March 2019 Acknowledgments We are incredibly grateful to all the individuals who shared their expertise, ideas, and opinions with us throughout the course of this project. Project Team: Lorri Cameron, Senior Environmental Epidemiologist, Michigan Climate and Health Adaptation Program at MDHHS Claire Karner, Beckett & Raeder, Associate Planner Marisa Laderach, Beckett & Raeder, GIS Specialist Rowan Brady, Beckett & Raeder, Intern Aaron Ferguson, Program Manager, Climate & Health Adaptation Program at MDHHS Kaitlyn Kiessling, Private Drinking Water Project Manager at MDHHS Collaborators: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Onsite Wastewater & Wellhead Protection Teams University of Michigan Blue Communities student group Project Advisors: Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director, FLOW Grenetta Thomassay, Watershed Policy Director, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s Climate and Health Program is helping state and city health departments prepare for the specific health impacts of climate change that their communities will face. This publication was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number I NUE 1EH1324, funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not neces- sarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Michigan Climate and Health Adaptation Program The Michigan Climate and Health Program (MICHAP) of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) provided funding for this project through their CDC grant while also providing oversight and technical guidance. This report does not necessarily represent the official views of MDHHS. A CHANGING CLIMATE: MANAGING WATER FOR HEALTH | 2 Key Informants: Ann Baughman, Associate Director, Freshwater Future Kyle Anderson, Kalkaska County Time of Transfer Program, District Health Department 10 Clay McNitt, Health Department Sanitarian, Benzie- Leelanau District Health Department Len Allgaier, Manufacturing Excellence, Leelanau Clean Water Dave Cotton, Environmental Quality Analyst, MDEQ Onsite Wastewater Program Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director, FLOW Dave Dean, Rural Health Administrator , Washtenaw County Marcy Hamilton, Deputy Executive Director/Senior Planner, Health Department Southwest Michigan Planning Commission Erin Schlutow, Zoning Administrator , Lyon Township Mark Wyckoff, MSU Professor - Emeritus, Planning & Zoning Center, Land Policy Institute Grenetta Thomassay, Watershed Policy Director, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council Nicholas Leach, Zoning Administrator , Negaunee Township Jason Berndt, Environmental Quality Analyst, MDEQ Rebecca Esselman, Watershed Planner , Huron River Wellhead Protection Grant Program, Source Water Watershed Council Protection Regina Young, Environmental Health Director , Barry-Eaton Jeremy Hoeh, Environmental Health Programs Unit County District Health Department Supervisor, MDEQ Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance Robert Karner, Lake Association Biologist , Glen Lake Division Association John Jarver, Environmental Commission, Meridian Robert Wes , Public Works Director , Hartland Township Township Ruth Kline-Robach, Outreach Specialist Department John Paquin, Program Manager MWPP , City of Kalamazoo of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University Karla Kasten, Zoning Administrator, Village of Kaleva Institute for Water Research Kathleen Gardner, Environmental Quality Analyst, MDEQ Scott DeVries, City Engineer / Director of Public Works, City Private & Type III Drinking Water of Williamston Kelly Hon, Source Water Protection Specialist, Michigan Steve Law, Capacity Programs Manager , Michigan Rural Water Association Association of Conservation Districts Kris Olsson, Watershed Ecologist, Huron River Watershed Tom Fountain, Benzie County Environmental Health Council Director , Benzie-Leelanau County District Heath Department Kristine Rendon , Environmental Quality Analyst, MDEQ Onsite Wastewater Program Tom Zimnicki, Agriculture Policy Director, Michigan Environmental Council

A CHANGING CLIMATE: MANAGING WATER FOR HEALTH | 3 Executive Summary With support from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services Climate and Health Adaptation Program, this project engaged local units of government and policy makers with the goal of better protecting drinking water sources, especially in the case of more frequent and severe rain events from climate change. The focus of this project was on evaluating local ordinances for private wells and septic systems and wellhead protection ordinances for municipal groundwater sources as well as increasing the awareness about ways local units of government can be more protective of surface and groundwater sources. Both types of ordinances provide benefits to communities from a public health perspective. Through this effort, the project team conducted numerous stakeholder interviews, focus group discussions, and public presentations. A stakeholder survey was administered, a comprehensive inventory of existing ordinances was conducted, and an interactive mapping platform was developed to help local units of government better understand their risks and policy options related to local septic and wellhead protection ordinances. Key deliverables include a project website, an educational story map, an inventory and analysis of existing local ordinances, and preliminary policy recommendations for local units of government. The final chapter of this report highlights some of the key recommendations the project team identified as next steps moving forward. The recommendations can be divided into four categories: (1) ordinances; (2) outreach and education; (3) master planning; and (4) better data. A comprehensive approach to developing and adopting protective and comprehensive statewide legislation is needed to ensure all Michigan’s citizens and critical resources are healthy. However, communities should explore all options available to them. While there does not appear to be a one-size-fits-all approach to local ordinances that protect drinking water, through interviews and a thorough review of existing ordinances, the project team identified a series of best practices related to point of sale septic inspection ordinance and wellhead protection ordinances. Education was a recurrent theme. Educating local officials about policy options related to source water protection is challenging but critical. Presentations at local conferences and distribution of existing educational materials will go a long way in raising awareness of the importance of source water protection. From a master planning standpoint, the importance of integrating source water protection into the community visioning process cannot be understated. By making water quality and water protection part of a larger community conversation, water can be established as one of the community pillars. The desire for more and better data was a them that came out in many discussions over the course of this process. In some instances, the data is already available, but has not been widely adopted. In an effort to blend policy and technical information, an educational story map was developed, and after a several iterations and edits, the mapping platform is online and available to the public (www. managingwaterforhealth.org). Variables that were mapped were carefully considered with the hopes of informing local officials from an introductory standpoint. The material selected and the way it is presented were all a part of a larger plan to inform, rather than overwhelm, local officials - especially including those with no prior knowledge about water systems or threats to their respective water sources. Due to the exploratory nature of this project, much was learned along the way, and the process and deliverables shifted as the project progressed. The goal was to provide recommendations specific enough to improve local ordinances while still engaging stakeholders in a broad way to discuss issues related to source water protection. The project team will continue to look for opportunities to engage with stakeholders to release and promote this information.

