regional cooperation for water quality improvement in southwestern pennsylvania, report in brief

8/7/2019 Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania, Report in Brief

1/12

Water Quality Improvement inSouthwestern Pennsylvania

T he City of Pittsburgh is located insouthwestern Pennsylvania wherethe Allegheny and MonongahelaRivers meet to form the Ohio River (seeFigures 1 and 2). These Three Rivershave been central to the history, economy,and identity of the region. Pittsburgh ini-tially thrived as a commercial and trans-

portation center in the mid-nineteenthcentury but soon transformed to a regioncharacterized by a growing industrial sec-tor with a specialty in metals productionand major mining activity. This growth, however, came at a high environmental cost interms of polluted air and water, which af icted the Pittsburgh region for most of the twenti -eth century. By the 1980s, new laws, advances in technology, and the signi cant decline of the steel industry based economy combined to reduce industrial air pollution. Water quality

problems in the region, although lessened, have persisted.

Figure 1. Eleven counties of southwestern Pennsylvania.


2/12

Drainage from abandoned coal mines- typi-cally a highly acidic solution bearing a large loadof iron, either dissolved or precipitated as ferrichydroxideis the source of signi cant residualwater pollution in certain streams in southwest-ern Pennsylvania and can produce biologicallydead waters. However, beginning in the late1960s, state and federal legislation requiring thetreatment of polluted water prior to discharge tolocal streams has reduced (but not eliminated) thewidespread ecological impacts of this drainage.

Since the late 1950s, the development of sewage treatment plants throughout the region the largest of which is operated by the Allegh-eny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN)and serves the City of Pittsburgh and 83 other communities in Allegheny County (see Figure2) has alleviated downstream pollution in the

Ohio River from the municipal sewers that previ-ously discharged directly to local waterways. Yet

releases of untreated sewage and surface runoff,especially on wet weather days and due to failingsewers, continue to degrade the quality of watersand impair their value for habitat, recreation, andwater supply.

Sewage-related water quality problems also persist in dry weather because of aging and dete-riorating on-site sewage treatment and disposal(septic) systems and sewage pipes that may bea signi cant source of contamination to ground -water supplies. These problems threaten the re-gions public health, environment, economy, andimage. For example, there has been a steady risein the last decade in the number of days of thesummer recreational season that the AlleghenyCounty Health Department (ACHD) has issuedriver advisories (i.e., when rainfall in the regionis great enough to potentially cause sewer over-

ows and lead to excessive levels of bacterialindicator organisms1) that recommend restricted

Figure 2. The Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers in Allegheny County in southwesternPennsylvania; shaded areas include the 83 Allegheny County communities serviced by theAllegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN), including the City of Pittsburgh.


3/12

recreational contact exposure. Indeed, the Cityof Pittsburgh, ALCOSAN, and other communi-ties in the region face extensive and costly regu-latory action under the federal Clean Water Actfor both combined sewer over ows (CSOs) andsanitary sewer over ows (SSOs) resulting fromwet weather conditions.

The costs of water and sewer infrastructureimprovements necessary to address the release of untreated or inadequately treated sewage into theregions surface waters are uncertain; however,

based on investments made in other cities and onnational studies, signi cant investment is expect -ed to be needed to rehabilitate and upgrade ag-ing municipal infrastructure and replace failingon-site systems. Meeting such costs is expectedto be dif cult given the economic climate of theregion. Although the regions economic base has

shifted in the last two decades from mining andtraditional manufacturing to other sectors, manycommunities in southwestern Pennsylvania con-tinue to experience signi cant economic weak -ness as re ected in population decline (in boththe central city and its metropolitan area), unem-

ployment rates, and other indicators such as pov-erty level and income.

Unlike the 1970s and 1980s, little federaland state assistance is available for the develop-ment and expansion of major water supply and

wastewater facilities, and even that is likely to be restricted to extreme situations and poor com-munities. The costs of these improvements must

be considered in the context of the potentialcosts of inaction, which would include adverseimpacts on public health, the environment, andeconomic growth, and possible further federaland state regulatory action or private lawsuits byconcerned parties.

