. a, g g. g: . s

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 c:/ClRC/DateDue.indd-p.15

COUNTY AND REGIONAL INTEGRATION OF THE
MICHIGAN WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM
By

Jeffrey Robert Purdy

A PLAN B PAPER

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF URBAN PLANNING '
Urban Planning Program

November 5, 1993

a

Qunty and Regional Integr_ation of the Michigan Wellhead Protection Progr_am November 5. 1993

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
1) Introduction ........................................................................................................... l
1.1) General Introduction ............................................................................... l
1.2) State of Michigan Wellhead Protection Program ...................................... 3
1.3) Michigan's Environment and Relative Risk ............................................... 5
1.4) Reasons for Protecting Ground Water ..................................................... 6
1.5) Safe Drinking Water Act ................................ : ........................................ 8
1.6) Wellhead Protection Area ........................................................................ 9
2) Importance of Inter Community Coordination with Wellhead Protection Programs ...... 12
2.1) Ecosystems and Political Boundaries ....................................................... 12
2.2) Potential Incompatibility Between Communities ...................................... 15
3) Water Law as it Applies to Ground Water Protection ............................................. 18
3.1) Riparian Rights ........................................................................................ 18
3.2) Tort Liability ........................................................................................... 20
3.3) Police Power ........................................................................................... 26
4) Inter Community Coordination ............................................................................... 27
4.1) County and Regional Integration of Wellhead Protection ......................... 27
4.2) Local Powers vs. State and/or County Authority ..................................... 30
4.3) Local Responsibilities Between Adjacent Communities ............................ 33
5) Presently Existing Management Programs .............................................................. 34
5.1) State ........................................................................................................ 34
5.2) County .................................................................................................... 42
5.3) Federal .................................................... ' ................................................ 215
6) Watershed Planning ............................................................................................... 46

 

Plan B Paper i Jefl‘rey R Purdy

my an_d Regional Integr_ation of the Michigan Wellhead Protection Fromm November 5, 1993

7) Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 48
8) References ............................................................................................................. 53
TABLE OF FIGURES Page
Figure 1. Illustration of terminology used for wellhead protection area delineation ........ 12
Figure 2. Dose-response curve ........................................... f .......................................... 22

 

Plan B Paper ii Jefl‘rey R Purdy

ll

'0 .

 

 

Coung and Reng Integr_ation of the Michigan Wellhead Prgtfl’on Program Novemmr 5, 1993

1) Introduction
1.1) General Introduction

Michigan has historically been a state with bountiful natural resources. Many of
Michigan's cities have prospered from the consumption and refinement of such things as
iron ore, copper and lumber as well as the availability of vast water resources to support
these industries. We are discovering in these modern times, though, that these resources
are not as limitless as was once believed, and that our actions impact these resources in a
way that may take generations to remedy. We have learned that we must be stewards of
the land and, through a conscientious effort towards proper management the State's

natural resources will continue to provide a sustainable yield.

The protection of ground water resources is a key component to sustaining
Michigan's environmental well being. Nearly half of the state's population depends upon
ground water as a drinking source. This is why the State of Michigan has developed its
Wellhead Protection Program (WI-IPP) to protect public water supply systems. This
program is designed to protect public ground water drinking sources, focusing primarily
on the wellhead, which is the surrounding geological area that contributes water to a well

I

or well field.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) recently completed a
study titled Michigan '5 Environment and Relative Risk. This report is the result of study
and debate by some of the state's leading environmental experts fiom State and local
government, private industry and the scientific community. The most important
environmental issues facing the state today are identified and prioritized in this report.
This report, submitted to the Governor, is intended to guide government ofiicials in

making future policies to address these important issues.

un n Re ' nal Inte tion of the Michi an Wellhead Pr tecti It Pro m Novem 5 1993

One of the top ranked issues in the report is the need for "a statewide plamring
system that encourages appropriate land use with consideration for sustainable resources
and long term ecosystem health"1 The report reiterates the actuality that the bounds of
natural systems, such as ground water, do not conform to local political boundaries. This
report identifies the need for a cooperative effort between communities and various levels

of government for the coordinated stewardship of our natural resources.

The State of Michigan has also recently submitted the WHPP to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval in accordance with the provisions
of the 1986 amendments to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The program
will encourage local governments to develop plans and undertake management practices

for the maintenance of ground water drinking supplies.

Through this study, I evaluate the development of local wellhead protection plans
and outline the administrative and legal measures that can be taken to ensure a
coordinated effort by local communities in the management of ground water resources.
My study evaluates the necessary responsibilities between various local, county, regional
and State agencies for implementing this program in a regionally integrated manner. The
WHPP is voluntary for all local units of government and is intended to be locally initiated
and managed. Although there are profound advantages to this form of "Grass Roots"
planning, there also arise significant complications that need to be addressed. With this
paper, I evaluate the critical balance of power needed to ensure that this remains a
localized planning effort, but with county and State agencies acting as a coordinators

among adjacent municipalities. This balance should maintain the maximum amount of

Q.

 

1 Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Michigan'e Environment and Relative
fish, July of 1992, pg. 22.

 

Plan B Paper 2 Jeffrey R Purdy

 

 

953mg fig Regional Integr_ation of the Michigan Wellhead Protection Progr_am November 5 1993

authority and responsibility at the local level, while allowing county, regional and State
agencies to coordinate the development and implementation of the WHPP as part of a

regionally integrated and comprehensive planning effort.

The remaining portions of this introduction will provide a brief overview of the
WHPP and the need for a more coordinated management of the State's land and natural
resources, such as ground water. The following section will describe the need for a
coordination and integration of planning and resource management efforts, such as the
WHPP, over multiple jurisdictions and levels of government to allow an ecosystem level
approach to land use planning. Section three of this paper will briefly describe the legal
basis for water resources and a local government's legal ability to develop plans and
regulations. The next section will describe the existing structure of control and
coordination between local jurisdictions and other levels of government; as well as identify
the integration and coordination which can be done under the existing laws. Section five
of this paper will describe some of the existing planning and resource management
programs controlled by State and/or county government that relate to water resources. I
will provide suggestions on how these programs can be administered differently to meet

the need for a more coordinated effort in managing the State's natural resources.
1.2) State of Michigan Wellhead Protection Program

Michigan is presently in the process of refining the WHPP for the state. The
primary objective of this program is to protect the quality of ground water sources
contributing to a public water supply system. Michigan has prepared this program to meet
the requirements of Section 1428 of the 1986 amendments to the federal Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). The goal of the program as set forth in the SDWA is as follows: i

”The Governor of each state shall adopt and submit to the
Administrator [of the EPA] a State program to protect wellhead areas

 

Plan B Paper 3 Jefli'ey R Purdy

9mg ang Regjenal Integgg’on ef the Michian Wellhead Protection Program Neyember 5, 1993

within their jurisdiction from contaminants which may have any adverse
effects on the health of persons."2

The Michigan WI-IPP is a voluntary program for local communities to develop

their own wellhead protection plans. A wellhead protection plan will generally include the

following:

A)

B)

C)

D)

E)

F)

G)

Establishment of local goals and objectives

Definition of roles and duties '
Delineation of wellhead protection areas
Identification of all potential sources of contamination
Management program

i) Underground storage tank regulations

ii) Hazardous materials management

iii) Zoning, subdivision regulations and site plan review
iv) Water quality monitoring

Ground Water contingency plan

Siting criteria for new wells

Public involvement and education3

 

2 Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1428(a).

 

Plan B Paper

4 Jefi'rey R. Purdy

Re ' n Int ti n f the Michi nWellhea Protection Pro m N m r5 1993
1.3) Michigan's Environment and Relative Risk

In July of 1992, the DNR released a study, Michigan's Environment and Relative
Risk, which evaluated issues of critical importance to Michigan's environmental quality
and stewardship of the natural resources. One of the top issues or problems identified by
the study was an "absence of land use planning that considers resources and integrity of

ecosystems." The report expands upon this by stating that:

"In Michigan state and local agencies “manage the resources

under their statutory jurisdiction as individual commodities. A

multitude of land use authorities and interests express their control and

power at the local level. Little attention is paid to coordinating the goals of

these various entities to lay the foundation for integrated land use planning.

In Michigan ad-hoc arrangements of government units out across
natural landscapes, and conflicting jurisdictions confound efi‘ective
planning. "‘

The study goes on to describe how various divisions of the State government, as
well as county and local government units, frequently exercise land use and natural
resource management over their particular area of jurisdiction in an often disjointed
manner. The study identifies the need in Michigan for a more comprehensive land use
policy that not only individually serves the needs of local communities, but also takes into
account the larger issues of natural resource management, the large scale ecological

systems which extend beyond local and county political boundaries, and that the resources

contained within local communities serve values extending far beyond local jurisdictions.

 

3 Michigan Departments of Natural Resources and Public Health, State ef Michigan
Wellhead Pretectien Prom Lansing, MI, Aug. 1992.

‘ Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Michigan's Envirenment and Relative
Riek, July of 1992, pg. 22.

 

Plan B Paper 5 Jeffrey R Purdy

m and Regional Integretion of the Michigan Wellhead Pretgaien Progr_em Ngemtgt g. 1993

Other issues identified as a high priority which could potentially impact the WHPP
were: ”Alteration of surface water and ground water hydrology”; ”Non-point-source
discharges to surface water and ground water”; "Point-source discharge to surface water
and ground water” and, "Degradation of the urban environment."5 The Michigan WHPP
should ensure these issues do not compromise the firlly effective and successful

implementation of this program.
1.4) Reasons for Protecting Ground Water ,

Mchigan's firture depends upon natural resources. Michigan's cities and industries
have been built upon the state's bountiful natural resources such as iron ore, copper,
lumber, land for farming and an abundant supply of flesh water. Water resources are a
key component to the long term viability of the state's economy. Ground water is a

critical component of our water resources.

According to the Michigan Departments of Health and Natural Resources, ground
water is a primary source of drinking water for over 44 percent of the State's population.
"An estimated 14,000 public water supply agencies serving nearly 1.7 million people use
ground water in Michigan. "5 In addition to this, there are also thousands of private
ground water wells. The remaining 56 percent of the state's population uses surface
water. These are mainly communities that are adjacent to major lakes or rivers. Detroit

city water, for example, is obtained fiom Lake Huron. It is drawn in at Port Huron and

 

5 Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Michigan' 5 Envirenment and Rel gi ve
Risk, July of 1992, pp. 14-16.

