emerged as a major
environmental issue in the eyes of the public, legislators, and
governmental officials and therefore lacks the considerably
longer history and experience of the surface water and air
programs. Although substantial information exists for some
sources of contamination and for some contaminants, the level of
knowledge is not uniform for all potential problems either from
a national or local perspective.
Gaps in information are likely to continue, because of the
difficulty and cost in obtaining data about ground-water
properties, sources, contaminants, exposure, and health
effects. For example, even establishing a monitoring network to
obtain baseline data may be difficult. Identifying appropriate
monitoring points is tricky because the pattern and rate of
ground-water flows often are not clearly known. Installation of
monitoring wells is expensive; and investigations undertaken
just to define the dimensions of an existing contamination
problem at a single site range from as little as $25,000 to in
excess of $500,000, depending upon the complexity of conditions
at the site. Laboratory analysis of a single sample from a
single well costs about $500, and with approximately 12,000,000
private wells in the U.S., the total cost of a one-time survey
of all of those wells can be close to six billion dollars. It
is important, therefore, to identify the most critical
information needs so that any investment in improving baseline
information is well spent. As a result, decisionmakers are
relying and will continue to rely heavily on anecdotal data
about the extent of contamination, how to establish priorities,
and how to carry out management and control strategies.
C. COPING WITH UNCERTAINTY
Major aspects of uncertainty relate to spatial complexity
and lack of knowledge. Like all new programs, it takes time to
accumulate knowledge and experience. For ground water,
accumulating this knowledge is particularly difficult because
ground water is a more complex medium, is highly variable from
place to place, and is inaccessible.
Another major uncertainty is the future direction of public
policies in the U.S. for the protection of ground-water
46
-------
resources. Central questions are the resource to be protected,
the appropriate level of protection, the role of government, and
the financing of the prevention and remediation of ground-water
contamination. The accepted approach to answering these
questions has been very different for ground water than for
surface water and air quality. For example, the surface water
and air programs classify media, yet this is a controversial
approach for ground-water protection. Under the air program,
the federal government sets ambient air quality standards, but
no comparable authority exists for ground water. Finally, on
these other programs, the federal government has played the lead
role for establishing programs which it then delegates back to
the states. In contrast, that federal role has not been
accepted for ground-water protection because of the close link
between protection and ground-water allocation and land use,
which are areas of strong state responsibility.
What Is The Resource To Be Protected?
Various statutes in the U.S. imply different definitions of
the ground water to be protected. The Safe Drinking Water Act,
for instance, is designed to protect Underground Sources of
Drinking Water, while other statutes include all ground waters
whether or not they are potable. EPA's Ground-Water Protection
Strategy addresses all ground water but recognizes that not all
ground waters are identical. The strategy distinguishes sources
of drinking water from other drinking water and further
delineates current from potential sources yet affords some
protection for all classes of ground water.
What Is The Appropriate Level of Protection?
Since ground water varies by use, value, and vulnerability,
the levels of protection needed for different ground waters are
not necessarily the same. EPA accordingly delineated the three
classes of ground water summarized in the previous chapter, and
in draft guidelines released for public comment in December 198 6
provided detailed information on the procedures and data needs
for arriving at a classification decision (Figure IV-2). The
classification is designed specifically to respond to the dual
needs to accommodate widely varying local conditions while
establishing a consistent technical approach to devising
management strategies for sources regulated under
EPA-administered programs.
The Ground-Water Protection Strategy further established the
MCL, that is, the drinking water standard applied at the tap, as
the basic protection level for both current and potentially
available ground-water sources of drinking water, with
-47-
-------
FIGURE IV-2
Classification Decision Process
GROUNDWATERS
CLASS
CLASS II GROUNDWATERS
CLASS I GROUNDWATERS
YC9
NO
WELLS
NO
TES
NO
NO
SUFFICIENT
YIELD
NO
NO
CLASS INA
iCOLOMCALLY
VITAL
WELLS
YES
YES
YES
YES
MOO
NO
NO
CLASS IDA
SUBSTANTIAL
POPULATION
CLASS I
HIGH
LOW
YES
YES
NO
Ml REPLACE ABLE
YES
NO
CLASS I
CLASS IIA
PRESUMED IF UNKNOWN
YES
CLASS IIB
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection, Guidelines
for Ground-Water Classification Under the EPA Ground-Water Protection Strategy
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, 1986), prepared by Geraghty & Miller, Inc., p. 19.
