PROTECTING OUR WATER - National …neha.org/sites/default/files/eh-topics/water-quality/Protecting...Mar 29, 2007 · ... Monroe County Health Department ... Indianapolis-Marion County

PROTECTING OUR WATER 1

PROTECTING OUR WATER:A Primer for Preventing

Pathogenic Contamination ofDrinking Water Sources

© 2007. The Groundwater Foundation.

2 PROTECTING OUR WATER

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This primer was written as a basic introduction to waterborne pathogens and how toprevent pathogenic contamination of drinking water sources. Much of this primer’s content wasdeveloped and tested for its educational value and usefulness during a series of workshops heldin 2006. The Groundwater Foundation would like to thank the following for their extremelyvaluable contributions to both the workshops and this primer.

Project SupportKaren Edwards, Project Officer, United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Groundwater and Drinking WaterClaire Reiss, Deputy Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Entity Risk

Institute

Project Advisory CommitteeMartin Allen, American Water Works Association Research FoundationStephen Edberg, Yale University of MedicineAnn Marie Gebhart, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.Jeffrey Griffiths, Tufts University School of MedicineBeth Hall, United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Ground Water and

Drinking WaterMarlin Kliewer, Gage County Planning and ZoningBob Kuzelka, University of Nebraska – Lincoln Environmental Studies ProgramKristina Mena, University of Texas – School of Public HealthJonathan Patz, University of Wisconsin – Nelson InstituteJoan Rose, Michigan State University - Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

WorkshopsHeld April 25,2006 in Chadron, NebraskaHost: Jason Moudry, Upper Niobrara White Natural Resources DistrictSpeakers: Deana Barger, Nebraska Department of Environmental QualityRobin Foulk, Nebraska Natural Resources Conservation ServiceJason Moudry, Upper Niobrara White Natural Resources DistrictDoug Woodbeck, Nebraska Health and Human Services

Held May 25, 2006 near Gretna, NebraskaHost: Rodney Verhoeff, Lower Platte River Corridor AllianceSpeakers: Deana Barger, Nebraska Department of Environmental QualityJim Harder, Nebraska Natural Resources Conservation ServiceEric Lee, Lincoln Water SystemRodney Verhoeff, Lower Platte River Corridor AllianceDoug Woodbeck, Nebraska Health and Human Services

Held June 19, 2006 in Manhattan, KansasHost: Abdu Durar, City of ManhattanSpeakers: Dr. George L. Marchin, Kansas State UniversityEthan Kloster, City of ManhattanDr. G. Morgan Powell, Kansas State University


Held August 8, 2006 in Springfield, MissouriHosts: Loring Bullard and Mike Kromrey, Watershed Committee of the OzarksSpeakers: Don Scott, Missouri Department of Natural ResourcesMike Kromrey, Watershed Committee of the Ozarks

Held September 27, 2006 in Attleboro, MassachusettsHosts: Clayton Commons, Rhode Island Department of Health and Kathleen Romero,

Massachusetts Department of Environmental ProtectionSpeakers: Gabrielle Belfit, Cape Cod CommissionMarc Cohen, Atlantic States Rural Water AssociationClayton Commons, Rhode Island Department of HealthG. Timothy Cranston, North Kingstown Department of Water SupplyLorraine Joubert, University of Rhode Island Nonpoint Education for Municipal OfficialsRebekah McDermott, Massachusetts Rural Water AssociationVandana Rao, Executive Office of Environmental AffairsKathleen Romero, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

Held as part of the 2006 Groundwater Foundation Annual Conference in East Lansing,Michigan on November 2, 2006

Host: Ruth Kline-Robach, Michigan State University – Institute of Water ResourcesSpeakers: Morris Beaton, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region VJay Beaumont, Orange County Groundwater Guardian, NYElgar Brown, Michigan Department of Environmental QualityLee Drummond, Dayton Multi-Jurisdictional Wellfield Protection Program and

Groundwater Guardian, OHAnn Marie Gebhart, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.Rebecca Head, Monroe County Health DepartmentRuth Kline-Robach, Michigan State University – Institute of Water ResourcesDavid Lusch, Michigan State UniversityKristina Mena, University of Texas – School of Public Health

Groundwater Foundation StaffLori Davison, Database ManagerRachael Herpel, Community Programs DirectorJane Hogue, Administrative AssistantCindy Kreifels, Executive DirectorZoe McManaman, Events CoordinatorJamie Oltman, Program CoordinatorCarla Otredosky, Graphic DesignerDoug Sams, Financial Services AccountantSusan Seacrest, PresidentJennifer Wemhoff, Program Manager

This primer was produced with funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Officeof Ground Water and Drinking Water and the Public Entity Risk Institute.


PRIMER REVIEW

Ken Alkerton, Cambridge Groundwater Guardian, OntarioRhonda Artho, North Plains Groundwater Conservation District, TXChris Barnett, Indianapolis-Marion County Groundwater Guardian, INJames Beaumont, Orange County Groundwater Guardian, NYGabrielle Belfit, Cape Cod Commission /Barnstable County Groundwater Guardian, MAThomas Cambareri, Cape Cod Commission /Barnstable County

Groundwater Guardian, MASusan Carmichael, Washington County Groundwater Guardian, PAKaylene F. Carney, United States Geological Survey Iowa Water Science Center, IACatherine Chertudi, Boise Public Works Department/Boise Groundwater Guardian, IDJarrod Christen, Detroit Lakes Groundwater Guardian, MNBetty Conner, League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, Water Resources Education Network,

PALisa Corbitt, Mecklenburg County Groundwater and Wastewater Services, NCRobyn Doescher, Northern Regional Groundwater Protection Planning Committee, ILLee Drummond, Dayton Multi-Jurisdictional Wellfield Protection Program, OHJeremy Eschliman, Central District Health Department, NEKim Garrett, Mecklenberg County Groundwater Guardian Affiliate, NCJim Graham, Cambridge Groundwater Guardian, OntarioSherene Hess, League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, Water Resources Education Network,

PAJoan Jessen, Washington County Groundwater Guardian, PASteve Kelley, Beatrice Groundwater Guardian, NEJamie Lien, Atascadero Mutual Water Company/Atascadero Groundwater Guardian, CAWayne Madsen, Trenton Groundwater Guardian, NEArnold Mancl, Milladore Area Groundwater Guardian, WIEllis Marples, Pompton Lakes Groundwater Guardian Committee, NJKevin Masarik, Center for Watershed Science and Education, WIKimberly McSparran, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Groundwater Guardian, OHRoss Penhallegon, Lane County Water Quality Affiliate, OREnid Probst, Alabama Department of Environmental Management, ALTodd Risius, Cargill Pork Groundwater Guardian Affiliate, ARRuth Roth, Winnebago County Health Department, ILChris Schuett, Cambridge Groundwater Guardian, OntarioDave Smyth, Cambridge Groundwater Guardian, OntarioRobert Swanson, United States Geological Survey Nebraska Water Science Center, NEFrank Waksmunski, Carbon County Groundwater Guardian, PACarrie Wiese, Technical Consultant, NE


TABLE OF CONTENTS

page 7 1: Waterborne Pathogens:An Overview

page 9 2: How Do Pathogens Get IntoDrinking Water?

page 14 3: Identifying Potential Sourcesof Pathogens

page 17 4: Monitoring Land Use for PotentialSources of Pathogens

page 19 5: Preventing PathogenicContamination

page 32 6: Non-Community Water SystemPerspective and Case Study

page 38 7: Case Studies• Delaware River Watershed, KS• Greater Lansing Area, MI• Greene County, MO• Village of Hemingford, NE• Lincoln, NE• North Kingstown, RI

page 51 A: Waterborne Pathogens: “Bad Bug”Profiles• Campylobacter• Cryptosporidium• E. coli O157:H7• Giardia lamblia• Legionella• Noroviruses

page 57 B: For More Information

page 58 C: Endnotes



Waterborne: supported, carried, ortransmitted by water <waterborne diseases>.1Pathogen: a specific causative agent (as abacterium or virus) of disease.2

Despite modern advances in sanitation,waterborne pathogens still pose a threatto drinking water and recreationalwater in the United States. Large-scaleoutbreaks in recent history demonstratethis threat, from the MilwaukeeCryptosporidium outbreak of 1993,which made over 400,000 people ill,hospitalized over 4,000, and causedapproximately 100 deaths;3 to New YorkState’s Washington County Fair E. colioutbreak of 1999, which made hundredsill and killed two;4,5 to the South BassIsland, Ohio multi-pathogen outbreak of2004, which made over 1,400 people ill.6More recently, more than 88 attendees ofa Wyoming bible camp reported

gastrointestinal illness which has beenattributed to Campylobacter jejuni andnorovirus infections. Twenty familymembers of camp attendees also reportedillness.7

The purpose of this primer is to provideinformation on common waterbornepathogens, their sources, how theycontaminate water, and how to preventpathogenic contamination of drinkingwater sources. Individual communitycase studies are included to showcasestrategies for protecting sources ofdrinking water and lessons learned.

Waterborne pathogens can be brokeninto three primary groups: bacteria,parasites and viruses.8 While certainbacteria are pathogenic, it is importantto note that most bacteria do not causedisease. For more information about

WATERBORNE PATHOGENS:AN OVERVIEW1

A cluster of E. coli bacteria viewed through a microscope.


bacteria that do not cause disease, seeSection 6 of this primer.

Bacterium: (condensed) Round, spiral, orrod-shaped single-celled microorganisms thattypically live in soil, water, organic matter, or thebodies of plants and animals, and that are notedfor their biochemical effects and capacity to causedisease.9

Parasite: an organism living in, with, oron another organism in parasitism(Parasitism: an intimate associationbetween organisms of two or more kinds;especially : one in which a parasite obtainsbenefits from a host which it usually injures).10

Virus: a: the causative agent of an infectiousdisease, b: any of a large group of submicroscopicinfective agents that are regarded either asextremely simple microorganisms or as extremelycomplex molecules, that typically contain a proteincoat surrounding an RNA or DNA core ofgenetic material but no semipermeable membrane,

that are capable of growth and multiplication onlyin living cells, and that cause various importantdiseases in humans, lower animals, or plants.11

An official outbreak of waterbornedisease occurs when two or morepeople become ill and their illness islinked epidemiologically (by a medicalprofessional dedicated to determiningcausation of disease) to contact with, orespecially ingestion of, water.12

Since advances in sanitation, like thewidespread use of chlorine, waterborneillnesses have decreased significantly indeveloped countries. However, as the restof this primer will show, waterbornedisease is still a threat in the United States,albeit a very preventable one.

For more information about the mostcommon and noteworthy waterbornepathogens encountered in the UnitedStates, see Appendix A of this primer.

Modern advances in sanitation have improved drinkingwater quality and reduced the risks of waterborne

disease, however prevention remains a key ingredient.


Where do pathogens come from, andhow do they get into drinking water?Ultimately, the source of waterbornepathogens is almost always fecal matterfrom infected humans and animals,whether they are exhibiting symptomsof infection or not. Fecal matter cancome into contact with sources ofdrinking water in a surprising numberof ways, including direct excretion intosurface waters, raw sewage/combinedsewer overflow, septic systems, sewer lineleakage and livestock facility drainage.

Aside from wildlife contact with surfacewaters, all the sources of pathogeniccontamination discussed here can bemanaged so that they do not pose a threat.Methods for preventing contaminationwill be discussed in Section 5 of thisprimer.

Vulnerability of SurfaceWater

Surface water can become contaminatedwith fecal matter from both animalsand humans, especially when designatedfor recreational uses (e.g., swimming) orused as a watering source for livestock.Even when waters are not used forthese purposes, wildlife will be incontact with surface waters, and so willtheir fecal matter. Because surfacewater is open to the environment, itwill almost always be in contact withanimals and/or humans (and theirwaste) and is thus highly susceptible topathogenic contamination. It is alsoimportant to remember that surfacewater bodies supplied by other surfacewaters will reflect contamination that isoccurring upstream. Lakes, for

HOW DO PATHOGENS GET INTO

DRINKING WATER?2

Surface water can become contaminated with animal fecal matter andpathogens, especially when used as a watering source for livestock.


example, can harbor contamination thatoriginated in a stream higher in thewatershed.

Most public water systems using surfacewater in the United States are requiredto filter and all disinfect the water priorto distribution because of thevulnerability of surface water topathogenic contamination. Surfacewater systems can avoid filtration ifthey meet certain criteria includingmaintaining appropriate disinfection.While the majority of systems filter,there are a few large population centersthat use unfiltered water. 13

Perhaps the most famous outbreak ofwaterborne disease in the United Stateswas the result of a failure in the treatmentof surface water serving Milwaukee,Wisconsin in 1993. Over 400,000 peoplebecame ill during this outbreak ofCryptosporidiosis, and about 100 died.The City of Milwaukee draws its drinkingwater from Lake Michigan, after which thewater is processed for disinfection in oneof two treatment plants. Before andduring the outbreak, a change in thechemicals used for coagulation of certaincontaminants (Cryptosporidium being one ofthese) prior to filtration had failed,allowing Cryptosporidium oocysts to passthrough the filters and on into thedistribution system. The ultimate sourceof Cryptosporidium for Lake Michigan waslikely livestock and wildlife in the area, andwhen working properly, the Milwaukeetreatment plants remove this and othertypes of contaminants.14

For more information aboutCryptosporidium, see Appendix A:Waterborne Pathogens: “Bad Bug”Profiles.

Vulnerability of GroundwaterUnder the Direct Influence ofSurface Water

Groundwater under the direct influenceof surface water (GWI) is groundwaterlocated near enough to surface water, suchas a river or lake, to receive direct surfacewater recharge. Those groundwatersources most likely to be under the directinfluence of surface water are:

• Infiltration galleries and horizontalcollector wells located near surfacewaters.

• Poorly constructed springs.• Shallow wells located near surface

waters.15

GWI is more susceptible to pathogeniccontamination and most often identifiedby the:

• Significant occurrence of insects orother macroorganisms, algae orpathogens, such as Giardia lamblia.

• Significant and relatively rapid shiftsin water characteristics, such asturbidity and temperature.16

Because of GWI’s vulnerability topathogenic contamination, most publicwater systems using GWI in the UnitedStates are required to filter and all disinfectthe water prior to distribution.17

For more information about Giardialamblia, see Appendix A: WaterbornePathogens: “Bad Bug” Profiles.

Combined Sewer Overflow

Combined sewer overflow can contributesignificantly to pathogenic contamination.Combined sewers are those sewer systemsthat are connected with stormwatersystems (which drain urban areas toprevent flooding) before arriving at awastewater treatment plant. Whensignificant storm events occur and theamount of stormwater entering the sewer


increases, the combined sewer system hasa higher potential to overflow, in whichcase raw sewage also overflows and canthen be directed into waterways untreated.The United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency estimated in 1997 that20% of the U.S. population is served bycombined sewers.18,19 For a map illustratingthe locations of cities with combinedsewers in the U.S., go online to http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/demo.cfm?program_id=5.