This report was written by the Committeeon Water Quality Improvement for the PittsburghRegion overseen by the National Research Coun-cil (NRC)s Water Science and Technology Board.The committee was formed in 2002 at the requestof the Allegheny Conference on Community De-velopment (ACCD) to conduct an independentassessment of the wastewater and water quality

problems of the Pittsburgh area in southwestern

Pennsylvania and to make recommendations onhow these issues and needs of the region can best

be addressed by multiple jurisdictions on a co-operative basis. The committees statement of task is included in Box 1 (p. 4). The study goalscombined to create a framework of guidance andrecommendations to help make water quality im -

provement-related investments.

Water Quality and Causes of Impairment

The condition of water bodies across theUnited States is determined by comparing certainmeasured physical, chemical, and biological pa-rameters within those waters to state water quali-ty standards. Each water quality standard consistsof two primary and distinct parts: (1) designated

bene cial use(s) of the waterbody (e.g., aquaticlife support, drinking water supply); and (2) nar -rative and numeric water quality criteria for bio-logical, chemical, and physical parameters thatmeasure attainment of designated use(s).

Water bodies can be impaired for any of their designated uses by a variety of contaminants. Itis important to note that inadequacies in the typeand extent of water quality data available in south-western Pennsylvania prevented the committeefrom assessing the full extent of adverse effects

due to pollution. Almost all of the water qualitydata available to the committee during this studywere derived from single studies in speci c ar -eas for limited durations. Recently, several agen-cies have expanded water quality data collectionin the region, although there appears to be littlecoordination of these activities. Therefore, it isdif cult to fully identify the sources of pollutionthat cause these impairments, to assess the extentof adverse effects, and to prioritize remediationefforts.

Surface waters in southwestern Pennsylva-nia are impaired for several uses including con-tact recreation due to the presence of indicator microorganisms in excess of levels expected tocause human illness; sh consumption due to or -ganic and inorganic chemicals known to bioac -cumulate in sh tissue and to represent a human


4/12

health risk; and aquatic habitat due to metal con -centrations and low pH that alter ecosystems andcan harm aquatic organisms. Statewide, the com-mittee found that major causes of water qualityimpairment in the Commonwealth of Pennsylva-nia are the following: (1) acid mine drainage, (2)agriculture, (3) urban and stormwater runoff, and(4) human waste handling.

Improperly managed wastewaters resultingfrom various human activities are degrading themicrobiological water quality in the region, al-though available data are not suf cient to deter -mine the relative contribution of different sourcesto surface and groundwaters. More speci cally,wet weather biological water quality in the main

stem rivers is demonstrably worse than that indry weather, suggesting that stormwater andsewer over ows (CSOs and SSOs) may beim -

portant contributors. Furthermore, water qual-ity in many tributaries does not meet biologicalstandards in either wet or dry weather conditions,suggesting that failing septic systems may be im-

portant contributors. However, regional watersare not considered impaired for use as sourcesof drinking water because of the extensive treat -ment that is routinely performed on drinking wa -ter sources, particularly surface water sources.Although groundwater used for public drinkingsupplies generally meets water quality guide-lines, private wells2 show signi cant variability

Box 1

Statement of Task The NRC will establish an expert committee to undertake an assessment of the wastewater and wa -ter quality problems of the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area and make recommendations on how theseissues and needs of the region can be best addressed by the multiple jurisdictions on a cooperative

basis. The study will address several key questions, including:What are the regions most pressing wastewater and water quality problems and what manage-ment and infrastructure development strategies (including consideration for relevant emergingtechnologies) might be pursued to most effectively address them? For example, what criteriamight be applied to compare the impacts of combined sewer over ows and failing septic sys -tems?How should water quality data be used to most effectively inform priority-setting and aid deci-

