&EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency UJLM Source Water Protection: A Training Manual for Communities in Nicaragua A Project of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Agency for International Development ------- United States Environmental Protection Agency (4606M) EPA 816-R-02-003 www. epa. gov/safewater February 2002 Printed on Recycled Paper ------- Source Water Protection A Training Manual for Communities in Nicaragua A Project of The United States Environmental Protection Agency and The United States Agency for International Development Prepared by Horsley & Witten, Inc. ------- Table of Contents Acknowledgements Chapter 1: Introduction to Source Water Assessment and Protection in Nicaragua 1.1 Background 1.2 Introduction 1.3 Source Water Protection 1.4 The Training Manual Chapter 2: Water Quality and Community Health 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Sources and Health Effects of Common Drinking Water Contaminants 2.3 Drinking Water Standards Chapter 3: Benefits from Source Water Protection 3.1 Direct and Indirect Benefits to Human Health 3.2 Environmental Benefits 3.3 Conclusion Chapter 4: Source Water Protection Areas 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Delineating and Mapping Protection Areas for Surface Water Sources 4.3 Delineating and Mapping Protection Areas for Wells 4.4 Identifying Potential Sources of Contamination 4.5 Ranking of Potential Sources of Contamination 4.6 Conclusion Chapter 5: Developing a Community Source Water Management Plan 5.1 Introduction 5.2 A Review of the Existing Legal Framework for Source Water Protection and Management in Nicaragua 5.3 Assessing the Current State of Drinking Water Management in a Community 5.4 Developing a Consensus-Based Source Water Management Plan 5.5 Water Supply Treatment in Conjunction with Source Water Protection 5.6 Local Management of Water Supplies Chapter 6: Public Participation - A Primer 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Six Components of Successful Public Participation 6.3 Conclusion Chapter 7: Case Studies from Pilot Projects 7.1 Overview 7.2 Introduction 7.3 Ocotal 7.4 Esteli 7.5 Matagalpa Chapter 8: Innovative and Alternative Technologies 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Innovative and Alternative Technologies Applicable in Nicaragua Chapter 9: Sources of Information 9.1 Nicaraguan Local and National Government Organizations 9.2 Foreign Government and Multilateral Organizations 9.3 Non-Governmental Organizations 9.4 Educational and Research Institutions 9.5 Documents from the Pilot Projects that May Be Useful List of References Glossary of Terms Glossary of Acronyms ------- List of Figures Chapter 1 1.1 What is EPA? 1.2 What is US AID? 1.3 What is a Source Water Protection Area (SWPA)? 1.4 The Impact of Hurricane Mitch Chapter 2 2.1 Graphs of Public Water Sources in Nicaragua / Access to Drinking Services / Sanitary Disposal Services 2.2 Laboratory Capacity-Building Program for Drinking Water Quality in Nicaragua 2.3 Testing for Coliform Bacteria 2.4 What Is Total Coliform Test? 2.5 What Is Fecal Coliform Test? 2.6 Potential Drinking Water Contaminants and Contaminant Sources in the Three Pilot Project Communities 2.7 Water Borne Diseases 2.8 Metals Commonly Found in Drinking Water and their Possible Sources in Nicaragua 2.9 Special Risk of Contaminated Drinking Water to Children 2.10 pH scale 2.11 Interpreting EPA Standards and WHO Drinking Water Guidelines 2.12 Existing Legal Framework for Source Water Protection in Nicaragua Chapter 4 4.1 Paths of Water Through a Surface Watershed 4.2 Paths of Water Through a Zone of Contribution to a Well 4.3 Source Water Protection Area 4.4 Source Water Protection Area for a Well 4.5 The B oundary of a Watershed... 4.6 Delineating a Watershed for a Surface Drinking Water Source 4.7 Source Water Protection Area for a Well Based on the Calculated Fixed Radius Method 4.8 Using the Volumetric Flow Equation in the Calculated Fixed Radius Method 4.9 Candidate Source Water Protection Areas for Drinking Water Wells in Esteli 4.10 Source Water Protection Area for a Well Using the Uniform Flow Equation 4.11 Three-Tiered Source Water Protection Area for a Well 4.12 List of Potential Contaminants and Contaminant Sources for Wells in Esteli 4.13 Point Sources and Non-Point Sources of Contamination 4.14 Inventories of Potential Contaminant Sources for Four Wells in Esteli 4.15 Simple Example of a Source Water Protection Area in Which the Potential Contaminant Sources Have Been Mapped 4.16 Ranking Matrix of Potential Source and Contaminants 4.17 Representative Values for Nutrient Loading Rates for Various Sources Chapter 5 5.1 Steps to a Source Water Management Plan 5.2 Initiation of Source Water Protection in Ocotal 5.3 A Meeting of Stakeholders... 5.4 Example Management Goals and Target Dates for a Source Water Management Plan 5.5 Source Water Management Tools and Possible Implementing Agencies 5.6 Monitoring the Quality of Source Water... 5.7 Local Water Agency 5.8 Time Frame for Developing a Source Water Management Plan Chapter 6 6.1 Why Should I Protect the Public Drinking Water Source... 6.2 Public Participation in Source Water Protection in Matagalpa 6.3 Sample Press Release 6.4 Flow Chart of Pubic Participation in Source Water Management Chapter 7 7.1 Report of the Student Ecological Brigade for The Rio Dipilto during the 2000-2001 Coffee Season 7.2 Results of the Coffee Picker Surveys, May 2001 ------- Acknowledgements The Environmental Protection Agency appreciates the interest and involvement of the United States Agency for International Development in funding this project to assist Nicaragua in developing its source water protection program. EPA also thanks United States Department of Agriculture for its support and cooperation. EPA was responsible for managing funding and for significant technical input and review. Offices within EPA that contributed to the development of this project were the Office of Water and the Office of International Activities. EPA staff persons specifically involved in this work were Dr. Marilyn Ginsberg, Ron Hoffer, Stephanie Adrian, Chuck Job, and Stan Austin. EPA extends a special thank you to the individuals and organizations in the communities of Esteli, Matagalpa, and Ocotal in Nicaragua for their interest and coop- eration in establishing pilot projects upon which to base the national source water protection program. Also, EPA thanks the US AID office in Managua, and the agencies of Nicaraguan Aqueduct and Sewer Company (Empresa Nicaraguense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados), Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud), and Aqueducts and Sewerage of Matagalpa (Acueductos y Alcantarillados de Matagalpa) for their assistance and guidance. EPA thanks Horsley & Witten, Inc. for serving as contractors on the project, and Pan American Health Organization for providing translation and publication serv- ices for the manual. ------- 1 Introduction to Source Water Assessment and Protection in Nicaragua 1.1 Background 1.2 Introduction 1.3 Source Water Protection 1.4 The Training Manual Satellite image of Hurricane Mitch. Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2001 1.1 Background The Nicaragua source water protection technical assistance project, of which this training manual is a part, stems from a Hurricane Mitch relief effort initiated shortly after that disaster struck in 1998. The two agencies primarily respon- sible for assisting Nicaragua in the development of its source water protection program are the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In conjunction with USAID, EPA has been working with three pilot project communities in Nicaragua to introduce some approaches to drinking water management used in the United States. EPA is providing technical assistance to these communities to assist them in adapting and implementing the US approaches to source water assess- ment and protection and to facilitate work in the communities to aid them in establishing source water pro- tection programs of their own. The project has culminated in the preparation of this source water protection training manual and several training sessions for people involved with water resource protection and man- agement throughout the Hurricane Mitch affected areas of Nicaragua. The objectives of the workbook are to present useful information to workshop participants on the basic ele- ments of source water protection, facilitate the development of community drinking water protection pro- grams, and enable communities to reduce the impact of future natural disasters on water supplies. The audi- ence for the manual is predominantly community leaders, regional government officials, local and national water utility representatives, engineers, health agencies, educational organizations, consultants, non-govern- mental organizations, and graduate level university students. 1.2 Introduction This training manual is about protecting the quality of drinking water sources in Nicaragua. Clean drinking water is a precious commodity. Both quality and quanti- ty issues routinely present major challenges to commu- nities. One of the difficulties in addressing these issues is the lack of 'source water protection' programs. Protection of all surface and ground water resources in Nicaragua is an admirable but unrealistic goal. However, focused efforts to protect those surface waters and ground waters that serve as sources of drinking water (generally called ' source water') is not only possible, but Protection of children's health is a major objective of vital to the health of every community. Drinking water drinking water protection efforts in Nicaragua. sources include surface waters, like rivers and streams, and ground water underneath the land surface, accessed through small community wells and larger city wells. Clean drinking water is critical to reduce, or even eliminate, the occurrence of many devastating illnesses, especially among children and the elderly. Clean water can also enhance local economies by improving the quality of life, and potentially attracting professionals and businesses to locate in an area, thereby boosting the prosperity of a community. Local com- munities in Nicaragua can play a pivotal role in protecting pub- lic health by protecting drinking water supplies from potential sources of contamination. Drinking water sources include rivers and streams. What is EPA? The EPA is an executive level agency under the Office of the President of the United States. The mis- sion of the EPA is "to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment." Programs with- in the purview of the EPA include drinking water protection, air quality, hazardous waste cleanup, sur- face water quality, coastal resource protection, wetlands, human health, environmental management and waste management. The EPA is one of the primary governmental organizations that is responsible for protecting human health and natural ecosystems, and plays a major role in the regulation, protec- tion and improvement of the water resources of the United States. Source: EPA, 2001. Figure 1.1 ------- What is US AID? The US AID is a United States governmental agency that provides technical assistance to developing countries "recovering from disaster, trying to escape poverty, and engaging in democratic reforms." The Agency works in six areas: economic growth and agricultural development, population, health and nutri- tion, environment, democracy and governance, education and training, and humanitarian assistance. It has individual missions in many countries around the world including Nicaragua (Managua). Source: US AID, 2001. 1.3 Source Water Protection Protecting drinking water sources involves several steps, including: 1. Identifying all sources of existing or future water supplies for a community (discussed in Chapter 4). 2. Performing an assessment of those sources by: -Delineating source water protection areas (SWPAs) (discussed in Chapter 4); -Inventorying potential contaminant sources in those areas (discussed in Chapter 4); -Ranking potential contaminant sources (discussed in Chapter 4); and -Increasing public awareness/involvement (discussed in Chapters 5 and 6), 3. Developing a management plan to reduce the potential impacts of contaminants on drinking water sources (discussed in Chapter 5). These steps comprise a process called 'source water protection.' In order to achieve comprehensive source water protection, a community must identify, evaluate, and manage its source waters. Effective source water protection programs involve collaborative efforts among the people who use and impact the water resource to ensure the safety of that resource. Residents, local officials, water agencies, businesses, and farmers in a community all fall into a group of peo- ple known as 'stakeholders.' Stakeholders can repre- sent a variety of social, cultural and economic back- grounds and values, and it is essential that a source water protection program considers and incorporates these differences. While varying points of view may In order to achieve comprehensive source water protec- make consensus difficult to reach, best efforts must be tion, a community must identify, evaluate, and manage 111 made to balance opinion. its source waters. Successful source water protection requires extensive stakeholder involvement as a protection program is developed and implemented. With stakeholder involvement, everyone in a community has the opportunity to participate in shaping a drinking water protection program that best fits the needs and resources of the com- munity. A protection program developed by just a small number of individuals with minimal public partici- pation is unlikely to succeed because there is insufficient personal investment in the program by affected indi- viduals and groups in the community. A clear understanding of social, cultural, and economic differences is essential to meeting the goals of overall public participation. The general public would be unlikely to feel committed to the goals of the program. However, with extensive involvement of stakeholders in the planning process, people are far more likely to support implementation of actions to protect the drinking water supply. Source water protection is best accomplished at the local level of government. Community residents have the largest stake in protecting their own water supply. Community members can work together with local, regional, and national government agencies, taking advantage of existing governmental and non-governmen- tal programs and services to enhance drinking water protection. It is important to recognize that community drinking water sources are not governed by community bound- aries. Water sources can often be affected by activities and land uses occurring in other cities and towns with- in the same source water protection area. Therefore, cooperation with and involvement of neighboring com- munities are critical components of water supply protection. Communities often share a water source such as a river or ground water aquifer, only a portion of which is used as a drinking water supply. It is the por- tion used for drinking water purposes that must be protected from potential sources of contamination. Crop cultivation (left) is a potential source of drinking water contamination due to the use of agrochemicals With stakeholder involvement, everyone in a community has the opportunity to participate in shaping a drinking water protection program. ------- What is a Source Water Protection Area (SWPA)? A Source Water Protection Area is that land area that does one of two things: Source Water Protection Area Watershed Boundary Public Drtnklrig Water Intake Mouth of River 1. contributes overland flow of water to a stream, river, or lake that serves as a drinking water supply, or Public Drinking Water Well 2. contributes water that flows to a well that supplies drink- ing water to a population. 1.4 The Training Manual This training manual provides a step-by-step guide for communities to develop a source water protection pro- gram. It supplies information on how a community or group of communities can collaborate to develop and implement a local drinking water protection plan, and how various interest groups in communities can be involved in the process. The manual is designed as an instructional and reference guide for a variety of agen- cies, organizations and individuals interested in developing and implementing local drinking water assess- ment and protection programs in Nicaragua. The manual is based, in part, upon experiences gained in the three pilot project communities of Ocotal, Esteli, and Matagalpa. The source water protection experiences in each of these municipalities are described in detail in Chapter 7. Examples from the pilot projects are used throughout the manual to illustrate different approaches that may be useful for community source water pro- tection efforts in Nicaragua. The Impact of Hurricane Mitch The 1998 hurricane season in the Atlantic Ocean was the deadliest in over 200 years. Hurricane Mitch was the worst of the storms, a Category 5 hurricane with maximum sustained winds over 200 mph. It was responsible for more than 11,000 deaths. Nicaragua was one of the counties hardest hit by Hurricane Mitch. Torrential rains caused widespread flooding and landslides that severely affected the northwestern Pacific coast, the north-central region, and the northeastern Atlantic coast. Figure 1.3 This satellite image of Hurricane Mitch shows the immense size of the storm as it hit Central America. Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2001. The aftermath of Hurricane Mitch underscored a tremendous need to develop local programs to manage and protect source waters in Nicaragua. The impact of Hurricane Mitch on Nicaragua's water and san- itation systems was tremendous. The damage and problems continued to multiply days and months after Mitch, due to the deforestation caused by the storm. Severe erosion and mudslides overloaded the already damaged water and sanitation systems. Many communities in Mitch-affected areas were with- out potable water for extended periods after the storm. The threat of waterborne disease was widespread as a result of contamination of rivers and streams used for drinking water. Figure 1.4 ------- ^^>v- - • , •-- -*. lfc " ^k^».J* *•• V-—- -.1 >; \ • "•- •-- "v' s ;" •*^^t. ^"-,1"- *V **.'^' >;~- - >^?;: -A »- * *^* • The heavy rains of Hurricane Mitch caused dramatic erosion in many streambeds (above). This erosion, exacerbated by deforestation of the hillsides contributed to contamination of surface drinking water supplies. The rainfall also washed such huge volumes of sediment into the rivers that sand removal was still ongoing in many areas (right) two years after the storm. Reconstruction projects have been undertaken to repair and replace the water and sewer systems dam- aged or destroyed by the hurricane. Emergency health campaigns helped to prevent outbreaks of waterborne diseases following the disaster. But the effects of the hurricane are still visible in Nicaragua and other regions of Central America. Much of the worst devastation following the Hurricane was felt in areas where land uses and water and sanitation services were inadequate prior to the disaster. While it would be impossible to completely control pervasive drinking water contamina- tion during a storm as destructive as Hurricane Mitch, it is possible to reduce the impact of future events, as well as to make dramatic improvements in water quality under normal weather conditions. This training manual is designed in large part to assist Nicaraguan communities as they develop their source water protection programs. These programs will provide the communities with a greater degree of resiliency in terms of drinking water quality in the event of future natural disasters like Hurricane Mitch. Figure 1.4 (continued) ------- 2 Water Quality and Community Health 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Sources and Health Effects of Common Drinking Water Contaminants 2.3 Drinking Water Standards Typical freshwater stream in northern Nicaragua. 2.1 Introduction Clean drinking water plays a very important role in the health of a community. While most cities in Nicaragua are able to provide treatment for the municipal drinking water supply, the situation is vastly different in rural areas. In rural areas, the number of residents receiving treated water is con- siderably smaller, and use of untreated drinking water supplies is common. According to the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), approxi- mately 37 percent of the estimated total Nicaraguan population of 4.46 million people has access to treat- ed drinking water (distributed by piping systems). The urban population is estimated to be 63.7 percent 100- Q. Q. Public Water Sources in Nicaragua 70% LJ 30% Ground Water Surface Water 100- o TO n Q. 0 50- •5 n- A ccess to Drinking Services 93% 12% Urban Rural 100- % of Population 3 8 Sanitary Disposal Services 87% 54% Urban Rural of the total population, or approximately 2.84 mil- lion people (PAHO, 1999). Of that urban popula- tion, it is estimated that 93 percent has access to drinking water services, while only 12 percent of the rural population has similar access. Forty-two per- cent of the total population has access to sanitary disposal services (including the use of latrines). Of the urban population, 87 percent benefit from such services, but only 54 percent of the rural population does (PAHO, 1999). Community access to clean drinking water can be improved by protecting drinking water sources and managing them for contaminant reduction and pre- vention for both present and future uses. In 1990, 70 percent of the public water supply systems in Nicaragua used ground water, while the remaining 30 percent used surface water (PAHO, 1998). While ground water is generally more protected from con- tamination than surface water, ground water supplies can be extremely difficult to clean up once they become contaminated. They are underground and therefore impossible to see, and water underground moves relatively slowly, meaning that once contam- ination enters the ground water, it can take many years to show up in drinking water wells. These fac- tors cause ground water remediation to be very dif- ficult, and make protection of these waters from ini- tial contamination extremely important. The majority of surface drinking water supplies in Nicaragua that receive treatment uses a combination of filtration, settling basins, aeration, chemical addi- tives (to assist in contaminant removal), and chlori- nation. Chlorine is the most commonly used disin- fectant worldwide because it is highly effective against microbes, is widely available, and is inex- pensive relative to other treatment options. Water from surface sources must be filtered of sediments and organic matter prior to chlorination. Chlorination of turbid water can be ineffective and chlorine can react with the organic matter to form harmful byproducts such as trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids and chlorite (EPA, 200la). Further, the amount of chlorine needed to treat all of the harmful bacteria in turbid water can far exceed safe levels for humans. Treatment plants, such as the one in Matagalpa, also use other chemicals to remove bacteria. For exam- ple, aluminum sulfate and calcium oxide are added to the water in specified amounts during the treat- ment process, based on the quality of the influent water (Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa, et al., 1999). These chemicals act as coagulants, and promote removal of suspended sediment, thereby enhancing the treatment process. Drinking water is aerated during the treatment process to reduce contaminate levels. Figure 2.1 Settling chambers are used to remove sediment from drinking water. It is important to note that typical water treatment systems for either surface or ground water supplies do not remove some categories of contaminants, par- ------- ticularly nitrates, organic chemicals, and dissolved metals. For example, a drinking water source con- taminated with agricultural chemicals, namely fertil- izer and pesticides, or with metals like arsenic or copper from a mining operation, would not be cleansed by treatment processes that remove microbes. Prevention and management of pollutants in a source water area, therefore, play a key role in helping to protect drinking water. For people who do not receive treated drinking water from a public water supply system, simple fil- tration methods can be helpful. A sand filter can remove many contaminants from a surface supply of drinking water, including clays and silts, some microorganisms, natural organic matter, iron, and magnesium (EPA, 1999). Sand filters can be used in individual homes or by small groups of several near- by households, as is done in some households in the Dipilto River watershed north of Ocotal. They can also be installed to serve a larger number of people, such as occupants in a hotel or workers at a coffee farm. Selva Negra coffee plantation resort in Matagalpa uses sand filtration to treat water near its source on the mountainside before it is delivered to the hotel and the workers' community. After water has been filtered, it is possible to disin- fect it in the home with chlorine, which can be pur- chased in liquid form in local stores. It is extremely important that people read, understand, and follow the directions for using this type of disinfectant because chlorine and its byproducts can be toxic to human health if used improperly (Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa, et al., 1999). While chlorination affects the taste of water, and may be objectionable to some people, the benefits of its use far outweigh the risks of exposure to microbes in drinking water. 2.2 Sources and Health Effects of Common Drinking Water Contaminants A variety of both natural and man-made contami- nants can affect drinking water quality. Typical drinking water contaminants include microbes, Laboratory Capacity-Building Program for Drinking Water Quality in Nicaragua Water quality testing for drinking water throughout Nicaragua is generally carried out at the centralized MINSA and ENACAL laboratories located in Managua. In some areas, smaller regional laboratories perform basic water quality testing such as bacteriological tests, temperature, pH, and nitrite/nitrate tests. However, the current laboratory system in Nicaragua suffers from inadequate resources for routine test- ing and monitoring, detailed water quality testing, proper technician training, and modern equipment. A current project administered by PAHO, part of the United Nations system, is working to build the capacity of the central laboratories of MINSA, ENACAL, and a university laboratory, by providing train- ing and equipment. The laboratory capacity-building portion of this project receiving significant funding from EPA. Eventually this capacity-building program will serve as the foundation for laboratory accred- itation in Nicaragua, and capacity building in the regional laboratories. This work is part of PAHO's Regional Plan of Action to Improve Access to and Quality of Drinking Water in Latin America, which was a product of the 1994 Summit of the Americas. Similar improve- ments are being implemented concurrently in El Salvador through the same program. Figure 2.2 nitrates, solvents and petroleum products, pesticides, and metals. The relative occurrence of these cate- gories of contaminants in drinking water in Nicaragua is largely unknown because of limited water quality testing capabilities in the country. However, routine bacterial testing does occur at most if not all of municipal drinking water treatment facilities, and laboratory data generally indicate sig- nificant levels of total and fecal coliform bacteria in surface water being used for drinking water supplies. Bacterial data for ground water sources, such as in Esteli, was not available in the regional laboratory analysis data sheet provided by the Nicaraguan Aqueduct and Sewer Company (ENACAL), and may not be collected at many ground water well sites (ENACAL - Esteli, 1999). Morbidity and mortality data for water borne ill- nesses is maintained by the Ministry of Health (MINSA), and can provide some insight into the lev- els of harmful bacterial exposure possible attributa- ble to contaminated drinking water. Such data from exposure to the other types of contaminants (nitrates, solvents, pesticides, and metals) do not generally exist for Nicaragua. However, there is a reasonable likelihood that some or all of these contaminants are present in drinking water, depending on the location of the water supply and land uses in the area. Without water quality data to reveal the levels of these contaminants, it is impossible to speculate how they may be affecting the health of the population. However, general background information of the health effects of exposure to these contaminants is provided in the sections that follow. The contaminants described in this chapter are like- ly to affect water quality, to some extent, in every community in Nicaragua. The most pervasive con- taminants, based on observation of land use and human activity, are probably microorganisms and nitrates. Depending on the intensity of agricultural and/or industrial activity in a source water area, sol- vents and petroleum products, pesticides, and metals may or may not pose a significant risk to human health. The degree of risk can be determined large- ly through the source water assessment process described in Chapter 4. 