Safe Drinking Water Act,

Section 1429

Ground Water Report to Congress

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Internet Address (URL) ● http://www.epa.gov

Recycled/Recyclable ● Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (20% Postconsumer)

Office of Water (4606)

Washington, D.C.

EPA-816-R-99-016

October 1999

EPA
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1429

Ground Water Report to Congress

The Ground Water Report to Congress was developed with the help of many people from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), state governments and

state water associations. The project manager and chief editor of this document was Denise Coutlakis of

the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) within the Office of Water (OW). Many EPA

staff within OW and other EPA program offices assisted with and contributed to the document along the

way. EPA would especially like to thank the federal/state workgroup that was critical in the development

of this report. The workgroup consisted of representatives from the Ground Water Protection Council

(GWPC), the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), the Association of State and

Interstate Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), and other state governments, EPA, and the

USGS, as follows:

State Representatives and the National State-Based Organizations They Represent

Rick Cobb IL

Jon Craig OK (ASDWA)

Sonja Massey AL (ASIWPCA)

Mike Baker OK (GWPC)

Kirk Cook WA

Ken Harris CA

Fred Van Alstyne NY

Sara Pillsbury NH

Emory Cleeves MD (Association of State Geologists)

Rodney Dehan FL (National Water Quality Monitoring Council (WQMC) – Ground Water

Focus Group co-chair)

Mike Paque GWPC – Executive Director

Dave Terry GWPC – President

Robbi Savage ASIWPCA – Executive Director

Arlene O’Donnell ASDWA – President

Vanessa Leiby ASDWA – Executive Director

EPA Representatives

Denise Coutlakis OGWDW (Workgroup Leader)

Mike Bechdol U.S. EPA Region 6

Wendy Melgin U.S. EPA Region 9

Bob Barles OGWDW (Prevention and Support Branch)

Roger Anzzolin OGWDW (Information Mgt, 305(b) Report Lead)

Chuck Evans Office of Pesticide Programs

Chris Lewicki Office of Wetland, Oceans, and Watersheds

Ken Lovelace Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Leah Evison Office of solid Waste and Emergency Response

Sylvia Horwitz Office of General Counsel

USGS Representatives

Bill Wilbur (National Water Quality Assessment Program & NWQMC – GW Focus

Group co-chair)

Mike Focazio (USGS liaison to U.S. EPA/OGWDW)

Special thanks goes out to Mike Paque and the staff at GWPC for their work with ASDWA, ASIWPCA and

their state members in developing the Summaries of State Ground Water Conditions that are included as

an addendum to this document. EPA thanks each of the state ground water managers and authors for

their time and diligence in preparing the fact sheets that further elucidate the progress of each state in the

protection of their ground water resources.

 Acknowledgments
Contractor support was provided under Contract No. 68-C7-0056 with Tetra Tech Inc. (TT), a

subcontractor of Research Triangle Institute (RTI). Bill Ward of TT gave critical support in developing this

document, as did many others who lent support at Tetra Tech and RTI. Roger Anzzolin managed the

work assignment under this contract for EPA. His help was greatly appreciated.
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

Executive Summary

Section 1429 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) Administrator to make grants to the states for

the development and implementation of programs to

ensure the coordinated and comprehensive

protection of ground water resources. Under this

authority, EPA is also required every three years to

evaluate funded state programs and report to

Congress on the status of ground water quality in the

United States and the effectiveness of state programs

for ground water protection.

Under the 1996 Amendments to SDWA, Congress

authorized up to $15 million for each of fiscal years

1997 through 2003 to support these state programs,

although these funds have not been appropriated for

fiscal years 1997 through 1999. This report reviews

the status and effectiveness of state ground water

programs and examines our nation’s approach to

protecting ground water.

Over the past fifteen years, numerous reports have

documented the need for more effective coordination

of ground water protection programs at the federal,

state, and local levels. Similar efforts in surface

water programs have led many states to adopt

watershed-based management approaches that

coordinate the activities of agencies and programs that

play a role in water quality protection. At the federal

level, the 1998 Clean Water Action Plan is designed

to promote similar coordination among federal

agencies. While the Clean Water Action Plan and

some state watershed protection approaches address

ground water, true coordination of ground water

SDWA Section 1429(e) Evaluations and

Reports

“Not later than 3 years after the date of

enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act

Amendments of 1996, and every 3 years

thereafter, the Administrator shall evaluate the

State ground water protection programs that are

the subject of grants awarded pursuant to this

section and report to the Congress on the

status of ground water quality in the United

States and the effectiveness of State programs

for ground water protection.”

management efforts has not been achieved in most

states.

Nevertheless, progress has been made in the

protection of the nation’s ground water resources. For

example, 47 states have approved wellhead

protection programs. These programs are now being

expanded under the Source Water Assessment and

Protection provisions of the 1996 SDWA amendments.

Although wellhead and source water protection focus

solely on drinking water sources, more

comprehensive protection programs that address the

entire ground water resource are also being

developed by the states. Virtually every state has

indicated that they are undertaking some component

of a comprehensive ground water protection program,

including enacting protection legislation and

regulations, coordinating activities of various agencies

responsible for ground water management,

performing ground water mapping and classification,

monitoring ambient ground water quality, developing

data management systems, and implementing

remediation and prevention programs. However, more

comprehensive planning needs to be done to make

the best decisions regarding remediation and the

efficient use of ground water efforts.

Federal support is available for comprehensive ground

water protection planning, primarily through the Clean

Water Act (CWA) and SDWA. However, the vast

majority of federal resources allocated for ground water

have been devoted to ground water remediation.

Millions, and in some cases hundred of millions, of

dollars from public and private funds have been spent

in each state on clean-up activities, or government

oversight of clean-up performed by private parties.

The need for such spending will continue. In 1994,

the National Academy of Sciences estimated that over

a trillion dollars, or approximately $4,000 per person

in the U.S., will be spent in the next thirty years on

clean-up of contaminated soil and ground water.

However comparatively few of those clean-up

resources will be used to manage future threats to the

resource in a comprehensive way that may prevent

the need for future, costly clean-up efforts. A

comprehensive protection program would help

determine the most significant threats to the resource,

help establish the local priorities and direct funds to

those programs that would deal with the most

significant threats first.

Although there is no targeted source of funding for

state ground water protection programs, EPA

i
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

guidance encourages states to use 15 percent of their

grant funds appropriated under Section 106 of the

CWA for ground water protection. Also, states may

set aside funds from the Drinking Water State

Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to finance source water

assessment and protection activities. This includes

three possible set-asides: (1) up to 10% of a state’s

allotment for the DWSRF to administer or provide

technical assistance for Source Water Protection

programs within the state; (2) up to 15% of the state’s

capitalization grant for more than one of several Source

Water Protection activities (i.e., land acquisition/

easements, voluntary protection and petition activities,

source water assessments [available for FY 1997

grants only], and Wellhead Protection); and (3) up to

2 percent of the state’s allotment for additional

technical assistance to small Public Water Systems

(PWS).

Funds may also be allocated through Public Water

Supply Supervision (PWSS) grants for assisting with

compliance of federal and state drinking water

regulations. Although these grants are targeted to

assist in implementation of drinking water regulations,

including several new federal regulations, states could

potentially use these funds for comprehensive ground

water protection if they can make a direct correlation

to PWS compliance with drinking water regulations.

This report presents the findings that EPA has

developed in consultation with a work group of state

ground water managers, the Ground Water

Protection Council, the Association of State and

Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, and

the Association of State Drinking Water

Administrators regarding how our federal and state

ground water protection programs can more effectively

prevent ground water contamination problems in the

future. In this initial report prepared under Section

1429, EPA programs are the focus of the discussion

of federal ground water management activities. The

next report to be prepared in three years will include a

broader discussion with more information about other

federal programs. U.S. EPA is grateful to our

partners, the states, for their help in developing this

report.

Ground Water and the Health of the Nation

Maintaining access to clean, plentiful ground water

sources is critical to protect the health and welfare of

all parts of the country. Today, we rely on ground

water more than ever:

• ground water supplies drinking water to half of the

nation and virtually all people living in rural areas,

• ground water supports many billions of dollars

worth of food production and industrial activity, and

• ground water supplies the majority of streamflow

in large areas of the country and provides much

of the water in lakes and wetlands.

Ground water is used in every state and accounts for

about one-quarter of all freshwater used in the United

States today.

Ground Water Quality

Information about the extent and condition of ground

water quality is limited at the national and state level,

especially when compared to our understanding of

surface water quality. In contrast to surface water

quality monitoring, ground water monitoring is

more expensive and time consuming, and ground

water quality and vulnerability are more difficult to

characterize beyond the local level. Furthermore,

monitoring data to characterize the overall quality of

the resource have not been collected in a consistent

way. Without consistent, long-term monitoring data,

our ability to characterize ground water quality and

how land use affects ground water is limited,

particularly on a national scale.

However, based on the data that have been collected

to date, ground water quality appears to be generally

good nationwide (that is, ground water contaminant

levels are usually below applicable drinking water

standards). Locally, however, ground water quality is

being threatened by a variety of land uses. Although

ground water appears to be of higher quality than

surface water throughout the United States,

contamination incidents and over-pumping remain a

problem for numerous localities.

A variety of agricultural, industrial, commercial, and

waste disposal practices are known to contaminate

ground water. The occurrence of nitrates, pesticides,

organic chemicals, and other contaminants reveal the

impact of certain land uses on ground water quality.

Over-pumping can limit water availability to nearby

wells; reduce ground water flow to streams, lakes, and

wetlands; permanently damage aquifer storage

capacity; and induce salt water intrusion to

freshwater aquifers. Because no one federal, state,

or local authority can manage all of these threats, a

coordinated approach for ground water management

is needed.

ii
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

• Much still remains to be done to achieve a more

comprehensive approach.

- About a dozen states have developed an

EPA-approved Comprehensive State Ground

Water Protection Program (CSGWPP) that

promotes a more strategic, resource-based

approach to ground water protection, and

more than half the States are undertaking

efforts that are essential to a comprehensive

approach to ground water protection.

- However, only a few states have been able

to complete, or have begun to develop, a

comprehensive list of ground water

protection priorities. Even fewer states have

indicated that they have identified available

program funding sources to address their

comprehensive ground water protection

priorities in a systematic, consistent way.

• States have identified three primary barriers to

achieving a more comprehensive approach:

1) Fragmentation of ground water programs

impedes effective management. Most state

and federal ground water protection

programs are fragmented among and within

agencies. At the state level, authorities to

manage the resource are often held among

different state agencies with conflicting

priorities and goals. Communicating and

coordinating among departments with ground

water responsibilities can be difficult. In turn,

these barriers can create an impediment to

accessing funds for comprehensive planning

efforts.

2) There is a lack of understanding of ground

water resources locally and regionally (e.g.,

the extent and condition of the resource, the

physical nature of the aquifer, the behavior of

contaminants within and their movement

through aquifers, the influence of surface

water to ground water and vice versa).

Better information to assess the effectiveness

of ground water protection efforts and to

determine the impact of certain land uses on

ground water is needed to set priorities for

ground water protection efforts. The states

need to support the development of

Ground Water Management

Many states are working toward aspects of a more

comprehensive resource-based approach to ground

water protection, but much remains to be done.

In order to better manage the resource, increased

efforts towards such activities as data gathering,

coordination and integration of programs, and

comprehensive priority-setting must be achieved.

These planning activities, however, are often lacking

due to budget constraints and institutional barriers that

prohibit effective communication between agencies

and groups that have control over activities that

impact ground water.

Federal, state, and local governments need to

reexamine the current approach to ground water

management to assess the future direction of federal

and state programs. The critical question for many

states is how to increase efforts to prevent new ground

water contamination while managing the clean-up of

resources that were contaminated in the past. While

the liability for clean-up may act as a deterrent to

polluting ground water and programs like the Toxics

Release Inventory create public relations incentives

for reducing pollution, these types of programs alone

do not fully address our need to manage ground

water resources in a sustainable manner. Supporting

the comprehensive management efforts that are

emerging in the states will best serve the nation’s need

for maintaining sustainable ground water resources

into the future.

Findings

• Ground water is a critical resource to maintain

public health, the economy, and the environment.

• From what we know at most locations around the

country, ground water is generally of good quality

but continues to be threatened by point and

non-point sources, as well as over-pumping.

• States have made considerable progress in

implementing federal and state programs aimed

at specific contamination concerns.

• Most states agree that a more comprehensive,

resource-based approach holds greater potential

for accomplishing effective ground water

protection and many states are pursuing key

aspects of such an approach.

iii
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

coordinated, comprehensive approaches for

ground water monitoring that includes priority

setting.

3) Lack of funding targeted directly to ground

water is the reason most often cited by states

for limited efforts at undertaking a more

comprehensive resource-based approach.

Ground water protection is often not a high

priority for funding; mandated programs

usually prevail for funding. Most states

indicate that the mandates under other

federal programs often preclude the state from

exercising flexibility to use funds for

non-mandated ground water protection

priorities. This is particularly the case under

the Clean Water Act (CWA), where states

have the opportunity to pursue ground water

activities, including more comprehensive

resource assessment and planning, utilizing

State Water Quality Program Grants,

Non-point Source Grants or the non-point

source projects supported by the CWA State

Revolving Fund loans.

• While the funds are relatively limited, most states

believe that funding of SDWA Section 1429 grants

would support more coordinated state planning

and priority setting for ground water protection as

a first step toward solving some of these

problems. States believe that by providing a

source of targeted funding, states will be able to

better address the issues of program

fragmentation within the state and basic program

needs, such as monitoring, resource

characterization, and the development and

implementation of protection programs.

iv
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

List of Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols

AFO Animal feeding operations

AST Above ground storage tank

AU Animal unit

BMP Best management practice

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CSGWPP Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program

CWA Clean Water Act

EDMS Environmental Data Management System (Idaho)

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

GIS Geographic information system

GWFG Ground Water Focus Group

IGPA Illinois Groundwater Protection Act

ITFM Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality

MCL Maximum contaminant level

MTBE Methyl tert-butyl ether

mg/L Milligram per liter

NAWQA National Water Quality Assessment

NWQMC National Water Quality Monitoring Council

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

UIC Underground injection control

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

UST Underground storage tank

VOC Volatile organic compounds

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

ug/L Microgram per liter

v
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress vi

This page left intentionally blank.
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

Table of Contents

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................... i

List of Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols ............................................................................................ v

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................... vii

List of Exhibits ........................................................................................................................................... viii

1.0. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Purpose of this Report .................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Report Development Process and Content ..................................................................................... 1

2.0 THE IMPORTANCE OF GROUND WATER TO THE HEALTH OF THE NATION ............................... 3

2.1 Ground Water Uses ........................................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Ground Water Characteristics ........................................................................................................ 6

3.0 GROUND WATER QUALITY: A RESOURCE AT RISK ................................................................... 11

3.1 The Quality of the Nation’s Ground Water ......................................................................................11

3.2 Threats to Ground Water ............................................................................................................... 11

3.3 What These Ground Water Threats Mean to the Nation ............................................................... 18

4.0 GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................... 21

4.1 Federal Ground Water Management Programs ........................................................................... 21

4.2 State Ground Water Management Programs: Building on Federal Authorities .............................. 24

4.3 Comprehensive Ground Water Management and Sustainable Ground Water Quality ................... 32

5.0 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................... 35

References .............................................................................................................................................. A-1

Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................................................... B-1

Addendum: State Fact Sheets

vii

(Exit EPA)
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

LIST OF EXHIBITS

2-1 Categories of Ground Water Use (USGS 1998a) .......................................................................... 3

2-2 Percentage of Population Relying on Ground Water as a Drinking Water Source by State

 (USGS 1998a) .............................................................................................................................. 4

2-3 Volume of Ground Water Used by the States (Mgal/d) and Percentage of Total Ground Water

 Withdrawals Occurring in Each State (USGS 1998a) ................................................................... 5

2-4 Principal Aquifers of the United States (USGS 1998b) .................................................................. 6

2-5 Ground Water Contributions to Surface Water in 10 Hydrologic Regions Around the Country

 (USGS 1998a) .............................................................................................................................. 7

2-6 Agricultural Irrigation (Marty Link, NDEC) ..................................................................................... 8

2-7 The Hydrologic Cycle .................................................................................................................. 10

3-1 Animal Feeding Operation (AFO) ................................................................................................. 14

3-2 Confirmed Underground Storage Tank Releases as of February 28, 1999 ................................... 16

4-1 Percentage of States That Have begun Implementing Components of a Comprehensive

 Ground Water Protection Program .............................................................................................. 25

4-2 State Wellhead Protection Programs ........................................................................................... 32

viii
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

1.0. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of this Report

Section 1429 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) Administrator to make grants to the states for

the development and implementation of programs that

ensure the coordinated and comprehensive

protection of ground water resources. Under this

authority, EPA is also required every three years to

evaluate funded state

ground water protection

programs and report to

Congress on the status of

ground water quality in

the United States and the

effectiveness of state

programs for protecting

ground water.