A CHANGING CLIMATE: MANAGING WATER FOR HEALTH | 4 Chapter 1: Introduction Strategic Plan.1 With funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Climate and Health Local units of government and land use planners make Progrram2, MDHHS has been working to build a climate- many decisions that impact community health. Many of resilient public health system for Michigan at the state, local the most important land use decisions occur at the local health department, and community levels since 2010. Their level, yet public health outcomes are frequently overlooked 2016-2021 Strategic Plan sets the following overarching in discussions of the built and natural environment. With outcome goals that guide community outreach and health support from the Michigan Department of Health and interventions: Human Services Climate and Health Adaptation Program, this project engaged local units of government and policy 1. Climate change is recognized as a public health issue makers with the goal of better protecting drinking water and is integrated into public health practice. sources, especially in the case of more frequent and severe 2. Public health agencies and stakeholder organizations rain events from climate change. have the tools, resources, and activities to respond to MDHHS is concerned with the burden that increased climate change impacts within existing programs. precipitation events will undoubtedly have on both surface 3. Vulnerable populations are explicitly considered in water and groundwater drinking sources. However, in programs and policies addressing climate change the interest of narrowing the scope of this project and impacts. not replicating other efforts, the focus of this project was on evaluating local ordinances for private wells and In this plan, MDHHS identified septic failure leading to septic systems and wellhead protection ordinances for increased risk for groundwater, well, and surface water municipal groundwater sources as well as increasing the contamination as an increased risk due to more extreme awareness about ways local units of government can be precipitation events. In reference to waterborne diseases more protective of surface and groundwater sources. Both associated with more extreme precipitation events, the types of ordinances provide benefits to communities from report states: “Vulnerable Places: areas with high private a public health perspective. Additionally, there is not a well and septic density; residential areas in a flood plain; comprehensive resource for local units of governments to old urban areas with combined or inadequate sewer reference to better understand the type of ordinances that systems; residences near areas of high livestock density; are currently in place. areas with high numbers of septic failures or untreated sewage discharges; areas with frequent heavy rain Although source water protection is imperative statewide, events. Most areas of the state are at risk, however highly a special emphasis was placed on connecting with rural vulnerable areas include Wayne County and several rural communities in Michigan because of the limited work to counties in the southern (Lenawee, Cass) and western date on climate resiliency in rural settings. While more (Allegan, Barry, Kent, Muskegon, Montcalm, Newaygo) urbanized areas certainly have a unique set of challenges Lower Peninsula.” These goals and actions served as related to impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff, rural the foundation for outreach conducted as a part of the populations are often more isolated and need to be armed Managing Water for Health project. with tools to address unique challenges to their water quality supply. MDHHS MiWell Program Through this effort, the project team conducted numerous In addition to the MICHAP program, direction and project stakeholder interviews, focus group discussions, and public support was also provided by the MiWell Program. The presentations. A stakeholder survey was administered, MDHHS received a five-year private drinking water well a comprehensive inventory of existing ordinances was grant from 2015-2020, through the Centers for Disease conducted, and an interactive mapping platform was Control and Prevention (CDC) Safe WATCH (Water for developed to help local units of government better Community Health) program. Acknowledging that there understand their risks and policy options related to local are 1.25 million private drinking water wells in Michigan septic and wellhead protection ordinances. The following and that little information exists about levels of bacterial report details the process, findings, and recommended next and chemical contaminants, MiWell seeks to identify gaps steps for state policy makers and local officials. in Michigan’s private drinking water programs. Because the scope and goals of the MiWell program overlap to a degree Michigan Climate & Health Adaptation Program with the Managing Water for Health project, program staff The goal of this project was to further implement the 1 https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/MDCH_ Michigan Climate & Health Adaptation Program (MICHAP) climate_change_strategicPlan_final_1-24-2011__343856_7.pdf 2 https://www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/default.htm

A CHANGING CLIMATE: MANAGING WATER FOR HEALTH | 5 collaborated closely throughout the duration of the project inch) and higher amounts of annual precipitation also and provided information and support as needed. have a negative impact on public health and drinking water. The state of Michigan experienced a 4.5% increase Audience and Deliverables in total annual precipitation (1.4 inches) from the period For this project, the intended audience was first and 1951-1980 to the period 1981-2010. It should be noted that foremost local units of government as they are the these increases are not uniform across the state and certain individuals on the frontlines developing and administering areas like the Wester Upper Peninsula have even gotten local ordinances. However, the project team also wanted drier. Climate projections for the years 2041-2070 estimate to develop resources that would benefit Nongovernmental Michigan will experience a 3-6% rise in annual precipitation. Organizations (NGOs), local health departments, and By the year 2050, the number of annual days with extreme state policy makers. Key deliverables include a project rain events will increase by 10% in the lower peninsula and website, an educational story map, an inventory and up to 40% in the upper peninsula (Michigan Climate and analysis of existing local ordinances, and preliminary policy Health Profile Report, MDHHS). Communities with outdated recommendations for local units of government. or inadequate water and sewage infrastructure may experience systematic failure due to an increase in overall Chapter 2 of this report summarizes research and studies in precipitation, number of extreme precipitation events, Michigan already conducted related to this topic. Chapter and seasonal shifts in when the precipitation occurs. The 3 details the methodology and process we took to gather risks of infrastructural failure, such as water pipes bursting, information. Chapter 4 summarizes recommendations and escalates with large volumes of precipitation, and as a next steps and presents an evaluation of the process along result the risk of pathogen introduction into the water with some ideas for improvement. system also increases. Sixty-eight percent of the outbreaks of waterborne diseases were preceded by precipitation Chapter 2: Background Information events in the 80th percentile of intensity.3 Additionally, the increase in precipitation increases runoff, Climate change is exacerbating a wide range of public most significantly agricultural runoff. Contamination health challenges, and many of these impacts are rooted from agricultural runoff poses a risk to surface water and in our water supply. Whether it be surface water or groundwater used for drinking by Michigan residents. groundwater, changes in annual precipitation and more Possible pathogens include antibiotic-resistant strains of extreme precipitation events are impacting hydrology E.coli from commercial livestock production and nitrogen and public health. This project explores the connections and phosphorus that contribute to algal blooms. Exposure between water, climate, and public health. The following to waterborne pathogens from sewage and unclean water chapter details relevant background information on climate can cause diseases like cryptosporidiosis, giardiasis, and trends, water quality, and water policy. infections by Salmonella, E. coli enteroviruses, and other enteric pathogens.4 Some algal blooms may have negative Our Changing Climate impacts on public health since a variety of species of algae produce harmful biotoxins, including neurotoxins, liver The impacts of climate change on drinking water can toxins, and cell toxins. be distilled into two categories: (1) the impacts of rising These algal blooms are also facilitated by warming average temperatures; and (2) impacts of extreme water temperatures. The increase in impermeable precipitation events/rising annual precipitation. Both surfaces resulting from urbanization and transportation rising annual average temperatures and changing infrastructure also contributes to runoff. Therefore, the precipitation patterns will likely have negative impacts on increase in precipitation and the increase in impermeable public health in Michigan. surfaces will result in an increase in runoff and increase Focusing first on the impact rising average temperatures, the risk of source water contamination. As warmer the state of Michigan experienced a statewide increase temperatures now extend longer into the fall, the available of 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit annually from the period 1951- phosphorus will be increased. More available phosphorus 1980 to the period 1981-2010, and an increase of 1.5 to stimulates aquatic plant growth that will live and die and 4.5 Fahrenheit degrees is expected by 2050. The rising decompose. temperatures may amplify the risk of infectious waterborne diseases. 3 Michigan Climate and Health Profile Report pg. 56 (Curri- Extreme rain events (daily precipitation greater than one ero et al., 2001 4 Hunter 2003