sion-making for infrastructure investments in the Pittsburgh region? For example, what conclu -sions can be drawn about the relative contributions that sewage over ows, septic tank failures,and other point and nonpoint sources of pollution are making to surface water contamination inthe region based on the water quality data that is currently being collected (or that could be col-lected through a special, short-term effort)?What are the best approaches and cost-effective means to monitor and assess the impact of wastewater discharges on the regions water quality? What established, innovative, and emerg-ing techniques can be used to assess or predict the public health, environmental, and economicimpacts of the regions current and future wastewater discharges?What is the reliability with which predictions on improvements in water quality will result fromactions taken in wastewater management? What monitoring and modeling activities are appro -

priate to understand the links between actions and improvements in wastewater managementsystems for a complex watershed that includes multiple political jurisdictions and resultant water quality bene ts?What are the best strategies to encourage public awareness and regional cooperation betweenmunicipalities and disparate organizations to address the pervasive water quality problems?What models from other regions of the country might be applied to the Pittsburgh region? Con-versely, what lessons can be learned from the Pittsburgh region and applied elsewhere?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.


5/12

in terms of microbial contamination, and the ef-fects of mining are apparent in some areas. Thereis no evidence that southwestern Pennsylvaniahas recently experienced any waterborne diseaseoutbreak that would link impaired source water quality with human health effects. However, aswith water quality data, signi cant gaps existin public health monitoring, thus preventing anadequate assessment of possible endemic water-

borne disease occurrences.The contribution of agriculture to pathogen

loading in rural areas of southwestern Pennsyl-vania could not be determined, but this is a well-known pathogen source in many parts of the na -tion, and many livestock management practicesin southwestern Pennsylvania are likely to con -tribute pathogens to streams. Relative nonpointcontributions of human and nonhuman pathogen

sources in both urban and rural watersheds arenot known.Acid mine drainage is a signi cant cause

of water quality impairment in the region, pre-dominately affecting streams and tributaries.This regional water quality issue extends beyondPennsylvania to encompass much of the Appala-chian Range. Presently, acid mine drainage is be-ing addressed by multiple jurisdictions includingfederal and state programs, and continued publicfunding to combat this water pollution problem

is essential to future water quality improvementin southwestern Pennsylvania.

Water Quality Improvement:Decision Making Strategies andTechnical Solutions

From a regulatory perspective, the mostimportant water quality problem in the region interms of the potential for adverse human healtheffects is controlling microbial contamination of streams that derives from the effect of wet weath-er conditions on sewer systems (CSOs, SSOs,and stormwater), failing septic systems, and agri-cultural and urban runoff. The U.S. Environmen-tal Protection Agency (EPA) has adopted regula-tions requiring CSO and SSO controls and issuedconsent orders through the Pennsylvania Depart-

ment of Environmental Protection (PADEP) andthe ACHD to many ALCOSAN partner commu-nities (see also Figure 2) to address this pervasivewet weather problem through increased attentionto centralized sewer systems. A similar consentorder for ALCOSAN is pending and expected to

be nalized soon. The evaluation of water qual -ity improvements related to such remedial activi-ties will be critical. However, the implementationof solutions for identi ed sources of impairmentdoes not preclude the need for additional infor-mation related to other sources and their contri-

butions to water quality impairment in the re-gion. To develop better understanding of sourcesof contamination in southwestern Pennsylvania,water quality monitoring and modeling effortsshould take place concurrently with mandatedremedial activities.

It is clear that the causes and nature of water quality impairments, the parties responsible, andthe individuals and waterways affected differ for each of the problem contaminants in the region.A comprehensive watershed-based approach isneeded to address the spectrum of water quality

problems, including wet weather problems; sucha systematic approach should recognize interrela-tionships among problems and the need for par-ties responsible for each water quality problemto share in its solution. The technical approach is

embodied in what the committee calls the ThreeRivers Comprehensive Watershed Assessmentand Response Plan, or CWARP.

