<%BANNER%>

Policies and Realities of Wellfield and Water Recharge Area Policy

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041320/00001

Material Information

Title: Policies and Realities of Wellfield and Water Recharge Area Policy A Comparison between Florida and the Netherlands
Physical Description: 1 online resource (99 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Kovari, Jessica
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: comparison, netherlands, planning, potable, urbanization, wellfield
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Development pressures in Florida place a strong demand on land. Land designated as wellfield protection zones is also under pressure from development despite knowledge of the hazards urbanization and undesirable land uses pose to groundwater resources. This study compares wellfield policy between Gainesville, Florida and Zwolle, The Netherlands. The objectives of this study is to understand government agency relationships and their relative success, assess the adequacy of policies that regulate activities within wellfield protection zones, and determine the strengths and weaknesses of each case studies policies and their implications. This is done using two methodologies. The first is the review of planning documents including comprehensive plans, land development regulations, and visioning documents to find wellfield policy regulations. Second, interviews and surveys were done with water resource planners to get a local perspective on policy completeness and effectiveness. Policy analysis in Florida revealed that several loopholes exist that allow development to occur in the wellfield protection zones. The state and local comprehensive plans for Alachua County and the City of Gainesville mandate tough restrictions for these zones yet are not translated into the land development regulations of either County or City. Future land use maps determine the future spatial arrangement of land uses yet protective zoning measures can be changed through a commission vote. The implication of the vertical and horizontal planning structure suggests that without tougher restrictive measures without loopholes, groundwater resources will eventually become contaminated.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jessica Kovari.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Zwick, Paul D.
Local: Co-adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0041320:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041320/00001

Material Information

Title: Policies and Realities of Wellfield and Water Recharge Area Policy A Comparison between Florida and the Netherlands
Physical Description: 1 online resource (99 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Kovari, Jessica
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: comparison, netherlands, planning, potable, urbanization, wellfield
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Development pressures in Florida place a strong demand on land. Land designated as wellfield protection zones is also under pressure from development despite knowledge of the hazards urbanization and undesirable land uses pose to groundwater resources. This study compares wellfield policy between Gainesville, Florida and Zwolle, The Netherlands. The objectives of this study is to understand government agency relationships and their relative success, assess the adequacy of policies that regulate activities within wellfield protection zones, and determine the strengths and weaknesses of each case studies policies and their implications. This is done using two methodologies. The first is the review of planning documents including comprehensive plans, land development regulations, and visioning documents to find wellfield policy regulations. Second, interviews and surveys were done with water resource planners to get a local perspective on policy completeness and effectiveness. Policy analysis in Florida revealed that several loopholes exist that allow development to occur in the wellfield protection zones. The state and local comprehensive plans for Alachua County and the City of Gainesville mandate tough restrictions for these zones yet are not translated into the land development regulations of either County or City. Future land use maps determine the future spatial arrangement of land uses yet protective zoning measures can be changed through a commission vote. The implication of the vertical and horizontal planning structure suggests that without tougher restrictive measures without loopholes, groundwater resources will eventually become contaminated.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jessica Kovari.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Zwick, Paul D.
Local: Co-adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0041320:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

POLICIES AND REALITIES OF WELLF IELD AND WATER RECHARGE AREA POLICY: A COMPARISON BETWEEN FLORIDA AND THE NETHERLANDS By JESSICA KOVARI A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009 1

PAGE 2

2009 Jessica Kovari 2

PAGE 3

To my family and friends 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank all of my friends and family who have supported me through my entire educational experienc e. I would further like to thank all those who have influenced me without either of us realizing i t. I would like to thank my thesis committee for their knowledge and insight. Finally, I w ould like to thank Paul Van Steen and Eric Meijes of the University of Groningen without whom research for this topic would have been impossible. I would further like to thank all those who helped me in my research, especially Menno Heggeler, of t he Province of Overijssel, and Wennemar Cramer of the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and the Environment. I also thank Russell Ingram and Rae Hafer of Gainesville Regional Util ities for their input and cooperation. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDG MENTS..................................................................................................4 TABLE OF CO NTENTS..................................................................................................5 LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................7 LIST OF FI GURES..........................................................................................................8 LIST OF ABBR EVIATIONS.............................................................................................9 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUC TION....................................................................................................12 Florida and the Netherlands as Comparative Ca se Studi es...................................13 Study Progr ession..................................................................................................16 2 LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................................18 Water Consum ption................................................................................................18 Effects of Land Use on Water Q uality .....................................................................19 Urban Water Treatme nt and M anagement .............................................................22 Groundwater Inte ractions........................................................................................26 Groundwater Policy................................................................................................27 Growth Management in Flori da and the Ne therlands.............................................31 Summary ................................................................................................................32 3 METHOD OLOGY...................................................................................................34 Introducti on.............................................................................................................34 Selection of Ca se Studi es.......................................................................................34 Development of Case St udies ................................................................................35 Review of Policy...............................................................................................35 Key Informative Interviews with Planning Officials...........................................36 Analysis of Ca se Studi es........................................................................................36 Summary ................................................................................................................36 Maps.......................................................................................................................38 4 FINDING S...............................................................................................................42 Introducti on.............................................................................................................42 City Prof iles.............................................................................................................42 Gainesville, Florid a...........................................................................................42 5

PAGE 6

Physiograph y.............................................................................................42 Aquife r.......................................................................................................43 Murphree well field......................................................................................43 Zwolle, The Netherlands...................................................................................44 Physiograph y.............................................................................................44 Aquife r.......................................................................................................45 Vitens well field...........................................................................................45 Planning Documents and In terview Re sults............................................................46 Backgroun d......................................................................................................46 Gainesville, Florid a...........................................................................................47 Wellfield lo cation........................................................................................47 Government agency interact ion.................................................................48 Policy elem ents..........................................................................................50 Policy effect iveness ...................................................................................53 Zwolle, The Netherlands...................................................................................53 Wellfield lo cation........................................................................................53 Government agency interact ion.................................................................54 Policy elem ents..........................................................................................55 Policy effect iveness ...................................................................................56 Summary of Findings ..............................................................................................57 5 DISCU SSION.........................................................................................................65 6 CONCLUS ION........................................................................................................71 Research Li mitati ons..............................................................................................71 Opportunities for Fu rther Res earch........................................................................72 Conclusion s............................................................................................................73 APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF POLICIES IN GAIN ESVILLE COMPREHE NSIVE PLAN...............75 B SUMMARY OF POLICIES IN GAINESVILLES LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS......................................................................................................81 C SUMMARY OF POLICIES IN ALACHUA COUNTYS LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS......................................................................................................85 D SUMMARY OF ZWOLLES ENVIRO NMENTAL VISION POLICIES......................89 E SUR VEY................................................................................................................. 93 LIST OF RE FERENCES...............................................................................................95 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................99 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1 Quantitative comparison of FL and NL charac teristics.......................................17 A-1 Conservation, Open Space, and Groundwater Recharge Element-Goals, Objectives, and Policies.....................................................................................75 A-2 Future Land Use Element-Goal s, Objectives, and Polici es................................78 A-3 Potable Water & Waste Water Elem entGoals Objectives, and Policies...........80 B-1 Article VII, Developmen t Review Process, Divisi on 3, Wellfield Protection Special Use Permit from the City of Gainesville, FL Land Development Regulati ons.........................................................................................................81 C-1 Chapter 355, Murphree Well Field Management Code: Relevant sections of Alachua County Land Development Regul ations ...............................................85 D-1 Key concepts of the environmental vi sion of the province of Overijssel.............89 D-2 Elements related to GPA and GEA from the environmental vision of the province of Overijssel.........................................................................................90 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 Gainesville as situated in Alachua County, Flori da.............................................38 3-2 Gainesville Flori da.............................................................................................39 3-3 Zwolle as situated in t he Province of Overijssel..................................................40 3-4 Zwolle, The Netherla nds.....................................................................................41 4-1 Alachua County Floridan aquifer confinem ent map............................................58 4-2 City of Gainesville Gener alized Future Land Use M ap.......................................59 4-3 Policy Frameworks.............................................................................................60 4-4 Strategic ecosystems in Alachua County, Flori da...............................................61 4-5 Wellfield protection zones for Mur phree Wellfield of Ga inesville, FL..................62 4-6 Wellfield protection zones for of Zw olle, NL ........................................................63 4-7 Aerial view of the Koppers and former Cabot Carbon si tes................................64 8

PAGE 9

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACEPD Alachua County Environm ental Protection Department BEBR Bureau of Economic and Business Research BMP Best Management Practices CUP Consumptive Use Permit FL Florida GEA Groundwater Extraction Areas GIS Geographic Information System GMA Growth Management Act GPA Groundwater Protection Area GRU Gainesville Regional Utilities LDR Land Development Regulations NAP Normaal Amsterdams Piel = approximately mean sea level NL (The) Netherlands SJRWMD St. Johns River Water Management District WPZ Wellfield Protection Zone WHO World Health Organization 9

PAGE 10

Abstract of Thesis Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulf illment of the Requirements for the Degr ee of Master of Arts POLICIES AND REALITIES OF WELLF IELD AND WATER RECHARGE AREA POLICY: A COMPARISON BETWEEN FLORIDA AND THE NETHERLANDS By Jessica Kovari December 2009 Chair: Paul Zwick Cochair: Ruth Steiner Major: Urban and Regional Planning Development pressures in Florida place a strong demand on land. Land designated as wellfield protection zones is also under pressure from development despite knowledge of the hazards urbani zation and undesirable land uses pose to groundwater resources. This study compar es wellfield policy between Gainesville, Florida and Zwolle, The Netherlands. The obj ectives of this study is to understand government agency relationships and their re lative success, assess the adequacy of policies that regulate activities within wellfield protection zones, and determine the strengths and weaknesses of each case st udies policies and their implications. This is done using two methodologies. The first is the review of planning documents including comprehensive plans, l and development regulations, and visioning documents to find wellfield pol icy regulations. Second, interviews and surveys were done with water resource planners to get a local perspective on policy completeness and effectiveness. Policy analysis in Florida revealed t hat several loopholes exist that allow development to occur in the wellfield protection zones. The state and local 10

PAGE 11

comprehensive plans for Alachua County and the City of Gainesville mandate tough restrictions for these zones yet are not tr anslated into the land development regulations of either County or City. Future l and use maps determine the future spatial arrangement of land uses yet protective zoning measures can be changed through a commission vote. The implication of the ve rtical and horizontal planning structure suggests that without tougher restrictiv e measures without loopholes, groundwater resources will eventually become contaminated. 11

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Florida has been growing rapidly for the la st several decades. With this growth come the demands for space and resources nece ssary for living. One vital resource is drinking water. Water is a resource needed for growth; however even the slightest growth affects its natural cycle. Not only does growth affect recharge areas that would naturally replenish the aquifers, but so do nat ural weather cycles. Different regions of Florida have been dealing with these water repl enishment issues by limiting irrigation, encouraging Florida friendly landscapes, rain water collection, and other programs to increase conservation. Specified wellfield zones are set aside to provide municipalitie s and other drinking water providers with protection from potentially hazardous neighboring land uses. This thesis evaluates the ability of policies regar ding wellfield protecti on zones. Wellfield protection zones are based on the amount of time it takes for water to reach the surface through pumping of the well. The evaluation of wellfield protection policy focuses on three questions within wellfield protection zones: What relationships exist between government agencies and are they productive? Are policies regulating activities withi n wellfield protection zones adequate? What are the strengths and weakne sses of Florida and Dutch policy? This research focuses on Gainesville, Fl oridas policies and co mpares them to a case study from the Netherlands. The next section discusses Florida and The Netherlands as a comparative case.

PAGE 13

Florida and the Netherlands as Comparative Case Studies The state of Florida and The Netherlands have similar physical characteristics, policies, and outlooks towards drinking/pot able water management. Both consider water as public property and issue extraction permits on a state or national level. This is done through water management districts (F L) and water boards (NL). There are several possible sources of drinking wate r, however they both predominantly use underground aquifers. The majority of pot able water in Florida is supplied by municipally run suppliers while in the Net herlands permits are issued to drinking water companies for potable water supplies. Florida and the Netherlands have a populatio n of about sixteen m illion people with an area of 170,304 km2 and 41,526 km2, respectively. Florida has many natural areas that are preserved or under some kind of conservation easement which include parks, reserves, and floodplain protection zones. Florida and the Netherlands have 17.9% and 18.4%, respectively, of their total areas covered by water. Table 1 provides more quantitative comparisons between Florida and the Netherlands. While water is a central feature of the Dutch landscape, sixty percent of Dutch drinking water is pumped from underground aquifers (Vries, 2007). Clean water requires room to natu rally filter before it is pumped and processed to become tap wa ter. Otherwise, groundwater would lose its appeal as a cheap, clean, ubiquitous, and easily exploited resource. While Florida may have more space, the rapid rate of urbanization and sprawl quickly change and threaten areas ideal for water purification and natural cycling. The increasing populations in both areas requires urbaniza tion in the form of housing and other supportive development all of which deduct from the total amount of space that can be 13

PAGE 14

used to supply drinking water. There are also a limited amount of areas that can be used for drinking water recharge. Florida has three different aquifers. One is a surficial aquifer which are shallow beds of sand and shells that lie less t han 100 ft beneath the ground (Cervone, 2003). The water in this aquifer moves according to a hydraulic gradient. In contrast, the Floridan aquifer contains groundwater unde r pressure and is part of the principal artesian aquifer (Cervone, 2003). Its extent includes the entire state of Florida, half of Georgia, and parts of Alab ama, Mississippi, and South Carolina totaling about 100,000 square miles (United States Geological Soci ety, 2008). Thus wh enever and wherever there is enough pressure for the water to br eak through, a spring exists. The third aquifer, the intermediate, is situated between the surficial and Floridan. Each area of Florida has unique water management needs so they have been divided to fit watershed and groundwater divisions. The aquifer in the Netherlands is region al consisting of fluvial sand with a thickness ranging between 25 to 250 meters (Vries, 2007). The groundwater level is close to the surface in nearly the entir e country with some groundwater and surface water levels being controlled (Vries, 2007). Florida is divided into five water management districts. These districts administer monitoring programs, ecotouris m projects, and conservation and preservation areas. Most agencies have some part in wate r management because weather events necessitate proper drainage. For instance, Orlando has surface drainage wells that inject overflow water from neighboring highways and lakes into the Upper Floridan Aquifer. A case study found that this act did not lead to wide spread contamination, 14