2.2.A Microbial Contaminants What Are They and What Are the Sources? Sometimes open defecation takes place in unvegetated areas, where people congregate and wait. Here, coffee pickers wait for a truck to bring their bags of coffee to a drying facility. Microbes are microscopic life forms. Certain microbes normally inhabit the intestines of humans and animals and aid in digestion. While most microbes are harmless and many even perform ben- eficial functions, pathogenic microbes can cause ill- ness when ingested with drinking water or food. Harmful microbes include certain bacteria, viruses, and protozoa. These invisible contaminants can get into drinking water in several ways: • direct urination or defecation by humans and/or animals near or into a stream, river or lake used for drinking water; • discharge from a sewage treatment plant inside a source water protection area; and • overflow of waste from poorly constructed or flooded latrines in a source water protection area, especially near wells and surface waters. This drawing shows a magnified view of a bacterium, invisi- ble to the naked eye. ------- Testing for Coliform Bacteria Coliform bacteria are typically found in the digestive tract of warm-blooded animals, but can also be found naturally in the environment. Because they are generally associated with human and animal fecal matter, the presence of coliform bacteria is used as an indicator for other harmful pathogens in drinking water associated with human and animal fecal matter. Human bacterial pathogens include Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., Shigella spp. and V. cholerae. Two tests are used to identify potential fecal con- tamination: the total coliform test and the fecal coliform test. The total coliform test is used to determine general levels of bacterial contamination while the fecal coliform test specifically indicates the presence of bacteria originating from fecal matter. Figure 2.3 What is a Total Coliform Test? The most common method of testing for total coliforms is the membrane filter method. This is a simple method that can provide results within 24 hours. To perform the total coliform test, 100 ml of water is filtered through a sterile membrane with pore diameter small enough that the bacteria remain on the fil- ter membrane. The membrane is then placed in a dish on a growth medium and incubated in a small spe- cialized oven for 24 hours. After the incubation period, each individual coliform microbe will have grown into a visible colony on the filter membrane, and can be counted. The result of the test is pre- sented as number of bacterial colonies per 100 ml of water. Typically, a drinking water supply is con- sidered clean only when zero colonies per 100 ml of water are present. (source: Madigan, et al., 2000; Gaudy and Gaudy, 1980) Figure 2.4 What is a Fecal Coliform Test? A fecal coliform test indicates only the presence of fecal coliforms, which are a subset of total coliform bacteria. Fecal coliforms grow only in the intestines of humans and animals. The membrane filter method is used for this test as well, but the growth medium and the incubation temperature are different. Bile salts are included in the growth medium so that bacteria that do not grow in human and animal intes- tines do not grow in the medium, and the incubation temperature is increased slightly. Again, results are measured in colonies per 100 ml of filtered water, and water is only considered clean if the test reveals zero colonies growing on the medium. (source: Madigan, et al., 2000; Gaudy and Gaudy, 1980) Figure 2.5 The presence of microbes in a water supply is deter- mined by laboratory tests that culture indicator bac- teria on a special growth medium (see text boxes at left). The results of these tests predict the likelihood of the presence of harmful microorganisms in the water. What Are the Human Health Effects? When certain microbes enter a human body they can cause people to get sick. Different microbes cause different illnesses. The most common illness caused by ingestion of water contaminated with fecal bacte- ria is dysentery, an infectious disease marked by dangerous hemorrhagic diarrhea. Children can suf- fer serious dehydration, and in severe cases, may even die. Other common waterborne illnesses asso- Children can suffer serious effects, particularly dehydration, from waterborne diseases. ciated with microbes in drinking water include cholera, hepatitis A, and typhoid fever (Evans and Brachman, 1991). Potential Drinking Water Contaminants and Contaminant Sources in the Three Pilot Project Communities Community Esteli Matagalpa Ocotal Potential Contaminant Solvents Petroleum Products Nitrates Bacteria Bacteria Natural Organic Material: coffee husks, honey water Pesticides Bacteria Natural Organic Material: coffee husks, honey water Pesticides Potential Source Machinery, furniture factories, auto repair shops Gas stations, factories Sewage, fertilizer Waste and wastewater Waste and wastewater Coffee processing Coffee farms, agriculture Waste and wastewater Coffee processing Coffee farms, agriculture Figure 2.6 ------- w vi Tl en su ed Cl sp di Water Borne Diseases ater borne diseases are caused by different types of microbial organisms, including bacteria, protozoa, ruses, and parasitic worms, that can be transmitted in water to humans from other humans and animals. lese harmful microbes generally thrive in the gastrointestinal tract of humans or animals and are pres- t in the environment when they are excreted. Once in the environment, these microbes have varying rvival times, but can be transmitted via surface runoff, on food, or through direct contact with infect- humans and animals (Evans and Brachman, 1991). lolera, cryptosporidiosis, typhoid fever and enteric fever caused by Escherichia coll are all commonly read via water when the diseases are present in the human population. A general list of water borne seases and information on their transmission is provided in the figure below. Common Waterborne Diseases Transmitted Through Contaminated Drinking Water Disease Cholera Cryptosporidiosis Salmonellosis Shigellosis Typhoid Fever Primary Routes of Transmission Stool to Water Stool to Water Stool to Food Stool to Human Stool to Water Urine to Water Contaminated Food Figure 2.7 Microbial contamination of drinking water poses a significant threat to human health in Nicaragua. A cholera epidemic hit Nicaragua and other Latin American countries in the early and mid-1990s. A cholera control campaign in Nicaragua, which involved improved sanitation and public education, brought the number of cholera cases back under con- trol, but only after the control campaign was again challenged by Hurricane Mitch in 1998. In 2000, the number of reported cases of cholera in Nicaragua was down to eleven (PAHO, 2001). According to MINSA, however, dysentery remains a threatening public health problem in Nicaragua (MINSA, personal communication, November, 2000). In 1990, for example, the number of report- ed deaths due to diarrhea was 2,166 (PAHO, 1998). The numbers of reported cases of diarrhea in 1993 and 1994 were 255,000 and 264,366, respectively (PAHO, 1999). It can be reasonably assumed that a large proportion of these cases is attributable to ingestion of contaminated drinking water, as opposed to poor hygiene or contaminated food, although the exact proportion is unknown. By 1996, the number of reported deaths due to diarrhea had been reduced to just 82 due to national control efforts (PAHO, 1999), but the number of cases con- tinues to be high. Intestinal infectious diseases like dysentery and cholera are of additional concern because they are among the leading causes of death of children under one year of age (PAHO, 1998). Of the 2,166 report- ed deaths from diarrhea in Nicaragua in 1990, 75 percent were children under the age of one (PAHO, 1998). Source water protection can play an integral role in the prevention of outbreaks of disease, such as dysentery and cholera, caused by microbial contam- ination of drinking water and food. Cholera and dysentery can be propagated through both inade- quate sanitation and contaminated drinking water. Managing land uses, identifying and managing potential contaminant sources, and planning for the future can all contribute to reduced risk to these dis- eases and can help to limit the magnitude of future disease outbreaks. 2.2.B Nitrates What Are They and What Are the Sources? Nitrates are molecules comprised of nitrogen and oxygen in the chemical form NO3. Nitrates are nat- urally occurring in low levels in the environment as part of the nitrogen cycle. The greatest sources of nitrates are agricultural fertilizers, but human and animal wastes can also contribute nitrates to the environment. Nitrates can affect both surface and ground water drinking supplies. Treating drinking water contami- nated with nitrates is expensive, and can be compli- cated by the presence of other types of contaminants. While nitrate concentrations can vary over time due to atmospheric sources, agricultural inputs, and weather conditions, it is reasonably safe to assume that nitrates are affecting drinking water quality in Nicaragua, and should be a target of source water management efforts. Cattle wastes washing into rivers and streams are a significant source of nitrogen and bacterial input to drinking water supplies. ------- What are the Human Health Effects? Elevated levels of nitrates in drinking water are of concern because of their potential effect on infants, young children, and pregnant women. Nitrates above 10 mg/1 in drinking water can cause blue baby syndrome (methemoglobinemia), an illness charac- terized by oxygen starvation in the blood, which can lead to mental retardation and, in severe cases, even death. Ingesting nitrates is also associated with ele- vated cancer risk, especially gastrointestinal cancers. 2.2.C Solvents and Petroleum Products What Are They and What Are the Sources? Some businesses and industrial operations use petro- leum-based chemicals or man-made organic sol- vents in the course of performing their work. For example, automotive repair shops often use and dis- pose of a variety of solvents or petroleum prod- ucts including motor oil and degreasers. Painting opera- tions use paint thinners, varnish- es, oils and stains. Gas sta- tions store and deliver fuel. All of these materials can pollute drinking water if they are not handled, stored, or disposed of safely. What Are the Human Health Effects? Solvents can pose significant health risks to people of all ages, especially when ingested routinely over long periods of time, even at seemingly low concen- trations. Many organics are associated with an increased risk of cancer in all age groups. They are also linked to liver problems and can impair the nor- mal function of the circulatory and nervous systems. Women may experience reproductive difficulties, and children are at a high risk of developing a spec- trum of health problems related to exposure to these chemicals in drinking water (EPA, 200Ib, online: www. epa.gov/safewater/mcl. html). 2.2.D Pesticides What Are They and What Are the Sources? A pesticide is "any substance or mixture of sub- stances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest" (EPA, 200Ic). Pesticides include insecticides, which are intended to kill or repel insects; fungicides, which are intend- ed to kill fungi; and herbicides, intended to kill unwanted weeds and plants. In Nicaragua, common pesticides include gramoxone (a herbicide), methamidophos (an insecticide), endosulfan (an insecticide), and metalaxyl (a general use fungicide). When chemicals such as these are used to control weeds and insects in crop production or to control household pests, they can contaminate drinking water supplies either by way of disposal or in runoff. The active ingredients in most pesticides are usually either synthetic organic compounds (such as those Ridomil is a trade name for Metalaxyl, a fungicide used on crops in Nicaragua. listed above), or toxic metals, like copper or arsenic (use of arsenic was more common in the past than it is today). These chemicals are poisonous to humans and can cause short-term effects like headaches, nausea and vomiting, and/or long-term impacts like nervous system damage and cancer. What Are the Human Health Effects? The health effects of exposure to pesticides through ingestion in drinking water are similar to those of sol- vents. Pesticides are also organic chemicals, and the health effects are often similar. Liver and kidney prob- lems, as well as increased cancer risk, have been connected to pesticide exposure through drinking water (EPA, 200Ib). Children are especially at risk when they routinely ingest significant concentrations of pesticides in drinking water. There are "critical periods" in human development when exposure to a toxin is particularly damaging. For example, pesticides may harm a child by blocking absorption of important food nutrients necessary for normal healthy growth. Also, if a child's excretory system is not fully developed, the body may not fully remove pesticides. (EPA, 200Id) 2.2.E Metals What Are They and What Are The Sources? Metals can occur naturally in drinking water sources by leaching from the soil. Metals are also associated with a range of human sources including urban stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater dis- charges, oil and gas production, mining, and farming. In acidic soil conditions (low pH), metals that are clinging to sediments from natural or human sources can be released into ground and surface water by leach- ing from the soils. These metals include naturally occurring trace elements such as lead, mercury, iron, and copper. Concentrations of these metals at greater than trace levels are often associated with industrial or min- ing agriculture. Metals in drinking water can also originate from organometallic compounds used in organic pesticides (for example, the fungicide copper sulfate) or from wood and leather preservation processes (which often use tin or arsenic) (Manahan, 1994). Lead and other metals can also leach from old water distribution pipes when drinking water is very acidic (low pH). What Are The Human Health Effects? Although at low levels metals are important in the human diet, at high levels they can be dangerous to human health and the envi- ronment. Metals can be a serious source of contamination in drink- ing water. Once metals are dissolved in water, they become avail- able for biological uptake. Metals above standards can be toxic to aquatic life, and can have significant negative human health effects when ingested through drinking water. Some metals can interfere with human and animal nervous system function and others can cause reproductive and developmental problems. For example, inorganic arsenic in drinking water is associated with high inci- dences of skin cancer and other cancers (WHO, 1993). Copper can have gastrointestinal effects, although the exact levels above which adverse human health effects are seen are not well defined. Lead can accumulate in the human skeleton and can inhibit enzyme development and calcium metabolism in infants and children. Lead is also toxic to the Mining operations can be a source of metals in drinking water. ------- central and peripheral nervous systems (WHO, 1993). While the most common source of lead in drinking water is plumbing and distribution pipes, additional industrial sources are possible and should be managed (WHO, 1993) Metals Commonly Found in Drinking Water and their Possible Sources in Nicaragua pH Scale Metal Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Effects of ingestion in Drinking Water Skin damage, circulation system problems, increased risk of cancer Kidney Damage Short term exposure: gastrointestinal distress; Long term exposure: liver or kidney damage Infants and children: delays in physical or mental development; Adults: kidney problems, high blood pressure Sources in Nicaragua Erosion of natural deposits, mining byproduct, runoff from glass and electronics production wastes Corrosion of galvanized pipes, erosion of natural deposits, discharge from metal refineries, leachate from disposed batteries and paints Corrosion of household plumbing systems, erosion of natural deposits, mining byproducts Corrosion of household plumbing systems, erosion of natural deposits Figure 2.8 Special Risk of Contaminated Drinking Water to Children Diseases and ailments caused by exposure to various contaminants typically pose a greater risk to chil- dren than to adults. Infants and children may be especially sensitive to health risks posed by organic chemicals (solvents, petroleum products, and pesticides) and metals for several reasons: • their internal organs are still developing and maturing; • in relation to their body weight, infants and children eat and drink more than adults, potentially increasing their exposure to chemicals in food and water; and • certain behaviors, such as playing on floors or treated outdoor areas, or putting objects in their mouths, increase children's exposure to chemicals used in homes and neighborhoods. Figure 2.9 pH is a measurement of the acidity of a substance, based on the concentration of hydrogen ions pres- ent. It provides an understanding of the general conditions in the medium being tested, for exam- ple, soils, streams and ground water. pH is present- ed on a log 10 scale from 1 to 14, with neutral being pH 7. The pH of natural surface water and ground water vary considerably from one location to another due to the natural conditions of the area, but monitoring of pH changes can provide a good indication of possible contamination of a water source. Figure 2.10 Gastric Fluids Volcanic Soils Acid Mine Drainage Orange Juice Tomato Juice Acidic Soils Cabbage Urine Pure Water Sea Water Baking Soda Alkaline Soils Ammonia Solution Soapy Water Bleach Liquid Drain Cleaner 2.3 Drinking Water Standards Most countries seek to protect public health by setting legal stan- dards for drinking water quality. In the United States, drinking water suppliers are required to test for an extensive list of pollu- tants ("priority" pollutants) on a routine basis, and if a violation of a standard is reported, corrective measures must be taken. Both the EPA National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act (passed in 1974 and amended in 1986 and 1996; EPA, 200la online) and the World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality (original version published in 1984 and 1985 and revised edition published in 1993 and 1996; WHO, 1996) can be used as references for safe drinking water standards for common contaminants. These standards provide a basis on which govern- ments worldwide can manage, monitor and regulate drinking water quality for the protection of human health. Both documents are available on the internet. The EPA Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards can be located on the internet at www.epa.gov/safewater/agua/estandares.html. The World Health Organization Drinking Water Guidelines can be found on the internet in English at www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/GDWQ. ------- Interpreting EPA Standards and WHO Drinking Water Guidelines The units of measure applied to both the EPA standards and WHO guidelines are "parts per million" (ppm, also expressed as milligrams per liter or mg/1) and "parts per billion" (ppb, also expressed as micrograms per liter or mg/1). These concentrations are extremely minute. One part per million can be thought of as the equivalent of one minute in two years. One part per billion can be thought of as one second in 32 years. Yet, these minute concentrations are the levels at which impacts to human health have either been documented or extrapolated from research, based on an average person's daily exposure to the contaminants through drinking water (WHO, 1996). It is therefore important to be mindful that even small quantities of certain chemicals entering water can contaminate a large volume of drinking water. With regard to bacterial contaminants, the drinking water standards are commonly described in number of organisms per 100 milliliters of water (the amount which is commonly filtered for the test). Both the EPA Drinking Water Standards and the WHO Guidelines set the limit of fecal coliforms and other microbes in drinking water at zero (undetectable). While contact with just a single disease organism can cause disease, the higher the concentration of that organism in a volume of drinking or bathing water, the higher the risk of contracting the disease with which that organism is associated. Testing for viruses and protozoa is not common, as the tests are specialized and expensive. MINSA is responsible for defining the national drinking water quality standards in Nicaragua for all pub- lic supplies of water, such as those managed by ENACAL. Water quality testing is carried out at the national water quality laboratory in Managua as well as at several smaller regional laboratories. While improvements to Nicaragua's laboratory capacity are in process (see "Laboratory Capacity-Building Program for Drinking Water Quality in Nicaragua" in this chapter), the quality of all public drinking water in Nicaragua can still not be ensured up to the standards. This is a primary reason in support of a source water protection program in Nicaragua. Data collected by MINSA show that surface water entering the Ocotal treatment plant from the Rio Dipilto exhibits bac- terial contamination. Figure 2.11 Existing Legal Framework for Source Water Protection in Nicaragua Several national laws in Nicaragua outline the potential significant roles of other agencies in source water protection in Nicaragua. These laws are described in more detail in Chapter 6, but are summarized here: • The Ley 290, the Ley de Organization, Competencias y Procedimientos del Poder Ejecutivo (1998), out- lines the responsibility of all national government agencies. • Ley 217 , the Ley General del Medio Ambiente y los Recursos Naturales (1996), establishes the respon- sibility of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA) for regulating and setting national environmental standards. • Decree Number 33-95, Disposiciones Para el Control de la Contamination Provientes de las Descargas de Aguas Residuales Domesticas, Industriales, e Agropecuarias (1995), sets maximum limits on various contaminant concentrations in the discharge of different categories of household, industrial and agricul- tural wastes into sewer systems and surface waters. Figure 2.12 ------- Benefits from Source Water Protection 3.1 Direct and Indirect Benefits to Human Health 3.2 Environmental Benefits 3.3 Conclusion Clean water is fundamental to the health of human populations and ecosystems. Beyond the benefit to public health, there are a number of economic, social and environmental advantages stemming from source water protection. However, accounting for all the advantages of source water protection in economic terms is dif- ficult, and the human benefits provided by an unimpaired water supply are rarely explained in the tradition- al form of economic valuation. Consequently, clarifying the benefits of source water protection is usually done in a qualitative rather than quantitative manner. 3.1 Direct and Indirect Benefits to Human Health The most obvious benefit of clean drinking water is maintaining public health. Water-related diseases worldwide are estimated to cost at least $125 billion/year in direct medical expenses and lost work time (Gleick, 1998). While improved management of potential contaminant sources will not remove all sources of contamination, it can significantly reduce them. A reduction in contaminants affecting the water resource under- Source water protection can benefit standably then translates into a reduction in both direct and indirect costs coffee workers and others by improv- attributable to drinking water contamination. inS drinking water quality and reducing risks of some illnesses. 3.1.A Family Benefits The social benefits of source water protection are best expressed in terms of avoided impacts and their asso- ciated costs. Generally speaking, an increase in water quality can be expected to result in a decrease in dis- ease, especially in infants, children and the elderly. Costs associated with treating disease, including travel to medical facilities, time away from work, and the cost of medication, can be very burdensome, especially among impoverished or low-income families and individuals. According to PAHO (1998), the average cost per patient to provide health care services and drugs per illness episode was estimated at 30 cordobas for chil- dren ages 0-5 years and 65 cordobas for children over 6 years of age. Depending on the illness, the govern- ment health center may bear much of the cost, although in some cases the patient's family must bear the bulk of the health services cost. Whether paid by the government or patients, the costs of water borne diseases in Nicaragua are sig- nificant. The average per capita income in 1999 was just less than 4000 cordobas, or approximately US$300 (World Bank, 2001). The annual per capi- ta cost of medical attention resulting from contami- nated drinking water could be as much as one to even five percent of the average per capita income, depending on the number of medical visits required in a year (World Bank, 2000). Many drugs used to target diseases such as tubercu- losis, malaria, dengue, and sexually transmitted dis- eases, as well as drugs to improve the health of mothers and children, should be available free of charge at local health centers (PAHO, 1998). However, the availability of drugs in 1996 averaged only between 60 and 70 percent of the actual need (PAHO, 1998). Clearly, a reduction in illnesses can reduce the strain on an already limited supply of drugs, save significant expenses, and reduce demand on the limited number of trained medical technicians (tecnicos) in the country. Clean water is fundamental to the health of human populations and ecosystems. Illness has other implications for families as well. It can cause both physical and emotional stress, espe- cially if a family member needs care for an extend- ed time. Care requirements for an ill child or an elder are likely to preclude carrying out of regular household duties or earning daily wages to support a household. Family income can be reduced at the same time that money is needed for medical expens- es. School attendance can also go down due to ill- ness or to the need to care for a family member with an illness. Protecting drinking water sources from contamina- tion could reduce the illness-related costs to fami- lies. When the savings to an individual household due to availability of clean water are multiplied across a community or watershed, the total econom- ic value is considerable. 3.1.B Community Economic Benefits Effective water resource protection at the commu- nity level can provide a stimulant to the economy at both local and national levels. Ecotourism could be advanced in areas with safe drinking water. ------- For example, dependable potable water and an effi- cient drinking water delivery system may increase the potential for investment by foreign or domestic companies seeking locations with a solid infrastruc- ture. Well-protected and well-managed drinking water sources also increase the overall quality of life in a community, and can enhance recreational values in a source water area. Healthy and inviting surface waters (rivers, streams, lakes) provide opportunities for fishing, swimming and bathing. Ecotourism can be advanced as a potentially prosperous business venture if people know there are recreational oppor- tunities and access to a safe source of drinking water in an environmentally attractive area. Property val- ues may also increase over time with improvements in the quality of both surface and ground water resources. Finally, source water protection reduces the need for water treatment. The cost of maintenance and repairs for a community drinking water treatment plant that is stressed by excessive levels of contami- nants can be disproportionately high. Source water protection can help reduce suspended solids in a river (caused by erosion) as well as bacterial loading from livestock and open human defecation. Sediment loads can interfere with the efficiency of a treatment plant, as can sporadic excess loads of bac- teria. Good management of a surface source water protec- tion area can reduce the potential for excessive loads of pollutants to a river. It can also result in more consistent water quality conditions in a surface water source, and thus help ensure efficient and cost- effective operation of the treatment facility. Source water protection for drinking water wells can also be effective in reducing water treatment needs and associated costs. Chemicals, such as petroleum products or solvents, that may leach into the ground from surface spills, gas stations and other potential sources can eventually reach ground water. Leaders involved in source water protection efforts may enhance their capacity to accom- plish other key tasks in a community. Ground water contaminated by these chemicals can be very expensive to treat, and in some cases may render a drinking water source unusable. By pro- tecting the area around a drinking water well, the risks of serious contamination and associated treat- ment costs can be minimized and the source of drinking water can be conserved for long-term use. In areas such as Esteli that depend primarily on ground water pumped through a series of wells located throughout the city, the benefits of source water protection are readily apparent. 