Watershed Management for Potable Water Supply: Assessing the New York City Strategy

569 Pages·2000·7.55 MB·English

by  National Research Council National Research Council Committee to Review the New York City Watershed

Watershed
Management
for Potable
Water Supply
ASSESSING THE
NEW YORK CITY STRATEGY
Committee to Review the New York City Watershed Management Strategy
Water Science and Technology Board
Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS • 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW • Washington, DC 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the
committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for
appropriate balance.
Support for this project was provided by the Comptroller of the City of New York.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-06777-4
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 00-100784
Watershed Management for Potable Water Supply: Assessing the New York City Strategy is available
from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC
20055; [phone] or [phone] (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet <http://
www.nap.edu>.
Copyright 2000 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of
distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the
furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the
authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate
that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr.
Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the
National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is
autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the
National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government.
The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at
meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior
achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of
Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences
to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination
of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the
responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to
be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of
medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of
Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in
1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s
purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in
accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the
principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National
Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the
scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both
Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf
are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE NEW YORK CITY
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
CHARLES R. O’MELIA, Chair, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
Maryland
MAX J. PFEFFER, Vice-Chair, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
PAUL K. BARTEN, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
G. EDWARD DICKEY, Consultant, Baltimore, Maryland
MARGOT W. GARCIA, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond
CHARLES N. HAAS, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
RICHARD G. HUNTER, Florida Department of Health, Tallahassee
R. RICHARD LOWRANCE, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Tifton, Georgia
CHRISTINE L. MOE, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
CYNTHIA L. PAULSON, Brown and Caldwell, Denver, Colorado
RUTHERFORD H. PLATT, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
JERALD L. SCHNOOR, University of Iowa, Iowa City
THOMAS R. SCHUELER, Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City,
Maryland
JAMES M. SYMONS, University of Houston, Houston, Texas (retired)
ROBERT G. WETZEL, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Staff
LAURA J. EHLERS, Study Director
ELLEN A. DE GUZMAN, Senior Project Assistant
iv
WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD
HENRY J. VAUX, JR., Chair, University of California, Oakland
CAROL A. JOHNSTON, Vice-Chair, University of Minnesota, Duluth
RICHELLE ALLEN-KING, Washington State University, Pullman
GREGORY B. BAECHER, University of Maryland, College Park
JOHN S. BOYER, University of Delaware, Lewes
JOHN BRISCOE, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
DENISE FORT, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
STEVEN P. GLOSS, University of Wyoming, Laramie
EVILLE GORHAM, University of Minnesota, St. Paul
WILLIAM A. JURY, University of California, Riverside
GARY S. LOGSDON, Black & Veatch, Cincinnati, Ohio
RICHARD LUTHY, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh
JOHN W. MORRIS, J.W. Morris, Ltd., Arlington, Virginia
PHILIP A. PALMER, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Wilmington, Delaware
REBECCA T. PARKIN, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
JOAN B. ROSE, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg
R. RHODES TRUSSELL, Montgomery Watson, Pasadena, California
ERIC F. WOOD, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
Staff
STEPHEN D. PARKER, Director
LAURA J. EHLERS, Senior Staff Officer
CHRIS ELFRING, Senior Staff Officer
JEFFREY W. JACOBS, Senior Staff Officer
WILLIAM LOGAN, Staff Officer
MARK GIBSON, Research Associate
M. JEANNE AQUILINO, Administrative Associate
ANITA A. HALL, Administrative Assistant
ELLEN A. DE GUZMAN, Senior Project Assistant
ANIKE JOHNSON, Project Assistant
v
COMMISSION ON GEOSCIENCES, ENVIRONMENT,
AND RESOURCES
GEORGE M. HORNBERGER, Chair, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
RICHARD A. CONWAY, Union Carbide Corporation (retired), South
Charleston, West Virginia
THOMAS E. GRAEDEL, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
THOMAS E. GRAFF, Environmental Defense Fund, Oakland, California
EUGENIA KALNAY, University of Maryland, College Park
DEBRA KNOPMAN, Progressive Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.
KAI N. LEE, Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts
RICHARD A. MESERVE, Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C.