PAGE 15

however no more permits are being issued for this type of aquifer recharge system (Commission on Ground Water Recharge, 1994). This is working for now because drinking water is pumped from the Lower Floridan Aq uifer (Commission on Ground Water Recharge, 1994). This type of aquifer recharge is to help displace the loss by daily pumping for water consumption. Similarly, water management in the Netherla nds is divided into ten water boards. Water boards work with national, provincial, and local laws, needs, and objectives to manage the water in their respective boundary. Unlike Florida however they also manage the numerous devices to keep the Net herlands a dry country. Surrounding land uses can negatively affect the quality of drinking water. For example, nitrate concentrations can become dangerous in soils next to leaching farmlands (Van Drecht, 1993). Farmlands are the major threat to water purity. However, in such a dense country, conflicting land uses are bound to occur. The Netherlands is also starting to change it s outlook from one of technical control to natural adaptation and resilience (Commission on Water Management for the 21st Century, 2000). This means flooding more land and using designated areas to store water and act as an overflow catchments. Furthermore, regarding drinking water, the Water Framework Directive of the European Union requires all members to increase water quality in order to reduce the amount of post-extraction purification and processing. This means remediation of pr oblematic sites and stri ct implementation of current wellfield policy. In Florida, wellfield or wellhead zones are those areas in which the wells are contained and special regulations apply. Sim ilar areas in the Netherlands are referred 15

PAGE 16

to as groundwater extraction areas (GEA) and groundwater protection areas (GPA). A GPA is a zone around extraction wells in which specialized land use regulations apply (Geleuken, 1998). There are about 140,000 ha of GPA in the Netherlands (Metsers & Hemel, 1997). An example of wellfield restrictions in the comprehensive plan of Hernando County, FL mandates that specific prohibited land uses in wellhead protection areas be outlined in land development regulati ons (LDR). Risk concerns stem mainly from effluent dumping and hazardous spil ls on nearby roads. Florida and the Netherlands are growing while trying to prot ect natural resources. The most striking similarity between these subjects is their willingness to prevent and plan. Study Progression The following chapters present a comparison between Florida and the Netherlands regarding water re charge protection areas. Chapt er 2 is a review of the literature regarding aquifer recharge, land use effects on water recharge quality and quantity, and policy frameworks. The methodology for the comparison of Florida and Netherlands case studies are outlined in Chap ter 3. The two types of data collection were analysis of policy documents and interviews with stakeholders involved in the process of water protection. The policy and its respective outco mes are presented in Chapter 4. Comparisons of the case studies are also presented. The actual level of policy implementation is discussed in Chapter 5. A comparison and contrast of Florida and the Netherlands is also presented in the chapter. Chapter 6 concludes the research with limitations and further research suggestions. 16

PAGE 17

Table 1-1. Quantitative comparis on of FL and NL characteristics Characteristic FL NL Population 16,000, 000 16,000,000 Area(km2) 170,000 42,000 Water Coverage 18% 18% Average Annual Rainfall (cm) 150 80 Evapotranspiration (cm) (higher) 50 Change in rainfall from climate change (cm) As much as -15 As much as +16-24 Water usage per Household (m3/day) 325 (1996) 46 (2001) Annual water cost (Eur o) 160 (1996) 40 (1999) Adapted from Parry 2007 17

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Water Consumption Groundwater accounts for 96.3 percent of all non-solid freshwater resources, followed by lake water, soil water, river wa ter, and the remaining in atmospheric water vapor (Seiler & Gat, 2007, 1). The Inte rgovernmental Panel on Climate Change report indicates that by 2010 water scarcity c an impact between 1.1 and 3.2 billion people (Parry et al., 2007). An estimated 40 percent of the worlds population uses groundwater and around 50 perc ent of the worlds food production depends on groundwater-based irrigation (S eiler & Gat, 2007, 1). Natural modifications to the water cycle have been accelerated since mankind passed a growth and activity threshold in about the year 1850 (Seiler & Gat, 2007, 187). Since then, urbanization has increased the uses and thus the need for water. As more countries turn to urbanized means of liv ing, the demand for inex pensive and readily available water sources will continue to grow immensely. In just 100 years, from 1900 to 2000, water withdrawal has increased from 579 km3 to 3975 km3 worldwide (Seiler & Gat, 2007, 2). With this increased dem and and urbanization comes the need for careful protection of current water recharge areas. In the southwest United States, Lake M ead, which serves over thirty million people, is predicted to run dry by the year 2021. Locally, Florida has been in a drought for several years. This chapter shall review the effects of land use on water quality, and thus recharge. Then it will discuss techniques to minimize detriment al effects by these land uses. Finally it will discuss groundwater interactions with surface waters and the

PAGE 19

different types of policy frameworks that have been applied globally to maintain a sustainable potable water supply. Effects of Land Use on Water Quality Land use refers to the classification of w hat is typically done, or not done, on a piece of land. These uses include comme rcial, residential, transportation networks, parking areas, light industrial, industrial, agricultural, and conservation. Land use and land cover affect the qualit y and quantity of recharge (H onachefsky, 2000). Each type of land use will have an associated effect on the water cycle and thus water recharge. Those more pervious land uses like conser vation and agricultural will have less runoff than impervious areas such as those that are urbanized. Ho wever, runoff from agricultural fields can carry heavier loads of pol lutants than residential land uses even if there is less runoff from agricultural fields. The use associated with a piece of land can benefit or harm natural water cycles. In all cases, a change of land use results in a change in hydrology. Impervious areas have the greatest impact because they prevent the natural percolation of water through the ground and instead create ur ban runoff. This runoff is usually of impaired quality and is immediately mixed into streams and other water bodies without filtration. An example of impaired runoff following a weat her event is the first flush effect. The first flush effect is the combinat ion of the right urban setting and weather conditions to produce the greatest concentrations of pollutants during the first storms of the wet season. In a San Jose, California st udy the effects of first flush events were measured to assess its impact on urban wate r runoff management (Soller et al., 2005). It was found that the first storms of the rainy season did have significantly higher levels of pollutants (Soller et al., 2005). Implications for water runoff management may then 19

PAGE 20

consider an approach to minimize pollutant loading in an area before there is an expected long dry period (Soller et al., 2005). Because the nutrient and other potential toxins are higher in the first fe w storms of a rainy season it is important to consider this when dealing with urban runoff. Methods that catch the most pollutants should be installed to deal with not onl y the average load but also to ensure that severe storms do not overwhelm the devices. Otherwise, im paired water can reach recharge areas or groundwater sources bef ore being filtered. Another study, this time in Provo, Utah determined levels of dissolved metals and chemical characteristics of the water were altered by urban water runoff. This Utah study was located on the lower Provo Riv er and collected data from seven summer storms (Gray, 2004). It found that increased dissolved solid s, copper, lead and zinc were all associated with urban runoff. There was also decreased conductivity and dissolved oxygen (Gray, 2004). The species diversity al so decreased with increasing urbanization (Gray, 2004). Increasing ur banization has a direct relationship with increase in runoff. Runoff can make its way into recharge areas and groundwater storage. If a filter ing stage is omitted, runoff can then alter the natural species composition of aquatic environments and thus recharge groundwater unfiltered. Gradients exist between dense, urban development, suburban development, and more dispersed, rural settlements with res pect to quality of water runoff. Suburban development, while generally mo re pervious, is a continuous runoff problem over the landscape. In a study by Burns et al. (2005) the effects of impervious area, septic leach-field effluent, and riparia n wetland on runoff production in different ranges of suburban development within the Croton River basin in New York. It found 20

PAGE 21

that with more development there were also increased peak magnitudes (Burns et al., 2005). Wetlands also hel ped slow peak arrival and discharge when near a development (Burns et al., 2005). Another study on Big Darby Creek, Ohio wh ich historically had agriculture land use is now being expanded upon to include urban l and use from the expansion of Columbus Ohio (Jacobson, 2001). C hanges in land-use and a variety of land uses can have a varied effect on areas that re ceive the urban runoff. These disturbances in land-use will have a large effect on the area but they will be unpredictable in relation to the benthic community (Jacobson, 2001). Because it is so hard to predict what the effects of runoff will be on specific habitat and it s organisms, it is necessary to minimize the effects of runoff and prevent its harmful effects via treatment. A study in the Netherlands f ound that 77-85 percent of t he total area of agriculture and nature reserves exceeded t he limit value of 50 mg/l fo r nitrate concentrations (Boumans et al., 2008). This occurred most ly in the southeast part of the country known for intensive animal farming and where distance from agricultural land use is within 1 km (Boumans et al., 2008). Urbani zed and agricultural lands have a great influence on the quality and quantity of water percolating and mixing via surface water bodies into the groundwater systems depended upon for potable water supplies. The sources of contamination from the acti vities going on within different land uses can be classified as point or non-point source s. Point sources are that come from a specific point such as a pipe. Non-point sources are those that do not have a specific location such as run-off from a field or urban development. This study is primarily concerned with non-point run-off which if left untreated can present itself in the ways 21

PAGE 22

described above. The sources can make the potable water supply unsafe to drink. The result of which would be periods of water shortages and the eventual and costly resettlement of a new wellfield. Urban Water Treatment and Management Before reaching the aquifer, there are se veral methods of water runoff treatment and management strategies that can be employed. Wetlands, riparian zones, swales, and other catchments slow and filter water before allowing it to reach rivers, lakes, and, eventually, aquifers. A method to reduce runoff and conserve potable water sources is a decentralized management system for rainwater (Sieker et al., 2004). This method collects rainwater for only sections of a development or urban area. It can be as simple as sending it to different retention ponds or st reams. It can also be incor porated into a development or city by having landscaped lakes or ponds that incorporate rain water runoff from small areas of a development. It has the potent ial to be cheaper than centralized methods while also providing an aesthetica lly pleasing appeal for the client. Implementing ponds, lakes, or any other ty pe of retention area would also help reduce impacts from runoff. Whether centraliz ed or not, they can pr ovide areas to fish and recreate while retaining r unoff. Groundwater contaminati on concerns are raised by the widespread use of detention ponds bec ause of concerns about maintenance, longevity, and lack of design guidance (Ellis and Marsalek, 1996). Urbanization that can incorporate this technique is called low impact development. Low impact development has runoff impact reductions built into its design principles. Low impact development incorpor ates many natural f eatures that allow urban runoff and its effects to be minimized. The water from runoff can also be reused 22

PAGE 23

in the development (Graham, 2004). This kind of development requires that structures be situated in a way that maximizes veget ation and natural landscape. This means narrower roads and sidewalks and more vege tation instead of impervious surfaces. Pervious surfaces such as pebbles and rock can also be used for driveways and sidewalks. Low impact development deals with the average and not just the larger rainfall events. Low impact development can be evaluated and im plemented with the use of water balance modeling (Graham, 2004). Cities can also implement these design strategies for minimizing runoff by designi ng parks and other less urbanized areas in a similar fashion. Roof gardens can also be implemented to retain as much water as possible. Urbanized areas also have other options for runoff treatment and management. Green spaces in cities can also serve as re tention areas for runoff and also reduce the urban heat island effect and cool the area. Parks and recreational fields can be multifunctional by acting as retention areas during times of high rain while also serving the function of football and sports fields during dryer seasons. Cities can benefit from this technique since areas for large retent ion lakes and ponds are hardly set-aside but room is more easily made for recreation. A natural solution to runoff treatment is the riparian buffer. These buffers are located between water bodies and runoff and act as a natural filter. Riparian buffers can reduce the impacts of nutrients leac hing into neighboring surface water near an urban runoff site because they contain plant species and pervious ground that slow down the flow of water. These buffers c an reduce nutrient levels in surface waters (Baker et al. 2001). Riparian zones provide a slow filter for runof f to go through before 23

PAGE 24

eventually reaching a final water body. They have the dual benefit of providing a habitat for animals and wildlife. It also provides sh ade and food in the form of leaf litter to organisms in the water. So while filtering r unoff, it serves many other functions too. In a study by Ziegler, et al. (2006), a 2.5 hectare area in northern Thailand was studied during 18 rain events. Results found that suspended sediment concentration was reduced by 34 to 87 percent with the presence of a buffer. This is significant in that buffers not only filter and pr event nutrients and other chemicals from reaching the water but also sediments which could be carrying even more ions and harmful particles that would reduce water body quality. A specific type of wetland, the riparian we tland, serves the environment and also humans by purifying runoff before it becomes a part of rivers and stre ams. The riparian zone of a river, stream or other water body is next to it and is infl uenced occasionally by flooding. Riparian zones have three major q ualifications which are: a linear form per consequence of their proximit y to rivers and streams; ener gy and material from the surroundings pass through this zone more so than any other zone; and these zones are connected to both upstream and downstream ec osystems (Mitsch & Gosselink, 1986). In essence, a riparian zone is the part of a wetland classified as a swamp because trees can grow there. Riparian ecosystems are found wherever rivers and streams occasionally flood. The hydroperiod of a riparian system is the determinant of the ecosystem structure and function. The hydroperiod includes the duration of the flooding, intensity, and timing (Mitsch & Gosse link, 1986). These flooding waters bring nutrients, aggradation and degradation of the flood plain, and export materials from the floodplain (Mitsch & Gosselink, 1986). Thes e functions are important for a healthy 24