-------
variations above and below those standards based on risk, i.e.,
ground-water class. The extent to which EPA's proposed
classification system shapes ground-water decisions remains to
be seen. In recent legislation, Congress has taken a different
approach, establishing MCLGs as the basic goal for cleanup under
Superfund, where such goals are relevant and appropriate to the
circumstances of the release. At the same time Superfund is
using classification to designate sites that will be eligible
for the federal cleanup fund, programs addressing underground
storage tanks and high level radioactive waste have taken the
first steps to use the classification system set forth in the
guidelines.
What Level of Government Should Manage Ground-Water Protection
Efforts?
Historically, states have had the principal ground-water
protection responsibility. Although federal source-related
statutes have been passed, no overriding federal legislation
like that for surface water or air exists for ground water.
While some groups are calling for omnibus legislation, EPA has
taken a position that states should retain the primary
responsibility.
A major goal in EPA's Ground-Water Protection Strategy was
to support state efforts to create and strengthen their own
institutions to protect ground water. Over the past two and
one-half years, EPA has provided the states with technical and
financial assistance to accomplish this institution-building
objective. With this enhanced capability, states are better
equipped to tackle the new Wellhead Protection Program under the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
Further, this program represents an appropriate and
innovative way of dealing with the 50 states to achieve a
national purpose. Unlike the other federal environmental
programs, this one will not set requirements the states must
meet. Rather, EPA will provide leadership in setting some broad
goals and in helping states meet those goals.
Who Should Pay?
Prevention, detection, and treatment of ground-water
contamination are all expensive. Unresolved policy questions
are how the public and private sectors should share the costs of
those efforts and how costs assumed by the public sector should
be divided among federal, state, and local governments. Should
a farmer, for example, be held financially responsible for
ground-water contamination from the normal, agricultural use of
a pesticide, or should the manufacturer be responsible? What
-48-
-------
role should federal, state, and local agencies play in requiring
and financing the testing of all community water supply wells?
Two approaches to financing cleanup are already in place under
Superfund. One is to establish a special federal trust fund,
financed by taxes on industry and by general revenues, to
cleanup environmental contamination that other private and
public entities are not capable of or willing to handle. At
issue is the scope and number of ground-water contamination
cases that the fund should address, and how the states should
finance cleanup they undertake themselves. The second is to use
administrative procedures and the courts to compel the
responsible parties to pay directly or reimburse the federal
government for cleanup.
While the question of "who pays?" is not a new issue, it is
particularly difficult to address for ground water. Determining
the responsible party often has proven to be lengthy and costly,
because there may be multiple contributors to the contamination
which may have been discharged quite some time ago. Moreover,
once responsibility is assigned, it becomes difficult to decide
how to apportion the sizeable costs among the various parties.
Despite the lingering questions over the standard of
protection, the delineation of governmental roles, and the
financing of ground-water protection efforts, government
officials all recognize the importance of proceeding with the
development of protection programs. Some areas of the country
clearly need immediate attention, because public and private
wells already have closed due to contamination. These areas do
not have the luxury of waiting the several years it may take to
substantially expand our knowledge or refine a public policy.
The basic work of ground-water protection is proceeding.
-49-
-------
V. CASE STUDIES
-------
CHAPTER V: CASE STUDIES
Through case studies OECD members can share information
about ground-water protection measures that have been effective
and have the potential to transfer from one setting to another.
In deciding how to select its case studies, the U.S. considered
a number of approaches. Two options involved the conduct of
national case studies, for either a select group of ground-water
contamination sources or a set of ground-water management
instruments and policies. While both approaches would have
expanded baseline knowledge, neither would have adequately
portrayed to member nations how hydrogeologic characteristics,
land use patterns, and insitutional capabilities in the U.S.
combine uniquely to shape the public agenda for ground-water
protection in each state and its localities. The third
alternative, therefore, was to select a set of states and
localities in which to study how public officials tailored
ground-water protection programs to regional and local
conditions and in that context to analyze important public
policy issues.