On-site WastewaterTreatment Systems

Septic systems and lagoons can also be asource of pathogens, primarily when theyare not functioning properly. Thesesystems are used to treat waste on-site,especially for individual homes in ruralareas where larger sewer systems andtreatment are not available. A septicsystem allows solid wastes to settle in atank and liquid wastes to be distributedinto a leachfield in the soil, where waste is

decomposed by soil organisms. A lagoon,which is a pond-like structure, usesbacteria to break down both solid andliquid waste.

There may be several reasons thattreatment in a septic system would fail andcould thus be a source of pathogeniccontamination, especially in groundwater.A septic system could be poorly designedor installed for the type of soil it is in; forexample, sandy soils are generally a poorchoice for placement of a septic system.Sandy soils have large pore spaces throughwhich contaminants (including pathogens)may easily pass, rather than adhering to soilparticles where microorganisms andchemical reactions may render thecontaminants harmless (or less harmful).In addition, a high density of septicsystems (such as in rural acreagecommunities, lakeside communities,etc.) may lead to a high concentration ofwastewater in an area, surpassing thecapacity of the soil in that area to treat thewastewater.

Diagram of a septic system - the most common type of on-site wastewater treatment system.


An improperly maintained septic systemmay also lead to leakage of wastewaterwithout treatment. Septic tanks must beperiodically pumped to remove solid wastesto accommodate the collection ofadditional wastes. Failure to pump a septictank may lead to an overflow of solidwastes into the leachfield which clogs theleach lines so that liquid and solid wastebacks up in the system, overflowing intothe home and in some cases even rising tothe land’s surface.20,21 A failing septic systemcan be an even larger source of fecalcontamination than a wastewater treatmentplant, producing five to 150 millionmilligrams per liter of fecal effluent, ascompared to 26 to 68 million milligramsper liter from a properly functioningwastewater treatment plant.22

Septic systems were believed to have beenpart of the cause of the South Bass Island,Ohio gastrointestinal illness outbreak in thesummer of 2004, during which about 1,450visitors to the island became ill. Thehydrogeology of the area is poorly suitedfor septic systems, with soils being thin orabsent atop a karst setting. In karsthydrogeology, large fractures occur inlimestone and provide direct conduits togroundwater without the benefit of soilfiltration.23,24,25

A lagoon may be a source of pathogeniccontamination when it overflows due toflooding, or if it is improperly lined andthus allows excess seepage intounderlying soils. As with septic systems,proper siting, construction andmaintenance can help to eliminate thepotential for contamination.

Centralized WastewaterTreatment Systems

Although centralized wastewatertreatment system, or sanitary sewer,lines are designed to keep sewage awayfrom drinking water sources anddistribution systems, leaks maysometimes occur. These leaks can be asource of contamination. Sewer linesmay become compromised when thefoundation (surrounding soil) is madeunstable due to flooding, soil slippage,freeze/thaw action and from tree rootinvasion or seismic activity. Aged andcorroded pipes may be especiallysusceptible to damage. When leakingsewer lines are located deepunderground, below the soil zone wheremicroorganisms and chemical reactionsmay assist in removing contaminants,pathogen-laden sewage may even entergroundwater directly.26,27

Improperly managed livestock facilities, like thisswine feedlot, may contribute pathogeniccontamination to drinking water sources.


Livestock

Areas where livestock are kept, whetherthey are feedlots, pastures, or temporaryholding facilities, can also be sources ofpathogenic contamination. An outbreakof E. coli in recent history demonstratesthis. During the summer of 1999, 921people were infected with E. coli at theWashington County Fair in New York.Eleven of these people developedhemolytic uremic syndrome, and twodied.28 The source of E. coli in this casewas manure piled outside a barn wherecattle were kept during the fair. A heavyrain fell, washing manure away from thebarn and into a shallow (20 feet deep) welllocated 83 feet away. Two days after therain, the two patients that died from theirinfections visited the fair and consumeddrinks and food from the same vendor,which was served by the contaminatedwell.29

For information on confined animalfeeding operations (CAFOs), seeSection 5: Preventing Pathogenic Contaminaion.For more information about E.coli, seeAppendix A: Waterborne Pathogens: “BadBug” Profiles.

Other Sources

Because pathogens can exist in the fecalmatter of many different kinds ofanimals, as well as humans, there areother potential sources that should beconsidered, including:

• Pet waste, especially in areas wherethis may be concentrated such asexercise areas or boarding kennels.

• Fields where manure or sewagesludge is applied as fertilizer.

• Camping areas with primitive toilets.

Even outhouses can contribute to pathogeniccontamination.

As stated earlier, aside from wildlifecontact with surface waters, all the sourcesof pathogenic contamination discussedhere can be managed so that they do notpose a threat. Methods for preventingcontamination will be discussed in Section5 of this primer.


Knowing whether or not your source ofdrinking water is vulnerable topathogenic contamination starts withidentifying potential sources ofpathogens in your area. Public watersystems may identify these potentialsources of pathogens by examining andfield-verifying their sanitary surveysand source water assessments.

As a condition of managing a drinkingwater program, states must have asanitary survey program and complete asanitary survey at least every five years forall surface water systems and groundwatersystems that are under the direct influenceof surface water. The Ground Water Ruleextends these requirements togroundwater systems. States mustcomplete their initial round of sanitarysurveys for most community watersystems using groundwater by December31, 2012. 30 For more information aboutthe Ground Water Rule, see Section 6 ofthis primer.

Sanitary Surveys

Sanitary surveys are regularlyconducted by state agencies (oftenhealth departments) to evaluate theability of a water system to consistentlyprovide safe drinking water to theircustomers and verify the system’scompliance with federal regulations.The sanitary survey is thereforedesigned to identify contaminationthreats to the drinking water system,whether these threats exist in the sourcewater area or in the distribution system.31

The agency conducting the sanitarysurvey either conducts the survey withthe operator of the water system

present, or reports their findings to thewater system. In cases where the systemoperator was not present for the survey, itmay be necessary to field-verify thefindings of the sanitary survey, especiallyto note any potential sources ofcontamination that may have been missed.

Source Water Assessments

Source water assessments also offer basicinformation about the source providingraw water to a public water system, butdiffer in that assessment informationincludes a description and/or map of thehydrologic area from which source water is

drawn, an inventory of potential sourcesof contamination, and a determination ofhow vulnerable the source area is topotential contamination sources. Thesource water area is often shown as a landsurface delineation of the groundwaterbody from which water is drawn, or as thedelineated watershed contributing to abody of surface water.32

All public water systems have a sourcewater assessment completed by a stateagency or other assistance organization,and are required to make source waterassessments available for public review, as

IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL SOURCES

OF PATHOGENS3

A source water area map identifies land that islinked to water supplies (groundwater or surface

water).


well as disclose information about thesource water assessment’s findings in theannual consumer confidence report madeavailable to customers. Post 9/11 securityconcerns sometimes make obtaining acomplete copy of a system’s sourcewater assessment difficult; nevertheless,understanding the information containedin the assessment is critical to anyprotection effort. Persistance, along withmaking one’s intentions clear, can helpmake sure the assessment is available.

Field-verifying the information in sourcewater assessments is also important, as theagency conducting the assessment may nothave been familiar with past (butpertinent) activity in the area, or may haveconsulted a state database by mailingaddress and therefore may have includedinformation on potential threats that areactually not present inside the sourcewater area. The source water assessmentis the primary source of information onthe area from which source water isdrawn, so field-verification need onlyhappen in this area.

Reviewing andField-verifying Sanitary Surveysand Source Water Assessments

Potential sources of pathogeniccontamination to be aware of whenreviewing, updating and/or field-verifyingsource water assessments and sanitarysurveys include on-site wastewatertreatment systems, wastewater treatmentplants, livestock feeding facilities, areas ofhigh concentration of wildlife, etc.Basically, any activity where contact withfecal matter of any sort is possible orprobable should be included. It is alsoimportant to note that historical activity inthe area may be relevant; for example, anow-inactive animal feeding area maycontribute pathogenic (and other)contamination to source water as soils dryand become cracked, providing moredirect surface runoff conduits to the watertable.

Recording potential sources ofpathogens can be as simple as writingdown observations on a notepad, or as

Recording potential sources of pathogens can be as easy as trackingobservations in a notebook or as technically-advanced as using a handheld GPS

unit and GIS mapping software.


technologically-advanced as using a GlobalPositioning System (GPS) receiver to markthose areas and load them into aGeographic Information System (GIS).Individual communities will operate ondifferent budgets, which may limit the useof GPS receivers and a GIS program, butinformation can be recorded and trackedwithout them.

Some simple steps to field-verify sanitarysurveys and source water assessments are:

• Identify the delineated source waterarea on a map. This informationshould be available from the watersystem, local government or statedrinking water program.

• Develop a team of people from thecommunity to assist with theinventory, such as communityleaders, city employees, seniorcitizens, high school students, andanyone else who can serve ashistorians on the area.

• Walk or drive through delineatedsource water areas to determinewhich sources may have beenoverlooked by sanitary surveys andsource water assessments, andverify that the sources listed in those

Using technological tools to conduct a source water assessment.

documents are within the sourcewater area.

• Consider including more detailedsurveys of each property in thearea, such as for individualfarmsteads, wastewater treatmentfacilities, waste lagoons or anyother area that might pose apathogenic threat to source water.

• Establish a current database ofinformation on the drinking waterwell(s) and potential sources ofcontamination in the source waterarea and update it as changes occur.

• Establish a map, hand-drawn or usinga GIS, that shows accurate locationsof all potential contaminant sourceswithin the delineated source waterarea. This will help to identify whichthreats are more immediate (closer tothe well[s]) than others.

These steps can also be used moregenerally to identify potential sources ofother kinds of contamination, which ispart of the process of developing acomprehensive source water protectionplan.33

For more information about how tounderstand and use the informationprovided in a source water assessment:

• Source Water Stewardship: A Guideto Protecting a Restoring YourDrinking Water atwww.cleanwaterfund.org/sourcewater/guide.html

• Source Water Assessment andProtection Workshop Guide, SecondEdition at www.groundwater.org/gi/swap/swap.html.


Once an initial assessment of potentialsources of pathogens has beenperformed, it is important to keepupdating the assessment. A variety ofchanges in the source water area mayoccur that pose a pathogenic threat tothe source, and some of these changesmay be obvious while others may not.

Identify New PotentialSources

New potential sources would includethe introduction of livestock facilities,rural housing developments, etc. thatmay cause human or animal fecalmatter to enter the source.

A new livestock facility over a certainsize will usually be regulated by statesbecause of the large amounts of wastegenerated by them (check with yourstate’s department of environmental

quality or natural resources to find outhow large the facility has to be before itis regulated), but smaller, family farm-sized livestock facilities may not fallunder waste management regulations.Regulated facilities may be required toimplement waste management plans tominimize contamination threats whileunregulated facilities will not fall underthese requirements, so the threat ofcontamination may not be directlyrelated to the size of the facility. Also,the addition of a new facility largeenough to be regulated will often bequite obvious, while a smaller, family-operated facility may not be.

New housing developments, especiallywhere sanitary sewers and centralizedwastewater treatment are not available,are also important to assess. Often,rural housing developments will include

MONITORING LAND USE FOR

POTENTIAL SOURCES OF PATHOGENS4New housing developments, especially where sanitary sewers and centralized wastewater treatment

are not available, are important to assess as potential souces of pathogenic contamination.


septic systems at each home; areas with aconcentrated number of septic systems aresusceptible to pathogenic contamination,especially when these systems are notproperly maintained. The soil andgeologic conditions of the area are alsoimportant to understand, as illustrated inthe example of South Bass Island inSection 2 of this primer.

Monitor Changes In ExistingConditions

Changes in existing conditions, such asthe closure of a livestock facility or anaccidental discharge from a wastetreatment system, are also important towatch for.

For example, if a livestock facilitycloses, the likelihood of pathogeniccontamination of groundwater from thatfacility may actually increase. Whileanimals are kept in outdoor pens, the soilstend to be continuously compacted due tothe tread of animal hooves, and keptcontinuously moist due to animalexcretion. When these areas areabandoned, the soils may dry out anddesiccation cracks may form, providing amore direct conduit from the ground’ssurface to groundwater, through whichpathogens in the upper layers of soilmay enter.

Conversely, the abandonment of such afacility may also represent a lessenedthreat to surface waters. Vegetationmay sprout in the absence of soilcompaction, creating a “roughening” ofthe surface that will slow runoff, thusreducing the amount of runoff reachingnearby surface waters.

Accidental discharges of human andanimal waste from septic systems, sewerlines, waste lagoons and similar systems

do happen. Sometimes, these dischargesmay be quite obvious as odors, wastewaterstreams or repairs to failing systems can bereadily observed. However, a single failingseptic system may not be quite as obvious.

Build Relationships WithFacility Managers and LandOwners

While it might not be possible to be awareof all new or changing facilities within asource water area, a friendly rapport withlandowners or officials of cities withfacilities in the source water area can helplandowners and officials feel comfortablesharing information. This can beespecially important when an accidentaldischarge does happen.

One way to begin building a friendlyrapport is to simply make stakeholdersin the area aware of your efforts toidentify potential sources of pathogeniccontamination, and to share theinformation you have gathered. Sincethese stakeholders likely obtain theirdrinking water from the same area, it isalso important for them to understandthe potential sources of contamination.

New facilities and changes in existingconditions may occur at any time andthere is a large range of possible sourcesof pathogenic contamination. Again,the main idea is to be aware of any newpotential source or any change in existingpotential sources involving human oranimal waste, especially if these new orchanging facilities pose a greater threat todischarge fecal matter. Refer often to yourdatabase of potential sources ofcontamination (discussed in Section 3),examine each listed source for changes,and add to the database as new potentialsources emerge.


Although many pathogens can be safelyremoved from drinking water bydisinfection, preventing thecontamination from occurring in thefirst place is key to keeping treatmentcosts low. Some systems may even beable to avoid disinfection if they are ableto sufficiently prevent pathogeniccontamination from occurring.Preventing pathogenic contaminationconsists of maintaining separation betweensource water and pathogen sources (whenpossible), using best practices tosuccessfully manage human and animalwaste in the source water area, andpreventing contaminated runoff fromentering source water.

Maintaining SeparationBetween Source Water andPathogen Sources

Perhaps the most obvious way to preventpathogenic contamination in source wateris to simply keep source water away fromsources of pathogenic contamination, andvice versa.

Groundwater usually flows in a particulardirection or gradient as it intercepts thewell. For groundwater users, this meansthat wells should be located up-gradient(ususally upstream or uphill) of anypotential source of contamination. Thatway, the water is captured by the wellbefore it can become contaminated.Setback areas can also be used to maintaina safe distance between a well and apotential contamination source. For

PREVENTING PATHOGENIC

CONTAMINATION5Keeping livestock out of surface water bodies can prevent pathogenic contamination.


suggestions and regulations on setbackdistances, contact your state department ofhealth or environmental quality.

