Path to Protection 

Ten strategies for Successful

Source Water Protection

published by the Trust for Public Land 

Water Protection Serie
The Trust for Public Land conserves land 

for people to enjoy as parks, gardens, and other

natural places, ensuring livable communities

for generations to come.

This report was produced with funding from the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of 

Ground Water and Drinking Water.

Written by Caryn Ernst and Kelley Hart

Edited by Carrie Collins 

Copyright 2005 by the Trust for Public Land

All rights reserved

cover photo left © 2000 Ken Sherman

Tom's River Divide, New Jersey

cover photo center © Eric Swanson

Tulsa, Oklahoma

cover photo right © Ken Sherman

Mountain Island Lake, North Carolina
Path to Protection

Ten Strategies for Successful 

Source Water Protection
Steve Ainsworth 

EPA, Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water 

Daryl Andersen

Little Blue Natural Resource District

Robert Barr

Carroll County, Georgia

Jay Beaumont

Orange County Water Authority

Kathy Blaha

Trust for Public Land

Joe Burns

Kentucky Rural Water Association

Matt Corson

Association of State Drinking Water 

Administrators

Mike Davis

Clean Water Fund

Robyn Delehanty

EPA, Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water 

Rebecca Dils

EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds

Fran Eargle

EPA, Office ofWetlands, Oceans and Watersheds 

Debra Gutenson

EPA, Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water 

Joan Harrigan-Farrelly

EPA, Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water 

Rachael Herpel 

The Groundwater Foundation

Heather Himmelberger

Environmental Finance Center

New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

Joyce Hudson

EPA, Office of Wastewater Management

Julia Krall 

Campaign for Safe and Affordable Drinking

Water

Larry Lewis

Tennessee Association of Utility Districts

Rick Loomis

Clean Water Fund

Sylvia Malm

EPA, Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water 

Deirdre Mason

Association of State Drinking Water 

Administrators

Brendan Murphy

National Rural Water Association

Mike Muse

EPA, Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water

Dan Nees

Environmental Finance Center

University of Maryland

Jennifer Nelson

The Groundwater Foundation

Michelle O'Herron

Environmental Finance Center

University of Maryland

Mike Paque

Ground Water Protection Council

Jennifer Palmiotto

Northeast Rural Water Association

Paul Schwartz

Clean Water Fund

Roy Simon

EPA, Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water 

Jim Taft

Association of State Drinking Water 

Administrators

Lynn Thorp

Clean Water Fund

Amy Williams

Environmental Finance Center

Boise State University

Lucy Wright

Prettyboy Watershed Alliance

Path to Protection Advisory Committee
PATH TO PROTECTION 3

Introduction

Over the past five years, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA) Office of Ground Water and

Drinking Water funded five national nonprofit

organizations to launch source water demonstration projects in communities around the

country. The purpose of the projects was to

build on state Source Water Assessment Programs (SWAPs) in order to move communities

from planning to implementing protection for

drinking water sources. Successful pilot projects could then be replicated by state and local

governments and water suppliers around the

country.

In order to glean the lessons learned and

identify best practices, the Trust for Public

Land (TPL) led a joint review of the five

grantees’ source protection demonstration

projects during the spring and summer of

2004. The five grantees were the Clean Water

Network/Clean Water Fund/Campaign for

Safe and Affordable Drinking Water, the

Groundwater Foundation, the Environmental

Finance Center Network, the National Rural

Water Association, and TPL (in partnership

with the University of Massachusetts and the

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] Forest Service).

Each of EPA’s grantees took a different

approach to advance source water protection

through its pilot project.

◆ The partnership of Clean Water

Network/Clean Water Fund/Campaign for

Safe and Affordable Drinking Water worked

with hundreds of voluntary and nonprofit

watershed associations around the country to

help them advocate more effectively for source

protection as part of a larger goal to achieve

fishable and swimmable water. 

◆ The Groundwater Foundation supported

suppliers working to advance new tools for

wellhead and groundwater protection.

◆ The Environmental Finance Center Network

helped local stakeholders develop and implement source water protection plans for sources

that cross jurisdictions and/or are shared by

many water systems.

◆ The National Rural Water Association

hired technicians around the country to assist

small rural communities design and implement

source water plans.

◆ The Trust for Public Land (in partnership

with the University of Massachusetts and the

USDA Forest Service) worked with local 

communities in multijurisdictional watersheds

to integrate land conservation and forest 

management into comprehensive source water 

protection efforts.

This report summarizes findings based on

experiences of the five pilot projects and proposes ten strategies that will help put more

state and local governments on the path to protection. Each strategy includes a case study of a

state or local entity that has successfully implemented some or all of the action steps included

in that strategy. (Note: The case studies are independent of the pilot projects of the five grantees.) 

© DON USNER
agencies are already acting to develop and

implement plans; but too many times, critical

steps are not taken. For example, if a particular

constituency is not identified and recruited to

the cause, progress slows.

5. Most important, the key to progress is a

closer relationship between local practitioners

and the state agencies that could support them.

States can play an important role in integrating

clean water and landuse goals with a good state

framework for action and dedicated funding

for watershed protection. With the assessments now complete, local and state agencies

have a great opportunity to take advantage of

this knowledge base and momentum by

reshaping their programs to encourage local

source protection.

Taken individually, none of the findings are

new or surprising. But together they clearly

demonstrate that, in order to be truly successful, source protection must be integrated into

all of our land and water programs. At one

time, developed lands were far removed from

source areas. Today, these areas overlap. Water

suppliers must now work more closely with

local landuse planners to consider how to 

protect source water before it reaches the

treatment plants. States must support that

work with data, incentives for protection, and 

technical assistance. And clean water advocates

must strive to build a more informed constituency to support this work.

4 PATH TO PROTECTION

Our key observations are the following:

1. In order to implement source water protection plans, states must commit to sustaining

their programs even though there are few federal regulatory mandates linking the watershed

to the tap. Leadership will be needed for determining new state and local roles in drinking

water protection. In some cases, state staff and

resources are drying up, and it is not clear

whose job it is to take the plans to the implementation phase.

2. Suppliers must become more active leaders

in their watersheds. The grantees found many

examples of suppliers who diligently monitor

what comes in and out of their treatment

plants and meet their regulatory goals, but

these suppliers are not sure of their role in

influencing landuse activities — including buying and managing land for conservation — in

the larger watershed. Also, landuse planners

using state-of-the-art analysis are typically not

considering source protection in their local

plans. 

3. There are opportunities, where programs

and partners exist, for integrating source protection efforts. Our findings highlight many

bright spots regarding partners, existing land

conservation funding, water program resources,

and some practical suggestions on revamping

current water quality programs.

4. A systematic approach to an action plan is

often lacking. Many local governments or state
PATH TO PROTECTION 5

Make source water protection a high

priority. Articulate the benefits of

source water protection, including

financial benefits, and demonstrate

how successful protection can cap

or reduce treatment costs over time.

Challenge

Today, there is insufficient public support for

investing in source water protection, in large

part because many state and local governments

and even water suppliers fail to emphasize to

the public the critical need to protect source

water. Also, information on the costs and benefits of source protection — despite its importance in making sound long-term investments

— is practically nonexistent. There are few

regional or national studies that point to 

consistent long-term cost savings from investments in source water protection, even though

anecdotal evidence indicates that such savings

are occurring in many areas. 

