HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrinking Water (PDF)Jefferson County Public Health Performance Measures
2015 Year-end Report
DRINKING WATER PROGRAM
Page 1 of 6
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 2011
Actual
2012
Actual
2013
Actual
2014
Actual
2015
Planned
2015
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 54% 50% 73% 60% 50% 71%
Percent of inspected wells with
driller on site
65% 75% 76% 66% 25% 42%
Percent decommissioned well
inspected 100% 100% 95% 88% 100% 88%
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 5 10 7 10 10 14
Number of reviews in Reserve
Management area of WRIA 17 2 1 5 10 10 7
Number of reviews in Chimacum
Sub-basin of WRIA 17 2 5 4 2 9 4
Number of reviews that were
exempted from WRIA 17 rule.
(ECY decision)
0 1 7 2 2 3
Subdivision lots approved N/A 0 0 2 2 0
Jefferson County Public Health Performance Measures
2015 Year-end Report
DRINKING WATER PROGRAM
Page 2 of 6
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 0 3 0 1 1 2
Number of wells in a high risk zone 0 1 1 0 1 0
Number of Hydro-geological
assessments reviewed NR* 2 NR* 2 NR* 1 1 1
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 NR* 40% 77% 59% 85% 90%
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 2 3 1 1 1 2
*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
2015 Year-end Report
DRINKING WATER PROGRAM
Page 3 of 6
2015 SUMMARY OF KEY FUNDING/SERVICE ISSUES:
Recent updates and improvements to our database and shifting existing programs into Tidemark have facilitated data transfer across multiple
departments for better coordination and efficiency.
Performance measures have been substantially modified to more 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. Priority should be communication with the Department of Community Development to
minimize unnecessary duplication, multiple data entries and inaccurate information.
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 related issues continues to be needed. The current staffing budget is approximately .4 FTE, up from .3 FTE last
year with now and now two individuals trained in the well inspection program and another individual partially trained as back up for potable water
review. There is no back up for conducting public water supply inspections at this time. Some of the statistics indicate improvements as a result of
some additional support in the program.
The number of wells decommissioned remains the same as last year’s total. Decommissioning statistics include new well attempts where the result is
either dry or untreatable water (mostly chlorides) and the well is decommissioned, prior to the driller leaving the site. That process of tracking started
approximately 2007.
Efforts have been made to establish a consistent and adequate funding source to focus on drinking water issues with a new increase to the fee
associated with potable water review. Additionally, consistent time tracking is undertaken during permit application processing in order to recoup the
costs in excess of the fees submitted.
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 “up front review” process for single family residence permit applications is ongoing.
Jefferson County Public Health Performance Measures
2015 Year-end Report
DRINKING WATER PROGRAM
Page 4 of 6
2015 STUDY/ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Streamlining of the Group A public water supply inspection program (sanitary survey) has resulted in much more efficient completion of assigned
water system reports. As a result, technical assistance funds are being utilized at a level not seen in prior years.
In-house expertise regarding drinking water must continue to be a priority. Cross training in some of the drinking water tasks have begun, making
improvement on performance evident.
Public outreach efforts this year focused on drought and climate change/adaptation strategies. 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.
Applications for well inspections were marginally up from last year but continue to be down substantially since 2008. Actual number of wells drilled
in the county is up by approximately 30% from last year’s totals.
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 staff and Environmental Health.
Time associated with processing potable water review is being tracked but calculation of the data from the database still needs improvement. There
was a 28% increase from 2014 in completing review of a building permit by EH staff within 14 days. The increase efficiency can be attributed to two
issues; applications submitted have been complete or rejected at the applications submittal stage and there has been some cross training to provide
back up when primary staff are out of the office on leave.
Data also indicates that the overall time from submittal to approval of the potable water activity has decreased by 39%, indicating that both intake
submittals are improving and client correction are more prompt. The request for additional information from the client decreased from 28% in 2014 to
22% in 2015 indicating intake staff is not only better trained but has also minimized incomplete submittals due to extensive checklists that have been
created.
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. The new 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
Jefferson County Public Health Performance Measures
2015 Year-end Report
DRINKING WATER PROGRAM
Page 5 of 6
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. The hope is to eventually allow for very nearly same day turn around for permits, however, data
entry, receipt of fees and routing appropriate paper work thus far has hampered this goal.
While there were no High risk seawater intrusion hydrogeological assessments completed this year, each submittal continues to be a challenge for EH
staff. A structure for recouping fees has been implemented, however, determinations made upon assessment reviews due to poorly crafted
hydrogeological assessment submittals remain difficult for staff. These are large, complex and expensive reports. When information in them does not
match, is not factual or demonstrates an adverse impact, conflict with the engineer and/or the client can ensue. 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 consternation across 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. We are doing our best to inform
Ecology of submittals as we know about 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 state-wide politics,
that guideline issuance has been postponed until further work can be completed. We anticipate this work to be completed sometime in 2015 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. All of which amount to dwindling ability to conserve, protect and manage water resources.
Jefferson County Public Health Performance Measures
2015 Year-end Report
DRINKING WATER PROGRAM
Page 6 of 6
DRINKING WATER PROGRAM STATISTICS BY YEAR
Well inspection program 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
# of well applications received & reviewed 76 83 61 56 36 47 38 43
# of new wells start notification (drilled) (includes
some well applications from previous years)
79 77 62 57 28 23 20 31
# of wells decommissioned 17 8 13 12 12 20 8 8
# of new wells inspected 48 53 32 31 16 17 12 22
% of new wells (starts) inspected 63% 68% 52% 54% 78% 73% 60% 71%
# of inspected wells with driller on site (includes new
and decommissioned wells)
25 28 21 13 21 16
% of inspected wells with driller on site 55% 65% 85% 76% 66% 42%
# of decommissioned wells inspected 17 8 13 12 12 19 7 7
% decommissioned well inspected 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 88% 88%
Determination of adequate potable water 2013 2014 2015
# of potable water reviews completed
New Categories Added in 2012
99 82 90
# of reviews complete in 14 days 79 49 81
% of reviews done within 14 days 82% 60% 90%
# of reviews for public water. 57 34 59
# of reviews for two party wells. 8 8 7
# of reviews for individual wells. 34 37 23
# of reviews for rainwater catchment systems. 1 2 1
# of reviews for shallow/dug wells 2 1 1
# of reviews for spring water 1 1 1
# of reviews in High Risk SIPZ Zones with
Hydrogeologic assessments
1 1 0
# of reviews that required Notice to Title for quality 1 3 3
# of review that required Notice to Title for quantity 1 3 3
# of reviews in Coastal Management area of WRIA 17 14 17 14
# of reviews in Reserve Management area of WRIA 17 6 2 7
# of reviews in Chimacum sub-basin 6 5 4
# of reviews that were exempted from WRIA 17 rule. 7 1 3