Volatile Organic Compounds in the Nation’s Ground Water and Drinking Water Supply Wells

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | August 29th, 2014

This national assessment of 55 volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in ground water gives emphasis to the occurrence of VOCs in aquifers that are used as an important supply

This national assessment of 55 volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in ground water gives emphasis to the occurrence of VOCs in aquifers that are used as an important supply of drinking water. In contrast to the monitoring of VOC contamination of ground water at point-source release sites, such as landfills and leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs), our investigations of aquifers are designed as large-scale resource assessments that provide a general characterization of water-quality conditions. Nearly all of the aquifers included in this assessment have been identified as regionally extensive aquifers or aquifer systems.(2)  The assessment of ground water (Chapter 3) included analyses of about 3,500 water samples collected during 1985–2001 from various types of wells, representing almost 100 different aquifer studies. This is the first national assessment of the occurrence of a large number of VOCs with different uses, and the assessment addresses key questions about VOCs in aquifers. The assessment also provides a foundation for subsequent decadal assessments of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program to ascertain long-term trends of VOC occurrence in these aquifers.

Vulnerability Assessments in Support of the Climate Ready Estuaries Program: A Novel Approach Using Expert Judgment, Volume I

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | January 1st, 2012

The San Francisco Bay estuary is highly vulnerable to climate - related changes including increased water temperatures, changes in precipitation and winds, and sea leve

The San Francisco Bay estuary is highly vulnerable to climate - related changes including increased water temperatures, changes in precipitation and winds, and sea level rise. Impacts such as increased inundation of coastal wetlands, changes in water availability and quality, and altered patterns of sedimentation and erosion are increasingly interacting with other human stressors such as extractive water uses and land use changes. Thus it is essential that estuary managers become ‘climate-ready’ by: assessing the vulnerability of natural resources to climate change; considering strategic choices among adaptation strategies in the near term; and engaging in longer term planning based on a range of plausible scenarios of future change. In an era of shrinking budgets coupled with increasingly complex decision-making needs—often taking place in a context of uncertainty and incomplete information— managing natural resources in the face of climate change will be challenging. There is a need for assessment methods that take advantage of existing scientific expertise to help identify robust adaptation strategies, weigh difficult trade-offs, and justify strong action, all in a timely and efficient manner. The purpose of this project was to carry out a pilot vulnerability assessment for the San Francisco Estuary Partnership’s (SFEP) natural resources using expert judgment, the results of which could be linked to adaptation planning. To this aim, EPA’s Office of Research and Development collaborated with SFEP and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission on a novel expert elicitation exercise for ‘rapid’ vulnerability assessment. A trial exercise was carried out during a two-day workshop in which two groups of seven experts each focused on two key ecosystem processes: sediment retention in salt marshes and community interactions of shorebirds with their predators and prey (see Figure ES - 1). The exercise, which was based on formal expert elicitation techniques but tailored specifically for qualitative analysis of ecosystem processes, was designed to glean expert information on the sensitivities of ecosystem process components under future climate scenarios . This was followed by group discussions of the implications of the results for management in light of climate change, as well as feedback on the exercise itself.  

Wastewater Infrastructure: Overview, Funding, and Legislative Developments

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | September 22nd, 2017

The collection and treatment of wastewater remains among the most important public health interventions in human history and has contributed to a significant decrease in

The collection and treatment of wastewater remains among the most important public health interventions in human history and has contributed to a significant decrease in waterborne diseases during the past century. Nevertheless, waste discharges from municipal sewage treatment plants into rivers and streams, lakes, and estuaries and coastal waters remain a significant source of water quality problems throughout the country. The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes performance levels to be attained by municipal sewage treatment plants in order to prevent the discharge of harmful wastes into surface waters. The act also provides financial assistance so that communities can construct treatment facilities and related equipment to comply with the law. Although approximately $95 billion in CWA assistance has been provided since 1972, funding needs for wastewater infrastructure remain high. According to the most recent estimate by the Environmental Protection Agency and the states, the nation’s wastewater treatment facilities will need $271 billion over the next 20 years to meet the CWA’s water quality objectives. Meeting the nation’s wastewater infrastructure needs efficiently and effectively is likely to remain an issue of considerable interest to policymakers. The CWA authorizes the principal federal program to support wastewater treatment plant construction and related eligible activities. Congress established the CWA Title II construction grants program in 1972, significantly enhancing what had previously been a modest grant program. Federal funds were provided through annual appropriations under a state-by-state allocation formula contained in the act. States used their allotments to make grants to cities to build or upgrade categories of wastewater treatment projects including treatment plants, related interceptor sewers, correction of infiltration/inflow of sewer lines, and sewer rehabilitation. In 1987, Congress amended the CWA and created the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund (SRF) program. This program represented a major shift in how the nation finances wastewater treatment needs. In contrast to the Title II construction grants program, which provided grants directly to localities, SRFs are loan programs. States use their SRFs to provide several types of loan assistance to communities, including project construction loans made at or below market interest rates, refinancing of local debt obligations, providing loan guarantees, and purchasing insurance. In 2014, Congress revised the SRF program by providing additional loan subsidies (including forgiveness of principal and negative interest loans) in certain instances. The law identifies a number of types of projects as eligible for SRF assistance, including wastewater treatment plant construction, stormwater treatment and management, energy-efficiency improvements at treatment works, reuse and recycling of wastewater or stormwater, and security improvements at treatment works. In both FY2016 and FY2017, Congress provided $1.394 billion for the clean water SRF program. President Trump’s FY2018 budget proposal requests the same amount as provided for the previous two fiscal years. Although appropriation levels have remained consistent in recent years (in nominal dollars), policymakers have continued to propose changes to the funding program. Issues debated in connection with these proposals include extending SRF assistance to help states and cities meet the estimated funding needs, modifying the program to assist small and economically disadvantaged communities, and enhancing the SRF program to address a number of water quality priorities beyond traditional treatment plant construction—particularly the management of wet weather pollutant runoff from numerous sources, which is the leading cause of stream and lake impairment nationally.