Local Role

Make source water protection a high priority and demonstrate commitment to action.

Share lessons with other communities.

Protecting source water and the long-term

safety and health of the water supply is ultimately a local responsibility. Local governments

and water suppliers must take the lead on making source water protection a high priority and

invest time and resources to demonstrate their

commitment. This includes making sure that

source areas are considered in landuse plans,

land conservation priorities, and clean water

programs. Their leadership will foster the

involvement of other stakeholders, raise public

awareness around the need for protection, and

ultimately lead to a greater commitment of

public and private resources for source water

protection. 

Communities need to share with their neighbors their experiences protecting land and

encouraging more sustainable development patterns for source protection. Supplier studies

that show the cost-benefit of source protection

versus increasing treatment costs must be

shared broadly and used as the basis for new

source protection plans. 

State Role

Make source water protection a high priority and create policies and programs that

support and encourage local efforts.

While landuse and source protection are primarily the domain of local governments, state governments shape those activities significantly.

State leadership leads to local action. States

should create a framework of policies and programs that give communities the flexibility,

funding, and technical assistance they need to

plan and implement successful watershed initiatives. Besides providing the state Source Water

Assessments, states should initiate research 

that provides local governments and suppliers

with other data they need to make critical decisions about where to invest limited resources to

maintain a safe and viable water supply. 

TEN STRATEGIES FOR

PROTECTION

COURTESY OF U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

1.
Clearly identify the most critical

threats to source water and share

that information to involve and

motivate a broad constituency.

Challenge

Source protection is largely voluntary and unfunded. Consequently, the leadership of water

suppliers alongside watershed associations,

land trusts, and other nongovernmental organizations, which can leverage additional private

and public sector resources, needs to be strong

to guarantee successful source protection. 

Local Role

Use SWAPs and other source area data to

identify the most critical threats and share

them with local stakeholders, including

local landuse planners as well as the general public.

Local municipalities or other water providers

must gain a clear understanding of the primary

threats to both the quality and the quantity of

drinking water and share that information with

a broad set of stakeholders. This step is key to

motivating individuals and organizations to

invest time and resources in source protection

and to help focus their efforts on the most critical threats. Source areas are often large, crossing multiple jurisdictional boundaries, with a

complex mix of land uses and potential pollutant sources. This complexity is often the root

cause of inaction. Clear and simple presentation of the most prevalent threats, and the

consequences of failing to address those threats,

is essential. 

State Role

Actively distribute data and findings from

SWAPs as broadly as possible in an easily

accessible format.

SWAP data should be easily accessible to the

public to encourage citizen engagement in

source water protection. This need for data

must be balanced against the need for water

system security so that the information is available without compromising the safety and security of the water system. From personally

delivering SWAPs to local suppliers and planners, to posting information on Web sites to

creating password-protected sites, states are

increasingly seeing the value of widely distributing data.

The following types of information should

be considered: (1) the delineation of the source

water area, preferably in Geographic Information System (GIS) format, (2) the existing and

potential threats to source water from both

point and nonpoint sources of pollution, and

(3) updated state assessment data that are current and accurate. The more complete the

information local stakeholders have about

threats, the more effective and efficient they

can be about addressing those threats. States

that have made their SWAPs thorough, precise,

and readily available to the public will experience much greater local participation and private investment in source water protection,

with or without state or federal funds. 

6 PATH TO PROTECTION

2.

© KEN SHERMAN
CASE STUDY 

The Hamilton to New Baltimore 

Groundwater Consortium

The Hamilton to New Baltimore Groundwater

Consortium is a model of interjurisdictional

cooperation for building public support around

protecting the region’s groundwater supply.

Created in 1967, the Consortium was formed to

promote dialogue about source water among

the six major public, private, and industrial

groundwater producers in southwest Ohio. It

comprises the cities of Cincinnati, Hamilton,

and Fairfield as well as Southwestern Ohio

Water and Southwest Regional Water District.

Initially concerned with preserving the

water table, Consortium members decided, in

the late 1980s, to expand their mandate to protecting the aquifer’s water quality as well. The

Consortium performed wellfield delineation in

1991 to help Fairfield and Hamilton create a

Wellhead Protection Plan (WHPP), required

as a condition for bringing new wells into service in those two cities. The entire consortium

participated in the WHPP process because they

believed all members would someday need a

WHPP and also because they were interested

in understanding the groundwater capture

zones and identifying the most critical threats

to source water. They began targeted groundwater monitoring that continues today. 

The Consortium meets with elected officials, local planners, Ohio EPA, and U.S. Geological Survey representatives to coordinate the

technical and regulatory aspects of groundwater

stewardship. For example, the group drafted a

model ordinance for wellhead protection with

significant input from stakeholders. Passed

almost verbatim in jurisdictions represented by

the Consortium, the ordinance levied the same

rules across local borders and made it possible

for regulators to share information and staff for

purposes of education and enforcement. The

Consortium coordinator helps administer the

ordinance by taking inventory of area facilities

and visiting businesses to discuss the ordinance

and answer technical questions.

The Consortium also encourages wellhead

protection in nonmember communities that

overlay the aquifer. Numerous communities

import groundwater from neighboring townships instead of directly extracting water from

the aquifer, but contamination in their townships can eventually migrate to the drinking

water source. The Consortium works to induce

overlying communities to take responsibility.

Consortium representatives explain time-oftravel (TOT) zones based on detailed studies

and the financial trade-offs of adopting best

practices now versus paying to mitigate contamination later through rate hikes. They also discuss draw-down levels and explain the

connection to pumping, using historic data they

have collected from groundwater monitoring

stations. Two neighboring communities, Saint

Clair and Ross townships, have passed

groundwater protection

ordinances at the urging

of the Consortium.

The Consortium

conveys a strong message based on sound science. The Consortium

installed groundwater

monitoring wells and

initiated a sampling

regime to document

changes in water level

and quantity over time;

to understand the connection 

between groundwater and surface water; and to

develop TOT equations for chemicals moving

into the hydrologic system. They have used this

information in meetings with current and

future decision-makers, and speaking in boardrooms, civic halls, and schools throughout the

region. Demonstration tools vary dramatically,

from sand-tank models to wellhead protection

videos.

Consortium member fees and grants from

the Ohio Water Development Authority, Ohio

EPA, and U.S. Department of Energy have paid

for the scientific/technical work and development of educational materials. The Consortium

also pays for a full-time Consortium coordinator. The annual budget is generally about

$140,000. Member fees are based on the historic share of groundwater extraction. 

Contact:

Tim McLelland, Coordinator 

The Hamilton to New Baltimore 

Groundwater Consortium

5140 River Road 

Fairfield, OH 45014 

Phone: 513-868-5993 

Fax: 513-867-7308

E-mail: Tmclelln@ci.hamilton.oh.us

Web site: www.gwconsortium.org

PATH TO PROTECTION 7

COURTESY OF THE GROUNDWATER FOUNDA
Develop a constituency to champion

the cause, and provide resources 

and technical support to ensure 

sustainability.

