First Meeting Materials

Handout text to accompany the PowerPoint:

The Maine Drinking Water Program is a public health agency, and is part of DHHS in the CDC Division of Environmental Health. Our mission is to work with public water suppliers to provide safe drinking water to the people of Maine. We provide water quality assurance, engineering and geologic review, technical assistance, infrastructure loans, and education to water suppliers.

Maine has about 2,000 Public Water Supplies. 400 of these serve communities as their primary water supply. They range from systems serving 25 individuals at a mobile home park or nursing home to the 200,000 customers served by Portland Water District. A roughly equal number of public water supplies serve schools, businesses and industries, and about 1,200 serve a transient population: restaurants, motels, and campgrounds. Overall, nearly 900,000 Maine citizens use public water supplies at home, work, or in their travels.

For most water suppliers, state agencies, and municipalities, protecting water supplies is a by-product of other decisions and actions. A wide variety of public and private activities can degrade or enhance water quality protection, but few of those choices take water supply into consideration, even when it’s a nominal requirement, as it is with PL 761, which the Legislature enacted in 2001. All programs tend to focus on their central mission, and it is important that they also consider the secondary effects of their decisions. Water Supply Protection is not on the checklist, so it isn’t considered.

We have been fortunate to have a large, rural state with high-quality natural water and relatively few areas where water supplies are at high risk. Well-managed agriculture and forestry are good neighbors to water supplies. Residential and commercial development offer higher risks. The rapid growth in many rural towns has increased the pressure on water supplies over the last ten years. Shoreland and upland development, as well as suburbanization of recharge areas make it difficult to maintain high quality water supplies.

Only 21% of our larger community water supplies have effective source protection programs. Even those with strong programs have constant challenges from individuals and groups who want to increase the local tax base through development. In an ideal situation, a water supplier would own the area that contributes water to its source, as Bangor does. Most water suppliers have neighbors whose primary motivations are not water supply protection.

National studies indicate that forestry and agriculture, practiced with good management, are effective at conserving water quality and quantity. If forestry and agricultural conservation and management efforts considered water supply protection a priority, public water supply risks would be reduced, and development pressure alleviated.

Maine has a strong array of environmental protection laws, and a great deal of knowledge of how to minimize the influence of existing development on water quality. Source protection would benefit significantly if those tools and knowledge were focused on protection of water supplies. Code Enforcement Officer’s time and resources are stretched thin, and DEP education and enforcement is limited by staffing constraints.

We have a success story to tell that is also the story of long-term failure to plan. Rumford Water District has two wells known as “Scotty’s Wells” located between Scotty’s Brook and the Swift River in a sand and gravel aquifer. The wells have been in operation since the early 1950’s. Sometime later, a subdivision was developed north of the wells, in the same aquifer. As the homes aged, at least two developed leaks in their oil heating systems. DEP responded aggressively to both leaks in 1992-1997 and 2003-2004. The 2004 spill response included lifting the house off its foundation to recover contaminated soil, as well as installation of new piping for oil tanks in many of the homes in the area. Total cost of the responses exceeded $600,000.

DEP’s response was both timely and effective, and served to protect the water supplies. However, had the subdivision been located perhaps another 1,000 feet north, a much more modest clean up and remediation would have served to protect general ground water quality, and the water supply would not have been at risk. Although a number of public water suppliers are able to manage their water quality in aquifers with development, it is an ongoing challenge. If we can re-direct development away from water supplies, we will save money and conserve open space, agriculture, and forestry land uses.

Another example of hard and expensive work to protect public water supply is the Lisbon area. The Lisbon Water Department has to cope with an aquifer that is also much of downtown. Lisbon’s wells have been contaminated with gasoline (from a site which underwent aggressive DEP remediation), chlorinated solvents, and salt, among other things. The largest contamination event was associated with waste disposal at the nearby Maine Electronics site. Once again, DEP’s response was strong and appropriate, requiring Maine Electronics to both control the contaminated area and treat the water reaching the water supply. Lisbon still has an aquifer with a number of adverse land uses, and associated long-term management costs. Although the Department has searched diligently for other sources, this aquifer, even with its difficulties, remains their best option. Had more care been used in developing the area, both the public and industry would not have needed to participate in a long term and expensive clean-up effort.

Brunswick-Topsham Water District has worked diligently with the towns of Brunswick and Topsham to craft and improve a wellhead protection ordinance. Under the ordinance, there has been significant discussion about use of pesticides and fertilizers by both the Town and Bowdoin College. The District, the Town, the Pesticides Control Board and the DWP have spent several years in crafting management tools and restrictions for these uses. The ordinance is not able to regulate individual homeowner applications, and there is significant residential development in the wellhead protection area. Nitrate concentrations, while still well below drinking water standards, have slowly increased, almost certainly from lawn and garden fertilization. In addition to these non-point sources, a portion of the Brunswick Naval Air Station lies within the wellhead protection area. Fortunately, it is the far end of the runway from the Superfund site area. The proposed closure and re-development of the base will provide new challenges for the water supply.

