P. 1
Water Supply Element 1994

Water Supply Element 1994

|Views: 278|Likes:
Published by Morris County NJ

More info:

Published by: Morris County NJ on May 03, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/09/2014

pdf

text

original

Morris County Master Plan; ..

Water Supply
Element
ADOPTED: April 7,. 1994·
1994
Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders
Edward A. Tamm, Director
Frank J. Druetzler
Patrie J. Hyland
Cecilia G. Laureys
Carol J. Murphy
James O'Brien
Peter J. O'Hagan, Jr.
Morris County Planning Board
William J. Mathews, Chairman
Edward H. Bennett
Lawrence J. Brown
Cecilia Laureys
Barry Marell, Esq.
James C. Nelson
Donald F. Roos
Raymond J. Ryan
Edward A. Tamm
Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority
Bernhard D. Guenther, Chairman
James Barry
Michael Dedio
Edward H. Eppel
Frank J. Markewicz
Herman Nadel
Dr. Arthur Nusbaum
David Scapicchio
Carol Rufener
Alex A. Slavin, Executive Director
Thomas P. Branch, Chief Engineer
Morris County Department of Planning and Development
The following staff members were involved in the development of this element
Walter P. K.rich, Jr.
Director of Planning and Development
Raymond Zabihach
Planning Director
James Woodruff
Assistant Planning Director
Gene Cass, Senior Cartographer
Ray Chang, Senior Planner
Tom Kenny, Principal Planning Aide
Christine Marion, Supervising Planner
Carol Simmons, Senior Drafting Technician
Sabine von Aulock, Environmental Health Specialist
Layout and Graphics: Gene Cass and Nicole Seitz
MORRIS COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
Resolution No. 94-4
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1994 WATER SUPPLY ELEMENT
WHEREAS, the Morris County Planning Board is charged with the responsibility of
adopting a master plan for the physical development of the County; and
WHEREAS, a draft "Water Supply Element Update" of the Morris County Master Plan was
approved by the Planning Board for printing and distribution for review by municipalities on
September 9, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the Morris County Planning Board held a public hearing on December 2, 1993
and solicited written statements on the above draft; and
WHEREAS, the Morris County Planning Board reviewed the comments and amended the
draft element to incorporate corrections and appropriate changes.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Morris County Planniilg Board hereby
formally adopts the 1994 Water Supply Element as part of the Morris County Master Plan.
VOTE
Edward Bennett
Lawrence Brown
Cecelia Laureys
Barry Marell
William Mathews
James Nelson
James O'Brien
Raymond Ryan
Karen Wilson
Aye
~ y
t./v
/
,/
/
i/
v
/
Abs.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete
copy of a resolution adopted by the Morris County Planning
Board a eeting held4n/94.
Contents
2.19 Mendham Borough 2-11
Section Page 2.20 Mendham Township 2-12
2.21 Mine Hill Township 2-12
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.22 Montville Township 2-13
Contents
2.23 Morris Township 2-13
Figures 11
2.24 Morris Plains Borough 2-14
Tables 11
2.25 Morristown Town 2-14
2.26 Mountain Lakes Borough 2-14
2.27 Mount Arlington Borough 2-15
INTRODUCTION
2.28 Mount Olive Township 2-15
Morris County's Role In Water Supply
2.29 Netcong Borough 2-16
Historical Background lll
2.30 Parsippany-Troy Hills
Current Status VI
Township 2-16
Water Supply Element Update vii
2.31 Pequannock Township 2-17
2.32 Randolph Township 2-17
CHAPTER ONE 2.33 Riverdale Borough 2-18
Water Resources of Morris County 2.34 Rockaway Borough 2-18
1.1 Geology and Hydrogeology 1-1 2.35 Rockaway Township 2-19
1.2 Ground Water Availability/ 2.36 Roxbury Township 2-20
Base Flow Analysis 1-13 2.37 Victory Gardens Borough 2-20
1.3 Water Supply Availability 1-16 2.38 Washington Township 2-20
1.4 Surface Water 1-20 2.39 Wharton Borough 2-21
CHAPTER TWO CHAPTER THREE
Existing Water Supply Facilities Existing and Future Water Demand and
2.1 Boonton Town 2-2 Use Trends
2.2 Boonton Township 2-2 3.1 Existing Water Demand 3-1
2.3 Butler Borough 2-3 3.2 Increase in Water Demand
2.4 Chatham Borough 2-3 Between 1990 and 2010 3-5
2.5 Chatham Township 2-3 3.3 Conclusion 3-6
2.6 Chester Borough 2-4
2.7 Chester Township 2-5
CHAPTER FOUR
2.8 Denville Township 2-6
Regulatory Requirements Affecting
2.9 Dover Town 2-6
Provision of Water Supply
2.10 East Hanover Township 2-7
4.1 Federal Water Supply
2.11 Florham Park Borough 2-7
Regulations 4-2
2.12 Hanover Township 2-8
4.2 NJ Regulations Regarding
2.13 Harding Township 2-8
Operation of Water Utilities 4-3
2.14 Jefferson Township 2-9
4.3 NJ Regulation of Water
2.15 Kinnelon Borough 2-10
Allocations and Withdrawals 4-7
2.16 Lincoln Park Borough 2-10
4.4 NJ Regulations for Protection
2.17 Long Hill Township 2-11
of Ground Water Supplies 4-8
2.18 Madison Borough 2-11
Morris County Water Supply Element
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
Watershed Protection
Regulations Affecting
Construction and Expansion
of Water Works
Assurance of Water System
Reliability
Water Emergency, Shortage,
and Drought-Related
Regulations
State Water Supply
Development Agencies
State Water Supply Planning
Actions
Water Conservation
System Financing
Protection of Water Quality
CHAPTER FIVE
4- 10
4-11
4-13
4-14
4-16
4-16
4-17
4-18
4-18
Conclusions and Recommendations
Issues 5-1
5.1 Quantity of Existing and
Future Sources of Water
s ~ ~ Y 5 ~
5.2 Distribution of Water
Resources 5-4
5.3 Ground Water Management 5-5
5.4 Water Quality 5-6
5.5 Water Supply Regulation 5-9
5.6 Distribution of Supply 5-10
5. 7 Potential County Water
Supply Actions 5-12
5.8 Recommended County Water
Supply Roles and Approaches 5-14
APPENDIX A
NJGS Base Flow Analysis
APPENDIXB
Purveyor Descriptions
APPENDIXC
Bedrock Geology Map
APPENDIXD
Sources Consulted
Morris County Water Supply Element
jj
Figures
Following
Eigure
1-1 Surficial Geology
1-2 Potential Aquifers and
Recharge Areas
1-3 Surface Water Features and
Drainage Basins
1-4 Stream Base Flow
2-1 Existing Water Supply
Facilities and Served Areas
3-1 Total Increased Demand for
Water by Public and Self-
Supplied Users Indicated by
Projected Population Growth
5-1 Hazardous Waste Sites
Tables
Table
1-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
Stream Base Flow
Existing Water Demand
by Purveyor
Industrial/ Agricultural and
Small Public Community
Water Demands
Increased Water Demand
1990 to 2010
3-4 Future (2010) Water Demand
Page
1-10
1-10
1-16
1-16
2-2
3-8
5-6
Page
1-14
3-2
3-4
3-7
by Purveyor 3-8
4-1 New Jersey Drinking Water
Standards-Primary Maximum
Contaminant Levels 4-4
4-2 New Jersey Drinking Water
Standards-Secondary
Maximum Contaminant Levels 4-6
INTRODUCTION
Morris County's Role In Water Supply
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Morris County first began addressing water
supply issues in 1956 when the Morris County
Planning Board (MCPB) prepared a rep<:J.rt titled
Future Water Supply Requirements for Morris
County. At that time, the county was concerned
about the availability of water supply because
Jersey City and Newark had sole control of the
major surface water supplies of the Rockaway
and Pequannock Rivers in Morris County. The
report emphasized "the absolute necessity for a
continued factual and responsible approach by
the State of New Jersey to Morris County's
iii
development and the resulting demands for an
adequate in-county water supply for the future."
1
Because the surface water supplies in Morris
County were controlled by out-of-county water
systems, the 1956 study evaluated the availabili-
ty of groundwater supplies to meet existing and
future demands. The report concluded that
surface water supplies would be required
because groundwater sources were inadequate to
meet future demands.
1
Letter dated April 17, 1956 from John E. Deasy,
Chairman, MCPB, to the Morris County Board of
Chosen Freeholders.
Morris County Water Supply Element
Within the 1956 report, guiding principles
for water supply planning were formulated.
These principles included an emphasis on a
regional and coordinated approach to water
supply planning; a cost/benefit analysis of water
supply projects; the need to balance water
supply facility planning with other concerns
such as the environment, flooding, and irriga-
tion; and the need to integrate water supply
planning with decision-making by other agen-
cies. The report also mapped future service
areas and showed areas of the county which
were projected to have a surplus or deficit of
water. Because of its detailed approach in
determining the future water supply require-
ments of the county, copies of the 1956 report
were requested by planning agencies throughout
the country.
The Planning Board's 1956 report was
followed by a study prepared in September 1958
by Elson T. Killam Associates for the Board of
Chosen Freeholders. The Report upon the Long
Range Water Requirements for Morris County
contained similar analyses as the 1956 report
including population projections and the
determination of the existing and future demand
for water. The population projections, and
consequently the demand, were considerably
lower in the 1958 report.
The 1958 study identified potential actions to
secure additional water supply for Morris
County including participation in Jersey City's
Longwood Reservoir project in Jefferson
Township, creation of a water authority, estab-
lishment of a program for comprehensive
exploration of groundwater resources, consid-
eration of development of small surface water
supplies, and acquisition of essential lands and
right-of-ways. It was also recommended that
the county participate in large scale water
supply developments which were being pro-
posed by the state and federal governments
including Round Valley Reservoir and Tocks
Island.
Morris County Water Supply Element iv
Also in September 1958, the Board of
Chosen Freeholders adopted a resolution creat-
ing the Morris County Municipal Utilities
Authority (MCMUA) for the primary purpose of
developing and distributing an adequate supply
of water for the public and private use of the
county's inhabitants. It was understood, how-
ever, that the MCMUA's role would be limited
to developing regional water supplies to pro-
vide bulk supply to local water companies and
municipal water departments.
-
- -
In September 1958. the Board of
Chosen Freeholders adopted a
resolution creating the Morris County
Municipal Utilities Authority ( MCMUA).
-
One of the main objectives ofthe MCMUA
was to protect the interests of the county from
the continued development and exportation of
in-county water supplies. The first undertaking
of MCMUA with respect to this role was to
challenge Jersey City's development of the
Longwood Reservoir in Jefferson Township.
The MCMUA obtained the right to develop and
utilize the excess water supply from the
Rockaway River basin as long as the diversion
did not encroach upon Jersey City's Boonton,
Longwood and Splitrock reservoirs. MCMUA
also opposed the Passaic Valley Water Com-
mission on the development of the Pointview
Reservoir on the Pompton River. MCMUA was
able to eventually obtain diversion rights of2.0
MGD from this source, contingent upon county
development and use of the supply within seven
years. The MCMUA eventually lost the diver-
sion rights because the supply was never devel-
oped.
A number of studies were undertaken by the
MCMUA to develop sources of water supply
within the county and to create an integrated
distribution system. The Authority's intent with
respect to water supply was to protect
groundwater supplies through recharge of
wellfields and adequate storage of excess water
supplies during heavy rainfall periods.
Although several studies had been completed
or were underway at that time, a water supply
master plan had not yet been developed for
Morris County. In the late 1960s and early
1970s, such a plan was prepared by the Morris
County Planning Board. This was preceded by
a two phase report which incorporated the previ-
ous studies and findings completed for the
MCMUA. The MCMUA's reports formed the
basis for the MCPB plan since the Authority
would be one of the major implementing
agencies.
The main objective of the 1971 Water
Supply Master Plan was to develop an intercon-
nected water supply system that could provide
more than one source of water to a given area.
In keeping with the mission of the MCMUA, the
municipalities would develop and utilize their
own sources which could be supplemented by
MCMUA's proposed surface water supplies.
However, the plan concluded that once all
groundwater and surface water supplies were
fully developed, the county would have to
depend on major surface water supplies located
outside of the county to meet the demands of
anticipated growth.
The 1971 Plan identified several proposed
county projects which had been endorsed by the
state. At that time, the MCMUA was proposing
to develop four reservoirs (Toume Reservoir in
Boonton, Denville and Mountain Lakes;
Washington Valley Reservoir in Morris
Township; Pulaski Reservoir in Mt. Olive; and
Weldon Brook Reservoir in Jefferson Township)
and one groundwater source (Alamatong
Wellfield and Recharge Basin) to be
interconnected by major transmission lines. The
MCMUA had acquired the lands for each of the
proposed projects. The plan also listed proposed
state and federal projects such as the Tocks
v
Island Reservoir on the Delaware River, which
could be potential sources of water supply for
Morris County.
Only one of the county projects proposed in
the 1971 plan, the Alamatong Wellfield, was
developed. The MCMUA was using this source
to supply water to Mine Hill, Randolph and the
Southeast Morris County Municipal Utilities
Authority (formerly the Morristown Water
Company). The Toume Reservoir project was
dropped and developed into a park by the Morris
County Park Commission. Pulaski, Washington
Valley, and Weldon Brook reservoirs were not
developed.
The 1980/1981 drought provided the impetus
for the development of the 1982 Water Supply
Master Plan Element. The element updated the
analysis of water supply sources, facilities,
consumption patterns, and future needs for
Morris County. Unlike earlier studies, the 1982
update concluded that most purveyors and
communities in Morris County had sufficient
groundwater sources for the immediate future
provided that the groundwater sources were
properly managed.
-
-
-
The 198Z update concluded
that most purveyors and communities
in Morris County had sufficient
groundwater sources for the
immediate future.
-
- -
The plan predicted that the role of the
MCMUA to develop additional supplies would
become greater as the needs of the county
increased. The 1982 element recommended ac-
tions the MCMUA could take to meet the long
term water supply needs of Morris County.
These recommendations included extending the
existing regional system serving Mine Hill,
Morris County Water Supply Element
Randolph and the Southeast Morris County
Municipal Utilities Authority to nearby munici-
palities; developing a regional system to serve
the northwestern portion of the county including
Rockaway Township and the municipalities
along the Musconetcong River.
The report also evaluated the feasibility of
the previously proposed Pulaski, Washington
Valley, and Weldon Brook reservoir projects.
Specific recommendations included the con-
struction of the Washington Valley Reservoir,
the Sussex Turnpike Transmission Main, an
interconnection with Mendham Borough; and
the extension of the Sussex Turnpike Transmis-
sion Main to Denville. Pulaski and Weldon
Brook reservoirs were not recommended for
implementation.
CURRENT STATUS
Since the completion of the 1982 Water
Supply Element, two projects which were
recommended for the MCMUA system have
been implemented. An interconnection with
Mendham Borough has been constructed, and an
interconnection with Denville was completed
recently.
The Washington Valley Reservoir project
remained under consideration until 1989 when
a Value Engineering Study identified severe
environmental constraints and prohibitive cost
estimates. In June 1990, the MCMUA
completed an evaluation of alternative water
supply sources to the Washington Valley
Reservoir project. Interconnections with other
purveyors and the development of surface
supplies within Morris County were considered
preferable to total reliance on groundwater
development.
In addition to the projects recommended in
the 1982 Water Supply Element, several proj-
ects have been proposed and implemented.
These include the development of an additional
source of supply in the Flanders Valley area;
and construction of an interconnection with
Morris County Water Supply Element vi
Roxbury and an additional interconnection with
the Southeast Morris County Municipal Utilities
Authority.
In October 1992, the MCMUA signed a
purchase agreement with Jersey City to divert
7.5 million gallons per day (MGD) from the
Boonton Reservoir for a period up to 40 years,
pending state approval. This cooperative effort
is somewhat ironic because 35 years earlier both
parties were involved in a lengthy court battle
over diversions from the Rockaway River. The
MCMUA and Jersey City now acknowledge that
in the long-term it is in their mutual interest to
jointly increase the maximum safe yield of the
Rockaway River system. The MCMUA's agree-
ment with Jersey City represents a reliable
future surface water supply for Morris County.
-
- -
The MCMUA 's agreement
with Jersey City represents a reliable
future surface water supply
for Morris County.
-
-
Through the Morris County Open Space and
Farmland Preservation Trust Fund which was
established by the Board of Chosen Freeholders
in December 1992, monies are available to the
MCMUA for land acquisition. The trust fund is
funded by a tax not to exceed $.02 per $100 of
total county equalized real property valuation.
According to the proposed rules and regulations
for administering the fund, the MCMUA, along
with the Park Commission, would be eligible to
receive at least 25% of the total monies
available each year. These monies could be
used to purchase "land or water areas in a
largely natural or undeveloped state to provide:
... the protection of critical water supplies such
as areas surrounding municipal/county wells,
aquifer recharge protection areas or watershed
areas."
/
(
The rules and regulations for the trust fund
have not been approved by the Board of Chosen
Freeholders since a change in the state enabling
legislation is being sought. Therefore, to date,
no action has been taken by the MCMUA in
determining which lands, if any, should be
purchased.
WATER SUPPLY ELEMENT UPDATE
Since the last revision of the Morris County
Water Supply Element in 1982, new information
has been generated on the availability and use of
water supply within the county. The New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and
Energy has been collecting extensive data on
water usage and quality. Unfortunately, the
various state divisions and bureaus each have
their own means of compiling and analyzing
data which, in most cases, was not compatible
with Morris County's information needs. In
addition, the New Jersey Geological Survey and
the United States Geological Survey continue
vii
their work on important research that will
determine the characteristics of the three
principal buried valley aquifer systems in the
county. Reports on the conclusions of their
research on aquifer yield are not yet available.
Based on the information which was avail-
able, the Morris County Planning Board and the
Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority
have identified the significant issues facing the
county concerning water supply. The major
issues are:
0 water resources allocation
0 surface water exportation
0 water mining and aquifer depletion
0 aquifer recharge protection
0 water quality protection.
Because these issues are complex, this plan
does not offer an engineered solution to water
supply needs, but identifies approaches by
which those involved in supplying water in
Morris County can work toward common goals.
. ' : ~ : ,
Morris County Water Supply Element
(
I
CHAPTER ONE
Water Resources of Morris County
1.1 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
About 95 percent of Morris County's public
water supply, and all residential self-supplied
water, is produced from wells. The importance
of ground water in Morris County has been
recognized by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) in the granting of
Sole Source Aquifer status (see Chapter Four) to
a number of important aquifers extending
throughout Morris County. This status,
however, is not sufficient to protect the aquifers
from all potential dangers, because it applies
only to federally funded projects.
