Source Water Protection

Transcription

1 Source Water Protection A Practices and Pe rspectiv es Prepared for: By Lisa Ragain and Jennifer Breedlove, Aqua Vitae December 30, , AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

2 Executive Summary To better understand the status of source water protection programs and assess the successes and barriers to implementation of such programs in North America, the Source Water Protection Committee of the American Water Works Association conducted a pilot survey in This survey was intended to: Gain an understanding of the status of Source Water Protection Programs in North America. Identify implementation challenges and barriers to developing and deploying source water protection programs. Identify technical and educational needs among utilities and outline strategies to address these needs. Recommend various activities to promote implementation of source water protection programs. The goal of the survey was to obtain insights from a targeted subset of drinking water utilities large community water systems (i.e., those serving a year-round population of 10,001 to 100,000 1 ) regarding the current status of successes, challenges, and impediments in implementing their source water protection programs. Findings Results from the survey are reported on the basis of the six elements of a successful source water protection program, as specified in AWWA Standard G300 for Source Water Protection. The following is a brief summary of the survey results. 1 US EPA definition of a large system Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2

3 Vision Utilities with written a written source water protection vision or policies were significantly more likely to have other source water protection elements in place. Characterization More than 80% of respondents have completed the core portions of source water characterization. Pollution control was the least completed component of characterization. Goals Written goals correlate well with completion of the other elements of successful source water protection programs and positive opinions. Less than half (49%) of utilities have written goals for their source water protection programs. Utilities do not often link or associate source water protection projects to program goals. Action Plans 87% of utilities include relevant local, state, and/or federal regulations in their source water protection plans. Project prioritization is a challenge in planning source water protection programs. Utility resources and state primacy agency were identified as the primary funding sources for source water protection programs. Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 3

4 Implementation Funding was identified as a challenge in achieving successful source water protection programs. AWWA and state primacy agencies are the most cited sources of information on source water protection. 60% of respondents participated in source water protection training or technical assistance. 2 Evaluation and Revision Source water protection policies or vision are scheduled for revision in 29% of survey utilities. Programs are regularly reviewed and modified by 27% of respondents. 20% of utilities reported using quantitative measure to evaluate source water protection goals. Stakeholders In the opinion of the respondents, stakeholder involvement was described as important or helpful by 56% of respondents. 42% of the survey utilities reported actively engaging stakeholders. Education, land use planning and source water program planning were the most frequently reported collaborative activities. Local government, other utilities and conservation groups were identified as the most common stakeholders in source water protection programs. 2 Technical assistance and training was included in the implementation element as it often relates to specific actions in a source water protection program or project. Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 4

5 Observations Based on results of the survey, the following are additional impresssions. Written vision and goals are essential factors for implelentation of successful source water protection programs. Additional promotion of the AWWA Standard G300 and Guidance would benefit utilities. For some utilities, funding appears as a primary barrier to source water protection plan implementation. Collaboration is key to successful source water protection programs, but was not a strong component for survey utilities. Stakeholder elements, including terminology, need additional consideration in future research. Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 5

6 Introduction The 1996 reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) introduced source water protection as an essential barrier in the multiple barrier approach to assuring drinking water quality for drinking water utilities. Beginning in the late 1990 s, states were required to prepare source water assessments to determine water systems susceptibility to contamination sources. Since 1996, many water utilities have initiated source water protection programs to address their own specific source water protection needs. At the same time, AWWA and the Source Water Protection Committee, in conjunction with AWWA s Technical and Educational Council and Standards Council, have worked toward developing resources to promote and assist utilities in their efforts to protection their drinking water supply sources. Two results of the effort are the AWWA Standard G300 and Operational Guide for the AWWA Standard G300. To better understand the status of source water protection programs and assess the successes and barriers in implementation, the Source Water Protection Committee, with funding support from the AWWA s Technical and Educational Council, conducted a pilot survey in This survey was intended to: Gain an understanding of the status of Source Water Protection Programs in North America. Identify implementation challenges and barriers to developing and deploying source water protection programs. Identify technical and educational needs among utilities and outline strategies Formatted: Bullets and Numbering to address these needs. Recommend various activities to promote implementation of source water protection program. Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 6

