THE URBAN INSTITUTE
2100 M STREET, N. W. / WASHINGTON, D. C. 20037 / (202) 833-7200
STATE MANAGEMENT OF GROUNDWATER:
ASSESSMENT OF PRACTICES AND PROGRESS
E. Blaine Liner
Elaine Morley
Harry P. Hatry
Pat Dusenbury
Saul Hoch
December 1989
This project has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency under assistance agreement number X-814974-01 to The Urban Institute. The
contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
-------
Acknowledgments
This report is the result of the efforts of many individuals. One of the important aspects of this work
was the active participation by a national panel of expert advisors at several critical stages. The advisors
included: Former Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt, Steptoe & Johnson; Tom Curtis, National Governors'
Association; Richard T. Dewling, Chairman of Metcalf-Eddy Technologies, Inc.; Fred Hansen, Director of
the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality; U. Gale Hutton, Director of Nebraska's Water Quality
Division; Kevin Kessler, Director of Wisconsin's Bureau of Water Resources Management; Dr. Doug
Yoder, Assistant Director of the Dade County Environmental Resource Management Department. Two ex-
officio members of the advisory panel were provided by EPA: Marian Mlay, Director of the Office of
Ground-Water Protection and Charles Sutfin, Director of the Water Management Division of EPA Region
V. All were generous with their time and contributed importantly to the analysis.
Well over 150 individuals in the eight case study states (Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska,
New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Washington) provided considerable assistance to the project
team. These included both state and local officials and individuals from industry and environmental
organizations. They sat through long interviews, and provided on-site guidance through the intricacies of
their groundwater management systems. The project team wishes to thank them for their valuable
assistance. We were very impressed with the high level of professionalism and technical expertise
represented by the state and local employees.
The project team was led by E. Blaine Liner, Director of The Urban Institute's State Policy Center.
Principals in conducting the research effort were Elaine Motley, Harry Hatry, and Mark Fall. Additionally,
consultants Pat Dusenbury and Saul Hoch were both invaluable members of the project from inception to
completion. Theresa Owens was principal project secretary. Marian Mlay, Director of the Office of
Ground-Water Protection in EPA, and Clare Donaher, Supervisory Program Analyst, contributed in the
conceptual as well as all implementation phases of the project. The Urban Institute project team expresses
its appreciation to both for their counsel and direction.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 1
Summary of Overall Findings 4
Planning and Priority Setting 6
Institutional Framework 8
Data Management, Monitoring and Research 9
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement 11
Local Government. 13
Education of the Public and Business 14
Resources 15
Key Recommendations 16
Introduction. 22
Chapter 1: Planning and Priority Setting 29
Principal Findings 29
Strategy Documents 31
Integration With Related State Plans 33
State Requirements for Local Government Planning 35
Resources for Planning 36
Organization of Planning 36
Priority Setting and Policy Analysis 37
Analytic Methods for Priority Setting 41
Program Evaluation 42
Recommendations 43
Chapter 2: Institutional Framework 45
Principal Findings 45
Legislation and Regulations 46
Organization of Responsibilities 48
Coordination Mechanisms 52
Interstate Coordination 56
Coordination with Federal Agencies 57
Indian Tribes 59
Recommendations 59
-------
Chapter 3: Data Management, Monitoring and Research 61
Principal Findings 61
Data Management. 63
Monitoring 68
Research 69
Recommendations 71
Chapter 4: Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement 73
Principal Findings 73
Obstacles to Enforcement 74
Enforcement Mechanisms 75
Tracking of Enforcement Activities 78
Local Enforcement Efforts... 78
Compliance Monitoring 78
Recommendations 81
Chapter 5: Local Government. 83
Principal Findings 83
State Actions to Encourage Local Groundwater Protection 84
State Support for Local Government Participation. 87
Local Entities with Groundwater Responsibilities 91
Localities' Own Groundwater Protection Activities 94
Local Governments as the Regulated Community 97
Recommendations 97
Chapter 6: Education and Public Awareness 99
Principal Findings 99
Reaching the General Public.- 99
Programs for Schools 101
Programs for the Regulated Community 101
Examples of Innovative State Programs 102
Recommendations 104
Chapter 7: Resources 106
Principal Findings 106
Funding 106
Staffing 109
Recommendations 110
Appendix A: State Self-Assessment Check List 113
Appendix B: Summary Review of State Groundwater Strategy Documents 122
ii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Much of the momentum for groundwater protection and remediation began in the late 1970s and
continued to grow through the 1980s. Many environmental statutes and regulations that directly and
indirectly concern groundwater protection were enacted at the federal, state, and local levels during this
period". States have adopted hazardous waste, pesticide, and drinking water legislation, and a variety of
groundwater protection programs. Localities have enacted zoning and land management rules and
ordinances. A variety of federal programs address many aspects of the pollution problems of groundwater.
Groundwater protection, however, remains a relatively new undertaking for many states and localities.
One of the complexities of groundwater protection is that there are so many overlaying and partially
protecting mechanisms and policies, that public and private interests often are not aware of or are confused
by them. This marble-cake of rules and procedures demands sophisticated and experienced practitioners to
assure that maximum use is made of all the existing policy and program mechanisms, while avoiding
contradictions that lead to long-term legal battles or stalemates. Another element contributing to the
complexity is insufficient information about groundwater and its contaminants.
The private sector, including households and industries, and recently mortgage banks and insurance
companies, also has become concerned with environmentally clean properties. An emerging practice of
requiring environmental assessments and assurances at the time of property transfers is an increasingly
effective mechanism in not only prevention, but also in cleanup.
However, much is left to be done. The current Congress and administration are reviewing the many
diverse and complex proposals that address groundwater problems. State legislatures have always had
responsibility for many aspects of these problems, and they, too, will continue modifying state rules and
laws on this topic. Local officials are growing more concerned about assuring adequate supplies of high
1
-------
fln/i recharge areas, and they, too, will be involved
quality groundwater and protecting aquifers, well fields ana reuwrg
in forging appropriate public policies.
The federal role in groundwater protection is derived from an extensive legislative arsenal. One of
the key roles is provided in Section 106 of the Clean Water Act. Section 106 has been used, among other
things, to promote the preparation of statewide groundwater strategies by the individual states. Financial
assistance and technical guidance to the states for the preparation of these has been provided since 1984.
When Section 106 money became available, the states were very uneven in their approaches to
groundwater problems. Some had been deeply involved in the question for many years and had already
formulated some or most of their plans and procedures. Others either had not directed their attention to the
problems, didn't have problems, or for other reasons had not developed plans and strategies.
By 1988, most states had prepared and provided state groundwater strategies to the Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Ground-Water Protection. Often the states submitted draft strategies and
later revised or expanded them. It became evident that an assessment of these strategies and their
implementation should be undertaken in order to gauge progress under the Section 106 program, and to
assist both states and federal policymakers in deciding how EPA could be most helpful to the states in the
future.
The Urban Institute began an assessment of state strategies and their implementation in late 1988.
The Institute's approach was two-fold. First, the strategies submitted were thoroughly examined to
measure their content against criteria developed for this purpose. Forty state strategies were examined.
Next, case studies of eight states were undertaken to establish more clearly the strengths and weaknesses in
the implementation of state groundwater protection policy. The states examined were Florida, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Washington.
This report is based upon both of the above analyses and is designed to be of practical use to federal,
state, and local personnel concerned with groundwater protection. It is arranged to provide a structure for
2
-------
assessing progress and problems. The topics were chosen to reflect the best thinking of state officials, of
experts who had been part of two national examinations of the question, and of an advisory panel to the
project composed of state and local groundwater officials. * A summary of the findings and
recommendations of The Urban Institute assessment is provided below. This summary and the report that
follows largely focus on gaps, problems and needs related to components of state groundwater protection
strategies. This focus is not intended as a criticism of state activities, nor is it an encouragement for further
federal mandates or regulation. Rather, its purpose is to facilitate improvement in groundwater protection
by highlighting those areas where improvement is most needed. Many of the observations and
recommendations made here regarding groundwater protection also apply to other water and environmental
protection programs. It is recognized, and should be kept in mind by readers, that groundwater protection
is relatively new as a separate, formal issue for most states and at the federal level. Thus, it is not
suiprising that numerous areas in need of strengthening or improvement can be identified. It should also
be noted, and kept in mind by readers, that the states have been the leaders in groundwater protection,
inventing protection mechanisms and processes in a relatively short period of time. This is no small
accomplishment, given the complexity of the issue and the need to balance the interests of the
environmental community on one hand, and the business community, among others, on the other. State
groundwater and environmental managers are to be commended for their progress and creativity.
A final point to be kept in mind is that the following summary and report rely more heavily on
information obtained in the eight case study states than on the 40 state strategy documents we reviewed,
because the former provided access to information on implementation of strategies as well as on activities
1. The Conservation Foundation and the National Groundwater Policy Forum, Groundwater Protection;
and National Research Council, Groundwater Quality Protection (Washington, D.C.: The
Conservation Foundation, 1987).
3
-------
and programs not always covered in strategy documents. Thus, the findings do not necessarily reflect
conditions in all 50 states.
Summary of Overall Findings
Although there are major complexities, conflicts, and difficulties in addressing groundwater
protection, none seem insurmountable. In general, we found that the strategies and practices suffer from
such correctable deficiencies as: lack of common and comprehensive data bases; little systematic analysis
and evaluation of ways to allocate resources; inadequate dissemination of groundwater policies and
procedural guidance; uneven permitting and fining practices; coordination gaps; personnel shortages;
monitoring and records management difficulties; and less-than-optimal use of local government. In short,
we found a variety of sub-optimal practices, not unexpected given the newness, complexity, and resource
constraints of the undertaking.
While most of these deficiencies may be corrected with more money, more personnel, and more
time, other problems require stronger policy management and leadership. For example, in some cases we
found field offices where staff had challenging responsibilities, including keeping the many categories of
rules, laws, procedures, and practices sorted according to level of government (state, federal, or local) as
well as by functional category (RCRA, CERCLA, health department rules, etc.). In other cases, we found
some states that had taken a particular philosophical approach to groundwater protection that conflicts with
the federal approach, a situation that could lead to direct confrontation. This is most evident where the
state has elected a non-degradation policy, whereas the federal approach relies upon maximum contaminant
levels. Compromises in implementation, if not in basic approach, are likely to be required for both state
and federal agencies in these instances.
Funding is a critical question—groundwater management is not yet at the point where it is widely
institutionalized in the legislative or executive budget process in many, if not most, states. While self-
4
-------
funding through fines and fees is emerging as a substantial potential source of financing, it is not likely to
fully take the place of allocations from the operating budget.
Priority setting is hampered by the pressures of short-term emergencies. Spills and cleanup
invariably dominate and capture large percentages of available budgets, leaving the more strategic needs
begging. This problem is a reflection of the federal level, where remediation overshadows prevention.
One of the most prevalent weak spots in the process of developing strategies, as well as in
implementing them, appeared to be in the area of estimating costs and health risks for proposed options.
None of the strategies fully addressed the question of cost and impact of implementation of the strategy,
and only a few touched on these questions by providing ballpark cost estimates.
Despite the shortcomings observed, we also found numerous examples of good practices and
innovations, such as:
o New York's "site as a system" approach to coordination of several agencies and their on site
roles and policies at problem areas appeared to help cut through the multi-agency paralysis that
occurs without some similar device. New Jersey is working on development of a case
management strategy to deal with the same issue.
o New Mexico's water fairs held in shopping centers around the state are public events to which
well owners may bring water samples for analysis. The fairs not only provide public
education, but also provide the groundwater agency with thousands of water well samples that
otherwise would not have been obtained and which become part of the state's monitoring
records.
o Nebraska's resource conservation districts and their well-defined role in protection and
managing groundwater appears to be unique among the states and extremely effective in letting
those closest to the problems help in solving them. Public education and awareness programs
supported by the districts appeared to provide a sound approach to long-term prevention
strategies.
o New Jersey has an innovative "clean closure" program in its Environmental Cleanup
Responsibility Act (ECRA), which requires that groundwater be cleaned, or certified as clean,
before sale, closure or transfer of certain types of industrial property. This program is intended
to discourage pollution, facilitate eaiiy detection of problems, assure remediation with private
funds by responsible parties, and prevent abandonment of hazardous sites (in effect, to avoid
future Superfund sites).
5
-------
These are but a few of dozens of innovations we observed in the strategies and case studies—an appropriate
outcome of the "laboratory" concept of giving states opportunities rather than straight-jackets. Others are
noted in the full report of our findings that follows.
Administrators of groundwater protection programs face some important technological and/or
political impediments such as: problems in determining pollution risks from various actions; developing
cleanup methods or technologies to address contamination problems currently lacking such "solutions;"
identifying the best management practices (BMPs) for some sectors or contaminants; deciding how to
"regulate" non-point sources. However, we did not find implementation problems that more management
and more money won't solve. There is no frustrating impasse or brick wall.
Generalizations about progress and problems of the fifty states may be as hazardous as they are
helpfuL Clearly, Section 106 of the Clean Water Act played an important catalytic role in getting most
states more involved in groundwater protection. Virtually all states now have a strategy where few, if any,
existed before. States are developing at different paces, tailoring their programs to fit perceived needs and
available budgets. As is the case in most other fields of endeavor, each state has priorities and policies that
may be as unique to the state as its geology. In our examination of the eight case study states, we found
considerable diversity in each of the seven topical areas summarized below. However, common threads
and themes also run through them.
Planning and Priority Setting
1. In general, the states' approach to ground water-related planning and priority setting tended to be
informal, rather than being derived from the use of analytic methods such as risk analysis or cost-
effectiveness analysis. Seldom were written materials available that discussed options and presented each
option's estimated cost or likely effects on health risk levels. For example, there was generally little
6
-------
documentation of trade-offs between prevention and remediation, a major concern for many states that
believe inadequate emphasis is being applied to prevention.
2. Overall priorities were often implicitly established through adoption of aquifer classification
systems, wellhead protection programs, and nondegradation policies. Most states indicated they had
adopted aquifer classification systems, generally based on use and vulnerability or quality. Most states
also endorsed a prevention-focused approach in their strategy documents. Despite this, their priorities
seemed to most often be determined by the need to deal with cleanups, spills, and emergencies.
3. State strategies seldom included action plans that sorted out roles as to who does what, when, at
what cost, and with what expected results.
4. The strategy development process did not consistently involve all groundwater-related agencies or
provide opportunities for public input. Strategies and plans were based on the efforts of only a few
individuals in several cases.
5. It is not clear that strategies play an active role in formulating present or future policy or practice.
Strategies and policies were frequently not well disseminated among relevant state agencies or even within
the principal groundwater agency and field offices.
6. Ad hoc committees on groundwater planning seemed to dominate the planning and strategy
development process. The stature of these committees and their efficacy may be less than desired, but in
several cases the committees seemed to work well in spite of limitations on stature or power.
7. Evaluation of past performance and of progress in meeting groundwater needs were seldom
undertaken and built into the planning process, nor used to identify needed program improvements.
8. Integration of the state groundwater strategy with other statewide plans concerning water or land
development was a rarity, suggesting that inconsistency among such plans and strategies may be common.
Integration of state plans with local plans and programs also seemed intermittent.
7
-------
9. Entire sectors (such as oil, mining, forestry, and irrigated agriculture) are sometimes exempted from,
state groundwater strategies and implementations.
10. State strategies are not often incorporated into legislation that would provide more clout in dealing
with other governmental units as well as the public.
11. Little provision for program accountability for performance appeared to be present in most states.
The general lack of goal setting, evaluation, and reporting of results diminishes accountability.
Institutional Framework
1. States have organized for groundwater protection by adding the function to current natural resource „
health, or environmental agencies, most often by spreading tasks and responsibilities among various
combinations of existing agencies. This results in a fragmented approach, which poses unusual challenges
concerning coordination and communication. These challenges are often resolved through memoranda of
understanding, standing or ad hoc committees, and other secondary means of policy implementation.
Despite the use of such mechanisms, coordination is a problem in many of the states.
2. Most states believe they have sufficient legislative authority on groundwater issues. However, most
states also pointed to various gaps or inadequacies in their legislation, such as lack of coverage of private
wells and hazardous material generators and transporters. Also, many, if not most, states felt they lacked
sufficient funding and staffing to fully implement and enforce their legislation. Many states have adopted
state-level superfunds to deal with spills, underground storage tank programs, and a variety of regulations
regarding abandoned waste sites. (Many states performed at least a brief review of their existing legislation
as part of their strategy development process. Most made at least some recommendations for modifications
or additions of legislation in their strategy document).
8
-------
3. Indian lands and federal facilities pose unique institutional problems that have not been resolved in
most states. States have problems in both early discovery and subsequent cleanup of pollution generated
by federal facilities or on Indian lands.
4. The relationship between EPA and the states is generally good, particularly between the state and
regional offices. Problems occur when the regional offices are required to refer regulatory issues to EPA
headquarters because time lags and misinterpretations have occurred.
5. The states want EPA to provide more research, standard setting, training, and technical assistance.
6. States want the federal government to give them more flexibility in the use of federal dollars, such as
(a) to use funds for more prevention activities, and (b) to let a state apply cost-benefit/cost-effectiveness
consideration to choosing the extent of feasible clean-up appropriate to individual cases.
7. Interstate coordination and cooperation is rare. Such cooperation as exists is usually episodic,
voluntary, and focused on low priority concerns. (The single exception found in our case studies was the
Delaware River Basin Commission's long-standing and active role in many aspects of groundwater
management and protection. This Commission includes four states within its purview.)
Data Management. Monitoring and Research
1. State groundwater data systems appear to fall into three distinct categories. System exist for: a)
monitoring water quality, b) monitoring or tracking associated with regulatory and remedial activity, and c)
internal managerial data used for summarization and reporting on progress.
2. Fragmentation of data systems was common. It stems from two primary circumstances. First, there
is no standard or packaged software system that adequately serves the purposes intended. Second, the
fragmented data systems often reflect the fragmented institutional structures discussed earlier. Although
EPA has addressed the data management question and provided guidance, and although helpful systems are
available (STORET, WATSTORE, for example), most states have developed their own software and
9
-------
standards to fit legislative, hardware, or geographical mandates. Some states also had not found some
software, such as STORET, sufficiently user-friendly. Data links with federal and local governments are
often difficult and frustrating.
3. Quality control, staff turnover, competing well identification systems, and concerns about self-
reported data used in many regulatory programs have interfered with the development of adequate data
systems. However, some advanced data systems are emerging, sometimes in specific program offices, such
as those dealing with hazardous waste. Although state personnel identified numerous problems regarding
data in general, data for tracking status of problem (e.g., cleanup) sites seemed far better than other data.
The states rely heavily on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) for aquifer and mapping
information, and generally seemed satisfied with this arrangement.
4. Most states identified data management as a problem area, and many recommended developing
integrated data bases as part of their strategies. Some have taken steps toward developing such systems, or
toward improving existing systems by, for example, formation of interagency task forces or committees.
Most states are experimenting with, or developing, some form of geographical information system, but
very few are expected to be fully and adequately operational for a few years. These systems appear,
however, to be quite costly.
5. Many state personnel expressed concern that they did not have adequate information about health
risks of pollutants to their populations, especially about different risks associated with variations in age
groups, exposure levels, and combinations of pollutants. The state personnel did not believe that individual
states had the resources to develop such information, but that the federal government was the level where
such research should be done.
10
-------
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
1. Compliance monitoring and enforcement activities were often hampered by lack of resources,
especially in densely settled states or those with particularly vulnerable groundwater. Often, monitoring
and enforcement levels appeared to be well under the levels that seemed called for in the authorizing
legislation and implementing regulations. States with the ability to include at least some of the costs of
compliance monitoring and enforcement in their permit fees faced fewer resource constraints to hinder their
enforcement efforts. Those states with authority to levy administrative fines did not face the enforcement
problems of those without such power. The latter often had to rely upon voluntary agreements or other
levels of government to provide needed enforcement The only other option for them was lengthy legal
battles.
2. Some states have been aggressive and innovative in seeking and obtaining authority for
enforcement Massachusetts not only can levy fines, it can place liens on commercial properties when it is
believed that there will be insufficient funds from conventional sources to complete a cleanup of hazardous
wastes. New Jersey's regulatory procedure treats all dischargers as requiring a permit whether or not
permits have been issued. Some states have established special funds to subsidize business* efforts to bring
properties into compliance. This is particularly true with underground storage tanks, where indemnity
funds have been used to mitigate costs to participants.
3. Consistency in enforcement practices, particularly application of fines and fees, is difficult to
achieve. There is generally considerable latitude in assessing fines for noncompliance~a broad range, up to
thousands of dollars per day per violation, is usually provided. Factors such as severity or frequency of
violation may be assessed differently by different staff members assessing such fines. Since most states
have adopted voluntary cooperation with violators as a guiding principle in enforcement, fines are generally
negotiated with violators as part of the cooperative compliance process.
11
-------
4. Self-monitoring by permitted businesses is a common practice in groundwater protection programs.
Some states seemed to feel comfortable with self-monitoring, while others did not We were unable to find
evaluations of this practice. Thus, whether it is working or not is unknown and, therefore, potentially
threatening in terms of risks to aquifers from ineffective self-monitoring. Some states have licensed labs
and required firms to use these labs to provide certified water analyses. Some have also required firms to
use licensed, independent organizations to draw the samples as well and certify to the state that it was done
properly.
5. Withdrawals of groundwater are usually monitored, permitted, or controlled in some fashion, as are
underground injections. While well drillers are generally licensed and required to submit their logs to the
state, regulations or resources to test competency or monitor activities and subsequent well condition are
either limited or non-existent in many, if not most, states. Well abandonment often poses difficult
problems.
6. Soils and wells likely to be affected by pesticides and fertilizers were felt by some states to be
neglected in monitoring and enforcement. Despite various regulations on pesticides and fertilizers,
monitoring the actual application and resulting soil and water conditions, even if only self-monitoring,
appears to be rare.
7. State regulatory programs seem to be moving toward setting permit fees to cover the full costs of
permit application processing. No state appeared to be setting fees to also cover the government's
subsequent monitoring costs, although a small number of states are moving in this direction.
8. State personnel often complained about their inability to assess large enough or certain enough
penalties to act as an adequate deterrent to potential polluters.
9. A few states have allowed local governments, under some conditions, to undertake monitoring and
enforcement activities. Most states, however, do not use local governments for these tasks.
12
-------
Local Government
1. Greater local involvement in groundwater protection is not only a common trend, but also a goal of
some states. Police and health-related powers allocated to counties and municipalities, especially those
providing for the regulation of land use and protection of the public water supply, are critical to protection
programs and provide avenues for protection not found at any other level of government. The combined
financial prowess of the cities and counties exceed that of their states, and local personnel and funds can
often be allocated more quickly for emergency situations.
2. The states have been reluctant to delegate authority to localities where they think the localities will
have to choose between economic (and land) development and environmental protection. State personnel
were also concerned about the capacity, authority, and willingness of individual local governments to serve
as an active partner in regulatory activities. Some localities want more authority, but some case study
states have municipalities that want less authority. In general, groundwater is a high priority in local
government only when it is threatened by an emergency or crisis or when local officials do not believe the
state government is giving adequate protection, e.g., in monitoring and enforcement activities. Otherwise,
it is not high on the priority list except in those municipalities blessed with no other crises and a healthy tax
base.
3. Most states routinely allocate responsibility and authority to localities for public water supply, septic
tank regulations, wellhead protection, underground storage tanks, and emergency response. Monitoring
and enforcement activities are sometimes shared between state and local staffs. Local governments often
feel that they can provide more exacting, intensive, and tailored attention than the state to their
groundwater problems.
4. Local health departments (where existing) and local agricultural cooperative extension service
offices participate in some protection activities but by and large, did not appear to be as actively engaged as
they might.
13
-------
5. Local personnel involved in groundwater problems often expressed the desire to obtain more
technical assistance and training from state and federal offices. Many did not feel they received much help
from their state offices. State officials also believed more training and assistance for local officials was
desirable.
6. Localities wanted more financial assistance and shared financing, such as sharing in permit fees,
especially when local agencies were participating in the peimitting activity.
7. Five of the eight case study states had enacted legislation to establish special districts for
groundwater or water resource management The substate units often follow river basin or aquifer
boundaries instead of political boundaries and appear, therefore, to be better suited to provide the
protection anticipated. Financing for substate districts in a few states is provided through ad valorem tax
power granted to the districts.
Education of the Public and Business
1. Education and outreach activities were very limited in most state governments, reflecting both that
this is a relatively new activity for them and that they have few resources available for these purposes.
Most states have provided, at one time or another, brief brochures designed to educate readers about
groundwater supply, the water cycle, and rules and procedures of the federal, state, and local governments.
The groundwater strategies of most states stress the importance of education and awareness to effective
groundwater protection and indicate that the states want to increase their activities in this area.
2. Occasionally, the Soil Conservation Service, Agricultural Extension Service, and university-based
programs have been enlisted in educational efforts. However, these organizations do not seem to have been
tapped to their full potential in most states. Four of the eight study states were developing public school
curricula on environmental issues, including water. Over one-third of the strategy documents reviewed
expressed interest in developing such curricula.
14
-------
3. Some states have undertaken special periodic activities to reach households. New Mexico's water
fairs appeared to be an excellent example of public outreach and education. These fairs, in which citizens
are encouraged to bring well samples for analysis, have the additional value of providing samples that can
be added to the monitoring program. Public education is frequently a goal of activities that also have other
purposes, such as the water fairs. Household hazardous waste collections, held in many states, are an
example of this. While a major goal of such programs is collection of hazardous wastes, educating the
public about the groundwater impacts of household products and about appropriate disposal methods is a
second important purpose to state administrators.
4. A major gap has been lack of state effort to provide educational material and technical assistance on
best management/technical practices to firms in specific industries. There are some exceptions, however,
such as the materials prepared by Dade County, Florida for such specific businesses as dry cleaners and
paint manufacturers and distributors. Massachusetts' source reduction program for generators of hazardous
waste provides individualized, on-site assistance to targeted industries and sponsors conferences and
workshops.
Resources .
1. In most cases, state legislation calls for more implementation than is budgeted. Shortages in
personnel, office equipment, travel budgets, and supplies are chronic. Almost all states appeared to be
underfunded and understaffed in their groundwater-related activities, especially when compared to
legislative direction.
2. A blend of federal, state, and local funds has been used to support groundwater protection in all
states. The blend ratio varies from some states that are almost entirely dependent on federal funds to those
that have made a policy decision to aggressively support groundwater protection from state resources.