Congress enacted SDWA to protect the quality of

drinking water in the United States. The Act has

become one of the principal authorities for managing

and protecting ground water resources by controlling

the underground injection of waste, providing

authority and support for wellhead and drinking water

source protection, and recommending the

development of comprehensive state programs for

ground water management.

Section 1429 of the Safe Drinking Water Act requires

EPA to prepare a Report to Congress on ground

water protection programs.

Under the 1996 amendments to SDWA, Congress

added Section 1429 to the Act, which authorized up

to $15 million for each of fiscal years 1997 through

2003 to support state programs for comprehensive

ground water protection. Funds under this authority

have not been appropriated for fiscal years 1997

through 1999. This report addresses the current status and effectiveness of state ground water programs

and examines our nation’s approach to protecting

ground water.

Section 1429 of the

Safe Drinking Water

Act requires EPA to

prepare a Report to

Congress on ground

water protection

programs.

1.2 Report Development Process and Content

EPA convened a work group of state and federal

ground water experts to develop the findings presented

in this report regarding approaches to protect and

sustain the nation’s ground water.

To support this effort, EPA and the work group used

the following two principal sources of information:

❑ Existing literature and research reports developed

by federal agencies, the states, universities, and

private research organizations; and

❑ A report of state ground water management

agencies completed in April 1999 (GWPC 1999a)1.

Information sources, which support EPA and work

group findings, are cited throughout this report.

This report is organized in the following five sections:

❑ Section 1, Introduction, which discusses the

purpose of this report and its organization

❑ Section 2, Ground Water’s Importance to the

Health of the Nation, which summarizes ground

water characteristics and uses

❑ Section 3, Ground Water Quality, which discusses

threats to the nation’s ground water

❑ Section 4, Ground Water Management, which

discusses federal, state, and local government approaches and programs for protecting ground

water

❑ Section 5, Findings, which discusses ground

water and management approaches to protect and

sustain the nation’s ground water

In addition, this report contains two appendices:

Appendix A cites references used to prepare this

report and Appendix B presents a glossary of terms

used in this report. A summary of state ground water

management programs is included as an addendum

to this report.

1 The report of state ground water management agencies was completed under the sponsorship of the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC),

the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), and the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA). GWPC, ASIWPCA, and ASDWA compiled information from 26 states for this report.

1
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress 2

This page left intentionally blank.
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

2.0 THE IMPORTANCE OF GROUND

WATER TO THE HEALTH OF THE

NATION

Beneath the surface of the earth, a huge supply of

fresh water is available to support the health and

economic well-being of the nation. This ground water

is generally of good quality2 and, unlike surface

water, it can in many cases be used safely without

treatment. Although ground water is largely a hidden

resource, it is critical to our public health and

economic welfare as a source of drinking water; a key

agricultural, industrial, and ecological resource; and a

large source of recharge water for our lakes, streams,

and wetlands.

Maintaining access to clean and plentiful ground

water is therefore critical. Today, we rely on ground

water more than ever, as illustrated by the following:

❑ Ground water supplies drinking water to half of

the nation and virtually all people living in rural

areas.

❑ Ground water supports many billions of

dollars worth of food production and

industrial activity.

❑ Ground water supplies the

majority of streamflow in

large areas of the country

and provides much of the

water in lakes and

wetlands.

Ground water uses and characteristics are discussed

below.

2.1 Ground Water Uses

In the United States, ground water is used for

agricultural, domestic, industrial, and commercial

purposes. The primary uses of ground water are for

drinking and bathing, irrigation of croplands, livestock

watering, mining, industrial and commercial uses, and

thermoelectric cooling applications. Exhibit 2-1

illustrates ground water use among these categories

(USGS 1998a). As shown, irrigation and public water

supply are the largest ground water uses, accounting

for 64 and 20 percent of all fresh ground water

withdrawals.

About 77.5 billion gallons of ground water are

withdrawn daily for use in this country. In 1995, USGS

reported that ground water supplied 50 percent of the

nation with drinking water either through a public or

private water supply3

. USGS also estimates that 42

million Americans living in rural areas, or 16 percent

of the U.S. population, drink ground water daily (USGS

1998a) (see Exhibit 2-2.).

Ground water supports public health, economic, and

ecological needs, as discussed below.

Ground water is the source of drinking water

supply for half of the nation; is a key component

of the economy; and maintains our streams,

lakes, and wetlands.

2 When contaminants for which there are drinking water standards are found in ground water, they are usually at levels that are below the drinking

water standard.

3

 In this report, private water supplies refer to wells operated by individuals for domestic use.

Exhibit 2-1: Categories of Ground Water Use Source: USGS (1998a)

Irrigation

64.1%

Commercial

1.2%

Domestic

Public Supply 4.4%

19.8%

Mining

1.4%

Thermoelectric

Industrial 0.7%

5.4%

Livestock

3.0%

3
Alabama

51.9%

Alaska

63.6%

Arizona

60.2% Arkansas

53.1%

California

45.5%

Colorado

22.1%

Florida

92.8%

Georgia

41.4%

Hawaii

96.5%

Idaho

96.2%

Illinois

33.2%

Indiana

63.6%

Iowa

78.1%

Kansas

50.4% Kentucky 25.1%

Louisiana

60.9%

Michigan

46.0%

Minnesota

79.8%

Mississippi

92.1%

Missouri

53.8%

Montana

53.4%

Nebraska

Nevada 87.1%

30.8%

New 

6

New Mexico

89.9%

New Y

34.6

North Carolina

49.8%

North Dakota

56.9%

Ohio

46.3%

Oklahoma

33.9%

Oregon

43.6%

Pennsylvania

41.2%

South Carolina

44.9%

South Dakota

69.8%

Tennessee

47.0%

Texas

45.4%

Utah

57.0%

Vermon

65.0%

Virginia

34.1%

Washington

60.8%

 West

Virginia

43.3%

Wisconsin

69.8%

Wyoming

58.5%

Puerto Rico

27.8% Virgin Islands

62.7%

Exhibit 2-2: Percentage of Population Relying on Ground Water as a Drinking Source by State Source: USGS (1998
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

Public Health

The average person does not often think about ground

water because it is hidden beneath the land surface,

has historically been plentiful, and is generally of good

quality. In fact, we have come to expect that clean,

abundant ground water will always be available.

Ground water is used in every state and accounts for

close to one-quarter of all fresh water used in the

United States today. Over half of the people in this

country use ground water for all or part of their

drinking water supply. In rural areas, virtually all

water used in homes is ground water from private

wells.

5

Economic Needs

Plentiful, clean ground water is also critical to our

economy. Nationally, over 40 percent of all water used

for crop irrigation or livestock watering and over 20

percent of water used by industries is ground water

(USGS 1998a). Every state uses some amount of

ground water to fulfill its water resource needs.

Seventeen states obtain greater than 25 percent of

their overall water supply from ground water, and

seven states obtain greater than 50 percent of their

total water supply from ground water (USGS 1998a).

As a portion of total freshwater use, ground water

withdrawals during 1995 were highest in the western

United States, where the water was used primarily to

supply increasing population and to sustain important

agricultural activities. Exhibit 2-3 shows the volume

of ground water withdrawn by states for all uses.

California

14,700 (Mgal/d)

18.97%

Idaho

2,830 (Mgal/d)

3.65%

Arizona

2,840 (Mgal/d)

3.66%

Nebraska

6,200 (Mgal/d)

7.99%

Alaska

132 (Mgal/d)

0.17%

Hawaii

531 (Mgal/d)

0.69%

Puerto Rico

155 (Mgal/d)

0.20%

Virgin Islands

0.7 (Mgal/d)

0.01%

Washington

1,760 (Mgal/d)

2.27%

Oregon

1,050 (Mgal/d)

1.36%

Utah

790 (Mgal/d)

1.02%

Neveda

896 (Mgal/d)

1.16%

New Mexico

1,700 (Mgal/d)

2.19%

Colorado

2,270 (Mgal/d)

2.93%

Wyoming

335 (Mgal/d)

0.43%

Montana

217 (Mgal/d)

0.28%

No. Dakota

122 (Mgal/d)

0.16%

So. Dakota

322 (Mgal/d)

0.42%

Minnesota

714 (Mgal/d)

0.92%

Kansas

3,510 (Mgal/d)

4.53% Oklahoma

1,220 (Mgal/d)

1.57%

Louisiana

1,350 (Mgal/d)

1.74% Missouri

891 (Mgal/d)

1.15%

Arkansas

5,460 (Mgal/d)

7.05%

Mississippi

2,590 (Mgal/d)

3.34%

Texas

8,780 (Mgal/d)

11.33%

Iowa

528 (Mgal/d)

0.68%

Alabama

445 (Mgal/d)

0.57%

Georgia

1,190 (Mgal/d)

1.54%

Kentucky

226 (Mgal/d)

0.29%

Tennessee

435 (Mgal/d)

0.56%

Florida

4,340 (Mgal/d)

5.60%

Michigan

862 (Mgal/d)

1.11%

Illinois

953 (Mgal/d)

1.23%

Wisconsin

759 (Mgal/d)

0.98%

So. Carolina

322 (Mgal/d)

0.42%

No. Carolina

535 (Mgal/d)

0.69%

Maine

80 (Mgal/d)

0.10%

New Hampshire

81 (Mgal/d)

0.11%

Vermont

50 (Mgal/d)

0.07%

New York

1,010 (Mgal/d)

Indiana 1.30%

709 (Mgal/d)

0.92% Massachusetts

351 (Mgal/d)

0.45%

Rhode Island

27 (Mgal/d)

0.04%

West Virginia

146 (Mgal/d)

0.19%

Pennsylvania

860 (Mgal/d)

1.11% Ohio

905 (Mgal/d)

1.17%

Connecticut

166 (Mgal/d) New Jersey 0.21% 580 (Mgal/d)

0.75%

Delaware

110 (Mgal/d)

0.14%

D.C.

0.5 (Mgal/d)

0.01%

Virginia

358 (Mgal/d)

0.46% Maryland

246 (Mgal/d)

0.32%

Exhibit 2-3: Volume of Ground Water Used by the States (Mgal/d) and Percentage of Total Ground Water

Withdrawals Occurring In Each State

Source: USGS (1998a)
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

Unconsolidated sand and gravel

Semiconsolidated sand

Sandstone and carbonate rock

Basalt and other volcanic rock

Sandstone

Carbonate rock

Not a principal aquifer

6

Ecological Needs

The abundance and quality of surface

water is directly linked to ground water

quality and quantity. Ground water

entering rivers and lakes helps maintain

surface water levels during dry periods.

As a result, ground water plays a critical

role in maintaining fish habitat and other

critical ecological resources, such as

wetlands, estuaries, and coastal

marshlands (USGS 1998b).

2.2 Ground Water Characteristics

Ground water does not rest; it moves

continuously but often very slowly to areas

of natural discharge. Except for water

removed by wells, ground water travels until

it reappears naturally as springs or

empties into rivers, lakes, wetlands, or

oceans.

Ground water constitutes an enormous

quantity of the fresh water found on Earth.

Ninety-six percent of all fresh water on earth

is ground water (EPA 1998a). As

illustrated in Exhibit 2-4, major

ground water aquifers are located

all over the country. Besides

these major aquifers, smaller

aquifers exist at the regional level

either above or below these

major or principal aquifers. A well

can be drilled just about

anywhere in the country at some

depth to supply enough water to

support a household.

Ground Water and Surface Water: One Resource

Ground water does not remain underground forever. Not only

do we pump it to the surface through wells, ground water also

comes to the land surface through springs and seeps into

rivers, lakes, and other water bodies. In some portions of the

country, especially arid regions, aquifers contribute a large

portion of the water found in streams. Overall, up to half of the

water flow in our streams comes from ground water. This source

of surface water recharge (see Exhibit 2-5) is especially

important in sustaining stream flow during dry periods.

Reductions in surface water flow can have adverse impacts on

the ecology of a watershed, recreational potential, the use of

surface waterways for transportation, and the availability of

drinking water and water for other uses. Ground water

depletion has eliminated surface water flows altogether in some

areas. Ground water also supports plants and animals that live

in certain wetlands or along certain streambanks.

Because baseflow in the nation’s streams is derived from ground

water, ground water is increasingly becoming recognized as a

conduit for nonpoint source contamination to surface water.

Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the states

have identified over 20,000 lakes and stream segments whose

contaminant levels exceed one or more water quality standards.

Exhibit 2-4: Principal Aquifers of the United States

 Source: U.S. Geological Survey (1998b)
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

I. Orestimba Creek, CA

J. Duckabush River, WA

A. Dismal River, NE

B. Forest River, ND

C. Sturgeon River, MI

D. Ammonoosuc River, NH

E. Brushy Creek, GA

F. Homochitto River, MS

G. Dry Frio River, TX

H. Santa Cruz River, AZ

0 250 500 MILES

Shaded relief from Thelin and Pike

digital data 1:3,500,000 1991

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection.

In the conterminous United States, 24 regions were delineated where the interactions of groundwater and 

surface water are considered to have similar characteristics. The estimated groundwater contribution to 

streamflow is shown for specific streams in 10 of the regions.

Groundwater contribution

to streamflow

7

Exhibit 2-5: Ground Water Contributions to Surface Water in 10 Hydrologic Regions Around the County

Source: USGS (1998g)

In the conterminous United States, 24 regions were delineated where the interactions of groundwater and surface water are

considered to have similar characteristics (i.e., ground water accounts for a similar proportion of surface water discharge within

each region). The estimated groundwater contribution to stream flow is shown for specific streams in 10 of the regions.
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress 8

Although the ground water resource is extensive, it is

also vulnerable to contamination and locally

vulnerable to over-pumping and loss of aquifer

capacity. Recognition of these threats to our ground

water resources has prompted the U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS) to refocus its strategic direction to

support assessments of ground water vulnerability.

Ground water vulnerability is governed by a variety of

factors, including the amount of soil or other geologic

materials overlaying ground water, the depth and

geologic characteristics of the aquifer, and the time it

takes to replenish the aquifer. On average, every

gallon of water withdrawn from the ground takes 280

years to replace (Heath 1983). By comparison,

surface water is replaced shortly after withdrawal from

a lake or stream. Agricultural activities account for

the majority of ground water use in this country.

Irrigation is important for maintaining yields from

cropland throughout the nation, with the greatest

volume of irrigation water use occurring in the

western and southeastern United States

(Exhibit 2-6). Approximately 75 percent or more of

harvested cropland in many of the western United

States is irrigated.

Exhibit 2-6: Agricultural Irrigation

Source: Marty Link, Nebraska Department of Environmental Conservation
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

Watering of livestock also accounts for significant

withdrawals of fresh ground water. Of all the states,

California uses the greatest volume of ground water

supplies to support agriculture — 80 percent of all fresh

ground water withdrawn in the state is used for

agriculture.

Ground water use between 1950 and 1995 has

followed national trends in total water use. From 1950

through 1980, ground water withdrawals increased,

which coincided with a steady increase in total water

withdrawals. Although recent USGS studies indicate

a possible decrease in the amount of ground water

used in the United States due to water conservation,

over-pumping continues to threaten many ground

water supplies at the local and state level, leading to

problems such as salt water intrusion, loss of discharge

to surface water, and loss of aquifer capacity (USGS

1998b).

Factors Making Ground Water Vulnerable to Contamination -

The Puget Sound Basin, Washington

Ground water vulnerability is a relative measure of the risk that ground water will be

contaminated by a particular chemical, such as nitrate. Nitrate contamination of ground water

primarily results from fertilizers, septic systems, and urban runoff. In the Puget Sound Basin of

Washington State, shallow wells screened in aquifers that have coarse-grained glacial deposits

at the surface and a high percentage of urban (residential, commercial, and industrial) or

agricultural land use are most vulnerable to nitrate contamination. For example, shallow wells in

agricultural areas overlying coarse-grained glacial deposits, such as much of the Lower Nooksack

Valley, and urban areas overlying such deposits, like parts of Tacoma and Olympia, have a

greater than 50 percent probability of nitrate concentrations at or above 3 mg/L. Nitrate

concentrations at these levels are well above naturally occurring levels in the Puget Sound

Basin and indicate that a man-made source of nitrate is contaminating ground water. Areas

containing wells with elevated levels of nitrate should be closely monitored to ensure that the

nitrate drinking water standard of 10 mg/L is not exceeded.

Source: Erwin, M.L. and Tesoriero, A.J., 1998 (USGS Fact Sheet 061-97).

9
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress 10

Exhibit 2-7: The Hydrologic Cycle

CONDENSATION

EVAPORATION

TRANSPIRATION SURFACE

RUNOFF

PERCOLATION

WATER TABLE

GROUNDWATER FLOW

STREAMFLOW OCEAN

LAKE

The Movement of Water on the Earth

When precipitation falls on the surface of the earth, the water may either (1) run off the land surface to the nearest

stream, (2) be taken up by plants, (3) be lost to evaporation, or (4) soak into the soil (see Exhibit 2-7). Water that

soaks into the soil may continue to percolate through open spaces to deeper subsurface geologic formations. The

water that enters these subsurface areas is considered ground water. Certain types of geologic formations can

store and hold large quantities of ground water because of their physical characteristics. These formations are

called aquifers. However, even the water that does percolate into the soil will eventually flow into lakes, streams, or

oceans.
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress 11

 3.0 GROUND WATER QUALITY:

A RESOURCE AT RISK

This section discusses the key threats to ground

water quality that occur nationwide and the available

data to characterize those threats.

3.1 The Quality of the Nation’s Ground

Water

Ground water is a valuable natural resources.

Because of filtration through vegetation, soil, and

geologic materials, ground water is generally

considered to be a more naturally protected resource

than surface water. In addition, unlike surface water

bodies (such as streams, rivers, and lakes) that are

only found in discrete areas, ground water is present

across the nation at various depths below the ground

surface. Because of these characteristics, the public

has come to expect ground water to be generally

available and of high quality. Although the nation has

come to rely strongly on this resource, the threats

discussed in this section pose significant management

challenges for state and federal ground water

management programs.

National and local studies increasingly indicate that

many activities adversely impact ground water

quality. Contamination incidents and impairment from

over-pumping, such as permanent loss of aquifer

storage capacity and land subsidence, remain a

local problem because of the relatively slow rate at

which ground water travels. A variety of agricultural,

industrial/commercial, and waste disposal practices

are known to contaminate ground water. The

occurrence of nitrate, pesticides, volatile organic

chemicals (VOCs), and other contaminants in ground

water all reveal the impact of land use on ground

water quality. Over-pumping can impair nearby wells;

reduce ground water flow to streams, lakes, and

wetlands; permanently damage aquifer storage

capacity; and induce salt water intrusion to

freshwater aquifers. Because no one federal, state,

or local authority can manage all of these threats, a

coordinated approach for ground water management

is needed.

This section includes an overview of many of these

threats and provides general findings regarding the

quality of ground water in the nation today. Although

the nation is just beginning to gather national-scale

data on the occurrence of a limited number of

chemicals in ground water, our knowledge of ground

water quality and the threats to the resource is

growing1. As discussed below, information about

trends in ground water quality is preliminary because

the nation has not assessed ground water quality

nationwide on a consistent basis. However, we do

know that certain land use changes result in more

widespread occurrences of contamination in the

nation’s ground water.

3.2 Threats to Ground Water

Over the past twenty years, thousands of local ground

water contamination incidents have been identified and

the nation has devoted many billions of public and

private dollars to clean-up these problems. Although

these efforts have protected many people from

exposure to ground water contaminants released from

sources such as hazardous waste sites and leaking

underground storage tanks, some incidences of

ground water contamination have not yet been fully

cleaned up. In some instances, ground water

remediation can take a decade or more to be

completed. Furthermore, in many parts of the

country, we are using ground water at a faster rate

than it can be replenished through natural recharge,

and, in some cases, we are permanently losing future

storage capacity. As a result, while we are not yet

facing a ground water crisis, current trends in ground

water quality and ground water use point to the need

for a more coordinated ground water protection effort

in this country.

Ground water quality in this country is generally

good, but many local activities threaten the

resource.

1

 The USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, discussed below, is designed to assess changing ground water quality

conditions as they relate to land use. While sufficient data sets are not yet available to monitor for ground water quality trends in a consistent,

systematic manner, NAWQA will serve to identify changing ground water quality conditions in important agricultural and urban settings

overlying aquifers used for public and domestic supply. This information may allow for the development of trend models that states and others

can use to improve the design of future sampling efforts.
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress 12

Various federal, state, and academic information

relates agricultural, industrial, waste disposal, and

other land uses with ground water degradation.

Certain land uses are known to impair ground water

quality, but the ability to predict the level of

impairment from specific activities is difficult,

especially over long periods of time.

The U.S. Geological Survey’s National Water Quality

Assessment (NAWQA) Program is the principal source

of information on ground water quality available in the

United States today and provides the basis for the

findings presented in this section.

Under the NAWQA program, USGS collects new

water quality data in 60 special study regions of the

country, conducts retrospective analyses of existing

data (such as state data), and prepares national-scale

syntheses of the results. U.S. EPA relied on the most

recent NAWQA reports in preparing this discussion.

In addition, U.S. EPA prepares summary reports on

ground water quality. In the Biennial Water Quality

Inventory Report to Congress (also known as the

“305(b) Report”), EPA synthesizes a national picture

of ground water quality and protection programs by

consolidating state-level water quality assessments.

The 1998 report represents only the second cycle of

data synthesis, and is a compilation of individual state

reports. As state reporting matures, improvements in

data comparability, coverage, and better

representation of actual conditions are expected.

EPA is also developing a National Contaminant

Occurrence Database (NCOD) to track contaminants

in ground water and surface water sources of

drinking water supply. The NCOD will aid in the

identification and selection of contaminants for future

drinking water regulations, support regulation

development or other appropriate actions, and assist

in the review of existing regulations for possible

modification. The NCOD will also inform the public

about contaminants in drinking water. The NCOD will

incorporate data of documented quality from existing

federal databases on regulated and unregulated

physical, chemical, microbial, and radiological

contaminants, and other contaminants that are known

or are likely to occur in the source and finished waters

of public water systems of the United States and its

territories.

These studies and reports are important for national

policy decision-making. Some study results are

highlighted below, as well as information on

contaminant sources known to significantly impact

ground water quality.

Preliminary findings from NAWQA studies regarding

the impact of certain land uses and contaminants on

ground water are presented in this section. The

greatest volume of national data is available to

characterize nitrate occurrence in ground water.

Because nitrate is often found in conjunction with other

nutrients and pesticides, nitrate is often used as an

indicator of the impact of agricultural and residential

land use on ground water quality. In addition, the

characteristics of the major contaminant sources are

described. This section does not present a

comprehensive list of land uses or contaminants that

affect ground water, but it does provide an illustration

of common threats and their impacts.

Agricultural Practices

Food production in this country has become highly

dependent on the use of agricultural chemicals,

including fertilizers and pesticides. When these

chemicals are applied to the land, they may be

transported through the soil and into ground water.

The impact of agricultural chemical use on ground

water may be especially severe in areas with the

following characteristics:

Major Sources of Ground Water

Contamination (from the 1996 305(b) Report)

In the 1996 305(b) Report, 37 states reported

on potential sources of ground water

contamination. Those sources most frequently

cited as being of greatest concern include

underground storage tanks, landfills, septic

systems, hazardous waste sites, surface

impoundments, aboveground storage tanks,

industrial facilities, spills, fertilizer and pesticide

applications, pipelines and sewer lines,

agricultural chemical facilities, shallow injection

wells, salt water intrusion, animal feedlots, land

application, mining, urban runoff, salt storage and

road salting, and hazardous waste generators.

Source: EPA (1998a)
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress 13

(1) high rainfall, snowmelt, or excessive irrigation,

especially following recent agricultural chemical

application;

(2) well drained and permeable soils that are

underlain by sand and gravel or fractured

bedrock, which enable rapid downward

movement of water;

(3) crop-management practices that slow runoff

and allow more time for water to infiltrate into

the ground; and

(4) soils low in organic matter and high levels of

dissolved solids

Ground Water Quality

On the basis of preliminary findings, the NAWQA

program has found that the highest concentrations of

pesticides, primarily herbicides, and nitrate detected

in ground water are in areas overlain by agricultural

activities (USGS 1996, 1998d, 1998e, 1998f, 1999b,

and 1999c). Specific findings from the NAWQA

studies with regard to pesticides and nitrate are

discussed on the following pages:

Pesticides

Concentrations of individual pesticides in ground

water generally are low and rarely exceed most EPA

drinking water standards and guidelines. In less than

1 percent of wells sampled in the NAWQA program,

pesticide concentrations exceeded standards or

guidelines (USGS 1999c). Concentrations of some

herbicides (a type of pesticide), including herbicides

used to control weeds and vegetation on lawns, golf

courses, and along roads and rights-of-way, were

elevated in samples collected from streams and

shallow ground water in urban areas, although these

concentrations were found to be slightly higher

overall in agricultural areas. (USGS 1999c).

NAWQA study results also show that although

pesticide concentrations do not exceed drinking

water standards frequently, this assessment may be

incomplete with regard to the overall health and

environmental risks associated with the presence of

pesticides in shallow ground water (USGS 1998d,

1998e, 1999c). Drinking water standards for the

protection of human health have only been established

for 25 of the 46 pesticide compounds examined. These

drinking water standards only consider the effects of

individual compounds and do not account for the

presence of more than one pesticide compound; some

studies indicate that combinations of pesticide

compounds may exhibit additive or even synergistic

toxic effects. Seventy-three percent of the sampling

sites where pesticides were detected had two or more

compounds present, 25 percent had four or more, and

6 percent had six or more compounds present.

Other pesticide compounds for which drinking water

standards or surface water quality criteria have not

been developed, particularly pesticide degradates,

have been detected in ground water. It has not yet

been determined whether these compounds may have

adverse health effects.

Nitrate

Nitrate concentrations in ground water are highest in

samples collected from wells in agricultural areas.

Contamination from nitrate occurs most frequently in

shallow ground water (less than 100 feet below the

land surface) and in aquifers located in geologic

settings that allow the rapid movement of water.

Furthermore, high levels of nitrate may serve as an

early warning of possible future degradation of older,

underlying ground water, commonly a primary source

for public-water supply.

Nitrate in Ground Water in Oklahoma

In the mid-1990’s, 5,677 water samples from

privately-owned wells were analyzed by the

State of Oklahoma. These water samples were

collected from homeowners with private wells.

Of the 5,677 samples, nitrate concentrations of

at least 3 mg/L were detected in 3,687 samples

(i.e., 65 percent). In general, a nitrate

concentration at or above 3 mg/L is indicative of

human impacts on ground water quality. In

addition, 1,462 of the collected samples (i.e.,

27 percent) contained nitrate above the drinking

water standard of 10 mg/L. In the extremes,

36 samples contained nitrate in excess of

100 mg/L, with one sample at 625 mg/L.

Source: Ground Water Protection Council (1999)
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

Concentrations in about 12 percent of domesticsupply wells in agricultural areas exceeded the

drinking water standard of 10 mg/L. Regional

differences are related to soil-drainage properties and

other geologic characteristics, and agricultural

practices. Nitrate in ground water is highest in areas

of well-drained soils and intensive cultivation of row

crops, such as corn, cotton, or vegetables. Low

concentrations of nitrate are found in areas of poorly

drained soil and where pasture or woodland is

intermixed with cropland.

Contaminant Sources

As mentioned above, a variety of fertilizers and

pesticides are used in agricultural operations. In

addition, the high volume of wastes associated with

animal feeding operations are also being

recognized as a potential threat to ground water.

Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs)

AFOs are agricultural operations where animals are

kept and raised in concentrated areas. AFOs

congregate animals, feed, manure and urine, dead

animals, and production operations in a small land

area. Because of the high concentration of animals

and the large amount of animal manure and

wastewater generated, it is widely recognized that

AFOs can pose a number of risks to water quality and

public health. Approximately 450,000 agricultural

operations nationwide confine animals.

14

Exhibit 3-1: Animal Feeding Operation (AFO)
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

Manure and wastewater from AFOs have the

potential to contribute pollutants such as nutrients (for

example, nitrogen and phosphorus), pathogens,

hormones, and antibiotics to ground water. Nitrogen

in the form of nitrate can contaminate ground water

drinking water supplies. In areas where nutrient-rich

ground water discharges to surface water, excess

nutrients in surface water can also result in or

contribute to eutrophication, anoxia, and hypoxia (low

levels of dissolved oxygen), toxic algal blooms that

may be harmful to human health, and outbreaks of

microorganisms such as Pfiesteria piscicida.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and EPA

jointly published a Unified National Strategy for

Animal Feeding Operations. The Unified Strategy

discusses the relationship between AFOs and

environmental and public health and establishes a

national performance expectation for all AFO

owners and operators. The Strategy presents a

series of actions to minimize public health impacts and

improve water quality while complementing the longterm sustainability of livestock production. In

particular, the Strategy states the expectation that all

AFO owners and operators will develop and

implement technically sound and economically

feasible site-specific Comprehensive Nutrient

Management Plans.

Industrial and Commercial Practices

Raw material extraction, primary and secondary

product fabrication, and certain retailing and service

industries manage a wide range of potential ground

water contaminants. Heavy industrial practices, such

as large-volume petroleum and chemical production

and storage facilities, are well documented potential

sources of contamination and are subject to

extensive regulatory and management controls. Other

light industrial and commercial practices, such as

electroplaters, auto repair shops, and dry cleaners,

may also manage products or waste materials that

can contaminate ground water (EPA 1990).

There are three common types of chemical

contaminants that may be associated with industrial

and commercial activities, volatile organic compounds

(VOCs), other organic compounds, and inorganic

compounds. Although the most commonly found

contaminants in ground water are VOCs, inorganic

contaminants are commonly found in contaminated

15

ground water at Superfund National Priority List sites.

Inorganic contaminants, however, are rarely found

above drinking water standards away from these sites.

Ground Water Quality

Ground water in areas with industrial and commercial

activities can become contaminated by releases of

chemicals. Based on preliminary NAWQA findings

(USGS, 1998c, 1999a), 46 (out of 60 selected for

analysis) different VOCs have been detected in ground

water nationwide, however, these detections are

generally below the applicable drinking water

standards. VOCs are most frequently detected in

shallow ground water in urban areas. Approximately

54 percent of samples taken in shallow ground water

in urban areas contained one or more VOCs.

Chemical solvents (such as trichloroethylene,

perchloroethylene, and carbon tetrachloride) are a type

of VOC that is used in a wide variety of industrial and

commercial facilities for cleaning or degreasing

purposes. Some of these chemicals are very mobile

in the subsurface environment. As a result, solvents

are common sources of ground water contamination.

Some municipal and private wells have had to shut

down as the result of solvent contamination.

Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)

MTBE is a VOC that is added to gasoline to

increase octane levels and to reduce carbon

monoxide and ozone levels in the air. MTBE is

identified as a potential human carcinogen by

EPA. Under the NAWQA program, MTBE was

detected in 21 percent of 480 wells located in

areas that use MTBE in gasoline to abate air

pollution. In the rest of the nation, MTBE was

detected in 2 percent of ground water samples

(2,263 wells sampled) . Most of the MTBE

detections have been at levels below the EPA

drinking-water advisory of 20 to 40 micrograms

per liter (ug/L). Sources of MTBE in ground water

include gasoline released from accidental spills,

leaking underground storage tanks, pipelines,

and watercraft emissions.

Source: USGS (1999a)
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

Exhibit 3-2: Confirmed Underground Storage Tank Releases to Soil and Potentially Ground Water as of

February 28, 1999

Source: EPA (1999)

0 to 5,000

5,001 to 10,000

10,001 to 34,000

16

Contaminant Sources

Underground Storage Tanks

Leaking underground storage tanks (UST) are of

special concern at commercial and industrial facilities.

As of February 28, 1999, about 386,000 releases from

regulated UST systems have been reported.

These releases have contaminated soil and

potentially ground water. Gasoline leaking from UST

systems at service stations is one of the most

common sources of ground water contamination.

Because the released petroleum products contain

many potential hazardous and toxic chemicals (e.g.,

benzene), many of these releases have posed

serious threats to human health and the environment.

Some municipal and private wells have had to shut

down as the result of gasoline contamination.

As of December 1998, regulated USTs were required

to be upgraded to prevent leaks to ground water or be

closed (40 CFR Part 280).

Waste Disposal

According to 1997 EPA Toxic Release Inventory data,

U.S. industries reported that over 840 million pounds

of toxic materials were disposed on the land or in

underground injection wells. In addition, large volumes

of waste materials are also disposed by households

and other small commercial and industrial facilities in

septic systems and underground injection wells. The

likelihood of contaminants from these sources

reaching ground water is highly site-specific, and state

and federal waste disposal regulations are intended

to prevent such problems.

Ground Water Quality

The inappropriate disposal of wastes from various land

use activities, including residential, industrial, and

commercial activities, may pose serious

contamination threats to ground water. Improperly

sited or maintained septic systems, improper waste

disposal into the ground through shallow wells,
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress 17

mismanagement of wastes from AFOs, and waste

disposal at landfills and open dumps have

contaminated ground water. In addition to chemical

contaminants, some disposal activities introduce

microorganisms such as bacteria and diseasecausing viruses into ground water.

Contaminant Sources

Septic systems and Class V underground injection

wells are discussed below as sources of ground

water contaminants. In addition, the impact of

over-pumping on ground water quality and availability

is discussed.

Septic Systems

According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Census

(1997) and information collected by the National Small

Flows Clearinghouse (1999a), over 23 million U.S.

households rely on septic systems for their domestic

wastewater disposal (National Small Flows

Clearinghouse 1999a). In addition, millions of

commercial and industrial facilities use septic systems

for wastewater disposal. Septic system effluent

represents a significant source of ground water

contamination and has resulted in waterborne disease

outbreaks in the United States. In 1993 and 1994,

17 states and one territory reported 30 disease

outbreaks associated with drinking water, affecting an

estimated 405,000 people. Twenty of the outbreaks

were caused by septic contamination of well water

(Kramer et al., 1996). Bacteria and viruses in

household wastewater are principal causes of acute

gastrointestinal illness and Hepatitis A, and thus pose

a significant threat to drinking water supplies. In

addition, recent studies suggest that up to 10 percent

of septic systems in the U.S. have major failures

annually, releasing as much as 4 million gallons of

untreated septage.

Septic systems are usually regulated locally through

health ordinances that require a separation distance

or setback between the septic system and a private

well. EPA has data that suggest there is a significant

risk of illness from drinking fecally contaminated

ground water. Fecal contamination of ground water

is associated with human waste or animal waste which

enters the ground water from sources such as

leaking sewer lines, septic systems, improperly treated

sewage treatment plant discharge, or leakage from

AFOs. Fecal contamination contains viruses and

bacteria that cause illnesses, such as diarrhea, and

have been associated with even more severe

diseases, such as congential heart disease. EPA

believes there is the potential for significant risk from

drinking untreated and partially treated ground water

due to the large number of ground water systems in

the nation (over 156,000). EPA expects to issue a

new regulation in the year 2000 called the “Ground

Water Rule” (GWR). EPA plans to propose the GWR

in order to reduce the risk of illness from viruses and

bacteria for people drinking ground water from public

water systems.

Class V Injection Wells

Class V injection wells are typically shallow disposal

systems used to place a variety of nonhazardous

fluids underground. These fluids can contaminate

ground water and threaten public health if they are

present in high levels. These injection wells, along

with other classes of injection wells, are regulated by

EPA and the states through the Underground

Injection Control (UIC) program to protect underground

sources of drinking water from contamination.

EPA estimates that from 700,000 to one million Class

V injection wells are currently used in the United

States. Class V injection wells are located in every

state, especially in unsewered areas where the

population is likely to depend on ground water for its

drinking water source. Fluids released by certain types

of Class V wells have a high potential to contain

elevated concentrations of contaminants that may

endanger drinking water. These high-risk wells are

commonly used, for example, by motor vehicle repair

shops, commercial printers, and a wide range of light

industries (EPA 1998c).

Under existing federal regulations (40 CFR 144), Class

V injection wells are “authorized by rule”, which means

that they do not require a permit if they do not

endanger underground sources of drinking water and

comply with UIC program requirements. Because EPA

believes that certain high-risk Class V injection wells

are posing a threat to underground sources of

drinking water, it is formulating strategies to ensure

the protection of drinking water. In 1998, EPA

proposed new regulations to address high-risk Class

V injection wells (i.e., motor vehicle waste disposal

wells and large-capacity cesspools). A final Class V

rule regulating these wells is expected in late 1999.

Also, a study is underway to examine other high-risk
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

Salt Water Intrusion - Salinas Valley, California

Located 100 miles south of San Francisco, the Salinas Valley supports a major portion of California’s and the

nation’s vegetable production. Virtually all of the water used for municipal, industrial, and agricultural

purposes is ground water. Throughout the years, saltwater has intruded into valley aquifers because of

excessive pumping and dewatering of the aquifers. In and around Castroville, a highly productive agricultural

area about two miles from the Monterey Bay Sanctuary, the saltwater intrusion has made ground water too

salty for agricultural and drinking water use. The salt water layer has actually moved 6 miles inland at a depth

of 180 feet. If left unchecked, salt water intrusion will continue to move up the Salinas Valley toward the City

of Salinas, thereby rendering all ground water in the area unusable.

One solution is a 30,000 acre-foot per year water recycling plant to recycle wastewater and a 45-mile long

pipeline and well project to use recycled water on crops and thereby reduce ground water pumping. Congress

has appropriated $15.7 million for these two projects from 1995 to 1999.

Source: Monterey County Resource Agency and Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (1999).

18

wells to determine those additional categories of wells

that need to be regulated.

Ground Water Over-Pumping

Ground water is pumped for municipal (drinking

water and other household uses), agricultural

(irrigation and livestock), industrial (manufacturing),

mining, and other uses. If these withdrawals exceed

the rate at which ground water is recharged, they

result in the lowering of ground water to levels that

may impair the use of the resource. In some cases,

ground water levels have dropped by hundreds of feet.

Impacts from over-pumping may include the

following:

❑ Neighboring wells may dry up requiring

construction of new, deeper wells, or significant

changes to existing wells.

❑ Compaction of aquifer materials causing land

subsidence that may damage buildings and

infrastructure (such as, pipelines, roads, and

canals).

❑ Compaction of aquifer materials can also cause

permanent loss of aquifer capacity. This can

result in higher pumping cost and a decrease in

well yields.

❑ Changes in the volumes and direction of ground

water flow can induce flow of salty water and

undesirable water (water of lower quality) into a

well.

❑ Lower stream baseflows can dry up wetlands and

cause adverse impacts on ecological systems that

are dependent on ground water discharge.

3.3 What These Ground Water Threats Mean to

the Nation

Ground water contamination or depletion have

many impacts on our society and may result in

the public health, economic, and ecological

impacts discussed below.

Public Health Impacts

Both short-term illness and chronic health impacts are

associated with the consumption of contaminated

drinking water. For example, the presence of

pathogenic microorganisms can cause acute

gastrointestinal illness, Hepatitis A, and other diseases.

Carcinogenic chemicals can increase the incidence

of cancer. Other chemicals can adversely impact the

growth and development of children. For instance,

high levels of nitrate in drinking water consumed by

newborns can lead to a fatal condition known as “blue

baby syndrome.” Once ground water is contaminated

with certain compounds, certain treatment processes

such as disinfection with chlorination used by public

water systems, can transform these compounds into

chemicals that may also pose concern (such as

trihalomethanes, a group of carcinogenic disinfectionbyproducts), thereby exposing the population to other

health risks. Also, some contaminants, such as

nitrates, are expensive to treat and may be very costly

to remove through home treatment.

Ground water contamination in rural areas is a

particular public health concern. Rural homes often

take their drinking water from shallow ground water
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress 19

systems, which are vulnerable to contamination by

agricultural chemicals. As a result, rural families may

be unknowingly exposed to a variety of hazardous

substances in their drinking water.

EPA has promulgated drinking water maximum

contaminant levels (MCL) for 90 substances to set

safe limits for public water supplies. However, many

contaminants in drinking water have no MCLs.

Furthermore, combinations of chemicals in drinking

water can have health impacts that are not well

understood. As a result, preventing ground water

contamination used as the source of drinking water

supply is a critical concern.

Economic Impacts

Ground water contamination can also impair the

economic well-being of the nation through the

following:

❑ Removal of contaminants from drinking water

sources through remediation or at the point of

supply through treatment can be very costly.

❑ Relocating wells and finding new ground water

supplies is expensive and may not be technically

feasible.

❑ The presence of contaminants in ground water

adds liability to the land owners of the property

that is the source of the contamination.

❑ Loss of ground water due to over-pumping and

contamination can lead to loss of drinking water,

agricultural and industrial supplies, and

recreational uses.

In 1995, EPA examined costs associated with six

communities that had experienced actual or imminent

contamination of the ground water supplying their

public water systems (EPA 1995b).

The costs associated with alternative water supplies,

water treatment, and contaminant source removal or

remediation ranged from over $0.5 million to about

$2.4 million. A 1992 analysis by EPA indicated that

for 51 selected communities with contaminated or

threatened drinking water systems, the cost of

remediation averaged $5.9 million per community

water system, with most costing between $1 million

and $10 million (EPA 1992a).

According to the National Research Council (1994),

as much as $1 trillion in public and private funds may

be needed to clean-up soil and ground water in this

country over a period of 30 years. The Ground Water

Protection Council estimated $14 billion is needed

annually to remediate ground water and soil at

Superfund sites, hazardous waste sites with

corrective actions, leaking UST sites, Department of

Defense and Department of Energy waste sites, and

other contaminated sites (Ground Water Protection

Council 1996). Furthermore, the potential liability

associated with contamination, including ground

water contamination, at former industrial or

commercial sites with known or suspected

contamination is often one of the greatest deterrents

to site redevelopment. EPA and state Brownfield

initiatives are designed to address concerns over site

redevelopment of contaminated sites by, in part,

promoting innovative approaches to address

contamination.

Ecological Impacts

Ground water is also critical to the ecological health

of the country. Loss of ground water can lead to

reduction of stream flows (especially during low flow

conditions), which in turn negatively affects surface

water ecosystems. Contaminated ground water

discharging into surface water can degrade surface

water quality and affect surface water ecosystems.

Ground water provides many ecological benefits

through its linkage with surface water. The

interrelationships of ground water with wetlands, lakes,

ponds, and streams are complex. In areas where

ground water has been contaminated (by domestic

wastewater or industrial discharges), ecological

impacts can be detected in the form of eutrophication

and loss of native fish and plants.

Ground Water Treatment and

Well Replacement Costs - Massachusetts

The State of Massachusetts has spent millions

of dollars in state funds to clean-up and treat

contaminated public water supply wells. For

example, the Town of Easthampton, MA, in

conjunction with the state, has spent

$1.7 million for treating a 5 million gallon per day

wellfield. The Town of Millis, MA has spent

$750,000 treating a 1.5 million gallon per day

wellfield.

Source: New England Interstate Water Pollution

Control Commission (1996)
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress 20

This page left intentionally blank.
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress 21

 4.0 GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT

Ground water management in this country is highly

fragmented, with responsibilities distributed among a

large number of federal, state, and local programs.

At each level of government, unique legal authorities

allow for the control of one or more of the ground

water threats described in Section 3.0. These

authorities need to complement one another and

allow for comprehensive management of the ground

water resource. If these authorities are to be used

effectively, the implementing agencies must

coordinate and share information on the following

topics:

❑ Ground water characteristics and quality.

❑ The locations of ground water threats.

❑ Resources and regulatory authorities to control

threats and remediate existing problems.

❑ Means for establishing common management

priorities.

This section describes approaches that have been

taken at the federal and state levels to promote

coordination as a means of improving the

effectiveness of ground water management programs.

4.1 Federal Ground Water Management

Programs

Over the past 25 years, federal laws, regulations, and

programs have come to reflect the growing importance

that the nation places on using ground water wisely

and protecting the resource. Federal legislation and

programs to manage ground water are discussed

below.

Beginning with the 1972 amendments to the federal

Water Pollution Control Act, and followed by the Safe

Drinking Water Act in 1974, the federal government’s

role in ground water protection has increased. With

the passage of the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976 and the

Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 1980,

the federal government’s current focus on ground

water remediation was established. These federal

remediation programs require parties responsible for

contamination to pay for clean-up activities. Since the

passage of those Acts, the federal government has

directed billions of dollars in public and private

resources toward clean-up of contaminated ground

water at Superfund sites, RCRA corrective action

facilities, and leaking underground storage tanks.

To date, federal, and related state, ground water

programs have focused primarily on clean-up of

existing contamination, rather than on pollution

prevention. These programs have been very costly.

As such, remediation programs have provided

considerable incentives for pollution prevention efforts

by responsible parties.

Furthermore, where ground water has already been

contaminated, clean-up can help protect other ground

water resources from further degradation by

containing the migration of contaminants within an

aquifer and to lower aquifers.

Certain federal and state programs are intended to

prevent ground water contamination; however, those

programs tend to focus on a narrow set of

contaminants or contaminant sources. For example,

under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the federal government

establishes regulations to prevent ground water

contamination resulting from pesticide use. Under

RCRA, the federal government also has promulgated

standards for the “cradle to grave” management of

hazardous and solid wastes and the management of

waste site operations and underground storage tanks

that will reduce the likelihood of ground water

contamination.

Under the SDWA, EPA is developing a regulation that

will require public water supplies to increase

monitoring and/or treat their source waters derived

from ground water sources that could be

contaminated by microbial pathogens (see discussion

of “The Ground Water Rule” in Section 3.0).

The Source Water Assessment and Protection

Program, authorized under Section 1453 of the SDWA,

should lead to better management of potential

drinking water contaminant sources within drinking

water source protection areas, such as potential

pathogenic sources like sewer lines, septic systems

or animal feeding operations.

Responsibility for ground water management is

shared by a large number of federal, state, and

local programs.
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress 22

This approach to ground water protection at the

federal level has left the management of many

contaminant threats to state and local government

authorities. Examples of these threats include

hazardous material or product use by light industry,

such as dry cleaners, printers, or auto maintenance

facilities; above-ground tanks; and certain types of

waste disposal or drainage wells. Also, other ground

water threats, such as over-pumping, are not

generally addressed under federal law and are left to

be managed by states and local governments.

In the absence of a federal regulatory framework, the

degree to which states and local governments address

ground water concerns varies considerably. Some

states have well-coordinated, effective ground water

protection programs. However, in many states, gaps

exist in state management of some contaminant

sources (e.g., above ground storage tanks of product

rather than waste). This often occurs because there

is no federal program with which states can align their

programs. In other words, state efforts may be

hampered by the absence of a federal program

targeted to fill in the gaps among federal programs

beyond those that address specific sources of ground

water contamination, such as, RCRA, LUST, and

Superfund. State and local governments may also

need to give priority to mandates prescribed by

existing federal programs even though, from a

comprehensive resource protection viewpoint, these

Federal Laws Administered by EPA Affecting Ground Water

Clean Water Act (CWA)

Ground water protection is addressed in Section 102 of the CWA, providing for the development of federal,

state, and local comprehensive programs for reducing, eliminating, and preventing ground water

contamination.

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

Under the SDWA, EPA is authorized to ensure that water is safe for human consumption. To support this

effort, SDWA gives EPA the authority to promulgate Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) that define safe

levels for some contaminants in public drinking water supplies. One of the most fundamental ways to ensure

consistently safe drinking water is to protect the source of that water (i.e., ground water). Source water

protection is achieved through four programs: the Wellhead Protection Program (WHP), the Sole Source

Aquifer Program, the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, and, under the 1996 Amendments, the

Source Water Assessment Program.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

The intent of RCRA is to protect human health and the environment by establishing a comprehensive

regulatory framework for investigating and addressing past, present, and future environmental contamination

or ground water and other environmental media. In addition, management of underground storage tanks is

also addressed under RCRA.

Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)

CERCLA provides a federal “Superfund” to clean-up soil and ground water contaminated by uncontrolled or

abandoned hazardous waste sites as well as accidents, spill, and other emergency releases of pollutants and

contaminants into the environment. Through the Act, EPA was given power to seek out those parties

responsible for any release and assure their cooperation in the clean-up. The program is designed to recover

costs, when possible, from financially viable individuals and companies when the clean-up is complete.

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

FIFRA protects human health and the environment from the risks of pesticide use by requiring the testing and

registration of all chemicals used as active ingredients of pesticides and pesticide products. Under the

Pesticide Management Program, States and Tribes wishing to continue use of chemicals of concern are

required to prepare a prevention plan that targets specific areas vulnerable to ground water contamination.
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

mandates may not address the most pressing ground

water protection concerns of a particular community

or area.

In 1984, EPA established the Office of Ground Water

Protection to serve as a focus for a more

comprehensive ground water resource protection

approach with the responsibility for developing

Agency-wide, comprehensive ground water strategies

and to lead programs aimed at protection of ground

water as a resource. Such programs include the

Wellhead Protection and Sole Source Aquifer

Programs, which were established by Amendments

to the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1986. The

Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP) encourages

communities to protect their ground water resources

used for drinking water. The Sole Source Aquifer

Program limits federal activities that could

contaminate important sources of ground water.

However, in spite of these and other programs, the

need for a more comprehensive approach to ground

water protection was documented through a series of

private studies in the late 1980s, such as the

Conservation Foundation’s (1987) “Groundwater:

Saving the Unseen Resource” Report and the Urban

Institute’s review of state ground water management

programs (Liner et al. 1989).

In response to the need for stronger ground water

management programs, EPA established a Ground

Water Strategy in 1991 to place greater emphasis on

comprehensive state management of ground water

as a resource. EPA supported these state efforts

through the promotion of Comprehensive State

Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs) and

better alignment of federal programs with state ground

water resource protection priorities -- EPA’s

encouragement of state Pesticide Management Plans

being the prime example of this new approach. In

participation with other state and federal agencies,

EPA also promoted the need for improved and more

comprehensive ground water resource data collection

and management practices through the Interagency

Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (see below).

The 1996 amendments to SDWA also provided new

resources to implement Source Water Assessment

and Protection Programs, which supports the

Wellhead Protection Program and a comprehensive

 Chronology of EPA Ground Water Protection Activities

1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments

1972 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

1980 Underground Injection Control Program established

1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response and Compensation and Liability Act (Superfund)

1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA

1984 U.S.EPA Ground Water Strategy and Office of Ground Water Protection established

1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act: Underground Storage Tank Program

1986 SDWA Amendments: Wellhead Protection and Sole Source Aquifer Programs

1987 Clean Water Act

1991 EPA Ground Water Strategy Revised

1992 Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program Guidance

1992 Interagency Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (through 1996)

1993 Pesticide State Management Plans under FIFRA

1996 SDWA Amendments: Source Water Assessment and Protection Program

1996 FIFRA Amendments under the Food Quality Control Act of 1996

1997 National Water Quality Monitoring Council formed

1998 Clean Water Action Plan

1998 Underground Storage Tank Closure/Upgrade Requirements

1999 (planned) Class V Underground Injection Control Final Rule

2000 (planned) Ground Water Final Rule

23
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

approach to assess threats and protect ground water

used as a source of drinking water supply. Finally,

recent Agency efforts to support watershed

protection activities under the Clean Water Action Plan

call for comprehensive ground water protection, as a

vital component of watershed protection.

Because of the growing awareness that a wide range

of land use practices can impair ground water quality,

the need for coordinated, state-led management

programs is growing in importance. The federal

government’s emphasis on contaminant or

contaminant source-specific approaches, with a

focus on remediation, has led to considerable

achievement in correcting past contamination and

preventing further misuse of the resource. However,

comprehensive state ground water management

programs are critical to truly achieve more

comprehensive, effective and efficient protection to

ensure sustainable, long-term use of this valuable

national resource.

4.2 State Ground Water Management

Programs: Building on federal Authorities

Each state is implementing one or more components

of a comprehensive ground water protection program.

However, because ground water characteristics and

ground water program priorities vary from state to

state, the structure and focus of state programs also

vary. Overall, the GWPC/ASDWA/ASIWPCA state

report found that states are committed to some type

of comprehensive planning process that addresses

existing ground water contamination problems and

works to prevent future resource impacts. Most states,

however, have not been able to fully implement these

plans.

This section (1) summarizes what is known about the

current status of state ground water programs,

(2) provides examples of comprehensive management

approaches that have been used in some states and

among federal agencies, including coordination

examples, and (3) outlines the common elements from

comprehensive programs that can serve as a model

for other state ground water protection efforts.

Fact sheets from each state describing specific state

ground water management activities were completed

by the states and compiled by GWPC/ASDWA/

ASIWPCA. This compilation is included as an

Appendix to this report.

Existing State Ground Water Protection Programs

Based on data reported by the states in 1996 and 1998

in their 305(b) Reports, Exhibit 4-1 shows the

percentage of states that have begun implementing

key ground water management program components

(each component is discussed below). Although most

states have begun implementing components of a

comprehensive program, many states report that much

work remains to be completed (GWPC 1999).

Funding, lack of agency coordination, and an absence

of priority-setting mechanisms are obstacles most

frequently identified by the states to explain the lack

of comprehensive planning and coordination.

The GWPC/ASDWA/ASIWPCA report examined the

state’s level of achievement in implementing the

components of a comprehensive ground water

protection program. With regard to the states’ ability

to analyze ground water, in terms of the extent of the

resource, its quality, and vulnerability to

contamination, approximately half of the states that

responded indicated that comprehensive assessment

programs are in place, but only just over half of each

state’s aquifers have been mapped. Furthermore,

the states also report that the ambient water quality in

less than 40 percent of their ground water is

monitored.

In the state survey, the states were asked whether

they have sufficient information to identify priority

ground water management issues with regard to

preventing degradation of or restoring ground water

quality, preventing over-pumping, or restoring aquifer

capacity. Less than half of the states indicated that

all of the programs involved with managing these

threats use ground water resource assessment

information to set priorities for ground water

management. Furthermore, virtually all of the states

reported that they have no process in place to set

priorities for ground water management involving other

state, federal, or local government organizations.

The states were also asked to identify their needs for

better assessing their ground water resources,

setting priorities for management, and coordinating

24

Prevention of ground water contamination is

largely the responsibility of state and local

governments.
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

management activities with other organizations.

Every state reported a need for additional funding to

better implement these program activities. Most states

surveyed also identified the need for mechanisms to

better coordinate inter-agency activities.

Examples of Comprehensive Water Resource

Management Approaches

While the states are making progress in developing

their ground water programs, lessons can still be drawn

from other comprehensive water resource

management efforts.

Over the past several years, it has become apparent

that water quality and quantity protection problems

cannot be managed by one agency or level of

government. As a result, both state and federal

government are developing and implementing

coordinated approaches for water resource protection.

Although many of these programs emphasize surface

waters and need to integrate ground water

management for a truly comprehensive approach to

water resource management, they provide models for

better coordination and integration.

At the federal level, the Clean Water Action Plan

(CWAP) emphasizes the importance of a

comprehensive approach to restoring and protecting

waters among nine federal agencies (EPA,

Department of Interior, Department of Defense,

Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture,

Department of Transportation, Department of

Commerce, Department of Justice, and Tennessee

Valley Authority). The nine agencies signed a

Memorandum of Understanding to support and assist

states, Tribes, and local communities to protect and

restore the nation’s drinking source waters on

November 13, 1998.

The Clean Water Action Plan is both a vision

statement and a blueprint for the future. The Clean

Water Action Plan focuses on (1) promoting water

quality protection and restoration on a watershed

basis and (2) strengthening core clean water programs

to protect human health, increase natural resources

stewardship, reduce polluted runoff, and provide

citizens and officials with crucial information. Through

CWAP, an agreement was signed with the

participating agencies to encourage federal

partnerships with state and local efforts to protect their

sources of drinking water, particularly within existing

federal water quality initiatives.

Federal agencies are also working to better

coordinate water quality monitoring and data sharing

activities. The Intergovernmental Task Force on

Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM) was established

25

Exhibit 4-1: Percentage of States that Have Begun Implementing Components of a Comprehensive

Ground Water Protection Program as Reported by the States in the 305(b) report
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

in 1992 and given the charge of reviewing water

quality monitoring nationwide and developing an

integrated national monitoring strategy. In 1995, ITFM

produced The Strategy to Improve Water-Quality

Monitoring in the United States. In 1997, the National

Water Quality Monitoring Council (NWQMC) was

formed as a successor to ITFM. During overall

strategy development, a Ground Water Focus Group

(GWFG) concentrated on issues related to ground

water and aquifer systems. The GWFG recommended

that water quality monitoring must consider differences

in spatial, temporal, and other characteristics between

ground and surface water resources. The GWFG

recognized that many agencies do not have the

capability or sufficient resources to undertake

complete ground water quality monitoring efforts.

Therefore, it was recommended that the agencies work

together by combining resources and talents to begin

a systematic process of sampling highest priority

aquifers for the full set of indicators identified for each

aquifer.

Many states are also moving to a more coordinated,

comprehensive approach for surface water resource

protection at the watershed level. State Watershed

Protection Frameworks are designed to coordinate

existing resource management programs and build

new partnerships that result in more effective and

efficient management of land and water resources.

These frameworks provide a mechanism for

coordinating not only the point and nonpoint source

management activities that have been the historic

focus of state water quality programs, but also can

provide a forum for meeting the objectives of ground

water, wellhead, and drinking source water protection

programs. Many state Watershed Protection

Frameworks incorporate a priority-setting and

targeting mechanism to focus resources on

watersheds requiring the highest degree of

management to remediate existing problems or

address emerging threats.

To date, approximately one-half of the states are moving toward the development and implementation of

statewide watershed frameworks. Unfortunately, few

of these states are using the Frameworks to

coordinate the management of both surface water and

ground water. As a result, coordinated ground water

management is still a critical need in those states.

Finally, the state Source Water Assessment

Programs established under the 1996 Amendments

to the Safe Drinking Water Act provide an additional

coordination mechanism for state programs. The

states are required in their Source Water Assessment

Programs to assess the degree to which all public

water systems (PWS) in the state are susceptible to

contamination. These assessments will be

accomplished by (1) delineating the sources of water

supply to the PWS, (2) inventorying the contaminants

and contaminant sources within that delineated area,

and (3) assessing how susceptible the PWS is to those

sources of contamination. In many states, these

assessments will be accomplished through

cooperative efforts, involving several state agencies,

local governments, and private water suppliers.

Key Elements of Comprehensive Ground Water

Protection Programs

One of the key lessons learned by agencies and

organizations implementing these comprehensive

water resource protection approaches is the need for

coordination with other federal, state, and local

authorities.

As described in Section 4.1, existing federal programs

provide guidelines for various prevention and

remediation activities authorized under federal law.

However, states that are beginning to implement

comprehensive ground water programs must work with

a broad range of other federal, state and local

agencies to characterize the resource and manage

ground water threats. This problem is complicated by

the fragmentation of authorities for managing ground

water that is found in many states. Often, authority

for implementing the federal and state mandated

ground water protection programs that address the

threats outlined in Chapter 3 is spread across more

than one state agency. A formal coordination

mechanism is essential to ensure that these programs

are working towards common goals, hold similar

priorities, and use federal and state funds with

maximum efficiency. Some states are implementing

coordination mechanisms on an informal basis. Other

states, like Illinois, have passed specific legislation and

have adopted formal approaches to better

coordinate their ground water management activities

(see next page).

In general, comprehensive planning and assessment

of ground water is a critical step to effectively protect

this resource. Although only 11 states have

EPA-endorsed Comprehensive State

26
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress 27

Ground Water Protection Programs in place, with

another 11 working towards endorsement, many other

states have developed programs that utilize this

concept of comprehensive planning across to align

their priorities across state and federal programs.

The key benefit derived from comprehensive ground

water management approaches is the ability to

establish coordinated priorities among the many

groups involved in ground water management. To

support this need, the following key components are

common to successful state programs:

❑ enacting legislation,

❑ promulgating protection regulations,

❑ establishing interagency coordination with surface

water and other programs,

❑ performing ground water mapping and

classification,

❑ monitoring ambient ground water quality,

❑ developing comprehensive data management systems, and

❑ adopting and implementing prevention and

remediation programs.

Each component is discussed below. These findings

are largely based upon information reported by the

states in their 1998 305(b) reports. Successful

examples of each component are also provided in text

boxes.

Ground Water Legislation

State legislation may be developed in response to

federal mandates and state and local concerns, but in

most cases, states enact legislation to establish policy

and associated protection programs with the purpose

of restoring and maintaining ground water quality. In

general, State ground water legislation focuses on the

need for program development, increased data

collection to support decision making, and public

education activities.

Illinois Ground Water Protection Act

The Illinois Ground Water Protection Act (IGPA), adopted in 1987, responds to the need to manage

ground water quality by a prevention oriented process, and is a comprehensive law relying on a state

and local partnership. The IGPA responds to the need to protect ground water quality and establishes

a unified groundwater protection program using the following elements:

• Sets a ground water protection policy

• Enhances cooperation

• Establishes water well protection zones

• Provides for surveys, mapping and assessments

• Establishes a groundwater education program

• Establishes a priority regional ground water planning process

• Establishes authority for recharge area protection

• Requires new ground water quality standards

• Requires new technology control regulations

The groundwater policy sets the framework for management of this vital resource. The law focuses

upon uses of the resource and establishes statewide protection measures directed toward potable

water wells. In addition, local governments and citizens are provided an opportunity to perform an

important role for groundwater protection in Illinois.

This comprehensive ground water protection approach is also supported by a state Natural Resources

Coordinating Committee, which serves as a planning committee for the six, major natural resource

management agencies in Illinois. The Coordinating Committee has standing committees to address

not only ground water issues, but other surface water, land use, and natural resource management

issues.
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

Interagency Coordination in Alabama

The State of Alabama recognized the need to

coordinate the management of ground water

programs. As a result, The state set up the

Ground Water Programs Advisory Committee

(GWPAC) in 1994. The committee includes

representatives of state and federal agencies,

consultants, water system representatives, and

others who work in ground water related fields.

The committee members meet to dispense

ground water program information, receive

feedback, and coordinate ground water projects.

28

Ground Water Protection Regulations

State governments protect ground water quality by

instituting regulations to control business, agricultural,

and community activities that could adversely impact

ground water. Regulations frequently stipulate

controls for the management of specific sources of

contamination. Controls include Best Management

Practices (BMPs), nonpoint source controls, and

discharge permits.

Regulations may also specify standards for chemical

constituents in ground water as applicable to its

appropriate use (for example, drinking water

standards, surface water standards, and irrigation

water standards). Standards may be used to apply

limits on allowable discharges from contaminant

sources or to set contaminant concentration targets

or threshold levels for ground water clean-up. Although

federal MCLs are often used as ground water

protection standards, states may independently

develop and use more restrictive standards.

Interagency Coordination

Ground water protection programs have historically

been overseen by many different agencies within the

states, Territories, and Tribes, making coordination

difficult. As discussed above, coordinating the

activities of these agencies to ensure efficient ground

water protection program has become a top priority in

many jurisdictions. Implementing a CSGWPP or

similar program is an example of establishing

interagency coordination.

Ground Water Mapping and Classification

A ground water mapping and classification program

systematically sets priorities for ground water

management. States are developing ground water

mapping and classification systems to aid in the

protection and management of aquifers by better

Ground Water Regulations in Georgia

Georgia’s ground water regulatory programs follow an anti-degradation policy under which regulated activities

will not develop into significant threats to the state’s ground water resources. This anti-degradation policy is

implemented through three principal elements:

• Pollution prevention.

• Management of ground water quantity.

• Monitoring of ground water quality and quantity.

Prevention of pollution includes (1) the proper siting, construction, and operation of environmental facilities

and activities through a permitting system; (2) implementation of environmental planning criteria by

incorporation of land-use planning by local government; (3) implementation of a Wellhead Protection Program

for municipal drinking water wells; (4) detection and mitigation of existing ground water problems;

(5) development of other protective standards, as appropriate, where permits are not required; and

(6) education of the public to the consequences of ground water contamination and the need for ground water

protection. Management of ground water quantity involves allocating the state’s ground water, through a

permitting system, so that the resource will be available for present and future generations. Monitoring of

ground water quality and quantity involves continually assessing the resource so that changes, either good or

bad, can be identified and corrective action implemented when and where needed.
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress 29

understanding the inherent quality of different

aquifers, their vulnerability, and the uses of the water

taken from the aquifer.

Mapping and classification systems can be used as a

basis for the maintenance and restoration of ground

water quality, the development of ground water

quality standards, and land use and pollution source

management and regulation. The systems are

designed to redirect human activities that have the

potential to degrade ground water to areas overlying

lower quality aquifers, thereby protecting the most

vulnerable and ecologically important ground water

systems. Most states that have mapping and

classification systems apply them to the permitting of

discharges or potential discharges to ground water,

the remediation of contaminated ground water, the

development of new supplies, or to site certain types

of industries.

Ground Water Monitoring

Various ground water monitoring programs are used

by states to collect data on ground water quality.

Ambient monitoring programs measure background

or existing water quality and can be used to track

long-term trends in contaminant concentrations.

Compliance monitoring programs are required by

federal or state regulations generally at or near

facilities where ground water contamination has

occurred or where there is a potential for release.

Compliance monitoring activities measure for specific

constituents to ensure that their concentrations in

ground water are below regulated levels. States may

also rely on monitoring data collected by federal

agencies to assess ground water quality.

Comprehensive Data Management Systems

Traditionally, data from monitoring programs is

managed by, and is only available to, the specific state

agency responsible for its collection, which is not

necessarily the same agency with responsibility for

ground water protection. Data management has been

a limiting factor in monitoring the condition of the state’s

principal aquifers and the general quality of the Nation’s

ground water resources. States are now making

progress in developing comprehensive data

management systems. These systems will

encourage interagency sharing of data and

cooperation in planning and implementation of

monitoring programs. The interactive database

systems that are an integral part of the data network

also allow for the use of state-of-the-art technologies

such as geographic information systems (GIS) to

display and evaluate data spatially.

Prevention and Remediation Programs

Under several statutory provisions, states have

developed programs to prevent and reduce

contamination of ground water. They serve to:

• analyze existing and potential threats to the

quality of public drinking water,

• focus resources and programs on drinking water

source protection,

• prevent pollution at the source whenever feasible,

• manage potential sources of contamination, and

• tailor preventive measures to local ground water

vulnerability.

Ground Water Mapping and Classification in

Hawaii

The Hawaii Department of Health and Water

Resources Research Center (WRRC) identified

and classified aquifers in the state. The WRRC

identified general aquifer sectors and smaller

aquifer systems for the islands of Kauai, Oahu,

Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii. Each aquifer

system was divided into aquifer types that were

characterized in accordance with (1) hydrologic

factors such as basal, high level, unconfined,

confined, and confined/unconfined conditions;

and (2) geologic factors such as flank, dike,

perched, sedimentary, or combination aquifer

types. They also identified the status of the

aquifer types through identification of their

development stages, potability/salinity, utility,

uniqueness, and vulnerability to contamination.

The vulnerability determination was based on

geographical limits of the resource,

interconnection among ground water sources,

time of travel, and familiarity with environmental

conditions. Vulnerability was ranked high,

moderate, or low.

Source: Mink and Lau 1990a, 1990b, 1992a,

1992b, 1993a, and 1993b
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

Monitoring Programs in Kansas

The Kansas ground water quality monitoring network was established in 1976 as a cooperative program

between the USGS and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). The KDHE assumed

sole responsibility for this program in 1990. Since that time, the program has gathered data suitable to identify

changes in ground water quality associated with alterations in land use, the implementation of nonpoint source

best management practices, changes in ground water withdrawal rates, and shifts in climatological conditions.

Currently, the Kansas monitoring network is comprised of 242 wells used for public or private (domestic) water

supply, irrigation, livestock watering, and/or industrial purposes. During the period 1996-1997, 267 well samples

were analyzed for common inorganic chemicals, heavy metals, and pesticides; 43 for volatile organic

compounds; and 38 for radionuclides.

30

Prevention programs may provide local communities

with technical assistance, educational programs, or

economic incentives. Examples of programs that fully

or in part address pollution prevention include: Source

Water Assessment Program (SWAP), Wellhead

Protection Program (WHPP), Underground Injection

Control (UIC) Program, aquifer vulnerability

assessments and vulnerability assessments of

drinking water/wellhead protection under SDWA;

Pesticide State Management Plan under FIFRA; and

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

(SARA) Title III Program. Prevention programs are

critical to the effective long-term management of

ground water resources.

In addition to prevention, states also take a lead role

in implementing ground water remediation activities,

either under federal or state authorities. For example,

states may have primary responsibility for

implementing RCRA corrective action and

underground storage tank remediation and closure

programs. Furthermore, while CERCLA remedial

actions are a federal responsibility, many states, such

as New Jersey, have established their own programs

to remediate abandoned waste sites. Other states,

such as Illinois, are also aggressively promoting

voluntary site clean-ups and the return of brownfield

sites to beneficial public uses.

State Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Programs

A 1997 study (EPA 1997a) described the nine key

components of a state ambient water quality

monitoring program and the associated costs:

• Monitoring program design addresses the

geographic area covered by the program, the

number of wells needed to characterize ambient

conditions, the number and frequency of wells

sampled, and the water-quality constituents to be

analyzed.

• Monitoring network installation includes well

procurement, installation, or refitting.

• Monitoring network maintenance consists of

well integrity inspections and repairs to correct well

anomalies.

• Ground water sampling incorporates labor,

materials, and expenses for collecting monitoring

samples and transporting them to a laboratory for

analysis.

• Ground water sample analysis entails

laboratory analysis of ground water samples for a

set of constituent elements.

• Ground water analyte data management

includes collecting ground water analysis results,

compiling data into a database, and formatting

data for analysis and interpretation.

• Ground water analyte data interpretation

involves examining data to assess the general

ground water quality throughout the study area.

• Communication of ground water monitoring

results informs the public about the status of the

ground water quality and the effects of

contamination.

• Program evaluation and redesign assesses

effectiveness and deficiencies after comparison

of program results and program goals.
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress 31

The study presented the costs associated with each

of the nine components of ambient ground water

quality monitoring programs for the States of Arizona,

Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland,

Minnesota, and North Dakota. The total costs ranged

from $18,585 per year in Arkansas to $474,666 per

year in Florida.

Prevention Programs: Wellhead Protection and

Source Water Assessment and Protection

The 1986 Amendments to SDWA established the

Wellhead Protection (WHP) Program. It is essentially

designed to provide a pollution prevention program

for underground sources of drinking water. Under

Section 1428 of the SDWA, each state must develop

a WHP Program to protect wellhead areas from

contaminants that may have an adverse effect on

human health. Protection measures include (1) the

identification of areas around public water supply wells

that contribute ground water to the well, and (2) the

management of potential sources of contamination in

these areas to reduce threats to the resource. As of

April 1, 1999, 47 of the states and two territories have

developed and implemented EPA-approved WHP

Programs and 3 states are continuing their efforts to

develop their approved WHP Program. See Exhibit

4-2 for a summary of the number of community-based

WHP programs that are being implemented.

The 1996 Amendments to the SDWA initiated source

water protection through the creation of state Source

Water Assessment and Protection Programs. Under

Section 1453, states have developed programs for

delineating source water areas for public water

supply systems and assessing the susceptibility of the

source water to contamination. The WHP Program

has become the cornerstone in development of state

Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs

because the design of these programs builds on

components of existing state WHP Programs,

including source water area delineation, contaminant

source inventories, management measures, and

contingency planning. States with EPA-approved WHP

Programs in place have met the ground water-based

requirements for the Source Water Assessment

Program (SWAP). States have started to develop and

implement their SWAPs. Assessments must be

completed for all public water supply systems within

3.5 years of EPA approval of the state’s programs.

Comprehensive Data Management in Idaho

Idaho’s Ground Water Quality Plan recognizes an Environmental Data Management System

(EDMS) as the State’s comprehensive data management system to include data from past,

present, and future ground water quality monitoring. Although the EDMS is currently in use, not

all relevant ground water quality data is routinely submitted to and entered into the system and

there is a backlog of past data that could be incorporated into the system. Recent efforts to help

increase the amount of data routinely submitted to EDMS include development of a compatible

Access database structure that can be placed on individual computers and utilized for project or

program specific data. Once the data is entered into the Access database, it can be transferred

into EDMS.
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

1993 1995 1997

Year

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

Getting Started

Delineation

Source Identification

Source Management

Contingency Planning

32

Exhibit 4-2: State Wellhead Protection Programs

4.3 Comprehensive Ground Water

Management and Sustainable Ground

Water Quality

To make better decisions about ground water

management, the activities of many federal, state, and

local programs must be coordinated. Better

prevention now could reduce the high costs of ground

water remediation in the future. Because resources

available for ground water management are limited,

(no program has unlimited funds,) upfront planning and

prioritizing are critical activities to ensure the best, most

efficient use of the resources available.

These planning activities, however, are sometimes

lacking due to budget constraints and

institutional barriers that prohibit effective

communication between agencies and groups with

control over activities that impact ground water.

