 |
|
 |
EE&T | AwwaRF |
 |
Home > Case Studies > USEPA Watershed Protection Programs |
|
*Source Water Protection |
Water utility survey A survey of US water utility experiences regarding AFOs and CAFOs was conducted in 2005 by EE&T, Inc. The survey (Original Survey The remainder of this discussion focuses on the responses from the 30 utilities with CAFOs in their watershed. Combined they present a wide range of CAFOs in their watersheds, source water protection measures and goals, treatment responses, and degrees of communication with CAFOs. The types of CAFOs in those 30 watersheds include swine, beef cattle, dairy cattle, chickens, turkeys, aquaculture, horse, buffalo, and elk. The primary CAFOs for these watersheds include 10 dairy cattle, 9 beef cattle, 5 swine, 3 chicken, and a few utilities did not know which were the dominant CAFOs. At least 19 of the 30 utilities have source water protection programs in place. Click on the links below to see the survey responses from the 30 utilities with CAFOs in their watershed.
In regard to potential AFO contaminants in their source waters, pathogens and other microbial contamination were the current concern most frequently listed by these 30 utilities (90 percent of the respondents), followed by nutrients and pesticides (48 percent), and less frequently pharmaceuticals, other organic contaminants, and metals (approximately one-third of the respondents listed each of these). Evidence of CAFO impacts on source water quality Six of the 30 utilities have direct evidence of CAFO impacts on their source water quality, twelve have no direct evidence but suspect an impact, and the rest have no known or suspected impact. Six of the 30 utilities have already instituted treatment modification in response to environmental water quality impacts perceived to be, at least in part, from CAFOs:
Future treatment modifications Eight of the 30 utilities have planned future treatment modifications in response to impacts perceived to be, at least in part, from CAFOs: One facility is planning a future expansion which will continue to utilize ozonation as well as possibly UV disinfection for Cryptosporidium deactivation One facility is evaluating several treatment alternatives to maintain compliance with existing and future regulations. Membrane technology is the focus of the evaluation, for the removal of nitrates and organic compounds including DBP precursors, taste and odor compounds, and pesticides of which CAFO wastes may contribute One facility is considering additional wells, riverbank filtration, off-stream storage, membranes and groundwater Two utilities have plans for installing UV disinfection for treatment for Cryptosporidium, Giardia and viruses One facility is going to move an intake to a deeper location below thermocline and implement switching of locations to avoid spring rain and snow melt One facility will be installing new ultrafiltration membrane filters to replace existing sand filters One facility is considering enhanced coagulation, microfiltration or UV disinfection Interestingly, ten of the 30 respondents who said they had CAFOs in their watershed also noted that CAFOs were not identified in the Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) report for their source water. Cooperation with the local farmers is essential for the success of any agricultural source water protection program. Many of the participating water utilities present excellent examples of different approaches to take for communication and partnership with the local agricultural interests. Utility contacts with CAFOs include the following various examples: Participation in watershed coalitions that include state agencies, local watershed partners and farm operators Working with county conservation districts, Agricultural Extension agents, state regulatory agencies, state agricultural agencies, and USDA offices that have existing dialogues with CAFOs Direct work with a CAFO on a stream restoration project funded in part with a 319 grant, as part of a TMDL action item Participation in the Quad State Poultry Dialogue ( Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma) Meetings with the Soil and Water Conservation District (or the Natural Resources Conservation Service) and area land owners to discuss water quality issues, generally centered around nutrient loadings related to row crop activities In one watershed all dairies have agricultural management plans developed with assistance from local and state agricultural specialists. That same utility provides cost-share funds to agricultural operators who install qualifying agricultural Best Management Practices Another utility contracts with the local Soil and Water Conservation District to operate a Watershed Agricultural Program which develops Whole Farm Plans (including Nutrient Management Plans) for the participating farmers (mostly dairy), and the utility also pays 100 percent of the costs of all agricultural BMPs installed. Local farmers were directly involved with the water utility at each of the primary phases of development, implementation and review of this program. Annual meetings are held for the program to further engage local farmers One utility says their Watershed Agricultural Program, funded by the state environmental regulatory agency and implemented by a Watershed Agricultural Council, has become a national model for addressing agricultural nonpoint source pollution. More than 95 percent of the watershed farms have joined the program, which develops Whole Farm Plans (WFPs) and recommends BMPs to reduce agricultural pollution and enhance the economic viability of participating farms One city established a stakeholder-based Comprehensive Watershed Management Team in 1997 to develop a regionally coordinated approach to address water quality degradation in their watershed. Participants were drawn from two states, and included poultry growers, poultry integrators, poultry litter haulers and applicators, concerned citizens, federal and multi-state agencies and universities. Three working groups were established to focus on technical issues and build a sound scientific and economic basis for addressing water quality degradation The 30 water utilities use a variety of source water protection measures for potential CAFO and AFO impacts, including:
The 30 water utilities cited a variety of goals for future source water protection efforts related to potential CAFO impacts, including:
|
) was sent to 182 water utilities in the US, ranging from one to nine in all of the 50 states (except Alaska). 64 replies were received (35 percent of those sent); of those 30 have CAFOs in their watershed. Combined these 30 water utility survey respondents produce over 10,000 mgd for over 16 million people in 18 different states. Respondents with CAFOs in their watershed came from the following states: Arkansas (1), Iowa (2), Idaho (1), Illinois (3), Minnesota (4), Missouri (1), New York (2), North Carolina (3), North Dakota (1), Nebraska (2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Pennsylvania (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (3), Utah (1), Vermont (1), and Wyoming (1).  |