2003 NATIONAL SOURCE WATER PROTECTION CONFERENCE
DRAFT SUMMARY AND HIGHLIGHTS

EPA held its National Source Water Protection (SWP) Conference on June 2-4, 2003 at the Hotel
Washington, in Washington DC. The conference, timed to promote SWP as 165,000 source
water assessments were due to be completed, offered an opportunity for participants to share
their experiences, leam about protection strategies, and network with others who are working to
promote source water protection.

Over 450 people attended the Conference. Participants came from 47 states, the District of
Columbia, and two Canadian provinces. They represented all levels of government agencies from
local, federal, and tribal utilities, technical assistance providers and health care workers, and
private citizens.

150-
100-
50-
0-

The conference focused on the "Path to Protection," six steps for moving from a completed
source water assessment to an effective protection strategy. These steps are: (1) review
assessments, (2) prioritize actions, (3) identify and motivate key actors, (4) mobilize and develop
a strategy for protection and security, (5) implement source water protection strategy, and (6)
measure results.

The conference covered many topics of interest to SWP stakeholders-from understanding
assessments and using technology to forging beneficial partnerships and obtaining the necessary
resources to implement effective source water protection strategies. Out of the many
presentations and discussions, some common themes emerged:

• Partnerships are valuable. A variety of stakeholders can productively contribute to
effective SWP initiatives. Each offers a unique perspective on all of the activities that
affect source water, and can communicate SWP messages to their constituencies.

Affiliation of Conference Participants



11:

B

81 7C



34



45 49

°7

—



1/
¦ ,

1

III

6 7

. i—i , i—i .

Academic EPA Fed. St./Tribe Loc./Util. NGO TAP Private Int'l Other

Page 1

-------
Furthermore, partners may offer mutual opportunities to leverage resources, combine
efforts, or make use of existing authorities. It is important to know who the stakeholders
are and to involve them early in the process. Partners can include local and regional
environmental and citizens' groups, water utilities, local officials, schools, businesses,
farmers, conservation districts, state program managers (drinking water, flood plains,
hazardous waste, and others), federal agencies, watershed groups, land conservancies and
non-profit organizations, rural water associations, neighboring jurisdictions, and
universities/extension programs. See more on partnerships in Sessions A2, B4, CI, C2,
and C4.

Coordination is important. Sharing information with other agencies and organizations
can get them involved and motivated to protect drinking water sources. Including SWP in
their priorities can be mutually beneficial and may increase available resources and
manpower, and help to overcome resistance. See more on coordinating for SWP in
Sessions Al, A2, A3, Bl, CI, C2, C3, and C4.

Technology is a powerful tool. Geographic information systems (GIS) are being used as
an effective tool for identifying and managing threats, communicating potential source
water threats and protective actions to decision makers, and overseeing management
activities by providing maps that allow visualization of the areas being protected.

Software packages, templates, and models can facilitate completing vulnerability
assessments (VAs) or drafting local ordinances. The Internet is a powerful
communication and information sharing tool. SWP planners can access data from various
state and federal Web sites (see the appendix for a list). See more on how technology can
improve SWP in Sessions Al, A3, A4, CI, C2, and C4.

Funding is always a concern. All communities and government agencies, from local to
federal, are cash-strapped. Resources are available through a variety of sources, such as
the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) State Revolving
Funds (SRF), CWA Section 319 funds, and the Farm Bill. Implementing protection
measures and increased public awareness can provide substantial cost savings by
reducing monitoring requirements (through waivers) or avoiding expensive treatment.
Sharing information on available funding is important as well. See more on funding in
Sessions Bl, B3, B4, C3, and the Financing Plenary.

Outreach and education are a must. Citizens, business owners, farmers, and others
need to understand where their drinking water originates, how their actions affect its
quality, and what they can do to protect it. Local water system staff may need training on
specific SWP measures and available technologies, such as GIS, as well. Schools and
community events are good avenues for knowledge transfer; public service
announcements or a national advertising campaign could help. See more on outreach and
education in Sessions Al, A2, A3, A4, CI, C2, and C4.

Communication is a key part of a successful SWP strategy. Stakeholders need to be
involved throughout the planning and implementation of a SWP strategy. Certain groups,
such as farmers and business owners, can be contacted and involved through
organizations that serve these groups. Sharing information should be balanced with
security concerns, however. Communication across federal and state programs is also
important. See more on effective communication in Sessions A2, A4, CI, C2, and C4.

Page 2

-------
•	There are new opportunities to support protection. Initiatives under the Farm Bill;
Homeland Security; state and local initiatives; and innovative technologies, such as GIS
and best management practices (BMPs), all present opportunities to develop or fund
effective SWP strategies. See more on new opportunities in Sessions A2, A3, A4, B2, C4,
and the Financing Plenary.

•	Source water protection is just starting. Conference participants shared and discussed
ideas for follow-up actions EPA should take to promote SWP. Participants have begun to
network and take follow-up actions as well.

For more information on source water protection, including news, updates to conference
follow-up activities, links to states' and partners' Web sites, guidances and outreach materials,
visit www. epa. gov/safewater/protect/swpconf.html

PLENARY SESSION SPEECHES

Visit the National SWP Conference web site for the text of the plenary session speeches.

Opening Plenary: Making the Case for Action (Monday, June 2)

The conference's opening session was a call to action, and featured commitments to protection
from Mike Baker, President of the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC); Jeff Stuck,
incoming President of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA); and
G. Tracy Mehan, III, Assistant Administrator for Water. Former U.S. Senator Paul Simon
provided an international perspective on the need to conserve and protect water sources.

Mike Baker, Chief of the Drinking and Groundwater Division, Ohio EPA, and President of the
Ground Water Protection Council, said that many states are actively pursuing protection, but that
effective SWP must take place at the local level. He emphasized the need to protect ground
water sources, given that 90 percent of public water systems rely on ground water.

Jeff Stuck, Manager, State of Arizona Safe Drinking Water Program, and incoming President of
the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, discussed the four "Ps" of source water
protection: public health, patience, perseverance, and partnering.

G. Tracy Mehan, III, Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
said there are three key concepts for protecting source water: prevention, integration, and
collaboration. He highlighted EPA's commitments to working at the watershed level to make
SWP work; discussed the importance of interagency cooperation and partnerships with the
agricultural sector to achieve SWP integrating actions; and concluded by encouraging
participants to begin collaboration efforts at the conference.

Senator Paul Simon, Director, Public Policy Institute, Southern Illinois University and former
U.S. Senator, delivered the conference's keynote speech. He discussed the world's water crisis
and the need to focus on long-term water quantity and quality issues. Conservation is critical and

Page 3

-------
desalination is an effective option for meeting the world's water needs. Even seemingly small
actions can make a big difference.

