Rich--this is something that Tom Poy had asked me to put together for internal purposes in May 2012; we looked at
internal documents only (did not verify with states). | thought that you might find it helpful.
FEEEEEEEEEEEEETEPEE EEE ETEPEE EEE EEE PEE EEEEEE EEE EEE EEE
Janet Kuefler
State Programs Team Leader
Ground Water and Drinking Water Branch
U.S. EPA Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd, WG-15J
Chicago, IL 60604
kueflecionet@ere gov
IDEM. According to the 2011-13 Indiana EnPPA, IDEM plans to spend $4,965,604 (91.56%) over 2
years for surface water and $457,966 (8.44%) over 2 years for groundwater. The total amount of 106
funds that will be spent for Groundwater and Surface Water programs is $5,423,570. It appears that
the percentage of funds that Indiana intends to spend on groundwater-related CWA Section 106 work
is well below the recommended 15% level.
FY 2010 funding for ground water work was $46,640, which went toward the salary for 2 summer
interns and travel costs for network sampling; FY 2011 funding was $57,091 for development of an
unconsolidated aquifer sensitivity map for Indiana. IDEM uses §106 funds to supplement the
implementation of the ground water component of Indiana’s Water Quality Monitoring Strategy
1
xxxEND_PAGE:deq26_b035_0494_0497_1
(Strategy). They utilize these funds for summer interns and sampling supplies and depending upon
the year this actual funding amount fluctuates.
IEPA. IEPA funding targets, per the EnPPA documents, are at 15% for GW work. (the FY 2011 and
2012 funding targets for IL Section 106 for GW activities are $819,500 and $818,200 respectively, our
of FY 2011 and FY 2012 are $5,463,400 and $5,454,700 respectively), however, specific activities
were not included in the EnPPA with the exception of GWR related work, and the State does not have
a separate workplan under Section 106.
In a 2007 survey of SWP work, the States reported that "Funding and staff levels are below what
would be needed to effectively assist local communities in developing source water protection and
management programs. Currently, the Groundwater Section is down two FTEs and has been for
several years." and, "The Bureau of Water no longer has a budgeted line-item for the SWP Program.
Therefore, it is nearly impossible to estimate funding sources." and "The Groundwater Section has 14
staff, of which about % spend a portion of their time doing SWP." However, there were not responses
to any of the funding sources questions, but there was a statement that minimal state funds are used
for SWP work.
MDEQ We believe that very little or no §106 funds are going to ground water activities.
The 106 grant and the 319 grant are part of a PPG, so their activities are combined into one
workplan. The FY 2012 workplan for 106 and 319 for MI shows only
NPDES/Stormwater permits program, and Surface Water Restoration and Protection program. There
is nothing in the 25-page workplan related to groundwater except the last page of Attachment C,
Michigan's FY 2012 Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the NPDES program, where it says Michigan
has no plan to commit to any groundwater activity related to NPDES. There is a Monitoring and
Assessment Section, but it is specifically related to surface waters. (In 2007, MDEQ had 4 FTE for the
SWP program and used some very small amount of §106 funds for this work--they reported that 90%
of their funding of the 4 FTEs was from DWSRF set-asides)
MN
MDH FY 11- $66,593
Conduct Reconnaissance Sampling of Private and Public Water Supply Wells-
Various reconnaissance samples (1,112) were analyzed and performed with total costs of $53,747.
Evaluate natural water quality in community water supply wells —Monitor 125 community water wells
on an annual basis to support asssesing vulnerability, refining treatment, and updating assessments.
Characterize groundwater quality in wellhead protection areas — Provided technical support to public
water suppliers for 1) preparing and implementing wellhead protection plans and 2) managing
potential contamination sources that are inventoried during a sanitary survey. Chemistry data is used
for characterizing the rates of groundwater recharge and potential impacts of well water quality
attributed to land use. The results help refine the approach that will be used to conduct assessment
source water monitoring under the federal Ground Water Rule and to assess overall water quality
within wellhead protection areas.
| believe that MDH has also been very active in the past several years in setting GW standards (this
is correlated with the emerging contaminants work, which is also highlighted in the EnPPA), but |
believe this is funded through the tax revenue. MDH uses considerable DWSRF set-asides and state
2
xxxEND_PAGE:deq26_b035_0494_0497_2
funding sources for SWP work.
MPCA. We do not have the exact funding amount used by MPCA for ground water activities.
