Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 Drinking WaterJefferson County Public Health Performance Measures 2016 Year-end Report DRINKING WATER PROGRAM Page 1 of 7 PROGRAMS: Drinking Water MISSION: The mission of the Drinking Water Program is to protect public health by assuring that residents and visitors to Jefferson County have access to a safe and reliable supply of quality drinking water and that it is reasonably available. By enforcing and monitoring laws regulating public and private water supplies, the Drinking Water Program minimizes the threat of waterborne disease. Goal Objective Task Performance Measure 2012 Actual 2013 Actual 2014 Actual 2015 Actu al 2016 Planned 2016 Actual Goal 1: Assure that all new and decommissioned wells are constructed in accordance with requirements established by the Washington Department of Ecology (ECY) or defer enforcement to ECY Inspect at least 50% of all new wells constructed with 25% of these with the well driller present and 90% of all wells being de- commissioned Be available when well start notifications are received to conduct inspections within 3 days of start When a well application is received for a decommissioning contact the well driller to discuss timing and schedule. Percent of new wells (starts) inspected 50% 73% 60% 71% 50% 86% Percent of inspected wells with driller on site 75% 76% 66% 42% 50% 63% Percent decommissioned well inspected 100% 95% 88% 88% 100% 94% Goal 2: Integrate water adequacy review with compliance with Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 17 and the In-Stream Flow Rule (ISFR) Comply with reporting requirements from ECY by updating database to include means to track ISFR information Determine through review of building permit applications and subdivision potable water review if subject to requirements of ISFR rule (map check and parcel info) Determine the sub-basin and management area in accordance with rule. Add activities and conditions that allow for data tracking Number of reviews in Coastal Management area of WRIA 17 10 7 10 14 15 14 Number of reviews in Reserve Management area of WRIA 17 1 5 10 7 10 6 Number of reviews in Chimacum Sub-basin of WRIA 17 5 4 2 4 5 3 Number of reviews that were exempted from WRIA 17 rule. (ECY decision) 1 7 2 3 5 6 Subdivision lots approved 0 0 2 0 0 0 Jefferson County Public Health Performance Measures 2016 Year-end Report DRINKING WATER PROGRAM Page 2 of 7 Goal Objective Task Performance Measure 2012 Actual 2013 Actual 2014 Actual 2015 Actu al 2016 Planned 2016 Actual Goal 3: Integrate water adequacy review with compliance to the Seawater Intrusion Ordinance Comply with the requirements of the (DCD) Jefferson County Seawater Intrusion ordinance and update maps annually Create report in database to determine through quality testing required for building permits and subdivisions potable water review if subject to the requirements Establish new at risk or high risk zones Number of wells that created a new at-risk zone 3 0 1 2 1 0 Number of wells in a high risk zone 1 1 0 0 1 0 Number of Hydro-geological assessments reviewed 2 NR* 2 NR* 1 1 1 0 Goal 4: Minimize delay of building permits and subdivisions project approval and completing by prioritizing water adequacy review Conduct initial review of all potable water review applications within 14 days of application Create reports in database to establish date of initial review and statistics to better assess issues around timely approval Percent of reviews completed in 14 days 40% 77% 59% 90% 50% 74% Goal 5 Ensure consistent compliance with drinking water requirements Work toward coordination with other permitting agencies. Those agencies include but are not limited to DOH (in-stream flow rule and public water supplies), Washington State Department of Agriculture (food processing permit applications), JC food safety, JC onsite and DCD Establish regular meeting dates and agreements when applications trigger coordination Partner with WSU in ongoing educational workshops along with other regulatory agencies Presentations to public or participation in public forums 3 1 1 2 1 0 *NR= “need report” these numbers were manually hand counted prior to database update to calculate from activities entered in database. Jefferson County Public Health Performance Measures 2016 Year-end Report DRINKING WATER PROGRAM Page 3 of 7 2016 SUMMARY OF KEY FUNDING/SERVICE ISSUES:  Performance measures should continue to be modified to accurately capture goals and objectives that relate directly to tasks. Continued efforts are needed to update fields within the database to better capture statistics, performance and funding needs. Focus must continue to be on maintaining consistent data entry, verifying accuracy and determine ways to make information readily available for the public.  Improvement in reporting from the database continues. The lean program improvements that began in 2014 initially corrected many unnecessary duplication, multiple data entries and inaccurate information in the database for potable water review. Since that time, focus and staffing have shifted and permits have resulted in an increase in data entry errors.  