Partnerships for Protection (Tuesday, June 3)

Because the Path to Protection is not a journey to be taken alone, partnerships are an important
element of a successful SWP strategy. Susan Seacrest, President, The Groundwater Foundation,
spoke about the role of partnerships in source water protection.

Closing Plenary and Charge to Action (Wednesday, June 4)

To begin to translate the energy and enthusiasm gained during the conference into action, Dr.
Jeffrey Griffiths, Director, Graduate Programs in Public Health, Tufts University School of
Medicine, gave a speech on one of the most important reasons to protect drinking water: public
health.

The conference closed with a facilitated panel discussion, titled "It's In Your Hands: Next Steps
on the Path to Protection." Panel members representing local, regional, and federal partners for
protection spoke about where they are along the path to protection, what they have learned from
the conference, partnerships for SWP, and how they believe EPA can support SWP.

Bill Diamond, Director, Drinking Water Protection Division, EPA's Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water, closed the conference by highlighting the major issues that arose during the
conference and challenging everyone to make source water protection a success.

Page 4

-------
BREAKOUT SESSION SUMMARIES

During twelve breakout sessions, conference participants had multiple opportunities to explore
topics of interest to them. Brief descriptions of each session are provided below; copies of slide
presentations are available on the National SWP Conference web site.

Al. Assessments as a Tool to Launch Protection

This session addressed how source water assessment results can be used in setting priorities and
developing effective SWP strategies. Representatives of six states (Oregon, California, Ohio,
Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine) presented an overview of their assessment results. For
surface water systems, top contamination threats include agriculture, roads and highways, and
septic systems. For ground water systems, wells and abandoned wells, septic systems, high
density housing, underground storage tanks, and roads and highways were most prevalent. EPA's
State SWP contacts web page provides links to all state SWP programs.

The states' next steps include sharing results and data and coordinating with other agencies for
prioritization. For example, under the Clean Water Action Plan, Oregon works with the US
Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to give those agencies clear directives to
make drinking water protection a priority. Susceptibility results can be used to develop strategies
for addressing the top threats and building a case for systems to protect. States also provided
information on encouraging systems to use available tools, such as SRF and SWP loans or state-
developed tool kits.

States reported that challenges for implementing SWP include insufficient staff and resources,
getting buy-in from local officials and the public, and making information available without
compromising security.

Presenters in this session included:

•	Sheree Stewart, Program Coordinator, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
Moderator. Assessments as a Tool to Launch Protection

•	Leah Walker, California Department of Health Services. Assessment Inventory Results:
Identifying Priorities and Actions in California

•	Barb Lubberger, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Ohio - Status of Inventories

•	Andrew Durham, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. SWAP and
Tracking

•	Rodney Pingree, Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. Vermont's
Approach to Drinking Water Source Protection

•	Andy Tolman, Maine Drinking Water Program. Using Source Water Assessments for
Source Water Protection

A2. Communicating Assessment Results: Effective Communication Strategies

This session presented effective strategies for communicating source water assessment results to
achieve successful protection, and highlighted working with citizens, businesses, and the
agricultural community (see session C4 for more on rural partnerships). Ideas that applied across

Page 5

-------
all audiences include the importance of education (to citizens, business owners, and farmers),
partnerships, communication, working side-by-side with the community, and understanding
prospective partners' concerns (i.e., that SWP is not their top priority, they have limited
resources, and are very busy).

Presenters in this session included:

•	Beth Hall, EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Moderator.

•	Don Hay del, Geologist III, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Louisiana
Drinking Water Protection Pilot Program

•	Mike Davis, Drinking Water Advocate, Clean Water Fund/Clean Water Action. Clean
Water Fund's "Watershed to Water Tap Project"

•	L.D. McMullen, CEO and General Manager, Des Moines Water Works. Water Quality
and Non Point Pollution Control

•	R. Thomas Van Arsdall, President, Van Arsdall and Associates, Inc. Communicating
SWA Results to Maximize SWP Opportunities

A3. Using Geo-Spatial Tools to Target Protection

This session highlighted how geographic information systems (GIS) can be used by local, state,
and federal governments to analyze and display assessment results and to promote source water
protection.

At the local level, the Detroit Lakes (MN) Public Utilities Department used the Global
Positioning System (GPS) to locate private wells and underground storage tanks. The effort
benefitted from GIS because it established a database that promoted better management of
potential contaminants, and allowed Detroit Lakes to easily update their contaminant inventory
as land uses change. GIS is also a useful educational tool-maps can be easily produced and used
in meetings to educate the public and promote the awareness of protection efforts.

At the state level, Delaware developed a Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) database
that contained public well data, updated with Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)
analytical data. They used EPA's Wellhead Analytic Element Model (WhAEM) to delineate
capture zones and SWP areas. The state uses GIS tools to generate maps and populate the SWAP
database. GIS benefits the State by allowing "real time" availability of information from both
water supply management agencies and contaminant source or land use management agencies.

At the federal level, EPA uses GIS to integrate the CWA and SDWA programs through a
common geographic reference point; to support decision making; to target federal resources and
prioritize their use through co-location of their regulated entities in source water assessment
areas; and to collaborate with states and locals to pursue joint initiatives that support SWP. EPA
also plans to make tools available to help communities continue SWP work after their
assessments are complete, including updating assessments. One example is WATERS, a data
integration tool containing EPA and USGS data.

Page 6

-------
Presenters in this session included:

•	David Jennings, Geographer, Washington Department of Health, Moderator.

•	Jarrod Christen, Water-Wastewater Supervisor, Detroit Lakes Public Utilities. City of
Detroit Lakes

•	John Barndt, Environmental Program Manager, Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control. Delaware Source Water Assessment and
Protection Program

•	Bill Diamond, Director, Drinking Water Protection Division, EPA Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water. Using GIS Data & Tools to Support Source Water
Protection-Targeting Resources Through Program Integration

A4. Source Water Protection and Homeland Security: Making the Connection at the
Federal, State, and Local Level

This session highlighted the relationship between security and SWP, and activities by EPA,
states, and others to link the two. EPA's role in water infrastructure security includes
implementing parts of the "Bioterrorism Act" that require and provide grants to larger systems to
complete vulnerability assessments (VAs) and emergency response plans (ERPs). EPA has a
Homeland Security Strategic Plan to enhance the security of water and wastewater utilities, and
provide tools to help systems perform their VAs and ERPs such as grants, guidances, and
training. Integrating drinking water protection and security hinges on a variety of partnerships,
with schools, citizen groups, businesses, and law enforcement.

New Hampshire is promoting security by assisting water systems on vulnerability assessments
and emergency plans, providing planning grants to large systems to address mutual aid/
interconnection needs, establishing protocols for roles in an emergency, and funding security
measures.