3.1.C Capacity Building Benefits The process of source water assessment and protec- tion can build significant capacity to address other important local issues. Protecting source water is a broad, long-term community undertaking that requires establishment of a comprehensive network of stakeholders. The gains earned from forging ties among stakeholders, including individuals in the community, non-governmental organizations, business associations, schools, and governments, can be sig- nificant and enduring. Leaders involved in directing a source water protection program may gain sufficient political standing to accomplish other key tasks within a community. Also, the benefits of successful source water protection in one town can inspire other communities, thereby broadening the impact of one commu- nity's success. 3.2 Environmental Benefits While this manual focuses predominantly on source water protection for the purpose of improving drinking water quality, there are considerable environmental gains to be achieved from safeguarding water resources. A healthy ecosystem able to support the array of flora and fauna native to Nicaragua, generally requires a water source free of significant pollution. When overland flow of water picks up excessive levels of nutrients, chemicals, or harmful microorganisms on its way to join a river or stream, environmental problems can result. Unnatural constituents in water can cause an imbalance in the aquatic environment that may become evident through a change in the animal or plant community, loss of one or more species, and/or an overabundance of one species or group of species, for example an algal bloom. The Lago Puerto Viejo along the Pan American Highway north of Managua is an example of a surface water ecosystem experiencing an overgrowth of aquatic vegetation. The overgrowth is most likely due to an exces- sive amount of nutrients (probably phos- phorous) in the surface water and/or ground water entering the lake. It can be reasonably assumed that the excess nutri- ents are coming from fertilizer used on surrounding agricultural land. While water quality tests could help character- ize the condition of the aquatic environ- ment, the thick coverage of aquatic vege- tation likely indicates the lake is eutroph- ic, meaning that it suffers from an accel- erated growth rate of aquatic plant species. Eutrophication leads to oxygen- starved conditions in a surface water body. It is often true that highly eutro- phied lakes such as Lago Puerto Viejo are unable to support normal populations of fish, amphibians plants. and native aquatic Lago Puerto Viejo If surface runoff rainwater infiltrating the ground picks up contaminants from a chemical dump or from mine tailings for example, it can carry those materials into the ground water system. When contaminated ground water discharges to a lake, stream, river, or even the ocean, it can damage ecosystems in the receiving waters. In general, ecosystems free of significant contaminant stress are more healthy than contaminated ecosystems, and therefore are better able to provide a normal range of natural benefits. ------- 3.3 Conclusion Source water protection has significant human health, economic, social and environmental benefits. A com- munity with safe drinking water is a more healthy community, experiencing fewer social costs associated with illness and enjoying more potential for economic well-being. Source water protection efforts can result in immediate benefits, especially if a single problematic contaminant, such as bacteria, is identified and signif- icantly reduced. The greatest advantage of these efforts, however, is the potential for long-term protection of drinking water sources. A comprehensive source water protection program can improve the quality of life for individuals, families, communities, and the nation for generations to come. ------- Source Water Protection Areas 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Delineating and Mapping Protection Areas for Surface Water Sources 4.3 Delineating and Mapping Protection Areas for Wells 4.4 Identifying Potential Sources of Contamination 4.5 Ranking Potential Sources of Contamination 4.6 Conclusion What is a Source Water Protection Area? A Source Water Protection Area (SWPA) is defined as the area that supplies water to a public water supply, ground water well, or sur- face water intake. It is this area through which contaminants are likely to pass and eventually reach the ground water well or sur- face water intake. The SWPA can be delineated using one of sever- al methods, which are described in Sections 4.2 and 4.3. 4.1 Introduction The first step in protecting drinking water is to identi- fy the geographic area(s) that provide drinking water to a river intake or to a well. Such an area is either 1) the watershed area contributing water to that part of a river or stream that is used as a source of drinking water, or 2) a zone of contribution to a well (that is, the land area beneath which water flows to a well that extracts drinking water from the underground aquifer). After rain water reaches the earth's surface, it gener- ally either seeps into the ground to the underlying aquifer (recharge) or flows overland (runoff) into the nearest downstream surface water body (see Figure 4.1). Protecting source water requires consideration Watershed Boundary Precipitation UH of the entire watershed area, or the zone of contribu- tion through which potential drinking water flows before it is withdrawn from a river or public well. The simplest way to protect drinking water is to pro- tect and manage the way land is used within the SWPA. The first step in protection is to delineate the source water area and show it on a map. For exam- ple, Figures 4.2 and 4.3 show the source water pro- tection area for a surface water source (an intake on a river), and the source water protection area for a ground water source (a well) respectively. These maps provide a candidate SWPA for each drinking water supply. Figure 4.1 Paths of Water Through a Watershed Watershed Area Boundary Source Water Protection Area Watershed Boundary Public Drinking » Water Intake Source Water Protection Area for a Well Well Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 What are Watersheds and Watershed Areas? Watershed: The land area (sometimes referred Watershed Area: The land area from which to a drainage basin) from which water drains water drains to a point on a receiving body of into a receiving body of water (including lakes, water (Figure 4.2). ponds, wetlands, embayments, estuaries, and oceans) or to the terminus of a river, stream, or tributary (Figure 4.4). 1 Overland Flow \2 Ground Water Flow \3 Shallow Subsurface Stormflow ------- 4.2 Delineating and Mapping Source Water Protection Areas for Surface Water Sources Source water protection areas for surface water and ground water sources are delineated using different methods. The boundaries of a surface watershed are sometimes obvious. Often, the hills or mountains surrounding the drainage basin form clear bound- aries and the shape of the watershed can be easily visualized. Where the watershed boundary is less easily visualized, a topographic map is used. The boundary of a watershed can be defined by asking for any point X on the map: "If a drop of water falls here, will it eventually flow to the mouth of the river or stream of concern?" The answer can be determined by tracing the flow path of the drop from higher elevations to lower ele- vations, its direction always staying perpendicular to topographic con- tour lines. If the answer is yes, then that point is within the watershed. If the answer is no, then that point falls outside. However, it is impor- tant to note that every point falls within some watershed, even if it is not the current watershed of concern. Figure 4.4 illustrates this point. Figure 4.4 The boundary of a watershed can be defined by asking, "If a drop of water falls to the ground at point X, will it eventually flow into the river or stream of concern?" How are watershed area limits drawn for surface water sources? First, the point along the surface water body that marks the drinking water intake is located on the topographic map. All of the land uphill from this point, and from which water drains, is the watershed area. This is com- monly a subset, or sub-watershed, of a larger watershed associated with an entire river. The upper boundary of the watershed area coincides with the boundary of the watershed (Figure 4.5). The boundary along the down gradient edge of the SWPA will be estimated using a topographic map as a reference. All the water in the watershed area will flow down gradient through this single point. Starting at the intake location, a line is drawn along the land surface that is directly perpendicular to every contour line on the topographic map. The upper boundary of the water- shed area will likely be easily defined based on topography. The down gradient boundary will likely have to be estimated since this boundary does not usually coincide with the natural watershed boundary. Figure 4.5 illustrates this point. In some cases, the available topographic maps may not present enough detail or may not be at a scale useful to delineate the watershed area. In these cases, individuals will need to visit the stream and tour the water- shed in order to estimate the boundaries of the watershed area based on observation. Watershed areas can be subdivided to facilitate different levels of pro- tection. In general, those portions ('sub areas') closest to the drinking water intake will have the shortest travel time and the shortest distance over which particulates may be naturally removed, and therefore might be placed under a higher level of protection or management. Definition of sub-areas allows communities to prioritize protection and manage- ment activities within the watershed area. Other criteria that can be used to subdivide protection areas include soil type, vegetation and slope of the ground within the SWPA. 4.3 Delineating and Mapping Source Water Protection Areas for Wells Many public water supplies are wells that pump water from a ground water aquifer. For example, the community of Esteli pumps its drinking water from a series of 16 wells that are located in and around the city. As in most urban centers, these wells are susceptible to contaminants from surface activities and land uses, such as oil from cars and buses, pesticides and fertilizers from local agricultural fields, or release of industrial chemicals. Discharges of pollutants from land uses at the sur- Source Water Protection Area Watershed Boundary Public Drinking • Water Intake Mouth of River Figure 4.5 Delineating a watershed for a surface drinking water source. The area contributing to a surface water intake is commonly a subset of a larger watershed. face can mingle with rainwater as it infiltrates downward and reaches the aquifer, possibly having a negative effect on the quality of drinking water pumped by the wells. When a well is pumped, it pulls water from the underground aquifer, causing water surrounding the well to move towards the well. Water that falls on the land surface and recharges the aquifer may eventually get pumped back out of the ground through a well. The land area that contributes water to the well is the zone of contribu- tion for the well. Figure 4.6 is a very simplified cross sectional diagram showing how water flows through a zone of contribution to a well. Using information about the physical characteristics of the aquifer, the rainfall and recharge rate (how fast the water seeps into the soil and reaches the aquifer below) in the local region, and the rate of pumping of the well, we can estimate the boundary of the well's zone of contri- bution, which may serve as the source water protection area (SWPA). ------- Figure 4.6 Paths of Water Through a Zone of Contribution to a Well The following methods are applicable to places like Esteli where there are sand or sand and gravel aquifers. In other places where the aquifers are frac- tured rock, mapping source water protection areas for wells is more difficult. Extensive drilling and geophysical investigation are required to accurately understand the subsurface network of rock fractures that may hydraulically connect to a given drinking water well. However, this manual does not go into detail on methods to accurately delineate source water protection areas for wells in these circum- stances. The amount of investigation and analysis required is beyond the scope of this training. In the United States, some states have faced this problem. In general, the United States program recommends using a 1/4 mile (approximately 400 meters) radius until more site-specific information can be gathered. Source Water Protection Area for a Well Based on the Hydrologic Balance Equation in the Calculated Fixed Radius Method Well Pumping (Q) = Recharge (R) edge of the pumping rate of the well and the recharge rate for the aquifer. The recharge rate can often be estimat- ed by determining the annual rainfall and subtracting estimates of evapotran- spiration (evaporation plus the transpi- ration from plants) and surface runoff over the course of a year. The radius of the circle that defines the protection area is determined by the following equation: Figure 4.7 1. Calculated Fixed Radius. In these methods of delineating source water protection areas for a well, a circle is drawn around the well based upon hydro- logic data, such as recharge rate or time of travel of ground water. One calculated fixed radius method is based upon a hydrologic balance between the pumping rate and the recharge rate. This method uses a simple equa- tion based on the volume of water drawn to the well during a specified time period, and requires knowl- r= yQ/Rn Where r = radius of the protection area (feet) Q = well pumping rate (cubic feet/year) R = recharge rate (feet/year) Another type of calculated fixed radius method uses the volumetric flow equation. This equation allows the volume of the aquifer from which water flows to a pumping well, over a specified amount of time, to be calculated. Based on that volume, the correspon- ding radius of the protection area on the ground sur- face can be determined. If the goal is to protect the (Further information may be found at the EPA web- site (www.epa.gov)). A number of different methods may be used to delin- eate source water protection areas for wells (that is, the zone of contribution of ground water to a well). Usually, the method that is used will depend on the amount and types of data that can be obtained, as well as the availability of a technical staff. Delineation methods include: • Calculated Fixed Radius • Analytical Methods • Numerical Methods • Hydrogeologic Mapping dcy X wellhead from specific known contaminants, the travel time can be specified to correspond with the probable decay rate or sorption rate of a contaminant of concern so that the amount of contaminant that reaches the well is minimal or zero. However, little is known about these rates in ground water. Therefore, communities often base protection radii on management priorities. In the U.S., a communi- ty can use radii that coincide with a estimated travel times of the ground water that are considered to be reasonably protective. These travel times are 2 years (especially when the concern is coliform bacteria) or 5 or 10 years when other contaminants are the pri- mary concern. Use of the volumetric flow equation requires knowl- edge of the pumping rate of the well, the travel time for water to reach the well, the porosity of the aquifer (determined by type of material in the All of these methods are described briefly here, but we will only provide detailed examples of the first two methods. These first two methods are common- ly used and provide a very useful starting point for community-based source water protection. The remaining two methods require a great amount of data, technical skill, and computer modeling, and are therefore less easily implemented. H Figure 4.8 Volume of Aquifer Needed to Supply the Well, Using the Volumetric Flow Equation in the Calculated Fixed Radius Method aquifer), and the length of the well screen (from well construction records). The volumetric flow equation can be used in the following form to determine the radius of the protection area: r = Qt nH Where r = radius of the protection area Q = well pumping rate (feet) t = travel time to well (years) (based on community's management priorities) n = porosity of the aquifer H = length of the well screen (feet) 3 ------- Candidate Source Water Protection Areas for DrWking Water Welte\in Esteli University students in Esteli have delineated candidate SWPAs for all 16 drinking water wells in the city. They worked with representatives from ENACAL to gather data on locations of the wells and pumping rates, and estimat- ed the rate of recharge of precipitation to be about 50 per- cent of the total rainfall in the region. These SWPAs are only suggestions and have not been adopted as legally recognized protection areas. Figure 4.9 ------- 2. Analytical Methods. A number of analytical methods have been developed to predict the ground water flow patterns surrounding a pumping well. Analytical methods often require the input of hydro- geologic parameters, for example, transmissivity, porosity, hydraulic gradient, hydraulic conductivity, and saturated thickness of the aquifer. Analytical methods generally involve computer modeling. These methods simulate the movement of ground water as a function of pumping rates, aquifer char- acteristics and water table conditions. One type of analytical method that utilizes the uniform flow equation has been commonly used. This equation, like other analytical methods, requires more detailed hydrogeologic data than the previous method. Specifically, the pumping rate of the well, the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer, the saturated thickness of the aquifer, and the hydraulic gradient of the aquifer are required data. This equation pro- vides the down-gradient (XL) and lateral limits (YL) of the protection area around the well. The uniform flow equation can be solved for the down-gradient and lateral limits of the protection area, as shown below: X, =- Q Equipotential Lines Flow Lines - -K Y, =± 2nKbi Q 2Kb! Figure 4.10 Source water protection area for a well using the uniform flow equation Where: Q = Pumping rate of well (cubic feet/day) K = Hydraulic conductivity (feet/day) b= Saturated thickness (feet) i = hydraulic gradient (rise/distance) The uniform flow lines (Figure 4.10) indicate the direction of flow of the ground water. The equipo- tential lines indicate lines of equal water table eleva- tion within the ground water aquifer. The line inter- secting the equipotential lines at right angles and passing through the three points designated on Figure 4.10 (XL, -YL, and +YL) forms a parabola that delineates the down-gradient and lateral limits (that is, the ground water divide) of the protection area. The method does not indicate where the up-gradient limit is located. One way to estimate the up-gradient limit is to combine this method with the calculated fixed radius approach. The up-gradient boundary of the protection area calculated by the uniform flow equation would then be located where the area of the entire protection area is equal to the area calculated using the calculated fixed radius method. 3. Numerical Methods. Numerical methods gen- erally require a computer program and more exten- sive field data. These methods allow for two- and three-dimensional modeling of aquifers. The study area is divided into a computer-generated grid to which values of water table elevation, hydraulic con- ductivity, and aquifer thickness are assigned. The model then simulates changes in the water table ele- vation in each grid in response to pumping of the well. The resulting depression in the water table is then used to delineate the protection area. An exam- ple of a computer model that uses numerical meth- ods is MODFLOW, a frequently used program developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to simulate ground water flow. This method requires specialized expertise in hydrogeologic and computer modeling, and may, therefore, be imprac- tical for most communities. 4. Hydrogeologic Mapping. Hydrogeologic map- ping can be used to map flow boundaries based on geologic, geomorphic, geophysical and dye-tracing information. Because of these requirements, it is best suited to smaller aquifers with near-surface flow boundaries. This method requires specialized expertise in geological and physical mapping, dye tracing methods, and flow boundary analysis and may therefore be impractical for most communities. Source water protection areas for wells can also be delineated using a combination of the methods pre- sented above. This approach may be helpful in des- ignating different levels of protection within the overall protection area. For example, Figure 4.11 shows a three-tiered source water protection area for a well. Zone I represents an arbitrary fixed radius at 100 meters. Zone II is based on an analytical flow model, and Zone III is based on hydrogeologic map- ping. It is important to note that the candidate SWPAs for wells can overlap with one another or can be too large for a community to effectively manage. For example, in the case of the candidate SWPAs delin- eated by the university students in Esteli, the SWPAs overlap such that almost the entire land area of the town would fall within a protection area (see Figure 4.9). As a result, management of these SWPAs may prove very difficult. In order to balance the size of a SWPA with the effective manageability of the SWPA, it may be necessary to alter the delineation method or assumptions in order to decrease the area of the candidate SWPA(s) by reducing them before they are finalized. Zone I- 100m radius Zone II - Primary recharge area _ _i Zone III - Secondary recharge Figure 4.11 Three-tiered source water protection area for a well. 4.4 Identifying Potential Sources of Pollution Once the protection area around a community drink- ing water source has been delineated, the next step is to identify and map the potential contamination within the protection area. Common potential sources of contaminants in the pilot project commu- nities, and probably in many communities in Nicaragua, are manure from livestock (especially cattle), pesticides and fertilizers from agricultural fields, solvents and petroleum products from auto- motive repair shops or garages, and discharge water and coffee husks from coffee processing facilities. Potential sources of contaminants can be identified by researching and observing the activities that occur within a mapped source water protection area ------- List of Potential Contaminants and Contaminant Sources for Wells in Estelf Potential Sources (Commercial and/or Industrial) Automotive Factories Cement Factories Chemical Processes of Hydrocarbons Construction/Demolition Laundromat Dry goods Factory Repair and Manufacture of Electrical Products and Electronics Bus and Taxi Terminal Processing of Foods Funeral Services and Cemeteries Repair and Manufacture of Furniture Gas Station Hardware Store and Lumber yard Deposits of Trash Manufacture of house products Deposits of scrap iron Laboratories Centers of repair of machines Centers Doctors and veterinarians Metallurgical factories Military Bases Mining/extraction of sand and gravel Office buildings Photograph development Petroleum Residue Manufacture of plastic and synthetic products Centers of sale Tanks of underground storage Treatment of wood Processing of wood Potential Sources (Municipal and/or Residential) Airports Centers of treatment of potable water Parks Houses Latrines Colleges Highways Stations of public services Centers of treatment of water grays/blacks Potential Sources (Agricultural and/or Rural) Handling of animals Agriculture Liquid lagoons and remainders Handling of forests Storage of fertilizers, Pesticides, and petroleum Type of Contaminant Acids, Antifreeze, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents Acids, Metals, and Solvents Acids, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents Acids, Dusts, Metals, Sediments, and Solvents Solvents Acids, Metals, Solvents, and PCBs Acids, Metals, Solvents, PCBs, and Dusts Acids, Antifreeze, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents Acids, Metals, and Solvents Nutrients, Pesticides, and Solvents Metals and Solvents Antifreeze, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents Acids, Metals, and Solvents Metals, Pesticides, and Solvents Acids, Metals, Sediments, and Solvents Acids, Metals, and Solvents Acids, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents Acids, Antifreeze, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents Acids, Antifreeze, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents Acids, Antifreeze, Metals, PCBs, and Solvents Metals, Pesticides, Petroleum Residue, Radioactive Remainders, and Solvents Metals, Sediments, and Solvents Acids, Antifreeze, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents Acids, Antifreeze, Dusts, Metals, Wastes, and Solvents Acids, Antifreeze, Smoke, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents Acids, Metals, and Solvents Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents Creosote, Metals, and Solvents Acids, Antifreeze, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents Type of Contaminant Acids, Antifreeze, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents Acids, Metals, PCBs, and Solvents Nutrients, Pesticides, and Sediments Bacteria, Nutrients, Pesticides, Petroleum Residue, Sediments, and Viruses Bacteria, Nutrients, and Viruses Creosote, Metals, Pesticides, and Solvents Petroleum Residue and Sediments Acids, Creosote, Metals, and Solvents Bacteria, Nutrients, Metals, Solvents, and Viruses Type of Contaminant Acids, Bacteria, Microbes, Solvents and Viruses Acids, Metals, Nutrients, Pesticides, and Sediments Bacteria, Microbes, Nutrients, Solvents, and Viruses Nutrients, Pesticides, and Sediments Nutrients, Pesticides, and Petroleum Residue such as was done in Esteli by the students at National Autonomous University of Nicaragua (Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Nicaragua)/University Center of the Northern Region (Centre Universitario de la Region Norte). Experience shows that certain potential contaminants are often associated with specific activities, land uses, or industries. For example, bacteria in drinking water are generally associated with cattle or human waste, and pesticides are generally associated with agricultural practices. A list of potential sources of contami- nation in Nicaraguan communities and the associated contam- inants is provided in Figure 4.12 developed by the UNAN/CURN students. There are four main steps involved in identifying potential sources of contamination. At a minimum, Step 1 should be completed. Information collected in Step 1 can be supple- mented by completing Steps 2 and 3. Step 4, mapping, is a very important tool to help decision-makers interpret the infor- mation collected in previous steps. 