SECTION IV

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES: WHPA MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Subsection 1428(a)(4) of the SDWA requires each state to:

"describe a program that contains, as appropriate, .... implementation of control measures .... to protect the water supply within wellhead protection areas from such contaminants...".

The underlying objective of WHP is to prevent contamination of the drinking water supply. Therefore, management of contaminant sources is an essential component of WHP. Communities have many tools at their disposal for the management of potential contamination sources. These may include:

• Regulatory Management Strategies:
  • Ordinances;
  • Sole source aquifer designation;
  • Source prohibition and permits;
  • Subdivision regulations and codes;
  • Land use agreements;
  • Tax incentives;
  • Design and operating standards;
  • Site plan review;
  • Purchase of property and development rights, and;
  • Inspectors at construction and drilling sites.

• Non-Regulatory Management Strategies:
  • Best Management Practices (BMPs);
  • Memorandum of Agreement or Understanding (MOA/MOU);
  • Training;
  • Water conservation programs;
  • Household hazardous waste collection programs;
  • Public education programs (news releases, brochures, etc.) , and;
  • Surface and groundwater monitoring.

Appendix I ("Summary of Wellhead Protection Tools") illustrates a variety of both regulatory and non-regulatory source management approaches, including: their applicability to WHP; legal constraints; and administrative considerations.

Each WHP plan must describe the techniques that will be implemented employed to manage and minimize the threats posed by the contamination sources identified in the Source Inventory (see Section III and Appendix J).

Management Strategies -- Selection Concerns

As part of the WHP plan development process, a host of concerns may arise regarding the selection of the most appropriate management strategies. Thorough consideration of all potential concerns should be given to all prospective management approaches prior to selection to ensure that only the most suitable management controls are implemented. The WHP Management Committee may propose to manage WHPAs in a variety of ways. Factors such as the size of the WHPA, the relative risk posed by the potential and known contaminant sources within the WHPA, the characteristics of the chemicals used, and the source management techniques already in place should be considered when evaluating source management approaches. The WHP Management Committee should address the following questions when selecting management strategies:

• Is cost a factor in implementing this strategy? If so, what is the cost?
• Is manpower and expertise available from existing resources?
• Is the strategy compatible and consistent with existing management approaches?
• Will the strategy afford the degree of control or risk reduction desired?
• Will the strategy conflict with existing laws, regulations, ordinances, or programs?
• Will the strategy be supported by the community?

Often a mix of management techniques is used to customize WHP management strategies to best fit the unique needs of a particular community's PWS. Also, the management techniques may vary, based upon the WHP Zone under consideration. For example, a PWS might choose to use an educational program to reduce risk in Zone 3, a zoning system to manage Zone 2, and a land purchasing system or zoning ordinances to immediately reduce threats in Zone 1.

As mentioned in Section III, Groundwater Sensitivity maps are very useful in helping to identify those parts of Wellhead Protection Areas where the aquifer is most susceptible, or 'sensitive', to a contaminant release at, or near, the ground's surface. Logically, potential and known contaminant sources within these areas might warrant different management approaches than those applied to areas where the aquifer is not as 'sensitive'.

Many communities find that political boundaries are easier to manage than areas delineated as WHPAs. Consequently, communities are encouraged to establish political boundaries, or WHP 'overlay' districts that coincide with WHPA boundaries. Since many source management strategies are difficult, if not impossible, for communities to implement outside of their own jurisdiction, it is recommended that communities coordinate management plans and activities with county governments to work collectively under a joint management agreement.

"Wellhead Protection Programs: Tools for Local Governments" (EPA 440/6-89-002) should be consulted to more thoroughly assess the ramifications of individual management strategies. This technical assistance document fully describes each management strategy and discusses the limitations, constraints, and legal issues associated with each approach. Examples of the ways in which some communities are using management controls to protect groundwater are highlighted in the text.

