ontapontap summer 1995 1 ontap drinking water news for america’s small communities summer 1995...

OnTap Summer 1995 1

OnTapDrinking Water News For America’s Small Communities

Summer 1995Volume 4, Issue 3

On Tap is apublication of theNational Drinking

Water Clearinghouse,sponsored by the

Rural Utilities Service.

Cynthia DoughertyTalks About the SDWAby Harriet EmersonOn Tap Editor

WASHINGTON, D.C.—It’s muggy by 8a.m. on Bastille Day 1995. FM radio plays theFrench national anthem in celebration as thetemperature climbs toward 98 degrees. Despiteheat advisories, dedicated joggers pant throughthe thick air.

On the twelfth floor of the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) Building, the director ofthe Office of Ground Water and Drinking Waterlooks worried. This is no day of celebration forCynthia Dougherty. The EPA is under siege.Every answer today has to be punctuated with “ifwe have the funds; if we still have people . . . .”

The July 14 headline on The WashingtonPost’s Federal Page read: “House Panel Signals

Assault on EPA Initiatives.” A House Appropria-tions Subcommittee opened the assault this weekby recommending a 30 percent cut in the EPA’s1996 budget, reducing it to $4.87 billion, down$2.4 billion from 1995, the article stated. Andthere were some mighty restrictive riders to theseproposals. Subcommittee chair Rep. Jerry Lewis(R-CA) said the cuts and riders are necessary toforce the EPA to reconsider the administrativedirection it is taking. Environmental advocatessay Republicans are trying to roll back environ-mental protection 20 years.

By the end of July, the Wall Street Journalreported that 51 House Republicans broke ranksand helped Democrats strip 17 riders—the onesgeared to slow enforcement of clean air and waterstandards—from the EPA funding bill. AccordingContinued on page 14

Slow Sand Filter Serves Dover a Cool Drinkby Kathy JespersonNDWC Staff Writer

After six years of boiling their drinking water,1991 is a year that Dover, Idaho, residents won’tsoon forget. That’s when the community com-pleted the installation of its new $762,800 watersystem, which includes a slow sand filter, 79,000-

gallon reservoir, river intake, and distributionsystem.

“The treatment plant was needed for years,”says Steve Tanner, Drinking Water Programmanager, Idaho Division of EnvironmentalQuality (DEQ). “Dover’s water system wasone of the most decrepit in Idaho and a realhealth threat to the residents.”

According to Tanner, Dover’s drinkingwater problems really began about 15years before the installation of the newsystem, with residents reporting systemleaks and low water pressure. It wasn’tuntil the mid 1980s, however, that theDEQ “determined the water was notreliably safe to drink and violated severalstate drinking water regulations.”

Contamination Concerns DEQThe old system drew water from the

Pend Oreille River about one mile down-stream from Sandpoint, Idaho’s, sewagetreatment plant, says Tanner. And theDover system had no means for removingGiardia. Besides the lack of any filtrationContinued on page 10

Help us improve

by filling out the

On Tap and NDWC

Survey Insert Inside

The beautiful rural scenery of northern Idaho surrounds thecommunity of Dover. The city installed a slow sand filter tocontrol its drinking water problems.

2 OnTap Summer 1995

R E S O U R C E S

NA

TIO

NAL DRINKING WA

TE

R

C

LEAR IN GHOUSE

Volume 4, Issue 3Summer 1995

Sponsored byRural Utilities

Service

AdministratorWally B. Beyer

Loan SpecialistDonna Roderick

Established in 1991 at WestVirginia University, the NationalDrinking Water Clearinghouse

is funded by the Water andWaste Disposal Division of the

Rural Utilities Service.

National Drinking WaterClearinghouse

Manager, WVU EnvironmentalServices and Training Division

John L. Mori, Ph.D.

Program CoordinatorSanjay Saxena

Technical ServicesCoordinator

David Pask, P. Eng.

PublicationsSupervisorJill A. Ross

Editor/ProgramRepresentative

Diana Knott

Managing EditorHarriet Emerson

Staff WritersP.J. Cameon

Lauretta GalbraithKathy Jesperson

Graphic DesignerEric Merrill

On Tap is a free publication,produced four times a year(February, May, August, and

November). Articles, letters tothe editor, news items, photo-

graphs, or other materialssubmitted for publication are

welcome. Please addresscorrespondence to:

Editor, On Tap, NDWCWest Virginia University

P.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506

Permission to quote from orreproduce articles in this

publication is granted whendue acknowledgment is given.

Please send a copy of thepublication in which informationwas used to the On Tap editor

at the address above.

The contents of this publicationdo not necessarily reflect the

views and policies of the RuralUtilities Service, nor doesmention of trade names or

commercial products constituteendorsement or

recommendation for use.ISSN 1061-9291

OnTap

On Tap Staff Visits EPA, Surveys Readersour children, the more likely they are to form life-long habits, such as valuing the environment andconserving natural resources. And anyone withkids will tell you that they are very good atinfluencing their parents.

This issue includes an On Tap and NDWCSurvey. We hopeyou’ll take a fewminutes to fill itout and return itto us. We want tohear from you.NDWC’s technicalstaff—the peopleyou talk withwhen you call uswith a question—have added a fewquestions aboutNDWC servicesto our readershipsurvey. Have youcalled our 800number withquestions orproducts orders?We want to knowwhat informationis helpful, whichsubjects you wantto know more

about, how we can improve On Tap, and how theNDWC can serve you better.

The response to our groundwater issue andespecially to the “Groundwater ProtectionBegins at Home” poster has been fantastic.Posters are still available if you wish to orderextra. As always, On Tap is brimming withresources. (See pages 18-20.)

In early August, Jesperson and TechnicalAssistant Arjita Sharma braved the hairpinturns of southern West Virginia to tourwater plants with Larry Rader, WestVirginia Rural Water Association programspecialist. Look for information from thattrip in an upcoming operator issue.

Harriet EmersonOn Tap Editor

It has been a hot dry summer in the East. Aswater wealthy as West Virginia is, by August andSeptember, many wells run dry. Other parts ofthe country got more rain than they know whatto do with. At the National Drinking WaterClearinghouse (NDWC), we’re trying to figureout what information on small drinkingwater systems will be most helpful to all ofyou, whether you live where it’s wet or dry.

NDWC Program Coordinator SanjaySaxena and I left West Virginia’s ruralmountains behind in mid-July to interviewCynthia Dougherty, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) director of theOffice of Ground Water and Drinking Waterin Washington, D.C. We discussed smallsystems—viability, exemptions, technicalassistance—and stakeholder meetings.(See front page feature.) Then I spoke withSaxena about the EPA stakeholder meetingsfor small system capacity building that heattended in the spring. (See page 4.)

Staff Writer Kathy Jesperson talked withfolks in Dover, Idaho, about their new slowsand filter system—how they designed andinstalled it, and how long they had to boiltheir water before the system went in. (Seefront page feature.) Jesperson also gives anoverview of filters. (See pages 12-13.) StaffWriter P.J. Cameon spoke with a few of ourneighbors to the north about the possibilityof Canada instituting drinking water regulations.(Page 6).

Since it’s back-to-school time, we’ve includedarticles about a number of educational programs:Water Education for Teachers (Page 7), theIllinois Middle School Groundwater Project(Pages 8-9), and the Global Rivers EnvironmentalEducation Network (Page 9)—all good sources ofinformation. Many find that the earlier we educate

Wrong Number Listed

We apologize for an error in the last On Tap.We edit very carefully; however, sometimes atypo slips through. In this case, the Farm*A*Systprogram (pages 4–5, Spring 1995 On Tap) borean incorrect area code. A patient private citizen inNew Jersey has fielded a considerable number ofFarm*A*Syst calls. We thank her for accepting ourmistake with grace, and apologize to her and toany of you unable to reach Farm*A*Syst. Theircorrect area code and number is: (608) 262-0024.

There’s nothing like a cool drink ofwater on a hot summer day. AllisonHoornbeek, 2, left, and Sue PriyaSaxena, 3, pour each other tallsparkling glasses full. The two girlsare children of EnvironmentalServices and Training Division staff.

OnTap Summer 1995 3

N E W S & N O T E SN E W S & N O T E S

NDWC Makes Bibliographic Searches EasySharma says she can quickly provide a caller

with literature sources, including such informationas journal titles, volume numbers, author names,article titles, and an abstract—which helps youdecide if the article is really what you need. Andonce a search is made, the results are maileddirectly to you, making your literature researcha much simpler project.

For more information or to obtain a literaturesearch, call the NDWC at (800) 624-8301.

Looking for drinking water resources but findlibrary databases overwhelming or confusing? Ormaybe you don’t have time to search the libraryyourself. Then the National Drinking WaterClearinghouse’s (NDWC) bibliographic databasemay be the literature source you’re looking for.

Offering a variety of drinking water informa-tion sources, the database contains more than500 article abstracts on such topics as wellheadprotection, drinking water regulations, waterconservation, treatment technology, and operationand maintenance. And “it doesn’t take long toobtain a search,” says Arjita Sharma, NDWCtechnical assistant.