15
-------
3. State resources come primarily from either the general fund or from earmarked taxes, fees, and fines.
New Jersey, for example, leans heavily toward funding from fees and fines while Nebraska has made the
decision to avoid reliance on fees and fines. Washington uses "sin" taxes to finance its Groundwater
Management Area program. Spill funds are maintained by some states and are financed through
mechanisms such as taxes on the transport of hazardous substances. Most states have not developed fee
schedules that cover full costs, even the full costs of permit processing, and only a few have been moving
to fees covering the subsequent monitoring and enforcement costs.
4. General purpose bonds do not appear to be a major source of revenue for groundwater activities
although their increased use can be anticipated in future years. Their applicability seems primarily for
major cleanup activities.
5. Resource limitations in many states led to staffing problems, especially for specialized professions
such as hydrogeology and law. Several states have policies and pay scales that do not auger well for
groundwater protection. Florida requires new hires to begin at entrance salary levels and Pennsylvania's
salary levels are estimated to be 25 percent lower than federal and 50 percent lower than private sector
salaries. High turnover and inexperienced personnel seem to be the rule rather than the exception.
Overload and heavy work backlogs are inevitably the result of this situation. This can result in errors,
coverage gaps, and other problems that impede effective management
Key Recommendations
Planning and Priority Setting
1. The groundwater strategy development process should be expanded to include all state
departments and agencies with responsibility for groundwater protection where this has not
been the practice. There should be mechanisms for obtaining input from local governments
and the public.
2. Completed strategies should be disseminated to all affected or involved parties, both within the
state government, local government, and the public to communicate policies and priorities and
to guide action.
16
-------
3. States should develop and use action plans and other forms of management-related planning to
promote implementation of the groundwater-related programs and policies. Action plans
should identify action steps and should specify: who is responsible, timing, resources required,
and products expected. The action plan should include follow-up systems to monitor the
implementation of recommended actions.
4. States should systematically assess alternatives, using analytic techniques to assist them in
priority setting and policy making. Options should be analyzed to provide estimates of public
and private costs, impacts, and feasibility. Techniques such as cost-effectiveness analysis,
cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment can be used to help set priorities and to assess
alternatives and, subsequently, justify those already selected.
5. States should periodically evaluate existing programs in terms of both process and impact, both
to make modifications to improve programs and to guide future choices.
6. The federal government should provide state and local governments with information and
technical assistance about analytic methods, such as cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-benefit
analysis, risk assessment, and program evaluation.
7. States should regard their strategies as working documents to guide action over the coming
year or so, while also explicitly addressing longer-term needs and priorities. Strategies,
therefore, should be reviewed annually and modifications should be made as needed. (Note:
This does not mean the entire strategy, should be redone.) This process would be similar to the
"continuing planning process" called for in the Clean Water Act. The state self-assessment
check list presented in the Appendix can be used by states to help them identify needed
strategy components.
8. All government agencies, including groundwater agencies, should be accountable to elected
officials and the public. To better achieve accountability, state groundwater agencies should
annually report to the public on groundwater quality, health risk levels across the state,
progress of each major state program, and major groundwater problems.
Institutional Frameworic
9. Each state should periodically review legislation and regulations for gaps or inadequacies,
particularly those that limit other implementation or enforcement capabilities (e.g., lack of
legislation allowing use of administrative penalties).
10. States should try to include mechanisms in their legislation to ensure their capability to fully
implement or enforce the legislation (e.g., fees that fully cover permitting and monitoring costs
and that are dedicated to the groundwater protection program agency as part of the enabling
legislation).
11. States should consider options for improving coordination, such as interagency committees,
commissions, or advisory groups with regular meetings as a way to coordinate groundwater
protection activities among state agencies. Regular interdepartmental meetings should be
considered to improve coordination within departments.
17
-------
12. States should delegate clear responsibilities to field staff and establish clear lines of
communication and coordination mechanisms between field and central offices. Central office
staff might develop coordinated priorities for the field offices, with the field offices developing
coordinated work plans for the central office. A mechanism to check and report periodically
on field office progress with the plans also should be included.
13. States should consider adopting "case management" mechanisms to assign and coordinate
cases that involve more than one regulatory and/or remedial program, with members of each
involved program working as a team.
14. States should have information-sharing among programs, whether or not the protection
programs are in the same agency, that will enable staff to identify (a) the presence of multiple
groundwater-related problems at specific locations, and (b) multiple violations by specific
violators.
15. EPA should: (a) expand its activities in the areas of basic research, training and technical
assistance, standard-setting and risk assessment; (b) consider establishing more flexible
standards to allow for variation in state conditions; (c) work to promote greater cooperation
with states on the part of federal facilities that are polluters; (d) encourage development of
interstate arrangements to promote groundwater protection; and (e) consider developing a
mechanism to mediate interstate disputes.
Data Management. Monitoring and Research
16. States should implement an ongoing ambient monitoring process and/or special studies to track
groundwater quality with an emphasis on major at-risk areas of the state. For example, high
risk areas would be subjected to more frequent sampling, or more pollutants, and/or at more
locations.
17. Each state should develop a common set of data elements that will be used by all departments.
(The Workshop Findings Report from EPA's June 1988 Workshop should be consulted for this
purpose?
18. EPA and USGS should be active in developing GIS capability for all states.
19. The federal government should continue to play the major role of providing specific
information based on its research as to health risks associated with various pollutants, for
various types of populations, various concentrations, and in various combinations of pollutants.
When specific risk levels are not available on a pollutant, the federal government should
assemble and report on the best available qualitative, judgmental information.
2. United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Workshop to Recommend a Minimum Set of
Data Elements for Ground Water. Workshop Findings Report. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, June 1988).
18
-------
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
20. States need to apply adequate resources to compliance monitoring and enforcement activities
so that the protection indicated by state and federal legislation can be given to the public. As a
way to raise the necessary resources, as well as apply the principle that "users should pay for
the use," states should cover the full costs of monitoring and enforcement in the permit fees for
these programs. States should consider covering through fees not only the full costs of permit
application processing, but also the cost of monitoring and related oversight activities at
regulated sites. An option states should consider is to encourage or require local governments
to undertake monitoring in their own areas, allowing them to cover their costs through full-cost
peimit fees.
21. States should place high priority on quality control of self-monitoring data submitted by
regulated entities. This can include such steps as: requiring certification by an independent lab
of the quality of the sample, certification by an independent organization that the sample was
properly drawn, state certification of the labs themselves, use of split samples with checks by
the state's own labs, and random sampling by state personnel.
22. States should implement a management infonnation system that tracks compliance and
expeditiously identifies noncompliance, such as when a required document or sample has not
been provided as scheduled. The MIS should provide identification of repeat, multiple
violators and should enable staff to identify locations that have multiple problems, even though
these problems relate to different programs.
23. EPA should provide states with technical assistance and training as to: (a), ways to most
efficiently and effectively monitor the various programs; (b) how states can best do quality
control checks on self-monitoring; and (c) how states might select priorities among facilities
when resources do not permit the office to monitor all facilities under a particular program.
EPA should provide training programs for state and local inspections, especially on new
regulations requiring special technical knowledge.
t nral fiovemment
24. States should provide local governments some choice in taking responsibility for groundwater
protection activities whenever practical. It is important to retain enough flexibility in
delegating responsibilities to local governments to accommodate different local situations. For
example, local governments that have the capability, willingness and local legislation to
undertake specific categories of inspections, and even enforcement, should be encouraged to
undertake these responsibilities. When states delegate protection responsibilities they should
include provisions for state oversight to ensure that implementation meets state requirements.
25. States should ensure that enabling legislation is in place to support local groundwater
protection activities. For example, if the state wants local zoning to provide wellhead
protection to withstand legal challenges from landowners, the state needs to have legislation
enabling or requiring localities to include a water supply component in their comprehensive
plans or land use regulations. Even then, local governments might face political barriers and
conflicts with development goals, and so state oversight is needed.
19
-------
26. States should strengthen local capacity to address groundwater protection issues. They should
provide funding or fund-raising authority, such as through permit fees, to hire staff and cover
costs. They should also provide information, technical assistance, and training. In rural areas
or where there is extremely limited local government capacity, or in areas in which the major
protection issues affect multiple political jurisdictions, regional approaches should be
encouraged through creation of special districts or broadening of the existing regional planning
agencies.
27. States should provide more technical assistance and training to local governments. States
might consider using demonstration projects involving one or two communities to develop
such things as model bylaws or model programs that can be distributed to other local
governments in the state.
Education and Public Awareness
28. The states should have an explicit program in public education activities. The program might
include the following:
o Providing up-to-date, informative, and attractive pamphlets, brochures, etc., on what
citizens can do to reduce pollution and protect their groundwater—combined with
procedures for disseminating these items to relevant parties throughout the state.
o Assigning someone to work with the media.
o Encouraging state universities to undertake more environmental education training and
outreach.
o Sponsoring faculty training and curriculum development for environmental education in
elementary and secondary schools.
29. States should provide considerably more technical assistance and information to business and
industry. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." A targeted approach
emphasizing best management/best technical practices related to particular industries should be
considered.
30. States should tap state higher education institutions to help develop the educational materials
and curricula identified above-both for households, schools, and specific industries.
31. EPA should provide model training and educational materials that state and local governments
or other interest groups can adopt or adapt for their own use.
Resources
32. States should consider increasing permit fees to cover not only perniit preparation but also the
subsequent costs of monitoring and enforcement (including compliance inspections). This may
be conceptually justified, if necessary, in that the cost of protecting the state's groundwaters
should be borne by those most likely to contaminate them.
20
-------
33. States that have not already done so should consider developing tmst fimds for various
groundwater related activities supported by, among other sources, taxes on potential polluters,
fees, fines, and supplemental state revenues.
34. States should investigate and/or accelerate the delegation of responsibilities to localities which
have appropriate ordinances, desire, and capability to accept them. This can save state funds,
even if cost sharing is involved. Where such delegation occurs, it should be accompanied by
appropriate oversight by the state.
35. States should make efforts to increase groundwater staffing to levels that will enable full
implementation of groundwater protection programs and to increase salaries to competitive
levels. States might request exceptions to approved personnel ceilings, particularly where
funds are available for hiring personnel who would reach the ceiling. Similarly, the example
of the federal civil service might be cited, in which salaries for hard-to-hire personnel can be
increased above the normal salary structure in order to compete with salaries offered elsewhere
in the area.
36. The federal government should consider giving states more flexibility in the use of federal
dollars to enable states to tailor programs to their needs (perhaps permitting such flexibility
when the state provides adequate evidence of the benefits of the added flexibility).
21
-------
INTRODUCTION
This report assesses the state groundwater protection strategies that were developed in response to the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Ground-Water Strategy Program (Section 106 of the Clean
Water Act). It serves as a progress report on how the states approached development and implementation
of their strategies, and provides suggestions that may be helpful to the states or incorporated in future EPA
guidance advisories to the states. By 1985, only ten states had initiated and developed significant
groundwater protection and management strategies. Since then, due primarily to EPA's State Ground-
Water Strategy Grant Funding Program, all 50 states have initiated or expanded their groundwater
strategies.
The overall objectives of this report are to:
1. provide information to guide the development of future policies for aiding states in the
protection of groundwater;
2. develop the beginnings of a procedure that can be used in the future to assess the status of
groundwater protection activities; and
3. provide information useful to the states as they continue to develop and expand their protection
strategies.
Because of the changing nature of industrial, commercial, and residential activity, as well as the
continuing evolution of state policies and practices, information provided by this type of review will be
important as a process baseline against which future modifications to the processes can be measured.
The states are the keystones in the national strategy for groundwater protection. They serve in a
pivotal capacity for all levels of government in managerial, regulatory, and implementation functions. It is
vital, therefore, that they develop efficient and effective institutional mechanisms that provide coordination
not only for their own agencies, but also those of the local and federal levels. They also must have well
developed technical resources, research capacities, sound financial footing, and legal authority to continue
to provide high quality services.
22
-------
Responsibilities for water management systems within a state are normally divided among several
agencies, as is the case at the national and local levels. Interagency cooperation and coordination, then,
become very important activities for nearly all state efforts. Normally, states must involve in their
groundwater programs at least the departments of health, water resources, natural resources, planning, and
the state geologist, along with counterpart agencies at both the local and federal levels. Groundwater
protection requires interactive relationships with most other land, air, and water control systems. Financial
strength is another key element. Few expect that the Ground-Water Strategy Grants from the Office of
Ground-Water Protection (OGWP) are large enough to support development of significant state programs
by themselves, although they can serve as a catalyst and/or a supplemental source of needed financing.
Over time, as these and other resources grow along with public awareness of the need for protection of
groundwater, the strategics will become even more important.
These operational characteristics (and others) of state groundwater strategy programs were recognized
in the OGWP report3 summarizing the use of groundwater grant funds during the first two years of the
program.
The preparation of groundwater protection strategies by the states is distinguished by the unusually
high level of cooperation and negotiation among the states, regional EPA offices, and the EPA Office of
Ground-Water Protection. EPA has provided the states with guidance advisories and Section 106 funds
each year since 1984. And each year the states have prepared consolidated work programs that reflect both
the objectives of EPA and state needs and priorities. Consultations between the states and regional offices
of EPA were intended to strengthen the work programs. In this fashion, the political, financial, and cultural
3. Office of Ground-Water Protection, United States Environmental Protection Agency. State and
Territorial Use of Ground-Water Strategy Grant Funds. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, May 1987).
23
-------
realities that shape how groundwater approaches should be approached became incorporated into each
state's annual work program.
State activities eligible for EPA grant assistance include:
1) developing an overall state action plan or strategy to set groundwater protection goals and to
coordinate groundwater programs among various institutions;
2) identifying legal and institutional barriers to comprehensive groundwater programs;
3) developing general groundwater programs (e.g., a pennit system) and designing a source or
contaminant-specific groundwater protection program; and
4) creating data management systems to increase the accessibility and quality of needed
information.4
EPA has issued annual guidance advisories to its Regional Offices since 1985. The guidance
advisory usually included a statement of national objectives and priorities for the upcoming year, and was
used for discussions with state groundwater officials about their work plans. For example, the 1986
guidance advisory stressed that activities relating to the development of groundwater protection strategies
should receive highest funding priority in the groundwater grant work programs. Guidance in subsequent
years encouraged continued work on developing and completing these strategies. States were not required
to develop entirely new approaches to groundwater protection; any earlier strategies could be amended or
expanded.
4. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground-Water Protection. Ground-Water
Protection Strategy. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 1984).
24
-------
The EPA Guidance for FY 1988 encouraged states to review the 1987 report of the National
Groundwater Policy Forum ^ for a discussion of recommended elements of a state groundwater protection
strategy. That report recommends that state protection programs include ten elements, and suggests that
the first six be required components. These ten elements are listed in Exhibit 1.
A number of states have used this document for guidance in the development of their groundwater
strategies. Another model groundwater protection program was developed by the National Research
Council in 1986.6 The National Research Council recognized that each program must be tailored to fit the
circumstances of the individual state, but identified elements that they considered essential in a "model"
program. These elements are also listed in Exhibit 1.
The elements recommended for inclusion in groundwater protection strategies by the National
Groundwater Forum and the National Research Council were used as the basis for The Urban Institute's
review of state groundwater strategies and their implementation. This review began in 1988 and consisted
of two phases. The first phase involved a review of 40 strategy documents submitted by 39 states (New
York submitted two documents, one for Long Island and one for the rest of the state). Only strategies
submitted after January 1,1986 were reviewed (post-1985 strategies were not available for the remaining
states). The strategies were reviewed by assessing their coverage of eight topics based on the strategy
components identified in Exhibit 1. A description of the topics and process used for this assessment, and a
summary of the findings and recommendations of the first phase of the review is included in Appendix B.
5. The Conservation Foundation and the National Groundwater Policy Forum. Groundwater Protection.
(Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1987).
6. National Research Council. Ground Water Quality Protection (Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press, 1986).
25
-------
Exhibit 1
Recommended Elements for Inclusion in Groundwater Protection Strategies
National Groundwater Policy Forum
1. Comprehensive Mapping
of Aquifer Systems and
Their Recharge and
Discharge Areas
2. Anticipatory
Classification of
Aquifers
3. Ambient Groundwater
Standards
National Research Council
1. Goals and Objectives
2. Information Base
3. Technical Basis
4. Authority for
Imposing Controls
on All Sources of
Potential Contamination
4. Source Elimination
and Control
5. Programs for Monitoring,
Data Collection, and Analysis
6. Effective Enforcement
Provisions
7. Surface-use Restrictions
to Protect Groundwater Quality
8. Control of Groundwater
Withdrawal
9. Coordination of Groundwater
and Surface-water Management
10. Coordination of Groundwater
with Other Resource
Protection Programs
5. Intergovernmental and
Interagency Links
6. Effective Implementation
and Adequate Funding
7. Economic, Social,
Political and
Environmental Impacts
8. Public Support and
Responsiveness
26
-------
The second phase of the review involved on-site studies of eight states to establish more clearly
strengths and weaknesses in the implementation of state groundwater protection policy. States were
selected after consultation with EPA officials and the advisory panel to the project, which is composed of
state and local groundwater officials. The states examined were Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Washington. States were selected to represent
variation in the nature and extent of groundwater pollution problems; the types of approaches used in their
groundwater protection strategies; and the extent to which state groundwater policies and practices are well
developed, as distinct from emerging. Geographic dispersion was also a consideration in site selection.
Therefore, the eight states should not be viewed as a sample that is representative of all 50 states.
Two other cautionary points should be kept in mind by readers. First, references to a particular
practice in a state are generally made in tenns of the state, not a particular department or agency. Such
references generally refer to practices of the primary groundwater agency, or the agency with primary
responsibility for the activity or program being described in that reference. However, it is not always the
case that a practice referenced in this way is followed by all departments or agencies in that state. Second,
the practices or situations described existed at the time of our site visit (December 1988-June 1989) unless
otherwise indicated. Therefore, this report may not accurately reflect current conditions or practices.
While this report focuses primarily on findings based on the review of the eight site assessments, it
also includes material generated in the review of the 40 state strategies. The report is arranged into seven
chapters similar to those used to assess the strategy documents. These topics provide a structure for
assessing progress and problems. Recommendations are made regarding each of these topics. It should be
noted that many of the findings and recommendations made here also apply to other water and
environmental protection programs. A checklist for states to use to assess their own groundwater
protection programs is appended to this report.
27
-------
This assessment of state activities provides ample evidence of the rich diversity and ingenuity of the
states as well as their commitment to groundwater protection.
28
-------
Chapter 1: PLANNING AND PRIORITY SETTING
Principal Findings
The strategy documents developed in response to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Groundwater Strategy Program (Section 106 of the Clean Water Act) are potentially key planning and
policy elements for groundwater protection. The states examined are not yet using them to their full
potential, however. By and large, we found the states relied primarily on informal, qualitative planning and
priority setting, rather than use of analytic methods such as cost-effectiveness or risk analysis.
Few states had developed comprehensive action plans that indicated what actions were needed, by
whom, when, requiring what resources, and what results were expected. Nor did we find written materials
available that examined options and explicitly estimated each option's costs (to both the public and private
sector), likely impacts on water quality and health risks, and technical feasibility. A number of states,
however, did generate economic impact statements or fiscal notes relating to proposed legislation and
regulations; these do provide a start to Such analysis.
Overall priorities were often implicitly established through adoption of aquifer classification systems,
wellhead protection programs, and nondegradation policies. Most states indicated they had adopted aquifer
classification systems, generally based on use and vulnerability or quality. Most states also endorsed a
prevention-focused approach in their strategy documents. Despite this, their priorities seemed to most
often be determined by the need to deal with cleanups, spills, or emergencies.
While most states have generated groundwater protection strategies under Section 106, the strategy
development process did not consistently involve all groundwater-related agencies or provide opportunities
for public input. Strategies and plans were based on the efforts of only a few individuals in several cases.
Ad hoc committees on groundwater planning seemed to dominate the planning and strategy development
29
-------
process. The stature and efficacy of these committees may be less than desired, but in several cases the
committees seemed to work well in spite of limitations on stature or power.
It is not clear that strategies play an active role in formulating present or future policy or practice.
Strategies and policies were frequently not well disseminated among relevant state agencies or even within
the principal groundwater agency and field offices. At present, by and large, the strategy development
process does not yet appear to have become institutionalized in the sense of becoming a regular event with
annual review and use as a major way to help determine groundwater action steps. Nor are strategies
typically incorporated into legislation that would provide more clout in dealing with other governmental
units as well as the public.
Only in a very few instances di
-------
strategies. Some states arc making efforts to encourage local planning or to involve local governments in
state planning. Availability of resources to support planning activities presented a problem for some states,
and the ability to use Section 106 funds for this purpose has been particularly helpful to some states.
Strategy Documents
The strategy documents developed in response to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Groundwater Strategy Program (Section 106 of the Clean Water Act) are potentially key planning and
policy elements for groundwater protection. The states examined are not yet using them to their full
potential, however.
EPA has provided the states with guidance advisories and Section 106 funds each year since 1984,
but has avoided dictating the content and format of strategies. EPA's regional offices were required to
convey the guidance and, if warranted, supplement it with state-specific guidance. The guidance provided
in the advisories was typically general. The EPA guidance for FY 1988 encouraged states to review the
1987 report of the National Groundwater Policy Forum for a discussion of recommended elements of a
state groundwater protection strategy.^ That document recommends ten elements that should be included
in state protection programs and suggests that six of the ten be required components. Another document
the states may have used for guidance in the development of their groundwater strategies was the model
groundwater protection program developed by the National Research Council in 1986,** which identified
eight elements that the council considered essential in a "model" program. (For a list of elements
recommended in these two documents and further discussion of state strategy documents, see Appendix A.)
7. The Conservation Foundation and the National Groundwater Policy Forum, Groundwater Protection.
8. National Research Council, Ground Water Quality Protection.
31
-------
Ideally, the preparation of a comprehensive groundwater protection strategy by a state should involve
high levels of cooperation and negotiation among state agencies. However, we found that the groundwater
protection strategy document was developed by a limited group of persons in most states. The strategy was
typically developed by a division whose primary involvement was with groundwater (generally a unit with
planning responsibilities), sometimes with little or no substantive involvement of other departments or
divisions. In one state the strategy was developed by a small group of persons in the groundwater division
after four years of unsuccessful efforts to develop a strategy due to consultant delays. In another state, the
most recent version of the strategy was the product of consultants.
Only in a few states was the strategy a product of a group representing most state agencies involved in
groundwater protection. In Massachusetts, for example, the most recent strategy was prepared by the
Water Resources Commission, which is made up of commissioners or designees of agencies within the
state's Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and appointed public members representing various
interests. In Louisiana, the Ground Water Advisory Group (which includes high-level technical staff from
state departments with groundwater responsibility) prepared the previous draft of the strategy, and the most
recent version was the product of consultants to this group.
Groundwater agency staff in a few of the states visited indicated that the impetus of the Section 106
program and the funds provided through it had been helpful in fostering strategy development and other
groundwater planning efforts.
Some states have provided for some citizen input into strategy development. Advisory groups,
including some "standing" advisory groups, were used by New Jersey. In Washington a citizens
groundwater task force was created to define the goals of the strategy, and to recommend actions. A series
of public meetings was also held to obtain citizen input A technical summary of the Nebraska strategy
was distributed around the state and presented in a series of ten public meetings held for review and
comment. New Mexico incorporated significant citizen involvement after the strategy was prepared. An
32
-------
advisory committee representing diverse interests was convened to develop recommendations for action
based on the strategy document to present to the governor for approval. (The committee's
recommendations have remained unapproved for several months.)
Strategy documents did not appear to be well disseminated. If the strategy is to serve its purpose of
guiding action, it needs to be disseminated and/or communicated. Dissemination, even within the
preparing office's own department, did not appear to be taking place in some states, however. In two
states, several of the persons we interviewed both at the state and local government levels were eager to see
our copy of the strategy. In one of these, people in a state district office and in some major local
government entities were unaware of the document, suggesting that dissemination may have been
centralized at best.
On the whole, most states do not yet appear to have institutionalized a formal groundwater strategic
planning process through which the strategy might, for example, be systematically reviewed and updated
annually. The strategy documents often were not widely disseminated or used to guide actions of the
operating state agencies or to acquaint local governments and citizens with the state's plans and strategy.
Integration with Related State Plans
Although it seemed to be generally assumed that the various plans or strategies (including the
groundwater protection strategy) were consistent with each other and with state policies in general,
mechanisms to ensure consistency were not evident
Groundwater strategies did not always appear to be adequately integrated with other water-related
plans or strategies in the states examined. The various plans and strategies had been prepared generally by
different departments or groups (such as committees or task forces), often in response to particular federal
or state requirements (such as the continuing planning process of the Clean Water Act, or the latter's
mandate for nonpoint source assessment). It was not clear that groups or persons preparing such plans or
documents were always familiar with the latest groundwater protection strategy.
33
-------
Most of the states had statewide water supply or water management plans, which often included plans
for substate hydrogeologic areas, such as river basins. Such master plans generally emphasized water
supply and surface water, but often with only secondary focus on groundwater quality concerns. This
situation may change over time as groundwater issues receive more attention. New Jersey, for example,
anticipated greater emphasis on groundwater in the upcoming planned revision of its water supply master
plan. Louisiana and Florida have developed, or are developing, broader environmental plans or strategies.
In Louisiana, division administrators participated in a one-day planning workshop as an initial step in
preparing a strategic plan for the Department of Environmental Quality.
Most states do not place strong emphasis on planning, although the degree to which planning is used
or encouraged varied within state agencies and/or in substate governments. However, a few states use
plans and/or the planning process in aggressive ways. For example, in New Jersey water projects must be
consistent with the state's water supply master plan to be eligible for funds from a bond act passed in
conjunction with the master plan legislation. In Massachusetts, the river basin plans being developed as
part of the state's water resource management plan are given power through state regulation of public water
supplies and grants to localities. For example, municipalities seeking permits for public water supplies
may be required to comply with specific recommendations in the river basin plan (e.g., to adopt
conservation measures) to receive permit approval. The plans also provide guidance for the Water
Resources Commission's approval of interbasin transfers of water and wastewater. In addition, a
community must be in the process of preparing a plan if it requests state aid and/or approval for a variety of
purposes (such as grants for water supply contamination correction, aquifer land acquisition, and public
building retrofit).
34
-------
State Requirements for Local Government Planning
Some states have acted to increase water-related planning on the part of local governments. These
states have enacted legislation requiring local governments or regional organizations to consider effects on
water quality (usually both surface and groundwater). For example, Nebraska has mandated that its natural
resource districts produce groundwater management plans. These plans are approved by the state, which
can impose controls on nonpomt sources (primarily agriculture in Nebraska) if the districts fail to act.