The challenges to small and medium water systems in completing a VA include having the
necessary skills, tools, information, qualified staff or contractors, and time/resources.

The Integrated Water Quality Security System (IWQSS) is a computer tool that models potential
consequences of a spill. It can model fate and transport of a spill, simulate water treatment
effectiveness, model water distribution, and calculate the population and infrastructure at risk.
IWQSS includes PipelineNet and RiverSpill, GIS-based tools that track and model the flow of
contaminants through a city's pipeline infrastructure and in a water supply.

Page 7

-------
Presenters in this session included:

•	Kevin McCormack, EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Moderator.

•	Janet Pawlukiewicz, Director, EPA Water Protection Task Force, Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water (OGWDW). Water Infrastructure Security: EPA's Role and
Progress

•	Jane Downing, Associate Director, EPA Region I, Office of Ecosystem Protection.

Opportunities to Integrate Source Water Protection and Security Efforts

•	Sarah Pillsbury, New Hampshire Office of Environmental Services. Water System
Security - New Hampshire's Experience

•	Scott Custer, Principal, Custer Battles, P.C. The Challenges in Completing a VA

•	William B. Samuels, Ph.D., SAIC, Inc. Integrated Water Quality Security System:

River Spill and PipelineNet

Bl. CWA/SDWA Integration: Linking Watershed Protection and Source Water Protection

This session presented Clean Water Act programs and highlighted important opportunities to
leverage and integrate these programs with source water protection activities. The CWA/SDWA
integration discussion was continued in Session C3.

In the first panel discussion, senior managers in EPA's Office of Water discussed how EPA is
working to integrate CWA and SDWA priorities. See the transcript under questions and answers
below.

A second presentation highlighted CWA and SDWA program integration efforts in Idaho. The
State links the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program, SWP, and Section 319 non-point
source (NPS) grants in an integrated watershed management approach to protect water quality,
that recognizes the importance of locally-based watershed and source water protection initiatives.
For example, Idaho's NPS program addresses agriculture, mining, silviculture, hydrologic/
habitat modification, urban stormwater, and transportation.

In Blaine County, the Blaine County Drinking Water Protection Coalition is developing and
implementing SWP plans and promoting communication between stakeholders. They have
created an overlay district and ordinance to regulate land use within SWP areas, requiring that the
water systems be notified of and evaluate development proposals within the SWP areas. Other
components of Blaine County's plan include water quality monitoring, water resource protection
programs, and septic system inspections.

Presenters in this session included:

•	Mike Baker, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and President, Ground Water
Protection Council, Moderator.

Panel 1:

•	Geoff Grubbs, Director, EPA Office of Science and Technology.

•	Jim Hani on, Director, EPA Office of Wastewater Management.

•	Diane Regas, Director, EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.

Page 8

-------
Panel 2:

•	Todd Maguire, Program Manager, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.

•	John Bokor, Idaho Rural Water Association.

Questions and Answers for Office of Water Panel

Question: Do states and tribes have adequate drinking water standards under the CWA to protect
drinking water?

Answer: Mr. Grubbs replied that the Agency is in the process of taking a closer look at this,
since we don't know for certain whether all state and tribal standards protect drinking water
sources. EPA believes that, for the most part, appropriate standards are in place and are
protecting drinking water. States and authorized tribes adopt water quality standards based on
EPA's regulations and guidance; EPA must approve state and tribal standards, or issue federal
standards to replace deficient ones. EPA's review of whether appropriate standards are in place
is one of the top ten priority actions in the Agency's Water Quality Standards and Criteria
Strategy. Under the Strategy, EPA will work with the states and tribes to evaluate whether there
may be surface waters serving as drinking water sources whose water quality standards are not
sufficiently protective, and take action if gaps are found. If this is a significant problem across
the country, it would represent a critical missing link in public health protection.

Question: What types of funding are available for source water protection?

Answer: Mr. Hanlon replied that, in addition to the DWSRF, the Clean Water SRF provides low
interest loans for projects that address SWP. The CWSRF is the Agency's largest water quality
funding program. As of 2002, 30 states had funded non-point source projects that are protecting
drinking water, including purchase of land or easements, wetland protection and restoration,
remediation of contamination from leaking USTs, agricultural BMPs for both crop and small
animal operations, and upgrading and replacement of failing onsite septic systems. EPA has
developed a fact sheet on Protecting Drinking Water with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.

Question: How is the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (OWOW) helping to advance
SWP through watershed-based planning?

Answer: Ms. Regas responded that watershed plans are developed and implemented to meet
SWP goals, among others. OWOW is encouraging better coordination between its core CWA
programs and the SDWA, including greater emphasis on comprehensive watershed planning and
implementation, and funding to encourage more integrated approaches. For example, under
Section 319 of the CWA, EPA has developed Guidance on funding the development of
comprehensive watershed-based plans and protective measures, such as BMPs, to address
impaired waters and safeguard drinking water sources. TMDLs, which are required under CWA
Section 303(d) for impaired or threatened waters, can also be effective tools for source water
protection. They are essentially "pollution budgets" that establish overall caps on loading rates,
consistent with meeting Water Quality Standards. Water Quality Trading offers an opportunity

Page 9

-------
to protect drinking water by ratcheting down on non-point sources and providing strong
economic incentives for farmers to implement BMPs to control nitrates and other pollutants. The
Catalog of Federal Funding Sources provides information on other sources of funding for local
watershed projects.

Question: What is considered to be adequate for state and tribal water quality standards?

Answer: Mr. Grubbs replied that EPA has issued water quality criteria recommendations for
protection of drinking water under Section 304(a) of the CWA, and states and tribes must
consider this information and adopt the EPA criteria or develop their own criteria based on sound
science. EPA must approve the standards. He added that EPA takes all available scientific
information into account when approving or disapproving state and tribal standards, but does not
specify rigid national quantitative factors in approving them, since there may be scientifically or
administratively acceptable reasons for why a particular value is considered adequate. These
may include variations in the inputs for calculating a criterion (e.g., the level of protection or
exposure factors, such as fish consumption rates), or administrative or judicial orders that may
dictate schedules and requirements for updating criterion values. Mr. Grubbs added that other
factors also come into play, such as complex jurisdictional issues in Indian country, and historical
modifications (e.g., dams). Water quality standards for 85 parameters have recently been revised
based on new science; 13 additional standards are now undergoing public comment. Mr. Baker
added that the Office of Science and Technology plays the lead role in establishing standards,
and states are the lead on implementing them.

Question: How is or will SWP be addressed in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permitting program?