States have made considerable progress and need to

continue to work to fully implement and integrate comprehensive planning processes.

❑ State ground water managers have reported

(GWPC/ASDWA/ASIWPCA report) that state

programs would be more effective if

comprehensive ground water management

programs were supported by consistent laws,

planning, and funding.

State and local governments need to

work together to protect ground water.

Although remediation programs are often critical, they

do not fully address our need to manage ground

water resources in a sustainable manner. Supporting

the comprehensive management efforts that are

emerging in the states will best serve the nation’s need

for maintaining sustainable ground water resources

into the future.
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress 33

Comprehensive Ground Water Management in Massachusetts

The Canoe River Aquifer Advisory Committee is a regional group comprised of fifteen locally-appointed

members, three each from the towns of Easton, Mansfield, Norton, Foxborough, and Sharon,

Massachusetts. Their goal is to protect the shared Canoe River aquifer which supplies drinking water to the

towns.

The Committee includes local Water Suppliers; Board of Health, Board of Selectmen, Conservation

Commission, and Planning Board members and staff; and members of land trusts and other local groups.

The Committee has no annual budget but has successfully established a reputation as a credible,

productive group by conducting extensive public outreach and by effectively involving residents, local citizen

groups, and state and Federal agencies in local ground water protection.

The group started meeting in 1987 due to concerns about the vulnerability of the public wells within the

Canoe River aquifer and shortly after pursued and achieved adoption of state legislation to establish a

charter and formal recognition of the Committee. Coordinated efforts with state and federal agencies have

included:

• State designation of the aquifer as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC);

• co-sponsoring of land use management workshops and other public education events, including a

popular annual Canie River Awareness Day;

• arranging guest speakers for the Committee’s monthly meetings;

• formation of volunteer Shoreline Stream Team to monitor and report on river conditions;

• receipt of grants, including fund to identify and map land parcels abutting the river with the goal of

creating a protective riparian buffer; and

• Federal EPA designation as a Sole Source Aquifer.

Additional information about the Canoe River Aquifer Advisory Committee can be obtained by contacting

Chairman Wayne Southworth at (508) 238-3641.
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress 34

Comprehensive Ground Water Management in South Dakota

South Dakota has had a comprehensive ground water protection program in place since 1989, although the

state has not formally submitted a document to EPA for approval. South Dakota law states that ground

water related programs, activities and funds are components of the state ground water protection strategy

and that departments, agencies, and programs responsible for ground water protection activities shall

coordinate their efforts to ensure that comprehensive ground water protection and management is

performed efficiently.

Most major ground water protection and clean-up activities are located in the South Dakota Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Within DENR, most ground water protection and clean-up

activities are centered in the Ground Water Quality Program, which consists of the following programs:

Wellhead Protection, Source Water Protection, Underground Injection Control, Superfund, Underground

Storage Tanks, Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, and Community-Right-to-Know. The Ground

Water Quality Program tracks all spills and discharges from sources that pollute or have the potential to

pollute the waters of the state and ensures that proper assessments, remediation, and monitoring are

performed until case closure. The state has classified and prioritized ground water bodies. The Ground

Water Quality Program reviews plans and specifications for new facilities to help ensure ground water

protection and enforces state ground water quality standards, state ground water discharge permits, and

state above ground storage tank regulations. Those few programs that are not DENR’s responsibility are

coordinated through memoranda of understanding. For example, the South Dakota Department of

Agriculture and DENR coordinate their activities to regulate all aspects of fertilizer and pesticide use and

disposal.

This approach has provided a framework for coordinating state ground water protection and clean-up

activities. It also provides a one-stop-shopping approach for industry, business, and the public. For further

information on South Dakota’s approach to ground water protection and clean-up, visit their website at

http://www.state.sd.us/state/executive/denr/DES/Ground/groundprg.htm.
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

 5.0 FINDINGS

Based upon the literature synthesis,

GWPC/ASIWPCA/ASDWA report, and contributions

from the state workgroup, the following findings are

made with regard to ground water and management

approaches to protect and sustain its use for the

nation:

The State of the Resource

❑ Ground water is a critical resource to maintain

public health, the economy, and the environment.

Ground water is an important freshwater

resource that is critical for drinking, irrigation,

industry, and maintaining lakes, streams, and

wetlands. Approximately 133 million people

rely upon ground water for drinking, and

agriculture uses over 51 billion gallons of

water daily to irrigate cropland and water

livestock. Ground water feeds streams and

wetlands especially during dry periods to

sustain surface water flows.

❑ From what we know, in most locations around the

country, ground water is generally of good quality

but continues to be threatened by point and

nonpoint pollution sources, as well as

over-pumping.

Ground water quality is generally good

(i.e., when contaminants are found, they are

usually at concentrations below drinking

water standards at most locations). Certain

land use activities, however, including

agriculture, industrial, commercial, and waste

disposal, all have the potential to contribute

contaminants to ground water that range from

pesticides and nutrients to organic chemicals

and waterborne pathogens. In some

locations, these contaminants have and may

continue to threaten public health. Ground

water is also over-pumped in parts of the

country, resulting in depletion of the resource,

loss of aquifer storage capacity, and reduced

recharge to surface water. Overall, ground

water management may not be occurring in a

way that will ensure its sustainable use well

into the future.

The Status of Ground Water Management Efforts

❑ States have made considerable progress in

implementing federal and state programs aimed

at specific contamination concerns.

Most states have made progress in carryingout the requirements of several federal laws

aimed at remediating or preventing specific

types of ground water contamination

problems. Evidence of this progress can be

found by examining the federal and state

programs addressing various ground water

concerns, such as wellhead protection,

underground storage tanks, pesticides, and

hazardous waste management and

remediation.

❑ Most states agree that a more comprehensive,

resource-based approach holds greater potential

for accomplishing effective ground water

protection and many states are pursuing key

aspects of such an approach.

Most states believe that greater flexibility to

address the highest priority ground water

concerns from a more comprehensive,

resource-based approach would be effective

and efficient. Such an approach requires: a

good technical understanding of the resource;

determinations of its relative use, value and

vulnerability in different locations;

identification of potential threats, agreement

on priorities for addressing these threats, and

coordination of resources and efforts to

effectively and efficiently address those

priorities across the various federal, state and

local agencies and programs with relevant

responsibilities.

❑ Efforts to achieve a more comprehensive

approach are underway in many states, but more

work needs to be done.

Today, only about a dozen states have

developed an EPA-approved Comprehensive

State Ground Water Protection Programs

(CSGWPP) that promotes the above aspects

of a more strategic, resource-based approach

to ground water protection. However, a

35
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

recent report compiled from a survey of 26

states by the Ground Water Protection

Council, the Association of State Drinking

Water Administrators, and the Association of

State and Interstate Pollution Control

Administrators, indicates that more than half

the states surveyed are undertaking efforts

that are essential to a comprehensive

approach to ground water protection; these

states are working to differentiate their ground

water resources based on use/value and

vulnerability and, most of the surveyed states

are identifying their ground water problems

or concerns on a geographic basis. These

states also reported that they are keeping the

various federal and state agencies with

ground water responsibilities aware of their

comprehensive analysis and findings.

Some states have completed, or have begun

to develop, a comprehensive list of ground

water protection priorities.

❑ States have identified three primary barriers to

achieving a more comprehensive approach:

Fragmentation of ground water programs

impedes effective management.

Most state and federal ground water

protection programs are fragmented among

and within agencies. At the state level,

authorities to manage the resource are often

held among different state agencies with

conflicting priorities and goals.

Communicating and coordinating between

departments with ground water

responsibilities can be difficult and ineffective.

Additionally, because of this fragmentation,

there is not a unified effort in most states to

acquire available state and federal funds for

comprehensive ground water protection

activities.

Overall, authorities to manage the resource

are not comprehensive, and the programs that

have developed are structured under specific

legislative authorities that, for the most part,

have a narrow focus regarding ground water

management.

The lack of understanding of ground water

resources (e.g., the extent and condition of

the resource, the physical nature of the

aquifer, the behavior of contaminants within

and their movement through the aquifer, the

influence of surface water to ground water and

vice versa)

Better information to assess the effectiveness

of ground water protection efforts and to

determine the impact of certain land uses on

ground water is needed to set priorities for

ground water protection efforts. The states

need federal support to develop coordinated,

comprehensive approaches for ground water

monitoring that includes priority setting.

Lack of funding targeted directly to ground

water is the reason most often cited by states

for limited efforts at undertaking a more

comprehensive resource-based approach.

Ground water protection is often not a high

priority for funding; mandated programs

usually prevail for funding.

In the state Survey, the lack of a targeted

source of funding was cited by nearly all states

as a reason why various aspects of a more

comprehensive, resource-based approach to

ground water protection was not underway or

was limited in scope. While States have the

flexibility to use funds under several federal

programs to pursue ground water protection

efforts, they often choose not to or to do so in

only a limited way. Additionally, because of

this fragmentation, there is not a unified effort

in most states to take advantage of existing

available state and federal funds for

comprehensive ground water protection

activities.

Most states indicate that the mandates

under other federal programs often preclude

the state from exercising flexibility to use funds

for non-mandated ground water protection

priorities. This is particularly the case under

the Clean Water Act, where states have the

opportunity to pursue ground water activities,

including more comprehensive resource

assessment and planning, and to utilize state

Water Quality Program Grants and Non-point

Source Grants.

36
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress 37

Funds are available for ground water

activities in drinking water source areas as

defined by a state in their Source Water

Assessment and Protection Plans, if the states

chooses to set-aside funds received from their

DWSRF capitalization grant. Most states setaside funds to delineate and assess these

areas (which include ground water and

surface water sources) in FY 1997 and 1998,

the only years that funds could be set-aside

for these purposes. Fewer states have

chosen to set-aside funds from the DWSRF

for other ground water activities, although it

is unclear at this time, exactly how those funds

were used.

Over the last 25 years, federal, state and

local governments, and private parties have

spent billions of dollars to clean-up

contaminated ground water. According to the

National Research Council, as much as

$1 trillion may be needed to clean-up soil and

ground water contamination over the next 30

years. As a result, the resources devoted to

remediation vastly exceed the resources

devoted to protection.

The ability of states to use funds from

remediation programs for more

comprehensive ground water assessment

and planning is very limited. Greater

emphasis on prevention is needed to sustain

ground water into the future.

❑ While the funds are relatively small, most states

believe that funding of SDWA Section 1429 grants

would support more coordinated state planning

and priority setting for ground water protection as

a first step toward solving some of these

problems.

Furthermore, the states believe that by providing

a source of targeted funding, states will be able to

better address the issues of program

fragmentation within the state and basic program

needs, such as monitoring, resource

characterization, and the development and

implementation of protection programs.

New federal funds have been available to the

states to address some of the key

components of comprehensive ground water

protection that have been missing. The

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund has

made money available for some ground

water activities in high priority drinking water

source areas through the Source Water

Protection and Wellhead Protection

set-asides. Also, funds are available for states

to work on critical comprehensive ground

water activities through the Clean Water Act

Section 319 and the Section 106 grants. (EPA

recommends that states use 15% of their

Clean Water Act Section 106 grant for ground

water activities.) Funds may also be

available to the states through Public Water

Supply Supervision grants for assisting with

compliance of federal and state drinking

water regulations. Although these grants are

targeted to assist in implementation of

drinking water regulations, including several

new federal regulations, states could

potentially use these funds for

comprehensive ground water protection if they

can make a direct correlation to PWS

compliance with drinking water regulations.

It is too early to know how or if the states are

using and will continue to use these funds for

ground water activities.

In these early years of the Drinking Water

State Revolving Funds, states are making

important decisions on competing priorities;

the states must decide how to best use these

funds to protect public health and the

environment. As required by the 1996 SDWA

amendments, EPA will be conducting an

evaluation of the DWSRF over the next few

years.

.
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress

 REFERENCES

Conservation Foundation, 1987. Groundwater

Protection, Groundwater: Saving the Unseen

Resource. The Final Report of the National

Groundwater Policy Forum, A guide to

Groundwater Pollution: Problems, Causes, and

Government Responses, Washington, DC.

Erwin, M.L. and Tesoriero, A.J., 1998. Predicting

Ground-Water Vulnerability to Nitrate in the Puget

Sound Basin. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet

061-97.

Ground Water Protection Council, 1996. Superfund

Setaside: Prevention of Contamination (white

paper). Ground Water Protection Council,

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Ground Water Protection Council, 1999. Survey

Results on State’s Comprehensive Approach to

Ground Water Protection. Ground Water

Protection Council, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Heath, R.C. 1983. Basic Ground-Water Hydrology.

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2220.

Idaho Department of Water Resources, 1996.

Environmental Data Management System

(www.idwr.state.id.us/idwr/planpol/techserv/

gwmon/edms/edmshome.html).

Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water

Quality, 1995. The Strategy for Improving

Water-Quality Monitoring in the United States.

Final Report of the Intergovernmental Task Force

on Monitoring Water Quality, available from the

U.S. Geological Survey (water.usgs.gov/wicp/

itfm.html).

Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water

Quality, 1997. Conceptual Frameworks for

Ground-Water-Quality Monitoring. By Franke, O.L.

and the Ground-Water Focus Group of the

Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring

Water Quality, available from the U.S. Geological

Survey (webserver.cr.usgs.gov/publications/

reports/gwfocus.pdf).

Jehn, P., 1995 The National Ground Water Status

Report. The Interstate Ground Water

Management Network.

Kramer, M.H. et al., 1996. “Waterborne Disease: 1993

and 1994.” Journal of the American Water Works

Association, Vol. 88, no.3, March 1996.

Liner, B.E., Morley, E., Hatry, H.P., Dusenbury, P. and

Hoch, S., 1989. State Management of

Groundwater: Assessment of Practices and

Programs. The Urban Institute. Washington, DC.

Mink, J.F. and Lau, L.S. 1990a. Aquifer Identification

and Classification for O’ahu: Groundwater

Protection Strategy for Hawaii. Water Resources

Research Center of the University of Hawaii,

Technical Report No. 179.

Mink, J.F. and Lau, L.S. 1990b. Aquifer Identification

and Classification for Maui: Groundwater

Protection Strategy for Hawaii. Water Resources

Research Center of the University of Hawaii,

Technical Report No. 185.

Mink, J.F. and Lau, L.S. 1992a. Aquifer Identification

and Classification for Kaua’i: Groundwater

Protection Strategy for Hawaii. Water Resources

Research Center of the University of Hawaii,

Technical Report No. 186.

Mink, J.F. and Lau, L.S. 1992b. Aquifer Identification

and Classification for Moloka’i: Groundwater

Protection Strategy for Hawaii. Water Resources

Research Center of the University of Hawaii,

Technical Report No. 187

Mink, J.F. and Lau, L.S. 1993a. Aquifer Identification

and Classification for Lana’i: Groundwater

Protection Strategy for Hawaii. Water Resources

Research Center of the University of Hawaii,

Technical Report No. 190.

Mink, J.F. and Lau, L.S. 1993b. Aquifer Identification

and Classification for the Island of Hawaii:

Groundwater Protection Strategy for Hawaii.

Water Resources Research Center of the

University of Hawaii, Technical Report No. 191.