PAGE 25

stream and wetland ecosystem which serves its function. The riparian wetland also serves as a zone to purify runoff from urban sources before reaching a stream. Done naturally, riparian zones can be engineered or constructed to be used as an urban water runoff purification system. On a grander scale, a wetland can be used for many purposes besides a runoff retention zone. Wetlands can be used to ca tch and hold runoff from many areas but it can also be used to purify water for other us es. Purification is brought about by allowing pollutants to settle to the botto m of the wetland. It can then be used as a stage of water purification for potable water suppl ies or wastewater treatment. It is also a natural water filter for streams, rivers and other bodies of water. Constructed wetlands can also be used to treat runoff. Wetlands could serve highways and roads by removing the metals and other harmful pollutants that come from motor vehicles. In a study in Sloveni a 69 percent of suspended solids, 97 percent of solids that settle, 51 percent of chemic al oxygen demand, 11 per cent of biochemical oxygen demand, and 80 percent of iron was removed efficiently (Bulc, 2003). Constructed wetlands need to be built a specif ic way to handle the load it is engineered to receive and also be built to the shape of the urban structure, like a highway (Bulc, 2003). Not only do impervious areas cause flood conditions but in dry years a decrease in runoff was found in a study done in Atlant a, Georgia (Ferguson & Suckling, 1990). Conclusions of that study em brace the restoration of low flows from urban areas when planning urban stormwater m anagement (Ferguson & Suckling, 1990). Restoration of flow, especially during dry seasons, is e ssential for recharging the water cycle. 25

PAGE 26

Many of the above techniques for ur ban water runoff treatment can be and are used in practice as well as policy. We tlands are perhaps the easiest way to see groundwater levels fluctuating on a compre hensible level. Groundwater not only interacts in wetlands but also in other surfac e waters which can play an important role for water recharge area protection policy. Groundwater Interactions Groundwater and surface water represent an important interaction in wetlands hydrology and ecology. Wetlands rise and fall with the groundwater level. When above ground, they provide a habitat for freshwater species and others th at prey on them. Inputs for wetlands include runoff, rainwater, surface water and groundwater. These differ depending on the type of wetland consider ed and where it is located. Outputs include loss to groundwater seepage, surface water flow, and evapotranspiration. In a comparison of wetlands between Wisconsin and Minnesota, it was found that 77 percent of the input was precipitat ion and 53 percent of the output was evapotranspiration for the Wisconsin wetland (Brown & Stark, 1987). For the Minnesota wetland, 45 percent of input was groundwater and 82 percent of the output was surface flow (Brown & Stark, 1987). In develo ping a hydrologic budget for each of these systems, understanding the inputs and outputs is necessary (Brown & Stark, 1987). Water recharge protection policy can only be as effective and precise as the data that goes into them. Knowledge of the inputs and outputs are necessary for effective policy. Groundwater recharge occurs in all climate zones at varying rates (Seiler & Gat, 2007). For instance, in humid, temperate regions, groundwater recharge can be up to 300 mm/a and desert regions have a rate of less than 5 mm/a (Seiler & Gat, 2007). At very low amounts, groundwater recharge even occurs through permafrost (Michel & 26

PAGE 27

Fritz, 1978). Groundwater and lakes are interrelated becaus e 45 percent of surface discharge of rivers in humid and semi-arid climates originates from groundwater and surface discharge contributes to groundwater in arid and cold climates (Seiler & Gat, 2007). Urban imperviousness causes the loss of groundwater recharge by deflecting infiltration and enhancing evapotr anspiration because of the increase in heat from neighboring surfaces (Fergus on and Suckling, 1990). Roads, parking lots, roof tops, and other impervious surfaces have incr eased due to increasing urbanization and a decrease in the amount of forested lands, wetlands, and other open spaces that absorb and clean storm water in the natural syst em (Leopold 1968; Carter 1961). The inevitable interactions between surface and groundwater sources make policy affecting groundwater necessary for sustainab le sources of potable water. Groundwater Policy Worldwide, planning has become the pref erred mechanism for informed, forwardlooking and participatory decision-maki ng with regard to the development and management of all water resources, including their protection from pollution (Salman, 1999). This section discusses how plans for groundwater are made, components of groundwater policy, and the probl ems the policy can encounter. Groundwater policy uses hydrological modeling to determine flow and set parameters for land uses in and surrounding recharge areas. The development of a wellhead protection program requires knowle dge of the groundwater flow system and hydrogeological information (Ahmed, 1997). The ground water modeling process involves: (1) defining study objectives, (2) developing a conceptual model, (3) selecting a computer code, (4) constructing a groundwat er flow model, (5) calibrating the model 27

PAGE 28

and performing a sensitivity analysis, (6) maki ng predictive simulations, (7) documenting the model study, and (8) perform ing a post audit (Ahmed, 1997). A visualization of hydrolog ical modeling in a geographica lly referenced way is the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The ability to store, update, manipulate, analyze, and display the enormous amount of information required even for a small wellfield protection plan is simplified by the use of GIS. In a st udy by Avalos et al. (1995), GIS was used in conjunction with fiel d work to determine a wellfield protection area. Groundwater contours and location of potential pollutants were overlapped to identify a 10 year protection area for Las Cruces, New Mexico (Avalos et al., 1995.). The focus of groundwater protection has been on landfills and wastewater treatment sites but other i ndustry related sources add to the degradation of groundwater supplies including less obvious sources such as everyday commercial businesses like dry cleaners, printing plants, and body shops (Ahmed, 1997). Increasingly, policy has been about recognizing non-industrial sources of groundwater poll ution from runoff, septic tanks, and agrochemicals. Best management practices (BMPs) at many industrial sites and land uses such as fore stry are implemented to deal with these nonpoint sources of contamination. BMPs include storage, inspection, spill prevention and response, compliance audits, and long-term moni toring programs for activities that can lead to pollution of wate r resources (Ahmed, 1997). The delivery of safe drinking water is a global policy concern. The Water Safety Framework as outlined by the World Heal th Organization (WHO) encompasses three elements: 1. Establishing health based targets fo r drinking-water based on evaluation of health concerns. 28

PAGE 29

2. Developing a management system to meet these targets that is termed Water Safety Plan (WSP) and consists of: An assessment of the water s upply system to determine whether the water supply chain (from source through treatment to the point of consumption) as a whole can deliver water that meets the health based targets. Identification and oper ational monitoring of the control measures in the drinking water supply that are of particular importance in securing drinking water safety. Preparation of management pl ans documenting the system assessment and monitoring plans and describing actions to be taken in normal operating and incident conditions, including upgrading documentation and communication. 3. A system of independent surveillance that verifies that the above are operating properly (WHO 2004, 431-432). This framework deals with basic need for a potable water supply that meets certain health criteria. An example of a specific wellfield protection progr am is from Broward County. Broward Countys wellfield protection pr ogram consists of three elements: (1) identify wellfield pollutants and their sour ces, (2) map zones of influence around wellfield, and (3) develop and implement stra tegies to minimize interaction between potable water wellfields and other land uses (Ahmed, 1997). Seiler and Gat (2007) compiled a list for management of groundwater resources that include: (1) determining the range of groundwater recharge using ap propriate methods, (2) using local needs and possibilities to manipulate groundwater recharge, (3) safeguarding of natural attenuation by protecting recharge pathways, (4) monitoring aquife r exploitation and use, and (5) using early warning systems to recognize, assess, and prevent groundwater degradation in time. These poli cy frameworks all account for possible 29

PAGE 30

pollutant sources, minimizing interacti ons with hazardous land uses, and establishing the zones at which protecti on policies should be engaged. Policymakers grapple with the need to prot ect finite water resources but fear restricting economic expansion with overly limiting policies (Morris, Ahmed, & Litvak, 2005). Thus urban aquifer protection plan impl ementation is unusual worldwide despite the acceptance of their importance (Morris et al., 2005). Morris, Lawrence, & Foster attribute this (as cited in Morris, et al. 2005) to: Lack of a city or country master plan Lack of knowledge and recognition of sustainability linkages and timescales Lack of data and databases Opportunistic use of water resources is then the result of lack of knowledge and nothing is done until it becomes dangerously noticea ble. Johnston (1998) documents the St. Thomas, Virgin Islands case in which land uses contaminated and destroyed the islands main wellfield and aquifer resulting in multi-million dollars of damage, lawsuits, and an addition to the super fund list (Johnston, 1998). St. Thomas requires a restructuring of priorities to occur betw een social, cultural, an d biophysical elements (Johnston, 1998). A case study involvi ng successful action and cooperation between government agencies when the interactions of surface and subsurface waters posed a threat is that of Magdeburg, Germany. It is an exampl e of how the collaboration between city managers, river authorities, and the implementation of monitoring at an early stage can optimize the potential to solv e problems (Grischek, Foley, Schoenheinz, & Gutt, 2002). Another aspect of wellfield and groundwater policy is public participation. The French water planning system has representativ es of water users participating in the 30

PAGE 31

formation and adoption of General and Detailed Water Plans (Salman, 1999). Texas legislation consists of a wi de variety of water users groups which prepare and submit Regional Water Plans (Salman, 1999). In Spain, Water Users Groups consist of users of an aquifer and share in the groundwater management responsibilities of the River Basin Authorities, specifically ex traction monitoring (Salman, 1999). Growth Management in Florida and the Netherlands Florida and the Netherlands initiated growth management strategies for different reasons and attempt to regulate the same pr oblems through different techniques. The Florida legislature passed the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, commonly know n as the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 1985. This emerged out of the environmental movement of the 1960s and the rapid rate of urban incursion into the natural env ironment. It was unique in its country because it gave power to state and regiona l governments where before it was a locallevel government issue only. Thus loca l governments were required to submit comprehensive plans to the state for approval The Dutch Housing Act of 1901 laid the groundwork for the 1962 WRO (Spatial Planning Ac t). This act established a three-tier system with the local plan, bestemmingsplan being the only legally binding document. The province has the power to make decis ions about this plan and the national level can issue directives as a reserve. The Dutch planning doctrine is center ed on the metaphor of the Randstad and Green Heart to support its post-war spatia l planning policies (Evers, Ben-Zadok, & Faludi, 2000). Development Randstad had to be directed out of th e Randstad for the post-war population boom but now it must be centered back in to reinforce its position as the economic center (Evers et al., 2000). The Green Heart must not only be 31

PAGE 32

preserved because it is this vast open area insi de a ring of development but it is also the green heart of the R andstad (Evers et al., 2000). It becomes a symbolic power to justify Dutch planning doctrine. Instead of a concern for housing, Floridas GMA dealt with the need for controlling growth and the protection of susceptible natural habitats. However, it shows an affiliation with private development inte rests and, when compar ed to the Dutch, a greater promotion of economic development (Evers et al., 2000). Furthermore, the concurrency element of the GMA left loopholes in the system. Concurrency created three problems: the exclusion of schools from the pub lic facilities concurrency requirement; the encouragement of sprawl development by pushing new development to cheaper rural lands; and the funding of concurrency strained already tight local budgets which led to impact fees for development s (Evers et al., 2 000). According to Evers et al. (2000), Floridas planning style, cont rolled growth ideology, should be seen as a top-down reaction to an adversarial c limate between development interests at the local level and planning principles dr afted at the state level (16). Summary Water scarcity combined with the negative effects of land use on water quality requires action to minimize hazardous outcomes. Urban water treatment and management techniques can help minimize harmful effects of unt reated runoff into groundwater systems. Recognizing and modeling groundwater interactions allows for accurate information to implement wellfield policy. The many groundwater policy frameworks presented have several characte ristics in common which are monitoring programs, mapping zones of influence, identifi cation of pollutant threats, and strategies to minimize interaction between wellfields and other land uses. The following chapter 32

PAGE 33

presents the methodology used to explore the wellfield policies of Gainesville, FL and Zwolle, The Netherlands. 33

PAGE 34

34 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction This research uses case study met hodology involving policy documents and key informant information to compare the success of water recharge area protection policies of Florida with The Netherlands. The case study methodology was chosen because it allows for a comprehensive comparison of th e topic. Once chosen, the researcher collected relevant planning po licies and documents. Surveys were sent to Dutch key informants and interviews using the same questions were done with Florida key informants. The goal of this research is to co mpare the success of water recharge area protection policies of Florida and the Netherlands. The comparison will then yield a set of principles or techniques that will benefit Florida, and specifically Gainesvilles, wellfield policy. Selection of Case Studies Case studies were based on the following criteria: (1) hydrogeology, (2) service population, and (3) source of drinking wate r. Cities in North Florida are desired because of similar hydrogeology to that of th e Netherlands. This means that both case studies will have potable sour ces from wellfields and thus deal with groundwater. This narrows the size of the population to less than 500,000. Large cities were undesired because of compounding issues with water m anagement especially in the Netherlands. Also, larger cities in certain regions in both Florida and the Net herlands have different sources of water other t han groundwater. Cities that still had room to expand are necessary in order to assess the use of poli cy in evading wellfield and recharge areas.