Answer: Mr. Hanlon said that the CWA requires all permits be written to meet water quality
standards. The NPDES Program is looking at ways to better tailor permits to meet watershed
goals, which include protecting drinking water sources. In January 2003, EPA issued the
Watershed Based Permitting (WBP) Policy. The Policy outlines a permitting approach for
protecting water quality by addressing all stressors within a watershed instead of viewing
individual sources in isolation. Permits are written to fit into the larger watershed management
approach. Combining WBP data and SWP data can benefit both programs and provide some
efficiencies for protecting water quality. States must review standards every three years, and are
encouraged to review old permit decisions in the light of the WBP approach.

Question: How is EPA working to improve monitoring and assessment of data?

Answer: Ms. Regas replied that in the past, there have been concerns about EPA's ability to
characterize and assess the state of the nation's drinking water. OWOW has produced several
documents on monitoring, including its new guidance, Elements of a State Monitoring and
Assessment Program, which provides for a more integrated approach that will help ensure that
management decisions are based on a comprehensive assessment of all state waters, including
ground water. The Guidance also encourages states to assess their waters for all applicable uses,

Page 10

-------
and makes recommendations about selecting appropriate indicators/measures for drinking water
use. Ms. Regas added that EPA will continue to encourage partnerships and collaborative efforts
to leverage scarce resources to fill in existing data gaps. State Monitoring Councils can be
effective in coordinating monitoring efforts of various government agencies and others. She
added that states should put data, particularly source water assessment data, into EPA's STORET
(STOrage and RETrieval) data base.

Question: How can we better integrate ground water considerations under CWA/SDWA? Is
anything happening at the federal level?

Answer: Ms. Regas answered that addressing water pollution issues should be included in a
water quality plan-a natural part of that effort is to include ground water sources. Where
applicable, EPA is beginning to address ground water in CWA rulemakings, yet there are many
technical challenges associated with considering ground water. Obtaining monitoring data and
making it available are good first steps. Mr. Grubbs added that some state non-point source
programs have done a lot of work on ground water and surface water interaction issues. Further
work needs to be done to collect data and assess the methods and tools being used for this work,
and examine how we can move forward to help states address this issue.

B2. Conservation and Land Acquisition

Water utility and nonprofit representatives discussed the conservation and land acquisition tools
and strategies they use for SWP. Suffolk County (NY) received a loan from the New York Clean
Water State Revolving Fund for land acquisition to protect the main recharge zone for its
drinking water supply. The Cherry Creek (CO) Smart Growth for Clean Water Partnership is
protecting the quality of the Cherry Creek Reservoir and reducing phosphate loads through land
acquisition and partnerships with developers and public agencies in one of the fastest growing
regions of the nation. In Brick Township (NJ), although water quality in the Metedeconk River
watershed is currently good, booming growth and high-density zoning are leading the utility and
the Township to begin using land conservation and forest management, particularly in the
undeveloped headwaters of the river, where they are partnering with the state on land
conservation.

Presenters in this session included:

•	Kathy Blaha, Senior Vice President, Trust for Public Land, Moderator. The Trust for
Public Land - Using Land Conservation Strategies for Protecting Drinking Water
Sources

•	Steve Jones, President, Suffolk County (NY) Water Authority. Suffolk County Water
Authority

•	Chris Rowe, Director, Cherry Creek (CO) Stewardship Partners.

•	Steve Specht, Director of Engineering, Brick Township (NJ) Municipal Utility Authority.

Strategies for Protecting A Watershed: The Metedeconk River Watershed Management
Plan Brick Township, New Jersey

Page 11

-------
B3. Recent EPA Regulations: Implications for Protection

This session presented recent and upcoming EPA regulations and guidance, and ways that state
and local officials are working to incorporate them into SWP. At the federal level, there are
major EPA regulations and guidances under the SDWA and CWA.

SDWA regulations include:

•	Underground Injection Control (UIC)

Class V Rule;

•	UIC Management Plan for Class V Wells;

•	Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule;

•	Long Term 1 and Long Term 2 Surface
Water Treatment Rules; and

•	Groundwater Rule.

CWA regulations include:

•	Concentration Animal Feeding Operations
Rule;

•	Decentralized Waste Water Management
Guidelines; and

•	Storm Water Rule.

Regulations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) offer ways to
protect drinking water as well. From a state's perspective, the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality's approach to promoting SWP focuses on outreach and education;
technical assistance (e.g., GIS support and presentation to elected officials); and cost savings
through monitoring waivers. At the local level, educational efforts support regulatory programs.
For example, educational efforts on onsite/decentralized wastewater management relate to
biosolids and septage, animal waste, wastewater reuse, and stormwater.

Presenters in this session included:

•	Peter Shanaghan, Chief of Staff, EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water,
Moderator.

•	Robert Rubin, Ph.D., Scientist, Department of Biological & Agricultural Engineering
North Carolina State University. Environmental Educational Efforts In Support of
USEPA

•	Jeffrey Stuck, Administrator of Drinking Water Programs, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality. Source Water Protection Practical Experiences

B4. Ripe Opportunities: Implementing Protection by Leveraging Key Federal and State
Programs

This session focused on how to use key federal and state programs to benefit source water
protection activities.

Federal agencies may be leveraged in diverse ways to protect source water. As landholders,
federal agencies (e.g., Forest Service, Department of Transportation, Defense Department)
manage expanses of land and operate active facilities. Federal agencies have existing authorities
that may be used for protecting source water (e.g., Forest Service, EPA), are sources of data and
information (U.S. Geological Survey), and may be able to provide additional resources (EPA,
Natural Resources Conservation Service).

Page 12

-------
The Association of State Floodplain Managers is an excellent partner, since flood plain managers
share similar concerns as SWP managers: flood-induced erosion and sedimentation; drinking
water contamination; loss of flood plain natural resources such as wetlands; and the potential for
floods to transport and transfer hazardous materials. No adverse impact to flood plains is a
strategy that limits activities that could adversely impact flood damage to another property or
community, and also protects source waters.

New Hampshire targeted remediation at the state and federal level and outreach/assistance on
utilizing agricultural programs, household hazardous waste collection, non-point source grant
funding, drinking water infrastructure program, and state land conservation funding to aid source
water protection activities. New Hampshire also targeted other programs, such as underground
storage tanks, hazardous waste regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), underground injection control, pesticides program, transportation programs, and
sanitary survey integration.

The Rhode Island Department of Health partnered with the University of Rhode Island to
develop the Rhode Island Source Water Protection Program.

In Maine, most land use decisions are made at the town level, often with strong resistance to
federal and state mandates. Education is a key component of overcoming local resistance to state
and federal involvement. Tools include comprehensive planning initiatives that provide seed
money, CWA Section 319 watershed management funds, and help from Soil and Water
Conservation Districts.