The framework recommended for planningand implementation of CWARP consists of thefollowing ve basic steps: (I) problem identi -cation; (II) assessment of existing conditionsincluding quanti cation of loads and modelingtheir relationships to water quality; (III) projec-tion of future loads and their timing, location,and impacts on streams; (IV) formulation andevaluation of alternative management strategies,including assessment of the effects of alternativeson future conditions and the preferential orderingand scheduling of various elements of the pre-ferred strategy; and (V) adaptive implementationof elements of the strategy, relying on feedback from implementation of each element to provide


6/12

the basis for continued planning of subsequentelements. This ve-step CWARP process must

be adapted to address planning and managementneeds at the following four interrelated scales: (1)river basin, (2) multicounty/ metropolitan scale,(3) high density urban areas, and (4) rural areas.

The committee recognizes that the regionis not starting with a blank slate, and Step I has

been largely completed for each of these scales.Substantial progress has been made on Step II,

but signi cant gaps remain. Because the prob -lems are largely associated with existing con-ditions and there is only modest growth in the

region as a whole, Step III may be less impor-tant, but changes in land use that are occurring

in suburban (formerly rural) areas cannot be ig-nored. Lastly, Steps IV and V do not appear tohave been well developed in any respect and thusdeserve much greater attention.

Because regional information on the bio-logical quality of receiving waters is scant, itscollection during and in support of CWARP atthe river basin scale is critical. Information col-lection for CWARP should include biologicaldata to bothassist in ecosystem health assessment

benchmarking and to help document changes tothe ecosystem that occur as a result of changingstressors. To this end, an effort should be madeto expand the Ohio River component of the re-

juvenated Great Rivers program of EPAs Envi-ronmental Monitoring and Assessment Programwith an emphasis on the biological water qualityof the main stem rivers.

At least two aspects of water managementare of concern at the multicounty/metropolitanscale of CWARP. First, and at the very least, wa-ter quality planning at this scale should be suf -cient to inform regional interests of the potentialeffects (including constraints, if any) of water quality conditions on future transportation andland development, the consequences of develop-ment on water quality where it occurs, and howthose effects and consequences can and should bemodi ed. Second, planning at this scale shouldalso result in the identi cation of opportunitiesfor economies of scale in the delivery of water and wastewater services through cooperativearrangements among local governments. TheSouthwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)or an alternative organization should formulateregional water resource plans and integrate them

with transportation and land use plans.Several entities have estimated recentlythat solving wet weather problems in the urbancore of the region by conventional means,using a combination of storage, conveyance,and treatment improvements, could cost several

billion dollars. Investing large sums of capital based only on currently available data may notultimately solve the most important problems or

provide appropriate solutions. Although it is truethat no amount of additional data and analyses

would remove all uncertainty about water qualityinvestments, it is clear that currently availableinformation is lacking in several critical respects(e.g., how much surface water runoff fromseparate stormwater sewers affects water qualityin receiving streams during wet weather events).Until these facts are known better, planningand implementation of cost effective remedialmeasures will be impeded.

Whereas receiving water quality modelingactivities appear to be extremely limited cur-rently in the regions three main stem rivers,they should be used to estimate impacts of pol-lution loadings on the receiving streams and tohelp prioritize alternatives for pollution control.Other modeling activities required to implementCWARP in the regions urban core include sewer system routing models, dynamic sewer system

A comprehensive watershed-basedapproach is needed to address thespectrum of water quality problems,

including wet weather problems;such a systmatic approach shouldrecognize interrelationships amongproblems and the need for partiesresponsible for each water qualityproblem to share in its solution.


7/12

modeling, dynamic stormwater modeling, andreal-time sewer ow control modeling for analy -sis and operation. Projections of changes in theregional landscape are important in the planningand implementation of CWARP in the regionsurban core. Planning studies conducted at themulticounty/metropolitan scale should be suf-

cient for this purpose and include projectionsfor several land use, transportation, water supply,and wastewater parameters.

