United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

EPA 816-R-98-019

April 1999

Office of Water

(4606)

Protecting Sources of

Drinking Water

Selected Case Studies in

Watershed Management

Internet Address: http://www.epa.gov/safewater Printed on Recycled Paper
v

Today, approximately 11,000

community water systems

serving over 160 million

people rely on lakes, reservoirs,

and rivers as their main sources of

drinking water. When these drinking water sources become contaminated, the cost to industry and

public health is high due to additional treatment and clean up

needs. There is a growing recognition that effective drinking water

system management includes

addressing the quality and protection of water sources.

Drinking water source protection

extends beyond controlling individual sources of contamination to

address problems and solutions on

a regional or watershed basis.

Many states, tribes and local

governments are already managing

water quality programs with a

watershed approach. However,

drinking water programs heavily

reliant on treatment technology to

make water safe to drink, have not

always been involved in these

efforts to protect or restore water

quality of lakes and rivers. This is

beginning to change.

We have reached a crossroads

where goals for safe drinking water

are converging with the goals for

clean water. Congress recognized

this connection in passage of the

Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. The Amendments

go beyond monitoring and treating

contaminated water to emphasizing

pollution prevention. They direct

Foreword

Drinking Water Source

Protection: A New National

Focus

state drinking water agencies to

examine the sources of drinking

water as an additional layer of

protection for our drinking water

supplies. States are required to

establish assessment programs to

delineate drinking water source

areas, complete inventories of all

potentially significant contaminant

sources, and determine the susceptibility of every public water

system to contamination from

these sources. These assessments

will provide drinking water systems, states, and local communities with more understanding of

the potential threats to each water

supply, and help to target necessary

protection measures.

The growing emphasis on drinking

water source protection means that

more water systems reliant on

surface water will implement

watershed management programs

for the first time. There are numerous challenges to overcome

through this process. Many water

pollution problems are the result of

diverse sources within a watershed, and their solutions rely on

land and water resource management that is often beyond the

control of a drinking water utility.

These are difficult issues to effectively address without the involvement of multiple stakeholders

including the general public.

Nonetheless, there are drinking

water utilities across the country

engaged in innovative and successful source water protection proThis document presents

17 drinking water utilities

that are incorporating

watershed management

and protection as an

integral part of their

business of providing

safe drinking water to their

customers.
vi

grams. Their solutions include

developing partnerships between

the water utility and local governments, working closely with local

watershed councils, entering into

land exchange agreements with

land management agencies, and

engaging with local farmers to

implement best management

practices aimed at protecting

sources of drinking water.

This document presents case

studies of 17 drinking water systems commited to extensive efforts

to incorporate source water management and protection as an

integral part of their business of

providing safe drinking water to

their customers. The authors

provide snapshots of lessons

learned in implementing four

aspects of source water protection:

partnerships, watershed assessment, watershed land use management, and land acquisition.

Though diverse in their watershed management experiences,

there is a common thread among

all of the water systems: the

importance of cross-program

coordination. The coordination of

a drinking water utility's goals

with local watershed management

initiatives aimed at aquatic

ecosystem restoration and protection can boost the effectiveness of

program implementation for both

priorities.

While no program can directly

apply to another community's

situation, some pieces of programs may help others to develop

protection strategies. We hope

that the experiences detailed here

will prove useful to water system

managers as they engage in efforts

to protect their drinking water

sources and become involved in

local watershed management and

protection programs.

Cynthia C. Dougherty, Director

Office of Ground Water and

 Drinking Water

U.S. Environmental Protection

 Agency

Diane VanDe Hei

Executive Director

Association of Metropolitan Water

 Agencies

Though diverse in their

watershed management

experiences, there is a

common thread among

all of the water systems:

the importance of crossprogram coordination.
vii

Protecting

Sources of Drinking Water:

Selected Case Studies in

Watershed Management, is a joint

project by the EPA Office of Ground

Water and Drinking Water and the

Association of Metropolitan Water

Agencies (AMWA).

Much of the information in this

document comes from three Source

Water Protection Workshops attended by drinking water suppliers

from across the country. The

workshops were sponsored by EPA

and AMWA. A list of participants is

provided in Appendix A, along with

program contacts around the

country.

EPA and AMWA wish to thank the

individuals and drinking water

utilities who contributed case

studies as a result of the workshops:

Phillippe Boissoneault

Director of Watershed Protection

Portland Water District

(207) 774-5961, Ext. 3101

Dennis Bostad

Water Quality Director

Sweetwater Authority

(619) 475-9047, Ext. 102

Richard Denton

Water Resources Manager

Contra Costa Water District

(925) 688-8187

Stephen Estes-Smargiassi

Director of Planning

Massachusetts Water Resources

Authority

(617) 241-6215

Suzanne Flagor

Director of Watershed Management

Seattle Public Utilities

(206) 233-1510

Steve Leonard

Program Manager

San Francisco Public Utilities

Commission

(415) 554-0792

Dan Lowell

Operations Superintendent

City of Everett Water Department

(206) 259-8823

Mary Ann Mann

Engineer

Metropolitan Water District of

Southern California

(909) 392-5104

Mark Murphy

Water Plant Manager

Onondaga County Water Authority

(315) 673-4304

Robert W. Naef

Manager and Chief Engineer

Chester Water Authority

(610) 876-8185

Howard Neukrug

Director of Planning and Technical

Services

Philadelphia Water Department

(215) 685-6319

Acknowledgments
viii

Pankaj Parehk

Regulatory Affairs Manager

Los Angeles Department of Water

and Power

(213) 628-8303

John Przepiora

Commissioner

Syracuse Department of Water

(315) 473-2609

Florence Reynolds

Water Quality Administrator

Salt Lake City Public Utilities

Department

(801) 483-6864

Anne Seeley

Section Chief, Drinking Water

Quality Planning

New York City Department of

Environmental Protection

(718) 595-5346

Janet Senior

Senior Planner - Water Resources

Portland Water Bureau

(503) 823-4287

Tina Schweickert

Water Resources Program

Coordinator

Salem Public Works Department

(503) 588-6211

Glenn Singley

Northern District Engineer

Los Angeles Department of Water

and Power

(619) 873-0223

Environmental Protection

Agency

The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Office of Ground

Water and Drinking Water oversees

the implementation of the Safe

Drinking Water Act and coordinates with other programs that

protect drinking water. To learn

more about EPA’s drinking water

program, visit www.epa.gov/

safewater, or call the Safe Drinking

Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791.

Association of Metropolitan

Water Agencies

The Association of Metropolitan

Water Agencies, based in Washington, DC, is a nonprofit organization

representing the nation’s largest

publicly owned drinking water

providers. AMWA members collectively serve over 100 million people

with clean, safe drinking water. For

more information about AMWA,

visit the association’s web site at

www.amwa-water.org, or call (202)

331-2820.
1

Chapter 1

Creating Partnerships

Instituting drinking water protection with a source water

protection program involves balancing competing interests and

conflicting demands within the watershed. This can be done

through watershed planning committees, or simply by

establishing good, long-term relationships among the partners, which

encourages a level playing field for reconciling the community’s needs.

The affected parties must share

information effectively. Water

utilities, local and state governments, watershed councils and

grassroots organizations are among

the players in watershed management strategies. By sharing information, formal or informal partnerships can be established.

Often, water systems must work

with local, state and federal governments that have jurisdiction over

watershed lands, but whose missions and institutional interests

may be different than those of the

water system. Such cases require

a different form of partnership, one

that acknowledges the legal mandates of all parties.

For example, when a drinking

water system’s source water lies

almost entirely within a national

park, the system’s need to protect

its source may conflict with the

U.S. National Park Service’s mission of promoting outdoor recreation. That was the situation

facing one case study subject, the

San Francisco Public Utilities

Commission. They addressed these

issues through a process of comprehensive stakeholder involvement and formal partnerships.

If a water utility demonstrates

interest in the youth of the community, customers are more likely

to accept watershed regulations

and restrictions on land uses

within a watershed. Watershed

programs also help train a new

generation of water-conscious

consumers. Seattle Public Utilities

invest in watershed and utility

tours, classroom presentations,

water experiments, and poster

contests. They have heightened

the awareness of watershed issues

in the community and increased

the stature of the utility among its

customers.

To create a viable source

water protection plan, all

interested agencies and

organizations must be

identified and efforts must

be made to resolve their

competing missions.
2

Creating

Partnerships with

Groups and

Individuals

Chester Water Authority

Chester, Pennsylvania

• Primary Source of Water: Octoraro

Reservoir

• Watershed Area: 140 square miles

• Population Served: 200,000

• Treatment: Filtration, post-chlorination,

fluorination, ammonia, activated carbon,

potassium permanganate, post-lime

• Partners: Conservation Commissions,

Farmers, Octoraro Watershed Association, Partners for Wildlife, Pennsylvania

Fish and Boat Commission, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and

Natural Resources

To protect the water quality of its

Octoraro Reservoir, the Chester

Water Authority has forged a strong

and lasting partnership with the

Octoraro Watershed Association.

This partnership bridges the gap

between the citizens who get their

drinking water from the Octoraro

Reservoir but do not live in the

watershed, and the farmers and

landowners who live in the watershed but do not get their drinking

water from the Octoraro Reservoir.

The Octoraro Watershed Association was formed nearly 30 years

ago by local property owners interested in protecting the watershed.

Recognizing the potential of such

an association, the Authority allied

with it shortly after it was formed.

Over the years, the Authority and

the Association have jointly supported many education and outreach programs.

In recent years, the Authority has

solidified its ongoing relationship

with the Watershed Association by

providing a meeting place and

administrative support services.

Promoting Agricultural Best

Management Practices

The Octoraro Watershed Association promotes streambank fencing,

barnyard management, crop rotation, and the establishment of

forested riparian buffers throughout the watershed. By visiting

farms, grange halls, and other

venues, the Association builds

trust among the area’s farmers,

who are encouraged to adopt various best management practices

(BMPs.)

The Association stresses that

watershed protection BMPs are

flexible and can be modified to

meet the farmers’ concerns. For

example, the Association supports

the installation of buffer strips that

are narrower than textbooks recommend because farmers working

small subsistence farms are concerned about losing the use of too

much land.

One of the Octoraro Watershed

Association’s greatest challenges

has been convincing farmers that

BMPs will benefit them and the

watershed. In a booth at a recent

regional agricultural fair, the

Association displayed “before and

after” pictures of farms that had

adopted BMPs. The Association

also relies on success stories to

spread the word among farmers.

Partnerships with Farmers:

Overcoming Skepticism

The 140-square-mile Octoraro

watershed is home to a large

Amish community. An enthusiastic Amish farmer who

recreated a wetland on his

property with support from the

Association and “Partners for

Wildlife” has become an effective spokesman for BMPs. Citing

erosion prevention, fishing, and

other benefits, the farmer continues to build his own projects,

and his experience is

helping other Amish farmCiting erosion

prevention, fishing, and

other benefits, an

enthusiastic Amish farmer

continues to build his own

projects. Other Amish

farmers are becoming

more receptive to

watershed protection.
3

ers become more receptive to the

association’s watershed protection

efforts.