A CHANGING CLIMATE: MANAGING WATER FOR HEALTH | 6 Groundwater quantity and quality can also be impacted promoting a variety of policies to protect water. by climate change. Just as lake levels go up and down with Huron River Watershed Council’s Land Use for a Healthy the seasons and periods of dry and wet weather, so does Watershed policy booklet7 provides education for the water table and hence groundwater availability. Less landowners and local units of government. It explains the research has been done on the impacts of more extreme science behind groundwater recharge and other important precipitation events on groundwater. components of the water cycle. Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council conducted a Source Water Protection Efforts in Michigan comprehensive inventory of the plans and ordinances used by local units of government in Antrim, Charlevoix, Much research and education work has already been done Emmet, and Cheboygan counties. In its Local Ordinance to protect our valuable drinking water in Michigan. Gaps Analysis publications8, Tip of the Mitt provides each In 2012, the Michigan Rural Water Quality Protection local unit of government with tailored recommendations Guidebook was prepared by the Planning & Zoning on how to better protect water resources through zoning Center of the Land Policy Institute at Michigan State and land use planning policies. Although this analysis was University funded under the Great Lakes Restoration only conducted for four counties in Michigan, it serves as a Initiative.5 Twenty-six pilot communities in the Saginaw valuable model for watershed councils and other groups to Basin were engaged in this effort to help identify best share information to impact local policy. management practices and prevent future contamination In 1991, a report called Community Planning & Zoning of rural watersheds through the use of local planning and for Groundwater Protection in Michigan: A Guidebook for zoning tools. The guidebook walks readers through the Local Officials9 was developed for the Michigan Department process of conducting a community assessment to help of Natural Resources. Later that same year, the Michigan identify specific, appropriate local actions. Numerous Association of Planning funded a white paper called local strategies that can be implemented at the county, Using Groundwater Protection Data to Improve Planning township, city, and village levels are also discussed, with and Zoning Decisions that was intended to build on the a special emphasis on land use planning and zoning previous MDNR report. Funded by the Kellogg Foundation, tools. Specific tools for managing water resources at the the information is still very relevant to local protection watershed level are also discussed, including conservation efforts today. The report provides local governments with easements and wetland restoration. Additionally, sample an overview of existing data sources, a discussion of the zoning language on coordinated permitting, earth change planning and zoning application, and ideas for engaging activities, waste disposal, parcel splits, stormwater diverse stakeholders in the decision-making process. management, and natural features setbacks can be found Groundwater vulnerability is also addressed. The report in the appendices. highlights the fact that each community and development Filling the Gaps6, first written in 2003 and later updated proposal is unique, and a comprehensive planning process in 2010 is a comprehensive handbook on environmental can address these unique challenges. Of the zoning policy options for local units of government in Michigan. options, it is noted that site plan review is most often used The goal of this book is to equip the local official with the because of its versatility and ease of use. Zoning options for right information to gather and examine when making wellhead protection are explored in more detail in Chapter land use plans, adopting new environmentally focused 3. The basis of statuary requirements in Michigan for public regulations, or reviewing proposed development. Special records, including private wells, is also discussed. Many of emphasis is placed on coordinating all levels of government the recommendations in this report have informed the final to ensure the highest environmental standards are upheld recommendations of this study, found in Chapter 4. while still working within the existing federal, state, and local regulatory framework. 7 https://www.hrwc.org/wp-content/uploads/HRWC- Many watershed councils, like the Huron River Watershed CGLUP-spiral-bound-11118-sm.pdf Council and Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, are 8 https://www.watershedcouncil.org/policy-and-advoca- proactively engaging with local units of government and cy-resources.html 9 Community Planning and Zoning for Groundwater 5 https://www.canr.msu.edu/resources/rural_water_quali- Protection in Michigan: A Guidebook for Local Officials, written by ty_protection_a_planning_zoning_guidebook_for_local_officials Lillian Dean and Mark Wyckoff for the DNR and published in May, 6 https://www.watershedcouncil.org/up- 1991. loads/7/2/5/1/7251350/document_2_filling_the_gaps.pdf.

A CHANGING CLIMATE: MANAGING WATER FOR HEALTH | 7 In 2015, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council published joint effort between MDEQ and Michigan’s local health an important report on septic systems and options for departments. The state’s well construction code gives well regulation and protection in Michigan. According to the permitting duties to the local health department. report, approximately 30% of homes and businesses in In Michigan, the Wellhead Protection Program is a voluntary Michigan are served by 1.4 million onsite wastewater program for public water supply systems. These programs systems.10 Michigan is the only state in the nation without identify the sources of the groundwater that provide uniform standards for how on-site septic systems are drinking water, the potential sources of contamination sited, designed, built, installed, and maintained. Often, of the local water supply, strategies for managing these there are no requirements at the local health department sources in order to protect drinking water, plans for level for regular inspections, and failures are generally drinking water emergencies, and plans to educate the underreported. Moreover, data on the location and public about their drinking water and what they can do to condition of septic systems is limited. In June 2015, a study protect it. by Michigan State University used microbial source-tracking tools to show that pollution arising from septic system discharges is likely much more severe than previously realized. Results suggest human fecal contamination is affecting 100% of the studied river systems in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula.11 To address these concerns, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council in partnership with the Health Department of Northwest Michigan developed the 2016 septic policy report titled The Septic Question. The goal was to examine septic system policies in Michigan and provide recommendations to local units of government. The team identified a series of possible ordinance best practices and ordinance options. As a part of the project, numerous local units of government with septic ordinances were interviewed.