More staffing resources are needed to complete standard operating procedures, update drinking water policies and evaluate the program to ensure processes are adequately documented and consistent requirements are maintained regardless of future staffing changes.  Cross training staff in drinking water tasks continues to fluctuate due to funding. The current staffing budget is approximately .44 FTE, up from .4 FTE last year and up from .3 FTE the year before. The prior employee partially trained as back up for potable water review has now been reassigned. There is no back up for conducting public water supply inspections at this time.  The number of wells decommissioned increased by 30% over last year’s total. Decommissioning statistics include new well attempts that find no water or untreatable water (mostly chlorides) resulting in decommissioning prior to the driller leaving the site.  Efforts to establish a consistent and adequate funding source to focus on drinking water tasks included a fee increase for potable water review. Consistent time tracking is also recouping fees for additional time spent in excess of permit fee allowance.  As has been a consistent message in these reports, water quality and quantity is a topic expected to be at the forefront of future development, environmental sustainability and climate change. Lacking appropriate resources directed to the issue, staff may be at a severe disadvantage to appropriately respond to the broad range of issues in this regard. The Hirst Decision opened discussion by the county in its responsibility for approval of potable water in building permit reviews.  The “up front review” process for single family residence permit applications is ongoing, but due to staffing changes, active participation has waned in favor of other work priorities. Jefferson County Public Health Performance Measures 2016 Year-end Report DRINKING WATER PROGRAM Page 4 of 7 2016 STUDY/ANALYSIS OF RESULTS  Developing additional “in house” expertise drinking water tasks must continue to be prioritized. Cross training in some of the drinking water tasks has begun, making improvement on performance evident.  There continues to be funding for a second employee trained in the well inspection program. While the statistics may not reflect the improvements to the well inspection program from cross training, it is certain that applicant/driller and Ecology communication is better and information regarding critical areas seawater intrusion zones and Water Resource Inventory Area 17 (WRIA 17) requirements.  Applications for well inspections were slightly down from last year but continue to be down substantially since 2009. Actual number of wells drilled in 2016 (18) is down from 2015 (22). The 22 wells drilled in 2015 were a significant increase from the 12 that were drilled in 2014. We assume this to be a “rebalance” of the building uptick that began in 2015.  Review of processes related to potable water review for building permits and subdivisions have improved markedly from years past. Credit is largely due to better communication between Department of Community Development and Environmental Health staff, and ensuring that submitted applications are complete.  Time associated with processing potable water review is being tracked, but database reporting still needs improvement. There was a 16% decrease from 2015 in completing review of a building permit by EH staff within 14 days. However, the decrease still shows a 15% improvement over 2014. The decrease this year can mostly be attributed to the increase in work load and multiple staffing changes that shifted priorities.  The LEAN process that began in 2014 has shown some improvement in review for single family residence permitting. The “Up- Front Review” has been implemented in 2015. The process involves staff from each department, responsible for review of a submittal, to attend a meeting during submittal for specifically single family residence permit applications. We have agreed to attend appointments Monday through Thursday from 9-12. Any appointments for single family residence scheduled after that time will need to be routed as has been in the past. The intent is to review the project with the applicant and provide immediate feedback on what will be necessary to approve the permit in accordance with each department’s requirements. This process has allowed much better relations with applicants, has resulted in more complete submittals and has improved turnaround time for single family resident building permits. Due to changes in management staff at both DCD and EH together with work load issues the emphasis on this Lean process has been minimized. The hope is to eventually prioritize staffing for this purpose and other permit improvement processes including evaluation of forms that will further improve the permit process for clients and staff.  