Often, the Association helps willing

farmers seek financial aid for their

BMPs. They turn to local, state, and

federal partners such as Conservation Commissions and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission’s

“Adopt a Stream” program for

financial and technical assistance.

The Partners for Wildlife also helps

match proposals with funding

sources. Recently, the Association

received a matched grant with

$20,000 from the Pennsylvania

Department of Conservation and

Natural Resources to fund a comprehensive watershed study.

Cross-Jurisdictional

Cooperation: Utility

and Government

Partnership

Syracuse Water Department

Syracuse, New York

• Primary Source of Water: Skaneateles

Lake

• Watershed Area: 73 square miles

• Population Served: 160,000

• Treatment: Chlorination, fluorination

• Partners: County Board of Health,

Local Governments, New York State

Department of Environmental Conservation

To protect Skaneateles Lake, the

Syracuse Water Department (SWD)

has negotiated agreements with

local, county, and state authorities

that have jurisdiction in the Upstate New York watershed. The

water system participates in

numerous governmental deliberations affecting the watershed’s

health and in return helps these

governments meet their responsibilities.

State Environmental

Department Partnership

The SWD and the New York State

Department of Environmental

Conservation (NYSDEC) have

formed a symbiotic relationship:

the water system helps the

NYSDEC uncover watershed problems, while the state lets the

utility review and comment on any

shoreline disturbance permit that

affects the lake. Rarely does the

NYSDEC approve a permit within

the watershed without consulting

with the utility.

This arrangement began when

SWD staff began reporting watershed violations they found during

site visits to NYSDEC conservation

officers. SWD staff are constantly in

the watershed, while the NYSDEC

cannot always patrol the watershed

for violations. The SWD staff’s

knowledge of the watershed laws

and regulations partnered with the

state conservation department’s

regulatory mission helps watershed

residents to know more about the

regulations.

County Board of Health Partners

Perhaps SWD’s closest working

relationship is with the County

Board of Health (BOH). The SWD

has been designated as the

Boards’s official representative for

observing required septic system

percolation tests for septic systems.

Any septic system violation found

by SWD staff is reported to the BOH

for enforcement, which may include a letter of violation, a hearing

before the health commissioner, or

a fine.

Additionally, most towns cannot

approve a building permit without

the Board of Health’s agreement.

The strong partnership between

the water utility and the Board of

Health has resulted in inclusion of

SWD staff in the review of building

permits to make sure that they are

not in conflict with concerns for

water quality.

In the Upstate New York

Watershed, the water

utility has partnered with

state regulatory agenices

and helped to increase

community awareness of

environmental regulations

within the watershed.
4

Local Government Partners

The Skaneateles Lake watershed

is located in three counties, seven

towns, and one village. The Town of

Skaneateles, which is closest to

the SWD intakes, has the largest

watershed population and the most

potential for urban development.

Prompted by town residents’ concern that the lake’s high water

quality be maintained,

Skaneateles recently rewrote its

zoning laws authorizing the SWD to

review applications for building

permits, subdivision actions, and

other zoning issues to ensure

compliance with the SWD’s Watershed Rules and Regulations. The

SWD does not have authority to

deny permits, but its recommendations to ensure compliance with

the Watershed Rules must be

incorporated in the zoning actions.

Skaneateles is the only community

that has a formally codified agreement with the SWD; the utility’s

arrangements with other towns

such as Niles, Scott, Sempronius,

and Stafford are informal.

Turbidity Prompts

Federal and State

Cooperation

Salem Public Works Department

Salem, Oregon

• Primary Source of Water: North

Santiam River

• Watershed Area: 600 square miles

• Population Served: 150,000

• Treatment: Slow sand filtration

• Partners: North Santiam Watershed

Forum, Local Governments, U.S. Army

Corp of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of

Land Management, U.S. Forest

Service

Strong partnerships are critical in

the North Santiam Watershed

because both public and private

land management decisions affect

water quality. Most of the 600

square mile North Santiam Watershed is public forest managed for

timber and recreational use by the

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of

Land Management (BLM), and

Oregon Department of Forestry.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

operates a reservoir for flood control, power, and recreation in the

center of the watershed. There is

also a small amount of private

forest and farm land in six small

communities.

Formalizing Partnerships

Persistent turbidity during two

consecutive winters of high rainfall

and flooding disrupted Salem’s slow

sand filtration, forcing the city to

use alternate water sources, install

temporary treatment systems, and

curtail water use. The situation

highlighted the importance of the

city’s source water and prompted

the City of Salem Public Works

Department and the U.S. Forest

Service to negotiate an agreement

on the management of Forest

Service land in the city’s watershed.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) clarifies the management responsibilities and activities

of Salem and the U.S. Forest Service to maintain high-quality water

for the city’s use. As a result, the

U.S. Forest Service and Salem

agreed upon a joint monitoring

program in the watershed, and

share equally the costs of operating

ten sampling sites. Program details

are available on the Internet at

http://nwp71.nwp.usace.army.mil/

NSRC/Main.html. This monitoring

will provide critical information on

the quality of the source water and

target the areas most in need of

management actions.

This monitoring program is already

expanding to other parts of the

watershed as more agreements are

being negotiated with the Oregon

Forestry Department, the Corps of

Engineers, and BLM. These agreements will coordinate watershed

protection efforts, clarify roles and

A partnership with the

Forest Service has led to

increased monitoring of

the Santiam River - a task

difficult to fund without

joint cooperation.
5

responsibilities, and promote the

parties’ greater participation in

management decisions affecting

water quality.

Watershed Forum Partnership

Besides cooperating with public

land managers, the Salem Public

Works Department has been active

in the North Santiam Watershed

Forum, a voluntary watershed

council established under Oregon

law. The group represents such

interests as timber production,

agriculture, local enterprise, cities

within the watershed or dependent

on it, environmentalists, recreation, and local residents. It is

guided by a 13-member interestbased steering committee with a

mission to “provide opportunities

for stakeholders to cooperate in

promoting and sustaining the

health of the watershed and its

communities.”

Salem City Partnership

Salem Public Works wants the

North Santiam River to remain a

high-quality water source. This

has been the catalyst for cooperation in all of these efforts. Local

communities joined in after realizing that cooperation can give them

a greater voice in reducing potential local economic and ecological

impacts. Public and private land

managers believe that cooperation

will help assure the public that,

although past practices may have

harmed water quality, new

management practices are

more sound. They are looking

to the cooperative monitoring program and formal

agreements such as the

memorandum of understanding as a means to

work with the communities so dependient on

their lands for drinking

water.

Landuse Planning

Partnerships

San Francisco Public Utilities

Commission

San Francisco, California

• Primary Sources of Water: Tuolumne

River; Rattlesnake, and Moccasin

Creeks (Hetch-Hetchy Watershed

System)

• Watershed Area: 760 square miles

• Treatment: 3 reservoirs filtered, 3

reservoirs unfiltered

• Partners: California Department of

Health Services, California Highway

Patrol, Community Health Service

District, County Planning and Environmental Health Organizations, HetchHetchy Watershed Working Group,

National Park Service, Regional Water

Quality Control Board/Central Valley

Region, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency

The San Francisco Public Utilities

depends upon six reservoirs in the

Hetch-Hetchy watershed system.

Four of the reservoirs are in watersheds that include Yosemite National Park, the Stanislaus National Forest, and the National

Forest System’s Emigrant Wilderness.

As of 1998, three reservoirs are

considered high-quality water

sources. These reservoirs are

exempt from filtration requirements under the condition that

there are effective local controls on

human activity that may have an

adverse impact on the microbiological quality of the source water.

Effective management is critical to

maintaining water quality. To

continue meeting the requirements of the Federal Safe Drinking

Water Act Surface Water Treatment Rule and maintain the

filtration avoidances, the San

Francisco Public Utilities CommisActive participation in the

North Santiam Watershed

Forum has resulted in

more agreement among

community members as

to the importance of

drinking water protection.
6

sion (SFPUC) conducted a watershed sanitary survey and has

developed a watershed management plan.

Stakeholder Involvement

The plan calls for a watershed

working group to begin meeting

periodically until the management

plan is well underway. The philosophy of the Hetch-Hetchy Watershed

Working Group is to include any

potential stakeholder in the group.

Informing un-interested parties is

better than to risk excluding a

potential stakeholder. The watershed working group has solicited

input from the numerous stakeholders involved. The management

plan’s success depends on coordination between the key watershed

partners and other agencies with

watershed-related responsibilities.

Some of the partners are agencies

that administer the watershed

lands: the National Park Service

(NPS); U.S. Forest Service (USFS);

and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

Recognizing the burden of coordinating the numerous partners and

constituents affected by the working group’s decisions, SFPUC

provides staff to develop background

information on technical issues,

coordinate exchanges of information, and keep the watershed

management plan’s components on

schedule.

The watershed workgroup will

investigate such issues as the

availability of funds, the amendment of the Stanislaus National

Forest Land and Resources Management Plan to provide specific

direction for the Emigrant Wilderness, the benefits and constraints

of designating a watershed a

“Sensitive Watershed,” and an

identification of “data gaps” within

the watershed system.

Formal Partnerships with the

National Park Service

The Raker Act of 1913 laid out

certain recreational use guidelines. For example, building a fire

and disposing of wastes are prohibited within 300 feet of a waterway,

and contact recreation is banned.

However, the utility and the

National Park Service. are working

on a formal memorandum of understanding (MOU) because of the

potentially competing missions of

the utility and NPS. Protecting

drinking water quality is foremost

for SFPUC, while encouraging

access and recreational use are

goals of the NPS. Some potential

conflicts involve horse corrals

within the watershed, improperly

functioning toilets in the park, and

responsibility for water quality

monitoring.

The current agreement has principles and stated objectives taken

from other working documents

including the NPS charter and

SFPUC’s planning document. The

California Department of Health

Services will give advice on the

MOU during its final stages of

preparation. The MOU will be a

formal, signed agreement, enforceable at the State level.

Extending to Other Partners

After the MOU with the National

Park Service is complete, the

utility will begin work on an MOU

with the Forest Service regarding a

potential future water supply on

Forest Service land. The reservoir

on USFS lands represents only a

small portion of San Francisco’s

water supply and has been used

The philosophy of the

Hetch-Hetchy Watershed

Working Group is to

include any potential

stakeholder in the group.

Informing uninterested

parties is better than to

risk leaving anyone out.
7

Approximately 10,000

students a year visit

Seattle’s source

watershed to learn the

connection between their

drinking water and land

use.

only twice for drinking water use

during droughts. During those

times, the Forest Service was very

cooperative in restricting boats on

the reservoir. However, a formal

MOU will result in a common set of

water quality standards intended to

protect drinking water sources.

Local Involvement

A benefit to working at a local level

and involving community members

in assessment efforts is that it has

increased public support of drinking water protection measures.

Since many of the critical protection tools are under local control,

particularly regarding landuse

management, public support is

important.