6 Dean, Lillian F., AICP, Mark A Wyckoff, AICP, Cemmenig leing & Zening

fer agent! Weter Pretection in Miehigan, Michigan Society of Planning Officials,
Rochester, MI, May 1991, pg. 1-1.

 

Plan B Paper 6 Jeffrey R Purdy

un Re 'onal Inte tion f the Michi n Wellhead Prot ion Pro m Novem 5 1993

brought down to the City of Detroit for treatment and distribution. Other communities
that are located inland, such as the City of Kalamazoo, depend primarily on ground water
resources to meet the public water demand. The glacial deposits in many parts of the state
provide a high yield of ground water for public consumption. There are also bedrock
formations which provide high yield aquifers, such as the Saginaw sand stone formation
underlying central Michigan. For communities located inland, ground water is a very
economical source for an abundant supply of quality drinking water. Because of this,
pumping water from the ground will generally be more (economical than transporting
surface water great distances. In addition to this, there are some areas of the state where

ground water is the only economical source of water.

Ground water is interlinked with surface water bodies. As water infiltrates
through the soil profile and reaches the saturated zone, it contributes to the aquifer. The
water within this aquifer moves down gradient. Upon reaching a point where the ground
water elevation is above that of the soil's surface, the water will discharge. This discharge
will often be to a wetland, lake or stream. Ground water discharging into lakes and

streams is referred to as base flow.

An abundance of high quality ground water is essential to Michigan's economy.
Agriculture uses ground water to irrigate crops. Industry needs quality water for
manufacturing, to support the work force population, and to maintain quality communities

for workers.

Contamination of ground water resources is very costly to society. The direct cost

of remediating ground water contamination is often very high. Polluted ground water can

Q

also have a negative effect on property values, the image of a community, economic

 

Plan B Paper 7 Jeffrey R Purdy

M and Regime! Integr_atien of the Michigan Wellhead Protectien Progrem November 5, 1993

 

development and the over all quality of life (Michigan Departments of Health and Natural

Resources).
1.5) Safe Drinking Water Act

One of the primary objectives of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is
to protect the quality of ground water sources contributing to a public water supply
system. Michigan has prepared the Wellhead Protection Program to meet the
requirements of Section 1428 of the 1986 amendments to' the SDWA The goal of the
program as set forth in the SDWA is to protect wellhead areas from contaminants which
may have adverse health effects on persons using the public well for drinking water

supply. The Act goes on to require that the State program include all of the following:

A) specification of the roles and duties of State and local government entities

as well as water supply systems;
B) determination of well head protection areas;

C) identification of all anthropogenetic sources of contaminants within each

well head protection area;

D) provision of technical, financial and educational assistance to local

governments;

E) contingency plans for the provision of alternative drinking water supplies;

and

F) identification and protection of areas for future public water supply wells.

 

Plan B Paper 8 Jeffrey R Purdy

Qunty aM Regional Integtetion of the Michigan Wellhead Preteg'en Mm November 5, 129;

The Act identifies, as summarized above, that the program will ”specify the duties
of State agencies, [and] local governmental agencies..."7. This act does nothing to
acknowledge that ecosystems do not often follow local political boundaries and that in
order to have a truly effective program that properly manages natural resources, there
needs to be a coordinated effort by all groups involved. Although local, county and
regional government planning will differ from state to state, based upon the established
regional planning framework, I feel the Act should acknowledge the fact that this needs to
be a coordinated and integrated effort. Based upon the wording of the Act, it appears that

the intent of Congress is for this to be a locally implemented program.
1.6) Wellhead Protection Area

The SDWA defines a wellhead protection area as follows:

"...the surface and subsurface area surrounding a water well or well field,
supplying a public water system, through which contaminants are
reasonably likely to move toward and reach such water well or well field."8

The act then goes on to say that the State program shall determine the extent of
the wellhead protection area using such factors as the radius of influence around a well,
the depth of draw down, the rate of travel for various contaminants, and other factors.
The Michigan program has detailed procedures for delineating a wellhead protection area
(based upon additional guidance fiom the Environmental Protection Agency). The State
is using a ten year zone of transport to identify the wellhead protection area; in other

words the area around the well, bounded by a perimeter, at which point water will take ten

years to reach the well.

 

7 Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1428(a)(1).

3 Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1428(e).

 

Plan B Paper 9 Jeffrey R Purdy

 

There are numerous pieces of information needed to delineate a wellhead

protection area. The phenomenon of ground water is explained by Fetter as follows:

"Precipitation that falls in the land surface enters into a number of
different pathways of the hydrologic cycle. If the surface soil is porous,
some of the water will seep into the ground by a process termed
infiltration. Excess soil moisture is pulled downward by gravity. At
some depth, the soil or rock is saturated. [The interconnected void spaces
or pours between the soil or rock particles is filled with water.] The top of
the saturated zone is the water table, and below the water table is ground
water. Ground water flows through the rock and soil layers of the earth
until it discharges as a spring or as seepage into a stfeam, lake, or ocean. "9

The ground water will have a natural gradient and direction of flow that will often
follow the topography of the land's surface (but there are exceptions to this). Once a well
is installed and pumping begins, the draw of water will cause a cone of depression to form

around the well. This cone of depression is referred to as the zone of influence (Figure 1).

The zone of contribution is "the area surrounding a pumping well that
encompasses all areas or features that supply ground water recharge to the well."‘0 The
limit of this zone down gradient of the well is determined as the point at which the
gradient of the water table within the cone of depression is equal to zero forming an
artificial ground water divide (the distance at which the force of the water being drawn by
the well pumping is equal to the natural counter force of gravity drawing the water down

gradient). Beyond this point, water will naturally flow down gradient away fiom the well.

 

9 Fetter, C. W. ,Applied Hydrogeology, 2nd edition, Macmillan Publishing Co., New
York, NY, 1988, pp. 4,5.

1° Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Michigan Department of Public

Health, State ef Michigen Wellhead Protection Pregrem, Lansing, MI, August,
1992,pg.27.

 

Plan B Paper 10 Jeffrey R Purdy

M and Regioml Integtation of the Michigan Wellhead fletection Progem Nmmgr 5, 1993

The limit of this zone up gradient from the well will extend upward until reaching the

ground water divide, or a ground water barrier.

The ten year zone of transport is determined from within this zone of contribution.
This is the distance within which water will reach the well within ten years. This can be
calculated using an analytical flow model or more precise lithological data can be collected
to delineate a more accurate area. The analytical flow models assume that the aquifer
media are isotopic and homogeneous. In reality, the geology of an aquifer is going to be
much more complex (especially in many parts of Michigan that have glacially formed
landscapes with varied materials). Therefore if lithological data are available, they will
provide a much more accurate delineation using water table gradients and permeability of

the various media to detemtine the distance of transport.

 

Plan B Paper 11 Jeffrey R Purdy

 

 

Zone of Contribution———>'

 

10 Year Zone of Transpore—>

 

Zone of Influence

Divide

 

 

Land Surface /--\
—>

Natural
Ground Water Divide

 

 

 

Cone of Depression

 

r

 

Artificial
Ground Water Divide

 

Figure 1. Illustration of terminology used for wellhead protection area delineation.
Modified from US. Environmental Protection Agency "Guidelines for Delineation of
Wellhead Protection Areas" (EPA 440/6-87-010, Washington DC, 1987, pg. 2-21).
Drawing not to scale.

2) Importance of Inter Community Coordination with Wellhead

Protection Programs
2.1) Ecosystems and Political Boundaries

Political boundaries do not necessarily coincide with ecosystem boundaries. A
situation where political and ecosystem boundaries match is uncommon due to a number
of practicalities. First of all, ecosystems do not have well-defined boundaries. Secondly,
depending on the natural resource of interest and the scope or scale of management

interest, the size and location of the resource area will vary. So therefore we must

 

Plan B Paper 12 Jeffrey R Purdy

m M Regional Integgtion of the Michigan Wellhead Protection Pregr_am Nflemmr a. 1993

establish an organizational fi'amework that is able to manage a resource at the appropriate

scale and level.

Ecosystem boundaries are in themselves obscure. In reality it is difiicult to
accurately delineate an ecosystem boundary. In the natural landscape, ecosystems
intermingle with transitions from one to the other. Examples of this would be with the
transition from an aquatic to an upland ecosystem. There will be a gradual transition from
one to the other, indicated in such measurements as soil saturation or the amount of
oxygen in the soil which will gradually transition fi'om one level to the other over a short
or possibly long distance. \Vrth ground water, boundaries are generally set at major
bodies of water and ground water divides. While it is easy to identify where a boundary
lies with a water body such as a river, it is very difficult to accurately delineate a ground
water divide. With many hydrogeological studies, these divides are arbitrarily set at the
same location as the surface terrain or drainage divide. Because geologic formations are
often complex, there may be some error involved. Therefore it is difficult to delineate an

ecosystem boundary as accurately as a parcel of land or jurisdictional boundary.

In attempting to delineate these ecosystem boundaries, using the surface drainage

basin is one of the more practical means:

"Integrated land use management requires that the spatial scale of
governmental influence encapsulates the boundaries of the ecosystem of
concern. Generally, ecosystems boundaries can be delineated by the
boundaries of a watershed. In Michigan, ad hoc' arrangements of
governmental units cut across the natural landscape and conflicting
jurisdictions confound effective planning. Furthermore, land use

 

Plan B Paper 13 Jeffrey R Purdy

9mm and Regional Integration of the Miehigan Wellhead Eutectien Mgram Emma; Q. 1993

constraints are often perceived by private land owners as constitutional
”taking" without due compensation. "‘1

The size, shape and location of the ecosystem will vary depending upon the
resource being managed and the scale at which it is being managed. It would be very hard
to establish one organization for the management of a comprehensive set of ecosystems.
In the natural environment there are a variety of natural systems with internal cycles that
interact with each other over a wide range of spatial areas and time fiames. Each major
component of the environment consists of a number of cycles: there is the short, local

cycle; the medium, regional cycle; and a longer, global cycle.

With the hydrologic cycle, there are a wide range of shorter, internal cycles within
the larger. A very short cycle would be the evaporation and precipitation of water over
the same major body of water, or precipitation over a forest followed by
evapotransporation back into the atmosphere. A longer cycle could be that of evaporation
over the sea, precipitation on land, infiltration to the ground water, base flow to surface
water and movement back to the sea. Therefore environmental cycles are very complex in

that they consist of numerous internal cycles as well as interactions with other systems.

The scale and level of management for an ecosystem depend also on the
component of the environment that is to be managed. The area for management of surface
water pollution may vary from that of ground water pollution or air pollution. Both have
local, regional and global levels; but depending upon the desired results, the level of

management may vary.