A. CONSIDERATIONS FOR CASE SELECTION
Five principal considerations in selecting cases are:
Water use
Geologic, hydrologic, and topographic conditions
Types and numbers of sources and contaminants
Institutional capabilities
Legal instruments
Collectively, these factors are likely to ensure the selection
of cases that capture the widest range of ground-water protec-
tion issues and approaches in the U.S.
Ground-Water Use
The ability of ground-water resources to meet a community's
needs for water is an important determinant of public policies
and programs for protecting ground-water resources. Changes in
water use over time need to be considered in selecting cases.
Some areas of the country have stable or declining populations,
while other areas are experiencing and projecting considerable
growth. Fluctuations in birth rates and economic conditions
also occur over time. These changes affect water use, land use,
the potential nature and extent of ground-water contamination,
and the policies selected by state and local governments.
-50-
-------
Legal Instruments
Legal instruments have a special importance, because they
provide government officials with the needed authorities to
manage both ground-water allocation and ground-water quality.
Historically, the availability of water relative to the popula-
tion's needs has shaped the doctrines governing ownership, allo-
cation, and usage of water. The relative abundance of water in
the eastern half of the country, for instance, is generally con-
sidered to be the factor that led to institutionalization of the
doctrine of riparian rights in that part of the country. In the
western half of the country, where arid conditions make fresh
water a scarce resource, water is treated as a commodity that is
distributed according to the doctrine of prior appropriation.
Ground-water protection policies insitututed in areas that use
one legal doctrine may not be easily transferable to settings
which rely on the other doctrine.
Geologic, Hydrologic, and Topographic Characteristics
In the U.S., ground-water protection problems vary in their
complexity and severity in large part because of the wide varia-
tions in physical characteristics of regional environments.
These characteristics affect the potential range of economic
activities and land use patterns in a given geographic area, the
susceptibility of the ground water to contamination, and the
effectiveness of alternative approaches to prevention and miti-
gation of ground-water contamination.
Sources and Contaminants
Case studies can help illuminate the current and the likely
future extent of ground-water contamination by examining states
and localities known to have different sets of sources and con-
taminants. Some communities, for example, have only a few dif-
ferent types of sources within their jurisdiction, while others
have a complex array. In addition, the geographic distribution
of sources and contaminants changes over time, in response to
fluctuating demographic patterns and economic conditions. To
capture this diversity of sources and contaminants, the cases
selected will need to encompass ground-water protection programs
of varying complexities.
Management Instruments for Ground-Water Protection
State and local ground-water protection programs, though
relatively new, employ a wide array of the management instru-
ments discussed in Chapter III. No two programs are alike,
however.
-51-
-------
The cases selected need to reflect the widely differing
stages of development of these programs, the different types of
ground-water standards they use or are considering, the extent
of coverage of the 33 different types of sources, and the range
of source and land use controls being adopted for ground-water
protection.
B. CASE STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the five important variables that account for the
differences in ground-water protection programs, six different
types of case studies appear to best represent the range of sit-
uations encountered in the U.S. These are:
Case
1:
Complex and Highly Variable Hydrogeologic
Case
2 :
Homogeneous Hydrogeologic Conditions
Case
3 :
Predominantly Agricultural Region
Case
4:
Urban/Suburban Region
Case
5:
Riparian Rights
Case
6:
Prior Allocation
These cases demonstrate the important public policy issues
ground-water protection programs in the U.S. will address in the
coming decade.
Case 1: Complex and Highly Variable Hydrogeologic Setting
Highly diverse hydrogeologic conditions are common along the
eastern coast of the U.S., particularly in the Mid-Atlantic
region (New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina), and in the western U.S. In these areas of the
country, a state or county may find that completely different
policies and practices are required to effectively protect
ground-water in different parts of its jurisdiction. California
Colorado, and Maryland may serve as good representatives for
this type of case.