Educating Children

About the Watershed

Seattle Public Utilities

Seattle, Washington

• Primary Source Watersheds: Cedar

River Watershed, South Fork Tolt

Watershed

• Watershed Areas: 90,495 acres (Cedar

River), 13,390 acres (South Fork)

• Population Served: 1.2 million

• Treatment: Chlorinated, unfiltered

• Partners: Friends of the Cedar River

Watershed, Seattle Schools

The educational program of the

Seattle Public Utilities (SPU)

focuses on fourth and fifth graders

in the city’s schools. The utility

brings about 10,000 students a year

in to the watershed, where for over

3 hours they participate in handson activities related to watersheds,

the water cycle, wildlife, history,

erosion, and forestry.

The utility also provides opportunities for middle and high school

students to visit the South Fork

Tolt Watershed. This program

focuses on water quality, water

treatment, and cooperative land

management.

SPU hopes to expand its educational program and construct an

educational center in the watershed in partnership with the

nonprofit Friends of the Cedar

River Watershed. They will be

instrumental to gaining public

support and raising funds.

Program Costs

Approximately $250,000 is spent

annually on education and public

programs. The Seattle Education

and Public Programs section requires three full time staff, two

naturalists and the public programs

supervisor. This number is expected to increase to five full-time

staff over the next few years.
7

Chapter 2

Watershed Assessment

An integral part of a strong watershed protection program is

an assessment of the area. Watershed delineation and

assessment will help identify potential problem areas and

target protection efforts. Many utilities use Geographic Information

Systems (GIS) to delineate their watersheds. Afterwards, local

managers can use zoning maps to identify land use patterns within the

watersheds and identify potential sources of contamination that pose

threats to the drinking water supply.

A comprehensive monitoring plan

also can help identify watershed

problems. For example, a monitoring station that consistently detects elevated nitrate levels could

be used to identify a local source of

contamination.

Monitoring information can also

demonstrate a project’s success. A

site that historically had elevated

nitrate levels that shows a distinct

decrease after an upstream farm

implemented best management

practices (BMPs), can convince

community members and local

governments that BMPs have

tangible benefits.

The case studies of Boston, Portland, and Philadelphia describe the

delineation, assessment, monitoring, and planning approaches that

they have taken to develop watershed protection programs.

Planning with

Geographic

Information Systems

Massachusetts Water Resources

Authority

Boston, Massachusetts

• Primary Sources of Water: Quabbin and

Wachusett Reservoirs

• Watershed Area: Quabbin, 187 square

miles; Wachusett, 110 square miles

• Population Served: 1,932,000

The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) treats

and distributes water from 3 surface sources to more than 2 million

people in Boston and 45 neighboring communities. Another agency,

A comprehensive

monitoring plan can help

identify watershed

problems or demonstrate

a project’s success.
8

Mapping and

assessment aided the

passage of the

Massachusetts

Watershed Protection Act

by showing the relatively

small size of the

proposed buffers and the

importance of protecting

these areas.

the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC), is responsible for

managing and protecting the

watersheds.

Watershed Mapping

Geographic Information Systems

(GIS) help MWRA and MDC staff

create maps and analyze data. For

example, the agencies use GIS to

identify pollution sources and

prepare watershed protection plans;

support the passage and implementation of watershed protection

legislation; and target for purchase

parcels of land important for watershed protection.

From 1988 to 1992, MWRA and MDC

staff extensively studied the 400

square miles of watershed that

provide water to the city—identifying, mapping, and ranking existing

or potential pollution threats.

Among them were septic systems,

recreational activities, storm water

runoff, logging, petroleum storage,

and natural impacts such as

erosion and animal populations.

Based on this analysis, planners

drew up watershed protection

plans, which included recommendations for addressing current and

future contamination sources.

Assessment to Legislation

In 1992, following six years of

debate, the Massachusetts legislature passed the Watershed Protection Act. The intensive mapping

effort aided passage of the Act by

showing the relatively small size of

the proposed buffers and the importance of protecting these areas,

according to the MWRA’s planning

director.

The Act prohibits any land-disturbing or polluting activities, including

most new construction, within 400

feet of drinking water reservoirs

and 200 feet of tributaries and

surface waters. It also restricts

certain activities, such as the

storing of harmful materials, in an

area 200 to 400 feet from tributaries and surface waters, flood plains,

over some aquifers, and within

bordering vegetated wetlands.

GIS Benefits for Management

Mapping tools have also helped

during implementation of regulations. For example, the MWRA gave

a map to each watershed community showing the parcels of land

affected by the regulations. The

authority also used this information to inform the 5,000 to 6,000

owners of land within the buffer

zones about the new restrictions.

The notifications took several

years, and the effort paid off in good

relations with the communities

and the affected property owners.

The MWRA, MDC, and other state

agencies have used GIS to identify

land that should be purchased to

aid watershed protection and other

activities. The software enables

users to compare parcels based on

specified characteristics and to

rank land for which they have GIS

data to identify “high value” lands

for purchase. Such targeting is

necessary because agencies often

must meet the market prices

offered by developers, and state

funds for land acquisition are

limited.

Monitoring Data to

Support Protective

Water Quality

Standards

Portland Water Bureau

Portland, Oregon

• Primary Source of Water: Bull Run

Watershed

• Watershed Area: 102 square mile

drainage area above intake, 40 square

miles of buffer lands

• Population Served: 800,000

• Treatment: Screened, disinfected,

unfiltered

The Portland Water Bureau draws

its water from the Bull Run River

in the Mt. Hood National Forest.

The watershed is administered by

the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
9

under several legal authorities

including the Bull Run Management Act (P.L. 95-200) and the

recently amended Oregon Resources Conservation Act, which

tightly restricts timber harvesting

in the watershed.

The Bull Run Management Act sets

the production of pure, clean, raw,

potable water as the principle

federal management objective for

the area. Specific water quality

standards established under the

Act are more stringent than the

Forest Service’s national standards. Consequently, the Forest

Service must adopt standards

specific to the Bull Run watershed

that provide a greater level of

protection.

Monitoring Responsibilities

The USFS, the Portland Water

Bureau, and the U.S. Geologic

Survey (USGS) share responsibility

for sampling, data collection and

analyses, and database management. The Portland Water Bureau

pays for all lab analyses and shares

equally with the USGS the costs of

streamflow data collection and

management. The USGS participates in the program because it

furthers the survey’s mission to

collect streamflow and water quality data.

Monitoring Objectives

Monitoring is critical to unfiltered

water systems, serving as an early

warning of turbidity-producing

events such as landslides and

storm-induced erosion. By tracking turbidity levels during and after

these events, facility operators can

either divert heavily contaminated

waters or temporarily switch to an

alternative ground water source.

The key monitoring stations are at

the mouths of five major subbasins of the Bull Run River. Four

are on major tributaries, and the

fifth is where water from the river

is diverted into water supply conduits. Some monitoring is done

weekly, while some is automated

and flow-based. Flow-based monitoring collects random samples; the

Monitoring has led to

better management and

cut costs incurred from

sediment entering the

unfiltered water system

during storm events.

Monitoring Objectives

Turbidity

• Anticipating, including the use of

probability analysis, and tracking highturbidity events.

• Determining source water turbidity

compliance.

• Evaluating the potential for generating

turbidity within the Bull Run reservoirs;

tracking changes in turbidity with

drawdown.

Demand and Supply

• Tracking the effects of management

activities in order to modify current

practices and to inform future management decisions.

• Tracking, forecasting, and improving

the forecasts of seasonal supply.

• Monitoring the effects of releases from

Bull Run Lake.

• Assessing Bull Run Lake safety (risk

of overtopping).

Microbial Risks

• Assessing and improving understanding of microbial risks.

• Tracking and (limited) controlling of

factors related to bacterial regrowth in

the distribution system.

Other Water Quality Problems

• Tracking seasonal changes in factors

that affect disinfection efficacy.

• Determining levels and trends in the

concentration of disinfection byproduct

precursors.

• Tracking seasonal changes in factors

that affect corrosion control.

• Evaluating the potential for aesthetic

water quality problems to develop.

• Detecting long-term shifts in water

quality that could affect the quantity or

quality of water delivered, or that could

require treatment adjustments or

other operational changes.

probability of a sample being

collected increases at higher flows.
10

Monitoring results are

helping to support decommissioning of

abandoned roads that

are significantly impacting

water quality.

Abandoned Road Management

There are thousands of miles of

roads within national forests that

are in disrepair. In many cases,

these are impacting on water

quality. These roads are being

prioritized for de-commissioning,

which can mean anything from full

restoration to merely planting trees

to control erosion.

The Portland Water Bureau has

installed temporary monitoring

stations located above and below

abandoned road management

project locations in the Bullrun

Watershed. The utility is collecting

data to estimate the sediment

loading from these management

efforts to identify which decommissioning techniques have the least

impacts on water quality as well as

help quantify the extent to which

abandoned roads that are neither

maintained nor decommissioned

impact upon the water quality.

Assessing Potential

Contaminants:

Monitoring and

Modeling

Philadelphia Water Department

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

• Primary Sources of Water: The Delaware

River and Schuylkill River watersheds,

which include nine local streams and

several reservoirs.

• Watershed Area: The Delaware River and

Schuylkill River watersheds are 13,000

and 1,892 square miles respectively

• Population Served: 1,500,000

• Treatment: Disinfection, filtration

The Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) participates in partnerships with state and federal studies

of the Wissahickon Creek. A

collaborative effort to develop an

integrated environmental monitoring and data management system

has led to a stronger understanding

of the contaminant threats in the

watershed.

The Wissahickon Creek Study:

Linkages Between Land Use

and Micro-Organisms

The Wissahickon Creek is an

urban and suburban watershed

which has seen significant development over the last quarter

century. The land use changes

have included the loss of almost all

the agricultural land and increases

in single and multiple family

dwellings.

The 22-mile long creek currently

has approximately 21 permitted

discharge facilities, including 5

township or municipal wastewater

treatment plants. Water quality,

biological conditions, and sediment

loads have not been adequately

characterized.

To address these watershed health

issues, the utility became involved

in the Wissahickon Partnership.

This group includes approximately

120 stakeholders commited to data

collection to better understand the

watershed.

One partner is the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental

Protection’s (PADEP). The

Department’s Southeast Regional

Office and Bureau of Labs began a

Wissahickon Creek water quality

study to determine the sources,

occurrence, fate, and transport of

the mirco-organisms Giardia and

Cryptosporidium in the watershed.

Microbial Research

Cryptosporidium and Giardia, are of

great concern to the drinking water

industry because they can cause

serious gastrointestinal disease.

More information about the occurrence and removal of these microorganisms from sources of drinking

water is crucial.

The results of the Wissahickon

Creek study complement a growing
11

body of research suggesting that

wastewater is a constant and

significant source of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in a watershed

and can contribute detectable

amounts of the protozoa to the

water column during stable flow

periods.