 

“ Public Sector Consultants, A sen f Inte ated d se Pl
nider Re urcesan theInte ' fEco tm'Whit r nMihi '

Eavirenment and Relative Risk, Lansing, MI, 1992, pg. 4.

 

Plan B Paper 14 Jeffrey R Purdy

R ' Int ti n f Michi anWellhea Prt 'nPr m 1993

Therefore, a management fi'amework needs to be established which allows us to
efl‘ectively manage selected resources at the necessary level and scope. A good
measurement of the scope of the Michigan Wellhead Protection Program is the use of the
ten year time of travel for delineating the management boundary (while there are aspects

of the program that extend beyond this).

2.2) Potential Incompatibility Between Communities

0'

Resource management incompatibility between communities is a real possibility in
Michigan. As stated in the study, Michigan's Environment and Relative Risk, there exists
an "absence of land use planning that considers resources and integration of ecosystems";
that "agencies manage the resources under their statutory jurisdiction as individual
commodities [and] land use authorities express their control and power at the local
level [with] little attention paid to coordinating the goals of these various entities to lay

the foundation for integrated land use planning."12

Various divisions of State government, as well as county and local government
units often exercise land use and natural resource management over their particular area of
jurisdiction, in an often disjointed manner. The study identifies the need in Michigan for a
more comprehensive land use policy that not only individually serves the needs of local
communities, but also takes into account the larger issues of: natural resource
management, the large scale ecological systems that extend beyond local and county
political boundaries and, that the resources contained within local communities serve

values extending far beyond local jurisdictions.

 

'2 Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Michigan'a Envirenment Ed Relative
Risk, Lansing, MI, July of 1992, pg. 22.

 

Plan B Paper 15 Jeffrey R Purdy

O

 

While this study identifies the need for a more coordinated and comprehensive land

use policy, it is also important not to discount the substantial importance of local level
planning and public participation. Home rule and the sanctity of a local municipality's
right to plan for its own future have been the long-standing and compelling tradition in
Michigan. And while it is obvious that there will need to be some changes to this doctrine
in the near future, the Wellhead Protection Program is being implemented now in this
present political environment. This is why this paper is focusing on improving
coordination with local units of government and modifying existing resource management

and planning duties now being carried out at higher levels of government.

The Michigan Wellhead Protection Program is designed to be implemented at the
local community level. This strong grass-roots effort is instrumental in ensuring that a
plan is developed which reflects the true desires of the local community; but the lack of
involvement by county level agencies may hinder a county or regionally integrated ground

water protection effort.

The American Society of Civil Engineers has identified problems with the

management of water resources and its interrelationship with land use.

"...those administering federal programs have talked of 'water and related
land resources.‘ In reality, however, the interrelationship has received
inadequate consideration, largely because of organizational conflicts. For
example, the Corps of Engineers and other federal water resource agencies
have maintained that land use regulation is a local responsibility, and so
they have not intruded into this area of control. At the same time,
however, local land use planning and decision making must incorporate
many aspects of water resources, even though management of these
resources may be at a higher level of government. Accordingly,

 

Plan B Paper 16 Jeffrey R Purdy

Re ' Int tion of the Michi Wellhead Protection Pr N 993

intergovernmental cooperation is essential in dealing with water-land use
interrelations."l3

There is a lack of a coordinated effort between higher level agencies and local units
of government to manage the land use and water resource relationship. Because the
Wellhead Protection Program is a locally implemented program, it will be effective in
increasing the interrelated management of land use and ground water resources under the
State's current planning fi'amework. Implementing this program at the local level places
more of the ground water management power with the same unit of government that
controls land use policy. The need for coordinated management extends beyond just an
integration of local government and higher level agencies. There also is the need for
horizontal management between separate local units of government across geographical

areas; all of which are interlinked with a variety of ecosystems.

Ground water resources cross political boundaries. The ten year time of transport
may extend beyond a local jurisdictional area; such is the case in Oxford Village, in
Oakland County, where the municipality's wellhead protection area extends out of' the
village limits into Oxford Township and even into the adjacent county of Macomb. In
situations such as this, a community is faced with the position of managing a resource that
extends beyond jurisdictional lines and into areas where the community does not have the

police power authority.

 

‘3 American Society of Civil Engineers, [.1me Planing @idg, American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York, NY, 1986, pg. 308.

 

Plan B Paper 17 Jefl‘rey R Purdy

QQQQ g4 Regienal Integration at: the Michigaa Wellhead Protectien Progtaai November 5, 1993

3) Water Law as it Applies to Ground Water Protection
3.1) Riparian Rights

Michigan is under riparian rights doctrine. This is the system of water rights associated
with land ownership which is prevalent in the eastern United States. This doctrine has its
base in English common law and is used for surface waters. According to Grad (1985), a
property owner's right to use water arises fiom the ownership of land which borders that
body of water. There are two fundamental principles of allocation. First is the natural
flow principle: that a land owner may not use the water so as to diminish the quantity or
quality of another riparian owner's right to do the same. Secondly, and more applicable to
present day, is the reasonable use approach. This states that "each riparian owner may
make reasonable use of the waters with due regard of the needs of other riparian owners.
Reasonable use, therefore, involves balancing the needs of different users at a given
time and place."14 The reasonable use principle is applied in a number of cases to the
requirement that a riparian owner may not, in addition to unreasonable alteration of flow,
degrade the quality of the water, see: Parker v. American Woolen Co. (195 Mass. 591, 81
NE. 468, 1907).

Although the riparian rights doctrine has been applied to only surface waters (and
may not be practical for ground water), some interesting parallels can be made for the
purpose of discussion. First of all, simple land ownership includes the land, everything
below the surface to the center of the earth and above into the sky for infinity. These
ownership rights are of course an idealistic situation which has been limited over time by

such things as rights for aircraft to pass over the top of properties, but nonetheless, in

 

‘4 Frank P. Grad, Envirenmental Law, Third Editiea, Matthew Bender, New York,
NY, 1985, pg. 26.

 

Plan B Paper 18 Jefi‘rey R Purdy

 

most situations, these rights will include the right to use ground water that is passes

through the land. This is where the similarity ends though. Because in actuality, surface
waters, which are associated with land ownership, are controlled as quasi-public interest
through what is known as the public trust doctrine, which was explained as follows in the
US. Supreme Court decision in Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois, 146 US. 387
(1892):

"The trust devolving upon the state for the public, and which can
only be discharged by the management and control of property in which the
public has interest, cannot be relinquished by a transfer of property. The
control of the state for the purpose of the trust can never be lost, except as
to such parcels as are used in promoting the interests of the public therein,
or can be disposed of without any substantial impairment of the public
interest in the lands and waters remaining."

The right to use ground water, which is associated with land ownership, is more
closely related to mineral rights. For the purpose of discussion I would like to propose
that perhaps this is not the best way to view the right of a land owner to use ground water.
It is now a known scientific fact that ground water is generally not stationary, but moves
through the earth under the same basic laws of physics, kinetic energy, and is interlinked
with the hydrologic cycle (see Sections 1.4 and 1.6). "While ground water and surface
water are generally thought of as separate systems, they are highly interdependent
components of the hydrologic cycle."15 I feel it should therefore be treated in much the

same way as surface waters.

\

 

‘5 US. Environmental Protection Agency, A Review ef Mgheee fer gseeaing
N n in r nt min ted und-W er Dischar rf W er

Washington DC, (EPA 570/9-91-010), Apr. 1991, pg. 1.

 

Plan B Paper 19 Jeffrey R Purdy

M M Regional Integgtion of me Michigan Wellhead Protection Premm Nevemher 5, 1993
3.2) Tort Liability

Laws have been passed which prohibit the discharge of pollutants into the
environment. At the Federal level, these laws include the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as well as
others. In the State of Michigan, there is a second level of regulation which provides
additional standards such as the Michigan Water Resources Commission Act (PA. 245 of
1929), the Michigan Hazardous Waste Management Act (PA 64 of 1979), the
Underground Storage Tank Regulatory Act (PA. 423 of 1984) and the Pesticide Control
Act (PA 171 of 1976). The Michigan Water Resources Commission Act states that: "It
shall be unlawfirl for any person directly or indirectly to discharge into the waters of the
state any substance which is or may become injurious to the public health safety or
welfare...” These laws all place the burden of responsibility on the handler of hazardous
materials to carry out best management practices and prevent a pollution incident from

occurring.

There are criteria for determining what a hazardous material is and at what
concentrations it becomes such. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies
hazardous materials as having any one or more of the following characteristics:
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity. Ignitability refers to posing a fire hazard
based upon flash point and oxidization criteria set by the EPA. Corrosive materials have a
pH less than 2.0 or greater than 12.5, or corrode steel at a rate of at least .25 inches per

year. Material which exhibits the characteristic of reactivity is unstable, reacts with water,

\

 

1‘ The Michigan Water Resources Commission Act 245 of 1929, as amended,
Section 6(a).

 

Plan B Paper 20 Jeffi’ey R Purdy

may am Regiog Integration of the Michigan Wellhead Pretection Etegtam Novemgr 5, 199;

generates toxic gases or times, or is readily capable of detonating." Toxicity refers to the

materials which may release toxicants posing a hazard to human health.18

The extent to which these materials are regulated under the associated state and
Federal laws depends upon quantities being handled. Under RCRA, facilities that generate
less than 1,000 kg of hazardous materials per month are excluded from the notification
and manifesting requirements of the Act (this does not apply to acutely hazardous wastes
listed under 40 CFR 261.33). Similarly, in Michigan, the Fire Prevention Code (RA 207
of 1941, as amended) requires secondary containment for storage tanks larger than 1,000
gallons used for combustible liquids. Despite these thresholds, individuals are still

required to ensure that hazardous materials are handled and disposed of properly.

While there are materials that are inherently harmful to humans, other materials
which are essential for human well being, can also pose a health threat if exposed in high
concentrations or large doses. Chemicals such as Zinc, Fluoride, Manganese and
Potassium are just a few elements that are essential to human life, but if ingested at

excessively high concentrations, can be injurious to health. (see Figure 2)

 

17 Panos Kokoropulos, Hazardoua Waste Management, Air Force Institute of
Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, 1990, pg. 10.

13 Frank P. Grad, Envirdnmentfl Law, Third Editida, Matthew Bender, New York,
NY, 1935, pg. 640.

 

Plan B Paper 21 Jem'ey R Purdy

Optimum Dose

 

 

 

Lethal 'Dose

 

Concentration

 

Figure 2. Dose-response curve. Curve showing the influence that a chemical substance
will have on the human biosystem at varying concentrations. Modified from geochemistry
lecture by David Long, Ph.D., Department of Geological Sciences, Michigan State
University.

If an individual is careless with hazardous materials, based upon the many laws
which regulate the use, handling and disposal of these substances, he or she may be held
liable for any damages resulting from the incident. For the courts to find an individual
responsible and liable for polluting ground water, and the damages suffered as a result,
there needs to be proven, beyond a doubt, that a chain of events links the polluter and the
individual harmed by the pollution. First, the court must establish that the polluter had a
duty to uphold. In this case, that duty is to exercise best management practices for the
handling and disposal of hazardous materials as required by numerous state and Federal
regulations. Secondly, it must be shown that the polluter was in breach of his/her duties
by not taking all reasonable precautions in avoiding polluting the ground water. After

establishing a breach of duty on the part of the polluter, there next needs to be an injury

 

Plan B Paper 22 Jeffrey R Purdy

an R ' lIn tion f eMichi Wllhea Protectin N m r5 3

sustained by the recipient of the polluted ground water. This could take the form of illness
in individuals drinking the water or a municipality undertaking enormous cost in the
cleanup or having to relocate the well field. While this chain of events may be somewhat
easy to establish, the final and most crucial step has been very difficult to prove: proximate
cause. To establish proximate cause in a ground water pollution case, it must be proven

that the specific act of the polluter caused the injury sustained.

The Texas Court of Appeals heard an appeal of a case involving a cattle farmer's
claim that the pollution caused by an aircraft manufacturer caused the death of his cattle
and thereby his sufi‘ering of monetary damages. The details of this case involved some
uncertainties with regard to proximate cause of the injury. The court stated that, "[i]n
such cases it is held that where there is no basis for determining how much of the of the
damages suffered resulted from the wrongful acts of the defendant, and how much
resulted fiom other cases, a judgment would be based on mere conjecture, and could not

be upheld" (Globe Aircraft Corp. v. Thompson, 203 SW. 2d 865, 1947).

This case serves as an example that to determine proximate cause, one must be
able to prove the chain of events that show the injury resulting from polluted water was in
fact caused by the negligent act of a handler of hazardous materials. Given the level of
detail of hydrogeologic analysis done to delineate a wellhead protection area, one could
predict, with a certain degree of accuracy, the travel time and dispersion of a contaminant
entering the ground. The geology of most areas, especially'glaciated areas such as
Michigan, leaves some room for dispute over the scientific data, but having this
information could help the local community litigate against uses in adjacent communities,

given that contamination does occur at some firture date. ‘

 

Plan B Paper 23 Jefi'rey R Purdy

"d"

99mg ad Regiong Integiation of the Miehigan Wellhgd Preteeflon Premm NM! i. 129;

In a later decision, the Texas Supreme Court heard a case that involved two
separate companies who on the same day, both discharged pollutants into a pond, on an

adjacent property, being used for farming fish. The court in this case held that:

"Where the tortious acts of two or more wrongdoers join to produce an
indivisible injury, that is, and injury which fiom its nature cannot be
apportioned with reasonable certainty to the individual wrongdoers, all of
the wrongdoers will be held jointly and severally liable for the entire
damages and the injured party may proceed to judgment against any one
separately or against all in one suit" (Landers v. East Texas Salt Water
Disposal Co., 151 Tex. 251, 248 SW. 2d 731, 1952).

This seems to indicate that multiple polluters can be held liable for creating a

pollution problem.

These cases may be interpreted to show that a property owner can be held liable
for damages to an adjacent community's water source if the appropriate negligence and
proximate cause can be established. By having a wellhead protection plan that indicates
general direction and speed of ground water flow, it will be easier to establish this. But
can a community, which allows a use that ends up polluting, to locate in an adjacent
community's wellhead protection area, also be held liable for this? In a strict legal sense, it
probably can not. This is because a lawful use of land is not a polluter per-se, but

becomes one by accident.

The State, though, has acknowledged a link between land use and ground water

contamination:

"The following land use categories were considered by the DNR to pose a
very high threat of ground water contamination: petroleum product
manufacturing (including coal); junk yards and salvage yards; vehicle
maintenance services, including public and private garages; chemical paint ‘

 

Plan B Paper 24 Jeffrey R Purdy

 

and allied products manufacturing; laundries and dry cleaners; and
electronic and other equipment, including plating and chemical coating."19

"Kalamazoo County Well fields are also threatened by nearby land use
practices. At present, there are 90 known environmental contamination
sites in Kalamazoo County. A wellhead protection program would marshal
all available government resources towards the challenge of reducing firture
threats to municipal water supply systems. *** City of Gaylord officials are
also concerned about land uses which threaten public drinking water
supplies. *** The particular land use activities which pose potential threats
to public drinking water supplies vary among communities. The ease with
which ground water can be contaminated as well as the extent of the area
which contributes water to the aquifer also vary. "20 ’

It appears that a link has been documented by environmental authorities between
certain land uses and pollution of the environment. Certain noxious and hazardous uses
will inevitably cause pollution. This link may be conclusive enough to justify prohibiting
certain hazardous land uses in environmentally sensitive areas. Actually, this type of
practice has been a long standing part of zoning. Many of the older writings on the need
for zoning have as an objective the removal of residential areas from the noxious and

polluted industrial areas.

While the intention of the State is not to have wellhead protection areas which
exclude legitimate and appropriate uses, it does believe that performance standards and

greater scrutiny are necessary for potential contarninators.

 

‘9 Public Sector Consultants, Nonpoint So 0d ree Discharges te Surface Water add

Grodnd water: White Pa aper on Michigan' a Envirdnment and Rel_ative Ris_k,
Lansing,MI,1992, pg. 1.

 

 

2° Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Michigan Department of Public

Health, State df Michigaa Wellhead Pretfitidn Pregt_a_m_, Lansing, MI, August,
1992,pg.4.

 

Plan B Paper 25 Jeffrey R Purdy

" l
1 .wlr

Re ' lInte tion of the Mi hi n Wellh r ion Pro m N r5 993

The local unit of government is bound, though, to ensure that any potentially
hazardous use is conducted in a manner following sound, legal requirements, and if the
community fails to do so it should be held liable. This includes site plan review, building
inspection and continual monitoring of a potentially hazardous use. Hazardous land uses
should, in general, be subject to a special use permit and assurances for proper facility

design and hazardous material management.
3.3) Police Power '

A local community has the authority to regulate under the police power for the
protection of citizens' health, safety and welfare. A city has this right under the Michigan
Home Rule Cities Act (PA. 279 of 1909). A city or village also has the power to regulate
the use of land through the City or Village Zoning Act (PA 207 of 1921) which states:

"The legislative body of a city or village may regulate and restrict the use
of land and structures; to meet the needs of the state's residents for food,
fiber, energy and other natural resources, place of residence, recreation
industry, trade, services, and other uses of the land; to facilitate adequate
and eficient provision for water and to promote public health, safety
and welfare, and for those purposes may divide a city or village into
districts of the number, shape, and area considered best suited to carry out
this section. "21(emphasis added)

A township has similar authority under the Michigan Township Rural Zoning Act
(P.A. 184 of 1943). These various zoning acts require that the zoning ordinance be based
upon a plan designed to promote the public health, safety and“ welfare. These various
types of local governments are also given the authority to make and adopt a plan under a

variety of planning acts for each.

 

2‘ Michigan City or Village Zoning Act 207 of 1921, Section 1. (1)

 

Plan B Paper 26 Jeffrey R Purdy

‘d' "

Re'nallnte tionoftheMi hi nWllh dPrtectio Pr m N m 519

What these various acts provide for is that a local jurisdiction may develop a land
use plan and regulate development to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The
statement that these regulations must be based upon a plan is important to point out. An
ordinance that is not, may be found to be arbitrary. There are a number of important steps
that need to be followed to develop a plan and ordinance which protects the public health,

safety and welfare.

With the Wellhead Protection Program, the local jurisdiction will proceed through
a number of steps. First, the local legislature will identify goals and objectives for the
protection of the local ground water drinking supply. On the basis of these goals and
objectives, data will be gathered not only on the ground water supply, but also land use,
sources of contamination and the public use and impact on water supply and quality.
Based upon these, a plan is developed for the protection of the wellhead area and drinking
water supply. This plan will present alternative solutions to managing the natural
resource. These will include regulatory procedures as well as other programs such as
public education and awareness. From this plan, the local legislative body can adopt
regulations which are rationally connected with the protection of the public health, safety

and welfare.
4) Inter Community Coordination
4.1) County and Regional Integration of Wellhead Protection

Counties may also develop a zoning ordinance for portions of land within the
county that are outside the limits of cities and villages and outside of townships with their
own zoning ordinances, in accordance with the Michigan County Rural Zoning Enabling
Act (PA. 183 of 1943). Many parts of the state, where there is large population and the

strongest need to protect ground water public drinking sources, will have mostly, if not

 

Plan B Paper 27 Jeffrey R Purdy

R ' llnera'n f eMichi nWellh dPrt i Pr m N r5 99

all, land in incorporated cities, villages and zoned townships, such as Oakland County. In
areas such as these, counties may have less control over local planning and land use
decisions. For incorporated parts of a county, the County Planning Act states that ”Any
plan describing the recommended development of an incorporated area shall not be
recognized as official plan or part of the official plan for that area unless adopted by the
municipality”? This greatly limits any power a county may have over incorporated areas.
This is not to say that a county government can't play a major role in coordinating local

I

wellhead protection programs.

Many county planning functions serve as central sources of information for local
communities. This is the case with Oakland County where the Planning Department
collects information, places it in a Geographic Information System, and makes the data
available to local communities. One example of this is with the Michigan Sites of
Environmental Contamination Priority Lists (Michigan Environmental Response Act, PA
307 of 1982). The Planning Department receives reports from the DNR and produces
relatively accurate maps (U .S.G.S. 7 1/2 minute quadrangle maps) showing the locations
of these sites within the county. This same type of information collection and distribution

can be done for wellhead protection areas.

Other counties, such as Monroe County, serve a much more involved role in local
community planning by aiding local communities in developing master plans. In rural
areas, township master plans and zoning ordinances must be submitted to the county for
approval. The Township Planning Act states that: "The plan or parts thereof shall be

referred to the county planning commission for its approval."23 This is a significant

Q.

 

’2 Michigan County Planning Act 282 of 1945, Section 5.

23 Michigan Township Planning Act 168 of 1959, Section 8. (1).

 

Plan B Paper 28 Jeffrey R Purdy

t r
1", 'I

(1 Re ' nal Inte tion of Michi n Wellh Prot in Pr m N 5 993

means for the controlling of land use in un-incorporated areas surrounding a municipality
with a wellhead protection plan. When reviewing a township plan, the county should

specifically look at proposed land uses within critical ground water recharge areas.

There is a complication which needs to be pointed out in situations where a county
that is very involved in developing plans for townships. In these situations a county is
both the developer of the plan and the approving authority of the plan. There is no
required review of a county's work by the regional planning agency or the State. The
absence of this check and balance could be a potential problem. I believe this absence of

a check and balance for plans developed by incorporated places is also a serious problem.

Regional level planning in Michigan has no real authority over local planning and
zoning. The Michigan Regional Planning Act (RA 281 of 1945) set forth the procedures
for forming a regional planning agency by local units of government. Participation by
local units of government is voluntary as is the payment of fees for planning services
rendered. Local adoption of any plans developed by a regional planning agency is also

entirely voluntary.

Regional planning agencies, though, has informally obtained strong power in many
parts of the state. One of their greatest sources of power is information. Regional
agencies develop studies and reports on area growth trends and issues. These reports are
read by officials in local and State agencies, utility companies and private sector
corporations. Regional agencies could collect local wellhead protection plans and publish,
as part of an annual report on water resources, a regional map showing the location of all

managed wellhead protection areas in the region.

 

Plan B Paper 29 Jeffrey R Purdy

Qeunty and Regional Integgtien of the Michigan Wellhead Protflien mgLam Negemtzer; 5, 199;

4.2) Local Powers vs. State and/or County Authority

The Wellhead Protection Program is voluntary for all local units of government
and is intended to be a locally initiated and managed. Although there are profound
advantages to this form of "Grass Roots" planning, there also arise significant
complications that need to be addressed. There is a critical balance of power needed to
ensure that this program remains a localized planning effort, with county agencies acting
as coordinators between adjacent municipalities. This 'balance should maintain the
maximum amount of authority and responsibility at the local level, while allowing county,
regional and State agencies to coordinate the development and implementation of the

WHPP as part of a regionally integrated and comprehensive planning effort.

The WHPP's strong emphasis is on the current local planning framework in
Michigan, which is based upon a strong home rule. I have cited in this paper reasons why
Michigan needs a more coordinated and comprehensive land use policy. Michigan has a
very strong tradition of home rule and this has minimized the amount of planning activities
that take place at the State level. Michigan will need to make major changes in the way
we manage our land and resources the near firture. For the purpose of this study, though,
we must address the immediate needs of the WHPP which is being implemented now in

the present political environment.

There are a number of compelling reasons why it is logical to have the WHPP
implemented at the local level. First of all, the program places the decision making power
at the local level. This serves to empower local officials to develop policies which are best
suited for their community. By having this power at the local level, the program is likely

to be adOpted and implemented with more enthusiasm by the local government and

 

Plan B Paper 30 Jeffrey R. Purdy

r~

95mg and Regional Integration ef me Michigan Wellhead Protection Preng NM 5, 1223

 

citizens. This is because it will be their plan that they developed. This "pride of

ownership” over a plan will generally have much more positive results in implementation.

Secondly, local units of government have strongly established ties with the local
citizenry. This is through the day to day interaction that local officials (elected, appointed
and administrative) have with the citizens. Local communities will also have strong ties
with other local organizations such as the chamber of commerce, schools, churches, other
non-profit community organizations and local business. There are also established and
regularly scheduled meeting times for the Council/Board and the Planning Commission
that are Open to the public for involvement. These ties are all vital to developing a
successful local Wellhead Protection Plan. These ties provide a means for collecting
public comments and concerns over managing ground water resources. Because one of
the main thrusts of the program is to educate the public on drinking water and protecting

our ground water resources, these links to the community are imperative.

Most importantly, though, the program places the authority and decision making
power for ground water protection at the same level of government as the power to plan
for and regulate land use. This is critical. The same planning commission which is
conducting and adopting (recommending to Board/Council) the wellhead protection plan
and all of the management programs, which may include overlay zoning, is the same local
legislative body that is responsible for developing and enforcing the Zoning Ordinance as

well as the community's Master Plan.

An example of a program which is held more tightly by higher levels of
government is the National Flood Insurance Program. This program is managed under‘the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) which has delegated some authority to
the State level. In order for a community to qualify for Federally subsidized flood

 

Plan B Paper 31 Jeffrey R Purdy

0 l
“‘7' "

M m Regional Integration of the Michigan Wellhead flotection Program November 5. 1993

 

insurance, it must participate in the program by ad0pting flood plain regulations which
meet FEMA standards. These regulations are reviewed and approved by the DNR Land
and Water Management Division. Because this program is mandated, for those who wish
to qualify for Federally subsidized flood insurance, an ordinance is developed at the local
level to meet the required standards and submitted for approval. Many communities will
adopt ordinances "blindly" fiom generic requirements without assessing the true needs of
the community for protecting rivers, lakes and shorelines. If a community has the
initiative to do so, it could conduct a study of the floodplain and shoreline areas and
adopt an ordinance that not only meets the requirements of FEMA, but also addresses a

myriad of other local problems associated with flood plain areas that are not characteristic

of all other communities.

While it is very important that programs such as the Flood Insurance Program are
controlled at a higher level of government, this example illustrates that a locally initiated

study will often better address unique individual needs.

The WHPP is an even greater example of managing a resource which will have an
infinite number of localized idiosyncrasies; many of which may be better studied and
accommodated for by the local ordinance than a program "mandated fi'om above.” If
ground water did not pass through political boundaries, then local management would be
sufficient. But it does, and therefore there is also a need to have some degree of
management at a level that can address these inter jurisdictional resources. These two
varying reasons to have the resource managed at various levels of government are why
there needs to be a coordinated management that balances local vs. county, regional and

State control. - '

 

Plan B Paper 32 Jeffrey R Purdy

wt! and Regional Intemtion of the Michigan Wellhead Meetiea hegram Neyembg 5, 1993

4.3) Local Responsibilities Between Adjacent Communities

In Michigan, communities have home rule which allows them to undertake any
action for which they have been delegated the authority, provided this action does not
violate State or Federal Law. Therefore a local unit of government is responsible for
following the laws set by the State or Federal government. But what responsibilities do
local communities have to each other? One community is not mandated to adhere to any
laws which an adjacent community passes (without some form of cooperative agreement).
Through the interstate commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, the Federal
Government maintains control over activities that are seen to be of importance over more
than one state, and actions which could be taken by one state affecting another. With
wellhead protection, the State has chosen to delegate authority to the local unit of

government.

There are some existing laws that can be used for groups of municipalities and/or
townships to group together and form a cooperative agreement to perform studies and
manage resources. The Intermunicipality Committees Act (P.A. 200 of 1957) provides
that "the governing bodies of two or more municipalities, by resolution, may establish and
organize an inter municipal committee for the purpose of studying area governmental
problems of municipal interest or concern, including such matters as water and
formulate recommendations for review and action thereon by the member governing
bodies. "2‘ This could be used by a group of local governments that share the same ground
water resources to combine and formulate an integrated plan to protect the common
aquifer. This would first require a delineation of the ecosystem, i.e., the common aquifer,

Q

and an identification of those communities which share this resource.

 

2‘ Michigan Intermunicipality Committees Act (Act 200 of 1957), Section 2.

 

Plan B Paper 33 Jeffrey R. Purdy

un and Re 'onal Inte tion f the Michi n Wellhead Protection Pro m N em r 5 993

The Local River Management Act (P.A 253 of 1964) was passed for the purpose
of "enabling local units of governments to c00perate in planning and carry out a
coordinated water management program..."25 This act allows three or more local units of
government which lie within the same surface watershed to enter into a cooperative
agreement and form a council made up of representatives from each community. The
primary function of the watershed council is to "conduct studies of the water resources
of the watershed, including investigations of water uses, water quality and the reliability of
the water resource."25 Under these two Acts, local communities can (and do) voluntarily

cooperate and forge a coordinated effort towards management of ground water resources.
5) Presently Existing Management Programs

5.1) State

5.1.1) State Level Planning

An important part of managing water resources is management of land use. There
are a number of planning activities that State agencies are actively involved in which have
a pronounced effect on the land use and development patterns of Michigan. Examples of

these are transportation planning and economic development.

Some of the background research done for Michigan's Environment and Relative

Risk found that:

"Land use, by and large, determine the future. The land in
Michigan has a fundamental role in sustaining our society for the long haul.
Despite this overwhelming importance, Michigan lacks a statewide

 

25 The Michigan Local River Management Act (Act 253 of 1964).

2‘ The Michigan Local River Management Act (Act 253 of 1964) Section 6.(a).

 

Plan B Paper 34 Jefli'ey R. Purdy

an Re ' nal Inte tion of the Michi an Wellh Protecti nPr m N 5 1993

planning system that encourages appropriate land uses with consideration
for sustainable resources and long-term ecosystem health."27

State agencies such as the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) are
actively undertaking massive programs that are a central part of the land development
patterns of this State. The decision to construct a highway and the selection of a roadway

route have significant effects on the landscape.

"First, transportation is a critical factor in making parcels available
for development. A central characteristic of most urban networks is that
they serve major activity centers which are a focus for transportation
services and are junctions or terminal points for the congested high traffic
volume corridors. This relationship produces the high densities of land use
in metropolitan areas, and, inturn, the high values of land observed in these
centers.

***

A second factor in the transportation and land use relationship is
that transportation facilities occupy land. Between 25% and 45% of the
land in central cities (approximately 3 % nation wide) is devoted to
highways, streets, and parking lots. "23
This illustrates the effects that transportation planning can have on land use
patterns and the landscape in general. The improvement of access to individual parcels of
land will have a significant effect on the type and intensity of land use. Industry and
commercial development are attracted to areas such as expressway interchanges and

highway junctions, airports, sea ports and rail stations. More intensive commercial

development will generally result in an increase in the amount of impermeable land cover

 

27 Public Sector Consultants, Abseng ef Integtated Land Use Planning that
onsidr Re . r - .. th Ine' afar» simWhr- 'ara: onMi hi '

Environment and Relative Risk, Lansing, MI, 1992, pg. 1.

23 American Society of Civil Engineers, Lit-ban Planning @ide, American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York, NY, 1986, pg. 122.

 

Plan B Paper 35 Jeffi'ey R Purdy

Seat! and Regienal Integration of the Michigan Wellhead Pretection Proggm NM S, 199;

due to buildings and large parking lots. According to the American Society of Civil
Engineers, the runoff coefficient for a business area is between 0.50 to 0.95 while the
runofl‘ coefficient for a single family residential area is between 0.30 to 0.50, depending
upon density, soil permeability, and storm intensity. This will therefore afi‘ect the amount
of ground water reaching the aquifer. A reduction in the amount of infiltration will
decrease ground water recharge. As was also stated by the above quote, the roadways
themselves cover a large area of land. While roadways are factored into the runoff

coefiicients, these also serve to increase the amount of impermeable area.

One of the primary areas of emphasis in the Wellhead Protection Program is to
protect public ground water drinking sources from contamination. The more intense land
uses, identified above as being partially dependent upon transportation networks, will also
have the potential to introduce higher levels of contaminants to the environment (see
Section 3.2). The greater surface area of roadways and parking lots will result in an
increase in the amount of polluted runoff resulting fi'om such things as roadway deicing
chemicals and vehicular by-products such as oil and other mechanical fluids. The resulting
increased industrial activities will also have the potential to introduce more contaminants

to the environment as a part of manufacturing and transporting activities.

Through a more coordinated effort at the State level between various agencies, the
long term impact of activities on the natural and human environment can better be
evaluated. There should be a more centralized effort at the State level focused on the
exchange of information that can be used to better assess decisions. The problem
identified in the study, Michigan's Environment and Relative Risk, should be solved
partially by having a mechanism for the input of information, such as the locatiori of
wellhead protection areas, into a more holistic approach to planning. Major activities,

such as the routing of major highways, should be reviewed by a multi-agency task force

 

Plan B Paper 36 Jeffrey R Purdy

Qunfl and Regienal Integration of the Michigan Wellhead Protection Program Novemgr 5, i993

 

that looks at items related to the environment and land use and provides the lead agency
with input on selecting the best alternative. Major actions should at least be coordinated

among the various agencies the ensure integrated resource management.

Many of the new requirements of the Inter Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) will direct state efforts towards addressing some of these issues. This Act
requires each state to develop a long-range transportation plan and a transportation
improvement program for the state that considers some of the issues raised herein.
ISTEA also provides transportation enhancement firnds specifically for the improvement
of conditions such as mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff. The objectives
of ISTEA are focusing on the broader relationships that transportation networks have on

the surrounding landscape.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) states that:

"Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible Federal
official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency
which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any
environmental impacts allowed."29

One of the intentions of this statement was to require this type of coordination
between Federal agencies to ensure the avoidance or minimization of impacts to resources
under another agency's jurisdiction. The agency that is the proponent of the action will
often not be aware of the existence of, or have the expertise toevaluate the impact to a
proximate resource. I believe the intent of NEPA was to require an evaluation of impacts
and coordination with other agencies (Federal, state and local) at a point in the planning

process where this information could be taken into account when deciding between

Q

 

’9 National Environmental Protection Act, (42 U.S.C.A Section 4321 to 4370c),
Section 43 32(C).

 

Plan B Paper 37 Jeffrey R Purdy

my aad Regional Integration of the Miehigaa Wellhead Pretgtien flegaei Nmmt S, 1993

alternatives. On the basis of my personal experience and observations, implementation of
NEPA is often conducted at a point in time where agency commitment to the project
design is extensive enough (but not exceeding a point where it could be construed as an
irretrievable commitment of resources, i.e., construction has not begun) but to a point
where if potential significant impacts are realized, this impact is endured or the project is
delayed or not initiated. The implementation of NEPA as a final requirement prior to
project construction or initiation causes problems with successful coordination with other

agencies, such as those involved with ground water protection.

The State needs to have a better integration among the various departments,
regional agencies and local governments. I feel that the planning firnction in the
Governor‘s Executive Oflice should take a more active role in developing and directing
multi-departmental working groups which provide a more interdisciplinary approach to
planning. This can be done through bringing together planners and others responsible for

resource management.
5.1.2) Permits

As I identified above in section 3.1, ground water and surface waters are generally
interlinked as parts of the hydrologic cycle. Therefore actions affecting surface waters
have the potential of significantly affecting ground water resources. This is the reason for
the need to coordinate a variety of programs affecting surface waters with the Wellhead
Protection Program. There needs to be a comprehensive approach to water resource

management in the State.

"Building institutions, especially at the state level, is critical to the
comprehensive management and protection of ground water. Many states
have made major strides in increasing their capabilities to protect ground
water, despite the difficulties implicit in this complex problem. While many
states have expanded substantial efforts to build and coordinate their state

Q

 

Plan B Paper 38 Jeffi'ey R Purdy

9am and Regienal lntegtation of the Michigan Wellhead Protectien may} Nflember 5, 1993

programs and have comprehensive programs that are in development or
under operation, these efforts are still insufiicient to ensure protection for a
resource that demands a comprehensive approach."30

The State of Michigan is initiating an effort in the right direction by developing a
wellhead protection program that not only involves local governments in ground water
protection, but places them as the focus of the program. But for this program to be
successful, the efforts of local units of government must be integrated with the State's
comprehensive management of not only water resources, but land, water and other
resources as a whole. To properly manage water resources, there needs to be an
integrated management with all resources. The use of land, the removal of vegetation, the
alteration of surface water bodies, all have an effect on the hydrologic cycle, which has an

effect on ground water resources.

An example of another State activity which affects the hydrologic cycle is water
way/wetland dredge and fill permits. The State of Michigan has been delegated authority
for the Clean Water Act Section 404 dredge and fill permitting fi'om the Federal
government. This allows the DNR to regulate the dredge and fill of bottom lands.
Bottom lands refer to lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands and flood plains. The State
implements this through two Acts: Michigan's Inland Lakes and Streams Act (PA 346 of
1972, as amended) and Michigan's Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act (PA 203
of 1979, as amended). These acts allow the DNR to regulate much of the activity that will
have a direct impact on inland waterways (the Federal government retains control over the
Great Lakes, Lake St. Clair, the Detroit and St. Clair Rivers). As I pointed out
previously, surface waters are interlinked with ground water. Therefore management and

a

 

3° US. Environmental Protection Agency, geund Water Pretgaiea Sttategy,
Washington DC, Aug. 1984, pg. 29.

 

Plan B Paper 39 Jeffrey R Purdy

A, s 3.1). R'nal In e - '11 f eMic i “Minn. ' 0 -a-°nP 0:41: r em '93

permitting for the dredge and fill of surface waters should be coordinated with the
protection of ground water. This is one of the reasons why the State should remain

involved with a local government wellhead protection plan.

Part of the criteria set forth by the recent amendments to the Wetland Protection
Act is the required evaluation of wetland ecosystem values in determining whether a local
community may regulate a specific wetland under 2 acres in size. One of these criteria is
documented linkage with ground water resources. This is an example of where these two
programs should be linked. Using the hydrogeologic analysis done with pump tests as
part of wellhead delineation, recharge boundaries, such as a wetland or other surface

boundaries can be delineated and the importance of that wetland documented.

The White Papers (background papers) which were developed as research topics
for the Michigan 's Relative Environmental Risk identified that there are even coordination

problems within single agencies:

"Within the MDNR the several divisions all develop their own
objectives and manage separate databases. There is very little linkage
between these divisions such that common resource goals, resource data,
and science are integrated into the management process. This places the
resource at risk. Forest, wildlife, water, air, and the other resources that
the MDNR is charged to protect are used to generate operating firnds to
support the various programs within the agency. "31

This shows not only the urgent need to coordinate programs to ensure
management of the State's resources is not contrary to overall best management, but also

the need to share information.

 

3‘ Public Sector Consultants, Absence ef Integrated Land Use Pleading that
Censiders Reseurces and the Integrity of Emsystems; White Paper en Michigan's
Envirenment Qt! Relative Risk, Lansing, MI, 1992, pg. 11.

 

Plan B Paper 40 Jeffrey R Purdy

9929.1! add Regional Integgtion of the Michigan Wellhead Protegion Preg_raai Nmm 5, 1993

Another example of the need to coordinate local wellhead protection plans at the
State level is with subdivision approvals. Final plat approval for all subdivisions is
authorized by the Michigan Department of Treasury. DNR review is only required at the
preliminary plat stage if the proposed subdivision contains or abuts a lake, river, stream or
flood plain (section 116 RA 288 of 1967). If the area of the subdivision only provides
ground water recharge to a wellhead protection area, without abutting a water body, it
does not require review by the DNR, and review by the Michigan Department of Health is
generally delegated to the county health office. While a subdivision development over a
wellhead protection area may not pose a significant threat to ground water resources, a
maximum allowed density with septic systems of 12,000 square foot lots in sandy soils
may not be desirable. There needs to be a State and county level coordination of these

types of issues.
5.1.3) Environmental Restoration and UST's

Another area that is currently being coordinated at the State level is the
prioritization of Act 307 sites (Michigan Sites of Environmental Contamination Priority
Lists) within wellhead protection areas. This program is best designed for coordination

with the WHPP.

When a contaminated site is discovered, a risk assessment is developed which
determines the relative hazard posed to the public health, safety, welfare, or to the
environment. The assessment provides a numerical score representing the relative risk of
each site. The numerical score of each site is reviewed annually for re—prioritization. If a
wellhead protection area is found to contain contaminated sites or leaking underground
storage tanks, the remediation of these sites is placed at a higher priority than those sites

which do not pose an immediate threat to humans. Funding prioritization is based upon

 

Plan B Paper 41 Jeffrey R Purdy

(gm Ed Regional Integration of the Michigan Wellhead Protection Program Ngember 5, 199;

the scoring which considers potential human exposure to hazardous substances and
damage to natural resources. Because of the potential for increased population exposure,
risk assessments for contaminated sites located within a wellhead protection area will
indicate a much higher threat to the human environment. The intent of the DNR is to

coordinate these two programs very closely.
5.2) County
5.2.1) County Level Planning

As I pointed out in section 4.1, one important aspect of county and regional
government's role in area wide planning is the exchange of data and information. Through
collecting information about local wellhead protection plans, or possibly even taking part
in the process, a county planning department can develop a database of ground water
information and make it available to other local units of government or other county

departments such as the county road commission.

In section 5.1.1 I discussed some of the interrelationships between transportation
systems, land use and water resources. The need for transportation planners and engineers
to consider ground water resources is vital. As roadways are improved, access to and
from the city will also improve. People are able to commute firrther in the same amount of
time thereby enabling the proliferation of urban sprawl. County planning, both for land
development and transportation network planning, needs to consider the holistic aspect of
the landscape in decision making. The guardianship of critical natural resource areas, such
as wellhead protection areas, needs to consider the amount and type of development that
can be sustained before there is a potential to seriously impact the resource. Roadway
improvements that increase capacity will also increase commercial and industrial

development. This can be seen presently in south-central Oakland County where

 

Plan B Paper 42 Jeffi'ey R Purdy

m m Regienal Integratien ef die Michigan Wellhead Protection Pteggra 13mm: 5, i993

commercial development has exploded in anticipation of construction of the Haggerty
Road project. At the same time, there are areas within West Bloomfield, just east of
Haggerty Road, where the roads have remained gravel, and the surrounding parcels of

land have remained undeveloped.

The provision of other infrastructure improvements, in addition to roads, will also
increase the desirability of an area to be more intensely developed. One potential trade off
in ground water protection could be with the installation ofsanitary sewer systems. While
the replacement of septic systems with sanitary sewer in developed areas will normally
increase local water quality, it will also lead to more intensive development. Many
communities will plan for development densities at a much higher level if sanitary sewer is
provided (e. g., 2 residential units per acre, 4 units per acre if sanitary sewer is available).
While the local sanitary impacts of this increased density are more than offset by the sewer
system, the other impacts associated with the much higher density and the commercial
development are not. There will be an increase in impermeable area, decreasing ground
water recharge. There will also be an increase in polluted storm water runoff. If
additional commercial or industrial development follows, there will also be an introduction
of a greater quantity and variety of hazardous materials that have the potential to impact

ground water resources.

When a county makes decisions regarding the increased capacity of infrastructure,
the desired level of development for that particular area needs to be considered. It may be
advantageous to maintain ecologically important areas of the county in a more rural state

through minimizing the amount of infrastructure improvements.

When a county reviews a township's master plan or zoning ordinance for approval

under the Michigan County Rural Zoning Enabling Act, (PA 183 of 1943) it should

 

Plan B Paper 43 Jeffrey R Purdy

M m Regiew Integration of the Michigan Wellhead Protection Progtam Neyemhet 5, i993

 

ensure that in situations were an adjacent municipality's wellhead protection area extends
beyond local political boundaries into the township in question, that this be properly
addressed in the master plan and zoning ordinance. For townships adjacent to
municipalities with wellhead protection plans, the wellhead protection area must be shown
as a constraint to development in the township master plan. Industrial development in
these areas should be discouraged. While sanitary sewer may be desirable, other
improvements may be more suitable elsewhere in the community and land use should be

managed to minimize the amount of non-residential development.
5.2.2) Subdivision Approvals

As I identified above, the location and density of subdivisions with septic systems
are something that should be taken into account for the protection of fragile ground water
recharge areas or wellhead protection areas. The authority to review and approve
subdivision plats is in most cases delegated from the State Department of Health to the

county health departments.

"Diffuse (nonpoint) pollution is increasingly recognized as the primary
source of surface water degradation. Ground water has also been shown
to be vulnerable to nonpoint source pollution. In an 1988 survey, the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) found the major rural
sources of nonpoint source pollution were septic systems, stream bank
erosion, and agricultural practices. More than 50 land use categories
were identified as posing a medium-high risk of ground water
contamination including golf courses, unsewered residential development
...[and] roads..."32 '

Oakland County has developed a policy for the siting and density of septic systems.

 

32 Public Sector Consultants, Noneeint Source Diseharges te Surfag Water and

mend water; White Paper en Michigan's Envirenment add Relative Risk,
Lansing, MI, 1992, pg. 1.

 

Plan B Paper 44 Jeffrey R. Purdy

em aad Regienal Integtation ef the Michigan Wellhead Protection Pregaam Nflemeet S, 1993

"Many residents in Oakland County receive their potable water
supplies for household use in areas where the aquifers are not fully
protected. In order to maximize the protection given to such areas, criteria
needs to be established as they relate to the subsurface disposal of sewage
effluent from on-site systems.

Controlling the density factor (i.e., number of home sites) is of
primary importance in controlling the amount of sewage effluent disposal
by ground water absorption in the environmentally sensitive areas. An
environmentally sensitive area is defined as an area which the potable
ground water aquifer is not protected by a suitable aquaclude. A suitable
aquaclude to protect an aquifer is an impervious barrier with a minimum
thickness of seven feet."33 ’

I believe this type of methodology should be used for sensitive areas such as
wellhead protection areas. Local wellhead protection plans need to be coordinated at the
county level to ensure that health departments can evaluate this as part of their decision to

allow a density of septic sewers to be constructed.

5.3) Federal

While the scope of this paper has focused on the integration of wellhead protection
through local, county, regional and State agencies, there are a couple of areas related to

the Federal Government which should be identified.

The most direct means for having wellhead protection areas integrated into Federal
level planning is through the National Environmental Policy Act. Environmental impact
analysis process should include an evaluation of potential impacts to a wellhead protection
area. The only means for this to be done will be through the lead agency's coordination

and consultation with state and local officials. During the initial scoping phase of the

 

33 Environmental Health Services, Oakland County Health Division, Qraend water
ion Densi ontrol Oakland County, MI, 1989, pg. 2.

 

Plan B Paper 45 Jeffi'ey R Purdy

m1! aid Regional Integration of the Michigan Wellhead Prote_ct_ion Pregtam Nflemigr 5, 1993

environmental impact analysis process, the lead agency will need to inform all other
Federal, state and local agencies, that may have jurisdiction over the area or resource in
question, of the proposed action. When scoping is conducted, information on wellhead
protection plans can be provided to the agency by the DNR the county and the local unit

of government.

Many areas that have a significant amount of Federal activity will have Federal
agencies involved with local councils of governments. This is done through the Inter-
agency Coordination Program where Federal agencies are active with the local council of
governments. Through this group, information is exchanged and the council acts as a
clearing house for plans and proposals. Groups such as these are often used to coordinate
Environmental Impact Statements. Locally developed wellhead protection plans could be

distributed through these groups.
6) Watershed Planning

While it is not the focus of this study, establishing stronger regional planning that
focuses on entire watersheds would be another approach towards ground water
management and many of the other issues raised in the Environmental Relative Risk study.
This method would depart from the existing framework of planning in Michigan, which
emphasizes strong local planning. This differing approach would require agencies with
strong regional control and greater power over the activities of local governments having

the potential to impact water resources.

This would involve a system of land use planning that focuses on a holistic view of
the features and fimctions of various aspects of the landscape, and maintaining 'the
functional relationships within an entire drainage basin. Physiographic constraints and

opportunities to development would be identified. This would be used to define the

 

Plan B Paper 46 Jeffrey R Purdy

Qwety m Regieaal Integration of the Michigan Wellhead Protection Program Nflemeet 5, i993

spatial units of land suitability and establish appropriate land uses and intensities within
each. Carrying capacities for each unit of the landscape would be established based upon
the hydrologic impact that various types of development would have, and the extent to
which this could be mitigated. Areas of environmental importance would also be

identified.

This evaluation of land suitability for development, in combination with socio-
economic factors, could be used to determine land use, density and water management
requirements as part of community planning and individual development design. Land use
planning and capital improvements such as roadways and utilities would be based upon the
natural carrying capacity of the landscape. These efforts would not be governed strictly
by a continuation of the direction of sprawling development and functional relationships of

land use based solely on the economics of highest and best use.

This process would most likely involve a very generalized regional land use and
natural resource management plan that focuses on each major watershed area, and would
identify areas most suitable for industrial, commercial and residential development,
agriculture production, and very low density rural residential. Local units of government
would then be required to develop much more detailed master plans that follow the
general guidelines of the regional plan. The state would also set standards for what needs

to be contained in each local master plan.

Implementing this form of planning would require action by the State to create
agencies with comprehensive jurisdiction over land, natural resources and the economic
development aspects of the various areas of the state. This would most likely be in‘the
form of a major modification to the roles, responsibilities and authorities of regional

planning agencies. As I said earlier, defining an area for the management of a

 

Plan B Paper 47 Jeffrey R Purdy

Re 'onallnte ti n f eMichi an Wellhead Protection Pro ram N m r5 99

comprehensive set of ecosystems is difficult to do. In terms of practicality, the surface
watershed area for major river systems is one of the more easily delineated areas; as well
as one of the most effective levels of ecosystem management. Regional planning would
need to focus land use planning and resource management on the various watersheds

within the region.

In order to properly manage both the natural resources as well as economic
development, regional planning agencies would need to have a combination of powers
presently distributed amongst different levels of government. I believe this could be best
done by developing a State Planning Act that combines all of the local and county
planning and zoning enabling acts, the Regional Planning Act and the Local River
Management Act. The regional planning agency would serve as an intermediary between
State and local government. It would conduct studies much like present regional planning
agencies and would serve a similar coordinating role to that of watershed councils. This
agency should also have the same power over all forms of local government as a county
presently has over rural townships, in terms of review and approval for all local master

plans and zoning ordinances.

Implementing this form of planning in Michigan will require major revisions to the
way planning is currently done in the state. There are numerous issues and obstacles with
this difi‘ering approach that would need to be resolved. As the focus of my research has
been on working within the existing planning fi'amework in Michigan, firrther discussion

on this type of state planning reform is beyond the scope of this paper.

7) Conclusion

Q

There is a need in Michigan for a more comprehensive land use policy that not

only individually serves the needs of local communities, but also takes into account the

 

Plan B Paper 48 Jeffrey R Purdy

(faulty m Regional lnteggtion ef the Michigan Wellhead Protection Program November 5, 1993

 

 

necessity for coordinated natural resource management that is responsive to the needs of
large scale ecological systems. With the current planning fi'amework in Michigan, various
divisions of State government, as well as county and local government exercise land use
and natural resource management over their particular area of jurisdiction, in an often
disjointed manner. The primary objective of the Wellhead Protection Program is to

protect the quality of ground water sources contributing to a public water supply system.

With this study, I focused on the existing framework of planning and resource
management in Michigan. My study evaluated and outlined the administrative and legal
measures that can be taken to ensure a coordinated effort by local communities, as well as

other agencies, towards a more effective management of ground water resources.

There is a critical balance of power needed to ensure that the WHPP remains a
localized planning effort, but with county and State agencies acting as a coordinator
between adjacent municipalities. This balance should maintain a reasonable amount of
authority and responsibility at the local level, while allowing county, regional and State
agencies to coordinate the development and implementation of the WHPP as part of a

regionally integrated and comprehensive planning effort.

There are a number of important reasons for having the WHPP implemented at the
local level. First of all, the program places the decision making power at the local level
thereby empowering local officials to develop policies which are individually suited for
their community. Secondly, local units of government have strongly established ties with
the local citizenry and business community, which is important to implementation. Finally,
local implementation places the authority and decision making power for ground water
protection at the same level of government as the power to plan for and regulate land use

as well as developing and enforcing the zoning ordinance and community master plan.

 

Plan B Paper 49 Jeffrey R Purdy

Re ‘ Inte tion of e Michi n Wellhead Protection Pro m Novem r 5 1993

This local implementation, though, needs to be balanced through involvement by higher
levels of government. Not only do county, regional and State governments need to ensure
inter-jurisdictional coordination across the regional landscape, but these higher levels of
government must also affirm local wellhead protection plans as part of the programs they
conduct and manage. The following are my recommendations on how this can be done

within the current planning fi'amework in Michigan:

1) County Planning: County planning departments need to collect and distribute
information on wellhead protection areas in the form of reports and/or maps.
When reviewing a township plan and zoning ordinance, as required by the Rural
Township Zoning Act, the county needs to specifically look at proposed land uses

and zoning standards within critical ground water recharge areas.

2) Regional Coordination: Regional agencies should collect local wellhead
protection plans and publish, as part of an annual report on water resources, a
regional map showing the location of all managed wellhead protection areas in the

region.

3) Intercommunity Coordination: Communities should be encouraged to forge
a coordinated effort towards management of ground water resources, such as with
watershed councils, as provided for under the Intermunicipality Committees Act

(P.A 200 of 1957) and the Local River Management Act (P.A 253 of 1964).

4) State Level Planning: The State needs to have a better integration of
resource management programs, such as the WHPP, between the various
departments, regional agencies and local governments. The Governor's Executive
Office should take a more active role in developing and directing multi-

departmental working groups that provide a more interdisciplinary approach to

 

Plan B Paper 50 Jeffi'ey R. Purdy

 

M add Regienal Integmtien of the Michigan Wellhgd Pretection Program Novemeer 5, 1993

planning. This would create a more centralized efi‘ort at the State level focused on
the exchange of information, such as the location of wellhead protection areas, into
a more holistic approach to planning. Activities, such as the routing of major
highways or the development of state transportation plans as required under
ISTEA, need be reviewed by this multi agency task force which analyzes items
related to the environment and land use, and provides the lead agency with

feedback.

I

5) State Coordination: Programs within each department at the State level also
need to be more closely coordinated. Stronger linkages need to be established
between various departments and divisions at the state level, such that common
resource goals, information and programs are integrated and coordinate for the
overall best management of resources. Examples of this would be: 1) the
management and permitting for dredge and fill of surface waters being coordinated
with the protection of ground water; 2) final plat approval for any subdivision by
the Michigan Department of Treasury being coordinated with the DNR if it is

located within a wellhead protection area.

6) Health Department: The Michigan Department of Health should develop
performance standards for land uses in wellhead protection areas such as the
maximum safe sanitary septic tank density. Local wellhead protection plans need

to be coordinated at the county health department level.

7) Environmental Impact Analysis Process: Finally, environmental impact
analysis should include an evaluation of potential impacts resulting directly or
indirectly from government actions to wellhead protection areas. This must to be

done through lead agency's coordination and consultation with State and local

 

Plan B Paper 51 Jeffiey R Purdy

 

oficials. Information on wellhead protection plans can be provided by the DNR

the county and the local unit of government.

Michigan's future depends upon our natural resources. Water is a key component
to the long term viability of our State's economy, and ground water is a critical component

t0 our water resources.

Although there are strong advantages to implementing Wellhead Protection Plans
at the local level, there are also significant complications that need to be addressed. This
paper identified the need for a critical balance of power necessary to ensure that this
program remains a localized planning effort, but with county, regional and State agencies
acting as part of a coordinated effort. This balance should strive to maintain a reasonable
amount of authority and responsibility at the local level, while allowing county, regional
and State agencies to coordinate the development and implementation of the WHPP as

part of a state-wide integrated resource planning effort.

 

Plan B Paper 52 Jeffrey R Purdy

M Ed Reg'onal Integration of the Michigan Wellhead Protection Program NovemM 5, 1993

 

8) References

Books:

American Society of Civil Engineers, Urban Planning Guide. American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, NY, 1986.

Fetter, C. W., Applied Hydrogeolegy, 2nd edition, Macmillan Publishing Co., New York,
NY, 1988.

Grad, Frank P., Environmental Law, Third Editien, Matthew Bender, New York, NY,
1985.

Kokoropulos, Panos, Hazardous Waste Management, Air Force Institute of Technology,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, 1990.

Cases:

Parker v. American Woolen Co. (195 Mass. 591, 81 NE. 468, 1907).

Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois, (146 US. 387, 1892)

Globe Aircraft Corp. v. Thompson (203 SW. 2d 865, 1947).

Landers v. East Texas Salt Water Disposal Co., (151 Tex. 251, 248 SW. 2d 731, 1952).

Reports:

Dean, Lillian F., AICP, Mark A Wyckofi‘, AICP, Cemmunig Planning S; Zening fer
Greund Water Protection in Michigan, Michigan Society of Planning Officials, Rochester,

MI, May 1991.

Public Sector Consultants, Absence ef Integrated Land Use Planning that Considers

Resources and the Integrity of Boogistems: White Paper on Michigan's Environment and
Relative Risk, Lansing, MI, 1992.

Q

Public Sector Consultants, Nonpoint Seurce Discharg' es te Surface Water Md Qteend
Water; White Paper en Michigan's Envirenment and Relative Risk, Lansing, MI, 1992.

 

Plan B Paper 53 Jeffrey R Purdy

my and Regional Integration of the Michigan Wellhead Protection Program November 5 1993

Michigan Departments of Natural Resources and Public Health, State ef Michigan
Wellhgd Pretection Progtaet, Lansing, MI, Aug. 1992.

 

 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Michigan's Environment and Relative Ris_k,
Lansing, MI, July of 1992.

Region 5, US. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 Guidance for the
Implementation of State Wellhead Protection Programs, Chicago, IL, Oct. 1991.

US. Environmental Protection Agency, Protecting Local Ground Water Supplies
Through Wellhead Protection. Washington DC, (EPA 570/09/91-007), May 1991.

US. Environmental Protection Agency, Pregress In Ground Water Protectien and
Restoration Washington DC, (EPA 440/6-90-001), Feb. 1990.

 

US. Environmental Protection Agency, Wellhead Protection Programs, Tools for Local
Gevemments, Washington DC, (EPA /440/6-89-002), Apr. 1989.

US. Environmental Protection Agency, Hydrogeologic Mapping Needs for Ground Wa_te_r
Protection and Management, Washington DC, (EPA 440/6-90-002), Jan. 1990.

US. Environmental Protection Agency, Guide to Ground Water Supply Contingeng

le‘ng for Local and State Governments, Washington DC, (EPA 440/6-90-003), May
1990.

US. Environmental Protection Agency, Septic Tank Siting te Minimize the
Contamination of Ground Water by Microorganisms, Washington DC, (EPA 440/6-87-

007), Jun. 1987.

US. Environmental Protection Agency, Ground Water Protection Strategy, Washington
DC, Aug. 1984.

US. Environmental Protection Agency, A Review ef Methods for Assessing Nen-peint
Seerce Contaminated fleund Water Discharge te Surface Water, Washington DC,

(EPA 570/9-91-010), Apr. 1991.

US. Environmental Protection Agency, Ground Water Data. Reauirements Analysis,
Washington DC, (EPA 440/6-87-005), May 1987.

US. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for Delineation of Wellhead Protection
Aaeaa, Washington DC, (EPA 440/6-87-010), Jun. 1987.

US. Department of Transportation, Interrnodal Surface Transportation Eflicieney Aet ef
1991, A Summm, Washington DC, (FWHA PL-92-008), Jun. 1992.

 

Plan B Paper 54 Jeffrey R Purdy

n Re 'onal Inte tion of the Michi n Wellhead Protection Pro m Novem r 5 1993

Environmental Health Services, Oakland County Health Division, fieund Water
Pretectiea Density Control, Oakland County, MI, 1989.

The Village of Oxford, Phase I, Wellhead Protection Plan for the Village ef Craf'erd,
Michigan, Oxford, MI, Draft #2, Nov. 1991.

Public Laws & Regulations:

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, (42 U.S.C.A. Sections 6901 to 6992k).
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, (33 U.S.C.A Sections 1251 to 1387).
Toxic Substances Control Act, (15 U.S.C.A Sections 2601 to 2671).

National Environmental Protection Act, (42 U.S.C.A. Sections 4321 to 4370c).
Safe Drinking Water Act, (42 U.S.C.A. Sections 300f to 300j-26).

Michigan Intermunicipality Committees Act, (Public Act 200 of 1957).
Michigan Regional Planning Act, (Public Act 281 of 1945).

Michigan Municipal Planning Act, (Public Act 285 of 1931).

Michigan County Planning Act, (Public Act 282 of 1945).

Michigan Township Planning Act, (Public Act 168 of 1959).

Michigan City or Village Zoning Act, (Public Act 207 of 1921).

The Michigan Water Resources Commission Act (Public Act 245 of 1929).
Michigan Fire Prevention Code (Public Act 207 of 1941).

Michigan County Rural Zoning Enabling Act, (Public Act 183 of .1 943).
Michigan Township Rural Zoning Enabling Act, (Public Act 184 of 1943).
Michigan Subdivision Control Act, (Public Act 288 of 1967).

Michigan Local River Management Act (Act 253 of 19.64).

Michigan's Inland Lakes and Streams Act, (Public Act 346 of 1972).

Michigan Pesticide Control Act, (Public Act 171 of 1976).

 

Plan B Paper 55 Jeffrey R Purdy

(21mg and Regional Integration of the Michigan Wellhead Protection Program Novemeer 5, 1993
Michigan Hazardous Waste Management Act, (Public Act 64 of 1979).

Michigan's Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Pretection Act, (Public Act 203 of 1979).
Michigan Environmental Response Act, (Public Act 307 of 1982).

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Contamination Response
Activity, Administrative Rules for 1982 PA 307.

Michigan Underground Storage Tank Regulatory Act, (Public Act 423 of 1984).

 

Plan B Paper 56 Jeffrey R Purdy

lllllllllllllllllIlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

 

31293 02638 2683

...........