PAGE 35

Gainesville is located in the center of Al achua County which is located in North Central Florida (Figures 3-1 and 3-2). Zwolle is lo cated in the northwest of the province of Overijssel which is slightly northeast of the geographic c enter of the Netherlands (Figures 3-3 and 3-4). One case study was done in Florida and one case study was done in the Netherlands. Only one was done in order to reduce redundancy, especially in the Netherlands where government is highly centralized. There would also be too much (of the same) information to process. Thus the cities chosen were Gainesville in Florida and Zwolle in The Netherlands. Development of Case Studies Review of Policy Following the selection of case studies in Florida, seve ral planning documents were gathered including: (1 ) comprehensive plan, (2) Gainesville LDRs, (3) Alachua County LDRs, and (4) other planning documents. The potable water and sanitary sewer and the conservation and open space element s of the comprehensive plan were reviewed to understand the overall goals and intentions of the policy. Both the Gainesville and Alachua LDRs were analyzed to assess the degree of regulation. The case studies in the Netherlands consist ed of gathering similar planning documents including: (1) Environmental Vision for Zwolle, (2) Overijssel regional plan (streekplan), (3) local land use plan ( bestemmingsplan ), and (4) other planning documents. The Water Annex of the Environmental Vision was used in the same way as the comprehensive plan in understanding overar ching goals and objectives. Both documents also set forth legal responsibilitie s of either the city and province or municipality. Other planning document s were reviewed when available. 35

PAGE 36

Key Informative Interviews with Planning Officials Key informative interviews were conduct ed with water resource planners in both Florida and the Netherlands. Interviews will provide insight into the effectiveness of Floridian and Dutch policies. These interviews will also provide insight into how and to what degree what is in listed in planning doc uments is actualized. Actual content and restrictiveness of policy will also be discussed. The questions covered subjects including wellfield locations, government agency interaction, wellfield and water recharge policy elements, and assessment of wellfield protection policy. The key informant process involved two classes of questioning. Florida key informants were interviewed wi th a set of questions in person. Dutch key informants were emailed the same set of questions. Pleas e refer to Appendix E to view the survey questions. Analysis of Case Studies The researcher reviewed the comprehens ive plan and LDRs of both the city and county to extract relevant wellfield policy. The responses from the interviews were used to gain an inside perspective of the implem entation process. Please refer to the Findings chapter to review t he results of both the intervie ws and analysis of the planning documents. Summary The research selected one case study in the City of Gainesville located in Alachua County, Florida and one case study in the City of Zwolle located in the Province of Overijssel, The Netherlands. Thes e case studies were selected due to their similar hydrogeologic and populat ion characteristics in tw o political entities with progressive water management techniques. The research was conducted by reviewing 36

PAGE 37

planning documents from both entities and conducting interviews with key informants. Planning documents including comprehensiv e plans, LDRs, Visioning documents and other planning documents in t he Netherlands were collected and reviewed. Interviews with water resource officials were conduct ed to better grasp wellfield locations, government agency interaction, wellfield and water recharge policy elements, and implementation of wellfield protection policy. 37

PAGE 38

Maps Figure 3-1. Gainesville as situated in Al achua County, Florida. [Map provided by Google Earth, 2009.] 38

PAGE 39

Figure 3-2. Gainesville, Florida. [M ap provided by Google Earth, 2009.] 39

PAGE 40

Figure 3-3. Zwolle as sit uated in the Province of Over ijssel. [Map provided by Google Earth, 2009.] 40

PAGE 41

Figure 3-4. Zwolle, The Netherlands. [Map provided by Google Earth, 2009.] 41

PAGE 42

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS Introduction This chapter presents the analysis of each case study in three parts consisting of: (1) city profiles, (2) a presentation of the planning do cuments and interview results, and (3) a summary of the strengths and weakne sses of their respective policies. The city profiles and planning documents provi de a comparison of what techniques are utilized in protecting wellfields in Florida a nd The Netherlands. The results of the key informant interviews provide confirmation of which policies and pr ograms for wellfield protection are realized and are successful. Interviews also revealed what is needed to improve wellfield policy. City Profiles Gainesville, Florida Gainesville serves as regiona l hub for the north central region of Florida. This includes providing educational cultural, medical, and commercial services to residents in the vicinity. It is also the seat of government for Al achua County. According to the Bureau of Economic and Business Researchs (BEBR) Florida Estimates of Population 2007, the population of Gainesville was 122,671 as of April 2007. It has a median age of 27. This is due to the presence of the University of Florida with a student population of approximately 50,000. This population is seasonal during the year and fluctuates during holidays and semester breaks. Physiography Gainesville is located in north central peni nsular Florida in Alachua County. It is the seat of government for the county. Alachua County covers an area of about 961 42

PAGE 43

square miles (Alachua County Environment al Protection Department (ACEPD), 1996, 5). It contains the borderline between the Northern Highlands and the Central Highlands (ACEPD, 1996, 5). Topography is a result of submergence and reemergence of sea levels with the deposition of calcar eous marine structures and sediment (ACEPD, 1996, 5). T he vast majority of Gainesville is situated in the Northern Highlands (ACEPD, 1996, 5). The r egion contains numerous sinkholes. Aquifer There are three aquifer systems present in Alachua County: the surficial, the intermediate, and the Floridan aquifer system (ACEPD, 1996, 11). The Floridan aquifer system underlies all of Al achua County. See Figure 4.1 fo r a map of the various levels of confinement present in the Floridan aquifer in Alachua County. The surficial and intermediate aquifer systems occur only in the east where Hawthorn Group sediments are found (ACEPD, 1996, 11). Gainesville wells withdraw water from the Floridan aquifer system in an area that is semi -confined to confined (ACEPD, 1996, 24). Murphree wellfield The wells are contained in the Murphr ee wellfield and serve a population of about 135,000 (ACEPD, 1996, 24). There are eleven supply wells that each supply about 9 percent of total yield and are pumped in rota tion to minimize draw down (ACEPD, 1996, 24). The output capacity of the entire system is 34 million ga llons per day. Withdrawal depth ranges from 275 to 545 feet (ACEPD, 1996, 24). The wells are arranged in a Lshaped configuration and are located on the easement of tax parcel #07875-000-000 in Sections 14 and 15/Township 9 South/Range 20 East in northeast Gainesville (ACEPD, 1996, 24). Wells 1 though 4, 7, and 9 are located along NE 53rd Avenue (ACEPD, 1996, 24). Well 10 is located northeast of the water treatment plant ((ACEPD, 1996, 43

PAGE 44

24)). Wells 5, 6, 8, and 11 are located along the easement for NE 15th Street (ACEPD, 1996, 24). Wells 1 through 8 were constructed in 1968 and wells 9 through 11 were completed in 1990 (ACEPD, 1996, 24). Approxim ately half of the WPZ is located within Gainesville city limits while slightly more than half is located in Alachua County. See Figure 4-2 for the future land use map for Gainesville and Figur e 4-5 for a map of WPZs. The most common potential contamination sources are those that have migrated downward from the surficial into the interm ediate or Floridan aquifer systems via natural or manmade conduits (ACEPD, 1996, 116). The history of contami nation incidents in Alachua County demonstrates the vulnerability of the Flor idan aquifer system (ACEPD, 1996, 61). A combination of aquifer vul nerability and high density of potentially detrimental facilities that can impact groundwater quality increase the chance for groundwater contamination (ACEPD, 1996, 116). There were a total of 348 potential contaminant sources the use or store hazardous or pet roleum products which are contained in the 1-foot drawdow n contour (ACEPD, 1996, 116). Zwolle, The Netherlands The City of Zwolle, though not the largest, is the capital of the province of Overijssel. Its population is 113,118 people as of the beginn ing of 2006 (Veldhuizen, 2006, 12). The median age falls between 30 and 34 which is ten years younger than the countrys median age (Veldhuizen, 2006, 13). Zwolle contains government agencies that implement policie s for the entire province. Physiography The south eastern marginal zone of the subsiding North Sea Basin covers nearly the entire geographic area of The Netherlands (Vries, 2007, 300). The maximum 44

PAGE 45

elevation of the Netherlands is 322 mete rs above NAP (Normaal Amsterdams Peil = approximately mean sea level) (Vries, 2007, 300). Zwolle is situated northeast of the Veluwe National Park. The Veluwe and Ut rechtse Heuvelrug are Pleistocene, icepushed hills with a maximum elevation of 107 meters (Vries, 2007, 300). Aquifer The province of Overijssel is approximat ely 1885 square miles. The depth of the Plio-Pleistocene aquifer contained in Over ijssel ranges from about 164 to 820 feet (Vries, 2007, 301). The Plio-Pleistocene aqu ifer covers nearly the entire country on layered clayey and sandy deposits of predo minantly marine origin (Vries, 2007, 301). Vitens wellfield The exposed phreatic aquifers in the Plesitocene area are susceptible to contamination (Vries, 2007). Pollution source s are diffuse and consist of agricultural activities and atmospheric contaminants, and locally by industries and waste dumps (Vries, 2007). Nitrate concentrations o ften exceed the 50 ppm (Vries, 2007). Concentrations up to 400 ppm have been observ ed in some areas from intensive pig breeding resulting in manure deposition (Vries, 2007). This can event ually lead to the production of sulfuric acid (Vries, 2007). Deep aquifer vulnerability is seen through tritium data analysis of the relationship between age stratification and pollution. Anal ysis revealed that the proportion of post1950 (young) groundwater in the upper 15 m of the sandy aquifer strongly decreased from 75 percent in the recharge areas to less than 25 percent in the discharge areas (Vries, 2007, 309). 45

PAGE 46

Planning Documents and Interview Results Background Policies relating to potable water qualit y and quantity have a top-down structure in Florida and the Netherlands (Figure 43). The Safe Drinking Water Acts 1986 amendments require creation of Wellhead Protection Programs. The state of Floridas Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Development Regulat ion Act requires all municipalities to have a comprehensive pl an to set goals, objectives, and policies in order to properly manage growth. T he GMA (Chapter 163) requires that: Within 1 year after submission of its revised comprehensive plan for review pursuant to s. 163.3167(2), each county and each municipality shall adopt or amend and enforce land development regulat ions that are c onsistent with and implement their adopted comprehensive plan (Florida State Statute 163.3202, 2009). It also goes on to state that local land devel opment regulations shall contain specific and detailed provisions necessary or desirable to implement the adopted comprehensive plan and shall... provide for pr otection of potable wate r wellfields (2009). Furthermore, the state comprehensive plan ( 2009) requires that it: identify and protect the functions of water recharge areas and prov ide incentives for their conservation, and protect aquifers from depl etion and contamination through appropriate regulatory programs and through incentiv es (187.201.7.b.5 and 187.201.7.b. 9). Relevant policies from the Gainesville comprehensive plan can be found in Tables A-1 through A-3 (Appendix A). Policies from the Gainesvi lle and Alachua County LDR can be found in Table B-1 (Appendix B) and Table C-1 (Appendix C), respectively. The Dutch national policy that governs pot able water supplies is the Drinking Water Supply Act (1958) which regulates supply conditions, quality, organization, and planning. The Water Supply Act handles the organization of water supply companies 46

PAGE 47

which are privately operated and owned but heav ily regulated. Other Dutch national policies that govern potable water supplies ar e the Groundwater (1984), Soil Protection (1987), and Water Management (1989) Acts. These acts regulate activities that impact groundwater. The Ministry of Housing, Spat ial Planning, and the Environment regulates drinking water policy on the national level. More recently the European Union has passed the Water Framework Directive (2000) which mandates cooperation between nations on all cross-border water management issues. Locally, the Province of Overijssels Environmental Vision document provides policy for local groundwater and wellfield management (Tables D-1 and D-2, Appen dix D). The following are the findings of each case studys planning documents and interview results. Gainesville, Florida Wellfield location The location of Murphree wellfield has not moved since its establishment in 1968. Additional wells have been sunk and there are currently 16 wells, 15 of which are operational. Murphree Wellfield is located approximat ely 6 miles from the geographic center of the city. Rae Hafer and Russell Ingram, both utility engineers with Gainesville Regional Utilities, provided insight into direct threats to the location of the wellfield. Both agree that besides Koppers, the greatest threat is dev elopment within the WPZ. Eventually, with the increasing sensitivity of monitoring equipment, contaminants will be found in the sentinel wells that monitor th e aquifer (Rae Hafer, personal communication, September 15, 2009). The sour ce of these contaminants can be from any of the surrounding land uses that are permitted to occur in the aquifer recharge zones. The Cabot Carbon/Koppers site was desi gnated a superfund site in 1983 (Figure 4-7). A superfund site has been identified by the feder al government as bad enough to 47

PAGE 48

necessitate federal assistance with inve stigation and clean-up. The program is administered by the Environmental Protecti on Agency. The Solid Waste Element Data & Analysis Report from the Gainesvill e comprehensive plan (2000) states: Compounds found in groundwater and soils include phenols, terpenes, pentacholorophenol, creosote, copper, chromi um, arsenic. Clays in the Hawthorn Formation which underlie the site apparently protect the Floridan aquifer, as well as the municipal wellfield 2.3 mile s to the northeast. In June 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency gave tentative approval to a plan by Cabot Corp. and Beazer Materials and Service (formerly K oppers Co.) to clean up this site. Site investigation was completed by EPA in 1990. Remedial action methods selected included in-situ bioremedi ation, soil excavation, soil washing and groundwater treatment. Remedial actions and groundw ater monitoring are on-going (35). The location of the well was chosen due to the clay layer that protects the aquifer from sudden, rapid recharge from hazardous spi lls or other similar situations. Government agency interaction The agencies in Florida that deal with wellfield management are the SJRWMD, Gainesville Regional Ut itlities (GRU), Alachua County, and the Alachua County Environmental Protection Department (ACEPD ). The regulating agency as designated by Section 355.05 of the Alachua County LDR is ACEPD. ACEPD is a state-certified delegate for the State of Fl orida. The county and city has restrictive regulations involving strategic ecosystems and wetlands, respectively. Property owners desiring to develop on parcels that contain strategi c ecosystems (Figure 4-4) are required to preserve up to fifty percent of the upland portion of their parcel (Alachua County LDR 406.35, 2009). Wetland function and habitat destruc tion is prevented within city limits by requiring practicable design alternatives to minimize impacts to wetlands during development no matter the size of the wetland (30-302.1.d, 20 09). It mandates restoration and mitigation to damaged wetlands also (30-302.1.f, 2009). The overlap of these policies with the WPZ provides additional protection where applicable. 48

PAGE 49

Furthermore, county zoning allows for conservation districts which limits residential development to one structure per ten ac res (Alachua County LDR, 403.20, 2009) Government agency interaction is referenced several instances and in various ways through Gainesvilles comprehensive plan. Objective 2.3 states that the City shall only permit activities that maintain drinki ng water resources to meet the demands of population projected for t he year 2010, (Gainesville Comprehensive Plan). The coordination of such efforts requires several agencies and is an example of vertical policy overlap: Pursuant to Section 373.0395, F.S., Water Management Districts are to map prime groundwater recharge areas within the County. Should such areas be identified within City limits, the ar eas will be mapped and included in the adopted comprehensive plan, and City land development regulations shall be amended to protect such areas if they are not already protected by existing regul ations and programs (2.3.5). Florida state law requires wate r management districts to provi de a service to the county thereby notifying the city of areas to be included in the Ci tys comprehensive plan. Ms. Hafer and Mr. Ingram mentioned how SJRWMD could potentially make more restrictive policies for development in the wellfield. Government agencies interact for very specific purposes with regards to the Murphree Wellfield. The city specifically GRU is responsible for reviewing any development plans in the wellfield protec tion zones (WPZ). The Alachua County LDR sets the regulations for management includin g the wellfield protection zones. The County also sets the standards for haz ardous water storage and management within the WPZ. St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) issues consumptive use permits (CUP) to the City based on proj ections of need up to the point where 49