7 The goal of the survey was to obtain insights from a targeted subset of drinking water utilities regarding the current status of successes, challenges, and impediments in implementing their source water protection programs. The survey queried large community water systems serving a year-round population of 10,001 to 100, Methods The Source Water Protection Committee opted for an on-line format for this pilot survey. This allowed for direct download of data and allowed utilities to access and respond to the questions at anytime. In addition, the respondents could leave the survey and return to finish at a later time. As a pilot survey, an additional goal was to collect information that could be used to develop a full survey for water systems across all size categories. To create an initial sampling frame, a data set was extracted of all large water systems in the Environmental Protection Agency s (EPA) Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) database, with a total of 4323 records. For the data set to reflect the goals outlined for the survey, inactive records, non-community water systems and wholesale customers (consecutive systems) were removed from the initial group. This resulted in a data set of 2,645 records for large water systems. To further refine the data set, the remaining utility records were sorted by region using zip codes. Four regions were established, Northeast, Southeast, Central and West, along with a single category for U.S. territories. Next, the percentage of systems in each region was calculated. Table 1 compares the percentages of water systems in SDWIS and the final sample frame, by region. 3 US EPA definition of a large system Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 7

8 Table 1. Survey sample of utility respondents compared with the proportion of large utilities SDWIS by region. Northeast 4 Southeast Central West Territories Other 5 (n) % Sample 25% 16.2% 30% 19.5% 0.8% 11.2% (n) % SDWIS 23.4% 25.9% 29.5% 19.2% 2% - The survey sample was fairly representative when compared to large utilities by region in the SDWIS database. Several states had more respondents than others in the region. The states with the most participation were California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri and Pennsylvania. The survey instrument was developed in conjunction with the Source Water Protection Committee. The questions were developed in the context of the six elements of source water protection, outlined in the AWWA Standard G300. To assess barriers and successes, perception and opinions were ascertained using multiple choice and Likertscale questions 6. Additional questions focused on utility and respondent demographics. The full survey instrument is provided in Appendix D. 4 NE CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI SE AL, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA CE IA, IL, IN, KS, MN, MO, ND, NE, OH, OK, SD, TX, WI W AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA 5 Server bounce, unidentified server location 6 Likert scale questions measure attitudes and opinions by asking the level to which the respondent "agrees" or "disagrees" with a statement. In a given question, the scale gives an odd number of choices with an equal amount of agreement/disagreement choices on either side of a neutral option. See Appendix D for examples. Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 8

9 The on-line survey was accessible to utilities for a one-month period. Respondents were invited to participate through several channels. Fliers and information were provided to all AWWA sections, an announcement appeared in Streamlines, and the Source Water Protection Committee circulated information to their contacts. In addition, several source water collaborative groups were contacted directly, and phone calls were placed to a randomized group within each region of the SDWIS sample frame. Results The six elements of the AWWA Standard G300 provided the framework for categorizing and analyzing results. More importantly, this structure identifies specific areas that can be associated with successful source water programs and used to develop strategies to assist utilities in implementation. Figure 1. Six Elements of a Successful Source Water Protection Program 7 7 AWWA Standard G-300 Operational Guide, Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 9

