SOURCE WATER INTEGRATION ROUNDTABLE
Washington, D.C.
July 29-30, 2003
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
Hosted by:
Association of State Floodplain Managers
Madison, Wisconsin
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.Forward and Acknowledgements …………………………………………………3
2.Introduction……………………………………………………………………….. 4
3.Need for Integration………………………………………………………………. 6
4.Findings…………………………………………………………………………... 7
5.Cross-Function Benefits……………………………………………………..…..... 9
6.Priority Recommendations……………………………………………..…………. 9
7.Barriers to Implementation…………………………………………………..……11
8.Next Steps………………………………………………………………………....12
Appendix 1. Lists of Participants………………………………………………..…App. 1
- Participants by Organization
- Participants with Contact Information
Appendix 2. Working Definitions………………………………………………… App. 2
Appendix 3. Tables of Federal Agency Activities Related to Functions……..….....App. 3
Appendix 4. Roundtable Process……………………..…………………………….App.4
Appendix 5. Highlights of Panel Discussions and Background Information………App.5
Appendix 6. Complete List of Roundtable Recommendations………………….....App.6
Appendix 7. Recommendations of the Ground Water Protection Council………...App. 7
FORWARD
The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) conducted the Source Water Integration Roundtable and prepared this report in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. The ASFPM carried out this project under Cooperative Agreement Number CX-83060901. Retired U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist Nancy C. Lopez served as ASFPM’s principle investigator for the project, and she is the author of the report. Information included in this Roundtable Summary and Discussion Document came from several sources. The report includes information presented and discussed at the Roundtable, provided by participating organizations before and after the Roundtable, and obtained from other generally available sources. Roundtable participants had multiple opportunities to review and comment on the report and other Roundtable products.
In addition to serving as a record of the Source Water Integration Roundtable, ASFPM and USEPA hope this report will support future actions by a wide variety of organizations to implement source water protection and to achieve integrated water resources management. Toward that end, the report offers background information and the recommendations developed at the Roundtable for consideration, refinement and action by others interested in working together to achieve these worthy goals.
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) greatly appreciates the financial and other assistance provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. The USEPA’s support through the cooperative agreement made the Source Water Integration Roundtable possible. Also, the ASFPM wishes to recognize and thank all of the other organizations that participated in the Roundtable deliberations. They contributed expertise, presentations and other support before, during, and after the Roundtable. Representatives of USEPA and the other organizational partners helped to plan and conduct the Roundtable and to review this report. Also, facilitators from the National Park Service (NPS) made an invaluable contribution to the Roundtable. Representatives from the NPS headquarters office provided outstanding facilitation assistance during the development and analysis of the Roundtable recommendations. Their expert assistance allowed the Roundtable representatives to focus more fully on the issues and their organizational interests. These organizations devoted their time and resources to foster integration across water management functions and especially to support functional integration at the field level where most of the action is centered. Finally, we are grateful to Nancy Lopez, who’s organizational and networking strengths kept this project on task.
SOURCE WATER INTEGRATION ROUNDTABLE
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
INTRODUCTION. Representatives of seven federal and eight non-federal organizations met at the Hall of States in Washington, D.C., on July 29-30, 2003, to identify opportunities and recommend ways to integrate four water resources management functions. The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) conducted the Roundtable under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (USEPA). A list of the participating government agencies and associations and their Roundtable participants is provided in Appendix 1. Also, Appendix 1 has a list of participants with contact information.
The purpose of the Roundtable was to identify opportunities to improve integration of the following functions: (1) source water protection, (2) floodplain management, (3) flood hazard mitigation and (4) watershed management and protection. The Roundtable included quality and quantity aspects of surface water and groundwater for the four functions considered.Early in the process ASFPM and USEPA made the strategic decision to focus on the interrelationships of these selected water resources functions rather than focusing directly on individual policies or programs that quickly can become “turf” issues. Clearly, these four functions are closely related, and considering them together was advantageous.
The needs for better integration exist among national, interstate, state, tribal and local levels. The causes of inadequate integration across organizations are complex, and many factors can contribute to integration problems. For example, these factors can include a lack of awareness, constraints related to authorities and limited resources, and insufficient coordination mechanisms to oversee integration.
Recognizing the need for better integration and cooperation among organizations performing related water resources functions, the ASFPM proposed the national Roundtable to the USEPA as an initial step toward improving integration. The overarching goal was to improve functional integration and the delivery of related services at the field level. The intent was to develop information at the national-level Roundtable that would provide a framework for future field-level integration activities.