Ground water is typically a dependable
source because aquifers (the source of ground
water) are less affected by short-term drought
1-1
than surface water bodies. However, ground
water supplies can and have been compromised
by inadequately planned development in aquifer
recharge areas, overpumpage, and uncontrolled
waste disposal. The yield of an aquifer can be
reduced by construction of homes and
businesses over the recharge zone. Aquifer
yield can also be reduced by ground water
"mining", or pumping in excess of the capacity
for recharge.
Aquifers are vulnerable to contamination
from landfills and hazardous waste dumps,
leaking underground storage tanks, industrial
lagoons, and accidental overland discharges.
These are typically relatively localized sources
of contamination, but can lead to loss of supply
wells.
Morris County Water Supply Element
An understanding of how aquifer systems
function is necessary to assure continued future
availability through proper management. There
is a widely held misconception that ground
water is produced from underground lakes and
rivers. Actually, ground water is contained in
and transmitted through either small fractures in
rock, or between the grains of sand and gravel in
unconsolidated underground formations.
Ground water in Morris County is produced
from both consolidated (rock) and un-
consolidated (sand) formations.
In order to protect an aquifer, it is necessary
to know where it is, how much water it can
reliably produce, and from where it receives its
recharge. Because aquifers frequently are
identified by the name of the geologic formation
in which they exist, it would seem logical that a
geologic map of the county would show the
locations of aquifers. However, geology
indicates the types of subsurface formations, it
does not indicate the actual ability of those
formations to provide water.
-
-
In order to protect an aquifer. it is
necessary to know where it is.
---
how much water it can reliably produce.
and from where
it receives its recharge.
-
-
---
The definition of an aquifer generally
accepted by hydrogeologists is a subsurface unit
which is capable of yielding water of acceptable
quality to wells in sufficiently large quantity to
be economically useful. Clearly, by this defini-
tion, a rock formation capable of yielding 5
gallons per minute could be considered an
aquifer for individual residential wells, but not
for municipal water supplies. Virtually every
geologic formation in Morris County could be
classified as some form of aquifer, except where
Morris County Water Supply Element 1-2
the water in a formation contains natural or
man-induced contaminants in concentrations
that would prevent use of the water for potable
water supply. However, in this report, the term
aquifer will be used to describe formations
capable of producing significant potable water
supplies.
Geologic mapping of Morris County and the
rest of New Jersey has been conducted and
revised many times as new information is
obtained or as theories of the geologic history of
the area evolve. The primary objective of most
geologic mapping has been academic (to
advance the science of geology), or economic
(to find and develop mineral resources). Only
recently has emphasis been directed to the
mapping of aquifers.
The process of geologic mapping is inter-
pretive. The geologist studies outcrops and
surface materials in the field and whatever
subsurface data may be available in the form of
well or boring logs or geophysical data. From
the data, the geologist selects certain
characteristics upon which to define a
formation, and map those characteristics.
In the past, water-bearing properties have not
been included in the definition of geologic
formations (with the exception of the Kittatinny
Limestone Group which has recently been
subdivided by Markewicz.). Aquifer delineation
is a complex science since an aquifer may be
comprised of a portion of, an entire, or several
geologic formations.
There are two major classifications of
aquifers: consolidated and unconsolidated.
Consolidated aquifers are formed by the bedrock
formation. Several types of bedrock are found
in Morris County, as will be discussed in greater
detail in the next section. The amount of ground
water available from a bedrock aquifer depends
on the type of rock, and the extent to which the
rock has been fractured or dissolved. The three
basic rock classifications are represented in the
bedrock of the county; igneous, metamorphic,
and sedimentary. Although some ground water
can be produced virtually anywhere, the extent
of fracturing in consolidated aquifers determines
the quantity of water available from any given
location.
Unconsolidated aquifers are generally form-
ed by sedimentary materials, which have not
been compressed or cemented into solid rock.
The amount of water contained in un-
consolidated formations is determined by the
porosity, or open space between grains. The
ability of a formation to transmit water is known
as permeability. Sands and gravels have a high
permeability and therefore make excellent
aquifers. Just as a bedrock formation may have
areas with more or less fracturing, some sand or
gravel formations are influenced by the presence
of silt or clay, or even a chemically precipitated
cement such as calcium carbonate or iron oxide,
between the grains. If there is enough of the
matrix to reduce permeability significantly, the
formation may not be able to transmit enough
water to function as an aquifer. Fine grained
materials, such as silt and clay, actually contain
more open space than sand or gravel. However,
silts and clays do not fit the definition of an
aquifer, because the water contained is not
easily yielded by these materials.
In Morris County, unconsolidated formations
were formed directly or indirectly by glaciers
during the Pleistocene, or Ice Age. Not all of
the unconsolidated formations are aquifers,
either because they are composed of fine-grain-
ed, impermeable material, or because they are of
insufficient depth to hold significant quantities
of water. The most valuable of the
unconsolidated aquifers in the county are the
"buried valleys". These features are valleys
eroded into the bedrock surface by rivers, which
were subsequently filled with unconsolidated
sediment. Some of the bedrock valleys, which
were cut by ancient rivers, are 400 feet deep,
although they are not filled with sediments.
The existence ofthick deposits of permeable
sediments from the Pleistocene in parts of the
county have been known and used for water
supply since the early 1900s. By the 1960s, they
1-3
were supplying more than 75 percent of the
ground water pumped (Gill and Vecchioli,
1965).
During the past decade, since the last update
of the Morris County Master Plan Water Supply
Element, several vigorous research programs
have been conducted in the county and other
parts of northern New Jersey. These programs
have been a cooperative effort between the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) and
the New Jersey Geologic Survey (NJGS). Much
of this research has been directed toward
delineation and characterization of the buried
valley system. In addition, the Morris County
Municipal Utilities Authority (MCMUA) has
been successful in defining several carbonate
aquifers through their ground water exploration
program.
- -
In 1990. approximately LfO million gallons
per day. or about 90 percent of
the total ground water pumped by public
systems in the county. was pumped
from the buried valley aquifers.
- -
There is good reason to study these aquifers.
In 1990, approximately 40 million gallons per
day, or about 90 percent of the total ground
water pumped by public systems in the county,
was pumped from the buried valley aquifers.
The goal of the NJGSIUSGS programs is the
development of numerical models, in which the
behavior of the aquifer systems can be simulated
on computers. Once developed, these models
can be used to predict the effects on the aquifer
systems resulting from changes in recharge or
ground water pumping, as well as show the
effects of pollution.
Morris County Water Supply Element
However, the recent buried valley research is
not complete. A few studies have been
published, several are available in draft form,
and some research has not been released. This
report incorporates all that is available now, and
summarizes the highlights of the programs.
The other major area of investigation in-
volves bedrock research through field mapping,
which is primarily directed toward increased
fundamental understanding of the regional
geology. Most geologic mapping is not
specifically directed toward water supply
development (with the exception of MCMUA
investigation and research on carbonate rock in
the county). A brief discussion of the bedrock
research is included, because much of the old
familiar nomenclature has been revised.
1.1.1 Geologic Framework
Because geologic investigations or mapping
projects are conducted for different purposes,
different classification schemes have been used
to describe the rock formations. The most
common classification is based on a similarity
of characteristics by which mappable units, or
formations, can be identified. A geologic
formation may be composed of a single litholo-
gy (rock type). The definition of a formation, or
the sub-dividing members, may be based on
other recognizable characteristics, or
interpretations.
The geologic time scale was developed based
on events in the geologic history of the earth.
The major events, or eras, and their subdivisions
(periods, epochs and stages), are based on the
significant events in evolution rather than on
duration in years. The major fossil record began
in the Cambrian Period of the Paleozoic Era,
about 600 million years ago, even though
primitive life forms existed much earlier. All
that occurred before the Cambrian is considered
the Precambrian Era. Much of the evidence of
geologic events from the first 4 billion years of
the earth's existence has been lost. The level of
detail in the geologic time scale reflects this fact
Morris County Water Supply Element 1-4
with a shortening of the time span divisions as
the date line approaches the present.
The Paleozoic (Early Life) Era, is subdivided
into 7 periods, which are, in order of decreasing
age, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian,
Mississippian, Pennsylvanian, and Permian.
The last three periods are not represented in the
geologic column of Morris County, either
because there was no deposition during that
time, or the rock record was lost by subsequent
erosion. Radical changes in the earth's features
and climate occurred at this time, which resulted
in the extinction of many species at the end of
the Paleozoic Era, about 230 million years ago.
Invertebrates, which had been dominant in the
Paleozoic, were replaced by reptiles during the
Mesozoic Era, or middle life period. The
Mesozoic Era is divided into 3 Periods; Triassic,
Jurassic and Cretaceous. Morris County
contains rocks formed during the Triassic and
Jurassic.
The current era, the Cenozoic, began ap-
proximately 70 million years ago, with the rise
of mammals as the dominant life form. There
are no rocks in Morris County from the Tertiary,
which was the first of the two periods of the
Cenozoic Era. The Quaternary Period began
about 2 million years ago. Glaciation, which
played an important role in the formation of
aquifers in Morris County, occurred in several
pulses during the Pleistocene Epoch. The last
glacial advance over North America (the
Wisconsin), ended approximately 10,000 years
ago. Since that time, the major ice sheets have
retreated to the limits of the north and south
polar ice caps of the Recent, or Holocene Epoch.
Physiography
The physiography, or landform of any area is
determined by the framework of the geologic
formations, and the geologic processes which
have acted upon them over the billions of years
of geologic history. Areas with similar land-
forms, which resulted from similar geologic
history, have been classified in physiographic
provinces. Morris County lies within two of
these; the New Jersey Highlands, and the Pied-
mont. The Highlands, in the western two thirds
of the county, contains broad ridges separated
by narrow valleys. The crests of the ridges are
about 1,000 feet above sea level, and about 500
feet above the valley floors. The Piedmont is
generally characterized by gently rolling hills.
Both of the provinces are subdivisions of the
Appalachian Highlands.
The ridges and valleys of the Highlands
province derive their form, which is oriented in
a general northeast to southwest trend, from the
ancient geologic history of the area. The oldest
rocks in the county were originally formed
during the Precambrian, more than 600 million
years ago. Sedimentary and igneous rocks were
reformed, or metamorphosed to hard crystalline
rocks during long periods of deep burial within
the earth's crust. For hundreds of millions of
years, during much of the Paleozoic Era, what is
now the Highlands ofNew Jersey lay beneath an
ocean. More sedimentary rocks were deposited
over the older Precambrian sediments. Toward
the end of the Paleozoic, as the forces of plate
tectonics caused North America to collide with
Africa, the earth's crust was crumpled by a
series of complex folds and faults into the
Appalachian mountains. The present landform
of the Highlands Province is the remnant of
these formerly majestic mountains. The ridges
exist where the harder rocks have resisted ero-
sion. The valleys contain softer sedimentary
rocks, emplaced within the Precambrian se-
quence by faulting, and subsequently eroded
into valleys.
In Morris County, the bedrock in the Pied-
mont province is relatively soft red shales and
sandstones, deposited mostly as continental and
lacustrine sediments, during the late Triassic and
early Jurassic. The sediments, derived from the
Precambrian and Paleozoic rocks to the west,
filled a deep rift valley, created by down fault-
ing of a large block of the crust as the result of
the separation of North America from Africa.
1-5
Eventually this crustal spreading resulted in
formation of the Atlantic Ocean. Toward the
late stages of development of these rocks, major
volcanic action occurred. Thick sheets of lava
covered hundreds of square miles of northern
New Jersey. The entire sequence, which con-
tains thousands of feet of sedimentary rock
beneath and between the flood lavas, was tilted
to the northwest. The lava, which forms the
rock known as basalt, or trap rock, is harder than
the shales and siltstones, and remains today as
the ridges ofthe Watchung Mountains.
Landform and drainage patterns of Morris
County today were shaped to a great extent by
glaciation and related processes during the
Pleistocene. Much of northern New Jersey was
covered by thick glaciers several times during
the Quaternary. Identifiable remains of early
glaciation are present in a few parts of southern
Morris County, although much of the evidence
was destroyed during the final stage of glacia-
tion, known as the Wisconsin. The most promi-
nent of the glacial features, including the termi-
nal moraine and the lake deposits of former
glacial Lake Passaic, were formed during the
Wisconsin. Of greater importance to Morris
County ground water supplies were the deep
valleys cut into bedrock by the ancestral Passaic,
Rockaway and Lamington Rivers. These val-
leys now form today's buried valley aquifer
system.
Morris County Water Supply Element
Bedrock Formations
Bedrock geology of Morris County, espe-
cially in the Highlands province, is highly
complex. The recently revised bedrock map
from NJGS and USGS is included in Appendix
C of this report. Many different formation and
member names have been applied to some of the
rock units over the years. The most common of
these are discussed below.
Precambrian. Approximately 60 percent of
the area of Morris County is underlain by crys-
talline rocks. The Precambrian rocks are over-
lain by Paleozoic formations in three belts,
which trend in a northeast-southwest direction.
For the most part, the crystalline rocks are of
sedimentary origin. They were severely altered
by intense heat and pressure during periods of
deep burial in the earth's crust.
At one time, the Precambrian rocks were
mapped as four formations, based on general-
ized rock type. The Byram Gneiss was distin-
guished by a high concentration of potassium
(orthoclase) feldspar, which imparted a brown-
ish-gray color to the rock. Areas rich in sodium
and calcium (plagioclase) feldspars, which are
nearly white, were identified as the Losee
Gneiss. Dark colored rocks, rich in hornblende,
pyroxene and biotite, were called the Pochuck
Gneiss. Coarsely crystalline limestone or mar-
ble was classified, along with large exposures of
similar, but ore-bearing rock at Franklin, in
Sussex County, as the Franklin formation.
The formation names are no longer used.
Instead, these highly complex rocks have been
reclassified on the basis of detailed petrologic
mapping. However, with the exception of
marble, water-bearing properties of these rocks
are related more to the extent of local fracturing,
rather than mineral composition. Marble is the
exception, since, like limestone, it is subject to
dissolution when exposed to acidic water.
Dissolved cavities, or enlarged fractures can
significantly increase the water-bearing ability
of a calcium carbonate formation. Precambrian
Morris County Water Supply Element 1-6
marble has been mapped in a few, relatively
small areas in Morris County.
Paleozoic. Shallow seas which covered
much of northern New Jersey during the Paleo-
zoic Era deposited thousands of feet of sedi-
mentary rock over the eroded surface of the
Precambrian rock. The compressional forces of
plate tectonics at the close of the Paleozoic era
folded the Precambrian and overlying Paleozoic
sequences together. Along with the folding, in
some localities large masses of older rocks were
displaced by over thrust faults, and now overlie
younger rocks. More than 230 million years of
erosion removed thousands of feet of the se-
quence, forming the outcrop pattern observed
today.
As previously stated, Paleozoic sedimentary
rock is exposed at the surface in three separate
belts. The largest of the outcrop belts is parallel
to the western boundary of the county, from
northern Jefferson Township to southern Wash-
ington Township. The width of this valley
varies from less than a mile to approximately 4
miles at the northern end. The southern portion
of this outcrop belt is fork shaped. The western
side of the fork forms part of the basin of the
South Branch of the Raritan River. The
Lamington River Basin includes part of the
eastern portion of the fork.
The second Paleozoic outcrop belt is a por-
tion of the Musconetcong Basin, at the south-
west corner of the county, in Washington and
Mount Olive Townships. The third and smallest
of the belts is located at the southern border of
the county, west of Mendham.
From the perspective of ground water sup-
ply, the limestone deposited in the Late Cam-
brian and Early Ordovician Periods (Cambro-
Ordovician) has significantly better water bear-
ing potential than the Precambrian rocks.
Cambro-Ordovician limestones are wide-
spread in the Appalachian province. These
rocks were formed in warm, shallow seas, under
conditions probably similar to those in the
present day Bahama Islands. Although gener-
ally similar conditions existed during deposi-
(
tion, local differences and changing conditions
over time produced distinctly different litholo-
gies. Consequently, different formation names
have been applied to these rocks in different
localities. In New Jersey, the entire sequence
was originally mapped as the Kittatinny Lime-
stone. Distinctly different lithologies were
recognized in the lower, middle and upper
portions. Several formation and member names
have been applied to portions of the sequence
formerly mapped as Kittatinny. In Morris
County, the Leithsville and Allentown forma-
tions constitute the major carbonate units, how-
ever, the Beekmantown is present in the Pea-
pack Valley. Well cuttings indicate that the
upper formations are present in the Kenvil-
Succasunna area (Markewicz, et al., 1981 ). The
lower contact of the Leithsville formation is
gradational with the underlying Hardystone
quartzite. The formation consists primarily of
thin-bedded to massive calcareous dolomite.
Occasional beds of orthoquartzite and
calcarenite have been observed. The full thick-
ness of the Leithsville is not known with cer-
tainty, but is thought to average 750 feet. The
Leithsville is generally considered lower to
middle Cambrian.
The Leithsville has been subdivided into
three members. The oldest member (Califon) is
generally less than 1 00 feet thick, and is absent
in areas where the underlying precambrian rock
formed topographic highs during the period of
depositions. The Califon member is generally a
medium-to-course-grained dolomite. The
Hamburg member, usually 150 feet thick or less,
is a banded, shaly dolomite. The upper Walkill
member is the thickest (about 500 feet), and is
composed of fine-to-medium-grained thin-to-
thick-bedded dolomite. The Califon and Walkill
members have been found by Markewicz and
the MCMUA to be potentially high-yield water-
bearing units.
The Allentown formation has a distinctive
appearance in weathered outcrop of alternating
light and dark colored beds. The upper Cam-
1-7
brian Allentown is thought to exceed 1700 feet.
The lower part of the Allentown is known as the
Limeport member. The thickness of the Lime-
port member varies from 400 ft. to 700 ft. It is
a fine and medium-grained dolomite, which is
characterized by algal structure, mud cracks,
ripple marks, and other sedimentary structures.
The upper member of the Allentown, up to 1200
feet thick, is more massively bedded than the
Limeport member and contains fewer fossil and
sedimentary features.
--
-
Cambro-Ordovician I imestones
were formed in warm. shallow seas.
under conditions similar to those in the
Bahama Islands.
-- -
The hydrologic importance of these forma-
tions is the water-bearing solution cavities they
contain. For a more detailed description of the
geohydrologic properties of the Kittatinny
formation the reader is referred to Markewicz, et
al. (1981). As discussed below, they are capable
of producing high yield wells. Both formations
are composed primarily of dolomite (calcium
magnesium carbonate) rather than pure lime-
stone (calcium carbonate), which is generally
more soluble.
A break in the depositional record, or un-
conformity, exists between the top of the Allen-
town formation and the overlying Ordovician
rocks. This variegated shale and siltstone,
which is mapped as the Jutland Klippe Se-
quence, does not have a significant potential for
water supply development.
