evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice

Seattle's Cedar River Municipal Watershed — Filtration-Avoidance Water Source Protection (USA)

United States of America · Seattle · See the United States of America profile

Seattle's ~100,000-acre Cedar River Municipal Watershed programme won EPA's rare 'Limited Alternative to Filtration' status in 2004, saving over $100 million in plant construction while a 50-year habitat plan protects five salmon and trout species.

>100 USD million
Avoided filtration-plant construction cost (as of 2004)
~70 % of Seattle-area supply
Share of drinking water supplied unfiltered
~1.4 million people
Population served by the unfiltered supply
~17 miles
River habitat reopened after dam removal (2003)
~79 USD million (1996 dollars)
HCP funding commitment (over the 50-year HCP)
~99.8 % of hydrographic basin
Watershed land under City ownership
Seattle's Cedar River Municipal Watershed — Filtration-Avoidance Water Source Protection (USA)

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Seattle Public Utilities (City of Seattle)
Period
2000-present
Keywords
drinking water supply, watershed forestry, filtration avoidance, endangered species habitat

Context

Since the early 1900s the City of Seattle has owned and managed almost the entire Cedar River watershed - roughly 90,000-100,000 acres of forested land in the Cascade foothills - as a closed, undeveloped source-water catchment with no agriculture, industry, logging or public residential use permitted inside it.

Objectives

The programme protects source-water quality well enough to avoid building a conventional filtration plant, while meeting Endangered Species Act obligations to salmon and trout species in the watershed.

Activities

Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) manages the closed catchment and disinfects supply with ultraviolet light and ozone instead of filtration. In April 2000 the City signed a 50-year Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) with the US Fish & Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries, an Endangered Species Act incidental-take permit covering Chinook, coho and sockeye salmon, steelhead and coastal cutthroat trout. The watershed was designated a no-logging forest reserve under the HCP, and in 2003 the City removed the century-old Landsburg Diversion Dam. SPU staff patrol 50-80 miles of watershed roads daily.

Results

In 2004 the EPA granted Seattle's source-protection programme a 'Limited Alternative to Filtration' (LAF) determination, one of only a handful ever issued to a large US water system. SPU estimates the avoided filtration-plant construction cost at more than $100 million. The unfiltered Cedar supply provides roughly 70% of drinking water to about 1.4 million people in the greater Seattle area. The 2003 Landsburg Dam removal reopened about 17 miles of river habitat to migrating fish, and the City retains ownership of about 99.8% of the hydrographic basin.

Conclusions

As with New York City's similar Catskills programme, filtration avoidance is a conditional, periodically reviewed EPA determination rather than a permanent guarantee. A 2015 drought forced SPU to invest in deeper reservoir pumping infrastructure, and rising wildfire and drought risk in the Pacific Northwest could eventually threaten the 'no filtration needed' status that has held since 2004.

Implementation

Indicative cost
High (€500k–€5M) — SPU avoided an estimated $100+ million in filtration plant construction; the 50-year HCP carried a funding commitment of roughly $79 million (1996 dollars); a 2015 drought required further investment in reservoir pumping infrastructure.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Land protection dates to the early 1900s; the formal Habitat Conservation Plan runs 50 years from April 2000; EPA's filtration-avoidance determination (2004) is periodically reviewed and not guaranteed permanent.
Staffing & skills
Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) watershed patrol staff (50-80 miles of roads patrolled daily), regulatory liaison with US Fish & Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under the HCP

Conditions for success

  • near-total single-owner land control (~99.8% of the hydrographic basin)
  • closed catchment with no agriculture, industry, logging or public residential use
  • formal 50-year Habitat Conservation Plan with federal wildlife agencies
  • sustained funding commitment (~$79 million, 1996 dollars) over the plan's life
  • continued daily patrol and enforcement

Common failure modes

  • rising wildfire and drought risk in the Pacific Northwest could threaten the filtration-avoidance status
  • EPA's 'Limited Alternative to Filtration' is a conditional, periodically reviewed determination, not a permanent guarantee
  • the 2015 drought already required additional investment in deeper reservoir pumping infrastructure

Where it fits

Governance type
municipal utility land ownership
Scale
large watershed (~90,000-100,000 acres)
Income level
high-income (USA)

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful

★ 60

New York City Catskills watershed protection

United States of America

Rather than build an $8–10bn filtration plant, New York City invests in protecting its Catskill/Delaware watershed — ~$2.5bn since 1997 …