BRAD MOONEY, J. Brad Mooney Associates, Ltd., Arlington, Virginia
HUGH C. MORRIS, Canadian Global Change Program, Delta, British Columbia
H. RONALD PULLIAM, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia
MILTON RUSSELL, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
THOMAS C. SCHELLING, University of Maryland, College Park
ANDREW R. SOLOW, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Woods Hole,
Massachusetts
VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL, Landers and Parsons, Tallahassee, Florida
E-AN ZEN, University of Maryland, College Park
MARY LOU ZOBACK, United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California
Staff
ROBERT M. HAMILTON, Executive Director
GREGORY H. SYMMES, Associate Executive Director
JEANETTE SPOON, Administrative and Financial Officer
SANDI FITZPATRICK, Administrative Associate
MARQUITA SMITH, Administrative Assistant/Technology Analyst
vi
Preface
Watersheds are nature’s boundaries for surface water supplies. Natural
processes combined with human activities in watersheds determine the inherent
quality of these supplies and the treatment they need for potable use. The quality
of the drinking water at a consumer’s tap depends on the source of that water and,
in turn, on the approaches used in managing the activities and processes in the
watershed from which the water originates. The effectiveness of these approaches
depends to a significant extent on their scientific underpinnings. This report
examines watershed management for the water supply of the City of New York.
In doing so, it can serve as a prototype for other urban surface water supplies.
In 1997 the National Research Council (NRC), under the auspices of the
Water Science and Technology Board (WSTB), established the Committee to
Review the New York City Watershed Management Strategy. The NRC chose
15 experts to serve on the committee for the purpose of studying scientific issues
associated with the 1997 New York City Watershed Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA), a document that outlines strategies for maintaining high-quality drinking
water for the nine million residents in New York City and neighboring
Westchester County. The MOA has allowed New York City to obtain a filtration
waiver under EPA’s Surface Water Treatment Rule for its Catskill/Delaware
supply system until April 2002. In exchange, the City must (among other things)
comply with water quality standards for contaminants in drinking water, it must
maintain a watershed protection program (embodied in the MOA), and it must
not experience a waterborne disease outbreak.
The MOA is a monumental document in the history of water resources in
New York City. There are three main provisions of the agreement: (1) land
vii
viii PREFACE
purchase in the Catskill/Delaware watershed, which supplies 90 percent of the
city’s drinking water and is predominantly in private ownership, (2) regulations
on activities in the watershed, and (3) payments to watershed communities to
support local economic development and to promote watershed protection. The
MOA owes its existence to multiple parties in New York City, New York State,
and the watershed communities, each of which made concessions to protect water
quality in the Catskill/Delaware supply and also to meet the needs of the water-
shed citizens.
To carry out this study, committee members were chosen from a broad range
of backgrounds including hydrology, watershed management, environmental
engineering, ecology, microbiology, public health and epidemiology, urban plan-
ning, economics, and environmental law. The committee met six times over the
course of two years, commencing in New York City on September 25, 1997. The
third committee meeting was held in the watershed region (Oliverea, NY) to
allow the members to visit several of the upstate reservoirs, observe New York
City Department of Environmental Protection (NYC DEP) operations, visit a
farm enrolled in the Watershed Agricultural Program, and learn about ongoing
basic science research in the watershed. At all of the committee’s open meetings,
the public took great interest in committee deliberations and guest presentations.
In all, the committee heard from over 40 invited speakers. In addition, liaisons
were established with multiple stakeholders who supplied considerable written
information during the course of the study.
Beyond regular committee meetings, four additional activities were under-
taken to broaden the knowledge base of the committee. First, a small field trip to
the Kensico Reservoir was made in November 1997. In April 1998, six promi-
nent scientists convened with a subgroup of the committee to discuss active
disease surveillance in New York City and the prospects for conducting a micro-
bial risk assessment for the Catskill/Delaware supply. In the summer of 1998,
committee members met with citizens and farmers in Delaware County and toured
the headquarters of the Catskill Watershed Corporation. Finally, in January 1999
the expertise of six buffer zone scientists was used to supplement the committee
in its assessment of the adequacy of setbacks in the watershed. The following
individuals are thanked for their participation and contribution to these efforts.