Three formations that were deposited during
the Silurian have been mapped in Morris
County: the Green Pond Conglomerate, the
Longwood Shale, and the Decker Limestone.
None of the formations are of significance as
aquifers.
Morris County Water Supply Element
The youngest of the Paleozoic formations in
Morris County are the Kanouse Sandstone and
the Cornwall Shale, which were deposited in the
Devonian Period. Like the Silurian formations,
they are not important aquifers.
Mesozoic. At the end of the Paleozoic, the
area which is now North America was connect-
ed with North Africa. The continental collision
which caused the folding and faulting of the
Precambrian and early Paleozoic sequence had
created the Appalachian Mountain system. It
was equivalent to the Rocky Mountains or the
Himalayas of today. An uninterrupted period of
erosion began in western Morris County, and is
still ongoing. Much of the eroded sediment
from the Appalachian Mountains was deposited
in a down-faulted basin, which includes the
eastern third of Morris County. The border
fault, which today forms the boundary between
the Highlands and the Piedmont Physiographic
provinces, passes through Morristown and
continues in a generally northeast line through
Riverdale. As thousands of feet of rock were
eroded from the mountains to the west, the fault
allowed the basin floor to drop, making room
above for the sediment to accumulate.
Mesozoic sedimentary rock in Morris Coun-
ty is predominantly reddish brown sandstone
and shale, with some conglomerate, primarily
near the border fault. In addition to the sedi-
ments, three major episodes of volcanic erup-
tions resulted in basalt formations, each hun-
dreds of feet thick.
The Geologic Map of New Jersey (Lewis, et
al., 1910-1912) shows the Mesozoic sedimen-
tary rock in Morris County mapped as the
Brunswick formation, which is mostly soft red
shale, with some conglomerate in the vicinity of
the border fault. The igneous rock was mapped
as the Watchung Basalt, which consists of three
separate flow units. The third flow unit out-
crops in Morris County. All of the rocks are
shown as being of Triassic age.
Recently, new names have been established
for the Brunswick and the Watchung formations,
and it has been determined that the upper por-
Morris County Water Supply Element 1-8
tions of this massive sequence of more than
6000 feet, including most of the portion con-
tained in Morris County, was actually deposited
in the early Jurassic Period. These revisions to
the geologic map have little bearing on water
supply issues, other than a change in names for
the rock formations. By the new definition, all
of what used to be called the Brunswick forma-
tion below the first Watchung basalt flow is now
called the Passaic formation.
The First Watchung Basalt (650 feet thick) is
called the Orange Mountain Basalt. Sedi-
mentary rock between the first and second
Watchung basalt flows (2000 feet) is called the
Feltville Formation. The former Second Wat-
chung Basalt is called the Preakness Basalt
(1 000 feet thick). Sedimentary rock between the
second and third basalt flows (1100 feet) is now
called the Towaco Formation. The former Third
Watchung Basalt (350 feet) now has the name
Hook Mountain Basalt. Finally, the upper
portion of the old Brunswick formation, about
1500 feet thick, above the final basalt flow, is
now mapped as the Boonton Formation. The
entire sequence of Triassic/Jurassic rocks was
previously called the Newark Group. It is now
known as the Brunswick Group of the Newark
Super Group. The new names have not been
universally accepted by geologists, and it is
likely that both sets of names will continue to be
used for many years.
Unconsolidated Formations
There is no geologic record in Morris County
for the events between the Late Triassic/Early
Jurassic and the Pleistocene. For 100 million
years or more, the rocks of Morris County were
reduced by erosion, providing the source for the
sands and clays of the coastal plain and conti-
nental shelf.
The unconsolidated sediments found in
Morris County were deposited directly by the
advancing glaciers and indirectly by melt water
as glaciers retreated. The Pleistocene is not the
only time in the history of the earth that glaciers
have formed, but the process has apparently not
happened often. Glaciation has a profound
effect on climate and landform when it happens.
Figure 1-1 is a simplified map of the surficial
geology of Morris County. The map is based on
open file maps prepared by Stanford et al.,
(1990) of the NJGS. As the name surficial
implies, the formations shown are those exposed
at the surface. The emphasis in this version of
the map is hydrogeologic potential; therefore,
thin units, or those which generally exhibit low
permeability, are not included.
The most prominent feature on the map, and
in the field, is the terminal moraine of the Wis-
consin Glaciation, which marks the southern
extent of the advance of the last episode of the
glaciers. The terminal moraine was formed
from the debris pushed in front of the advancing
glacier. It is composed of an unstratified mix-
ture of sand, silt and gravel, hundreds of feet
thick. Remnants of glacially deposited soils
from previous episodes exist south of the mo-
raine. Those north of it were reworked during
the last period of glacial advance.
- -
- -
The importance of surficial formations
to water supply is their ability to
recharge deeper aquifers.
- -
The remaining materials highlighted on the
map, including deltaic, fluvial and lacustrine fan
sediments, have been mapped previously as
stratified drift. These formations are generally
composed of sand and gravel, with silt and
minor clay beds. Such units are formed in a
complex, frequently changing sedimentary
environment. However, they have a character-
istic in common; they were deposited by flow-
ing water. This depositional environment pro-
vided the mechanism for sorting the sediment
into relatively homogenous layers, from which
1-9
they derived the potential for being useful
aquifers.
Surficial formations seldom are capable of
producing large quantities of water, and they are
highly sensitive to contamination. The impor-
tance of surficial formations to water supply is
their ability to recharge deeper aquifers.
1.1.2 Hydrogeology
Ground water has been used in Morris
County since the early days of settlement.
Major ground water withdrawals for potable
consumption have been made since the late
1800s, especially in the Central Passaic Basin
along the eastern part of Morris County. With
seemingly unlimited water supplies, land devel-
opment was not organized to make the most
efficient use of the aquifer systems. Conse-
quently, in some localities overpumping has
lowered water levels due to withdrawals exceed-
ing the recharge of the aquifer. Development
over recharge areas has resulted in impervious
surfaces preventing recharge to the aquifer. In
addition, ground water quality has been im-
paired due to attendant urban runoff entering the
aquifers.
The MCMUA has been conducting a vigor-
ous program of ground water research which not
only has led to a better understanding of the
lithologic and hydrogeologic characteristics of
the carbonate aquifers of the Kittatinny Group,
but also has formed the stimulus for the Laming-
ton aquifer investigation. In addition, the
MCMUA maintains a network of observation
wells, which provide extensive data on water
levels in their wellfields.
The need for protection of the aquifers has
been recognized for many years. Research
programs have been underway by the USEP A
and the NJDEPE to gather the data needed to
manage the aquifers more effectively. A great
deal of data has been collected in research
conducted over the past decade, but the pro-
grams are not complete. The NJGS and USGS
Morris County Water Supply Element
are currently studying the Central Passaic,
Rockaway, and Lamington Buried Valley Aqui-
fers. A Potential Aquifer and Recharge Area
Map (Figure 1-2) has been prepared by Camp,
Dresser & McKee Inc. based on information
available from NJGS as of May 1992.
The largest study area as shown on the map
is the Central Passaic Basin. Studies for this
area have progressed the furthest, and more
information is available for this buried valley
system than the Rockaway or Lamington Buried
Valleys. The basin, which extends beyond the
eastern border of Morris County, coincides with
the Piedmont physiographic province, and the
outcrop area of the Mesozoic rocks. The Central
Passaic Basin Buried Valley Aquifer is located
along the eastern border of Morris County from
Pequannock to Parsippany-Troy Hills to Har-
ding and Long Hill Townships.
The Rockaway River Basin study area is
near the geographic center of the county, in the
Highlands physiographic province. The area
overlies the Precambrian crystalline rocks. The
terminal moraine crosses the study area. Its
location generally corresponds with the Roc-
kaway River valley in central Morris County,
extending through the municipalities of Whar-
ton, Dover, Rockaway Borough, Rockaway
Township, and Denville.
The third study area (Long Valley) is located
in the basins of the Larnington and Black Rivers,
near the western border of Morris County, from
Rockaway Township, through Roxbury, Mount
Olive, and Chester Township, to Washington
Township. The area is within the Highlands
province, and overlies the largest of the three
Paleozoic outcrop belts in Morris County.
Unlike the two other study areas, one of the
bedrock formations in this area has the potential
of being a high producing aquifer, in conjunc-
tion with sand and gravel buried valley fill
deposits. An isolated and detached carbonate
aquifer, limited in subsurface extent, has been
identified as Leithsville by Markewicz in the
area of the Foreign Trade Zone in Mount Olive.
Morris County Water Supply Element 1-10
Potential aquifers, outside the three buried
valley study areas, are also shown in Figure 1-2.
One potential carbonate bedrock aquifer is
shown east of the Musconetcong River, in
Mount Olive Township near Netcong. This
Cambro-Ordovician limestone formation, along
with the one shown within the Long Valley
study area, has been studied by the MCMUA as
potential sources of future supply. Additional
aquifer exploration and research in bedrock
aquifer systems has been performed by
MCMUA in the Washington Valley. Results of
all three MCMUA studies indicate the presence
of important potential ground water resources.
Less is known about the potential unconsol-
idated aquifers shown outside the Buried Valley
study areas. These potential water-bearing
zones are based on the thickness of unconsoli-
dated material, as mapped by the NJGS. A
minimum thickness of 50 feet was selected for
mapping unconsolidated sediments, because a
formation less than 50 feet is unlikely to be able
to produce sufficient water to be useful as an
aquifer for municipal water supplies. Some of
the areas depicted, such as the upper portion of
the Larnington River Basin, in Jefferson Town-
ship, have good potential as aquifers, including
thickness (greater than 50 feet), permeable
material (fluvial over lacustrine fan sediments)
and available recharge (the river). A thickness
of more than 50 feet for unconsolidated material
or the existence of a carbonate bedrock forma-
tion does not indicate that a water supply could
be developed within the mapped areas. How-
ever, it would be prudent to consider such areas
Surficial Geology
Surficial Materials
D
Deltaic and Lacustrine
Fan Sediment
Fluvial over Lacustrine
Fan Sediment
D Alluvial Fan Deposits
Fluvial Sediment
Ice-Contact Sediment
D
M 0 U N T
T W P
!7
WASHINGTON TWP
N 0 R T H
0 2 3 4 5 Miles
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 Kilometers
1 inch to 8,300 feet
Morainic Deposits
Till, Lake Sediments,
Weathered Bedrock,
Colluvium
J E F F E
RANDOLPH
CHESTER
T W P
SOURCES:
B 0 R 0
Political Boundaries: MCPB, 1992. 1 :48,000.
Surficial Materials: Stanford, Scott D. (N)GS), 1991.
N D H A M
T W P
[:)
Principal Surficial Materials of Morris County, New Jersey. 1: I 00,000.
Map prepared by:
Camp Dresser & McKee
Morris County Planning Board
ROCKAWAY TWP
MORRIS
T W P
HARDING
LONG HILL
T W P

K I N
ROY HILLS
H A N 0 V E R
1994 Water Supply Master Plan
County of Morris, New Jersey
Morris County Planning Board
Figure 1-1 : Surficial Geology
Potential Aquifers and
Recharge Areas
Aquifers
,----------.
Surficial Material
> 50 feet deep
: : NJGS Buried Valley
I I
: : Aquifer Study Areas
·---------·

D
N 0
NJGS-delineated
Buried Valleys
Carbonate and Marble
Bedrock Aquifers
R T H
M 0 U
~
II
0 2 3 4 5 Miles
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 Kilometers
1 inch to 8,300 feet
NJGS-delineated
Unconfined Aquifers
NJGS-delineated
Semi-Confined Valleys
NJGS-delineated
Semi-Confined
{ dewatered) Aquifers
CHESTER
T W P
SOURCES:
Political Boundaries: MCPB. 1992. 1:48,000.
t
I
' ' I
' I
J E F F E R S 0 N
:fR A N D 0 L P H
,. ____________________________ _
' t
,#'''
• ,,
B 0 R 0
D H A M
T W P
Surficial Material Thickness: Stanford, Scott D., Ronald W. Witte, and David P. Harper (NJGS).
1990. Contoured Thickness of Surtlcial Glacial Deposits of Northern New Jersey. 1:100,000.
NJGS-Delineated Aquifers and Buried Valleys: Hoffman, Jeffrey L. (N]GS), 1991 .
Location of Sand and Gravel Aquifers in the Central Passaic River Basin. 1 :24,000.
Rockaway Valley Study Area: Canace, Robert, Scott Stanford, and David Hall (N]GS), 1991.
DRAFT COPY: Hydrogeologic Framework of the Rockaway River Basin between Wharton and
Montville, Morris County, N] .
Lamington River Study Area: McAuley, Steven D., Robert S. Nicholson, Julia L. Barringer,
and George] . Blyskun. 1990. DRAFT COPY: Evaluation of the Valley-Fill and Carbonate
Rock Aquifers near Long Valley in the New Jersey Highlands: Plan of Study.
Carbonate and Marble Bedrock Aquifers; Markewicz, Frank J. (MCMUA). 1992. Carbonate
Aquifers of Western Morris County and Marble Carbonate Aquifer in Washington Valley. 1:48,000.
Map prepared by: Camp Dresser & McKee, Morris County Planning Board
ROCKAWAY T W P
HARD I NG
KINNELON
1994 Water Supply Master Plan
County of Morris, New Jersey
Morris County Planning Board
Figure 1· 2: Potential Aquifers and
Recharge Areas
as sensitive recharge and potential aquifer areas
until field exploration demonstrates otherwise.
The Buried Valley Systems
A buried valley is a depression in the bed-
rock surface that has been filled with sediment.
Thus, a buried valley aquifer is a buried valley
that meets the definition of an aquifer, i.e. a
formation capable of yielding water in sufficient
quantity and of adequate quality to be economi-
cally useful.
--
-
The presence of a buried valley may
be suspected based on the surrounding
bedrock formations. drainage patterns. and
other factors.
-
-
Because a buried valley is filled with sedi-
ment, its location cannot be observed directly in
the field. The presence of a buried valley may
be suspected based on the surrounding bedrock
formations, drainage patterns, and other factors.
However, direct investigation methods, such as
drilling a test boring or well, or by indirect
methods, such as geophysical techniques, are
necessary to confirm the presence of a buried
valley. A combination of geophysical tech-
niques, such as seismic refraction, gravity
investigations, and electrical resistivity are used
to estimate the depth to bedrock, and tentatively
identify the type of sediment with which the
valley is filled. The only way to confirm that a
buried valley is an aquifer is to evaluate its
water bearing performance using pumping tests.
Pumping tests evaluate the potential perfor-
mance of an aquifer by measuring changes in
water levels in observations wells near the
pumping well.
The long-term performance of an aquifer can
be predicted by use of a numerical simulation on
1-11
a computer. Computer models are being devel-
oped for selected buried valley aquifers in
Morris County by USGS and NJGS. Develop-
ment and calibration of computer models for
buried valley aquifers in the three study areas is
one of the major objectives of the investigations
in progress.
In order to develop water supplies from a
buried valley aquifer in a manner that will allow
long-term use, it is necessary to consider the
source and mechanisms of ground water re-
charge. In general, most recharge to buried
valleys originates from the precipitation that
falls on the valley or its watershed. If surficial
materials are permeable, the water can percolate
directly to an unconfined, or water table aquifer.
If the surficial material is of low permeability,
lesser quantities of water will recharge through
to an underlying confined aquifer. The direction
of ground water flow along the boundary be-
tween the valley fill sediment and the bedrock
could be one of recharge or discharge, depend-
ing on local hydrogeologic conditions.
Without ground water withdrawal an aquifer
system maintains a balance between recharge
and discharge. Once pumping begins, that
balance is altered. Water is withdrawn from
aquifer storage, and as a result, water levels
drop. Lowered water levels may then induce
recharge at a greater rate. For example, if water
is pumped from a valley fill aquifer in hydraulic
connection with a river, recharge from the river
can be induced. If the quality of the river water
is good, a dependable water supply can be
established, assuming the withdrawal rate does
not exceed the base flow of the river. If with-
drawal exceeds recharge on a continuing basis,
eventually the aquifer will be dewatered, and
that water supply will be lost.
A conceptual model can be developed, which
postulates the volume of recharge from sur-
rounding bedrock as well as from rainfall, and
the volume of discharge from the system, either
through pumping or by moving past the bound-
ary of the system. The conceptual model is then
Morris County Water Supply Element
used to assist in development of a computer
model, by defining boundary conditions and an
overall water budget. A model must be cali-
brated (i.e., before the results of a simulation
can be considered reliable). Calibration is
achieved by comparison of computer simula-
tions with historic records. The longer the
calibration run, the more confidence may be
placed in the simulation.
Central Passaic Basin. The buried valley
system in the Central Passaic Basin, which is
shared with Essex County, is the largest, most
studied, and probably the best understood in
Morris County.
An extensive investigation plan for the Basin
was outlined by Hoffman (1989a). The investi-
gation is a joint effort between the NJGS and the
USGS. The goal of the investigation is to pro-
vide a detailed understanding of the
hydrogeology, hydrogeochemistry, and existing
ground water use, from which a reliable three-
dimensional computer model can be developed
and calibrated. That aquifer model can then be
used to assist in planning and managing Central
Passaic Basin ground water supplies.
The extent of the buried valley aquifer sys-
tem in the Central Passaic Basin is delineated in
Figure 1-2, based on preliminary information
available from NJGS. The boundary represents
the current state ofknowledge and investigation
regarding that aquifer's extent. The delineation
has been synthesized by the NJGS from pub-
lished and unpublished data generated by NJGS
and USGS. Portions of the valleys are filled
with highly productive sand and gravel aquifers,
Morris County Water Supply Element 1-12
under confined, semi-confined and water table
conditions.
Portions of the buried valley system in the
Central Passaic Basin are not productive aqui-
fers. For example, a branch of the system
extending from Parsippany-Troy Hills north to
Montville, and two sections of the system south-
west of Chatham are not productive water
bearing elements of the buried valley system.
Although portions of the buried valley sys-
tem are the most productive ground water pro-
ducing elements in the Central Passaic Basin,
bedrock should not be dismissed in this area.
Productive wells have been completed in the
Triassic-Jurassic shale. Furthermore, the bed-
rock and the buried valley aquifer systems are
hydraulically interconnected, so a stress on one
aquifer system can stress the other aquifer.
Modeling has been conducted in the basin in
the past (Meisler, 1976; Hoffman, 1989b). The
existing model is limited in its ability to simu-
late observed drawdown, primarily because flow
to and from the bedrock was not taken into
account.