The original 1996-1997 Pennsylvania study focused on contribution of

Giardia and Cryptosporidium by

point sources, such as wastewater

treatment plants, under stable flow

conditions. To provide a better

understanding of protozoa contribution, fate, and transport, research

in 1998 and 1999 will measure the

contributions of the Schuylkill

River and Wissahickon Creek to

giardia and cryptosporidium occurrence at the drinking water facility

intake.

Total Maximum Daily Loads

The state of Pennsylvania selected

the Wissahickon Creek as a pilot

site to be the first watershed in

Pennsylvania to develop a Total

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that

includes nonpoint source controls.

These nonpoint source watershed

activities could potentially impact

Philadelphia’s drinking water

supply at the Queen Lane Water

The results of a

Wissahickon Creek water

shed assessment

complemented a growing

body of research suggesting that wastewater is

a constant and significant

source of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in a

watershed.

Treatment Plant. Accurate TMDL

modeling will help to identify some

of the pressing threats to the

drinking water supply.

Watershed Modelling

Lending to the watershed study,

the National Institute for Environmental Renewal (NIER) is developing a watershed model for the

Wissahickon Creek. NEIR hopes

the model will address the

watershed’s myriad of water quality

problems, as well as help quantify

the geomorphology and hydrology of

the watershed. This includes an

inventory of storm water discharge

pipes, obstructions, channelization

features, and nonpoint sources of

pollution.
15

Chapter 3

Land Use in Watersheds:

Rural, Urban, and Natural

Resource Management

No matter where the source of drinking water, challenges arise

concerning the predominant land uses in the area. Rural,

urban, forested and/or farmed lands present different

challenges.

Utilities whose water

sources are in a forested area usually

must contend with

logging, erosion, and

timber management. Systems

whose sources are in rural or

suburban areas may need to deal

with septic systems, agricultural

run-off and erosion, or recreational

uses such as swimming, hiking,

and mountain biking. Utilities that

have water sources in urban areas

need to address issues such as

storm water drainage, run-off from

pavement, and increasing development.

This chapter looks at agricultural

land use, urban storm water management, septic systems and waste

management, and habitat conservation. The solutions range from

simple, creative ideas that other

systems can easily adopt, to capital-intensive projects which require significant funding commitments. The most useful solution for

any drinking water system will

depend on many factors, including

the particular land use issues it

faces and the intensity of the

threats posed to the system’s

source water.

Agricultural Land Use Issues

Water systems in primarily agricultural areas face a host of issues

different from those that confront

their urban counterparts. Nonpoint

source pollution from irrigated and

nonirrigated crops, feedlots, and

animal waste management areas

can threaten drinking water

sources. Other agricultural activities such as the application of

fertilizer or pesticides can introduce nutrients, pathogens, and

toxic chemicals into drinking

water. Tillage practices can contribute to erosion, which can lead

to problems with surface water

turbidity.

Contaminant source management

is one means to reduce agricultural nonpoint source pollution.

Some of the case studies in this

chapter show how utilities have

implemented best management

practices (BMPs) to deal with

pollution and erosion, or have

The most useful solution

for any water system will

depend on many factors,

including the particular

land use issues it faces

and the intensity of the

threats posed to the

system’s source water.
16

developed ways of involving and

educating the farming community

in source water protection.

Storm Water Management

Systems whose water sources are

in or near urban areas are challenged by storm water runoff.

Runoff from impermeable surfaces

such as concrete and pavement,

may be contaminated with various

chemicals, including oil and grease

from motor vehicles and related

sources, as well as pesticides and

herbicides applied to lawns and

landscaping.

Waste Management

Where septic systems are the

primary method of treating sanitary waste, water systems have the

added concern of leaking or improperly functioning septic tanks.

Poorly maintained septic systems

can contaminate ground water and

surface water with nutrients,

chemicals, and pathogens.

Habitat Conservation

The mission of a drinking water

utility is to provide clean, potable

water to its customers. This goal

often overlaps with other public

interests such as the restoration or

conservation of habitat for fish and

wildlife. Frequently, what is good for

habitat preservation is also good for

source water protection.

Agricultural Land

Use Management

Department of Environmental

Protection

New York City, New York

• Primary Sources of Water: Croton

Watershed; Catskill and Delaware

Watershed (includes 19 reservoirs)

• Watershed Area: 1,969 square miles

• Population Served: 9,000,000 (includes

some upstate communities in addition to

New York City)

• Treatment: Croton: Chlorinated, filtered

(scheduled); Catskill/Delaware: Chlorinated, disinfected, unfiltered

New York is one of the most

densely populated cities on the

planet, and its drinking water

comes from miles away in a rural

setting of forests, farms, and hamlets. Agriculture, especially dairy

and livestock operations, may be a

significant source of microbial

pathogens, nutrients, and other

surface water pollutants. Managing agricultural runoff is crucial to

the city’s watershed protection

program.

Farmers Lead Council

To promote the use of agricultural

best management practices (BMPs),

the New York City Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP)

funds the voluntary Watershed

Agricultural Program.

Founded in 1993, this progam is

administered by a not-for-profit

Watershed Agricultural Council of

farmers. The leadership provided

by this council has been key to

gaining the acceptance of farmers

who have long mistrusted DEP.

The council determines how funds

will be spent and reviews and

approves whole farm plans. Whole

farm plans are prepared by local

teams made up of staff from the

county Soil and Water ConservaFounded in 1993, the

voluntary Watershed

Agricultural Program

involves stakeholders in

organizing, implementing,

and managing the

agricultural program in

the watershed.
17

The Multiple Management

BMP Approach

Whole Farm Planning takes a “multiple

management approach to best management practice planning and implementation.

Examples of three barriers are:

1. Pollutant Source Controls. Herd

health maintenance, improvements in

sanitation and calf housing, soil

sampling, management of grass or

hay production to reduce the need for

excess fertilizer, and Integrated Pest

Management to reduce pesticide use.

2. Landscape Controls. Barnyard

improvements, manure storage,

scheduled and direct spreading of

manure, and composting to control the

application of animal waste to the

land.

3. Stream Corridor Controls.

Streambank stabilization, stream

crossings, animal watering systems,

and vegetated buffers to keep animals

out of watercourses and to slow and

reduce the transport of pollutants into

watercourses.

Establishing an

independent Watershed

Agricultural Council as

the program’s central

administrative agent was

important to gaining

acceptance from the farm

community.

tion District, Cooperative Extension

Service, and the federal Natural

Resources Conservation Service.

Farmers play a major role because

local acceptance of the recommended practices is crucial to the

plan’s success.

The water utility has committed

$35.2 million to support the program from 1995 to 1999. Among the

activities funded are whole farm

planning, design, and engineering;

implementation and construction

of BMPs; program management,

administration, and outreach; and

research and technical support for

the farmers. By 1997, 287 out of

350 eligible farms in the Croton

Watershed signed on to the program. Of these, 155 completed

whole farm plans and signed implementation agreements.

Best Management Plans

The Croton Watershed spreads

across many jurisdiction and water

quality is affected by multiple land

uses ranging from agriculture to

urban stormwater runoff. At the

start, institutional cooperation

across county lines and coordination among federal, state, and local

agricultural agencies was weak.

For example, historically there

were few ties between the Soil and

Water Conservation Districts and

the Cooperative Extension Service

offices. The former traditionally

worked with farmers on implementing U.S. Department of Agriculture conservation practices,

while the latter focused on agronomic issues such as maximizing

productivity and crop yields. Now,

staff from both agencies help

farmers develop whole farm plans,

using the Conservation District

staff’s knowledge of BMPs and the

Cooperative Extension Service’s

expertise in assessing the impact

of BMPs on a farm’s economic

viability.

The economic advantages of BMPs

and whole farm planning are more

apparent as the program evolves.

Most of the BMPs conserve farm

resources while protecting New

York’s source of drinking water.

More efficient use of fertilizer

reduces costs and nutrient concentrations in water. Similarly, improved sanitary conditions for

livestock reduces disease in the

animals, which saves costs and

reduces pathogen levels, thus

protecting waterways.

Monitoring projects are underway

to measure the program’s impact

on water quality in the watershed.

The results will be used to calibrate

individual, farm-specific models of

water quality impacts.
18

The Interface of

Agricultural, Urban

and Wildlife Needs

Contra Costa Water District

Concord, California

• Primary Sources of Water: Sacramento

and San Joaquin Rivers

• Watershed Area: 18,500 acres (Los

Vaqueros Reservoir only)

• Population Served: 400,000

The northern California Contra

Costa Water District (CCWD)

supplies water to over 400,000

people in Contra Costa County. The

sources of the drinking water come

from the Central Valley, including

the Sacramento and San Joaquin

River watershed.

Regulatory Process Involvement

To address source water protection,

the Contra Costa Water District

incorporated a Water Resources

Group into the organization’s

planning department. This group is

active in Central Valley source

water protection, participating in

hearings of the Central Valley

Regional Water Quality Control

Board, which issues National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System permits. CCWD also

participates in the National

Environmental Policy Act and

California Environmental Quality

Act public comment process to

address industrial and municipal

wastewater discharges.

Pollutant Discharge Reduction

Also, working with other stakeholders, CCWD has sought to reduce

agricultural drainage and to minimize pollutant loads from abandoned mines in those areas affecting source water. The utility has

worked on numerous programs

ranging from incentives for the

mitigation of agricultural drainage

discharges, pilot studies to treat

agricultural drainage before discharge into the Delta, mine drainage remediation, and land retirement.

Voluntary Management:

Grasslands Bypass Channel

Project

High concentrations of naturally

occurring selennium in ecologically sensitive waters has been a

problem in the region for some

time. Agricultural drainage channels are one source of the

sellenium loading. An attempt to

address the problem was to construct the San Luis Drain, a concrete channel to divert agricultural

irrigation discharges from sensitive areas. However, the Bureau

of Reclamation halted construction

when it was found that the new

discharge area was being negatively impacted.

A compromise was reached, which

allows farmers to use part of the

constructed San Luis Drain to

divert selenium-rich water from

the ecologically sensitive Grassland Wildlife Refuge. In exchange

for this right, the farmers accept

selenium load limits on their

discharges under a Waste Discharge Requirement. These

permits have resulted in lower

selenium loadings to the San

Joaquin River, one of the sources of

drinking water for Contra Costa

County.

Based on the monitoring results for

the first two years and the significant measures taken by the farmers to reduce the quantity of selenium in their disharges, the terms

of the 1996 Bypass Use Agreement

have been extended until 2001.

Los Vaqueros Reservoir Project

CCWD owns approximately 18,500

acres surrounding the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, newly constructed in

1998. The district is negotiating

land management agreements with

the owners of the remaining land

Agricultural drainage

management has led to

reductions of selleniumladen discharge to the

San Joaquin river.
19

Grazing management

instituted to protect water

quality also provides

habitat for wildlife such as

the San Joaquin Kit Fox.

affecting the reservoir to protect

the water quality.

In May 1997, the CCWD Board of

Directors adopted a Watershed

Management Program to address

environmental, contractual, and

public safety requirements and to

guide land management activities

asosciated with the Los Vaqueros

Reservoir. One component of the

management plan involves agriculture and grazing.

