Communicating Source Water Protection Efforts in Consumer

Home , Raw water

This project was commissioned by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Source Water Protection Committee and funded by the AWWA Technical and Educational Council.

Report prepared by Cathy Kellon , Geos Institute April 2018

INTRODUCTION ...... 4 METHODS ...... 5 RESULTS...... 8 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...... 8 FINDINGS BY VARIABLE ...... 10 CATEGORY: EPA Required CCR Sections ...... 10 VARIABLE 1: Source identification ...... 10 VARIABLE 2: Source water assessment ...... 12 VARIABLE 3: How get a copy of the Source Water Assessment ...... 15 VARIABLE 4: Detected contaminants (water quality monitoring results) ...... 16 CATEGORY: EPA Optional CCR Sections ...... 17 VARIABLE 5: Source water protection program and/or actions ...... 17 VARIABLE 6: Tips for water conservation (quantity) ...... 19 VARIABLES 7 & 8: Tips for reducing pollution ...... 22 VARIABLE 9: Source Water groups, grants, events, and engagement opportunities ...... 24 CATEGORY: AWWA Source Water Protection Standards ...... 26 VARIABLE 10: Program Vision ...... 26 VARIABLE 11: Source Water Characterization ...... 26 VARIABLE 12: Source Water Protection Goals ...... 26 VARIABLES 13 & 14: Development and Implementation of an Action Plan ...... 27 VARIABLE 15: Periodic evaluation and revision of SWPP ...... 27 CATEGORY: Other ...... 29 VARIABLE 16: Statistics unique to their system and area ...... 29 VARIABLE 17: Impressions ...... 30 VARIABLES 18 & 19: Lead in water, including discussion of raw water quality (naturally corrosive), the presence of lead plumbing in system, and on-premises management tips ...... 30 CONCLUSION ...... 32 APPENDIX A - List of utilities ...... 35 APPENDIX B - Source Water Assessment & Protections ...... 38 APPENDIX C - Tips & Resources ...... 41 APPENDIX D - Lead.………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….42 APPENDIX E - Source Water………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………46 APPENDIX F - Water Tips……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………53

Executive Summary

This report describes the results and key findings of a review of Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs). The purpose was to research how utilities of various sizes are currently using their CCRs to educate customers about source water protection and to identify what, if any, resources are needed for future communications to provide this education. The American Water Works Association (AWWA) commissioned and funded this project and hired a consultant, Geos Institute, over the summer and fall of 2017 to complete the review. The findings will inform the development of a guidance document to help utilities select and develop CCR language that describes their source water protection efforts.

The review considered forty-three CCRs from separate utilities located around the country that serve a variety of population sizes and draw water from both surface and ground sources. Each CCR was then reviewed for the presence or absence of 18 variables that pertain to source water area assessments and protection, such as protection goals or pollution prevention projects. In addition, general impressions such as clarity of language and the use of information or design elements that may be suitable for inclusion as models in the final guidance document were recorded.

There is wide variety in the scope, depth, and readability of Consumer Confidence Reports, from two-page Word documents with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) minimum required information to 25+ pages, four-color booklets. The CCRs reviewed for this report provide sufficient material to develop a guidance document. In addition, the following patterns emerged:

• In a few cases, review of a utility’s CCR included a review of its website. This was opportunistic and typically occurred when looking for the most recently published CCR on the utility’s website. Several utilities provide a wealth of information online about source water protection or quality but it is not referenced in the CCRs. It is understandable to use the internet as a primary means for communicating source water assessment and protection but it is also important to be consistent and demonstrate a commitment to source water protection across communication channels. The guidance document should include a reminder for utilities to include links and references in the CCRs to the additional resources that are available online.

• In a few CCRs, spill and emergency response plans and activities are the only type of source water protection measures that are discussed. It is worthwhile to note in the guidance document that while spill and emergency response plans are integral - especially for commercial and industrial customers - they do not constitute a comprehensive source water protection plan. • Several of the source water assessment sections are ambiguously written. In some cases, there is a lot of information given but it is not evident why that particular information is being shared or its significance to the reader. In other cases, the writing is simply unclear and difficult to understand. The guidance document should include a reminder for utilities to seek help in interpreting their source water assessments to ensure they understand the report findings. • Some utilities draw their drinking water from reservoirs, which also serve as popular destinations for recreation, such as boating, fishing, and swimming. Examples of conservation tips, such as boat inspections, should be included for recreationists in the guidance document. • Most of CCRs reviewed provided the EPA’s minimum required information on source water (availability of a source water assessment and identification of the source). However, utilities tended to fall into one of two groups when including additional information pertinent to source water protection, such as protection goals or activities: minimal or exhaustive. The guidance document can encourage utilities to regularly discuss source water protection in their CCRs and offer multiple, simple ways to go above and beyond the minimum required information without necessarily investing in multi-page spreads.

INTRODUCTION

Outreach to and education of the general public are critical components of source water protection. Finding the right means for reaching customers and summarizing information, however, can be a challenge. The CCR is an important communications tool for utilities of all sizes. Because the CCR is a legal requirement for every utility and is intended to reach all customers, it presents a unique opportunity to connect with as well as educate and inform residents. While every CCR is required to include information on the identification of the utility’s water source(s) and the availability of a source water assessment, much more can be shared about source water protection, from explaining why source water protection matters and inviting customers to know their source area better, to ways that residents can prevent pollution. Utilities can help to build a knowledgeable and supportive ratepayer base through the regular inclusion of information about source water protection needs, goals, and activities in CCRs.

Some utilities have staff or consultants available to write outreach materials, including their CCR, while others may not. In particular, small- and medium-sized utilities have requested information from AWWA on how to educate customers on source water protection in their CCRs.

This targeted literature review examined how utilities of all sizes are currently using their CCRs to educate customers about source water protection needs and efforts. The purpose is to inform the development of a guidance document to help small and medium-sized utilities communicate their own source water protection efforts. This report describes the methods and findings from the literature review, including a summary of the types of utilities included and excerpts from select CCRs.

M E T H O D S

The CCRs included in the review came from a representative cross-section of public water systems (utilities), including those that rely on surface and groundwater; those that service small, medium, and large populations; and those that represent a geographically diverse subset of utilities across the United States. CCR recommendations were given by the AWWA’s Project Advisory Committee and were solicited from the following groups:

• Source Water Collaborative http://sourcewatercollaborative.org/ • Rural Community Assistance Corp (RCAC) http://www.rcac.org/ • Carpe Diem West's Healthy Headwaters Alliance http://www.carpediemwest.org/our- work/healthy-headwaters/ • EPA’s National Drinking Water Advisory Council https://www.epa.gov/ndwac

After all CCR recommendations were compiled, there were gaps in the types of utilities represented in the literature review. The EPA's online tool Find Your local CCR was used to identify additional utilities to fill gaps by geography, population, and source type. For every utility included in the literature review, the CCR chosen was for the most recent publication year available in electronic form. Basic information about each public water system and its report was recorded in an Excel matrix. Data collected about the public water systems included demographic and geographic characteristics, as well as source type (See Table 1).

TABLE 1. Public water system characteristics Public Water System (PWS) Description Variable

Population Selected one population-served category from following list*: Served 25 – 500 501 - 3,300 3,301 - 10,000 10,001 - 50,000 50,001 - 100,000 101,000 - 500,000 500,001 - 1,000,000 >1,000,000 Unknown *Originally five categories of public water systems size were used, as defined by EPA: >100,000; 10,001-100,000; 3,301-10,000; 501-3,300; and 25-500. The PAC determined that those categories were too coarse. For example, the difference between a utility that serves 105,000 people is substantively different from one that serves 1 million. Similarly, one that serves 501 people faces very different capacity constraints than one that serves 3,000. Hence, the five population size categories were further subdivided into eight.