The rst route to successful improvement of water quality in the region is to optimize utili-zation of existing infrastructure. To this end, thecommittee strongly recommends that all waste-water collection systems located in the water-shed, particularly in the regions urban core, befully compliant with EPAs Capacity, Manage-ment, Operations, and Maintenance (CMOM)

policy or an equivalent program. Thereafter, re-lated information, approaches, and technologiesrecommended in this report would be availableto help guide major long-term investments inimproving the regions water quality. Further-more, ALCOSANs draft long-term control plan(LTCP) for controlling CSOs, which was draftedin 1999 and was the subject of an extensive third

party review in 2001 through 2002, should bereevaluated in the context of the overall WARPapproach to re ect ongoing consent order nego -

tiations, CMOM, and information from CWARPas it is developed in the future.

The CWARP approach is recommended asa framework for development of the LTCP andsimilar documents because of the circumstances(especially data limitations) that exist in south-western Pennsylvania and, in principle, wouldapply in other regions of the United States withsimilar water quality problems and circumstanc-es. In addition, in the development of a nalLTCP, ALCOSAN and other wastewater treat-ment providers in southwestern Pennsylvaniashould evaluate the utilization of real-time con-trol of CSOs. Storage and treatment of CSOs innearby abandoned mine voids, which is beingevaluated for the Township of Upper St. Clair,Pennsylvania, should also be evaluated. Also rec-ommended is consideration of several innovative

approaches and technologies to determine what,if any, role they may have for improving water quality in southwestern Pennsylvaniaespecial-ly in the regions urban core areas.

Best management practices for septic sys-tems should be implemented throughout the re-gion using the CWARP framework. Althoughindividual systems are permitted locally, andcurrent technical standards are available to en-sure proper performance, they may be ignored.Furthermore, prevention of the discharge of un-treated sewage into local waterways or ditchesis dif cult to enforce. The region needs a coor -dinated, wellfunded program for oversight androutine maintenance of cluster and individualseptic systems. Such a program can be self-sus-taining through user charges providing they areapplied on a cooperative regional or county ba-

sis. Several actions to help improve water qualityin the predominantly rural areas of southwesternPennsylvania are discussed and recommendedfor consideration.

There are no comprehensive estimates of the economic bene ts of addressing the remain -ing water quality problems for southwesternPennsylvania or from proposed projects to ad-dress the regions water quality problems. Nev-ertheless, the region would be expected to bene teconomically from measures that signi cantly

reduce drinking water risks and enhance recre -ational opportunities. The CWARP process canidentify a list of alternative management strate-gies and projects that are technically feasible andcapable of addressing the regions water quality

problems at a variety of scales, but the questionremains: Which is the better option?

A variety of economic evaluation frame-works are available; some of the more prominentare discussed in this report, including cost-effec-tiveness analysis, bene t-cost analysis, and multi -criteria methods. In this regard, the use of cost-ef-fectiveness as the primary method for evaluatingoptions for achieving water quality objectives inthe region is recommended and should includean analysis of incremental costs to achieve elimi-nation of low-probability contamination events.The committee recommends the use of bene t


8/12

cost analysis in the evaluation of water qualityimprovement projects in the region and in help-ing to set priorities among them.

As the CWARP process is being plannedand implemented, it is essential that it be inte-grated with the ongoing process of establishingtotal maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for im-

paired streams being conducted by PADEP un-der requirements of the federal Clean Water Act.Lastly, the recommended CWARP effort should

be completed quickly to provide timely sup - port for those water quality improvements thatare required and others in the public interest. Itis dif cult to estimate the cost of implement -ing CWARP, but in the committees judgment itshould be small compared to the cost of improve-ments and more than offset by potential savings.