The conceptual model of the basin (including
the Essex County portion) is of a nearly closed
system. According to the conceptual model,
prior to ground water withdrawals from the area,
bedrock recharge occurred in the uplands be-
yond the basin borders. The path of gground
waterflow in the bedrock was downward from
the recharge areas, and then upward into the
unconsolidated sediments deposited in the
valleys. Ground water would leave the basin
primarily by discharge to the surface, where it is
lost from the basin by river flow, evaporation, or
by subsurface flow through a sediment-filled
valley (the Hobart Gap) in the First Watchung
Mountain, or directly through the fracture sys-
tems in the rocks.
Under the pre-pumping conditions, ground
water elevations in some of the confined aqui-
fers in the central valley were higher than the
ground surface, which resulted in flowing wells.
Years of pumping have lowered water levels
significantly, and have altered the water balance
(
of the basin by allowing water to leave the basin
via transfer of pumped ground water from local
water users to sewage treatment plants discharg-
ing to different drainage basins.
Rockaway Basin. The NJGS began an inves-
tigation of the hydrogeology of the Rockaway
Basin during a drought period in 1980 and 1981
to determine if ground water from the Rockaway
buried valley system could be used to supple-
ment streamflow (Canace, et al., 1983). Addi-
tional investigation, as a cooperative NJGS and
USGS effort is in progress (Schaefer, et al.,
1991 ). Primary investigative tools have been
geologic mapping, compilation of subsurface
data from well and boring records, and geophys-
ical (seismic) techniques.
A confined sand and gravel unit, up to ap-
proximately 30 feet thick, was identified in the
deeper portions of the central Rockaway Basin.
The lower aquifer is then overlain by fme lacus-
trine sediments and glacial till that form an
impediment to recharge. Fluvial and deltaic
sediments overlie the confining sediments to
form an unconfined upper aquifer.
Bedrock beneath all but the eastern portion
of the Rockaway study area is Precambrian
crystalline rock. While there is probably some
interconnection between consolidated and
unconsolidated materials, potential productivity
of the Precambrian rock is much lower than the
Triassic-Jurassic shales.
Long Vallev Study Area. The third of the
ongoing ground water investigation areas is in
an area that overlies primarily Paleozoic rocks,
including an extensive outcrop of the Leithsville
formation. To date, only the USGS/ NJGS plan
of study (McAuley, et al., 1990) has been re-
leased. This plan of study is based, in part, upon
the exploration program conducted by
MCMUA.
Most of the study area is south of the Wis-
consin Terminal Moraine. Valley fill material is
relatively thin, especially in the southern part of
the area. In the northern portion of the study
1-13
area, near Picatinny Lake, valley fill material
exceeds 300 feet.
Two conceptual models for the area are
being investigated by USGS/NJGS. In the
northern half of the valley, north ofFlanders, the
upper unit is a shallow, water table aquifer in
unconsolidated sediment. This overlies a leaky
confining unit, which overlies a confined aquifer
of valley fill material. Beneath the lower con-
fined unconsolidated aquifer is a weathered rock
confining unit, over a limestone aquifer.
In the southern half of the investigation area
is an unconfined valley fill aquifer, over a
weathered rock confming zone, over a confined
limestone aquifer. It is believed that ground
water recharge flows from bedrock ridges,
through the limestone, to the (unconsolidated)
valley fill deposits, although reverse flows may
occur from the unconsolidated sediments to the
limestone in places. Flow relationships will be
investigated as part of the USGS/NJGS study.
1.2 GROUNDWATER
AVAILABILITY/BASE FLOW ANALYSIS
Base flow indicators of ground water avail-
ability in Morris County generally show in-
creasing ground water availability as a concep-
tual point of withdrawal is moved from eastern
to western Morris County. This general obser-
vation is based on a preliminary analysis of
stream base flow, using data obtained from
NJDEPE/NJGS
1
• The NJGS analysis of histori-
cal streamflow records yielded estimates of
stream base flow at several USGS stream gaging
stations. Stream base flow is assumed to be
attributable to ground water discharge, which in
tum is a function of ground water recharge and
pumping. (Please refer to the previous section
1
Data obtained from NJGS in a letter transmitted to
Ray Zabihach, dated June 2, 1992, from Robert
Canace regarding "Ground Water Runoff Rates for
Morris County."
Morris County Water Supply Element
g:
""' :::!.
"'
(j
0
=
=
q
~
~
.....
"'
""' 00
= "0
"0
-<"
tr:l
;-
9
"'
= .....
....
I
....
"""
Map Station Name Period of
Record
---
01379500 Passaic River near 1938-89
Chatham, NJ
2 01380500 Rockaway River at Boonton 1938-89
Reservoir, Boonton, NJ
3 01381500 Whippany River at 1922-89
Morristown, NJ
6 01388500 Pompton River at 1941-89
Pomptom Plains, NJ
7 01389500 Passaic River at 1898-89
Little Falls, NJ
(Map #7 incremental)
8 01456000 Musconetcong River, near 1922-73
Hackettstown, NJ
9 01457000 Musconetcong River, near 1922-89
Bloomsbury, NJ
(Map #9 incremental)
10 01396500 South Branch Raritan River, 1919-89
near High Bridge, NJ
11 01398500 North Branch Raritan River, 1922-75;
near Far Hills, NJ 1978-89
12 01399500 Lamington (Black) River, 1922-89
near Pottersville, NJ
Source: Camp, Dresser and McKee, 1993
Drainage
Area
(sq. mi.)
100
116
29.4
355
762
161.6
70
141
71
65.3
26.2
32.8
Table 1-1
Stream Baseflow
Average
Discharge Posten
(in/yr)
Mean I 1940- 11960-
89 66
23.2 8.14 8.55 5.65
27.0 15.05 14.96 10.88
24.5 13.41 13.83 10.34
18.4 8.97 8.97 6.45
20.6 10.181 9.38 6.13
18.4 0.02 5.98 1.55
22.3 14.79 15.43 10.77
22.7 15.67 16.10 11 .33
23.1 16.54 16.76 11 .88
25.4 14.96 15.24 11 .28
24.9 13.89 14.09 9.80
23.2 14.65 14.81 10.35
Base Flow in inches
Slide Average
Mean I
1940- 11960-
89 66
Mean I
1940- 11966-
89 66
14.71 14.85 10.30 11.43 11 .70 7.98
19.28 19.16 13.93 17.17 17.06 12.41
18.05 18.58 13.78 15.73 16.21 12.06
10.89 10.89 7.82 9.93 9.93 7.14
13.57 12.62 8.07 11 .88 11.00 7.10
13.84 9.26 1.99 11.93 7.62 1.77
18.79 19.32 13.97 16.79 17.38 12.37
18.52 18.93 13.15 17.10 17.52 12.24
18.25 18.55 12.34 17.40 17.65 12.11
18.09 18.28 13.55 16.53 16.76 12.42
18.67 18.86 13.37 16.28 16.48 11 .59
18.01 18.11 12.94 16.33 16.46 11 .65
(
on geology and hydrology for a discussion of
potential aquifer recharge areas.) The stream
base flow estimates obtained from NJGS are
reported in units of inches per year (in/yr),
which represents the depth to which the water
attributable to base flow would be if the total
annual base flow were distributed evenly over
the entire drainage area of the stream. The units
in which base flow is expressed (in/yr) can be
easily converted to cubic feet per second per
square mile (cfs/sq.mi.) of drainage area or any
other "volume per time (flow rate) per (drain-
age) area" units.
Of the stations analyzed by NJGS, ten were
selected whose drainage areas account for a
majority of runoff in Morris County
2
• The
results ofNJGS's base flow analysis are present-
ed in Table 1-1, and depicted spatially in Fig-
ure 1-4. Figure 1-4 shows the areas that exhibit
(a) relatively high base flow (between 1.2 and
1.3 cfs per square mile of drainage area), (b)
relatively moderate base flow (between 1.1 and
1.2 cfs per square mile), or (c) relatively low
base flow (between 0.7 and 0.9 cfs per square
mile). Actual base flows hav'e been grouped
into one of these three ranges for analytical and
presentation purposes. Low, moderate, and high
base flows are determined relative to flows
occurring in Morris County during the m-
onitoring period. There were no stations with
base flows between 0.9 and 1.1 cfs per square
mile.
As seen in Figure 1-4, the stations with
drainage areas in the eastern and extreme north-
em portions of Morris County (stations 1, 6, and
7) exhibited the lowest base flows, relative to
the size of their drainage areas. Stations with
drainage areas in the south-central section of the
county (stations 3, 11, and 12) exhibited moder-
ate base flows, relative to the size of their drain-
age areas. The highest base flows, relative to
the size of the drainage area, are associated with
2
For additional information regarding the NJGS base
flow analysis, please refer to Appendix A.
1-15
drainage areas in the central and western por-
tions of the county (stations 2, 8, 9, and 1 0).
The relative magnitude of the base flow is a
good indicator of potential availability of g-
round water resources. If base flows are high,
then a large amount of ground water is being
discharged to streams. If base flows are low,
then either the aquifer is receiving less recharge,
or much of the water in the aquifer is being
removed through other means (i.e., through
pumping of the aquifer). The second case is
most likely the reason for the apparent trend of
lower base flow amounts in the eastern portion
of the county where a majority of production
wells are located-lower base flow can be
expected to occur in areas with higher pumping.
Base flows are most likely low in the extreme
northern portion of the county due to the ab-
sence of productive aquifers in this area (see
Section 1.1 ).
Another issue in the interpretation of this
base flow data is that the base flow amounts are
calculated using the surface water drainage area
upstream of each gaging station. The actual
ground water drainage divides may not coincide
closely to surface water drainage divides -
especially in the buried valley aquifers. Alter-
ations to the surface topography have occurred
since the time that the buried valleys were
formed, and therefore the surface water may
flow in one direction and the ground water
underneath may flow in a different direction.
Also, the extent of the ground water aquifers in
Morris County Water Supply Element
many cases are not as large as the surface water
drainage area. Thus, because of the broad areal
extent of the information that is available, it is
not possible to determine the actual amount of
recharge to the aquifer and the locations of
recharge within the drainage area from this
analysis.
The relative magnitude of the
base flow is a good indicator of potential
availability of ground water resources.
However, the results of this analysis do show
a definite trend of lower stream base flows in
the eastern portion of Morris County and higher
base flows in the western portion of the county.
These results support and strengthen the conclu-
sion that the eastern portion of Morris County
may be showing signs of overpumping, and that
there may be ground water resources in the
western portion of the county that have a poten-
tial for greater utilization.
1.3 WATER SUPPLY AVAILABILITY
A preliminary review of data on water use
transfers among each of three watersheds (col-
lected for the Statewide Water Supply Master
Plan) indicates that for watersheds in Morris
County transfer of water resources out of the
county greatly exceeds transfer of supplies into
the county. This is largely due to the transfer of
surface water supplies from Jersey City's Boon-
ton Reservoir for use in Jersey City and final
discharge via Jersey City's wastewater treatment
plants out of the Rockaway Basin
3
• The water
3
This analysis is based on data provided by
NJDEPE/Water Supply Element/Bureau of Water
Supply Planning & Policy, from the spreadsheet
entitled "Depletive Water Use for Regional Water
Morris County Water Supply Element 1-16
budget analysis is the first attempt by NJDEPE
to collect such data and has been evaluated as
part of the Statewide Water Supply Master Plan
effort. The data have not been subject to a strict
data review, and the accuracy of water with-
drawal and discharge information as well as
geographic assignments are only approximate.
However, the data do provide general insight
into water resource management issues in Mor-
ris County.
A preliminary review of this data indicates
that there are some discrepancies between
reported withdrawal rates and actual withdrawal
rates. Also, the database obtained for this pro-
ject includes only data for which the associated
discharge or withdrawal location was in Morris
County. There are two reservoirs that form part
of the northern boundary of Morris County (Oak
Ridge Reservoir and Charlotteburg Reservoir)
which are not included in this analysis because
the withdrawal locations from these reservoirs
are in Passaic County.
The current revision of the Statewide Water
Supply Master Plan establishes a set of regional
water resource planning areas (R WRP As) across
the state, three of which cover parts of Morris
County (numbers 4, 8, and 10). The boundaries
between these three R WRP As within Morris
County are the watershed divides between the
Passaic, Delaware, and Raritan Rivers. The
Statewide Water Supply Master Plan considers
any diversion of water (ground or surface)
within one R WRP A and discharge to another
R WRP A as a depletive water use within that
basin. Also, the Statewide Water Supply Master
Plan assumes that half of any water diverted for
agricultural use (including golf courses and
parks) is lost to evapotranspiration or uptake,
and thus is also a depletive water use.
Resource Planning Areas (R WRP As)" resulting from
the Statewide Water Supply Master Plan Revision
Study. Average water usage was reported for 1986 to
1989. The spreadsheet was named
MASTERWW.WK3, and was dated 16-July-1992.
1 0 ~
Stream Base Flow
D
D
Relatively High Base Flow
(between 1.2 and 1.3 cfs/sq. mi.)
Relatively Moderate Base Flow
(between 1.1 and 1.2 cfs/sq. mi.)
Relatively Low Base Flow
(between 0.7 and 0.9 cfs/sq. mi .)
Data Inconclusive
~ USGS Gaging Station
~ Drainage Divide Line
[NOTE: See Appendix A for Gaging Station Area Descriptions.]
N 0 R T H
0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 Kilometers
1 inch to 8,300 feet
T W P
~ 11
SOURCES:
Political Boundaries: MCPB, 1992. I :48,000.
Drainage Divides: USGS, 1988. Drainage Basin Divides for New Jersey. I :24,000.
Base Flow Rates: NJGS, 1992. Ground-water Runoff Rates for Morris County.
Map prepared by:
Camp Dresser & McKee
Morris County Planning Board
HARDING
LONG HILL
T W P
MONTVILLE
PARK
IP PANY-TROY HI I.:.LS
H A N 0 V E R
P A R K
T W P
E A S T
1994 Water Supply Master Plan
County of Morris, New Jersey
Morris County Planning Board
Figure 1-4: Stream Base Flow
Surface Water Features
and Drainage Basins
~ Major Rivers
~ _ Primary Drainage Divide
~ ~ (Passaic, Raritan, Delaware)
~ Secondary Rivers ~ Secondary Drainage Divide
~ Minor Streams ~ Major Tertiary Drainage Divide
Lakes, Ponds, Reservoirs
N 0 R T H
RARITAN
0 2 3
0 2 3 4 5
1 inch to 8,300 feet
4 5 Miles
6 7 Kilometers
SOURCES:
Political Boundaries: MCPB, 1992, 1 :48,000.
Drainage Divides: USGS, 1988. Drainage Basin Divides for New Jersey. 1:24,000.
Map Prepared By:
Camp Dresser & McKee
Morris County Planning Board

.
.
~
1994 Water Supply Master Plan
County of Morris, New Jersey
Morris County Planning Board
Figure 1-l: Surface Water Features and
Drainage Basins
For this analysis, transfers into and out of
Morris County were evaluated, as well as
transfers between RWRPAs. Approximately 20
percent of the transfers of water into the county
involve transfers across R WRP As, and are thus
depletive; approximately 98 percent of the
transfers of water out of the county involve
transfers across R WRP As.
1.3.1 County-wide Transfers-Out of
Morris County
According to preliminary NJDEPE data, the
total water transfer out of Morris County from
sources within the county is 54.3 MGD. Surface
water sources make up more than 90% of this
amount (50.3 MGD); ground water supplies are
the source of less than 1 0% of transfers out of
the county ( 4.1 MGD). Diverters within Morris
County who discharge outside of Morris County
are listed below.
6 Jersey City withdraws 49.6 MGD from
the Boonton Reservoir on the Rockaway
River (in Boonton Town). Of this water,
1.1 MGD is discharged at the Caldwell
Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) in Essex
County, 2.0 MGD is discharged at
Passaic Valley Water Commission's
treatment plant in Newark, 8.0 MGD is
discharged at the Hoboken STP, and 38.5
MGD is discharged at Jersey City's STP
#1 and #2.
6 East Orange City pumps 3.5 MGD from
stratified drift wells within Florham Park
1-17
Borough. This water is discharged at
PVSC's treatment plant in Newark.
6 Hackettstown MUA withdraws 0.65
MGD from the Musconetcong River in
Mount Olive Township and Washington
Township, and pumps 0.6 MGD from the
Kittatinny limestone in Washington
Township. This water is discharged at
the Hackettstown MUA treatment plant
in Warren County.
6 Additionally, the City of Newark with-
draws water from the Charlotteburg
Reservoir (located along the northern
border of Rockaway Township) and the
Oak Ridge Reservoir (located along the
northern border of Jefferson Township).
From a standpoint ofRWRPAs, over 98% of
the total out-of-county water transfer (53.3
MGD) also involves a transfer from one
R WRP A to another. All of the ground water
pumped from aquifers inside Morris County and
discharged to surface waters in Essex, Hudson,
and Warren Counties is transferred from one
RWRPA to another. Almost 98% of the surface
water withdrawn within Morris County and
discharged outside ofthe county (49.2 MGD) is
discharged to a different major drainage basin
than the major basin from which it was
withdrawn.
1.3.2 County-wide Transfers-Into
Morris County
According to preliminary NJDEPE data, the
total water transfer into Morris County from
sources outside of the county between 1986 and
1989 was 6.5 MGD. However, the majority of
these water transfers into the county are supplies
which are used outside the county, but are
pumped to wastewater treatment plants that dis-
charge to rivers bordering the county. Thus,
most of these water transfers do not serve to
increase the availability of water supply for
Morris County. Surface water supplies com-
prise approximately 60% of transfers into
Morris County Water Supply Element
Morris County (4.1 MGD), while ground water
supplies are the source of the remaining 40%
(2.3 MGD). Out-of-county diverters who
discharge (release water back to the surface
water or ground water system) within Morris
County are listed below.
0 NJ American Water Company withdraws
2.2 MGD from the Upper Passaic/Canoe
Brook watershed in Millburn Township
in Essex County. Of this water, 1.0 MGD
is discharged to the Passaic Township
STP, and 1.2 MGD is discharged to the
Chatham STP.
0 Fairfield Township in Essex County
withdraws 0.7 MGD from stratified drift
wells. This water is discharged to the
Two Bridges STP in Lincoln Park.
0 Passaic Valley Water Commission diverts
1.4 MGD from the Passaic River in Little
Falls Township in Passaic County. This
water is discharged to the Two Bridges
STP in Lincoln Park.
0 The City of Newark diverts 0.5 MGD
from the Pequannock River in West Mil-
ford Township in Passaic County. This
water is discharged to the Two Bridges
STP in Lincoln Park.
0 Sparta Township in Sussex County
pumps 1.0 MGD from wells in the Kitt-
atinny limestone. This water is dis-
charged to the Musconetcong STP.
0 Hopatcong Borough in Sussex County
pumps 0.4 MGD from a bedrock aquifer
(pre-Cambrian gneiss). This water is
discharged to the Musconetcong STP.