PAGE 50

withdrawals would start affecti ng other users. On ce withdrawals reach a certain point, it will be capped. The water management districts primary goal is to ensure adequate water quality and quantity. Quality is monitored not only for potable water sources but also for recreational and environmental g oals. Quantity is monitored to ensure recharge to groundwater resources is not cancelled out by water withdrawals through over-pumping or cross-border interactions. Policy elements There are three policy document s regarding wellfield policy in Florida. The first is the comprehensive plan (both state and loca l). The City of Ga inesville LDR and Alachua Countys LDR are the remaining documents. There are three policy elem ents regarding wellfield and wa ter recharge areas in the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Gaine sville. They are the conservation, open space, & groundwater recharge, future l and use, and potable water and waste water elements. The conservation, open space, and groundwater recharge element requires the mitigation of hazardous substances through compliance with the Alachua County Murphree Wellfield Protec tion Code and the Alachua C ounty Hazardous Materials Management Code (2.2.4). Furt hermore Objective 4.2 require s the city to identify pollution problems and parties responsible in order to mitigate, re mediate, or provide assistance for mitigation and remediation. Objective 2.4 regulates runoff and other policies regarding the conservation of important water bodies includ ing water recharge areas. An education component also 50

PAGE 51

exists (as with all elements) to provide funding for education programs espousing the need for conservation and preservation of natural resources (Objective 2.6). The future land use element handles natural resource, and thus wellfield and recharge area protection, by regulating development patterns. Objective 1.5 seeks to discourage sprawling, low-density dispersal of the urban population. It does this by encouraging the county to consider an ur ban growth boundary as well as encouraging denser, walkable development. Goal 2 sets forth policies to encourage redevelopment to discourage sprawl, among other goals. Groundwater and wellfie ld protection is also cross-referenced with the conservation, open space, and groundwater element when considering new development in significant areas concerning these items (3.1.1). The potable water and waste water element is the final element dealing with wellfields and groundwater recharge. It sp ecifies the technical methods of supplying potable water. It requires water conserva tion encouragement to be included in the public education component (Objective 1.5). Alachua Countys comprehensive plan (2001-2020) became effective May 2, 2005. One goal relating to the containment of growth is set forth in Policy 2.1 in the Potable Water and Land Use Elements: All new development in the urban cluster shall be timed to occur when both centralized potable water and sanitary sewe r systems are available for connection. The timing and availability of municipal wa ter and sewer to a property shall be one of the factors to be cons idered when deciding upon proposed changes in zoning to a higher density or intensity pursuant to Policy 7.1.2.b. (Alachua County 2005). The comprehensive plan incorporates objecti ves which maximize the use of existing facilities in order to discourage urban sprawl and provide an adequate, safe, and environmentally sound system of potable wate r supply and sanitary sewer collection, treatment, and disposal. 51

PAGE 52

Policy elements listed in the comprehens ive plan must be translated into local LDR. Division 3 of Article VII, Wellfield Protection Special Use Permit, outlines how development within the primar y, secondary, and tertiary WPZ goes through a special development review process (Alachua County LDR, 2009). The Alachua County LDR also outlines the uses withi n WPZ. The primary WPZ is the land area immediately surrounding the Murphree Wellfield that is defined as the two year Floridan aquifer system travel time at a 60 million gallons per day (mgd) pumping rate; the secondary WPZ has a travel time of 10 years at the same rate and surrounds the primary WPZ; and the tertiarty WPZ has a travel time of 25 years at the sa me pumping rate and surrounds the secondary WPZ (Alachua County LDR, 2009). Travel time refers to the amount of time it takes a particle of water to move horizontally in the Floridan aquifer from a given point to the wellfield. T he special development review process and the mapping of the WPZ is undermined by the exemptions and exceptions listed in their respective sections. Exceptions include ga s stations as well as urban developments. Furthermore, city policy only requires those living within city limits and WPZ to hook up to the city waste water system but not the city water supply. This means that those that can demonstrate a financial hardship can sink their own wells, no matter the distance to Murphree wellfield. This com pounds the amount of water withdrawal going on in and around the WPZ. According to the informants, houses near the Koppers superfund site have refused to hook up to the city supply despite discounted or fee-free offers. This could present public health problems. 52

PAGE 53

Policy effectiveness Both Mr. Ingram and Ms. Hafer agree that besides Koppers, the biggest threat to the Murphree wellfield is urban growth in t he primary zone. Growth within the primary zone poses an immediate risk to water quality. Furthermore, gas stations are allowed within any of the WPZ. Gas stations are r egulated by the state. The policy lacks teeth to discourage development within the WPZ, es pecially the primary zone. Mr. Ingram said that he is currently in the process of pushing new policy through that will give GRU the ability to deny new developments in the WPZ and make it stricter to do anything potentially harmful there. Ms. Hafer spoke about how the conservation easement located to the west of the wellfield will keep that land in timber and is a good way to protect the WPZs from containing potentially harmful land uses. Bo th Ms. Hafer and Mr. Ingram agreed that zoning would be the most successful way to keep the WPZ from urbanizing or from other harmful land uses from locating in it. This would save money instead of having to purchase conservation easements. Currently the Ironwood Golf Course which is owned by the city but has been zoned as residential. It is located within the WPZ and there are plans to build a subdivision around it. Zwolle, The Netherlands Wellfield location The Vitens wellfield serving Zwolle is located a 1.5 miles away from the geographic center of the city. Several years ago the wells were moved to be closer to the river because of conflicts with agric ulture. This was done as a preventative measure so that pollutants would remain out of the water being pumped according to Mr. Heggeler. The location of the wellfield itself was chosen because of the clay layer 53

PAGE 54

which is the same reason for the location of the Murphree Wellfield. Unlike Murphree Wellfield, Vitens wellfields biggest threat is activities related to farming, not urban development. Figure 4-7 shows the groundwater protection zones for the Vitens wellfield. Government agency interaction The agencies in The Netherlands that deal with wellfield recharge and protection on a local and implementation level are the water boards, the drinking water companies, the provinces, and the municipal ities. The water boards prov ide permits for extraction and monitor withdrawals and hydrology much in the same way as Floridas water management districts. Their primary purpose and reason for existence however is surface water management. Drinking Water Companies supply potable water sources to municipalities. The companies have strict regulations and rules to follow when supplying water to municipalities. They are privately owned but heavily regulated by the government. In most cases they own the land that constitutes the recharge areas. The province is responsible for the protection of wellfield and water recharge areas through spatial planning techniques. Following guidelines for production and supply are outlined in the Water Annex of the Environmental Vision of the Province of Overijssel. Province policy focuses on the step-forward principle while the municipality handles the more specific activities within the wellfield zones of influence. Menno Heggeler, of the Province of Overijssel, on commenting about government agency interaction sa id that the biggest problem is the slow progress in implementing policies. Repres entatives from the Province and municipality meet a few 54

PAGE 55

times a year to discuss wellfield poli cy (Menno Heggeler, per sonal communication, September 28, 2009). Policy elements The main policy document concerning the management of Vitens wellfield is the Environmental Vision of the Province of Overijssel (2009). There are three main components that protect wellfield recharge areas in Zwolle as set in Section 5.3.1. Spatial planning is the main component of well field and water recharge protection in the Netherlands. The other two components of wellfield and water recharge are water and environmental policy. Wellfields and thei r corresponding water recharge zones are protected through planning on the provincial level. These laws protect not only the current recharge zones but also those reserved for the future. In comparison to Florida policy elements, Zwolle does not offer water recharge and wellfield protection policy public educati on or urban water runoff treatment facilities or management strategies. Infill develop ment policies, density requirements, identification of potent ial pollutants and their sources, and mapping zones of influence around wellfields are policy elements that Zwo lle uses to protect the wellfield. A new policy set forth in 2003 called t he Step-Forward Principle is a water assessment of proposed spatial planning on the hydrology of the planned area (Environmental Vision, 2009). It resemble s environmental impact statements in the U.S. but occurs on a grander scale. The policy limits activities and spatial functions in the GPA and to a lesser extent in the GEA. The two overarching principles of Dutch policy are prevention and precautions. Both the GPA and GEA have rest rictions on land use and activities that can occur within their boundaries. The ext ractable area has fewer restrictions and 55

PAGE 56

provided it passes the step-forward principle, has not other suitable locations, and there is a demand for an activity, a permit can be granted to build withi n it (Environmental Vision 2009). However much more emphasis and allowance is given to function like golf courses and nature parks because it is more in line with natural hydrologic functions. The stand-still principle is then applied across all proposed activities. This principle justifies changes if factors affecting gr oundwater quality stay the same and do not worsen. However, mitigation is permitted near by or on site, like city regulations towards wetlands. Unlike Gainesville, Zwolle restricts outright these acti vities, some of which are problematic in Gainesville: housing, ur ban development (commercial, retail), roads, railways, waterways, industrial sites, new se wage sites, and piping for gas and oil. The Water Annex of the Environmental Visioning for the Province of Overijssel (2009) directly states that spatial planning is t he starting point in preventing contamination in the GPA by: (1) promotion of functions t hat contribute to good quality groundwater; (2) impose conditions on land uses that risk groundwater protection; (3) excluding land uses that impact groundwater. Policy effectiveness Dutch policy is effective at keeping future land use changes from occurring within the GPA and GEA. However, enf orcement of policy towards historical land uses is a problem. Mr. Cramer said that better po litical leadership to encourage stricter enforcement of wellfield and water recharge protection policies would be necessary to actual follow through with the written policy. Changing urban growth patterns and other circumstances can lead to a wellfield bei ng moved. There is a full adherence to the 56

PAGE 57

public interest component of proving the nec essity for allowing po tentially hazardous activities within wellfield boundaries. Summary of Findings Gainesville and Zwolle both located their we llfields where clay layers are present to provide protection from contaminant spills. The activi ties posing a threat to the wellfield differ as Gainesville faces development pressures and Zwolle has agricultural pressures. Florida and the Netherlands each have several different agencies interacting to support wellfield managem ent and protection. Water management districts and water boards have similar goals in water supply planning and permitting. Both cases have policy for hazardous materi als but Zwolle has more restrictive policy towards activities and developments withi n the WPZ. They also have policies which encourage supportive land uses within the WPZ. The inform ants for each case study both acknowledged problem s with policy effectiveness. Specifically, Gainesville has less restrictive regulations and Zw olle has a problem with enforcement. 57

PAGE 58

58 Figure 4-1. Alachua County Floridan aquifer confinement map.

PAGE 59

Figure 4-2. City of Gainesville Gener alized Future Land Use Map.[Source: Gainesville Future Land Use Map Series] 59

PAGE 60

60 Figure 4-3. Policy Frameworks for A) Dutch government agency interactions and B) Floridian government agency interactions. National Government Counties Municipality/City Water Management Districts State National Government Provinces Municipality Regional Water Boards Water Supply Companies Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and the Environment

PAGE 61

Figure 4-4. Strategic ecosystems in Alachua County, Florida. [Source: Al achua County Comprehensive Plan 2009] 61

PAGE 62

62 Figure 4-5. Wellfield protection zones for Murphree Wellfield of Gainesville, FL. [Source: Gainesville Comprehensive Plan 2000]

PAGE 63

Figure 4-6. Wellfield protection z ones for of Zwolle, NL. [Source: http://provincie.overijsse l.nl/contents/pages/3040/kaar tengelsewerkdefinitief0527 3500_3b.pdf Last accessed September 15, 2009] 63

PAGE 64

Figure 4-7. Aerial view of the Koppers and former Cabot Carbon sites. [Source: Strategic Plan, Quarterly Report, 2009] 64

PAGE 65

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Through the course of the findings, key di fferences between FL and NL arose. This chapter will explore the similarities a nd differences between the two case studies. Though Gainesville and Zwolle have similar characteristics concerning wellfield location, service population, and comple x government agency interaction, their wellfield policy is quite different. They also use similar mode ling techniques in deciding wellfield travel zones. The major differences can be found in the elements of their respective policies. This study found that restrictions without exemptions do not exist in Gainesville. Proposals within the WPZ are not exempt or restricted including gas stations. Urbanization and development strategies do not consider wellfield zones or make restrictions on WPZs. In general, compr ehensive planning gives more thought to providing services rather than the impact these services have on each other. There then becomes little collaboratio n between elements which impa ct wellfield policy. Furthermore, lands that are zoned as cons ervation districts within the county and similar zoning within city limits can be re zoned depending on the commi ssioners. If a property owner desires a land use c hange and enough of the commissioners agree, then zoning policies are not enough to restri ct dense development. For instance, the Hatchet Creek Development around 39th Avenue and Waldo Road would be located in the secondary WPZ and is a relatively dense development for retirees. Development pressures in East Gainesville could push this project into existence even though it is located within the WPZ. 65

PAGE 66

Several loopholes exist within wellfield policy. First, Gainesville Regional Airport is in the secondary and tertiary WPZ. Second, residential septic system s are exempt from restrictions despite the obvious hazards they pose to groundwater. Both FL and NL lack public education on wellfields which could increase awareness and a sense of responsibility fo r protection. Public awareness would increase preventative measures instead of reactive measures once conditions became urgent. Even when offered free or reduced pot able water services, residents nearby to the wellfield or the Koppers site refu sed (Rae Hafer, personal communication, September 15, 2009). Educational meas ures are needed to explain groundwater movement and the effects wells can have on or have from groundwater. The biggest difference is the idea of good spatial planning. Combined with the step-forward principle among others, it provides a basis for comparison both environmentally and organizationally on a municipal or regional level. While Florida has environmental impact statement s and other less relied on and corresponding principles, they do not work in regards to wellfield prot ection. Florida also has growth management laws that would act the same as similar Du tch development and densit y if it were based less on concurrency and more on conservation and efficient land use. Though Gainesville policy is not nearly as re strictive as Zwolles implementation is not a problem. Increasing re strictions by passing through new legislation to better protect Murphree Wellfield is a high priori ty and is currently in the process (Russell Ingram, personal communication, September 15, 2009). Though Dutch policy is currently changing and updating, willingness to enforce is essential and needs to change with the policy. 66