Water Quality Improvement:Institutional and Financial Solutions

Water planning issues in southwesternPennsylvania need to be addressed on a regionaland holistic basis, taking into account water qual -ity, water supply, ood hazard mitigation, aquaticand riparian habitat protection and restoration,and recreation. Moving toward regionalizationwill be challenging because water resource andquality management in southwestern Pennsylva-

nia currently is highly fragmented among federalandstate governments as well as 11 ounties, 595municipalities, and 492 water and sewerage pro -viders. In choosing an appropriate organizationor set of organizations to address these concerns,the following three factors should be considered:(1) water resource management functions for which improvements are necessary or desirable;(2) the level of government or private sector en-terprise to which management functions should

be entrusted and to which legal authority should

be delegated by the legislature; and (3) the geo-graphic scale that is appropriate to achieve ef-

ciency by exploiting economies of scale andmaking signi cant regional interdependenciesinternal to the planning area. Consistent with therecommended CWARP approach, changes arenecessary to address the water resource issues

of southwestern Pennsylvania at the followinggeographic scales: (1) river basins and interstateriver basins and watersheds; (2) metropolitanregion scale (multicounty areas); (3) metropoli-tan urban areas; and (4) rural areas. In addition,information that exists today, as well as that de-veloped under elements of CWARP, should bemade readily available to the public. This wouldinclude sources of water quality problems, their signi cance, appropriate solutions, costs, andtheir social impacts.

River Basin

Some water quality problems particularlythose related to long distance transport of patho-genic organisms, heavy metals, and persistenttoxic chemicalstranscend regional, state, and

political boundaries. At the largest scale of river

basins, water monitoring and management is theresponsibility of federal agencies (particularly theEPA, U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers) and the state (PADEP). TheOhio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission(ORSANCO) alsoconducts water monitoring andmodeling for the Ohio River basin and its tribu-taries; ORSANCO and the PADEP are the ap-

propriate agencies to establish the formulation of management strategies at the river basin scale.

Metropolitan RegionThe Southwestern Pennsylvania Commis-

sion (SPC) is the primary organization for transportation planning and economic development atthe multicounty regional scale. Those plans cansigni cantly affect regional land use and water -related services. Concerns about land use and as-sociated water supplies, wastewater disposal, andstormwater management should be incorporatedin planning at that scale. The SPC is probably the

regions best choice for carrying out this planningfunction, but its present representative structureand lack of water resource expertise limit its ca -

pacity to do so. Its regional databases on land use,transportation, and economic development are itsstrengths relative to water resource planning.

An important step that SPC, in coordina-


9/12

tion with ORSANCO, could take to broadenrepresentation and advance public education onregional water resources would be to establish aThree Rivers Regional Water Forum as conceptu-ally illustrated in Figure 3. The forum should becharged with a broad mandate to assess prioritiesfor water infrastructure planning, maintenance,and construction as those activities are related toregional transportation, land use, economic de-velopment, and current infrastructure capacityand condition.

The forum should include elected and ap- pointed of cials of local governments, regionalleaders in the private sector, academia, environ-mental organizations, and other nongovernmentalorganizations, and participation should be encour-

aged by all organizations that share some respon-sibility for the proposed CWARP. Although thereare several options for the creation and organiza-tion of a regional water forum, an unincorporatednetwork of public and private stakeholders estab -lished by voluntary memoranda of understandingis recommended for careful consideration. How-ever, the participants and exact organization planshould be determined locally.

High-Density Urban Areas

As stated previously, the primary water quality management problem in the Pittsburghregions urban core is periodic discharges of un-treated wastewater from combined and separate

Figure 3. Concept diagram for a Three Rivers Regional Water Forum. Coordination of the forum would be provided by a group that represents major nongovernmental organizations, local, state, and federalgovernment stakeholders; and regional academic experts, among others. NOTE: 3RWW is the 3 RiversWet Weather Demonstration Program; PEC is the Pennsylvania Environmental Council.


10/12

sanitary sewers. Continued fragmented manage-ment of the sewer collection-conveyancetreat-ment system (i.e., maintaining the status quo) isnot a satisfactory solution. Rather, planning andmanagement of sanitary and combined sewersshould be integrated with stormwater manage-ment.

At least ve viable organizational arrange -ments, represented by the following options,could serve that purpose, including (A) merg-er of City of Pittsburgh and Allegheny Countygovernments; (B) establishment of county-widemanagement either by dedication of the systemsto Allegheny County or through an administra-tive arrangement with Allegheny County usingauthority under Pennsylvania Acts 67 and 68;(C) creation of one or more special districts for sewer management; (D) expansion of the role of

ALCOSAN to include sewer collection systems,with or without authority over stormwater man-agement; and (E) continuation of the decentral-ized system but with performance standards andvoluntary participation in a regional maintenanceorganization (RMO) provided on a fee-for-ser-vice basis. ALCOSAN would be encouraged toestablish the RMO.