0 Stanhope Borough in Sussex County
pumps 0.2 MGD from a bedrock aquifer
(pre-Cambrian Franklin limestone). This
water is discharged to the Musconetcong
STP.
From a standpoint ofRWRPAs, 70% ofthe
total water transfers into Morris County ( 4.6
MGD) also involves a transfer from one
RWRPA to another. Sixty percent of the ground
Morris County Water Supply Element 1-18
water pumped from aquifers outside the county
and discharged to surface waters in Morris
County (1.4 MGD) remains in the same
RWRPA, thus only 40% (1.0 MGD) is consid-
ered depletive. However, about 90% of the
surface water withdrawn outside the county and
discharged within Morris County (3.61 MGD) is
discharged to a different major drainage basin
than the major basin from which it was
withdrawn.
A major project is being constructed which
will significantly increase the amount of water
being transferred into Morris County. The New
Jersey-American Water Company (NJ-
American) is in the process of developing an
extensive regional interconnection project,
known as the WaterSource Project. The project
was initiated because of the increasing demand
for water in the areas currently obtaining water
from the Passaic Buried Valley Aquifer system
which is suffering from ground water depletion.
NJ-American has obtained the right to
purchase up to 25 MGD from the Passaic Valley
Water Commission (PVWC). An 18 mile long
pipeline is being built from an extension of the
PVWC system in West Caldwell and will enter
Morris County through East Hanover. The
portion of the pipeline in Morris County will
extend from East Hanover through Florham
Park, Madison, and Chatham Township. The
pipeline was also to extend through Harding
Township into Bernards Township to serve NJ-
American's Somerset County customers; how-
ever, that project has been eliminated.
The Southeast Morris County MUA has
entered into an agreement to purchase up to six
(6) MGD from NJ-American through their
WaterSource Project. East Hanover, Florham
Park and Madison have emergency interconnec-
tion agreements. Once the pipeline was com-
pleted, the NJ-American well in Florham Park
was removed from service and NJ-American
now uses out-of-county water to serve the Sam-
mis Corporate Center and an area along Park
Avenue in the borough. NJ-American directly
serves customers in Chatham Township, Long
(
Hill Township, Mendham Borough and parts of
Mendham Township.
The WaterSource Project will potentially
more than double the total amount of water
transferred into the county. In addition, NJ-
American has recently purchased the Mendham
Borough water franchise. An interconnection
completed in 1992 from the Mendham Borough
system with NJ-American's system in Bernards-
ville allows out-of-county water to be used for
supplementing the borough's system daily.
1.3.3 County-wide Transfers-Water
Budget
Based on the information available regarding
the location and quantity of water diversion and
water discharge, 54.3 MGD was taken from
sources within Morris County (between 1986
and 1989) and was used and discharged outside
of the county. Only 6.5 MGD was taken from
sources outside Morris County and discharged
(as wastewater) within the county. Thus, Morris
County experienced a net loss of 47.9 million
gallons of water each day. More than 90% of
the water that is transferred out of the county
comes from the Boonton Reservoir. Nearly all
of the water that is transferred out of the county
is withdrawn from the center of Morris County,
and discharged far distant from its source, with
no chance of recharging the county's ground and
surface water supplies.
Nearly all of the water that is transferred into
the county is discharged as wastewater to either
the Pompton River, the Passaic River, or the
Musconetcong River, all of which are larger
rivers, and all of which are on the boundaries of
Morris County. Both of these factors suggest
that only a very small amount of the into-county
transfer of water has the potential to recharge
the county's water supplies.
1-19
1.3.4 Major Intra-County Water
Transfers
Most of the water that is used within Morris
County is not discharged in a manner that has
the potential to effectively recharge the water
supply from which it was removed, mostly
because it involves withdrawals from ground
water and discharges to major surface water-
ways. However, a portion of the discharges may
have the potential to effectively recharge other
water supply sources (either downstream or
within a different drainage basin). Nearly all
discharges in Morris County are to surface water
bodies--only agricultural uses and lawn and
garden water use are discharged to the land and
thus potentially percolate to the various ground
water systems in the county. The degree to
which the surface waters in Morris County are
potential sources of recharge to ground water
aquifers is not currently known. However,
surface water bodies in the county are most
often fed by ground water, instead of the surface
water recharging the aquifer.
A more likely scenario of a surface water
body acting as a source of water to the ground
water system is through induced recharge
caused by pumping water from an aquifer near
a surface water body. Ground water pumping
proximate to a surface waterway can cause a
drawdown in the aquifer which can locally cause
water to be drawn from the surface water body
into the aquifer to replace the water pumped out
of the well.
1.3.5 Conclusion
Approximately 101 MGD of water is
withdrawn from surface supplies (54 MGD) and
ground water sources (47 MGD) in Morris
County. More than half of the total water
withdrawal, and almost all of the surface water
withdrawal, is transferred out of Morris County.
(Jersey City has recently discussed making
Morris County Water Supply Element
surface water supplies from Boonton Reservoir
available within Morris County.)
1.4 SURFACE WATER
The majority of the water used in Morris
County is derived from underground sources.
However, a substantial amount of surface water
exists in Morris County. The county is bordered
on the east and south by the Passaic River, on
the north and east by the Pequannock and Pomp-
ton Rivers, and on the west by Lake Hopatcong
and the Musconetcong River. The Rockaway
and Whippany Rivers traverse the eastern half
of the county, draining into the Passaic River.
The Lamington (Black) River and the North and
South Branches of the Raritan River drain the
south-western portion of the county. There are
several reservoirs located in Morris County that
provide substantial amounts of drinking
water-Clyde Potts Reservoir, Boonton (Jersey
City) Reservoir, Split Rock Reservoir, Taylor-
town Reservoir, Kakeout Reservoir, Charlotte-
burg Reservoir, and Oak Ridge Reservoir.
However, all but three of these reservoirs
provide water for residents outside of Morris
County.
1.4.1 Drainage Basins
Morris County is divided into three primary
drainage basins: the Raritan, Passaic, and
Delaware River basins (see Figure 1-3). These
three primary drainage basins are further divided
on Figure 1-3 into secondary and major tertiary
drainage basins.
The Passaic River and its major tributaries
(the Pompton, Pequannock, Rockaway and
Whippany Rivers) drain the eastern section of
the county. The Passaic River flows eastward
from Morris County and discharges to Newark
Bay. The tributaries of the Raritan River in
Morris County (the Lamington, North Branch
Raritan, and South Branch Raritan Rivers) drain
the south-western portion of the county. The
Raritan River flows southward from Morris
Morris County Water Supply Element 1-20
County and discharges to Raritan Bay. The
Musconetcong River, a tributary of the Dela-
ware River, drains the western portion of the
county. The Musconetcong River flows south-
westward from Morris County and discharges
into the Delaware River, which discharges into
Delaware Bay.
1.4.2 Surface Water Supply Sources
The Major surface water sources in Morris
County are described below.
() The Taylortown Reservoir is located in
Kinnelon and Montville, and provides
water to the Town of Boonton Water
Department. This reservoir has a maxi-
mum yield of 1.0 million gallons per day
(MGD) and a safe yield of 0.7 MGD.
The average withdrawal rate for 1989 and
1990 was 0.6 MGD.
() The Kakeout Reservoir is located in Kin-
nelon, and provides water to the Butler
Water Company. The Butler Water
Company has a diversion permit to
withdraw a maximum of 124 million
gallons per month ( 4.1 MGD), the safe
yield determined for the reservoir. The
average withdrawal rate for 1989 and
1990 was 0.7 MGD.
() The Clyde Potts Reservoir is located in
Mendham Township, and provides water
to the Southeast Morris County MUA.
SMCUA has a diversion permit to with-
draw a maximum of 4.0 MGD. This
reservoir has a safe yield of 2.0 MGD.
The average withdrawal rate for 1989
was approximately 2.0 MGD.
() The Split Rock and Boonton (Jersey City)
Reservoirs constitute a reservoir system
that provides water to the Jersey City
Water Department. The Split Rock
Reservoir is located in Rockaway Town-
ship and the Boonton Reservoir is located
in Parsippany-Troy Hills Township. The
safe yield of this reservoir system is 62
(
'-
MGD. The average withdrawal rate from
the Boonton Reservoir between 1986 and
1989 was 49.6 MGD. Jersey City has
recently agreed to make up to 7.5 MGD
of treated surface water supply from
Boonton Reservoir available to Morris
CountyMUA.
1-21
6J The Charlotteburg Reservoir in Rocka-
way Township and the Oak Ridge Res-
ervoir in Jefferson Township provide
water to the City ofNewark Water De-
partment. These two reservoirs are part
of a system of reservoirs with a combined
safe yield of 55 MGD.
Morris County Water Supply Element
CHAPTER TWO
Existing Water Supply Facilities
As of 1990, 78 public community systems
1
supplied water within Morris County which,
along with Sussex County, has the largest
number of such systems in New Jersey. Based
on a questionnaire distributed to each known
purveyor and reports generated by the NJDEPE,
1
Assessing New Jersey's Drinking Water Quality; A
Status Report on the Implementation of the 1984
Amendments to the New Jersey Safe Drinking Water
Act (A-280): (1984- 1990), Bono, Krietzman, and
McGeorge, NJDEPE, August 1992
2-1
information was obtained on 4 7 water systems
2

The location of the principal piping components
of the water distribution system, the system
wells, and storage facilities are mapped in
Figure 2-1.
2
Information was not available and/or could not be
obtained for the remaining 31 water systems. Most
of these systems are extremely small and serve trailer
parks, individual establishments, or schools. Because
of their size, the water systems are not required to
obtain a water allocation permit from the NJDEPE
and must only report to the Bureau of Safe Drinking ·
Water. The diversion of water by these systems
constitute a very small percentage of the total
diversion of supplies in the county.
Morris County Water Supply Element
The individual water systems range from the
Southeast Morris County Municipal Utilities
Authority (SMCMUA) which serves 20,790
dwellings in six municipalities to the Mountain
Shores Water Company which serves 29
dwellings in a small section of Jefferson
Township. Morris County has an unusually
large number of small community systems
supplying water within its area. Of the 4 7
purveyors surveyed, 18 served less than 3,300
people; of these 18 systems, 13 served less than
500 people. Information obtained from each of
the public community systems relating to their
existing facilities is presented in Appendix B.
Public community systems serve approxi-
mately 82% of the total housing units in Morris
County. Municipalities in the eastern portion of
the county have more extensive infrastructure
systems, while the less densely developed
western area of the county has a higher percent-
age of individual on-site wells. While every
municipality has a public system located within
its jurisdiction, the extent and type of service
provided varies from town to town. The follow-
ing sections provide a description of the water
supply sources as well as an overview of the
public community water systems serving each of
the municipalities in Morris County. Where
applicable, a description of provisions within
municipal master plans and/or development
regulations which were designed to protect
potable water resources, is also included in each
narrative.
2.1 BOONTON TOWN
The Town ofBoonton is
solely served by its own
water department. The
town receives its water
supply from both ground
water and surface water
sources: a wellfield located
in Boonton Township and a reservoir located in
both Kinnelon and Montville.
Morris County Water Supply Element 2-2
According to the Town of Boonton Water
Department, there were 2,638 residential con-
nections and 20 industrial connections (small
portions of Boonton Township and Montville
included) in 1991. Boonton Town has 15 units
served by on-site wells.
In 1981, when Morris County conducted its
previous water supply master plan update,
Boonton Town's sources of water supply were
deemed inadequate for its future demand. Since
then, a new well has been added to the four
wells within the town's wellfield in Boonton
Township, assuring adequate supply to meet
projected year 2010 demands.
2.2 BOONTON TOWNSHIP
The predominant
source of water in
Boonton Township is the
individual on-site well,
with over 80% of the total
dwelling units using this
type of supply according
to the 1990 Census. Most of the on-site well
users are located in the northern portion of the
township. Presently, there are no plans to
extend water service into this area.
The remaining housing units are connected
to a public water supply system. The Town of
Boonton provides most of the public supply
connections. Service is provided to an area
along Boonton A venue extending out of the
Town of Boonton to Montville and an area
along the main water transmission line from the
Town of Boonton wellfield almost to the
Denville municipal line. Denville Township
provides water service to two neighborhoods
west of the Boonton wellfields. Mountain Lakes
is the third public water supply system which
provides limited water service in the township
along their common border. Finally, Boonton
Township services an area referred to as "Water
District #1" which extends from the Boonton
Town border along Powerville Road. The
Existing Water Supply
Facilities and Served Areas
Served Areas 0 Public Supply Wells
Surface Water Supplies • Water Storage Facilities
Lake
Stockholm
~
~ G
.Jefferson,....... 4
J E F F E R S 0 N
N
0
0
Mains over 12 inches
~ Mains 1 0 and 12 inches
~ Key Mains less than 1 0 inches
0
1
West M
.Jersey
Water
WAS HI NG TO N
R T H
2 3 4 5 Miles
2 3 4 5 6 7 Kilometers
1 inch to 8,300 feet
" Mt.
Olive
Villages
C H E S T
T W P
SOURCES:
Political Boundaries and Water Facilities: MCPB, 1992.
Served areas deli neated by CDM and MCPB staff.
Map Prepared By:
Camp Dresser & McKee
Morris County Planning Board
ROCKAWAY TWP
Rockaway Twp
, AR DI NG
\ The
Lakeshore
Company
re:--- East
Hanover
1994 Water Supply Master Plan
County of Morris, New Jersey
Morris County Planning Board
Figure 2-1 : Existing Water Supply
Facilities and Served Areas
township purchases bulk water from the Town
of Boonton.
Since the mid 1970s, several studies of the
Rockaway River valley have been done by area
municipalities to determine and define the
aquifer systems. Boonton Township has incor-
porated information from these studies into both
their master plan and land use ordinance. The
1988 re-examination report recommends that
township planning should take water quality into
consideration and that "protection of the
extensive ground water aquifer in the valley area
is vital to the future health of the community. "
Within the land use ordinance, identified aquifer
recharge areas are considered environmentally
sensitive areas where the maximum permitted
residential density is one dwelling unit per 3.5
acres.
2.3 BUTLER BOROUGH
Most of Butler is served
by the Butler Water
Company, which provides
water to 2,632 dwellings,
according to the 1990
Census. The borough is the
only municipality in Morris
County that is solely dependent on a surface
water supply, the Kakeout Reservoir located in
Kinnelon. According to the water company, the
reservoir is believed to be adequate to meet
projected year 2010 demands.
A small portion of the borough's residents,
approximately 118 dwellings or four percent of
the total housing units, rely on individual wells.
There are no known incidents of ground water
contamination.
2-3
2.4 CHATHAM BOROUGH
The entire borough is
served by the Chatham
Water Department, which
serves 2, 712 residential
connections, 168
commercial connections
and one public connection
as of October 1991. The water department
obtains its water supply from three public wells
within Chatham Borough. The wells are
situated north of Main Street (Route 124) and
off of Van Doran A venue. According to the
Chatham Water Department, the borough's three
wells are adequate to meet both present and
projected year 2010 demands.
According to the 1990 Census, Chatham
Borough is the only municipality in the county
with no individual on-site wells. All 3,154
housing units are served by public water and
sewer systems.
In order to conserve ground water resources,
borough residents practice voluntary odd-even
day outside use ofwater. Chatham Borough is
currently working to incorporate a ground water
protection ordinance into the borough's regula-
tions. The borough has also applied for grant
from the New Jersey Wellhead Protection
Program.
2.5 CHATHAM TOWNSHIP
An overwhelming
majority of Chatham
Township's housing units
(98% or 3,659 units) are
served by public water
systems, according to the
1990 Census. Public
water service extends almost throughout
Chatham Township except for the area
constituting the Great Swamp National Wildlife
Refuge.
Morris County Water Supply Element
Chatham Township's potable water is almost
totally supplied by the NJ-American Water
Company with 2,656 residential customers and
119 commercial customers. The company's
sources of water supply are all located outside of
the township. Approximately 21 customers on
Loantaka Way and Loantaka Lane are supplied
by SMCMUA, whose sources of water are also
located outside the township.
A number of homes rely on individual wells
for their water supply. The 1990 Census
estimates that 70 housing units are served by
individual on-site wells. Some of these wells
are on sections of River Road by the Passaic
River and near the Mountainview Road area
north of the Chatham Township Municipal
Building. The residents not served by public
water in the Mountainview Road area are
currently sewered. The sections of River Road
not served by public water, however, are not
currently sewered. According to Chatham
Township's proposed March 1991 Wastewater
Management Plan, currently under review by
NJDEPE, the River Road areas are eligible to
receive sewer service in the future.
2.6 CHESTER BOROUGH
The Borough of
Chester is solely served by
the Chester Water Depart-
ment, which has 100
residential and 12
commercial customers in
the municipality. The
system currently consists of two active wells
and two new, but still inactive, wells. The
system serves the area between Hillside Avenue
and Route 206 to Main Street, the Shadow
Woods development where one active well is
located, and the Olde Chester Towne devel-
opment where the two new wells area located.
According to the 1990 Census, Chester Borough
has 338 housing units served by on-site wells.
Morris County Water Supply Element 2-4
Although the supply and storage capacity of
water has been increased, there is concern that
an increase in demand for water, especially by
new development, cannot be met by the existing
system. Chester Borough is now before the
NJDEPE to activate the two wells at the Olde
Chester Towne development. At this time, the
borough is totally dependent on its own ground
water supplies; there are no interconnections
with other systems. The underlying geology is
very unpredictable for drilling wells with a
reasonable yield. Two wells were necessary at
the Olde Chester Towne development because
the yield of the first well drilled was too low.
A report entitled The Hydrogeologic Assess-
ment for Chester Borough, New Jersey prepared
by Geraghty & Miller, Inc., was incorporated
into the borough's 1986 Master Plan. The
purpose of the assessment was to determine if
the minimum 1/2 acre lot size required in two
residential zones was adequate for maintaining
ground water quality and supply. Recharge and
nitrate dilution were used as the determining
factors. Based on available studies and field
investigations, the consultant recommended a
minimum residential lot size of 1.75 acres due to
the recharge and assimilative capacity of the
underlying Precambrian bedrock.
The borough's land development regulations
contain provisions for the conservation and
protection of ground water. As an incentive to
conserve and recharge ground water supplies, a
proposed residential development can receive a
density bonus if measures such as low flow or
non-aqueous toilets, flow restricted showers,
swales, and on-site retention basins are incor-
porated into the project. By utilizing these
measures, a developer can halve the minimum
conventional lot size. Incorporation of ground
water protection measures are also required in
order to obtain the density bonus. If community
or individual water systems are used, monitoring
wells are required to measure the level and
quality of the ground water supply. If sewage
effluent is to be used as ground water recharge,
at least 80% of the nitrates must be removed
from the effluent prior to recharge.