Interest rates for water and waste disposalloans offered by the Rural Utilities Service (RUS)changed slightly for the fourth quarter of FiscalYear 1995. Rates are set quarterly at three different levels,which have specific qualification requirements.The new rates, in effect from July 1 throughSeptember 30, 1995, are:

• poverty line rate: 4.500 percent (unchangedfrom last quarter);

• intermediate rate: 5.125 percent (down .125percent from last quarter);

RUS Loan Interest Rates Change This Quarter

Environmental LINKS (Local GovernmentInformation Networks) helps local governmentsof towns with populations of 10,000 or lessunderstand and participate in the developmentof federal environmental regulations. The programdistributes federal regulatory information, andassists small communities with strategic planningand exploration of financing alternatives.

Environmental LINKS also helps foster andmaintain cooperative regional partnerships. Theyprovide a quarterly newsletter, an online commu-nications bulletin, publications and case studies,regional forums, and a small town clearinghouse.

Originally called the Small TownEnvironmental Partnerships (STEP) program,The International City/County ManagementAssociation (ICMA ) changed the name to

LINKS in April to avoidbeing confused with TheRensselaervilleInstitute’s Small TownsEnvironment Program, also known as STEP.Rensselaerville’s STEP program helps smallcommunities with minimal funds find innovativesolutions to water and wastewater problems. (Seearticle on page 19.)

Environmental LINKS is funded by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency’s Office ofRegional and State/Local Relations.

For more information on Environmental LINKS,contact Shannon Flanagan at (202) 962-3540, orwrite to ICMA, 777 North Capitol St., NE, Suite500, Washington, DC 20002-4201.

LINKS Offers Small-Town Network

• market rate: 5.750 percent (down .250 percentfrom last quarter).

RUS loans are administered through localor state Rural Economic and CommunityDevelopment (RECD) offices, formerly knownas Farmers Home Administration offices. LocalRECD offices can provide specific loan andapplication information. For the number of your state RECD office, callthe National Drinking Water Clearinghouse at(800) 624-8301.

4 OnTap Summer 1995

EPA Stakeholder Meetings: What’s the story?that, of course, cost was prohibitive for somepeople—particularly those from the westernstates—to fly into Washington for a day or half-day meeting. Indeed, another dozen participatedby conference call, including representativesfrom five EPA regions and mayors and cityofficials from two towns in Oregon.

“Many systems are subsidized to the pointthat they cannot afford to run the systems whichhave been built for them,” one contributor said.“Most systems are run by towns or villageswhich are making decisions to spend largeamounts of money without a full understandingof the project under consideration. This isexacerbated by rapid turnover in local leadershipand the lack of any system to review for suchdecisions . . .,” said another.

“From the time many of these systems werecreated with federal money they were under-capitalized,” said George Zoto, MassachusettsDepartment of Environmental Protection.

“Debt repayment is not the principal cause ofnonviability,” said Jake Blair, Maryland Centerfor Environmental Training, representing theRural Community Assistance Program. “Lessthan two percent of systems go into receivership.The principle cause is nonviability of the com-munity itself—rural communities experiencingout-migration and losing their tax base.”

Vanessa Leiby, Association of State DrinkingWater Administrators (ASDWA), said there areideas for addressing new systems and their regu-lation, “but what about existing systems whichwere put in under the old rules when there waslittle or no regulation? Changes in the regulatoryframework are forcing these existing systems tobecome businesses. We have to make sure wedon’t recreate a situation in regulating these oldsystems that pushes people back into [using]`individual wells. We don’t want to run theseold systems out of business with regulation.”

In summary, among the issues and challengessmall system participants identified were: lack oflong-range planning, operating capital deficit,lack of managerial capability or oversight, thefederal government helping to capitalize manysystems but providing no ongoing financialsupport for operations and maintenance, bestavailable technology requirements, role of localplanning and local government, age of somesystems, contaminants—particularly microbial—cost of monitoring, use of large-system standards,and means for assessing viability.

“The need for assistance to small systems waspointed out very strongly—the need to provide

by Harriet EmersonOn Tap Editor

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) has been hosting “stakeholder meetings”all spring—a series of meetings in eight areas ofinterest to the drinking water community. Whatare these stakeholder meetings all about?

In very broad terms, stakeholders are groups,industries, communities, and individuals affectedby or interested in EPA activities, stated SarahLayton in the June 1995 APWA Reporter. Thus,individuals and industrial and program represen-tatives who have a stake in EPA decisions wereinvited to Washington, D.C., to comment on theirareas of expertise.

There were two major stakeholder meetingsdevoted to small systems capacity building. Thefirst, on March 29, sought input on monitoringreform, viability and restructuring, technology,and training. The second meeting focused onviability and restructuring. Peter Shanaghan, EPASmall Systems Coordinator, organized the meet-ings and was assisted by a professional facilitator.

Separate stakeholder meetings were also heldto gain additional input regarding the monitoringreform and technology issue. The scope of thesemeetings was not limited to small systems.Technology and monitoring reform are majorissues that affect larger systems as well. EPAsenior managers are reviewing and evaluatinginput received from stakeholders and areconsidering options for program redirectionbased on this input.

Sanjay Saxena, program coordinator for theNational Drinking Water Clearinghouse (NDWC),was invited to attend several stakeholder meet-ings. Since the NDWC provides information andtechnical assistance to small systems, the NDWChas a stake in EPA decisions. Saxena attendedboth small system capacity building meetings aswell as the standard setting group. The primaryintent of the latter was to determine priorities forstandard setting.

The small system viability and restructuringmeeting was composed of a mix of organizationdirectors, operators, and other “task performers,”Saxena said. “There was a good representation ofvarious concern groups.”

When he welcomed participants, Shanaghannoted that the meeting was part of an “ongoingprocess of collaborative problem solving.” Thepurpose, he said, was to get opinions fromindividuals who hold a stake in the process.

Saxena said that approximately two dozenpeople attended. “There were phone hookups forpeople who could not attend,” he said, explaining


Water Fact

Three quartersof the weight of

a living treeis water.

—America’s Clean

Water Foundation

Continued on next page

OnTap Summer 1995 5

It Takes Partners To End Water PollutionNew partnerships, not new technology, are

the answer to ending water pollution. This wasthe consensus reached by experts at the AmericanWater Works Association’s (AWWA) SourceWater Protection teleconference, according toan AWWA press release.

The AWWA teleconference, held in earlyAugust, was downlinked to 140 sites acrossthe U.S. and Canada to an audience of morethan 5,000. Discussions centered on methodsof protecting drinking water sources fromcontamination.

Jack Hoffbuhr, AWWA deputy executivedirector, called source water protection “thefirst barrier in the multiple barrier approach toprotecting consumers from water contamination.”

Dr. Daniel Okun, professor emeritus ofenvironmental engineering from the Universityof North Carolina, said “a major gap is that thereare no regulations for watershed protection.”Okun reported that North Carolina has passedinnovative legislation requiring all localauthorities with jurisdiction over water suppliesto send land use plans to the state for approval.

Douglas Hall, environmental protectionmanager for Dayton, Ohio, explained howDayton formed a partnership between electedofficials, administrators, planning commissionsand the local U.S. Air Force base. The partnersagreed to regulate hazardous materials near wells.

The Dayton water protection program,partially funded by water customers, also useseconomic incentives to encourage “groundwater-friendly” businesses to settle in their area.

Susan Seacrest, president of the GroundwaterFoundation, talked about the Groundwater Guard-ian Program, a voluntary partnership wheregroundwater protection is accomplished bycommunity teams from local government,citizens groups, educational institutions,business, and agriculture. (See cover story,On Tap, Spring, 1995.)

Despite efforts, some communities areunable to protect their drinking water source.And clean up can carry a hefty price tag. JackDeMarco, superintendent of Water Quality andTreatment, Cincinnati Water Works, explainedCincinatti’s “elaborate water monitoring programon the Ohio River.”

The Ohio River is rimmed with industries thatuse the water, so Cincinatti’s best option was tobuild the largest Granular Activated Carbon plantin the world—at a cost of approximately $60million. It cleans water at an added cost of $20per family, per year.

“Protection is cheaper than remediation,”commented Davis Jennings of the WashingtonState Department of Health.

The AWWA, an educational organization forwater professionals, is dedicated to improvementsin science, technology management, and commu-nication concerning public drinking water issues.

For further information on the AmericanWater Works Association, call (303) 749-7711,or write them at AWWA, 6666 West Quincy Ave.,Denver, CO 80235.

EPA Stakeholder Meetings: What’s the story?Continued from previous page Shanaghan then defined the term restructuring

as referring to a broad range of options, andbasically, he said, it covers everything that asystem can do to make itself more viable. Mostmeeting participants agreed that restructuringwas a good umbrella term.

Stakeholders made the following suggestionsin which EPA can assist or direct efforts towardviability and restructuring: develop a pilotprogram demonstrating restructuring, givesystems computer capability and training,develop a model program, provide incentives,and give information and examples to localgovernments. Discussions followed on theroles of state programs, local governments andsystems, and federal programs.