PAGE 67

Literature illuminates the necessity for careful protection of water resources because of the delicacy of the system. This study contains policy elements present in the literature and how good intentions are no t enough to get it to the enforcement and stringency levels that are needed for adequate preventative protection. Finally, the largest difference between FL and NL policy is that the phrase good spatial planning is used to determine future land use activities. Zwolle takes a holistic approach to planning when decidi ng whether activities within a wellfield should occur. Future wellfield sites are put aside becaus e of the density inherent in such a small country that conserves its land and recognizes its value. The Environmental Vision (2009) states that the importance of ensuring public water supply is central. Mr. Heggeler also mentioned further improvements that would not take effect until 2030. These improvements are: (1) che cking concurrency between the city and province plans, (2) stricter enforcem ent, and (3) increasing the knowledge and participation of politicians. One case study of a Florida city and one fr om a Dutch city were done in order to compare the differences between wellfield po licies in each locale. Similarities in progressive water management strategies and outlooks make FL and NL comparable. While political framework differences exist, both municipalities must establish wellfield policy to effectively protect future withdraw als. Government agency interactions are important in gathering information and suppor ting one entity (the muni cipality) from each case to implement policy. Gainesville po licies are inadequate with respect to wellfield protection when dealing with (1) restricting development and (2 ) having restrictions with teeth, (Russell Ingram & R ae Hafer, personal communicati on, September 15, 2009). 67

PAGE 68

Zwolle policies contain the right elements to prevent development but have problems with enforcement. In theory t here is a regulatory agency but it is hard to have someone move who has been there for decades (M enno Heggeler, personal communication, September 28, 2009). Political leadership is necessary to correct these wrongs before a sense of urgency overcomes preventativ e measures (Wennemar Cramer, personal communication, September 22, 2009). Literature purports that the importance of wellfield protection and potable water supply policies in general are recognized as necessary but plans to do so are more often than not lacking in many parts of the world. This was generally attributed to modernizing societies. The focus of t he present research has been on two advanced societies, yet complete policies are still la cking. More complex, bureaucratic processes are perhaps at work which could be further researched to understand the differences between modernized societies and those that are in the process of modernizing. Both FL and NL have the ability to map and model complex underground water movements. Yet restricting activities and enforcing policies are difficult. This can be attributed to the negative economic and social effects of limit ing development in the case of FL and farming in NL. Both would be displacing resident s as well as devaluing property that in some cases is privately owned. Wellfield policy is complicated by the need to incorporate other policy elements when making decisions about restrictions. Bo th case studies occur in regions where ample land exists near the ci ty to expand. However, to prevent sprawl in FL and maintain density in NL, spatial planning techniques must be considered. This especially 68

PAGE 69

is true in built out or nearly built out municipalities because of the overlap between WPZs and development. The present study highlights the differences and rates of success of wellfield policy between Gainesville, FL and Zwolle, NL. Few studies compare or address modernized wellfield policy and implementation succe ss. Established documents such as comprehensive plans, LDR, the Environm ental vision, and other planning documents established policy frameworks. The Dutch ex ample is more restrictive. Gainesville policy lacks enough restrictions to effectiv ely be preventative. Both cases lack implementation as even the FL comprehensive plan outlines the necessity of wellfield protection policy. Key informant intervie ws and surveys with water resource planning officials provided an insiders perspec tive on both the policy itself and its implementation. Both municipalities recognize the benefit of locating their wellfields where a clay layer is present. This layer affords protec tion against rapid recharge of hazardous spills and allows for a slower, filtered recharge pr ocess. Government agency interaction is clearly defined for both FL and NL. Agency interaction in FL is successful in providing information but further connections could increase wellfield protection policies. Information is also managed successfully in NL but the process of implementation is slow because the municipality and province focus on different aspects of environmental policy affecting the wellfields. Comprehensive plan elements require pr otection for the Murphree Wellfield however, the lack of teeth in the LDR makes it impossible to do so (Interview with Russell Ingram). Furthermore multiple exemptions exist in the LDR which allows 69

PAGE 70

urbanization to occur in the WPZ (Russell Ingram, personal communication, September 15, 2009). Thus FL policies are insuffici ent at protecting Mu rphree Wellfield. Policy in NL is not lacking in exclusionar y principles but enforcement and a sense of urgency are lacking according to bot h Mr. Cramer and Mr. Heggeler. Moving historical land uses after policy has been i mplemented is difficult because of the economic effect it would have on those househol ds. Literature supports the findings of this study as development pressures are pushed outwards towards rural areas. These areas generally include WPZ. 70

PAGE 71

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION This chapter presents a summary of the present research, research limitations, opportunities for further research, and concl uding statements. T he research summary verifies a presence of too m any exemptions for developm ent in the WPZ of Murphree Wellfield and a lack of enforce ment in both FL and NL. Res earch limitations include the limited scope of these case studies and the limitations of case study methodology. Opportunities for further res earch include the exploration of factors leading to poor wellfield policy and lax enforce ment. Another study could examine munici palities that are facing urgency in wellfield conditions and what factors lead to such degradation. Concluding statements about the re search are presented lastly. Research Limitations The limitations of research relate to the case study parameters and the availability of literat ure and established resources to support my conclusions. The present research represents one case study in north Florida and one in the central Netherlands which is under-repres entative of the variety present in each location. While they are good examples for their locations regionally in Florida and the Netherlands, they only take into account a certain populati on size with room to expand its political boundaries. This research is limited in scope to states that consider water as a publicly held resource. Different policy and legal fr ameworks, and thus different interactions, would occur and could not benefit as fully from this research. This research has limited applicability for these reasons. Studies on recharge areas generally focus on modeling that manage for time and travel and do not c onsider policies that do not specifically mention these areas. 71

PAGE 72

Established literature is limited at best with regard to studies comparing wellfield and water recharge policy effectiveness between different countries and municipalities within countries. Policy documents are al so ever changing and being updated. Components of the comprehensive plan proce ss in Florida can take years to be implemented, if they ever are, and then may end up being mute because of changing circumstances. Lastly, methodology including interviews has limitations. The researcher has no reason to distrust the partici pants since they participated vo luntarily. However, all participants can contain elements of bias towa rds wellfield and water recharge policies, especially when it pertains to their own munici pality. Due to a lack of time, resources, and a language barrier, only water resource pl anning official were interviewed thus representing only one perspective, that of the water resource planner. Opportunities for Further Research The present research deals with specif ic parameters includi ng service population size, location, groundwater as potable water s ource, and the ability fo r the municipalities to expand. Further research c ould include larger municipalit ies, especially those that are unable to move their wellfield s or would have to consider other options if protective measures were not implemented properly, such as those close to being built out. How do larger municipalities that have larger runoff and pollutant potentials implement wellfield policy when there is a greater sense of urgency? Exploring regions in south Florida and we stern Netherlands would also increase the applicability of similar research. Finally a comparison of policies between municipalities that consider water a public re source and those that do not could explore 72

PAGE 73

which policy framework best protects wellfield s. Exploration of other potable water resources could also expand BMPs for water resource management. Another aspect of wellfield policy research to be considered is the financial ramifications of the movement of wellfields in order to keep a distance between it and sources of contamination. A comparison between the cost of moving the wellfield and diligent regulation, enforcem ent, and implementation of poli cy would provide a financial analysis of wellfield policy. Conclusions The research on successful wellfield policy and its implementation is still a new phenomenon. Recent technological develop ments such as groundwater movement modeling and GIS allow for detailed and accurate forecasting and monitoring. Wellfield policy, though recognized as essential, st ill comes in second place to other issues especially when perceived as rest rictive. The present study confirmed the presence of a framework for successful wellfield policy in the comprehensive plan for FL yet fell short in the LDR. Unlike FL, NL has the nec essary policy restrictions for WPZs in their Environmental Vision document. Interview and survey results for FL verified the lack of exemption-free regulations for WPZs and absence of teeth in regulating what is at present in the LDR. Several loopholes exist in the current law. Currently Gainesville utility engineers are beginning the process to push new legislation through to change and update current wellfield policy. This research is somewhat limited in that it applies to munici palities with room to expand, certain hydrologic and population characteristics, and entities that consider water a public resource. In other municipa lities or regions, with a greater sense of urgency about improving wellfield policy, how does the lack of proper wellfield policy 73

PAGE 74

affect new policies and the economic, soci al, and political circumstances of that municipality or region? What are the obstacles to carrying out wellfield policy? What policies and implementation techniques lead to successful wellfield programs? It is efficient to heed the advice and follow the su ccess of others than to try to repair an environmental problem so essential and complex as potable water supplies. A compilation of potable water supply resear ch yields many elements or factors that contribute to successful supply and su stainability of water resources. Studies indicate the degradation that urban water and pollutants can cause to groundwater as well as groundwaters interact ion with other water bodies. 74

PAGE 75

75 APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF POLICIES IN GAIN ESVILLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Table A-1. Conservation, Open Space, and Groundwater Recharge Element-Goals, Objectives, and Policies Element Goal, Objective, or Policy Description COSGRE Goal 1 Establish and maintain an integrated and urban-defin ing open space network that protects and conserves key environmental features. COSGRE Objective 1.1 Upon adoption of this Plan, the City shall prot ect all significant environmental lands and resources identified in the Environmentally Significant Land and Resources map series within the Future Land Use Map Series. The City shall continue to identify environmentally significant open space and recreation sites for acquisition. COSGRE Policy 1.1.1.d Wellfields: Development must be consistent with Policies 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 of this Element. COSGRE Policy 1.1.1.e Major Natural Groundwater Recharge Areas: Development within this area must be consistent with Policies 2. 3.3 and 2.3.5 of this Element. COSGRE Policy 2.2.4 The City shall adopt land development regulatio ns that require the handling of hazardous materials in such a way as to prevent degradation of the natural environment. At a minimum, this sha ll be achieved by complying with the Alachua County Hazardous Materials Management Code and the Alachua County Murphree Wellfield Protection Code, which: COSGRE Policy 2.2.4.b Prohibit new, hazardous material s facilities from siting within the primary and secondary wellfield protection zones of the Murphree wellfield, and establish requirements for siting of hazardous materials facilities within the tertiary protection zones of the Murphree wellf ield. Within the secondary zone, vehicular fuel storage subject to Flor ida Statutes 376.317 may be allowed.

PAGE 76

Table A-1. Continued Element Goal, Objective, or Policy Description COSGRE Objective 2.3 The City shall only permit activi ties that maintain drin king water resources to meet the demands of population projected for the year 2010. COSGRE Policy 2.3.1.a The City s hall continue to cooperate with t he Alachua County Environmental Protection Department, the Florida Depar tment of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the Water Management Districts, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and shall supp ort the appropriate agen cies with efforts to accomplish the following: Identify areas of pollution to surface waters and groundwater COSGRE Policy 2.3.2 The City shall allow land uses and facility design within wellfield protection zones (and other community water system cones of influence as defined by Fla. Administrative Code Chapter 62550.200 (Drinking Water Standards, Monitoring, and Reporting, Definitions for Public Water Systems) and Chapter 9J-5.003(27 ) (Definitions, cone of influence) and identified in the Environmentally Significant Land and Resources map seri es within the Future Land Use Map Series, that are in compliance with the Murphree Wellfield Protection Code. COSGRE Policy 2.3.5 Pursuant to Section 373.0395, F.S., Water Mana gement Districts are to map prime groundwater recharge areas within the County. Should such areas be identified within City limits, the areas will be mapped and included in the adopted comprehensive plan, and City land development regulations shall be amended to protect such areas if they ar e not already protected by existing regulations and programs. 76

PAGE 77

Table A-1. Continued Element Goal, Objective, or Policy Description COSGRE Policy 2.3.6 Until such time as prime re charge areas are mapped, the City shall use the Floridan Aquifer recharge maps pr epared by the St. Johns River Water Management District and the Suwannee River Water Management District (see Environmentally Significant Land and Resources map series within the Future Land Use Map Series). City land development regulations shall be amended to protect such areas if existing regulations and programs do not already protect them. COSGRE Objective 2.4 The City shall amend its land development regulations as necessary to conserve environmentally significant surface waters; major natural groundwater recharge areas; threatened or endangered or listed (or candidates for being listed) plants, an imals and habitats; and prevent the spread of invasive vegetation. The adopted regulations shall be designed to maintain viable populations of these existing plant and animal species and allow development activities which are compatible with identified environmentally signific ant lands and resources. Source: Gainesville, FL Comprehensive Plan as adopted June 10, 2002 77

PAGE 78

Table A-2. Future Land Use Elemen t-Goals, Objectives, and Policies Element Goal, Objective, or Policy Description FLUE Goal 3 Achieve the highest long-te rm quality of life for all Gainesville residents consistent with sound social, economic and environmental principles through land developm ent practices that minimize detrimental impacts to the land, natural resources and urban infrastructure. FLUE Objective 3.1 The City shall protect envir onmentally sensitive land, conserve natural resources and maintain open spaces identified in the Future Land Use Map Series, through the Developm ent Review Process and land acquisition programs FLUE Policy 3.1.1 At a minimum the followin g standards and guidelines shall be used to protect environmentally sensitiv e resources identified in the Environmentally Significant Land and Resources map series within the Future Land Use Map Series. The City shall develop and adopt land development regulations that estab lish criteria for expansion of the minimum standards addressed below. FLUE Polciy 3.1.1.d Wellfields: Developments must be consistent with Policy 2.3.2 of the Conservation, Open Space and Gr oundwater Recharge Element. FLUE Policy 3.1.1.e Major Natural Groundwater Recharge Areas: Developments within this area must be consistent with Policies 2.3.3 and 2.3.5 of the Conservation, Open Space and Gr oundwater Recharge Element. FLUE Policy 3.1.2 The City shall regulate development in high aquifer recharge areas that, at a minimum, meet the sta ndards and guidelines of the St. Johns River or Suwannee River Water Management Districts as applicable and Policies 2.3.5 and 2. 3.6 of the Conservation, Open Space and Groundwater Recharge Element. 78