The State of California characteristically has an arid to
semiarid climate and is known for serious water shortages. It
is one of the most geologically diverse regions of the U.S.
encompassing coastal and interior valleys and mountain ranges,
volcanic terrains, deserts, fertile farmlands, and wastelands.
Since the 1940s, California has experienced steady depletion of
its ground-water resources and significant land subsidence has
occurred in some areas of the state. More than 10 million
-52-
-------
people, or 46 percent of the state's population are served by
ground-water supplies. The state has numerous sources of
ground-water contamination and was one of the first regions of
the county to experience salt-water intrusion.
The State of Colorado uses ground-water sources to meet 18
percent of its total water needs. The state has a highly vary-
ing topography and geology. Its principal regions include the
South Platte River Basin (unconsolidated alluvial aquifer), the
Arkansas River Basin (unconsolidated alluvial aquifer), the High
Plains (poor to moderately consolidated; gravel/sand/silt/clay
aquifer; generally unconfined), the Rocky Mountain Region (un-
confined aquifer, clay/silt/sand/gravel, unconsolidated; under-
laid by a very deep, confined, unconsolidated aquifer), and the
Western Plateau Region (confined, sandstone, and other materi-
als) . Each has characteristically different geologies that cause
wide variations in ground-water availability and
vulnerability.2
The State of Maryland, located on the eastern seaboard, has
three different geologic regions. The eastern third of the
state is located in the Coastal Plain and includes the Chesa-
peake Bay. This region's aquifers consist principally of
unconsolidated sand and clay. Ground water is generally
plentiful and accessible but is more vulnerable to contamination
than elsewhere in the state. Salt-water intrusion has also been
a problem. The region has deep artesian aquifers that are among
the most productive in the Mid-Atlantic. Just west of the
Coastal Plain is the Piedmont Province, where well yields are
generally good. The far west corner of the state is located in
The Blue Ridge Province. This region is characterized by
metamorphosed sedimentary and igneous rock. Well yields are
somewhat higher in this region than in the Piedmont Province.3
Case 2: Homogeneous Hydrogeologic Conditions
Regions of relatively little hydrogeologic diversity contend
with far fewer complexities when setting land use and
ground-water protection priorities. Dade County (Florida) and
San Antonio (Texas) are candidates for this case study.
Dade County. Florida, in the southern portion of the state,
is heavily dependent on the underlying Biscayne Aquifer as a
source of drinking water. Nearly three million people who live
in the county (which includes the city of Miami) rely on ground
water for drinking. The aquifer is unconfined, close to the
surface, and consists of limestone, sand, and sandstone. It is
highly vulnerable to contamination, and the county has had
numerous problems with contaminated wells. Salt-water intrusion
has also been a problem.
-53-
-------
San Antonio. Texas is a rapidly growing city that relies
solely on the underlying Edwards Aquifer for drinking water.
The aquifer occupies an area of approximately 2,500 square miles
(6,470 square kilometers). It is comprised of extensively
faulted limestone and dolomite, about 500 feet (152 meters)
thick. Because water is in short supply in the region, the
State of Texas has designated the area as an underground water
conservation district.5
Case 3: Predominantly Agricultural Region
The types of contaminants associated with agricultural
activities include pesticides and nitrates. Regions dominated
by agricultural land use are generally characterized by low
density populations that rely on septic systems for domestic
waste disposal and these can also be an important source of
ground-water contamination. Kansas, Wisconsin, and Idaho are
potential case study candidates.
The State of Kansas, located in the mid-western Great Plains
region, is heavily reliant on ground water for its rural
population and for irrigation purposes. Contamination from
non-point agricultural runoff and chemigation are important
ground-water problems in the state. Kansas also has an
extensive oil and gas industry that is responsible for
considerable potential ground-water contamination caused by
deposited brine muds (from drilling), abandoned wells, and
inadequately plugged wells. The state is divided into five
Ground-Water Management Districts, which were created in the
early 1970s in an effort to increase local involvement in
ground-water resource management.