Grazing Management

The agriculture program allows for

a moderate amount of managed

grazing inside the reservoir watershed. CCWD manages and enforce

the grazing requirements on their

land. Grazing and farming is

allowed where biological resource

commitments and fire management needs are critical and the

potential risks of water quality

degradation are low. For example,

CCWD is committed to maintaining

the habitat of the San Joaquin kit

fox; properly managed grazing will

provide habitat for the fox’s prey.

Phase I of the agriculture program

specifies nine grazing leases,

encompassing approximately

11,000 acres. Most of these areas

have been grazed by ranchers for

hundreds of years. The program

consolidates and re-configures the

leases to minimize impacts to

environmental resources and

reservoir water quality. Fencing

along all major tributaries of the

reservoir keeps cattle out of the

water and provides a vegetative

buffer between the grazed areas

and the tributaries.

The effects of the program’s first

phase on water quality and environmental resources will be closely

monitored. A program to monitor

water quality for bacteriological,

nutrient, inorganic, and organic

parameters began in 1997 at five

key locations. The findings of the

water quality monitoring may lead

to legal changes in grazing within

the watershed.

Partnerships for Modeling

CCWD is a partner in the Bay-Delta

Modeling Forum, a statewide,

nonprofit, nonpartisan consensusbuilding organization. CCWD staff

have served as officers on the

steering and technical committees.

The forum’s mission is to increase

the usefulness of modeling for

analyzing water-related problems

in the San Francisco Bay, the

Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley,

and the Central Valley system. The

forum maintains a modeling

clearinghouse and assists in

mediating technical disputes and

provides educational opportunities.

Although the modeling forum has

yet to hold any workshops specifically on source water protection, its

workshops on the modeling of flow

and transport in the Delta help to

provide a better general understanding of the relationship between discharges and water quality

at urban intakes.

Control of Land Use

in the Drinking Water

Source Area

Los Angeles Department of Water

and Power

Los Angeles, California

• Primary Sources of Water: Owens River/

Mono Basin and Open Distribution

Reservoirs

• Watershed Area: about 2.2 million acres

• Population Served: 3.7 million

• Treatment: Chlorinated, aerated

Among the diverse components of

its water supply and delivery system, the City of Los Angeles has

two components of the system that

pose unique water quality challenges: the Eastern Sierra watershed, comprised of the Owens

Valley and Mono Basin watersheds,

and in-City open distribution

reservoirs. The Eastern Sierra

watershed furnishes raw water
20

from mountain snowmelt and

natural springs. The open distribution reservoirs in the city are

uncovered reservoirs that contain

finished water, but are subject to

on-site water quality degradation.

Eastern Sierra Watershed

Approximately 2.2 million acres of

Eastern Sierra watershed supplies

the city of Los Angeles with water.

The U.S. Forest Service, U.S.

Bureau of Land Management and

the Los Angeles Department of

Water and Power (LADWP) own 98

percent of this land. Of this, the

LADWP owns 314,000 acres, primarily on the Owens Valley floor. The

LADWP leases 260,000 acres to

citizens for such diverse uses as

ranching, commercial ventures

and recreation.

Ranch Leases

Ranch leases comprise 247,000

acres of the Eastern Sierra land

leased out by the LADWP. Of that,

2,200 acres are under cultivation

with alfalfa, 20,000 acres are

irrigated pasturelands, and the

remainder is used for dry grazing.

Most LADWP ranch lessees also

have permits with the U.S. Forest

Service or U.S. Bureau of Land

Management for livestock grazing.

The LADWP lease is considered the

rancher’s “base property.” Without

it, a rancher cannot obtain a

federal permit.

Lease policies are set forth in the

Range Management Guidelines for

DWP Leased Lands, and are designed to protect the City’s watershed and water quality. In addition,

individual Ranch Management

Plans are being prepared jointly

with each of the lessees. Ranchers

serve as the land stewards of the

watershed, and the LADWP ensures

that their ranching practices are

compatible with the LADWP’s

objectives. Department staff conduct informal, routine inspections

to ensure the guidelines’ requirements are satisfied. Vegetation,

livestock use, and water quality are

monitored regularly.

Users of the leased land must follow

range management guidelines that

require all livestock, salts, and

supplements for animals to be kept

away from water sources and

riparian zones. They are required

to consult with LADWP prior to

initiation of water diversions, and

they must adhere to irrigation

practices that minimize runoff,

return flows, and erosion. The

county agricultural commissioner

administers pesticide and herbicide use permits. A farm advisor

from the University of California

and a Federal Soil Conservation

Service representative periodically

consult with the lessees on crop

production and range management

issues.

Commercial Leases

Typically 5 years in duration,

commercial leases affect business

and commercial town properties in

the area. Urban expansion on

these lands conforms to Inyo

County’s General Plan. This includes a land use policy to manage

the ground water basins to ensure

water quality and quantity for

beneficial uses. The county wastewater policy follows the Uniform

Plumbing Code or the Regional

Board Guidelines for the proper

installation of septic tank systems.

Recreation

Activities in un-developed watershed areas in the Owens Valley

and Mono Basin are considered to

have minimal impacts on surface

water quality. Signs indicating

private property and prohibiting

overnight camping are clearly

posted throughout the city-owned

lands. Motor boats are allowed on

two reservoirs. Monitoring for the

gasoline addititive Methyl TertButyl Ether (MTBE) has been

conducted at these locations, however none was

detected. Waste receptacles, portable toilets and

regular patrolling of the

reservoir perimeters help

protect water quality.

Of the 314,000 acres of

watershed owned by the

utility, 230,000 acres are

under land management

control through leases to

farmers or ranchers.

Restricting public access

has made it easier to

identify or trace potential

sources of contamination

in the source watershed.
21

Open Distribution Reservoirs

LADWP is one of the few utilities

that have open distribution reservoirs to hold treated water. Four of

the LADWP’s 10 open reservoirs are

influenced by surface runoff and,

therefore, are subject to the Surface Water Treatment Rule.

LADWP’s source protection program

for these four large distribution

reservoirs formally began in 1989.

LADWP will continue operating the

reservoirs under a compliance

agreement with the California

Department of Health Services

(DHS) until treatment facilities are

built. The reservoirs store almost 8

billion gallons, and their watersheds total 1,683 acres, mostly

LADWP property.

Although the treated water in the

reservoirs is chlorinated at each

reservoir outlet, the California DHS

designates the reservoirs as raw

source waters and has directed the

LADWP to develop a monitoring

program and watershed management practices accordingly. LADWP

leaves undeveloped the land in the

watershed it owns at each reservoir, and has monitoring programs

at the reservoirs similar to a raw

source water monitoring program.

Restricted Access

Except for a jogging trail on one of

the watersheds, all access is

restricted to the public. The jogging

trail is isolated from the water by a

chain link fence and a small buffer

zone. Land use restrictions include

policies on the management of

vegetation, soil, and erosion, as

well as on the use of pesticides.

Fences between the watersheds

and most nearby land developments have significantly isolated the reservoirs. This situation

has made it easier to identify or

trace potential sources of

contamination. LADWP

has implemented remote

systems to monitor the

reservoirs for indications of

potential water quality problems such as algae blooms.

Proactive Planning

for Urban Growth

Metropolitan Water District of

Southern California

Primary Sources of Water: California

State Water Project and the Colorado

River

Watershed Area: Lake Matthews, 39

square miles; Colorado River Basin,

150,000 square miles; California State

Water Project, 42,000 square miles

Population served: 16 million

Treatment: filtered, disinfected

Developed in cooperation with

representatives of the local county,

the Flood Control and Conservation

District, landowners, and a residential developer, the Metropolitan

Water District developed a drainage

management plan. This plan aims

to mitigate the impacts that development of the surrounding watershed has on reservoir water quality. Although the Lake Matthews

Watershed and Colorado River

Basin are sparsely populated, they

lie in the path of expanding growth.

Urbanization of the watershed is

expected to increase loadings of

heavy metals, pathogens, sediments, oil, and grease.

The first phase of the drainage

management plan focuses on the

Lake Mathews reservoir. Lake

Mathews is an 180,000 acre terminal reservoir for imported Colorado

River water. The surrounding 39-

square-mile watershed is drained

by Cajalco Creek, which feeds into

Lake Matthews.

One key element of the Lake

Matthews management strategy is

to use a series of wetlands to help

“cleanse” water from first-flush and

nuisance flows as well as to provide

wildlife habitat. Next, the water

would flow into a constructed water

quality pond to provide a first-flush

diversion facility, and then into a

sediment basin to capture bed load

Land use management

by the Los Angeles

Department of Water and

Power has allowed

multiple use of the natural

resources to continue

while minimizing threats

to public health.
22

sediment before it enters Lake

Matthews. Lastly, there are plans

to construct a dam and detention

basin designed to regulate 100-year

peak flood flows from Cajalco

Creek.

Multiple Challenges

Require New Tools

Salt Lake City Corporation,

Department of Public Utilities

Salt Lake City, Utah

• Primary Source of Water: Wasatch

Canyons

• Watershed Area: 95 square miles (Provo

River Watershed is 500,000 acres)

• Population Served: 400,000

• Treatment: Disinfected, filtered

The Salt Lake City economy is

booming and development is unprecedented. Recreational tourism

and changing land use practices,

construction of new homes and

exapnsion of urban areas, is affecting water quality and impacting

public drinking water supplies.

Increased use is giving rise to

more coliform bacteria in canyon

streams. Although well within

acceptable limits, the increased

coliform counts indicate a degradation of water quality, raising concerns over the future of the ecosystem.

This is why Salt Lake City invests

in source water protection. Drinking water source protection is

essential to the multi-barrier

approach to water quality. The

ability to provide high quality

drinking water depends on the

protection of raw water. Not only is

this protection essential, it is the

most cost-effective barrier to

waterborne disease.

History of Drinking Water

Source Protection

Salt Lake City’s watershed protection efforts date back to the early

1900’s. Sanitary surveys, watershed ordinances and canyon patrols

have been used by the city since

1911 to protect the quality of its

drinking water. Federal legislation

(Public Law 199) was passed by

Congress in 1914 requiring the

U.S. Forest Service to manage the

federal lands within the Provo River

watershed cooperatively with Salt

Lake City to protect the drinking

water supply from pollution. Various court decrees have adjudicated

the water rights in the Salt Lake

valley.

Additionally, Salt Lake City has

numerous exchange agreements

with farmers who hold the early

water rights to the waters flowing

from the Wasatch Canyon watershed. Under these exchange agreements, the city provides the farmers with water stored in Utah Lake

in exchange for high-quality mountain water for the city’s drinking

water. The exchanges are mutually

beneficial to the city and the

farmers. The city needs the higher

quality water for municipal drinking water, while the farmers need

a more dependable water supply to

mature their crops during the late

growing season and during

droughts.

Salt Lake City, under state law,

has extraterritorial jurisdiction to

protect its watersheds and water

supply. Under this state authority,

ordinances have been passed and

enforced by the city to manage the

watershed lands that are not

municipally owned. It regulates

uses in the surrounding canyons

including Little and Big Cottonwood, City Creek, and Parley.