2. 7 CHESTER TOWNSHIP
Only two very small
portions of Chester
Township are served by
public water systems. The
Randolph Township MUA
provides water to ten resi-
dential customers on Selma
Boulevard located in the
north-east section of the township adjacent to
the Randolph border. The Elizabethtown Water
Company serves 19 residential customers along
Old Chester Gladstone Road from the Peapack-
Gladstone boundary to Fox Chase Road.
Presently, the source, treatment, and storage of
water provided by the two purveyors are all
located outside of the township.
Formerly, the Elizabethtown Water Compa-
ny customers had been served by the Peapack-
Gladstone Water Department which had as its
source a reservoir located in the township. The
reservoir and the surrounding property was pur-
chased by Chester Township in 1982 and is now
known as Tiger Brook Park.
The majority of the residences and all busi-
nesses rely on individual on-site wells. Ac-
cording to the 1990 Census, Chester Township
has 1,911 housing units served by on-site wells.
All residences and businesses, with the excep-
tion ofWelkind Hospital, also rely on individual
on-site septic systems. The Chester Township
master plan notes that there have been very few
problems with the dependency on private wells
because of the low density of development and
the general availability of ground water
resources in the developed areas.
The master plan also contains recommenda-
tions to protect the ground water supply. To
maintain adequate recharge, the master plan
recommends a two acre minimum lot size for
areas underlain by granitic crystalline rock
2-5
aquifers and a one acre minimum lot size for
areas underlain by carbonate rock and glacial
drift aquifers.
Because of the dependency on ground water,
the township is concerned with any existing or
potential threats to the quality and supply of its
source. Portions of Chester Township have
already been adversely impacted by ground
water contamination. The 65 acre Combe Fill
South Landfill, located in the western portion of
the township and extending into Washington
Township, is listed as a federal Superfund site.
Approximately 130 residences and businesses
are located in the affected area and cannot use
their wells. Studies are currently underway to
assess the feasibility of obtaining water from the
Washington Township Municipal Utilities
Authority.
Another source of contamination is the Sim-
monds Precision site located adjacent to the
Black River Wildlife Management Area.
Pollutants including perchloroethylene (PCE)
and trichloroethylene (TCE) were found in the
company's lagoon and well. The NJDEPE
required the well to be closed and recommended
that residents in the affected area not to consume
their well water.
Another concern listed in the township's
master plan is the Morris County Municipal
Utilities Authority's (MCMUA) Alamatong
Wellfield, a small portion of which · is located
just north of the Black River Wildlife
Management Area. The Black River (a.k.a.
Lamington River) is currently being considered
for inclusion in the New Jersey Wild and Scenic
Rivers System. If included in the system, water
quality and flow standards would be established
which would regulate the amount of ground
water withdrawn from the headwaters of the
river.
Morris County Water Supply Element
2.8 DENVILLE TOWNSHIP
Denville Township's
public water supply is
provided primarily by the
Denville Township Water
Department. Small
portions of the township
receive their supply from
the water departments and municipal utility
authorities of neighboring municipalities
including Rockaway Borough, Randolph
Township, and Parsippany-Troy Hills. In 1981,
the Denville Township Water Department had a
total of 4,352 connections of which 3,998 were
residential (including those living in areas
outside Denville). By 1989, the total increased
to 4,953 with 4,513 residential connections.
According to the 1990 Census, only 260 housing
units rely on on-site wells.
Water supply is obtained from five wells
located in the glacial moraine which is part of a
federally designated sole source aquifer (see pg.
1-1 ). Three wells are located near the
Rockaway River northwest of the central
business district. One abandoned and two active
wells are located in adjacent Randolph
Township also near the Rockaway River. There
is a concern that the supply may not be adequate
to meet the year 2010 demand according to the
response to the County's water supply question-
naire.
In addition to Denville's wells, two back-up
wells owned by Mountain Lakes are located
along the Rockaway River in the Valley section
of the township.
Ground water contamination in the form of
volatile organic compounds was found in one of
the wells located in Randolph Township. An air
stripper was installed to remove the pollutants.
The potential flow of ground water contami-
nation along the northeastern border of Denville
with Rockaway Township is being observed
through the use of monitoring wells installed in
the township.
Morris County Water Supply Element 2-6
In order to protect the sole source aquifer
from adverse development impacts, an "Aquifer
Sensitive Area Overlay Zone District" (ASA)
was created and included in Denville's develop-
ment regulations. The provisions require all
new residential development, as a condition of
approval, to connect to a central sewer system.
If sewers are not available, the minimum lot size
of three acres per dwelling unit is required. All
non-residential uses are also required to connect
to a sewer system. However, where sewers may
not be available, a non-residential use may
utilize a closed holding tank disposal system
approved by the NJDEPE.
2.9 DOVER TOWN
Almost all of Dover is
served by the Dover Water
Commission with 5,245
residential, 69 industrial,
693 commercial and 61
public connections. The
Commission has all four of
its wells situated within Dover: three wells are
located in the northwest section adjacent to the
Rockaway River and the fourth well is located
off of Hooey Street in the eastern section of the
town. The Hooey Street well is presently not in
use because of volatile organic contamination.
An air stripper is being installed to remove the
contamination so that the well can be placed
back into production. The source of the
contamination is not known.
According to the 1990 Census, only 23 hous-
ing units rely on individual on-site wells. The
location of these units are not known based on
the availability of public water supply through-
out the town. The town is also almost com-
pletely sewered. Because Dover is close to
being fully developed, sufficient water should
be available to meet future demands according
to the Water Commission sources.
Dover's development regulations contain a
few provisions related to the protection of the
(
ground water supply. Within the zoning ordi-
nance, a performance standard requires that "No
light manufacturing use shall be permitted
which will endanger the water supply system in
any manner" within a light industrial zone. In
addition, in 1982 because of the Rockaway
Valley Regional Sewerage Authority sewer
hook-up ban, an ordinance was adopted which
required a minimum lot size of 10,000 square
feet for newly created lots which were to be
served by a septic system.
2.10 EAST HANOVER TOWNSHIP
Almost the entire
township is served by the
East Hanover Water
Department. The area
south of the Morristown &
Erie Railroad is com-
pletely served, while the
area north of the railroad contains residential on-
site well users scattered throughout. The East
Hanover Water Department indicates that as of
November 1, 1991, 2,626 residential customers
were connected to its water lines, as well as 256
industrial and commercial users and 18 public
connections. The 1990 Census estimates that
approximately 440 dwellings, less than 15% of
the total number, utilize on-site wells.
The township water department obtains its
water from three wells located within the
township: two are on Melanie Lane near Route
10 and Ridgedale A venue while the other is at
Homestead A venue and Wildwood A venue. In
1984, one ofthe township's wells on Melanie
Lane was discovered to be contaminated with
volatile organic compounds. Subsequently,
contamination was also found in 80 private
wells. Over 31 industries have been cited as
allegedly contributing to the widespread
contamination of the ground water in the
township.
An air stripper has been installed to remove
the volatile organic compounds from the town-
2-7
ship well and because of the contamination,
many homes originally on individual wells
hooked into the township's system. Because the
existing public water system was not adequate
to accommodate all additional demands,
ordinances placing moratoriums on all develop-
ment applications and building permits were
adopted by the East Hanover Township Com-
mittee in December 1988. The New Jersey
Council on Affordable Housing had also placed
the township under a Scarce Resource Restraint
in order to reserve water for affordable housing
developments.
According to the East Hanover Water
Department, normal demands of the township
can currently be met but the sources of supply
may become inadequate in meeting peak de-
mands during the summer months. The current
available supply may also not be able to ac-
commodate future demands. In order to
supplement the ex1stmg supply, an
interconnection with the WaterSource Project
was made at Melanie Lane.
2.11 FLORHAM PARK BOROUGH
Almost all of the
borough is connected to
public water systems. A
total of 3,013 residential
dwellings, over 99% of
the total housing units,
and 1 71 industrial/
commercial customers in the borough are served
by public water systems. The majority of
connections are served by the Florham Park
Water Department with 2,913 residential
customers and 142 industrial and commercial
customers, as of January 1992. There are three
residential areas where water service is provided
by other public water systems. A Ward Place
condominium development and the Sammis
office development off Park Avenue are served
by the NJ-American Water Company. Thirty-
one residential customers west of Park A venue
Morris County Water Supply Element
and north of Punch Bowl Road are connected to
SMCMUA, while nine users on Carrigan Lane
and Burnet Road are served by the Madison
Water Department.
All of the purveyors serving Florham Park
except the NJ-American Water Company, use
ground water as their source of water supply.
The three wells operated by the Florham Park
Water Department are located near Elm Street
south of Columbia Turnpike. NJ-American
Water Company had a well (retired in 1992 and
sealed) located east of Park Ave. and south of
Columbia Turnpike. SMCMUA's and Madi-
son's sources are all located outside of the
borough.
A number of individual well users are
scattered throughout the community, notably on
Brooklake Road, Passaic Road, and Summit
Road. The 1990 Census estimates that the bor-
ough has 39 dwellings served by on-site wells.
Some of the non-residential well users are the
Hamilton Park complex, the College of St.
Elizabeth and Fairleigh Dickinson University.
According to the Florham Park Water
Department, as of January 1992, there is no
known ground water contamination in the
borough. The Department also believes that its
sources of supply are adequate to meet both
present and projected year 2010 demands. NJ-
American Water Company's use of a temporary
well off of Park Avenue was discontinued when
the interconnection was made with its system in
Chatham Township as part of its WaterSource
Project.
2.12 HANOVER TOWNSHIP
Nearly all of Hanover
Township is served by
public water obtained
from SMCMUA. Accord-
ing to SMCMUA, as of
summer 1992, there were
approximately 4,163
connections in Hanover served by the Authority
Morris County Water Supply Element 2-8
(including residential, non-residential and fire
hydrant connections). According to the 1990
Census, 34 units still use on-site wells.
Five of the thirteen wells operated by
SMCMUA are located within Hanover, four of
which draw from the Buried Valley Aquifer.
Three wells are located on the southern border
of the township near the Morristown Airport,
and two others are near the intersection ofl-287
and Route 10. In terms of water quality, four of
the five wells operated by SMCMUA in the
township showed evidence of volatile organic
chemicals during routine sampling in September
1990 according to the Water System Master
Plan of the SMCMUA, March 1991. The results
of recent tests have shown no signs of
contamination.
The township's Land Use Element of the
Master Plan (1980) recognizes that Hanover
Township lies over an important part of the
aquifer recharge zone for the Buried Valley
Aquifer System. The plan recommends that the
township design its planning program to
minimize any adverse impact of development
that would in any way contaminate the aquifer
through the recharge zone.
2.13 HARDING TOWNSHIP
Over two-thirds of
Harding Township
residents use individual
on-site wells for their
water supply (998 of
1,460 total housing units)
while the remaining resi-
dents are served by public water systems,
according to the 1990 Census. Public water is
provided within the township by SMCMUA, the
NJ-American Water Company, and a small com-
munity system, the Lakeshore Company.
SMCMUA, the largest purveyor in the
township, serves an area along Sand Spring
Road, including the Harding Green complex,
and Spring Valley Road with a total of approx-
imately 275 housing units. One of the wells
operated by SMCMUA, the Sand Spring Well,
is situated within Harding Township at the
intersection of I-287 and Sand Spring Road.
The NJ-American Water Company, one of the
largest purveyors in the state, serves only 21
housing units on Spencer Place, Douglas Road
and Spring Valley Road near the Chatham
Township border. NJ-Arnerican Water Company
also serves four commercial customers in
Harding Township.
The Lakeshore Company serves 95 housing
units around Mt. Kemble Lake, a private resi-
dential community. The company's water
supply consists of three wells at the northern end
ofthe lake.
Almost all of the township relies on indi-
vidual on-site sewage disposal systems. Only a
small fringe area of the township at the northern
end of Route 202 is sewered.
The 1984 Harding Township Master Plan
recognizes, as part of its goals and policies, that
due to its unique geographic location and
topographic features, the township has a
responsibility in protecting aquifer recharge
through careful regulation of on-site septic
disposal system and wells to prevent ground and
surface water pollution and depletion of ground-
water supplies. The township also desires to
continue a low density pattern of development
as a means to maintain ground water quantity
and quality.
2.14 JEFFERSON TOWNSHIP
According to the US
Census, over half, or 3,162,
of the total housing units in
Jefferson Township rely on
on-site wells or other
individual sources for
potable water. The
remainder are served by either the Jefferson
Township Department of Municipal Utilities
(DMU) or one of a number of small private
2-9
systems. The Jefferson Township DMU has
acquired several of these smaller systems and
now is the major water purveyor in the
municipality with approximately 2,565 connec-
tions.
The smaller systems were originally created
to serve individual developments some of which
were built as seasonal homes. These systems, as
well as the Jefferson Township DMU's service
areas, are dispersed throughout the municipality.
Many of the individual service areas, both
township and privately-served, have inadequate
supply sources and are not interconnected with
other systems.
To address these problems, the Jefferson
Township DMU developed a Water Supply
Master Plan in 1991. The plan recommends and
determines the priority of projects which are
necessary to bring the existing systems up to
standard and to insure adequate water supply
and service in the future.
All purveyors in Jefferson Township are de-
pendent on ground water. Because of the higher
elevations and underlying geology, the yields of
wells within the township are unpredictable and
are generally lower than other locations in the
county. In the 1991 Jefferson Township Master
Plan, the importance of protecting the ground
water resources of the township is a critical
concern. Preserving ground water recharge and
protecting aquifer recharge areas are stated in
the goals of the master plan. The plan also
recommends that areas of direct aquifer recharge
be taken into consideration in determining
development suitability, although these areas do
not necessarily pose a development constraint.
Jefferson Township has also integrated
performance standards for ground water quality
into the municipality's development regulations.
An applicant is required to identify and quantify
"any existing or proposed source of pollution to
the ground- or surface water of Jefferson Town-
ship ... " and must calculate density based on the
nitrate-nitrogen loading capacity of the ground-
water in a particular basin or sub-basin. Within
Morris County Water Supply Element
the R-3 residential district the lot size is depen-
dent on the availability of community water and
sewer. If both water and sewer are available, the
minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet,
otherwise the minimum lot size is 30,000 square
feet.
While township residents and businesses are
solely dependent on ground water, substantial
landholdings of Jersey City's and Newark's
surface water supply are situated within Jeffer-
son. Approximately 4,100 acres of Newark's
Pequannock Watershed, including Oak Ridge
Reservoir, are located in the northern portion of
the township, and 700 acres encompassing
Jersey City's proposed Longwood Reservoir are
located in the central portion. The 1991 master
plan recommends that the density of the
residential zoning of these landholdings be
changed from one housing unit per acre to one
unit per five acres which would recognize the
environmental sensitivity of this area.
2.15 KINNELON BOROUGH
Approximately 60% of
the total dwellings in
Kinnelon Borough rely on
individual wells for
potable water. Most of
these residences are
located in the western half
of the municipality and include a large
development known as Smoke Rise. Additional
development in this large area of the borough
will most likely use on-site wells, since it is
located away from any existing or planned water
system.
Public water serving the remaining 40% of
total dwellings in the borough is provided by the
Kinnelon Borough Water Utility and the Fayson
Lakes Water Company. The Kinnelon Borough
Water Utility has approximately 210 water
customers including four schools and nine
commercial hook-ups. They are generally
located in the eastern portion of Kinnelon
Morris County Water Supply Element 2-10
adjacent to Butler. Kinnelon purchases bulk
water from the Butler Borough Water Depart-
ment. The Fayson Lakes Water Company, a
private water company, serves a lake
community in the south-eastern portion of the
municipality with 794 residential and four
commercial and public customers.
The water sources of both purveyors are
completely located within Kinnelon. Butler's
sole water source is the Kakeout Reservoir,
located in the central portion of Kinnelon. Given
the reservoir's large excess capacity, future
public water needs of Kinnelon should be met.
Although the supply is adequate in meeting
existing needs, higher withdrawals could cause
some shortages during summer months.
Presently the two systems are not interconnect-
ed.
2.16 LINCOLN PARK BOROUGH
Almost 95% of the
total dwellings in the
Borough of Lincoln Park
are served by a public
water system according to
the 1990 Census. Public
water is provided by the
Lincoln Park Water Department to the
developed eastern and southern portions of the
municipality with 3,355 residential, 85
commercial and 40 industrial connections. The
borough purchases bulk water from the Passaic
Valley Water Commission and also from Pe-
quannock Township; the sources of both
purveyors are located outside of the borough.
The only water department well within the
borough was discontinued in 1985.
According to the 1990 Census, Lincoln Park
has 220 housing units still being served by on-
site wells. These dwellings are most likely
located in the western portion of the borough
where public water is not available.
2.17 LONG HILL TOWNSHIP
As of 1990, over 92%
of the dwellings (2,330
residential connections) in
Long Hill Township are
served by public water
provided solely by the NJ-
American Water Compa-
ny. There are 142 commercial connections, as
well as 15 industrial connections which are also
served by the purveyor. None ofNJ-American
Water Company's wells are located within the
township.
The remaining residences, consisting of 229
housing units, in Long Hill Township rely on
individual on-site wells for their water supply.
The majority of these residents are situated in
the Valley Road corridor areas of the commu-
nities of Stirling and Gillette, with approxi-
mately 25 others in the White Bridge Road and
New Vernon Road areas. The on-site well users
in the Stirling and Gillette areas are all
dwellings which are also connected to sewers.
The White Bridge Road and New Vernon Road
areas are not served by sewers.
2.18 MADISON BOROUGH
The borough is served
by public water provided
by the Madison Water
Department serving
4, 780 residential, 120
commercial and 12 public
connections. The water
department's five wells are all located north of
Route 124 in the borough. In addition, the 1990
Census estimates that 25 housing units in the
borough rely on private on-site wells as their
sources of potable water.
Due to the borough's developed status, and
that the wells are not used to their capacity, the
Water Department believes that its wells are
2-11
adequate to meet both present and projected
year 2010 demands.
2.19 MENDHAM BOROUGH
Until the sale of its
franchise to the NJ-
American Water
Company in 1992, the
borough had operated its
own water supply system.
The borough decided to
sell its system because of stricter State require-
ments and the rapid rise in the cost of water
fromMCMUA.
The system presently extends almost
throughout the entire municipality with most of
the service concentrated in the more intensely
developed areas just north and south of Main
Street (Route 24). In 1980, a total of 1,587
customers were served, while in 1990, the figure
rose to 1,978 customers, an increase of almost
25%. Most of the connections consist of
residential users, while the remainder are com-
prised of 87 commercial and 5 public users. The
remaining housing units, which total 90, are
served by on-site wells, according to the 1990
Census. Approximately 85% of borough
residents are also hooked into the borough's
sewage treatment system.