Wastewater Reuse for Agriculture: Development of a Regional Water Reuse Decision-Support Model (RWRM) for Cost-Effective Irrigation Sources

American Chemical Society (ACS) | August 8th, 2016

Water scarcity has become a critical problem in many semiarid and arid regions. The single largest water use in such regions is for crop irrigation, which typically relie

Water scarcity has become a critical problem in many semiarid and arid regions. The single largest water use in such regions is for crop irrigation, which typically relies on groundwater and surface water sources. With increasing stress on these traditional water sources, it is important to consider alternative irrigation sources for areas with limited freshwater resources. One potential irrigation water resource is treated wastewater for agricultural fields located near urban centers. In addition, treated wastewater can contribute an appreciable amount of necessary nutrients for plants. The suitability of reclaimed water for specific applications depends on water quality and usage requirements. The main factors that determine the suitability of recycled water for agricultural irrigation are salinity, heavy metals, and pathogens, which cause adverse effects on human, plants, and soils. In this paper, we develop a regional water reuse decision-support model (RWRM) using the general algebraic modeling system to analyze the cost-effectiveness of alternative treatment trains to generate irrigation water from reclaimed wastewater, with the irrigation water designed to meet crop requirements as well as California’s wastewater reuse regulations (Title 22). Using a cost-minimization framework, least-cost solutions consisting of treatment processes and their intensities (blending ratios) are identified to produce alternative irrigation sources for citrus and turfgrass. Our analysis illustrates the benefits of employing an optimization framework and flexible treatment design to identify cost-effective blending opportunities that may produce high-quality irrigation water for a wide range of end uses.

Wastewater surveillance for public health

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) | January 5th, 2023

Water and Suspended-Sediment Flux Measurements at the Golden Gate, 2016-2017

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | December 1st, 2017

Sediment is an important resource for San Francisco Bay (SFB), in the context of restoration projects, dredging operations, ecosystem health, and contaminant transport an

Sediment is an important resource for San Francisco Bay (SFB), in the context of restoration projects, dredging operations, ecosystem health, and contaminant transport and fate. Understanding the transport and fate of sediment in SFB is important to ecosystem researchers and managers. Previous studies have shown that sediment exchange at the estuary-ocean boundary of SFB (Golden Gate inlet) is the most poorly understood element of the SFB sediment budget, owing to logistical challenges that inhibit routine field observations, and the fact that net flux is a small fraction of the instantaneous peak values experienced on a daily basis. Improved understanding of sediment exchange at the estuary-ocean boundary of SFB is essential to updating SFB-wide sediment budgets, which account for sources, sinks, and storage of sediment (and sediment-associated contaminants). In this study, field observations of water and suspended-sediment fluxes at the Golden Gate were made over one ebb tide and one flood tide on three occasions: 1) 21-22 March 2016, following a large storm event that triggered the first flow into Yolo Bypass flood control structure since 2011 2) 23 June of 2016, during a period of low freshwater inflow; 3) 27-28 February 2017, following several large storms of the wettest winter in northern California in recorded history.