Before the Roundtable met ASFPM coordinated with other participants to develop working definitions for the four water management functions. The full text for these working definitions is provided in Appendix 2. The working definitions are shown below in shortened form:
- Source water protection is any action to improve or maintain the quality of ambient surface or ground water that is, or will be, used as a source of drinking water.
- Watershed management and protection is the manipulation of the characteristics of a given watershed to achieve a desired hydrologic result affecting ambient surface or ground water within the watershed.
- Floodplain managementis a decision-making process that aims to achieve the wise use of the nation’s floodplains.
- Flood hazard mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce property losses and the threat to life and public health from flooding.
In addition to general considerations about interrelationships among these four functions, two important issues drove the selection of functions to be considered at the Roundtable.
First, across the nation nonpoint source pollution is the largest remaining source of water quality impairments. Recognizing nonpoint pollution as the major threat meant that watershed management and protection functions needed to be considered at the Roundtable. In fact, there is fairly widespread recognition of the critical need to integrate source water protection with watershed management and protection efforts. However, relatively few places in the country have effectively integrated these two functions.
The second issue driving the selection of the functions resulted from the fact that two key federal agencies and their implementing partners at other levels of government had not been included in previous national source water coordination efforts—the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Thus, interrelationships among floodplain management, flood hazard mitigation and source water protection had not been adequately recognized. Such recognition at all levels is key to integrating these functions.
Focusing on functions helped Roundtable organizations to consider on-the-ground interactions of their policies and programs. This allowed the identification of common interests and activities as a basis for future cooperation and more effective delivery of services. As it turned out, focusing on functions required a new mind-set. Organizations naturally think of themselves in terms of their missions, policies and programs. Shifting to a functional perspective was somewhat challenging, but it did provide insight. The participating federal agencies helped to prepare tables showing how some of their activities relate to the four functions addressed at the Roundtable. These tables are provided in Appendix 3.
In particular, the ASFPM and USEPA wanted to improve the chances that ideas developed at the Roundtable would be implemented. Many previous meetings have produced good ideas, but implementation has been limited. Since the 1960’s -- and especially since the early 1980’s when national support for the Water Resources Council and coordinated river basin planning was discontinued -- the need to improve interagency cooperation has been considered in many forums. At the national level such attempts often have focused on “national water policy” and program coordination, and fairly large numbers of people have participated.
To improve the chances for implementation, ASFPM and USEPA decided to limit participation in this Roundtable to relatively few organizations using a two-phase approach. As a starting point, they contacted the seven federal agencies with the most extensive mission responsibilities in the four selected water management functions. For example, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service (FS) represented Federal watershed management functions because they have the most extensive public land management missions. After the seven Federal agencies were identified, one or two other organizations representing the interstate, state or local implementing partners of each Federal organization were invited to join the Roundtable.
Ultimately, a few of the invited non-federal partner organizations were unable to participate because of limited funding for travel and other priorities. However, the organizations that attended the Roundtable did represent groups responsible for implementing the four functions at all levels of government.
NEED FOR INTEGRATION. The United States has one of the most complex water resources management structures of any country in the world. At the federal level more than two-dozen agencies have water resources responsibilities. Such complexity is repeated at the state and local levels and in the private sector.
As water quality and quantity problems become more challenging, the organizational complexity is making it more difficult to manage water resources effectively. Water problems have become more severe and scientifically challenging because of increasing pressures on the finite resource from population growth; expanding management objectives; changes in the kinds, distributions, and amounts of chemicals that are in the environment; climate variability and other factors.
There is growing concern that many water resource management practices are unsustainable (e.g., Western Water Policy Advisory Commission, 1998). Under normal circumstances many barriers exist to effective cooperation among responsible resource management organizations. In the post 9/11world the complex structure for water management is under increased pressure because of changing priorities and the emphasis on information security. Both nationally and internationally, many groups have concluded that water could be managed more effectively by better integrating functions across organizations to reduce the adverse environmental, social and economic impacts of too narrowly focused management efforts -- sometimes called “stove piping.”
In the case of source water protection effective cross-function integration will be the difference between success and failure. In part, this is because responsibilities and capabilities for protecting sources of drinking water are shared among thousands of national, state and local entities. While the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) required states to assess sources of drinking water, there is no requirement for protection. Congress intended that through mandated public access to source water assessments, voluntary protection would follow.