PAGE 79

79 Table A-2. Continued Element Goal, Objective, or Policy Description FLUE Goal 4 The land use element shall fost er the unique character of the city by directing growth and redevelopm ent in a manner that uses neighborhood centers to pr ovide goods and services to city residents, protects neighborhoods, distributes growth and economic activity throughout the city in keeping with the direction of this element; preserves quality open space and preser ves the tree canopy of the city. The land use element shall promote statewide goals for compact development and efficient use of infrastructure. FLUE Objective 4.1 The City shall establish land use designations that allow sufficient acreage for residential, commercial, mixed-use, office, professional uses and industrial uses at appropriate locations to meet the needs of the projected population and which a llow flexibility for the City to consider unique, innovative, and carefully construed proposals that are in keeping with the surrounding character and environmental conditions of specific sites. FLUE Policy 4.1.2 Underlying densities and int ensities of development within the future land use categories shall be consis tent with the policies in the Conservation, Open Space and Groun dwater Recharge, and Future Land Use Elements providi ng standards and criteria established for the protection of environmentally sensitive land and resources. Source: Gainesville Comprehensive Plan as adopted March 4, 2002

PAGE 80

Table A-3. Potable Water & Waste Wate r ElementGoals Objectives, and Policies Element Goal, Objective, or Policy Description PW&WWE Goal 1 To provide adequate, safe, economic, reliable and environmentally sound water and wastewater utility services. PW&WWE Objective 1.5 Recognizing the impor tance of potable water supplies, the City shall encourage water conservation through the programs and methods listed below: PW&WWE Policy 1.5.1 The City shall continue to offer water conservation education and information to residential and non-resi dential customers through its Energy/Water Survey Program. PW&WWE Polciy 1.5.6 The City sha ll continue to offer free water conservation information as part of at least one utility billing statement per year. Source: Gainesville Comprehensive Plan as last revised on September 22, 2003 80

PAGE 81

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF POLICIES IN GAINESVILLE S LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Table B-1. Article VII, Development Re view Process, Division 3, Wellfield Prot ection Special Use Permit from the City of Gainesville, FL Land Development Regulations Section Description Sec. 30-201. Permit required. Within the primary, secondary and tertiary wellfield protection (management) zones of Alachua County, all new development and ex isting development that will intensify, expand or modify a use directly associated with the storage of hazardous materials, except for uses allow ed within the residential zoning dist ricts as provided in section 3041(a)(1) and uses exempted under section 30-202 (hereinafter "exempt use"), shall be required to obtain a wellfield protection permit, or a wellfield protection special use permit, whichever is applicable, as issued by the city commission or city manager or designee, as provided herein. In addition, all existing development which requires any level of development plan review for expansion or changes at a site shall be required to obtain a wellfield protection permit, or a wellfield protection special use permit, unless the development is an exempt use. (a) The standards and requirements of this division shall ap ply to all properties located in the wellfield protection management zones. Properties t hat may only be partially located in a wellfield protection management zone shall be treated as if the entire property is located completely within the wellfield protection management zone. (b) The primary, secondary, and tertiary wellfield protection zones are those zones delineated on the Murphree Wellf ield Protection management zones map on file with the department of community development. 81

PAGE 82

Table B-1. Continued Section Description Sec. 30-202. Exemptions. (a) Any proposed uses or development associated with the Murphree Water Treatment Plant, or electric transmission and distributi on systems or generally the provision of utility service by a government -owned utility shall be exempt from the wellfield protection permit and wellfield pr otection special use permit requirements. (b) Exemptions from the permit requi rements shall be allowed for uses and developments that meet the fo llowing criteria, except for specially regulated industrial uses allowed by special use permit in section 30-70(c)(2): (1) There is no manufacture, st orage, use, or sale of hazar dous materials at the site or development as defined and regulated in th e Alachua County Hazardous Materials Management Code, other than hazardous material s excluded from the provisions of the Hazardous Materials Management Code, as may be amended from time to time. (2) The project is part of an environmental cleanup or facility upgrade that is required by a local, state or federal environmental agency, and the pr oject is in compliance with the Alachua County Hazardous Management Ma terials Code and all other applicable state and federal regulations. Sec. 30-202. Exemptions. (3) Redev elopment of an existing site that ma y manufacture, store, use, or sell hazardous materials at the site or development as defined and regulated in the Alachua County Hazardous Materials Management Code, but where the actual development project will not involve hazardous materials other than those associated with similar construction projects, and the project is in compliance with the Alachua County Hazardous Materials Management Code and a ll other applicable state and federal regulations. (c) "Hazardous material" shall be as defined in the Alachua County Hazardous Materials Management Code. 82

PAGE 83

Table B-1. Continued Section Description Sec. 30-203. Criteria for issuance. (a) Wellfield protection permit. After an assessment by appropriate Gainesville Regional Utilities, Alachua County Envir onmental, public works and community development staff, the city manager or designee may approve and issue a wellfield protection permit in the tertiary and second ary zones in accordance with Article VII, Development Review Process, bas ed on the following findings: (1) That the proposed use or development will not endanger the city's potable water supply. (2) That necessary public utilities are available to the proposed site and have adequate capacity to service the proposed use and development. The development must be connected to the potabl e water and wastewater system. (3) That the use or development conforms to the ci ty's comprehensive plan. (4) That the proposed use complies with all federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances now and hereafter in force which may be applicable to the use of the site. (5) That there has been proper abandonment, as regulated by the relevant water management district or state agen cy, of any unused wells or ex isting septic tanks at the site. An existing septic tank may remain if it is used solely for domestic waste and if it meets all applicable state and local regulations. (6) That the use is not listed as a use s ubject to the specially regulated industry use provisions in section 30-70. (7) There is no current or proposed underground storage of petroleum products and/or hazardous materials, as defined in the Alachua County Hazardous Materials Management Code, at the development site. (8) That the applicant is in compliance with the requirements of the Alachua County Hazardous Materials Management Code, and all applicable state and federal regulations. 83

PAGE 84

Table B-1. Continued Section Description Sec. 30-203. Criteria for issuance. (b) Wellfield protection special use permit. (1) Development in the secondary zone and te rtiary zone that cannot be exempt under section 30-202 or approved by city manager or designee under section 30-203 must apply for a wellfield protection special us e permit in accordance with section 30-204. The development or use shall be revi ewed using the following criteria: a. Whether criteria (1) through (5) and (8), listed in subsection 30-203(a), have been complied with; and b. Whether the development properly addresses environmental features such as wetlands, creeks, lakes, sinkholes and soils to ensure that hazardous materials will not endanger the potable water supply and the environmental features; and c. Whether the criteria listed in section 30-233 have been met. (2) Development in the primary zone. No use involving hazardous materials shall be allowed in this zone, except for uses or development associated with the Murphree Water Treatment Plant, or electric trans mission and distribution systems or generally the provision of utility service by a government-owned utility. All other uses shall obtain a wellfield protection special use permit and meet the criteria in su bsection 30-203(b), above, and section 30-233. Source: Gainesville, FL Land Development Regulations 84

PAGE 85

APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF POLICIES IN ALACHUA COUNTYS LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Table C-1. Chapter 355, Murphree Well Fi eld Management Code: Relevant sections of Alachua County Land Development Regulations Section Description Sec. 355.05. Designation of administrative department The Alachua County Environmental Protection D epartment is designated as the county agency responsible for the administration and enforcement of this chapter. Sec. 355.07. Wellfield protection zone delineation The geographic extent of the prim ary, secondary, and tertiary wellfield protection zones are delineated on the map titled Murphr ee Wellfield Protection Zones, attached hereto as exhibit A, which is hereby adopted and made a part of this ti tle. The zones shown on this map roughly approximate modeled travel times. Exhibit A serves as the reference for the extent of these zones and is on file at the offices of the department, City of Gainesville, Ga inesville Regional Utilities, and the Alachua County Property Appraiser and Departments of Public Works and Growth Management. Sec. 355.08. Wellfield protection zone requirements Requirements that apply to each wellfield prot ection zone are presented below, in order of increasing restrictiveness by zone. Requirements for the tertiary wellfield protection zone are generally applicable to all wellfield protection zones. Requirements for the primary wellfield protection zone are most restrictive, and incorporate restrictions of bo th the tertiary and secondary wellfield protection zones. 85

PAGE 86

Table C-1. Continued Section Description Sec. 355.08. Wellfield protection zone requirements (1) Tertiary wellfield protection zone. a. New landfills, as defined by Chapter 62-701, FAC, and filling regulated pursuant to section 393.13 of the Alachua County Unified Land Development Code are prohibited. b. New excavations and mining acti vities that require a special use permit pursuant to sections 352.06 or 393.13 of the Alachua County Unified Land Development C ode are prohibited. Exceptions may be granted by t he department if the applicant can demonstrate no environmental impacts will occur as a result of the excavation. If an exception is allowed by the department, a special use permit will be required. c. Filling of any existing or newly developed sink holes or other solution features shall require written approval by the department. Should that approval be granted, the filling shall be scheduled so that a department repr esentative shall have the option of observing the procedure. No filling that violates federal state, or local wetland or surface water regulations shall be allowed. d. Agricultural operations sha ll conform to the latest versi on of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and FDEP Best Management Practices for Agrichemical Handling and Farm Equipment Maintenance. Silvicultural operations shall, in addition, conform to the Florida Department of Agri culture and Consumer Services Silviculture Best Management Practices, 1993 or such later editions as may be in effect. Alternative be st management practices that are at least as protective may be substitu ted with prior written ap proval by the Alachua County Environmental Protection Department. e. Existing wells posing a thr eat to groundwater qualit y, as determined by the department, shall be properly abandoned or repaired as set forth in section 355.09(a)(2), "existing wells." Wells allowed to remain shall meet the requirement s which are set forth in section 355.09(a)(3), "Existing wells." f. No new wells shall be constructed in the surf icial, intermediate, or Floridan aquifer system, except as set forth in se ction 355.09(b), "New wells." g. All new and existing wells shall be register ed, as set forth in se ction 355.10, "Well and nonresidential septic tank system registration." h. A hazardous materials storage license shall be required for regulated storage facilities with nonresidential septic tanks or wells, as set forth in section 355.11, "Hazardous material storage license." 86

PAGE 87

Table C-1. Continued Section Description Sec. 355.08. Wellfield protection zone requirements (2) Secondary wellfield protection zone. a. No new underground st orage of hazardous materials shall be allowed, except vehicular fuel storage subject to F.S. 376.317. b. A variance approval shall be required for t he temporary storage, not to exceed 180 days, of hazardous materials in container s or tanks exceeding 50 gallons aggregate volume for use in normal agricultural or silvicultural operations, and in construction activities. The variance procedure shall consist of application to the depar tment for the proposed activity requiring temporary hazardous material st orage. The application shall be made as prescribed by the department and shall include details of the proposed activity, a schedule of activity, types and quantities of hazardous materials to be stored, and a plan for monitoring and remedial action, where necessary, as determined by the departm ent. Within 21 days following receipt of a complete application for variance, the department shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. If the applicant chooses to appeal a decision by the department, procedures set forth in section 355.14 "Violations; enforcement; remedies," shall be followed. c. A hazardous materials storage license shall be required for all regulated storage facilities, as set forth in section 355.11, "Haz ardous materials storage license." d. All nonresidential septic tank systems shall be registered, as se t forth in section 355.10, "Well and nonresidential septic tank registration." e. The provisions of sect ion 355.08(1), "Tertiary wellfield protection zone," shall apply. 87

PAGE 88

Table C-1. Continued Section Description Sec. 355.08. Wellfield protection zone requirements (3) Primary wellfield protection zone. a. No new uses of land which require or in volve storage, use, or manufacture of hazardous materials are allowed. b. No new domestic or industrial wast e water treatment facilities are allowed. c. No new septic tank system s are allowed. Exceptions may be considered by the department where the cost of connection to a public wastew ater utility would impose an economic hardship, where a septic tank is used as part of a STEP syst em to discharge wastewat er to a public utility, or where an advanced treatment technology approved by the department is used. d. No transportation of hazar dous materials cargo shall be allowe d, except local traffic serving facilities within the primar y wellfield protection zone. e. The provisions of sect ion 355.08(2), "Secondary wellfield pr otection zone," shall apply. f. The Murphree Wellfield and the Murphree Water Treatment Plan t, as they currently exist, and expansions in direct support of water supply and treatment plant operations are exempt from the prohibitions in this section. Source: Alachua County Land Development Regulations 88

PAGE 89

APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF ZWOLLES ENVI RONMENTAL VISION POLICIES Table D-1. Key concepts of the environmental vision of t he province of Overijssel Concept Description Precautionary Principle All activities that may be risky to gr oundwater quality are prohibited as a prec aution and are allowed under (strict) conditions. The precautionary principle is the starting point of provincial policie s for the protection of groundwater for public drinking water supply, particularly the regulatory component. Our proposal is for the precautionary principle, especially in regulation, since it is ri sk oriented. In this way, the precautionar y principle is effectively implemented. Risk Assessments In the risk-the risk of contamination regarded as a combination of the probability of pollution and the effect of (unavoidable) contaminants. In assessing the actual risks must take into account site-spe cific circumstances (inter alia soil structure, origin and residence time of the extracted water) and the vul nerability of areas. Fo r larger risks are more protective measures should be taken. Small, negligible risks are acceptable. New Features with a higher risk should preferably be placed in places less vulnerable to contaminat ion, For example, because protective layers in the substrate or because a long residence time before the pollution reaches the extraction. In a long residence time allows timely actions to take certain contaminants and degraded or diluted before the groundwater reached. Condition for applying a risk based approach is that adequate information available on the vulnerability of gas and protection and the effectiveness of measures. We will examine what information this is required. A risk based approach leads to an effective depl oyment of tools and more effective protection. Stand-Still Principle New features should not increase the risk of contamination of groundwater (and deterioration of groundwater) Source: Environmental Vision of the Province of Overijssel 2009 89