Challenge

The engagement of citizens, nonprofits, 

elected officials, and other stakeholders will

raise the profile of source water protection and

lead to greater investment in and commitment

to protecting water resources. Simply having

communities understand where their water

comes from will prompt more involvement in

protection.

Local Role

Identify local leadership and create or identify a forum for organizing local efforts.

Developing a strong local constituency to

champion the cause requires identifying leadership — the “driver” or “spark plug” — and 

creating or identifying a forum for organizing

local efforts. Ideally, leadership should come

from water utilities, but it can also come from

motivated residents, watershed associations,

land trusts, elected officials, or others with an

interest in clean drinking water.

The driver, an individual who takes a leadership role in promoting source protection and

engaging local stakeholders (such as water utilities, watershed associations, land trusts, or

elected officials), is key to leading a community

discussion on source protection. Communities

should identify or create a new forum, such as

a task force, commission, or nonprofit watershed association that specifically addresses the

interests and capacity of volunteers to lead

source protection planning efforts. Forums are

critical to any source protection effort because

they can attract essential technical and financial resources. 

Because of the voluntary nature of source

protection, a separate forum for attracting and

organizing interested citizens to advocate on

source water protection issues can be key to

advancing the issues. 

State Role

Provide capacity-building grants to local

groups to help locals lead watershed and

source water protection.

States should play a significant role in building

the capacity of local groups and in sustaining

source protection efforts. They can fund

capacity-building activities and staffing, and

they can provide technical assistance — all to

encourage resource-based planning and protection. They can also help identify or provide

funding to sustain implementation as local

efforts mature. Often, minimal public investment in building the capacity and sustainability of watershed associations and land trusts

can attract significant private investment, both

in-kind and financial. These efforts are key to

mobilizing and sustaining these communitydriven efforts.

8 PATH TO PROTECTION

3. © DUDLEY WITNEY
PATH TO PROTECTION 9

CASE STUDY

The Marion County Wellfield 

Education Corporation

Indianapolis discovered that “drivers” working

on community-wide education and public

awareness campaigns can build local support for

source protection plans that benefit the entire

area. 

In 1994, Indianapolis was faced with a 

heated dispute over the siting of a gasoline 

service station near a public drinking water well.

The partially unified city-county government

came to understand that it needed a comprehensive solution to such disputes because the

underlying aquifer would be the sole source of

future public drinking water. 

The Department of Metropolitan Development (planning department) established two

consecutive study committees to evaluate alternatives while a separate technical committee

conducted field assessment and modeling of

potential regional groundwater contamination.

Based on recommendations of the second study

committee, the administration selected a twopronged approach for its groundwater protection program: (1) regulatory action to protect

the land within the five-year TOT zones of the

public wells and (2) an education initiative,

managed by a nongovernmental entity, to help

the public understand the importance of

groundwater and how to protect it. 

In 1997, the Marion County Wellfield Education Corporation (MCWEC) was established

to launch a public awareness campaign. Funded

by a county fee on water connections (about

$70,000 per year), the campaign has provided

an opportunity to bring together “drivers” who

include members of the group’s Board of Directors as well as active nonvoting meeting attendees. Under the founding charter, the Board of

Directors must have as members a county public

health officer, water suppliers, and other leaders

from business, education, civic, and neighborhood organizations. Initial appointments of the

mayor and city-county council included individuals who had served on the study committee.

Others who had been loosely affiliated with the

study committee were also recruited. 

The government provided clear direction by

setting two specific goals for MCWEC. 

1) Increase by 50% the public’s awareness of the

importance of groundwater drawn from the

designated wellfield protection areas in supplying drinking water to central Indiana businesses

and residents, and

2) Achieve knowledge of ‘appropriate behavior’

in a wellfield by 50% of residents living in the

one-year and five-year time-of-travel zones

established in the county zoning ordinance and

by 10% of residents in the remainder of the

county.” 

Having set measurable objectives, MCWEC

gauged a baseline level of public awareness

through an 800-person survey. The organization then devised a strategy to improve on this

baseline. Outreach efforts focused on the general public, while also targeting area businesses,

and a subsequent survey confirmed success.

However, a limited budget combined with the

high cost of mass-media outreach, the complexity of the subject matter, and differences

between wellfield districts persuaded MCWEC

of the need for targeted face-to-face, in-person

meetings and appearances at various kinds of

venues.

For the first few

years, MCWEC’s executive director, along

with a public relations

consultant and volunteers, made presentations at neighborhood

organizations, health

fairs, and Earth Days,

and they visited homes

and businesses located

in the wellfield TOT

zones that were potential contaminant sources.

They also used print and multimedia outlets on

a limited basis to reach the general public. 

Within three years, MCWEC had achieved

its mission of doubling public awareness. The

board then hired a contractor who now performs confidential free site assessments and

provides free spill kits to potential contaminant

source site operators within the wellfield protection areas. More than 50 sites have been

serviced so far, comprising about 10 percent of

all potential contaminant sources. 

Contact: 

Chris Barnett 

Marion County Wellfield Education Corporation

c/o Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce

111 Monument Circle

Suite 1950

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

Phone: 317-464-2219

Fax: 317-464-2217

E-mail: barnett_dc@yahoo.com

Web site: www.indyh2o.org 

COURTESY OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL

“
Partner with those who have the

authority to make change such as

elected officials and agricultural and

industry representatives.

Challenge

Without a regulatory mandate for protection,

states, local governments, and water suppliers

need to build successful partnerships with

those who have the authority, resources, or

credibility to create change. These partnerships

should occur particularly when source areas

cross jurisdictional boundaries, require private

stewardship, and/or in cases where the water

system is a nonmunicipal entity. 

Local Role

Partner with those who have the resources

and credibility to create change, particularly those with a local constituency key to

implementation.

Local entities should partner with those who

can provide a variety of perspectives and lend

local source protection efforts much-needed

manpower, technical expertise, and financial

support. A partnership can collectively convey

a consistent and clear message about the

threats to source water to a broad audience

while building a constituency around addressing those threats. 

Water utilities are the key partners in

source protection and can be the drivers for

change. They are typically aware of the biggest

potential sources of contamination, the challenges of treating those contaminants, and

their threats to public health. They also have a

vested interest in protecting their systems from

contamination. Landuse planning entities are

increasingly important partners to water utilities. Although few suppliers have the authority

to directly control activities on land in their

source area, most have the ability to plan and

partner with other communities and stakeholders who can directly influence landuse and

land management. Water utilities may also

have the ability to contribute resources and

technical expertise to source protection efforts.

Partnerships with watershed associations, land

trusts, or other nonprofit organizations make it

possible for utilities to guide and encourage

source protection efforts for which they otherwise may not have the staffing, resources, or

authority. 

State Role

State source water offices should partner

with other state offices that have implementation funding or regulatory tools to

advance source protection goals.

Many states, in addition to having created

departments to carry out their regulatory mandates for clean water and safe drinking water,

have set up watershed management offices.

These offices are facilitating new relationships

across land and water policy programs to link

and inform place-based action. Programs and

policies — such as those around forestry and

agriculture, smart growth and low-impact

development initiatives, or stormwater, flood

control, and estuarine programs — often have

funding, resources, and advocates that can help

attract leadership for source protection. Land

conservation funding, the largest and fastestgrowing area of support, is available in more

than 35 states, and it should be earmarked for

source protection.