State and Federal Policy Framework Understanding the basic Federal and State policy framework as it relates to drinking water is useful to identify the gaps that can be filled with local regulations. Drinking Water For wellhead protection effort, the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and Michigan’s state program have relevance. The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) originally was passed as Public Law 93-523 in 1974. Under this law, maximum contaminant levels in public drinking water are determined at the federal level. MDEQ is in charge of administering the statewide program for monitoring the safety of drinking water. The Michigan Source Water Protection Program is a

10 The Septic Question”? https://www.watershedcouncil. org/uploads/7/2/5/1/7251350/the_septic_question_report-fi- nal-web.pdf 11 Ibid

A CHANGING CLIMATE: MANAGING WATER FOR HEALTH | 8 Figure 1. Project Process

Source Water 21 In-Depth 4 Focus Story Map Literature Groups & Review Protection Stakeholder & Final Survey Interviews 1 Community Report Forum

Chapter 3: Methodology & Key Findings related to source water protection and to get a better idea of what deliverables would be most useful, an online survey The following summarizes key tasks undertaken during was sent out to approximately 75 individuals. Fourteen this seven-month process. Also presented is a summary people responded to the survey, representing watershed of findings. Broader themes from these findings will be councils, state agencies, conservancies, non-profits, and discussed in more detail in Chapter 5: Recommendations. regional planning agencies. The survey results were used to narrow the areas of focus and identify useful deliverables Project Management as well as to better understand what initiatives are going on across the state at the local, regional, and state levels. The core project team consisted of representatives from The first question asked about the most important issues 10/31/2018 Word Art related to source water protection. Most of the responses addressed the issue of contamination resulting from runoff. This increase in runoff, according to respondents, results from deforestation, urbanization, lack of proper soil erosion management, and poor planning practices. Additionally, threats described were the increase in non-biologic materials being entered into septic systems, resulting from a lack of education, and wastewater treatment facilities that are either inadequate or aging and cannot handle the septic load. A lack of policies based in science and extreme weather events resulting from climate change also contribute to source water contamination. Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and a consultant team from Beckett & Raeder, Inc. MDHHS The project team also asked about developing model representatives from the Michigan Climate and Health ordinances and whether these would be beneficial to Adaptation Program and the Private Drinking Water Project their respective constituents. Generally, respondents contributed insight and direction. The core group met were supportive of model ordinances for source water regularly from April 2018 through October 2018 to refine protection, but they cautioned taking a one size fits all the scope of work and outreach strategy, and review approach to local policies. While these model ordinances preliminary findings. A project website was also developed would increase public awareness of source water to communicate public engagement opportunities, protection, some respondents felt they may be premature summarize results of input, and provide resources for local given the uncertainty of extreme rain events. Another source water protection. respondent cautioned that they might only be helpful/ effective if presented and adopted at a local level. The URL, www.managingwaterforhealth.org, will remain in existence in the near future to house final deliverables and related resources. Ordinance Review Survey 1/1 The project team initially set out to review all point of sale To help the project team better understand the key issues septic inspection ordinances and wellhead protection

A CHANGING CLIMATE: MANAGING WATER FOR HEALTH | 9 ordinances in Michigan, and to develop statewide model Of the POS ordinances that are well established (i.e. been ordinances. However, source water protection is extremely in place for two or more decades) interviewees noted that complicated, and each community requires a different the programs are working very well and have a proven policy solution. Instead, the team concentrated its efforts record of reducing septic system failure. For example, on reviewing all existing ordinances and developing a series in Washtenaw County, system failures are down 5% of best practices and summary of what is working well. This from when the program started over twenty years ago. summary is based on a review of existing ordinances and According to the 10-year Barry-Eaton report by the District interviews with developers and ordinance administrators. Health Department, over the past ten years, there have been almost 12,000 evaluations of onsite wells or sewage Point of Sale Septic Inspection Ordinances systems. Of these, action was required for approximately A total of 17 point of sale (POS) septic inspection ordinances 20 percent of on-site wells and approximately 27 percent of are on the books in Michigan. There are currently ten on-site sewage systems.12 counties with an ordinance (two additional counties, One interviewee noted that a distinction can be made as to Barry and Eaton, recently rescinded their ordinances, the purpose of the ordinance. Some POS ordinances were discussed below). POS ordinances at the county level are put in place to safeguard the environment or ecosystem, administered by the District Health Department but must while others were grounded in a desire to safeguard public be approved by the County Board of Commissioners from health. In general, the ordinances rooted in environmental each county within the Health Department’s jurisdiction. protection require that the systems simply meet the Local units of government can also adopt a POS septic sanitary code criteria, whereas those ordinances rooted inspection ordinance. This is generally done through a in public health concerns require that the systems be local police power ordinance. The enforcement for these functional or meet an established performance standard. ordinances is done by the local unit of government, while The ordinances rooted in a concern for public health the Health Department is responsible for conducting the seem to have more support from the public because the inspections. There are only five townships and two villages inspection is less burdensome on homeowners. in Michigan with POS septic inspection ordinances. Two POS ordinances also differ in which person(s) is permitted townships and one village have a POS ordinance for septic to conduct inspection of the system. In the absence of a only, while the remaining 14 ordinances (counties included) require an inspection of the septic system and private 12 https://www.barryeatonhealth.org/sites/default/files/ drinking water supply at the point of sale. EH%20Forms/First%2010%20Years%20FULL%20w%20attach- ments.pdf Figure 2. Summary of Point of Sale Inspection Ordinances in Michigan

