|
|
|
As the table shows, small communities like Mililani can incur remediation costs that rival costs sustained by larger cities such as Tallahassee. The Mililani case also demonstrates that agriculture as well as manufactuting can pollute water supplies. The costs listed in the table do not exhaust the realm of damages. Contamination-related illness and stress produce medical costs and suffering that are more difficult to quantify. Studies show that polluted surface and ground water undermine property values (Page and Rabinowitz, 1993), which in turn shrink a community's revenues from property taxes. Smaller communities such as Pittsfield (population less than 10,000) feel these impacts more because they have fewer resources to cope with the added burdens. THE CHALLENGES OF SOURCE WATER PROTECTION The SDWA may have opened doors for communities but there remain challenges in building local capacity for prevention. First and foremost, there is the question of funding. Prevention is not a high priority of the SDWA; funding of capital projects remains its primary emphasis. (NCSC, 1997, p. 9) In particular, communities must contend with uncertainties about SWP funding available to start up local prevention programs after money is exhausted for delineation and assessment. (SDWA, 1997) From the standpoint of logistics, communities face the task of developing programs that do more than control land use and Secure compliance with the laws. These programs must involve and motivate diverse stakeholders to form a broad-based commitment to pollution prevention. Officials need to reach and positively influence a range of stakeholders from farmers to homeowners, many of whom are unaccustomed to participating in environmental programs. Programs must be designed to meet local conditions. Local procraming must not only educate and instill a sense of responsibility in private landowners, it must result in individual actions that contribute to pollution prevention. Everyone involved needs to prepare for a long-term commitment; policies must be firmly maintained and resources must be dedicated to the project for many years. Partnerships are a critical component in building comprehensive prevention programs. For those communities that meet these challenges, the rewards are many. Not only does practicing prevention save money and avoid contamination. It provides true security by building long-term human capacity and commitment to protect drinking water. It also preserves environmental conditions--namely, clean water--that support natural and recreational amenities. (AWWA White Paper, 1997) MEETING THE CHALLENGE USING FARM*A*SYST/HOME*A*SYST Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst can spell the difference between communities with effective SWP and those struggling to find the right pieces to stimulate community action. Its proven system involves, empowers, and supports individual stakeholders, all critical steps in mobilizing community-wide action. No other program is geared to providing so many audiences (farmers, ranchers, small businesses, rural residents, and homeowners) with practical tools they can use to prevent pollution. Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst is nationally recognized for its action-oriented approach to pollution prevention. This year the program garnered the highest award from USDA, a Secretary's Honor Award, and last year it was honored by Renew America with its highest award in the category of pollution prevention. The success of Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst nationally, however, reflects the efforts of 50 state programs coordinated by a national office funded by U.S. EPA and USDA. Each state program modifies model materials and tailors program delivery to suit local needs. Strong national support (e.g. model materials) insures uniform quality, while flexibility encourages diversity and innovation. Alabama has developed a component to assist small businesses in complying with environmental laws. So far, Business*A*Syst has worked with 3,000 participants. In many states such as Nevada, retired citizens and other trained Volunteers assist in conducting assessments. A strong local focus insures that information is relevant and accurate, people with familiar names and faces are available to provide expert assistance, and recommendations for voluntary action are appropriate. Many with a stake in protecting source water face barriers in taking responsible action. Unlike large businesses and manufacturing concerns, farmers, owners of small businesses and landowners confront difficulties gathering relevant information, cannot make use of assessment tools designed for more complex environmental problems, lack in-house support and expertise, and are limited by financial constraints. Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst enables these stakeholders to overcome barriers to voluntary action. On a state-by-state basis, it assembles relevant legal and technical requirements into a format that non-experts can understand and apply to their property. Easy-to-use worksheets simplifying the process of assessment and planning used by industry and provide individuals with an inexpensive way to incorporate pollution prevention into routine activities. Different worksheets are geared to the needs of distinct audiences, enabling diverse groups to address water quality concerns. Home*A*Syst targets environmental concerns related to the management of an urban or rural home including drinking water wells, fuel storage, hazardous waste management, lawn and garden products, septic systems, and stormwater runoff. Designed for farmers and ranchers, Farm*A*Syst worksheets cover pollution risks related to agricultural operations, such