For information on small drinking watersystems, call (800) 624-8301.

assistance to systems so they can operate undercompliance,” Saxena said.

Another section of the small system meetingcentered on viability and restructuring. What dothese terms mean to stakeholders, and wouldanother term be easier to explain and understand?

Diane Kiesling, a public utilities commis-sioner from Florida, indicated that viability is afine term, but that another term is needed fornon-viable. Dave Sieburg, Washington PublicUtilities District, suggested that viability can bebest explained by putting it in the larger contextof sustainable communities.

“This is a tough issue,” said Bridget O’Grady,ASDWA. “No matter what you call it, it’s still atough issue. It may be more confusing to changethe terminology where you’re still talking aboutthe same thing.”


6 OnTap Summer 1995


Canada Considers Drinking Water Safety Actby P.J. CameonNDWC Staff Writer

Canadian officials are considering a DrinkingWater Safety Act, which would allow its govern-ment to adopt national regulations pertaining tocertain aspects of drinking water quality.

Each Canadian province adopts its own drink-ing water standards, based on federal governmentguidelines. Passage of the act would allow thefederal government to regulate some drinkingwater issues directly.

For instance, federal government officials areinterested in regulating water treatment units, or“point-of-use” (POU) devices, sold for home use.The regulations would combat what Canadianofficials say are unwarranted claims by somecompanies selling these devices.

“We want to ensure that what the publicis being told they are getting is what they areactually getting,” said David Green, seniorengineering consultant with Health Canada,the federal agency considering this action. Hesaid Canadian officials have had a continualproblem with health claims associated withtreatment devices.

Green said the problems are not normallywith major manufacturers, but instead with

less-reputable companies that make grand claimsabout the alleged health benefits of their products,when those products treat only aesthetic problemswith the water.

These devices are used in individualresidences to purify private well water ormunicipally supplied water. They may treat allthe water entering a residence (point of entry)or just the water flowing from a single faucet(POU). The legislation might also include pointof dispense devices, which include drinking watervending machines in stores.

In 1993, Canadians spent $700 million on themore than 450 models of home treatment devicessold in Canada, according to Green. He addedthat sales have continued to increase.

If the Canadian Parliament adopts thelegislation, regulations could then require thatmodels sold in Canada meet certificationstandards set by a third party, such as theNational Sanitation Foundation (NSF) Interna-tional, formerly National Sanitation Foundation.Green said roughly 30 percent of the models soldin North America already meet NSF standards.

Any federal action would also ensure thatproper maintenance instructions are provided toconsumers who buy treatment devices. “Somedevices that are OK when they are installed cancause illness if they are not properly operated ormaintained,” Green said.

The proposed action would cover treatmentdevices claimed to limit biological and chemicalcontaminants in water. It would not address claimsof aesthetic improvements to water taste or odor.

Additionally, drinking water treatmentadditives and system components would beregulated. This effort is designed to ensure thatcommunity water systems, especially in smallcommunities, are using chemicals and materialsappropriate for drinking water.

The U.S. federal government does notcurrently regulate drinking water POU devices,according to the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA). But it does require thatmanufacturers register—with the EPA—anytreatment device that contains a pesticide toprevent bacteria buildup.

This EPA registration is designed to showthat the pesticide used does not harm humanhealth, according to the agency. However, EPAregistration does not imply that the device meetsits advertised claims.

Several states—including California, Iowa,Wisconsin, and Massachusetts—have some formof regulations for drinking water POU devices.

Middle America’s drinking water may contain herbicide levels fargreater than federal standards dictate, according to an August 18,1995, Washington Post article.

The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit researchorganization, collected tap water samples in 29 communities inthe Midwest and South from mid-May to July—the peak growingseason. Water samples showed the presence of at least one weedkiller in all but one city: Memphis, Tennessee, where the watercomes from deep wells.

The research focused on the two most common herbicides—atrazine and cyanazine—used to control broadleaf weeds oncorn and sorghum crops. However, drinking water samplesindicated the presence of up to nine weed killers in a single glassof midwestern water.

While chemical industry and water system officials say thesefindings do not necessarily mean the water is not safe to drink, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assistant administrator forpesticides, Lynn R. Goldman, said that health risks should alwaysbe considered, especially for children.

Both atrazine and cyanazine are suspected carcinogens, andhave been linked to cancer in animals. The study indicated thatatrazine exceeded federal standards in 14 study communities, whilecyanazine levels were too high at least once in 18 communities.

Herbicides Taint Midwest’s Water

OnTap Summer 1995 7

Project WET Educates TeachersStudents Learn about Groundwaterby Jennie LaneCurriculum Development and Research CoordinatorWater Education for Teachers

The classroom suddenly becomes quiet asstudents match their “well logs” to those made byother students. They areconstructing their owngeologic cross-section ofa groundwater system.

Like piecing togethera puzzle, a picture forms.The noise level increases toan excited buzz as studentsmake discoveries.

“Look what happens to the water table!”exclaims one student. “I thought the water inmy shallow well would be clean,” says another,“but now that I see a landfill is nearby, I’mnot so sure.”

Workshop Uses Hands–on LearningAre these revelations taking place in a high-

tech research lab? No, these students are in anordinary classroom—ordinary except that theirteacher has attended a Project WET (WaterEducation for Teachers) workshop, and is usinga creative, hands-on activity called “Get theGroundwater Picture.”

Project WET is an interdisciplinary, nonprofitwater education program. The project’s goal is topromote the awareness, appreciation, knowledge,and stewardship of water resources. It is based atMontana State University in Bozeman, Montana.

Since its formation in 1984, Project WET hasmushroomed into a national and internationalleader in water-based science and environmentaleducation. It is endorsed by a growing networkof educators around the country who activelyparticipate in the design, development, anddissemination of educational products.

Guide Overflows with ActivitiesThe Project WET Curriculum and Activity

Guide is a cornerstone of the program. The guide,designed for grades K–12, is a collection ofinnovative, interdisciplinary, water-relatedactivities that supplement teachers’ curricula. In“The Pucker Effect,” students locate a hiddensource of groundwater contamination by digging“test wells.” Powdered lemonade drink mix isburied in a pan of sand and students measure thepH of samples to locate the “contamination” site.

The Project WET Curriculum and ActivityGuide will be distributed nationally throughWETnet, Project WET’s network, to teachers atthe grassroots level who participate in ProjectWET teacher education workshops. Peer-nominated educators from all 50 states, theDistrict of Colombia, and the U.S. territories

helped create activities for theguide. Workshop participantsprioritized the water topics theyperceived as most relevant foryoung people, and the projectis seeking funds to developin-depth guides (modules)on each topic, includinggroundwater.

The Watercourse, a youth and adult watereducation program, and Project WET, alongwith the National Hydrology Research Centre,Environment Canada, and the American GroundWater Trust, will publish the GroundwaterEducation Module in the fall of 1996. Thismodule, designed for use by secondary teachersand their students, teaches basic groundwaterhydrology and contemporary groundwatermanagement issues.

Model Makes Learning EasyA Groundwater Flow Model Package—a

popular, easy-to-use teaching tool which includesa model, users guide and video, and everythingneeded to conduct a class or workshop ingroundwater education, is also available fromProject WET. The model is constructed with aclear Plexiglas front that allows observers towatch water and contaminants move through“underground rock formations.” It alsodemonstrates how surface sources, such asrivers or wetlands, can connect to groundwater.

Project WET is co-sponsored by the WesternRegional Environmental Education Council(WREEC) and The Watercourse. WREEC and itspartners developed the highly successful ProjectLearning Tree and Project WILD programs.

For more information on groundwatereducation materials or WETnet, contactDennis Nelson, Project WET director, 201Culbertson Hall, Montana State University,Bozeman, MT 59717-0057, or call him at(406) 994-5392; fax: (406) 994-1919; e-mail:[email protected]

E D U C A T I O NE D U C A T I O N

PROJECT

Water Education for Teachers®

8 OnTap Summer 1995

Students Protect Groundwater and Learn SkillsIllinois Groundwater Project Thrivesby William DonatoNorthern CoordinatorIllinois Middle School Groundwater Project

Ninety percent of rural residents in the U.S.receive their drinking water from groundwater,and communities across the country are debatingcritical questions concerning water use and waterquality. Many organizations and governmentagencies attempt to educate the public aboutthe importance of water issues; however, attemptsare often isolated and tend to focus on groups orindividuals that already know how importantgroundwater is to their lives. At the same time,there is a demand for schools to make sciencemore practical—more relevant to localcommunity needs.