10 As noted in the methods section, the utilities were relatively geographically representative of large U.S. water systems when compared with the sample frame derived from SDWIS. A total of 127 utilities responded to the survey. While this number was small, the survey data provided insight on success factors for implementation, barriers to implementation, and strategies for improving utility source water protection programs. Results are categorized by each of the six elements. Additional descriptive tables and figures for the utilities and survey results are provided in Appendix A. Detailed tables corresponding to each of the six elements are in Appendix B. Vision Vision forms the basis for source water programs, and acts as a guide in developing and implementing the process. The concept is also captured by terms such as mission or policy. In the structure of the survey instrument, the concept of vision, or policy, was captured in the first three questions. Utilities were asked if they had specific policies and management practices in place. Table 2. Survey results for utility vision or policy element in source water protection programs. Policy/Vision Percent (n) Written policy (vision) 61% (84) Process to revise policy (vision) 53% (62) Stakeholders involved with policy (vision) revisions 31% (40) Almost two-thirds of respondents reported a written or documented source water protection policy. As the first crucial step in source water protection programs, the policy, or vision question was used as a cross-tabulation with other responses. Those results are discussed in the section titled Vision and Goals and tables are available in Appendix C. Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 10

11 Characterization Characterization of source water areas and water quality is the foundation for planning and implementing source water protection programs. Regardless of other factors, including written policies or goals, the survey demonstrated characterization is an area of strength for the set of water systems in this survey. Table 3. Survey results for utility characterization element of source water protection programs. Source Water Area Percent (n) Source water quality data 89% (94) Susceptibility analysis complete 75% (82) Boundaries defined 74% (85) High priorities identified 71% (80) Information and Data General land use 92% (97) Potential contamination documented 85% (87) Activities documented 80% (84) Electronic information accessible 70% (73) Past activities documented 64% (67) Pollution controls documented 56% (58) Characterization of source water and source water protection areas was the most consistently completed program element. At a minimum the majority of utilities had source water quality data and land-use information. Documentation of pollution controls was the least developed component of characterization, and could warrant additional investigation. Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 11

12 Goals As the third element of source water protection programs, goals are based on both vision and characterization information. As noted, characterization was a strong point for survey respondents. However, the utilities surveyed did not explicitly link source water protection goals to other program elements, specifically action plans and implementation. Table 4. Survey results for utility source water protection program goals and related components. Goal Planning and Assessment Percent (n) Written goals for source water program 49% (48) Goals supported by planned, on-going or completed projects 40% (40) Goal Development 8 Multiple units in utility involved 81% (39) Stakeholders involved 66% (31) Quantitative measures for goals 43% (20) Other local utilities involved 42% (20) Less than half of the utilities had written goals for their source water protection programs. Even fewer identified projects or linked projects to source water program goals. To better gauge the relationship between goals and implementation, the survey asked if respondents believed the utility s source water projects advance the goals of their source water programs. 8 Skip question. Development results are of the respondents with written goals. Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 12

13 Table 5. Utility respondent perceptions of source water protection projects advancing program goals. Projects Advance Goals Percent Very much 10% (9) In most cases 41% (40) Somewhat 24% (23) Not really 21% (20) Never 3% (3) The response to this perception question indicates that for the majority of respondents, projects and goals are not clearly connected, nor is that connection a priority. When cross-tabulated with written utility policies or written program goals, the respondents were significantly more likely to report that source water project advanced program goals. In the absence of formalized goals, it appears that utilities may find it more difficult to identify and implement projects that promote source water protection program goals. Action Plans Successful source water protection programs need a road map for implementation. The vision and goals are the foundation. Utilities then need to incorporate the results of the characterization element to produce an action plan for source water protection. Action plans are the fourth element in the sequence of source water protection elements. At this point in the survey, the number of responses and completed components began to wane. State and local regulations are incorporated into plans by 80% of the respondents. Only about one-third reported prioritizing projects, and less than one-quarter developed work plans for priority projects. Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 13

14 Table 6. Survey results for utility source water protection action plans components. Plan element Percent (n) State and local regulations included 80% (83) Participation in research 39% (37) Legal protections for area 65% (69) Projects prioritized 37% (36) Work plans for priority projects 22% (21) The survey also asked about source water protection research. More than one-third of utilities participated in source water protection research. The majority of this research was initiated by the utility and was in collaboration with other agencies or utilities. Stakeholders Stakeholder involvement was assessed throughout the survey. As stakeholder participation is key to successful source water protection programs, the results are reported as a group in this section. Stakeholder can have different meanings to different respondents, and the range of organizations involved with source water protection is extensive. To provide consistency for respondents and survey we results, a stakeholder was defined in each section. The survey instrument presented the following definition of stakeholder each time it was introduced. In this survey, the term stakeholder refers to organizations, state and local agencies or others that collaborate with utilities on source water protection. Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 14