For surface water users, this may be muchmore difficult. Bearing in mind that part ofthe source of water for any surface waterbody is a great distance away (i.e. at the“top” of the watershed), it may even beimpossible. The best choices for locatingsurface water intakes are downstream ofthose portions of a watershed where littleto no urban or rural development hasoccurred.

Surface water users may also help tokeep pathogenic contamination fromoccurring in the immediate area byinstalling fences around the water source.Even simple, proactive actions like fencingwill help keep large animals out of the area,and prevent their feces from directlyentering the water.

Since most water systems cannot afford topurchase all the land in their source waterarea (and thus, have complete control overwhat occurs on that land), keeping sourcesof pathogens away from drinking water

sources often involves land use planning,zoning and legislative action. For example,North Carolina enacted legislation thatallows counties to adopt zoning ordinancesto regulate swine facilities of a certain sizeor capacity, and Iowa enacted legislationthat allows counties to adopt stricterregulations (relating to confined animalfeeding operations or CAFOs) thanthose of the state. Often, zoningregulations do not outright prohibit theintroduction or expansion of a CAFO,but do set forth permitting processes orspecial conditions.34

Because it may be infeasible for bothsurface water and groundwater users tosite water sources away from sources ofpathogens entirely or to keep sources ofpathogenic contamination away fromsource water, the following managementstrategies may be used within the sourcewater area to prevent pathogeniccontamination.

Managing Waste

HUMAN WASTESOn-site treatment: When wastes areproperly managed on-site by septicsystems, lagoons and alternativesystems, the threat of pathogensentering source water is greatly reduced.

Septic tank and drain field maintenance:A septic tank/drain field system is themost common on-site wastewatertreatment system. Wastewater flowsthrough plumbing from the home to aseptic tank. Here, heavy materials settleto the bottom of the tank, while liquidsand suspended solids remain floating.Naturally occuring bacteria in sewagebegins to break down organic materials inthe wastewater in the septic tank. Fromhere, wastewater travels through a pipe to adrainfield, which is often a trench filledwith gravel and topped with soil. The

Septic systems can become damaged, allowinghazardous wastewater to leak.


effluent seeps through the gravel and intothe soil, where it is treated by more bacteriain the soil, reducing the concentrations ofnutrients like nitrogen and phosphorousand killing some pathogens. The soilssurrounding the drainfield are quiteimportant to the system’s functioningability, and the size of the drainfield isdetermined by the amount of wastewatermoving through the system.35

Septic system maintenance involves regularpumping of the tank, water conservation,minimizing solids and hazardous materialsin the waste stream, allowing the system towork naturally and protecting the drainfield.

Many experts recommend pumping aseptic tank every two to three years,though the number of people living in thehome, water usage and whether a garbagedisposal is used may cause the tank toreach capacity more or less frequently.To be safe, the septic tank should beinspected annually and pumped when theinspector deems it is necessary.

Conserving water and spreading out waterusage can also help prevent septic systemfailure. Except immediately after a tank hasbeen pumped, it is full of wastewater atall times. To allow solids to settle andthus prevent clogging of leach lines,wastewater should stay in the tank for atleast 24 hours. Conserving water andspreading out water usage, such aswashing one or two loads of laundry aday (instead of three or more), installinglow-flow water fixtures, taking shortshowers, and turning off faucets whenbrushing teeth or shaving, can helpmaintain a balanced flow of wastewaterthrough the septic system and preventclogged leach lines.

Minimizing solids and hazardous materialsin the waste stream is also important to

properly maintaining a septic system,especially concerning those items that maydamage the ability of the system to processwastewater. Items not to flush, wash downthe drain or otherwise put into the septicsystem include: cigarettes, diapers, femininehygiene products, paper towels, facial tissue,grease, oils, pesticides, paints, thinners,

solvents and medications. Minimizing foodwastes and powdered detergents can help toreduce solid waste in the septic tank, andminimizing the use of harsh cleaningproducts, including bleach, can help preventdamage to the bacterial population in thesoil that breaks down septic systemeffluent. To further minimize solids in thewaste stream and drainfield, install a filteron the washing machine discharge line totrap lint, and install an effluent filter at theseptic tank’s outlet.

Experts also recommend letting the systemwork naturally. Septic system starters,additives or feeders can actually causematerials to remain suspended in

Cigarettes, diapers, feminine hygiene products,paper towels, facial tissue, grease, oils, pesticides,paints, solvents, thinners, and medications shouldnot be flushed into a septic system.


wastewater and clog the drainfield;therefore their use is not recommended.

To ensure the function of the drainfield, itshould not be inundated with water, norshould its structural integrity becompromised, damaged or threatened.Water from roofs, downspouts and anyother surface water runoff should bedirected away from the drainfield, andunderground lawn sprinklers should notbe operated in the drainfield. Vehicles andagricultural equipment, animal confinementunits, driveways, sidewalks and buildingsshould be kept off of the drainfield, andtrees and other deep-rooting plants shouldnot be planted within five feet of thedrainfield. Rodents and other burrowinganimals should also be kept out of thearea.36

Sewage lagoon maintenance: Sewage lagoonsare an alternative for on-site wastewatertreatment when soils are not properlysuited to a septic tank/drainfield system.Wastewater goes through plumbing to the

lagoon where algae and bacteria breakdown the waste. Similar to a septic tank,heavy solids settle to the bottom of thelagoon while fluids and suspended solidsremain floating. Water evaporates fromthe lagoon, and some seepage from thelagoon into surrounding soils issometimes allowed by state health andenvironmental agencies.37

Sewage lagoon maintenance includestasks that must be performed at leastmonthly, as well as tasks that may beperformed less frequently. Monthlytasks include checking and repairinglagoon structure, managing vegetationaround and in the lagoon, observing thelagoon water’s color and monitoring andmanaging the water level. Less frequentmaintenance tasks include checking thedepth of sludge, repairing leaks or seeps,removing sludge and, when necessary,properly closing the lagoon.

Checking lagoon structure includeschecking both the fence around the

Properly managing wastewater lagoons is an important factor in preventing pathogenic contamination.


lagoon (if one is present) and the lagoonitself. The fence should not have any holesor gaps that would allow children oranimals into the immediate lagoon area, andany existing holes or gaps should berepaired immediately. The lagoon dike (themound surrounding the lagoon) should bethe same height and shape as when built,and any erosion or damage should be filled,compacted, leveled and reseeded with aperennial grass.

Managing vegetation around the lagoonincludes maintaining grass height insidethe dike to no more than six inches(taller vegetation will inhibit aircirculation), preferably around threeinches, and removing the grass clippingsfrom the site. A vigorous perennial grass isthe best vegetation to surround a lagoon.Grass outside the dike may be allowed to bea taller height than grass inside the dike, butshould still be no taller than six inches.

Trees and woody plants taller than the dikeshould not be growing within 50 feet of thedike, as these will restrict air flow, and rootaction could damage the structure of thedike. Vegetation other than perennialgrass should not be allowed to growalong lagoon edges. If the plants are tooestablished to pull, applying a pesticidethat will not harm algae is an option, butit should be applied with a wick directlyto the plant and not broadcast sprayed asthis may allow the chemical to get intothe water, where it can damage algae andbacteria. Floating plants should not beallowed to grow inside the lagoon, asthese will restrict the establishment ofalgae. These plants may be physicallyremoved or treated with a herbicidespecifically designed for them; again, bemindful not to harm the algae.

The lagoon water’s color is a good indicatorof lagoon health because the color is

Testing the efficiency of an animal waste lagoonconstructed with a preventative geo-textile fabric liner.


directly related to the pH of the water, aswell as dissolved oxygen levels. A bright,rich green color indicates a healthy lagoonwith plenty of green algae. A dull green oryellowish color indicates that an undesirabletype of algae has become dominant,indicating poor treatment conditions. Atan, brown or red color indicates that soilcould be entering the water from bankerosion or that undesirable algae havebecome dominant. A gray or blackcolor indicates that anaerobic conditionsmay exist, so the lagoon is not effectivelytreating wastewater; often, odor will alsobe present in these conditions.Monitoring and managing the water levelprovides information for lagoon operation,documents changes and trends, andprovides a record in the event of aproblem. The best water depth at which tooperate a lagoon is two to five feet. Whenthe lagoon is approaching the five-foot

depth, divert or shut off supplementalwater.

Checking the depth of sludge can bedone by wrapping a towel around theend of a stick and lowering the stick intothe water, preferably near the center of

the lagoon and always at the same place,and should be done annually. After afew moments, remove the stick slowly;solids clinging to the towel will show thesludge level and the water depth will bemarked on the towel or the stick. Thereshould be at least eighteen inchesbetween the sludge level and the watersurface level. If the sludge layer becomescloser to the surface than this, have aseptage contractor remove a few loads ofsludge from the bottom of the lagoon.Sludge can then be disposed of at a localwastewater treatment facility, or land-applied according to federal regulations,if allowed by local authorities.

Occasionally, the dike may leak due tofaulty construction, erosion or damagefrom vegetation or animals. Any leakmust be stopped by repairing the dikeand/or sealing the lagoon’s insidesurface. If the lagoon should becomedry, have a contractor remove sludgefrom inside the lagoon and rework theseal material in the liner to fill anycracks.

If the lagoon should stop functioningproperly, become damaged beyondrepair, or needs to be abandoned for anyother reason, all liquids should bedrained. All settled solids and linermaterial should also be removed and allwaste should be disposed of at a localwastewater treatment facility or, ifallowed, land-applied. The lagoon basinshould then be filled with soil, whichshould be mounded to allow for settling.38

Alternative on-site treatment systems:In some areas, a septic tank/drainfieldsystem or lagoon may not beappropriate. Some alternative systemsinclude:

• Septic tank/pressure dosing• Septic tank/mound system

A bright, rich green color indicates ahealthy lagoon with plenty of green algae.


• Septic tank/gravelless system• Septic tank/constructed wetland• Septic tank/evapo-transpiration

system• Septic tank/sand filter• Aerobic unit or aerated tank• Holding tank• Waterless toilets

Septic tank/pressure dosing: Pressuredosing may be required when a longdrainfield (e.g., more than 500 feet) isneeded to treat wastewater. Effluent ispumped out of a dosing chamber(following the septic tank) at regularintervals, which forces wastewateralong the entire line of drainfield,helping to make distribution moreuniform. Maintenance of this type ofsystem would be similar to that of atraditional septic tank/drainfieldsystem.

Septic tank/mound system: Moundsystems can be used when the water

table is too close to the surface for adrainfield to not be inundated, or soilconditions are such that percolation istoo slow for wastewater treatment. Theseptic tank effluent is pumped into amound above the ground’s surface, which iscomposed of materials that will provideproper treatment. Maintenance for thistype of system would be similar to that of atraditional septic tank/drainfield system.

Septic tank/gravelless system: A gravellesssystem functions the same as a traditionalseptic tank/drainfield system, with theexception that the trenches in the drainfieldare not filled with gravel. Instead,perforated pipes are surrounded by a filterfabric and effluent drains into the soildirectly from these pipes. Often, thesesystems are easier to install because oftheir lighter components, and may evenhave a greater storage capacity.Maintenance for this type of system wouldbe similar to that of a traditionial septictank/drainfield system.

Proper maintenance can extend the life of a septic system, preventing the inconvenience and cost ofinstalling a new system (as seen here), as well as preventing pathogenic contamination.


Septic tank/constructed wetland: A septicsystem with a constructed wetland canbe an aesthetically pleasing alternative toa traditional septic tank/drainfieldsystem. Effluent discharges from theseptic tank into the wetland, which isplanted with cattails, reeds and otheraquatic plants that remove or take upnutrients and other contaminants, alongwith suitable soils and a natural microbecommunity. Effluent then flows out ofthe wetland into a drainfield or polishingpond where treatment and evaporationcontinue to occur. Maintenance wouldbe similar to that of a traditional septictank/drainfield system, but includingmaintenance of wetland plants. Inaddition, if the wetland discharges tosurface water, the owner will need toobtain a permit through the NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES), which is administered by theU.S. EPA and state agencies.

Septic tank/evapo-transpiration (ET) system: Thistype of system uses evaporation from soiland transpiration from plants to treatwastewater, and can be used in dry climateswhere precipitation does not exceedevaporation and transpiration rates. In thissystem, effluent flows out of the tank and

into the ET bed which consists ofperforated pipes in a crushed stone bed,which is covered with a shallow layer oftopsoil planted with water-tolerantvegetation. Maintenance for this type ofsystem would be similar to that of atraditional septic tank/drainfield system,including maintenance of water-tolerantvegetation.

Septic tank/sand filter: Sand filters can beused as a second step in on-sitewastewater treatment (after the primarytreatment in the septic tank) when aseptic tank/drainfield system has failedor is restricted due to a high water table,shallow bedrock, inadequate soils orother similar conditions. A sand filterconsists of a watertight box, usuallylined with plastic or concrete, filled withsand material. Effluent from the septictank is pumped in small doses into thefilter box and distributed evenly over thetop of the sand filter. Wastewater iscollected at the bottom of the filter afterit has trickled through the sand and isthen taken to an effluent treatmentsystem. If the wastewater is dischargedto surface water, the owner will need toobtain a NPDES permit. Maintenancefor this type of system will be similar tothat of a traditional septic tank/drainfield system.

Aerobic unit or aerated tank: These unitsuse aerobic digestion, which breaksdown wastes with bacteria in thepresence of oxygen, as opposed to theseptic system, which is anaerobic. Inthis type of treatment, waste flows into atank where an air compressor bubbles airthrough the wastewater, or a pump orstirring device introduces air. Aftertreatment in the tank, effluent flows into adrainfield, mound system, subsurface dripirrigation system, or some other type of

A constructed wetland can provide an alternativein areas where traditional septic systems are

ineffective.


effluent treatment before being releasedinto the environment. Maintenance of thistype of system will be more expensive thana septic system because this system usesmechanical parts and energy.

Holding tank: A holding tank is anoption for homes where conditions arenot proper for septic systems, lagoons oraerobic units. Quite simply, waste ispumped into a holding tank, which has tobe pumped out periodically. One personuses, on average, 75 gallons of water perday, so a home may require a rather largeholding tank, or have the tank pumpedfrequently. Maintenance involves assuringthe tank is not leaking, as well as thecontinual hiring of a contractor to pumpout and haul away the waste.

Waterless toilets: Composting andincinerator toilets are two types ofwaterless toilets. These can be usefulwhen water supplies are low, or when ahomeowner wants to reduce thequantity and/or improve the quality ofwastewater that does require treatment.In composting toilets, heat produced bybacterial activity will drive off excessmoisture and reduce waste to about 5-10% of its original volume. Compostingproduces a residue that may be disposedof in a trash bin or garden, if it is permittedby local health departments. Incineratortoilets use energy to burn waste andreduce it to sterile ash. The ash boxmust be emptied periodically. Both ofthese types of waterless toilets doproduce some odor and will consumeenergy either for burning or for ventingodor and gases.39

Human wastes - centralized wastewatertreatment systems: The proper operationand maintenance of wastewater treatmentplants and their transmission systems(including sewer lines) are critical to

preventing the pathogenic contaminationof source waters in areas where they areboth present. While the average persondoes not get involved in the operations andmaintenance of a wastewater treatmentsystem, the average person can do theirpart by recognizing the value of properoperation and maintenance of thesefacilities. Public support is critical,especially when proper operation andmaintenance leads to higher utility bills.Recalling the potential for pathogeniccontamination during combined seweroverflows, this is especially importantwhen a municipality is updating itscombined sewer system to separatestormwater and sanitary sewer lines.