Groundwater-related agencies in the state take the position that planning should be a local government
responsibility, whereas policy analysis and development are state roles.
The Washington groundwater strategy emphasizes local planning, combined with state regulatory and
financial support. Local planning is prompted in two ways. First, local governments are required to
address impacts on public water supplies in the land-use component of their comprehensive plans. Second,
the groundwater management area program, which is implemented by local governments, encourages
development of groundwater management programs focusing on land- and water-use management
strategies through state contribution of up to 50 percent of the funds for program development (see Chapter
5 on local government roles for additional discussion). A team from each groundwater management area is
to work with the state s Water Resources Division to check the plan for consistency with state law and
policy.
As used in Massachusetts, the river basin planning process requires involvement of local
governments. The plan for each basin is built from information provided by communities in the basin. The
state sends each community a questionnaire seeking (a) information about current and projected demand
for water, water sources, and conservation efforts; and (b) an explanation of how the community plans to
deal with any impending shortages. (To encourage a high response rate, the questionnaires are filled in by
the state agency to the extent possible, so communities only have to correct errors and fill in missing data.)
35
-------
The responses to the questionnaires are incorporated into the River Basin Plans, which are adopted by the
Water Resources Commission.
Florida has used growth management legislation to encourage local planning by requiring county and
local comprehensive plans to deal with quality and adequacy of water. When plans are submitted, they are
to be distributed to concerned state agencies for evaluation and comments. Thus groundwater-related
agencies have an opportunity to get information on local intentions and evaluate land-use plans for
groundwater impact. Plans can be returned for modification, and unresolved objections can lead to
restrictions on development and withholding of grants.
Resources for Planning
Availability of resources to support planning activities was a problem for some, if not most, states. In
one state it was noted that funds for planning were hard to come by and that the state could have a more
effective and efficient program with more planning, in another state the small size of the technical staff
(also related to funding) was cited as a probable reason for the scarcity of formal planning documents.
Two states have taken the unusual approach of using bonds to help finance some water planning efforts,
such as data collection and analysis used to develop specific plans. Several states mentioned use of Section
106 funds to support planning activities or staff.
Organization of Planning
The states varied somewhat in their approach to organization of planning functions. For example,
Florida had a fairly centralized approach with its environmental strategy plan. This document includes a
strategic guidance plan, which sets the direction for the department and includes each division's mission,
current strategy and evaluation of it, and proposed changes. The departmental plan also identifies
objectives, action steps, responsible offices, and target dates. However, this plan was limited in that most
actions recommended fell within only a one-year framework, and resources needed to implement priorities
were not identified.
36
-------
In a recent reorganization, Louisiana moved toward more centralized planning with the creation of a
Division of Policy and Planning, thus centralizing planning for groundwater and other environmental
matters and moving planning to the level of policy directives. The Ground Water Advisory Group will
continue to do day-to-day planning and problem solving to implement policies. The new division will
provide information to guide policy, including information about what other states are doing and projected
economic impacts of proposed regulations. Nebraska uses ad hoc committees of interested or affected
agencies and private interests to plan and develop policies and regulations for specific issues (such as
wellhead protection and a nonpoint source plan). The committees disband after completing their
assignment
Other states were more decentralized in their approaches and focused more on operational planning.
In some states, agencies were supposed to prepare annual plans, which often focused on work plans and/or
staff projections. In one state, different divisions varied in their adherence to this system, or in how
strongly it was used as, or perceived to be, a planning tool. In Pennsylvania, senior staff members "retreat"
to develop an environmental agenda, which generates priorities to be distributed to regional offices. The
regions indicate what can be done with the resources available to them, and program plans are developed
for the regions through an interactive process.
Priority Setting and Policy Analysis
Priority setting for groundwater protection falls into two categories." first, overall or general priority
setting related to policy and program development and implementation, including the selection of actions
to be included in strategy documents; and second, priorities for selecting specific cases or sites for
regulatory or remedial action. These two types of priority setting tend to be approached differently by the
states, and are discussed separately here.
Overall Priority Setting. In most states, overall priority setting seems to be done informally and is
based on judgment rather than on use of mechanisms such as formal cost-effectiveness analysis, benefit-
37
-------
cost analysis, or risk analysis. In some cases, priority setting, policy development, and/or planning may be
primarily the responsibility of a group such as the Water Resources Commission in Massachusetts, the
New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission, or the Ground Water Advisory Group in Louisiana.
Overall priorities have been used in a variety of ways. For example, overall groundwater policy decisions,
such as a nondegradation policy or a policy of focusing on resource management rather than threat
management, directly or indirectly influence priorities. Aquifer classification systems and wellhead
protection programs also establish priorities for protection. These conflict with the philosophical
orientation embodied in nondegradation or similar policies. A staff member in one state, for example,
noted that their thrust is aquifer protection, rather than wellhead protection. They feel their approach is
more inclusive in that it potentially protects future water supplies and private wells, and is particularly
important in states with scattered populations. Priorities are also stipulated in the groundwater strategies of
some states, although the process for setting them is not generally explained.
Major, overall priorities tend to be expressed in the form of state legislation, including funding and
staffing authorizations, and regulations. Thus, the determination of the wording of legislation and
regulations can have enormous implications. The priorities expressed in statutes and regulations, of course,
will be affected by political pressure. In one state, for example, hazardous waste legislation and a related
bond fund for cleanup passed in 1987 have skewed priorities toward site cleanup. The legislation requires
identification of 1,000 potential hazardous disposal sites annually and sets specific deadlines by which they
must be assessed and cleaned up. The bond fund provides substantial resources for this effort. Other
groundwater programs in this state are in poor fiscal shape because of state economic conditions. Staff are
trying to be creative in defining hazardous waste-related activities in order to spread the bond money
around.
In another state, the current governor had emphasized hazardous waste cleanup in his election
campaign. His personal commitment has helped generate more legislation and resources for these
38
-------
programs. In yet another state, one staffrnember noted rh,, - ,
noted that glamorous remediation" programs tended to
get more attention and resources than prevention
programs, in part because they convey an image of
politicians helping victims. This person felt that
P acing more emphasis on prevention would have greater
impact.
Resource availability ran in effect • .
1 Bgonties by making resources available for some programs
or activities but not ntherc
resources are linked to particular programs or activities
by EPA, by state legislation, or by fees associated «,,¦*, ^
3 associated with perfoimance of particular activities.
Although priorities will tv. hr r Vl.
— ^ s ^ resource availability, "rational" approaches to
priority setting can affect the political debate \ye founrf 1]>tI . .
_ round little in the way of systematic analytical input,
such as provision of minutes of public and private cosls, impacts on water quality and health hazards, and
technical feasibility, provided on policy options. Some states, however, require "economic impact"
statements or "fiscal notes" or similar documentation ^ , .
mauon tor proposed regulations. These statements typically
contain sections on monetary costs and benefits Cwith . .
( th an emphasis on benefits that can be translated into
dollars), including cost to businesses and government®
governments. Brief assessments of health risks and their
associated cos* sometimes we* included. THese materials, however, generally do no. provide infonnation
on a vanety of regulatory options, only on the alternative being proposed. While it is likely that policy
officials informally consider available qualitative and quantitative information oncosts, impacts, and
feasibility, this infonnation does not appear to be documents n«,
uocumented nor to represent a rigorous, systematic
analysis.
Regulatory/Remedial Priority sminy, Some of the -^..i nr hv
the states include fbmial mechanisms, such as rankinc. ,^,nv ,hn„
involving hazardous waste (e.g., EPA's "Hazard lamn.w forrFpr,A, Ne„ Jersey has a
Bureau of Planning and Assessment responsible for evaluating and prioritizing hazardous waste sites for
remedial action and assigning them to the apprapriate bureaus. The New feisey groundwater strategy calls
39
-------
for development of a case management strategy that will serve a similar function but will include sites and
programs other than hazardous waste. An interagency group is developing this strategy, which state staff
feel represents an innovative approach to case management.
The New Jersey case management system is planning to use a severity index to prioritize sites. The
index is designed for relatively quick evaluation based on limited data on waste characteristics and human
exposure potential; therefore, it can be used for early prioritization before sites have been thoroughly
investigated. The intent of the case management system is to enable (a) prompt action to deal with the
most serious aspects of a site, and (b) reprioritization of the site afterwards. The case management strategy
will use "proximate health risk" (i.e., actual or potential health risk now or in the relatively near future) as
the key factor in prioritizing sites. (Coordination is also an important goal of the case management system,
which is discussed more in Chapter 2).
We did not, however, find explicit use of cost-risk tradeoff analysis. While it is certainly vital to
consider the danger when setting priorities, it is also important to consider remediation costs, especially
where major imminent health hazards do not exist. The "worst-first" method of setting priorities, while
attractive, will not always produce the best use of limited resources if costs and feasibility are not also
explicitly considered.
Informal priority setting was also commonly found in regulatory or remedial programs. Prioritization
of particular classes of activity for permitting, such as landfills, junkyards, or septic tanks, was mentioned
in some states. It was not clear, however, how such priorities were developed, but perceptions and/or state-
level information about the relative risk or contamination potential associated with each activity provided
the rationale for targeting it. In some cases, statewide monitoring activities have identified particular
activities as a major source of contamination in the state.
Field office and other enforcement staff in some programs informally prioritized sites for enforcement
activities, including compliance monitoring. This method was particularly used by program offices with
40
-------
major nsotm* limitations that did no, allow staff to vWt all sitts. to one aate. for example, the
enforcement emphasis has shifted from numerous small orders for noncompliance to fewer large orders for
major problems because of staff shortages. Factors used to prioritize include such elements as
environmental sensitivity, past performance of the regulated entity; public health hazard, including
proximity to drinking water wells, and age of facility. However, such factors tend to be used informally
rather than being established as criteria for priority setting.
Analytic Methods for Priority Setting
There was little evidence of use of formal analytic methods or tools to analyze alternative courses of
action, set overall priorities, or develop plans or police However, as noted earlier, a few examples of use
of analytic methods were found. One example is the relatively common step of preparing written analyses
of estimated costs and benefits associated with the introduction of proposed new regulations or
amendments to existing regulations, such as done in Florida and New Mexico. For example, in one state,
the department prepared fiscal notes" for proposed legislation or rules. These notes indicated costs to the
regulated industry and the states, as well as anticipated benefits. These notes tended to be brief, and the
estimates of benefits were primarily general and qualitative.
Another example was one of the few we found of a state document that compared options on a policy
issue using a systematic set of criteria. The Pennsylvania Bureau of Waste Management prepared a
qualitative analysis of policy options for hazardous site cleanup standards in 1988, comparing each
cleanup-standard option against nine criteria (degree of health protection, cost, feasibility, consistency, ease
of development, ease of implementation from a policy viewpoint, scientific defensibility, public
acceptability, and internal acceptability). Each option was rated using a qualitative rating scale: "high"
(i.e., "better or easy"), "medium," or "low" (i.e., "worse or difficult") on each of the criteria..
Massachusetts used a demonstration project sponsored in conjunction with EPA Region I, the USGS,
and several local and regional governments on Cape Cod, to promote use of Geographic Information
41
-------
System (GIS) for local/regional planning and priority setting. (GIS systems are discussed further in
Chapter 3.) A variety of scenarios was chosen to demonstrate the uses of GIS systems, including
identification of wellhead zones of contribution, future sites for public water supplies, and underground
storage tanks and landfills posing the greatest risk to public water supplies.
Program Evaluation
The states generally did not engage in formal program evaluation efforts. Evaluation of existing
programs is an important fonn of analysis, allowing states to make plans and set priorities based on an
understanding of how well current efforts are working. Evaluations are also an important mechanism for
identifying problems, and this can be an important step toward improving programs. Despite this, efforts
to perform formal, systematic program evaluations of the effectiveness or impacts of specific programs or
regulations (for example, on water, quality or extent of hazards to citizens) was almost entirely missing in
our examination. It is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of individual programs and, particularly, to
evaluate overall effectiveness of a state's groundwater protection efforts because of data constraints
common in most states. Most states are, however, making efforts to build their databases (see Chapter 3).
Process evaluation, to examine how effectively programs are functioning from an administrative or
managerial perspective, also seemed to be absent in most states. Pennsylvania performs process
evaluations through a Program Evaluation and Planning Office in its Bureau of Waste Management. This
office has a one-person professional staff but draws on other central bureau personnel to help conduct
evaluations. Teams conduct evaluations, relying heavily on interviews with knowledgeable program
personnel and review of available data on the program (for example, number and status of inspections).
Teams seek information about the adequacy of current procedures to identify ways to improve them. These
evaluations and findings have been primarily qualitative. Some states, such as Florida, have periodic
internal program audits and occasional audits by the state auditor general.
42
-------
In some states, staff informally reviewed some programs or activities and regarded this activity as
evaluation." In one state, for example, an annual management-by-objectives (MBO) planning process is
used to varying degrees by different departments. One program manager indicated that he expected to do
program evaluation as part of the MBO process. Another manager in that state said he did program
evaluation irregularly, generally at the end of grant periods, and that agencies are "instructed" to do MBO
•activities, which include assessment of performance against objectives. He also mentioned holding retreats
with staff to talk about issues, organization, delegation, and coordination, and to discuss whether changes
are needed as a form of evaluation.
One partial exception to the general lack of systematic evaluation of past program activity is the
generation of biennial state reports on water quality for the federal government required under Section
305(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act. The states report on such elements as: "assessment of water
quality" and "progress in water pollution control." Thus, there already exists a precedent for regular
reporting, even if only every other year, of information on recent water quality, risk levels, and progress in
containing and correcting water pollution problems-for groundwater as well as surface water.
Recommendations
1. The groundwater strategy development process should involve all state departments and
agencies with responsibility for groundwater protection. There should be mechanisms for
obtaining input from local governments and the public.
2. The groundwater strategy should be integrated, or at least consistent, with other water-related
plans or strategies. Mechanisms to assure integration of such documents should be dieveloped
(for example, review committees).
3. Completed strategies should be disseminated to all affected or involved parties, both within the
state and local governments, and to the public, to communicate policies and priorities and to
guide action.
4. States should encourage planning within state government and by local and/or intrastate
regional agencies.
5. States should develop and use action plans arid other forms of management-related planning to
promote implementation of the groundwater strategy and groundwater-related programs and
policies. Action plans should identify action steps and for each step identify who is
43
-------
responsible, timing, resources required, and products expected. The action plans should
include follow-up systems to monitor the implementation of recommended actions.
States should systematically assess alternatives, using modem analytic techniques to assist
them in priority setting and policymaking. Options should be analyzed to provide estimates of
public and private costs, impacts, and feasibility. Techniques such as cost-effectiveness
analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and risk assessment can be used to help set priorities and to
assess alternatives and, subsequently, justify those already selected. States should also
encourage local governments to use these tools.
States should periodically evaluate existing programs in terms of both process and impact, to
make modifications to improve programs and to guide future choices in order to most
effectively use available resources. States should encourage local governments to do similar
evaluations of their programs. Each state groundwater protection agency (or other relevant
agency) should consider establishing an office whose primary responsibility is to perform or
assist other divisions in performing evaluation and analytic functions (such as cost-benefit
analysis and risk assessment).
The federal government should provide state and local governments with infoimation and
technical assistance about analytic methods such as cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-benefit
analysis, risk assessment, and program evaluation.
States should regard their strategies as working documents to guide action over the coming
year or so, while also explicitly addressing longer term needs and priorities. Strategies,
therefore, should be reviewed annually and modifications should be made as needed. (Note:
This does not mean the entire strategy should be redone.) This process would be similar to the
"continuing planning process" of the Clean Water Act. The state self-assessment checklist
presented in the Appendix can be used by states to help them identify needed strategy
components.
All government agencies, including groundwater agencies, should be accountable to elected
officials and the public. To better achieve accountability, state groundwater agencies should
annually report to the public on groundwater quality, health risk levels across the state, and
groundwater problems. States should be able to adapt their Section 305(b) reporting process
(reports are required biennially by the Federal Clean Water Act) to provide annual reports on
groundwater quality, incidence of new cases of contamination, risk levels, known or suspected
sources, and progress of state remediation and prevention of contamination efforts. The
information should be presented by geographical area of the state as well as in aggregate to
give state officials and the public a better perspective on the findings.
44
-------
Chapter 2: INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
Principal Findings
Most state personnel believe they have sufficient legislative authority to conduct groundwater
protection activities. However, most can identify gaps or weaknesses that need correction. Most states
have adopted various kinds of groundwater-related legislation (e.g., discharge permitting, state superfund
programs, regulation of water withdrawal) in addition to those programs promulgated nationally.
Nevertheless, in many of the states, staff reported that the program authorizing legislation was not
accompanied by sufficient funding and staffing legislation to enable their departments to fully implement
and enforce the legislation.
Organization of groundwater activities can best be described as fragmented. This causes difficulty in
coordination and communication, despite the use of a variety of coordination mechanisms. The
mechanisms most frequently used include commissions, committees, and memoranda of understanding or
agreement Most states, however, primarily rely on informal coordination.
Particularly important were relations and resource (staff) allocations between central and regional
(district) state offices. While most states appeared to have worked out an effective relationship, with the
regions being given clear-cut responsibility and reasonably adequate staff, a few had not
There is very little interstate coordination regarding groundwater protection activities. For the most
part, there is little involvement with Indian tribes regarding groundwater issues, although some states have
more extensive involvement with them. Additionally, a number of states experienced difficulty when
trying to deal with federal facilities as polluters.
The states have generally benefitted from, and feel positively about, their working relationships with
USGS. They also report satisfaction with their relationships with EPA regional offices. Officials in some
states, however, reported problems with the EPA Washington offices, particularly related to regulatory
45
-------
programs. There was some feeling that regional offices often had to contact Washington for advice, which
sometimes turned out to be overly general, not always helpful, and slow in coming.
The states primarily look to EPA for basic research, standard setting, and training and technical
assistance. The states believed that more of all of these is needed to help them more adequately perform
their groundwater protection role.
Legislation and Regulations
Personnel in the states visited believed they have sufficient general legislative authority to conduct
groundwater protection activities. State legislatures had provided the needed authority to protect the waters
of the state, with the legislation either interpreted to include, or specifically identifying, groundwater. Most
states also have passed legislation enabling a number of statewide programs specifically directed to
groundwater protection. The states also have a variety of public health-related legislation that regulates
groundwater-related activities, such as supplying drinking water, liquid and solid waste disposal, and well
drilling. Despite the general adequacy of legislation, there were some perceived gaps or inadequacies in a
few specific program areas in most states. These are discussed in greater detail in this or later chapters.
Adequate legislation alone will not result in groundwater protection. Implementation and
enforcement have proven to be shortcomings in most states because of limitations in the amount of dollars
and staff the legislatures authorized (see chanter 7).
Despite the frequent lack of resources to fully carry out groundwater protection activities, most states
have adopted various types of legislation in addition to the basic groundwater-related programs
promulgated nationally by EPA, thereby showing strong commitment to groundwater protection. Types of
legislation/programs that are commonly added by the states are discussed briefly in this chapter, innovative
programs are discussed where applicable later.
Programs to regulate discharges to groundwater that are not included in federal programs have been
adopted in some states. New Jersey, for example, regulates all sources of groundwater pollution not
46
-------
controlled by other regulations through its NJPDES permitting program. The state applies this program
aggressively by taking action against all facilities with discharges, including those without permits. Thus
the state would issue a notice of violation and/or penalty both for violations of permit requirements and
discharging without a permit. The state also issues permits, without the need for an application, based on
information about the facility existing in agency files. New Mexico uses a somewhat different method of
regulation. It does not issue a permit for discharges, but requires a discharge plan that serves the same
purpose. Plans must demonstrate that the discharge will not violate various state standards or rules.
Several states have state-level Superfund-type programs, some of which address issues beyond site
cleanup. New Jersey's Spill Compensation and Control Act provides authority for the state to take
emergency remedial action and perform long-term cleanup when the responsible party is unknown or
uncooperative. In the latter case, the state can seek treble damages to recover costs. This act also enables
the state to regulate large facilities storing petroleum and hazardous substances and mandates notification
of discharges. The spill fund for remedial actions is established from a special tax on the first transfer of
certain hazardous substances and petroleum into or within the state. Washington has state Superfund
legislation, which also calls for waste minimization and development of a site to handle extremely
hazardous wastes generated in the state.
Several of the states regulate water withdrawals, primarily focusing on those involving large
quantities (i.e., of the volume associated with public water supplies) and/or cases in which withdrawals are
perceived to affect groundwater quality. For example, New Jersey regulated withdrawals of more than
10,000 gallons per day in critical areas (i.e., where saltwater intrusion is a problem) under its critical area
program (which has been suspended due to a court decision). Washington restricts large users from upper
aquifers to protect them as sources for springs and streamflows. Varying degrees of regulation of well
drillers and/or well drilling, closure, etc., are also fairly common. Such legislation is not always adequate,
47
-------
however. One state that requires well drillers to be licensed does not test them for competency, for
example.
The states are in varying stages of progress in developing legislation and/or programs in matters that
have been recently raised as issues of concern at the federal level. These include solid waste, wellhead
protection, nonpoint source pollution, and underground storage tanks. In general, the states are less
advanced in program development in these areas than in others.
Most states identified some gaps or inadequacies in their legislation or regulations despite perceptions
that thev were generally adequate for groundwater protection. For example, one state noted the absence of
a state Superfund program and the lack of authority to require cleanup related to past practices that were
legal at the time they occurred. Another mentioned its inability to control pollution caused by out-of-state
industries. For the most part, the same gaps or inadequacies noted were not mentioned repeatedly by other
states. One exception was the inability to impose administrative penalties, which was mentioned by
personnel in a number of regulatory programs in three of the states. Another gap noted in two states was
the failure of well- or drinking-water-related programs to cover private wells. Several of the states were
restricted by legislation or constitutional amendment from imposing new service requirements or
responsibilities on local governments without providing funding, or a source of funding, for them. These
states are limited in their ability to delegate groundwater protection activities to local governments, and, in
some cases, even to regulate them. A growing number of states have similar restrictions. Gaps or
inadequacies can be resolved by developing new legislation and/or regulations, even though the process
may be time consuming and can be politically difficult.
Organization of Responsibilities
The organization of responsibilities for groundwater protection in the states can best be summarized
as fragmented. Coordination problems frequently result, even when coordination mechanisms are present.
48
-------
Fragmentation. There are a number of reasons for the fragmentation of groundwater protection
activities within state government. First, groundwater is affected by multiple sources, and multiple areas
need protection. Second, programs are fragmented at the federal level because regulations and programs
have been passed at different times and are administered by different federal agencies. The states
frequently have housed these programs in the departments that have traditionally been most closely
associated with the federal program (e.g., FIFRA is generally housed in state agriculture departments).
The degree of fragmentation varied among the states examined, partly because of the number of
groundwater programs administered and the size of the regulatory caseload, and partly because of historic
patterns of organization of state agencies and the location of "older" groundwater-related programs within
them.
There are multiple levels of fragmentation in state groundwater programs because groundwater
matters frequently are dealt with at several or all of the following levels:
o Different state agencies such as the state departments of agriculture, environment, and health;
o Units within departments, such as bureaus;
o Subunits within units, such as divisions or offices;
o • Field offices;
o District or satellite offices under field offices.
Multiple departments have major groundwater protection roles. Programs related to drinking water,
including well regulations of various kinds, are usually located in public health agencies. In some states,
newly developed underground storage tank programs (or portions thereof) have been placed in the fire
marshal's office. Programs related to pesticide and fertilizer contamination are located in agriculture
departments. Pollution control relating to oil and gas have sometimes been assigned to the natural
resources agencies. This situation creates a conflict of interest when the same agency Is supposed to
promote and support an industry as well as to regulate it. This conflict has led, in some instances, to
49
-------
virtual exclusion of some activities from, control. In one state, for example, groundwater used for irrigated
agricultural purposes is exempt from control by that state's water control body, except for practices that
may be hazardous to public health. New Jersey was able partly to avoid this problem by establishing a
pesticide control unit in its environmental department, rather than in the agriculture department.
Unfortunately, this unit has not been able to do more than the basic FIFRA activities because of a lack of
resources.
Although most groundwater-related programs are handled in state environmental agencies, programs
are split among a number of bureaus within them. For example, programs are often distributed according
to whether their intent is regulatory or resource management, or whether they are focused on water supply
(quantity) or pollution control (quality). Hazardous waste programs are frequently housed separately from
other regulatory programs and may be further fragmented according to their source of funding (i.e., public
funds or responsible-party funds). In one state, different stages of one regulatory program are located in
separate divisions of the same bureau, apparently because the program is large and involves different types
of woric at different stages.
State field offices represent another dimension of fragmentation. Most of the states we visited had
field offices with groundwater responsibilities. In some states the field offices have district or satellite
offices under them. The states varied somewhat in the responsibilities of their field office staffs, although
permitting and enforcement are their most common functions. In some states, the primary field office
responsibility was enforcement (which includes compliance monitoring) for some programs, while
enforcement for other programs was handled centrally. The role of the field office staff was largest in
Pennsylvania, where they had responsibility for permitting, monitoring and enforcement, and for
coordinating activities across units.
Case management is another area where fragmentation can occur. Sites that are regulated and/or are
in remediation often fall under more than one program.
50
-------
Still further sources of fragmentation are involvement of the state with the federal government, with
local governments, and occasionally with Indian tribes within the state. Sometimes the federal
government, e.g., EPA, is responsible for an activity, such as an enforcement action; sometimes the state is
responsible. Sometimes this is done in an orderly way to give the lead to the government most able to take
expeditious and effective action. Other times, the different agencies jockey for positions (to take
responsibility or to avoid it). In a small number of cases, there is also an interstate dimension to
groundwater protection.
Coordination Problems. Coordination in general, or coordination related to a specific program or
function, was cited as a problem bv at least some staff members in almost all of the states visited. This is
due partly to fragmentation. The coordination problem was compounded by the frequent severing of
communication links due to frequent recent reorganizations within the environmental agencies and/or
groundwater agencies in a number of the states, and by staff turnover and/or newness (see chapter 7).
Reorganizations have been at least partly due to the rapid expansion of groundwater (and other
environmental) programs in the states in recent years.
Another factor mentioned as contributing to past and/or present coordination problems in some states
has been overlap of responsibilities. In effect, this has led to "turf battles" over responsibility and/or
resources, which may be particularly fierce if different agencies are involved. For example, in one state,
water-quality and water-quantity issues are housed in different agencies. The water-quality agency
attempted to extend regulations it had passed for monitoring wells to all wells, but the attempt failed
because it was perceived as an invasion of another agency's "turf."