1. Review the public records To begin the process of identifying potential sources of con- tamination, a search of available public records should be con- ducted. Municipal or other government-issued maps may show the location of potential sources of contamination like gas stations, automobile repair shops, factories, or wastewater outfalls. Land-use maps can identify areas where non-point sources of contamination such as agricultural runoff and stormwater runoff from roads may be of concern. If available, tax records, land use or property maps, and other government records can be useful in identifying potential sources of con- tamination. One of the best resources to help identify potential sources of contamination will be local environmental and water supply officials and agencies. Fire departments, planning officers, health departments and public works departments may have information. The local agency managing the water system may already be aware of activities within the area that threaten the water supply, and may have records of contaminant sources. Students at a nearby university may also be of assis- tance in identifying and locating contaminants and sources of concern. Point Sources and Non-Point Sources of Contamination Some potential contaminant sources are easier to map than others, because they are located at dis- tinct points, while other sources, such as agricul- tural runoff, occur over a larger area. These two different types of contaminants are referred to as point sources and non-point sources, respective- ly. Point sources of contamination have a single identifiable location, such as an outfall pipe from a sewage treatment plant. This type of contami- nation is often easier to monitor, control, and regulate than non-point source pollution. Non- point sources of contamination do not have a sin- gle point of origin. Instead, they are diffuse, and include the following: • Fields, which contribute agricultural runoff that may contain agrochemicals (pesticides and fertilizers) and/or bacteria from live- stock; • Roads, which contribute runoff that may con- tain metals and oils from vehicles; and • Communities of roofs, which as a whole act as a diffuse source and which can contribute bacterial and inorganic pollutants to surface runoff and infiltrating water during rain events. The nature of non-point sources makes them more difficult to control and regulate. However, they are often responsible for the largest amount of contamination in source waters. Figure 4.12 Figure 4.13 2. Interview people who know about the area The people who live and work within the source water protection area can provide very valuable information that may not be found in the public records. Shop owners can provide a wealth of infor- mation on the materials and practices they employ. Local inhabitants often make observations that can add to the knowledge of possible contaminant sources in the area. These people may know where a certain outflow pipe is located, or they may be ------- Inventories of Potential Contaminant Sources for Four Wells in Esteli Wells Number 9 and Number 19 (Combined Potential Sources (Commercial and/or Industrial) Residual water Mill Bread store Illegal Waste Processing of wood Mechanics shop Hair salon Potential Source (Municipal and/or Residential) Latrines Residual Water Colleges Potential Source (Agricultural and/or Rural) Handling of animals Inventory) Number of Facilities 4 2 5 1 2 2 3 Present? (amount) For all of the population 3 1 Present? (amount) 2 Types of Contamination Soap, detergent, bacteria, virus, and nutrient Soap and Detergent Detergent and Soap Solid Waste Acids, gasoline, glue, antifreeze, solvents and metals Acids, antifreeze, solvents, metals and gasoline Dyes, oxygenated water, permanent, soap, shampoo Types of Contaminants Bacteria, virus Soap, detergents and chlorine Metals, pesticides and solvents Types of Contaminants Bacteria, virus and organic waste Well Number 14 Potential Source (Commercial and/or Industrial) Carpentry factory Saw mill Bus Terminal Illegal waste Mill Tobaco factory Photographic studio Coffee packaging factory Mechanic shop Brick floor factory, Laundamat, latrines and tubes Wooden box factory Potential Source (Municipal and/or Residential) Latrines Causes Houses College Potential Source (Agricultural and/or Rural) Handling of animals Present? (amount) 2 3 1 3 4 5 1 1 5 1 1 Present? (amount) For all of the population 5 All the district 3 Present? (amount) 2 Types of Contaminants Soap, solvent and varnish Metals and solid waste Metals and oils Solid waste Soap and detergent Fats, solid waste Solid waste Solid waste and oils Gasoline, oil, fat and solid waste Disolvent, oil, dyes, cement, metals Fat. Solvent, sellador, glue Types of Contaminants Bacteria, virus Bacteria, sediments and solid waste Bacteria, virus, garbage Detergents, chlorine and soap Types of Contaminants Bacteria, virus and organic waste Well Number 8 Potential Source (Commercial and/or Industrial) Brick factory Mill Bread store Illegal waste Furniture factory Mechanics shop Washing of cars Hair salon Potential Source (Municipal and/or Residential) Latrines Residual Water Houses College Potential Source (Agricultural and/or Rural) Handling of animals Present? (amount) 2 4 1 3 9 4 1 1 Present? (amount) For all of the population 2 All the district 5 Present? (amount) 2 Types of Contaminants Organic Material Soap and Detergent Oil Solid Waste and Metals Acids, gasoline, glue, antifreeze, solvents and metals Gasoline Lubricants. Oil, paint Oxygenated Water Types of Contaminants Bacteria, virus Soaps, detergents and chlorine Bacterias, solid waste Chlorine and detergent Types of Contaminants Bacteria, virus and organic waste aware of a certain business's disposal practices or past prac- tices. Local officials are another excellent source of input on public contamination sources. 3. Walk/tour the source water protection area Perhaps the most useful method to collect information on public contamination sources is by walking or touring the source water protection area and visiting the locations iden- tified as having potential sources of contamination. Talking with the owners/operators, observing their operations, and reading product labels can be very revealing. Foot surveys will also provide verification of contaminant source loca- tions and may unveil additional potential contaminant sources. Students in Esteli collected potential contaminant source inventories for the 16 candidate source water protection areas in their town by walking through the protection areas they had delineated. To compile detailed inventories, they spoke with local business owners, observed local practices, and noted the type and number of potential sources and associated contaminants. Figure 14 presents a sample of Watershed Area Boundary ..rXM V- Common Clothes Washing Location Source Water Protection Area y^Watershed ' Boundary Public , Drinking Water Intake e Well Furniture Factory Students in Esteli touring the source water protection area. four of the inventories from Esteli. The students decided to combine the inventories for Wells 9 and 19 because the protection areas overlapped almost entirely. 4. Map the contaminant sources Once the potential sources of contaminants in the source water protection area are identified, the final step is to map their location on a source water protection map. An example of a mapped source water protection area in which the potential contaminant sources have been identi- fied is shown in Figure 4.15. The mapped areas should show the public supply well location(s) or drinking water intake locations as well as the potential contaminant sources. Figure 4.15 Simple example of a source water protection area in which the potential contaminant sources have been mapped. Source Water Protection Area for a Well Not to Scale Figure 4.14 Protection of source water requires a collaborative community approach. It is therefore critically impor- tant to maintain good relationships with all stakeholders even in cases where they may be responsible for release of potential contaminants. This objective should be kept in mind while touring a source water protection area. The process of performing the contaminant source inventory may be a good opportunity to begin a dialogue, with people living and working in the protection area, about source water protection and the connections between health and drinking water protection. Chapter 9 provides more ideas about where to find additional information on the drinking water supply and potential contaminant sources in your town. 7 ------- 4.5 Ranking of Potential Contamination Sources After all of the major potential sources of contami- nation have been identified and mapped, ranking of those sources will help to guide the management strategy developed by a community or its represen- tatives. Financial resources available for source water management are commonly limited. Therefore, every effort should be made to direct management efforts to the most important locations and the most harmful contaminant sources. Ranking the threats from each potential source of contamina- tion based on the magnitude of the threat, allows for development of an efficient management strategy. protect drinking water sources from contamination. The basis for ranking contaminants is the decision of and overseen by the Source Water Management And Planning Committee (see Chapter 5). It is useful to develop a simple matrix to compare the threats of public contaminant sources. Some may be more harmful to human health than others. Some may be easier to control and/or cheaper to manage than oth- ers. Some may be reaching the water supply in greater concentrations than others. Proximity of the contamination source to the water resource, the type of contaminant, the quantities of hazardous materi- als on a property, travel times and natural degrada- tion of chemicals, and management practices of the owner/operators are also important considerations. Figure 4.16 shows an example of a basic ranking Representative Values for Nitrogen Loading Rates for Various Sources matrix that might be developed by a community in Ranking Matrix of Potential Sources and Contaminants Source Bus Terminal Gas Station Open Defecation Cattle grazing Furniture Factory Contaminants Oil and grease Oil and grease Bacteria Bacteria Solvents, oil and grease Proximity to Well" 4 4 4 2 2 Travel Time to Well" 4 4 3 2 3 Quantity of Contaminant1 5 5 5 5 2 Natural Degradation" 4 4 2 2 4 Total Rank (Average) 4.25 4.25 3.5 2.75 2.75 a) 1 = far, 5 = close b) 1 = long time, 5 = long time c) 1 = small, 5 = large d) 1 = very rapid, 5 = slow Figure 4.16 Ranking of potential sources of drinking water con- tamination can be performed, as is done in the United States, for example, by the entity responsible for delivering water, or by the local health or sanita- tion board. Ranking can also be done by a commit- tee or by a group that represents the various stake- holders in the protection area. The ranking of con- tamination sources provides an important piece of information for the source water managers and stakeholders. It is from this ranking that members of the public are able to contribute informed input on planning protection activities. Source water man- agers can look at a list of priority sources of con- tamination and decide upon appropriate actions to Nicaragua. One fundamental consideration in ranking potential contaminant sources is the relative amount (or "load") of pollutant, which might be generated by each source within the watershed. For example, one source might be cattle (a non-point source of con- tamination). If cattle have free access to a river that serves as a water supply, the potential nitrogen load from those cattle could be estimated. If it is known that there are 80 head of cattle grazing in the source water area within close or direct proximity to the river, and each head of cattle generates approximate- ly 73 kg of nitrogen per year in manure (Lander, et al., 1998), the loading of nitrogen can be estimated at 5,840 kg/yr from the cattle. Land Use Loading Rate Atmospheric Deposition on Forest Landa Atmospheric Deposition on Agricultural/rural Landa Atmospheric Deposition on Urban Industrial Landa Latrinea Cattle" Horseb Agriculture3 Pasture* 6.4 kilograms/hectare/yr 13.3 kilograms/hectare/yr 21.2 kilograms/hectare/yr 2.5 kilograms/person/yr 73 kilograms/animal/yr 54 kilograms/horse/yr 4.9 - 8.9 kilograms/hectare/yr 14.6 kilograms/hectare/yr a) Source: EPA. 1999. Tools for Watershed Protection: A Workshop for Local Governments. Prepared by Inc. for US EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. b) Source: MA DEP No Date. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Nitrogen Modelin Horsley & Witten, Inc. for the MA DEP, Division of Water Supply. Horsley & Witten, g. Prepared by Figure 4.17 Based on that estimate, the cattle farm could be ranked in a matrix against other sources in terms of importance and potential impact to the water supply. A cattle farm with cattle roaming in the river would likely be given a high rating, perhaps a 5 on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being of greatest concern), since it has the potential for major negative impacts to water quality. However, if the same number of cattle are restrained from access to the river, and direct flush- ing of cattle urine and feces into the river are miti- gated, that source of contamination would likely receive a lower rating, perhaps a 2 or 3, as it does not pose as great a threat to water quality. Similar meth- ods can be used for other potential non-point pollu- tant sources, such as pesticide use on agricultural lands or fecal bacteria from humans and cattle in the source water protection area. A point source of contamination like a sewage out- fall pipe might receive a rating of 5 if the discharge were close enough to a water source as to pose a serious threat to water quality. However, it might receive a 3 if the sewage is treated before being released and if it is located on the outer perimeter of the area of contribution to a water source. Contamination sources that might receive a ranking of 1 or 2 would be perhaps a hair salon that utilizes small quantities of hazardous materials, a small chemical user that complies with waste disposal guidelines or regulations set by the environment ministry, or a coffee farm, if it were organic and treated its coffee processing waste. 4.6 Conclusion Source water assessment includes all the steps out- lined in this chapter: delineation of the SWPA, inventory of potential contaminant sources, and ranking of those sources. These steps lay the foun- dation for the development of a management plan to protect the source water area. Stakeholders can then play a vital role in determining what actions might be most effective to protect and manage the drinking water sources. A guide to developing a management plan is presented in Chapter 5. The key to success of a source water management plan is to provide a mechanism for the general public to participate in the development and implementation of the manage- ment plan. A primer on public participation in source water management is provided in Chapter 6. The next step in source water protection is to devel- op a program to include the public in shaping a com- munity source water protection plan. ------- 5 Developing a Community Source Water Management Plan 5.1 Introduction 5.2 A Review of the Existing Legal Framework for Source Water Protection and Management in Nicaragua 5.3 Assessing the Current State of Drinking Water Management in a Community 5.4 Developing a Consensus-Based Source Water Management Plan 5.5 Water Supply Treatment in Conjunction with Source Water Protection 5.6 Local Management of Water Supplies 5.1 Introduction Once the Source Water Assessment (Chapter 4) has been completed, a management plan can be devel- oped to protect the community's drinking water sources. This chapter describes activities that are essential in establishing an effective source water management plan, including: • assessment of the current management of local drinking water; • development of a consensus-based management plan; • identification and selection of a set of manage- ment tools to help carry out the source water management program; • coordination of source water protection with centralized treatment, and Before developing a source water management plan, it is important to understand the legal basis for watershed protection and drinking water protection that already exists in Nicaragua. 5.2 A Review of the Existing Legal Framework for Source Water Protection and Management in Nicaragua Several laws have been enacted in Nicaragua that provide a legal basis for drinking water protection and environmental protection. Law 290, the Law of Organization, Competencies and Procedures of the Executive Power, (Ley de Organization, exploration of local management options. How many people receive waterfront the local public water supply? Competencias y Procedimientos del Poder Ejecutivo, 1998), outlines the responsibilities, including those pertaining to environmental protec- tion, of all national government agencies. In accor- dance with this law, several national agencies are accountable for various aspects of environmental protection, environmental monitoring and natural resource use (Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources [Ministerio de Ambiente y Recursos Naturales], no date). This law establishes MARENA's responsibility for protecting the environment through formulating and managing national policy, setting environmental quality standards, overseeing compliance with those standards, administering a system of environmental impact assessment, and controlling activities that may contaminate the environment (MARENA, no date). The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (Ministerio de Agricultura y Forestal) is responsible for administering policies for agricultural and forestry development in Nicaragua. MAGFOR also must coordinate with MARENA to develop propos- als for ecological protection programs, "with empha- sis on the conservation of soils and water (MARE- NA, no date)." The Nicaraguan Aqueduct and Sewer Company (Empresa Nicaraguense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados) is responsible for providing potable drinking water and sanitation services nationally. It has a division called the Rural Areas Division of the Nicaraguan Aqueduct and Sewer Company (Empresa Nicaraguense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados - Division de Areas Rurales) that is responsible for rural areas. The Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud) promotes environmental health and good hygiene among the population, formulates standards for hygiene and environmental health, and controls the quality of water for human consumption. The law most directly pertaining to drinking water protection is Law 217, the General Law of the Environment and Natural Resources (Ley General del Medio Ambiente y los Recursos Naturales) (pub- lished in the Diario Oficial in 1996). This law estab- lished MARENA's responsibility for regulating and What major problems exist with regard to the public drinking water supply? What are the trends in popu- lation and land use? Who manages the local drinking water supply? What organizations are already in the community and are concerned with drinking water? What other entities are organized and active in drinking water protection? ------- setting national environmental standards. Title III outlines MARENA's responsibility to carry out envi- ronmental laws and uphold natural resource use standards. Title IV addresses environmental laws and standards for environmental quality and the con- trol of contamination of air, water and soil. Another law, the Disposiciones Para el Control de la Contamination Proveniente de las Descargas de Aguas Residuales Domesticas, Industriales, y Agropecuarias, Decree Number 33-95, was passed in 1995 in an effort to control contamination of water from various discharge sources in Nicaragua. This law sets maximum limits on various contami- nant concentrations in the discharge of different cat- egories of household, industrial and agricultural wastes into sewer systems and surface waters. Implementation of Decree Number 33-95 falls under the jurisdiction of MARENA. Municipalities also share in the responsibility for environmental health and drinking water protection as outlined in the Ley de Municipios (Ley 40 and 261) (MARENA, no date). They are responsible for rational use and conservation of natural resources, developing local initiatives for environmental pro- tection, and contributing to national efforts to moni- tor and control environmental quality. Municipal officials, local representatives from MAGFOR, MINSA, and MARENA, and local leaders from NGO's meet in Ocotal, Nicaragua to discuss the local source water protec- tion project. Together, these laws provide legal environmental framework to support development and implementa- tion of a national program or network of programs for source water protection in Nicaragua. Because the number of government entities tasked with pro- tecting, monitoring and using natural resources in Nicaragua is large, coordination is suggested. Designating a lead agency for source water protec- tion is often helpful for organizing discussion and actions toward source water protection, as discussed in later sections of this chapter. 5.3 Assessing the Current State of Drinking Water Management in a Community The development of a source water management plan should begin with an assessment of the current status of local drinking water management and local watershed management programs. It should then build upon the programs and institutions already in place within the community. Therefore, the first step is to examine the existing management structure and identify the organizations involved. The answers to the following questions will facilitate an assessment of the current approach to management of the local drinking water supply: • Who manages the local drinking water supply? Is it a local water utility, such as AYAMAT in Matagalpa, a national water utility, such as ENACAL, or some other entity? • How many people receive water from the local public water supply? Where do they live? Who lives in the source water protection area, and do they all receive water from the public water sup- ply? • Who works or lives in the source water protec- tion area that does not utilize the public water supply? • What existing local, regional, national and inter- national institutions and organizations are con- cerned with drinking water, public health and/or environmental resources and are active in the community? • What other entities in the community are organ- ized and active and could become involved in drinking water protection? • What are the trends in population and land use within the source water protection area? • What major quality and quantity problems exist with regard to the public drinking water supply? • What problems can be expected in the future? In researching the answers to these questions, it will be necessary to talk to the mayor's office, the health department, MINSA, the ENACAL office, and vari- ous other agencies, individuals, and organizations in the community. The goal of this step is to under- stand the current management arrangements so that a new effort to protect source waters can build upon the system that already exists. This assessment will also help determine where there may be strengths and weaknesses in the current management struc- ture, which will help direct development of the man- agement plan. 5.4 Developing a Consensus-Based Source Water Management Plan Once the current state of drinking water management is documented, efforts to develop a management plan for drinking water sources can be initiated. One key to developing and implementing a successful drinking water source management plan is involvement of the local government. The Mayor's office should be involved in the development of the plan, and the Mayor should be briefed on the source water protec- tion issues. The involvement of municipal depart- ments is also recommended, for example the Planning Department (where zoning may be administered) and the Health Department (where water quality monitor- ing may be coordinated). Another key to a successful source water management plan is involvement of stakeholders and community members. Both of these groups should be permitted and encouraged to participate in the development of the management plan. These groups include people who not only drink the water and benefit from a clean source of water, but can also affect the quality, and even the quantity of the water supply. Management plans depend to a significant degree on public and stakeholder support and participation. Without the input and support of both stakeholders and communi- ty members, a management plan may overlook or incorrectly address important issues, and may there- fore be extremely difficult to put into practice. There are several steps that should be followed in developing a community-based source water manage- ment plan. These efforts build on the information that has already been collected in the Source Water Assessment (Chapter 4), the public participation phas- es of the program (Chapter 6), and the assessment of current source water management (described above). Steps to a Source Water Management Plan 1. Initiate the Source Water Protection Process 2. Form the Source Water Management Planning Committee 3. Define Collective Management Goals 4. Define the Time Frame of Your Management Goals 5. Develop a List of Management Options to Achieve the Management Goals 6. Determine the Primary Implementing Body for the Plan 7. Choose Management Tools and Develop a Detailed Management Plan 8. Review and Update Management Plan Figure 5.1 ------- 5.4.A. Initiate the Source Water Protection Process. Developing a source water management plan is most likely a combined effort among the local, regional, and national governments, stake- holders such as industries and NGO's, and commu- nity residents. From experience with the pilot proj- ects in Esteli, Matagalpa and Ocotal, it is clear that clean drinking water is a prime concern among peo- ple in the communities. The idea of a long-term pro- gram to manage and protect drinking water sources has met with positive responses in these pilot project towns. Such a program, however, requires leader- ship to initiate it and strong management to carry it out. At the local level, a source water protection program can be initiated by the entity that has legal authority to do so, which may be the office of the Mayor. Leadership for the program can come from munici- pal and/or quasi-municipal departments with person- nel that understand the circumstances surrounding source water management within their specific com- munity, including general land uses, social and health concerns, and economic issues. As discussed in Section 5.3, the local source water protection effort should build off of the existing institutional structure within each city. The institu- tional structure of each city can vary, and each may be slightly different. 'Institutional structure' refers to the variety of agencies that play a role in day-to- day city management. Examples may include: • departments within the Alcaldia; • educational institutions present in the city; • non-governmental organizations functioning in the town; • multilateral and bilateral aid projects established in the town; • health centers; and • the drinking water management agency. 