ANIMAL WASTESManaging animal wastes includes managingwaste from livestock, pets and wildlife.

Livestock waste - Confined AnimalFeeding Operations (CAFOs): Livestockoperations larger than a defined size aregoverned under the U.S. EPA’s CAFO Rule.According to U.S. EPA regulations, theseoperations include those that confineanimals for at least 45 days in a 12-monthperiod, have no grass or other vegetation inthe confinement area during the normalgrowing season, and that have at least oneof the following:

• 200 to 699 mature dairy cows,whether milked or dry;

• 300 to 999 veal calves;• 300 to 999 cattle other than mature

dairy cows or veal calves. (Cattleincludes but is not limited to heifers,steers, bulls and cow/calf pairs.);

• 750 to 2,499 swine each weighing 55pounds or more;

• 3,000 to 9,999 swine each weighingless than 55 pounds;

• 150 to 499 horses;• 3,000 to 9,999 sheep or lambs;• 16,500 to 54,999 turkeys;


• 9,000 to 29,999 laying hens or broilers,if the CAFO uses a liquid manurehandling system;

• 37,500 to 124,999 chickens (otherthan laying hens), if the CAFO usesother than a liquid manure handlingsystem;

• 25,000 to 81,999 laying hens, if theCAFO uses other than a liquidmanure handling system;

• 10,000 to 29,999 ducks, if the CAFOuses other than a liquid manurehandling system; or

• 1,500 to 4,999 ducks, if the CAFOuses a liquid manure handlingsystem.

The above capacities apply to operationswhere pollutants are discharged intowaters of the United States either directly(because a water body comes into directcontact with the animals confined in theoperation) or through a man-made devicesuch as a ditch or flushing system.Operations with greater numbers ofanimals than those listed above areconsidered CAFOs, regardless of their

contact with waters of the United States.Also, states may individually regulatelivestock facilities. Facilities that fallunder state or federal regulations aremanaged under the NPDES to minimizetheir waste effluent stream. Managers ofthese facilities are responsible for adheringto state and federal rules for wastemanagement.40

It is important to recognize that while alivestock facility may fall under state orfederal regulations, accidents may stillhappen during which livestock wastecontaining pathogens is discharged intothe environment. Building a friendlyrapport with facility owners and managersin the area will help those individuals feelcomfortable in sharing accidentinformation so that the potential threat todrinking water supplies may be assessed.

Livestock waste - small operations:Some facilities will, of course, not fallunder state or federal regulations and sowill not be required by law to follow anyspecific waste management techniques.

Managing animal waste is an important step in preventing pathogenic contamination of water supplies.


However, several waste managementtechniques can still be effective in reducingor eliminating the threat of pathogeniccontamination in the areas surroundingthese facilities.

Even a small number of animals (a fewcattle or a horse) can produce enoughwaste to be a problem if runoff is notmanaged, especially in an area wherestormwater runoff may wash feces intosources of drinking water. Divertingstormwater from animal pens or manurepiles is therefore an important managementpractice. Construction of stormwaterdiversion dikes upslope of animal holdingareas decreases the amount of stormwaterentering those areas. Managing manurecollection piles is also important. Thesepiles should not be placed in the path ofstormwater runoff, and can instead becomposted to produce a valuable soilconditioner.41

Pet Waste: There are approximately 65million dogs and 77.6 million cats ownedin the United States. Over a third (39%)of U.S. homes have at least one dog, andabout a third (34%) have at least one cat.42

Outdoor pet waste can be washed intostorm sewers and then into nearby streamsor shallow water tables, thus contaminatingwater sources. The sheer number of thesepets in the U.S. indicates that managing petwaste, especially in urban areas wherepet populations are concentrated, isimportant to preventing pathogeniccontamination.

Many municipalities have adoptedordinances requiring pet owners to pickup their pet’s waste outside. Regardlessof the adoption of an ordinance in yourarea, managing outdoor pet waste can beas simple as picking up waste in a bag orscoop and depositing it in an outdoortrash can. Waste digestion devices are

available which may be installed in theground in your yard, allowing pet wasteto be converted into organic matter andabsorbed into the soil.43 Pet owners mayalso manage waste by not allowing theirpets to roam outside, unsupervised. Somemunicipalities also have ordinances for this.

Preventing ContaminatedRunoff From Entering SourceWater

Sometimes even managing wastes on-sitedoes not prevent contaminants fromleaving the site, so preventing runoff, whichmay contain pathogenic contaminants,from entering source water is essentially thelast step to preventing pathogeniccontamination.

Rural prevention - riparian buffers andfilter strips: In agricultural settings,preventing runoff from entering sourcewater is largely a matter of plantingvegetative buffers. Riparian buffers areplanted parallel to streams to providerunoff interception, bank stabilization,aesthetic qualities and possibly evengovernment payments to landownersthrough cost-share programs. Riparianbuffers also provide wildlife habitat, whichcan contribute to pathogenic contaminationif not properly managed.

Pet waste is a frequently overlookedsource of pathogenic contamination.


Installing a riparian buffer involvesremoval of existing weeds and managingweed growth, especially while grasses arebeing established. The buffer shouldinclude trees, shrubs and grasses. Treesand shrubs can be planted by hand or bymachine, while grass seeds should beplanted by drilling or by broadcasting theseeds and incorporating them with lighttillage. In periods of dry weather, thebuffer plants will need to be watered,especially the trees during the first fewyears. Generally, deep and less frequentwatering is better for plant establishmentthan shallow and more frequentwatering.

It is also important to control wildlifedamage, especially to trees. Trees can beprotected by installing plastic or woven-wirecylinders around their bottoms, and fencingaround the buffer perimeter can be an

effective means of protecting the entirebuffer from deer. There are also variousforms of repellents that may be sprayed tokeep wildlife away from trees.44 Wildlifemay also be kept out of buffers throughharassment tactics, such as the presence ofpredator decoys, noisemakers andscarecrows, or even a daily human presence.Pruning trees to reduce bird roosting,reducing or eliminating palatable plantspecies (when possible) and removingtrash from the area are also effectivemeans of discouraging wildlifeoccupation of the buffer.45

Filter strips are areas of close-growingvegetation on the gently sloped landsurfaces immediately bordering a surfacewater body. They work to hold soils inplace, allowing some infiltration, and filtersolid particles out of the runoff fromstorm events. Filter strips shouldinclude plants with dense root systems,preferably native species. Maintenanceincludes mowing and removal ofsediment build-up. Filter strips are mosteffective when the water flow is evenand shallow (which will happen whenthe water is slowed first by a riparianbuffer), and if the grass is allowed toregrow between rain events.

Urban prevention - stormwater management: Avariety of practices are available to hinderstormwater pollution. Some of the mostcommon practices include minimizingimpervious areas; structural controls suchas grassed swales, buffer strips, stormwaterponds, constructed wetlands, infiltrationbasins and trenches; and swirl-typeconcentrators.

Minimizing impervious areas, especiallythose that are directly connected to eachother, can be accomplished by directingrunoff from roofs, sidewalks and othersurfaces over grassed areas, as well as using

A riparian buffer (made of trees, shrubs and nativegrasses) prevents sediment, nitrogen,

phosphorus, pesticides, pathogens, and otherpollutants from reaching a stream.


porous pavements in parking lots. All ofthese practices encourage stormwater toinfiltrate into the ground rather than runoffinto nearby streams.

Grassed swales are shallow, vegetatedditches that slow runoff and reduce itsvolume entering local waterways.Vegetative cover and integrity is key;grassed swales should be regularly mowedand weeded. To function properly, theinflow to the swale should be from a filterstrip or impervious area, not from the endof a pipe.

Buffer strips (riparian buffers) and filterstrips are discussed previously, underRural prevention- riparian buffers andfilter strips and may also be used toprevent contaminated runoff fromentering urban streams.

Stormwater ponds consist of apermanent pond (where solids settle) anda zone of emergent wetland vegetationwhere dissolved contaminants areremoved through plant biological andchemical processes. Constructedwetlands are similar to stormwaterponds, with more emergent vegetationand a smaller permanent pond.Maintenance consists of annual inspectionof outlets and the shoreline, vegetationharvesting every three to five years, andsediment removal every seven to ten years.

Infiltration basins and trenches are long,narrow, stone-filled excavated trenchesthat are three to twelve feet deep. Theseshould be combined with otherstructural processes such as grassedswales to prevent the basin/trench fromclogging prematurely. Maintenanceincludes inspection after major stormevents, and debris removal as needed.

Swirl-type concentrators are undergroundvaults that are constructed to create acircular motion as water flows through toencourage sediments, grease and oil tosettle out of the stormwater before it flowson to treatment systems or receiving waters.The materials that are settled out may betreated.46

In addition, storm water permits can placea special priority for protection within adrinking water source area.

Proper well construction: Proper wellconstruction is not only important forpreventing contamination from entering thewell (and the aquifer from which the welldraws water), it is the law. Many states havegrandfather clauses in their statutes,allowing wells that were constructed beforethe statute was enacted to still beconsidered legal, but it is really to thebenefit of the landowner or communityoperating the well to ensure that it is incompliance with current well constructionstandards.

Although specific well constructionstandards may vary from one state to thenext, there are some basic features that

Many urban storm drains are marked to deterthe public from dumping hazardous materialsdown city sewers.


will aide greatly in ensuring thatcontamination from the ground’s surfacedoes not enter the well directly. Thebasic construction standards featuredhere are from Nebraska (Title 178, Chapter12), and are generally designed to preventcontamination from entering a well fromthe surface. Check with your statedepartment of health or environmentalquality for standards in your area.

General standards to prevent wellcontamination from the ground’s surfaceare:

• Well should be capped with a securecover when not attended.

• Earth surrounding the top of the wellcasing should slope away from thewell and be firmly tamped to preventseepage from the surface.

• Annular space (space between theborehole and the well casing)

Private drinking water wells should be tested forpathogens and other contaminants on an annualbasis. All public water systems are required to

test for total coliform bacteria, indicators ofwaterborne pathogens, at least once per month.

should be sealed with grout at and justbelow the ground’s surface.

• Well casing should be a watertight,nontoxic, durable material suitedfor the chemistry of water that itmay encounter (this includesgroundwater as well as surfacerunoff).

• Plastic-cased wells should beprotected from the frost line toabove the surface grade, or may belocated inside a pump house with aconcrete floor sloping away fromthe casing.

• Well casing should extend at least 12inches above the ground’s surface (orhigher if the well is constructed in afloodplain. Casing should rise enoughabove the ground’s surface so thatrunoff or flood waters will not enterthe well during a flood event).47


NON-COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM

PERSPECTIVE AND CASE STUDY

6Groundwater is the source of water for91% of all the public drinking watersystems in the United States.48 Of thesegroundwater-sourced systems, nearlythree-quarters are classified as non-community water systems, or those thatserve a non-residential population. Non-transient non-community water systemsserve at least 25 of the same people atleast six months of the year and typicallyare operated by churches, schools,factories, hospitals, and daycare facilities.Transient non-community water systemsserve at least 25 people at least 60 days peryear and typically are operated by roadsidestops, gas stations, commercialcampgrounds, hotels, restaurants andother businesses.

Vulnerability of Non-Community Water Systems

Non-community water systems are notnecessarily more likely to be exposed topathogenic contamination thancommunity water systems (those that serveat least 25 people or 15 service

connections year round); but some non-community water systems are at more risk.Of particular note is that non-communitywater systems:

• Are less likely to treat the waterbefore it is served.

• Are usually very small. Small systemssometimes lack the technical,managerial, and financial capacity tocomply with drinking waterregulations.

Preventing the pathogenic contaminationof drinking water is the goal of everypublic water system. Prevention isespecially important to those groundwatersystems that do not disinfect the water,but deliver it directly to consumers after itis pumped from the ground. A studycompleted by the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in 1996 found that nationally, 55%of community water systems usinggroundwater disinfected the water. Incontrast, only 28% of non-transient non-community water systems and 17% of

Non-transient non-community water systems serve at least 25 of the same people at least six monthsof the year and typically are operated by churches, schools, factories, hospitals, and daycare facilities.


transient non-community systemsdisinfected the drinking water theyserved.49 Of the 207 waterborne diseaseoutbreaks that were recorded from 1991-2002, slightly more occurred in non-community water systems (42%) thaneither community (36%) or individualsystems (i.e., private wells, 22%).50

Virtually all non-community water systems– 99.8% – are small and many serve lessthan 100 people.51 These systemsgenerally do not have the resources orexpertise of larger systems and havehigher rates of not complying withmonitoring and reporting rules. Whenoversight and technical assistanceresources are stretched thin, states mayplace greater priority on systems where acontamination problem could affect alarger population.

Total Coliform Rule

Total coliforms are a group of closelyrelated bacteria that inhabit soil andsurface water and are generally harmless(i.e., do not cause illness); however, whencoliform bacteria are found in drinkingwater, it means that other, more harmfulbacteria and other pathogens may also bein the water.52 For more information onhow pathogens get into drinking water, seeSection 2 of this primer.

Since 1990 water systems have beenrequired to monitor for coliform bacteriaand take action if positive results arefound. Large water systems may takemany samples every day. In contrast, theTotal Coliform Rule requires that all non-community water systems collect at leastone water sample per quarter (i.e., threemonth period) so it may be tested for totalcoliform. If total coliform is found,additional samples must be taken andtested for fecal coliforms or E. coli. Ifthese and other subsequent tests for total

coliform are positive, the system poses apotentially serious public health risk. Bothstates or tribal governments and the publicmust be notified of this potential threat,and bottled water may be provided toconsumers.53

Waterborne disease outbreaks haveoccurred in public water systems evenwhen these systems are in compliance withthe Total Coliform Rule; consequently,additional effort is needed to betteridentify those public water systems mostvulnerable to an outbreak. 54

Ground Water Rule

The Ground Water Rule, published by USEPA in November of 2006, is intended tofurther protect public health by targetingthose groundwater systems mostvulnerable to fecal contamination, and thatas a result, may cause waterborne disease.Small systems must comply with theGround Water Rule by December of 2009.