10 PATH TO PROTECTION

COURTESY OF U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

4.
PATH TO PROTECTION 11

CASE STUDY 

Vancouver, WA

Through trial and error, the City of Vancouver

has developed a cutting-edge process for formulating water protection measures that brings 

different perspectives to the debate as well as

resources for building a constituency to support

these measures. 

Located in the southwest corner of Washington State, the City of Vancouver Water 

Utility draws on 39 wells from two aquifers to

provide drinking water to 153,000 people. In

the 1980s, two local chrome plating shops,

which had leaked hexavalent chromium and

volatile organic compounds into Vancouver’s

drinking water aquifer, were designated Superfund sites. 

Public concern was high as city officials

labored for eight years to come up with a

groundwater protection ordinance. They

reviewed groundwater models from the Portland/Vancouver area, estimated various TOT

figures, assessed potential sources of contamination, and proposed an elaborate permitting 

system to regulate these sources. However, the

ordinance was met with public criticism from

regulators, environmentalists, and business

owners and was soundly rejected by the City

Council. The staff went back to the drawing

board.

The city planners took an entirely different

approach the second time around. They asked

those who had opposed the first ordinance to

take part in developing a new source protection

plan. The process was as simple as it was disciplined. All were welcome to participate as long

as they were committed to consensus. Their

commitment to the project was strengthened as

each group realized that no provision would be

written into the proposed ordinance unless it

had unanimous support. Starting with the

rejected ordinance, the group met about once a

week at first, then circulated drafts by e-mail

and convened only to discuss particular sections. 

Although their positions initially seemed at

odds, committee members soon realized that

they were not irreconcilable. While the citizens

and environmental advocates wanted all potentially hazardous sources addressed so water

resources would be protected, regulators focused

on getting provisions that could be enforced

with appropriate legal authority and realistic

staff time, and the business/industry folks

pushed for reasonable and effective regulations

if they were proven necessary and were not

unduly burdensome to meet. 

Within a year, a new ordinance bearing 

little resemblance to the old was approved by

the committee. The proposal went to a Planning Commission hearing for more public

input. In November 2002, the City Council

unanimously approved the new ordinance. 

The ordinance is a tailored watershed

approach for source protection in Vancouver

that addresses both surface water and groundwater. For surface water, the ordinance incorporates the National Pollution Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater 

permit’s Phase II requirements. For groundwater, it designates all land within the city a

Critical Aquifer Recharge Area, naming the

entire aquifer beneath the city a potential

source of drinking water, regardless of TOT

zones around water wells. It prohibits several

types of activities within city borders, such as

chrome plating operations and disposal of 

hazardous, radioactive, and municipal waste. 

It regulates certain activities across the city 

such as pesticide/fertilizer use and hazardous

material handling. Additional restrictions 

apply to landuse within 1,900 feet of municipal

drinking water wells. 

The city hired an inspector in 2003 to visit

businesses with potential contaminants to make

sure they were following Best Management

Practices and to respond to complaints and

referrals. By the end of 2004, about 50 percent

(125/250) of the businesses with potential 

contaminants had been visited. The inspector 

routinely provides technical assistance, explaining vulnerabilities specific to the site and 

recommending action items to address them. 

The program also funds public outreach and

water quality monitoring activities. A 

Geographic Information System (GIS) map

identifying industries of concern and the known

and suspected contaminated sites within city

boundaries will soon be available to the public

on the city’s Web site. Information on the facility database is already shared by program staff

and local agencies to track inspections.

Contact:

Richard Hoiland

Water Resources Protection Coordinator

City of Vancouver

PO Box 1995

Vancouver, WA 98668 

Phone: 360-696-8008

Fax: 360-696-8460

E-mail: Richard.hoiland@ci.vancouver.wa.us
12 PATH TO PROTECTION

Build on existing issues and programs, integrating source water 

protection into high-priority initiatives such as stormwater management and land conservation.

Challenge

If source water protection is not the primary

issue that motivates action or attracts funding

at the local or state level, source water protection advocates can build on other highpriority initiatives with funding or regulatory

mandates.

Local Role

Find ways to meet the needs and overlapping interests of potential partners,

dove-tailing on their initiatives whenever

possible.

Source water protection may not be the primary issue that motivates local players, particularly if the people who live in the source area

do not get their drinking water from that

source. The key is to identify local issues that

will drive action and build on those issues

while also clearly communicating the benefits

of source protection, such as the cost savings of

keeping contaminants out of the water so they

do not need to be removed through treatment. 

For example, by preserving undeveloped

land around reservoirs, recreational water users

may benefit from improved fish habitat and

safe swimming opportunities while local suppliers and municipalities meet requirements

such as stormwater regulations or Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Simply finding a

way to help a partner address a nagging local

issue or achieve related goals could make a

project successful. The benefits that may be

gained by all groups must be emphasized and

clearly communicated.

Individuals and organizations will often

contribute to source protection projects if

these projects support initiatives they already

have under way and provide information they

need to guide their actions. Finding ways to

meet the needs and overlapping interests of

potential partners will lead to greater commitment on their part.

State Role

Revise criteria or eligibility for existing 

programs, such as land conservation or

stormwater management, to prioritize

source water protection.

Funding criteria for existing state programs

that protect land or water resources should be

updated to better address source water protection and other high-priority water resource

threats. For example, land conservation programs can give funding priority to conservation

efforts that protect source water. Likewise,

state stormwater regulations can target source

areas to institute more stringent stormwater

controls. State programs that link source water

protection with other state and local goals,

such as preservation or habitat protection, will

attract greater support and funding from the

public and elected officials.

5.

© JANE BERNARD
PATH TO PROTECTION 13

CASE STUDY 

Connecticut Department of Public

Health’s Drinking Water Division

By opening lines of communication between

programs and merging source protection with

other relevant policies, Connecticut is setting

an example for other states moving to prioritize water protection initiatives.

Between 2000 and 2003, the state of

Connecticut created a SWAP program to

assess its sources of public drinking water and

tasked a Drinking Water Source Protection

(DWSP) Unit with developing a five-year

action plan to minimize risk to public health by

bolstering drinking water source protection.

The action plan calls for integrating SWAP

findings into state, regional, and local policies

and encouraging source water protection activities at the state and local levels — all of which

requires coordination at the state level. 

One of Connecticut’s goals is to link

SWAP reports to the following: planning

processes; public water system and source

water inspections; environmental assessments

for proposed development projects in source

water areas; siting processes for new sources of

supply; and water quality monitoring requirements. To facilitate this massive data coordination, the state’s Drinking Water Division is

using one master GIS database, which is linked

to the U.S. EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information System. Better known as SDWIS, this

database contains safe drinking water regulation compliance history for individual water

suppliers. Connecticut’s drinking water staff

can review, use, and update its GIS database in

real time within its new intranet application.

To encourage local and regional stakeholders, first, to use the SWAP information and,

second, to prioritize source protection at the

local and regional levels, the state is working on

many fronts. The DWSP Unit shared SWAP

findings with the chief-elected official in each

of the state’s 169 municipalities. The DWSP

Unit held forums with the state’s regional

planning organizations and met with local

health directors. It has also reached more than

100 public water system operators through 

a continuing education training module 

that instructs operators how to use SWAP 

information. 