The degree to which coordination was viewed as a problem and the type of coordination that was a
problem, varied among states. Coordination was not as strongly identified as a problem in states with
relatively small or relatively centralized groundwater programs, as in those with larger and/or more
decentralized programs. In one state with a substantial number of groundwater programs, coordination
51
-------
between the state and its district offices was perceived as an important problem by some staff members in
at least one of the district offices. In Pennsylvania, however, the regional structure of the groundwater
agencies was viewed as a coordinating mechanism. In some states, coordination problems seemed to affect
a small number of programs, often those that were relatively isolated from most others. In one state, for
example, agriculture was referred to as "out of the loop" by one staff member, while the underground
storage tanks program was referred to as an "orphan" because of its placement in the same division with
RCRA.
Coordination problems were noted even in states that used one or more of the coordination
mechanisms discussed in the following section. While these mechanisms often were reasonably effective, •
they did not always fully resolve coordination problems.
Coordination Mechanisms
Most of the formal coordination efforts in the states visited were focused on improving coordination
within the environmental agency and/or coordination with other agencies. Committees (including ad hoc
committees and task forces) and commissions were the most commonly used formal mechanisms.
Memoranda of understanding or agreement were mentioned less frequently. Most states indicated that
informal coordination and/or the regular coordinating responsibilities of department and program heads
were the primary coordinating mechanisms used.
Commissions. Water-related commissions played coordinating roles in New Mexico and
Massachusetts. The New Mexico commission has an interdepartmental membership, whereas
Massachusetts members primarily represent divisions of the environmental department. Both also include
one or more representatives of the public. A coordinating role was also performed by the less formally
structured interdepartmental Ground Water Advisory Group in Louisiana. The advantage of commissions
and similar groups is that they are typically made up of high-level staff (or designees) representing the
various agencies with groundwater responsibilities. Personnel in water-related agencies typically provide
52
-------
technical and/or staff services for commissions and may also serve on the ad hoc or standing task forces
that commissions commonly establish.
In addition to coordinating the agencies most closely related to groundwater protection, commissions
may be able to help bring about greater involvement in groundwater protection on the part of agencies that
are not typically associated with it. This seems to have occurred in Massachusetts where representatives of
both the Executive Office of Communities and Development (EOCD) and the Department of Public Works
(DPW) are included in the Groundwater Steering Committee of the Water Resources Commission. Both of
these agencies have supported groundwater protection in ways that might not have occurred without their
participation in the commission. For example, EOCD funds have been used for developing and distributing
informational materials about groundwater protection (among other topics) to local governments in a
growth management workbook and a guidebook for municipal conservation administrators. The materials
developed included model bylaws for zoning, hazardous materials, and underground storage tanks.
Linking local government eligibility for certain housing grants to local government water resource
protection is under consideration (eligibility for water and sewer grants currently is linked to fair housing
practices). The DPW has adopted a policy enabling the use of lower concentrations of road salt in specific
areas (in sensitive areas or near wells). It also is testing a salt substitute and doing research with USGS on
different types of drainage systems to catch materials coming off the roads. Although participation in the
commission's groundwater steering committee is not the only reason for these efforts (well closures related
to road salt have occurred in Massachusetts, and a transportation bond issue provides funding for protective
efforts), it has probably helped encourage such activities.
Committees. Virtually all states noted that ad hoc committees or task forces served as coordinating
mechanisms, even though coordination was not necessarily their main purpose. Committees were
commonly used to work on a particular problem or issue that cuts across department lines. In Florida, for
example, rule preparation serves as a focal point for coordination. Technical advisory committees are
53
-------
formed to assist in preparing rules, and interested agencies are given the opportunity to comment.
Proposed rules are also submitted to a high-level rule review committee and to the state's Environmental
Regulatory Commission. In Pennsylvania, representatives from various programs are working on a
groundwater quality policy statement. The statement itself will also serve as a mechanism for coordination
of groundwater regulations and activities.
Standing committees were sometimes used in addition to ad hoc ones. In Massachusetts, there is a
Groundwater Protection Committee composed of directors of divisions within the Department of
Environmental Protection and representatives from the four regional offices. This committee meets
monthly as a coordinating device that serves to reduce competitiveness over "turf and resources.
Technical subcommittees and ad hog subcommittees on specific projects and topics are used as needed. It
was believed that this committee has been helpful in getting the various divisions to work together. In New
Jersey, division directors meet monthly for coordination purposes.
Committees had some indirect benefits in addition to their more overt coordination activities. One
person noted that it was important to attend committee meetings to protect his own interests and to keep
others informed of his agency's role, particularly because many staff members were new. Another
commented that involvement in an interagency task force had led to development of relationships that were
still working. It also was noted, however, that committee meetings are frustrating in that they take time
away from other work that needs to be done.
Memoranda. Some of the states used memoranda of agreement and/or understanding as formal
coordinating mechanisms. In general, such memoranda define jurisdictional boundaries between
departments; mandate cooperative activities; and document each agency's obligations, thus providing a
basis for complaint if ihe agreement is not implemented. Some states use these documents more
extensively than others. Louisiana, for example, uses numerous and interlocking memoranda of agreement
to coordinate across secretariats.
54
-------
Informal Coordination. Most states indicated that informal coordination in the course of normal work
activities was the primary method of coordinatioa A staff member in one state noted that memoranda of
understanding merely put on paper the informal networks that programs have already worked out. For
example, staff members of regulatory programs in some states mentioned that they frequently informally
referred problems they had noticed in the field to staff in the appropriate regulatory or enforcement
divisions.
Coordination with Regional Offices. Coordination between the central state offices and their field
offices was seen as a problem in one of the states visited but seemed to work fairly well in the others. In
the state where it was a problem, responsibilities appeared unclearly delegated and communication was
insufficient on at least some issues. Complications also arose in cases in which strong local government
entities were acting almost as competitors to the state field offices.
In Pennsylvania, more responsibilities appeared to be delegated to field offices than in the other
states, and coordination with field offices generally appeared to work well. The majority of groundwater-
related staff seem to be located in field offices and to have most of the responsibility for day-to-day
operations such as permitting, compliance monitoring and enforcement Regional offices parallel central
office organization. Regional staff members work with their central office counterparts and are brought in
for meetings with them. Regional program directors provide program plans to their central-office program
counterparts but the regions do not provide coordinated sets of plans for all programs to the department as a
whole. Regional office directors are responsible to coordinate priorities across programs at the regional
level. Because priorities are set centrally by program directors, they are generally not coordinated before
being communicated to the regions and may not mesh with regional priorities. Regional directors must try
to satisfy the various central bureaus while handling the workloads in their regions.
Overall, the regional system in Pennsylvania seemed to function quite smoothly. Possible
weaknesses in the system are the mechanisms used to coordinate central priorities before sending them to
55
-------
the regions and the mechanisms used to coordinate across bureaus. It seems that strengthening these
mechanisms and the coordinated plan could help improve the system, and should be considered by the
state.
Case coordination. Case management, or coordination of the various regulatory and/or remedial
programs involved with specific cases, was noted as a problem by some of the states visited. New Jersey
had a particular interest in this issue because a large number of its cases fall under more than one program.
The state has made case management a high priority and is developing a common case-assignment priority
system for all departments. (The state currently has a case management system that applies only to
hazardous waste sites). The new system will enable staff to deal with proximate health risk aspects of a
case promptly, then reassign the case to a lower priority, if appropriate. The system will also assure
technical consistency across departments. State staff members believe the case management approach is
innovative and is a strong point in their groundwater protection strategy.
Interstate Coordination
There was little or no interstate involvement mentioned in most of the states visited, and this topic
was not addressed in most state strategy documents. However, two of the states visited, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania, belong to the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), which has influence over
groundwater as well as surface water in portions of these states. (Pennsylvania also belongs to the
Chesapeake Bay Compact and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, although these do not play
major roles in groundwater matters in Pennsylvania.) No coordination problems were noted with respect to
DRBC in either state. A brief review of how DRBC operates follows as an example of an interstate
coordination mechanism.
The DRBC is made up of the member states themselves, which are responsible for setting policy and
implementing its regulations. For example, wells drawing more than 10,000 gallons per day must register
with the state, meter their withdrawals, and provide certain information with their registration forms. New
56
-------
Jersey modified its existing forms to comply with the DRBC regulation, while Pennsylvania, which had not
previously registered wells, instituted a program to do so. DRBC has enforcement powers, and penalties
for noncompliance apply to the regulated entities (which can include the states themselves).
Interstate organizations may also take actions (within the scope of their charter) at the request of a
member state. For example, Pennsylvania requested DRBC to designate a groundwater-protected area
covering portions of several counties in the state. This designation enables the DRBC to impose restriction
on water withdrawals, which the state does not have authority to do. Thus Pennsylvania was able to
accomplish something it wanted to do (i.e., restrict water withdrawal) but lacked authority for, by going
through DRBC. Commission staff indicated that members sometimes "use" the DRBC to accomplish steps
that might otherwise encounter bureaucratic or political obstacles within their state.
Note that river basin compacts such as DRBC have focused primarily on water quantity issues, not
groundwater quality protection issues. In some cases, however, quantity restrictions are imposed to protect
quality.
Coordination with Federal Agencies
For most states, EPA and USGS are the primary points of federal involvement related to groundwater
protection. In some states, there is also involvement with a federal agency as an actual or potential site for
remedial action.
Most states visited reported considerable satisfaction with their involvement with USGS and with
their working relationships with their regional EPA offices. However, they expressed less satisfaction with
their involvement with EPA Washington offices, primarily related to regulatory programs rather than
across the board. States also frequently noted that some problems were due to specific "personalities" or
programs rather than to systemic problems. States seemed to have more problems with hazardous waste
programs than with groundwater protection programs. Some states noted that there were communication
57
-------
problems between regional EPA offices and headquarters related to these programs, which created
confusion or delay for the states.
Some of the problems expressed by the states involved the issue of unfunded (or underfunded)
mandates, excessive oversight and control, and slowness to act on various matters (including CERCLA
sites, setting standards, and responding to requests for information and guidance).
Some states have had problems with federal agents as polluters. indicating that they were not
always forthcoming or cooperative. There also appeared to be confusion about who is in charge of some
cases involving federal facilities. Some states are uncertain of their own authority in these cases, and some
indicated that EPA also seems uncertain about such matters or does not provide clear, consistent guidance
about how to deal with them. One state has acted aggressively toward federal polluters by publicizing
polluting activities and, in one case, issuing an enforcement order. The state is also inspecting conditions
surrounding a federal facility but is hampered by its inability to make on-site inspections.
States would like EPA to seek and use more input from the states and to treat the states more like
partners. They also woald like EPA to be more flexible in issuing directives, to allow for greater variation
in state activities to better accommodate variations in state conditions. Some states believe that at least
some directives do not apply equally well to all states. Some believe EPA overemphasizes remediation
programs and/or large sites, and wanted to see more emphasis placed on prevention and/or numerous small
sites.
Some states mentioned gaps in coverage in EPA programs. For example, RCRA regulates hazardous
waste but not hazardous materials, and the underground storage tanks program does not deal with
aboveground storage tanks. Some states have developed their own policies to deal with these gaps.
The states would like EPA to perform more ba^ research provide more technical assistance
(including written materials') and/or training (e.g.. on health standards, contaminant transport mechanisms,
computer modeling, risk assessment, and treatment technologies). EPA also could serve as a clearinghouse
58
-------
to enhance information exchange between states, particularly those in other regions. Some states would
like EPA to provide more training and would find it helpful if the training were located closer to, or in, the
state. This would enable more staff members to participate, and would allow training to be tailored to local
needs and concerns.
Indian Tribes
The states generally had little involvement with Indian tribes with respect to groundwater issues. A
staff member in one state indicated that they had extensive involvement with tribes in terms of meetings
and discussion, but that their involvement was not always easy or successful. One state indicated that there
was confusion about jurisdiction over Indian land in some cases, .(e.g., in cases where non-Indians were
involved) and believed that EPA has not been sufficiently clear and/or consistent about this issue. Another
state, however, did not believe jurisdiction was a problem.
Recommendations
1. Each state should periodically review legislation and regulations for gaps or inadequacies, particularly
those that limit other implementation or enforcement capabilities (e.g., lack of legislation allowing
use of administrative penalties).
2. States should try to include funding sources or mechanisms in their legislation to ensure their
capability to fully implement or enforce the legislation (e.g., fees that fully cover permitting and
monitoring costs and that are dedicated to the groundwater protection agency or program as part of
the enabling legislation).
3. All government agencies, including groundwater agencies, should be accountable to elected officials
and the public. To better achieve accountability, state groundwater agencies should annually report to
the public on groundwater quality, health risk levels across the state, progress of each major state
program, and major groundwater problems.
4. While it is very difficult to identify the perfect organization for the complex groundwater protection
efforts, states should regularly review their groundwater-related program organization. They should
seek suggestions from the various department, program offices, and local government offices as to
organizational fragmentation, communication, and coordination problems.
5. States should try to keep regulatory programs administratively separate from promotional activities.
59
-------
6. States should consider options for improving coordination, such as standing interagency committees,
commissions, and advisory groups with regular meetings as a way to coordinate groundwater
protection activities among state agencies, and regular interdepartmental meetings should be
considered to improve coordination within departments.
7. States should delegate clear responsibilities to field staff and establish clear lines of communication
and coordination mechanisms between field and central offices. Central office staff might develop
coordinated priorities for the field offices, with the field offices developing coordinated work plans
for the central office. A mechanism to check and report periodically on field office progress with the
plans should also be included. The central office should at least annually seek, feedback from its field
offices as to their problems and concerns regarding relationships and communications with central
offices.
8. States should consider adopting "case management" mechanisms to assign and coordinate cases that
involve more than one regulatory and/or remedial program, with members of each involved program
working as a team.
9. States should have information-sharing among programs, whether or not the protection program is in
the same agency, that will enable staff to identify (a) the presence of multiple groundwater-related
problems at specific locations, and (b) multiple violations by specific violators.
10. States should develop interstate arrangements to deal with groundwater protection issues that cross
state boundaries. These arrangements might be set up by hydrogeologic regions such as river basins
or aquifers. The organizations established, if any, do not necessarily require regulatory powers; they
could be designed as forums for discussion of concerns, or for planning purposes, if regulatory
powers do not not seem necessary.
11. EPA should: (a) expand its activities in the areas of basic research, training and technical assistance,
standard-setting and risk assessment; (b) consider establishing more flexible standards to allow for
variation in state conditions; (c) work to promote greater cooperation with states on the part of federal
facilities that are polluters; (d) encourage development of interstate arrangements to promote
groundwater protection; and (e) consider developing a mechanism to mediate interstate disputes.
60
-------
Chapter 3: DATA MANAGEMENT, MONITORING, AND RESEARCH
Principal Findings
Data management is an important aspect of state groundwater protection activities. It provides
support for activities such as: planning and priority setting; analyzing the scope of current or potential
contamination problems; identifying vulnerable areas and methods of protecting them; issuing and
enforcing permits; conducting site cleanups; identifying trends; and assessing the effectiveness of
programs.
Groundwater data systems in the states are beset by problems associated with fragmentation. Data are
maintained in a variety of locations, with some data computerized and some in manual files. Different
hardware and software programs are often used by different agencies. Data collected by different units
generally have not been standardized in terms of the type of data collected or reporting format used.
Locational information has not been sufficiently standardized across programs to permit integrating data by
geographical location. Some states have had problems with some basic aspects of data collection, such as
development and use of a common interagency well identification system. Varying degrees of quality
control were exercised. Limited resources and staff turnover problems noted by many states also contribute
to data management problems.
The problems noted above have made it difficult for states to develop integrated, computerized data
systems, which most states are interested in developing. The states appear aware of their data problems and
want to improve their data management capabilities. There is a strong interest in developing a
geographically-based information system (GIS) in many states, although states working on development of
such systems found they involve substantial commitments of time and resources.
Most states had at least begun development of, and expressed satisfaction with, their data systems
associated with individual programs. These systems are used primarily for tracking regulated entities,
61
-------
, „„mniItprized systems for these purposes, or
monitoring progress of remediation, etc. Many agencies used comp
are planning to do so.
.. Hn nnt aDDear to widely use the water quality
Although many data are collected in the states, the states do n ppe
• t r»ct in niS systems suggests that there is
data for purposes such as planning or priority setting. The interest
j rtat_ t0 prepare annual reports to the
interest in using data for these purposes, however. Few states usea
,1 ~ rrminfnin data on regulatory activities and
public on program activity. The states, however, do collect and mai
, tr^rk of the status of their programs,
sometimes management uses summaries of such data to Keep irac*
1icpri tn nrovide general information
The states do several kinds of groundwater monitoring that are
»n(T tn nrQvide background information on
about the resource. Such monitoring includes: ambient monitoring v
_ . _._r,;tr>rin
-------
Funding for research comes from a variety of sources, including special appropriations and various kinds of
earmarked funds, including some related to violations..
Data Management
Data Problems. Our visits to the states confirmed the data management problems noted in our review
of state strategy documents. Groundwater data and data management systems can best be described as
fragmented. Data fragmentation resembles the organizational fragmentation discussed in Chapter 2 in that
there are multiple kinds of fragmentation involved, namely:
o data are collected and maintained (often in different locations) by a number of agencies, units,
and subunits;
o some data arc maintained on computer and some in manual files;
o data collection is not generally standardized or compatible across agencies. Different agencies
may not only collect different kinds of data, they may also collect or report similar kinds of
data in different ways (e.g., well location information);
o because the various agencies that maintain data often used different hardware and/or software,
computerized data in various agencies are rarely integrated or in a form that allows for easy
integration; and
o quality control standards have varied by agency and/or over time. As a result, there may be
variation in data quality (i.e., accuracy and completeness) across departments or over time.
Data management problems can be seen as the outcome of several factors, including;
o fragmentation of groundwater programs and functions among different agencies, units, and
subunits within the states (in part related to similar fragmentation of groundwater programs);
o enormous increases in the amount of data collected, in part reflecting the growth in regulatory
programs and in the number of entities regulated by them;
o growth in nonrcgulatory programs, which also often involve data collection;
o staff turnover, often combined with reorganization of groundwater agencies, resulting in
relatively inexperienced staff handling data, and a lack of continuity among staff members with
data management responsibilities;
o rapid evolution of computer hardware and software systems, resulting in different agencies
using different systems partly because of the point in time when they began computerizing;
63
-------
o insufficient staff and funding to purchase equipment or allocate sufficient staff time for data
management activities; and
o delays in entering data into computerized systems because of insufficient staff to handle the
volume of data needing entry.
These problems make it difficult to incorporate existing data into an integrated, computerized system.
They also make it difficult to use data for administrative purposes such as planning and prioritizing, which
would be a major function of an integrated data management system. The fragmented data conditions
generally pose fewer problems for the monitoring activities associated with individual regulatory programs.
Some of the data problems experienced by a number of states involve basic elements of data
management. For example, a few states are grappling with problems caused by failure to use a common
well identification system. Some states also feel that at least some of the information submitted by well
drillers is of uncertain or dubious quality. Two states expressed concerns about future data quality in newly
developing underground storage tank programs that are housed in state fire-protection agencies. This
concern is partly because some of the data will be collected and reported by fire departments throughout
the state, which are believed to vary in their capabilities to perform this function.
Management and Tracking Systems. Despite the problems related to overall data management for
general administrative purposes, data systems in individual agencies or programs generally appear to
function satisfactorily. Most regulatory programs receive specified kinds of monitoring data from
regulated entities at scheduled intervals (e.g., monthly, quarterly). These data need to be checked for
parameters that are above standards, indicating a pollution problem, as well as for completeness of data
submitted, and whether data are submitted as scheduled. Various parameters are supposed to elicit
particular responses, such as a notice of violation, penalty, or even a letter telling the regulated entity to
determine whether the source of the problem is on site, off site, or the result of a laboratory error.
64
-------
Some of the regulatory programs in some states have developed computerized systems to handle the
tracking of self-reported data from regulated entities. However, even states that have one or more
computerized tracking systems do not necessarily have them in all of the regulatory programs. In one state,
for example, a large state regulatory program is in the process of developing an automated monitoring and
enforcement system, while some of the hazardous waste-related programs already have computerized
systems of some kind. Systems used by the states are of varying degrees of sophistication. Nevertheless,
some states have been developing extensive MISs for tracking the status of individual permits, monitoring,
enforcement, and clean-up activities. Some systems automatically generate the appropriate response (e.g.,
issue a notice of violation) when particular parameters are violated, reports are not submitted, and so on.
Individual agency efforts to computerize tracking and monitoring programs have undoubtedly been
useful and should be encouraged. However, the development of these individual systems, generally using
different hardware and/or software, has helped create the fragmentation that currently exists.
Our assessment indicated that staff members develop partisan feelings toward the systems in their
own agencies, which could hinder development of integrated systems that may require changes in hardware
and/or software. A number of states have used STORET, but some have not found it to be sufficiently
user-friendly for their purposes. Agency staff also sometimes develop proprietary attitudes toward their
own data and may be reluctant to let others interpret or share them.
Management Summary Reports. We did not spend much time explicitly looking for internal
management reports that provide periodic (e.g., monthly) summaries of the amount of work done, progress
and status of inspections, enforcement actions, clean-up status, program expenditures, etc. However, our
impression from a few states is that these are usually available or are being developed for purposes other
than the required monitoring and enforcement responsibilities related to regulatory and remedial programs.
One example of an administrative report is that prepared by Florida's Department of Environmental
Regulation. This document provides data summaries on topics such as:
65
-------
o staff size and composition;
o finances of the various divisions, including allotments and expenditures,
o various types of work activities performed for the different divisions and/or districts, such as
the number of permits issued, average time to process permits, and number of compliance
inspections;
o enforcement, such as the number of consent orders, amount collected, and court cases initiated
or pending;
o status of departmental reviews of local government comprehensive plans, such as number of
reviews in process or waiting to be reviewed and the number found to be in compliance or not
in compliance.
Reports intended for the public are also prepared in some cases. For example, New Jersey s
Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act program provides an annual report listing completed
cleanups and costs, notices processed, and sampling plans approved. New Jersey s hazardous waste
management division publishes a report providing a site-by-site status report on sites undergoing
remediation.
Efforts to Improve Data Management Thp. states visited were aware of their data problems, wanted
to deal with them, and were in varying stages of progress in doing so. They recognized that some of their
problems are not easily resolved. A number of states had committees or task forces working on various
aspects of data management improvement. A number of states also work with USGS on various data-
related projects, including development of data management systems. USGS is also heavily used by the
states for aquifer and other water-related mapping, as well as to perform special studies.
Data management is expensive and has used considerable funding and resources. One New Jersey
staff member said the state is finding that data acquisition, quality control, and management eat up a bigger
share of its budget now. Staff also noted that developing a database management system is a multiyear,
expensive project
66
-------
Most of the states were interested in developing an integrated, computerized data management system
that will ultimately be able to use at least some of the data collected bv various programs. A number of
states were interested in developing a Geographic Information System (GIS or other system with mapping
capabilities) or expanding their existing GIS capabilities because of its ability to provide assistance for
decisionmaking (e.g., prioritizing and planning). Some states were working on developing a GIS (some
were using consultants to do so). In New Jersey, this was managed by the environmental agency's
Division of Science and Research, which is responsible for data input, coordination of training, and
operation and maintenance of the system. "User groups" with representation from various units have been
formed to identify and prioritize data needed for the system. The New Jersey Geologic Survey was heavily
involved in data collection and verification, and is a primary user of the system.
States have found that developing a GIS or similar system is a lengthy process. In New Jersey, some
staff members indicated it took about five years to actually get a GIS after the decision to develop one (i.e.,
to purchase a minicomputer and software), and they estimate it takes about one and a half to two years
afterward before it is fully operational. States that have begun developing a GIS frequently discover
problems with their existing data (e.g., well locations are incorrectly identified) and have to spend time
verifying and correcting data or filling in gaps before data can be entered.
Despite the general interest in GIS, staff members in some states expressed concerns about it. Some
note that all of their data cannot be entered into it, or that it is not particularly useful for their own purposes.
Some states, or some programs in some states, are using STORET or WATSTORE systems, but some
have mentioned having problems with them. Others, as discussed above, have developed various systems
of their own for data management primarily for management of regulatory programs. (Some of these may
be in addition to STORET and WATSTORE).
Some states also have made efforts to encourage better data management on the part of local
governments. A demonstration project in Massachusetts, the Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project, was
67
-------
designed to demonstrate the usefulness of GIS for local and regional groundwater protection, particulaiiy
wellhead protection. The regional planning agency that participated in that project is continuing to use the
GIS that was developed and is very satisfied with it. One of the more active county governments in New
Jersey is also independently developing a GIS. In Washington, state groundwater staff are working with
groundwater management area staff to deal with quality control issues and to ensure that there will be
compatible data systems across the groundwater management areas (see Chapter 3). Florida is starting a
program to share data from its ambient monitoring network with counties, in the hope that this will
influence local government land use decisions. The state is also distributing software as part of this
program.
Monitoring
The states examined generally did relative.lv little monitoring for general information purposes. The
states varied in the amount and scope of ambient monitoring performed. Resource limitations were viewed
as a barrier to monitoring in a number of states. An exception is Florida, which spends over $2 million
annually on an ambient network with over 3,000 wells. Local governments or special district governments
also do some ambient monitoring in some states. New Mexico has developed an innovative approach to
generating monitoring data in the absence of an ambient monitoring system, state employees hold water
fairs" in various locations throughout the state, to which citizens are encouraged to bring samples of private
well water for free testing. Thus, the state is provided with data about groundwater conditions in a variety
of localities and is alerted to contamination problems. The fairs provide a mechanism for testing private
wells, which are generally not included in state drinking-water monitoring programs. The fairs also serve
an educational and outreach function.
States sometimes do monitoring in conjunction with special studies or pilot projects. Some of the
states have recently done limited monitoring to study the effects of pesticides on groundwater. Nebraska
has done some monitoring of unlicensed landfills.
68
-------
Virtually all states require monitoring of public drinking water supplies. This is usually performed by
the water suppliers, who send data to the states for review. Most states also do some monitoring of water
quantity or levels.
Research
Research is not generally a high-priority activity in groundwater agencies in the states visited,
although most of them would like to do more research. States with large agencies conducted or supported
more research than those with small agencies, but even in the former, research consumed only a small
proportion of available resources. State research tends to be of an applied nature, oriented toward problems
of specific concern to that state. Such research is frequently performed by universities and/or consultants.
USGS is also active in research in most of the states, generally with the state and USGS sharing the cost of
the research equally.