Does the Type of Community Type of Ordinance (TOT Permitted to Conduct Inspections Community Name Government County Health Department conduct well, septic, or both) (Health Department or Priviate, Both) Unit certification training? Long Lake Township Township Grand TOT Septic Grand Traverse Health Department Township Registered Evaluator No Heath Department Sanitarian or Empire Village Leelanau TOT Septic Benzie-Leelanau District Health Department No Liscensed Sanitarian Brooks Township Township Newaygo TOT Septic District Health Department #10 Township Registered Evaluator No Wayne County County TOT Septic Wayne County Health Department Heath Department Registered No Health Department Sanitarians or Milton Township Township Antrim TOT Well and Septic Health Department of Northwest Michigan contracted Evaluators Barry County* County TOT Well and Septic Barry-Eaton District Health Department Health Department Registered Yes Benzie County County TOT Well and Septic Benzie-Leelanau District Health Department Health Department Sanitarians N/A Eaton County* County TOT Well and Septic Barry-Eaton District Health Department Health Department Registed Yes Kalkaska County County TOT Well and Septic District Health Department #10 Health Department Registered Yes Glen Arbor Township Township Leelanau TOT Well and Septic Benzie-Leelanau District Health Department Health Department Sanitarians N/A Manistee County County TOT Well and Septic District Health Department #10 Health Department Registered Yes Shiawassee County County TOT Well and Septic Shiawassee County Environemental Health Division Health Department Registed Yes Washtenaw County County TOT Well and Septic Washtenaw County Environemtal Health Division Health Department Registered Yes Health Department Sanitarians or Elk Rapids Village Antrim TOT Well and Septic Health Department of Northwest Michigan contracted Evaluators Macomb County County TOT Well and Septic Macomb County Health Department Health Department Registered No Isabella County County TOT Well and Septic Central Michigan District Health Department Health Department Registered No Ingham County County TOT Well and Septic Ingham County Health Department Health Department Registered Yes Ottawa County County TOT Well and Septic Ottawa County Health Department Health Department Sanitarian N/A Health Department Sanitarians or Secord Township Township Gladwin TOT Well and Septic Central Michigan District Health Department Registered Evaluators No *Rescinded Regulation

A CHANGING CLIMATE: MANAGING WATER FOR HEALTH | 10 The wellhead protection area (WHPA) or boundary is drawn around the municipal wellhead site and delineates a ten- year time of travel boundary. Ten years is the time it will take a particle of water to travel through the WHPA and into the well. Ten years is the time period selected by the Michigan DEQ because it provides a reasonable length of time for responding to environmental problems within a WHPA that is of a size that can be reasonably managed. A wellhead protection ordinance is generally based on the WHPA, and it protects the municipal drinking water supply of communities that rely on groundwater for this purpose in order to minimize the potential for contamination and avoid costly groundwater clean-ups. All activities within this wellhead protection area are subject to special regulation. POS ordinance, there is no regulation on who can conduct Interviews with communities that had adopted these a septic inspection. Under a POS ordinance, inspectors ordinances revealed that there are two primary motivations are required to be registered with the district health for adopting a wellhead protection ordinance. Some department, and many of the health departments have interviewees mentioned specific threats to their aquifer, developed training programs for the inspectors or require such as agricultural use and contamination from applicants to hold certain credentials that demonstrate underground petroleum storage tanks and car facilities, as their proficiency in working with onsite wastewater the reason to establish a wellhead protection ordinance. systems. The strictest POS regulations require that health Other interviewees said that the geologic nature of their department officials conduct the inspections of onsite community was the key factor in adopting a wellhead wastewater systems. However, as was commented by protection ordinance. Negaunee Township recently multiple interviewees, this is only feasible in health invested heavily in its municipal wells and established departments that conduct a very small number of wellhead protection regulations in order to protect this inspections. investment. The two main barriers identified for implementing these These ordinances are developed in a number of different ordinances are public awareness and political opposition. ways. Some communities wrote the ordinance themselves The lack of public awareness for these programs creates a with assistance from a lawyer. Other communities had their gap between the positive environmental benefits of these ordinance written by a professional planner. programs and the perceived burden on property owners. Unlike the point of sale septic inspection ordinances, Many interviewees also commented that some realtors are these ordinances are rooted in zoning as opposed to opposed to the POS ordinance because it complicates the police power. The WHPA boundary is generally delineated closing process and creates a financial burden on property as an overlay zone in the zoning ordinance. There was owners looking to sell their property. One interviewee unanimous consensus that these ordinances are not mentioned that before the POS ordinance was adopted, difficult to enforce, especially if there is a site plan review many lending institutions required onsite waste water process. A site plan review process for new developments inspections as a condition of lending. The second barrier was mandatory in nine of the communities with these for the POS ordinances is political opposition. Interviewees ordinances. The one exception was for residential uses, noted that many people view these ordinances as which were generally permitted by right. governmental overreach and an infringement on their personal property rights. This political opposition led the The greatest area of variability in these ordinances is in how repeal of the POS ordinance in the Barry-Eaton District the boundary for the WHPA is established, and therefore Health Department, where 25% of onsite wastewater how the wellhead protection overlay zone is established. systems and 20% of onsite water systems are failing. The most common way to establish the wellhead protection overlay zone is to use the Michigan Department Wellhead Protection Ordinances of Environmental Quality’s (MDEQ) established 10-year time A total of 34 communities in Michigan have a wellhead of travel for groundwater and establish an overlay zone that protection ordinance. Fourteen of these are cities, 17 are is identical to the WHPA. Some communities have taken a Townships, and three are villages. more aggressive approach and created a tiered system that

A CHANGING CLIMATE: MANAGING WATER FOR HEALTH | 11 Figure 3. Summary of Wellhead Protection Ordinances in Michigan

Community Name Type of Government (Township, County, LHD, etc) County Enforcement of WHPA

Quincy Village Branch Overlay Distirct Allegan City Allegan Overlay District Battle Creek City Calhoun Overlay District Evart City Osecola Overlay District Fenton City Genesse Overlay District Ispheming City Marquette Overlay District Kalamazoo City Kalamazoo Overlay District Manistee City Manistee Overlay District Niles City Cass and Berrien County Overlay District Whitehall City Muskegon Overlay District Briley Township Monmorency Overlay District Crystall Falls Township Iron Overlay District Filer Township Manistee Overlay District Independence Township Oakland Overlay District Lyon Township Oakland Overlay District Marion Township Livingston Overlay District Negaunee Township Marquette Overlay District Niles Township Berrien Overlay District Pennfield Township Calhoun Overlay District Powell Township Marquette Overlay District Stambaugh Township Iron Overlay District Texas Township Kalamazoo Overlay District Thronapple Township Barry Overlay District Waterford Township Oakland Overlay District Kaleva Village Manistee Overlay District Overlay District and Site Plainwell City Allegan Plan Review Overlay District and Site Cooper Township Kalamazoo Plan Review Overlay District and Site Iron River Township Iron Plan Review Overlay District and Site Marquette Township Marquette Plan Review Overlay District and Site Mattawan Village Van Buren Plan Review Gladwin City Gladwin Site Plan Review Hartford City Van Buren Site Plan Review Special Land Use Review in Williamston City Ingham Wellhead Overlay Areas Stormwater Permit Rockford City Kent Review