Hiking and camping are allowed,

but overnight campers must stay

200 feet from any water source. In

watershed areas, the city prohibits

dogs, horses, and grazing, and it

does not allow septic systems.

Economic development

poses challenges to

drinking water source

protection.
23

Anyone caught polluting the city’s

drinking water supply, regardless of

land ownership, may be fined.

New Challenges

Salt Lake City Public Utilities is

updating its 1988 watershed master plan to reflect increasing

recreational use and development

of the watershed, which pose

challenges to the watershed’s

protection. There is limited unappropriated water available in the

watershed, and there are growing

development pressures. For instance, Little Cottonwood Canyon

has two world-class ski resorts, and

9,000 cars travel into the canyon

each winter day.

Private landowners in the watershed do not automatically own the

rights to water on their sites. Most

canyon water rights are owned by

Salt Lake City, either by title or

through exchange agreements.

Developers interested in watershed

property must obtain water rights

to build. Subject to certain restrictions, water sales agreements can

be made with Salt Lake City for

water from springs located on the

watershed property. Because of this

policy, the city is involved with

several law suits over water rights

issues.

Seeking public input on changes to

the master plan, the utility organized a series of meetings and

publicized them on the Internet,

public access television, in newspapers, and by distributing fliers.

The utility also established a

management issues group which

solicits input from stakeholders

including the Salt Lake City Council, the City/County Health Department, the County Sheriff’s Department, which patrols the watershed,

and the U.S. Forest Service. The

group wants to know each party’s

priorities for watershed protection

and management.

The utility also has hired an

environmental consulting firm to

examine the issues and help

prepare a new master plan.

These developments come during a

time of governmental belt-tightening. Budgets have been cut at all

levels of government. However,

despite limited resources, the

utility continues to partner with

land management and public

health agencies to address drinking water source protection.

Managing Urban

Storm Water

Massachusetts Water Resources

Authority

Boston, Massachusetts

• Primary Sources of Water: Quabbin and

Wachusett Reservoirs

• Watershed Area: Quabbin: 187 square

miles: Wachusett: 110 square miles

• Population Served: 1,932,000

Drinking water source quality is

often adversely affected by storm

water runoff. After a large rainfall,

contaminant concentrations

increase significantly, further

stressing drinking water treatment

facilities. Although the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

does not regulate storm water

releases from construction sites,

The Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) Division of Watershed

Management works with petitioners to review all plans for the

design and construction of storm

water and erosion control projects.

These control projects are required

under the state’s Watershed Protection Act as well as the Wetlands

Protection Act.

Review Authority

The Massachusetts Watershed

Protection Act requires division

review of all proposed alterations in

watershed areas that are within

400 feet of designated tributaries,

wetlands, and flood plains. Proposals submitted to local conservation

commissions are reviewed by

division staff for water quality

concerns during and after construction. Following their review,

Seeking public input on

changes to the master

plan, the utility organized

a series of meetings and

publicized them on the

Internet, public access

television, in newspapers,

and in fliers.

Drinking water source

protection is essential to

the multibarrier approach

to water quality.
24

staff advise the commissions of

their findings.

During 1997, MDC division personnel reviewed 98 applications with

an eye toward erosion and sediment control and water-quality

issues. Each project’s design

ultimately conformed to watershed

protection regulations and met

stipulated water quality standards.

Additionally, annual watershed

sanitary surveys help MDC staff

identify areas of concern. Once a

specific threat to human health is

identified, the MDC works with the

responsible party to mitigate the

situation. Several projects with the

state highway department began in

this way.

Watershed Approach to Storm

Water Management

Besides these ongoing activities,

the MDC has hired an environmental engineering firm to prepare an

in-depth storm water management

plan for the entire watershed. Once

completed, the plan will include a

series of pollutant-loading analyses

at the sub-basin level and recommended best management practices (BMPs). The Massachusetts

Water Resources Authority and

MDC plan to conduct workshops to

help municipalities implement the

BMPs, and may provide technical

and financial assistance.

Community Ordinance Revision

The MDC Watershed Division also

provides technical assistance to

communities to help establish or

revise erosion and sediment

control bylaws and regulations, site

plan bylaws, and subdivision regulations. Division staff are working

with one community to develop

model subdivision regulations for

use with other communities.

These regulations are intended to

foster a more progressive approach

that includes concerns for water

quality.

Urban Land Use:

Solutions to Address

Drinking Water and

Natural Habitat

Sweetwater Authority

Chula Vista, California

• Primary Sources of Water: Colorado

River, California State Project water,

Sweetwater River, ground water

• Watershed Area: 182 square miles

(reservoir watershed)

• Population Served: 165,000

• Treatment: Reverse osmosis for brackish water/runoff treatment (planned)

In 1977, increasing urbanization of

the Sweetwater River Watershed

led the California Department of

Health Services to express concern

about potential impacts of urban

storm runoff on water quality in the

Sweetwater Reservoir. To deal with

these impacts, the Sweetwater

Authority, a municipal water

supplier, constructed an Urban

Runoff Diversion System (URDS) at

the reservoir to protect the surface

water supply from the impacts of

new development.

The first phase of the diversion

system, completed in 1991, intercepts all low flows and the

Model subdivision

regulations are intended

to foster a more

progressive approach to

managing growth in

watersheds.
25

first flush runoff from the watershed. Thus far, the system prevented the addition of 3,300 tons of

salt to the reservoir and has reduced loading from minerals,

nutrients, pathogens, and coliform.

The second phase, now under

construction, will complete the

water protection barrier. Ultimately, the diverted runoff that

seeps into the lower ground water

basin will be treated in a plant

currently under construction. This

will provide a new water resource

for the community.

Comprehensive Funding

Approach

Phase one of the project cost $6.5

million, and Phase two will cost

$7.0 million. Water revenue bonds,

government grants, and

development fees financed the construction.

Funding sources included

Title XVI grants from the

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which are available

to water projects that use

reclaimed water. The

water utility also received

grants under section

205(j) of the Clean Water

Act, specifically alloted for

innovative construction

projects to treat waste

water.

The local development

fees resulted from a costsharing agreement

between the Sweetwater

Authority and San Diego

County. The agreement

allows the authority to

impose a fee on development permits in the

watershed’s middle basin

to recover the costs of

controlling runoff from

new development, estimated at 60 percent of the

total project cost. The fee

of $300 per equivalent

dwelling units, in 1984

dollars, is assessed on 2.9

dwelling units per acre for

commercial and other

non-residential uses. The authority is negotiating with the county to

expand the fee program to recover

the costs associated with mitigating the impacts of urbanization.

Habitat Management Program

Controls Weeds & Predators

The Sweetwater Authority developed a program to manage 140

acres of endangered species habitat affected by the Urban Runoff

Diversion System and reservoir

operations. The program includes

monitoring, re-vegetation, invasive

weed eradication, and predator

removal programs coordinated with

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

and the California Department of

Fish and Game.

The authority re-designed portions

of the diversion system to minimize or avoid impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. The

current design protects the

Sweetwater Reservoir from the

effects of new development and

urbanization while protecting

habitat.

Previously, the plan called for a lowflow barrier 2 miles upstream of

the reservoir, several miles of

diversion pipes, and three upstream ponds. However, some of

the property targeted for construction was identified as sensitive

habitat, so the authority eliminated the upstream ponds and

added a larger downstream pipe and

an additional downstream pond.

Although the new design handles a

smaller volume of storm water, the

authority judged the compromise

adequate to balance environmental

impacts.

Since 1991, the Urban

Runoff Distribution System

has kept 3,300 tons of

salt out of the reservoir.

Vegetation Management

Periods of drought significantly reduce

water levels in the reservoir fed by the

Sweetwater River. During these periods,

vegetation grows in sections of the

reservoir and woodland habitats develop.

Later, as the water level rises, this

vegetation becomes inundated, and

rotting plants cause water quality

problems. To avoid such problems, the

vegetation must be removed.

Although these areas can reduce water

quality, the developing habitats may also

become home to the least Bell’s vireo, a

small songbird listed federally as an

endangered species. To minimize

impacts on the species, the Sweetwater

Authority and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service agreed to “rotate” the suitable

habitat out of the reservoir and into an old

sand pit upstream, which can be revegetated and is contiguous with similar

habitat. Habitat acreage is not reduced

because vegetation is not removed from

the reservoir until new habitat is “qualified” upstream.

The program has been very successful,

and the endangered songbird has

occupied the new habitat more quickly

than expected. The authority manages

140 acres of riparian woodland under

this revegetation effort. The program also

has enabled the authority and the Fish

and Wildlife Service to meet their goals

through a coordinated effort.
26

Septic System

Management

Portland Water District

Portland, Maine

• Primary Source of Water: Sebago Lake

• Watershed Area: 450 square miles

• Population Served: 160,000

• Treatment: Ozonated, chlorinated,

unfiltered

Seasonal residential development

is a major threat to Sebago Lake,

the Portland Water District’s primary source. About 3,000 cottages

are within 200 feet of the lake,

along the lake shore and on several

islands. To mitigate the effects of

individual septic systems, the

district relies on various controls

including charter legislation that

created the district in 1912, the

state’s shoreland zoning regulations and plumbing code, local

zoning ordinances, and agreements

with private landowners.

Under the district’s charter legislation, septic systems must have a

permit if they are within 200 feet of

the high water mark of the lake.

Water District staff are required to

perform inspections of the systems.

They also may inspect septic

systems that are up to 1,000 feet

from the lake’s tributaries.

When a landowner applies for a

town plumbing permit to install or

modify a septic system, the local

health department informs the

Water District, which will issue its

own permit. The district relies on

the state plumbing code for its

minimum requirements for septic

system design and installation.

Depending on soil conditions, the

district may impose even stricter

requirements. Local wastewater

disposal regulations also may

impose more stringent criteria for

system siting. District staff conduct

inspections during and after construction, and regularly once the

system goes into operation. Recently, district inspectors have

focused their attention toward

reseeding construction sites to

prevent erosion.

If the district and a town learn of a

malfunctioning or failed septic

system, the town usually takes the

lead on resolving the situation.

Although the district and towns

have legal authority to act, the

towns have handled these situations well in the past, and there

has been no need for enforcement

by the district.

Septic systems must

have a permit if they are

within 200 feet of the high

water mark of Sebago

Lake
27

Wastewater

Management

Department of Environmental

Protection

New York, New York

• Primary Sources of Water: Croton

Watershed; the Catskill and Delaware

Watershed (includes 19 reservoirs)

• Watershed Area: 1,969 square miles

• Population Served: 9,000,000 (includes

some upstream communities)

• Treatment: Croton: Chlorinated, filtered

(scheduled); Catskill/Delaware: Chlorinated, disinfected, unfiltered

The New York City Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP), is

providing more than $350 million

to fund septic systems and wastewater management projects in the

Croton and Catskills-Delaware

watersheds.