15 Table 7. Survey results for stakeholder involvement and collaboration with utility source water protection programs. Stakeholder Factors Percent (n) Involved with policy (vision) 40% (40) Identified in planning 66% (67) Roles identified in plans 42% (42) Actively engaged in programs 42% (42) The majority of utilities (40%) did not involve stakeholders the first element, vision and policy. However, two-thirds of the survey sample identified stakeholders in their source water protection planning. Utilities with identified roles for stakeholders reported that the stakeholders were actively engaged in source water programs (42%). The survey skipped respondents past the detailed stakeholder questions if they answered no to the above. Forty-two utilities answered the next set of questions. Of that group, education (64%), program planning (62%) and land use planning (60%) were the most frequently cited stakeholder activities. Source water collaboration most often included local government (93%), other utilities (86%) and conservation groups (59%). This survey assessed perceptions using Likert-scale questions, and one was included about source water protection stakeholders. All respondents were asked their opinion of stakeholder involvement with source water protection. The results allow for a comparison of respondents perceptions with their reported practices. Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 15

16 Table 8. Survey respondent opinion of stakeholder involvement in utility source water protection planning or programs. How would you describe stakeholder involvement source water protection programs? Percent (n) Critical 18% (18) Important 38% (38) Helpful 28% (28) Optional 18% (18) Not necessary 3% (3) The results indicate that utilities value stakeholder participation in source water protection activities. When this opinion question is evaluated in comparison to the other stakeholder questions, it becomes evident that utility perceptions are not manifested in source water protection practice. Stakeholders are essential due to the complex nature of source water protection. Source water protection programs cross disciplines, boundaries and knowledge centers. Stakeholders are the bridge to address this complexity. The small number of utilities that actively engage stakeholders and the drop off in number of respondents answering survey questions on this topic indicate this element of source water protection programs may be a challenge for utilities. Another consideration is the term stakeholder. This reference may bring to mind a regulatory or rulemaking framework. Successful source water protection programs necessitate a collaborative or partnership framework and relationships. In future research, and in utility practice, using terms such as collaboration or partners may better capture the both the nature and practice of the organizational relationships at the core of source water protection programs. Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 16

17 Implementation In order to achieve source water protection goals, utilities need to implement projects that support the goals. To assess implementation, questions included topics from training and technical assistance, to funding to use of the AWWA Standard G300. Technical assistance and training was included in this section as many of the topics relate to the implementation of source water protection programs. In this survey, 42% of respondents reported that source water protection projects were in process or completed. Only half of respondents knew about the AWWA Standard G- 300, and of that group, only 50% used the standard in their source water protection programs. Table 9. Survey results for utility implementation of source water protection programs. Element Percent (n) Primacy agency has specific source water unit 76% (70) Collaboration with other state /local agencies 69% (63) Participation in TA/training 62% (58) State and local regulations part of planning 78.3% (83) Priority projects in process or completed 42% (40) Funding Sources Utility 65% (54) State primacy or other agency 45% (37) Know of AWWA Standard G300 51% (42) Use Standard G300 50% (21) Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 17

18 Funding is an important factor in order to implement source water protection programs. The survey results indicate that utilities rely primarily on their own resources, primacy agencies and user fees to support their programs. In addition, utilities without a written policy were more likely to cite funding as a barrier to implementing successful source water protection programs. Securing funding for source water was identified as a key challenge in this survey. A majority of utilities (62%) reported that they participated in a training or technical assistance for source water protection. Respondents accessed a wide range of organizations, but state primacy agencies were noted by a majority (61%). State and regional AWWA, rural water sections and consulting groups each were listed in close to one-third of the responses. Utilities were asked if they believed technical assistance or training improved source water proteciton programs. The majority (83%) believed these tools do improve source water protection programs. Technical assistance was cited as one of the factors in successful source water programs. Table 10. Surveyed utilities opinion of the role of technical assistance and traing in improving source water protection programs. Improvement Percent Always 8% (7) Most of the time 38% (35) Sometimes 47% (43) Rarely 7% (6) Never 1% (1) Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 18