At the time of the update of the 1981 Morris
County Water Supply Element, Mendham's
water supply system consisted of two wells and
a reservoir. Since that time, the Combs Hollow
Reservoir has been abandoned and sold and re-
placed by two new w ~ l l s . The borough also
receives water from MCMUA since the wells do
not produce sufficient water to meet existing as
well as future demands. In 1992, NJ-American
Water Company completed a 12 inch
interconnection from its main supply in
Bernardsville to meet daily demands.
According to the 1988 Mendham Borough Mas-
ter Plan, 0.842 MGD will be required to meet
future average daily water demand while 1.256
Morris County Water Supply Element
MGD will be needed to meet peak daily
demand.
2.20 MENDHAM TOWNSHIP
The majority of the
dwellings within the
township rely on individual
on-site wells. According to
the 1990 Census,
Mendham Township has
1,014 housing units, 60%
of the total, served by on-site wells, while 690
units are served by public water.
Five areas in the township are served by
public water provided by two outside purveyors
and SMCMUA. Three areas, with a combined
customer base of approximately 200
connections, are served by the NJ-American
Water Company. These areas include the
Ralston Hill development to the west, the Pitney
Farm and Drakewick at Mendham subdivisions
to the east, and developed areas along
Mountainside Road and Horizon Drive to the
north. The Randolph Township MUA serves 19
customers in the area of Mount Pleasant Road
adjacent to Randolph Township.
SMCMUA serves the developed portion of
the township extending from Morris Township
west along Route 24 and north to Washington
Valley Road. SMCMUA's only surface water
supply, Clyde Potts Reservoir, is located in the
northern portion of the township at the headwa-
ters of the Whippany River and has a 1.87
square mile watershed.
There has been no reported incidence of
ground water contamination and, unless water
lines are extended, most future development will
be using on-site wells.
Morris County Water Supply Element 2-12
2.21 MINE HILL TOWNSHIP
According to the 1990
Census, 91 0 housing units
in Mine Hill, over 70% of
the total, are supplied by a
public or private company
water system. Public
water is supplied by the
township Water Department, which serves the
central and eastern developed areas of the
township, and by the Roxbury Water Company,
which serves an area in the western portion of
the township adjacent to Roxbury Township.
The township water department purchases all
its water from MCMUA. MCMUA's sources, as
well as the Roxbury Water Company's, are all
located outside of Mine Hill. The water
supplied by both purveyors is obtained from
wells.
The 1990 Census estimates that 363 dwel-
lings are served by on-site wells. However, in
1990, the public water system was extended to
an area containing 75 residences located adja-
cent to the Roxbury Township boundary north
of Route 46 because of individual well contam-
ination. Because water service extends
throughout the developed portions of the muni-
cipality, future development will most likely be
served by public water.
The township regulates residential lot size
based on the availability of public water and
sewer. For example, single family develop-
ments without water or sewer would be required
to have a minimum lot size of30,000 square feet
while a development with public water and
sewer would be only required to have a
minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. The
1988 Master Plan, however, recommends that
the minimum lot size requirement be increased
to 40,000 square feet for parcels without water
and sewer so that septic rehabilitation or a
secondary system can be accommodated in the
event of septic failure.
(
2.22 MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP
According to the 1990
Census, approximately
55% of Montville
Township is served by
public water. Two
purveyors, Montville
Township Municipal
Utilities Authority (MTMUA) and the Plausha
Park Water Company, provide water within the
township. MTMUA is the largest purveyor in
the township with 2,985 residential and 320
non-residential connections. MTMUA's service
area extends throughout most of the developed
areas of Montville.
All three of MTMUA's wells are located
within the township on or near Indian Lane.
MTMUA believes that its existing water supply
is more than adequate to serve present needs,
but additional wells will need to be added to
provide adequate future needs based on Mont-
ville's growth potential. MTMUA's service area
was expanded in the late 1980s in the
Taylortown section due to ground water con-
tamination.
In 1991, MTMUA took over a small water
system franchise serving the Lake Valhalla
Club's area consisting of approximately 35
homes within the lake community. The Club's
water source was one well with no
interconnections to other systems. The main-
tenance costs had become an increasing burden
for the Club.
The other purveyor serving the township is a
small community system. The Plausha Park
Water Company located in the Towaco section
of the township serves 57 residences. The
company relies on one well with no interconnec-
tions. Plausha Park feels its source of supply is
adequate to meet present and projected year
201 0 demands, but it would like to have an
interconnection installed for additional
protection.
2-13
The remaining 45% of the dwellings within
Montville have individual on-site wells. These
dwellings are located in the less densely devel-
oped northern portion of the township.
Montville has enacted measures to protect its
water supply resources. A Critical Water
Resources District was established within the
land use regulations to protect the Towaco
aquifer located in the northeastern portion of the
township. The regulations set stricter
development standards for land uses within the
prime aquifer area.
2.23 MORRIS TOWNSHIP
Almost all of Morris
Township is served by
public water. Over 96% of
dwellings within the
township receive their
water supply from
SMCMUA. Two of the 13
wells operated by SMCMUA are located in
Morris Township: one is near Woodland Ave-
nue at the southeastern boundary of the town-
ship, while the other is off West Hanover
Avenue near Morris Plains. The SMCMUA also
has an interconnection with the W aterSource
project to provide water directly to the township.
According to the 1990 Census, the remaining
214 units are served by individual on-site wells.
These well users are generally located west of
Morristown.
Sections of Morris Township are located
over the Buried Valley Aquifer, which is the
major water source for communities in the
southeastern section of Morris County.
Morris County Water Supply Element
2.24 MORRIS PLAINS BOROUGH
Practically the entire
borough is served by
public water from
SMCMUA. According
to the 1990 Census,
1,958 dwelling units in
the borough are served
by a public water system and only 7 units are
served by on-site wells.
Only one of the 13 wells operated by
SMCMUA is located in the borough: the Morris
Plains well is situated west of Route 202 close
to the Morris Township border.
2.25 MORRISTOWN TOWN
Almost all of the
residences in Morristown
(7,043 dwellings according
to the 1990 Census), are
served by public water
provided by SMCMUA.
Two of SMCMUA's 13
wells are located in Morristown at the southern
end of the town. Only 18 dwelling units in
Morristown are estimated to be served by on-
site wells.
Most of the town overlies the Central Passaic
Buried Valley Aquifer, a federally designated
Sole Source Aquifer, which is the main supply
of ground water to the southeastern portion of
the county.
2.26 MOUNTAIN LAKES BOROUGH
Practically all of the
dwellings in Mountain
Lakes are served by
public water provided
primarily by the water
utility function of the
Mountain Lakes De-
partment of Public Works (DPW). The DPW
Morris County Water Supply Element 2-14
serves 1,294 residential connections (including
83 customers outside of borough limits), 84
commercial connections and two public
connections.
The Denville Township Water Department,
Boonton Water Department and the Parsippany-
Troy Hills Water Department serve very small
sections of the borough which adjoin their
respective jurisdictions. About 51 residential
customers near the Lake Arrowhead area in the
southwestern comer of the borough are served
by the Denville Township Water Department.
Only two customers are served by the Boonton
Water Department and two others are served by
the Parsippany-Troy Hills Water Department.
The DPW obtains its water supply from four
wells, one being the major production well and
the others being back-up sources and an
emergency stand-by. The production well is
situated between Route 46 and the Erie-
Lackawanna Railroad at the southern edge of the
borough. Another well is west of Mountain
Lake off Tower Hill Road. The remaining two
wells are located in Denville Township.
The borough is not aware of any significant
contamination in its public water system.
According to the DPW, the present sources of
supply are adequate to meet present demands,
but they will be inadequate to meet projected
demands unless a more dependable back-up pro-
duction well can be developed. Mountain Lakes
has recently made major improvements to its
distribution system, and is presently seeking a
site for the new well to provide a safe and
adequate water supply to meet projected year
2010 demands.
The borough's ordinances require that no
development shall cause any reduction in the
natural rate of ground water recharge, and that
no land can be developed unless a ground water
management plan has been submitted and
approved by the Planning Board.
(
2.27 MOUNT ARLINGTON BOROUGH
According to the 1990
Census, 753 housing units
in the Borough of Mount
Arlington, over 50% of the
total, get their potable
water from either a public
or private company's water
system. Residents receive water from three
different systems: the Roxbury Water
Department, the Mount Arlington Service
Company and the Mount Arlington Water
Company.
The only information available to the Morris
County Planning Board is for the Mount Ar-
lington Service Company which provides water
to 102 homes, 162 garden apartments and a
school. The company derives its water from one
well located in the northern portion of the
borough.
The only information available regarding the
other purveyors is contained within the 1977
Mount Arlington Revised Master Plan. At that
time, the Roxbury Water Company served the
Shore Hills section of the borough; the Mt.
Arlington Service Company provided water to
the Mt. Arlington Apartments and the Knolls
development; and the Mt. Arlington Water
Company served an approximately six-block
section of the village between Edgemere
A venue, Prospect Street and Windmere A venue.
The latest Master Plan Reexamination
(December 1983) states that there is "no prob-
lem with ground water adequacy .. . for at least the
short-term future." However, the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection found
contaminants in the Mt. Arlington Service Com-
pany's supply. It was found to contain three
substances considered hazardous: tetra-
chloroethylene, trichloroethylene and trans- 1,
2-dichloroethylene. As of this writing, the
Morris County Planning Board is not aware of
the current status of this contamination problem.
2-15
2.28 MOUNT OLIVE TOWNSHIP
Mount Olive is served
by seven water purveyors
who supply water to over
two-thirds of the dwellings
in the township (5,939
housing units according to
the 1990 Census). The
remaining third (2,590 units) are served by indi-
vidual wells. In addition, there are two
purveyors who serve industrial developments.
The township currently operates eight water
systems with a combined total of 3,990
residential and 94 commercial connections.
Mount Olive has been undertaking a program of
upgrading the various elements of their water
system, replacing substandard lines and
increasing storage capacity.
Three purveyors serving Mount Olive are
located outside of the township. The
Hackettstown MUA serves 85 connections in
the extreme southwest corner of the township,
the Netcong Water Department services 16
connections, and the Stanhope Water Depart-
ment services the Dynapac industrial property
within the township.
Four of the remaining purveyors consist of
private community systems. The New Jersey
Vasa Homes Water System located in the Budd
Lake area currently has 7 4 residential users.
The West Jersey Water Service, Inc., also
located in the Budd Lake area, currently has 214
residential connections. Mount Olive Villages
Water Company, located between Budd Lake
and the Washington Township border, currently
provides service to 4,000 residents. Currently,
the Morris County Planning Board does not
have information on the Carlton Hill Water
System.
The New Jersey Foreign Trade Zone Venture
supplies water for the needs of the tenants of the
International Trade Center located in the
northern portion of the township. The system
derives its water from one well which is ade-
Morris County Water Supply Element
quate for the current and future water supply
needs ofthe International Trade Center.
Mount Olive's Natural Resources Inventory
(1988) included a section whereby the New
Jersey Bureau of Geology recommended that
Mount Olive (and other developing rural areas)
establish or at least consider minimum lot sizes
because a large part of the township depends on
private wells which are underlain almost entirely
by consolidated rock formations with only
secondary porosity and permeability.
The municipality has experienced problems
with several older Budd Lake area systems.
These problems include high nitrate levels and
a high content of iron. Two studies conducted
in the 1970s, as referenced in the township's
1986 Master Plan, concluded that the existing
water systems require major upgrades and the
Budd Lake area, in particular, needs a
considerable investment to be an effective water
system.
2.29 NETCONG BOROUGH
Almost all ofNetcong
is served by the borough's
Water Department. Water
is supplied to 779
residential, 424 garden
apartment, 77 commercial
and four industrial
connections. The total population served is
approximately 4,500 people. According to the
1990 Census, 13 housing units, the remaining
dwellings, are served by on-site wells.
The system contains four wells of which
three are currently being utilized. Two wells are
located within the borough off of Flanders Road
while the other two are located in a wellfield off
of Route 206 in Roxbury and Mount Olive
Townships.
In 1990, the levels of the contaminants Tri-
chloroethylene and Tetrachloroethylene detected
in one of the wells within the borough exceeded
NJDEPE standards. Further testing showed that
Morris County Water Supply Element 2-16
the amount of contamination by the two
pollutants had dropped below the maximum
permitted levels. Netcong was required by the
NJDEPE to be prepared to install an air stripper
in the event that the pollutant levels increase
above State standards. The wellfield in Roxbury
and Mount Olive is located approximately one-
half mile from the closed Combe Fill North
landfill which was placed on the Superfund list
in 1983. However, the low levels of volatile
organic compound contamination detected at the
site have not affected the borough's wells. Mea-
sures to remedy the contamination at the landfill
include capping the landfill (completed) and
long term ground water monitoring3.
The water department has stated that the
sources of supply are adequate to meet present
demands but that a back-up reservoir will be
needed in the future.
2.30 PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS
TOWNSHIP
Nearly all the residents
of Parsippany-Troy Hills
are served by public water
provided by the township
Water Department.
According to the town-
ship's March 1988 Water
Conservation Plan, there were over 12,480
residential, commercial, industrial and public
connections. The 1990 Census estimates that
the township has 169 housing units, less than
1%, served by individual on-site wells.
The township wells are located south of
Route 46 and north of Route 10 except for two
wells north of Route 46 in the Lake Hiawatha
area. A May 1990 Planning Report for the
township Department of Water Supply and
Distribution indicates that the water supply is
3
NJDEPE, 1992 Site Remediation Program Site
Status Report, Fall1992, page 454
expected to be sufficient to satisfy the needs of
the township for the next 8 to 10 years.
Water supply sources for two major purvey-
ors are located within Parsippany-Troy Hills.
The Boonton Reservoir, comprising approxi-
mately 1,175 acres and owned by Jersey City, is
located in the north-eastern portion of the
township. SMCMUA has two of its wells locat-
ed just south of Route 10 and east of Johnson
Road adjacent to the Hanover Township border.
2.31 PEQUANNOCK TOWNSHIP
The Pequannock
Township Water Depart-
ment supplies water to
over 96% of the housing
units in the township.
The water department
serves 3,934 residential,
360 commercial, eight industrial and nine
municipal connections as of January 1993.
According to 1990 Census, the remaining 144
housing units rely on on-site wells as their
source of potable water.
The water department's main sources of
water are two wells located in the northern
portion of the township between West Parkway
and Mountain A venue. Also, summer demands
require a water supplement supplied by the City
of Newark's system which traverses the
township. Pequannock has four connections
with the Newark system. Pequannock has made
numerous upgrades to its system since the early
1980s which has reduced the reliance on the
Newark water system. This self-sustenance
proved beneficial during the 1985 drought when
the township's water restrictions were lifted
thereby avoiding potential surcharges for
residents exceeding daily ration allotments.
The 1990 Master Plan Reexamination
recommends a new policy and objective that
only low density future development should be
permitted and that potentially dangerous uses be
2-17
strictly regulated m order to protect aquifer
recharge areas.
2.32 RANDOLPH TOWNSHIP
The majority of
residences in Randolph
Township is served by
public water with
almost 78% of all hous-
ing units connected to a
public system. The
Randolph Township Municipal Utility Authority
(RTMUA) provides water to over half of those
served by a water system. As of December
1992, RTMUA's system served 3,480 residential
connections, 81 commerciaVindustrial connec-
tions, and 8 schools. RTMUA obtains most of
its water from MCMUA through bulk purchase.
A small amount of water is also supplied by
SMCMUA and the Denville Township Water
Department.
In addition, the Dover Water Department
serves the northern portion of the township
bounded by the Rockaway River to the east,
Quaker Church Road to the south, and High
Avenue and Highview Terrace to the west. The
Dover system provides water to approximately
1,945 residential connections within Randolph;
the number of non-residential connections
within Randolph is unavailable.
Sections of the township not currently ser-
viced by public water include portions of Combs
Hollow, an area in the west bounded by Sussex
Turnpike, Park A venue, Pleasant Hill Road and
the Black River, and an area in the east bounded
by Everdale Road, Mountainside and Gristmill
Roads. These areas are also dependent on
individual on-site septic systems.
Significant land holdings of two major
purveyors within the county are situated within
Randolph. The Alamatong Wellfield,
MCMUA's primary water source, is located
adjacent to the Black River north of Pleasant
Hill Road. A portion of the SMCMUA's
Morris County Water Supply Element
property surrounding Clyde Potts Reservoir is
located adjacent to the southern boundary of the
township. Morristown was also an owner of
major watershed lands within the township, but
had sold the property once the Combs
Hollow/Mendham Reservoir had been
abandoned as a water source. This land has
been proposed for development.
An increase in the demand for water, from
.95 MGD in 1980 to 1.18 MGD 1990, is noted
in the 1992 Randolph Township Master Plan as
being caused by new development and drought
conditions. Because of the increased demand,
water use is restricted during severe dry spells.
Randolph has projected that the maximum
monthly daily average water systems demand
will be 3.40 MGD for the Year 2000. The
master plan recommends that the Planning
Board "support MCMUA, Denville and Dover
in their attempts to increase water supply."
Concerning water quality, the master plan
recommends that the township "develop com-
prehensive land and water resource protection
programs" and that the wellhead protection area
around the Alamatong wellfields be protected
from potential hazardous uses through zoning.
Randolph Township and several other munici-
palities have formed the Black River Coalition
which is concerned about the protection of water
resources in the area. The Black River corridor,
which contains the Alamatong wellfields, is now
being studied by several organizations.
2.33 RivERDALE BOROUGH
Riverdale's water
system consists of a
municipal water system
and private wells (115
housing units according to
the 1990 Census). The
Riverdale Water
Department serves approximately 750 dwellings
which constitutes 86% of the total.
Morris County Water Supply Element 2-18
The source of this water is one well located
near W edgewood Road. The water system
serves the developed area in the eastern half of
the municipality. Highland Avenue, Hartung
A venue, and Matthews A venue south of
DeGraw Avenue, are not served by the system.
The southern and westerly portions of the
borough are not served because of water
pressure limitations.
Given that Riverdale has limited growth
potential, the capacity of the existing system to
meet future needs is considered adequate.
However, the 1985 Master Plan Revision states
that there have been reports of discolored water
by residents and low water pressure by the fire
department. To overcome these problems, the
master plan recommended that the system be
looped.
2.34 ROCKAWAY BOROUGH
The entire borough is
served with public water
by the Rockaway
Borough Water De-
partment. The water
supply system is
dependent on ground
water which is obtained from a wellfield in the
northern portion of the borough. This facility
also contains a major carbon water treatment
plant due to ground water contaminated with
volatile organic compounds. In the early 1980's,
high concentrations of tetra-chloroethylene were
detected in the borough's wells.
The borough is almost fully developed and is
fully sewered.
(
2.35 ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP
Public water supply is
only provided in the
southern portion of the
township by the Rock-
away Township Water
Department and two
other public purveyors.