In the Upper Tenmile Creek Watershed (Montana), contamination of domestic water supplies,
contaminated yards and releases of mine waste into streams via erosion and mine adit (unfiltered)
drainage necessitated a collaborative response and a watershed approach. Opportunities to reduce
contamination included removing abandoned mine waste, publicizing the protection of the City
of Helena's Source Watershed, using the CWA mandate for TMDLs, increasing stream flows in
Tenmile Creek, managing water supplies better, establishing a watershed coalition, managing
watershed development, creating sustainable fisheries habitat, addressing noxious weeds,
restoring riparian areas, providing potable water for the Town of Rimini, providing educational
opportunities, providing wildfire protection, and forming a Water and Sewer District.

Presenters in this session included:

Christine Olsenius, Program Consultant, Tennessee Valley Authority, Moderator.

Panel 1:

•	Larry Larson, Executive Director, Association of State Floodplain Managers. Source
Water Protection - Leveraging Key Federal and State Programs

•	Sarah Pillsbury, New Hampshire Office of Environmental Services. Getting Help with
Source Water Protection

•	Lenny Bellet, Environmental Analyst, Rhode Island Extension Service, University of
Rhode Island. RIPE Opportunities For Water Quality Protection: A Unique Partnership
Between the Rhode Island Department of Health and the IJRI Cooperative Extension

Page 13

-------
•	Andy Tolman, Source Protection Manager, Maine Drinking Water Program. Creating
Municipal Source Protection

Panel 2: Mine Waste Cleanup Within a Source Watershed

•	Jesse Aber, Water Resources Planner, Water Resources Division, Montana Department of
Natural Resources and Conservation.

•	Bo Stuart, Hydrologist, U.S. Forest Service.

•	Shahid Mahmud, U.S. EPA Headquarters.

CI. Implementing Protection Through Partnerships: State/Local/Tribal

This session highlighted state and local partnerships to promote effective implementation of
source water protection. Clean Water Action has built partnerships for SWP by realizing several
important things: reach out to citizen activists; flexibility is important; look for existing
partnerships; and find experts and professional activists to help build partnerships, keep the
message simple, choose a variety of watersheds, and cater to individual needs.

North Carolina highlighted several local SWP success stories. These include: creation of the
Little River Regional Park, when Durham County, Orange County, the Triangle Land
Conservancy, and the Eno River Association worked together to buy land bordering the
watershed slated for a landfill and created a 391-acre recreational park. Also, in the City of
Burlington, pesticides from local agriculture were entering the water supply; through public
education and dialogue through Agricultural Extension agents, farmers were made aware of how
their activities affect water quality and ways to change their practices. The educational effort was
much less expensive than the annual costs of increased water treatment to remove pesticides.

In New Hampshire, statewide SWP partnerships are with the Northeast Rural Water Association,
the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, Northeastern Rural Community
Assistance Program (RCAP), New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, and the New
Hampshire Water Works Association. Local communities are involved as well. The ingredients
of a successful SWP partnership include local motivation and commitment, expertise and staff
time, an effective lead agency, and patience. Different partners need to be involved for different
needs, and local commitment is essential.

Plaistow, NH was selected for Northeast Rural Water Association technical assistance.

Plaistow's Water Plan encompassed education and outreach, voluntary inspections, water source
protection signs, and promoting hazardous waste collection and management (e.g., hazardous
waste days). Other activities include annual stream monitoring, clearer ordinances, and GIS
mapping of stormwater drains.

Page 14

-------
Presenters in this session included:

•	Surabhi Shah, Environmental Engineer, EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water, Moderator. Implementing Protection Through Partnerships: State/Local/Tribal

•	Sparky Anderson, Executive Director, Clean Water Action.

•	Jill Senter and Tim Moore, Plaistow (NH) National Rural Water Association Project.

Community Involvement-The Key to Preserving Water Quality In Plaistow, New
Hampshire

•	Paul Susca, Environmental Program Manager, New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services. The Role of Partnerships in Statewide Source Water Protection

C2. Upstream Neighbors: Working with Local Communities & Identifying Contamination
Sources

This session highlighted four efforts to bring together partners for SWP in Washington Township
(NJ), Lake Meredith in Texas, the City of Philadelphia, and the City of Dayton. Each described
their partnerships for wellhead and source water protection activities. Lessons these partners
learned include: communities cannot do SWP alone, and partnerships can help; familiarity breeds
trust; it is important to acknowledge and value partners' interests and contributions; partnerships
are reciprocal and long-term; partnerships take time; and water suppliers need tools to protect
source water.

Presenters in this session included:

•	Vicki Binetti, Acting Deputy Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 3,

Moderator. [Spoke about Washington Township, NJ]

•	Emmett Autrey, President of Texas Water Utilities Association and City of Amarillo.

Lake Meredith Source Water Protection Project

•	Chris Crockett, Source Water Protection Manager, Philadelphia Water Department.
Upstream Partners

•	Gayle Galbraith, Environmental Scientist, City of Dayton. City of Dayton Water -
Environmental Management

•	Julie Kollar, Program Manager League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, Water
Resource Education Network, Facilitator.

C3. CWA/SDWA Integration: Linking Watershed Protection and Source Water Protection
(Continued)

This session built upon Session B1 by presenting a variety of successful approaches to leveraging
the opportunities provided by linking source water and watershed protection. Four states
(Minnesota, North Carolina, Georgia, and Oregon) highlighted their experiences with integrating
CWA and SDWA priorities. CWA resources tapped included TMDLs, CWA Section 305(b) and
CWA Section 303(d) grants, the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, Watershed Protection,
Basin-wide Planning, and Combined Sewer Overflow controls.

Water quality standards, such as in-stream numeric standards and land-use standards, can be a
tool to protect source water. Other important issues include increasing sampling frequency and

Page 15

-------
creating standards for pesticides and other contaminants. Some states assess water quality to
determine whether water bodies meet the public water supply use, after drinking water treatment.

Presenters in this session included:

•	Art Persons, Planner, Minnesota Department of Health, Source Water Protection
Program. Upper Mississippi Source Water Protection

•	Steve Zoufaly, Environmental Supervisor, North Carolina Department of Environment,
and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. North Carolina Department of
Environment, and Natural Resources

•	Billy Turner, President, Columbus (GA) Water Works. Middle Chattahoochee River
Watershed Study

•	Sheree Stewart, Program Coordinator, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

Using CWA 319 as Leverage for Source Water Protection

C4. Leveraging Rural Partnerships

In this session, five representatives of organizations involved with rural issues presented
examples of how partnerships were instrumental in protecting source water.