MPCA's EnPPA does not include specific activities but does include narrative of management
priorities, which include ambient gw monitoring and constructing new wells in vulnerable aquifers to
add to the monitoring network. Priorities include working with sister agencies (Health and Ag),
tracking trends for nitrates, VOCs, chlorides, pesticides and other parameters, focusing on vulnerable
aquifers, recharge zones and areas where land use is changing. The EnPPA talks about specific
issues, such as human-caused impacts to ground water quality are apparent in many areas of the
state: Twin Cities metropolitan area, Rochester and St. Cloud--elevated concentrations of chloride
and nitrate and detectable concentrations of VOCs are common; In rural and agricultural areas,
nitrate concentrations are frequently elevated or exceed standards; and pesticides and pesticide
degradates are commonly detected, though at concentrations that are nearly always less than
applicable drinking water standards. Nutrient issues are specifically mentioned:
Areas of impacted ground water correlate well with land uses that are known to cause the observed
quality impacts. The prevalence of elevated nitrate concentrations in ground water in regions
dominated by agricultural land uses and in unsewered residential areas is particularly noteworthy.
For MPCA there is much more GW work going on now than years ago when there was a
disinvestment in GW monitoring (even before the sales tax revenues came into play). The grant
workplan calls for 100 wells to be monitored per year.
OEPA: FY 12 funding is at 15%--Total federal funding amount (surface and ground water):
$5,355,800
Ground water amount: $803,400 (15%)
FY 11 & FY12: Primary activities included in Ohio’s FFY2012 CWA Section 106—Ground Water
Section work plan:
* ground water quality monitoring and characterization
- implementing Ohio’s Ambient Ground Water Quality Monitoring Network
= source water protection
- conducting special studies in cooperation with other Ohio EPA programs and Ohio
agencies (e.g., Ohio Department of Health) to evaluate local ground water quality
impacts
- maintain and update the Ground Water Quality Impacts database
- provide GIS support for the development of source water assessment reports for new
PWSs and drinking water source protection plans for CWSs
- continue development of GIS capabilities to support source water assessment and
protection programs, water quality characterization, underground injection control, and
public drinking water supervision
= integration of CWA and SDWA programs to protect sources of drinking water
- complete the ground water section of the 2012 Integrated Water Quality Report
- complete the public drinking water supply beneficial use assessments for all locations
with sufficient data and include the findings in the 2012 Integrated Water Quality Report
- provide technical assistance to CWA programs (e.g., water quality certifications,
nonpoint source pollution, NPDES, TMDL) to ensure protection of ground water and
sources of drinking water
xxxEND_PAGE:deq26_b035_0494_0497_3
provide technical assistance for Ohio’s public water supply program
- develop GWR program, including implementation of the hydrogeological site
assessment
« participate on boards, commissions, and organizations to promote a comprehensive and
coordinated ground water protection and management program
WDNR: We do not have the exact funding amount used by WDNR for ground water activities.
FY 2011
Coordination with the WI Groundwater Coordinating Council - State agencies with separate
authority to take action to protect groundwater met to assess the condition of groundwater
statewide, and developed a report to the legislature, to help them prioritize resources to
address the greatest threats.
Setting Ground Water Quality Standards - Ground Water Standards for 15 substances that
included six isomers of dinitrotoluene (DNT) and an enforceable standard for perchlorate were
promulgated.
Reducing N in groundwater in prioritized subwatersheds - A draft strategy to reduce nitrogen in
groundwater in targeted subwatersheds has been developed and shared with USEPA Region
5:
Maintaining and enhancing ground water related databases - State databases used to capture
information used by agencies to protect groundwater were maintained.
High nitrate PWSs in WI were mapped - A statewide map was developed of public water
systems with high nitrates. This map and an associated strategy will be used by the state to
reduce nutrients in Wisconsin waters.
Source Water Protection Plans were developed and implemented - Risk to public health was
minimized through source water protection for 13% of the population served by CWSs.
Guidance was provided to those putting in monitoring wells - Monitoring wells were developed
in a way that allowed the capture of accurate samples of ground water quality.
Information and training about ground water was delivered to the public, including sand model
demonstrations at elementary schools.
6,500 well construction reports were reviewed.
4 civil prosecutions were settled against well drillers and pump installers for total forfeitures of
$43,000.
Plans and specifications for high capacity wells were reviewed, on average, in 26 days.
FY 2012
In addition to the above, a nitrate reduction strategy will be implemented to a degree in accordance
with funds available.
xxxEND_PAGE:deq26_b035_0494_0497_4