The states approached the performance of research in various ways. New Jersey and Massachusetts
have central research offices, both of which canvass state environmental agencies to develop annual lists of
research needs that are used to generate research agendas. In Massachusetts, an ongoing contract with a
university permits the state merely to write up the scope of work for each desired study without going
through individual contracting procedures. New Jersey uses an RFP procedure to solicit bids for research.
Although the state has frequently contracted with a state university, it has not done so exclusively; the
university must bid for each study along with other interested parties.
In contrast, two states suffering from severe fiscal constraints do little or no research. In one of these,
a university has begun delineating the environmental research needs of the state, but in view of the strained
fiscal situation, policymakers have shown little interest. However, some grants nave been made by the
state to two universities, and some work has been done for the state by USGS.
69
-------
The Nebraska legislature tends to initiate a regulatory program by first commissioning a research
project to define the issue and the state role. Research in this state is carried out by the environmental
planning offices, by regional offices, and by a university in conjunction with the other two. Regulatory
agency personnel have expressed an interest in additional research to increase their knowledge of the
substances they regulate. Regional office research primarily consists of demonstration projects for lower
fertilizer application as a means of encouraging voluntary compliance, thereby reducing the threat of nitrate
contamination.
Research Funding. Funding for research comes from various sources. Among them are federal
grants, state environmental appropriations, funds supported by fines, and industry. Universities also
probably perform environmental research using their funds, along with the monies they receive from state
and federal contracts.
In New Jersey, the interest earned from the state spill fund, which is supported by fines levied on
violators, is dedicated to supporting research. Pennsylvania uses a waste abatement fund supported by
fines to finance research. Pennsylvania also has used matching funds from industry to conduct research of
mutual interest, as well as funds obtained from fees assessed against horse racing to sponsor research on
pesticides. Louisiana's groundwater agency imposed a settlement that included industry funding for a
specific research project at a university in the state. In Florida, which is greatly dependent on groundwater
for drinking water, the discovery of the widespread presence of a pesticide in the groundwater resulted in
an annual appropriation to do toxicological research.
Research Needs. There is a virtual consensus that basic, broad research that is of interest to several or
all of the states should be performed bv EPA. In particular, many state personnel expressed concern that
they did not have adequate information about health risks of pollutants to their populations, especially
about different risks associated with variations in age of population, exposure levels, and combinations of
70
-------
pollutants. The state personnel did not believe that individual states had the resources to develop such
information, but that the federal government was the level where such research should be conducted.
States also expressed the view that EPA could perform a valuable service by serving as a central
repository of state-level research that is in process or has been completed. This information could be
disseminated by EPA to all of the states so that each of them could benefit from findings and be made
aware of research underway elsewhere, thus, avoiding duplication of effort.
Recommendations
1. States need to address such basic data issues as quality control, standardized reporting formats
and identification systems.
2. States should determine how they plan to use data before they begin developing integrated or
other computerized data systems, to ensure that they will include the data needed for these
purposes. Information about how other states use their data systems may be helpful to those
just beginning to deal with more advanced data systems. EPA should provide such
information to the states. At a minimum, states should establish data systems that:
(a) Provide comprehensive data on water quality-for tracking progress and identifying
problem areas.
(b) Provide detailed information on the status of regulatory program activities such as
permits, inspections, enforcement actions, and cleanup.
(c) Provide regular management reports that summarize the information in (a) and (b) for
both program and control agency managers.
3. Each state should develop a common set of data elements that will be used by all departments.
(The Woricshop Findings Report from EPA's June 1988 Workshop should be consulted for this
purpose .)y
4. States should make efforts to educate various staff members about the uses and usefulness of
integrated and/or computerized information systems.
5. States should make use of data for administrative management purposes. Existing state
reporting systems such as that used by Florida should be adapted by states not having such
systems. States should also consider developing reports to convey groundwater protection and
programming information to the public.
9. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Workshop on a Minimum Set of Data Elements.
71
-------
6. Regulatory or remedial programs should be encouraged to develop computerized systems foi
tracking the status of regulated entities.
7. EPA and USGS should be active in helping the states develop GIS capability.
8. States should implement an ongoing ambient monitoring process and/or special studies to track,
groundwater quality with an emphasis on major at-risk areas of the state. For example, high
risk areas would be subjected to more frequent sampling, on more pollutants, and/or at more
locations.
9. States should consider requiring or at least encouraging monitoring of private wells-perhaps
through local governments. For example, they might adapt programs such as New Mexico's
water fairs, to provide preliminary monitoring and ambient network information, which could
be confirmed by samples drawn in conformance with quality control guidelines as warranted.
10. States should have regulatory staff develop formal criteria for prioritizing sites for various
kinds of monitoring for use when resources are insufficient to conduct all of the required
monitoring.
11. States should consider the feasibility of training and using volunteers to perform certain kinds
of monitoring activities. Volunteer programs such as Adopt-a-Stream exist in some states.
Such groups could be expanded to include a focus on groundwater and might be trained to do
certain kinds of monitoring.
12. States should consider earmarking specific funds for research, thus potentially enabling them to
support more research. States should actively encourage groundwater-related research on the
part of universities and industry.
13. EPA should consider carrying the principal responsibility for performing broad, basic research
having widespread interest and possibly affecting many or all of the states. EPA should
canvass the slates annually to ascertain what they perceive as their greater research needs in
order to help structure the EPA research program.
14. The federal government should continue to play the major role of providing specific
information based on its research as to health risks associated with various pollutants, for
various types of populations, various concentrations, and various combinations. When specific
risk levels are not available on a pollutant, the federal government should assemble and repon
on the best available qualitative, judgmental information.
15. EPA should consider establishing a state research clearinghouse that includes information on
research in progress and findings of completed research projects. EPA should disseminate this
information among the states to prevent duplication of effort.
72
-------
Chapter 4: COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
Principal Findings
Enforcement actions include a wide variety of activities, among them compliance inspections; the
issuance of various notices and orders (e.g., notices of violation, cease and desist orders, consent orders,
and injunctions); assessment of the degree and type of contamination; negotiations over plans and methods
for remediation; imposition of fines and penalties; and civil and criminal court procedures.
We found most states are hampered in their enforcement efforts by a lack of resources. There was
also at least one state in which there was a lack of legislative or administrative "moral" support for strict
enforcement, leading frequently to much lower fines than were legally possible.
The inability to impose administrative penalties was a problem in a number of states. Such fines were
preferred to court proceedings, which are complex and slow to be resolved.
Voluntary compliance is the preferred approach to enforcement in most states, at least partly because
of resource limitations and the uncertainty and slowness of court action.
Many states did not cover the full costs of monitoring and enforcement in their permit fees. Some are
moving toward covering the full costs of the permit process but few, if any, are able to cover the
subsequent enforcement costs.
A number of states have experienced problems attempting to apply enforcement measures in cases
where federal facilities arc the polluters.
Many states found that they did not have the resources to perform all, or even nearly all, of their
compliance monitoring responsibilities. Some were not able to adequately review and provide quality
control checks of self-rcput data submitted by regulated entities, and/or to perform all of the oversight
activities required at all sites. This has forced most states to be reactive, rather than proactive, in their
monitoring efforts-they do not monitor facilities that have not formally entered their process through
73
-------
permit applications or compliance. Staff members in some states expressed serious reservations about the
quality of self-monitoring data submitted to them. Staff members in other states, however, felt comfortable
with this kind of data.
Obstacles to Enforcement
The effectiveness of enforcement is clearly hampered in most states and most programs by lack of
resources as compared to the magnitude of the enforcement requirement There are too few enforcement
personnel to cope with the very large number of facilities and sites that must be regulated. While the
problem exists in all of the states, it varies in intensity. Three of the states assessed are particularly
affected, one of which is almost wholly dependent on groundwater for drinking water. Resource
availability varied among programs within a state, particularly if the state has earmarked funds for specific
programs, or if some programs are fee-supported and others are not. Legal staffs and the courts are
similarly overburdened, making resort to the courts a lengthy, costly procedure. The lack of adequate
enforcement thus poses a real threat to the quality of groundwater, voluntary compliance, while desirable,
cannot be depended on to protect the groundwaters of a state.
Enforcement efforts in some states are hampered bv lack of legislative or administrative "moral"
support for strict enforcement. In one state, personnel in several regulatory programs indicated that they
did not impose the maximum penalties allowable, and/or multiply penalties by the number of days in
violation, because of this lack of support. The administrator of one program indicated that settlements were
typically for about half of the amount due for this reason. However, this program also required violators to
publish an apology.
Many states were not covering the full costs of the permit application process and most were not
covering the subsequent cost of monitoring and enforcement in their permit fees, although many believed
this would enhance their ability to perform these functions. One state is restricted from doing this by state
legislation. Another state had some of its fees set in legislation, which makes it difficult to change them to
74
-------
conform to full cost coverage in the future. New Jersey is moving in the direction of fully fee-supported
programs, however, and has the backing of the state legislature for this.
Some state environmental agencies cannot lew administrative fines. These states consider their
inability to levy fines an obstacle to effective enforcement because in order to assess penalties they must
resort to the courts, which is a lengthy, complex process. One state staff member noted that courts may be
unsophisticated about environmental matters, or overly sympathetic to business or industry, which also
serves to make court action a less desirable alternative. Consequently, many states attempt to negotiate
voluntary agreements using the prospect of court actions and their potentially large penalties as a lever for
forcing agreement.
Because enforcement is usually carried out bv individual program offices, there is a need for
coordination among prot'rams. This was not always adequate in the states examined. The case
management strategy being developed in New Jersey is one mechanism for promoting such coordination
(see the description of this strategy in Chapter 2).
In states where enforcement activities are carried out principally in district offices, there is a need for
coordination between headquarters and the district. This was considered a problem in a few states. District
directors have to balance priorities placed upon them by the separate program offices at the state level with
the priorities as they see them in their districts, and attempt to satisfy both to the extent possible.
A number of states have found enforcement difficult when a federal facility is the polluter. There is
also some confusion over enforcement on Indian lands in some states.
Enforcement Mechanisms
Voluntary Agreements. States that are unable to levy administrative fines generally seek to negotiate
voluntary agreements with violators to perform the necessary compliance. In one state, experience has
shown that when agreement cannot be reached, the very filing of a complaint in the courts has caused
violators to come to terms. The resulting voluntary agreement becomes a legal document, which generally
75
-------
does not require an admission of guilt but is filed with the court so that breaching the agreement can be
considered contempt of court. In another state, enforcement concepts are based on voluntary compliance,
with technical and educational assistance efforts oriented to the regulated community in order to secure
such compliance. Voluntary agreements can and often do include penalties.
Fines and Penalties. In some states where the environmental agency cannot assess administrative
penalties, other offices whose activities affect groundwater can impose some penalties. In one state, the
Department of Agriculture can fine pesticide applicators who violate regulations and the Department of
Health can fine facilities that it monitors. In another state, the Department of Transportation and
Development can assess fines on drilling companies for failure to meet drilling standards and on
landowners for failure to properly-close an abandoned welL
Where states can assess administrative fines, the amounts range from $10,000 per day per violation to
$50,000 per day per violation. In one state that is unable to assess administrative fines, a county with an
active environmental program has developed a ticketing process, similar to a traffic ticket, which provides
rapid fines for minor violations. The maximum ticket fine is $500 per day.
Unique Enforcement Powers. Several states have unique or innovative enforcement powers.
Massachusetts has power to place a priority lien or "superlien" on commercial property when the
environmental agency is convinced there will be insufficient funds from conventional sources to complete a
cleanup of hazardous wastes. The lien takes priority over all other interests. As a result, many banks
require environmental assessment before giving nonresidential mortgages. Massachusetts has also
expanded enforcement capabilities through an Administrative Penalties Act and establishment of an
environmental strike force (composed of technical and legal staff from various offices) which goes after
major violators.
New Jersey has several strong enforcement tools. Under its Spill Compensation and Control Act, the
agency can issue a cleanup directive. If the violator does not comply, or is unknown, "the state can do the
76
-------
cleanup and assess treble damages if the. responsible party is identified in the future. In addition, if an
entity (e.g., a landfill) is required to have a permit but does not, the state treats it as if it should have one in
terms of enforcing discharge requirements. Violators of such requirements are subject to sanctions and
will be required to obtain a permit.
New Jersey also has an innovative "clean closure" program in its Environmental Cleanup
Responsibility Act (ECRA), which requires that groundwater be cleaned, or certified as clean, before sale,
closure or transfer of certain types of industrial property. This program is intended to discourage pollution,
facilitate early detection of problems, assure remediation with private funds by responsible parties, and
prevent abandonment of hazardous sites (in effect, to avoid future Superfund sites). Since this program
handles a large number of cases, a case management system has been developed to facilitate processing of
ECRA sites. Sites are classified as being of low, medium or high environmental concern, and staff
members are assigned to specific categories to speed case handling through specialization of labor.
A nongovernmental, indirect source of groundwater protection was noted in several states in the form
of insurance and mortgage companies requiring certification of clean groundwater or initiation of cleanup
in properties they insure or mortgage. Insurance companies are motivated by potential liability arising
from pollution, and mortgage companies are concerned about the decrease in property values, and potential
default because of this, due to water of poor quality and to prior lien laws.
Nebraska and Florida used incentives to encourage cleanup of leaks from underground storage tanks.
Both states used money from funds supported by special taxes to pay for the cleanup. In Nebraska, the
fund paid $975,000 of the first $1 million of cleanup costs if the tank was in compliance with requirements.
The state hopes the insurance industry will offer insurance for the remaining $25,000 liability in these
cases, thus creating an incentive for compliance. In Florida, the fund paid the full cost (providing the leak
was reported within a given time frame) as an incentive for early detection and cleanup. Another state
77
-------
wants to incorporate external pressures in the UST program being developed by including regulations that
prohibit more than one delivery of products to USTs that are not tagged as being registered with the state.
Tracking of Enforcement Activities
Regulatory programs in some, if not most, states are using computer programs to help track
monitoring and enforcement data. Some of these systems also automatically issue enforcement letters.
This has reduced district office workload in one state, but it has increased the time required to get
enforcement letters out, because they were sent to district offices for mailing. The automatic mailing may
also be issuing enforcement letters that could have been forestalled by a telephone call from the district
office.
Local Enforcement Efforts
There is considerable variation in the degree to which local agencies engage in enforcement. In a few
states, some local government programs appeared to do more enforcement related to administrative
procedures than to groundwater management. In some states, there is a feeling that, with exceptions,
localities do not have the expertise or the capability for mounting enforcement programs at all. In addition,
they may not be able to confront "special interests" that are influential in local politics. In contrast, other
states are very interested in local enforcement because "that is where the problem is." Localities not only
are familiar with local conditions but also have a predominant interest in the availability of good quality
water. Furthermore, states that are suffering severe fiscal and staffing limitations believe that delegation of
responsibilities to local governments that have the proper ordinances, resources, and desire can help
achieve enforcement goals.
Compliance Monitoring
Compliance monitoring responsibilities of the states involve several steps, which vary according to
the regulatoiy program involved. States generally are responsible for reviewing self-monitoring data
submitted by regulated entities, although they may not always have sufficient staff to review or analyze
78
-------
them. They are also supposed to conduct oversight visits to check site conditions such as well placement
and storage of hazardous materials. They periodically oversee sampling procedures to ensure that they are
done correctly and/or do split sampling with the regulated entity, but seldom, if ever, check on the
procedures the entity uses to collect the sample in the first place. The schedule for oversight activities may
vary by program and/or by whether a facility is considered major or minor. Oversight activities for most
programs are supposed to occur at least once each year and are viewed as part of the enforcement process.
A number of the states had problems with compliance monitoring, particularly not being able to
perform all the site visits they were supposed to conduct because of resource limitations. In these cases,
most states informally set priorities to determine which sites they visited (see Chapter 1). In addition,
personnel in some programs have not always been able to review adequately the self-monitoring data
submitted. One state recently created a new division for one of its regulatory programs for this purpose
because review had not been adequate for some time.
States have not been able to find time to reach facilities that could be problematic but have not
entered their system through such elements as a permit application or a complaint That is, states are
primarily reactive, not proactive, in their monitoring efforts.
Some specific concerns regarding self-monitoring data were raised in the states visited. One state
lacked confidence in the accuracy of some of the self-monitoring data submitted. However, other states did
not seem to share this view. A number of states require use of state-certified laboratories for analysis of
self-monitoring samples for some or all programs. New Jersey's lab certification is particularly stringent in
that labs are certified parameter by parameter. The state also has penalties "stricter than most" for
falsifying data. This state, however, does not check the sample drawing procedures used by the entity
submitting the sample.
One state required use of a state lab for some of its programs. However, due to resource limitations
there have been serious backlogs and restrictions on the number of tests programs can request. RCRA staff
79
-------
members in this state noted they were rationed to three samples a month, but the typical RCRA inspection
needs 7 to 10. Therefore, ihey have proposed doing abbreviated inspections.
A staff member in one state believed the rules for the monitoring system design for a particular
program were unclear. A particular concern was that the rules require a qualified hydrologist or
geohydrologist to design the monitoring system although that state does not have legislation to license or
certify these professionals.
Permit fees seldom covered the full cost of permit application processing and subsequent associated
monitoring and enforcement Monitoring personnel in one state had a particular problem with funding.
State legislation does not allow programsto charge fees that cover compliance monitoring or enforcement
activities; fees can cover only costs of investigation and issuance of permits. Other states„however, are
attempting to set fees that cover all costs associated with a particular program, and have legislative and
administrative support for this.
Delegation of Monitoring Activity to Local Governments. We found at least one state that under
certain conditions allowed local governments to undertake their own monitoring and enforcement activity
Many-large urban counties in Florida are themselves undertaking these activities for some regulatory
programs. This situation evolved largely because the state government was not able to apply adequate
resources to these programs in these counties, or because monitoring emerged as a high priority in some
local governments. Pennsylvania is encouraging local government inspectors to participate in state
inspections relating to hazardous waste generator permit applications to check for compliance. The
primary responsibility, however, remains with the state inspector.
Some state health departments have staff personnel working in local government health departments,
especially for counties and large cities. This substantial resource has generally been used for regulatory
activity such as inspections of local water supplies. Although different states may have different
80
-------
arrangements regarding whether local health staff are state or local employees, these locally-situated staff
represent a potential source of monitoring personnel for health-related regulatory tasks.
Recommendations
1. States need to apply adequate resources to compliance monitoring and enforcement activities
so that the protection indicated by state and federal legislation can be given to the public. As a
way to raise the necessary resources, as well as apply the principle that "users should pay for
the use," states should cover the full costs of monitoring and enforcement in the permit fees for
these programs. States should consider coverage through fees of not only the full costs of
permit application processing, but also the cost of monitoring and related oversight activities at
regulated sites. An option states should consider is to encourage or require local governments
to undertake monitoring in their own areas, allowing them to cover their costs through lull-cost
permit fees.
2. States should place high priority on quality control of self-monitoring data submitted by
regulated entities. This can include such steps as: requiring certification by an independent lab
of the quality of the sample, certification by an independent organization that the sample was
properly drawn, state certification of the labs themselves, use of split samples with checks by
the state's own labs, and random sampling by state personnel.
3. States should implement a management information system that tracks compliance and
expeditiously identifies noncompliance, such as when a required document or sample has not
been provided as scheduled. The MIS should provide identification of repeat, multiple
violators and should enable staff to identify locations that have multiple problems, even though
these problems relate to different programs.
4. EPA should provide states with technical assistance and training as to: (a) ways to most
efficiently and effectively monitor the various programs; (b) how states can best do quality
control checks on self-monitoring; and (c) how states might select priorities among facilities
when resources do not permit the office to monitor all facilities under a particular program.
EPA should provide training programs for state and local inspections, especially on new
regulations requiring special technical knowledge.
5 Because enforcement resources are limited, voluntary compliance should be encouraged to the
greatest extent possible. A shifting of resources to technical assistance and education may be
required to institute or enlarge such programs oriented toward the regulated community.
6 States should provide "top down" (legislative and administrative) support for full enforcement
of groundwater protection laws.
7 States should examine some of the unique enforcement powers, such as the superlien in
Massachusetts or clean closure program in New Jersey to consider their applicability and utility
in their states.
81
-------
Penalties shall be established to cover any public correction costs and to act as a det
States should pennit environmental agencies to levy
MHv nrfinn chn,,H gamine their enforcement procedures and streamline ui
early action. States should examine their
extent possible to facilitate rapid response to violations
82
-------
Chapter 5: LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Principal Finding
Local governments occupy a strategically important role i„ groundwater protection. Counties and
municipalities can affect groundwater tough their traditional land-use control. public health, and public
safety functions. Some states have chosen to delegate specific aspects of groundwater protection programs
to various kinds of local govc™nenB, which in some cases includes establishment of specie districts with
groundwater protection responsibilities. States assist most local governments in various ways in the
performance of their groundwater protection roles.
We found considerable variation in the degree and nature of local government involvemem in
groundwater protection acUvitie, In general, states appear to he moving toward greater local involvement
On the whole, however, local involvement thus far ha*
ement tnus far has not been extensive. Land use and zoning controls
have been the major potential avenue for local ?nv,»mmon,
tor local government groundwater protection efforts. Groundwater
protection has not often been a major focus of thP«. - ~ . ,,
J rocus of these controls, although their use to protect water supplies
appears to be growing significantly.
Local private lending/mortgage institutions have become a mai„ u .
major mechanism for affecting protection,
as these institutions have begun to retire p^ transfer of property, and
sometimes even without a transfer. State legislation has been pushing ais i» some states.
States have promoted local government groundwater •
S ater protection in a variety of ways. Strongest
among these has been creation of special districts with authoritv over am,mH ,
ty over groundwater protection, although
states also have delegated a variety of groundwater protection resoonsihiiiH.c,
ponsibumes to general purpose local
governments.
A number of local governments in a few states have independently deveioped strong groundwater
protection programs. This is generally related to triggering events such as well closures due to
83
-------
contamination. Governments with Strang groundwater programs tend to have a strong tax base, sufficient
regulatory powers, enabling legislation, and dependence on groundwater tot engendered local concern. In
some cases, the localities indicated that the state government was not willing or able to p
necessary protection.
States provide support for local groundwater protection in a variety of ways, but generally do not
provide a great deal of support. THere appears to be a strong unmet need for training and technical
assistance for local personnel. Most states do not appear to be adequately providing groundwater-related
information to local government officials.
State Actions to Encourage Local Groundwater Protection
There has h^n nn model loc«i government role in the state groundwater management and protection
programs. The different histo">«- nolitical climates, groundwater program components, and hydrogeologic
conditions combine to produce a wide range of local roles. A history of either strong local government or
problems with groundwater seems to have contributed most to a strong local role.
The overall trend in program implementation is toward gr*atPr inral involvement. There are several
reasons for this. First, some states have not been able to supply the funding for the level of protection
required by state legislation. It is becoming increasingly clear that many, if not most or all, state
governments cannot support a total protection program. More attention is being focused on nonpoint
sources, and in some cases states do not have the legislation to regulate land uses contributing to nonpoint
source contamination. The focus on wellhead protection also requires land use control at the local level.
Countering this trend are the barriers to increased local participation: inadequate financial and technical
resources at the local level, occasional reluctance of state officials to delegate their authority over regulated
facilities, and the local governments' perception that the state cannot back them up in their groundwater
protection efforts (such as by providing authority to collect and retain permit fees).
84
-------
States delegate various groundwater,
protection responsibilities to a variety of local government
entities: municipal and county general-Duron^, ,
P rpose governments, municipal and county health departments
and/or water supply companies, special districts and to * i««,„ ,
ts, ana, to a lesser degree, regional planning agencies and
public safety agencies. Frequently delegated programs include:
o underground storage tanks (pennimng, ingoing, and certifying closure);
o septic tank regulation;
zoning and special-use permit
o
o
wellhead protection (implementation through local
requirements);
initial emergency response (immediate measures taken to protect public health);
regulating the public water supply and water supply planning until there is an allocation
problem or an mterbasin trancfv»r —-
problem or an interbasin transfer request.
A state may mandate a local activity enter intn a
y'enter mt0 a fomial contract or memorandum of agreement or
understanding with the local government, or simplv reach „
p y eacn case-by-case agreements without ever
fonnalizing them. We found few such nf ..... .
" responsibility included in state oversight provisions.
Rather, the states tended to retain control by sharing rather ^
y na ng, rather than delegating, the responsibility. Most
delegation occurred where special dMcs were established to pro.ee, ground rcsources ^ where
state legislation specifies procedures for delegating program respond B tocal govemraent,
In some states, local governments may share RCRA mnnit™™ f
momtonng and enforcement authonty with the
state and may enact local hazardous materials ordinances Outare more string® ^ Mte standanis. ta
another state, a special district has volunteered to co-monitor a RCRA facility with die staK. Abandoned
sites programs remain with the state because they require resources far beyond local capacities.
A numberof state officials expressed concmis about d.l^Hnp some
believed that local government is "too close" to the business community to be able to withstand the
political pressures of certain regulatory issues (the "not in my backyard" syndrome on siting issues on the
one hand, and reluctance to alienate a major local employer who is a polluter on the other), and did not
85
-------
have adequate resources or, in some cases, willingness to take on these added responsibilities. These
concerns have kept regulated facilities programs from being delegated totally to local government, although
inspection responsibilities increasingly are being shared. Local officials who were interviewed felt th
they were more diligent than the state in their oversight (both monitoring and enforcement) of regulate
facilities, and, in fact, oversight was the purpose of local involvement. Some state officials also expressed
concern about the varying degrees of staff capability found in local governments.
We did not find tiny state that mandates local groundwater protection bevond delegated
responsibilities. However, Washington and Florida require local governments to address water supply
quantity and quality issues in their comprehensive plans. Florida requires submission of local planning
documents to the state for approval. Massachusetts requires its local governments to set up a conservation
commission to protect wetlands and "regulates" local groundwater programs by (1) making some state
grants to localities contingent on approved local groundwater management plans, and (2) linking eligibility
requirements across programs. Two states have, but have not yet used, authority to step in and override
local programs if the localities are not addressing an existing water problem. All states enforce the Safe
Drinking Water Act regulations governing public water supply companies.
Most states p;enerallv allow individual local governments to choose some of their groundwater and
other environmental protection responsibilities. New Jersey formalizes that choice through its County
Environmental Health Act (CEHA), which establishes a process whereby counties select (from a limited
group of activities) the environmental program responsibilities they want to assume, and the state certifies
those choices.
In one state, local governments neither have nor appear to want a role in groundwater protection. The
state's written strategy mentions the potential role for local government in wellhead protection, but
discussions with state and local officials found no effort to involve local governments in any groundwater
program. Several factors help explain this situation: the state has plentiful groundwater from deep aquifers
86
-------
with distant recharge areas, relatively weak local governments, and a badly stressed fiscal m
addition, the state supreme court rnled that local governments cannot intercede in regulatory programs
which arc not delegated by the state legislature.
A number of states have established snecial-niimn^ districts with ¦nramdwater-rela.-H
responsibilities. (This is discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.)
Some states encourage local government involvement in „ate groundwater planning,
require local groundwater planning. Massachusetts encourages local involvement in resource planning,
which includes groundwater planning. Water supply planting in Massachusetts is an interactive process
whereby river basin plans are developed in conjunction with local officials. The Florida legislature
requires local governments to prepare comprehensive devetopment ptas mat incIude , WMer componen[
Ms component of the plan is reviewed by the state's groundwater protection office. In Washington, fear
of localized shortages and a prior allocation system modified to allow regulator reserves of future public
supplies combine to make competition for public water supplies a powerful incenUve for grotindwater
planning.
State Support for Local Government ParHripa»t,»n
DesDite the existence of some st^np lnmi •, - ,
¦ ~ ,h" ¦" ---1 cases incal any^n,
cannot act to protect groundwater withn,,, bactinff ^ ^ ^ Most local governments lack the
incentive or expertise to take on most groundwater protection responsibilities. Sufficient resources to
finance protection activities and regulatory backing from the state ^ needed „ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
eight states examined want to increase local government participation in groundwater management
programs and are attempting to address the need to provide financial and regulatory backing.
Technical assistance. Petsonnel in a number of sta,,-, inn,.,.., .,.t ^ ,
technical assistance and training at the local government level. All but one of the states supported local
groundwater programs with some kind of technical assistance, which may include model ordinances, funds
87
-------
. rcspQnscs froin consultants*
to hire consultants, and assistance in developing proposals and review
Most states also provided minor forms of technical assistance, such as respond' g Q
• - wai;rip
-------
workshop/training sessions for local Board of Health
alth members on subsurface disposal. One of the state
watershed agenc.es he,d periodic -open houses" for Boatd of Health ra=mbere t0 make prcsenIations on
copies about which the agency wanted to provide Intan-ta, (,g„ septic system maintenance issues).
Written technical assistance materials such as model bylaws and ordinances were available from a number
of sources, including regional planning agencies, in manuals produced by the Executive Office of
Communities and Development, and publications available from the Massachusetts Audubon Society.
While this represents duration of effort, itmay prom0K „f such „
Resources. Some states require state ftmding, or provision of a means of funding, to finance new
state-mandated activities, thereby limiting delegation • ¦
pportumties in these states. However, most states
find *e car., is more effective man the stick. Pennsylvania provides per capita grants to counties that
contract to assume specined tespo.ibil.tie, Massachusetts has an airland acquisition grant that
provides htnds to .ocal goveroments ,0 purchase ,and ta se.itive areas. To be eiigible for these grants,
however, the locality first lias to define the nrim^
ary recharge area for the aquifer supplying the public wells,
and pass groundwater protection ordinances Waehw
ra nances. Washmgton pnwdes local grants for pilot wellhead
protection programs and provides funds from "sin taxes- ,
grants to upgrade solid waste facilities.
States can also help generate resource i
or local groundwater protection by providing local authority
to raise resources for the puipose. Several states orovide t^;™
g power or other revenue sources to special
districts. Washington allows general purpose local .
P ipose local governments to tax themselves to support groundwater
activities, and Spokane lias done this.
Demonstration Projects. A number of static have nrnviH . ,
support to local flnvernments through
demonstration programs and projects to hnjlddjeirca^,,» ^ ^
A„ eXamp'e iS"* CapC C0d A(!uifer Management Project in Massachusetts. The state, USGS, and
EPA Region I worked with a regional planning entity and several local govetnmems in me Cape Cod area
to focus on ways of minimizing risk to mat region's sole source aquifer. They did this by developing a GIS
89
-------
system and identifying and analyzing risks and proposing recommendations to reallocate personnel and
financial resources. The regional planning agency kept and now uses the system that was developed, thus
demonstrating the capabilities of GIS systems for local and regional planning and priority setting (as
discussed in Chapter 1) and strengthening these capabilities in the Cape Cod area.
New Jersey also has funded some local demonstration projects related to groundwater protection that
were intended to be used as models by other local governments in the state. One of these is focused on
methods of aquifer protection and may lead to development of a model land-use ordinance or a manual for
implementing aquifer protection activities at the local level.
Information sharing. Although sharing information with local governments would help support local
groundwater protection activities, we found that state governments generally did not do a good job of
providing information to local governments. Local governments that do not share groundwater program
responsibilities with the state may not even be notified of a problem in their jurisdiction unless the state
considers it a public health problem.
Local government notification is frequently a "hit or miss" operation, although state officials
generally comply with legal requirements governing notification of parties around a Superfund site, and
public notices and hearings that are part of permit processes. Public safety agencies are usually notified
about problems with underground storage tanks. Notification is least common in the RCRA program, and
there appears to be some reluctance to stir up a predicable opposition to hazardous waste facilities. Some
states have been making varying degrees of effort to inform local governments. Massachusetts has a broad
and consistent policy of notifying local governments on all state environmental activities, and Pennsylvania
forwards copies of all orders and permits to local governments. Florida is initiating a data-sharing program
with counties to disseminate information from its ambient monitoring network for use in local land-use
decisionmaking. The state will distribute software as part of this program.
90
-------
Some states are moving in the direction of providing more information to local governments.
Louisiana began to provide its parish (county) governments with a copy of enforcement orders when a new
Secretary was appointed. New Jersey feels its proposed case management system will, when implemented,
result in more consistent notification to local governments than currently occurs. New Jersey also has a
centralized Office of Local Environmental Management that is intended to act as a "middleman" between
program staff and local personnel for all environmental programs. This office also manages the CEHA
activities. Another state reported that it works with the special districts and on a case-by-case basis with
cities and counties, but the special district staff said they do not receive notification. Involved local
governments often complained about slack notification procedures for state programs.
Local Entities with Groundwater Responsibilities
General Purpose Local Governments. The more activist local governments build groundwater
protection programs on local land use and zoning powers and special- use permit requirements, an
approach that is expected to gain importance with the growing emphasis on wellhead protection programs.
Uniformly, state wellhead protection plans cite the importance of encouraging local governments to
use their land-use control powers to protect wellhead areas. More stringent local zoning controls are
generally opposed by developers, but three states are helping their local governments address the issue.
Pennsylvania has just revised its municipal planning code. Prominent among the changes are provisions
for local water supply plans and zoning to protect current and future water supplies. Massachusetts has
enacted a program to help the local governments delineate their wellhead areas and purchase land to
prevent development. Washington is providing grants for pilot wellhead protection programs and requires
its environmental quality department to give local governments technical assistance so that they can include
water issues in the land-use components of the local comprehensive plans.
Wellhead protection is a new program, but it is already clear that an effective program will require
support from the state for local land-use and zoning decisions, and particularly for extraterritorial planning
91
-------
jurisdiction. New Mexico specifically gives its cities five-mile extraterritorial planning jurisdiction, which
is helpful in protecting its wellhead areas (although these powers predate the wellhead protection program
and are not specific to groundwater or environmental protection). Another state, however, has identified
the absence of extraterritorial powers as a gap in local regulatory authority. In Florida, several large urban
counties such as Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach have initiated major local wellhead protection programs,
with the state's blessing.
Health Departments and Water Departments. Health departments (which may be staffed by state or
local employees, depending on the state) and/or water supply departments (often operated by general
purpose governments) arc concerned with groundwater quality as it affects the public water supply. They
must comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Several state and local staff members made the point that
persons responsible for the public water supply are concerned with the quality of the water that comes out
of the tap rather than the quality of water that comes out of the ground, but the two are clearly related.
Some health departments have taken on broader roles; for example, assisting the state with
monitoring and inspecting regulated facilities and providing initial response to incidents. New Jersey gives
its local health departments a choice of the program responsibilities they want to be delegated. In
Pennsylvania, the county may choose to have a health department (although few have done so), and the
health department may choose to share groundwater protection responsibilities with the state; otherwise,
the state implements local groundwater protection programs through its regional offices.
Health departments are potentially powerful forces for groundwater protection when public health is
an issue. In one state there arc strict procedural standards for passage of local laws, especially land-use
controls, but the Board of Health must comply only with public notice requirements when it adopts an
ordinance to protect the public health. However, state groundwater personnel in ore state expressed the
concern that local public health personnel are "spread too thin" because of a wide range of responsibilities
(e.g., restaurant inspections) to take on many groundwater protection responsibilities. In some states, local
92
-------
health department staff are state employees. This suggests that the state can play a stronger role in
expanding the responsibilities and staff of these departments than in states where health department staff
are local employees.
Public Safety Agencies. Public safety agencies have sometimes been involved in implementation of
the underground storage tanks program because of their traditional responsibilities for activities involving
potential for fire and explosions. In one state program, any city large enough to have its own fire marshal
implements the UST program in its jurisdiction. In other cities, the state provides copies of all
underground storage tank permits to the local fire chief. Fire chiefs may attend state-initiated inspections
when they know about them, but there is no procedure requiring notification.
Special Districts. Five of the eight case study states, Florida, Lquisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska,
and Washington, have established special-purpose public entities to protect water supplies in areas where
there is a particular problem or resource that needs protection. Again, diversity is the rule. Louisiana has
just one district, which has chosen to act only in an advisory role. Nebraska has two types of special
districts-a statewide system of resource districts with groundwater management capacity, which also have
taxing authority, and special protection districts for areas with problems of nonpoint source contamination.
Both have greater authority than the state to protect water and can regulate cities and counties in matters
covered by their groundwater management plan (for example, spreading sewage sludge). In Nebraska and
Washington, the special districts designated in problem areas are the heart of the state groundwater
management effort. In both, the local governments must apply to the state for designation-but once
designated, they have the authority and responsibility to develop groundwater management and protection
programs.
Four states have delegated regulatory authority to the districts, but one has not used it. In
Massachusetts, the special districts have standing at hearings, but their authority is only advisory. Florida's
93
-------
water management districts were established primarily to regulate surface water quantity concerns but have
been increasingly concerned with quality issues. In Florida, this inevitably involves groundwater.
In all but one state, the special districts follow natural boundaries (river basins or aquifers) rather than
political ones and arc therefore better equipped to regulate nonpoint sources in sensitive areas.
Computerization of property tax roles facilitates operating with unique boundaries for those resource-based
districts with taxing powers.
Two of the five states, Nebraska and Florida, allow the special districts to raise funds by imposing ad
valorem taxes on property within the districts; a third, Louisiana, allows the district to charge large,
nonagricultural users a small pumpage fee. The other two rely on state grants and/or allocations from local
general-purpose governments.
Other Local Public Entities. Regional planning agencies, including councils of governments, can
become involved in groundwater issues. These entities may provide grants and technical assistance to their
members and prepare water plans for hydrogeologic subareas. Their powers are limited to planning and
advisory roles. Where there are no special districts, the regional planning agencies have been the lead
agencies for regional efforts. In some rural areas, municipal and county governments may not have the
capacity for dealing with groundwater problems, although the problems may be significant or have regional
impact (e.g., agricultural chemicals, landfills, federal facilities, and industrial disposal). In .Massachusetts,
regional planning agencies have had substantial involvement in groundwater protection. The state is
further encouraging regional efforts by providing modest groundwater grants to regional planning agencies
and conservation districts.
Localities' Own Groundwater Protection Activities
Unless there is a water problem that creates political pressure on local government, groundwater
protection seems to be a low priority.
Four factors were found in areas with strong local programs:
94
-------
o A triggering event acts as an incentive,
o The local government has a strong tax base.
o The state provides regulatory reinforcement and/or enabling legislation,
o The local area depends on groundwater.
We found that a crisis or triggering event, such as a contamination problem in the community or a
neighboring one, or the averting of a potential disaster, makes the community aware of its vulnerability.
Where such events have occurred, the local groundwater program is likely to be stronger than that of the
state. Local governments also have taken on activist roles in cases where they believed the state was not
providing adequate protection.
The fiscal resources available to the individual local government are the second key factor in
detennining the extern oflocal aoivities. Officials in ,11 eight states noted the varying capacities of their
local governments to take on any groundwater respomibffltie, Eve„ ^ ^ ^ ^
the technicai expertise they need, but those with sufficient ta-ds can hire consults. In a twist, one state,
strongly motivated urta county g^nts were able to hire substantial staffs and pay tan more man
state government personnel of similar ability.
In effect, the activist local government • ...
governments customize the state groundwater program, reinforcing and
extending it where the resource is threatened
• States recognize this customizing and generally appear to
have encouraged local activism in high-risk areas, working ^ local govemmeM ^ ^
special districts for groundwater management. Strong, comprehensive groundwater management programs
were found in at least some local governments in all but on? nf n,- fc,
Dut one of ^ case study states, and in that state local
government was prohibited from establishing permitting reauin»mPnfc ,h«
6 5 ^ ung requirements that were more stringent than state
standards. What local governments can do is illustrated by the following „amri...
o In Erie County is among the few local governments that have chosen to have a
oubHcheal'thoCT T1,ake " rinMmeraal "P-MM" in addWoZbLfe
public health programs. By doing so, the county functions as an extension of the state
95
-------
environmental department, thus enabling greater implementation of state environmental
protection within the county than would otherwise be possible. Erie County does almost all
compliance and monitoring for water quality in the county; reviews but does not issue permits;
coordinates on enforcement with the state's regional office; does emergency response; and has
cooperative research projects with the USGS. The county also enacts and enforces its own
regulations when it feels state regulations are inadequate to the local situation. For example,
well drilling and closure standards, which the state does not have, are under consideration by
the county.
Albuquerque, New Mexico is in the process of developing its own groundwater protection
strategy with help from a consultant and input from a policy coordinating committee
representing the involved city departments and a city-county advisory committee representing
citizens, business, local government, and universities. This local strategy will; define the
resource; identify and evaluate threats; evaluate the adequacy of existing regulatory programs;
and develop a comprehensive action plan for groundwater protection, including a plan for
hazardous materials and waste storage that goes beyond the state's administration of RCRA.
The impetus for this effort was local controversy over siting a hazardous waste storage facility
and closures.
Ocean County, New Jersey has its own more stringent version of the state "clean closure" law.
In Ocean County, a home with a private well cannot be sold or occupied without first testing
the water to ensure quality. The county also has its own ambient monitoring system, and is
developing a GIS system. It includes groundwater protection in its comprehensive plan.
In Florida, Broward, Dade, and Palm Beach counties have established wellfield protection
programs in which land use and/or activities are regulated in the vicinity of public water wells
to protect the aquifer supplying the water from contamination. Dade County has enacted a
local ordinance extending UST regulations to all tanks, not just the larger ones covered under
state law. It also has authorized immediate clean-up of leaking tanks, rather than waiting for
state processing. Similarly, Broward County regulated hazardous materials as well as the
hazardous waste regulated by state law.
In Massachusetts, the Town of Littleton's Water Department has taken on the monitoring and
enforcement responsibility for wellhead protection since 1981. The town enacted local bylaws
that year to restrict land uses in wellhead areas, to regulate the handling of hazardous materials
and underground storage tanks and to provide public "right-to-know" regarding hazardous
materials. For the wellhead program, local bylaws divided the town into Zone II aquifer
overlays, Zone III water resource districts, and unrestricted areas where normal zoning takes
precedence. The local bylaws exclude new high-risk activities from Zone II and hazardous
materials from Zone III. Risk assessment guides other land-use decisions in Zones II and III.
The city of Ronton, Washington established its own three-phase wellhead protection program
that included public information, technical studies, and ordinance development. Phase I
included identification of hydrogeologic characteristics and contaminant migration pathways,
an inventory of contaminant sources, development of preventative measures, and public
outreach. In phase II, the city delineated its aquifer protection area. Phase III incorporated
several of the phase I protective measures into two ordinances-one regulating storage,
handling, use, and protection of substances and limiting land uses within the aquifer protection
96
-------
area; the other requiring more intensive monitoring to more stringent standards, plus secondary
containment of underground storage facilities within an aquifer protection area.
o The Central Platte Natural Resource District (NRD) in Nebraska covers 2 million acres of
productive farm land. The NRD has developed a plan for groundwater protection focused on
regulating the application of nitrogen fertilizer, which the state does not regulate. Phase I of
the plan includes public education and demonstration projects encouraging farmers to (1)
consider the nitrogen already in groundwater used for irrigation when computing fertilizer
application needs and (2) fertilize only when crops are present to take up the nitrogen. The
voluntary phase I program is backed up by phase II and III regulations that are triggered by
groundwater nitrogen levels. In phase II, the NRD can (1) require soil and water testing to
determine existing nitrogen levels and (2) regulate times for fertilizer application. In phase III,
it can require education for fertilizer users, restrict applications further, and restrict irrigated
acreage. The NRD plan also covers quantity concerns and may restrict irrigated acreage if the
water tabic falls below specified levels.
I,ncal Governments as the Regulated Community
Through their solid waste, pest control.and wastewater services, cities are capable of contaminating
prnnndwater and therefore are members of the regulated community. In this role, they typically oppose
more stringent regulations that will impose extra costs on their operations and look to the state agencies for
financial and technical assistance in dealing with problems. State programs prefer technical assistance as
their enforcement mechanism. Because of limited financial resources, the smaller cities and counties may
be among the worst offenders in solid waste management, but most are anxious to get out of the business,
and the trend is toward regional solid waste facilities. Washington is providing funds from "sin taxes" for
local grants to upgrade solid waste facilities.
porommendations
1, States should provide local governments some choice in taking responsibility whenever practical. It
is important to retain enough flexibility in delegating responsibilities to local governments to
accommodate different local situations. For example, local governments that have the capability,
willingness, and local legislation to undertake specific categories of inspections, and even
enforcement, should be encouraged to undertake these responsibilities. When states do delegate
protection responsibilities, they should include provisions for state oversight to insure that
implementation meets state requirements.
2 States should ensure that enabling legislation is in place to support local groundwater protection
activities. For example, if the state wants local zoning to provide wellhead protection capable of
withstanding legal challenges from landowners, the state needs to have legislation enabling or
97
-------
requiring localities to include a water supply component in their comprehensive plans or land use
regulations. Extra-territorial powers should be considered. Even then, local governments might face
political barriers and conflicts with development goals, and so state oversight is needed.
3. States should strengthen local capacity to address groundwater protection issues. They should
provide funding or fundraising authority, such as through permit fees, to hire staff and cover costs.
They also should provide information, technical assistance, and training. In rural areas, or where
there is extremely limited local government capacity, or in areas in which the major protection issues
affect multiple political jurisdictions, regional approaches should be encouraged through creation of
special districts or by broadening the powers or duties of the existing regional planning agencies.
4. States should provide more technical assistance and training to local governments. States might
consider using demonstration projects involving one or two communities to develop such things as
model bylaws or model programs that can be distributed to other local governments in the state, as
was done in New Jersey.
5. States might consider providing "circuit riders" with various kinds of technical expertise to provide
technical assistance to local governments.
98
-------
Chapter 6: EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS
Principal Findings
Most states do not provide much in the way of education or outreach, and devote few resources to it
(other than required public hearings). However, most recognize this as a weakness and believe they should
do more. We also found a few states that were providing broad or imaginative public outreach programs.
Printed materials such as brochures and newsletters make up the bulk of general efforts. Waste
recycling and/or household hazardous waste disposal programs are also common efforts that incorporate
educational outreach with waste reduction activities. Some states are developing school curriculum on
environmental issues, including groundwater protection.
Few states provide education or training to the regulated community (e.g., business and industry)
and/or to farmers. Most states do not provide many opportunities for public input or participation.
Reaching the General Public
Public support is widely recognized as a key part of groundwater protection efforts because citizens,
businesses, and institutions must change their behavior for protection goals to be achieved. An informed
citizenry is also more likely to provide support for state groundwater protection efforts. Some of the states
examined believed that they had an aware and motivated public constituency, and saw this as a strength in
their groundwater protection programs.
Mnst state groundwater agencies are lust beginning to get involved in outreach aimed at the general
public. However, few resources are devoted to public education. States were not expending much effort to
convey to the public that groundwater can be contaminated and, once contaminated, is extremely difficult
and expensive to clean up, and that they themselves can help alleviate problems. The regulatory agencies
place public education below monitoring and enforcement as a priority. Public education gets whatever
resources are left over to support it Too often, only press releases, speeches, and the occasional problem
that hits the news comprise the information that reaches the public. As a result, public concern ebbs and
99
-------
flows according to perception of problems, and it focuses on the highest profile problem—e.g., Superfund
sites.
Some states noted that it was difficult to provide resources for education or outreach efforts, although
groundwater-related programs in some states did provide support for one or more outreach positions. In
Louisiana, the hazardous waste agency operated an environmental hotline on a toll-free telephone number,
and had radio and television advertising to draw attention to the service. However, this program was
discontinued after three years due to fiscal constraints. The state was able to provide a 24-hour industrial
alert answering service in its place, although citizen calls were not encouraged due to the changed focus of
the service.
The most common outreach effort focused on solid waste disposal efforts—source separation and
recycling—and "amnesty day" programs for hazardous household waste disposal.
Most state groundwater programs print brochures and/or distribute EPA brochures, but we found no
effort to broadly distribute them. Brochures are displayed in offices for visitors to pick up and,
presumably, are made available when someone addresses a group. There are a growing number of
newsletters, which seem to be the preferred public outreach tool. Most states will also provide speakers to
address meetings.
Some states sponsor occasional public education campaigns addressing a specific threat For
example, Louisiana has run public service television and radio spots about abandoned wells and
underground storage tanks.
Some states use participation in advisory committees as an indirect form of education. The general
public is reached indirectly through community leaders who serve on blue ribbon panels, committees, and
task forces. This approach was a priority in Louisiana, and similar efforts have been employed in other
states. New Jersey uses task forces that include representatives of various interested or affected groups
(industry, environmentalists, farmers) to comment on proposed regulations, strategies, etc. This process
100
-------
provides feedback tot enables be stale to clarify language or make changes. The process also-.m~ the
state to infonn the affected groups about why or how their decisions were reached, thus building support
for groundwater protection activities. Pennsylvania had established a networic of regional citizens'
roundtables, which send representatives to a state citizens' advisory council. This councU has a small staff
and each year chooses the issues it wishes to address. Its reports are given wide circulation and have high
visibility in the legislature.- Massachusetts employs a public outreach specialist to encourage the formation
of local aquifer protection advisor committees. In Washington, a I9?7 law passed as a voter initiative
increased requirements for public participation.
Programs for Schools
A number of states are sponsoring the development of nuhlir gintailnm on
issues, including groundwater In Nebraska, the Natural Resources Commission is woriting with the Soil
and Conservation Sen-ice on curriculum aids for soil and water science programs for kindergarten through
twelfth grade. plus supping woricshops for teactas. In Petmsyivania. there is a join, effort with the state
Deparunent of Education to develop an environmental curfculum for the pub>ic schools and train teaches.
11,6 0UBr """• — Nation * necessary, primarily with children in
elementary and secondary schools, but internal . .
out internal differences over pnorities in developing curriculum
materials appear to have slowed development of groundwater education materials.
Programs for the "Regulated Community"
We found few explicit efforts bv states m pmviH. ~j1iritinn „ ., . .
" n ^ training to regulated industries to
encourage best management and technological nr^. nn,,„H„
RjnnenL One targeted approach that is relatively rarely used involves using the established
information network of the Agricultural Extension Service to reach fatmen, and rural area residents with
information about recommended practices for pesticide and fertilizer use and well regulations. 11k
extension service has no rcgulatoiy role, and enjoys ready access to the farm community.
101
-------
A Massachusetts pesticide program has allocated about $300,000 a year to the extension service to
finance public education about integrated pest management programs, a less pesticide-dependent approach.
The state also uses the extension service's mailing list of interested people and farmers registered by crop
to send information on pesticide use and regulations. Pennsylvania has co-funded with the Soil and
Conservation Service a full-time equivalent employee to develop materials for display at the state fair and
other handouts. The state also uses the agricultural extension service to distribute pest management
material.
Business and industry. Some states provide education and technical assistance to the regulated
community. The Massachusetts Office of Safe Waste Management has a source reduction program
targeted toward generators of hazardous waste. This program provides both individualized and "general"
assistance to industry. Program staff go to a facility, evaluate production processes, and make
recommendations for reducing hazardous waste. Emphasis is placed on cost reduction aspects of waste
reduction. Approximately 40-50 such visits have been made in the last two years. Different industries are
targeted for assistance each year, based on the quantity of waste associated with the industry, the size of the
industry in the state, and the opportunities for reducing waste in that industry. In recent years, targeted
industries have been jewelry platers and laboratories. The program also sponsors conferences and
workshops for waste generators.
In Florida, Dade County (not the state government) has developed and disseminated "Best
Management Procedures" statements for a variety of at-risk industries, including photo processing
facilities, junk yards, machine shops, crop packing facilities, agricultural facilities, and paint manufacturers
and distributors.
Examples of Innovative State Programs
We found examples of a number of broad or imaginative public outreach programs in a few states.
New Mexico's "water fair!?' illustrate what can be achieved with a limited budget in an outreach program
102
-------
that also produces useful water quality data. The state brings a groundwater model, gives talks, and offers
free testing of water samples that citizens bring from their wells. The testing is a big draw. The Las Lunas
Water Fair, held a week before The Urban Institute site visit, revealed 150 new polluted wells.
Nebraska emphasizes public education in several programs:
o The state Conservation and Survey Division (the state geologic survey) has public education
as one of its mandates. The division puts on programs for any identified need-from the
legislature to a group of third-graders-and provides materials for distribution by the
Agricultural Extension Service. It also runs a booth at the state fair.
o The natural resource districts emphasize public education and outreach; there is extensive
overlap between their regulated community and the general public, and they regulate by
educating. They educate farmers to use less fertilizer by running demonstration projects co-
sponsored by fertilizer dealers and crop consultants.
o The private Groundwater Foundation provides information to the public. Its activities include
a newsletter, a journal, banquets, conferences, and a program for school children. Its goal is
to promote the idea of stewardship to the broadest possible audience, with an emphasis on
educating school children, and to communicate the complexity of groundwater protection.
State agencies support the foundation by contributing staff time to the foundation's public
outreach activities.
In Massachusetts, the strong local governments and tradition of direct rather than representative
democracy make public education and involvement crucial to groundwater protection because (1)
groundwater protection requires regulatory action at the local level, and (2) the local bylaws enabling
needed regulations must be adopted at town meetings. Outreach programs get the public involved in the
protection effort. The first public education and involvement programs (Adopt-a-Stream, Riverways,
watershed associations, conservation committees) shared an initial focus on surface water, as did the state
water supply protection efforts. Increased knowledge of the hydrogeologic and legal situation made state
efforts more concerned wilh groundwater, and public education is following. Some of the early outreach
models will not translate directly to groundwater, but their basic premise does. For example, citizen
monitoring of stream quality (for color, clarity, foaming, and number and types of insects) is a low-
technology effort, but it is effective for indicating problems in surface water and, potentially, in
103
-------
groundwater. Although citizen groups lack the technical expertise needed to monitor groundwater, they
can inventory, and are inventorying, land uses in recharge areas.
Massachusetts also has a program to promote and work with regional Safe Waste Management
Coalitions to provide technical assistance and promote general public awareness. The state encourages
formation of the coalitions, which generally include regional planning agencies and must include
representatives of industry and environmental groups, by providing them with modest grants and staff
assistance for production of educational or assistance materials or activities. Coalitions can target areas of
regional concern within the framework of eligible activities the state defined in its RFP.
Recommendations
1. The states should have an explicit public education program. The program might include the
following:
o Providing up-to-date, informative, and attractive pamphlets, brochures, etc., on what
citizens can do to reduce pollution and protect their groundwater—combined with
procedures for disseminating these items to relevant parties throughout the state.
o Assigning someone to work with the media.
o Encouraging state universities to undertake more environmental education training and
outreach.
o Sponsoring faculty training and curriculum development for environmental education
in elementary and secondary schools.
2. States should provide considerably more technical assistance and information to business and
industry. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." A targeted approach tailored to
concerns of specific industries, similar to that used in Massachusetts, should be considered.
The assistance and information should emphasize best management/best technical practices
relating to particular industries, such as those produced by Dade County, Florida.
3. State programs should develop an informed leadership for targeted public education. This
could include the following:
o A broad-based advisory group involved throughout the process,
o Broad dissemination of the draft proposals to concerned groups as well as citizens.
4. State groundwater agencies should work with the Agricultural Extension Service to reach
fanners and rural residents.
104
-------
5. States should tap state higher education institutions to help develop the educational materials
and curricula identified above--for households, schools, and specific institutes.
6. EPA should provide model training and educational materials that state and local
governments or other interested groups can adopt or adapt for their own use.
7. EPA should consider providing a central repository, a list of publications, and ready access by
state officials, local officials, and local community groups to its technical assistance and
training materials. Improving the accessibility of materials to the state and local levels will
enhance the entire protection effort.
105
-------
Chapter 7: RESOURCES
Principal Findings
We found that all states visited lacked sufficient resources to fully implement all groundwater
protection responsibilities assigned to them.
Lack of resources is a major contributor to another serious problem, the perceived high turnover in
groundwater-relatcd staff. Many states find it difficult to compete with salaries offered by the private
sector, or even local governments, in some cases. Lack of a competitive pay scale makes it difficult to
attract and maintain professional-level staff.
Few states are currently able to fully support their activities out of fees, although most would like to
do so, and at least one is moving in that direction.
Funding
All of the states visited indicated that funds available to them did not match the responsibilities thev
were being asked to fulfill. The problem varied in degree among the states, but all of them felt the need for
additional funds.
A number of funding sources are used by the states to support groundwater activities. Among these
are federal funds (i.e., EPA grants and USGS fund sharing); state general revenues; special taxes levied on
potential polluters (e.g., petroleum transporters and transporters of hazardous materials); fees, fines, and
other penalties; bonds; and local taxes. Not all of these are used to the same degree. Choices among the
various sources are influenced by a variety of factors, including: the state's affluence; the interest of the
governor and/or the legislature in environmental matters; the influence of the regulated community; and the
106
-------
concerns of the general public. A variety of approaches is used to fund groundwater protection, as
described below.
One state has decided to reduce its dependence on federal funds and rely to a greater extent on state
revenues to support its groundwater activities. Although fees are also used, groundwater program directors
m this state are wary about becoming too dependent on fees because the legislature might be inclined to
reduce other appropriations. The willingness of this state to invest its own funds in groundwater protection
arises from the following four conditions:
o The interest of the governor in environmental matters,
o The closure of several wells serving populous areas because of contamination,
o The relatively sound fiscal condition of the state.
0 addWOnal reS0UICK by *»* with new
satisfy all new reauirements"ThS' sufficient in the opinion of managers, to
States vary in their ability to fund groundwaKr protection activities. One state was so lacking in
resources that, in the opinion of one manager the emunHw^, „
* ' me groundwater program was in a "crisis mode." Spending
per person dependent on groundwater was one-fifth that nf a •
mat or a neighboring state (which had recently begun
building up its groundwater program)-. In its RCRA nm^ tu-
11U,KCKA Program, this state has had to return funds to EPA
because it could not raise the state share of matching funds DesmWc • •
® respite its recent resource limitations, this
state has a long tradition of providing state funds to suDDort he . . . T ,
ppon its groundwater protection activities. It also
uses fees to support groundwater programs. For example, its unlergnund storage ^ p[Dgram „ ^
completely by fees, and i.s underground injecdon control program ls panial|y ^ „y fees
In another state where the fiscal situation is also serious, the balance of existing environmental Bust
funds was "borrowed" by the state, rendering the fimds inactive. Groundwater pragrams in that state are
primarily supported by federal funds and fees and are considered to be underfunded and understaffed.
107
-------
Recently, increased fees have permitted some increase in staffing, but because the fees revert to the state or
to me department, they arc no, necessary reamed in full ® »e ^
_ . fff!ime Fees have become, for this state, a
One state has moved in me direction of fee-supported programs.
ah nermit programs are fee-supported, and an effort is
more regular source of funds than the legislature. All pe
being made to ma* the fees sufflcient to support no. on* me preparadon of me petmits. but also me
follow-up enforcement and monitoring.
importance on fees to support their groundwater programs.
Although some states place considerable imporuu
undine for the most part on federal and state funds,
one state purposely generates little fee revenue, dependmg
. , msnonsibilities and mandated activities seem to be growing
Perhaps partially as a result of this dependen , P°
_ „f —atonal organization, which has a revenue base in
faster than funding. This state has a unique type of regional organi
property taxes. However, iocai property taxes are not a go* funding source for ——- P-g-s.
The su„= recently mandated some activities in which U* regnal organizations wouid be involved but
r Rprause of scarce resources, two of the regional
allocated no money to them for implementation. Because 01
organizations have merged, and more such mergers are expected in th
, i „ rv>tt»ntial Dolluters to help support groundwater
Some states have employed special taxes potential po
, . . . nrnducts and uses "sin taxes" to finance the state share
protection. Washington has imposed a tax on toxic products
-------
hazardous waste transporters. State funds and fees are used to finance other activities. Although their goal
is to set the fees high enough to support the program fully, achievement of that goal has proved to be
difficult.
Finally, in one state where funds have not been available to support the groundwater protection
program adequately, a number of more affluent counties have instituted local programs, using local funds,
to supplement the state's program. In this state there also are regional water management districts that
possess taxing authority and are therefore able to operate at a level where funds do not unduly constrain
them. These regional organizations, however, focus primarily on water cjuantity, not Quality, issues.
Staffing
Staffing is, of course, directly related to funding. Staffing pmhleim are common most states.
in some cases, insufficient fijnding precludes the hiring of personnel .n n»rfom the tasks
mandated by the legislature. Massachusetts and New Mexico were under state hiring freezes during our
field trips, in other cases, regardless of whether funds are available, legislative personnel ceilings limit the
number of personnel that can be hired. For political reasons tore is a general reluctance to increase the
number of state employees, even in the absence of legal ceilings. For some of the above reasons, one of the
states examined has resorted to hiring people as consultants rather than staff.
Most states indicated that staffs wm ,00 .mail ,0 ¦- ,ha, [hrfr |mri|^
This was frequently noted with respect to monitoring and/or enforcement. Only in rare instances and in
particular programs was the level of staffing not considered a problem. In some cases, adequacy of staffing
may vary in different programs based on the source of support for the program. For-vs-pi. a program
tot is fully or almost fully fee supported, or one supported by special bond revenues, may be adequately
staffed, while other programs in the same state may not be.
An associated problem was salary stmcture. All of the states indicated that civil service salaries for
technical people were not competitive with those available elsewhere. One state manager estimated that
109
-------
state salaries were 25 percent lower than.EPA's and 50 percent lower than private sector salaries
comparable skills. This was particularly problematic in urban areas of the state. One state required that all
new hires start at the entrance level.
The result is that virtually all states experienced very high turnover rates. Consequently, at any one
time much of the staff was very new and inexperienced. To a considerable degree, the state offices served
as a training station for jobs with business or the federal government. Young people entered the service,
stayed long enough to gain some experience, and then left for higher—sometimes much higher salaries in
the private sector. In one state, even county salaries were high enough to lure people away from the state.
Despite the low salaries offered, we found many highly qualified, creative and dedicated staff
working in groundwater agencies in the states visited.
Recommendations
1. States should consider increasing permit fees to cover not only permit preparation but also the
subsequent costs of monitoring and enforcement (including compliance inspections). 1S
conceptually justified, if necessary, in that the cost of protecting the state s groun waters so e
borne by those most likely to contaminate them.
2. States that have not already done so should consider developing trust funds for various groundwater
related activities supported by, among other sources, taxes on potential polluters, fees, fines, and
supplementing state revenues.
3. States should investigate and/or accelerate the delegation of responsibilities to localities which have
appropriate ordinances, desire, and capability to accept them. This can save state funds, even if cost
sharing is involved. Where such delegation occurs, it should be accompanied by appropriate
oversight by the state.
4. State groundwater officials should intensify efforts to educate the political community and the general
public about the importance of groundwater to the general welfare, and the necessity for and difficulty
involved in protecting it. Such efforts might place groundwater as a higher priority in the competition
for state revenues.
5. States should make efforts to increase groundwater staffing to levels that will enable full
implementation of groundwater protection programs, and they should try to increase salaries to
competitive levels. States might request exceptions to approved personnel ceilings, particularly
where funds are available for hiring personnel who would breach the ceiling. Similarly, the example
of the federal civil service might be followed, in which salaries for hard-to-hire personnel can be
increased above the normal salary structure in order to compete with salaries offered elsewhere in the
area.
110
-------
States should investigate the use of volunteers v„i,
not required and where necessary skills a • teers miSht ^ used in cases where training is
higher skills. easily learned, thus freeing staff for activities requiring
The federal government should consider srivin« , »
enable states to tailor programs to their niLc / ? more flexibility in the use of federal dollars to
provides adequate evidence of the benefits of a^iflnn,bT8)SUCh flexibility when the state
111
-------
APPENDIX A
State Self-Assessment Check List
112
-------
APPENDIX A
State Self-Assessment Check List
-------
State Self- Assessment Check List
for Groundwater Protection Programs
The checklist contains a number of questions that a state can ask itself about its current groundwater
protection program. Standards and norms do not exist for these items. However, states can use the
quesiions on the checklist as a starting point for discussion and debate on the coverage of their groundwater
protection program.
-------
Planning and Priority Selling
Does the state have:
1. Explicit goals and targets (preferably annual targets) relating to major aspects of groundwater
protection, such as those relating to groundwater quality and population risk levels?
2. A multi-year action plan for achieving overall goals/targets that: (a) identifies actions; (b)
designates responsibility; (c) specifies a timetable; (d) estimates costs; (e) estimates results
expected; (f) is comprehensive, covering all relevant state agencies; (g) is promptly
disseminated to all interested agencies-both state and local; (h) is reviewed and updated
annually; and (i) is used as a guide for annual budget and program decisions?
3. Procedures that provide its own regional offices and local environmental protection agencies
adequate opportunity to provide input to the preparation of the state's annual protection plan?
4. A program and policy analysis activity that regularly provides information to program and
policy officials (to help in decisions about, and the development of justification for, proposed
regulations, legislation, and agency priorities) covering:
(a) options (alternatives);
(b) the costs (both public and private) of each option;
(c) the estimated effects on water quality and hazard levels (severity of health risk to
individuals and size of individuals at risk) relating to each option; and
(d) the tcclmical feasibility of each option,
5. An evaluation activity, one that involves:
(a) periodic evaluations of major units and programs (e.g., once every two or three years);
(b) periodic evaluations of the impacts, especially on water quality, of selected programs;
and
(c) Findings promptly promulgated to both program and upper-level managers for their
action toward program improvements?
6. Systematically substantive (and not merely nominal) input from the private sector~the
business community, environmental interest groups, and the general public-as part of its
priority-setting/planning work?
7. Coordination of its groundwater strategy with each state agency that has water-related plans
and strategics?
114
-------
8. Reporting at least annually to the public on the status of groundwater protection, including
identification of major problems, hazardous areas, and the progress the state is making toward
the state's groundwater goals and targets?
115
-------
Data Systems (The focus here is on data on water quality. Data issues relating specifically to regulatory
programs are covered under "Compliance Monitoring" and "Enforcement")
1. Does the state collect data on groundwater quality in:
(a) geographical areas known, or believed to be, problem areas;
(b) selected locations throughout the state to provide background readings and advance alert
should problems arise at those locations?
2. Does the state provide a mechanism for ready access to the data by interested parties, such as state
and local government offices, including data from all the various offices that are collecting such data?
3. Are the data organized so that information is available on specific locations from all programs--so
program staffs can obtain a comprehensive groundwater perspective on specific locations?
4. Is the state able to readily access similar data from other levels of government such as the federal and
local governments?
5. Does the data collected cover all potential known relevant contaminants and physical characteristics?
6. Does the data base have adequate information as to the location of potential pollution sources, such as
underground storage tanks, industrial firms with discharges into groundwater, landfills, wells
(including abandoned wells), etc.?
7. Does the data base contain adequate information on population size and location so it can estimate
populations at risk?
8. Are the data kept sufficiently up-to-date and available to users in timely fashion?
9. Is the data base system "user-friendly"?
10. Are data reviewed periodically, e.g. every one or two years, to determine needed improvements and to
delete no longer useful information?
116
-------
Compliance Monitoring
Each of the following items should be addressed for each regulated area.
1. Is there sufficient legislation to provide the basis for an effective monitoring program? Are any
industries or activities not covered?
2. Is there sufficient staff available to adequately monitor the regulated area?
3. Is monitoring done sufficiently often?
4. Is there adequate quality control over organizations responsible for self-monitoring, e.g., is there
adequate oversight by the public sector of (a) the way the organizations draw their samples, (b) the
quality of the subsequent testing provided by the organizations, and (c) the accuracy of the data
reported?
5. If monitoring has been delegated to some local governments, are their monitoring activities checked
often enough by the state?
6. Is there an adequate tracking system to keep track of whether actual monitoring inspections and well
tests were performed and reported as scheduled/required-so the state can easily tell if reauired
monitoring activities have not been (adequately) undertaken?
7- ISoT" procedurcs f0r ame,y moV-Uf 0n -l-tato. « providing the required
3. Is the monitoring clfort proactive" and nnt nnlv "martiuo m • ,
problems to erup, ordoes ft check .Uceiy potenL "
9' £e p«c C°St °f "" reqUire" m0n,[°n"S "**» - «the fees used to offset
10. Is there adequate coordination and cooperation between invni«»H
monitoring activities? .s it dear who £^1^^
done efficiently, with acceptable quality, without duplication, and iithout in^3!7
11. Is the state able to identify specific locations within the state in which muitinie nmw» • , •
different water protection programs are present? Uple problems involvin8
12. Does the state monitor potential pollution by other "jurisdictions" within its borders such as federal
facilities and Indian lands, even though it does not have complete enforcement authority?
13. Are summary data on program activity and progress regularly and promptly available and provided to
program and agency managers-such as the actual number of inspections verses the number
scheduled, and the number of violations found?
117
-------
Enforcement
Each of the following items should be addressed for each regulated area.
1. Is there sufficient legislation to provide the basis for adequate regulatory enforcement?
2. Is there sufficient staff available to adequately enforce the regulated area--both non-legal and legal
staff?
3. Are there adequate procedures for following up promptly on required actions that have not been
undertaken, such as violators' responses to violation notices, payment of fines, and desisting practices
as required by legal actions?
4. Do the enforcement units have adequate authority to fine violators and to promptly stop dangerous
practices?
5. Are fines/penalties large enough to recover the full costs of the enforcement action and to deter
hazardous behavior?
6. Does the state use other options to encourage compliance (and prevention), such as requiring a clean
groundwater bill of health before property can be transferred?
7. Is there an adequate tracking system to keep up-to-date on the status of enforcement actions?
8. Is there adequate coordination and cooperation between involved state agencies in undertaking
enforcement activities? Is it clear who is responsible for doing what, and is the needed enforcement
done efficiently, with acceptable quality, without duplication, and without interagency conflict?
9. Is the state able to identify multiple (frequent) violators even though the violations are in different
parts of the state or involve different protection programs?
10. Are summary data on program activity and progress regularly and promptly available and provided to
program and agency managers-such as the number of enforcement actions in various statuses?
118
-------
Involvement of Local Government and/or Local Regional Authorities
1. Does the state make an explicit effort to encourage and involve local agencies in groundwater
protection?
2. Does the state allow local agencies to undertake regulatory activities such as monitoring and
enforcement in those situations where:
(a) the state does not have sufficient resources to undertake these activities itself;
(b) the local government wants to;
(c) the local agency has local statutory authority to undertake action in a manner compatible with
state requirements; and
(d) the local government is able to apply reasonable resources to the activities?
3. Does the state adequately monitor these local governments' efforts, as to timeliness, coverage, and
quality~to assure they meet state requirements?
4. Does the state provide adequate technical assistance and training to local agencies, such as for
development of groundwater protection ordinances, procedures for monitoring and enforcement of
state regulations, and on new developments in federal and state legislation and regulations?
5. Does the state encourage or require overall groundwater protection requirements for local land-use
plans?
119
-------
Public Information and Education—Both.for Businesses and the General Public
1. Does the state have an active program responsible for developing and providing information related to
groundwater protection to:
(a) the public;
(b) students;
(c) key industries?
2. Does the state have up-to-date materials that it distributes regularly to the public either itself or
through local governments in the form of:
(a) attractive written publications;
(b) visual means?
3. Does the state distribute its material broadly (e.g., as enclosures with water bills)?
4. Does the state provide model curriculum material to its local school systems for use at various grade
levels (for example, to be included as part of science and citizenship classes)?
5. Does the state provide attractive materials tailored to specific industries, identifying their
"citizenship" responsibilities and identifying good practices for managing potentially hazardous,
polluting materials relevant to the particular industry?
6. Has the state enlisted its institutions of higher education to provide educational materials to schools,
the public, and industry and to use them, themselves, in their own courses?
120
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary of Review of State Groundwater
Strategy Documents
121
-------
Appendix B
SUMMARY REVIEW OF STATE GROUNDWATER STRATEGY DOCUMENTS
Introduction
Each year since 1984, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has encouraged states to
develop groundwater strategies by providing funds for this purpose from Section 106 of the Clean Water
Act and guidance advisories. The states have prepared consolidated work programs that reflect both the
objectives of EPA and state needs and priorities. Activities eligible for 106 grant funds include:
1) Developing an overall state action plan or strategy to set groundwater protection goals and to
coordinate groundwater programs among various institutions;
2) Identifying legal and institutional barriers to comprehensive groundwater programs;
3) Developing general groundwater programs (e.g., a permit system) and designing a source or
contaminant-specific groundwater protection program; and
4) Creating data management systems to increase the accessibility and quality of needed
information. ^
EPA avoided dictating the content and format of strategies in their guidance to the states, but
generally identified national objectives and priorities for the coming year. EPA's regional offices were
required to convey the guidance and supplement it with state-specific guidance, if warranted. The EPA
Guidance for FY 1988 encouraged states to review the 1987 report of the National Groundwater Policy
Forum ^ for a discussion of recommended elements of a state groundwater protection strategy. That
document recommends thai slate protection programs include ten elements, and suggests that the first six
be required components. These ten elements are listed in Exhibit A-l.
10. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Groundwater Protection. Ground-Water
Protection Strategy.
11. The Conservation Foundation and the National Groundwater Policy Forum. Groundwater Protection.
122
-------
A number of states may have used the Policy Forum report for guidance in the development of their
groundwater strategies. Another model groundwater protection program was developed by the National
Research Council in 1986.^ The National Research Council recognized that each program must be
tailored to fit the circumstances of the individual state, but identified elements that they considered
essential in a "model" program. These elements are also listed in Exhibit A-l.
The Urban Institute reviewed 40 strategy documents from 39 states (since New York submitted one
strategy for Long Island and one for the remainder of the state). Only strategies submitted after January 1,
1986 were reviewed (post-1985 strategies were not available for the remaining states). The strategies
reviewed were not all in final form; nine were labeled "draft." A number of states have submitted several
revisions or updates to their strategies and probably will continue to do this. Because some strategies were
prepared in 1986 and 1987, items noted as planned or recommended in this report may now be in effect
The strategics were reviewed initially by assessing their coverage of eight topics, which appear in
Exhibit A-2, and were based on the strategy components recommended by the National Ground Water
Policy Forum and the National Research Council. Each of these topics included a number of subcategories.
Presence or absence of coverage of each of these was noted in the assessment process. Topics were
considered as being present or covered in a strategy if they were in place, recommended, or planned.
The review included a series of related questions probing the nature of coverage. For example, one
question in the planning and priorities subcategory asked if the strategy included a description of the
planning process. The next question probed as to whether the process included goal-setting, timetables,
priority setting, and tracking of progress.
12. National Research Council. Ground Water Quality Protection.
-------
Exhibit B-l
Recommended Elements for Inclusion in Groundwater Protection Strategies
National Groundwater Policy Forum
1. Comprehensive Mapping
of Aquifer Systems and
Their Recharge and
Discharge Areas
2. Anticipatory
Classification of
Aquifers
3. Ambient Groundwater
Standards
4. Authority for
Imposing Controls
on All Sources of
Potential Contamination
5. Programs for Moniioring,
Data Collection, and Analysis
6. Effective Enforcement
Provisions
7. Surface-use Restrictions
to Protect Groundwater Quality
8. Control of Groundwater
Withdrawal
9. Coordination of Groundwater
and Surface-water Management
10. Coordination of Groundwater
with Other Resource
Protection Programs
National Research Council
1. Goals and Objectives
2. Information Base
3. Technical Basis
4. Source Elimination
and Control
5. Intergovernmental and
Interagency Links
6. Effective Implementation
and Adequate Funding
7. Economic, Social,
Political and
Environmental Impacts
8. Public Support and
Responsiveness
124
-------
Exhibit B-2
Topics Used for Review of Groundwater Protection Strategies
1. Policy and goals, planning and priorities - includes goals and objectives; processes and tools for
planning and priority setting.
2. Roles, responsibilities and coordination - includes description and assessment of the roles of state,
federal, and local agencies; intra- and inter-state regional entities; advisory groups; and research
organizations. Role assessment refers to strategies' identification of the existence of any problems
and identification of actions taken, or recommended, to solve them.
3. Legislative and regulatory support - includes description and assessment of federal and state
groundwater-rclated legislation. Assessment refers to strategies' review of the adequacy of legislation
and regulations, and recommendations for changes in them.
4. System administration - includes components that should be present, or at least discussed, in a state
strategy, such as: database; aquifer classification systems; monitoring activities; and enforcement
activities. Strategics should have assessed each subtopic and identified problems and corrective
measures to alleviate them.
5. Initiatives and innovations - this category was used to record state initiatives or innovations in any
category or element.
6. Building awareness and support - includes outreach, awareness and educational activities. Strategies
were reviewed for identification of intent, target audiences, and methods used.
7. Funding - includes cost estimates and sources of funds.
8. Special considerations - includes topics related to strategy development, such as: situational factors
influencing its content; particular incidents related to strategy development; existence of related
documents.
125
-------
The findings of the review of state strategies are summarized here under the following topics:
Planning and priority setting
State roles and coordination among intrastate agencies
Local government roles and the state-local interface
Other roles (including federal, interstate and intrastate regional organizations, and advisory
committees)
Monitoring
Enforcement
Data Management
Research
Legislation
Public education and awareness (including training and technical assistance)
Costs and Funding
Innovations and Initiatives
Principal Findings
States are in different stages of development with respect to their groundwater protection activities,
and the strategies show this. Some address initial program development; others describe on-going
programs and recommend refinements. Because the states were not required to follow a particular format
for the content of their groundwater strategies, considerable variation in the state strategy documents was
expected, and found. Some strategies focused on threats to groundwater, others on the agencies with
groundwater responsibilities, and a few on the groundwater resource itself. However, the review found that
there are patterns in the coverage given the different elements of a state groundwater strategy.
The most thorough coverage in state strategy documents was given to the state's legislative and
regulatory framework for groundwater protection. State roles and coordinating mechanisms also were
126
-------
described in some detail. The least attention was given to costs and funding. Other topics receiving
relatively little attention in the strategy documents included enforcement and public outreach activities.
Monitoring and database-management coverage generally lacked specificity.
The strategics generally focused more on elements associated with developing state groundwater
policies than on the elements most closely associated with implementing those policies. This probably
reflects the newness of groundwater programs in most states. Strategies made few references to an on-
going planning process for groundwater protection or management, although they often described the
strategy development process. While every strategy contained recommendations, action plans usually were
missing or incomplete.
The strategies were highly state-oriented. Many strategies recognized an important potential role for
local government, but the treatment of local roles and of state interface with local governments in the
strategies rarely provides an adequate basis for consideration of, or planning for, local government
participation in groundwater protection. Strategies gave more attention to special-purpose districts than to
confederations of local governments for resolving groundwater problems that cross local government
boundaries. Similarly, most strategies did not discuss the roles of interstate organizations which could be
used, or created, to manage groundwater resources that cross political boundaries.
Strategies described monitoring, enforcement and data management primarily in terms of their
problems. These three areas, which comprise the core of implementation, share common problems
stemming from inadequate financial and technical resources, as well as problems related to consistency and
coordination.
The overall impression given by the state groundwater strategies is that the process is still emerging.
Several states have made substantial progress, and their experience could benefit those states not as far
along. All states could benefit from a greater emphasis on evaluation.
127
-------
Planning and Priorities
State groundwater strategies were not intended to be comprehensive plans, and few are. Many
strategies have narrow perspectives such as reviewing legislation or existing programs and then
recommending changes, or discussing major problem areas and recommending solutions.
The strategics did not cover planning and priorities thoroughly. While a few described an on-going
groundwater planning process, more focused on the strategy development process. Most states indicated
that the strategy was expected to evolve, and some mentioned a schedule for its review and potential
revision (e.g., annually). About one-third of the strategies referenced other plans that also deal with aspects
of water management, but did not generally indicate how the strategy was integrated with them.