The DWSP Unit is working with other

state agencies and local stakeholders to revise

criteria and eligibility for existing programs

and mandates. For example, the “1985 

Connecticut Plan”

was amended in

2002 to require

individual water

supply plans to

evaluate current

source protection

measures using the

SWAP reports and

to identify opportunities for

improvement. The

DWSP Unit is

crafting amendments to compel

stakeholders to

incorporate SWAP

information into regional water supply plans 

as well. 

The DWSP Unit uses existing authority

under Connecticut’s public health laws to help

prevent proposed local developments and

future state agency activities from degrading

drinking water supplies. For example, the

DWSP Unit controls all permitting requirements for water company-owned land, which

accounts for approximately 110,000 acres or 3.5

percent of the state’s land area. In Connecticut,

many public water systems own large parcels of

land around drinking water sources, and the

state requires that they get approval from the

DWSP Unit before changing landuse, implementing recreational uses, and transferring or

assigning ownership interests of their properties

within source water drainage areas. The DWSP

Unit wants suppliers to consider SWAP information in their landuse plans.

Central to the DWSP Unit’s mission is

information exchange and cooperation. With

open lines of communication, the state can get

better information about what is happening on

the ground and support local efforts to protect

public drinking water sources. 

Contact:

Lori J. Mathieu, Supervising Environmental Analyst

Drinking Water Division

State Department of Public Health

410 Capitol Avenue, MS#51WAT

Hartford, CT 06134

Phone: 860-509-7333

Fax: 860-509-7359

E-mail: lori.mathieu@po.state.ct.us

Web site: http://www.dph.state.ct.us/BRS/

Water/Source_Protection/SWAP/

SWAPWEB_05_12.pdf

© KAREN BU
14 PATH TO PROTECTION

Create a viable action plan that guides

and motivates implementation.

Challenge

Watershed and source protection plans are often

written with great enthusiasm and vision only to

remain on a shelf because implementation

requires having a practical action plan that prioritizes strategies and provides a clear path for

achievement. 

Local Role

Create an action plan that prioritizes strategies that are feasible to implement, identify

who will take the lead, include a financing

plan, and map out a timeline for action.

Local governments and local water systems are

well positioned to take the lead on a draft action

plan for source protection. An action plan

should include a list of strategies for immediate

implementation. The plan should also identify

who will take the lead and provide an estimated

cost or budget as well as potential funding

sources. Starting small and successfully implementing one or two high-priority strategies early

on builds commitment to and confidence in

instituting a longer-term plan. 

One way to prioritize strategies for implementation is by developing a matrix of 

action items. The Groundwater Foundation 

recommends categorizing source protection

strategies based on those that are (1) easy to do

and yield a major improvement, (2) difficult to

do but yield a major improvement, (3) easy to

do but yield a minor improvement, and (4)

difficult to do and yield a minor improvement. 

Successful implementation is more likely 

if the action plan focuses on a small area. For

surface water resources, a sub-watershed, or

stream reach (fewer than 100,000 acres if possible) can be chosen for targeted resources and

to demonstrate quantifiable change through

monitoring. Measurable results will lead to

additional resources and more effective action.

Successful action will provide a stimulus for the

proliferation of additional efforts.

State Role

Support local implementation through 

staff participation and technical assistance.

States need to create more flexible technical

assistance and support programs that can move

from broad regulatory compliance assistance to

place-based strategies. GIS can be a useful tool

for helping state and local agencies prioritize

their efforts. Some state and federal agencies,

such as the Natural Resource Conservation

Service or state soil and water districts, have

good experience with landowner outreach and

linking public water quality goals with

landowner needs and benefits.

6. © MARK GARTEN
PATH TO PROTECTION 15

CASE STUDY 

Schuylkill Action Network

Initiated as a pilot project, the Schuylkill

Action Network (SAN) has produced a multijurisdictional grassroots action plan for

addressing threats facing the Schuylkill River,

the region’s primary source of drinking water. 

Armed with a SWAP that covered nearly

the entire Schuylkill River, the Philadelphia

Water Department (PWD) and the U.S. EPA

partnered to develop a watershed-based coalition that has developed specific action steps 

for source protection. A cross-jurisdictional

approach makes sense because the Schuylkill

River travels approximately 130 miles through

11 counties in southeastern Pennsylvania and

has 52 drinking water intakes supplying water

to 1.5 million people. 

Among the many suppliers drawing from

the Schuylkill River, PWD provides drinking

water to 725,000 people. Rather than artificially demarcate its drainage area for the

SWAP requirements, PWD considered the

whole watershed its source water. As a result,

PWD identified major threats all along the

river. Because it lacked authority to address

many of them, PWD solicited help from the

U.S. EPA (USEPA) Region 3 to develop a

source protection plan. 

In the spring of 2003, USEPA convened

SAN as a pilot project for stakeholders developing and implementing multijurisdictional

source water protection strategies. State agencies, local watershed organizations, water suppliers, local governments, and the federal

government were invited to collectively plan

local solutions for this shared resource. Besides

USEPA outreach, many groups that had

already been contacted by PWD as part of the

SWAP process volunteered to join. 

With 260 members and more than 60

agency and business partners, SAN has a structure that facilitates the implementation of a

grassroots action plan. A Steering Committee

and a Planning Committee are staffed by 

representatives from USEPA, the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection

(PADEP), PWD, and the Delaware River

Basin Commission. In addition, four workgroups craft solutions for each of the four primary threats to source water (agricultural

runoff, acid mine drainage, pathogen/compliance issues, and stormwater runoff ). Approximately 15–20 participants serve on each

workgroup, each with his or her own expertise

and unique perspective on how to address the

threats. Additional members contribute to the

network through a list-serve. Two other teams,

a Data Team and Education/Outreach Team,

meet the workgroups’ common needs.

As the largest water supplier in the network, PWD — with input from USEPA,

PADEP, Aqua Pennsylvania, and others —

compiles information on water quality, stream

impairment, landuse, source activities, compliance, funding, and protection activities that

have been used to prioritize areas for restoration and protection. The workgroups review

this information to determine what actions are

needed to address priority sites and how they

can be integrated with existing initiatives. 

Since 2003, each workgroup has established discreet objectives and tasks to mitigate

the threat for which they are responsible. For

example, the Pathogens/Compliance workgroup set 24 milestones to accomplish in 2004,

including identifying point source dischargers

upstream of drinking water intakes and ensuring compliance. On a regional scale, SAN is

establishing a water quality monitoring network and has developed a new Watershed

Land Protection Collaborative to preserve

natural lands

that have high

value for water

quality. 

Costs to

implement the

action plan are

covered by a

variety of

sources, including a $1.5 million

National EPA Targeted Watershed Initiative

Grant. In addition, the Schuylkill Headwaters

Association Inc. received $200,000 from

PADEP’s Growing Greener program to develop a hydrologic budget for the Pine Knot-Oak

Hill Discharge Tunnel, which is a leading

source of metals in the Schuylkill River. 