as animal waste storage, livestock yards, nutrient management, and pesticide use. A Spanish language version provides the nation's fastest growing minority group with access to a proven system for farm and home pollution prevention. Farm*A*Syst's System Of pollution prevention goes beyond education to generate responsible action. Participants are treated as equal partners whose input is indispensable to the assessment and planning process. Site-specific assessments provide individuals with direct insight into the ways their properties contribute to environmental problems. This intimate involvement brings home the significance of pollution to those who might not see pollution as their problem. Participants have access to local assistance to translate newly-acquired knowledge into actions that respond to pollution risks uncovered by assessments. Government experts or private consultants are available to help in completing assessments, identifying actions to prevent pollution, and locating potential sources of financial assistance to carry out planned actions. Individuals take action to safeguard the health of their families, protect their largest investment- their home or small business, avoid environmental liability and cleanups, and satisfy the concerns of lenders and property buyers about contaminated property. Program evaluations show that two-thirds of the many thousands of families who have used Farm*A*Syst make or intend to make low-cost changes immediately, with higher-cost actions planned for the future. The most extensive analysis of the program, a two-year benefit-cost study in Louisiana, showed that farmers, motivated by assessment results, voluntarily invest an average of $682 (63 percent of which is their own time and effort). While these actions included low or no-cost changes in management, 18% of the changes involved construction costs over $500, 12% involved the plugging of old wells and the drilling of new wells, and 12% involved the removal or replacement of underground petroleum storage tanks. Individual effort is an important ingredient in making improvements to protect water quality. Many changes do not require costly expenditures. For example, homeowners can make simple management changes such as diverting rain water to prevent runoff from polluting surface water. (Moreau, 1997) Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst has established a nation-wide network of interagency teams and private sector partnerships. Each state program brings together government agencies that have different programmatic responsibilities and constituencies. Ties with the private sector have strengthened these teams. In states as diverse as Louisiana and Michigan, Farm*A*Syst provides common ground for state and environmental and agricultliral agencies, university extension programs, NRCS, and the Farm Bureau to work together toward shared goals. These collaborations increase the possibilities for responsible action without more regulation, improve information exchange and resource sharing, and enhance service delivery. Tapping into this network can help local officials who must draw on multiple resources and operate outside their jurisdictional boundaries to implement SWP programs. Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst reaches stakeholders (e.g. operators of small businesses and farms, rural and urban residents whose active participation is necessary for effective SWP. These stakeholders are often outside the direct reach of environmental programs designed to insure compliance with environmental standards. Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst offers the possibility of involving nearly every community member in SWP at some level. Provided access to Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst, these stakeholders can join manufacturers and other businesses in taking action to prevent pollution. Broad participation creates a common ground that unites different interests. For example, shared activities may bridge the divisions that separate farm and residential interests. With its network of partnerships, the program increases the level of collaboration and strengthens the sense of common enterprise within a community. By harnessing human initiative and commitment, Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst enables communities to build the human capacity to protect source water. Money for capital expenditures will always be in short supply. Human capacity is potentially limitless, less expensive, more effective and perhaps longer lasting than the construction of treatment facilities. There is a ripple effect from individual use of Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst. Once individuals discover that environmental concerns touch close to home, they bring new levels of awareness to their activities as community members and business professionals. This change in outlook is what ultimately sustains a commitment to pollution prevention. By systematically conducting Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst assessments on individual properties in watershed or source protection areas, communities have a potent tool that combines prevention activities with the assessment of community-wide pollution risks. Using, this technique, a community can gather data unavailable through other data collection methods. This information will result in a more accurate profile of pollution risks community-wide and set the stage for communities to more effectively target priorities for preventive action. Just such an approach was used in the Eau Claire River (WI) watershed. Systematic assessment of individual properties alerted county officials to watershed-wide risks from petroleum storage and abandoned wells. Other