Maine’s population has been moving from its historical city centers to the suburbs and surrounding rural towns. This trend has two serious effects on public water supplies. First, the city centers are served with public water and sewer. As population is reduced, the water suppliers are left with stranded assets and fewer ratepayers to support infrastructure, security, and source protection efforts. Secondly, most of the larger public water supplies located sources in the rural areas near their service area 80-100 years ago. As development occurs in these rural areas, a significant part of the natural protection that was in place is reduced.

Gray Water District is an example of an area where, even with an active wellhead protection district, ongoing development is increasing the risk to the water supply. Much of the contributing area is developed, and analysis of satellite imagery (change detection analysis) indicates that there has been quite a bit of “infill” development in the source protection area. In some ways, this is a good thing, as this area is served by the Gray Water District PWS. However, at least a portion of the new development is commercial/industrial, and the Gray Water District has had chronic low-level volatile organic concentrations in the past, probably a result of earlier industrial activity. Systems like Gray are left with the options of managing a large area of development, and careful, frequent, and expensive monitoring.

The Ellsworth Water Department illustrates the amount of work and coordination required to begin to conserve the quality of a public water supply. The City of Ellsworth utilizes Branch Lake as its source. The lake has historically had seasonal camps on the northern end of the lake. A large portion of the central and southern end of the lake is relatively undeveloped, with a large parcel owned by Department of Conservation DOC, including a small day use area. The intake is in the southern part of the lake. The watershed, until recent years, was mostly forested. There have been ongoing controversies over an appropriate location and control for surface use access. Additionally, many of the small seasonal camps have been re-developed as larger, more elaborate structures, often without due care for the lake.

Ellsworth has worked hard over the past several years to improve their watershed control. Even with these efforts, the change detection analysis shows a significant amount of new clearing and development in the watershed. The seasonal up-conversions around the lake are at too small a scale to show up on this analysis (30 m pixels).

Resolve 029 Recommendations, with some explanation

1 All State Agencies Favor Water Supply Protection in all their decisions.

A number of state agencies have authority over activities that can either enhance or detract from protection of public water supplies. In many cases, public water supply protection is not part of the framework for site selection and permitting decisions. The Maine DWP should provide leadership and coordination for decisions that may influence source protection. Agencies that can assist source protection include:

Department of Conservation: shoreland and boat launch development, park water supply development, forest management assistance and enforcement prioritization in source water protection areas.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife: surface use management of water supply lakes, boat launch development and management, wildlife area management, hatchery management.
Department of Environmental Protection: shoreland zoning review, Natural Resources Protection Act permitting, enforcement prioritization in source protection areas. Spill response and clean-up and siting of new UST’s are good models of how source protection areas can be prioritized in environmental activities.
Department of Agriculture: prioritization of enforcement, technical and financial assistance activities when correcting environmental problems to give greater priority to source protection areas.
State Planning Office: assistance to local entities with source protection land use planning, comprehensive plan and ordinance review.
Land for Maine’s Future Board: assistance with protection of open space; protection of water supplies currently not a criterion for conservation.

First thoughts on a legislative/executive order:

WHEREAS, the citizens of the State of Maine have invested significant resources in the development of public water supplies for towns and cities within the State, and

WHEREAS, a safe, abundant, and well-protected supply of drinking water is essential for the public health and economic viability of the State, and

WHEREAS, water supply protection provides major economic and social benefits to the people of Maine, conserving open space and increasing the security of our resources, and

WHEREAS, the decisions of many state agencies can either foster or threaten public water supply protection, and

WHEREAS, water supply protection is not officially considered in many state decisions,

THEREFORE, we find and declare that all state agencies shall explicitly consider the impact of their actions on public water supplies, and document the impacts and prescribe or conduct any appropriate mitigation of impacts on the water supply resulting from the activity.

2 Foster Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry in Water Supply Protection areas

National research shows that well-managed forestry and agricultural uses help maintain water quality and availability. Many source protection areas are currently being converted from forestry and agricultural uses to residential and commercial development. These more intensive land uses, also known as “sprawl” pose greater risks to water quality, and often reduce the availability of both ground and surface waters by altering the hydrology of the area.

2.1 Existing programs(e.g., Nutrient Management, Right to Farm, Sustainable Forestry) to maintain environmentally responsible agricultural and forestry uses should be provided with resources and given a focus to work in source protection areas to encourage land conservation .