A CHANGING CLIMATE: MANAGING WATER FOR HEALTH | 12 extends beyond the MDEQ’s WHPA and imposes restrictions that protecting drinking water requires protecting the land of varying degrees closer or further from the wellhead. above it. Communities in southeast Michigan are adopting Another approach is to draw a geometric shape around the policies to size infrastructure more appropriately. The City wellhead and have that shape serve as the overlay zone. of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County have adopted the In certain circumstances, some communities noted that Atlas 14 precipitation frequency estimates for designing they had conducted a hydrogeologic survey to establish a stormwater infrastructure, which are new estimates that wellhead protection overlay zone. take into account more years of data to help engineers design for more intense precipitation events. To account for There was a general consensus that there is broad future increases in extreme events, Huron River Watershed political support for these ordinances, and there were no Council suggests adding an additional 10% to the Atlas 14 complaints about the ordinance from an administrative values. perspective. That being said, the City of Williamston is currently evaluating the effectiveness of the ordinance. Agriculture Due to the fact that a very small handful of people live in Multiple interviewees noted that current agricultural the established wellhead protection overlay zone, and that practices are the top threat to drinking water. While this most of the property in the zone is owned by the city, there cannot be solved through zoning ordinances, there is much does not seem to be a strong need for wellhead protection. work to be done to reform these agricultural practices. A repeal of the ordinance is possible and there is no clear One interviewee cited the work The Nature Conservancy replacement, but this is due to the nature of the land under is doing in the Saginaw Bay area—working directly with the overlay zone and not due to any political pressure from farmers on best management practices—as a step in the the community. right direction. Future Focus Stakeholder Interviews Emerging contaminants were top of mind for many In addition to completing interviews with individuals interviewees, and although not a part of this project, responsible for administering local source water protection looking at local policies that protect against emerging ordinances, the project team conducted general interviews contaminants would be a possible future project. Another with state agency officials, non-profit representatives, interviewee suggested looking at the drought side of natural resource managers, and community planners. climate change impacts to drinking water. They noted that the City of Dexter enacts water restrictions during dry times Wellhead Protection to save money. This could be more of an issue in certain In speaking with state agency and non-profit parts of Michigan during the summer season as the climate representatives who work with wellhead protection continues to change. programs, the project team learned that while much progress has been made on developing wellhead protection plans for communities, implementing the plans Leelanau Community Forum has been more difficult. While there is state funding and The project team had the opportunity for a unique case resources for implementing wellhead protection plans, study in Leelanau County as the county recently underwent communities need more technical assistance in developing an in-depth and contentious process to adopt a point of local ordinances. Given the turnover of local officials and sale septic inspection ordinance. Although the county the frequency with which these plans need to be updated, commission ultimately decided against adopting the only about one-third of eligible communities participate in ordinance, the project team met with county officials and the wellhead protection program. members of the public to better understand the barriers to Runoff adopting a POS ordinance. From a broader source water protection standpoint, A community forum was held in June 2018 and attended by interviewees noted that the nature of drinking water 45 people. After a short presentation, the team facilitated protection is much more complex than what can be a dialogue about the key issues and solutions related to addressed through local planning and zoning. It requires water quality protection in rural Leelanau County. a regional approach. A watershed council representative Changes Contribute to Greater Risk noted that the council promotes the “big three” local ordinances: riparian protection, wetland protection, and According to forum attendees, a number of factors seem stormwater management. The representative further stated to be coming together to create a “perfect storm” of risk

A CHANGING CLIMATE: MANAGING WATER FOR HEALTH | 13 Education Education and messaging are critical components of generating support for new local policies. At the forum, there were concerns expressed about the nature of septic systems—they are underground, hidden from the public consciousness. Politics is also closely linked with messaging. There is constant turnover of elected officials, so educating decision makers in a timely manner is important. One barrier in the case of Leelanau County was that there was misinformation associated with the POS ordinance. In the future, it will be important to counter misinformation with facts and open dialogue. Solutions One exciting solution the group arrived at towards the end of the community forum was the need for a watershed approach to protecting water quality. Attendees discussed the opportunity to create a permanently funded Watershed Coordinator position at the county level to ensure the to water quality in Leelanau County. One concern noted watershed management plans are being implemented. was that rising Great Lakes levels, and rising inland lakes There was a strong desire to govern on a basis of hydrologically connected to the Great Lakes, lead to an watersheds and ensure that watershed management plans increased risk of septic contamination. The inland lakes are carry more weight. The group acknowledged the difficulty also seeing increased use pressure due to a rising year- given Michigan’s governance structure but agreed more long population and the growing popularity of short-term collaboration at a watershed level will be crucial moving rentals. Another emerging concern is that septic systems forward. are not designed to handle pharmaceuticals, and the impact of these chemicals on the water supply is still very Focus Groups much unknown. To better understand how source water protection differs Gaps in Data across the state of Michigan, the project team held a series of focus group discussions with local agency officials, There are still numerous gaps in data. Although the non-profit professionals, and local health officials. The goal National Park Service, the Glen Lake Association, and of these focus group discussions was to identify common others have been actively monitoring water quality, barriers and solutions. meeting attendees noted that there is still relevant information needed to help make more informed decisions Lansing State Agencies about local policy solutions. The attendees felt more data In June 2018, the project team convened a focus group would help make a more meaningful case. A few questions discussion in Lansing with a group of five individuals posed included: representing the non-profit and public sector. Much of 1. What is the size of the plume from failing septic the conversation focused on actions at the state level to systems? improve source water protection efforts. 2. What do we have for groundwater flow rates? One of the most interesting topics of discussion was the temporary nature of septic systems when they were 3. How many septic systems are currently failing in the first introduced in the 1970s. According to one attendee, county?

A CHANGING CLIMATE: MANAGING WATER FOR HEALTH | 14 private septic systems were never viewed as a permanent solution. The US EPA had plans to install public sanitary sewer systems nationwide, so private residential septic systems were installed as a temporary fix to keep up with development pressure. Now the difficulty for the state is trying to regulate something that was never intended to be regulated or maintained on a long-term scale. The group also discussed notable gaps in state regulation. For example, septic systems can be put in wetlands with proper state permits. Additionally, private wells can be installed at a shallow depth that is potentially harmful because it increases the likelihood for contamination from a nearby septic system. this misconception. There was also concern amongst Towards the end of the discussion, the group identified local health officials that local units of government do not some provisions they would like to see in a state septic understand their limitations, and at times over-regulate or code. There was overall agreement that the state code regulate ineffectively. A number of participants indicated should be prescriptive. They wanted to see data collected a desire for local units of government to focus more on that identifies aquifer susceptibility by region to inform an community-wide master planning for water protection as ordinance that is outcome-based depending on the unique opposed implementing through land use regulations. geography/topography in different areas of Michigan.