sources of information had not identified these problems. With reliable data, the county approved cost-share funds because it simply made sense to spend limited resources now to avoid expensive cleanups in the future. (Castelnuovo 1997) COMMUNITY ACTION USING FARM*A*SYST/HOME*A*SYST Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst has supported a range of community action to protect drinking water. Initial uses of the program involved protection of private wells. These experiences served as the springboard for use of Farm*A*Syst/ Home*A*Syst in wellhead protection and watershed management initiatives. The program'S utility has grown as its focus has expanded beyond agriculture. With variations such as Home*A*Syst, Business*A*Syst, Lake*A*Syst and Spanish*A*Syst, a wide variety of non-farm stakeholders can participate. As the following examples show, Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst is a basic component of community efforts to protect drinking water supplies in Washington state, Oregon, Illinois, Rhode Island, and New York. OREGON In Benton County (Corvallis), Oregon, water quality programnmers hoped to generate greater interest in the protection of drinking water. The Oregon version of Farm*A*Syst (known as Oregon Home*A*Syst) was selected as the tool to educate a select group of residents about the protection of private drinking water wells. Financial concerns limited the options for program delivery. The community could only hire a part-time coordinator. Volunteers became essential to the success of the program. Using a "staff" of 10 trained volunteers, the program expanded its outreach capacity. Volunteers provided formal consultations to homeowners interested in conducting a site assessment as well as informal assistance to help with specific questions. As part of the outreach effort, volunteers staffed an information booth weekly. Community residents had the opportunity to speak to someone in person about environmental concerns. Oregon Home*A*Syst materials were distributed free of charge. Neighborhood and community events were useful vehicles to communicate with residents. Water quality information was provided at a school fair. Program staff attended potluck dinners to talk to small groups about the importance of water quality issues. Free nitrate testing was also offered to stimulate interest in water quality. Test results provide a personal message that brings environmental concerns close to home. Involving residents in this project requires patience and a different approach than working with organized groups such as farmers. According to Gail Glick, the Oregon Home*A*Syst coordinator, there are challenges in motivating this audience to participate in a voluntary program. Unlike farmers, for example, residents are not tied into an information network of trade groups, product dealers, and agricultural specialists from government. There is no one group like the Farm Bureau that can engage and persuade this audience. Word of mouth, such as recommendations spread from one neighbor to the next, is important in gaining acceptance, but progress comes in small increments. Interest varies from one group of individuals to the next. Delivery staff must be prepared to modify outreach approaches to capture this audience's attention. (Glick, 1997) Use in a SWP project is the next step for Oregon Home*A*Syst. In making the leap from private to public water supplies, program staff and cooperating communities face new challenges, such as motivating an audience without relying on appeals to immediate self-interest. But the lessons learned in working to protect private wells will serve them well in this new endeavor. WASHINGTON In Washington state, the local Farm*A*Syst program (also known as Home*A*Syst) has rapidly expanded from its beginnings as a "Wellhead Assessment and Protection Pilot" for farmers, ranchers and rural residents. In the program's first year 1993, plans were already in the works to use Home*A*Syst to help small communities meet tougher wellhead protection standards. Home*A*Syst's simple system offered an attractive solution for small communities that rarely have the resources to mount full scale protection programs. It also offered another advantage: it could reach landowners living in recharge areas who were beyond the jurisdiction of community land control measures such as setback limits. The Washington Department of Health, alone, with the Washington State University Cooperative Extension, started use of Home*A*Syst in Whatcom County in 1994. Built on partnerships with local agencies and small water supply systems, the project provided Home*A*Syst training to small systems operators. By working with private landowners to assess pollution risks, operators could minimize contamination threats to recharge zones, while helping rural landowners protect their private wells. (Adams & Nevers, 1993) As part of its many projects in 16 counties, the Washington program has come to rely on community workshops as an efficient delivery method to educate residents about water quality concerns. Workshops often are the result of a cooperative effort between local stakeholders and government agencies that deliver Home*A*Syst. They are organized around issues of concern to residents in a watershed. A series of free workshops run by the Bellevue Utilities Department was designed to instruct homeowners about proper maintenance of their septic systems using the appropriate Home*A*Syst worksheet. Located east of Seattle, Bellevue is a highly developed suburban area, but still has over 1,200 septic systems that are older and at risk for failure. This Home*A*Syst-based approach is action- oriented, building on a foundation of education to protect both surface and ground water. The Chelan Conservation District incorporated Home*A*Syst materials into a workshop on drinking water protection, targeting residents living in two watersheds. The workshops covered septic system maintenance and emphasized the value of best management practices in protecting drinking water drawn from surface and ground water sources. Systematic follow-up is necessary to capitalize on the initial success of workshops or other educational events. As in Oregon, volunteers can play a vital role. In the Yakima Basin, twelve AmeriCorp volunteers pursued such an extended course of action to change land use impacts. Staffing a booth at the Water Quality Day fair Prosse, they assisted fairgoers with assessments and tested water samples for nitrates. Then they went door-to -door conducting assessments using a simplified version of Farm*A*Syst and testing household water for nitrates. In three days, they contacted nearly 100 homes/individuals. The project was able to successfully reach and influence a diverse group of landowners: approximately 50% Native American, 25% Hispanic, and 25% Caucasian. Nearly 3 out of every 4 from this diverse group identified a pollution-related concern and nearly every one of them said they would consider making at least one change in their activities. (Blyler, 1997) ILLINOIS Illinois FarmAsyst is woven into the fabric of the state's ground water protection program. Nearly 100 Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) help deliver FarmAsyst to rural residents. Groundwater Awareness Programs (GAPS) are a popular educational tool on the local level and feature field days where neighbors are invited to visit a farm that has participated in FarmAsyst. Originally these activities were designed to generate interest in protecting private drinking water wells. Under a new initiative, FarmASyst will be employed to protect selected sub- watersheds which relate to commununity wellhead recharge areas. The sub-watersheds lie in predominately agricultural areas and are contiguous with five-year recharge areas identified by the Illinois Wellhead Protection Program. GIS mapping will determine "Agricultural Groundwater Protection Areas" that will be used to organize target audiences. Within these areas, SWCD will work with farmers using FarmAsyst to reduce pollution from different aspects of their operation. Increased pollution prevention will not only protect private wells but will safeguard the recharge areas of public wells for surrounding communities. (Illinois Groundwater Affiliate Team, 1997) RHODE ISLAND State officials identified septic systems as a significant water quality problem in several Rhode Island watersheds. These watersheds include the Green Hill Pond area of South Kingstown and Charlestown and the Maskerchugg Watershed area of East Greenwich. In these areas, voluntary monitoring of water quality demonstrated a community interest in the resource. Plans to improve water quality were designed to tap into this base level of interest. Home*A*Syst offered a way to further involve concerned residents. This tool was selected, according to Alyson McCann, because it bridges the gap between education and voluntary actions to reduce pollution. (McCann, 1997). Cooperative Extension is the lead agency but is working closely with the Department of Health, the Department of Environmental Management, and a number of other local agencies and organizations. Volunteers as well as workshops are part of the strategy to foster community-wide support for prevention. Volunteers are essential to neighborhood delivery of Home*A*Syst. After they receive training on subjects such as septic system management, volunteers are ready to help residents conduct environmental assessments using Home*A*Syst and develop action plans to address problems uncovered by assessments. At Home*A*Syst workshops, homeowners learn firsthand about the program. People who attend these workshops put into practice a variety of techniques to protect the environment. After drinking water well and septic system workshops, 73% of the participants implemented water conservation practices, 72% started proper disposal of household hazardous wastes and 29% pumped their septic systems. (URI, 1997) NEW YORK None of the programs described so far reaches the level Of sustained commitment demonstrated by the City of Syracuse. After securing a three-year waiver from the Surface Water Treatment Rules, Syracuse implemented a watershed protection program targeted primarily at agriculture. In addition to a land acquisition program, the city financed the Skaneateles Lake Watershed Agricultural Program (SLWAP) administered by Ondoga County Soil and Water Conservation District in cooperation with neighboring Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Cornell Cooperative Extension, and USDA. This project depends on the kind of team-work that has made Farm*A*Syst a success. It not only enlists the participation of a variety of agencies and disciplines--agronomy, engineering, resource management, and farm business management--it relies on the cooperation and participation of the farmers as full team members. A 10-year initiative, SLWAP stresses voluntary farm planning with cost-sharing for best management practices that address Syracuse's water quality priorities. The assessment and planning system developed by Farm*A*Syst is an integral part of this program. With help from a team of experts, farmers use locally-modified worksheets based on Farm*A*Syst to pinpoint water quality concerns uncovered by a preliminary questionnaire. Worksheets not only flag areas of concern but reinforce good practices farmers have put in place. Teams identify management practices that address environmental problems and