5.4.B Form the Source Water Management Planning Committee. A fundamental component of a source water protection program is establish- ment of a committee to write a source water protec- tion plan and assist in its implementation. The enti- ty with the legal authority to initiate source water protection in the community should draw on local human resources to form a committee on source water management. The committee can then be charged with the responsibility to develop the plan. There are several options for the composition of this Source Water Management Planning Committee. It can be made up of stakeholders, health profession- als, water utility managers, or some combination of these groups. This committee should, with oversight from either the local government or the local water utility, take the lead in development of a local source water management plan. Part of the Source Water Management Planning Committee's role should be to organize a forum, such as a series of public meet- ings, for public participation and input in the devel- opment of the management plan (see Chapter 6: Public Participation). The local government, with the support of the committee, can also work with other local governments, and the national govern- ment (probably ENACAL in the case of Nicaragua) to develop the appropriate structure for a national source water protection program. Who are 'Stakeholders'? Any specific interest group, company, or organization that is affected by water quality, affects water quality, or may be affected by the management of a source water protection area falls into the stakeholder category. This list will likely be quite long for any given protec- tion area. For example, local associations of cattle ranchers or coffee growers as well as stu- dent environmental awareness groups might all share a specific interest in the quality and man- agement of the drinking water source, and should all be considered stakeholders. Just as the general community's input is integral to the success of the management plan, so is the input of all stakeholder groups in a source water pro- tection area. Figure 5.2 Initiation of Source Water Protection in Ocotal At the initiation of the Ocotal pilot project, repre- sentatives from the Mayor's office brought togeth- er a group of stakeholders to discuss source water issues. This group could become the basis for a source water management planning committee. The participants at the meeting included a wide variety of non-governmental and governmental organizations involved in drinking water and health issues in Ocotal. The attendees represented the following organizations: Movimiento Comunal (Community Movement) Association of Women in Development (AMDES) INAFOR MARENA MAGFOR World Relief/ Auxilio Mundial MINSA High School of Biologists and Ecologists of Nicaragua (COBEN) - Ocotal Office of the Mayor (Alcaldia) 5.4.C Define collective management goals. An effective source water management plan must have a clearly-stated set of goals. Different stakeholders or stakeholder groups may prefer different management goals. Members of the public may also other view- points. It is critical that the process of establishing goals be done in a manner that builds consensus. In some localities, the management goals may be quite clear, but in most cases, this step can be expected to require significant discussion. Management goals should be defined in measurable terms. Clear goals provide strong guidance for developing management options, and allow accurate assessment of the effec- tiveness of the management plan over time. All interested stakeholders and members of the public should have input into defining the source water man- agement goals, and every effort should be made to get as many affected people involved in the decision-mak- ing as possible. A recommended forum for discussion is a well-publicized, open public meeting. The broad- er the involvement of stakeholders and the public in this process, the more likely the plan is to succeed. ------- A meeting of stakeholders in a small source water protection area in northern Nicaragua may have an invitee list as follows: ENACAL Any interested citizens ENACAL-DAR Alcaldes from all towns involved Coffee growers association MINSA University Students studying Environmental Management High School Environmental Awareness Group Cattle farmers association MAGFOR Rice producers association Local Businesses: • Local gas station manager Furniture Finishing Factory Owner/Manager MARENA Figure 5.3 Water treatment plant operator The substance of the management goals should be driven primarily by the source water assessment for the protection area (Chapter 4) and by the input of stakeholders and the public. It is important that stakeholders and the public are made aware of the assessment information so that they have all the nec- essary information to engage in an informed discus- sion. A management goal may be based on achiev- ing better water quality, for example, reducing fecal coliform bacteria to a certain level at the drinking water intake or reducing the concentration of nitrate to a specified level. Alternately, a management goal may be defined using human health parameters, such as a 50% reduction in the incidence of diarrhea in children. Management goals may also address uses of land and water, such as reducing the number of cows roaming in the river by 75 %, or increasing the use of latrines by permanent and seasonal residents in the watershed by 90 %. 5.4.D Define the time frame of the management goals. Another important component of the source water management plan is the time frame in which the goals are to be reached. It is common to have both short-term and long-term management goals. Using examples from Section C above, a short term management goal may be a documented increase in the use of latrines; a medium term goal could be a numerical reduction in the number of cows with free access to rivers; and a long term management goal may be a measured improvement in water quality. An example timetable is shown in Figure 5.4. 5.4.E Develop a list of local management options to achieve the management goals. While energy, interest and support from the commu- nity and stakeholders is essential to a program's suc- cess, management of a source water protection pro- gram is generally a joint venture between the nation- al and local government. On the national level, the agency in charge of drinking water management, for example, ENACAL, would be the most likely and logical agency to oversee the program. Collaboration with the Ministry of Health is neces- sary to appropriately address the human health risks from the drinking water contaminants of concern. The national government will also benefit from local collaboration in the local assessment and implemen- tation of a national source water protection program. However, a national framework for source water protection would provide additional needed finan- cial, legal, technical and organizational support from the national government. Municipalities can use their local regulatory author- ity to promote source water protection by employing one or a combination of tools, such as: • Incorporate watershed management costs into the local water rates to cover some costs associated with the source water protection program. Local water management agencies, such as AYAMAT in Matagalpa, or the local offices of ENACAL could include a very small fee within the water rates specifically for watershed management efforts, such as public education or construction of community wash stations. • Develop zoning regulations for specified land uses within source water protection areas. For example, in a town that depends primarily on ground water, such as Esteli, it may be helpful to develop a zoning map based on the source water protection areas for the wells that would exclude certain risky commercial and industrial land uses from those areas. • Develop a framework for conservation ease- ments to conserve natural lands in protection areas. For example, a local non-profit organiza- tion may be interested in conserving some natu- ral land for ecotourism, environmental health and/or source water protection. By providing a framework for easements to be instituted, the likelihood of the land actually being protected is increased. • Provide tax incentives (and reduce disincentives) for improvements in land use, household and industrial practices and the use of innovative and alternative technologies that reduce source water contamination. For example, there is currently an improvement tax levied on coffee farmers that build coffee husk collection basins. These basins allow coffee farmers to ferment the husks into fertilizer rather than disposing of them directly into surface waters. Conversely, a tax break would actually provide more incentive for coffee farmers to invest in these basins. These tools and others are described in more detail below. In general, management tools fall into one of two categories: regulatory and non-regulatory. Example Management Goals and Target Dates for a Source Water Management Plan Management Goal Increase use of latrines to 90% of population Reduce fecal coliform counts at drinking water Intake by 75% Reduce annual Incidence of diarrhea In children by 50% Reduce the number of cows grazing directly in the river by 75% Target Date 1 -3 years 3-5 years 3-5 years 3-5 years Figure 5.4 ------- Regulatory Tools: Regulatory tools may include zoning, health regula- tions, performance standards and best management practices. These may not currently exist, but are worthy of consideration. Zoning Regulations. The purpose of zoning is to separate incompatible land uses by assigning dif- ferent areas for each use (e.g., commercial, resi- dential, industrial, agricultural) and setting stan- dards for the uses permitted in each zone. A zoning board of the local municipal government usually determines zoning regulation. Under the umbrella of zoning regulation, the type of land uses, the density of land uses, and the allowable practices for each land use type can be regulated. For example, a zoning map could be used to reg- ulate agricultural practices in a given area such that pesticide use in that area may not exceed a prescribed level. Similarly, certain types of industry that pose high risks to water quality may be prohibited in identified source water pro- tection areas around drinking water wells. Health Regulations. A health regulation can be adopted by a municipality to protect drinking water. Health regulations can include prohibi- tion of dwellings and latrines within a buffer area around a well or surface water intake or prohibi- tion and control of the use of certain pesticides in a delineated source water protection area for a drinking water intake or a well. • Performance Standards. A local health or water board may impose a requirement that any water discharges to the ground or to a surface water body must meet certain water quality limits. For example, a surface water discharge may be required to have undetectable levels of bacterial contamination, low nutrient concentrations or limited levels of metals and organic chemicals. • Best Management Practices. A community reg- ulatory authority could require residents and businesses to employ certain techniques called best management practices (BMPs), to minimize the discharge of pollutants into drinking water sources. Examples of BMPs might include fenc- ing of livestock away from surface waters, regu- lar removal of solids in latrines, and the use of infiltration basins to minimize contaminant load- ing to surface waters from storm water runoff. • Tax Breaks. Tax breaks from the local or nation- al government may help to promote positive source water protection improvements and actions among individuals and companies. For example, tax breaks could be awarded for improvements such as pretreatment of discharge water from industry or improved on-site land use management, or for a contribution to a public education campaign. Non-Regulatory Tools: Non-regulatory management tools can be very effec- tive in protecting drinking water by providing infor- mation and opportunities for involvement. • Education. Public education campaigns can be carried out by many different groups in a com- munity, depending on the interest and resources of those groups. Educational efforts are often an effective way to spread the word about issues, especially in cases where general awareness is low. For example, as part of the Ocotal pilot project, students in a local environmental brigade carried out an educational campaign to teach coffee workers, cof- fee farm owners, and cattle ranchers about the connec- tion between their activi- ties, various land uses, the quality of the water they drink, and their personal health. The use of conservation easements for ecologi- cal and natural resource conservation in Latin America is a relatively new and exciting prac- tice. The first Latin American conservation easement (servidumbre ecologica) was instated in 1992 in San Ramon de Tres Rios, near San Jose, Costa Rica after the idea was introduced to Central America by the Iniciativa para la Conservation de Tierras Privadas de Centre America (Mack, 1997). Since then, over 35 con- servation easements have been negotiated throughout Central America and Mexico (Charney, 2000). Conservation easements can protect vital source water areas. In some cases, a conservation ease- ment can open a natural area to use by the pub- lic for low-impact activities such as hiking while still maintaining ecosystem integrity. Easements can be a useful tool for protecting undeveloped Conservation Easements. Conservation easements are land use rights that are turned over from a private landowner to a town, national government, indi- vidual or conservation group in exchange for some financial reward, usually in the form of a tax break. The owner of the land retains title to the property, but gives up the right to develop that land. s ] ource Water Management Tools and Possible Implementing Agencies Management Tools Possible Implementing Agency Regulatory • Zoning Regulation • Health Regulation • Performance Standards • Best Management Practicies • Tax Breaks Zoning Board, Office of the Mayor MINSA, Office of the Mayor MINSA, ENACAL, MARENA Office of the Mayor, MARENA, MAGFOR Office of the Mayor, ENACAL, National Government Non-Regulatory • Education • Conservation Easement • Water Quality Monitorings • Local Drinking Water Management • Economic Incentives Office of the Mayor, School Group, ENECAL, MINSA, Non-Governmental Organization Office of the Mayor School Group, ENECAL, MINSA, Non-Governmental Organization, MARENA ENACAL, Office of the Mayor National Government, Municipal Government "igure 5.5 ------- areas within a source water protection area around a well. However, the benefits to the landowner must be significant and there must be enough confidence in legal land rights structures to ensure that the easement will be upheld in per- petuity. Water Quality Monitoring. Monitoring the qual- ity of source water is a very useful and important management tool. Monitoring allows a commu- nity to identify water quality issues and track the successes and failures over a period of months or years. It also enables a community to identify water quality problems as they arise. An impor- tant part of source water protection is monitoring the quality of the water supply at different points in the delineated source water protection area. Ongoing water quality monitoring allows the community to recognize threats to drinking water and identify contaminant sources. It allows rapid identification of contaminants and enables timely response. Monitoring programs can be expensive, but a collaborative approach that utilizes local funds, volunteer aid, and national support can make a comprehensive monitoring effort economically feasible. Water quality data can be useful not only to a specific source water protection program, but also for universities, environmental and other non-governmental organizations, health offi- cials, and local or national government entities interested in further study of water quality relat- ed issues. Water quality monitoring can be car- ried out by a national agency, such as MINSA or ENACAL, by the local municipal government, or by local citizen groups, which can be extreme- ly effective. While laboratory services are not accessible to most communities in Nicaragua at the present time, affordable water quality moni- toring kits are available from several companies. These test kits generally allow field-testing of pH, temperature, nitrates, fecal or total coliform bacteria, and some metals. Therefore, the water quality results can be obtained rapidly in the Monitoring the quality of source water is a very useful and important management tool Figure 5.6 field rather than requiring water quality tests to be performed in a laboratory. Laboratory water quality testing on a routine basis may be expen- sive and/or logistically difficult due to travel between the sample location and the laboratory. When taking water quality samples, it is impor- tant to properly document the sampling process and sampling conditions for future reference. An example of a basic water quality sampling field data sheet that could be used for documen- tation is presented in this chapter. • Local Drinking Water Management. Another non-regulatory tool is the establishment of a local water control or authority (for example, AYAMAT in Matagalpa) (see Figure 5.7). Local control of the water source and water treatment and distribution system can be beneficial to the community because a local board may be able to react to local needs more directly and rapidly than a national agency. • Economic Incentives. A final tool that can be considered under the non-regulatory framework is the development of economic incentives to encourage landowners and businesses to take Water Quality Sampling Field Data Sheet Stream (Well) Name/Number: Watershed Name: Municipality: Department: Geographic Location: Sampling Site Name and Number (if any): Physical Description: Investigators: Date: Time: Weather in the Past 24 hours: (storm, rain, showers, overcast, clear/sunny) Current Weather: (storm, rain, showers, overcast, clear/sunny) Comments: Sampling information: Sample Number Parameter Field Measurement action to protect water quality. This may be in the form of a government grant or favorable financing for loans to make improvements that help to protect source water. Examples of posi- tive improvements include a settling basin for recovering coffee husks, construction of a biodi- gestion chamber for coffee processing discharge water treatment, or construction of a community clothes washing station. Government grants could also support public education campaigns on local source water protection. 5.4.F Determine the primary implementing body for the plan. In order to implement the manage- ment plan effectively, there must be a managing body to oversee the effort. This agency would take the lead on actions contained in the management plan. It would also coordinate with other agencies and organizations to implement each management tool and monitor success. Depending on the tool, coordination would take place between the lead agency and another government body, such as MINSA, MARENA, MAGFOR, ENACAL, the Alcaldia, or a local water board, or a local organiza- tion, such as a school, a non-governmental organiza- tion, or a local association. In some cases, a new group could be formed for the purpose of imple- menting one or more of the management tools. Figure 5.5 presents the source water management tools discussed in the previous section and the pos- sible implementing agencies. 5.4.G Choose management tools and develop a detailed management plan. The final step in the management plan process is to assemble all the plan components into one concise document that is made publicly available. The final management plan will likely include a set of management tools to achieve between one and four management goals in a given time frame. The set of tools could be chosen with stakeholder input at a public meeting or hearing in which the benefits and drawbacks of the tools are presented to the public. A variety of criteria could be used to decide on which tool to use to address a given source water problem. Some tools might be more easily implemented than others, some might address the problem faster than others, or some might be less expensive to implement than others. The goals (discussed in Section C) should be very clearly stated at the beginning of the plan. The plan should document stakeholder and public concerns, and identify who is responsible for implementing each management tool in the plan. Before finalizing the management plan, it is generally a good idea to make the final draft available to stakeholders and the public for a comment period. This will provide all stakeholders and the public with the opportunity to review the plan, express any concerns and have those concerns addressed before the plan is finalized. During development of the management plan, there are several important issues that should be kept in mind. Managing a drinking water source is not a stat- ic process, but an anticipatory (and dynamic) task. Because conditions change with time, there should be ------- provisions in the management plan to deal with unpre- dictable shifts in conditions and/or priorities. It is rec- ommended that the following points be addressed in the planning process: • Plan for new water sources in addition to those already in use. A growing community will need to look for alternative sources of water. Identifying potential future drinking water sources allows the community to protect those sources for future use. Protection may involve special zoning or limited land uses in areas around possible future wells, and may help to direct the pattern of development to ensure a safe drinking water supply in the future. • Develop a contingency plan. It is a good idea for the community to have a contingency plan for alternative drinking water sources. Even with a proper management plan, accidents can happen and a primary drinking water source can become contaminated or a water treatment facility can be disrupted. For example, if ground water is the main source of drinking water, having a large stor- age tank filled at all times, which could be used in an emergency, might be appropriate. In other situ- ations, it may be appropriate to close off a con- taminated ground water well and draw drinking water from alternative wells. To the extent possi- ble, a community should have a plan to warn citi- Local Water Agency An example of a local water agency in Nicaragua that appears to be achieving management success is AYA- MAT (Acueductos y Alcantarillados de Matagalpa). AYAMAT is a semi-private spin-off from ENACAL in Matagalpa, established in the 1990s. AYAMAT is man- aged similarly to a private company but also works in cooperation with ENACAL. It has been successful in managing the issue of limited water quantity in the city of Matagalpa. AYAMAT has been working with the local Mayor's office and the local watershed protection project Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa to carry out better water supply management for the city and surrounding areas. Figure 5.7 zens of a contamination incident, provide an alter- native drinking water source, repair problems in a water treatment facility, remove the source of con- tamination, and treat the contaminated water so that it can be returned to use. 5.4.H Review and Update Management Plan. Ensure flexibility in your management plan. Because the future can rarely be predicted, flexible manage- ment is a critical characteristic of an effective drinking water protection program. Conditions in the commu- nity may change, and the plan that is developed today may not be the best plan three or five years from now. In order to build flexibility into the source water man- agement, the planning committee should continue to meet periodically to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the management plan, and to update and adjust the plan to address changing conditions and concerns. In addition, the committee should continue to maintain an open dialogue with stakeholders and the general public, most likely through open information- al meetings or newspaper announcements. 5.5 Water Supply Treatment in Conjunction with Source Water Protection The first defense in providing potable water to an entire community is adequate protection of the drink- ing water resource itself. Once a drinking water source is contaminated, especially a ground water source, it can be extremely difficult and costly to clean. Many pollutants, especially some synthetic chemicals, are very persistent and cannot be broken down easily in nature. In many cases, only a relative- ly small amount of pollutant can contaminate a large volume of water. Effective protection can keep treat- ment costs relatively low and provide more people with access to clean water. However, comprehensive protection of drinking water sources is a long-term process, and may not always succeed. In that case, communities must treat their drinking water, as is cur- rently the case throughout Nicaragua. In general, treatment of surface water supplies provid- ed at centralized treatment centers involves filtration, flocculation, and chlorination. The drinking water treatment process is generally effective in the removal of bacterial contamination, sediments, and many con- taminants that adsorb onto sediments, including pesti- cides and other organic compounds. Ground water treatment is usually less extensive because ground water sources are usually less prone to contamination, especially by bacteria. Ground water is naturally fil- tered as it infiltrates through the ground and reaches the aquifer, so it generally has fewer contaminants than surface water. Treatment of ground water often ranges from no treatment to simple disinfection, usu- ally by chlorination. However, typical treatment regimes for surface and ground waters are only mar- ginally effective in the removal of dissolved contami- nants including organic compounds, metals and nutri- ents. Source water protection therefore plays a key role, not only in improving raw water quality for people who obtain their water before it is treated, but also in reduc- ing human exposure to harmful chemicals and con- stituents that are not removed in the treatment process. Many people in rural areas where centralized potable water systems are unavailable drink water taken directly from a stream or river. For these people, source water protection is likely the only line of defense against certain forms of contamination, such as microbes or pesticides, in their drinking water. A management plan can be used to prevent contami- nants, including those that are difficult to treat, from ever reaching the drinking water source in significant concentrations. Bacteria and sediment that can usual- ly be handled by a treatment plant at moderate levels can, in excessive amounts, overload the plant, requir- ing longer treatment time and more intense chlorina- tion. Sometimes a treatment plant is unable to suffi- ciently remove high amounts of contaminants in the intake water. Decreased levels of contamination enter- ing a treatment plant can help to maintain a more dependable contaminant removal process over a longer period of time. Time Frame for Developing a Source Water Management Plan The time frame for development of a community source water protection plan should be approximately one year. A typical schedule is as follows: • initiation of source water management program (one month) • formation of the source water management planning committee (one month) • organization of first public meeting (one month) • compilation of public comments (one month) • development of draft management plan (four months) • public comment on draft plan (one month) • revisions to draft plan (two months) • presentation of final plan (one month) • review and updating of source water management plan (periodically) Figure 5.8 5.6 Local Management of Water Supplies Direct local management of water supplies is not com- mon in Nicaragua. Other countries, including the U.S., have shown that local management can allow for more responsive management, and create the opportu- nity for collaboration among local agencies. For example, a local water agency can work with the municipal planning office, the local tax office and other local offices to adapt health and land use regula- tions and community management plans for better source water protection. A local water agency can underwrite costs by collection of water use fees. Consequently, a local water entity can be run more like a business than a public agency, with efficient opera- tion and maintenance and more dependable service. This capacity can have important implications for the health of a community. ------- Public Participation - A Primer 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Six Components of Successful Public Participation 6.3 Conclusion 6.1 Introduction Protecting the quality of drinking water begins with people. The people who live in the watershed area of a drinking water intake or in a zone of contribu- tion to a well have a very important role to play. The kinds of things they do on a daily basis have a direct effect on the quality of drinking water. The more people understand their role in both protecting and impacting water quality, and the more they partici- pate in taking action to safeguard water quality, the better the management of the water resource, and the better the health of people in the community. Therefore, public participation is the most critical element of a successful source water protection pro- gram. Without a comprehensive, well-planned effort to include the public in development and implementation of a source water management plan, it is unlikely that the program will be successful. Protecting the quality of drinking water begins with people. "Why should I protect the public drinking water source if I don't drink water from that source?" People who live in the watershed area of a pub- lic drinking water intake or zone of contribution of a well but who do not receive treated water delivered from that intake or well might wonder why they should take action to protect the quality of that water. By protecting the greater source water area, which may also include streams, rivers or wells where they get their own water, people also protect their own water quality and their own health. They will also be contributing to the environmental health of the area. Similarly, a business that operates within a source water pro- tection area, but may not use the public water supply, should take action to prevent possible contamination of public drinking water sources for the benefit of their customers and workers who do use public water. Figure 6.1 6.2 Seven Components of Successful Public Participation Public participation is the process by which all interest groups (stakeholders and the general public) in a com- munity are provided the opportunity to make their views known on drinking water issues and protection, and to contribute to designing a drinking water source protection plan. An effort must be made to include the full range of community opinion in discussion of approaches to protection of drinking water sources so that all issues are brought to light and an appropriate and workable source water protection strategy can be devel- oped. Public participation is important to source water protection because it: -Builds networks among key individuals in a community who will implement source water protection measures, -Identifies needs and priorities with respect to source water protection in the community; -Provides education and information to all residents of a community; -Focuses public attention on the issue of source water protection; -Sets up a framework for community support of protective action; -Builds momentum for the program; and -Provides the benefit of input and experience from a broad cross-section of the community. Public participation has many components, all of which should be considered when developing a source water protection plan. These components potentially include direct involvement of stakeholders in the source water management planning committee (see Chapter 5), involvement in general public informational meetings through submission of written and oral comments, and participation in community events such as art contests and demonstration projects. Additional components include development and distribution of educational products that target the public at large, for example fact sheets, posters, radio ads, brochures, and artwork. There are seven main components to a success- ful public participation effort: 1. Public Introduction to Local Source Water Issues A general public meeting can be a very effective way to introduce the issues relating to the local drinking water source, such as existing and poten- tial problems with contamination of source waters and the impacts that contamination may be hav- ing on public health. Assuming that local gov- ernment will take the lead on source water pro- tection and management in the community, an effective approach, based on local source water protection programs in the U.S., would be as fol- lows. First, the entity with legal authority to ini- tiate source water protection efforts (in the case of Nicaragua this is probably the Mayor) would ini- tiate a public informational meeting. During this meeting, open to everyone in the community, Public participation is the process by which stakeholders make their views known. ------- including all stakeholders and the general public, local government representatives would introduce the subject of source water protection and related issues. Then, attendees would have an opportunity to respond with ideas, comments, questions and con- cerns. 