The rule requires that a comprehensivesanitary survey be conducted every threeyears for community water systems andevery five years for non-community watersystems. Any significant deficienciesfound during a sanitary survey must becorrected. Significant deficiencies areanything that causes or has the potential tocause the contamination of the waterdelivered to consumers.55 An estimated17% of all non-community water systemswill need to correct deficiencies foundduring their sanitary survey.56

Systems that are not treating their water toachieve 99.99% inactivation or removal ofviruses must collect source water samplesafter any of the systems’ routine samplestest positive for total coliform. If thesource water samples test positive for fecalcontamination, systems must complete or


develop a plan to complete correctiveactions within 120 days of being notifiedof the contamination.57

Corrective actions for both significantdeficiencies and positive groundwatersource samples are to:

• Make repairs to water systeminfrastructure,

• Provide an alternative source ofwater,

• Eliminate the source ofcontamination, or

• Provide treatment to achieve 99.99%(4-log) inactivation and/or removalof viruses. 58

The two most likely treatment methodsare chemical disinfection and membranefiltration.12 Estimates are that by annuallyimplementing these corrective actions,anywhere from 533 to 4,308 illnessesoriginating from non-transient non-community water systems and 1,037 to14,738 illnesses originating from transientnon-community water systems will beavoided.60

Taking Steps to PreventPathogenic Contamination

Non-community water systems, likecommunity water systems, can keeptreatment costs low or avoid treatment alltogether by preventing pathogeniccontamination from occurring in the firstplace.

The first step in preventing source watercontamination is to review a system’ssource water assessment (for moreinformation see Section 3: IdentifyingPotential Sources of Pathogens). Theassessment includes a map of the system’ssource water area, which are comparativelysmaller for non-community water systemsbecause they generally use and deliver lesswater to customers. For example, in WestVirginia the source water area for non-community water systems with a pumpingcapacity of less than 2,500 gallons per dayis a fixed radius of 500 feet around thewell.61 Consequently, any protectionactivities for these low capacity non-community water systems should betargeted within this 500 foot radius.

The same approaches detailed in Section5: Preventing Pathogenic Contamination may beused by non-community water systems toachieve source water protection. Sourcewater protection may even be easier for anon-community water system to achievebecause protection activities may beintegrated into the facilities’ overalloperation and maintenance. For example,campground managers generally havecontracts with on-site wastewaterprofessionals to periodically pump andinspect their on-site systems throughoutthe camping season. Roadside stops andrestaurants often limit areas where peoplecan walk their pets or require visitors topick up pet waste. In both cases, visitorsare more likely to behave responsibly

Systems that fail to achieve 99.99% inactivation orremoval of viruses must collect source watersamples after testing positive for total coliform.


knowing their actions protect the facilities’drinking water. On the other hand, ifpotential sources of contamination are notbeing actively managed or are located onneighboring properties, protectionactivities may not be given enoughattention.

Non-Community Water SystemCase Study – Bayside Golf Club

Bayside Golf Club uses one well fordrinking water and is considered atransient non-community water systemwith most visitors arriving in the summersmonths. The facility is actively managedso that the wells are protected frompotential sources of contamination. Inaddition, although they are only 300-400yards away from Lake McConaughy,Nebraska’s largest reservoir, runoff fromthe course seldom reaches it.Implementing groundwater protectionpractices has enabled Bayside Golf Clubto earn designation as a GroundwaterGuardian Green Site during the program’spilot year.

Bayside Golf Club emerged from thearroyos, ruts, bluffs and rugged grasslandsof the Sandhills in western Nebraska. Thefirst nine holes opened in 2000, with thegrand opening of additional facilitiesfollowing in 2001. This mixed-use

development includes an 18-hole golfcourse, a lodge with capacity for 375people, a pro shop, and numerousmaintenance buildings. Twelvetownhomes and four cabins are alsoavailable for lodgers, with more plannedfor the future. The course is generallyopen for nine months of the year, which isclose to the area’s seven to eight monthgrowing season.

The area’s annual precipitation is only 13inches, so precipitation and the course’sirrigation water readily infiltrate into theporous soil. Prior to being developed, theland was used as pasture, with some areasof original prairie still remaining. Standingon the golf course greens today it is easyto imagine what the area looked like over160 years ago when pioneers travelednearby on the Oregon Trail. The area’sbeautiful landscape makes it prime forfurther resort development; the area’ssteady winds, which average between nineand thirteen miles per hour all year long,and low humidity mean even the warmestdays are comfortable.

The entire Bayside Golf Club facility isserved by a non-community water systemand is actively managed so that its drinkingwater well is protected from potentialsources of contamination. Protectionactivities include:

• Taking required water samplesproperly and sending the samples to acertified laboratory for analysis. Noproblems have been detected to date.

• Always storing fertilizers andpesticides (i.e., 8,000 pounds granular,50 pounds liquid annually) on animpervious surface in a securedfacility capable of containing spillage.

• Always mixing and loading fertilizersand pesticides on an impervioussurface capable of containingspillage.

Implementing groundwater protection practiceshas enabled Bayside Golf Club to earn designationas a Groundwater Guardian Green Site during the

program’s pilot year.


• Applying tank rinsate (less than 200gallons per month) over an area ofsimilar land use.

• Altering or ceasing granular andliquid fertilizer and pesticideapplications when wind speed altersthe distribution. This is a regularoccurrence for Bayside; one yearmanagers went for 22 days withoutapplying a granular product!

• Having a licensed applicator inspectequipment prior to each application,about twice a month during thegrowing season.

• Calibrating fertilizer and pesticideapplication equipment at leastquarterly during the growing season.

• Testing soil and using the resultingnutrient analysis to apply fertilizer;often the amount of fertilizer appliedis less than what is recommended bythe soil test.

• Following integrated pest managementpractices, thus reducing the volume ofpesticides used by 50%.

• Adding or replacing plants with lowerinput requirements than previousplants; this practice enables thecourse to avoid using upwards of 300pounds of fertilizer and 15 gallons ofpesticides annually.

• Maintaining a fertilizer and pesticideno-application zone around the wellson the property.

• Selecting new plants adapted to theclimate of the region, thus savingupwards of 10,000 gallons of waterannually.

• Tracking irrigation water use andmodifying practices to reduce wateruse, which could save upwards of tenmillion gallons of water annually.

• Disposing of or recycling toxicsubstances properly, which generallyadd up to 300 golf cart batteries, 50other batteries, 200 gallons of oil,and 20 tires annually.

• Arranging for a certified professionalto regularly pump or otherwiseservice the facilities’ on-sitewastewater treatment system.

• Maintaining parking areas withapproximately 90% porous surfaces,800 yards of native pasture andgrasses between the parking area andadjacent surface water, andengineered slopes so run-off doesnot run directly into surface water.Parking areas cover approximatelytwo acres.

• Storing approximately 6,000 gallonsof fuel above-ground with secondarycontainment annually.

• Recycling.• Managing the course to maintain and

increase wildlife habitat in areasoutside the source water protectionarea.

• Using surfactants to reduce surfacetension and decrease water use bybetter utilizing the water that isavailable.

Implementing the practices describedpreviously enabled Bayside Golf Club toearn designation as a GroundwaterGuardian Green Site during the program’spilot year. To maintain the designation,these practices must continue and theapplication describing them updated everythree years.

For more information about Bayside GolfClub, contact Elton Nolde at (308) 287-2653 or [email protected]. Alsovisit www.baysidegolf.com. For moreinformation about how the GroundwaterGuardian Green Site program may be usedto promote and document groundwater-friendly practices for non-communitywater systems and other sites, contactJennifer Wemhoff at (402) 434-2740 [email protected]. Also visitwww.groundwater.org.


CASE STUDIES7The following six communities hostedand/or participated in a series ofpathogen education workshops held in2006, during which much of this primer’scontent was developed and tested for itseducational value and usefulness.

Some of these communities had beenworking to reduce pathogenic threats totheir source water for over a decade;others were just getting started.

• Delaware River Watershed, Kansas -in this high priority watershedlearning more about pathogens hashelped local stakeholders as theydevelop a plan to reduce the amountof fecal coliform bacteria in streams.

• Greater Lansing Area, Michigan - anabandoned well program, businessowner and manager education, andstormwater management have allbeen a part of comprehensivewellhead protection in the area.

• Greene County, Missouri - in a regiondominated by karst geology, theAdopt-a-Spring program trains

volunteers to conduct quarterlysampling and sinkhole clean-ups.

• Village of Hemingford, Nebraska -recent E. coli contamination hasmotivated local leaders to moveforward with wellhead protectionplanning.

• Lincoln, Nebraska - in addition tosource water protection, carefullymanaged operation and maintenancehas enabled this city’s public watersystem to keep costs as low aspossible.

• North Kingstown, Rhode Island -adopted a wastewater managementordinance to ensure regularinspection and pumping (whennecessary) of on-site wastewatertreatment systems in the community.

All the communities featured hererecognize the value of source waterprotection and are committed to makingprogress. The following are accounts oftheir concerns and efforts.

Land use and management have a direct impact on the risk of drinkingwater source contamination by pathogens.


The Delaware River Watershed innortheastern Kansas drains 1,157 squaremiles and terminates at the confluenceof the Delaware and Kansas Rivers a fewmiles south of Perry Lake Reservoir. Thewatershed includes the communities ofHolton, Sabetha, Horton, Valley Falls,Oskaloosa, Nortonville, Perry, Whiting,Wetmore, Goff, Circleville, Muscotah,Netawaka, Powhattan, Denison, Ozawkie,Huron and Fairview. Most of thesecommunities are small, with the largestbeing Holton (population 3,500), Sabetha(population 2,500) and Horton(population 1,900). The largest industry inthe area is agriculture; education, healthand social services, manufacturing,forestry, recreation, mining and retail arealso important to the watershed’seconomy.

There are 22 public water supply systemsin the watershed, most of which useexclusively groundwater or a mixture ofgroundwater and surface water. Mostgroundwater resources in the watershedare found in alluvial aquifers, and thus canbe affected by surface water quality.

The Delaware River Watershed rankedthird among 92 watersheds prioritized

for restoration and protection inKansas. Eighty percent of the streams inthe watershed are impaired, and fecalcoliform bacteria is responsible for over90% of this impairment. Otherenvironmental concerns in the areainclude pesticide contamination, the lackof hazardous waste disposal programs,and sediment and nutrient loading.

To address the issue of total maximumdaily loads (TMDLs) and other waterissues in the state, the Kansas Departmentof Health and Environment (KDHE)implemented the Kansas WatershedRestoration and Protection Strategies(WRAPS) program. WRAPs is a planningand management framework designed toinvolve stakeholders in identifyingwatershed restoration and protectionneeds, establishing management goals, andcreating and implementing cost-effectiveaction plans to achieve these goals. At thestate level the program is administeredthrough KDHE and the WRAPS WorkGroup. The Work Group includesmembers from state and federal agenciesinvolved in watershed protection activitiesand the Kansas Natural Resources Sub-Cabinet. Coordination of efforts inindividual watersheds is carried out at thelocal (or watershed) level by WRAPScoordinators.

The Glacial Hills Resource Conservationand Development Region, Inc. receivedfinancial assistance from KDHE throughan EPA Section 319 Nonpoint SourcePollution Control grant for the DelewareRiver WRAPS project. Marlene Bosworth,the Delaware River Watershed WRAPSCoordinator, began work in the watershedin February 2006. Since that time,Bosworth has coordinated monthlymeetings with watershed stakeholders

DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, KANSAS


so they may become more familiar withthe watershed’s water quality issues andtheir role as citizens of not only theircommunities but also of the watershed.Bosworth is also facilitating stakeholderinvolvement in creating a WatershedRestoration and Protection action plan,which is slated for completion in early2007. To date the emphasis inmanagement planning has been onvoluntary protection strategies. Uponcompletion of the action plan, work tosecure funds and implement the plan willcontinue.

Because fecal coliform is such awidespread water contaminant in theDelaware River Watershed, Bosworth feltit would be very beneficial to participate ina pathogen workshop held in Manhattan,Kansas on June 19, 2006. This workshopfeatured information from experts fromKansas State University and the City ofManhattan. Information collected andresources identified at the workshop havebeen used by Bosworth to inform the

stakeholder team’s planning efforts. Thebetter understanding of pathogeniccontamination she gained from theworkshop will also be useful as thewatershed plan is implemented.

Some of the challenges in coordinatingthe WRAPS program in the DelawareRiver Watershed have involved initialmisconceptions on what the programactually entails and getting stakeholders toparticipate in the process. Thesechallenges have been met, in part, by inter-agency coordination and outreach tocommunity members. By working withthe local conservation districts, KansasState University Research and Extension,local watershed districts, cities in thewatershed, county governments, theKansas Rural Center, KDHE, the KansasAlliance for Wetlands and Streams, theNatural Resources Conservation Service,the Kansas Water Office, the StateAssociation of Kansas Watersheds, tribalnations and others, Bosworth has beenable to educate stakeholders on theWRAPS process and get them activelyinvolved in the creation of a WatershedRestoration and Protection action plan.

The planning process has already beenbeneficial to stakeholders in the watershed.They have learned more about issuesdirectly pertaining to them and their rolein protecting the resources of thewatershed. The process has also helped tofoster inter-agency cooperation andagency-stakeholder relationships.

For more information, contact MarleneBosworth [email protected] or visitwww.kswraps.org andwww.glacialhillsrcd.com.

This WRAPS meeting was designed to collect inputfrom watershed stakeholders which is then

considered when writing the action plan for theDelaware River Watershed.


GREATER LANSING AREA, MICHIGAN

The Greater Lansing Area, located insouth-central Michigan, is home to agrowing population of about 480,000residents. Major employers include stategovernment, Michigan State University,services, wholesale and retail trade, andmanufacturing (primarily of transportationproducts). Area land use is primarilyurban with several parks and recreationareas; highly productive agricultural land isalso present.

The Greater Lansing Area is served byapproximately 225 public water supplywells, along with thousands of privatewells. The primary aquifer in the region isthe Saginaw Formation. The water withinthe Saginaw moves at a rate of less thanone foot per day. Over the years a numberof private wells have been abandoned andfallen into disrepair, thus providing adirect conduit for surface contaminationto reach area groundwater supplies.Chloramines are regularly used by areapublic water systems as a disinfectant.

Since 1990 the Tri-County RegionalPlanning Commission (TCRPC) has takenthe lead in facilitating the wellheadprotection efforts of the area’s local

governments. Since 1995 the TCRPC hasutilized The Groundwater Foundation’sGroundwater Guardian Program toorganize support for area groundwaterprotection efforts. The Greater LansingArea’s Groundwater Guardian teamcurrently includes representatives fromlocal government, a local watershed group,a local water utility and the TCRPC. Overthe years the team has implementedseveral programs that have broughtgroundwater protection into the public eyeand protected local groundwater resources.

One of the earliest activities implementedby the team, an annual Children’s WaterFestival, has involved over 22,000 areachildren in hands-on activities designed toteach them about the importance ofgroundwater and environmentalprotection. Festival volunteers leadingactivities have included the United StatesGeological Survey, Michigan Departmentof Environmental Quality, Michigan StateUniversity, local governments and privatecompanies. In recent years, high schoolstudents who attended the festival aselementary students have also volunteered,thus demonstrating their continuedcommitment to groundwater educationand protection.