Indiana Natural Resources Conservation Service presented experiences with two efforts: Fort
Wayne and the St. Joseph River Watershed Initiative (SJRWI) to address atrazine, sediment, and
nutrient problems. The SJRWI effort was more successful, because all stakeholder groups were
engaged from the beginning; coordinators were savvy and outgoing; they obtained considerable
data, but did not wait for the data to drive the work; they were continuously reaching out for
support; and there was trust among the partners.

In the early 1990s, when taste and odor and sedimentation problems arose in the Cheeney
Reservoir in Wichita, Kansas, local Conservation Districts met and formed the Cheeney task
force and Cheeney Citizens Management Committee (CCMC). In selecting projects to fund, the
CCMC favored selecting BMPs that protect water quality, and worked with dairy farmers to
install waste water management systems.

Washington State University Ferry County Cooperative Extension worked with Ferry County and
the Colville Reservation on the Water Education and Training (W.E.T.) Project to provide hands-
on learning programs for children. As a result, youth display interest, enthusiasm, and
knowledge of water quality, and schools have integrated water quality education into their
scheduled activities.

The Lake Tahoe Basin Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) is a strategy to achieve the
nine environmental thresholds for the Basin. The EIP strategy is designed to accomplish,
maintain or exceed multiple environmental goals, and develop a more integrated, proactive
approach to environmental management. The key to this strategy is reliance upon partnerships
with all sectors of the community, including the private sector and local, state, and federal
government.

Page 16

-------
The Technical Assistance Center for Water Quality at Western Kentucky University assists small
systems throughout the country in meeting SDWA requirements. Due to atrazine problems in the
State, they started the Kentucky Pesticide Workgroup and worked with local conservation
districts and farmers on cost-sharing ways to help farmers to install BMPs or use alternative
herbicides.

Presenters in this session included:

•	Mary Ann Rozum, National Program Leader, Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Moderator.

•	Susan McLoud, Water Quality Specialist, Indiana Natural Resources Conservation Service,
USDA. Leveraging Rural Partnerships

•	Jerry Blain, Water Supply Projects Administrator, City of Wichita Water and Sewer
Department.

•	Caroline Blake, W.E.T. Program Coordinator, Ferry County (WA) Cooperative Extension
and Colville Indian Reservation.

•	Jason Drew, District Manager, Nevada Tahoe Conservation District.

•	Ritchie D. Taylor, Director of the Center for Water Resource Studies, Western Kentucky
University.

Plenary Session: Financing the Journey to Protection

To begin this session, Elizabeth Hickey of the University of Maryland Environmental Finance
Center offered a brief "Financing 101" presentation, explaining how to use federal, state and
local programs plus innovative financing techniques to make protection happen. A "community
quilt" combines government programs and financing structures, such as innovative rate
structures, public-private partnerships and storm water utilities. Public funding is available
through capital programs; planning programs; community development block grants; CWA
funds, including SRF and Section 319 monies; education programs; project maintenance funding;
land acquisition programs; agricultural BMPs; urban programs; wetlands programs and riparian
forest buffer programs. Private financing techniques include setting up drinking water and waste
water rate structures, which frees up local funds by making water and sewer utilities self-
supporting. Partnerships with industry and communities can also help source water protection
efforts: landscaping can be designed to help protect against run-off; pesticide and insecticide use
can be reduced or eliminated; and impervious surfaces can be replaced. EPA's pamphlet
"Funding for Source Water Protection Activities" offers a comprehensive list of available
funding sources for SWP.

A panel provided three examples of how communities creatively acquired resources to fund
source water protection.

To address the County's growing population, the Berkeley County task force initiated a
partnership to acquire the resources and technical capacity to protect the watershed. Strong
committee participation from nearly thirty institutional players including county, state and federal
agencies; universities; construction, real estate and development associations; watershed and
environmental groups; and concerned citizens brought resources, technical capacity, and

Page 17

-------
momentum to the project. These partners and collaborators have submitted over $750,000 for
research, community education, plan implementation and capacity building funding.

Seattle Public Utilities has a 100 year tradition of watershed protection and has set aside 100,000
acres to protect a watershed serving 1.3 million people. Beginning in 1898, the City purchased
condemned land for the nation's first municipal hydroelectric power system. The City purchased
"fixer-uppers" (timber lands and condemned lands) throughout the 1900s; by the 1980s the City
owned 2/3 of the watershed, and the federal government owned the remainder. Careful
management via an $84 million Habitat Conservation Plan and working with neighboring
jurisdictions have been key to protecting Seattle's watershed. Seattle Public Utilities started a
partnership with children (advocates for the future); those children are now adults and care about
their watershed.

The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) entered into an
inter-municipal memorandum of agreement (MOA) with watershed communities, New York
City, New York State, EPA, and environmentalists on watershed protection. Major elements of
the MOA include land acquisition, new and updated regulations to address land uses and other
innovative elements, and environmental and economic partnerships between the State, the City,
Coalition of Watershed Towns, the New York City Municipal Water Finance Authority, the
New York City Water Board and a number of civic advocacy organizations. NYCDEP and its
local partners have aggressively sought funding from other sources, such as the DWSRF and
CWSRF, and Water Resources Development Act grants, and is trying to get money from USDA
to work with agricultural and forestry partners.

Presenters in this session included:

Nanci Gelb, Deputy Director, EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Moderator

•	Elizabeth Hickey, Senior Advisor, Environmental Finance Center, University of Maryland.

Financing Source Water Protection with a "Community Quilt"

Panel:

•	Joseph Hankins, Director of The Conservation Fund Freshwater Institute, Environmental
Finance Center Network, Berkeley Springs, West Virginia. Berkeley County, West Virginia
Financing for Source Water Assessment and Protection

•	Suzanne Flagor, Director, Seattle Public Utilities, Watershed Management Division. 100
Years of Watershed Protection (In 10 Minutes or Less)

•	Mark Hoffer, General Counsel, New York City Department of Environmental Protection.
The New York City Watershed Memorandum of Agreement - Forging A Partnership to
Protect Water Quality

CLOSING PANEL DISCUSSION

The conference closed with a facilitated panel discussion, titled "It's In Your Hands: Next Steps
on the Path to Protection." Panel members spoke about their commitment to SWP and next
steps. The panel included: Peter Varga, Office of Watershed Management, City of Cambridge
Water Department; Brendan Murphy, National Rural Water Association (NRWA); Charles

Page 18

-------
Whitmore, USDA, Conservation Division; Alan Vicory, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission (ORSANCO); and Geoffrey Grubbs, EPA, Office of Science and Technology.

How far along are you on the path to protection and what challenges are you facing?