2. Formation of a Source Water Management Planning Committee Depending on the approach of the local authority initiating the source water protection program, a small committee of individuals interested in devel- oping a management plan would be convened either prior to, or after, a general open meeting of all stake- holders and the public. This committee is the same Source Water Management Planning Committee introduced in Chapter 5, and might be composed of stakeholders, health professionals, local water utility managers, or some combinations of these groups. The job of this committee would be to develop the source water management plan according to the process presented in Chapter 5. This work would most likely be done under the direction of the local government or local water utility. The committee would also be charged with involving stakeholders and the general public periodically in the plan devel- opment process (presented in the remainder of this chapter). Later, when the management plan is writ- ten and finalized, the Source Water Management Planning Committee could transform to an imple- mentation committee and become responsible for review and modification of the plan on a regular schedule, for example every year or two years. 3. Obtaining Public Input Once the Source Water Management Planning Committee is formed, one of its first actions should be to develop a schedule of events for obtaining pub- lic comment prior to and during development of the plan. Public participation via meetings is the pri- mary mechanism to involve all stakeholders and members of the public. It is critical to clearly invite public and stakeholder comment, emphasize the openness of the process, and assure that all public and stakeholder input will be given careful consider- ation. Effective ways to publicize meetings and to solicit input on plan components are newspaper and radio announcements, posters, fliers, and word of mouth. Access to the public participation process is an important element to include when planning for public input. The lead agency needs to consider how it will reach people and organizations in remote areas of the commu- nity, as well as people with mobility, hearing, or literacy challenges. 4. Presentation of the Draft Source Water Management Plan for Public Comment The next step in public participation would be to hold a public meeting to present the draft plan to all stake- holders and the community. An explanation of what the management plan seeks to accomplish is important at this stage. Stakeholders and the general public would then review and comment upon the committee's draft proposed source water management plan. Then comments would be collected in an organized manner, often in writing or through an additional public meeting. Public Participation in Source Water Protection in Matagalpa A public participation meeting was held in Matagalpa on January 18, 2001, as part of the community's pilot project. Approximately 50 stakeholders, including cattle ranchers, coffee farmers, government rep- resentatives, teachers and students, with a vital interest in the source water protection areas around Matagalpa, attended the daylong meeting. The group discussed sources of contamination affecting their drinking water and some possible management strategies to control those sources. This meeting pro- vided an organized forum for stakeholders and members of the public to voice their own thoughts and and react to other's ideas. The outcome of the meeting was development of a list of potential contami- nant sources and a list of alternatives and management strategies for the source water areas. The pres- ence and participation of a large number of stakeholders, members of the public, and government rep- resentatives at this meeting provided strong incentive for further development of a source water man- agement strategy for Matagalpa. The schedule for public input should, at a minimum, include an initial meeting, a mid- project update and input meeting, and a draft- plan presentation meeting. Some communi- ties may wish to develop a more regular schedule of meetings at which stakeholders and the public can provide input to the plan- ning committee on a regular basis, as the source water protection plan is developed. Figure 6.2 5. Coordination with Neighboring Communities Coordination within a community, and between communities, can greatly increase the success of a source water management plan, and thus the pro- tection of key water resources. The boundaries and extent of water resources, such as a river or ground water aquifer, usually do not coincide with the bor- ders of a single community or town. Therefore, the effectiveness of actions taken in one community to protect its water source may be somewhat limited if similar actions are not taken by other communities sharing a given water source. Developing a source water management plan that is compatible with, and supportive of, the plans of other communities sharing the same water source increases the overall effectiveness of the individual community plans. Coordination with upstream communities, such as between Ocotal and its upstream neighbor Dipilto (pictured here), can greatly increase the success of a management plan. ------- 6. Media involvement Involvement of the media during development of a source water management plan can assist the process of plan development in a variety of ways. In addition to helping inform stakeholders and the public and increas- ing public involvement, the media can play a role in encouraging community support for a source water pro- tection program. Visibility in the media can also communicate the need for financial and technical assistance to government bodies, national and international NGOs, and lending institutions. A simple press release (such as that shown in Figure 6.3) can be used by the Source Water Management Planning Committee to inform the media during development of a management plan. Initiate Source Water Protection Efforts (Local Authority) Press releases such as this one, can be used by a Source Water Management Planning committee to inform the media of a source water management planning meeting. Source: Local Government Environmental Assistance Network, 2001. OnlineToolboxwww.lgean.org. Sam, Contact: [Wame, iPtmnc #\ • " S.i!.- •""« "- Won. nm^ «"• *>»IWP. To „„,, „,, ra,"'uT "'«>*>" ** u> fi* """"""""' Hold Initial Public Meeting on Source Water Management Form Source Water Management Committee * Draft Source Water Management Plan Flow chart of Public Participation in Source Water Management. * note: this step can come before or after one initial public meeting. \ Present Source Water Management Plan to the Public Finalize Source Water Management Plan Figure 6.4 Public Review and Comment Implement Source Water Management Plan Figure 6.3 Review and Revise Source Water Management Plan 7. Regular review and modification One key to the success of a source water management plan is to maintain an open dialogue with stakehold- ers and the public beyond the plan development stage (presented in Chapter 5). The Source Water Management Planning Committee should institute a vehicle for regular comment or review of the manage- ment plan once it has been implemented. This can be a good source of information for the committee about how well the plan is working and what elements of the plan are effective or ineffective. In addition, a simi- lar open dialogue should be maintained for all modifications to the plan in subsequent years after the plan is initially adopted. 6.3 Conclusion A source water management plan developed through public participation represents a consensus on how to best manage the drinking water sources for a community. The benefits gained from this process include awareness in the community about the issues relating to the protection of drinking water, institution of coop- erative networks within the community, and commitment among stakeholders and community members to implement and uphold the management plan. The public participation process tremendously increases the potential for successful source water protection. ------- 7 Case Studies from Pilot Projects 7.1 Overview 7.2 Introduction 7.3 Ocotal 7.4 Esteli 7.5 Matagalpa 7.1 Overview In an effort to develop a meaningful approach to assisting communities in Nicaragua with development of their own source water protection programs, the project began with three pilot projects in communities impacted by Hurricane Mitch. The pilot projects used different methods to address various aspects of source water management. In Ocotal, local high school students inter- ested in environmen- tal issues carried out a source water pro- tection education campaign. A com- mittee of representa- tives from the mayor's office and environmental and health organizations operating in Ocotal worked together to define the target audience and create local environmental education program, Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa, organized a large public meeting to bring together stake- holders in the surround- ing watersheds to dis- cuss protection of the city's surface water sources. This meeting Local stakeholders attend a public participation meeting on provided a torum tor source water protection in Matagalpa. local farmers, ranchers, teachers, non-governmental organizations, students, and government representatives, and others, to voice their ideas about the threats to drinking water quali- ty in their area and what could be done to reduce them. The stakeholders also learned about source water protection from several speakers, including AYAMAT and Proyecto Cuencas representatives, and listened to each other express their opinions as well. This drawing by three local school children was used in the educational brochures distributed in Ocotal. three educational brochures. The students used the brochures, as well as a survey they had created, to inform cattle ranchers, coffee farmers and seasonal coffee workers about actions they could take to pro- tect their drinking water source. A significant portion of Matagalpa's drinking water comes from several watersheds surrounding the city. The local water supply agency, AYAMAT, and a Students in Esteli talk with workers in a furniture factory dur- ing an inventory of potential contaminant sources. Students at Esteli's campus of the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua (UNAN) pro- vided extensive time and effort to initiate a compre- hensive source water protection endeavor in that city. The students learned how to delineate source water protection areas for each of the city's drinking water wells, and then inventoried the potential sources of contamination for each protection area. 7.2 Introduction This chapter describes the three pilot projects that provided considerable basis for the preparation of this training, which is designed to assist Nicaraguans with development of programs to protect communi- ty drinking water sources. The purpose of the pilot projects was to provide technical assistance to the target communities while establishing approaches and methodologies for source water protection that could be applicable on a national level. The work in the pilot communities served to introduce ideas for watershed protection, test assumptions, gain reaction and input, and undertake initial actions to accom- plish source water protection. The selection of the pilot communities, Ocotal, Esteli and Matagalpa, was based on an initial assess- ment of conditions and opportunities for source water protection in areas damaged by Hurricane Mitch. After tentative selection, the leadership of each community was consulted to explore its inter- est and willingness to participate. The three towns ultimately included as part of the project represent locations of different population and geographic area, with differing source water management issues, in three distinct regions of the Mitch-affected areas of Nicaragua. Each pilot project was designed to address a partic- ular issue in source water management and, through empowerment to local stakeholders, to implement a specific component of source water protection: • Esteli: delineate source water protection areas for wells; • Ocotal: gain coordination and cooperation among various entities and communities in the watershed, and provide public education about contaminant sources; • Matagalpa: develop effective public participa- tion in watershed management by identifying potential sources of contamination and enumer- ating management solutions. ------- While the objective of the overall project has been to support the development of comprehensive source water protection programs in Nicaraguan communi- ties, the pilot projects were limited to just one or two components in order to focus the work and develop meaningful products within a relatively short time frame. For each pilot project, short-term objectives were identified, approaches to meet objectives undertaken, results recorded, and future needs iden- tified. The experience gained in the pilot towns has been integrated into this manual. Summaries of the pilot project case studies are pre- sented below. In addition to illustrating the unique circumstances of each community, the summaries present a concise overview of the source water pro- tection process in Nicaragua, and how it might be expected to unfold in localities beyond the pilot proj- ect communities. Mayor Marta Adriana Peralta was closely involved in development of the Ocotal pilot project. The pilot project in Ocotal was initiated in July, 2000, following a meeting between EPA representatives and Mayor Marta Adriana Peralta, during which drinking water protec- tion and its importance for the health of the community was discussed. Thanks to the enthusiastic support of the Mayor and her staff, the project got underway quickly, led by a small working group of key individuals concerned with water resources and water- shed management. The working group, organized by staff in the Ocotal Alcaldia, included community associations and non- governmental agencies, national agencies such as MAGFOR and MARENA, and inter- national organizations working in Ocotal on issues related to water quality, watershed management, and public health. 7.3 Ocotal 7.3.A Objectives • Develop partnerships among entities concerned with water quality in the community • Develop partnerships between Ocotal and the upstream communities in the source water area • Increase public awareness of source water issues and personal roles in protecting drinking water sources 7.3.B Project Summary Ocotal is a town of approximately 25,000 people, located along the Rio Dipilto in the Nueva Segovia Department in north-central Nicaragua. Ocotal depends on a central drinking water system that draws from an intake along the Rio Dipilto just upstream of the city. The water is first treated at a central facility using filtration, sedimentation, and chlorination. While the treatment plant is one of the more advanced in Nicaragua, high loads of bacteria from storm water runoff and sediment from erosion occasionally upset the balance of the treatment process and jeopardize the quality of delivered water. Upsets to the drinking water treatment system were particularly problematic in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch. The permanent population of the Rio Dipilto watershed above Ocotal is 6,000 inhabitants, which swells to 24,000 during the four months of the coffee harvest. Approximately 25 percent of the permanent population within the watershed does not receive treated drinking water (IRENA, 1993). Instead, water is taken direct- ly from the river for household use. Therefore, both the population served by the central delivery system and the population taking untreated water from the source stand to benefit from improved protection and man- agement of source waters. This potential for improved drinking water quality provided the impetus for the source water protection pilot project in Ocotal. Initially, the working group held several discussions to identify key water quality, source water protection and public health issues in the Rio Dipilto watershed, and the most effective ways to begin to address them. Key questions raised in the meetings included: • What are the most serious water quality prob- lems affecting the health of the community? • What are the most significant potential sources of those water quality problems? • Who can and should be involved in remedying these problems? • What management techniques should be consid- ered? The identified water quality issues included cattle roaming freely in the river, runoff from coffee pro- cessing flowing directly into streams, lack of use of latrines by seasonal and permanent coffee workers, and deforestation and erosion. After the working group meetings, members of the group, along with EPA representatives, toured the watershed to observe the activities relating to identified water quality concerns. After completion of the meetings and watershed tours, the working group developed a sequence of steps to begin to address identified watershed pro- tection needs. Targeted public education was pre- dicted to yield the greatest impact in terms of over- all watershed protection. Three of the problems identified through the meetings and field visits were selected as priorities for action, based on general consensus among the working group members. These issues were: • contamination of the river by cattle, • the lack of latrine use by seasonal coffee work- ers, and • the absence of latrines available for use by sea- sonal and permanent workers in the coffee fields. Members of the Ocotal working group and EPA representa- tives toured the watershed. The Ocotal working group identified the need for increased use of latrines by seasonal coffee workers. 2 ------- The working group identified other threats to the quality of the drinking water source, but it was agreed that these matters could be addressed later in the source water protection effort. Those additional water quality issues included improperly treated and disposed coffee wastes (husks and honey water), improperly disposed trash, and deforestation. The Ocotal working group determined that broad public outreach on the priorities for action could be accomplished through the development and distribu- tion of a series of educational brochures. The brochures would deliver a clear, concise source water protection message to the target groups asso- ciated with the identified priori- ty problems: cat- tle ranchers, cof- fee farmers, and coffee pickers. In order to raise community awareness, school children were invited to design a logo for the brochures. EPA representa- The influx of seasonal coffee workers tlves developed during the coffee harvest quadruples the text and graphics area's population north of Ocotal. for separate brochures on each issue. Each brochure displayed the winning logo. Following revision and approval by the work- ing group, 300 copies of the brochures were deliv- ered to the Mayor's office for distribution. The culmination of the educational campaign was delivery of the brochures to the target populations in the watershed. Under the leadership of COBEN (the local school of Nicaraguan biologists and eologists) a group of environmentally concerned high school students was organized into two brigades to assist with the public education effort. The students iden- tified a set of coffee farms and cattle ranches within the watershed that they then visited once a week for 7 weeks. Small groups of students interviewed 9 coffee farm owners, 34 coffee pickers, and 11 cattle ranchers during their visits to get an idea of their environmental awareness and how that awareness increased over the course of the 7-week campaign. During each visit, students also distributed brochures and discussed water quality issues. The students used a questionnaire (a copy of one is included in this chapter) for guidance in their dis- cussion and interviews with each audience. Responses from the people interviewed were posi- tive, and the connection between water quality, indi- vidual action, land uses and health was conveyed successfully, according to the report compiled by the students at the conclusion of the educational cam- paign (a copy of the report pertaining to coffee pick- ers is provided in this manual). The logo for the educational brochure used in Ocotal was developed by three school children. 7.3.C Outcomes and Accomplishments The educational effort in Ocotal brought together a variety of stakeholders, all of who had interest in water resources and their management. The spec- trum of stakeholders included businesses, residents, farmers, transient and permanent farm workers, local government, water treat- ment and delivery managers, non-govern- ment organizations and students ranging from elementary to high school levels. In addition, cooperation among the several communities present in the watershed (Ocotal, Dipilto, Las Manos) was initiat- ed for the purpose of source water protec- tion. This effort helped to open new avenues of communication and strength- en ties between the communities in work- ing towards the common goal of drinking water protection. An increased awareness now exists on the part of the upstream communities that their actions to protect water quality can not only improve their own drinking water, but could also improve the water quality of downstream communities. An emerging sense of stew- ardship supports the prospect of contin- ued progress in watershed protection for the Rio Dipilto area. It is anticipated that a regional philosophy toward source water protection will become more preva- lent as communities experience the bene- fits of collaboration. Figure 7.1 The principal outcome of the Ocotal pilot project was a heightened awareness of water quality issues both in the community itself and in upstream areas. The community also gained first hand experience in designing and carrying out a public education campaign. As a result, students, coffee workers, coffee farmers, cattle ranchers and their families have an increased understanding of the primary health issue in their community: drinking water quality. Through the endeavors of the working group, connections have been made between workers, students, communities, local government offices, and local organizations. 