Further, Congress intended that other existing natural resources and environmental programs inside and outside USEPA would be used as the foundation for drinking water source assessment and protection. To achieve the legislative intent of the 1996 Amendments, cross-function/cross-program integration is critical. For example, see SDWA, Section 1453(6), for statutory requirements related to the use of other programs to complete the source water assessments.
Within the above context, ASFPM invited the participants to attend the Roundtable and work toward improving functional integration. An overview of the process used during the Roundtable is provided in Appendix 4, and highlights of the panel discussions with additional background information are in Appendix 5.
FINDINGS. Significant opportunities exist to improve the environmental, social and economic effectiveness of source water protection, watershed management and protection, floodplain management, and flood hazard mitigation. The first step toward seizing these opportunities is to improve awareness and cross-function coordination among these water management sectors at all levels.
The floodplain management and flood hazard mitigation sectors of the water management community have significant capability to assist in protecting sources of drinking water. Also, as described below, this sector has significant opportunity to benefit from activities carried out under other related functions.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) has significant potential to support drinking water source protection. This is especially true for watersheds that have drinking water intakes and that share drinking water contaminants of concern with specific CWA authorities and programs.
For example, a watershed that is a source for drinking water might have listed water quality impairments of shared concern under CWA Section 303(d), Section 319 (nonpoint source pollution), or the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program. In such a case, the CWA could be a major focus for drinking water source protection.
Such cross-function benefits are not one-sided; aspects of the SDWA could be used more effectively to help implement watershed protection and restoration under the CWA. For example, the presence of drinking water intakes in impaired water bodies could significantly increase public support and the priority for action.
Other examples of cross-benefits exist. Polluted ground water can contaminate surface water. The Wellhead Protection and Underground Injection Control programs are SDWA authorities that could be brought to bear in affected watersheds. The USEPA’s current efforts to integrate the SDWA and CWA programs are important steps toward protecting sources of drinking water and improving a wide range of program performance.
The 2002 Farm Bill has provided the USDA with enhanced technical and financial assistance capability to help private landowners address all their natural resource concerns including potential agricultural and forestry impacts to sources of drinking water. In addition, USDA’s organizational structure at the county level should be explored as a vehicle to provide source water protection and other integration information and to encourage cooperation among local resource professionals and decision makers.
There are many potential sources of funding for source water and/or watershed protection. For information about these sources see the website below:
Relatively few decision makers, members of the public -- and even some water resources professionals not directly responsible for water quality functions--adequately understand state drinking water responsibilities and the urgent need to protect sources of drinking water. This is especially true at the local level where land use decisions are made.
In general, current water quality monitoring efforts are not specifically designed to characterize the quality of drinking water sources or to identify contaminants for which water quality standards do not yet exist.
However, available information from other monitoring programs under the SDWA, CWA, the National Water Quality Assessment Program and other specific assessments by the U.S. Geological Survey indicate that some drinking water sources are contaminated. Throughout the country some water suppliers have had to abandon drinking water sources or to implement advanced treatment to overcome source water contamination problems.
Many participants at the Roundtable believe that functional integration needs to occur without further delay. Since the 1996 SDWA Amendments were adopted, scientists have discovered an increasing number of previously unrecognized pollutants in streams, lakes, reservoirs and ground waters that are potentially harmful to human beings and other living things. Examples of these emerging pollutants include antibiotics, hormones, caffeine, pesticide degradates, and toxins produced by harmful Blue-Green algae. Many of these contaminants are unregulated and may not be removed by the conventional water treatment generally available throughout the country.
Contamination of our nation’s drinking water sources can have significant costs not only to individual communities but also to the nation as a whole. When communities have significant contamination to drinking water sources, developing alternative sources or providing advanced treatment can be costly. Also, the communities and the nation can incur additional costs related to human health impacts and economic losses. Business and property owners are less likely to invest in communities that have serious water quality problems.
Because of recent security concerns, agencies are limiting the distribution of drinking water source information. At the Roundtable, some participants reported that restrictions on distributing this information were limiting the ability of resource managers and other decision makers to protect drinking water sources. Resource managers and decision makers that currently have authorities to protect source water need the information to prioritize, plan and implement effective protection measures. Some evolution in information security procedures has occurred since the Roundtable, and currently there are significant variations in procedures from place to place. Where restrictions on access to information remain, the involvement of resource managers and decision makers in drinking water source protection will probably continue to be delayed.