PAGE 90

Table D-2. Elements related to G PA and GEA from the environmental vision of the province of Overijssel Section Description Groundwater Protection Features Groundwater protection is centered on promoting harmonizing functi ons and excluding risky functions (prevention and precautionary principle). Harmonizing functions that work well wi th drinking water can be thought of as: extensive agriculture, including fa rm management and organic agriculture; extensive recreation; landscape, nature and forestry; new estates and country. Under conditions these activities can occur near urban areas: golf courses and sports fields; small holiday resort; office and educational sites. Groundwater Protection Features Risky Activities / functions The following new features are, given the risks, undes irable in groundwater protection areas and are therefore excluded in both la rge and widespread form of: housing (more than 10 or 100 Properties); urban (shopping, catering companies, trade and services); roads (including parking lots, transferia) railways (inc luding yards) and waterways (including ports); industrial sites; piping for gas, oil (products) or chemicals; New sewage treatment plants This classification of desired and unw anted features is partly based on the report: "Function interweaving Durable and water collection, Reflect: determination of risk of groundwater abstraction functions "of KIWA (1999). In this report, the risks to ground water appears to be from 30 land functions. The above functions can be permitted under the following conditions: substantial public interest; no reasonable alternative sites; there is a balance or improvement in the protection in the groun d or in the aggregate groundwater protection area or through compliance with the step forward principle. 90

PAGE 91

Table D-2. Continued Section Description Groundwater Protection Features The full adherence to the requirement of a substantial public intere st and the lack of reasonable alternatives often leads to new functions not being allow ed. This limitation in app lications is not justified in situations where often traditionally: Urban functions in groundwater prot ection zones are existent or the range changes, a lack of measures could bring a certain risk to groundwater. In such a situation, new urban func tions are permitted provided that: from the perspective of good spatial planning it is r equired (eg. in terms of unlocking and/or protection of nature and landscape) to choose a new location; The new functions do not pose additional risk (s tandstill), in which new situations secure and/or guarantee the standstill principle by r educing effects on site or nearby. In areas without urban features ( "clean" areas) and in protection ar ound vulnerable extraction areas, requirements of substantial public interest and the lack of suitable alternative locations, apply. In those areas, the precautionary principle in its full extent is maintained. In this context, housing is a weighty social issue and interest and housing means urban areas For certain categories of new business that includes risky companies in groundwat er protection areas, the provincial regulation includes in a ban. Examples include intensive livestock farms and landfill sites. These companies may not be formed in a groundwater protection zone, the env ironmental permit should be denied. 91

PAGE 92

Table D-2. Continued Section Description Retractable Areas Features of retractable areas: The retractable areas adhere to the planning regime of a simila r (but slightly less stringent) precautionary principle as in groundw ater protection. The differences are higher in the (environmental) regulations. These regulations have only to do with groundwater protection. Land uses that function well and relate to drinking water are pr omoted, especially in the highly se nsitive extraction. New scale risk features (eg scale housing and holid ay resort) are as much as possible to be excluded, but under conditions allowed. It must be shown that the new feature is of subs tantial civil importance and that there are no suitable alternative sites. Simultaneously the step-forward principle must be app lied. For functions in large urban areas that already exist, some nuances about what changes of groundwater functions protection is stated. For high-risk uses, the standstill principle is applied. Thes e include, among others, intensive livestock farms. This means that new establishment of intensive livestock farms must prove how it can stimulate and improve the situation for drinking water. Changes in Function Protection is the cornerstone of the precautionary principle. This means that high-risk activities and functions in principle are to be excluded. When situation changes arise, it will in all cases try to prevent the situatio n, in order to protect groundwater deterioration (stand-st ill principle). Where possible, any change should aim for an improvement (step-forward principle). At risk activities/functions requires the use of the step forward principle. A step is put forward to assess whether the new destination/fu nction is less risky to the quality of groundwater than the existing dest ination/function. To achieve a step-forward, reducing (mitigating) measures are necessary, preferably on site or else nearby. The stand-still or move forward principles must be demonstrated in the water section of the zoning. Larger scale and risk-associated activities are excluded on principle or are only exceptionally allowed and under certain conditions. The conditions include that there is a substantial social interest and that reasonable alternatives outside the protection area is unavailable. This depends on the specific local situation and each case should be assessed separately. In addition, a step forward is made, preferably by taki ng effect of reducing local action on site or nearby. If the effects on spot can be reduced su fficiently, compensation is permitted at area level (by functions through the balance of a trade-off approach). In that case, the step-forward are shown in a regional vision. The regional vision is concerned with the water test. Source: Environmental Vision of the Province of Overijssel 2009 92

PAGE 93

93 APPENDIX E SURVEY Wellfield Location 1. Approximately how far is the wellfie ld located from the municipalitys geographic center? 2. Have agreements about wellfield area protection been implemented successfully within the last ten years? In other words, have locations of wellfields and water recharge areas been moved or displaced because of a neighboring land use? (If the answer is yes please answer question 3, if no please answer question 4). 3. What government or non-gover nment agency brought about successful implementation? 4. What has prevented t hese agreements from being implemented successfully? Government Agency Interaction 1. Which government agencies cooperate most frequently to implement policies regarding wellfield protection? 2. At what frequency do these communications take place? 3. Are these communicati ons helpful and productive? 4. How are or arent these communications productive? Wellfield and Water Rech arge Policy Elements 1. Please mark the element(s) that the wellfield or wate r recharge area protection policy regarding your specific municipality contains: a. Public education abo ut importance of water recharge and wellfield protection policies b. Infill development of muni cipality to discourage sprawl c. Maximization of use of water supply facilities d. Urban runoff treatment facilit ies or management strategies e. Require a density of new development adjacent to existing development f. Developing standards for water quality g. A independent agency, per haps a regulatory agency, th at makes sure that wellfield policies are implemented correctly. h. Identify potential pollu tants and their sources i. Mapping zones of influence around wellfield j. Strategies that minimize contam ination from surrounding land uses onto wellfield k. Other(please explain): _________________________________________ ________________________ _____________________ ______________ Assessment of Wellfi eld Protection Policy 1. What is the greatest threat to your municipalitys wellfield?

PAGE 94

2. What techniques are most successful in limiting urbanization or other harmful land uses near the wellfield? 3. What method, policy, or other type of control do you believe would provide more effective protection of y our municipalitys wellfield? 4. What other types of improvements would help with policy implementation? 5. What social, political, economical, or other factor woul d benefit wellfield protection policy? 94

PAGE 95

LIST OF REFERENCES Ahmed, N. (1997). Ground water protection alternatives and strategies in the U.S.A New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Alachua County Environmental Protection Department. (1996). A comprehensive contaminant source and well inventory near wellfield areas of Alachua County. (Wellhead Protection Services FDEP Cont ract no. GW097). Gainesville, Fla: Alachua County Environment al Protection Department. Avalos, B., Samani, Z. & Garcia, J.A. (1995) Use of particle tracking model and GIS in the delineation of wellhead protection ar eas and mapping of potential pollution sources. In R.J. Charbeneau (Ed.), Groundwater management (235-240). New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Baker, M.E., Wiley, M.J. & Seelbach, P. W. (2001). GIS-based hydrologic modeling of riparian areas: implications for stream water quality. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 37 (6), 1615-1628. Boumans, L., Fraters, D., & Drecht, G.V. (2008). Mapping nitrate leaching to upper groundwater in the sandy regions of The Netherlands, using conceptual knowledge. Environmental Monitor Assessment, 137 243-249. Brown, R.G. & Stark, J.R. (1987). Comparison of Ground-water and Surface-water Interactions in Two Wetlands presented at the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Sea ttle, Washington May 26-29, 1987. Bulc, T. and Slak, A.S. (2003). Performance of constructed wetland for highway runoff treatment, in Water Science and Technology 48(2): 315-322. Burns, D., Vitvar, T., McD onnell, J., Hassett, J., Duncan, J. & Kendall, C. (2005). Effects of suburban development on runoff generation in the Croton River basin, New York, U.S.A. Journal of Hydrology, 311 (1-4): 266-281. Carter, R. W. (1961). Magnitude and frequency of floods in suburban areas (U.S. Geological Survey Paper 424-B, B9-B11).Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey. Cervone, S. (2003). Plant management in Flor ida waters: Aquifers. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. Retrieved from http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/guide/ aquifers.html Commission on Ground Water Recharge. (1994). Ground water recharge using waters of impaired quality Washington D.C.: National Ac ademy Press. Accessed on Jan. 27, 2009 from http://books. nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4780 &page=250 95

PAGE 96

Commission on Water Management for the 21st Century. (2000). Water policy in the 21st century: Advice to the gover nment. The Hague, The Netherlands. Ellis, J. B., and J. Marsalek. (1996). Overvi ew of urban drainage: En vironmental impacts and concerns, means of mitigation and implementation policies. Journal of Hydrological Resources 34 : 723-31. Evers, D., Ben-Zadok, E., & Faludi, A. (2000). The Netherlands and Florida: Two growth management strategies. International Pl anning Studies 5 (1), 7-23. Ferguson, B. K., & Suckling, P.W. (1990). Changing rainfall runoff relationships in the urbanizing Peachtree Creek Wate rshed, Altanta, Georgia. Water Resources Bulletin 26 (2), 313-22. Geleuken, B.P.V. (1998). Region oriented groundwater protection policy: the significance of congruence. (Vol. 311) Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Vakgroep Milieu, Natuur en Landschap. Graham, P., Maclean, L ., Medina, D ., Patwardhan, A & Vasarhelyi, G. (2004). The role of water balance modeling in transition to low impact development. Canadian Association of Water Quality 39(4): 331-342. Gray, L. (2004). Changes in water quality and macroinvertebrate communities resulting from urban stormflows in t he Provo River, Utah, U.S.A. Hydrobiologia 48(5): 3346. Grischek, T., Foley, A., Schoenheinz, D., & Gutt, B. (2002). Effe cts of interaction between surface water and groundwater on groundwater flow and quality beneath urban areas. In K.W.F. Ho ward & R.G. Israfilov (Eds.), Current problems of hydrogeology in urban areas: Urban agglomerates, and industrial centers (201-219). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Honachefsky, W.B. (2000). Ecologically based municipal land use planning Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers. Jacobson, R., Femmer, S. & McKenney, R. ( 2001). Land-use changes and the physical habitat of streams: Review with emphasis on studies within the U.S. Geological Survey Federa l-State Cooperative Program Reston, Va: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Johnston, B.R. (1998). Cu lture, Power, and the hy drological cycle: Creating and responding to water scarcity on St. Thomas Virgin Islands. In J.M. Donahue & B.R. Johnston (Eds.), Water, Culture, and Power (285-312). Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 96

PAGE 97

Leopold, Luna B. (1968). Hydrology for urban planning; A guidebook on the hydrologic effects of urban land use Washington, DC: U.S. D epartment of the Interior. Metsers, C.M.L.& He mel C.M.V. (1997). Ecological management by drinking water companies; state of affairs and prognoses Nieuwegein, The Netherlands: KIWA. Michel, F.A. & Fritz, P. (1978). Proceedings from the Third International Conference on Permafrost: Environmental isotope in permafrost related waters along the Mackenzie Valley corridor Edmonton, 207-211. Mitsch, W.J. & Gosselink, J.G. (1986). Wetlands New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc. Morris, B.L., Ahmed, K.M., & Litvak, R.G. (2005). Evolution of groundwater protection policies in developing cities: Stakeholder consulation case studies in Bangladesh and Kyrghyzstan. In E.M. Bocanegra, M.A. Hernandez, & E. Usunoff (Eds.), Groundwater and Human Development (247-262). Leiden: A.A. Balkema Publishers. Parry, M.L. (Eds.). (2007). Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability : contribution of Working Gr oup II to the fourth a ssessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Salman, S. (1999). Groundwater: Legal and policy perspectives. (World Bank Technical Paper No. 456). Washingt on, D.C.: World Bank. Seiler, K.-P., & Gat, J.R. (2007). Groundwater recharge from run-off, infiltration and percolation (Vol. 55). Dordrecht, T he Netherlands: Springer. Sieker, F., Sieker, H., Zi mmerman, U., & Sommer, H. (2004). Preventative flood protection: A side effect of decentraliz ed rainwater management in urban areas. Hydrology and Water Resour ces Management-Germany, 518 185-189. Soller, J., Stephenson, J., Olivieri, K., Downin g, J. and Olivieri, A. W. (2005). Evaluation of seasonal scale first flush pollutant loading and implications for urban runoff management. Journal of environmental management 76 (4), 309-318. United States Geological Society. (2008) [Graph illustrating the Floridan Aquifer System]. Aquifer Basics: Floridan Aqui fer. Retrieved from http://water. usgs.gov/ogw/ aquiferbasics/ext_floridan.html Van Drecht, G. (1993). Modeli ng of regional scale nitrate leaching from agricultural soils. Applied Geochemistry 8 (2), 175-178. 97

PAGE 98

Veldhuizen, A.D.J. (2006). Bevolking becijferd 2006. Zwolle: Afdeling Informatie, Onderzoek & Statistiek. Retrieved from: http://www.gemeenteraadzwolle.nl/cms/ resources_users.nsf/Lookup/bevolking_bec ijferd_2006/$file/bevolking_becijferd_ 2006.pdf. Vries, J.J. (2007). Groundwater In Wong, T.E., Batjes, D. A.J., & Jager, J. (Eds.). Geology of the Netherlands (295-315). Amsterdam: Roya l Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. World Health Organization. (2004). Guidelines for drinking-water quality: Recommendations (3rd ed). (Vol. 1). Geneva: WHO. Ziegler, A.D., Negishi, J., Sidle, R.C., Preechapanya, P., Su therland, R.A., Giambelluca, T.W. & Jaiaree, S. (2006). Reduction of stream sediment concentration by a riparian buffer: Filtering of road water runoff in disturbed headwater basins of montane mainland Southeast Asia. Journal of Environmental Quality 35 (1): 151162. 98

PAGE 99

99 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jessica Kovari was born in New Jersey. She grew up in southeast Florida. Jessica started college as an undergraduate in Architecture and then switched to Forestry. She graduated in the Spring of 2008 cum laude with a Bachelor of Science in Forest Resources and Conservation. During her time at the University of Florida she took advantage of several study abroad trip s involving integrated water management, ecotourism, and the NEURUS research ex change program for which she was awarded a grant. During her time as a graduate student she interned in Cordova, Alaska at a non-profit sustainable economic development group and later at the Southwest Florida Water Management District in Brooksville, Florida.