7.3.D Future Endeavors Ocotal has established a firm foundation for continued efforts in source water protection. Primary drinking water issues have been identified, practical experience in designing and implementing a public education campaign gained, and groundwork laid for the necessary cooperative efforts that will provide optimal pro- tection of the drinking water resources in the future. A program to protect source water in Ocotal has begun in earnest, and efforts to implement a comprehensive source water protection plan, once it is developed, have a great likelihood of success. In Entr Non Non Ubi Are No. I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII IX. forme del trabajo realizado por brigadistas ecologicos en la cuenca de el rio Dipilto en la temporada de cafe 2000-2001. evista para los ganaderos: ihre de el productor ibre de la finca sacion is de cultivo de cabeza de ffanado ^Cuantos trabajadores contrata cada a— o en su finca? Permanente H — M Temporales H — M — ^,C6mo maneja los desechos de la finca? <^asulla A------- Preparado por: Lie. Myriam Cruz Peralta, Presidente COBEN- Ocotal y Srita. Maria Patricia Lopez Aguilar, Responsable de Brigadas Ecologicas- Ocotal En el periodo de realization de las encuesta se seleccionaron a dos Brigadas Ecologicas, conformada por estudiantes de secundaria de V ano de el Colegio Fe y Alegria integrado por los jovenes: Brigada" Las Golondrinas" (7 mujeres) y Brigada" Los Chacales" (8 hombres). Estos jovenes brigadistas se movilizaron en grupos de tres en las fincas cafetaleras de Dipilto Viejo, El Volcan y Las Manos en el municipio de Dipilto, visitaron un total de nueve fincas cafetaleras, en las cuales realizaron un total de treinta y cuatro entrevistas a cortadores de cafe de ellos (12 mujeres) y (22 hombres) estas personas entrevistadas ano con ano regresan a las mismas fincas a cortar cafe y lo hacen acompanados de sus hijos menores y su companera o companero. Asi contestaron a las preguntas los cortadores de cafe I. ^Esta preocupado por la calidad de el agua que toma? Esta sucia y contaminada, sale oscura y con mal sabor, les preocupa que se puedan enfermar porque sale de la quebrada (rio), porque es necesario clorarla, por la salud de su familia, por la pulpa de el cafe. II. ^Sabe usted que cuando las personas y los animales tiran desechos al rio pueden enfermarse al tomar de esta misma agua? Si: No, explique por favor: Si, porque al tomarla ellos mismos pueden morir, porque ellos la consumen, esta infestada, por las enfermedades, se contamina su organismo, perjudica la salud, el desaseo. Hay microbios que viven en los excrementos y orina, humana y animal, que no pueden ser vistos. Cuando llueve, si hay excrementos en las partes altas del rio (cuenca), estos desechos pueden caer al rio llevando consigo los microbios. Si hay ganado en el rio o cerca de el, estos microbios en los desechos tambien caeran al rio. Cuando bebe agua que contiene estos microbios invisibles puede darle fiebre, diarrea, vomitos, dolor de estomago, dolor corporal, y deshidratacion. A veces estos sintomas pueden causar la muerte, especialmente, a infantes, nifios y ancianos. III. i, Se ha enfermado alguien en su familia recientemente, o conoce a alguien que haya estado enfermo por las causas anteriores? Si, la enfermedad fue causada por haber tornado agua "sucia." No, estamos contentos que siga saludable aunque otras personas no hayan tenido la misma suerte. Si, se han enfermado presentando dolores de estomago. Se enfermaron los ninos solamente dos, los restantes dijeron que no porque hierven o cloran el agua. IV. Hay cosas que se pueden hacer para proteger el agua de los microbios; entre estas se destacan: • Usar las letrinas disponibles • Mantener las vacas fuera de el rio ( entre mas lejos de el rio mejor) • Incluso los afluentes son importantes porque ellos suplen al rio V. i Preferiria usar letrina si existieran? Si, No ^Por que? Por que necesitan hacer sus necesidades, si no hay tienen que hacerlas al aire libre y luego enterrarlos, para prevenir enfermedades, para evitar la contamination, por las moscas, para protegerse, por que es necesario tenerlas, ayuda a nuestra salud, por limpieza y seguridad, es importante para evitar los microbios. VI. ^Considera que debe cuidar su salud, utilizar las letrinas y cambiar algunos habitos de higiene? • Concienciar a los que la usan • Para cuidar nuestra salud • Lavarse las manos • Clorar o hervir el agua • Para no contaminar el agua • Para mantener limpio • Vivir aseados • Lavar los alimentos • Mantener las letrinas cerradas por las moscas • Porque haciendolo al aire libre podemos contraer enfermedades • Tapar el agua • Usar papel higienico y quemarlo • Limpiar o cambiar las letrinas • No mantener animales en la cocina VII. Brinde su opinion sobre: • El uso de las letrinas. • Mantener el ganado fuera de el rio. Se pude hacer esto, y si no se puede £Por que no? Puede sugerir algunas otras cosas para que esto pueda hacerse (el uso de las letrinas y alejar al ganado de el rio)? Es importante usar letrinas, se puede mantener limpia la letrina, es primordial tenerla para que nadie se enferme, donde hay agua puede haber ganado por que tienen microbios, es importante por la salud, se debe llamar la atencion a personas que no mantienen limpia la letrina, porque se mantiene el agua limpia y se protege la salud, el ganado debe estar encerrado, las letrinas son muy utiles, es necesario hacer buen uso de las letrinas y mantenerlas aseadas, es una buena medida para evitar enfermedades y contaminar el agua. VIII. i, Hay algunas otras acciones que puedan ser tomadas para mantener los excrementos (humanos / de animales ) fuera de el alcance de el rio? • El uso de las letrinas. • Es dificil por que mucha gente busca el campo para hacer sus necesidades; por ejemplo: en una fmca de 80 trabajadores solo 3 usan letrina. • Se debe enterrar los excretos. • Se debe mantener tapada la letrina. • Mantener los animales encerrados. • No llevar el ganado al rio. • Usar los excretos como abono. • Beber agua de pozo. • Orientar a la poblacion sobre el asunto de las letrinas. • Aumentar el numero de letrinas en las fincas. • Dejarla de abono en la fmca. • Meterla en un hoyo, despulpar en seco el cafe, dejarle de abono. Figure 7.2 ------- 7.4 Esteli: 7.4.A Objectives • Delineate Source Water Protection Areas (SWPA) for Esteli wells • Inventory potential contaminant sources for all SWPAs for all wells • Rank potential contaminant sources in all SWPAs for wells • Engage students, mayor's office, and other key agencies and organizations in the city in a source water protection effort • Develop coordination between the university and the mayor's office 7.4.B Project Summary The city of Esteli was chosen as a pilot project com- munity for several reasons: the relatively large size of the community, the fact that Esteli depends on ground water sources for its drinking water, the presence of the University Center of the Northern Region of UNAN (UNAN-CURN) there, and inter- est on the part of the Mayor. An exploratory meet- ing with the Mayor took place in July, 2000, and a project to delineate the source water protection areas for wells in Esteli was launched soon thereafter. Esteli is served by 16 drinking water wells, most of which are located in or immediately adjacent to the urban center. During initial discussions with the Mayor, concern for the longevity of these wells became evident, as did the community's interest in developing a base of technical information about the wells and surrounding areas that would assist in the management of these drinking water sources. EPA representatives were aware of the existence of a branch of UNAN located in Esteli, and, with the support of the Mayor's office, approached the direc- tor of the Environment and Natural Resource Management Program about student participation in a source water protection area delineation project for the drinking water wells in the city. The director of the program, Dr. Ramona Rodriguez Perez, enthusi- astically supported the proposal, and worked closely with EPA representatives to formulate a credit proj- ect for third year graduate students in the environ- mental and natural resource management program. The woodworking factory and tile factory, shown here, were toured by UNAN-CURN students as part of their inventory of potential sources of contamination. The UNAN-CURN delineation project involved 25 students who participated in two EPA training ses- sions, one in November, 2000, and one in January, 2001. During the first class, students learned how to perform delin- eations of source water protection areas for wells, using the calculated fixed radius equation (based upon recharge and pumping rates) presented in Chapter 4 of this manual. After the first class, the students calculated candidate radii for all 16 wells serving the city. They then developed a map show- ing the circular source water protection area for each well. These calculations were based on an estimat- ed recharge rate (assumed to be 50% of the annual precipitation rate), and 100% of the pumping capac- ity of each well, as suggested by the trainer for this first exercise. During the second class, EPA repre- sentatives verified the protection area calculations and provided instructions on methods to inventory potential sources of contamination within the mapped areas. The second classroom session was immediately fol- lowed by a field trip to identify potential sources of contamination in one of the delineated areas and to collect information needed for the ranking process. The students chose a protection area for a well near the UNAN-CURN campus and walked throughout the protection area as a group with the EPA repre- sentatives. A variety of potential contaminant sources were investigated, including a woodworking shop, a tile factory, road runoff, and sewage and storm water discharge pipes from homes and busi- nesses. Students' knowledge of the importance of positive collaboration in the pursuit of drinking water protection goals was put into practice during discussions with owners and operators of potential contamination sources. The field trip concluded with a visit to the site of the well that currently draws water from the delineated area they had just toured, underscoring the potential impact of activities with- in the protection area on drinking water quality. During the months following the second class, the students identified potential sources of contamina- tion in each of the delineated source water protection areas. They first developed a list of potential sources of contaminants that applied specifically to the land uses and industries in their town, and then walked throughout each pro- tection area to directly investigate all the potential contaminant sources. In the process of the investi- gation, the students talked with shop own- ers and other local people about the chemicals used, stored or disposed of at their facility, business or home. They also col- lected data on methods used by local shops and fac- tories for chemical and waste storage and disposal. The students will use this information in the future when they rank the potential contaminant sources, based on potential risk and other factors, in order to develop management options. (Ranking of potential contaminant sources is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.) This inventory exercise provided the students a clear understanding of the potential threats to the drinking water supply, and provided a basis for discussion of drinking water protection with the business owners, workers, and local agen- cies. The final piece of the UNAN-CURN graduate class project will be to rank the potential sources of con- tamination based on a set of chosen criteria, such as travel time to the well, quantity of contaminant, or type of contaminant. (Ranking is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.) Ranking sources will help the students to evaluate the potential risk to drinking water supplies from the sources. This information will then be shared with the municipal government to facilitate efforts to implement source water pro- tection measures. As the students worked on the source water area delineations, word about the project spread within ------- The students at UNAN-CURN delineated the source water pro- tection area and conducted an inventory of potential contami- nation sources for Well #18 in Esteli, pictured here. the community. Others began to take an interest in the project, in particu- lar, AMCRE (Association of Municipalities of the Esteli River Watershed). Thanks to the initiative of the university, AMCRE became involved in the project. Applying its Geographic Information System (GIS) capabilities, AMCRE will work with students to digitize the maps of the source water pro- tection areas for the Esteli wells. This effort will make the source water protection area information compatible with a variety of software applications, and thus highly useful to other institutions working in the area on natural resource management and drinking water and watershed protection. The students also established a working relationship with the local office of ENACAL, which supplied information on well locations, pumping rates, and other design specifics. Project results will be made available to the ENACAL office to assist in opera- tion and management decisions, and in planning for future service needs. A continued working relation- ship among the University, the municipality, AMCRE and ENACAL can move the source water protection effort forward into the management stages. Currently, the project is being carried ahead primarily by the work of the students at UNAN- CURN. Over time, the political leadership of the municipality and ENACAL most likely will become integral players in implementing management options. The students and professors at UNAN- CURN hope to continue working on the topic of source water protection with future classes, and to maintain the working partnerships established dur- ing this project. Continued involvement of students at the University is likely to strengthen source water protection efforts in Esteli. 7.4.C Outcomes and Accomplishments Students in the source water protection class at UNAN- CURN each received a certificate of completion. A number of noteworthy achievements resulted from the Esteli case study effort. The most out- standing of these was demonstration of the value of involving University students in providing technical support for drinking water protection efforts. The interest, competence, and dedication of the students and faculty involved in this project indicate that expansion of university involvement in source water protection efforts throughout Nicaragua would be a valuable component of long-term programs. In terms of the UNAN-CURN class specifically involved in the pilot project, the students developed skills and understanding that can be put to work in the immediate future. Their determination that almost every part of the city of Esteli falls within a protection area, established an important connection for the students between land use and the potential for drinking water contamination. Other projects related to the delineation effort are being developed and collaborative efforts between the University and the local government to develop components of a source water protection program have begun. As a result of this project, the city of Esteli now has a calculated and mapped set of candidate source water protection areas, and corresponding invento- ries of potential contaminant sources, for its 16 drinking water wells. The students can now use this information as a tool in pursuing the next steps in source water protection, along with the help of ENACAL, the municipality, AMCRE and other stakeholders. Another positive outcome of the pilot project was development of a comprehensive inventory of potential contaminant sources in each source water protection area, and the ranking of potential sources of contamination within each of these areas. It is anticipated that this information will be of consider- able benefit to the local government, which has indi- cated a strong interest in initiating a comprehensive drinking water protection program for the city. 7.4.D Future Endeavors Professors at the University have expressed an inter- est in continuing to develop coursework relative to drinking water protection. This will likely be cov- ered as part of the Physical Chemistry and Toxicology track in the Natural Resource Management Masters program (Gestion en Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales) at UNAN-CURN at UNAN-CURN Esteli. The students who received the training as part of the pilot project may continue with efforts to protect drinking water in Esteli or undertake similar work elsewhere. Indications from the Mayor's office are that the work of the students will contribute significantly to source water protec- tion efforts in the community, and that this project has provided the impetus to begin to assemble a citywide strategy for drinking water protection. The students who have participated in the pilot project in Esteli may continue with efforts to protect drinking water in Esteli or elsewhere. The contributions of the agencies and individu- als involved in the pilot project efforts in Ocotal, Esteli and Matagalpa have been invaluable in Nicaragua's effort to establish a national pro- gram to protect drinking water sources. Their assistance is greatly appreciated. 6 ------- 7.5 Matagalpa 7.5.A Objectives • Public participation in source water protection • Enhanced local management of drinking water sources • Development of a wash basin demonstration project 7.5.B Project Summary Matagalpa is a mid-sized city lying at the con- fluence of the Rio Molino Norte and the Rio San Francisco. Matagalpa draws its water from three major sources: the Rio Molino Norte, the Rio San Francisco and the Rio Aranjuez. AYA- MAT is also currently investigating the possi- bility of drawing additional water from ground water sources in the Sebaco Valley, Chaguitillo. The pilot project in Matagalpa built upon the activities of an existing network of local water- related groups, and focused on facilitating dis- cussion of drinking water issues among stake- holders in the various watersheds that supply surface drinking water to Matagalpa. The source water protection areas for the combined surface and ground water drinking water sources in the Matagalpa region are vast. A local environmental education program, Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa, has mapped these source areas for its own educational purposes, so the watershed boundaries around Matagalpa are generally recognized and understood by the community and water resource and envi- ronmental managers in the region. The effort by Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa to delineate the watersheds and educate the community on the subject appears to have greatly facilitated source water protection efforts and management activities in and around Matagalpa. Matagalpa is unique in that its drinking water is managed by an innovative prototype organization called AYAMAT AYAMAT is a semi-private entity related to ENACAL working to manage protection and delivery of drinking water in a sustainable and efficient manner, with limited involvement by ENACAL. Matagalpa is also unusual in that it has a very strong, well-established environmental organization in place in the commu- nity. Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa works with local community members and students to provide environ- mental education, promote environmental campaigns at the local level, and support innovative, environmen- tally friendly, and economically beneficial alternatives to habitual activities that contribute to the degradation of drinking water sources. The Matagalpa pilot project capitalized on the successes of these institutional arrangements to initiate a sustained public involvement program for the source water protection areas. The first step in developing the source water protection program in Matagalpa was to work with AYAMAT and Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa to organize a stakeholder meeting to discuss the major problems affecting A community clothes washing station in Matagalpa could help pre- vent bacteria and harsh soaps from flowing directly into the river. drinking water quality, and to develop new ideas and options for mitigating those problems. On January 18, 2001, representatives of EPA, AYAMAT and Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa facilitated a meeting of approximately 50 stakeholders who had been identi- fied and invited to participate by AYAMAT and Proyecto Cuencas. Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa was able to use its existing network from its ongoing environmental education and outreach work to iden- tify a large group of stakeholders from throughout the surrounding watersheds. The stakeholders repre- sented the following interests: • Members of Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa • Local government officials • Town water committees • MARENA-Matagalpa • National Forestry Institute (INAFOR) - Matagalpa • Health organizations • Small Producers Association of Molino Norte (a watershed that supplies drinking water to Matagalpa) • Cattle ranchers • Farmers (large- and small-scale): vegetables, grains, corn, coffee • Tree nursery operators • Dairy farmers • School teachers • Students from National Agrarian University in Managua The first half of the day was devoted to key topics in watershed management, including: • source water assessment and the benefits of pro- tection; • the role of public participation in protection of drinking water sources; • the Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa and current efforts underway to improve and protect source waters for Matagalpa drinking water; and • alternative technologies and practices to address potential contamination associated with the coffee industry. In the afternoon, EPA representatives led a discus- sion of the major contaminant issues in the source water areas of Matagalpa, and what might be done to mitigate the contaminants. The meeting became lively at points, with participants expressing their ideas over a spectrum of economic, political, educa- tional and social perspectives. While significant dif- ferences of opinion emerged over the course of the meeting, many vital issues were put forth for discus- sion. Ultimately, the group identified nine signifi- cant sources of contamination: • Honey waters from coffee processing • Trash - plastics, wrappers, glass • Cattle ranching • Clothes washing directly in the rivers • Dairy farming • Leather processing • Pesticides and chemicals used in high volumes on flower farms • Sewage waste • Deforestation (effects on quality and quantity of water) The discussion clearly bolstered the process of source water protection. Several of the participants made a point to say that the meeting was well worth the time spent and they were glad to have participat- ed. Others felt the community needed to have more meetings of a similar nature to discuss issues and initiate action. In general, the group concluded that more education on drinking water quality and pro- tection was needed in the watershed communities. One of the major themes emerging from the public meeting was the need for and interest in alternative technologies to reduce negative impacts on water quality and watershed ecosystems. Alternatives dis- cussed included the following: • Use of coffee pulp as an organic fertilizer; • Use of biogas instead of wood; • Reduced use of water in coffee processing; • Treatment of honey water; • Use of the inner coffee husk to form energy bricks ------- to reduce wood consumption; Use of more efficient ovens; and Use of community clothes-washing stations locat- ed away from the river. Participants in the public participation meeting in Matagalpa tour the coffee waste treatment technologies at Selva Negra. 7.5.C Outcomes and Accomplishments Based on the feedback of participants, the Matagalpa public meeting was clearly effective in raising the level of awareness of watershed issues, and in gen- erating interest to resolve them. Some of the more notable successes were the large number of partici- pants, the broad representation of diverse interests from a large geographical area, and the considerable interchange that took place among the presenters and audience. Such interaction is a critical element of the source water protection process. The presence of several government representatives at the meet- ing, from international, national and local levels, gave people a sense that their ideas and comments mattered, and further added to the momentum gen- erated by the meeting. In the future, further discus- sion of issues surrounding source water protection and management can be hosted through the outreach network of Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa. The Matagalpa public meeting was also an opportu- nity to showcase one of the leading examples of local source water management in Nicaragua. It was evident from the discussions over the course of the day that AYAMAT is in a unique position to react to the issues brought up at the meeting and to work with the watershed communities to continue the effort of source water protection. As more people become aware of the existence and operation of enti- ties like AYAMAT, local communities may be stim- ulated to apply the model to their own situations and, in the process, bring source water protection efforts closer to home. Leaders from Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa and AYAMAT use this watershed map (above) and 3-dimensional model (below) to point out potential contamination sources and drinking water intake locations. 7.5.D Future Endeavors The Matagalpa public meeting laid the foundation for a highly participatory public involvement process in the creation of a source water protection plan for the region. EPA representatives promoted the idea of further meetings as a means of keeping attention focused on water quality issues and gener- ating action. During the public meeting, one of the issues raised was the impact of clothes washing on river water quality. From this discussion emerged the idea of constructing a community wash station set back from the river and supplied by water diverted from the river. The wash water could be directed to an infiltration area to prevent discharge directly to the river. This wash station, which could accommodate a small number of families, could be used as a demonstration project for other similar projects in the future. Such a facility could serve as a model and encourage broad scale use as a means to protect surface water quality. ------- Innovative and Alternative Technologies 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Innovative and Alternative Technologies Applicable in Nicaragua 8.1 Introduction We are continually increasing our own awareness about the negative impacts of human activity on environmental resources. For example, the use of rivers to discharge industrial and municipal waste- water, the application of agrochemicals to crops, and the practice of burying hazardous wastes have been recognized as major causes of environmental dam- age and, in some cases, human health problems. In response, communities and societies around the globe have begun to undertake efforts to adapt activ- ities and to develop innovative practices that better protect resources and ecosystems. In particular, many effective innovative and alterna- tive technologies have been developed to address water pollution problems both at the community and the individual level. Conventional practices, such as disposing of coffee husks and honey waters from coffee processing directly into a surface water body, washing clothes directly in a river, and allowing cat- tle to roam directly into a river to drink, sometimes have associated environmental costs like pollution of water resources. Innovative and alternative tech- nologies are ways of meeting community needs such that negative environmental impacts are reduced or eliminated. Some innovative and alternative technologies are now being applied in communities in Nicaragua that are working to reduce contamination in the water- sheds, achieve cleaner drinking water, improve envi- ronmental health, realize cost savings, and limit the overuse of resources. The benefits to drinking water quality from the use of innovative and alternative technologies can be significant. Therefore, a chapter of this manual is devoted to summarizing several of these. As drink- ing water resource management plans are devel- oped in the communities of Nicaragua, it is impor- tant to consider how and where innovative and alternative technologies can be employed. Whether taken as a direct application of the alternatives pre- sented here, an adaptation of them, or a formulation of altogether new approaches, innovative technolo- gies can significantly increase the success and/or reduce the cost of a drinking water protection pro- gram both at a national and local level. Water resource managers and other leaders should pursue opportunities for developing new and alternative technologies. It should be noted that three of the innovative and alternative technologies presented in this chapter could result in pollution of groundwater. The bene- fits gained from clothes washing stations, cattle watering troughs away from surface waters, and latrines all rely on the process of filtration for con- taminant removal. The percolated water can eventu- ally reach the ground water, with the slight possibil- ity of carrying with it nutrients, viruses and bacteria from cattle waste, human waste and clothes washing water. These technologies could potentially cause pollution of groundwater resources. While these technologies may not be ideal in terms of protection of water supplies, they do provide a marked improvement over direct discharge to surface waters that serve as sources of drinking water. Finally, it is also important to note that in Nicaragua, personal property taxes or improvement taxes may be imposed on certain types of new construction. This fact may act as a deterrent to individuals who might otherwise employ an alternative technology. A significant initial investment, sometimes required to institute a technology, might also be a disincentive for implementation. An effort to eliminate such dis- incentives could include working with the local municipality to develop a program of tax breaks or other incentives as part of the source water protec- tion and management plan (see Chapter 6 for further discussion). Firewood collection contributes to unstable conditions on hill- sides leaving them vulnerable to erosion. 8.2 Innovative and Alternative Technologies Applicable in Nicaragua 1) Fuel bricks from coffee husks (cascarillas) According to Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa, a water- shed protection program in Matagalpa, fuel bricks (briquetas) can produce more energy than a similarly sized log of firewood. Several neighborhoods in the north of Matagalpa have begun using briquetas for fuel (Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa, 2000) instead of wood. The coffee husk bricks can replace some of the need for firewood, which is already sparse on many hillsides due to previous deforestation. Further cut- ting of trees for firewood promotes unstable condi- tions on hillsides, and leaves the terrain vulnerable to erosion. Erosion of soils from the hillsides can cause heavy sedimentation in rivers and streams, which can impact the quality of drinking water sources. Using coffee husks for fuel bricks or purchasing fuel bricks instead of firewood can slow the rate of deforestation on hillsides. The recycling of coffee husks in this manner also reduces the practice of discharging husks directly into surface waters, which is a typical means of disposal during the coffee harvest season. Fuel bricks produce more energy than a similarily sized log of firewood. ------- 2) Composting of coffee husks (pulpa de cafe) for fertilizer Coffee husks can also be composted (allowed to decom- pose in a pile) and used for fertilizer the next year. Coffee husk composting requires construction of a sump or basin, usually built of cement or brick, in which the coffee husks can settle out of the honey waters. The honey waters are diverted elsewhere for further treatment and the coffee husks are moved to a compost area. A separate area near the settling basin must be designated where the husks can be composted. This area can be a simple hand-dug hole in the ground or just an open space for a compost pile. It is estimated that recycling husks from a coffee farm can pro- vide fertilizer for approximately 20 percent of that farm (Kuhl, 2001), potentially cutting fertilizer costs by 20 per- cent. Cost savings on fertilizer can therefore cover the ini- tial construction cost for the settling basin rather quickly. Coffee husk composting can be instituted on a farm of any size. Coffee husks can be collected, composted, and turned into fertilizer. 