Water and the COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts on Municipal Water Demand

Pacific Institute | July 2nd, 2020

Water and the Future of the San Joaquin Valley

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | February 14th, 2019

The San Joaquin Valley—California’s largest agricultural region and an important contributor to the nation’s food supply—is in a time of great change. The valle

The San Joaquin Valley—California’s largest agricultural region and an important contributor to the nation’s food supply—is in a time of great change. The valley is ground zero for many of California’s most difficult water management problems—including groundwater overdraft, drinking water contamination, and declines in habitat and native species. Local water supplies are limited, particularly in the southern half of the region. To irrigate their crops, many farmers use water imported from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. But in many places farmers have also relied on groundwater overdraft—pumping groundwater in excess of the rate at which it is replenished. Worsening droughts, increasing regulations to protect endangered native fishes, and growing demand by Southern California for Delta imports have compounded surface water scarcity. The state’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires local water users to bring groundwater use to sustainable levels by the early 2040s. This will have a broad impact on valley agriculture and the regional economy in coming years—likely including some permanent idling of farmland. This report explores three key challenges facing the San Joaquin Valley and reviews the most promising approaches to address them:  Balancing water supplies and demands. To close the groundwater deficit, groundwater sustainability agencies in the valley’s overdrafted basins will have to augment supplies, reduce demands, or use some combination of these two approaches. A range of options are under consideration but they are not equally effective or practical.  Addressing groundwater quality challenges. Poor groundwater quality impairs drinking water supplies in disadvantaged rural communities, reduces long-term agricultural prosperity, and degrades ecosystems. Providing safe drinking water is an urgent priority. Over the longer term, parties will also need to manage water quantity and quality together, to take advantage of synergies and avoid unintended consequences. The necessary coordination will be challenging because the various programs addressing valley water quality issues are carried out by numerous local and regional entities, whose lines of responsibility and geographic boundaries do not neatly align.  Fostering beneficial water and land use transitions. Effectively addressing water scarcity and the resulting land use changes in the San Joaquin Valley offers opportunities to put lands coming out of production to good use—and gain “more pop per drop” from limited water resources. Multiple-benefit approaches to water and land management can enhance groundwater recharge and improve air and water quality. They can also promote healthier soils, new recreational opportunities, additional flood protection, improved habitat, and new revenue streams for private landowners engaging in conservation-oriented management. Addressing these complex and intertwined issues requires significant changes in water and land management and a major ramp-up in cooperation and coordination among a wide circle of stakeholders. Pursuing solutions that deliver multiple benefits will boost the chances of success overall. The entire region—and California as a whole—will benefit if solutions to these challenges are cost-effective and support the valley’s economy while improving public health and the natural environment.

Water Column Selenium Concentrations in the San Francisco Bay-Delta: Recent Data and Recommendations for Future Monitoring

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | August 1st, 2017

The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board developed a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and implementation plan for selenium in North San Francisco Bay (NSFB) in 2015.1 T

The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board developed a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and implementation plan for selenium in North San Francisco Bay (NSFB) in 2015.1 The TMDL is based on attainment of water column and fish tissue target concentrations protective of human health, aquatic life, and wildlife, and was approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency in August, 2016. Analyses in support of the TMDL synthesized the results of different monitoring efforts to characterize selenium concentrations in water and biota in the Estuary. For water quality evaluation in the TMDL, the sources of observational data included studies of selenium speciation across the estuarine salinity gradient, performed in 1999-2000 and again in 2010 and 2012 (Cutter and Cutter 2004, Doblin et al. 2006, Tetra Tech, 2012), as well as samples collected by the San Francisco Bay Regional Monitoring Program (RMP). Changes in wastewater treatment from the five major refineries in NSFB were implemented in the late 1990s, leading to significant reductions in selenium loads. Data at Estuary center-line locations showed small changes for dissolved selenium in the mid-salinity range and no trends in particulate selenium (Baginska, 2015). As part of the TMDL, water quality modeling analyses were performed to characterize NSFB selenium concentrations under a range of hydrologic conditions and changing point-source loads (Baginska, 2015). Water column selenium concentration data in the NSFB and Delta continue to be collected at selected locations, although these data have not been systematically evaluated following the analyses presented in the TMDL reports. In the near term, possible changes that may cause selenium concentrations to change in the NSFB and Delta include concentration changes in the inflow from the San Joaquin River basin, changes in refinery inputs, changes in stormwater and tributary loads from the Bay margin, and changes in overall Central Valley hydrological conditions, such as the extreme wet and dry periods that occurred between 2012 and 2017. Other drivers, such as nutrient concentrations and algal levels, may also play a role, especially on the concentrations of selenium on particulates.