About 20 percent of the strategies mentioned involvement of advisory committees or other groups in
strategy development. A similar percentage either recommended that such groups continue functioning, or
that they be formed to perform coordinating or advisory functions in groundwater protection and/or
strategy implementation. Although a planning role was not generally specified for these groups (their
functions are not typically described in the strategies), planning may well be included in their
responsibilities.
Recommendations varied considerably among strategies, and sometimes within them as well, from
the overly general (e.g., develop innovative funding approaches") to specific changes in current
regulations. Some strategics recommended reviewing existing legislation and/or programs to determine
whether changes should be recommended. Such an evaluation is a desirable step in strategy development
Most strategies presented portions of action plans for implementing their recommendations. A
complete action plan has four components: it identifies the specific action or activity to be performed,
designates the lead and support agencies, sets the timetable, and estimates the financial and/or staff
resources needed for implementation. All strategies recommended actions, and many identified the lead
agency. However, fewer established a timetable for initiating and completing the action, and only two
128
-------
included all four components. The component most commonly omitted was resources. The small number
of strategies that did not have action plans recommended that they be developed.
Priority-setting appears to be at a developmental stage, with priorities generally based on judgments
regarding vulnerability and use, rather than on analytic methods or criteria. There was almost no mention
of using decision-making tools such as risk assessment or cost-benefit analysis to develop priorities. Few
strategics mentioned any evaluations of past state activities, which would provide a basis for prioritizing
future activities.
The strategies mentioned three types of priorities: general priorities for protection; priorities for
implementing strategy recommendations; and priority-setting related to enforcement and/or remediation.
Virtually all strategies stated that groundwater protection is preferable to remediation due to the costs and
technical difficulties associated with cleaning up.
A state aquifer classification system, which can be considered priority setting because it implies
different protection for different classes of aquifer, was mentioned in 40 percent of the strategies, and
another 25 percent recommended that one be adopted. About one-third of the states with an existing
system suggested that it be revised. A small number of strategies rejected classification systems. Two
expressed a preference for making decisions on a site-by-site basis (one stated that it will use EPA's
recommended classification system, or a similar one, on this basis). Another believed that a classification
system would violate the state's goal of nondegradation of all waters; while another feared that it could
promote degradation of less valuable aquifers.
A few strategies identified protection priorities independent of aquifer classification systems (e.g.,
drinking water, sole source aquifers; high-quality, high-yield resources; wellhead areas; vulnerability; and
impact of degradation). A few others mentioned priorities in terms of problems (e.g., sources or types of
contamination) rather than the groundwater resource to be protected.
129
-------
About one-fourth of the strategies identified one or more of their recommendations as priorities.
Three strategies noted that, because of limited resources, recommendations should be prioritized and
phased in over time, but only one presented criteria for doing so. Two others used rating schemes to assign
priority. Two strategies indicated that a centralized priority-setting process for strategy recommendations
was planned.
State Roles/Coordination
Management of groundwater protection programs has evolved as primarily a state responsibility, and
the topic of state roles received relatively comprehensive coverage in the strategies. Most described the
distribution of groundwater protection responsibilities among state agencies and the ways they were or
were not coordinated.
Depth and clarity of coverage varied considerably, and strategy format affects the treatment of agency
roles. Strategies organized around agencies and their roles usually described the roles in considerable
detail. Strategics organized around groundwater problems usually described agency roles only in the
context of the targeted problems. In the latter case, descriptions often were dispersed among several
problem areas, and often lacked the detail or comprehensiveness needed to provide a full understanding of
agency responsibilities. A few strategies just listed agencies and their responsibilities.
Usually, several agencies in each state have groundwater responsibilities; in part, because
implementation of federal programs with groundwater impacts is distributed among several state agencies
or their divisions. Fragmentation of groundwater protection activities creates a need for effective
mechanisms to promote coordination as well as for clear delineation of groundwater-related roles.
Coordination was discussed in over two-thirds of the strategies, although it typically was not covered as
thoroughly as agency roles.
Most strategies reported problems with coordination among state agencies, or implied problems by
recommending improved coordination. Coordinating committees and meetings involving representatives
130
-------
from all state agencies with groundwater responsibilities were the most popular approaches to coordination.
Memoranda of agreement or understanding are also common, having been mentioned by one-third of the
states that identified specific coordinating mechanisms. Interagency woric groups, expanded involvement
in the rulemaking process, joint committees, and site-based coordination ("the site as a system") also were
suggested for improving coordination. Printed material-newsletters, handbooks, manuals-was suggested
only occasionally. Very few strategies mentioned the need for improved coordination within agencies, or
between central offices and field offices of the same agency.
Local Roles
Some 25 percent of the strategies discussed the local role in considerable depth, while more than one-
third provided moderate coverage. The remaining strategies gave little attention to the actual or potential
role of local governments in groundwater protection, mentioning them only in the context of particular
programs or problems where local governments are, or might be, involved. This approach treats local roles
much as state roles arc handled in the problem-focused strategy format, but generally with much less detail.
A number of strategies said that local roles are important to groundwater protection, but give local
roles only limited coverage. Strategies focused mostly on local land-use powers even though counties and
municipalities can also protect groundwater through their powers to protect the public health and safety.
Some states mentioned special districts, which may be regional rather than strictly local, as playing
important local roles in groundwater protection.
One-fourth of the strategies recommended greater local participation in groundwater protection. A
few linked this to specific programs, most frequently wellhead protection. One strategy recommended
decentralizing groundwater program operations, while another suggested a study of local powers as a first
step toward making groundwater protection a state-local activity.
States can delegate or contract specific aspects of groundwater protection programs to local
governments. Responsibilities delegated, or recommended for delegation in the strategies, run the gamut
131
-------
from education and information gathering to wellhead protection, implementation of the UST program,
nonpoint source controls, and enforcement of hazardous waste regulations.
The strategies put forth several techniques for states to increase local government capacity for
groundwater protection, with training and technical assistance mentioned most often. About one-fourth of
the strategies did not specify the type of assistance, and just under one-fourth recommended developing
model ordinances. Several mentioned planning assistance, both general land-use-related planning and
plans for water, stoimwater or wastewater management, or for aquifer or wellhead protectioa Also
mentioned were state development of groundwater management manuals or handbooks; assistance of
various kinds (for example, permitting for subsurface disposal systems, septic system site evaluation, and
personnel recruitment or retention); and assigning state personnel to local governments.
A smaller number of strategies promoted grants to support existing local groundwater programs, or to
encourage expanding activities. Grants were used or recommended to help municipalities meet standards
and guidelines; for water system development, expansion, and improvement; to develop and implement
environmental programs; and to identify areas of contamination. Three strategies recommended
clarification of existing authorities and/or provision of increased authority for local governments.
Other Roles
"Other roles" is an umbrella category that includes the activities of federal agencies, interstate and/or
intrastate regional organizations, and advisory committees or other entities. Although many strategies
recognized the roles of entities other than state and local governments in groundwater protection, coverage
of this topic was generally cursory. The roles of federal agencies-almost exclusively EPA and USGS-
-received the most attention. Strategies usually described EPA's groundwater role in the same format as
they use to describe their own; for example, those that used a problem-focused format generally mentioned
both state and federal programs in this context. The strategies mentioned USGS as a data source, or as a
cooperating party on special studies, and several strategies used or appended USGS information. Some
132
-------
strategies made reference lo federal standards, usually drinking water standards, in addition to federal roles;
and a few mentioned supplementing EPA standards with their own for those contaminants not covered by
EPA.
About one quarter of the strategies noted problems with EPA's role. A few would like EPA to act
more quickly in setting standards for contaminants. One noted the fragmentation of federal programs and
pointed out that it is replicated at the state leveL Similarly, others noted the absence of an umbrella federal
groundwater law. A few strategies mentioned problems of dependence on federal funding, such as:
uncertainty of funding makes planning difficult; federal domination of protection activities; and states
following federal, rather than state, priorities because of resource availability. One noted that if EPA does
not fund an activity, it docs not get done.
Strategies rarely covered interstate activity. Those that mentioned membership in the Delaware River
Basin Commission, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, or the Ohio River Valley Sanitation
Commission did not provide details about the roles, importance, or usefulness of these organizations to the
state's groundwater protection activities. A few strategies mentioned a predisposition toward future
cooperation with other states. Similarly, intrastate regional organizations received little mention in the
strategies. Regional councils or boards were described as useful in planning and policy development by
four strategies.
Most strategies mentioned advisory committees or similar entities, but provided few details about
their functions. About 20 percent of the strategies indicated that advisory committees were formed to work
on strategy development, and a few said or suggested that these will go on to help coordinate
implementation of strategy recommendations or groundwater-related activities in general. Others
mentioned advisory groups used for a limited purpose; e.g., to develop specific initiatives, to act as a water
allocation task force, or to plan and oversee a research program. A few states appeared to use committees
as a vehicle for public participation.
133
-------
Monitoring
Virtually all strategics described groundwater monitoring for one or more purposes, including: to
provide background information on the resource, as part of investigations into known or suspected
problems, and to meet permit requirements of regulated facilities and public water supplies. Few strategies
provided much detail about current or recommended monitoring, however.
About 20 percent of the strategies mentioned having an ambient monitoring network; two of these
networks are mandated by state law. About one-half of the remaining strategies recommended, or were
planning, ambient networks. A few strategies expressed reservations about ambient monitoring. The costs
associated with ambient networks were the most frequently noted problem, causing some states concern
about trade-offs between monitoring and other activities. Slightly more than 20 percent of the strategies
recommended, or indicated use of, a priority system for monitoring. Most of the priorities were related to
the vulnerability and importance of the resource.
Most strategies noted that compliance monitoring was performed, or mentioned monitoring when
describing regulatory programs, but few gave any details or made any recommendations about it. The
strategies may not have addressed compliance monitoring in more detail because its requirements are
generally stipulated in regulatory programs or because it generally involves self-monitoring by the
regulated entity, which is subject to enforcement actions for non-compliance.
One-half of the strategies identified gaps, deficiencies, or problems in monitoring. The most
commonly cited gap in coverage was nonpoint sources, most often from agricultural activities (fertilizers,
pesticides and feedlots). A number of strategies noted other gaps, including inadequate monitoring of
landfills, other solid and non-hazardous waste facilities or sites, and hazardous material handlers.
Inadequate monitoring of (1) private wells and waste systems and (2) raw water used by public water
systems each were mentioned by three strategies. About one in five states noted that not all regions and/or
aquifers were monitored, not enough wells were used, or that testing included too few parameters.
134
-------
Twenty percent of ihe strategies either stated that coordination of monitoring was a problem or
recommended improvements in coordination. A similar proportion mentioned inconsistencies, inadequate
guidelines, or other quality control problems associated with monitoring samples or data.
Some strategies recommended broadening funding sources for monitoring, for example: identifying
monitoring efforts that can be shared by several programs, matching local funds to encourage local
monitoring, involving the private sector more in monitoring through tax or regulatory incentives. Another
approach receiving current attention is to require property owners to prove or certify that property is free of
groundwater pollution, or that remediation is in progress, before the property can be sold.
Enforcement
All states have some responsibility for enforcement of federal regulations, and many also have state
groundwater regulatory programs. Enforcement did not receive detailed coverage in the strategy
documents, however, and five strategies did not address the topic. Most discussed enforcement in the
context of departmental roles or regulatory program descriptions, and it was frequently described as a
problem area.
More than one-fourth of the strategies mentioned inadequate resources for enforcement. Other
problems noted include: heavy caseloads; the need for stricter enforcement and higher penalties;
coordination and consistency; and enforcement procedures that are cumbersome and time consuming,
particularly when the court system is involved.
To improve enforcement, two strategies called for evaluation of enforcement; a third recommended
developing a strategy to enforce compliance. Other recommendations were more specific. Five strategies
recommended developing or clarifying statutory authority to impose administrative penalties. States are
looking for help: three suggested delegating some enforcement responsibilities to local governments, and
one suggested broadening citizen-suit laws to promote greater citizen participation in enforcement.
Strategies also recommended policies and procedures to promote uniformity. Mechanisms suggested to do
135
-------
so include written guidance, a standard operating manual, best management practices, and case
management systems.
A number of strategics also mentioned or recommended a priority system to target compliance and
enforcement workloads for the greatest environmental benefit, giving priority to (1) inspections of facilities
in sensitive environments and (2) enforcement in areas of special protection. A few strategies promoted
priority systems for remediation efforts, which can be viewed as one stage of enforcement, but did not
specify the criteria to be used. Two states mentioned risk assessment, and a third, proximate risk.
Data Management
Strategics indicated that the expanding volume of data associated with regulatory program
requirements and other groundwater protection activities as well as the complexities of data access make
data management crucial. Although the strategies contained little information about current data
management systems, most recommended that they be improved. A few states indicated that they used
WATSTORE or STORET, or were considering their use. About 10 percent of the strategies mentioned
that they used or were considering a GIS. However, strategies rarely specified what data were collected or
maintained, where they were located, or what formats (paper files, computerized systems) were used. Nor
did they mention the purposes for which their data were being used, or what analytic tools were used or
needed.
Coordination problems frequently surface in data management. Over one-third of the strategies
indicated that data were maintained in several different locations, and one-fourth described use of a variety
of formats. All reported or implied that this makes data access and use difficult, especially across
departments. Other frequently mentioned problems included unreliable quality, lack of uniformity, and
gaps in the data collected. Information gaps were noted most frequently for aquifer characteristics,
pesticides and fertilizer, nonpoint sources, private drinking wells, and contamination sources and their
136
-------
risks. A few strategies suggested setting, priorities for collection of additional data, but very few identified
specific criteria to be used for this.
More than one-fourth of the strategies suggested ways to improve coordination or standard setting to
promote data accuracy and compatibility. Several called for interagency task forces or committees to
address data management and database integration. About half of the strategies either recommended
developing an integrated database or reported that one was in process.
Research
Most strategy documents mentioned a need for more research in a variety of areas, most commonly:
health or environmental effects of pollutants; treatment methods; nonpoint sources and best management
practices; agriculture-rclatcd research; contaminant movement and fate studies. The strategies were not
always clear about whether research was being recommended, or if it was being conducted or supported by
the state. Several strategies mentioned existing or recommended efforts to coordinate or manage state
groundwater research. A number of strategies mentioned that funding constraints limit the amount of
research that can be done.
Legislation
The strategies provided more detailed information about legislation than any other topic. Most
described state legislation, sometimes in considerable detail, and recommended changes where gaps were
noted. Although the strategies did not specifically identify legal or institutional barriers, they cited several
problems or gaps that can be viewed in these terms. These included several closely related problems: a
lack of legislation that explicitly deals with groundwater, a lack of precision in the legal foundation for
enforcement actions; a lack of clear authority to regulate uses of groundwater, and the fragmentation of
responsibilities among several state agencies with differing policy directions. Three states noted that
agricultural activities, which have substantial impacts on groundwater, are outside of the control of the state
groundwater agency. One strategy mentioned two legal barriers that probably exist in a number of other
137
-------
states: the lack of regulatory provisions to deal with cleanup of contamination that was not illegal when it
occurred, and a state constitutional prohibition against unfunded mandates on local governments.
Virtually all strategics recommended some changes in state legislation or regulations. About 40
percent recommended legislation protecting wellheads and/or other sensitive areas; 35 percent called for
more stringent well construction, closure, water testing and/or driller regulation; a similar percent
recommended state underground storage tank legislation; 35 percent suggested legislation to control
nonpoint sources of pollution such as agricultural chemicals, stormwater, road de-icing salt, and septic
tanks; and about 23 percent of the strategies recommended more stringent regulation of solid waste
disposal. Five strategies recommended adding explicit references to groundwater's importance and
protection in legislation. A number of strategies called for state legislation to provide funding sources or
clean-up funds, and response guidelines for remediation and cleanup. Legislation to tighten regulation of
hazardous wastes and household wastewater systems also was mentioned more than once.
The strategies paid less attention to federal legislation, although it was often cited as the basis for state
groundwater activity. Some mentioned deficiencies or gaps in federal programs, in some cases noting less
stringent federal regulation of underground storage tanks, underground injection wells, agricultural
chemicals, and the federal exemptions for petroleum. Several states noted the lack of a comprehensive
federal groundwater law, and the "overly remediation-oriented" federal focus.
Public Education/Awareness
About 28 percent of the strategies mentioned current public education activities-brochures and other
printed material, presentations for public meetings of civic or environmental groups, slide shows and films.
Most current education efforts are aimed at the general public. Only a few states targeted audiences such
as farmers, professional boards (engineers, geologists, etc.), local government officials, well drillers, or
other members of the regulated community.
138
-------
Few strategics stated the objectives of public education efforts. Those that did cited: changing
behavior (i.e., reducing individual and household behavior that may contaminate groundwater);
encouraging reporting of contamination; promoting support for protection measures; generating public
assistance in siting facilities and promulgating regulations; and informing the regulated community.
Increased public support and pressure for groundwater protection programs was the stated goal of
educational efforts in about one-fourth of the strategies.
Most strategics recommended increasing the public awareness of groundwater and its problems,
although most of these recommendations were fairly general. The majority called for increases in existing
activities which were targeted to the general public. Presentations at public meetings and creation of a
speakers' bureau was mentioned most frequently (by 28 percent of the strategies); followed by use of
printed materials, such as brochures, reports, and newsletters. A few states also mentioned development of
slides and videos. Over one-third of the strategies mentioned developing curricula on groundwater for
public elementary and secondary schools. Several strategies recommended educational or training
programs for target groups of people involved in activities associated with groundwater contamination.
Somewhat different approaches to public awareness included a toll-free number for groundwater
information, groundwater fairs offering free testing of private well water, and the use of public service
announcements. The more pro-active suggestions included informing the public about hazards by posting
lists of abandoned hazardous waste sites, distributing vulnerability maps of aquifer sensitivity, reporting
contaminants to water users, and routinely reporting results of monitoring and special research.
Costs & Funding
Costs and funding were the most neglected topic in the strategies. Half did not address the issue at all
despite frequent general statements about resource limitations affecting implementation of existing
programs. Only four strategies estimated costs of current or recommended groundwater protection
programs with even a moderate level of detail: one strategy estimated costs of developing legislation,
139
-------
regulations, and programs, but not of implementing them; another estimated costs for a few of the programs
it recommended; one estimated staff-years, rather than personnel costs associated with its
recommendations; and the fourth projected costs as low, medium, or high, and provided dollar ranges for
each category. A few strategies addressed the absence of cost estimates, explaining that it was too early in
the process to develop them.
Many strategics reported a general need for more resources for groundwater programs, or noted
problems due to funding limitations in descriptions of existing programs. Two strategies indicated that
resource limitations required the strategy to be a long-term process.
A few strategies recommended greater use of certain revenue sources, most often fees, which cover at
least the direct program costs. Other strategies mentioned the need to find funding sources. One
recommended that government and research institutes develop innovative funding approaches at the state
and local level. Another recommended developing funding sources through groundwater legislation and
other avenues.
Some strategies noted the role of federal dollars and mentioned maximizing their use, or pursuing
them. A few called for a larger state funding component because federal money promotes federal rather
than state priorities, is unstable, and is probably insufficient, especially for cleanups. Local funding was
rarely mentioned in the strategies.
Innovations and Initiativpg
The strategy assessment process included reviewing the strategy documents for innovations and
initiatives that might be considered for adoption by other states. A wide range of existing and
recommended programs and activities was identified in this process. Selected examples that are
particularly innovative or noteworthy include:
Agriculture
o Establishing a 10-year, multi-agency, non-regulatory program directed at protecting
groundwater from contamination resulting from the use of pesticides and fertilizers, to include
140
-------
the development of more efficient management techniques which re uce m e
losses to the environment (including groundwater); widespread a op 1 futurp
practices that protect groundwater, and the development of ^ lQcal agencies
groundwater policy. Involved are research, education, and eval
research organizations and the agribusiness community. (Iowa)
Encouraging farmers to install manure storage facilities by sharing the cost of building such
facilities. (Iowa)
A state university has initiated an "Integrated Pest Management Progiram"'^^h combines the
most efficient application rates for pesticides, non-chemical con ro s,
conditions with minimum use of chemicals. (New York)
Legislation requiring crop dusters and property owners to submit spraying plans showing well
locations, and requiring buffer strips to protect them. (Tennessee;
Waste
o Grants to local governments to build resource recovery plants, source separators, and waste
management projects. (New York)
o A "Pollution Prevention Pays" program to help businesses
reducing the volume of waste they produce. A recommended waste minimization program
rtuuung mc voiume ui waaic u jr v „ . irHnn and developing incentives to overcome
would include identifying obstacles to waste reducuon ana v
them. (Ohio)
o An approach to promoting alternatives to land disposal of solid wastes through pollution
o /\n upprodui 10 prumuung ... . d les exemptions on resource recovery
control bonds Tor waste management facilities and sales tax e*c. f j
equipment. (Florida)
Underground Storage Tanks
o An -Early Detection Program," which provides free clean-up as an tocenttve for owners and
operators of underground storage tanks to report leakage as soon as po n a)
Miscellaneous Topics
o Establish an incentive fund to aid private well owners in the sealing of multi-aquifer wells in
current use. (Minnesota)
o Impose fees on products which have been shown to adversely affect groundwater as a
disincentive to their use. (Minnesota)
o Environmental agencies should work with trade and industrial organizations to develop a series
of Industrial Best Management Practices guidelines. (New York)
141
-------
o Revolving funds supported by fees, fines, and appropriations to provide cleanup where
responsible parties cannot be identified, and for operating the permit system. (Mentioned by
several states, including Arizona and New York)
o Imposing facility-specific performance requirements on complex industrial facilities as an
alternative to technology standards.
Monitoring/Data Management
o A hydrographic area priority index was developed for surveillance monitoring in areas with
little or no current development. It is based on 18 parameters that generally describe the
hydrologic, demographic and agricultural characteristics of each hydrographic area. In terms
of priority for management" purposes, the areas can be divided into three classes: (1) those that
are already in a state of moderate to intensive development; (2) those that are currently
undeveloped but have high potential for future development and (3) those that have low
potential for future development. (Nevada)
o • Recommendations for studying financial incentives to owners to install monitoring wells,
including: tax incentives; pollution buffer zones with more lenient restrictions on
contamination in exchange for well installation; and more lenient clean-up standards in
exchange for well installation. (South Dakota)
o Coordinated inspections of complex facilities by multi-disciplinary teams. (New York)
o Provide a free inorganic chemical analysis for all new wells that are accompanied by a well log
to encourage the preparation of well logs for new wells and provide useful monitoring data.
(North Dakota)
Management
o Develop a problem inventory which will strengthen the state's management capability in
program effectiveness, manpower allocation, public information, and participation. (New
York)
o Maintain an on-going five-year plan, and update it annually with a current year work plan.
(Nevada)
o Use of an environmental mediation team to guide cooperation and strategy development
(Virginia)
o A "case management" system for priority setting and interdepartmental allocation of
responsibilities for case management, and assurance that the same priorities are used in all
cases. (New Jersey)
o Encourage provision of salaries competitive with professionals serving the regulated
community to retain qualified technical and managerial staff. (South Carolina)
142
-------
Recommendations
The development of groundwater protection and management programs is a journey most states are
just beginning, and state groundwater strategies should help them move forward. The following
recommendations are offered with that intent in mind.
Groundwater strategics should encourage a comprehensive approach to protecting the groundwater
resource, and they should be integrated with broader state water resource planning efforts. This would be
facilitated if all strategies included descriptions of their state groundwater planning process and its interface
with other plans. Our review of strategy documents finds minimal reference to evaluation. As part of the
strategy development process, states need to evaluate their current programs and use that information in
their planning and priority setting.
Since strategies include recommendations, they also should include action plans. While that is
difficult, there are current strategies that would serve well as models for other states. The strategies are
most deficient in providing information about funding to implement recommendations. While the
reluctance to be specific about costs and funding is understandable from a political perspective, the failure
to address them is a serious omission in terms of the planning/strategic purposes of strategies, and the
ability of readers to assess their feasibility.
The state groundwater strategy can be an effective mechanism for coordinating groundwater-related
activities. To fill that role, the strategy should delineate clearly the different roles of state agencies, local
governments, and any other entities with groundwater protection or management responsibilities. In those
states where a committee representing involved agencies develops and maintains the state strategy, the
strategy process itself promotes coordination. Other states should be encouraged to approach strategy
development this way, or to establish other coordinating mechanisms.
Strategics should encourage not only better planning and coordination but also more effective
implementation of groundwater protection. Monitoring, enforcement, and data management are problem
143
-------
areas in program implementation where states could use greater assistance. One potential source of
assistance is local government. Strategies should address the potential local role and the appropriate state
support for local governments, especially technical assistance.
That prevention is preferable to cleanup is unarguable, and it points up the importance of preventative
as well as remedial elements in the state strategy. Contamination of groundwater can occur from a wide
range of sources and activities, and is often due to a lack of awareness of the effects certain behaviors or
substances may have. Therefore, increasing groundwater awareness on the part of the general public, and
providing information and technical assistance to specific "publics" or regulated communities that are
particularly likely to cause groundwater problems, should be included in a groundwater protection strategy.
Innovations and initiatives noted in the strategies reveal that a number of states have been creative
and/or aggressive in approaching groundwater protection. States should be encouraged to share
information about innovative programs with each other.
State strategy documents can serve two major purposes: to help the state focus on a comprehensive
long-term plan of action so that it can make cost-effective current decisions; and to act as a communication
device to communicate with both the legislature and the public. For both purposes it seems highly
desirable that the strategy should address, even if only briefly, each of the major components discussed
herein. These components apply, and are important, regardless of location or groundwater situation. Even
if a state believes that one of these elements is a low priority or does not require future action, a statement
to this effect should be included in the strategy. This will let readers, such as the legislature and the public,
know that the element has been explicitly considered.
Strategy documents take time and effort to prepare properly. The effort will only be worthwhile if the
information in the strategy is used to guide future actions. However, because groundwater information and
activity is continually undergoing change, the strategy document can quickly become outdated. Therefore,
states should consider their strategies as working documents, and should annually review the strategy,
144
-------
making appropriate modifications (but, by no means completely redoing them each year). The strategy
document should be viewed as a document that is used to guide action over the next twelve months or so,
but also as one that should explicitly consider long-term needs and priorities. That is the purpose of any
effective strategy document.
Groundwater protection is a highly complex problem involving numerous sources of pollution, a
variety of different problems and issues in different locations in each state, and many different types of
organizations (industries, government agencies at all levels, and other private organizations). It is just such
complexity that mandates the need for a comprehensive, thoughtful strategy. The states have made
considerable progress in developing groundwater protection strategies, and should continue their efforts in
this direction.
145
------- |