Source Type Selected one source type from pick list: Surface, Ground, Combination surface and ground, Unknown EPA Region Selected one region from pick list: EPA Region 1 ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT EPA Region 2 NY, NJ, PR, VI EPA Region 3 PA, WV, VA, MD, DC, DE EPA Region 4 KY, TN, MS, AK, GA, FL, SC, NC EPA Region 5 MN, WI, MI, IL, IN, OH EPA Region 6 NM, TX, OK, AR, LA EPA Region 7 NE, KS, IA, MO EPA Region 8 MT, WY, UT, CO, ND, SD EPA Region 9 CA, NV, AZ, HI, Guam EPA Region 10 AK, WA, OR, ID Location Entered Mailing or Office Address including City, State, and Zip Code

Point of Contact If available, entered Name, Title, Phone, and Email URL Entered website for the utility, water quality reports, or source water program. Referral If relevant, entered the name of person who recommended this PWS or CCR and their explanation for why. Table 1. Information collected on the characteristics of public water systems (utilities) included in the CCR review.

Data collected on the CCRs was identified as the presence or absence of a set of 18 variables and additional notation was provided in one variable where a CCR proffered materials that may be suitable as a template or in developing guidance (See Table 2). This may include clear and concise writing samples, an easy-to-understand layout, or an effective use of statistics, photos, stories, or other communication devices.

TABLE 2. Consumer Confidence Report variables.

CCR Categories CCR Variables of Interest

1. Source identification

2. Source water assessment EPA required CCR sections 3. How get a copy 4. Detected contaminants (water quality monitoring results)

5. Source water protection program and/or actions 6. Tips for water conservation & use (quantity) EPA optional CCR sections - EPA's optional 7. Tips for individual & household use (quality) e.g., sections relevant to source water protection pollution have been subdivided for the project needs. 8. Tips for group or landscape protection actions (quality) 9. Resources: source water groups, grants, & engagement opportunities

AWWA Source Water Protection Standards – 10. Program Vision While it is not expected to see all these 11. Source Water Characterization elements featured in a CCR, especially given 12. Source Water Protection Goals they are not required by the EPA, it is 13. Development of Action Plan interesting to note when and where they 14. Implementation of Action Plan 15. Periodic evaluation and revision of SWPP have been included.

Other - Additional information elements. 16. Statistics unique to their system and area. E.g., trends in water use or quality; etc.

17. General impression and notes

18. Lead in water: discussion of raw water quality and/or presence of lead plumbing in system.

19. On premise management tips, e.g., running tap, use of water softener.

Table 2. Variables considered in the review of each CCR, organized by category. Variables in red are of primary relevance for creating the final guidance document.

R E SUL TS

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

A total of 43 utilities were chosen, based on the criteria to include CCRs from around the country and from utilities that serve a variety of population sizes and that draw water from surface and ground sources. See Figures 1 through 4 below for a breakdown of the utilities by geographic region, source type, and size of population served. See Appendix A for the full list of utilities.

E R ion E R ion E R ion

E R ion

E R ion E R ion

E R ion

E R ion E R ion

FIGURES 1 and 2 - Utilities EPA Region

0 25 - 500 501 - 3,300 3,301 - 10,001 - 50,001 - 101,000 - 500,001 - > 1,000,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 500,000 1,000,000

FIGURE 3 - Utilities by size

0 25 - 500 501 - 3,300 3,301 - 10,001 - 50,001 - 101,000 - 500,001 - > 1,000,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 500,000 1,000,000

Combination surface and ground Ground Surface

FIGURE 4 - Utilities by source type and size

FINDINGS BY VARIABLE

CATEGORY: EPA Required CCR Sections Not all required CCR information elements are included in this summary, only those relevant to source water protection.

VARIABLE 1: Source identification Every CCR identified the water system’s source(s) of water. Most utilities identify the water source by name, but many groundwater systems simply state that they use wells. Several utilities use illustrations or maps to explain from where they draw their drinking water, as in the cases of Bloomington, Minnesota; Bozeman, Montana; and Portland, Oregon (see Figures 5 through 7).

FIGURE 5 - Excerpt from Bloomington, MN'S 2015 Water Quality Report

FIGURE 6 - Excerpt from Bozeman, MT'S 2016 Water Quality Report

FIGURE 7 - Excerpt from Portland, OR's 2015 Water Quality Report

VARIABLE 2: Source water assessment All but three CCRs reviewed included reference to a source water assessment. Two of these are groundwater systems (Stevens Point, Wisconsin; Valdosta, Georgia), and one is surface water (Beaver Water District, Arkansas). However, two of the three do provide source water characterizations. Valdosta provided a detailed and easy-to-understand description of its source aquifer and Beaver Water District provided several pages of information and data on the current health of Beaver Lake.

Many utilities mention only that a source water assessment has been done – typically by their state environmental agency in the early 2000s – and then provide information on how to obtain or view a copy. However, some note the source watershed’s level of vulnerability or susceptibility to contamination (e.g., high, medium, low) or the general types of contaminants that have been identified. In Figures 8, 9, and 10, three different utilities provide a basic explanation of their source water assessment findings. Heart Butte School in Montana went a step farther and included a table taken directly from the assessment that describes the potential contaminant sources in detail (see Appendix B).

FIGURE 8 - Excerpt from Saginaw, MI Water Treatment Plant's 2015 Water Quality Report

FIGURE 9 - Excerpt from State College Borough Water Authority, PA’s 2016 Water Quality Report

FIGURE 10 - Excerpt from Manchester, NH's Water Quality Report

These examples provide a sense for the variety of ways that assessment information can be shared, from details on the types of contaminants (e.g., transportation corridors) to their significance (e.g., a “positive picture of [water source] condition”). Nevertheless, there were several examples where the source water assessment section in CCRs was written in ambiguous terms, leaving the reader to wonder what the consequences are of the susceptibility rankings or the extent of potential contaminants. For example, one utility, with more than a dozen wells, described the results of their source water assessment by listing nutrients, pathogens, and other contaminants as high potential for contamination at several wells, medium at other wells, and low at yet others. In a few other cases, the utilities went in the opposite direction and provided comprehensive information on their current source water monitoring efforts.

Perhaps the most technical description of source water health came from the Beaver Water District in Arkansas. While its 2015 report does not mention a source water assessment, more than two and a half pages are devoted to a description of how the source reservoir, Beaver Lake, is managed by the Army Corps of Engineers; lake stratification and dates of turn-over; major storm events, including dates and total precipitation amounts; and a look at multiple water quality parameters with associated monitoring efforts (see Figure 11).

For additional examples of how utilities present source water assessment information, see Appendix B.

FIGURE 11 – From Beaver Water District's (AR) 2015 'State of The Lake' Report

VARIABLE 3: How get a copy of the Source Water Assessment All but three CCRs reviewed included information on how to obtain a copy of their utility’s source water assessment. These were for Stevens Point, Wisconsin; Beaver Water District, Arkansas; and Valdosta, Georgia. These were also the three systems that did not reference having a source water assessment.

The ways to obtain source water assessments and their available format varies across utility types. Many assessments are available online as a pdf file, but in several cases, a phone number was given for requesting a hard copy of the report, or the utility states that the assessment is available for review at its office during business hours. For example, in Las Vegas, a detailed version is viewable by appointment only (see Figure 12).

FIGURE 12 - Excerpt from Las Vegas, NV Water District's 2016 Water Quality Report

VARIABLE 4: Detected contaminants (water quality monitoring results) All CCRs included the results of required and, sometimes routine, water quality monitoring. Along with definitions of terminology used, this section occupies the most space in every CCR. Design was the most significant differential across CCRs. There were several examples of CCRs with layouts that make use of basic design principles and cohesive design elements, including Louisville, Kentucky and Manistee, Michigan. As a result, the reports are easy for the reader to find information.

CATEGORY: EPA Optional CCR Sections These variables do not map directly to the information elements suggested by EPA. The relevant EPA source water sections have been subdivided into more specific elements to meet the needs of this project.

FIGURE 13 - Percent of CCRS That Include Optional Information Elements for Source Water Protection

VARIABLE 5: Source water protection program and/or actions A source water assessment is a critical first step in developing a source water protection action plan or program. Findings from the assessment are used to inform the development of goals and strategies for protecting, enhancing, or restoring source water quality and/or quantity. Source water protection plans, or programs can encompass a range of goals and strategies, from risk management to ecosystem improvement. Examples include, but are not limited to, monitoring and assessment; education and outreach; stream habitat restoration; land acquisition; construction site or farm best management practices; hazardous chemical spill response and cleanup; formal agreements like an MOA or covenant with landowners to avoid certain uses in sensitive areas; coordinating with partner organizations to clean up pollution; and zoning or land use rules and ordinances. The particular strategies or tactics that can or should be included in any given source water protection program will depend on the local situation, such as whether

water is drawn from a well, a reservoir, or a creek, and the land use and ownership types that are prevalent within the source protection area.

Approximately 35% of the reviewed utilities mention a source water protection plan or program. In several cases, the reader has to search for this information (e.g., “For a copy of the source water assessment and well head management plan, visit www. . . .). Figure 14 shows one of the few examples where there’s a clear and direct statement that a utility is taking steps to address identified contaminants.

FIGURE 14 - Excerpt from Battle Creek, MI'S 2016 Water Quality Report

The following utilities do an outstanding job in communicating their source water protection efforts. Each of these utilities’ CCR offers a clearly articulated vision and specific on-the-ground goals for source water protection as well as concrete examples of actions that they take or plan to pursue (see the Appendix B for examples): • City of Bloomington, Illinois • Central Arkansas Water, Arkansas • Philadelphia Water, Pennsylvania • Bloomington, Minnesota • New York City, New York • Portland, Oregon • Seattle, Washington

VARIABLE 6: Tips for water conservation (quantity) Approximately 30% of the utilities reviewed include a reference to water conservation or specific suggestions on ways to reduce consumption in their CCRs. In a few cases, the utility presents data on American’s average water consumption, especially in comparison to other places in the world (see Figure 15).

FIGURE 15 - Excerpt from Manchester, NH'S 2015 Water Quality Report

And in a few cases, the CCRs provide site-specific data on water use. The City of Florence, Oregon prefaced a section on water conservation tips with a water use graph by month with explanatory text (see Figure 16).

FIGURE 16 - Excerpt from The City of Florence, OR'S 2016 Water Quality Report

Interestingly, it isn’t necessarily cities in the most arid parts of the country that devote space to this topic. For example, Las Vegas, Nevada does not provide any discussion of water conservation nor does the City of Austin, Texas. In other CCRs, a few utilities – such as Stevens Point, Wisconsin and Colter Bay, Wyoming - lay out very detailed tips for water conservation, sometimes also offering rebates on items such as low-flow shower heads or pointing consumers to additional resources online (see Figures 17 and 18, and Appendix C).

FIGURE 17 – Excerpt from Colter Bay, Grand Teton Nation Park, WY’S 2014 Water Quality Report

FIGURE 18 - Excerpt from Chicago, IL’s 2015 Water Quality Report

VARIABLES 7 and 8: Tips for reducing pollution Surprisingly, water quality protection or pollution prevention measures received less coverage than water use and conservation in the CCRs reviewed for this project. Approximately 35% of the utilities provide ideas for reducing water pollution and most provided specific and useful information, especially at the individual or household level (See Figures 19 through 21, and Appendix C). For an excellent list of water quality tips, see Tampa Bay Water’s excerpt in Appendix C.

FIGURE 19 - Excerpt from Pittsburgh, PA Water & Sewer Authority's 2014 Water Quality Report

The most common pollution prevention topics concerned cross-connections, storm drains, and disposal of pharmaceuticals. Rarer were discussions of ways to engage in larger-scale habitat protection or improvement through volunteer activities such as picking up litter or planting riparian vegetation. The notable exceptions are Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Salem, Oregon.

FIGURE 20 - Excerpt from Battle Creek, MI'S 2016 Water Quality Report

FIGURE 21 - Excerpt from Philadelphia, PA'S 2014 Water Quality Report

VARIABLE 9: Source Water groups, grants, events, and engagement opportunities Only 14% of CCRs mentioned ways to get further involved in source water protection or restoration. The City of Philadelphia set the gold standard with a full-page list of local environmental organizations along with a small grant program for voluntary conservation actions (see Figures 22 and 23, and Appendix C).

FIGURE 22 - Excerpt from Philadelphia, PA'S 2014 Water Quality Report

FIGURE 23 - Excerpt from Philadelphia, PA'S 2014 Water Quality Report

CATEGORY: AWWA Source Water Protection Standards The AWWA standards for source water protection are more comprehensive than what the EPA requires to be included in CCRs but there is overlap between them.

og a SW S tion of ion Impl n ion Vision Cha a rizatio Goal iodlia of ion lan valu ion and n s n vision of S

FIGURE 24 - Percent of CCRS That Include Information for Each of the 6 Major Elements of Source Water Protection as Outlined by AWWA

VARIABLE 10: Program Vision The inclusion of a goal or objective - general or specific - for source water protection qualified as a program vision. Approximately 21% of reviewed CCRs include a statement tantamount to a program vision. For example, see Figures 25 and 26.

VARIABLE 11: Source Water Characterization The discussion of what was found in their source water assessment qualified as a source water characterization. About 81% of CCRs include this information. For example, if a CCR includes information on the susceptibility of the source area to contamination (e.g., high, medium, or low) or lists the types of contaminants (e.g., pesticides, transportation corridor), this variable was marked as “present.”

VARIABLE 12: Source Water Protection Goals Any reference to a specific objective – such as “Reduce nitrates,” or the careful management of “land as recommended in the City's well head protection plan” – qualified as a goal. Approximately 33% of CCRs included source water protection goals.

FIGURE 25 - Excerpt from Philadelphia, PA'S 2014 Water Quality Report

VARIABLES 13 and 14: Development and Implementation of an Action Plan Because of a lack of information in most CCRs, it was not possible to confirm whether the presence of a plan also meant it was being implemented. Hence, any mention of a plan or of specific protection actions resulted in marking it present for both variables. For example, a reference to “well-head protection activities” or a “well-head protection plan” qualified as a “yes” for both variables 13 and 14 in the matrix. Approximately 27% of the CCRs referenced a plan or implementation of specific activities such as restoration projects, best management practices, or education.

VARIABLE 15: Periodic evaluation and revision of SWPP Three CCRs (7%) included information on revisions (planned or completed) to source water assessments or action plans. These were Searchlight Water System, Nevada; Philadelphia Water, Pennsylvania; and New York City, New York.

FIGURE 26 - Excerpt from Bloomington, IL'S 2015 Water Quality Report

Overall, the following seven utilities did an outstanding job in their CCRs of communicating their source water protection efforts. Each of the utilities below offered a clearly articulated vision and specific on-the-ground goals for source water protection as well as concrete examples of actions:

• City of Bloomington, Illinois • Central Arkansas Water, Arkansas • Philadelphia Water, Pennsylvania • Bloomington, Minnesota • New York City, New York • Portland, Oregon • Seattle, Washington

CATEGORY: Other Variables 16 and 17 were included in the review to capture general notes and additional information that may prove useful in developing the final guidance document. Variables 18 and 19 were included on the suggestion of the Project Advisory Committee. Because of the ongoing situation in Flint, Michigan, effort was made to note the presence and type of information utilities are including to handle concerns about lead in water.

VARIABLE 16: Statistics unique to their system and area More than half of the reviewed CCRs include a set of facts or statistics that are specific to their community or water system. The most commonly shared facts were (a) the gallons of water treated or distributed and (b) the miles of pipes that the utility is responsible for (see Figures 27 and 28). There were few statistics relevant to source water protection.

FIGURE 27 - Excerpt from Central Arkansas Water's 2015 Water Quality Report

FIGURE 28 - Excerpt from Seattle, WA's 2015 Water Quality Report

VARIABLE 17: Impressions These are reviewer notes, largely indicating whether there is material in a CCR that may be useful in assembling the final guidance document. Approximately 40% of the CCRs reviewed had one or more elements that may be used for reference, as an example, or in a template.

VARIABLES 18 and 19: Lead in water, including discussion of raw water quality (naturally corrosive), the presence of lead plumbing in system, and on-premises management tips Most CCRs reviewed included some mention of lead in drinking water, many referencing the recent events in Flint, Michigan and an assurance to ratepayers that their water is safe to drink. The EPA states that the CCR for every public water system must include a short, informational statement about lead in drinking water and its effects on children. Figure 29 shows the template language provided directly by the EPA.

FIGURE 29 - Excerpt from Louisville, KY's 2015 Water Quality Report

Less than half of utilities went beyond the basic language suggested by the EPA. Of these, the following utilities offer useful model content that runs the gamut from explanations on the relationship between plumbing and raw water quality or corrosion control treatment; types of monitoring undertaken by the utility; significance of lead in plumbing; and what individuals can do about it. • City of Manchester, New Hampshire • City of Bozeman, Montana • City of Fairfax, Virginia • City of Salem, Oregon

To view the full Lead sections for these four CCRs, see Appendix D.

FIGURE 30 - Excerpt from Seattle, WA's 2015 Water Quality Report

C O N C L U S ION

There is wide variety in the scope, depth, and readability of Consumer Confidence Reports, from two-page Word documents with the EPA’s minimum required information to 25+ pages, four- color booklets. While some of the dissimilarities in content and style can presumably be attributed to staff and budget differences among utilities, demographics are not the sole indicator of how well a utility uses its CCR to share information about source water and protection efforts.

Overall, the CCRs reviewed for this report provide sufficient material for use in developing a guidance document. In addition, the following patterns emerged that will also inform the guidance document: • In a few cases, a utility’s website was also reviewed, as well as its CCR. This was done opportunistically; typically while looking for the most recently published CCR on the utility’s website. Several utilities examined have a wealth of information online about source watershed protection or quality. Given the costs of printing and shipping, it is not surprising that utilities are using the internet as a primary channel for communicating their source water assessment and protection efforts. However, it was surprising to discover that, in several cases, one could not surmise from the utility’s CCR that they have a robust source water action plan or protection program. For example, the City of Austin has a thorough, integrated watershed action plan online but there is no mention of it in the CCR. Likewise, the Beaver Water District creates a comprehensive “State of the Lake” water quality report, but there is no mention of their rich online resources,

which include a source watershed protection vision, action plan and assessment. Similarly, Tampa Bay Water’s website directs viewers to a small grant program for restoration activities and an exhaustive list of their source water conservation projects; however, none of this is mentioned in their otherwise excellent CCR. In the guidance document, utilities should be encouraged to include links and references in their CCRs to online source water protection materials. • In a few CCRs, spill and emergency response plans and activities are given as the only type of source water protection measures. It is worthwhile to note in the guidance document that while spill and emergency response plans are integral – especially for commercial and industrial customers – they do not constitute a comprehensive source water protection plan. • Several of the source water assessment sections are ambiguously written. In some cases, there is a lot of information shared, but it is not necessarily summarized for the reader in a comprehensible manner. In other cases, what little information that is shared is confusing and hard to understand. It would be useful to include resources for utilities that need help interpreting their assessments, such as state agency departments or staff. • Some utilities draw their drinking water from reservoirs, which also serve as popular destinations for recreation, such as boating, fishing, and swimming. It would be helpful to include examples of conservation tips, such as boat inspections, for recreationists in the guidance document. • Almost all CCRs reviewed provided the EPA’s minimum required information on source water (availability of a source water assessment and identification of the source). However, utilities tended to fall into one of two groups when including additional information pertinent to source water protection, such as protection goals or activities. These topics were given either scant or exhaustive attention. Those that featured source water protection prominently included Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Central Arkansas Water, Arkansas; New York City, New York; Bloomington, Minnesota; Portland, Oregon; Bloomington, Illinois; and Seattle, Washington. See Appendix B for excerpts from these and other utilities. The guidance document can encourage utilities to regularly discuss source water protection in their CCRs and offer multiple, simple ways to provide more than the minimum required information without necessarily investing in multi-page documents.

FIGURE 31 - Excerpt from Central Arkansas Water's 2015 Water Quality Report

APP E NDI X A – L i s t o f u t i l i t i es

Table A-1. Utilities included in literature review

Public Water Population Served Source Type City State Region System Anchorage Combination Water & 101,000 - EPA Region surface and Anchorage Alaska Wastewater 500,000 10 ground Utility Baton Rouge 500,001 - EPA Region Water Ground Baton Rouge Louisiana 1,000,000 6 Company Beaver Water 101,000 - EPA Region Surface Lowell Arkansas District 500,000 6 Beech Island Rural South EPA Region 3,301 - 10,000 Ground Beech Island Community Carolina 4 Water District Central 101,000 - EPA Region Arkansas Surface Little Rock Arkansas 500,000 6 Water City of 101,000 - EPA Region Surface Arlington Virginia Arlington 500,000 3 Combination 500,001 - EPA Region City of Austin surface and Austin Texas 1,000,000 6 ground City of Battle EPA Region 10,001 - 50,000 Ground Michigan Creek 5 City of EPA Region 50,001 - 100,000 Surface Bloomington Illinois Bloomington 5 City of EPA Region 50,001 - 100,000 Surface Bloomington Minnesota Bloomington 5 City of EPA Region 10,001 - 50,000 Surface Bozeman Montana Bozeman 8 EPA Region City of Bryan 50,001 - 100,000 Ground Bryan Texas 6 City of EPA Region 50,001 - 100,000 Surface Wyoming Cheyenne 8 EPA Region City of Chicago > 1,000,000 Surface Chicago Illinois 5

Public Water Population Served Source Type City State Region System City of East EPA Region 50,001 - 100,000 Ground East Orange New Jersey Orange 2 City of EPA Region 3,301 - 10,000 Ground Florence Oregon Florence 10 City of EPA Region 3,301 - 10,000 Ground Manistee Michigan Manistee 5 101,000 - EPA Region City of Salem Surface Salem Oregon 500,000 10 Combination City of Santa New EPA Region 50,001 - 100,000 surface and Santa Fe Fe Mexico 6 ground Combination City of St. St. EPA Region > 100,000 surface and Florida Petersbur Petersbur 4 ground g g City of EPA Region 50,001 - 100,000 Ground Valdosta Georgia Valdosta 4 Combination Des Moines 101,000 - EPA Region surface and Des Moines Iowa Water Works 500,000 7 ground Eugene Water 101,000 - EPA Region & Electric Surface Eugene Oregon 500,000 10 Board EPA Region Fairfax Water > 1,000,000 Surface Fairfax Virginia 3 Grand Teton EPA Region National Park, 25 - 500 Ground Moose Wyoming 8 Colter Bay Heart Butte EPA Region 25 - 500 Ground Heart Butte Montana School 8 Kennebunk, Kennebunk- EPA Region 10,001 - 50,000 Surface Kennebunk Maine port & Wells 1 Water District Lansing Board 101,000 - EPA Region of Water & Ground Lansing Michigan 500,000 5 Light Las Vegas Combination EPA Region Valley Water > 1,000,000 surface and Las Vegas Nevada 9 District ground

Public Water Population Served Source Type City State Region System Louisville Combination 500,001 - EPA Region Water surface and Louisville Kentucky 1,000,000 4 Company ground Manchester 101,000 - New EPA Region Surface Manchester Water Works 500,000 Hampshire 1 New York City EPA Region Environmenta > 1,000,000 Surface Flushing New York 2 l Protection Philadelphia Penn- EPA Region Water > 1,000,000 Surface Philadelphia sylvania 3 Department Pittsburgh 500,001 - Penn- EPA Region Water & Sewer Surface Pittsburgh 1,000,000 sylvania 3 Authority Combination Portland 500,001 - EPA Region surface and Portland Oregon Water Bureau 1,000,000 10 ground EPA Region Sac & Fox Tribe 501 - 3,300 Ground Stroud Oklahoma 6 Saginaw Water EPA Region Treatment 50,001 - 100,000 Surface Saginaw Michigan 5 Plant San Francisco San EPA Region Public Utilities > 1,000,000 Surface California Francisco 9 Commission Searchlight EPA Region 501 - 3,300 Ground Las Vegas Nevada Water System 9 Seattle Public 500,001 - Washingto EPA Region Surface Seattle Utilities 1,000,000 n 10 State College Borough Penn- EPA Region 50,001 - 100,000 Surface State College Water sylvania 3 Authority Stevens Point Stevens EPA Region Water 10,001 - 50,000 Ground Wisconsin Point 5 Department Combination Tampa Bay EPA Region > 1,000,000 surface and Clearwater Florida Water 4 ground

APP E NDI X B – S o u r ce W a t e r A ssessme n t & P r ote c t i on

FIGURE B-1 - Excerpt from KKW, ME’s Water Utility's 2016 Water Quality Report

FIGURE B-2 - Excerpt from East Orange, NJ's 2016 Water Quality Report

FIGURE B-3 – Excerpt from Lansing, MI's 2016 Water Quality Report

APP E NDI X C – T i p s & R e sou r c e s

FIGURE C-1 - Excerpt from Anchorage, AK's Water & Wastewater Utility's 2016 CCR

FIGURE C-2 - Excerpt from Anchorage, AK's Water & Wastewater Utility's 2016 CCR An Example of How Monitoring Results Can Be Used to Educate Consumers on Source Water Health and Human Activities

Fairfax, VA

Reducing Exposure to Lead Latest Information

There are no public lead service 90 percent of the samples must since 1992 and has consistently lines in the system that distributes contain less than 15 ppb. This is tested below the Action Level your drinking water. It is possible usually referred to as the 90th established in the LCR. In the that the plumbing in your home percentile results being less than most recent tests performed as contains lead depending on when it 15 ppb. required by the EPA, 100 percent was constructed. The level of lead of the Fairfax Water samples The Action Level was not in water can increase when the contained less than 1.5 ppb of designed to measure health risks water stands in contact with lead- lead. The next EPA-required from water represented by based plumbing. Keep reading for monitoring will be conducted in individual samples. Rather, it is a important information about safe 2017. statistical trigger value that if lead levels and how to reduce your exceeded may require more exposure to lead. treatment, public education, and Where does lead in drinking possibly lead service line water come from? replacement where such lines What is the EPA standard for Although some utilities use raw lead in drinking water? exist. Fairfax Water does not have any lead service lines in its source waters that contain lead, The EPA has established an Action system. the Potomac River and the Level for lead in drinking water of Occoquan Reservoir - Fairfax Fairfax Water has been testing for 15 ppb. When lead testing is Water’s sources, do not contain lead in accordance with the EPA’s performed as required by the EPA, lead. Lead and Copper Rule (LCR)

Fairfax, VA

In 1986 lead was banned from providing high-quality drinking • Makesurethefilterisapproved use in pipe and solder in home water but cannot control the by the NSF International construction. In older homes variety of materials used in (www.nsf.org). where lead is present in pipe and plumbing components in home • Maintain the filter as directed. soldered connections, lead may construction. dissolve into the water after the 5. Fairfax Water’s certified If you are concerned about lead water sits for long periods. Some drinking water laboratory does in your water, following these tips household-plumbing components offer lead testing to its customers can help minimize the potential may contain a small amount of for a fee. To make arrangements for lead exposure: lead and can contribute to lead to have your water tested for lead, concentrations at the tap. Fairfax 1. Use only fresh cold water for contact our Customer Service Water adds a phosphate-based cooking and making baby Department at 703-698-5800, corrosion inhibitor during the formula. TTY 711. treatment process to slow this 2. When your water has been 6. Regularly clean your faucet dissolution process. sitting for several hours, flush aerator. This removes particles Our website, www.fairfaxwater. your tap for 15 to 30 seconds until from your household plumbing org/water/lead.htm, provides the water becomes cold or until it that may contain lead. reaches a steady temperature more information on lead in your 7. Replace older fixtures with before using the water for drinking water. fixtures certified as “lead free.” or cooking. Visit www.nsf.org to learn more. 3. Do not boil water to remove What can I do in my home lead. Boiling water will not reduce to reduce exposure to lead lead. in the drinking water? 4. Some people choose to install More If present, elevated levels of lead a filter in their home. If you In addition to the tips above, can cause serious health choose a water filter, follow these problems, especially for three rules: information about lead in drinking pregnant women and young water, testing methods, and steps you • Choose a filter designed for children. Lead in drinking water is can take to minimize exposure can be primarily from materials and the specific filtration desired found at www.epa.gov/safewater/lead components associated with (chlorine, lead, Cryptospo- service lines and home plumbing. ridium, etc.). or by calling the Safe Drinking Water Fairfax Water is responsible for Hotline at 800-426-4791, TTY 711.

Manchester, NH

may some water water water goods ar example, water ar irrigate half-gallon juice. water ar beans water ar water ar

ccor American water fact, flush water washing, cleaning, American water water water ar

check water oIX

What’s a Cross-connection? Failure in Flint ross-connections that contaminate drinking water he national news coverage of water conditions C distribution lines are a major concern. A cross- T in Flint, Michigan, has created a great deal of connection is formed at any point where a drinking confusion and consternation over the past year. The water line connects to equipment (boilers), systems water there has been described as being corrosive; containing chemicals (air conditioning systems, fire images of corroded batteries and warning labels on sprinkler systems, irrigation systems), or water bottles of acids come to mind. But is corrosive water sources of questionable quality. Cross-connection necessarily bad? contamination can occur when the pressure in the equipment or system is greater than the pressure inside Corrosive water can be defined as a condition of water the drinking water line (backpressure). Contamination quality that will dissolve metals (iron, lead, copper, can also occur when the pressure in the drinking water etc.) from metallic plumbing at an excessive rate. There line drops due to fairly routine occurrences (main are a few contributing factors but, generally speaking, breaks, heavy water demand), causing contaminants corrosive water has a pH of less than 7; the lower the to be sucked out from the equipment and into the pH, the more acidic, or corrosive, the water becomes. drinking water line (backsiphonage). (By this definition, many natural waterways throughout the country can be described as corrosive.) While all Outside water taps and garden hoses tend to be the most plumbing will be somewhat affected over time by the common sources of cross-connection contamination at water it carries, corrosive water will damage plumbing home. The garden hose creates a hazard when much more rapidly than water with low corrosivity. submerged in a swimming pool or when attached to a chemical sprayer for weed killing. Garden hoses that By itself, corrosive water is not a health are left lying on the ground may be contaminated by morning glass of orange juice is co concern; your fertilizers, cesspools, or garden chemicals. Improperly corrosive than the typical lake or riv nsiderably more installed valves in your toilet could also be a source of concern is that exposure in drinking wer . What is of cross-connection contamination. levels of the dissolved metals increasesater to elevated risks. And there lies the problem. adverse health Community water supplies are continuously Public water systems are required to m jeopardized by cross-connections unless appropriate aintain their valves, known as backflow prevention devices, are water at optimal conditions to prevent installed and maintained. We have surveyed all it from reaching corrosive levels. Rest industrial, commercial, and institutional facilities in the assured that we routinely monitor our service area to make sure that all potential cross- water to make sure that what happened connections are identified and eliminated or protected in Flint never happens here. For more by a backflow preventer. We also inspect and test each information on how corrosivity impacts water quality, download this informativ backflow preventer to make sure that it is providing e maximum protection. pamphlet: http://goo.gl/KpTmXv. For more information, call the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791.

Salem, OR City Remains on Reduced Monitoring for Lead and Copper Sampling

THE CITY OF SALEM IS PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION In 2013, samples were collected from 91 of the to what unfolded in Flint, Michigan, and our 147 Tier 1 homes identified, and only one home thoughts are with all those who are struggling exceeded the action level for lead. Therefore, without access to safe and reliable water in their the City of Salem continues to be on a reduced homes. In North America, no one should have to monitoring plan, which requires collection and question the safety of water at the tap. Lead does analyses of a minimum of 50 samples from Tier 1 not come from the treatment plants and water homes every three years. mains; it comes from plumbing found inside the If present, elevated levels of lead can cause home, such as lead piping or lead solder at pipe serious health problems, especially for pregnant joints. women and young children. Lead in drinking In our community, we do not have lead service water is mostly from materials and components lines remaining in our system. The City of Salem in service lines and home plumbing. The City of is committed to ensuring that the water that is Salem is responsible for providing high-quality delivered to your home is safe to drink. To that drinking water but cannot control the variety of end, the City will conduct another round of lead materials used in plumbing components. and copper sampling this summer. As mandated When your water has been sitting for several by the Lead and Copper Rule, Oregon Health hours, you can minimize the potential for lead Authority requires the City of Salem to collect exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds and analyze water samples from Tier 1 homes. to 2 minutes before using water for drinking or Assessments made in the 1990s identified 147 cooking. If you are concerned about lead in your Tier 1 homes in Salem that met the qualifications water, you may wish to have your water tested. for ongoing lead and copper sampling. Homes Information on lead in drinking water, testing built between 1983 and 1985 were identified as methods, and steps you can take to minimize Tier 1 homes; these are considered to be most your exposure is available from the Safe at risk because of lead or lead-based plumbing Drinking Water Hotline at 1‑800‑426‑4791 or at components used during construction. www.epa.gov/safewater/lead.

F ee ea Tes ng of t t w of ale Wa e w t t

Cust e s

City of Salem 2016 Annual Water Quality Report

Bozeman, MT Stable water quality greatly reduces the potential for lead corrosion and the release of lead into drinking water. The City of Bozeman has not changed water sources in over 30 years and our operations staff monitor and adjust water quality daily to ensure the water is stable and not corrosive to lead. We also routinely take representative samples throughout our water system to verify that we comply with all drinking water regulations for lead and many other water quality parameters. The results of which are provided to you in this water quality report.

In May 2016, the City of Bozeman embarked on a Lead Service Line Replacement Project. The goal of this project was to identify all the lead service lines in the distribution system, test the houses for lead in the water that had these service lines, and to systematically replace these service lines. The City identified 170 lead service lines and offered testing to them. 71 of the houses had their water tested for lead over the summer. This was done to help determine the schedule of service line replacement. Those with results at or above the EPA Action Limit for Lead were immediately replaced. The City Bozeman Water and Sewer Department then began working their way through the system replacing lead service lines. The Water and Sewer Department will continue to work their way through the system for the next couple of years replacing the lines.

The City of Bozeman’s practice has been to completely remove and replace lead service lines whenever we replace water mains or discover lead service lines in the field. The safety and health of our community members is our first concern and replacing lead service lines is a priority for the City of Bozeman. If you are concerned about lead, we also encourage you to evaluate your in- home plumbing systems and fixtures. Do not hesitate to contact us directly with any questions or concerns.

Results from the Lead Service Line Lead In Drinking Water Replacement Project: Lead Service Lines in the distribution system . . . 170 or less than 2% of connections The recent events in Flint, MI have focused national attention on lead in drinking water. All municipal water systems are required to Houses tested ...... 71 manage and monitor their systems for lead. Results at or above the EPA Action Limit ...... 7

Maximum Result...... 0.043 mg/L The City of Bozeman’s source waters contain no lead, so any lead in our drinking water enters primarily as a result of corrosion of Average Result ...... 0.005 mg/L materials containing lead in the water distribution system and in Lead Service Lines replaced in 2016 ...... 19 household plumbing. Solder used to join copper pipes contained Houses removed from the list from research ...... 12 lead before 1986, and brass and chrome-plated brass faucets can also contain lead. Some pipes made of lead were used in the Lines found to be copper when digging ...... 3 early 1900’s to connect houses and buildings to the water mains Total remaining Lead Service Lines ...... 115 (service lines).

8 City of Bozeman - 2016 Water Quality Report www.bozeman.net

Potable water is one of the most vital services provided to community residents. All of us depend on water for drinking, cooking, washing, carrying away wastes, and other domestic needs. For the most part, we don't think about how drinking water gets to our Heart Butte School homes or where that water comes from. We just want to be sure that our water is safe and keeps flowing to our taps. The goal of the Heart Butte School is to provide you with a safe and dependable supply of drinking water. Because of our commitment to ensuring the quality of your drinking water, we want to keep you informed about the activities and testing we do to assure that your water is safe. We are pleased to present to you this year’s Water Quality Report. WATER SOURCE Our water source is drawn from two wells north of the School. A Source Water Assessment has been produced for this water system, identifying potential sources of contamination. To obtain a copy, please contact the EPA Montana Office at 457-5000. We have one unresolved significant deficiency from our assessment; the system must have a Certified Water Operator. We have committed to having this deficiency corrected prior to the start of the 2014-2015 school year. If you have any questions about this report or concerning your water utility, please contact Stewart Horn, Heart Butte School at (406) 338- 2200 ext 206. We want our valued customers to be informed about their water utility. A Susceptibility Assessment was conducted in 2006 for the Heart Butte Public Water system. The results will be applicable to Heart Butte School as well. The results of the susceptibility assessment for the Heart Butte PWS are listed in table 7.

Table 7 Susceptibility assessment for significant potential contaminant sources in the Control Zone and Inventory Region. Hazard Source Contaminant Hazard Barriers Susceptibility Management Rating Chemicals, pesticides, Direct connection from herbicides, Locate abandoned wells and Abandoned Wells open and improperly sealed High None Very High pathogens, nitrate, properly seal. water wells to the aquifer. petroleum hydrocarbons. Locate un-permitted or Chemicals, Direct connection of sumps improperly installed French Class V Injection pathogens, nitrate, and drains to subsurface High None Very High drains, drywell sumps etc. Work Wells petroleum soils and groundwater. with owners to repair or replace. hydrocarbons. Chemicals, pesticides, Direct connection from Heart Butte PWS herbicides, Evaluate closure status of wells. open and improperly sealed High None Very High Backup Wells pathogens, nitrate, Properly close and abandon water wells to the aquifer petroleum wells if needed. hydrocarbons. Hydraulic Educate landowners on the

Fertilizers, groundwater proper handling, storage, and Agricultural Spills, over application of pesticides, divide disposal of pesticides and Cultivated Cropland chemicals, surface runoff Moderate Low pathogens, nitrate provided by fertilizers. Utilization of White Tail agricultural best management Creek practices. Hazardous Local Accidents, spills, storm materials, Emergency water runoff, spills to Maintain preparedness of local Local Roads chemicals, Response surface waters, infiltration High Moderate emergency personnel through petroleum Plan into ground water. active training. hydrocarbons Collection system main Ensure proper maintenance and Sewer system breaks and leaks, leaking operation of system; monitor for Sanitary Sewer Nitrates and inspection and connections, infiltration of Moderate Low leaks in system. Require trained Lines Pathogens replacement untreated effluent into individuals to do private sewer program ground water line repairs and “tap-ins.” Infiltration of sewage Sewage Treatment Nitrates and Down gradient Monitor, test and maintain sewer effluence into ground water Low Lagoons Pathogens groundwater Very Low delivery lines and lagoon from leaking lagoons flow treatment cells. Over application of Household fertilizers and pesticides, Lawns, parks, alleys chemicals, spills, improper chemical Educate landowners on the and streets proper use and disposal of fertilizers, pesticides disposal, contaminated Moderate Moderate and petroleum surface and storm water household chemicals, solvents hydrocarbons runoff, infiltration into and used motor oil. groundwater.

Masonic Home of Montana Consumer Confidence Report

safe and of high quality. If you are interested in more detailed information, contact Rick Twait, Superintendent of Water Purification, or Jill Mayes, Laboratory Manager, at 434-2150.

Source Water Assessment Summary: Community water suppliers are required to report a summary of their source water susceptibility determination. The Illinois EPA has compiled source water assessments for all community water supplies including the City of Bloomington. Primary sources of pollution in Illinois lakes can include agricultural runoff, land disposal (septic systems) and shoreline erosion. This assessment is available upon request by calling Rick Twait at 309-434-2150 or by accessing the Illinois EPA website: http://www.epa.state.il.us/cgi-bin/wp/swap-fact-sheets.pl

Water Supply Protection and Planning: The City of Bloomington is actively involved in watershed protection and lake management activities. An oversight committee holds regular meeting to implement watershed and lake management plans for both reservoirs. The committee members are from the City the Town of Normal, McLean County, various agriculture agencies and citizen organizations. Long term water supply planning includes management of our existing resources and development of new sources. Our interim water supply plan is linked at the City of Bloomington website: http://www.cityblm.org/water.

Security: The City of Bloomington Water Department is working to continually improve the security of our water system. Since our water supply and distribution system is large, we ask all of our customers to be aware of any suspicious activities involving the water system. If anything suspicious is noted, please call the Water Department at (309) 434-2426.

The 2015 Water Quality Report for Bloomington may be viewed online at URL: www.cityblm.org/waterquality

DEMONSTRATING INNOVATION AND COLLABORATION We rely upon Lake Bloomington and Evergreen Lake to supply water to over 80,000 people. The City, along with many partners, continues to develop and implement the source water protection program that began in the mid 1980’s. Our long time partnership with the McLean County SWCD and a good working relationship with landowners and producers in the watershed are important to the success of the program.

Our source water protection vision is to achieve the highest possible water quality in our reservoirs through cooperative actions with landowners, citizens and local governments to improve conditions in the catchments, streams and lakes. In addition to providing excellent source water, our lakes will support premier fisheries and provide recreational and educational opportunities to residents and visitors.

Our source water goals are to reduce nitrate nitrogen, sediment and phosphorus loadings to the reservoirs to acceptable levels. Lower phosphorus and nitrate concentrations in both reservoirs will decrease the occurrence and severity of excessive algal growth. Reducing sediment loading will increase the longevity of the reservoirs as water supplies by decreasing the rate of storage loss to sedimentation.

Our action plans for both reservoirs can be found in the watershed plans written by local watershed committees. The actions described in the plans range from stormwater best management practices, lawn care practices and onsite waste system education for urban areas to nutrient management programs, stream restoration, lake shoreline stabilization, lake destratification, wetland construction and other activities in the drainage basin and in the lakes.

We are fortunate to be partnering with many different groups. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and our long term partner, McLean County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) on a project involving the installation of constructed wetlands and other nutrient reduction practices. Illinois State University is a major partner, with data collection and active research projects, by both students and faculty in many different departments, particularly Hydrogeology, Sociology and Economics. We work with The Friends of EverBloom to stabilize the lake shorelines and the streams that feed our reservoirs. The FOE obtained grants to install rock riffle structures and stone toe protection in a tributary stream to Evergreen Lake, and for fish habitat that was incorporated into a shoreline stabilization project on Lake Bloomington. We are also fortunate to have good representation by state, federal and local agencies (especially McLean County Parks) and citizen groups in our program. One of the most innovative characteristics of our program is the extreme diversity of the partners. The ability of all the varied interests to pull together in one direction is truly remarkable.

River protection program earns national praise

The U.S. Forest Service in 2015 recognized Eugene Water & Electric Board Environmental Supervisor Karl Morgenstern with a national watershed protection award for his efforts to protect the McKenzie River and the public and private lands the iconic river runs through. The agency chose Morgenstern and EWEB for its “National Rise to the Future – Watershed Resources Award.”

The national review panel cited

Morgenstern’s innovative approach to maintaining clean water and healthy riparian lands throughout the McKenzie watershed, as well his ability to reach out and connect with a broad spectrum of local people and agencies. The McKenzie is the sole source of drinking water for Eugene. KARl MoRgEnSTERn

Also in 2015, Carpe Diem West, Accomplishments noted by the to the Berggren Demonstration a network of water protection awards panels included EWEB’s Farm and the Voluntary Incentive professionals from around the McKenzie Watershed Emergency Program. Morgenstern played the western United States, presented Response System, the utility’s primary role in the creation of those the inaugural “Healthy Headwaters Septic System Assistance Program, programs. For more information, Innovation Award” to Morgenstern the Healthy Farms Clean Water go to eweb.org/sourceprotection and EWEB for outstanding program, EWEB’s contributions leadership and innovation for creating a program that rewards landowners who maintain high- quality land along the McKenzie.

a a al l al a W a a a a a a l a l

or a

EUGENE WATER & ELECTRIC BOARD 2015 CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT

12 | PWD WATER QUALITY REPORT

PROTECTING

committed eam restoration in our protect our drinking

and e.

whole

Check out

• Bells Mill Run Stream Restoration: 5,400 feet of stream restoration slows the flow from two stormwater outfalls, preventing erosion from washing away the banks and undercutting Bells Mill Road.

• Wises Mill Stormwater Treatment Wetland: The three acre wetland captures runoff from 92 acres of land, holding it temporarily while the water filters slowly into the ground, reducing the flow of sediment downstream.

• Cathedral Run Stormwater Treatment Wetland: The 95,000 cubic foot wetland captures runoff from 74 acres of land, slowing the flow into Wissahickon Creek and reducing erosion.

• Carpenter’s Woods Gully Repair: Gully repairs successfully slow the flow from three stormwater outfall pipes, reducing erosion and stabilizing the stream channel.