The members of the Panel on Microbial Risk Assessment are Gunther Craun,
Craun and Associates; James Miller, New York City Department of Health; Mark
Sobsey, University of North Carolina; William MacKenzie, Centers for Disease
Control; and Joan Rose, University of South Florida. The buffer zone experts are
David Correll, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center; Art Gold, Rhode
Island Department of Natural Resources; Peter Groffman, Institute of Ecosystem
Studies; Nick Haycock, Quest Environmental; James Hornbeck, USDA Forest
Service; and Lyn Townsend, University of Washington.
In conducting this study, the committee encountered numerous issues that
inspired controversy and debate, two of which are noted here. First, out of
PREFACE ix
consideration for time and overall effectiveness, the Croton water supply is not a
primary focus of this report. Given the large number of tasks it was addressing,
the committee concluded that it could not provide a comprehensive evaluation of
Croton watershed issues, many of which differentiate it considerably from the
Catskill/Delaware watershed. In particular, New York City is currently under
order to filter the Croton system. Kensico and West Branch reservoirs, which are
physically located in the Croton watershed, are included in the report to the
fullest extent possible. Second, because the filtration avoidance determination
for New York City includes the dual-track approach of conducting watershed
management and designing a water filtration plant, the report discusses filtration
and its benefits. However, in the committee’s opinion, this report, which focuses
on watershed management, was not the appropriate place to evaluate the global
issue of whether all surface waters need treatment beyond disinfection.
Although watershed management is important for any surface water supply,
it is critical for an unfiltered supply. The MOA is a remarkable document and a
significant milestone in the City’s water supply and the region’s development.
Successful implementation of the MOA is the most important challenge facing
the City’s water supply managers. It is also important to stress that watershed
management is an iterative, living process. This report and its recommendations
are provided to support the implementation of the MOA and to contribute to the
maturation of the watershed management program.
This report has been reviewed, in accordance with NRC procedures, by
individuals chosen for their expertise and their broad perspectives on the issues
addressed herein. This independent review provided candid and critical com-
ments that assisted the authors and the NRC in making the published report as
sound as possible, and it ensured that the report meets institutional standards for
objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The content of the
review comments and the draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the
integrity of the deliberative process. The committee thanks the following indi-
viduals for their participation in the review of this report and for their many
instructive comments: Derek Booth, University of Washington; Kenneth Brooks,
University of Minnesota; Gunther Craun, Craun and Associates; Joseph Delfino,
University of Florida; Theo Dillaha, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University; Walter Lynn, Cornell University; Patricia Miller, Virginia Depart-
ment of Natural Resources; Jerry Ongerth, University of New South Wales; Joan
Rose, University of South Florida; Milton Russell, University of Tennessee;
Rhodes Trussell, Montgomery Watson; and Robert Tucker, Rutgers University.
These individuals have provided many constructive comments and suggestions.
Responsibility for the final content of this report, however, rests solely with the
authoring committee and the NRC.
Special thanks must go to several individuals who contributed to the
committee’s overall effort in so many ways. First, the committee thanks Nancy
Anderson and Steve Newman of the New York City Office of the Comptroller.
x PREFACE
The committee benefited from their insight into the problems and needs of the
City with respect to watershed management. Second, considerable thanks must
go to our liaisons at the New York City Department of Environmental Protection:
Bill Stasiuk, David Warne, Mike Principe, Salome Freud, Kimberly Kane, David
Stern, Ira Stern, Jim Miller, Arthur Ashendorff, and Jim Benson. Third, I appre-
ciate the extensive input from the environmental community in New York City,
particularly Eric Goldstein, Robin Marx, and Mark Izeman of the Natural
Resources Defense Council and David Gordon of the Hudson Riverkeeper.
Finally, I thank our upstate contacts: Alan Rosa of the Catskill Watershed Corpo-
ration and Gail Sheridan and Dick Coombe of the Watershed Agricultural
Council. All these individuals spent considerable time and energy compiling and
passing to the committee the information it needed to complete this study.
Finally, I would like to thank vice chair Max Pfeffer, the members of this
committee, study director Laura Ehlers, and project assistant Ellen de Guzman,
all of whom devoted many long hours to this project. I have enjoyed immensely
the opportunity to work with such a talented and articulate group of professionals.
They provided a stimulating environment for addressing the study issues. I
especially appreciate their willingness to spend time researching, writing, and
revising their contributions. I believe the results of their efforts provide useful
guidance for watershed management in the New York City watersheds. This
guidance should also be relevant to a broader universe of watershed management
programs.
Charles R. O’Melia, Chair