To meet the standards and requirements set by the City’s new rules

and regulations, New York City is

upgrading all of their wastewater

treatment plants to state-of-the-art

tertiary treatment facilities, at a

cost of more than $200 million.

Other wastewater treatment plants

in the Croton watershed and the

Catskills and Delaware River

watershed are also being upgraded

with assistance from the New York

DEP, budgeted at almost $80 million.

Some other wastewater and septic

initiatives include:

• A New Infrastructure Program

to finance wastewater treatment facilities, community

septics, and septic management districts.

• A Sewer Extension Program to

address failing or potentially

failing septic systems.

• A Septic System Rehabilitation

and Replacement Program.

• A program for alternative design

septic systems.

• A Water Quality Program in

certain watershed counties for

county-based wastewater/septic

system initiatives.

• Funding for studies to assess

the feasibility of sewage diversion to outside of one of the

watershed systems.

In the Catskill and Delaware River

Watershed, DEP is partnered with

the Catskill Watershed Corporation

(CWC). The CWC is a local nonprofit established to administer the

1997 Watershed Agreement between DEP and the state. Similarly, in the Croton Watershed, the

DEP is working with county governments to develop program rules and

priorities for regional source water

protection initiatives.

Septic Systems

Regulation

Onondaga County Water Authority

Syracuse, New York

• Primary Source of Water: Otisco Lake

• Watershed Area: 44 square miles

• Population Served: 70,000

• Treatment: filtered

Because each residence in the

Onondaga County watershed has

its own septic system, their maintenance is a primary watershed

protection activity. The state

health commissioner has mandated that the Onondaga County

Water Authority carry out the

inspection program of septic systems. The authority and the county

health department also review

designs for new septic systems and

for changes to existing systems.

Every summer, authority staff

conduct a door-to-door survey of all

residences in the watershed to

update their information and

Drops in Coliform

concentrations have

corresponded with

increases in Croton

Watershed citizens selfreporting of septic system

integrity.
28

inspect each septic system. They

also perform dye tests at one-third

of the residences located directly

on Otisco lake so that all the

residences are covered once every

3 years.

Watershed violations, such as a

positive dye test or a soggy spot in a

leach field, are handled initially by

the water authority. The resident

has 14 days to fix the problem. The

authority cannot provide financial

assistance, but usually recommends that residents hire a contractor to address the situation.

If a violation persists for more than

14 days, the county health department takes over enforcement

under authority of the Onondaga

Sanitary Code. First, the department sends a letter notifying the

homeowner of the sanitary code

violation. The letters warns that, if

the problem is not fixed within a

specified time period, the homeowner will be called before the

health commissioner, who has the

power to impose a fine or order the

homeowner to take any steps that

are deemed necessary to fix the

problem.

Performing regular dye tests helps

the authority ensure that all the

septic systems near its source

water are in good working order.

The program also gives the authority a high profile among landowners, which works to its benefit.

Replacing Septic

Systems Throughout

the Watershed with

Sewers

Massachusetts Water Resources

Authority

Boston, Massachusetts

• Primary Sources of Water: Quabbin and

Wachusett Reservoirs

• Watershed Area: Quabbin: 187 square

miles: Wachusett: 110 square miles

• Population Served: 1,932,000

The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority is funding the

installation of sewers to replace 40

percent of the septic systems in its

Wachusett watershed at a cost of

$58 million. Data on the remaining

7,000 systems are compiled in a

database.

To better manage the monitoring of

these systems, the Metropolitan

District Commission (MDC) funded

the development of model by-laws

for regional wastewater management districts. Independent of

municipal government, these

districts would provide an overall

management structure for regular

inspection and maintenance of

septic systems. MDC is funding a

pilot region to the north of the

Wachusett reservoir, where older

cesspools are found.
29

Habitat Management

Protects Endangered

Species and

Drinking Water

Seattle Public Utilities

Seattle, Washington

• Primary Sources of Water: Cedar River

Watershed and the South Fork Tolt

Watershed

• Watershed Area: 90,495 acres (Cedar

River), 13,390 acres (South Fork)

• Population Served: 1.2 million

• Treatment: Chlorinated, unfiltered

To protect and preserve the endangered and threatened species in its

Cedar River Watershed, while

maintaining stringent water

quality standards, Seattle developed

a Habitat Conservation Plan. The

city recently distributed a “Proposed

Agreement in Principle” in which

Seattle commits to:

• Establish an ecological reserve

on about 64 percent of the land

it owns and operates.

• Develop a program to manage

the commercial harvest of

timber on lands not part of the

ecological reserve. The program

will be operated according to

principles that exceed fisheries

and wildlife protection standards.

• Create facilities for salmon and

steelhead trout to pass the

Landsburg Diversion Dam.

• Rebuild sockeye salmon habitat

and build a hatchery downstream of the dam.

• Implement an in-stream flow

program in the lower Cedar

River.

• Design a comprehensive research and monitoring program

that will verify the plan’s implementation, evaluate its effectiveness, and provide information on species of concern.

The purpose of the proposed agreement is to provide a basis for

negotiations among local, state,

federal, and tribal agencies.

Plant Grant

Programs Provide

Citizen Incentives

for Source Water

Protection

Portland Water District

Portland, Maine

• Primary Source of Water: Sebago Lake

• Watershed Area: 450 square miles

• Population Served: 160,000

• Treatment: Ozonated, chlorinated,

unfiltered

In an effort to move beyond traditional regulation and involve more

lakeside residents in watershed

protection efforts, the Portland

Water District instituted three

innovative programs. These

programs promotes habitat restoration and water quality protection,

and have been very popular with

property owners.

Plant Grant Program

Since 1995, the Plant Grant Program provides $200 matching

grants to Sebago Lake-shore property owners who buy plants and

establish buffers to control existing

erosion. Several nurseries supplied

over 665 recommended shrubs,

ground cover, and trees compatible

with lake-side erosion control

efforts and provided technical

assistance to participating residents. The Water District has

distribute $5400 in grants since

1995, and plans to continue this

program, including monitoring the

level of success of the lakeside

plantings.

The City of Seattle is working towards establishing

an ecological reserve on

over 60% of the land that it

operates.
30

Master Gardener Program

The Master Gardener Program,

begun in 1997, partners lakeside

landowners with knowledgeable

staff from the Maine Cooperative

Extension Service. A master gardener visits a shoreline home site

and teaches the owner environmental gardening techniques.

Camp Grant Program

Another restoration effort, the

Camp Grant Program, provides

technical assistance and grant

funds to incorporate education and

erosion remediation at lakeside

camp sites. The district has donated about $6,700 to buy supplies

for control measures at severely

eroded shoreline camps; these

efforts markedly improved conditions.

Gardening and

lakeside planting have

increased citizen

awareness of drinking

water protection

issues with minimum

costs.
31

For example, the Portland Water

District in Portland, Maine encountered difficulties in administering

its land acquisition plan because

much of the land that the utility

wished to purchase was in a single

town.

The Salt Lake City Public Utilities

Department can purchase land only

at its appraised value, which puts

the utility at a disadvantage when

competing with developers, who are

free to pay more.

New York City’s Department of

Environmental Protection, must

consult and partner with multiple

local governments to manage the

acquired lands.

Despite these obstacles, land

acquisition has turned out to be a

critical part of protecting the water

source, since ownership means

more control over landuse.

Chapter 4

Land Acquisition

One way to solve the problem of competing land uses within a

watershed is to acquire all the land surrounding a water source.

Rather than negotiate with individual land owners, the system

buys the land surrounding a surface water source. This solution

is simple, yet often difficult to implement.

Land Aquisition to Control

Uses of the Watershed

Seattle Public Utilities

Seattle, Washington

• Primary Sources of Water: Cedar River

Watershed and the South Fork Tolt

Watershed

• Watershed Area: 90,495 acres (Cedar

River), 13,390 acres (South Fork)

• Population Served: 1.2 million

• Treatment: Chlorinated, unfiltered

To control the use of land within its

watersheds, the Seattle Public

Utilities (SPU) has made land

acquisition a top priority in the

Cedar River and South Fork Tolt

watersheds, which are the primary

sources of Seattle’s drinking water.

The utility owns 99.9 percent of the

Cedar River Watershed and 70

percent of the South Fork Tolt

Watershed. Land acquisition is

funded with revenues from customers.
32

Seattle Public Utilities and the U.S.

Forest Service began exchanging

land in 1962. This land exchange

arrangement was formalized with

passage of the Cedar River Watershed Act of 1992.

The law directs the U.S. Forest

Service to exchange critical Cedar

River Watershed lands to the

Seattle Public Utilities and places

deed restrictions on the property

prohibiting the City of Seattle from

reselling, harvesting timber from,

or developing (other than for routine maintenance) the parcels in

question. These restrictions were

instrumental to reducing the land’s

value, enabling SPU to afford the

property through exchange of other

parcels it owned worth approximately $8 million. Without the

restrictions, the land was valued at

nearly $100 million.

This latest exchange brings the

utility’s total acquisition in the

Cedar River Watershed over the

last 100 years, to 99.9 percent of

the land.

South Fork Watershed: 70

Percent of Lands Acquired

The other area critical to Seattle’s

drinking water supply is the South

Fork Watershed. Working with

private industry, the utility completed a land exchange with the

Weyerhauser Company for some

SPU holdings in the North Fork Tolt

basin. These properties had once

been logged and are now in various

stages of young second-growth

forest.

This land exchange consolidates

the holdings of Seattle Public

Utility and Weyerhauser in the

North and South Fork Watersheds,

thus improving the management of

these lands. Although the utility’s

land is surrounded by Weyerhauser

property, a signed agreement

shows the support of Weyerhauser

to protect water quality in the

watershed.

The remaining eastern end of the

South Fork Tolt is old-growth

timber owned by the U.S. Forest

Service. No logging is taking place

in this federally-owned area, since

there is an awareness of its value

to the drinking water supply of

Seattle.

Third Parties Aid

Land Acquisition

Salt Lake City Corporation,

Department of Public Utilities

Salt Lake City, Utah

• Primary Source of Water: Wasatch

Canyons

• Watershed Area: 185 square miles

(Provo River Watershed is 500,000

acres)

• Population Served: 400,000

• Treatment: Disinfected, filtered

Since the adoption of a master

watershed management plan in

1988, the Salt Lake City Public

Utilities has funded land acquisitions with a monthly fee of $0.25

per water connection. The result

has been spending of $1,154,000 to

buy 1,000 acres of watershed land.

Under its present system, utility

staff identify and recommend to an

advisory board priority properties

for acquisition. The board, composed of city and county residents

appointed by the mayor of Salt Lake

City, decides whether to go ahead

with the purchase.

The utility is at a disadvantage

when competing with land developers because the utility can purchase property based only on the

land’s appraised value. Often, the

utility cannot compete with a

developer’s offer because the price

is too high. To get around this

problem, the utility works with

environmental groups who are not

required to buy the land at the

Using a monthly fee of

$0.25 per water

connection, the Salt

Lake City Public Utilities

has bought 1,000 acres

of critical watershed land.
33

An advisory board of city

and county residents,

appointed by Salt Lake

City’s mayor, decides

whether to purchase land

as recommended by

water system staff.