The state of Wisconsin, located on the western edge of the
Great Lakes Basin, is heavily dependent on ground water for
rural and municipal domestic supplies, livestock use, and
irrigation. The state has experienced serious contamination
problems from agricultural pesticides and fertilizer use. In
1984, Wisconsin legislated a new ground-water protection and
remedial program. Unique aspects of the program include
establishment of a two-tiered approach to setting ground-water
quality standards (a health-based standard for protection and an
enforcement standard for remediation), the formation of a
Ground-Water Coordinating Council consisting of representatives
from all of the State's agencies that have an interest or
involvement in ground-water protection, an aggressive public
information and education program, and a no-fault financing
program that pays for replacement of contaminated wells.
The Idaho Panhandle Region, located in the Pacific
Northwest, is solely reliant on the underlying Spokane Aquifer
-54-
-------
as a drinking water source. The region is sparsely populated,
and widespread use of septic systems is one of the principal
causes of ground-water contamination in the region. The State
of Idaho has recently implemented ground-water protection
policies that are designed to induce local governments to
decrease reliance on septic systems in favor of other more
centralized waste management practices.6
Case 4: Urban/Suburban Region
Urban and suburban regions are characterized by relatively
dense populations and diverse industrial and commercial sources
of ground-water contamination. Ground-water management
strategies for these regions must consider a diverse array of
potential sources and contaminants, many of which have been
present for a long time. In these settings, prohibitions or
restrictions on certain sources represent only a small step in
the process of protecting ground-water quality, because of the
likelihood that contaminants of longstanding already may have
entered the soils and traveled toward the underlying aquifers.
Recommended case study candidates include New Jersey and
Massachusetts.
The State of New Jersey is located on the eastern seaboard
of the U.S. in a region characterized by high population density
and heavy industrial activity. Important sources of
ground-water contamination in the state include: septic systems,
municipal landfills, industrial landfills, underground storage
tanks, salt-water intrusion, agricultural runoff, pesticides,
illegal dumping of hazardous waste, leaky sanitary sewer lines,
and abandoned wells. In 1985, the state reported that it was
investigating over 4 00 cases of ground-water contamination. New
Jersey maintains a Water Supply Master Plan for planning future
supplies, has designated Water Supply Critical Areas to protect
against serious drawdown and salt-water intrusion problems, and
has a ground-water discharge permit program.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, also located on the
eastern seaboard, has many of the ground-water pollution
problems typical of the industrialized eastern U.S. Significant
sources of contamination include underground storage tanks,
landfills, surface impoundments, road salt, agricultural
chemicals, accidental chemical spills, industrial discharges,
household chemicals, discharges from sewer systems, and salt-
water intrusion. Massachusetts coordinates the activities of
numerous state agencies and organizations and has an innovative
program to provide local communities with financial assistance
to acquire land for local ground-water protection purposes.
-55-
-------
Case 5: Riparian Rights
Water law, civil suits, torts, and water supply and
protection decisions in the eastern U.S. are governed by
policies consistent with the riparian rights concept.
Institutional settings in the east are often further complicated
in regions where numerous jurisdictions rely on a single aquifer
as a water source. Long Island and Connecticut are two possible
case studies offering the opportunity to examine different
public policies and management approaches for ground-water
protection.
Loner island. New York, an area that encompasses two counties
and part of New York City, relies on its underlying aquifer as a
primary water source for three million people. Local conditions
make the aquifer particularly vulnerable; and a high level of
industrial, commercial, and agricultural activity on the island
have caused serious concern. Between 197 6 and 1981, public and
private wells in the region were closed due to contamination
thought to originate with such sources as industrial activities,
leaking underground storage tanks, use of household and
agricultural chemicals, and septic systems. The region also
experiences significant problems with recharge because a
considerable quantity of water is discharged through sewer
systems to the ocean. In areas near the shore, salt-water
intrusion has also been a problem. To address these problems, a
ground-water protection program involving more than 20 federal,
state, regional and local government organizations has been
initiated. These include the U.S. EPA, the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, and county and city
health departments.