All ve options are viable, and discussionson merger of services between Allegheny Countyand the City of Pittsburgh have already occurred.

Allegheny County should take a leadership rolein search of a consensus on one of the four re-maining options. A merger of city and countygovernment, although politically dif cult, isdesirable from the perspective of water qualitymanagement. The committee also prefers OptionB (establishment of county-wide management)to Options C, D, or E because it captures econo-mies of scale in planning and management, fa-cilitates the use of a systems approach, and keepsdecision making closer to politically accountable

public of cials.ORSANCO, with its prior experience with

similar problems in the Ohio River basin, can be of valuable assistance in reaching a consen-sus on all of the preceding options. The 3 RiversWetWeather Demonstration Program (3RWW)should be continued or expanded to conduct

public education programs for stormwater andCSO management; to provide technical assis-tance to local governments for stormwater andCSO management; to provide education to localgovernment on identifying and correcting illegalconnections to sewer systems; and to monitor,analyze, and report on the status of stormwater and CSO management in Allegheny County.

Rural Areas

Additional steps are also needed to addresswater supply and wastewater disposal system-atically in rural and small urban areas outside of the regions urban core. Recommended actionsto address septic system de ciencies should beundertaken cooperatively by several agencies. Atthe state level, the Watershed Restoration ActionStrategies program should be expanded to includeassessment of effects of inadequate wastewater disposal on water quality. In doing so, PADEPshould work closely with local governments hav -ing legal authority over such systems. The SPCcould and should take strong leadership in bring -ing local governments together to address theseissues. In addition to PADEP, SPC should requestassistance from EPA and nongovernmental orga-nizations having prior experience with programsof this kind. The Allegheny County experience in

these activities should provide a sound founda-tion for other counties in the region.

Financing

The following actions are recommendedregarding a framework for regional nancingof water quality improvements in southwesternPennsylvania:

Develop and implement a sewer and/or water user surcharge to fund at least the rst few

years of planning and data gathering under CWARP or a similar program. Ideally, thecharge would be in addition to wastewater/water bills throughout the basin or, as a mini-mum, in the regions urban core.

Initiate a ow-based repayment system for ALCOSAN and other regional wastewater


11/12

treatment providers that re ects, to the extent practicable, the actual contributions of owinto sewerage systems.

Select one or more forms of regional gover-nance that have the necessary legal authorityand administrative expertise to nance capi -tal improvements and operating and main-

tenance expenses of management programs.Such authorities should include the power toincur debt for capital projects, establish user charges, and collect revenues necessary to

pay for all expenses except those nanced byintergovernmental grants.

Continue efforts to increase regional assis-tance through PENNVEST (Pennsylvania In-frastructure Investment Authority) and other sources of funds that can generate supportfor speci c programs, such as developmentof county-based management programs for onsite septic systems and acid mine drainagecontrol.

To the extent that assistance is not available,continuing studies are needed regarding theef cient application of current local taxes

and user charges to cover start-up effortsidenti ed above, with the goal of creating re -

payment mechanisms based on an equitableregional user charge system. Ultimately thesystem would generate suf cient revenues torepay debt obligations that will be necessaryto fund priority facilities.

Implications Beyond SouthwesternPennsylvania

During the course of this study of water qual-ity improvement in southwestern Pennsylvania,the committee gained knowledge and insights onseveral matters that have broader implications inthe areas of: (1) information systems, (2) healthand ecological impacts of water quality, (3) po-tential federal policy con icts with regional op -

timization, (4) stakeholder representation and participation, (5) paying for water quality improvements, and (6) regionalization and coopera-tion. In the committees judgment, these insightsmight be considered useful by others responsiblefor national efforts to protect and enhance water quality.