2.2 Provide resources and direction to Agricultural and Forestry programs including nutrient management, sustainable forestry, and right to farm to work with landowners in source protection areas to minimize the impact of their activities.

Although agricultural and forestry land uses represent the lowest level of threat to water quality, poor management can lead to a variety of problems, ranging from erosion and sedimentation to hydrocarbon and pesticide contamination of ground and surface waters. A combination of landowner education, conservation incentives, and, where needed, enforcement can significantly reduce these risks.

Possible list of activities:

-amend right to farm, manure management and related legislation to focus (new?) resources on farms in public water supply protection areas (PWSPA)

-focus agricultural landowner assistance in PWSPA’s (new resources?)

-encourage land conservation in forestry and agricultural uses in PWSPA through Land for Maine’s future and other programs. Integrate PWS efforts with land trusts and private conservation.

-focus forestry landowner assistance in PWSPA’s (new resources?)

3 Mitigate the effects of existing and new development on drinking water quality

Statewide activities:

3.1: Encourage active management (BMP’s) of existing potentially threatening uses in source protection areas through municipal, PWS and state inspection of activities.

3.2 Develop a plan to target enforcement of existing environmental laws in source protection areas.

3.3 Add proximity to public water supplies as a review criterion for Environmental review programs, particularly NRPA and Site Location.

A number of public water supplies are located in relatively developed areas. It is not realistic to expect that businesses and residences will leave a source protection area. It is possible, through the use of education, incentives, and enforcement to mitigate the impact these activities have on water quality.

Maine has a strong array of environmental laws. We also have limited resources to enforce these laws. Programs like Pollution Prevention, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Underground Storage Tank inspection, Site Location, and Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA) enforcement all can assist in reducing risks to public water supplies as well as helping maintain general environmental quality. Source protection areas should be identified on NRPA and Site Location applications, and minimizing the impact of development on water supplies should be an explicit review item under these laws. Focusing the energy in programs like these, as well as agricultural and forestry education and enforcement can reduce risks to public health.

Local Government activities:

3.4 Set minimum standards for local source protection ordinances .

3.5 Amend PL 761 to require that a PWS’s written response to notification of proposed changes in land use activities in source protection areas be required prior to approval of a local permit.

Make the adoption of ordinances meeting or exceeding state standards a municipal requirement, using an approach similar to shoreland zoning. Only 21% of all community public water supplies have effective land use controls on their source protection area. These systems serve a large portion of the PWS population (about 60%), but smaller systems have been unable to work successfully with local officials to develop and implement local protection plans. The DWP and its partners have been working with systems and towns for more than 15 years to encourage the adoption of local ordinances with outreach, small grants, technical assistance and model ordinances. Standards should be simple and risk-based.

For ground water sources, a small inner zone would have no new contaminant sources allowed and high levels of management at existing sources. A larger outer zone would require a review of risks associated with proposed development, and would encourage open-space conserving uses, like agriculture and forestry.

Recommendation three possible implementation steps:

Statewide: amend NRPA and Site Location to include explicit consideration of public water supplies. Targeted enforcement plan, BMP education and enforcement strategy. (more detail to come, input needed)

Local:

Source protection ordinance definitions and standards:

PWS wells have at least two zones: a primary protection zone of either a calculated fixed radius or flow-modeled area, and a secondary zone similarly calculated where risks are lower but still significant. A third zone, the total contributing area (watershed) may also be regulated, if local conditions indicate that it is an important source of water for the well. Maine DWP has provided all towns with default zones for all PWS wells.

PWS intakes have three zones: an intake zone of 1,000 feet around the intake, the shoreland zone around the water body (250 feet, to parallel shoreland zoning) and the watershed of the water body. Maine DWP has provided all towns with default zones for all PWS wells.

Acute contaminants: nitrate, bacteria, produced by septic systems, animal husbandry, manure spreading, boat toilets.

Chronic contaminants: metals, organics, pesticides and related substances regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act that are associated with residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural and silvicultural land uses.

-no new activities that produce acute or chronic contaminants (nitrate, bacteria) are permitted within the primary protection zone. Existing activities shall use applicable Best Management Practices and may be subject to monitoring and inspection. (note: ideally, the water supplier should own or control this zone).

-any development in the secondary zone is subject to a ‘no adverse impact on water quality or quantity’ test. Industrial/commercial uses may be restricted or conditioned on use of BMP’s for handling of toxic materials. DWP has developed a BMP manual for these zones.

-Zoning shall encourage the retention of lands in low intensity forestry and agricultural uses.

DWP INFORMATION

First Meeting Materials