The potential and known contaminant source priority ranking established upon completion of the Source Inventory list (see Section III) must be used to assess the reasonable perceived relative degree of risk posed by particular contaminant sources.

Once the relative degree of risk of a contaminant source is established more effective management strategies can be developed, focusing on those sources with the greatest risk, or potential risk, to the drinking water supply. Under this approach, where the level of management is commensurate with perceived risk to the groundwater resource, the highest degree of protection (through management strategies) should be afforded to nearby Zone 1, while Zone 3, farther away from the wellhead, may have a lower degree of management applied. Generally speaking, local regulatory management strategies afford a greater degree of protection, as compared to non-regulatory methods.

'Buffer Zones' for recharge areas lying outside of Zones 1,2 and 3:

The buffer zone is an area up gradient of Zone 3. It can extend outward to include the entire ZOC or may focus on selected areas of concern such as recharge areas or locations where the aquifer may be exposed at, or near, the surface. A buffer zone should be used to provide an area of added protection to the WHPA, particularly to WHPAs for wells and springs developing groundwater from karst, fractured or faulted aquifers. This zone affords important protection to recharge areas beyond the WHPA boundaries, and can provide information on potential and known contaminant sources outside Zone 3 which have released, or have the potential for releasing contaminants into the wellhead protection area.

Analysis may show the need for contingency plans to respond to uncontrolled surface discharges that may travel overland to enter a stream located in or adjacent to the WHPA. It may also identify other non-contiguous critical aquifer recharge areas requiring some from of protection. Table IV-1 illustrates one approach for managing potential contamination sources that may be employed by local governments to protect their drinking water supplies. In this illustration, the stringency, or degree, of management is based upon the perceived risk that a contaminant source might present due to its distance from, or proximity to, the wellhead. In this example, higher rankings illustrate management approaches that typically offer the highest degrees of protection to the wellhead and/or drinking water aquifer and should be considered for areas closest to the well (i.e. Zone 1). Conversely, it is generally reasonable to expect that management approaches can become less stringent as the distance from source(s) to the well increases.

Table IV-1

LOCAL STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

Groundwater Monitoring in Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPAs):

Groundwater monitoring in WHPAs is a highly recommended management approach. A good groundwater monitoring program can provide an 'early warning' prior to the arrival of contaminated groundwater at the well. The monitoring wells should be located such that an early warning would provide enough lead time to either intercept the in-coming contamination before it can reach the well, or arrange for an alternate drinking water supply or treatment. The groundwater monitoring program should include periodic monitoring of groundwater for suspected or known contaminants that may be finding their way toward a drinking water supply well.

Groundwater monitoring would also serve as a way to measure the effectiveness of source management strategies. For example, the effectiveness of Best Management Practices (BMP's) implemented for fertilizer and/or pesticide applications to agricultural land could be evaluated with a groundwater monitoring program. Groundwater monitoring is also recommended when WHPA's lie within residential areas to evaluate the effects, if any, on the drinking water aquifer from septic systems, pesticide and fertilizer applications, etc.

To reduce costs, it may be possible to collect groundwater samples from existing wells (i.e., domestic, irrigation, etc.) although monitoring wells also might be needed where there is a need for monitoring but no existing wells are present. The WHP plan may consider the need to have potential contaminant sources that are susceptible to leaks or spills of contaminants conduct self monitoring of groundwater quality.

Developing and Documenting Existing and Proposed Management Strategies:

The 'Potential and Known Source, Hazards, Controls, Assessment, and Management Form' (Form IV-1: Appendix J) is provided as a worksheet to list existing controls and possible management strategies to ensure that potential and known sources identified within the WHPA are adequately managed. Using this Form, the WHP Management Committee should identify existing controls, assess the adequacy of existing controls, and describe management strategies and implementation dates for individual potential and known sources within the WHPA.

A completed 'Potential and Known Source, Hazards, Controls, Assessment, and Management Form' (Form IV-1: Appendix J) must be submitted for each potential and known contaminant source identified on the 'Source Inventory List' (see Section III).