Another activity implemented early on isthe annual Holiday Breakfast, which isheld in mid- to late December. Thebreakfast continues to provide a wonderfulopportunity for federal, state and localgovernment representatives to networkwith one another, as well as privatesupporters of groundwater protection.The breakfast includes a brief program ongroundwater protection, but perhaps moreimportantly, it also generates positive


media attention for the ongoing efforts ofthe Groundwater Guardian team.

In 1999 the team began to implement anabandoned well survey program, whichincluded door-to-door visits with arearesidents to identify abandoned wells. Outof the approximately 12,000 homes thatwere visited, over 600 abandoned wellswere identified. Grant funds were used toproperly decommission over 130 wells.

In 2005 a new program was initiated toeducate local business owners andmanagers about the potential for theirbusiness to contaminate the water supplyin their area. They were also introduced toa scoring system developed by thewellhead protection team for ranking therelative risks posed by various businesses.They were also educated in how theycould improve their stewardship of the

environment through their businesspractices. These business educationseminars served to introduce attendees tothe importance of wellhead protection,causing many to express interest inbecoming active members of their localgovernment’s wellhead protection team.

Because the potential for pathogeniccontamination of local groundwatersupplies is a concern for the GreaterLansing Area, members of theGroundwater Guardian team participatedin the pathogen workshop held there aspart of The Groundwater Foundation’s2006 Annual Conference on November2nd. Team members recognized that thesignificant work done to properlydecommission abandoned wells andmanage area stormwater has protectedlocal groundwater resources. Theworkshop also served to strengthen theircommitment to the on-goingcomprehensive wellhead protection effortsbeing implemented in the area.

For more information, contact theTCRPC’s Christine Spitzley at(517) 393-0342, [email protected], [email protected]. Also visitwww.tn-co.org orwww.capitalgroundwater.org.

This abandoned well was properlydecommissioned as part of the Greater

Lansing Area’s wellhead protection activities.


GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI

Greene County in southwesternMissouri is home to a growingpopulation of approximately 261,000residents, over half of which live in theCity of Springfield. Major employersin the county include educational,health and social services, retailers andmanufacturers. About 30% of the landin the county is used for farming, withmajor crops being corn, wheat andsoybeans; the major livestock raised iscattle. The city was founded by John PolkCampbell, who chose his homestead by aspring that settlers described as “a naturalwell of wonderful depth.” Groundwaterresources are still relied upon formunicipal and private use, and requireactive stewardship, because the geology ofthe area makes groundwater susceptible topollution from the surface.

Approximately 80% of the water used fordomestic and municipal purposes inGreene County comes from surface watersources; the other 20% from groundwater.Since 1957, City Utilities of Springfieldhas managed the city’s water supply andtreatment. Two drinking water treatmentplants serve over 69,000 residential metersand 7,000 commercial meters. Threereservoirs, a river, deep wells, and a

large natural spring provide water tothe city. Areas outside municipalitiesrely almost exclusively on groundwater.Private wells are threatened bygroundwater depletion and pathogeniccontamination from thousands of on-site septic systems.

The region is dominated by a karstgeologic setting, an important factor forprivate and public water supplies in thearea. In karst areas, porous bedrock isdissolved by weakly acidic waterpercolating through the ground over time.Water moves relatively freely from thesurface, often flowing through caves andother large openings, resurfacing again insprings, or discharging to groundwaterfrom losing streams. In this type ofsetting, groundwater is particularlysusceptible to contamination of all sorts,including pathogenic contamination.

Greene County has been recognized inThe Groundwater Foundation’sGroundwater Guardian program since1995. To earn this designation, thelocal Groundwater Guardian team,consisting of local citizens, city officials,and the Watershed Committee of theOzarks, has coordinated activities eachyear to attain water quality protectionresults.

The Greene County GroundwaterGuardian team’s activities have covered arange of water quality-related topics, andseveral have addressed concerns relating topathogenic contamination. The teambegan its work with volunteers goingdoor-to-door to conduct an inventory ofactive and abandoned private wells, whichwere entered into a GeographicInformation System (GIS) database, as


well as to speak with landowners about theimportance of proper installation andmaintenance of septic systems.

The team also established an Adopt-a-Spring program. This volunteerprogram conducts quarterly sampling ofall the major area springs for totalcoliform bacteria, E. coli, nutrients,dissolved oxygen, and temperature. Thissampling and analysis provides excellentbackground information and serves as adatabase of indicators for groundwatercontamination. The program has beenpromoted through brochures developedby the Groundwater Guardian team.

Cleanup of sinkholes in the county isanother issue that the GroundwaterGuardian team has tackled. Becausesinkholes are common in karst settingsand provide direct conduits togroundwater, the team educated andcoordinated volunteers to assist incleaning up sinkholes which had beenused for illegal trash dumping. Duringone sinkhole cleanup, two localtelevision stations were on site andbroadcasted the cleanup.

Through volunteer coordination andpublicizing events, the Greene CountyGroundwater Guardian team hasfostered excellent working relationshipswith the local residents and providedinformation to these stakeholders,which is vital to the overall protectionof water resources. Since beginningtheir work, the team has trained andworked with over a dozen activevolunteers, collected about 40 springsamples per year, and has cooperatedwith the local health department to doweekly swimming hole sampling forbacteria throughout the summer.

In order to bring more attention to thehealth benefits of source water protection,the team also hosted a pathogen workshopon August 8, 2006. Attendees includedenvironmental educators, local activists,and drinking water and public healthexperts. The workshop reinforced the factthat vigilence is needed to protect localdrinking water supplies.

As with any grassroots organization,the team has faced challenges whenimplementing programs. One of thebiggest challenges has been sustainingprograms through changes in local leadersand participants. Through cooperationwith other agencies and by continuouslyfostering partnerships, the Greene CountyGroundwater Guardians have maintainedcommitment to their projects and ensuredtheir overall longevity.

For more information, contact MikeKromrey with the WatershedCommittee of the Ozarks at(417) 866-1127 [email protected]. Alsovisit www.watershedcommittee.org.

Failing on-site wastewater systems threatengroundwater resources.


VILLAGE OF HEMINGFORD, NEBRASKA

The Village of Hemingford lies 59 milesnortheast of Scottsbluff in Box ButteCounty and was first settled by Canadianimmigrants during the summer of 1885.The primary commerce in the areaincludes farming, ranching, cattle feedingand retail. Land in the region is primarilyused for agriculture and grazing.

Hemingford’s 997 residents are served byabout 430 residential and 90 commercialservice connections, which are supplied byfive regularly used wells and one backupwell. All service connections are meteredand have backflow prevention devicesinstalled. For backflow prevention, dualcheck devices on all residential serviceconnections and double checks andreduced pressure zone devices oncommercial service connections arerequired. The community’s water supply isnot regularly treated to remove orinactivate contaminants.

The Village of Hemingford has a boardof trustees form of government, with achairperson and four board members.The village utilities superintendent is alsothe water system operator. Box ButteCounty lies within the Upper NiobraraWhite Natural Resources District

(UNWNRD), which is governed by aboard of eleven directors. Each directorserves on one of several committeeswithin the board, including one committeespecifically dedicated to water resources.The UNWNRD also employs a waterresources manager and a wellheadprotection coordinator.

The Village of Hemingford experiencestotal coliform “hits” nearly everysummer, which means that the watersupply tests positively for total coliform.Total coliform is an indicator used byNebraska Health and Human Services(NHHS) to determine bacterialcontamination of a water supply. For thefirst time in July of 2006, Hemingford alsohad a “hit” for E. coli, which is theindicator that NHHS uses to determinefecal bacteria contamination of a watersupply. The village issued a boil-waterwarning to its customers and continuedtesting for E. coli. Another “hit” occurredthe following month. The villageimmediately began chlorinating the watersupply and continued chlorinating forabout a month, beyond the required timeperiod, to ensure that the water supply wasdisinfected and safe. No illnesses relatingto the bacterial contamination werereported.

In a proactive effort to reduce the riskof pathogenic contamination as well asother kinds of contamination,Hemingford’s utilities superintendent, DanSwanson, began working with theUNWNRD’s wellhead protectioncoordinator, Jason Moudry. The pairbegan discussing wellhead protectionplanning early in 2006, and both attendeda pathogen workshop hosted by theUNWNRD on April 25. Moudry and


Swanson began incorporating pathogeniccontamination prevention measures intothe plan and, with the assistance of theNebraska Rural Water Association andNHHS, researching possible sites causingthe E. coli contamination.

The obvious benefit to preventingpathogenic contamination inHemingford will be reducing and eveneliminating the water system’s totalcoliform and E.coli contaminationincidents. Although no illnesses havebeen reported in association withcontamination, the water system issubject to administrative action from

NHHS for repeated positive E. coli results.There are additional state regulations ondisinfection byproducts, so the watersystem must also be in compliance withthese when disinfection with chlorine isnecessary. Chlorination and testing fordisinfection byproducts represents anadditional financial burden upon thecommunity, as well as additional timespent by the water operator fordisinfection and sample collection.

So far the main challenges Moudry andSwanson faced while working onHemingford’s wellhead protection planwere time constraints, especially in thesummer months which are filled withother duties for both. Until very recentlythere was also little support for wellheadprotection planning on the Hemingfordboard of trustees; however, with somechanges in the local leadership andadditional discussion, Swanson was able togarner the necessary support from theboard to move forward with wellheadprotection planning.

For more information, contact DanSwanson at 308-487-3465 or JasonMoudry at 308-432-6190 [email protected]. Also visitwww.unwnrd.org.

Downtown Hemingford, Nebraska.


LINCOLN, NEBRASKA

The City of Lincoln in LancasterCounty, Nebraska is home to a growingpopulation of about 236,000 residents.Major employers are government agencies;education; health services; trade,transportation, utilities, professional andbusiness services providers; leisure andhospitality businesses; and manufacturers.

The Lincoln Water System’s wellfields drawgroundwater from the alluvium of thePlatte River. All water is treated in one oftwo facilities. The water from verticalgroundwater wells is treated via aeration,chlorination, and filtration where longdisinfectant contact times and strictcompliance to stringent turbidity standardsare used to ensure inactivation and removalof any pathogens that might exist in theraw water. This “groundwater treatmentplant” can meet requirements for surfacewater treatment, if needed. A second planttreats the water from two horizontalcollector wells on an island in the PlatteRiver; one of these two wells has beendetermined by Nebraska Health andHuman Services to be under the directinfluence of surface water. In the “surfacewater treatment plant,” water is treated withozone as the primary disinfectant andoxidant, followed by chlorine. These

disinfectants, in combination with strictcompliance to stringent turbidity standards,are used to ensure inactivation and removalof any pathogens that might exist in theraw water. Both plants use chloramines as asecondary disinfectant.

The City of Lincoln has protectedgroundwater in its source water area byowning and controlling about 1,200 acresof land that surrounds the wells.Hazardous practices and materials, such asfuel or agricultural chemical storage,feedlots or any other potentialcontamination sources, are not permitted inthis area. All “active production” wellfieldland owned by the city is planted with grass,and no application of fertilizers orpesticides is allowed. The city also owns anadditional 800 acres of land which is setaside for possible future development ofwells to meet growth demands.

Anticipating the possibility that thehorizontal collector wells could be classifiedas “groundwater under the direct influenceof surface water,” the treatment facility wasdesigned and built to comply with SurfaceWater Treatment Rule standards, ensuringthat no additional treatment and capital costswould be incurred in order to meet SurfaceWater Treatment Rule compliance. This“groundwater under the direct influence”designation has also meant that the sourcewater area delineated for the cityencompassed much of the state ofNebraska, as the entire Platte Riverwatershed contributes water to this wellduring the time-of-travel periods typicallyused by the state for delineation mapping.This is obviously an area that is outside thecity’s jurisdiction to manage, so the NebraskaDepartment of Environmental Quality usedmodels to develop more realistic time-of-travel maps for the city to utilize.


Because the Lincoln Water System hasdone so much to protect its source waterand system from pathogeniccontamination, Eric Lee, the system’sAssistant Superintendent of WaterProduction and Treatment-Operations,was invited to describe this work at apathogen workshop held near the PlatteRiver. The workshop was hosted by theLower Platte River Corridor Alliance(LPRCA), a consortium of three naturalresources districts and six state agenciesdedicated to working with people toprotect the long-term vitality of the LowerPlatte River Corridor. Individualsrepresenting a number of public watersystems located along the corridor usedthe workshop to begin developing theirown source water protection plans.

The City of Lincoln has been recognized inThe Groundwater Foundation’sGroundwater Guardian program since1995. To earn this designation in 2006, thecity’s activities included sponsoring anelementary school water conservationposter contest (the winning poster isenlarged and placed on public transportbuses and billboards around the city),presenting a children’s activity at the annualEarth Wellness Festival, sending bill inserts

promoting rain sensors and water facts tocustomers, and hiring a student intern todevelop water conservation reports for areabusinesses.

Because of the costs of operating such alarge system, budget concerns are thelargest challenges the city faces with regardsto its water system. However, the city hasrisen to budget challenges withoutextending excessive costs to customers. Thecity cites planning ahead, agencypartnerships, and carefully managedoperation and maintenance strategies asthe main components of keepingoperational costs as low as possible.Besides planning ahead for the surfacewater treatment plant design, the city hasparticipated in several cooperative studieswith the United States Geological Survey,University of Nebraska, and others toidentify potential source water protectionissues. The money and effort spent onthese projects has saved the city millions ofdollars in treatment costs.

By having staff available to answercustomer questions and complaints viathe city website, phone and on-site visits,and distributing annual consumerconfidence reports, the city has been veryeffective at maintaining customersatisfaction. The rare complaints thatcustomers have usually relate to taste, odoror water pressure. The city also regularlyprovides opportunities for consumerinvolvement in public meetings regardingfacilities changes and updates.

For more information, contact Eric Lee [email protected] or 402-944-3306 andLPRCA Coordinator Rodney Verhoeff [email protected] or 402-476-2729.Also visit www.lincoln.ne.gov orwww.lowerplatte.org.

Lincoln Water System draws groundwater fromthe alluvium of the braided Platte River.


NORTH KINGSTOWN, RHODE ISLAND

North Kingstown, Rhode Island, liessouth of Providence on Narragansett Bayand is home to a growing population ofapproximately 27,000. Incorporated in1674, early industries included textiles,farming, fishing and boat building. In1941 nearby Quonset Point and Davisvillebecame major naval installations; thesefacilities were closed in 1973 and are nowbeing developed as a major industrial park.

Land use in the North Kingstown area isprimarily residential and features anextensive coastline with numerous poorlyflushed coves and estuary environments.The western portion of the town overlaysan extensive groundwater aquifer which isthe sole source of drinking water for thecommunity.

North Kingstown’s population is servedby ten water wells and over 9,000 serviceconnections which are operated by thetown’s Department of Water Supply.While the groundwater drawn by thesewells is currently pure enough to notrequire disinfection, the town instituted adisinfection pilot program in 2005 inresponse to problems in portions of thedistribution system.

North Kingstown has been recognized inThe Groundwater Foundation’sGroundwater Guardian program since1995. Since then North Kingstown’s teamhas implemented several activities in thecommunity and region to addresscontamination issues.

Early in their work, the NorthKingstown team focused on providinglocal teachers with regionalgroundwater information to beincluded in classroom curriculum. Theteam also conducted an inventory ofpotential sources of contamination in thewellhead area, and worked to assemble alocal committee, including representativesof two other area communities, to workon wellhead protection planning.

Over the years, the North Kingstownteam has continued their communityeducation efforts and work with thewellhead protection planning committee.One of the ways the team meets itscommunity education objectives is byholding an annual environmental fair,which they have done since 1998. Fairactivities are designed to teach citizensabout environmental, especiallygroundwater, protection. The eventreaches 1,200 to 1,500 participants eachyear.

Community education paid off for NorthKingstown when its residents passed awastewater management ordinance,requiring property owners to have theiron-site wastewater treatment systemsregularly inspected and pumped whennecessary. Members of the communityunderstood the value of wastewatermanagement and knew what to expect;


thus the ordinance met with minimalopposition. Since the beginning of theteam’s work, over 3,600 septic systemshave been inspected and pumped and thetown has paid for over 60 homeowners tohave failing septic systems repaired orreplaced.

Because North Kingstown has beenproactive and has successfully managedpathogenic threats to its source water andwater system, G. Timothy Cranston, WaterQuality Specialist for the NorthKingstown Department of Water Supply,was invited to describe this work at apathogen workshop held in Attleboro,Massachusetts on September 27, 2006.

The workshop also featured presentationsfrom Gabrielle Belfit with the Cape CodCommission, Marc Cohen with theAtlantic States Rural Water Association,Clayton Commons with the Rhode IslandDepartment of Health, Lorraine Joubert

The community environmental fair reaches1,200 to 1,500 participants each year.

with the University of Rhode IslandNonpoint Education for MunicipalOfficials (NEMO), Rebekah McDermottwith the Massachusetts Rural WaterAssociation, Vandana Rao with theExecutive Office of EnvironmentalAffairs, and Kathleen Romero with theMassachusetts Department ofEnvironmental Protection. Alldescribed the work they do to reducepathogenic threats to source water.

The main benefit of the North KingstownGroundwater Guardian team’s activitieshas been preventing contamination oftheir sole source aquifer. The primarychallenge the team has faced has involvedfunding. There is some difficulty intracking and administering their program;however, they have been able to continuetheir work, despite funding issues, bycooperating with area stakeholders andvolunteers.

For more information, contact G.Timothy Cranston at (401) 294-3331 ext.233 or [email protected] visit www.northkingstown.org,www.capecodgroundwater.org,www.asrwwa.org, www.health.ri.gov/environment/dwq/swap/index.php,www.uri.edu/ce/wq/NEMO,www.massrwa.org, www.mass.gov/envir/,www.mass.gov/dep/water/drinking/sourcewa.htm.


The following are profiles of commonand noteworthy waterborne pathogensencountered in the United States.

CampylobacterCampylobacter is a genus of theVibrionaeceae family and contains atleast fourteen species. The species ofconcern for human infection include C.jejuni, C. coli, and C. upsaliensis.62

Bacteria of the genus Campylobactercause the infectious diseasecampylobacteriosis, which causesdiarrhea, cramping, abdominal pain andfever. Diarrhea may be bloody, and maybe accompanied by nausea and vomiting.These symptoms usually appear in humanswithin two to five days of contact with theorganism, and typically last one week.While some infected with Campylobacterexhibit no symptoms at all, others who areimmuno-compromised can develop a life-threatening blood infection.63

Campylobacters are quite commonly foundin birds and are particularly prevalent inpoultry, which is likely a major source ofhuman infection. Campylobacters are alsocommonly found in natural fresh waters,even in remote areas, with theiroccurrences being highest in the fall andwinter months. They are also found inhigh numbers in sewage. C. jejuni appearsto be the dominant species in water andarrives there primarily through sewage andwildlife (especially birds).64 While thebacterium is fragile and can be killed byoxygen, it can survive well in water.

Boiling water will kill Campylobacter.Drinking water should be brought to a full

boil for at least one minute (three minutesfor elevations above approximately 6,000feet). Boiled water should then be kept ina clean container with a lid, andrefrigerated. Private well owners may alsodisinfect their well against Campylobacter,and should contact their local healthdepartment for recommendations.65

Campylobacter is one of the most commoncauses of bacterial diarrheal illness in theUnited States. It does not commonlycause large outbreaks, and many cases gounreported or undiagnosed. Most people

infected with Campylobacter will recoverwithout any treatment, though patients areadvised to drink plenty of fluids toprevent dehydration. In severe cases,antibiotics are sometimes prescribedand can shorten the duration ofsymptoms if administered early insymptomatic stages.

APPENDIX A: WATERBORNE PATHOGENS

“BAD BUG” PROFILES

Campylobacter is one of the most commoncauses of bacterial diarrhea.


Sampling surface water for Cryptosporidium.

Campylobacteriosis can sometimes,although rarely, lead to the developmentof Guillain-Barré Syndrome, which cancause paralysis for several weeks andrequire treatment in intensive care. Aboutone in 1,000 Campylobacteriosis patientsare estimated to develop Guillain-Barrésyndrome.66

For more information about Guillain-Barré syndrome, visit the followingwebsites:

• http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/guillain-barre-syndrome/DS00413

• http://www.gbsfi.com/

CryptosporidiumThe genus Cryptosporidium includes severalspecies of protozoan parasites whichcause human and animal disease, withthose of most concern for drinking waterbeing C. parvum and C. hominis. C. parvumcan infect both humans and animals, while

C. hominis infects only humans.Cryptosporidium has several life stages, thetransmissible stage being the oocyst (anorganism in the oocyst stage has aprotective outer shell). When oocysts areingested, they open (excyst) and releasesporozoites that attach to and invade cellsin the gastrointestinal tract. Excystationoften requires specific conditions(presence of pancreatic enzymes and bilesalts) but can occur without any suchstimulus.

Cryptosporidium oocysts are widelydistributed in water; they have beenreported in 87 percent of source watersamples and are present in nearly allsurface waters. Numerous outbreaks ofCryptosporidium in swimming poolshave been reported. Cryptosporidium causedthe largest and most famous drinkingwater disease outbreak in the UnitedStates, where in 1993 over 400,000 peoplein Milwaukee, Wisconsin becameinfected.67

Cryptosporidiosis, the illness caused byCryptosporidium (both the illness andpathogen are often referred to as“crypto”), includes watery diarrhea andsometimes vomiting, which may lead todehydration and weight loss. Fever andstomach cramps are also common. Thesymptoms usually last one to twoweeks and may go in cycles where thepatient feels well for a few days andthen becomes ill again.68

The oocyst stage makes Cryptosporidiumquite environmentally stable. Oocysts cansurvive for months in cold, moistenvironments, making them particularlysuited to survival in lakes and streams.Oocysts are also particularly difficult toinactivate with chlorine-baseddisinfectants, and consequently may persist


Testing for E.coli, a well-known bacterium and cause of both waterborne and foodborne illness.

in water systems which use only chlorinedisinfection without filtration. However,oocysts can be made non-infectious whenheld at water temperatures at or above64.2 oC (about 148 oF) for two minutes orlonger; in other words, boiling caninactivate the oocysts.69

E. coli O157:H7

Escherichia coli O157:H7 (or E. coliO157:H7) is one strain of a large familyof bacteria known collectively as E. coli,which includes five classes:enterotoxigenic, enteroinvasive,enterohemorrhagic, enteropathogenic andenteroaggregative. E. coli O157:H7 is ofthe enterohemorrhagic class, meaning thatit causes internal (intestinal) bleeding.70

E. coli O157:H7 is perhaps best-known asan emerging cause of foodborne illness,with an estimated 73,000 cases and 61deaths in the United States each year.

Most illnesses are associated with theconsumption of undercooked, infectedground beef. Infection results incramping and profuse diarrhea,sometimes bloody (the bleeding iscaused in the intestines byenterotoxins, which are emitted by thebacteria, attacking the intestinal lining).71

One life-threatening side effect ofinfection with E. coli O157:H7 is thedevelopment of hemolytic uremicsyndrome (HUS), which is especiallyproblematic for children. HUS may leadto kidney failure and even death. E. coliO157:H7 produces the aforementionedenterotoxin, which is similar to the toxinproduced by Shigella bacteria, and it is theintense inflammatory response producedby this toxin that may explain thebacteria’s ability to cause HUS.72

While E. coli O157:H7 is more commonlya problem in undercooked ground beef, it


Wildlife excrement, especially frombeavers, is a source of Giardia.

has recently emerged as an importantwaterborne pathogen. Outbreaks inWashington County, New York andOntario, Canada (in 1999 and 2000,respectively) caused over 1,500 illnessesand nine deaths combined.Enterohemmorhagic E. coli (EHEC) hasbeen detected in both recreational anddrinking waters. It is widely accepted thatEHEC originates primarily fromagricultural animals (cattle), so waters nearthese sources are at risk for contamination.E. coli O157:H7 is also quite persistent inthe environment, with the ability tosurvive in a range of temperatures and inboth aerobic and anaerobic conditions(with or without oxygen).73

Water can be disinfected from E. coli bychlorination and/or boiling. Drinkingwater should be boiled for at least oneminute (three minutes for elevations aboveapproximately 6,000 feet) and thenrefrigerated in a clean container with a lid.

Private well owners may disinfect theirwell using chlorine, ozonation or ultra-violet light, and may contact their localhealth department for specific informationon disinfection.74, 75

Giardia lambliaGiardia lamblia is a protozoan parasite thatinfects numerous mammals, includinghumans, beavers and domesticated petslike cats and dogs. In the environment,Giardia is in the cyst stage and once insidethe host animal, the cyst is stimulated toexcyst and releases a trophozoite, whichmeans it is ready to feed, grow andreproduce. Stimuli in the gastrointestinaltract will induce Giardia to return to thecyst stage, which can then be passed outthrough excrement.

Giardia lamblia occurs all over theworld, in temperate and tropicalclimates as well as in the arctic. It is themost frequently identified protozoanparasite in the United States.76 Giardiasis,the illness caused by Giardia, is sometimesreferred to as “beaver fever” due to thespreading of Giardia into water bydroppings from wildlife, includingbeavers.77

Giardiasis includes many intestinalsymptoms, such as diarrhea, flatulence,stomach cramps and nausea. Thesesymptoms may lead to weight loss anddehydration.78 Patients may exhibitsymptoms from none at all to a severityrequiring hospitalization.79 While noparticular demographic of the populationappears to be especially susceptible toinfection, pregnant women and childrenshould take special care to not becomedehydrated from the illness. Giardiainfections are also highly contagious, butcan be contained by frequent hand-washing and by avoiding swimming duringinfection and for at least two weeks afterdiarrhea has stopped. 80

Like Cryptosporidium, Giardia is particularlydifficult to inactivate with chlorine-baseddisinfectants; ultraviolet radiation orozonation are more commonly used.


Legionella is transmitted by airborne moistparticles from water fixtures, such as thoseassociated with showers, air conditioners,whirlpool spas, decorative fountains, and mistersin the produce section of a grocery store.

Water can be also be disinfected fromGiardia by boiling. Drinking water shouldbe boiled for at least one minute (threeminutes for elevations aboveapproximately 6,000 feet), and thenrefrigerated in a clean container with a lid.If water is cloudy, it should be allowed tosettle and then be filtered through cleancloths before boiling.81, 82

LegionellaLegionella are small bacteria of the familyLegionellaceae. The genus consists of atleast 46 species, about half of which havebeen implicated in causing human disease;the species L. pneumophila causes mostLegionella infections.

Legionella bacteria appear most commonlyin both natural and artificial aquaticenvironments, including lakes and streamsas well as water tanks, whirlpool spas anddecorative fountains. These bacteria thrivein freshwater environments under a widerange of temperatures and pH, and canbecome attached to surfaces, forming abiofilm and protective barrier. Theymay also survive inside free-livingprotozoa (such as amoebas) and so mayevade water treatment systems.Legionella are not transmitted throughconsumption of water, but byinhalation of moist aerosols.83

The infection caused by Legionella iscalled Legionellosis, and can appear intwo different forms: Legionnaire’sDisease and Pontiac Fever.Legionnaire’s Disease is the more severeform of infection and leads topneumonia, while Pontiac Fever is amilder, influenza-like respiratory infection.Legionnaire’s Disease got its name in1976, when attendees of a Legionnaire’sconference in Philadelphia contractedpneumonia; the bacteria causing the

disease was first discovered then, andnamed Legionella.84 An estimated 8,000 to18,000 cases of Legionnaire’s Diseaseoccur in the United States each year.85

Most people who are exposed to Legionellado not become ill. However, those whohave compromised immunity, the elderly,smokers, and those who have chronic lungdiseases are susceptible to infection.86

Water can be disinfected from Legionella bychlorination and/or boiling. Drinkingwater should be boiled for at least oneminute (three minutes for elevations aboveapproximately 6,000 feet) and thenrefrigerated in a clean container with alid.87, 88

Noroviruses

Norovirus is a genera of theCaliciviridae family of viruses. Earlyliterature on the subject may also refer tothis type of virus as SRSV, Norwalk virus,or Norwalk-like virus. Noroviruses arethe most common non-bacterial cause ofacute gastroenteritis (inflammation in thestomach and intestines) worldwide and can


Testing for norovirus, a virus named after the cityof Norwalk, Ohio, where the original strain caused

an outbreak in 1968.

infect all age groups. There are more than100 known strains of human noroviruses,though they can be difficult to characterizebecause they are difficult to grow inculture. This has also made it difficult tostudy whether the viruses can betransmitted from one species to another.

Noroviruses are mainly transmittedthrough the fecal-oral route (meaninginfected excrement is somehow ingested).Contamination has occurred in privatewells, water systems, recreational watersand even ice cubes. Cold food itemscontaminated by infected food handlersand consumption of contaminatedshellfish have also been documented asmodes of transmission for these viruses.89

Noroviruses cause viral gastroenteritis(commonly referred to as “stomach flu”),which may include vomiting, diarrhea,stomach cramps, low-grade fever, chills,

headache, muscle aches and fatigue. Theillness often appears suddenly (sometimeswithin twelve hours of ingestion of thevirus) but typically lasts only a day or two.Noroviruses are highly contagious - bothstool and vomit are infectious. People arecontagious from the onset of illness to atleast three days, and as much as twoweeks, after recovery. Additionally, themany different strains of norovirus makeit difficult for a person to develop long-lasting immunity to the illness.Fortunately, the most serious health effectof viral gastroenteritis is dehydration,which can be prevented by theconsumption of fluids. Spreadinginfection can be prevented by frequenthand-washing (especially after changingdiapers of infected infants), steamingshellfish before consumption and avoidingrecreational water contact when infected.90

Almost all outbreaks of non-bacterialgastroenteritis can be attributed tonorovirus infection, with an estimatedtwenty-three million cases in the UnitedStates each year. At this time, theeffectiveness of disinfection methods fordrinking water are not well known andnoroviruses appear to be resistant tochlorine disinfection.91


Clean Water Action

Source Water Stewardship — a Guide toProtecting and Restoring Your Drinking Water

http://www.cleanwaterfund.org/sourcewater/guide.html

The Groundwater Foundation

Source Water Assessment and Protectionhttp://www.groundwater.org/gi/swap/swap.html

Source Water Collaborative

A web portal of the eighteen nationalorganizations united to protect America’ssources of drinking water.

http://www.protectdrinkingwater.org

APPENDIX B: FOR MORE INFORMATION

United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (US EPA)

Consider the Source: A Pocket Guide to Protecting YourDrinking Water (Drinking Water Pocket Guide #3) -provides states, local governments, andconsumers with resources to enhance existingsource water protection programs and futuredrinking water protection plans. This guideincludes an overview of Clean Water Act andSafe Drinking Water Act based regulatory andvoluntary resources, tools, managementmeasures, and financing sources.