Working TogetherThe Illinois Middle School Groundwater

Project unites schools, government agencies, andcommunity leaders around the issue of ground-water conservation. The project, initiated in thenorthern counties of Illinois in January 1994,combines a hands-on curriculum with the supportof community members. The goal of the projectis to bring groundwater education to middleschool students living in three sections of Illinoisdesignated as areas of groundwater concern.Ultimately, the information the project iscurrently developing will be incorporated into

each school’s curriculum.A team of middle school

teachers and groundwaterexperts developed H2O:Below, a curriculum thatgives students the opportu-nity to test local well sitesand work through a well’shistory. Most schools adaptthe H2O: Below curriculumto their individual needs,and many, such as

Barrington Middle School in Barrington, Illinois,use a problem-solving approach. First, studentsand teachers study the entire hydrologic cycle—exploring basic groundwater concepts such asporosity, permeability and capillarity. Then theyuse a groundwater model to practice basic hydro-logic principles—testing variables and exploringconcepts such as recharge and discharge.

Students Test Wells and Report DataOnce they have established a background and

have a good grasp of basic principles, studentsturn their attention to local issues affecting them.

They test the water they drink and compare itwith others in the area.

The Illinois Farm Bureau has been instrumen-tal in developing a well site survey designed forstudents to use as they test their samples. Workingwith the local health department, farm bureau andother agencies, teachers and students analyzetheir watershed—learning first hand the impactof groundwater on their lives.

They test community and private wells fornitrates, pH, chlorine, hardness and iron content.Instead of reading a book about testing, studentsbecome active researchers who report data di-rectly to each well owner. They complete wellhistories, send out land use surveys to citizens,and poll groundwater awareness—reporting theirfindings to local officials.

Students explore how water can become pol-luted and learn to distinguish between point andnonpoint source pollution. Then, they work withtheir parents to complete an inventory of hazard-ous household products. From this, studentsbegin to realize that they can make a differencein conserving and protecting groundwater.

Students from Lundahl Middle School inCrystal Lake, Illinois, recently presented at agroundwater symposium in Washington, D.C.“It’s easy to get excited about this program,”says eighth grader Chris Gonew, summing upthe reaction of many of the students involved.“It doesn’t seem like school. We are actuallydoing something important. I now think I canmake a difference.”

Students Share Their KnowledgeAs an extension to the program, students act

as mentors to other students. High school studentsare visiting middle and elementary schools teach-ing the basics of the hydrologic cycle. Eighthgraders from St. Bernadette in Rockford, Illinois,visited Rockford Boylan High School. Theytaught older students about the principles ofgroundwater and set up hands-on experiments forthe high school students. “It was pretty scary atfirst looking at all those big kids staring at you,”admits Summer Hughs from St. Bernadette, “butafter we demonstrated a couple of experiments, itwas pretty cool!”

The network of teachers and local profession-als provides an excellent opportunity for studentsto become involved in their community whilelearning about interrelationships between scienceand society. Not only are misconceptions ofgroundwater being broken, but the Illinois Middle



OnTap Summer 1995 9

Program Makes It Easy Being GREENThe Global Rivers Environmental Education

Network (GREEN) was born in 1984, whenseveral Huron High School students became illafter windsurfing on the Huron River. As it turnedout, the students had suffered from an outbreak ofHepatitis A—a viral infection associated withingesting fecal matter contaminated with the virus(the hand to mouth route), according to theCenters for Disease Control in Atlanta. Wonder-ing if the river water had become contaminatedwith the virus led the students to take action.

“If the water had made them sick, theywanted to find out why,” says MikeAppel, GREEN Information and Out-reach Coordinator. The students thencontacted William Stapp, Ph.D., at theUniversity of Michigan in Ann Arbor.Stapp taught at the university’s School ofNatural Resources and Environment, and, as thestudents learned, he had a reputation for takingaction based on sound analysis, says Appel.

Together, Stapp and the students discoveredthat the river water’s fecal coliform count washigh, particularly after a rain storm—about 2,000fecal coliforms per 100 milliliters, which is 10times Michigan’s allowable limit of 200coliforms per 100 milliliters for body contact.

Using this information, the students wereable to have the windsurfing concession bettercontrolled, says Appel. They posted signsindicating when the water was safe for swimmingand, most importantly, when it was not. But theydidn’t stop there. Stapp and the students thendeveloped a comprehensive educational programknown as GREEN, which grew quickly aroundthe Great Lakes region. The program involveswater quality monitoring and environmentalawareness education.

By 1989, the program got its real boost.Beginning with a series of international work-shops on watershed monitoring—conductedon five continents—GREEN now involveseducational professionals in 135 nations, withthe program growing into a world-widewatershed educational model.


The GREEN educational model revolvesaround two key content areas:• water quality monitoring and• understanding the changes and trends in the

whole watershed.“Finding out that what goes into the water

upstream can affect the quality of the waterdownstream is a critical part of this educationalmodel,” says Appel. “And so is getting

students to understand their role in thisfragile environment.”

Through GREEN’s educationalprogram, Appel continues, studentslearn how to monitor the physical,chemical, and biological aspects ofwater. “Seeing how the water quality

changes as it goes through communitieshelps them understand the real toll of

pollution,” he says.Students learn through classroom study

and workshops, and they can share informationthrough computer conferences. The programalso encourages students to develop studentcongresses to learn about their communities’land use practices and other human activity thatcan affect water quality, Appel says.

Other GREEN educational components include:• an international quarterly newsletter;• watershed studies educational materials;• water quality monitoring workshops;• computer conferences on EcoNet and a GREEN Home Page on World Wide Web; and• an online database of global water quality information.“One thing that makes our program different is

that we encourage the students to come togetherand share what they’ve learned,” Appel pointsout. “We hope that environmental education willpromote positive environmental changes.”

GREEN offers student, individual, andgroup memberships with varying costs. Andthe organization accepts members of all ages.

For more information about GREEN, call(313) 761-8142.

School Groundwater Project affords students anopportunity to break away from textbooks andview school as part of the community.

The project, sponsored by the W.K. KelloggFoundation, started with 35 schools in January1994—testing more than 300 wells—and beganthe fall semester with a groundwater celebrationwhere a wide array of volunteers taught students.

Continued from previous page

Illinois Groundwater Project ThrivesBecause of partnerships with local agencies andthe relevant hands-on curriculum, the project hasflourished and currently encompasses more than100 schools.

For information, contact William Donato,Northern Coordinator, Illinois Middle SchoolGroundwater Project, McHenry CountyGovernment Center, 2200 N. Seminary Ave.,Woodstock, IL 60098, or call (815) 334-4086.

10 OnTap Summer 1995

C O V E R S T O R Y

Slow Sand Filter Serves Dover a Cool DrinkContinued from page 1

C O V E R S T O R Y


method, the chlorination system often brokedown and provided almost no detention time—which is necessary to kill pathogens in water.Adding to an already worrisome situation, thesystem’s operators found that the water beingproduced consistently violated the maximumturbidity level.

“With contamination coming from sewagetreatment and agricultural activity, this was anaccident waiting to happen,” says Tanner. SoIdaho’s DEQ finally stepped in and ordered acontinuous boil wateradvisory for the resi-dents—which lastedfor the next six years.

“If you knew our[drinking water]history, you’d beamazed,” saysMaggie Becker, aDover city councilmember. “At leastonce a week thesystem would breakdown. And you don’tknow what misery isuntil you’ve livedwithout water for three days.”

According to Becker, Dover, a community of87 residences, is an old mill town that sits alongthe Pend Oreille River. The mill owned andoperated the original water system. However, adeclining economy forced the mill to move out,“and that left nobody to take care of the system.”

Dover Becomes a CityWith no operator and an ancient water system

to contend with, the community decided it shouldtake matters into its own hands—but Doverwasn’t incorporated. This presented a realproblem for the residents because to qualify forany kind of financial assistance, they had tobecome a city. Being a persistent bunch, theydidn’t allow even one barrier to stop them, saysBecker. And so, on July 26, 1988, the city ofDover was established.

Ruen-Yeager and Associates, Inc., anengineering firm in Sandpoint, Idaho, conducteda study for the city to establish the best treatmentmethod for the city’s water. Using that information,along with a survey of local incomes, the cityqualified for a $561,100 grant from RuralUtilities Service, part of the Rural Economic andCommunity Development mission area (formerlyFarmers Home Administration), and financed

the remainder of the project through a revenuebond, says Tanner.

The next step was to conduct a pilot study,says Tanner. The community decided on slowsand filtration, which—although it was not theleast expensive system to install—providessimple operation and low operation and mainte-nance costs. “Slow sand filtration is one of themost effective and reliable methods for removingpathogens,” says Tanner. “And that’s what wewere most concerned about.”

The pilot study involved operating a miniatureslow sand filter, using the same kind ofsand and operated in the same manner asa full-scale plant, says Tanner. Idaho’sDEQ loaned the community a portablepilot slow sand filter to help them in thestudy. (DEQ continues to loan out thefilter to other communities in the state.)Once the year-long study was completed,the full-scale filter was installed—andthe first glass of water was drawn inNovember 1991.

Operation Is EasyAccording to Tanner’s description, slow sand

filtration is a method of treating surface waterthat is simple and reliable. Water influent flowsover the surface of the filter and percolatesthrough a bed of porous sand, with the filteredwater drained from the bottom. No chemicals areadded to aid in the filtration process.

As water filters through the sand, a biologi-cally active layer, or a schmutzdecke, forms onthe top layer of sand. The schmutzdecke—theGerman name for this layer—is made up ofdeposits, microorganisms, and biofilm. Oncethe layer is established, the filter will performbeautifully, says Tanner.

After several weeks or months of operation,however, the filter can become clogged and theflow rate can be reduced. When this happens, theoperator must drain the filter and shovel off theclogged layer. The filter is then refilled, and theprocess starts over, says Tanner.

“When you start to see lower water flow—usually down to about 20 gallon per minute(gpm)—the filter has to be cleaned,” says RonBarrett, Dover’s system operator. “They need tobe cleaned about every two months. Since we

“At least once a

week the system

would break down.

And you don’t know

what misery is

until you’ve lived

without water for

three days.”

Maggie Becker,Dover city council

Maggie Becker, Dover city council member,checks the flow rate of the city’s new watertreatment system.

OnTap Summer 1995 11


C O V E R S T O R YC O V E R S T O R Y

only have 79,000 gallons of storage, I alwaysalternate the cleaning.”

Dover’s system has two filters, allowingBarrett to drain and clean one filter while theother is still in operation. “I take every effort Ican to make sure there’s always water available,”he says.

Barrett says it takes him about three hours toclean one filter, and it’s very labor intensive. “Thehardest thing about operating a slow sand filter isthat the cleaning has to be done manually. Therearen’t any buttons to push or levers to pull—justa shovel and a wheel barrel.”

Even with the manual labor, Barrett says heappreciates the simplicity of the system. “It’s verybasic. The system doesn’t change much. It’s notlike one you have to add coagulant to. And youdon’t have to worry about having facilities to dealwith the wastewater when you backwash.”

Besides the system’s simplicity, Barrett saysthere are also differences in the quality of thewater. “I also operate a rapid sand filter inSandpoint,” he says. “And one of the biggestcomplaints customers have about the water thereis taste and odor.

“Both systems draw from the same source,”he continues. “But Dover’s water doesn’t get thatodd taste that some surface water systems have. Iguess it may have something to do with slow sandbeing a biological treatment while rapid sand is aphysical treatment.”

System Design Is Simple According to Tanner, the treatment plant is

effluent controlled, with two 652-square-foot(sq.ft.) filter bays. Each bay was designed for a

50 gpm production rate at a maximum filtrationrate of 0.075 gpm/sq.ft. During the summer of1994, the average filtration rate was .045 gpm/sq.ft., producing an average daily demand of60,000 gallons.

The intake system uses two three horsepower(hp) submersible pumps, and the intake screen liesin 56 feet of water, and is approximately 1,700linear feet from the shore of the Pend OreilleRiver. The water is filtered and chlorinated, thenpumped by two 7.5 hp centrifugal pumps at 100gpm through an eight-inch dedicated line to a79,000-gallon baffled reservoir. The distributionsystem is then fed from the reservoir at a staticpressure of 78 pounds per square inch.

System Has Good News and Bad NewsA benefit of a slow sand filter, according to

Drinking Water Quality Management (TechnomicPublishing Company, 1995) is that it has theability to remove greater than 99.9 percent ofGiardia cysts found in many raw water sources.Other benefits include routine maintenance andgood quality product water.

However, disadvantages to this type of systemmay be the large amount of land required toinstall and operate the filter bed. The filter’ssurface area must be large to accommodate thelow flow rates necessary for efficient operation.And “it’s about 100 times slower than other sandfiltration methods,” says Tanner.

Dover residents, however, aren’t complainingabout anything, says Becker. “The water wasn’tfit to drink for so long that most people said,‘Thank you, thank you,’” she boasts. “In ouropinion, the quality of the water is excellent.”

The old mill town is proud of its accomplish-ment, and its ability to now providesafe drinking water to its residents.“Dover has easily complied with theSurface Water Treatment Rule andother contaminant levels,” saysTanner. “The system really isworking beautifully.”

For more information aboutDover’s slow sand filter, contactSteve Tanner at (208) 769-1422.

Dover operates a housed slow sand filter that produces approximately 60,000 gallons of finishedwater daily. The two 652-foot filter beds were designed with a 50 gallon per minute production rateand generally require cleaning four to six times per year. The city chose this type of filtration because of its simplicity and overall cost effectiveness.Besides being economical, these filters have a 99.9 percent success rate for removing Giardiacysts from raw water.


T E C H N O L O G I E ST E C H N O L O G I E S

Filtering Water Makes It Easier To Swallowby Kathy JespersonNDWC Staff Writer

Producing a safe drink of water is what publicwater systems are all about. These water systemsare responsible for operating and maintaining themost up-to-date and reliable treatment optionsavailable—and that includes filtering water toremove microbes, turbidity, and other materials.

Most surface water systems know thatfiltration is inevitable. But filtration isn’t justimportant to comply with the Surface WaterTreatment Rule (SWTR)—which requires mostsurface water systems and groundwater systemsunder the influence of surface water to filtertheir water. It’s also important to the healthof the community.

Why filter?“There are really three reasons to filter your

water,” says James Goodrich, environmentalscientist with the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency’s (EPA) National Risk ManagementResearch Laboratory. “Right now filtering isthe best thing going for getting rid ofCryptosporidium and Giardia.

“Second,” Goodrich continues, “by filteringout particles like algae and other microbials, itmakes disinfection more effective. If the wateris close to being drinkable already, disinfectionis simple.

“And finally,” he concludes, “you reducethe risk of disinfection by-products with some

filtration systems because chlorine often reactswith material in the water, creating harmfulby-products such as trihalmethanes.”

What is filtration?Filtration, according to EPA’s May 1991

Manual of Small Public Water Supply Systems,is “the process of removing suspended matterfrom water as it passes through beds of porousmaterial.” How much of this suspended matteris actually removed depends “on the type and sizeof the filter media, the thickness of the media bed,and the size and quality of the suspended matter.”

According to Drinking Water QualityManagement, Technomic Publishing Company,1995, several types of filters exist, includingthe following:

• Slow sand filtration. This process consists ofpercolating untreated water slowly through aporous bed of sand. No chemicals are added toaid in the filtration process. After the filter hasbeen in operation for awhile, a biologicallyactive layer forms on the top of the filter. Thislayer, called a schmutzdecke, is made up ofdeposits, microorganisms, and biofilm, andhelps the system function optimally. Theadvantages of this filter are its simplicity andlow cost operation. And an operator need nothave extraordinary skills or spend an extensiveamount time on its operation and maintenance. Disadvantages, however, include the largeamount of land needed to support the filter.Primarily, low flow rates make it necessary tohave a large filter surface area; however, theexact size of the filter bed depends on how

Raw water

Sand filter bed

Support gravel

Under drain

Effluent flowcontrol structure

Filter

Telescoping valve

Clearwell

To sewer orraw water

source

ManholeControlvalve

Outletbaffle

Raw watersource

Ground level

Filtered water

Continued on next pageSlow Sand Filter


headloss—the resistance that results inpressure loss. Water is filtered at two gallonsper minute or more per square foot of filterarea. Chemical pretreatment is required andequipment must be provided to allow forfrequent backwashing.

• Diatomaceous earth filtration. These filtersusually come in one of two types—vacuum orpressure. As water passes through the filter,suspended solids are removed at about thesame rate as pressure sand filters. The filterhas several elements, including small tubesor hollow plates, which are coated withdiatomaceous earth. These filters requireregular attention because they quickly becomeclogged. However, when they are properlyoperated and maintained, they are effective atremoving bacteria and cysts.

• Bag filtration. With these filters, one or morelayers of fabric are formed as a seamless bag,which comes in various micron ratings. Thesefilters usually require a pressure vessel.Particle removal occurs deep in the fabric,leading to longer filter runs and less pressureloss across the filter, says Pask. In most cases,the filters are capable of handling a highvolume of dirt and debris between filterchanges. And, according to the water qualitytextbook, they also have shown strong promisefor point-of-entry compliance for the SWTR.

Which option to choose?In considering a filtration option, communities

should look at a variety of factors. “You need toknow what the raw water quality is and how thatquality changes,” says Goodrich. “Consideringthe stability of the source is also a major concern.For example, when a heavy rain occurs it canchange turbidity levels dramatically. In cases likethat, it’s also a good idea to have a storage facilityavailable to aid in the settling of material in thewater before treatment.”

Other considerations are:• filtration complexity,• operator skills required,• land area required, and• total system cost.Unless otherwise noted within the text, all the

information about the above filters comes fromthe Drinking Water Quality Management text-book, published by Technomic PublishingCompany, 1995.

For detailed information on slow and rapidsand filters, diatomaceous earth filters, and directfiltration, see On Tap, Winter 1994, page 8. Call(800) 624-8301 to order back copies of On Tap.

much water a system needs to treat. Flow ratesfor a typical system may be 50 to 100 timesslower than a conventional system. Andbecause of low loading rates, storage isnecessary to accommodate peak waterdemands, creating the need for additionalspace. (See front page story on Dover, Idaho.)

• Rapid sand filtration. This process is usuallypart of a conventional treatment system thatemploys chemical addition, coagulation,flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, anddisinfection. As its name implies, according toEPA’s Manual of Small Public Water SupplySystems, the process is fast. For example,water is usually applied at a rate at or abovetwo gallons per minute per square foot offilter area, with an allowance for frequentbackwashing. Because this process relies on gravity,some times a top layer of crushed quartz oranthracite coal is used to slow the process. Inaddition, the sand must be the proper size forthe filter to work efficiently. If it’s too fine, itwill not allow water to pass through freely,and it will require frequent cleaning. If it’stoo coarse, it will not effectively removesuspended matter (turbidity).

• Membrane filtration. This technology hassome of the best prospects for small systemsbecause of the filters’ size and cost effective-ness. Further, these filters can be designedfor selective contaminant removal, enablingthem to remove viruses and bacteria, andlower molecular weight organic andinorganic contaminants. “Membrane technology uses a thin sheet ofmaterial that is permeable to water molecules,yet forms a barrier for those contaminants itis intended to remove,” says David Pask,National Drinking Water Clearinghousetechnical services coordinator. According toPask, a whole range of membrane technologieshave been developed, including:

• particle filtration,• microfiltration,• ultrafiltration,• nanofiltration, and• reverse osmosis.

Often these filters provide all the purificationneeded for specific drinking water treatmentneeds. (For more about these types of filterssee On Tap Spring 1994, page 6.)

• Pressure filtration. These filters also use agranular medium to filter water, accordingto the EPA manual, and are contained in apressure vessel—which allows for a greater


T E C H N O L O G I E ST E C H N O L O G I E S

“Right now filtering

is the best thing

going for getting rid

of Cryptosporidium

and Giardia.”

James Goodrich,U.S. EPA,

National RiskManagement

ResearchLaboratory



Continued from page 1

Cynthia Dougherty Talks about the SDWAA current problem with variances and

exemptions, according to Dougherty, is that thestatutory provisions create a cumbersome andburdensome administrative process. She spokequite a bit about variances, exemptions, andviability. In EPA language, these are very specificterms. Variances and exemptions are defined inthe statute. States grant variances and exemptionsto PWS under special circumstances so that asystem can continue to serve customers—withoutbeing penalized by the EPA—even though theirmonitoring tests show them as above themaximum contaminant level.

A state can grant a variance to a PWS if itswater quality is such that even by installing thebest available technology (BAT), the system stillwon’t meet standards. A PWS receives a variancefor a set time, during which the state works withthe system to bring it into compliance. PWS mustnotify their customers of the variance.

A state grants an exemption from complianceif there are “compelling factors,” such as ifthe community is so poor that it can’t afford tomeet water quality standards. A state will thenexempt the PWS from meeting requirementsfor a set time.

“Also, with at least one of the bills last year—and there’s discussion again this year—thevariance and exemption approach would actuallyrequire EPA to put out information on smallsystem BAT,” Dougherty said, explaining that asthe law stands now, the EPA is required to look attechnology for the larger systems, rather than thesmaller ones. And, she said, even if the EPAwould like to concentrate efforts elsewhere, “we’redriven by the things that we’re mandated to do.”

Dougherty said that a good variance andexemption provisions are essential tools for statesand the EPA to use in helping small systemsaddress viability concerns. The EPA defines aviable system as one that has the financial,technical, and managerial capacity to consistentlyprovide quality service at an affordable cost.

Viability Isn’t a Bad Word“In traveling around the country the last

several months, I’ve heard that people look atviability as a bad thing,” she said. “To me it’snot a bad thing. It’s a good thing to help systemsfigure out what is the best way that they canprovide their service, and their service shouldbe providing good safe water.

“Viability is important as a tool,” Doughertycontinued, “not as a way to punish someone ornot allow a system to exist, but to make sure thatwe can assess PWS and ensure that systems

Cynthia C. Dougherty was named director for the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Ground Waterand Drinking Water in January 1995. She has been with theEPA since 1974 and the Office of Water since 1978. In 1988,Dougherty became the permits division director in thewastewater management office. She held this position untilher recent appointment.


to the article, the Democrat’s said the riders werea “GOP strategy of using appropriations bills topunish regulatory agencies and grant relief tofavored industries.” The GOP Whip called theEPA “the Gestapo of government.” It’s a long,hot summer all over.

In addition to battling for it’s own funds, theEPA is actively engaged in efforts to reauthorizethe Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). One of theprimary acts protecting the public’s health, theSDWA has been stalled in Congress since lastyear. That it wasn’t reauthorized in 1994 is asource of great disappointment for the EPA.

Over the last few years, Dougherty said, theEPA has provided many recommendations forthe SDWA, primarily in three areas: regulatoryreform, funding for infrastructure, and “balancein the statute between up-front regulations anda need for prevention programs.” The EPArecognizes that ensuring contaminants don’tget in drinking water in the first place is thebest way to avoid health risks as well as cost.

Law Needs To Be More Flexible“One, we need responsible regulatory reform,”

Dougherty said. “We need to have the flexibilityto not continue to regulate 25 contaminants everythree years.” In the 1986 amendments to theSDWA, EPA was mandated to regulate 83specific contaminants and to select and regulate25 additional contaminants every three years.For instance, the primary concern for many public

water systems (PWS) ismicrobial contamination—such as Giardia andCryptosporidium. Thesearen’t on the original list.

“We do think thatthere needs to be somesort of a mandate on theEPA to look at contami-nants for regulation overtime,” she said, adding,“we also think we needto change the statutoryauthorization right nowfor variances andexemptions.”




understand what they’ve got to do to provideservice to their customers.”

She said the EPA wants to see that PWS andstates have tools—“restructuring tools that comeshort of folding a small system into a large system.

“Not to close them down,” she emphasized,“not to have a community-controlled federalprogram on viability. And not to have a list ofnames of nonviable systems, but to provide thesupport that systems need to recognize whenthey’re getting to the edge—the gray area.

“You have systems that are already out ofcompliance—and you know you need to look atthose systems—but there are other systems who,if they sit down and look at where they’re goingto be over the long term, will realize that they’regoing to have problems. And we need to belooking at different things to do.” She suggestedthat small systems can sometimes reduce costsby sharing operators or going in together withother small systems to acquire supplies orlaboratory services.

And as costs rise, such partnerships may beunavoidable. More than 50,000 of the 58,000community water systems in the U.S. are smallwater systems—serving up to 3,300 people. Manyof these systems were developed when regula-tions were few and water treatment costs low.

Infrastructure Funds Are NeededThe second area, Dougherty said, is making

sure that there is a way to provide funding fordrinking water infrastructure needs over the longterm. The agency recommends a drinking waterstate revolving fund (SRF) to provide loans—particularly for small communities.

“The President supports that very strongly,”Dougherty emphasized. “Even in his approach tobalancing the budget in 10 years, he would stillfund drinking water loan funds.”

She admits that there’s a real issue as towhether a loan program is of value to smallcommunities with extremely limited funds.The poorest communities can’t take out loansbecause they can’t afford to pay them back.And, she said, some PWS need to obtain grantsfor disadvantaged communities, such as thoseavailable to publicly owned and nonprofitsystems through the Rural Utilities Service.The proposed EPA SRF would focus on drinkingwater compliance, and these funds would not belimited to public systems.

Prevention Programs Are Imperative “The third area,” Dougherty said, “is making

sure that there’s a balance in the statute between

up-front regulations and national standards versusthe need to have prevention programs to ensurethat contaminants don’t get in drinking watersources in the first place. I don’t believe there’s abalance in the current law.

“We’d like to see something in the law thatprovides both recognition and incentives forstates and communities to have source waterprotection programs. We also believe that statesshould have viability programs to ensure thatsmall systems are capable of providing safe drink-ing water over the long term to communities,” shesaid, adding that states and communities need tobe certain that they can operate long term andprovide safe water long term.

“We’re thinking about the federal role inprevention as being to work with the states toestablish criteria for source water protection andviability programs,” she said. The EPA has theunenviable task of establishing rules that willprotect the most people for the least amount ofmoney. But this is a huge country and there’sno way to consider each individual system at thefederal level.

“We have also suggested some changes to theenforcement provisions of the act so that thefederal enforcement process is less bureaucraticor less bureaucratically burdensome,” she added.

Customers Have a Right To KnowDougherty believes that states and communi-

ties need to give consumers more informationabout what’s happening with their drinking water,“where it comes from and what’s done to treat it,if it is treated, so that consumers can participatein the decision-making process if they want to.

“As the EPA provides more flexibility, PWSneed to be more accountable to the people theyserve,” she said.

“There’s some discussion of changes in thearea of public notification,” Dougherty said,“and we think it’s very important to listen towhat all the stakeholders have had to say inour reassessment.”