Fair market value will be

paid for all land, and DEP

will pay property taxes on

the land it buys.

appraised value. They purchase

land for placement in private land

trusts.

Another disadvantage is that the

utility can bid only on land offered

to it by the landowner. Utility staff

would like to be able to seek out

land for purchase. When revising

the master plan, the utility hopes

to change these rules.

Land exchanges for reasons other

than protecting the natural resources within the watershed are a

potential concern for supporters of

watershed protection. To further

assure that these types of transactions don’t impact the drinking

water supply, the utility, working

with city officials, passed a resolution recommending the US Forest

service -a major land manager in

the watershed - refrain from

selling watershed land to private

parties. This action hopefully will

help lead to further protection of

drinking water sources.

Land Acquisition

Program Targets

High Priority Parcels

New York City Department of

Environmental Protection

New York, New York

• Primary Source of Water: Croton Watershed, Catskill/Delaware Watershed

(includes 19 reservoirs)

• Watershed Area: 1,969 square miles

• Population Served: 9,000,000 (includes

towns along the distribution lines)

• Treatment: Croton: Chlorinated, filtered

(scheduled); Catskill/Delaware: Chlorinated, disinfected, unfiltered

New York City’s water utility, the

Department of Environmental

Protection (DEP), has embarked on

a 10-year program of land acquisition within its watersheds.

DEP has committed $250 million to

acquire property associated with in

the Catskill and Delaware River

supply systems. The Catskill and

Delaware branches of the system,

which spread over 1,600 square

miles west of the Hudson River,

provides 90 percent of New York

City’s water. An additional $10

million has been set aside for the

same purpose in the Croton Watershed, which lies east of the

Hudson. The state will provide an

additional $7.5 million to supplement the Croton Watershed land

acquisition effort.

Each watershed has been divided

into priority areas, based on natural features and proximity to reservoirs, intakes, and DEP’s distribution system. These priorities

determine the geographic focus for

acquisitions. Fair market value is

paid for all land, and DEP pays

property taxes on the land.

As part of a 1997 Watershed Agreement, DEP has a 10-year water

supply permit from the New York

State Department of Environmental

Conservation (NYSDEC). The

permit enables DEP to acquire,

through purchase or conservation

easements, undeveloped land near

reservoirs, wetlands, and watercourses, as well as land possessing

other water-quality-sensitive

features.

No land will be taken by eminent

domain. The Watershed Agreement allows towns and villages to

exclude certain parcels from acquisition. Communities west of the

Hudson River may exclude specified amounts of land in certain

hamlets and up to 50 acres of land

for continued commercial and

industrial use in certain priority

areas.

Throughout the two watersheds,

DEP will consult with the community in which the parcel is located

and will provide up to $20,000 to

each town to support the local

review process. Any disputes will be

referred to the NYSDEC for resolution.
34

Land Acquisition

Requires Small

Towns Cooperation

Portland Water District

Portland, Maine

• Primary Source of Water: Sebago Lake

• Watershed Area: 450 square miles

• Population Served: 160,000

• Treatment: Ozonated, chlorinated,

unfiltered

The Portland Water District, small

in relative size to other utilities

involved in watershed acquisition,

has made significant use of this

management tool. Even with

limited resources and staff, in

1997, the utility spent $600,000 to

establish a buffer zone by purchasing land within 1,000 feet of the

shoreline of Sebago Lake and its

tributaries. The district purchased

5 properties, at market value, from

willing sellers.

The money for the district’s land

acquisition program comes from

1993 legislation allowing water

utilities to set aside up to 5 percent

of the prior year’s revenues for

drinking water source protection.

In 1997, the utility spent

$600,000 to buy land

within 1,000 feet of the

shoreline of Sebago

Lake and its tributaries.

Thus far, all of the district’s purchases have been made in the

town of Standish, Maine. This

prompted community concerns

about reduced tax revenues and

the perceived threat that the

district would buy all village land,

since the village center is within

1,000 feet of Sebago Lake.

To allay community concerns,

correct mis-apprehensions, and

promote communication, a committee of town selectmen and utility

trustees was formed. The team

helps to assure that everyone’s

interests are addressed while

protecting the town’s drinking

water supply.
35

Appendix A

Source Water Protection

Workshop Participants

Southwest Source

Water Protection

Workshop

Participants in the Southwest

Source Water Protection Workshop,

held in Tempe, Arizona, were:

Ed Archuleta

General Manager

El Paso Water Utilities, Texas

Judy Bloom

U.S. EPA Region 9

Dennis Bostad

Water Quality Director

Sweetwater Authority, California

John Robert Carman

Metropolitan Water District of Salt

Lake City, Utah

Brad Cross

Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission

Richard A. Denton

Contra Costa Water District,

California

Barbara Gastian

Albuquerque Public Works

Department, New Mexico

Mike Gritzuk

Director

Phoenix Water Services

Department, Arizona

Michael Johnson

Southern Nevada Water Authority

Charlie Jordan

Public Affairs Director

Denver Water Department,

Colorado

Tim Kacerek

Central Arizona Project

Michele Kempel

City of Nogales, Arizona

Karl Kolhoff

Assistant Utilities Manager

Mesa, Arizona

Mary Ann Mann

Metropolitan Water District of

Southern California

Tom McCann

Central Arizona Project

Brendan Murphy

National Rural Water Association

Reed Oberndorfer

Central Utah Water Conservation

District

Ken Orton

National Rural Water Association

Pankaj Parehk

Los Angeles Department of Water

and Power, California

Dan Pedersen

American Water Works Association
36

Florence Reynolds

Salt Lake City Public Utilities

Department, Utah

Glenn Singley

Northern District Engineer

Los Angeles Department of Water

and Power, California

Moncef Tihami

Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality

Gary Ullinskey

Phoenix Water Services

Department, Arizona

Northwest Source

Water Protection

Workshop

Participants in the Northwest

Source Water Protection Workshop

held in Portland, Oregon, were:

Dan Bradley

General Manager

South Fork Water Board, Oregon

Bill Brookes

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

Bill Carr

United Water Idaho

Dave Clark

Director

State of Washington Drinking

Water Division

Sue Doroff

RiverNetwork, Riverlands

Conservancy Director

Suzanne Flagor

Seattle Public Utilities, Washington

Alan W. Fletcher

Clackamas River Water, Oregon

Bob Groncznack

City of Olympia Water Utilities,

Washington

Maryann Helferty

U.S. EPA Region 10

Ron Hunsinger

East Bay Municipal Utility District,

California

David Jennings

State of Washington Department of

Health

Bob Jones

Medford Water Commission, Oregon

Dave Leland

State of Oregon Drinking Water

Program Manager

Steve Leonard

San Francisco Public Utilities,

California

Bob Lewis

Deputy Director

National Association of Water

Companies

Dan Lowell

City of Everett Water Department,

Washington

Patty Mallett

San Francisco Public Utilities,

California

Frank Mauldin

Public Works Director

City of Salem, Oregon

Alan Medak

City of Tacoma Water Division,

Washington

Joe Meek

State of Montana Department of

Environmental Quality

Bruce Niss

Portland Water Bureau, Oregon

Tom Ortman

U.S. Forest Service

Tina Schweickert

City of Salem Public Works, Oregon

Janet Senior

Portland Water Bureau, Oregon
37

Sheree Stewart

State of Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality

Ty Wick

General Manager

Spokane County Water District No.

3, Washington

Howard Woods

State of Idaho Division of

Environmental Quality

Northeast Source

Water Protection

Workshop

Participants of the Northeast

Source Water Protection Workshop,

held in New York City, were:

Phillippe Boissonneault

Portland Water District, Maine

Tom Curtis

Natural Resources Group Director

National Governors’ Association

Stephen Estes-Smargiassi

Massachusetts Water Resources

Authority

Patrick Fasano

Chester Water Authority,

Pennsylvania

Stephen Gould

U.S. EPA Region 2

Ed Holland

Orange Water and Sewer Authority,

North Carolina

Barker Hamill

Chief

State of New Jersey Bureau of Safe

Drinking Water

John Hroncich

United Water Resources

Harrington Park, New Jersey

Dale Long

U.S. EPA Region 3

Preston Luitweiler

Philadelphia Suburban Water

Company, Pennsylvania

Joseph McGinn

Metropolitan District Commission

Boston, Massachusetts

Mark Murphy

Onondaga County Water Authority,

New York

Howard Neukrug

Director of Planning & Technical

Services

Philadelphia Water Department,

Pennsylvania

John Przepiora

Commissioner

Syracuse Department of Water,

New York

Richard Rafanovic

General Manager and Chief

Engineer

Providence, Rhode Island

Philip Rossa

Passaic Valley Water Commission,

New Jersey

Anne Seeley

Section Chief, Drinking Water

Quality Planning

New York City Department of

Environmental Protection, New

York

Workshop

Organizers

The workshops were sponsored by

AMWA and co-managed with EPA’s

Jeff Cohen. Facilitators for the

workshops were Clayton Creager

(Tempe and Portland) and the

Cadmus Group, Inc.’s Laurie Potter

(New York City). The consultant for

the workshops was Dr. Chi Ho

Sham.
38

U.S. EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking

Water

www.epa.gov/safewater/protect.html

Provides information to facilitate the protection

of source water resources.

Nonpoint Source Control (U.S. EPA)

www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/index.html

Features highlights of Clean Water Act and

Coastal NPS programs and includes a list of

enforceable state mechanisms for NPS control.

Watershed Management Program (U.S. EPA)

www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/wtrshd.html

Includes dozens of links and information for

people interested in protecting their watersheds.

Clean Water Action Plan

www.cleanwater.gov

Describes the Clinton Administration’s new

effort to address nonpoint source pollution problems.

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

www.amwa-water.org/

Provides background on the provisions of the

Safe Drinking Water Act that apply to source

water protection as well as links to other resources.

Natural Resources Conservation Service

(USDA)

www.nrcs.usda.gov

Provides information to help people conserve,

improve, and sustain our natural resources and

environment.

Agriculture Research Service (USDA) and the

University of Maryland

www.nal.usda.gov/wqic

Appendix B

Source Water on the Web

A large site with many databases and articles on

the relationship between agriculture and water

quality.

U.S. Geological Survey

http://water.usgs.gov/index.html

Contains links to just about everything the

USGS is doing in water, including a great site

with real-time water flow data from thousands of

stations.

Surf Your Watershed (U.S. EPA)

www.epa.gov/surf

Describes watershed conditions in over 2,000

watersheds nationwide.

RiverNetwork

www.rivernetwork.org

Contains information for local watershed protection groups.

Watershed Academy (U.S. EPA)

www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/

fund.html

Lists sources of federal funding to support various watershed protection projects and local

watershed projects.

Watershed Lessons Learned

www.epa.gov/OWOW/lessons

Describes the Top 10 lessons learned by watershed practitioners working on watershed protection plans and other watershed work, and provides real-world examples to illustrate each

lesson.