Brendan Murphy: NRWA has developed over 6,000 wellhead protection plans and is working
on another 1,300. NRWA will continue to work with and educate communities that are
developing SWP plans. We have been most successful in implementing education on wellhead
protection (WHP) and SWP, and we are continuing to partner with EPA in that capacity. The
biggest challenges we have faced are continuing to work with existing partners and developing
new partnerships. Specifically, NRWA needs to partner with states, EPA regions, and rural
development offices; state RWAs will work with state agencies.

Charles Whitmore: SWP is a great challenge. I feel very good about where we are now. We
have a commitment from this administration to protect water supplies through the Farm Bill.
The Farm Bill provides a new tool box to use. Farmers are also committed. Partnerships are
important. We need to work on bringing resources to bear for implementation.

Alan Vicory: I feel good about what we have accomplished on the Ohio River. A consortium of
water suppliers has developed an early-warning spill detection system that works-it has revealed
the presence of contaminants in intakes that we never would have otherwise known about. This
cooperative system is made possible by partnerships. There are challenges with connecting
CWA and SDWA, and issuing NPDES permits that protect source waters. SWP demonstrates
that there is a strong need to integrate many programs, including RCRA, CWA, and SDWA.

Peter Varga: The Cambridge Water System is in good shape in terms of assessing threats and is
proactively engaging businesses for protection efforts. However, the watershed covers 24 square
miles, and the water system owns only five percent of that-this means a loud voice is needed to
protect source water. The challenges include determining how to get businesses and
municipalities to communicate with each other, and how to get the larger state agencies, such as
the highway department, to consider protection during their planning stages. It is also hard to
convince people that they are stakeholders; the people who live near Cambridge's reservoir are
not served by the system and do not drink that water. There needs to be a forum for people to
come to the table, but there currently is no mechanism for this.

Alan Vicory: The toughest challenge is the human aspect and getting people involved and
interested and to attend meetings. If people come to the table and have a dialogue, things
happen. There is no substitute for a face-to-face dialogue to get things done.

Geoff Grubbs: It is hard to get a common voice among various agencies. On the CWA side,
where there are regionally-based organizations that cross state lines, it is extremely important
to communicate why protection is important. Also, it is important to have a clear common
purpose and clarity about what the science says, what is being protected, and the goal you are
trying to achieve. With water quality standards, it is very important that we determine what to do

Page 19

-------
about emerging contaminants. EPA plans to publish a final strategy soon that will lay out the
steps to take, a time frame, and a process for the criteria and standards program.

If you could ask for one additional partner, who would it be and why?

Brendan Murphy: Technical assistance providers. For example, the U.S. Geological Survey
has a lot of useful data (such as aerial maps) available. The Groundwater Foundation, GWPC,
and ASDWA are also valuable partners.

Charles Whitmore: Farmers and ranchers. Most source waters originate on or lie within
privately owned land, and it is important that landowners understand why we want to work with
them, and we need to understand their needs. Everybody is a stakeholder. Educating partners is
always a challenge. USDA has a state technical committee to bring people together and provide
them with the resources they need, so the Farm Bill lives up to its potential. This group makes
decisions about USDA programs and advises on problems and solutions. All of us need to
become involved with those groups.

Alan Vicory: I agree with Charles. At ORSANCO, we have not included agricultural folks in
our discussions and plans. That is something that will change, and we are working along those
lines. It may be difficult to convince farmers that water quality is important - we need to make
benefits more local. It will take us a long time to get there, but the tools are there and the
commitment is there-we just need to bring them into the process.

Geoff Grubbs: Farmers. Water quality problems associated with agriculture are often most
easily approached through key agricultural groups, USDA, and state and local conservation
agencies. Agricultural problems are rarely solved from the top town, but require close
partnerships-and the closer to the farmer, the better.

What information from this conference would be useful to bring home?

Peter Varga: Notification needs to be improved in Cambridge. We cannot engage businesses or
stakeholders without notification. We need to communicate with planning departments in
addition to the conservation community to let them know where the sensitive areas are. Some
states are doing interesting things. Maine requires developers to notify the water system if they
plan to build in the watershed. Idaho is using GIS to identify overlay districts. Some useful
suggestions for seeking out funding resources have been presented as well.

Brendan Murphy: Our annual meeting with our state affiliates is coming up, and we hope to
share the financing information and networking suggestions that we have heard here. Several
state RWA representatives are at the conference, and they will have much to take back with
them.

Alan Vicory: This is an astoundingly well organized conference. I would like to congratulate
the planners of this conference on a job well done. I have learned how SWP plans have been

Page 20

-------
turned into practice. For example, there is an early warning monitoring system on the Delaware
and Susquehanna Rivers. Plans are turning into actions. Conversations and collaboration have
been key points of this conference.

Charles Whitmore: I have a better understanding of where SWP fits into the activities of the
USD A. It's important that we ensure local and state SWP people are connected with state technical
committees.

Geoff Grubbs: This conference has reinforced the magnitude of the task that lies before us.
The interaction between SWP and the Clean Water Act is a two-way street. Much has been said
about how the CWA can support SWP; but wellhead protection and other broad source water
actions have become part of the CWA dialogue. Funding can be tough, but it's also an important
topic.

What more can EPA do?

Peter Varga: We must prioritize what we ask for based on the major risks to our watershed.
Transportation is a major concern. EPA could coordinate more closely with the Department of
Transportation (DOT) and get them to think about SWP and implementing BMPs along
roadways. On a national level, I would like to see a greater push to coordinate between
government agencies. For a municipal water supplier-getting the ear of larger government
organizations would be very helpful. Specifically, I would want DOT to conduct a
comprehensive review of every outfall to get sound scientific data to demonstrate transportation
is an issue affecting water quality, and create long term management plans.

Brendan Murphy: EPA can continue to engage its current partners and seek out new ones. It
would probably be helpful to find a forum that would more closely involve water systems. Our
organization has been successful because we listen to water utility systems. We would like to
continue with and build on the cooperative effort we have with EPA.

Charles Whitmore: EPA should take care to not leave the agricultural community out of
planning. Look at ways to collaborate and share expertise among federal and state agencies, and
at the local level on mutual concerns and issues. Support the safe harbor policy. The USDA
would like to continue our working relationship with EPA.

Alan Vicory: The question should really be what all of us can do; this is not just a top-down
effort. EPA should work on integrating RCRA, CWA, and SDWA programs at the state level,
and assisting collaboration among states. The future of SWP is at the local level-this is where
actions ultimately will occur.

Geoff Grubbs: I agree that this is not just a top-down effort. On transportation, it is useful to
partition the problem into chunks. Congress is moving through a new highway bill that is very
similar to the Farm Bill in that water quality and water protection are included. From the CWA
point-of-view, the subject of discharges and highway runoff is taken care of through NPDES
permitting and the non-point source program. The coastal zone management agencies are very

Page 21

-------
much involved in this whole process. We need to keep in mind the depth and breadth of the
conversations we've experienced during this conference and we need to maintain the depth after
we leave.