SUMMARY

As this report makes clear, water quality problems in southwestern Pennsylvania are complex andregion wide. Many of southwestern Pennsylvanias current and most pressing water quality problems,such as those attributable to sewer over ows and stormwater, can be traced to historical water supply andwastewater infrastructure decisions made by individual municipalities at a time when todays populationand economic and industrial climate could not have been foreseen. Other problems, such as acid minedrainage, are a legacy of the regions past heavy mining and manufacturing economy.

Ongoing remediation activities and those planned to address wet weather-related problems for themostly urban ALCOSAN service area may not be optimal (in terms of either effectiveness or economics)and, in any case, are not designed to address the full set of problems in the 11-county region or the Al-legheny and Monongahela River basins. Furthermore, because of the paucity of data, it is not possible at

present to make reliable predictions of water quality improvements that will result from such investments.Indeed, as stated earlier, the limited data available provide no evidence that southwestern Pennsylvaniahas recently experienced any waterborne disease outbreak that would link impaired source water qualitywith adverse human health effects.

The committee concludes that the interrelated water quality problems of southwestern Pennsylvaniamust be confronted on a regional basis and in a systematic way. Such an approach should improve publicawareness of the issues and promote regional cooperation through the involvement of key stakeholder groups with an interest in water quality improvement. In this regard, one or more regional decisionmaking


12/12

Committee on Water Quality Improvement for the Pittsburgh Region: Jerome B. Gilbert (Chair),. J.Gilbert Inc., Orinda, California; Brian J. Hill, Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Meadville1; JeffreyM. Lauria, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Columbus, Ohio ; Gary S. Logsdon, Black & Veatch Corporation(Retired), Cincinnati, Ohio; Perry L. Mccarty, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Patricia Miller,Tetra Tech, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio; David H. Moreau, University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; NelsonP. Moyer, The Cadmus Group, Inc., Iowa City, Iowa; Rutherford H. Platt, University Of Massachusetts,Amherst; Stuart S. Schwartz, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio; James S. Shortle, PennsylvaniaState University, University Park; Joel A. Tarr, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;Jeanne M. Vanbriesen, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Paul F. Ziemkiewicz, WestVirginia University, Morgantown; Mark C. Gibson (Study Director) and Dorothy K. Weir (Senior ProjectAssistant), Water Science and Technology Board. 1 Mr. Hill resigned from the committee in May 2004after accepting a position in the Policy Of ce of the Governor, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

This brief was prepared by the National Research Council based on the committeesreport. For more information, contact the Water Sciences and Technology Board at 202-

334-3422. Water Quality in Southwestern Pennsylvania is available from the NationalAcademies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001; 800-624-6242 or 202-334-3313 (in the Washington area); www.nap.edu.

Permission granted to reproduce this brief in its entirety with no additions or alterations.Copyright 2004 The National Academy of Sciences

authorities should take responsibility for leading the development of a Comprehensive Watershed Assess -ment and Response Plan that would have as its principal objective the meeting of water quality standardsthroughout the region in the most cost-effective manner. A rst step in determining effective infrastructureinvestment and management strategies for water quality improvement and an integral part of the CWARPis to undertake coordinated basin-wide monitoring (including biological monitoring) and modeling toestimate the amounts and relative impacts of various sources of pollutants entering the regions surfaceand groundwater. This is critical to ensuring that remediation efforts are appropriately targeted to themost important sources of pollution and that limited funds for remediation are spent on the highest-risk

problems.The southwestern Pennsylvania experience is repeated to a greater or lesser extent around the United

States, and the solutions suggested in this report relating to cooperation and regionalization are widelyrecognized as having national implications and bene ts. Thus, the program recommended herein for water quality improvement in southwestern Pennsylvania can serve as a model for other regions. Lastly, effec-tive implementation of this reports recommendations regarding water pollution reduction is not intendedto delay current progress in regional water quality improvement.

regional cooperation for water quality improvement in southwestern pennsylvania, report in brief

Documents