• Saylor Grove Stormwater Treatment Wetland: This one acre wetland captures runoff from 156 acres of land, allowing it to slowly filter into the ground, reducing the flow of water and sediment into the Monoshone Creek.

Philadelphia Water Department • 1101 Market St. • Philadelphia, PA 19107-2994 • http://www.phila.gov/water • Customer Information Hotline: 215-685-6300

PWD WATER QUALITY REPORT

PROTECTION

assessment

215-685-6300,

eports

The Schuylkill and Delaware River Source Water Protection policies and activities to ensure continued protection of our Plans provide a comprehensive framework for implementing drinking water supply; co-hosting a workshop with field a watershed-wide effort to improve source water quality and experts to follow the one-year comprehensive watershed quantity. The plans prioritize and outline several approaches to characterization and monitoring program evaluating the reduce sources of contamination to Philadelphia’s raw water presence of Iodine–131 in the water supply completed in 2012; supply. PWD has made exceptional progress accomplishing and tracking of major sources of human infectious pathogens these goals. PWD has prioritized land for permanent such as Cr yptosporidium. In 2013, PWD completed its first protection, established a regional partnership in the Schuylkill year of implementation of a 5-year Watershed Control Plan to River Watershed and advocates for policies to protect and reduce Cryptosporidium in the Schuylkill River watershed. The preserve our source waters and forested lands. PWD also Watershed Control Plan helps ensure PWD compliance with collaborates with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to the EPA’s Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment ensure regulations are enforced for wastewater treatment Rule at the Queen Lane Drinking Water Treatment Plant. plants and industries that discharge upstream of Philadelphia. In the last year, PWD has also made significant progress Much progress has been made addressing potential threats to toward upgrading, expanding and improving upon the our water supply within Philadelphia’s own boundaries, Delaware Valley Early Warning System (EWS), a mass including storm drain markings, improved buffers in communication network used to notify water suppliers and Fairmount Park, a goose determent program at a number of industrial users throughout the watershed of any spills or Philadelphia schools and parks, and education about proper other water quality concerns via email and telephone. PWD disposal of unused pharmaceuticals. is continually developing and improving this system, most recently incorporating new mapping technologies and a tidal In recent years, the Source Water Protection Program has spill trajectory tool into the web portal. These upgrades allow conducted research to continue to improve PWD’s knowledge subscribers to pinpoint the location of the spill with a higher of potential concerns to Philadelphia’s water supplies. This degree of accuracy and better predict the spill’s transport in research is used to further define our watershed protection the tidal Delaware River. priorities. Recent studies include an analysis of flows needed to protect PWD’s drinking water intakes on both the Schuylkill and the Delaware Rivers; evaluating upstream development

Philadelphia Water Department • 1101 Market St. • Philadelphia, PA 19107-2994 • http://www.phila.gov/water • Customer Information Hotline: 215-685-6300

Below are some tips for how we can all help protect our water:

• Properly dispose of pharmaceuticals. • Use car wash facilities for cleaning vehicles, RV’s, and boats. • Inspect septic systems to ensure they are working properly. Septic systems that do • Switch to environmentally safe not operate properly contaminate our household cleaning products. ground water. • Don’t put anything except water down • When enjoying the dunes, remember storm drains. These drains carry storm their ecological importance. Ensure water to our local waterways, including equipment is functioning properly and Munsel Creek, the Siuslaw River, and the not leaking fluids that can seep into the Pacific Ocean. Used motor oil, groundwater. detergents, lawn fertilizers, pesticides, trash, and other contaminants get • Always dispose of RV/Campground carried by stormwater to local waste properly. waterways and cause unnecessary harm • Properly use, store, and dispose of to fish and aquatic life. herbicides and pesticides. • Utilize the Lane County Special Waste • Properly dispose of petroleum, Program to dispose of hazardous wastes solvents, and volatile organic instead of sending it to the landfill. For compounds (VOC’s). information about special and hazardous waste disposal, call 541-682-4120.

SAFEGUARDING OUR SOURCES OF SUPPLY Protecting surface water, ground water and Tampa Bay from contamination protects your drinking water, the environment, and saves money and energy. The cleaner the source water, the less treatment that’s required — which means less energy and fewer chemicals are needed to clean the water. You can help prevent pollution by following a few simple steps:

PUT TRASH IN THE PROPER PLA CE Whether it’s the trash can or recycle bin, put trash where it belongs. Plastic does not decompose and can harm many animals and fish as well as pollute the water.

USE FLORID A -FRIEND LY FERTILIZER Use slow-release fertilizer in the garden and on the lawn with only ¼ inch of water. Watch the weather and never fertilize before rain. Rain washes fertilizer into the environment. When possible, use Florida- friendly plants — they use minimal water and fertilizer.

NEVER DUMP INT O ST ORM DRAINS In many municipalities, it is illegal to dump chemicals, oil, sewage and yard waste into the stormwater system. If you see someone polluting, report the incident to your local city or county government.

TECTION

PICK UP AFTER Y OUR PET Pet waste contains harmful bacteria that make people sick and cause

harmful algae blooms. O

USE AN ASHTRAY Discarded cigarette butts are carried by rainwater to the nearest storm drain, drainage ditch, pond, lake or bay. Cigarettes are not biodegradable — they are pollution.

Your efforts, combined with local and state ordinances and Best Management Practices, we can all promote a healthy watershed today and PROTECT OUR DRINKING WATER SOURCES FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.

2016 W A TER QU ALITY REPORT | T a m p a B a y W a t e r . o r g

PWD WATER QUALITY REPORT

TABLE 2: PLACES TO GO TO GET INVOLVED IN PROTECTING YOUR LOCAL STREAMS, RIVERS AND WATER SUPPLY Organization Activity Types Phone Website Friends of the Pennypack A, C, E, P, T 215-934-PARK www.friendsofpennypackpark.org Friends of the Wissahickon A, C, E, P, T 215-247-0417 http://www.fow.org Friends of Fox Chase Farms A, C, E, P 215-728-7900 http://www.foxchasefarm.org Friends of the Manayunk Canal A, C, E, P, T 215-466-4587 http://www.manayunkcanal.org Schuylkill Environmental Education A, B, C, E, P, T 215-482-7300 http://www.schuylkillcenter.org Center Partnership for the Delaware Estuary A, B, C, E, P, S,T 1-800-445-4935 http://www.delawareestuary.org Environmental Alliance for Senior A, C, E, P, T 203-779-0024 http://www.easi.org Involvement Philadelphia Canoe Club R, F, T 215-487-9674 http://www.philacanoe.org Friends of Fairmount Fish Ladder F 215-683-3608 email: [email protected] 215-951-0330 http://wissahickonrestorationvol- Wissahickon Restoration Volunteers A, C, E, P, T x2101 unteers.org Wissahickon Valley A, C, E, P, T 215-646-8866 http://www.wvwa.org Watershed Association Lower Merion Conservancy A, C, E, P, T 610-645-9030 http://www.lmconservancy.org 800-445- http://www.schuylkillwaters.org Schuylkill Action Network A, B, C, E, L, P, T 4935 Schuylkill Banks B,E,L 215-222x109-6030 http://www.schuylkillbanks.org http://www.centerinthepark.org/ Senior Environment Corps A, C, E, P, T 215-848-7722 prog-sec.html Tookany/Tacony-Frankford (TTF) A, C, E, P, T 215-844-8100 http://ttfwatershed.org/ Watershed Partnership U.S. Water Alliance A, B, E 202-223-2299 www.uswateralliance.org

Philadelphia Water Department • 1101 Market St. • Philadelphia, PA 19107-2994 • http://www.phila.gov/water • Customer Information Hotline: 215-685-6300