A-1
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress A-2

Monterey County Resource Agency and Monterey

Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, 1999.

Salinas Valley Reclamation Project and the

Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project. Monterey,

California.

National Research Council, 1994. Alternatives for

Ground Water Cleanup. Committee on Ground

Water Cleanup Alternatives, Water Science and

Technology Board, Commission on Geoscience,

Environment, and Resources, National Research

Council. National Academy Press, Washington,

D.C.

National Research Council, 1997. Valuing Ground

Water: Economic Concepts and Approaches.

Committee on Valuing Ground Water, Water

Science and Technology Board, Commission on

Geoscience, Environment, and Resources,

National Research Council. National Academy

Press, Washington, D.C.

National Small Flows Clearinghouse, 1999a. Septic

Stats: An Overview. Environmental Services and

Training Division, Morgantown, West Virginia.

National Small Flows Clearinghouse, 1999b. Septic

News. Environmental Services and Training

Division, Morgantown, West Virginia

(www.estd.wvu.edu/nsfc/NSPC_

septic_news.html).

New England Interstate Water Pollution Control

Commission. Source Protection: A Guidance

Manual for Surface Water Supplies in New

England. 1996.

U.S. Bureau of Census, 1998. Estimates of Housing

Units, Households, Households by Age of

Householder, and Persons per Household: July

1, 1996. Population Estimates Program,

Population Division (www.census.gov/population/

estimates/housing/prhuhht1.txt).

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Draft

Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding

Operations. (www.epa.gov/cleanwater/afo)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990. A

Review of Sources for Ground-Water

Contamination from Light Industry - Technical

Assistance Document. Office of the

Ground-Water Protection, Washington, DC. EPA

440/6-90-005.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991.

Protecting the Nation’s Ground Water: EPA’s

Strategy for the 1990s. Office of the

Administrator, Washington, DC. EPA 21Z-1020.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992a. Clean

Water and the American Economy, An Overview:

Perspectives on Ground Water. Office of Water,

Pre-Conference Papers. Arlington, Virginia.

October 19-21, 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992b. Final

Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection

Program Guidance. Office of the Administrator,

Washington, DC. EPA 100-R-93-001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a.

Protecting Our Ground Water. Office of Water,

Washington, DC. EPA 813-F-95-002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995b.

Benefits and Cost of Prevention: Case Studies of

Community Wellhead Protection. Office of Water,

Washington, DC. EPA 813-B-95-005.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997a.

Ambient Ground Water Quality Monitoring Cost

Analysis. Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA

816-12-97-013.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997b.

Water on Tap: A Consumer’s Guide to the Nation’s

Drinking Water. Office of Water, Washington, DC.

EPA815-K-97-002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998a.

National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to

Congress, Ground Water Chapters. Office of

Water, Washington, DC. EPA 816-R-98-011.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998b. Ground

Water Rule: Ground Water Microbial Occurrence

Studies. Office of Ground Water and Drinking

Water, Washington, DC. (www.epa.gov/OGWDW/

standard/occur.html).
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress A-3

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998c.

Proposed Regulatory Requirements As Part of a

Comprehensive Management Strategy for Class

V Injection Wells. Office of Water, Washington,

DC. EPA 816-F-98-009 (www.epa.gov/OGWDW/

uic/cv-fs.html).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998d. Clean

Water Act Plan: Restoring and Protecting

America’s Waters. Office of Water, Washington,

DC. (www.epa.gov/cleanwater).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999.

Underground Storage Tanks Corrective Action

Measures for 1st Half FY ‘99 (as of 2/28/99).

Office of Underground Storage Tanks,

Washington, DC (www.epa.gov/swerust1/cat/

camarchv.htm).

U.S. Geological Survey, 1996. Pesticides in Ground

Water, National Water Quality Assessment

(NAWQA) Program, Pesticide National

Synthesis Project, U.S. Geological Survey Fact

Sheet FS-244-95 (water.wr.usgs.gov/pnsp/gw/

gw_1.html).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997.

Ambient Ground Water Quality Monitoring Cost

Analysis. Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA

816-R-97-013.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1998a. Estimated Use of

Water in the United States in 1995, by Solley,

W.B., Pierce, R.R., and Perlman, H.A., U.S.

Geological Survey Circular 1200 (water.usgs.gov/

watuse/pdf1995/html).

U.S. Geological Survey. 1998b. Strategic Directions

for the U.S. Geologic Survey Ground-Water

Resources Program: A Report to Congress. U.S.

Geological Survey Report to Congress.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1998c. Volatile Organic

Chemicals (VOCs) in Ground Water of the United

States: Preliminary Results of the National

Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program,

VOC National Synthesis Project, U.S. Geological

Survey, January 1998 (wwwsd.cr.usgs.gov/

nawqa/vocns/datasum91.html).

U.S. Geological Survey, 1998d. Pesticides in Surface and Ground Water of the United States:

Summary of Results of the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, Pesticide

National Synthesis Project, U.S. Geological

Survey, July 22, 1998 (water.wr.usgs.gov/pnsp/

allsum).

U.S. Geological Survey, 1998e. Occurrence of

Pesticides in Shallow Ground Water of the United

States: Initial Results from the National Water

Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program,

Pesticide National Synthesis Project, U.S.

Geological Survey, by Kolpin, D.W, Barbash, J.E.,

and Gilliom, R.J. [adapted from an original article

published in the Environmental Science and

Technology, v. 32, 1998, p. ] (water.wr.usgs.gov/

pnsp/ja/est32).

U.S. Geological Survey, 1998f. A National Look at

Nitrate Contamination of Ground Water, by Nolan,

B.T., Ruddy, B.C., Hitt, K.J., and Helsel, D.R.

[article appeared in the January 1998 issue of

Water Conditioning and Purification, v. 39, no. 12,

pages 76-79], U.S. Geological Survey Circular

1136.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1998g. Ground Water and

Surface Water: A Single Resource by Winter, T.C.,

Harvey, J.W., Franke, O.L., and Alley, W.M. U.S.

Geological Survey Circular 1139.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1999a. MTBE in the Nation’s

Ground Water, National Water-Quality

Assessment (NAWQA) Program Results, by Paul

J. Squillace, U.S. Geological Survey, April 29,

1999 (wwwsd.cr.usgs.gov/nawqa/vocns/brp-pjshandout.hmtl).

U.S. Geological Survey, 1999b. Nutrients in the

Nation’s Waters—Too Much of a Good Thing? by

Mueller, D.K. and Helsel, D.R., U.S. Geological

Survey Circular 1136 (wwwrvares.er.usgs.gov/

nawqa/circ-1136).

U.S. Geological Survey, 1999c. The Quality of Our

Nation’s Waters, Nutrients and Pesticides, U.S.

Geological Survey Circular 1225.
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress B-1

 GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Ambient Ground Water Monitoring - Ambient

ground water monitoring programs measure

background or existing water quality and are used to

track long-term trends in contaminant concentrations.

Anoxia - A condition or environment without oxygen.

Aquifer - An underground geologic unit that stores

ground water.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) - Structural and

management practices used in agriculture, forestry,

urban land development, and industry to reduce the

potential for damage to natural resources from human

activities.

Brownfields - Abandoned, idled, or under-used

industrial and commercial facilities where expansion

or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived

environmental contamination.

Carcinogen - An agent capable of inducing a cancer

response.

Class V Injection Wells - Shallow disposal systems

that are used to place a variety of fluids below the

land surface, into or above underground sources of

drinking water.

Clean Water Act - Enacted in 1972, the Clean Water

Act is the primary federal law that protects our nation’s

waters, including lakes, river, aquifers, and coastal

areas. Its primary objective is to restore and maintain

the integrity of the nation’s waters.

Clean Water Action Plan - An initiative, released in

February, 1998 that aims to achieve clean water and

aquatic habitat by strengthening public health

protections, targeting community-based watershed

protection efforts at high priority areas, providing

communities with new resources to control polluted

runoff, enhancing wetlands and natural resource

stewardship, and improving public access to

environmental information.

Compliance Ground Water Monitoring -

Compliance monitoring programs are required by

federal or state regulations generally near facilities

where ground water contamination has occurred or

where there is a potential for release. These

activities measure for specific constituents to ensure

that their concentrations in ground water are below

regulated levels.

Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) - A law

that established a national program to respond to past

releases of hazardous substances in to the

environment. CERCLA created the Superfund for

financing remedial work not undertaken by

responsible parties.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

(CAFOs) - Agricultural operations where animals are

kept and raised in confined areas. CAFOs

congregate animals, feed, manure and urine, dead

animals, and production operations on a small land

area.

Contamination (Water) - Water that contains diseasecausing or toxic substances.

Discharge - The volume of water that passes a given

location within a given period of time.

Ecosystem - A community of interdependent

organisms together with the environment they inhabit

and with which they interact.

Eutrophication - An increase in the concentration of

nutrients in an aquatic ecosystem, causing: an

increased productivity of green plant, leading to the

blocking out of sunlight; elevated temperatures within

the water body; depletion of the water’s oxygen

resources; increased algal growth; and reduction in

the level of and variety of fish and animal life.

Evaporation - The changing of liquid water from

rivers, lakes, bare soil and vegetative surfaces into

water vapor.

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA) - A consumer protection statute passed

in 1947 to regulate the manufacture, sale,

distribution, and use of pesticides. FIFRA protects

human health and the environment from the risks of

pesticide use.

Freshwater - Water that contains less than 1,000

milligrams per liter (mg/L) of dissolved solids;
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress B-2

generally, more than 500 mg/L of dissolved solids is

undesirable for drinking and many industrial uses.

Ground Water - The subsurface water beneath the

water table in soils and geologic formations that are

fully saturated.

Hydrologic Cycle - The constant process of water

movement from the Earth to the atmosphere by

evaporation and transpiration, and from the

atmosphere to the Earth in various forms of

precipitation. This term includes movement of water

on and beneath the Earth’s surface.

Hypoxia - A condition or environment with very low

oxygen concentrations.

Industrial Wastes - Any waste that results from

manufacturing or other industrial processes. These

wastes often contain hazardous chemicals which

require special treatment processes.

Irrigation - The controlled application of water for

agricultural purposes through manmade systems to

supply water requirements not satisfied by rainfall.

Land Subsidence - The loss of surface elevation due

to removal of subsurface support. One cause of

subsidence is over-pumping ground water.

Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) - The

maximum amount of a compound allowed in drinking

water under the Safe Drinking Water Act. MCLs are

set by considering both health effects of the compound

and technical feasibility of removing the compound

from the water supply.

Monitoring Well - Wells used to collect ground water

samples for the purpose of physical, chemical, or

biological analysis. They are generally installed where

ground water contamination exists or has a potential

to exist.

Nitrate - The most oxidized form of inorganic

nitrogen and a contaminant commonly associated with

septic systems and agriculture activities. High

concentrations of nitrate and nitrite in drinking water

are know to cause methemoglobinemia in infants.

Nonpoint Source Pollution - Pollution discharged

over a wide land area, not from one specific location.

These are forms of diffuse pollution caused by

sediment, nutrients, organic and toxic substances

originating from land-use activities, which are carried

to lakes and streams by surface runoff. Non-point

source pollution is contamination that occurs when

rainwater, snowmelt, or irrigation washes off plowed

fields, city streets, or suburban backyards. As this

runoff moves across the land surface, it picks up soil

particles and pollutants, such as nutrients and

pesticides.

Over-pumping - The reduction of ground water

storage that occurs when withdrawals from an aquifer

exceed recharge.

Pathogens - Microorganisms potentially harmful to

humans or animals, including parasites, bacteria, and

viruses.

Percolation - The downward movement of water

through layers of soil or rock.

Precipitation - The process by which water vapor

condenses in the atmosphere or onto a land surface

in the form of rain, hail, sleet, or snow.

Recharge - The replenishment of ground water by

seepage (deep percolation) of precipitation and

runoff. Also stated as the process of addition of water

to the saturated zone.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

- A law that regulates monitoring, investigation, and

corrective action at operating hazardous treatment,

storage, and disposal facilities.

Runoff - The portion of precipitation or irrigation

water that moves across land as surface flow and

enters streams or other surface receiving waters.

Runoff occurs when the precipitation rate exceeds the

infiltration rate.

Safe Drinking Water Act - The law passed in 1974

that required the setting of standards to protect the

public from exposure to contaminants in drinking

water.

Salt Water Intrusion - The migration of salt water

into freshwater aquifers under the influence of ground

water development.
SDWA Section 1429 Ground Water Report to Congress B-3

Section 1429 - Section 1429 of the Safe Drinking

Water Act (SDWA) authorizes the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Administrator to make grants to the States for the

development and implementation of programs to

ensure the coordinated and comprehensive

protection of ground water resources.

Septic System - An on-site waste disposal system.

Septic systems are constructed using conventional,

alternative, or experimental system designs. Septic

tanks are used to detain domestic wastes to allow the

settling of solids prior to distribution to a leach field for

soil absorption. Septic tanks are used when a sewer

line is not available to carry them to a treatment plant.

Sinkhole - The cavities in bedrock that are open to

the atmosphere. These usually result from the

collapse of overlying soil or geologic material.

Sole Source Aquifer - A ground water aquifer which

is the sole or principal drinking water source for an

area and which, if contaminated, would create a

significant hazard to public health.

Stormwater - Rain water and snow melt that runs off

the land and enters streams, rivers, and lakes.

Surface water - The water from all sources that

occurs on the Earth’s surface either as diffused water

or as water in natural channels, artificial channels, or

other surface water bodies.

Treatment - Remedial techniques or actions used to

restore contaminated ground water.

Underground Injection Well - A well through which

fluids are injected into the subsurface.

Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) - Any system

having 10 percent of the total tank volume below

ground.

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) - An organic

chemical that volatilizes (evaporates) relatively easily

when exposed to air.

Water Quality - The chemical, physical, biological,

and radiological condition of a surface or ground

water body.

Watershed - The land area that drains water to a

particular stream, river, or lake. It is a land feature

that can be identified by tracing a line along the

highest elevations between two areas on a map,

often a ridge. Large watersheds, like the Mississippi

River basin contain thousands of smaller watersheds.

Water Table - The top of the subsurface zone that is

saturated with ground water.

Well (water) - An artificial excavation put down by

any method for the purposes of withdrawing water from

the underground aquifers. A bored, drilled, or driven

shaft, or a dug hole whose depth is greater than the

largest surface dimension and whose purpose is to

reach underground water supplies or oil, or to store or

bury fluids below ground.

Wellhead Protection Area - A designated surface

and subsurface area surrounding a well or well field

that supplies a public water supply and through which

contaminants or pollutants are likely to pass and

eventually reach the aquifer that supplies the well or

well field. The purpose of designating the area is to

provide protection from the potential of contamination

of the water supply. These areas are designated in

accordance with laws, regulations, and plans that

protect public drinking water supplies.

Wetlands - A land area that is inundated or saturated

by surface and/or ground water with a frequency and

duration sufficient to support an abundance of

water-loving plants or other aquatic life that require

permanently saturated or seasonally saturated soil

conditions for growth and reproduction. Examples

include swamps, marshes, bogs, sloughs, potholes,

wet meadows, river overflow areas, mud flats, and

natural ponds.