help farmers develop plans to implement these practices. When the plans are approved, farmers are eligible for full cost-sharing from the city. Funds for cost-sharing come from sources such as the Environmental Quality Incentive Prouram and Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Though the program is voluntary, farmers who elect not to participate run the risk of non-compliance with watershed rules and regulations. At this point, farmers owning 90% of the agriculture acreage are participating. (SLWAP, 1997) The commitment to protect the watershed is incomplete unless it includes everyone who presents a threat. Activities of residential landowners such as lawn and garden care, septic system maintenance, and stormwater runoff raise pollution concerns. To involve non-farm stakeholders, the city has allocated a share of its watershed budget to implement Home*A*Syst. This initiative will complement and enhance the agricultural component of the program. CONCLUSION To prevent pollution of drinking water supplies, communities must move beyond a "bricks and mortar" approach to protection. Changes in the SDWA as well as Farm Bill have created new opportunities for community action to protect source water through pollution prevention. To take advantage of these changes, communities need to cultivate a new perspective and new set of skills. Source water protection substitutes people power for mechanical treatment, cooperation for construction, and individual awareness and commitment for government intervention and control. As a tool to focus and organize a diverse group of stakeholders, Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst has unrivaled potential to support community action. The program engages individuals on the most basic level. It focuses their attention and concern on their property. Individuals buy into the concept of protection because they learn how their property contributes to water quality problems and what they can do to protect drinking water. Since it is designed to reach nearly every member of the community, Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst offers a common ground to unite different groups in a common enterprise. With its emphasis on collaboration, Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst links insulated communities into a network of government and private sector partnerships that facilitates source water protection. Experience in communities across the nation demonstrates that Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst can serve as a key component in a local program to protect source water. Successful local programs have used low-cost delivery systems involving workshops and volunteers to educate different stakeholders about pollution prevention. Combined with incentives, such as the cost-sharing provided by the city of Syracuse, Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst provides a powerful tool to support community action. REFERENCES Adams, E. and L. Nevers. 1993. Community Wellhead Protection and Farm*A*Syst. Farm and Home Pollution Prevention Update (November) 1 [http://www.wisc.edu/farmasyst/update/pre95.html]. AWWA White Paper. 1997. Source Water Protection. http://www.awwa.org/govtstaff/sourcpap.htm. Glick, G, 1997. Telephone conversations with author. July 24, August 13. Blyler, K. 1997. Conversations with author. August 12. Castelnuovo, R. 1995. Making the Most of Farm*A*Syst. Farm and Home Pollution Prevention Update (October) 2 [http://www.wisc.edu/farmasyst/update/oct95.html]. The National Center for Small Communities (NCSC). 1997. Action Guide for Source Water Funding: small town and rural county strategies for protecting critical water supplies. Washington, D.C. McCann, A. 1997. Conversation with author. August 30 Moreau, R. 1997. Louisiana Study shows Farm*A*Syst is both effective and cost- effective. Focusing on Farm*A*Syst and Home*A*Syst (July) 2. Page, W. and H. Rabinowitz. 1993. Groundwater contamination: its effects on property values and cities. Journal of the American Planning Association 59, No. 4 (September 22) 473-81. Prezepiora, J. 1997. Source Water Protection: Management of Skaneateles Lake Water Supply. Paper presented at EPA/AWWA Northeast Source Water Protection Workshop, April 14, New York., NY. SDWA Stakeholders Meeting: Source Protection Money Falls Short. 1997. Ground Water Monitor, Vol. 13 No. I (January 8) (Page numbers unavailable on Lexis /Nexis database). Source Water: A New Chapter State Officials See SDWA Provisions Improving Source Water Protections. 1996. Air/Water Pollution Report's Environment Week 34, No. 48 (December 9)(Page numbers unavailable on Lexis/Nexis database). Tarlock, D. 1997. Safe Drinking Water- A Federalism Perspective. William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 21: 233-263. Skaneateles Lake Watershed Agricultural Program (SLWAP). 1997. Program Overview and Watershed Tour, May 13, 1997 (available from SWLAP, 2571 Route 11, Suite 3 LaFayette, NY 13084). Illinois Groundwater Affiliate Team. 1997. Groundwater Guardian Pilot for Illinois SWCDs. (National Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst Office, Madison, WI), photocopy. University of Rhode Island Cooperative Extension. 1997. Water Quality Programs. Providence, RI. Wright, A. 1997. EPA Study Identifies Huge Market for Water Infrastructure. Engineering News-Record 238, No. 7 (February 17) 50. BIOGRAPHY Mr. Castelnuovo is an attorney who works in the National Office of Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst. He is pursuing his Ph.D. program in environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin after receiving his Master's degree in this area. As a practicing lawyer, he worked in the area of regulatory enforcement. |