Contact: 

Lori Reynolds, Watershed Manager 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2020 

Phone: 215-814-5435

Fax: 215-814-2301

E-mail: reynolds.lori@epa.gov

Web site: http://www.schuylkillactionnetwork.org/

COURTESY OF THE GROUNDWATER FOUNDATION
16 PATH TO PROTECTION

Actively promote successful 

source water protection efforts to

build momentum and encourage

replication.

Challenge

Source protection happens at the local level

often through a series of seemingly disparate,

low-profile actions that go unrecognized by

media or the general public. As a result, the

public may be unaware of local efforts or the

need for source protection. The opportunity

for building momentum in source protection is

lost as is the chance to encourage replication in

other source areas.

Local Role

Implement source water protection strategies that have high visibility, involve large

groups of people, or lend themselves to

“storytelling,” and publicize them broadly.

Early demonstrable successes that can be recognized and praised build momentum and

attract resources. Activities or events that

involve large groups of people or lend themselves to storytelling are excellent choices for

early implementation. Local governments and

local source water protection groups should

promote, through local media and targeted

events, successfully implemented strategies

such as protecting an important piece of land

or forming a new watershed association. 

Cultivating reporters and helping them to

understand the importance of source protection should be a high priority. 

A Public Awareness Campaign Kit may

also be useful. The Groundwater Foundation

created a Public Awareness Campaign Kit

(PACK) that includes fact sheets, sample 

presentations, and media tools such as press

releases, radio spots, and talking points for a

myriad of health and source water-related 

topics. The PACK is available online at

www.groundwater.org/pe/pack.html. The

International City-County Management 

Association also developed source water media

campaign materials that can be accessed

through the Local Government Environmental

Assistance Network Web site at www.lgean.org. 

State Role

Promote successful local source water 

protection efforts statewide and support

replication.

States should play an active role in encouraging

replication of successful source water protection efforts on the community level. As they

finalize their source water assessments, states

can use the relationships they have formed

with suppliers and municipalities, as well as

their role as a resource to communities, to

identify successful efforts and share lessons

learned. By facilitating information exchange

and networking among drinking water suppliers and local governments, states can help

communities learn from one another and can

encourage innovative approaches to protection.

7.

© DWIGHT HISCANO
PATH TO PROTECTION 17

CASE STUDY 

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency, Groundwater Section

Illinois’ support of local groundwater protection planning provides an excellent model 

for other states committed to advancing 

community-wide source water protection. 

In 1987, the Illinois legislature passed the

Groundwater Protection Act requiring the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)

to establish priority groundwater protection

planning regions and a committee in each area

to rank groundwater concerns. By 1995, IEPA

had established four regional planning committees and was providing technical assistance

and other guidance to community groups and

suppliers interested in groundwater quality

protection. Based on its early successes, IEPA

developed a model for working with communities as well as case studies demonstrating its

techniques and methodologies, which the

agency began marketing to other communities.

For example, in late 1992, IEPA worked

with the City of Pekin and its privately owned

water supplier to develop a groundwater protection plan. The city also passed a groundwater protection overlay zoning ordinance to

reduce threats to the underlying groundwater.

IEPA promoted this project in a variety of

forums, including the first Groundwater Foundation national conference and American

Water Works Association’s Opflow newsletter.

In response, IEPA received numerous requests

for copies of Pekin’s groundwater protection

ordinance, and it has become a model for other

communities.

IEPA’s Groundwater Section promotes

local groundwater protection programs by producing and distributing learning tools, participating in groundwater protection and

education field days, and holding teachertraining workshops sponsored by the regional

groundwater protection planning committees.

In coordination with the Montana Water 

Center of Montana State University and the

Illinois Rural Water Association, IEPA shares

technical knowledge and stories about successful local efforts through the Guide to Developing a

Source Water Protection Plan. This publication

includes information on what a source water

protection plan should look like, a plan template, and four case studies illustrating methods

that work. Geared to water supply owners 

and operators in Illinois, the interactive 

program is available free on IEPA’s Web site 

or via CD-ROM from the Midwest Technical

Assistance Center, the initiative’s sponsor.

IEPA is an excellent resource for sciencebased research and guidance. For example,

IEPA works closely with suppliers to develop

protection plans, maintains a statewide ambient groundwater monitoring network, and

assists with reports and inspections. At no cost,

IEPA provides delineations of five-year TOT

capture zones for all unconfined aquifers in the

state. The Groundwater Section also coordinates an ambient lakes monitoring program for

lakes and reservoirs that serve as public sources

of drinking water.

Contact:

Anthony Dulka, P.G.

Source Water Protection Program Sub Unit

Groundwater Section

Illinois EPA

1021 North Grand Avenue East 

PO Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Phone: 217-785-4787 

Fax: 217-557-3182

E-mail: Anthony.Dulka@epa.state.il.us

Web site: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/

index-pws.html

COURTESY OF NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCE CENTER
18 PATH TO PROTECTION

Create financial and regulatory

incentives to build commitment of

local stakeholders, especially around

multijurisdictional or resource-based

planning efforts. Support or create

public funding programs broad

enough to include source water 

protection, and make funding easy

to find with one-stop shopping for

water-related funding sources.

Challenge 

Source protection is largely voluntary and lacks

a dedicated funding stream or incentives that

encourage local stakeholders to implement

source protection measures. As a result, local

governments, water suppliers, and nongovernmental organizations must rely on a wide variety of funding sources not specifically targeted

for source protection. While funding that can

be used for source protection may exist, identifying and accessing it at the local, state, regional, and national levels can be a tremendous

challenge. Also, local entities often need financial or regulatory incentives to encourage

meaningful participation from other jurisdictions that share a water resource. 

Local Role

Create local funding sources and institute

financial and regulatory incentives that will

spur long-term source protection and leverage state and federal resources while

maintaining local control.

Successful source water protection efforts

often require funds from a variety of sources —

federal, state, local and private — and build

upon a dedicated local source. Source water

protection groups should tap into a range of

sources to create a funding “quilt” and avoid

reliance on a single, potentially unpredictable

revenue stream. Voters across the country, for

example, have supported over 80 percent of

new local land conservation measures in the

last ten years, many of which have included

funds for clean drinking water.

Project partners can participate in identifying funding sources, securing local funding, and

preparing grant applications. The partners can

also assist in describing the need for the projects and the benefits they will provide. Local

governments can provide monetary, regulatory or recognition incentives for instituting

source protection measures. 

State Role

Create new state funding sources, or

improve access to existing funding

sources, for watershed protection that will

leverage new programs as well as more

protection dollars.

States that have made source water protection

a priority are creating new funding sources or

improving access to existing ones for watershed

or aquifer protection. They are revising existing program criteria to prioritize projects that

protect source water and are linking state and

federal funding sources. Linked programs can

create incentives for source protection activities such as alternative repayment options, a

streamlined application process, or lower interest rates on loans. States should also offer

Web-based funding guides that allow applicants to search multiple sources simultaneously.

8.

© TODD PARKER
PATH TO PROTECTION 19

IN FOCUS

USING STATE REVOLVING FUNDS FOR

SOURCE PROTECTION

Under the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

(DWSRF) and the Clean Water State Revolving

Fund (CWSRF), the federal government provides

annual capitalization grants to states that agree

to match the grants by at least 20 percent and

allocate those federal/state dollars as belowmarket interest loans to local communities.