Identification of Existing Local, State and Federal Source Management Authorities:

Table III-2 in the preceding section of this document lists many local, state and federal agencies that have existing authorities for management of certain types of contaminant sources and provides contact telephone numbers for these agencies. State agency responsibilities or authorities for managing specific sources (potential and known) of contamination are further described in Section III ('State Sources of Information'). When appropriate, these agencies may be cited as a component of the PWS's management strategy for a potential and known contamination source.

Federal and state agencies that manage public lands or regulate potential and known contaminant sources within WHPAs will coordinate with local governments to assure adequate management. Federal lands in Wyoming are managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation and Park Service. The recharge region of many groundwater resources developed as community drinking water supplies for many Wyoming communities often lie in areas under federal agency jurisdiction.

Local Authority to Protect Drinking Water Supplies:

Activities that are undertaken by counties and municipalities to protect drinking water sources or manage WHPAs are grounded in existing state law. Specifically, state statutes listed on Table IV-3 provide authority to counties and municipalities to regulate certain activities for public health, safety and general welfare.

Table IV-2

Possible Statutory Tools for Local Governments (1)

To Protect the Quality of Their Drinking Water and Well Field Areas

1. This is the WDEQ's perception of the various tools available to local entities to protect drinking water sources. This document is not intended as legal advice, and WDEQ does not intend to imply that actual authority exists. Each entity must consult with its legal counsel to ensure that authorities exist and are properly administered.

2. A First Class City is any city or town with more than 4,000 residents and this fact has been certified to the governor by the mayor; the governor shall declare it by proclamation a First Class City.

Provisions explained:

15-1-103(a)(xxxi)

Cities and towns may regulate water sources within the city or town.

15-1-103(a)(xli)

Cities and towns may enact ordinances, regulations, resolutions to protect the health, safety and welfare of the city or town.

15-1-103(a)(iii)

Cities and towns may purchase land.

15-1-601

Cities and towns may zone to promote health and general welfare and to facilitate adequate provisions for water.

15-3-202

The mayor of a first class city has jurisdiction, if vested by ordinance, over all places within five miles of the corporate limits of the city for the enforcement of health.

15-7-101(a)(ii)

Jurisdiction of the city or town extends up and along the entire distance of the source of supply for the water works. Cities and towns may enact ordinances and regulations for the protection of the water works. Cities and towns may acquire property beyond corporate limits to prevent pollution or injury to the water works.

15-7-704

Cities and towns may protect the domestic water from pollution. To do this, the jurisdiction of the city or town extends over the entire area of the water works, even if outside the city or town.

15-7-707(a)

Cities and towns may enact ordinances to protect the water works.

16-1-105

Any two counties, cities, towns, or special districts may enter into agreements with each other. They may create a joint powers board.

18-2-101(a)(ii)

Counties may purchase property.

18-2-101(a)(iv)

Counties may make contracts.

18-2-101(a)(vi)

Counties may establish surface water drainage systems and drainage management.

18-5-105

Counties may zone to promote public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the county.

18-5-201

Board of County Commissioners may regulate to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the county.

35-11-304

WDEQ/WQD may delegate the enforcement and administration of 35-11-301(a)(iii) & (a)(v) to cities, towns, counties, and water and sewer districts.

41-10-113(a)(vi)

Water districts may make contracts, within or without the district, to abate or reduce pollution caused by facilities.

41-10-113(a)(xi)

Water districts may make contracts.

41-10-113(a)(xiii)

Water districts may acquire property.

To avoid possible confusion, a local WHP plan should identify the agency, board, or government entity with authority and jurisdiction over management strategies involving rules or ordinances. A guideline for developing a drinking water protection (i.e WHP) ordinance is provided in Appendix L.

Copies of any ordinances, memoranda of understanding, permits, and land use agreements and similar source management controls should be appended to the WHP plan.

Sections
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
Appendices
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R
Wellhead Protection Program Guidance Document Contents
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality