RRWC, Michigan

Wellhead Protection (WHP) began nationwide in 1986, with amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Michigan’s program was approved in 1994 and was jointly developed by Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Michigan Department of Public Health (now Michigan Department of Environmental Quality). Wellhead Protection is a voluntary program, working to safeguard a community’s drinking water thru planning & management of lands.

The seven elements needed for a complete plan:

1.  Roles/Responsibilities – Who is going to be responsible for what tasks, and who will be responsible for the care and maintenance of the program in the near and far future. We encourage diversity, to have a group with wide experience.

2.  Delineation – Where is the water physically coming from to direct protection efforts.

3.  Sources of Contamination – What’s in the source area that can have an impact on your water system?

4.  Management – With the threats identified, what strategies can be used to manage or control the threats?

5.  Contingencies – In the worst case scenario, what will be done if the water supply is impacted and can’t be used for a short or long period of time?

6.  New Water Source – If for some reason the source of drinking water becomes permanently disabled, what are the plans for locating a new source?

7.  Public Involvement via Participation & Education – How will the public be informed and involved of the preceding six elements; how can they be impressed with the seriousness of such a program?

The WHP Program currently has 172 approved plans. The program also supports a well established 50/50 grant program to encourage development of future programs and support implementation of current protection activities.

With the reauthorization of the federal SDWA of 1996, P.L. 104-182, Section 1453 states were now required to implement a Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP).

The SDWA required the states within their SWAP to:

• Identify the areas that supply public tap water

• Inventory contaminants and assess source water susceptibility to contamination.

• Inform the public of the results.

In 1998, the MDEQ convened a SWAP Advisory Committee composed of stakeholders from federal, state regulatory, local health departments, universities, nonprofits organizations, and representative trade associations to assist with developing the Michigan SWAP. The final SWAP document was submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection in February 1999 and approved in October 1999.

Public water supplies using surface water were assessed using procedures defined in ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL for GREAT LAKE SOURCES and with assistance from water treatment plant personnel. In total 60 surface water supplies were assessed. The entire Michigan SWAP program took approximately 5 years and 5 million dollars to complete.

The data gathered during the SWAP is recognized as valuable with the ability to form the beginnings of the move from assessment to protection efforts. This was the origin of the state’s new Surface Water Intake Protection Program (SWIPP). SWIPP is part of the Source Water Protection Unit (SWPU) under the Drinking Water and Environmental Health Section of the MDEQ and generally follows the same seven elements of the established WHP. SWIPPs are initiated by community leaders, usually water personnel and have been written by community team members, consulting firms, or other non-profit organizations such as Michigan Rural Water. Currently there are three approved SWIPPs in the State of Michigan (Alpena, Adrian, and Ira Township).

The seven elements needed for a complete plan:

1. Roles/Responsibilities – Who is going to be responsible for what tasks, and who will be responsible to the care and maintenance of the program in the near and far future. We encourage diversity, to have a group with wide experience.

2. Designation Instead of Delineation - a SWIPP will have a designated protection area and not a delineated protection area due to the fact a hydro geological study is not done to determine the protection area. In all SWAPs surface water sources have a defined Source Water Area (SWA). This is usually the entire watershed boundaries but not always. In the majority of current completed SWIPPs the designated Intake Protection Area (IPA) has been prioritized. Priority one is the Critical Assessment Zone (CAZ). The CAZ for Great Lakes intakes is determined by the distance of the intake from shore (L) in feet, and the water depth of the intake structure (D) in feet. Multiplying these two factors yields a sensitivity value that determines the CAZ radius, resulting in a 1,000; 2,000; or 3,000-ft radius around the intake. The CAZ for inland rivers and lakes is 3,000 ft. Priority two is the 300’ buffer around surface water features within the SWA. A Great Lakes shoreline buffer is equal to the distance inland that the CAZ overlaps the shoreline (if at all). Priority three is defined by watershed boundaries or the defined SWA. This prioritization system does not have to be utilized and is simply a suggested plan for communities involved in the program. It is also suggested protection boundaries utilize available raw water quality data, flow models (if available) and institutional knowledge. Determination of this protection area has the same objective as a WHP delineation, to understand where the water is physically coming from, so as to direct protection efforts.