Finally, one attendee was a representative from Meridian Educational Story Map Township’s Environmental Commission. The group discussed the potential for this type of advisory board Political boundaries, existing policies, and environmental to champion source water protection efforts in other conditions inform the types of ordinances that are most communities. appropriate in a community. In an effort to blend policy and technical information, an educational story map Environmental Health Professionals was developed, and after a several iterations and edits, The project team met with environmental health officials the mapping platform found its final form. Variables that on two separate occasions; attending one monthly were mapped were carefully considered with the hopes of meeting of the MALEHA Board (Michigan Association informing local officials from an introductory standpoint. for Local Environmental Health Administrators) in June The material selected and the way it is presented were all 2018; and presenting preliminary findings at the Michigan a part of a larger plan to inform, rather than overwhelm, Environmental Health Managers Conference in September local officials - especially including those with no prior 2018. knowledge about water systems or threats to their respective water sources. The health officials provided useful input on how to improve and refine the educational mapping tool. They Several layers were assembled from various sources for expressed uncertainty around who the tool is for and how inclusion within the mapping platform. Municipal public it will be used and wanted to be certain that the data is water supply data was derived from publicly-available lists accurate, creditable, and non-biased. The draft version of provided by the Michigan Department of Environmental the mapping tool was refined significantly based on this Quality, focusing on groundwater and surface water input. sources. Additionally, the MDEQ provides information on water sources based upon the Great Lakes, inland lakes, From a policy standpoint, the number one barrier to local and rivers, which were shown. The drinking water wells ordinances cited was a lack of funding and staff resources in Michigan were mapped to show type 1 drinking wells, to truly protect water quality. which are the primary wells for populations no less than One interesting topic of discussion was the legal ability 25 residents. The goal was to provide a comprehensive of local units of government to adopt local ordinances. understanding of where drinking water originates across There was uncertainty around the authority for local the various sources. governments to enact POS regulations/ordinances outside Wellhead protection areas were spatially shown to highlight of the Sanitary Code. In actuality this is allowed, but it the distribution of protection areas and emphasize this brought to light the fact that more education could correct as an important concept for water protection. They were

A CHANGING CLIMATE: MANAGING WATER FOR HEALTH | 15 shown according to their boundaries, but were also source water protection to take a lower priority. One local aggregated within municipal jurisdictions (counties) official noted that he is constantly putting out fires, so to showcase overlapping wellhead protection areas. until water quality is a public health crisis, it will not get Transitioning to local policy options, the communities that addressed. Preventative actions to protect water quality are have adopted Point of Sale Septic Inspection Ordinances challenging to elicit support for. were mapped and hyperlinked to the documents, aiming Presentations at local conferences and distribution of to supply example ordinances that local officials could existing educational materials will go a long way in raising consider enacting in their own communities. An exhaustive awareness of the importance of source water protection. collection of counties, villages, and townships were More conversations with local officials and policy makers mapped and hyperlinked to their local ordinance for more will result in a greater awareness, and hopefully ultimately information. The same was done for wellhead protection action. Oftentimes it is required that the message be area ordinances, which included a mix townships, cities, communicated in multiple ways by multiple people before and villages. it “sticks.” Lastly, to connect these issues to the broader picture of a Master Planning changing climate, several climate-related variables were mapped to indicate the importance of this connection. While local policies were a key focus of the project, the See the final climate maps that were included in the Story importance of integrating source water protection into the Mapper. Of the many observed climate trends seen in community visioning process cannot be understated. By Michigan, the team focused on three crucial variables that making water quality and water protection part of a larger have recently translated into tangible impacts throughout community conversation, water can be established as one the state. The change in average annual temperature is of the community pillars. This will make adopting local shown, which correlates to higher temperatures and overall ordinances that support the community’s vision much warming throughout the state. The projected increase easier. in total annual precipitation, along with the change in Getting the right stakeholders to the table during a the average number of days per year experiencing heavy community visioning or master planning process will precipitation, paint a data-driven picture of more intense help ensure that the plan reflects water related values. storm events and rainfall throughout the state. Stakeholders who will help foster positive water policies include local health officials, emergency responders, Chapter 4: Recommendations elected officials, water well operators, the Drain Commissioner, watershed groups, lake associations, and While many recommendations can be found throughout planning commissioners/professional planners. Watershed this report in the form of input from interviewees and focus councils can help the community take a more regional group discussions, this final chapter highlights some of approach to water management by looking at source water the key recommendations the project team identified as protection from the perspective of natural water systems. next steps moving forward. The recommendations can be From an economic and development standpoint, villages divided into four categories: (1) outreach and education; and townships in Michigan can use the master planning (2) master planning; (3) better data; and (4) ordinances. process to decide how and where they want to grow, and if Following the recommendations is an evaluation of the investing in a public sanitary sewer system is appropriate. project process. The original temporary nature of septic systems presents Outreach and Education challenges for communities looking to grow while still fulfilling their responsibilities to protect health and the Education was a recurrent theme. There seems to be environment. While septic systems were originally intended lack of awareness on the part of homeowners about as a temporary solution, communities have not been built drinking water, and septic systems in particular. Numerous as though these systems are temporary. Although costly, individuals noted that many members of the public do not a public wastewater system could allow a community to know whether they are connected to a municipal sanitary better meet the changing housing and commercial needs of sewer system or a private septic system. a community and ensure infrastructure is coordinated with Educating local officials about policy options related private investment. Communities should consider this long- to source water protection is challenging but critical. term while preparing for and mitigating impacts from septic Local government staff and officials have numerous systems an drinking water wells in the near-term. competing demands on their time, causing issues like For communities that rely on municipal groundwater,

