1

Franchise Tools- can they protect?

Disclaimer:

all materials are the responsibility of Robert Beaumier, individually and not anyone else or on behalf of anyone else.

Contact information

rbeaumier@spokanecity.org

(509) 625 6284

2

BASIC FRANCHISE ELEMENTS

• Preserve local investment in Streets

• Avoid enhanced liability or risk from Franchisees

• Try to regulate use; keep people in their spot; keep traffic moving; protect local infrastructure (city utilities etc.)

3

4

Parkwater

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Year

AnnualAcreFt RightMaxAcreFt gpmMaxDaily RightgpmMaxInstant

5

Ground Water & Drinking Water

Recent Additions | Contact Us | Print Version Search:

EPA Home > Water > Ground Water & Drinking Water > Wellhead Protection (WHPP) Program

Drinking Water and Health Basics Frequently Asked Questions Local Drinking Water Information Drinking Water Standards List of Contaminants & MCLs Regulations & Guidance Public Drinking Water Systems Source Water Protection Underground Injection Control Data & Databases Drinking Water Academy Safe Drinking Water Act National Drinking Water Advisory Council Water Infrastructure Security

Wellhead Protection (WHPP) Program

The Wellhead Protection (WHPP) Program is a pollution prevention and management program used to protect underground based sources of drinking water. The national WHP Program was established in 1986 by the Safe Drinking Water Act. The law specified that certain program activities, such as delineation, contaminant source inventory, and source management, be incorporated into State Wellhead Protection Programs, which are approved by EPA prior to implementation. While Section 1428 applies only to States, a number of Tribes are implementing the program as well. All States have EPA approved State WHPP Programs

State WHPP vary greatly. Contact your State Wellhead Protect Program for more information. For example, some require community water systems to develop management plans, while others rely on education and technical assistance to encourage voluntary action. WHPPs are the foundation for many of the state Source Water Assessment Programs required under the 1996 SDWA amendments.

Under SDWA Section 1428, States that have EPA-approved programs must report their progress to EPA in biennial reports. Three reports have been published since 1991. They cover the periods 1991 to 1993, 1993 to 1995, and 1995 to 1997. The reports are cumulative.

The 1997 Wellhead Protection Biennial Report will be used as the benchmark of ground water data for implementing and tracking goals for the Wellhead Protection Program. It will also serve to document progress for the Source Water Protection Program, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and environmental planning efforts on Tribal Lands.

EPA Home | Privacy and Security Notice | Contact Us

Last updated on Tuesday, February 28th, 2006 URL: http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/whpnp.html

Safewater Home | About Our Office | Publications | Calendar | Links | Office of Water | En Español

http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/whpnp.html

6

7

8

9

10

CONSEQUENCES• Both Wells affected• 6-12 months to replace; costs estimated in $20M

range• Could contaminate 34 reservoirs storing over 100 MG• 900 miles of City water lines• Half Municipal Water Supply; pump to all areas

served• 72,000 Accounts; trucking water @ 20 Gal ration/day

= @ 1.5 million gallons/d day. Estimated cost: $2Million/day

• Commercial establishments hospitals have to have alternative supplies

11

• Traditional Rule- No franchise without City consent: 12 McQuillan on Municipal Corporations, section 34.10 at 38.

• Federal Court: Olympic Pipeline v. Seattle, 437 F3d 872 (9th Cir. 2006); municipal regulatory authority preempted by federal safety regulations

• 49 CFR 195

12

Conclusions

• Local franchise authority compromised by federal preemption

• CFRs fail to address egregious problems such as our wellhead

• Difference between “siting” vs “safety” areas not well delineated

• Federal standards should not be a shield to avoid local needs

• Local governments and their citizens should not have to bear extraordinary risks of catastrophic losses.