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sourcewater/pubs/guide swppocket 2002.pdf

US EPA: Ground Water & Drinking Waterhttp://www.epa.gov/safewater/

US EPA: Ground Water Rulehttp://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/gwr/index.html

US EPA: Source Water Protectionhttp://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/sourcewater/

US EPA: Waterhttp://www.epa.gov/ow

Check these websites for the latest information.


1 Merriam-Webster Online. 3 August 2006<http://www.m-w.com/>

2 Ibid.3 Corso, Phaedra S., et al. “Cost of Illness in

the 1993 Waterborne CryptosporidiumOutbreak, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.”Emerging Infectious Diseases. Apr. 2003:426-431.

4 American Waterworks Association.Waterborne Pathogens: Manual of WaterSupply Practices M48 2nd ed., Denver:AWWA. 2006.

5 “Washington County Fair E. Coli Outbreak.”Fair and Petting Zoo Safety. 4 August 2006<http://www.fair-safety.com/news/washington-county.htm>

6 “Ohio Outbreak Investigation.” CooperativeResearch Centre for Water Quality andTreatment. 4 August 2006 <http://www.waterquality.crc.org.au/hsarch/HS337c.htm>

7 Wyoming Department of Health.“Wyoming Bible Camp Investigates WaterSupply After Illness Reports.” Water andWastes Digest. 28 August 2006 <http://www.wwdmag.com/wwd/index.cfm/powergrid/rfah=|cfap=/CFID/8333/CFTOKEN/45874885/fuseaction/showNewsItem/newsItemID/12016>

8 Canada. Federal- Provincial-TerritorialCommittee on Drinking Water of theFederal-Provincial-Territorial Committeeon Health and Environment. “Guidelinesfor Canadian Drinking Water Quality:Guideline Technical Document: BacterialWaterborne Pathogens- Current andEmerging Organisms of Concern.”Ottawa: Canada, February 2006.

9 Merriam-Webster Online. 3 August 2006<http://www.m-w.com/>

10 Ibid.11 Ibid.

12 American Waterworks Association.Waterborne Pathogens: Manual of WaterSupply Practices M48 2nd ed., Denver: AWWA.2006.

13 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency. Drinking Water Standards forRegulated Contaminants. 28 March 2007<http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/therule.html#Surface>

14 “Milwaukee- 10 Years Later.” CooperativeResearch Centre for Water Quality andTreatment. 25 July 2006 <http://www.waterquality.crc.org.au/hsarch/HS30b.htm>

15 Washington State Department of HealthDivision of Environmental Health Office ofDrinking Water. Groundwater Sources Underthe Direct Influence of Surface Water (GWI).29 March 2007 <http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/dw/Programs/groundwater.htm>

16 Ibid.17 Ibid.18 Pederson, T.L. “Contamination of Water and

Soil by Sewage and Water Treatment Sludge.”Extension Toxicology Network. 9 August2006 <http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/safedrink/sewage.htm>

19 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency. Combined Sewer Overflows. 11August 2006 http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=5

20 Pederson, T.L. “Contamination of Water andSoil by Sewage and Water Treatment Sludge.”Extension Toxicology Network. 9 August2006 <http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/safedrink/sewage.htm>

21 University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension.“Worksheet 2: Site Evaluation.” Farm-A-Syst;Nebraska’s Farm Assessment System forAssessing the Risk of Water Contamination.Lincoln: University of Nebraska, n.d.

APPENDIX C: ENDNOTES


22 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency. “Management Guidelines for Onsite& Clustered (Decentralized) WastewaterTreatment Systems.” Source WaterAssessment and Protection Workshop, BlackBear Casino, Carlton, Minnesota. 13 May 2003.

23 “Ohio Outbreak Investigation.” CooperativeResearch Centre for Water Quality andTreatment. 4 August 2006 <http://www.waterquality.crc.org.au/hsarch/HS337c.htm>

24 “Introduction: What is Karst?” WesternKentucky University Center for Cave andKarst Studies. 5 September 2006 <http://www.dyetracing.com/karst/ka01001.html>

25 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.South Bass Island, Ottawa CountyGastrointestinal Illness Summer 2004: OhioEnvironmental Protection AgencyInvestigation and Actions. 4 September 2006<http://www.epa.state.oh.us/ddagw/SBIweb/Reports/SBI_EPA.pdf#search=%22south%20bass%20island%20ohio%20gastroenteritis%22>

26 Pederson, T.L. “Contamination of Water andSoil by Sewage and Water Treatment Sludge.”Extension Toxicology Network. 9 August2006 <http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/safedrink/sewage.htm>

27 King County Natural Resources and Parks.Fast Action by King County Wastewater CrewStops Lincoln Park Sewer Line Leak. 4September 2006 <http://dnr.metrokc.gov/dnrp/press/2006/0204sewer-line-leak.htm>


29 Barstow, David. “E. coli Takes Terrible Toll onFamilies, and on Fair’s Future.” New YorkTimes. 25 July 2006 <http://www.marlerclark.com/news/wacounty6.htm>

30 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency. Ground Water Rule (GWR). 28March 2007 <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/gwr/index.html>

31 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency Office of Water. Guidance Manual forConducting Sanitary Surveys of Public WaterSystems; Surface Water and GroundwaterUnder the Direct Influence (GWUDI). 16August 2006 <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/pdf/sansurv/sansurv.pdf>

32 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency. Source Water Assessments. 28 March2007 <http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/sourcewater/sourcewater.cfm?action=FAQ_Assessments>

33 Herpel, Rachael. Using Technology to Conducta Contaminant Source Inventory: A Primer forSmall Communities. Lincoln: TheGroundwater Foundation, 2003.

34 “Innovative State Legislation; Issue: CAFOZoning.” State Environmental ResourceCenter. 7 September 2006 <http://www.serconline.org/afoZoning.html>

35 Hygnstrom, Jan, et. al. “Residential On-siteWastewater Treatment: An Overview.” Lincoln:University of Nebraska, 2005.

36 Hygnstrom, Jan, et. al. “Residential On-siteWastewater Treatment: Septic System andDrain field Maintenance.” Lincoln: Universityof Nebraska, 2001.


38 Hygnstrom, Jan, et. al. “Residential On-SiteWastewater Treatment: Lagoon Maintenance.”Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 2001.


40 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency. Concentrated Animal FeedingOperations Industry Effluence Guidelines. 5September 2006 <http://www.epa.gov/guide/cafo/#finalrule>

41 Willingham, Judy M. “WastewaterManagement.” Kansas State UniversityResearch and Extension. 5 September 2006<http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/fntr2/FOODASYST/5waste.pdf>


42 “U.S. Pet Ownership Statistics.” The HumaneSociety of the United States 8 September2006 <http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/pet_overpopulation_and_ownership_statistics/us_pet_ownership_statistics.html>

43 “English Pet Waste Digester.” Pet WasteManagement 8 September 2006 <http://www.composters.com/docs/petdigester.html>

44 Fox, Amanda, et. al. “Installing Your RiparianBuffer: Tree and Grass Planting, PostplantingCare and Maintenance.” Lincoln: Universityof Nebraska, 2005.

45 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency Office of Water. “Source WaterProtection Practices Bulletin: Managing Petand Wildlife Waste to Prevent Contaminationof Drinking Water.” 28 March 2007 <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sourcewater/pubs/fs_swpp_petwaste.pdf>

46 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency Office of Water. “Source WaterProtection Practices Bulletin: Managing StormWater Runoff to Prevent Contamination ofDrinking Water.” 28 March 2007 <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sourcewater/pubs/fs_swpp_stormwater.pdf>

47 “Water Well Construction, Pump Installation,and Water Well Decommissioning.” NebraskaRevised Statutes: Title 178, Chapter 12. 11September 2006 <http://www.sos.state.ne.us/business/regsearch/Rules/Health_and_Human_Services_System/Title-178/Chapter-12.pdf>

48 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency. FACTOIDS: Drinking Water andGround Water Statistics for 2005. WashingtonDC, December 2006.

49 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency. GROUND WATER RULE: StateRequirements for Protecting Public GroundWater Systems. 3 July 2007. <http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/standard/statereq.html>

50 Craun, M.F. et. al. “Waterborne OutbreaksReported in the United States.” Journal ofWater and Health. 04 Suppl 2, 2006.

51 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency. FACTOIDS: Drinking Water andGround Water Statistics for 2005. WashingtonDC, December 2006.

52 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency. Total Coliform Rule: A Handbook forSmall Noncommunity Water Systems servingless than 3,300 persons. Washington DC, July2006.

53 Ibid.54 American Water Works Association.

Waterborne Pathogens: Manual of WaterSupply Practices M48 2nd ed., Denver: AWWA.2006.

55 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency. Ground Water Rule BasicInformation. 3 July 2007. <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/gwr/basicinformation.html>

56 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency. Economic Analysis for the FinalGround Water Rule. Washington DC, October2006.

57 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency. DRAFT Complying with the GroundWater Rule: Small Entity Compliance Guide.Washington DC, March 2007.

58 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency. Ground Water Rule BasicInformation. 3 July 2007. <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/gwr/basicinformation.html>

59 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency. DRAFT Complying with the GroundWater Rule: Small Entity Compliance Guide.Washington DC, March 2007.

60 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency. Economic Analysis for the FinalGround Water Rule. Washington DC, October2006.

61 West Virginia Department of Health andHuman Resources, Bureau for Public Health,Office of Environmental Health Services,Environmental Engineering Division. State ofWest Virginia Source Water Assessment andProtection Program. August 1, 1999.


62 American Waterworks Association.Waterborne Pathogens: Manual of WaterSupply Practices M48 2nd ed., Denver: AWWA.2006

63 United States Department of Health andHuman Services Centers for Disease Controland Prevention Division of Bacterial andMycotic Diseases. Campylobacter Infections. 7July 2006 <http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/campylobacter_g.htm>


65 United States Department of Health andHuman Services Centers for Disease ControlDivision of Parasitic Diseases. Campylobacterand Drinking Water from Private Wells. 31August 2006 <http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/healthywater/factsheets/campylobacter.htm>

66 United States Department of Health andHuman Services Centers for Disease Controland Prevention Division of Bacterial andMycotic Diseases.


68 United States Department of Health andHuman Services Centers for Disease ControlDivision of Parasitic Diseases.Cryptosporidium. 20 July 2006 http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/cryptosporidiosis/factsht_cryptosporidiosis.htm


70 Todar, Kenneth. “Pathogenic E. Coli.”Todar’s Online Textbook of Bacteriology.Madison: University of Wisconsin. 19 July2006 <http://textbookofbacteriology.net/e.coli.html>

71 United States Department of Health andHuman Services National Center forInfectious Diseases/Division of Bacterial and

Mycotic Diseases. E. Coli O157:H7. 19 July2006 <ttp://www.cdc.gov/ncidod.dbmd/diseaseinfo/escherichiacolig.htm>

72 Todar, Kenneth. “Pathogenic E. Coli.”Todar’s Online Textbook of Bacteriology.Madison: University of Wisconsin. 19 July2006 <http://textbookofbacteriology.net/e.coli.html>


74 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency. E. Coli O157:H7 in Drinking Water.31 August 2006 <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ecoli.html>

75 United States Department of Health andHuman Services Centers for Disease Controland Prevention. Treatment of Water to Makeit Safe for Drinking. 31 August 2006 <http://www.cdc.gov/travel/water_treatment.htm>


77 Canada. British Columbia Ministry of Health.Giardiasis (“Beaver Fever”). 21 July 2006<http://www.bchealthguide.org/healthfiles/hfile10.stm>

78 United States Department of Health andHuman Services Centers for Disease ControlDivision of Parasitic Diseases. Giardia. 20July 2006 <http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/giardiasis/factsht_giardia.htm>

79 Canada. British Columbia Ministry of Health.Giardiasis (“Beaver Fever”). 21 July 2006<http://www.bchealthguide.org/healthfiles/hfile10.stm>

80 United States Department of Health andHuman Services Centers for Disease ControlDivision of Parasitic Diseases. Giardia. 20July 2006 <http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/giardiasis/factsht_giardia.htm>


i81 United States Department of Health andHuman Services Centers for Disease Controland Prevention. Treatment of Water to Makeit Safe for Drinking. 31 August 2006 <http://www.cdc.gov/travel/water_treatment.htm>

82 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency Office of Groundwater and DrinkingWater. Emergency Disinfection of DrinkingWater. 31 August 2006 <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/faq/emerg.html>


84 United States Department of Health andHuman Services Coordinating Center forInfectious Diseases/Division of Bacterial andMycotic Diseases. Legionella. 20 July 2006<http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/legionellosis_g.htm>


86 United States Department of Health andHuman Services Coordinating Center forInfectious Diseases/Division of Bacterial andMycotic Diseases. Legionella. 20 July 2006<http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/legionellosis_g.htm>

87 United States Department of Health andHuman Services Centers for Disease Controland Prevention. Treatment of Water to Makeit Safe for Drinking. 31 August 2006 <http://www.cdc.gov/travel/water_treatment.htm>

88 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency Office of Water. Legionella: DrinkingWater Fact Sheet. 31 August 2006 <http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/humanhealth/microbial/legionellafs.pdf>


90 United States Department of Health andHuman Services National Center forInfectious Diseases Respiratory and EntericViruses Branch. Norovirus: Q&A. 21 July2006 <http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/revb/gastro/norovirus-qa.htm>

91 American Waterworks Association.Waterborne Pathogens: Manual of WaterSupply Practices M48 2nd ed., Denver:AWWA. 2006.



The Groundwater FoundationPO Box 22558, Lincoln, NE 68542

www.groundwater.org1.800.858.4844

Documents

PROTECTING OUR WATER - National …neha.org/sites/default/files/eh-topics/water-quality/Protecting...Mar 29, 2007 · ... Monroe County Health Department ... Indianapolis-Marion County