SDWA Needs Public Health Bias The EPA has been hosting stakeholder meet-

ings, composed of individuals who “have a stakein” EPA decisions. The purpose of these meetingsis to explore the concerns and needs of the regu-lated community. (See related story, pages 4-5.)

“The bottom line in terms of how we developstandards is that standards must have a biastoward public health protection,” Doughertystressed. “That’s what the SDWA is about. Andwe have to make sure that we have that bias.Continued on page 16

“We’d like to see

something in the

law that provides

both recognition

and incentives

for states and

communities to

have source

water protection

programs.”

Cynthia Dougherty,Director, U.S. EPA

Office of Water



Cynthia Dougherty Talks about the SDWAContinued from page 15

Water Fact

Nearly one millionAmericans lack direct

water hook-ups intheir homes.

—USDA Rural Utilities

Service, Water 2000:

A Plan for Action

Drinking Water and Small Flows Clearinghouses,among others.

“As the result of all the stakeholders meetings,we’ve gone through a very extensive process—that’s not finished—but a very extensive processwhere we look at the resources that we have inthe groundwater and drinking water programs.

“I think what we probably didn’t understandwas the real cost of following through on some ofthe things on the standards side.

“We know that we have to be able to collectbetter data, not just for purposes of standardsetting, but overall for the program. We know wehave to convince people that the science on whichwe’re basing our decisions is sound science;whether people believe it has been in the past, weprobably have to do a better job of defending thebasis on which we make our scientific decisions,”Dougherty continued.

It All Comes Down To Viability“We want to make sure that we focus our

standard-setting activities on those contaminantsthat pose the highest risk to human health. Wewant to try to encourage and facilitate preventionactivities, and that covers viability and sourcewater protection.

“We know that we want to make sure that wehave reasoned implementation and oversight. Andit is very important that we work effectively withour state partners.

“It’s an interesting set of challenges,”Dougherty grinned, her wry humor surfacing. “Youcouldn’t have come at a more interesting time.”

And the challenges for the future of smallsystems?

“It all comes back to viability,” Doughertystressed. “I haven’t quite figured out why that’ssuch a powerful word. We’ve got to look atwhere we have systems that are working now.We’ve got to make sure that we’re planningnow for the repair and replacement of the infra-structure as it ages.

“We’ve got to ensure microbiological safetyof drinking water. We’ve got to be able to providesmall systems with the tools they need to assesshow they’re going to operate long term, and whatthey can do to make their operations either morecost effective or more technology effective so thatthey can provide the best possible service for theleast amount of money.”

That’s one of the biggest issues under discussion.”She conceded that there’s intense disagreementon what “public health protection” means—evenwithin organizations.

“We’ll still have schedules that includeregulating contaminants that we don’t think arethe most important contaminants for us to payattention to,” she said. “Under the existing statute,only the courts can decide whether or not the EPAcan change the schedules for pollutants, regardlessof priority in terms of public health protection.”

Dougherty believes that a reauthorized SDWAwill benefit small systems. “I think it’s going toprovide more tools to assist small systems thanhave existed before,” she said, adding that shethinks the reauthorized law will pay more atten-tion to small systems issues than the current lawdoes. She hopes the act will give states the optionof tailoring monitoring requirements and varianceand exemption programs so that they suit smallsystems better.

“I think source water protection will be reallyimportant for small systems, since a great numberof influences on their drinking water sources maybe out of their control.”

Source water protection, strengtheningsmall systems’ capabilities, and more technicalassistance for small systems emerged as veryimportant issues during some of the stakeholdersmeetings, Dougherty said.

EPA wants “to help communities empowerthemselves so that what they do is in their handsas opposed to someone else telling them whatthey need to do,” she said. “And in terms ofstrengthening small systems’ capabilities,stakeholders identified needs for case studieson small system restructuring and stateviability programs.”

EPA Relies On PartnershipsHowever, EPA’s technical assistance role

is essentially one of orchestrating partnerships.“Even if we got the budget that we had askedfor, as opposed to a tremendous cut in our budget,EPA doesn’t have a lot of resources to go outand do technical assistance itself,” Doughertysaid. “Effective partnerships are really the keyfor us there.

“We’ve been working on some guidancedocuments which deal with viability and smallsystems issues,” she said. “That’s clearly a bigpart of what we see ourselves doing.

“We look to ourselves as, at best, playing therole of catalyst or facilitator in a lot of theseareas—working with states, working with thirdparty technical assistance providers, the National


Water Festival Workshop Slated for Fall(NSFC) outreach coordinator. Miller will presentworkshops that explain how to educate studentsabout septic systems. Several speakers willdiscuss how they organized their own waterfestivals. Fundraising and promoting waterfestivals will also be discussed.

Nancy Galloway from Moscow, Russia,is slated to speak at the conference. Gallowayis developing a water festival in New Delhi,India. She is presently involved in watereducation in Moscow.

Killham explained, “Presentations by waterfestival organizers and water educators willdiscuss what works best to keep the kids’attention and how to develop a water day atgrade schools.” In addition, evaluation techniquesto determine the success of water festivalprograms will be discussed.

“Priming the Pump” is an annual event thatlast year attracted more than 100 participantsfrom around the country.

For more information on “Priming the Pump,”contact The Groundwater Foundation at (402)434-2740, and request a brochure.

Training Information Is Available

Are you interested in more information on trainingprograms? E-Train, The Environmental Training Newsletterfor Small Communities, a quarterly publication producedby the National Environmental Training Center for SmallCommunities (NETCSC), keeps you informed about thelatest training sessions for water, wastewater, and solidwaste professionals. For a free copy of E-Train or to haveyour name put on the mailing list, call (800) 624-8301 orwrite to E-Train Editor, NETCSC, West Virginia University,P.O. Box 6064, Morgantown, WV 26506.

For current training program schedules, contact SandyMiller, NETCSC conference manager, at (800) 624-8301,ext. 536.


by Chris BerryNational Small Flows Clearinghouse Staff WriterReprinted with permission from Small Flows,Summer 1995, Vol. 9, No. 3

Water festivals are held all year long aroundthe country. But when spring comes burstingforth in all her glory, so do the water festivals.

To help festival organizers prepare forsuccessful activities, The GroundwaterFoundation is sponsoring “Priming the Pump:A Water Festival Workshop,” to be held inNebraska City, Nebraska, September 22–23.

The conference will focus on organizingwater festivals and other programs aimed atgrade school children. A water day consists ofexplaining and demonstrating how to conserve,as well as protect water quality. Children willhave the opportunity to do hands-on activities.“It’s fun entertainment for the kids. They arevery receptive to it,” said Amy Killham, programdirector for The Groundwater Foundation.

Eight to 10 guest speakers are anticipatedfor the Nebraska event, including Patricia Miller,Ph.D., National Small Flows Clearinghouse

NETCSC Hosts Train-the-Trainer WorkshopThe National Environmental Training Center

for Small Communities (NETCSC) will host atrain-the-trainer workshop for environmentalsystems management.

NETCSC will hold a “Basics of Environ-mental Systems Management (BESM)” programSeptember 27–28, in Chelmsford, Massachusetts.Environmental trainers and technical assistanceproviders who participate will become familiarwith the BESM curriculum. Theywill also learn techniques fordelivering BESM training to localofficials, as well as how to usecamera-ready training materials.

The content of the workshopincludes:

• Drinking water and wastewater regulations

• Drinking water treatment and distribution

• You as a decision maker• Group decision-making techniques

• Citizen involvement techniques

• Inviting citizen participation

BESM cost is $190 per person. If two or morepeople from your organization attend, the cost is$125 each. The fee covers course materials—including a trainer’s manual, master copies oftraining materials, and transparency masters—lunches, and refreshments.

For more information on this trainingprogram, contact Sandy Miller at (800) 624-8301,ext. 536.


R E S O U R C E SR E S O U R C E S

The Children’s Groundwater Festival WorksGroundwater Foundation and the RensselaervilleInstitute, which found that children’s behaviorand attitudes about groundwater do change as aresult of participation in the festival. In fact,their knowledge about groundwater increased 23percent. Thirty-eight states and foreign countriesnow feature groundwater festivals. There’s even anewsletter called Sprinkles, the water festivalnewsletter which provides new ideas for waterfestival organizers.

For more information, contact The Ground-water Foundation, (402) 434-2740. To obtain adetailed executive summary and/or the completereport of the study, write the Foundation at P.O.Box 22558, Lincoln, NE 68542-2558.

The Groundwater Foundation holds aChildren’s Groundwater Festival each year inGrand Island, Nebraska. At the festival, childrenwrite their own public service announcementsor create an “Aquifer-In-A-Jar,” which they“pollute” with drops of food coloring. Othersexamine aquatic insects through a microscopeconnected to a television monitor.

This year, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency Administrator Carol Browner, NebraskaGovernor Ben Nelson, and 3,000 studentsattended the festival—the seventh annual day-long, hands-on event.

In 1994, the foundation released the results ofa year-long study, designed and conducted by The

costs of pollution control and waste disposal,improve regulatory compliance, reduce theliability associated with the management ofhazardous materials and wastes, and improveemployee safety.