Page 22

-------
Useful Web Sites

Links to non-EPA web sites do not imply any official EPA endorsement of or responsibility for the
opinions, ideas, data, or products presented at those locations or guarantee the validity of the
information provided. Links to non-EPA servers are provided solely as a pointer to information
that might be useful to EPA staff and the public.

The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water's web site (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/)
contains useful information about Safe Drinking Water Act programs.

Visit EPA's source water protection web site (www.epa.gov/safewater/protect/swpconf.html) for
updates on topics of interest to conference participants and new information on opportunities for
moving from assessment to protection.

EPA's Drinking Water Academy http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwa.html provides online
courses on a variety of topics of interest to SWP planners, including an introduction to SWP, best
management practices, and EPA regulations.

EPA's State SWP contacts web page provides links to all state SWP programs,
http ://www. epa. gov/safewater/source/contacts.html

The Groundwater Foundation is a nonprofit organization that provides the public with
information about groundwater, (http://www.groundwater.org).

Communicating Assessment Results

The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality's Web site

(www.deq.state.la.us/evaluation/aeps/) provides information on Louisiana's groundwater
baseline monitoring project and wellhead protection program.

GIS Tools for Source Water Protection

EPA's WATERS (Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental ResultS) data base
(http://www.epa.gov/waters/) unites water quality information from several independent and
unconnected databases.

EPA's Wellhead Analytic Element Model (WhAEM)

(http://www.epa.gov/athens/software/whaem/index.html) is a ground water delineation tool.
Source Water Protection and Security

The Federal Emergency Management Agency's Web site on terrorism
(http://www.fema.gov/hazards/terrorism/) defines FEMA's role in responding and/or managing
terrorist activities.

The Center For Disease Control's bioterrorism Web site (http://www.bt.cdc.gov) provides
information on various biological agents and their threats.

1

-------
EPA's security Web site (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/security/index.html) provides an
overview of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of
2002, EPA's Strategic Plan, training information, and tools public water systems can use to help
them meet the Bioterrorism Act's security requirements.

WaterlSAC (http://www.waterisac.org/) is a highly secure Internet portal for sensitive security
information and alerts to help America's drinking water and wastewater community protect
consumers and the environment. It is available to registered users only.

The American Water Works Association's security Web site

(http://www.awwa.org/advocacy/learn/security/) provides training information, available funding
resources, and contact lists for public water systems.

The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases provides a Medical
Management of Biological Casual Ties Handbook at
http: //www. usamriid. army. mil/education/bluebook.html

The Homeland Defense Office of the U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command has
a variety of information for first responders and the public on its Web site
(http://www.apgea.army.mil).

New Hampshire has developed an Emergency Plan Guide that can be downloaded at
http: // www. des. state, nh. us/wseb/.

Conservation and Land Acquisition

EPA's Smart Growth web page (www.epa.gov/smartgrowth) provides news and information
related to Agency smart growth initiatives.

Leveraging Key Federal and State Programs for Source Water Protection

Federal Programs

The U.S. Department of Transportation maintains a page of information about the reauthorization
of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.

(http: //www. fhwa. dot. gov/tea21 /)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has a variety of web sites and programs of interest to SWP
planners, including:

Rural Utilities Service has a page of Fiscal Year 2003 grants and loans available for
Water and Environmental Programs at http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/2003funding.htm

2

-------
The Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service provides research
based information to farmers and ranchers on the best crop, livestock and forest
production methods to protect groundwater through over 100 universities. See
http://www.reeusda.gov and click on state partners.

The Farm Service Agency administers the Conservation Reserve Program, which
provides annual rental payments to remove cropland from production around sensitive
areas, such as wellheads http://www.fsa.usda.gov.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides the Environmental Quality
Incentive Program, and administers the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov. See also at www.usawaterquality.org

The Rural Utilities Service provides funding for rural drinking water and water treatment
systems, including easements necessary to protect source water.
http://www.usda.gov/rus/water.

Information on the Farm Bill is available at http://www.usdagov/farmbill/.

The Forest Service administers the Forest Land Enhancement Program through the state
foresters. Payments to woodland owners can be used to protect water quality through improved
tree management and planting. See http://www.fs.fed.us/

The U.S. Geological Survey maintains a large amount of water resources information at
http: // water, usgs. gov/.

State Programs

Rhode Island's Department of Health, Office of Drinking Water Quality's web site is
http://www.health.ri.gov/environment/dwq/Home.htm The University of Rhode Island's
Extension Service has a web site at http://www.uri.edu/ce/wq/.

New Hampshire's Drinking Water Source Protection Program uses regulatory and non-regulatory
approaches to protect, and encourage others to protect, groundwater and sources of public
drinking water. Information can be found on New Hampshire's Web site at
http://www. des. state.nh. us/dwspp/.

The Association of State Floodplain Managers is an organization of professionals involved in
floodplain management, and deals with many of the same issues as source water protection
planners, (http://www.floods.org/home/default.asp)

3

-------
CWA/SDWA Integration

Under the Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP), state, federal, tribal, regional, and local governments,
as well asprivate partners, will work collaboratively to protect and restore priority
watersheds (http ://cl eanwater. gov/s wa/).

North Carolina Department of Water Quality's Web site (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wswp/)
provides information on their Water supply watershed protection. North Carolina has many
informational sites on SWP (http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/pws/), basin-wide planning
(http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/), TMDL modeling (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/), and
Section 319 non-point source program (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps).

Financing for Source Water Protection

The EPA Office of Water's funding and grants page (http://www.epa.gov/water/funding.html)
provides links to financial resources available under a variety of SDWA, CWA, and other
programs.

EPA's Office of Watersheds, Oceans and Wetlands has an interactive Web site (http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund/)
that provides tools to identify funding for local watershed projects, including the Catalog of Federal
Funding Sources.

The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf.html) makes
funds available to drinking water systems to finance infrastructure improvements, including
those that protect source waters.

The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)

(http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/index.htm) funds water quality protection

projects for wastewater treatment, non-point source pollution control, and watershed and estuary

management.

Information about CWA Section 319 funding for the non-point source program, including how to
apply for Section 319 loans, is available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/319hfunds.html

USDA has a Web site on Funding sources for water quality that links to a number of different
Web sites with information (http://www.nal.usda.gov/wqic/funding.html).

EPA's link to its regional Environmental Finance Centers is at
http: // www. epa. gov/efinpage/ efc. htm

New York City's Department of Environmental Protection web site is at
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/about.html

4

-------