The State of Connecticut has adopted a comprehensive
ground-water protection program that is considered to be one of
the most advanced in the U.S. Administered by the State's
Department of Environmental Protection, the program integrates a
ground-water classification system, water quality standards,
land use policies, and ground-water discharge permits. The
state's program also is a good example of integrated
environmental management because it recognizes the connection
between surface and ground waters. The Department of
Environmental Protection has also implemented an intensive data
collection effort, in cooperation with the U.S. Geological
Survey, to provide the technical data needed to implement the
program.10
Case 6: Prior Allocation
In the western U.S., the water rights doctrine of prior
appropriations dominates. Further complications are introduced
-56-
-------
where treaties with Indian Nations and agreements with Mexico
affect water availability and use. Arizona and the multi-state
region served by the Ogallala Aquifer are two possible cases.
Arizona has an arid climate, making fresh water a scarce
resource in the state. In recent years, ground-water resources
have become a major source for irrigation, municipal, and
industrial use; and overdrafting is a significant problem in the
state. Both the Arizona Department of Witer Resources and the
Arizona Department of Health Services have programs for
protecting ground-water resources. The state has enacted the
Arizona Ground-Water Management Act, passed in 1980, which
created the Department of Water Resources. The Act also
established four Active Management Areas where intensive
management is needed to protect the ground water from
overdrafting.
The Ogallala Aquifer supplies water to portions of several
states in the southwest including Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska. Because of arid conditions, the
region's agricultural activities rely heavily on irrigation. As
irrigation has risen steadily along with increases in
agricultural production levels in the past three decades,
substantial ground-water mining has occurred in the Ogallala.
Each of the states drawing water from the Ogallala operates in
different legal and institutional settings. Some cooperative
programs are now emerging in recognition of the need to conserve
water and increase recharge.
C. RECOMMENDATIONS
In identifying possible cases for the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development to Study, the U.S. has
attempted to include state and local programs that are
representative of the diversity of source types, hydrogeological
characteristics, contaminant problems, insititutional
chacteristics, and protection strategies. It is likely that not
all of these cases can be conducted. Ones that offer the most
interesting perspective on future public policy trends are:
Wisconsin for its innovative standard-setting
Connecticut which uses ground-water classification as a
basis for a comprehensive ground-water management
program
Florida for its extensive use of land use controls
Massachusetts which has a complex array of sources also
offers some unique use of land use controls
-57-
-------
California for its geological diversity, multiple
sources, arid highly localized approach to ground-water
protection
Arizona where use of ground water is the overriding
issue because of the scarcity of all water resources.
The OECD meeting in May provides a forum in which the U.S. can
discuss these cases in more detail with other nations and gain
insights into the case studies that could be most useful to
them.
-58-
-------
REFERENCES
-------
VI. REFERENCES
Chapter I. INTRODUCTION
1. Pye, Patrick et al., Groundwater Contamination in the
United States (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University
of Pennsylvania Press, 1983), p. 32.
2. U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Summary
1983—Hvdrologic Events and Issues. U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 2250 (Reston, Virginia:
U.S. Geological Survey,1984), pp. 36-45.
3. Office of Technology Assessment, Protecting the
Nation's Groundwater From Contamination (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,
1984) , p. 7.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, Ground-Water Protection
Strategy (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 198 4).
5. U.S. Geological Survey, The U.S. Geological Survey
Federal-State Cooperative Water-Resources Program.
Fiscal Year. 1986. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 87-27 (Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological
Survey, 1987).
6. U.S. Geological Survey, Regional Aguifer-System
Analysis Program of the U.S. Geological Survey Summary
of Projects. 1978-84. U.S. Geological Survey Circular
1002 (Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey, 1986).
7. Council on Environmental Quality, Contamination of
Ground Water by Toxic Organic Chemicals (Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1981), p. 1.
8. U.S. Geological Survey, Synthetic Fuels Development
Earth-Science Considerations. (Reston, Virginia: U.S.
Geological Survey, 1979), p. 24.
9. U.S. Geological Survey, Ground-Water Regions of the
United States. U.S. Geological Survey Water-supply
Paper 2242 (Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey,
1984), p. 15.
10. U.S. Geological Survey, Estimated Use of Water in the
United States in 1980. U.S. Geological Survey Circular
1001 (Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey, 1985),
p. 47.