Water Quality Assessment of the Condition of California Coastal Waters and Wadeable Streams: Clean Water Act Section 305b Report 2006

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | July 25th, 2006

One of the first steps in managing our environmental resources is to determine their current condition by answering the key question, “What is the overall condition of

One of the first steps in managing our environmental resources is to determine their current condition by answering the key question, “What is the overall condition of California’s surface waters?” Often-raised questions relating to the condition of our waters include, “Is the water safe to drink?” “Are the waters safe to swim?” “Are the fish safe to eat?” “Is aquatic life healthy?” The condition assessments presented in this report focus on two waterbody types: coastal bays and estuaries and wadeable perennial streams. The assessments in this report focus on the question “Is aquatic life healthy?” The “aquatic life” use designation in California’s water quality control plans refers to the beneficial uses of waters that support either warm-water or cold-water ecosystems, including fish, wildlife, invertebrates, vegetation, and other components of aquatic ecosystems. While historical assessments of water quality have primarily focused on describing chemical water quality, this report includes assessments based on biological indicators when available. This report includes assessments of the condition of coastal bays and estuaries and wadeable perennial streams statewide based on data collected through the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). These statewide assessments represent the state’s initial attempt to make broad statistical estimates of the conditions of these waterbody types. It establishes baselines against which to compare future assessments. All the statewide assessments based on Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program datasets have known levels of certainty. These confidence intervals are not included in this report but are available in the technical reports cited. The statewide assessments rely on data from a survey design that generates statistically defensible, unbiased assessments of the conditions of these waterbody types. As such, they did not specifically focus on areas of high impact. Other sampling, which has targeted such areas have shown toxicity and elevated chemical levels in some areas. In addition, only a limited set of indicators were used for the assessments. These indicators are specified in each section. The federal Clean Water Act’s Section 305b requires each state to report on the quality condition of its waters. The California State Water Board submits its water quality condition assessment report biennially to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The reports submitted by states serve as the basis for U.S. EPA’s National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress. The Inventory Report is the primary report for the public about the condition of the nation’s waters. The report is also used to inform water quality management decisions, including the allocation of certain Clean Water Act funds among states. However, key reviews of national and state monitoring and assessment efforts suggest that the National Water Quality Inventory Report does not accurately portray water quality conditions, that the monitoring done by states does not always allow for valid assessments of water quality condition in unmonitored waters, and that a consistent approach to monitoring and data collection is needed to support core water programs (U.S. Government Accounting Office, 2000; National Research Council, 2001).  As a result, the information provided on the status and trends of waters at statewide and at national scales may be inadequate to support decision making. The water quality condition assessment reports submitted thus far by California have been based on a regional approach to reporting. The approach corresponds to the structure of the nine California Regional Water Boards and provides essential information for specific waterbodies. However, the assessments cannot be successfully integrated into an accurate statewide report because regions use a variety of assessment approaches and do not always apply criteria consistently. Also, due to limited resources, monitoring has generally focused on problem identification. Clean waters were less likely to be targeted for monitoring, and assessments were based on data with a bias towards sites that were likely sampled due to suspected problems. Furthermore, assessments could not be extrapolated to unmonitored waterbodies or those with insufficient data. That there is no current way to develop a valid national picture of water quality condition speaks both to the monitoring and assessment challenges faced by states as well as the need for improved assessment tools. The California Water Boards have actively taken steps to meet these challenges. The Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program’s (SWAMP) comprehensive monitoring and assessment strategy describes some of these steps (A comprehensive monitoring and assessment strategy to protect and restore California’s water quality.  Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. 2005. [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/swamp/reports.html]). As part of the strategy, SWAMP has partnered with U.S. EPA on large-scale monitoring efforts through the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program October 2006 Clean Water Act Section 305b Report 2006: California Water Quality Condition Assessment Report effort relies on a statistical monitoring approach that allows assessments of the condition of waters to be extrapolated to unmonitored areas. For 2006, U.S. EPA has agreed that California can use a different format to submit and meet its Clean Water Act Section 305b reporting requirements. This report would include assessments based on an evaluation of California data collected under U.S. EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. The assessments apply to two waterbody types: (1) coastal bays and estuaries and (2) wadeable perennial streams. “Wadeable” streams are streams, creeks, and small rivers that are shallow enough to sample without boats. The assessments focus on one beneficial use (aquatic life use) and are based on a limited suite of key indicators. Specifically, the report had to include sections summarizing: • Statewide assessments of coastal bays and estuaries based on California data collected as part of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program for Coastal Waters. • Statewide assessments of wadeable perennial streams based on aquatic invertebrate data collected in California as part of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program for Inland Surface Waters. • Assessments of northern and southern coastal California’s wadeable perennial streams based on aquatic invertebrate data collected in these areas as part of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program for Inland Surface Waters. When available, assessments from large-scale regional monitoring efforts such as the Regional Monitoring Program for San Francisco Bay, the Central Coast Long-Term Environmental Assessment Network, the Southern California Bight Project, and the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program have been included. Specifically, more detailed assessments of the San Francisco Bay, the Central Coast, and the Southern California Bight areas are included as part of the coastal waters assessment. More detailed assessments of the Santa Clara River Watershed in Southern California and waters in the Central Coast region are included as part of the wadeable perennial streams assessment. Brief summaries of the Regional Water Boards’ surface water ambient monitoring programs are included in the final section of this report.