19 As with other opinion questions, written policies and goals were associated with a more positive view of technical assistance and training. Respondents participated in training on technical topics, such as data analysis (35%) and water quality monitoring (72%). When asked which topics would most assist in implementing successful programs, funding (53%), program planning (48%) and implementation (42%) ranked the highest). To better assist utilities in implementing source water protection programs, it is important to understand where they currently look for information on source water protection topics. The survey asked respondents to note where they got their information on source water protection, either on-line or printed. While respondents noted several sources for information, respondents strongly preferred AWWA and state primacy agencies. Knowledge of preferred information sources will also assist in promoting the AWWA Standard G300 and Operational Guide. AWWA as a preferred information source is a good position for additional outreach and education. Table 11. Information sources for source water protection as reported by utilities. Organization Percent AWWA 63% (52) State Primacy Agency 57% (47) Regional or local partnership 30% (25) Evaluation and Revision Successful programs always include an evaluation component and processes for revision. However, quite often, this programmatic area is the weakest element, regardless of the subject or priority. The survey results demonstrate that this element in source water protection programs is the most challenging element for utilities. Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 19

20 Table 12. Survey respondents reports of evaluation and revision elements for utility source water protection programs. Evaluation Percent Consult with stakeholders on revisions 68% (25) Quantitative measure to evaluate goals 43% (20) Policy or process to evaluate/revise projects 40% (37) Process to incorporate emerging issues 9 33% (31) Project outcomes assessed 27% (26) One-third of respondents engage in some sort of evaluation or revision activity in their source water protection planning or programs. The results reported above are for that subset of utilities. For several program elements, specific questions were asked regarding a scheduled revision process. Table 13. Scheduled revisions of source water protection program elements as reported by survey respondent. Element Percent Policy 48% (28) Boundaries 26% (29) Program 70% (26) 9 Emerging issues was defined in terms of contaminants such as pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs) or large risks such as climate change. Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 20

21 Respondents were given the option of one, two and five years, with an other option. For each category, the majority of utilities that scheduled revisions did so with a fiveyear schedule (48% - 55%). Variables with positive associations in other categories, such as written goals, did not have an association with scheduled revisions. Utilities with an evaluation or revision processes were more likely to consult or report revisions to stakeholders. Vision and Goals In reviewing the data, it became apparent that two specific elements were closely associated with all other elements of a successful source water protection program. Cross tabulations between documented utility policy and written goals for the source water protection program demonstrated a significant influence on positive perceptions and implementation. Cross tabulations for both goals and policies demonstrated an association. A written source water protection policy (or vision) produced the strongest positive associations. For a written source water protection policy, results demonstrated that utilities were: Twice as likely to have evaluated pollution controls. Five times as likely to have goals supported by projects. Four times as likely to have priority projects in process or complete. Three times as likely to review and modify programs. Analysis by written goals demonstrated that utilities were: Twice as likely to have a written policy. Four time more likely to have projects to support goals. Six times more likely to engage stakeholders in goals. Twice as likely to have a policy or process to revise priorities and projects. Positive associations were also apparent in the results from the opinion or perception questions. Full tables are provided in Appendix C. Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 21