States must approve a source of loan repayment

as part of the application process (developer

fees, recreational fees, drinking water fees,

dedicated local tax revenues, and nonprofit

donations, for example).

Federal rules allow these state revolving

funds to be used for a wide variety of water

quality projects, including land conservation.

Through the DWSRF, states can make loans to

water systems to acquire critical lands and

implement protection measures.The CWSRF

program provides assistance to communities,

water systems, and others — including land

conservation organizations — for projects that

protect source water and enhance water quality.

In addition to the CWSRF, the Clean Water Act

funds the Nonpoint Source Grant Program and

the Estuary Program.

Some states have innovative funding strategies, using state revolving fund dollars to maximize protection of local source lands and

minimize the impact of potential pollution

sources.Techniques include:

◆ California: Allowing private borrowing and

maximizing protection dollars. Nonprofit land

trusts, for example, can leverage additional

private resources for water quality improvement. Funding from California’s CWSRF

helped The Nature Conservancy of California

purchase a 12,362 acre portion of the Howard

Ranch in southeast Sacramento County, one

of the largest land acquisitions ever funded in

the United States under the federal CWSRF.

The California State Water Resources Control

Board and the EPA coordinated an $8 million

low-interest loan for the Conservancy to complete the $13.6 million fundraising target.

◆ Maryland: Providing flexible interest rates and

establishing linked deposit plans. Maryland’s

linked deposit program allows the state to

enter into partnerships with community lending institutions, providing a simple and convenient way for borrowers to access nonpoint

source capital improvement dollars.

◆Wisconsin: Linking source protection with

brownfields remediation when abandoned

brownfields sites are contaminating drinking

water supplies.The state of Wisconsin has 

a strong track record of remediating local

brownfields with the support of CWSRF 

dollars. In the early 1990s the state adopted

legislation that provides incentives and regulatory flexibility for local clean-up efforts.

Funding came a few years later when a special committee identified the CWSRF money

and linked it to brownfields remediation.

◆ New Jersey: Creating an integrated priority

ranking system. By integrating the CWSRF,

the DWSRF, the Nonpoint Source Grant Program, and/or the Estuary Program, and prioritizing funding decisions based on identified

water quality threats, states can fund a wide

variety of projects. Consider the New Jersey

case study on page 21.

◆ Ohio: Establishing incentives for nonpoint

source protection programs. Ohio’s Environmental Protection Agency offers greatly

reduced loan rates to utilities and local governments for traditional wastewater treatment if they implement or “sponsor” a

watershed protection or restoration project.

Sponsored projects include partnerships, land

trusts, park districts, and others. For example,

the City of Massillon, Ohio, received a lowinterest loan of over $6.7 million through

Ohio’s CWSRF program. A portion is dedicated

to water resource restoration projects, including the purchase and preservation of highquality wetland bogs and riparian and

forested habitat; restoration of agricultural

lands and 30 miles of river; and development

of a free-flowing stream to bypass a dam to

help fulfill state TMDL requirements.
20 PATH TO PROTECTION

Add source water protection goals

into existing plans and criteria for

Clean Water Act and other state 

programs. Encourage drinking 

water and clean water program 

integration and partnering across

state programs.

Challenge

State clean water and drinking water programs

are often housed in different departments or,

in some cases, different agencies, which may

result in diverse program objectives that provide little incentive for coordination. As a

result, source water, watershed and groundwater protection efforts may be conducted in

isolation from one another even when these

efforts are directed at the same resource.

When local practitioners try to protect a

shared resource, dissimilar water quality standards, funding criteria, and program goals may

frustrate their efforts. 

Further, clean water and drinking water

programs are often far from the center of discussion on voter-supported land conservation

programs, the fastest-growing new source of

environmental funding in the country. Since

voters primarily support land conservation to

advance clean water objectives, these programs should be a priority for drinking water 

managers.

Local Role

Create a knowledge base for adding 

source water protection goals into state

Clean Water Act plans and criteria.

Local entities can promote source water 

protection in Clean Water Act regulatory 

programs by taking advantage of various

opportunities to comment on proposed state

and federal actions, sharing data and information that can help inform state actions, and 

recommending priorities for these programs. 

Local entities should use monitoring data

and information collected on the quality of

source water to augment existing state knowledge and underscore the importance of making

source water a criterion in Clean Water Act

planning. This information, together with public review of reports and planned actions, can

inform and leverage state Clean Water Act

activities to ensure that protecting drinking

water sources is a high priority and based on

the best available information. 

State Role

Join source protection programs with 

state Clean Water Act programs in order 

to integrate source protection into Clean

Water Act plans and criteria.

Local practitioners and national leaders repeatedly spotlight the need for states to integrate

clean water and drinking water programs to

support resource-based watershed and groundwater protection. For example, the EPA’s

SWAP regulations promote integration by

requesting source water delineations that transcend geographic and political boundaries. The

regulations require identification of contaminants of concern that touch multiple regulatory

programs. Integrated planning leads to creative

funding mechanisms and innovative local

approaches to addressing states’ primary water

resource threats. In the last five years, many

states have moved to integrate their Clean

Water Act programs such as the State Revolving Funds and Nonpoint Source and Estuary

Programs. Further integrating source protection programs will only enhance the implementation efforts of both programs.

9.

COURTESY OF THE GROUNDWATER FOUNDATION
PATH TO PROTECTION 21

CASE STUDY 

New Jersey

New Jersey has made great strides integrating

clean water and drinking water programs, incorporating smart growth goals, and linking water

protection goals to land conservation goals.

One of the state’s most effective tools for

integrating programs has been developing

resource-based regulations. For example, New

Jersey has given special clean water regulatory

protection to crucial headwaters and reservoirs

under the statewide three-level antidegradation

classification system. Water bodies that have

exceptional water supply significance — such as

those that serve as sources of drinking water,

support habitat for species that are endangered

or threatened, or provide recreational or commercial uses — may receive Category 1 status

(C1). With strong gubernatorial and public

support, many drinking water reservoirs and

entire natural drainage areas have already

received this designation. In C1 areas, there are

restrictions governing new or proposed changes

to activities that will potentially lower water

quality. New or expanded wastewater discharges

from municipal or industrial facilities regulated

under the New Jersey Pollution Discharge

Elimination System permitting program are

required to maintain existing water quality.

Water intakes located on water bodies that have

not been designated as a C1 water body are also

protected by a policy that requires point sources

to meet the C1 standard 1,500 feet above the

intake.

In terms of integrating programs, New Jersey’s Stormwater Management Rules forbid

new development that will disturb more than

one acre or result in at least .25 of an acre of

new impervious surface within a 300-foot

buffer of C1 shorelines/streambanks and

upstream tributaries in the same sub-watershed

with some exceptions. New Jersey’s new

stormwater rules required under the Clean

Water Act also address subsurface source water.

They call for Municipal Stormwater Management plans to identify groundwater recharge

areas and wellhead protection areas. Municipalities must evaluate their existing master plans

and regulations and update them to implement

low-impact development (LID) techniques that

will help retain and treat stormwater on-site. 