-59-
-------
11. U.S. Geological Survey, Estimated Use of Water in the
United States in 1980, pp. 8, 12, 16, 20.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid., p. 10.
14. Ibid., p. 12.
15. Wayne B. Solley, U.S. Geological Survey, written
communication, 1987.
16. Ibid.
17. U.S. Geological Survey, Estimated Use of Water in the
United States in 1980, p. 18.
18. David W. Moody, U.S. Geological Survey, oral
communication, 1978.
19. Wayne B. Solley, U.S. Geological Survey, written
communication, 1978.
20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, Ground-Water Protection
Strategy.
21. Council on Environmental Quality, Contamination of
Ground Water Bv Toxic Organic Chemicals.
22. Office of Technology Assessment, Protecting the
Nation's Groundwater From Contamination, pp. 22-23.
Chapter II. MAJOR SOURCES OF POLLUTION
1. The Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection
(Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1987),
pp. 67-68.
2. Pye, Patrick et al., Groundwater Contamination in the
United States (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University
of Pennsylvania Press, 1983), pp. 91-95.
3. The Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection,
p. 87.
4. Ibid., p. 68.
-60-
-------
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid., pp. 68-71.
7. Ibid., p. 93.
8. Ibid., p. 95.
9. Ibid.
10. Council on Environmental Quality, Contamination of
Ground Water by Toxic Organic Chemicals (Washington,
D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981), p. 35.
11. Ibid., p. 25.
12. The Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection,
pp. 77-78.
13. Ibid., p. 78.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid., p. 79.
17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, Pesticides In Ground Water:
Background Document (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, May 1986), p. 9.
18. The Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection,
p. 79.
19. U.S. Congress, Congressional Research Service,
Agricultural Effects on Groundwater Quality
(Washington, D.C.: The Library of Congress, 1986),
pp. 5-6.
20. The Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection,
p. 85.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid., p. 83.
23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, EPA Activities Related to
Sources of Ground-Water Contamination (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987),
p. 7.
-61-
-------
24. Ibid., Chapter V, Sections 2, 4, 7, 14.
25. Office of Technology Assessment, Protecting the
Nation's Groundwater from Contamination (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Congress, October 1984).
26. Ibid., Volume II, pp. 283-285.
27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, EPA Activities Related to
Ground-Water Contamination, p. 8.
28. Office of Technology Assessment, Protecting the
Nation's Groundwater from Contamination. Volume II,
p. 283.
29. Ibid., p. 288.
30. Ibid., pp. 286, 288.
31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, Ground-Water Quality Chapter
of Section 305fb) Report (Draft December 8, 1986),
p. 7 .
32. Ibid., pp. 8, 10.
33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, Septic Systems and
Ground-Water Protection: An Executive's Guide
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1986), p. 2.
34. Ibid., p. 3.
35. The Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection,
p. 106.
36. Office Technology Assessment, Protecting the Nation's
Groundwater from Contamination. Volume II, p. 267.
37. The Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection,
pp. 106, 108.
38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Water Protection, Ground-Water Quality
Chapter of Section 305(b) Report, p. 7.
39. The Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection, p.
106.
-62-
-------
40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, Ground-Water Quality Chapter
of Section 305(b) Report, p. 7.
41. Office of Technology Assessment, Protecting the
Nation's Groundwater, Volume II, p. 278.
42. The Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection and
Office of Technology Assessment, Protecting the
Nation's Groundwater from Contamination.
43. Office of Technology Assessment, Protectnq the Nation's
Groundwater. Volume II, p. 278.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. The Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection,
p. 131.
47. Ibid., p. 132.
48. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, Ground-Water Quality Chapter
of Section 305(b) Report, p. 7.
49. The Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection,
p. 145.
50. Ibid., p. 147.
51. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, EPA Activities Related to
Sources of Ground-Water Contamination. Chapter V,
Section 21.
52. The Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection,
p. 150.
53. Office of Technology Assessment, Protecting the
Nation's Groundwater from Contamination. Volume II,
p. 284.
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid., p. 283.
56. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, Ground-Water Quality Chapter
of Section 305(b) Report, p. 7.
