1. Source Water Protection Case Studies Leah G Walker, P.E. Senior Sanitary Engineer California Department of Health Services Drinking Water Technical Programs Branch

2. 2 California Examples Protection –Sebastopol –Anaheim –Lake Berryessa Assessment and Protection –Yosemite Valley

3. 3 Protection Case Studies

4. 4 Sebastopol First test of DWSAP assessment procedures

5. 5 Sebastopol - Background Population 7,800 Regional “urban” center for surrounding rural area Water System: –5 wells = 483 MG/year –Well 5 off-line due to PCE –Well 4 has shown 1,2-DCA and MTBE –Well 7 – new well Hydrogeologic setting –Unconfined, porous media aquifer –High transmissivity, steep gw gradient from west

6. 6 Sebastopol - Vulnerability Sources are most vulnerable to PCAs associated with detected contaminants: –Dry Cleaners (PCE) –Known Contaminant Plumes (PCE and 1,2-DCA) –LUFTs (1,2-DCA and MTBE) –Gas Stations (1,2-DCA and MTBE) And …

7. 7 Sebastopol - Vulnerability And to those PCAs not associated with detected contaminants from the top of the vulnerability ranking: –Chemical storage –Metal plating/finishing –Plastics/synthetics producers –Septic systems on parcels < 1 acre –Sewer Lines

8. 8 Sebastopol – After the Assessment No formal plan or ordinance adopted, but –Invited a public committee; held some meetings –More vigorously pursuing cleanup of contamination –Prioritizing sewer line repairs in Zone A –Eliminated use of pesticides on city-owned property –Evaluating all proposed development in City for possible GW impacts –Evaluating land use proposals outside city limits, but in zones, for possible impacts –Considers allowing hookup to city sewer if septic system fails in Zone A

9. 9 Lake Berryessa Purpose: Federal/ State/ Local Partnership for SWP and Coordinated WQ Monitoring

10. 10 Lake Berryessa - Background Lake developed and operated by US Bureau of Reclamation for flood control and water supply Water supply users –Solano County Water Agency (360,000 population in 5 communities) –9 small resorts and subdivisions Meeting initiated by DHS and EPA as demonstration project

11. 11 Lake Berryessa - Background Meeting Participants: –US Bureau of Reclamation –Solano County Water Agency –Resort owners –Napa County Public Works –DHS –EPA –RWQCB –Fish & Game –Napa County Environmental Health Key participants

12. 12 Lake Berryessa - Results Key participants: –Regular meetings (now run by SCWA) –Contaminant Management Plan –Coordinated WQ Monitoring Plan –Communication on spills, accidents –Coordinated review of development proposals –Hazardous waste collection day –Marina operator workshop –Signs, brochures (boaters, campers, day users, home owners)

13. 13 City of Anaheim/ Orange County Water District Purpose: “Establish Public/ Private/ Community partnership to protect public health through a proactive process to prevent groundwater contamination”

14. 14 Anaheim - Background Began in 1993 – Pre-DWSAP Local Groundwater Protection Pilot Program Population = 290,000 29 wells providing more than 2/3 of water supply 6 GW basins recharged by OCWD through an elaborate system 8 wells out of service: –4 Nitrates –2 Benzene –2 Chlorinated hydrocarbons

15. 15 Anaheim – Project Objectives Establish Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Select Pilot Project Area Delineate Capture Zones Identify Potential Pollution Sources Manage Potential Pollution Sources Prepare a Contingency Plan Implement Public and Industry Public Education and Participation Program

16. 16 Anaheim – TAC City of Anaheim Orange County Water District Orange County Environmental Health Orange County Environmental Management DHS Regional Water Quality Control Board Dept. of Toxics Substances Control EPA Region IX

17. 17 Anaheim - Delineation Done by OCWD Used QuickFlow groundwater model Defined capture zones for wells in project area