3. Sources of Contamination – Contaminate Source Inventory (CSI). What is out in the SWA that can have an impact on your water system? This may include mapping storm water outfalls including large parking lots and roadways possibly contributing to non-point source pollution of the intake. A CSI may also consider animal feeding operations, large or heavily contributing agricultural land, golf courses, and any other contaminant source within the watershed that is believed to have the potential to affect the intake. Communities should also be aware of the distribution of chemicals that are stored within the watershed at various businesses. Chemicals maybe stored on highly permeable soil and if a spill occurred this could affect surface water. Institutional knowledge should be used to identify those potential contaminants that are likely to have the most affect on the source water if contamination were to occur. Those facilities or potential contaminant site should be given priority in management strategies and outreach.

4. Management – With the threats identified, what strategies can be used to manage or control the threats? Tying source water protection program into Master Plans through resolutions is one step. The program also encourages unique locally developed ordinances or other specifically designed management strategies.

5. Contingencies – In the worst case scenario, what will be done if the water supply is impacted and can’t be used for a short or long period of time?

6. New Points of Intake – If for some reason the source of drinking water becomes permanently disabled, what are the plans for locating a new point of intake?

7. Public Involvement via Participation & Education – How will the public be informed and involved of the preceding six elements; how can they be impressed with the seriousness of such a program? Education of those involved in facility inspections, hazardous waste program and environmental permits should also be conducted. It is important to discuss the connections of their work to drinking water protection and even possibly bring some of these individuals on to the SWIPP team. Unique situations will also allow for development of other locally driven initiatives.

Michigan’s SWIPP recognizes a watershed is a large area to institute drinking water protection activities but also identifies activities within an entire watershed can seriously affect a drinking water source. The MDEQ encourages source water protection to include a regional focus utilizing other programs and management plans with similar goals. The SWPU has been working to recognizing connections with other organizations and MDEQ programs with similar goals. The program has been striving to establishing lines of communications so efforts and resources can be utilized in collaboration.

Over the past two years the Source Water Protection Committee has invited representatives from various DEQ programs and outside organizations to speak at quarterly meetings. A recent guest speaker was Dr. Joan Rose, Director of the MSU Center for Water Science, Chair of the USEPA Drinking Water Committee for the Science Advisory Board. Dr. Rose discussed waterborne microbial contaminants. Other guest speakers included Ric Falardeau, MDEQ On-Site Wastewater Program; Mike Bray and Dan Dell, MDEQ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program; Bob Day, MDEQ Non-Point Source Program; Dave Drullinger, MDEQ Storm Water Program; and Erik Sunday, Total Maximum Daily Load.

The Source Water Protection Committee is always searching for connections to similar organizations and programs. The meeting scheduled for February 2007 will be a presentation and round table discussion with Gayle Mitchell from the River Raisin Watershed Council and Shane Horn from the City of Adrian. They plan to discuss their current and future collaborations for watershed and drinking water protection. The SWPU has also made an outreach effort to watershed councils, municipalities and various environmental organizations. Staff continues to collaborate with municipalities interested in SWIPP (Grand Haven, Grand Rapids, Manistique, Blissfield, Bridgman, Caseville) as well as area watershed councils and groups such as the Friends of the St. Joseph River and the River Raisin Watershed Council. Staff also presented SWIPP information at three state wide DEQ workshops aimed at water supply personnel, the MI Section of the American Water Works Association Annual Conference and the Watershed 319 Grant recipient workshop in April 2006.

Through work with various watershed councils the SWPU recognizes watershed protection efforts do not always consider drinking water protection in their program implementation. It is anticipated the new SWIPP can help coordinated efforts with other protection programs within a watershed. This may mean including drinking water issues in watershed management plans or elaborating on watershed or storm water issues within SWIPPs. Current suggestions include SWIPPs inclusion of ongoing monitoring such as storm water discharge and beach monitoring and work to bring drinking water issues to the forefront of watershed management plans. It is also recognized coordinated efforts maybe numerous and very site specific. For example storm water plans, SWIPPs and watershed management plans all have education and outreach components. Education and outreach in one community may not work in other but the SWPU encourages communities to recognize and take advantage of overlap between programs. Active Watershed Council can be a huge benefit to developing SWIPPs. The SWPU encourages representation from Watershed Councils on SWIPP teams.

In the end it is anticipated related data and organizations should strengthen all programs. The possibility for coordination of programs is endless as programs appear to have similar goals and objectives. It may or may not be possible to combine plans, this has been suggested. Initial cooperation between programs can begin now as SWIPP efforts work to coordinated similar programs.

For more information, please click on the links to the right.