A CHANGING CLIMATE: MANAGING WATER FOR HEALTH | 16 consideration of a wellhead protection plan fits nicely protective and comprehensive statewide legislation into the master planning process. The Michigan Rural is needed to ensure all Michigan’s citizens and critical Water Association is a non-profit organization that works resources are healthy. However, communities should with communities across the state of Michigan to provide explore all options available to them. While there does resources for groundwater protection, and it has developed not appear to be a one-size-fits-all approach to local model language for inclusion in master plans. ordinances that protect drinking water, through interviews and a thorough review of existing ordinances, the project team identified a series of best practices related to point of Better Data sale septic inspection ordinance and wellhead protection ordinances. The desire for more and better data was a them that came out in many discussions over the course of this process. Point of Sale Septic Inspection In some instances, the data is already available, but has Point of Sale Septic Inspection ordinances can be police not been widely adopted. For example, few communities power ordinances enacted at the township or village level, design new stormwater infrastructure to the new Atlas or they can be county-wide ordinances enacted by the 14 precipitation frequency estimates. By using these district health department with approval by the county. new estimates that take into account more years of The most common approach is to adopt these ordinances data, communities can better prepare for more intense county-wide or health department-wide. This seems to precipitation events. In 2014, the Washtenaw County Water be the best approach as long as there is political support Resources Commissioner (WCWRC) adopted new standards. at the county level. However, in the absence of county The Atlas 14 storm intensity and rainfall frequency curves regulations, townships and villages have taken the lead by are incorporated into the new design storm values. adopting their own police power ordinances. This seems These new standards apply to all new development and to be a good method for proving success on a smaller scale redevelopment projects under county jurisdiction. while also eliciting support for a future county or statewide Floodplain delineation is another data set that is complete ordinance/code. for most of the state, but the information is not always used The inspection should be conducted by a certified to inform land use and planning policy. Additionally, many inspector. Training facilitated by the district health floodplain maps developed by FEMA (called FIRMS, or flood department seemed to be a good approach. Pairing the insurance rate maps) are outdated and underrepresent the septic inspection with a mandatory private water supply risk of flooding. inspection also makes sense. The water inspection is In regard to septic systems, there is limited information on often less costly compared with a septic inspection, and a the location and condition of these systems throughout property sale is a good opportunity to ensure both water most of the state. More than 1.3 million homes and and septic systems are in good working condition. businesses in Michigan depend on septic systems to treat Communicating the purpose and benefits of these local wastewater. However, septic systems installed before the ordinances is important. The interviewees indicated there 1970s did so without permits, and no electronic records is more support for a POS ordinance if it is framed as a exist for those systems that were installed prior to 1990 and mechanism for protecting public health as opposed to an have not been upgraded. environmental ordinance. There were concerns expressed There are other data sets identified by interviewees that over the cost burden on the district health department, would be beneficial in planning for source water protection. the property owner, and the local unit of government. For example, contamination data at a watershed and lake Generally, it seemed that shifting the cost of the inspection association level would be useful to make a case for local to the home buyer/seller made the most sense to ensure policies. Numerous individuals also noted the importance the health department can administer these programs of identifying and documenting the locations and severity without experiencing extra administrative costs. of agricultural influences on water sources. Wellhead Protection Although not a complete picture, the educational story The two best options for implementing wellhead protection map developed for this project attempts to display some of ordinances appear to be through site plan review and these important data sets in a meaningful way. overlay zoning districts. Site plan review is beneficial for Ordinances new uses because it ensures that all new development meet certain standards. These standards can be outcome- A comprehensive approach to developing and adopting

A CHANGING CLIMATE: MANAGING WATER FOR HEALTH | 17 based and prescriptive, putting the responsibility on the available data; second, an inventory of policies; and third, developer to ensure that the activity will not negatively a final regulatory ranking to showcase communities with impact groundwater or drinking water supplies. Some ordinances in place that protect water quality, recognizing examples of standards include site design to prevent the spatial distribution and pattern of such communities. spills and discharges of hazardous substances to the However, it was determined that the focus on the content air, soil, surface water, and groundwater and secondary needed to change to better communicate these variables containment for hazardous substance storage and use. with the intended audience. Procedures can also ensure that the proper county, state, The first platform was heavy on spatial data from the and federal permits are obtained prior to issuing a zoning onset, with insufficient information providing an overview permit. For example, in Ingham County, local governments of drinking water in the state. The platform was edited send site plans for certain land uses using hazardous to include a more robust approach at describing the substances to the County Health Department for review importance of drinking water, locating where known and comment prior to deciding whether the proposed new surface and groundwater resources contributed to drinking development conforms with local zoning regulations. water, including public and private wells, and providing greater linkages to why local officials should be aware of There were differences noted amongst local ordinances water resources and concerns. Focusing more on the origin in the method for determining the wellhead protection story behind our drinking water resources was more likely boundary. Most communities rely on MDEQ, although to aide in personal discovery and understanding within the some have taken a more aggressive approach by creating a platform. tiered system that extends beyond the MDEQ’s WHPA and imposing restrictions of varying degrees based on distance Secondly, some of the increasingly technical GIS layers from the wellhead. were removed and replaced with digestible information. Several technical GIS layers in the first map included Another option for communities to consider is a police information on aquifers, soil suitability, and projected power ordinance that regulates the use of hazardous changes in water stress, and many of these layers hosted substances that could impact water quality. The benefit of a detailed, ranked, or compounded information, requiring police power ordinance is that it can apply to existing land each map viewer to question the methodology and sources uses because nothing is “grandfathered” in. that went into each layer along with the need to interpret the data as well. It was determined that water sources and Process Evaluation wellhead protection areas were the proper level of detail without appearing cumbersome or overwhelming, and Due to the exploratory nature of this project, much was the addition of straightforward, single climate variables learned along the way, and the process and deliverables near the end of the mapping platform would suffice for the shifted as the project progressed. The project team found audience to draw conclusions themselves. it was difficult to balance the broad nature of source Layers were modified to remove communities with water protection with the specific nature of source water no ordinance in place, avoiding any map viewer from protection ordinances (e.g. septic inspection and wellhead feeling that the platform was punitive or negative if they protection). The goal was to provide recommendations represented a community that has not adopted this type specific enough to improve local ordinances while still of policy. Instead, layers highlighted the communities engaging stakeholders in a broad way to discuss issues that have an adopted ordinance by isolating and related to source water protection. At times, the project displaying these communities only, hyperlinked to their goals seemed to get muddled as interviewees began respective ordinances. Map viewers could then review expanding the discussion to include issues related to the adopted language throughout the state and find agricultural practices and stormwater runoff. The project communities with similar geographic profiles to their own, team will continue to look for opportunities to engage with drawing connections between successful policy in areas stakeholders to release and promote this information. representative of their unique municipality. The educational mapping tool was originally intended to be a decision support tool. However, the project team found that the data included in the interactive mapping platform was too complex for most local officials and policy makers to use. The original mapping platform was designed to be in three distinct sections: the first, an overview of

A CHANGING CLIMATE: MANAGING WATER FOR HEALTH | 18