02-13-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0«CimtMr 1994 However, concern about health risks from drinking the water can vary greatly from city to city. Forty-three percent indicated there was a moderate or great ri^k in one city Thirteen per cent indicated this in two other cities and only 6 percent in the fourth city Just as in the survey of water sup- pli ;rs. the exccsstve use of agri cultural ferttlizcrs and pesticides were mentioned most often (81 percent) as an important source of contamination. There was much variation in the ranking ot the other contaminants listed on the survey Only 23 percent of the public had heard of WHP. but 29 percent indi cated they had moderate or .ruch knowledge of ways to prevent contamination Only about 20 percent of the ccneral publ.c in the three cttic- s.tkI personal activities posed a thi 4* to groundwater Hitwcver. 92 fMccnt said they "maybe wil'ing" rr ■ very willing" to make personal ch-rors to red'xe the threat. A tot.i. of 7S percent also said they mayln: willing or are very willing to pay more for their water to cn.surc a safer supply. Over 98 percent said it was at least of some importance for their community to be involved in an effort to protect groundwater Summary The needs assessment indientes that water suppliers and their customers are very concerned about contami nation of their wells—especially from agricultural sources However, the perception of health riskb from drinking the water varies from city to city Most water suppliers have some knowledge of WHP but need very Com. on page 4 WHP Rule Drafted Suppliers Required to Submit Plans for WHP MDH has completed drafting the WHP rule using an advisory workgroup consisting of public w aier suppliers, rcpresentaiives from local umts of govern- riicnt, state agency staff, and members of the regulated community. The draft rule would requ.re the development of a WHP plan for community wells, numbering about 2.4(X), and for nontransient noncommunity wells, numbering about l.Oa) Plans are not required for transient noncommunity wells The dratt rule would require all public water suppliers to maintain the isolation distances named m ihe stale Well Code for sources under iheir control. The draft rule outlines the elements that must be in a WHP plan. Key parts ot the plan include: 1) a delineation of a W’HP area, 2) a vulnerability assessment of the wells and the WHP area. 3) expeacd changes that could affect the water, 4) the establishment of goals, 5) a plan of action outlining the management of the WHP area. 6| a method of monitoring the effectiveness of the plan, and T) a contingcTiCv plan outlining an alternate waiei supply in the event or w.iier supply contamination o: interruption. The draft rule alM» establishes procedures tor the deveh^pment of a V HP plan tliat will ensure i, public participation, 2) an opportunity for local \rits of government wiih watci management and land-use authority to review Ox plan, and 3) approval of the plan by MDH as the plan is being developed. Ihese objectives are met through written notices, public informational meetings, and two "scoping ’* m'nrtings with the MDH which will review what inforriVition is needed for development of the plan. Other parts of the draft rule include: 1) the schedule for phasing wells into the program, 2) the criteria for delineating the W'HP area, • ; 3) pump test procedures, 4) criteria for assessing well vulnerability. 5) data elements required (depending on the vulnerability of the well and the W HP area), and 6) the principles MDH must use to review' and approve the plan. The projected lime of rule implementation is 1995 The official public hearing, if requested, and a series of informational meetings throughout the state will be held by MDH For a copy of the draft rule or a list ol individuals who have served on the rule development workgroup, please contact Art Persons at (507) 285-7289 or (612) 627-5481. Also, feel tree to contact Art Persons with any questions or comments you may have concerning the draft rule.