3) Biogas production from biodigestion of honey waters in coffee production Honey waters produced in wet coffee processing (lavado del cafe) are extremely high in organic mate- rial (such as sugars). When this material is broken down by naturally occurring bacteria, methane gas is produced. This process is called biodigestion, and can be carried out in a biodigester tank (see photo at right). The methane is captured within the tank and delivered to homes via simple pipe systems for use in cooking. Use of biogas as a fuel is usually only effi- cient when it can be produced near the area where it is used. The gas can be used as a cooking fuel in place of wood. Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa has been working with area coffee farms to construct and implement the use of biodigesters to produce biogas. At least four farms have begun to use the biogas they are producing in their biodigesters (Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa, 2000). Biogas produced from the decomposition of coffee husks can be collected and used as a fuel source. 4) Clothes washing station Washing clothes in a river can contribute significant amounts of bacteria and soaps to the river. By wash- ing clothes away from rivers, the pollution load from soiled clothes and soap can be minimized or eliminat- ed. Clothes washing stations for small communities or neighborhoods can be constructed in convenient loca- tions away from rivers. Typically, a pipe is construct- ed and water is transported via gravity or pumped from the river to a cement wash station at least 100 meters from the edge of the river. The discharge water from the wash station is directed to a specified location to infiltrate into the ground before it returns to the river. Washing clothes away from rivers prevents bacteria and soap from entering a surface drinking water source. Infiltration allows bacteria to be filtered out of the water by the soil, and absorption or uptake of the nutrients in soap to take place. Any water returning to the river via underground flow has lower levels of pollutants. Ready-made washbasins, as well as piping, fittings, and valves can be purchased in most large towns. A community may wish to form a small management board to take care of maintenance and management of a community wash station. Money is usually required for upkeep of the system, or for power for a water pump, if one is used. Possible sources of funds include the local government, water utilities, non-govern- mental organizations working in the area, and user fees. Each community must determine the best method to support the day to day operation and maintenance of a wash station. 5) Watering troughs Keeping cattle or other livestock out of rivers and streams is essential to protecting surface water quali- ty. Excrement and urine from livestock can be a major source of drinking water pollution. One method to restrain livestock is to fence off surface water bod- ies and provide animals with an alternative source of drinking water. A trough of water located well away from a river or stream can be supplied with water from upstream via a gravity pipe or by pumping it up from the river if necessary. While construction of troughs and fences may require a significant initial investment, and maintenance needs can be high, the benefits to water quality from reduced bacteria and nitrogen entering a surface drinking water supply can be considerable. Similar to wash basin projects, sources of funds might include local governments, water utilities, non-governmental organizations work- ing in the area, and user fees. Water troughs must be provided for livestock restrained from rivers and streams by use of fencing. ------- 6) Public/community latrines One of the sources of bacterial inputs to rivers and streams is overland runoff of human waste. In an effort to reduce open defecation in unvegetated areas, especially roadsides, communities could invest in public latrines in critical locations. Such locations might include bus stops, coffee pick-up stations, mar- kets, and other sites where people typically gather for periods of time. Public latrines would need to be sited and built in a manner protective of water supplies. They should be located away from rivers and streams and should be designed to ensure that wastes are fil- tered into the ground rather than carried off in any storm runoff to a surface water body. Public latrines in gathering places like local markets can reduce the need for open defecation. 7) Sand filters Sand filters can be used for cleansing relatively small volumes of surface water or spring water for individual dwellings and small communities at higher elevations where bacterial contaminants are less likely to occur in high concentrations. Ideally, sand filters would be used as one step in a series of water treatment steps that would also include disinfection, such as chlo- rination. However, even in the absence of possible further treatment options, filtration of drinking water is a worthwhile practice. Because of the relatively limited capacity of sand filters to reduce contamination levels in water, they are only practical in areas where bacterial and other contaminant inputs are relatively low. Typically, the least contaminated surface waters occur close to the water sources in the upper watersheds. An example of a region that could benefit from increased use of sand filters is the higher elevations in the Rio Dipilto watershed. Sand filters can be effective in filtering out some particulate matter, such as suspended sediments and particulate metals from water. Basic sand filtration can also remove some bacteria that may be attached to particulate matter in the water. Water is diverted from a stream or river and dispersed at a slow rate of flow through a container of sand, collected at the bottom of the container, and piped by gravity flow to the home or homes using the supply. Sand filters of varying sizes can be con- structed depending on the volume and flow of water to be cleaned on a daily basis. It is very important to size the sand fil- ter appropriately for the volume and flow of water being treated in order to allow for the maximum contaminant removal. An improperly sized or maintained sand filter could be virtually ineffective, or could harbor growth of bacteria or build-up of contaminants within the sand bed. The sand should be clean and should be replaced frequently, depending on the level of bacterial contamination of the water. Finally, the top of the sand filter should be covered, while still maintaining plenty of open air circulation for the sand and water, in order to prevent contamination from animals. ------- Sources of Information 9.1 Nicaraguan Local and National Government Organizations 9.2 Foreign Government and Multilateral Organizations 9.3 Non-Governmental Organizations 9.4 Educational and Research Institutions 9.5 Documents from the Pilot Project Arena That May Be Useful One of the most important pieces in the source water protection process is accessing the available body of information about the source water area of interest. There is no need to start from scratch when information may already exist about: land uses in the watershed, water quality, topography, water distribution, current management, and other relevant topics. In addition, experiences from source water protection efforts in other areas can be helpful in planning a local effort. Below is a list of possible sources of information in local communities and in the greater national and international community that may be of help. A majority of this contact information was gathered from web sites hosted by the organizations listed below, and is as current as the infor- mation provided on the web site. All web site locations and contact information otherwise collected are current as of May, 2001. 9.1 Nicaraguan Local and National Government Organizations Local Alcaldia Planning and land use information Statistics about population, land uses, local programs Empresa Nicaraguense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (ENACAL) Km 5 !/2 Carretera Sur Contiguo a la Casona E.E.U.U. Managua, Nicaragua Tel: 505-265-0861 Fax: 505-265-0981 Local offices may also be able to provide: Well Information Water Service and Distribution Information Acueductos y Alcantarillados de Matagalpa (AYAMAT) Contiguo a Interbank Matagalpa, Nicaragua Tel: 505-6125461, 6122979 Fax: 505-6123148 Institute Nicaraguense de Estudios Territoriales (INETER) Direccion de Recursos Naturales Frente a la Policlinica Oriental del Seguro Social Apdo. Postal 2110 Managua, Nicaragua Tel: 505-249-2756 Fax: 505-249-1890 Topographic maps Map of major watersheds in Nicaragua Map of average annual precipitation in Nicaragua Map of average high precipitation in post El-Nino years in Nicaragua Hydrogeologic Maps and Cross-sections Ministerio Agropecuario y Forestal (MAGFOR) www.magfor.gob.ni (Spanish) Agricultural and forestry resources Soil information Land use information Planning and land use information Statistics about population, land use programs Ministerio de Salud (MINSA) Complejo Nacional de Salud "Dra. Conception Palacios" Costado Oeste Colonia Primero de Mayo Managua, Nicaragua Tel: 505-289-7274, 289-7235 www.minsa.gob.ni (Spanish) Public health information Water quality information in some water treatment plants Ministerio del Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (MARENA) Direccion General del Ambiente y Recursos Hidricos (DGA) Km 12 Vi Carretera Norte Apartado Postal 5123 Managua, Nicaragua Tel: 505-263-2095/263-2088 Fax: 505-263-2088/263-2354 Asociacion Municipios de la Cuenca y Subcuencas Tributarias delRioEsteli (AMCRE) Esteli, Nueva Segovia, Nicaragua Tel: 505-713-7725 Fax: 505-713-6721 amcre@ibw.com.ni 9.2 Foreign Government and Multilateral Organizations US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Home Page www.epa.gov/OW/index.html (English) Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Home Page www.epa.gov/safewater (English) El agua potable y la salud: lo que Ud. debe saber www.epa.gov/safewater/agua/apsalud.html (Spanish) Estandares de Agua Potable en Los Estados Unidos www.epa.gov/safewater/agua/estandares.html (Spanish) Drinking water contaminants - Fact Sheets www.epa.gov/safewater/hfacts.html (English) ------- Safe Drinking Water Help Line: www.epa.gov/OGWDW/drinklink.html (English and Spanish) Tel: 800-426-4791 (toll free from the US) US Peace Corps Colonia Bolonia Canal 2, Ic. Abajo, 2 cuadra al sur Managua, Nicaragua Tel: 505-266-7033/ 266-7034/ 266-7035/ 266-7036 Fax: 505-266-1392 US Agency for International Development (USAID) Nicaragua Mission De la Loteria Nacional, 200 metros abajo Frente a Syscom Pista Sub-Urbana, Apartado Postal C-167, zp-13 Managua, Nicaragua Tel: 505-267-0502 Fax: 505-278-3828 www.usaid.org.ni (English) USAID Environmental Health Project Del Hotel Colon Ic. al sur, 1 /^ arriba, Los Robles Managua, Nicaragua Tel: 505-270-2380, 505-270-2517 Fax: 505-278-4961 www.ehpnicaragua.org.ni (Spanish) The World Bank De los Semaforos de la Centroamerica 400 mts. Abajos, segundo piso Edificio SYSCOM Managua, Nicaragua Tel: 505-270-000 Fax: 505-270-0077 www.worldbank.org (English) United Nations Development Program Rotonda El Gueguense Plaza Espana 400 mts al sur Apartado Postal 3260 Managua, Nicaragua Tel: 505-266-3191, 505-266-3193, 505-266-3195 505-266-1701, 505-266-3155 Fax: 505-266-6909 www.undp.org.ni (Spanish) The World Health Organization Home Page www.who.int/home-page/index.es.shtml (Spanish) Links to Environment and Health related information http://www.who.int/home/map_ht.html#Environment and Lifestyle (English) Drinking water quality information and contaminant guidelines http: //www. who. int/water_sanitati on_health/Water_quality/ drinkwat.htm (English) http://www.cepis.ops-oms.org/indexeng.html (Spanish) Pan American Health Organization Oficina Sanitaria Panamericana Complejo Nacional de Salud Apartado Postal 1309 Managua, Nicaragua Tel: 505-289-4200, 505-289-4800 Fax: 505-289-4999 www.ops.org.ni (Spanish) Information about health, links to technical documents and references about diseases and disease prevention, databases, and contact infor- mation Comite Coordinador Regional de Instituciones de Agua Potable y Saneamiento de Centroamerica, Panama y Republica Dominicana (CAPRE) Avenidas Central y Primera, Calle 5 Edificio la Llanuca, Piso 15 Apdo. Postal 5120-1000 San Jose, Costa Rica Tel: 506-222-4392/257-6054 Fax: 506-222-3941 9.3 Non-Governmental Organizations CARE International Sandy's Carretera a Masaya Ic. abajo, /^ c. al lago Apartado Postal 3084 Managua, Nicaragua Tel: 505-267-8395, 505-278-3834, 505-278-0018, 505-278-0115 Fax: 505-267-0386 CARE International supports rural water, sanitation and preventive health projects in communities in Nicaragua. These projects include PALES A, the El Viejo Potable Water project, the Latrines and Health Education Project, and the Water for Today and Tomorrow project. For more information, visit www.care.org.ni. (Spanish) Amigos de las Americas Amigos de las Americas, a Non-governmental organization from the United States, brings volunteer teams to work with small communi- ties on sanitation, environmental education, and drinking water proj- ects, as well as on other community development issues. In Nicaragua, AMIGOS' partner organization is CARE International (see above). Auxilio Mundial - World Relief Managua, Nicaragua Tel: 505-265-3415, 505-265-3430 Agua Para la Vida 2311 Webster Street Berkeley, CA 94705, USA Tel: 510-643-8003,510-528-8318 Fax: 510-643-5571 Agua Para la Vida is a non-profit organization started in 1987 to help start small rural Nicaraguan communities to construct their own drinking water systems. 9.4 Educational and Research Institutions Centre Agronomico Tropical de Investigation y EnseiTanza (CATIE) 7170 CATIE Apdo. Postal 19-7170 Turrialba, Costa Rica Tel: 506-556-6081, ext. 337 Fax: 506-556-6166 Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa Edificio Alcaldia de Matagalpa Planta Alta Matagalpa, Nicaragua Tel: 505-612-2850 cuencama(S)ib w.ni. com ------- Environmental education project to protect the watersheds around Matagalpa Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Nicaragua (UNAN) UNAN - Managua ENEL Central 3 Km al Sur Apartado Postal: 663 Managua, Nicaragua Tel: 505-278-6769 Fax: 505-277-4943 www.unan.edu.ni (Spanish) Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Nicaragua (UNAN) Centre Universitario Region Norte (CURN) Programa de Gestion en Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales Esteli, Nicaragua Tel: 505-713-2437, 505-713-6890 Universidad Centroamericana de Managua (UCA) Pista de la Resistencia, semaforos de ENEL SOOmts. al este Apartado Postal #69 Managua, Nicaragua Tel: 505-2783923 Fax: 505-2670106 www.uca.edu.ni (Spanish) Universidad Nacional de Ingenieria (UNI) Campus "Simon Bolivar" Avenida Universitaria, Managua, Nicaragua Campus "Pedro Arauz P.," Costado Sur Villa Progreso Managua, Nicaragua Apartado Postal 5595 Tel: 505-267-0274, 505-249-4287 Fax: 505-267-3709 www.uni.edu.ni (Spanish) Universidad Nacional Agraria (UNA) Km 12 1/2, Carretera Norte Apartado postal No. 453, Managua tel: 505-2331619 fax: 505-2331950 www.una.edu.ni (Spanish) Escuela Agricola Panamericana Zamorano www.zamorano.edu.hn (Spanish and English) Latin American Network Information Center www.lanic.utexas.edu (English) Links to helpful websites in Latin America, by region or country, under the topics of sustainable development, economics, government, media, social sciences and more. Centre Panamericano de Ingenieria Sanitaria y Ciencas del Ambiente (CEPIS) http://www.cepis.ops-oms.org (Spanish and English) Virtual library of information about health, water quality and sanita- tion in Latin America. 9.5 Documents from the Pilot Project Arena That May Be Useful Esteli • "Esteli Municipal Development Plan" (in Spanish). • Basic Information for the Implementation of a Plan for the Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of Watersheds that are Used for Potable Water Supply in the Departments of Esteli, Madriz and Nueva Segovia." ENACAL, Northern Technical Assistance Unit. • Environmental Rehabilitation Plan - Southern Rio Esteli Watershed. Preliminary Version. National Service of Watershed Management (SENOC), MARENA, the Interinstitutional Commission for the Recuperation and Conservation of the Rio Esteli Watershed (CICRE), and German Social Technical Cooperation Service (DED). • Water Quality Data for Drinking Water Wells in Esteli, Complete Physical Chemical Analysis Performed in Regional Laboratory, Urban Sector, Municipality of Esteli. 1999. ENACAL - Esteli. • Esteli Water Supply Plan showing locations of public water supply wells. Ocotal • Municipal Governments of Dipilto and Ocotal, Nueva Segovia. Process of Improvement of Citizen Participation for Sustainable Development. Intermunicipal Forum of Dipilto, Ecological Situation of the Rio Dipilto. August 19, 1997. • Project Document: A Green Ocotal to the 21st Century. Municipal Government of Ocotal and Community. Forest Management and Reforestation in Ocotal Region. • Map of Barrios in Ocotal. • 1999 Population projection (urban and rural) in Ocotal, by age group and sex. Matagalpa • Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa. Bulletin. 2000. Matagalpa, Nicaragua. • Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa. Environmental Education Modules. 2000. Matagalpa, Nicaragua. • Potential Land Use within Two Major Drinking Water Watersheds in Matagalpa • Actual Versus Potential Land Use within Two Major Drinking Water Watersheds in Matagalpa • Soils within Two Major Drinking Water Watersheds in Matagalpa • Potential Evapotranspiration within Two Major Drinking Water Watersheds in Matagalpa • Proposed Forestry and Forest Protection within Two Major Drinking Water Watersheds in Matagalpa • Changes in Land Use for Annual Cultivation and Coffee within Two Major Drinking Water Watersheds in Matagalpa • Hydrologic Conditions within Two Major Drinking Water Watersheds in Matagalpa ------- General • Enlace Special Issue. Special Issue 72, Year 2000. Local stories relating experiences in improving local living conditions and how to better prepare for emergencies such as Hurricane Mitch. • Environmental Education Program. Watershed Restoration, Multiple Water Use, Water Contamination, and Water Resource Conservation. Information and Presentation from Lie. Msc. Manual Silva and Lie. Msc. David Rios O. Ecological consultants in educa tion and environment. • Watershed Protection Pamphlet. GreenCOM El Salvador Project, US AID and the Academy for Educational Development. ------- References Chapter 1 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), [2001]. Home Page of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Online: www.epa.gov. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), [2001]. Mitch: The Deadliest Atlantic Hurricane Since 1780. NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. Online: www. ncdc. noaa.gov/ol/reports/mitch/mitch. html. United States Agency for International Development (US AID), [2001]. Home Page of the United States Agency for International Development, Online: www.aid.gov. Chapter 2 Nicaraguan Aqueduct and Sewer Company (Empresa Nicaraguense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados) (ENACAL) - Esteli, [1999]. Physical chemical lab analysis of drinking water quality. Urban Sector, Municipalidad of Esteli, 1999. Laboratorio Regional. ENACAL U.A.T.N. Control de Calidad de Agua. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), [1999]. Drinking Water Treatment. EPA 810-F-99-013. December 1999. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), [2001] a. Disinfection Byproduct Information. US EPA EnviroFacts Warehouse. Online: www.epa.gov/enviro/html/icr/dbp.html (as of June 20, 2001). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), [2001] b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Online: www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), [2001] c. What is a Pesticide? US EPA Office of Pesticide Programs. June 20, 2001. Online: www.epa.gov/opp00001/whatis.htm Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), [2001] d. Why Children May be Especially Sensitive to Pesticides. US EPA Office of Pesticide Programs. February 21, 2001. Online: www.epa.gov/pesticides/food Evans, A.S. and PS. Brachman, [1991]. Bacterial Infections of Humans: Epidemiology and Control. Second Edition. Plenum Medical Book Company, New York. p. 20-23. Gaudy, A.F. and E.T. Gaudy, [1980]. Microbiology for Environmental Scientists and Engineers. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. p. 670-685. Madigan, M.T., J.M. Martinko, and J. Parker., [2000]. Brock Biology of Microorganisms. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. p. 974-975. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Ministerio de Ambiente y Recursos Naturales) (MARENA), [no date]. Manual Sobre Regulaciones de Calidad Ambiental. Direccion general de Calidad Ambiental Asesoria Legal de MARENA. Financiado por PASMA-DANIDA/MARENA. Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud) (MINSA), [November 17, 2000]. Personal communication by Horsley & Witten, Inc. with Maritza Obando and Victor Calixto. MINSA, Managua, Nicaragua. Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), [1998]. Health in the Americas, 1998 Edition, Volume II. p. 382-390. Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), [1999]. Nicaragua: Basic Country Health Profiles, Summaries 1999. Online: www.paho.org.english/sha/prflnic.htm. Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), [2001]. Number of cholera cases in the Americas 1991- 2000. Online: www.paho.org/English/HCP/HCT/Cholera_cases_1991-2000.htm. Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa, MINSA, AYAMAT, and MECD, [1999]. Modulo: Situacion higienico sanitaria en las cuencas Molino Norte y San Francisco y barrios norte de Matagalpa. Matagalpa, Nicaragua. World Health Organization (WHO), [1993]. Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 2nd Edition. Volume 1: Recommendations. Geneva, World Health Organization. Online: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/GDWQ/Chemicals (as of June 20, 2001). World Health Organization (WHO), [1996]. Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 2nd Edition. Volume 2: Health Criteria and Other Supporting Information. Geneva, World Health Organization. Online: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/GDWQ (as of June 20, 2001). Chapter 3 Gleick, Peter H., [1998]. The World's Water: The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources 1998-1999. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), [1998]. Health in the Americas, 1998 Edition. Volume II. World Bank, [2000]. Nicaragua at a Glance. Online: http://www.worldbank.org/data/countrydata/aag/nic_aag.pdf. September 12, 2000. World Bank, [2001]. Nicaragua Poverty Assessment: Challenges and Opportunities for Poverty Reduction. Volume 1: Main Report. World Bank Report No. 20488-NI. February 21, 2001. Manahan, Stanley E., [1994]. Environmental Chemistry. Sixth Edition. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, p. 179-188. ------- Chapter 4 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), [1999]. Tools for Watershed Protection: A Workshop for Local Governments. Prepared by Horsley & Witten, Inc. for US EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Lander, Charles H., David Moffitt, and Klaus Alt, [1998]. Nutrients Available from Livestock Manure Relative to Crop Growth Requirements. Appendix II: Manure Characteristics. Resource Assessment and Strategic Planning Working Paper 98-1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. February, 1998. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP), [No Date]. Nitrogen Modeling. Prepared by Horsley & Witten, Inc. for the MA DEP, Division of Water Supply. Chapter 5 Charney, Alexandra. August [2000], Prototipo Expendiente de Una Servidumbre Ecologica. Masters Project/Internship for The Nature Conservancy. Ecuador. Mack, Stephen A.J.D. [1997], Las servidumbres ecologicas en America Central - Conservation Easements in Central America. Costa Rica: COMBOS, CEDARENA, The Nature Conservancy. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Ministerio de Ambiente y Recursos Naturales) (MARENA), [no date]. Manual Sobre Regulaciones de Calidad Ambiental. Direccion general de Calidad Ambiental Asesoria Legal de MARENA. Financiado por PASMA-DANIDA/MARENA. Chapter 7 Institute Nicaraguense de Recursos Naturales y el Ambiente (IRENA), [1993]. Plan de Desarrollo de la Cuenca del Rio Dipilto. Servicio Nacional de Ordenamiento de Cuencas (SENOC). February. Managua, Nicaragua. Chapter 8 Kuhl, Mausi., January, [2001]. Personal Communication. January 18, 2001. Matagalpa, Nicaragua. Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa, [2000]. Bulletin. Matagalpa, Nicaragua. ------- Glossary of Terms Aquifer: A subsurface unit of rock or sediment characterized by formations and/or sediments capable of storing and transmitting water in sufficient quantities to supply pumping wells. Biodigestion: Bacterial breakdown of organic material, such as that found in discharge waters from coffee processing, that produces methane as a byproduct. Compost: A mixture of decaying organic matter used to improve soils and provide nutrients. Conservation Easement: A legal mechanism under which a private landowner relinquishes land use rights to a town, national government, individual or conservation group in exchange for some financial benefit to the land owner. Ground Water: Water beneath the earth's surface. Pesticide: Any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating pests including weeds, insects and fungus. PH test: A measurement of a substance to show whether it is acidic or basic based on the concentration of hydrogen ions present. Recharge: Water, typically from precipitation, that seeps into the ground and reaches a ground water aquifer. Runoff: Precipitation that does not seep into the ground, but flows down slope over the land surface to the nearest surface water body. Source Water Protection Area (SWPA): An area that supplies water to a public water supply, ground water well, or surface water intake. Stakeholders: Any individuals or groups, such as local farmers, trade organizations, government entities, local businesses, and community residents with an interest in the quality of drinking water and management of source water areas. Surface Water: Water occurring at the land surface, including streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, estuaries and the ocean. Uniform Flow Equation: A mathematical equation that can be solved to delineate the down-gradient and lateral limits of a source water protection area for a well. Volumetric Flow Equation: Equation that can be used in the Calculated Fixed Radius method to delineate a source water protection area for a well. Watershed: The land area that contributes water to the mouth of a river or stream, or to a lake. Watershed Area: The land area from which water drains to a point on a receiving body of water. Zone of Contribution: The land area through which recharge occurs and beneath which water flows to a pumping well. ------- Glossary of Acronyms AMCRE: Association of Municipalities of the Esteli River Watershed (Asociacion de Municipios de la Cuenca del Rio Esteli) AYAMAT: Aqueducts and Sewerage of Matagalpa (Acueductos y Alcantarillados de Matagalpa) CFR: Calculated Fixed Radius method, used to delineate a source water protection area for a well. The basic equation used is r = (Q/Rp)l/2, where r = radius of the protection area (feet), Q well pumping rate (cubic feet/year) and R = recharge rate (feet/year). COBEN: High School of Biologists and Ecologists of Nicaragua (Colegio de Biologistas y Ecologistas de Nicaragua) CURN: UNAN University Center of the Northern Region (Centre Universitario de la Region Norte) ENACAL: Nicaraguan Aqueduct and Sewer Company (Empresa Nicaraguense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados) ENACAL-DAR: Rural Areas Division of the Nicaraguan Aqueduct and Sewer Company (Empresa Nicaraguense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados - Division de Areas Rurales) EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency GIS: Geographic Information System INAFOR: National Forestry Institute (Institute Nacional Forestal) INETER: Nicaraguan Institute of Territorial Studies (Institute Nicaraguense de Estudios Territoriales) MAGFOR: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (Ministerio de Agricultura y Forestal) MARENA: Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Ministerio de Ambiente y Recursos Naturales) MINSA: Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud) PAHO: Pan American Health Organization UNAN: National Autonomous University of Nicaragua (Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Nicaragua) USAID: United States Agency for International Development USDA: United States Department of Agriculture WHO: World Health Organization ------- -------