New Jersey has also linked federal Clean

Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRFs) with

Drinking Water State Revolving Funds and

state dollars to provide low-interest loans for

various types of water projects. The New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection

(NJDEP) and the N.J. Environmental Infrastructure Trust jointly manage these funds. As

of late 2004, they have loaned over $2.3 billion

under the program. While projects have historically benefited from low-interest loans through

the combination of a 50 percent NJDEP zero

interest loan and a market rate Trust loan, a

Smart Growth financing enhancement called

Environmental Infrastructure Financing Program (EIFP) Smart Growth loans has a more

favorable rate (75 percent NJDEP loan at zero

interest combined with a 25 percent Trust loan)

to cover projects that serve urban centers and

complexes as designated by the State Planning

Commission. 

In 2002, the state’s CWSRF expanded 

eligible funding categories to include land

acquisition as well as other nonpoint source

management projects. These projects are 

frequently funded through a combination of

Green Acres grants and EIFP Smart Growth

loans. Green Acres is a state land conservation

program that uses state and federal funding

sources to purchase open space, including sensitive land and water resources. Green Acres also

provides loans and grants to municipalities,

counties, and nonprofit land trusts to buy open

space. Locals are able to leverage funds because

voters in all New Jersey counties and almost

half of the state’s municipalities have approved

dedicating a certain amount of property taxes to

open space acquisition and recreation development. As a result, counties are collecting nearly

$160 million annually and municipalities are

collecting $58 million each year for these purposes. The Green Acres Program has preserved

more than 550,000 acres of open space, or over

10 percent of the state’s land area. 

In 2002, the New Jersey legislature revised

criteria for selecting land for acquisition, directing program administrators to give water

resource protection criteria three times the

weight of other criteria used in the priority system. The parcels do not have to be drinking

water sources to qualify so long as they benefit

water resources, such as aquifers, wetlands, and

floodplains. 

Contact:

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

PO Box 402

Trenton, NJ 08625-0402

Web sites: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/cleanwater/ and

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/greenacres/
22 PATH TO PROTECTION

Use water quality monitoring and

other measures of success to sustain implementation and manage

state and local programs.

Challenge

States and localities may have limited understanding of the complex nature of their 

watershed and aquifer recharge areas, making 

it difficult for them to craft effective source 

protection plans or measure the success of

those plans. 

Local Role

Use monitoring results to drive protection goals. Realign monitoring regiments

to collect more pertinent data.

Communities should undertake watershed or

aquifer monitoring to understand the health

of their water resources, identify potential

sources and levels of contamination, and

determine where conservation, restoration,

or best practices are effectively mitigating

water quality problems. Scientific data from

monitoring programs also helps build public

and political support for comprehensive

source protection strategies that may include

land conservation, public funding, and regulatory and zoning changes.

State Role

Support locals with new and efficient 

monitoring practices that cover regulatory

and source water protection goals. Create

and maintain state databases to support

resource-based planning.

States should be a resource for water suppliers

and other stakeholders to help them identify

new or more efficient monitoring practices,

plan comprehensive monitoring programs,

and develop partnerships to implement their

programs. By providing information regarding

the most up-to-date monitoring techniques

and by encouraging consistent statewide

approaches to monitoring, a body of 

knowledge can be created about the quality 

of resources that can be used for multijurisdiction and resource-based source water protection efforts. States should also look for ways to

provide matching funds for local monitoring

efforts to create incentives for local investment in water quality monitoring.

10. © JOE AND MONICA COOK
PATH TO PROTECTION 23

CASE STUDY

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities

Collaboration and monitoring are the keys to

protecting the watershed serving Mecklenburg

County and the City of Charlotte, North 

Carolina. 

Partnering with other local governments in

the region, these two local entities safeguard

the Mountain Island Lake watershed, the primary source of drinking water for about

600,000 people in Charlotte-Mecklenburg,

Gastonia, and Mount Holly, with an innovative

strategy called the Surface Water Improvement

and Management (SWIM) plan. This plan

calls for interjurisdictional collaboration on

water quality monitoring, stream buffers, GIS

mapping, enhanced enforcement, low-impact

development techniques, and public education.

Under SWIM, the Charlotte/Mecklenburg

Office of Water & Land Resources established

a Creek Coordination Committee with representatives from its offices as well as the

city/county water, parks, stormwater, and planning departments in addition to other local,

state, and federal stakeholders. This collaborative body was instrumental in adopting a 

county-wide stream buffer system and implementing a number of streamside forestry and

ecosystem restoration projects. The group

recently helped the town of Huntersville 

develop an ordinance requiring LID techniques that will reduce stormwater pollutant

loading to McDowell Creek and Gar Creek,

which are upstream of drinking water intakes. 

Under the Mecklenburg County Water

Quality Program, water samples on lakes and

streams throughout the county are regularly

collected. Extensive in-stream stormwater and

baseflow monitoring is performed, and samples

of water chemistry, macroinvertebrate, and fish

are extracted from Mountain Island Lake.

Monitoring results are published on the county’s Web site and go into a stream inventory

and assessment system that is used to identify

water quality trends, uncover and eliminate

pollution sources, and inform development of

the water quality model.

The Charlotte/Mecklenburg Office of

Water & Land Resources uses GIS maps and

modeling to identify stream segments and

drinking water resources most in danger of

degradation. To target its land acquisition and

creek restoration projects, it uses monitoring

results, hydrologic data, projected development, and impervious surface patterns.

According to Owen Furuseth, chair of the

Department of Geography and Earth Sciences

at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte,

and the director of the land/water modeling

project, “With this information, local governments can steer development away from areas

with the greatest water quality risk, and 

conservation groups can focus on the most environmentally sensitive lands for conservation.” 

In 1999, voters in Mecklenburg County

approved a ballot measure providing more than

$100,000 for land conservation in the region.

With help from the Initiative for Mountain

Island Lake — a partnership of the Trust for

Public Land, Catawba Lands Conservancy, the

Community Foundation of Gaston County, and

the Foundation for the Carolinas — approximately 74 percent of the Mountain Island Lake

shoreline is now permanently protected from

the impacts of development. 

Contact:

Rusty Rozzelle

Water Quality Program Manager

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Land Use & Environmental 

Services Agency

700 North Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

Phone: 704-336-5449

Fax: 704-336-4391

E-mail: Rozzers@co.mecklenburg.nc.us

© KEN SHERMAN

For information on downloading 

or purchasing TPL publications go to 

www.tpl.org/publications

Design and production: Gallagher/Wood Design
printed on recycled paper

The Trust for Public Land

116 New Montgomery Street, 4th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

(800) 714-5263 

www.tpl.org

National Rural Water Association

2915 S. 13th Street

Duncan, OK 73533

(580) 252-0629 

www.nrwa.org

The Groundwater Foundation

PO Box 22558

Lincoln, NE 68542-2558

(800) 858-4844

www.groundwater.org

New Mexico Environmental Finance Center Network

901 University Blvd., SE

Albuquerque, NM 87106-4339

(505) 272-7280

http://efc.unm.edu

Clean Water Network

1200 New York Avenue, NW Suite 400

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 289-2395 

www.cwn.org