22 Perceptions Several questions were included to assess perceptions of source water protection programs in addition to the quantitative questions. These questions were on a Likertscale, multiple choice or a ranking. As noted previously, respondents with written source water policy or goals had more positive responses Likert-Scale Questions Opinion questions topics were projects advancing goals, techical assistance, and AWWA. Standard G-300. The majority believed that projects advanced source water protection goals in most cases (42%). In their experience, respondents reported that technical assitance or training sometimes improves programs (47%). Finally, respondents thought that AWWA Standard G300 would improve source water protection programs. For ther percpetion questions, positive answers by respondents were associated with a utility having written policies (vision). See the tables in Appendix C for details. Priorities Resources, planning and regulatory changes are a few of the challenges faced by drinking water utilites. The survey asked respondents to rank the utility s top priorties for strategic planning and capital expenditures by selecting up to three options. To understand the opportunities and barriers in source water protection implementation, it was important to identify how this specific issue related to other priorities. The top three priorities were identified as water quality (58%), asset management (43%), and the distribution system (42%). Source water protection garnered 20% of the respondent choices. However, source water protection is directly related to the top two priorities, water quality and asset management. Given the necessity of source water protection for water quality and the role of source water in asset management and planning, there is opportunity to build prioritization of source water programs into the emphasis on water quality and asset management. Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 22

23 Successes and Challenges The survey asked respondents to identify both success factors and barriers to successful source water protection programs. The highest ranked success factors were utility priority (77%) management support of source water programs (68%) and funding (59%). Barriers to successful programs were identified as competing priorities (66%), funding (65%) and staffing (45%). Utilities without a written policy were more likely to report funding as a factor for success and a barrier to implementation. Summary This survey covered a range of water system practices in regard to source water protection programs and practice. The following summarizes specific points related to the purposes and goals of this survey. Status Vision and goal elements are the foundation for utilities to implement successful source water protection programs. Utilities are most comfortable with the technical components of source water protection programs. The first three elements (vision, characterization, and goals) appear to be more complete than the last three (action plans, implementation, and evaluation and revision). Respondents have a positive attitude toward technical assistance and training. Application of the six elements in utility practice appears highly variable. Challenges Vision and goal elements must be completed to form the foundation of a successful program. Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 23

24 Evaluation is the weakest of the six elements. Stakeholder engagement and roles appeared to be underutilized as assets for action plans and implementation. Funding primarily through utility and primacy agency resources may limit resources, implementation and collaboration. Utilities are only marginally aware of the AWWA Standard G300 and the associated Operational Guide. Legal, jurisdictional and other structures complicate all other aspects of source water protection programs. Success Factors Collaboration and engagement appear to improve the completion of source water protection elements. Strong vision and goal elements are associated with completion of elements. Utilities are very adept at the characterization element. Respondents were able to identify success factors outside of their own experience. Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 24

25 Conclusion This survey set out not only to gather data, but was also intended to identify technical and educational needs, outline strategies, and recommend activities to promote implementation of source water protection programs. The following briefly outlines strategies, actions and observations that relate to future source water protection research and practice activities for drinking water utilities. Strategies and Actions Adoption of written vision and goals, as well as the completion of each element, should be a foundation for training, outreach and other activities. Source water protection needs to be aligned and integrated with top utility priorities to reduce resource competition with other priorities. Completing the vision and goal elements should promote better action plans and implementation, specifically in project prioritization. Promotion and implementation of AWWA Standard G-300 should in turn promote an improvement in the vision and goal elements. Actions should be organized around AWWA s unique position as a preferred information source. AWWA state and regional sections should be a focus of activities in their role as training sources. Collaboration and stakeholder engagement need additional encouragement, especially in the context of funding, planning and implementation. Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 25

26 Observations and Considerations Written vision and goals are essential for success in the other four elements of source water protection programs. Additional promotion of the AWWA Standard G300 and Guidance is essential. Utilities participate in training, and additional training should focus on the AWWA standard. Non-response bias would indicate that the sample in this survey would predminantly represent utilities that value source water protection and/or have strong programs. Several respondents provided source water programs for other utilities and were not always consecutive systems. Complexities in governance, legal protection, consecutive systems and regulations create challenges in quantitative assessment of source water programs. Perspectives 2011, AWWA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 26