While there were no High risk seawater intrusion hydrogeological assessments completed this year, each submittal continues to be a challenge for EH staff. These are large, complex and expensive reports. When information in them does not match, is not factual or demonstrates an adverse impact, Jefferson County Public Health Performance Measures 2016 Year-end Report DRINKING WATER PROGRAM Page 5 of 7 conflict with the engineer and/or the client can ensue. A structure for recouping fees has been implemented. The hydrogeological assessment reviewed in 2014 has yet to result in a building permit approval.  The (I-502) recreational marijuana operations continue to cause considerable challenges for the department for both wastewater and water. With regard to water, implementation of the water resource management regulations of WRIA 17 and the areas with severe limitations for groundwater withdrawals for new development are hampered by the fact that irrigation water does not trigger department review. EH created a “source water approval” application in 2015, but it has been poorly implement on intake, mainly due to inconsistent processes and infrequent submittals that confuse intake staff. We are doing our best to inform Ecology of submittals as we become aware of them. The process of permitting these facilities appropriately has been very time consuming and inconsistent both across Jefferson County departments, but also from county to county and across state agencies.  All of the drinking water related policies need to be updated to reflect current codes and processes. Most of the policy’s date from the 1990’s. Revised and updated state DOH and ECY joint guidelines were to be issued in 2014 to address this need. Unfortunately, due to the Hirst Decision, that guideline issuance has been postponed until further work can be completed. We anticipate this work to be completed sometime in 2016 and we eagerly await its issuance.  Coordinated Water System Planning in the county has been disabled, the planning department has lost their expertise in long range planning and there is no consistent water resource planning discussions. This has resulted in a decreased ability to conserve, protect and manage our water resources. Recent changes in management at DCD and the appointment of a new EH director has opened new and productive discussions across the departments regarding water issues.  Public outreach efforts were not undertaken this year due to increases in work load due to increased development, staffing changes with associated inefficiencies resulting and lack of available staffing available for the commitment. Jefferson County Public Health must continue to be a presence in the community and participate in trainings/seminar that provide multi-jurisdictional and public interactions. These opportunities benefit better coordination and messaging related to water issues and climate change. Forums give rise to new and creative means to initiate policy development, better educate the public on appropriate conservation measures that minimize impacts of water shortages while at the same time meet the requirements of code. Jefferson County Public Health Performance Measures 2016 Year-end Report DRINKING WATER PROGRAM Page 6 of 7 DRINKING WATER PROGRAM STATISTICS BY YEAR Well inspection program 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 plan 2016 actual # of well applications received & reviewed 76 83 61 56 36 47 38 43 45 42 # of new wells start notification (drilled) (includes some well applications from previous years) 79 77 62 57 28 23 20 31 30 21 # of wells decommissioned 17 8 13 12 12 20 8 8 12 17 # of new wells inspected 48 53 32 31 16 17 12 22 15 18 % of new wells (starts) inspected 63% 68% 52% 54% 78% 73% 60% 71% 50% 86% # of inspected wells with driller on site (includes new and decommissioned wells) 25 28 21 13 21 16 15 24 % of inspected wells with driller on site 55% 65% 85% 76% 66% 42% 50% 63% # of decommissioned wells inspected 17 8 13 12 12 19 7 7 12 16 % decommissioned well inspected 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100 % 88% 88% 100% 94% Jefferson County Public Health Performance Measures 2016 Year-end Report DRINKING WATER PROGRAM Page 7 of 7 Determination of adequate potable water 2013 2014 2015 2016 planned 2016 actual # of potable water reviews completed 99 82 90 90 126 # of reviews complete in 14 days 79 49 81 50 93 % of reviews done within 14 days 82% 60% 90% 56% 74% # of reviews for public water. 57 34 59 40 84 # of reviews for two party wells. 8 8 7 10 8 # of reviews for individual wells. 34 37 23 32 34 # of reviews for rainwater catchment systems. 1 2 1 2 0 # of reviews for shallow/dug wells 2 1 1 1 0 # of reviews for spring water 1 1 1 1 1 # of reviews in High Risk SIPZ Zones with Hydrogeological assessments 1 1 0 1 0 # of reviews that required Notice to Title for quality 1 3 3 2 0 # of review that required Notice to Title for quantity 1 3 3 2 0 # of reviews in Coastal Management area of WRIA 17 14 17 14 15 14 # of reviews in Reserve Management area of WRIA 17 6 2 7 10 6 # of reviews in Chimacum sub-basin 6 5 4 9 3 # of reviews that were exempted from WRIA 17 rule. 7 1 3 7 6