This free Pollution Prevention Directoryand other information on EPA’s programs maybe ordered from the Pollution PreventionInformation Clearinghouse, EPA, 401 M St.,SW 3404, Washington, DC 20460, or by calling(202) 260-1023. When ordering the directory,request EPA publication #742-B-94-005.

Information is also available via Internet onEPA’s Main Gopher Server at gopher.epa.gov.By using Gopher’s word search capability, youcan type pollution prevention when you log onthe server and a list of publications will appear,including the Pollution Prevention Directory.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s(EPA) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxicsis offering a revised 103-page directory of pub-licly sponsored pollution prevention resources,including technical assistance programs for smalland medium-sized businesses, universities ineach state that conduct research and training,and information about federal pollutionprevention assistance programs.

The EPA defines a pollution preventionprogram as “a comprehensive and continualeffort to systematically reduce or eliminatepollution and wastes.” Part of such a programis “source reduction,” which the 1990 PollutionPrevention Act defines as reducing the amount ofhazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminantsentering waste streams or that are released intothe environment prior to recycling, treatment,or disposal.

By implementing pollution prevention prac-tices, businesses and organizations can reduce the

EPA Offers Pollution Prevention Directory

Do you like to talk water?WaterTalk is the communications system of

the Universities Water Information Network(UWIN). Designed to link those with waterresources interests, WaterTalk provides aconvenient communication forum forresearchers, teachers, managers, consultants,and administrators in the academic, private, andgovernmental sectors.

The system is set up as a series of discussionforums. Each forum is devoted to a particularwater-related topic, including hydrology, geology,global water issues, groundwater quality, waterpolicy issues, and education. And users areencouraged to suggest other forum topicsthey would like to see.

A user may participate in a discussion by either:• logging onto the WaterTalk Bulletin Board

System;• subscribing to WaterTalk discussion forums in a mailing list format and receiving messages at an e-mail address; or

• having your organization receive the forums as Usenet-style newsgroups.

WaterTalk discussions are also archived atUWIN’s gopher and World Wide Web sites,which are located at gopher.siu.edu andhttp:\\www.uwin.siu.edu respectively.

For more information about WaterTalk,e-mail your questions to UWIN [email protected].


R E S O U R C E SR E S O U R C E S

STEP Publishes Self-Help Handbookwith ideas, suggestions, and resources.

“For our purposes,” Harold Williams,president of TRI, explains in the book’sintroduction, “self-help refers to collective effort:people working together to create or improve aservice or facility that they will use in commonbut which is not exclusively owned by any oneperson or household.”

TRI, a nonprofit development centerestablished in 1963, has operated STEP since1989 with major support from the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency and The FordFoundation. STEP’s mission is to help statesachieve compliance with health standards in lesstime and for less money, and help communitiesto meet environmental standards while sustainingan improved quality of life.

The Self-Help Handbook, Revised Edition,costs $21.95, plus $3 shipping and handling.For more information on STEP or to obtain acopy of the handbook, call (518) 797-3783,or write Small Towns Environment Program,The Rensselaerville Institute, Rensselaerville,NY 12147.

In this era of cutbacks, down sizing, and fund-ing shortfalls, everybody is looking for ways tosave money. And literally thousands of smallcommunities are searching for low-cost answers

to the problem of inadequate waterand wastewater infrastructure.

The Self-Help Handbookmay provide the guidanceyou’re looking for. It is acomprehensive guidebookfor communities that under-take self-help projects.

Written by Jane W.Schautz and ChristopherM. Conway, senior staff

members of The RensselaervilleInstitute’s (TRI) Small Towns Environment

Program (STEP), it describes a set of tools thatsmall communities can use to reduce the costsof drinking water and wastewater projects.

It is intended as a desktop reference forthree primary audiences: local residents,including elected officials, plant operators, andstate and federal officials responsible for waterand wastewater facilities. The book overflows

The Groundwater Education in Michigan(GEM) program provides a wealth of informationthat helps people understand the relationshipbetween their actions and the quality of theirenvironment.

In its seven years of operation, GEM hassupported the development of more than 35projects ranging from groundwater educationfor school children to community wellheadprotection. Many of the “stories” are containedin their publication Precious GEMs: Ground-water Education Strategies that Work.

To better share insights and advances, GEMestablished GEMNET, an e-mail and bulletinboard system where anyone with a computer andmodem can access information on groundwater,surface water, and other environmental issues.

To access GEMNET, at the host prompt, type:gemnet.rs.msu.edu. If direct access or a localnumber to access the Internet is unavailable, userswith a modem and communications software candial MSUnet at (517) 353-8500 (300-2400 Baud)or (517) 432-3200 (9600-38400 Baud), and log inas guest. At the MSU prompt, telnet using theabove address. Communications parametersshould be set to 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.Long distance charges will apply.

Established in 1988 through the cooperativeefforts of the Institute of Water Research at

Michigan State University and the W.K. KelloggFoundation, GEM has a network of local commu-nity groups and universities across the state whoshare environmental information, particularlygroundwater facts.

For a free copy of Precious GEMS, mail arequest to: W.K. Kellogg Foundation, P.O. Box5196, 180 South Union St., Battle Creek, MI49017-4918.

For a copy of Tapping the Source, a listingof GEM educational materials, contact RuthKline-Robach, Institute of Water Research,115 Manly Miles Building, MSU, 1405 SouthHarrison, East Lansing, MI 48823-5243, or callher at (517) 355-0224.

GEM Provides Wealth of Information

Do you have big plans for your small community watersystem? Even great ideas won’t get far without funding.Water Sense, a quarterly publication produced by theNational Drinking Water Clearinghouse (NDWC), offersfinancial drinking water news for America’s smallcommunities. For a free copy or to put your name onthe mailing list, call (800) 624-8301 or write to the NDWC,West Virginia University, P.O. Box 6064, Morgantown,WV 26506-6064.

Reading Water Sense Makes Sense

The

HandbookFor Small Town Water and Wastewater Projects

By Jane W. Schautz and Christopher M. Conway

Revised Edit ion


C O N T E N T SC O N T E N T S

National Drinking Water ClearinghouseWest Virginia UniversityP.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064

NonprofitOrganization

U.S. Postage PaidPermit No. 34

NA

TIO

NAL DRINKING WA

TE

R

C

LEAR IN GHOUSE

On Tap is printed onrecycled paper.

Viability and Assessment Products Available Note: The free items listed below are limited toone of each per order. A minimum $2 shippingand handling (s/h) charge applies unless other-wise noted. Call (800) 624-8301 to place an order. Pleaseallow four to six weeks for delivery.

Self-Assessment for Small PrivatelyOwned Water SystemsItem #DWBLMG01This 28-page 1989 U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency guide will assist local officialsin identifying current or future managementproblems and suggests steps to remedy them.A series of questionnaires is included that canhelp assess a system’s financial condition.

Cost: $4.10

Helping Small Systems Comply with theSafe Drinking Water Act: The Role ofRestructuringItem #DWBLMG12This 1992 pamphlet uses a question and

answer format to address some of the mostcommonly asked questions about restructuring. Italso provides sources for additional information.

Cost: $0.00

Improving the Viability of Existing SmallDrinking Water SystemsItem #DWBKGN06This 1990 report provides information about

ways others have successfully addressed prob-lems common to small drinking water systems.Case studies, a contact list, and recommendationsfor implementing state programs are included.

Cost: $6.90

POU/POE Units and Home Water TestingItem #DWPCGN11This 11-page document is a collection of

questions and answers about point-of-use units,which deliver treated water to a drinking waterfaucet and about point-of-entry units, whichtreat all water entering a home or building.Information provided includes the differencesbetween the two water treatment devices, theiroperations and effectiveness, production, andregulations. Some associated addresses arepresented for contact when further informationis needed.

Cost: $1.60

Technical and Economic Capacity ofStates and Public Water Systems ToImplement Drinking Water Regulations:Report to CongressItem #DWBKGN20This 172-page book examines the financial

and technical capacity of states and public watersupply systems to comply with the federaldrinking water regulations. The report, preparedfor Congress, contains detailed cost estimatesof all federal regulations, and it recognizes thatsmall communities face the greatest challengein meeting the regulatory requirements.

Cost: $0.00

NDWC Mission StatementThe National Drinking Water Clearinghouse

assists small communities by collecting,developing, and providing timely information

relevant to drinking water issues.

Features:

Departments:

Cynthia DoughertyTalks About the SDWA,

page 1

Slow Sand FilterServes Dover a

Cool Drink,page 1

EPA StakeholderMeetings: What’s

the story?,page 4

Students Learn AboutGroundwater,

page 7

Illinois GroundwaterProject Thrives,

page 8

Filtering Makes ItEasier To Swallow

page 12

On Tap and NDWCSurvey Insert

NDWC Page,page 2

News and Notes,pages 3–6

Education,pages 7–9, 17

Drinking WaterResources,

pages 18–19

ontapontap summer 1995 1 ontap drinking water news for america’s small communities summer 1995...

Documents