-63-
-------
57. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office or
Ground-Water Protection, EPA Activities Related to
Sources of Ground-Water Contamination. Chapter V,
Section 4.
58. The Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection,
p. 121.
59. Ibid., p. 123.
60. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, Ground-Water Quality Chapter
of Section 305(b) Report, p. 7.
61. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, EPA Activities Related to
Sources of Ground-Water Contamination. Chapter V,
Section 7.
62. Ibid.
63. The Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection,
p. 113.
64. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, EPA Activities Related to
Sources of Ground-Water Contamination. Chapter V,
Section 7.
65. Office of Technology Assessment, Protecting the
Nation's Groundwater from Contamination. Volume II,
p. 274.
66. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, Ground-Water Quality Chapter
of Section 305(b) Report, p. 7.
67. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the
Administrator, Aaencv Operating Guidance FY 1986-19B7
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1985), p. 12.
68. The Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection,
p. 124.
69. Ibid.
70. Ibid.
-64-
-------
chapter III. MANAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
1. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,
Protecting the Nation's Groundwater from Contamination
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology
Assessment, 1984), p. 72.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, EPA Activities Related to
Sources of Ground-Water Contamination (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987),
following p. 11.
3. Marian Mlay, "Policy Challenges In Protecting
Ground-Water Quality" (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Envionmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water
Protection, 1987), p. 6.
4. University of Oklahoma Environmental and Ground Water
Institute and Science and Public Policy Program,
Proceedings of a National Symposium on Institutional
Capacity for Ground Water Pollution Control, sponsored
by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Norman,
Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma, 1985), p. 12.
5. Ibid., p. 12.
6. Ibid., p. 18.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, State and Territorial Use of
State Ground-Water Strategy Grant Funds (Section 106
Clean Water Act) (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1987), pp. 11-12.
8. U.S. Congress, Committee on Government Operations,
Groundwater Protection: The Quest for a National
Policy (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1984), p. 7.
9. Sporhase v. Nebraska, 458 U.S. 941, 1982.
10. Office of Technology Assessment, Protecting the
Nation1s Groundwater from Contamination, p. 65.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Public
Affairs, "Protecting Our Drinking Water," EPA Journal
12, no. 7 (1986): 27-28.
-65-
-------
12. The Conservation Foundation, Groundwater Protection
(Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1987),
pp. 174-175, 180.
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, Background Information for
Sole Source Aquifer and Wellhead Protection Program
Development (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1986), pp. 2-30, 2-39, 2-47.
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, Workshop on Guidance for the
Wellhead Protection and Sole Source Aquifer
Demonstration Programs: Hydroqeoloqic Criteria
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency), p. IV-2.
15. U.S. General Accounting Office, State Experiences with
Taxes on Generators or Disposers of Hazardous Waste
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office,
1984) , pp. i, 3.
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, Ground-Water Protection
Strategy (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1984), pp. 5-6.
17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, Guidelines For Ground-Water
Classification Under the EPA Ground-Water Protection
Strategy (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, December 1986) .
18. Office of Technology Assessment, Protecting the
Nation's Groundwater from Contamination, pp. 156-158.
19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Ground-Water Protection, Ground-Water Monitoring
Strategy (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, December 1985).
20. Office of Technology Assessment, Protecting the
Nation's Groundwater from Contamination, p. 85.
chapter IV. MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS
1. U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Summary 198 3 —
Hvdrologic Events and Issues. U.S. Geological Survey
Water-supply Paper 2250 (Reston, Virginia: U.S.
Geological Survey, 1984) p. 14.
-66-
-------
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for
Ground-Water Classification Under the EPA Ground-Water
Protection Strategy (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, December 1986).
Chapter V. CASE STUDIES
1. Todd, D.K., Ground-Water Resources of the U.S.
(Berkeley, California: Premier Press, 1983).
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. National Research Council, Ground-Water Quality
Protection: State and Local Strategies (Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press, 1986).
5. Todd, Ground-Water Resources of the U.S.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Septic Systems
and Ground-Water Protection: A Program Manager's Guide
and Reference Book (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1986).
7. National Research Council, Ground-Water Quality
Protection: State and Local Strategies.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
-67-
------- |