18. 18 Anaheim – PCA Checklist Did not have DWSAP checklists Identified chlorinated solvents as primary contaminant of concern Collected data from a variety of sources –Amount of data was overwhelming Developed a list of 1,000 businesses Narrowed list to those associated with chlorinated solvents in protection areas

19. 19 Anaheim – Field Inspections Inspected facilities from list Used a checklist to verify: –Type of activity –Regulatory status –Presence of Class V UIC wells underground injection wells shallow disposal wells –Materials handled or stored –Underground storage tanks –Presence, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials

20. 20 Anaheim – Vulnerability Analysis Using information from databases and field inspections, did a risk assessment to rank the facilities Considered: –Presence in zone –Presence of Class V well –Presence and quantity of chlorinated solvents –Presence and status of UST –Presence and compliance of hazardous materials –Presence and compliance of hazardous waste –Industrial discharge compliance

21. 21 Anaheim – Well Identification Project Goals: –Verify the existence, location, and condition of “unknown status” wells within project area –Determine if wells were potential source of groundwater pollution –Use retired senior volunteers Results: –Enough volunteers (20) to do project throughout city –251 wells researched, 49 found, 17 possible findings, 10 additional wells found –245 volunteer hours

22. 22 Anaheim – Managing Pollution Sources Verify status of existing UST, industrial, and VOC cleanups in capture zones Prioritize inspections of facilities by risk assessment Provide compliance and technical assistance to businesses Identify if enforcement action necessary Develop public education and participation programs

23. 23 Anaheim – Education and Participation Industry –Business newsletters –Fact sheets –Technical libraries –Workshops –Groundwater Star program –Well construction and closure guidelines –Technical assistance

24. 24 Anaheim – Education and Participation

25. 25 Anaheim – Education and Participation Community –Bus shelter posters –Groundwater protection educational posters –Environmental First Aid Kit –Water Quality research project at high school –Water works summer reading program –Groundwater guardian program –Used oil recycling program –Speakers Bureau –Community events

26. 26 Orange County Water District – Current Activities Children’s Drinking Water Festival –7,000 students, teachers, volunteers, presenters –2-day event Sponsor of the Blue Planet Foundation Interactive water exhibit at Discovery Museum of Orange County

27. 27 Assessment and Protection Case Study

28. 28 Yosemite Valley Purpose: Another test of DWSAP procedures and demonstration of a federal/state partnership for SWP

29. 29 Yosemite Valley - Background Yosemite National Park –Total = 1,169 sq. miles –Undeveloped wilderness = 1,100 sq. miles –4 million visitors/year –1,500 – 3,000 employees of NPS and YCS Water Systems –21 public water systems –4 community systems, 17 non-community

30. 30 Yosemite Valley - Background Yosemite Valley Water System –Permanent Population = 2,500 –Visitors = 3.2 million/year –Service connections = 235 3 Wells –Confined aquifer of glacial porous media –Artesian conditions for most of year until late summer, early fall

31. 31 Yosemite Valley – Working Group National Park Service DHS EPA Region IX Concessionaire* Public Meeting –Counties –Other interested parties

32. 32 Yosemite - Delineation Zone B5 Zone A Buffer Zone Zone B10 Buffer Zone Zone B10

33. 33 Yosemite Valley – Assessment Tasks PCA Inventory –Done w/ field review and maps by DHS, NPS and EPA PBE Confined aquifer + Artesian = High Vulnerability –No contaminants detected –Historic gas stations –Known contaminant plumes

34. 34 Yosemite Valley - Protection Evaluation of current practices –NPS and YCS are already implementing most SWP activities we could recommend, due to other programs or planning Recommended public education –Get these messages across: “Yosemite Valley water is Naturally Protected From the Ground Up” “Fill up on Valley water before heading to back country”

35. 35 Yosemite Valley – Public Education Water Fountain with tap for filling water bottles Includes a source water protection message Installed at the Visitor Center Dedicated to the late John Clark, a Park Service employee who was instrumental in the project