The Rockaway Township Water Department
maintains the most extensive water system
which serves the White Meadow Lake commu-
nity. The Dover Water Department provides
service to two areas: along Route 15 and the
area north of Route 46 up to Mt. Pleasant
A venue. The Rockaway Borough Water
Department services the area adjacent to the
Dover system south of Mt. Pleasant A venue.
The Rockaway Township Water Department
does not provide water supply service beyond
the municipality's borders.
About 5,500 dwellings, 74% of the total, are
connected to the Rockaway Township system
and there is no figure available for the number
of dwellings served by the other public purveyor
systems. The 1990 Census figures estimate that
1,962 housing units in the township rely on on-
site wells for their potable water.
The township's system consists of four wells
located in the Hibernia Flats area between Green
Pond Road and Beaver Brook; three within the
industrial area north of Route 80 and one on the
Hewlett-Packard property. Ground water
contamination has caused the municipality to
install air strippers on the wells to remove
volatile organic compounds. As a supplement to
its system, the Rockaway Township Water
Department obtains water through bulk purchase
of 200,000 GPD of water from Rockaway
Borough on an as-needed basis.
Four new township Water Department wells
are proposed according to the 1992 Rockaway
Township Master Plan. Another well is to be
developed at Hewlett-Packard and three wells
are to be developed within the Highlands of
2-19
Morris project site. The 1992 master plan also
recommends an expansion of the water service
area to provide service coordinated with new
development and to provide public water to
developed areas which are experiencing water
problems due to insufficient supply or on-site
well contamination. One area identified in the
plan for proposed water service is the Lake
Telemark area, where septic systems are failing.
Two major reservoirs are also situated within
the township. The Splitrock Reservoir owned
by Jersey City and the Charlotteburg Reservoir
owned by the City of Newark are located in the
northern portion of Rockaway Township.
Together, these landholdings comprise 3,700
acres, roughly 13% of total land area of the
municipality. None of the water supplied by
these reservoirs is provided for use by the
township.
Rockaway Township has enacted measures
to protect water supply resources within the
municipality. The Land Use and Development
of the Code of the Township of Rockaway
stipulates that no building or structure shall be
erected in any zone district of the township
within 1,500 feet of any public water supply
source unless adequate environmental safe-
guards can be established. A Critical Water
Resources District (CWR) was created to protect
the aquifer recharge areas within the township
by establishing maximum impervious coverage
standards. In addition, the 1992 Rockaway
Township Master Plan recommends that the
minimum lot size for the residential zone
encompassing the watershed properties be
increased to 20 acres.
Morris County Water Supply Element
2.36 ROXBURY TOWNSHIP
The Township of
Roxbury is served by two
purveyors, the Roxbury
Water Company, a
private company, and the
Roxbury Township
Water Department. The
Roxbury Water Company serves portions of the
Succasunna and Kenvil areas of the township
while the Roxbury Township Water Department
serves portions of the Port Morris, Landing and
Ledgewood areas. According to the 1990
Census, the remaining 2,3 58 housing units are
served by private on-site wells.
The Roxbury Water Company provides
service to 2,930 customers, of which a small
number are located in Mine Hill Township. The
company operates five wells which are all
located in the southern portion of the township.
The Roxbury Township Water Department
operates eleven wells which are all located in
the western portion of the township. A new
interconnection between the Roxbury Township
Water Department and MCMUA has been con-
structed along Route 46 near the Roxbury and
Mine Hill border. Water service will soon be
provided for approximately 200 customers
between Berkshire Valley Road and Mine Hill
Township on both sides of Route 46. Also,
work is expected to commence on a $2.1 million
public water system expansion by the Water
Department for about 350 Kenvil properties
which have experienced nearly twenty years of
contaminated water.
According to the 1990 Master Plan Revision,
the Roxbury Township Water Department has
adequate water supplies to meet present and
future needs. However, the system is experi-
encing infrastructure problems in the Shore Hills
area of the township.
Morris County Water Supply Element 2-20
2.37 VICTORY GARDENS BOROUGH
Almost the entire
municipality is served by
the Dover Water
Department. However,
according to the 1990
Census, five housing
units are served by
private on-site wells. Victory Gardens is
completely developed with a 1990 population of
1,314 persons. The 1979 Master Plan states that
the "existing public water system's capacities
are adequate enough to fulfill the future potable
water needs of the borough."
2.38 WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP
Public water IS
supplied to six areas of
Washington Township.
Three different purveyors
supply and distribute
potable water to these
sections: the Washington
Township MUA (WTMUA), the Hackettstown
MUA (HMUA) and Cliffside Park Associates, a
property owners association. Although public
water is provided to the more intensely devel-
oped portions of the municipality (2,4 71 hous-
ing units according to the 1990 Census), the re-
mainder of the township, containing 48% of the
total housing units, is dependent on private on-
site wells.
The Washington Township MUA provides
water to Long Valley, Parker Acres, and the
Schooley's Mountain plateau. The three areas
have a total of 1708 connections. The township
has numerous wells located throughout all of
these three subsystem areas. The Long Valley
service area has an older system which is in
need ofupgrading.
The area adjacent to Hackettstown is served
by HMUA and includes East Avenue, Mine Hill
Road and Route 46 up to and including the A&P
(
Shopping Center. HMUA also provides public
water service to Newburgh Road, Esna Parkway,
Schooley's Mountain Road (Route 24) up to and
including the Hasting Square and Heath Village
areas. HMUA is interested in extending these
services to additional users in Washington
Township, provided that all municipal and
private agreements are satisfied.
HMUA has a total of 571 connections in
Washington Township. HMUA's primary
source of surface water is Mine Brook which ex-
tends into Mount Olive where two reservoirs are
located, the Upper Mine Hill and Lower Mine
Hill reservoirs. HMUA also owns a well and
storage reservoir (the Burd Reservoir) within
Washington Township which serves the Heath
Village property on Schooley's Mountain (near
Reservoir Road). HMUA feels that additional
supplies are required to meet projected year
2010 demands because development is expected
to continue within its service area.
The sixth area to be served by a water system
is the Port Murray section in the south-western
most part of the township. This small
community of converted summer homes has
organized itself as Cliffside Park Associates
which maintains its own water supply system.
It serves 3 8 homes and one inn property from a
spring fed reservoir. As an older system
originally built in the early 1940s, it is in need
of upgrading. Although the association feels that
its current supply is adequate, no new service
connections are permitted. No filling of
swimming pools is allowed and temporary
restrictions on such uses as lawn watering or car
washing are put into effect when warranted by a
decrease in the water level of the reservoir. The
association is concerned with the impacts of
additional development in the area on recharge
to the reservoir.
In order to protect water supply resources,
the township has enacted a Water Supply Code
regulating the location, construction, alteration,
use and supervision of individual and semi-
public water supplies. In addition, the 1988
2-21
Master Plan suggests minimum lot sizes based
on drought yield and other constraints in the
Kittatinny Limestone, Precambrian and
Hardyston Quartzite Aquifer Zones.
The ground water in the southeastern portion
of Washington Township, in the area of Parker
Road and East Valley Brook Road, has been
contaminated by volatile organic compounds.
The Combe Fill South Landfill and the Cleve-
land Industrial site have been cited as the sourc-
es of the pollution. The landfill, located off
Parker Road in Chester Township, is on the
federal Superfund list. Plans are underway to
extend service from the Washington Township
MUA into this area where individual wells have
tested positively for contamination.
2.39 WHARTON BOROUGH
The Wharton Water
Department
almost all
provides
of the
borough's residents with
water while the Dover
Water Department serves
the remainder. The
borough's Water Department has 1,790
connections comprised of 1,729 residential, 45
commercial, eight industrial and eight public
users. The 1990 Census estimates that 67
housing units, approximately three percent of
the total, rely on on-site wells for potable water.
Wharton's system includes three wells, two
of which are located near West Central A venue
and the other near the Dover border and Green
Pond Brook. Two of these wells are not on line
due to contamination. An air stripper is being
installed to remove the contaminants from both
wells. There is concern that all wells are prone
to contamination due to their shallow depth.
According to the borough Water Department,
water supply will be more than adequate to meet
projected year 2010 demands once the two wells
are operating again.
Morris County Water Supply Element
CHAPTER THREE
Existing and Future Water Demand
and Use Trends
There are three major categories of demand
for water in Morris County: water supplied by
public water system purveyors, individual
residential wells, and individual industrial or
commercial wells.
3.1 EXISTING WATER DEMAND
3.1.1 Public Water Systems
Information has been obtained from 47
public water purveyors that provide wholesale
or retail water for residential use in Morris
County. An average per capita demand factor
was calculated for each purveyor by dividing the
3-1
average daily pumping rate by the number of
people served by each purveyor.
Data from the 1990 Census was used to
estimate the number of dwellings and the popu-
lation served by each purveyor. The areas
served by each purveyor were delineated using
water system maps obtained from most of the
purveyors. This "served area" map was overlain
on a map of census block outlines. The data for
the individual census blocks within each pur-
veyor's service area were totaled. Where the
entire census block was not served by a pur-
veyor, the percentage of the block that was
served was estimated. This analysis produced a
count of the number of dwellings, the total
Morris County Water Supply Element
Table 3-1
Existing Water Demand by Purveyor
Morris County Only
1989-1990 Per Capita
Purveyor Dwellings Total Group Average Daily Demand Factor
Served Population Quarters Demand (MGD) (gpcd)
Arlington Hills Water Co. 0 0 0 0.000. 123.3.
Boonton Town Water Dept. 3,398 8,794 145 0.905 102.9
Boonton Twp. Water Distr. #1 77 338 126 0.042. 123.3.
Buller Water Dept. 2,842 7,663 18 0.637 83.1
Chatham Boro. Water Dept. 3,154 8,007 28 1.022 127.6
Chester Boro. Water Dept. 108 267 0 0.046 170.4
Cliffside Park Water Co. 38 115 0 0.005 42.1
Denville Water Dept. 4,999 13,659 149 1.855 135.8
Dover Water Dept. 8,464 22,764 244 2.799 123
East Hanover Water Dept. 2,977 9,492 0 1.454 153.2
Elizabethtown Water Co. (ooc) 19 57 0 0.007. 123.3.
F ayson Lakes Water Dept. 699 2,062 0 0.193 93.5
Florham Park Water Dept. 2,928 8,393 151 1.096 130.6
Hackettstown MUA (ooc) 748 2,224 26 0.291 & 130.8 &
Jefferson Water Dept. 2,520 6,102 59 0.578 94.8
Kinnelon Water Dept. 144 425 0 0.048 112
Lake Shore Water Co. 95 237 0 0.034 142.6
Lake Stockholm Water Co. (ooc) 59 163 0 0.020. 123.3.
Lake Valhalla Water 35 107 0 0.013. 123.3.
Lincoln Park Water Dept. 3,914 10,700 644 1.159 112.1 +
Madison Water Dept. 5,564 15,850 2,237 1.803 124.2+
Mendham Boro. Water Dept. 2,005 5,485 225 0.656 119.6
Mine Hill Water Dept. 702 1,839 0 0.138 74.8
Montville MUA 2,979 9,260 217 1.349 145.7
Morris County MUA 0 0 0 0.000# 0.0 #
Mountain Shores Water Co. 29 66 0 0.008. 123.3.
MI. Arlington Service Co. 302 746 18 0.056 74.8
MI. Arlington Water Co. 49 121 0 0.01 82
MI. Lakes Water Dept. 1,240 3,755 0 0.345 91.8
MI. Olive Twp. Water Dept. 4,132 10,322 52 0.883 85.6
MI. Olive Villages 1,589 3,971 0 0.254 64
Netcong Water Dept. 1,415 3,358 0 0.42 125.1
NJ American Water Co. (occ) 6,319 16,599 118 1.729 104.1
NJ Vasa Homes 74 186 0 0.011 59.5
Parsippany Water Dept. 18,833 48,184 934 6.675 138.5
Pequannock Water Dept. 4,383 12,830 19 1.4 114.4
Plausa Park Water Co. 54 156 0 0.015 94.3
Randolph Water Dept. 3,898 11 ,233 0 1.209 107.6
Riverdale Water Dept. 748 2,035 0 0.203 99.6
Rockaway Boro Water Dept. 2,997 8,027 0 1.039 129.5
Rockaway Twp Water Dept. 3,982 10,732 0 1.056 98.4
Roxbury Twp. Water Dept. 2,219 6,527 0 0.471 72.2
Roxbury Water Co. 2,646 8,083 67 0.63 78
SMCMUA 20,790 54,145 2,074 8.626 159.3
Washington Twp. MUA 1,525 4,641 0 0.49 105.5
West Jersey Water Co. 197 487 0 0.072 148.6
Wharton Water Dept. 2,120 5,394 17 0.797 147.8
Total Public Water Systems 128,009 345,601 7,588 42.614 123.3
(AVERAGE DEMAND)
Domestic Well Users 27,736 75,752 85 6.060@ 80.0@
Self-Supplied Industrial and Agricultural Use - over 100,000 gpm 7.446
Self-Supplied Industrial and Agricultural Use - under 100,000 gpm 0.407
Small Public Community Systems 0.128
Total Existing Water Demand 155,745 421,353 7,673 56.655
Notes:
MGD = Million gallons per day
= gallons per day per captta
= County Average Per Captta Demand used due to insufficient data.
+ = Demand calulated using 50gpd/person for
& =Demand factor based on service area (2.1 0 MG serving 16,593 people); usage pro-rated.
Captta Demand factor for Domest1c Well users assumed to be 80 gal\day.
= MCMUA does not serve any dwellings directly; tt whole sales water to other purveyors.
ooc = Purveyor also provides water to out-of-county customers.
Source: NJDEPE, Bureau of Water Allocation
Morris County Water Supply Element 3-2
(
population, and the group quarters population
served by each purveyor, which is presented in
Table 3-1. Data from the 1990 Census regard-
ing water supply (public or residential wells)
were used to check the census block counts
prepared by MCPB staff.
The quarterly diversion reports that each
purveyor files with NJDEPE were consulted to
determine the average daily demand served by
each public water system in 1989 and 1990. In
cases where data was unavailable or insufficient,
the average county per capita demand was used
to estimate the average daily system demand,
based on the number of people served. The
average daily demand for each purveyor is listed
in Table 3-1. The total average daily demand
for all of the public water systems in Morris
County in 1989 and 1990 was 42.6 million
gallons per day (MGD).
A per capita demand factor for each pur-
veyor was calculated by dividing the average
daily use by the number of people served.
Where water systems served a significant num-
ber of group quarters residents (more than 5
percent of the total population), the system-wide
demand factor was adjusted by assuming that
the residents in the group quarters use an aver-
age of 50 gallons per person per day. The
county-wide average per capita demand was
based on the total average daily demand exhib-
ited throughout the county served by public
water systems, divided by the total population
served.
The results of the per capita demand analysis
for each public water system serving Morris
County are presented in Table 3-1. For purvey-
ors with unavailable or insufficient water use
data, the county-wide average per capita demand
was used to estimate the system per capita
demand. The per capita demand factors range
from 42.1 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) for
the Cliffside Park Water Company to 170.4
gpcd for the Chester Borough Water Depart-
ment. The county-wide average is 123.1 gpcd.
The per capita demand factors vary mostly
because industrial and commercial uses are also
often supplied by the public water system pur-
veyors. Thus, the per capita water demand
factor includes not only individual indoor and
outdoor residential water use, but a share of any
local commercial or industrial water use pro-
vided by the public water system. Analysis
conducted for the 1982 Master Plan indicated
that approximately 28 percent of the public
community water demand could be attributed to
non-residential users.
3.1.2 Individual Domestic Wells
The number of residents in Morris County
using domestic wells as their water supply has
been estimated by subtracting the total popula-
tion served by public water system purveyors
from the total population of Morris County.
Based on this analysis, approximately 75,752
Morris County residents (22 percent) relied on
domestic wells for their water supply in 1990.
A per capita water demand factor of 80 gpcd
was used to estimate the total volume of ground
water used by self-supplied residents, based on
a review of literature values and an analysis of
the smaller, primarily residential water systems
in Morris County. Assuming that the 75,752
self-supplied Morris County residents use on-
site wells at a rate of about 80 gallons per capita
per day yields an average daily water demand of
6.06MGD.
Morris County Water Supply Element
Table 3-2
Industrial/Agricultural and Small Public Community Water Demand
Water 1989-1990
Allocation Name Average Daily Notes
Permit No. Demand (MGD)
1/A Sytems using 100,000 GPO or more
2403P Picatinny Arsenal 1.679 ('91 average)
2321P Saxton Falls Sand & Gravel 0.764
2123P Hercules, Inc. 0.697
2117P Allied-Signal, Inc. 0.687
2206P Pfizer, Inc. - Consumer Products 0.627
2118P Sandoz, Inc. 0.513
2190P Welsh Farms, Inc. 0.407
2199P Givauden Corp. 0.375
2200P Mt. Hope Rock Products 0.374
2195P Warner Lambert Co. 0.246
2196P Morristown Memorial Hospital 0.189
2339P Exxon Research & Engineering 0.173
2374P Orange Products, Inc. 0.112
2338P Flanders Valley Golf Course 0.111
2074P Howmet Turbine Components Corp. 0.110
2304P Noe Peirson Corp. 0.071
2078P Mennen Co. 0.068
2340P NJ American Water Co. 0.050 ('90-'91 ave.)
2333P Boonton Eletronics 0.038
2383P Sunset Valley Golf Course 0.038
2342P Pinch Brook Golf Course 0.032
2021P Spring Brook Country Club 0.021
2058P Bowling Green Golf Course 0.019
2294P Roxiticus Golf Club 0.018
2305P Fairmount Country Club 0.014
2025P Morris County Golf Club 0.014
2358P Mendham Golf and Tennis Club 0.000 (0.1 mg June '89)
7.446
1/A Systems using less than 100,000 GPO 0.407
Small Public Community Systems 0.128
1/A and Small Public Community Total 7.982
Source: NJDEPE, Bureau of Water Supply Planning and Policy
Morris County Water Supply Element 3-4
(
3.1.3 Self-Supplied Industrial and
Commercial Uses
Self-supplied industrial and commercial
water use represents a significant component of
the total water use in Morris County. Infor-
mation is based on data provided by
NJDEPE/Water Supply Element/Bureau of
Water Supply Planning & Policy
1
• The
NJDEPE information indicates the average daily
withdrawal (between 1986 and 1988) for major
private water users (those which have individual
water allocation permits from NJDEPE). It also
contains information indicating the source of
water used (i.e., whether the water is diverted
from surface waters or pumped from ground
water. Approximately 7.9 MGD was used for
non-public uses (agricultural and industrial)
during 1986 through 1988. Approximately 15
percent of this total (1.2 MGD) was diverted
from surface water sources. The remaining 85
percent (6.7 MGD) was pumped from ground
water supplies. The major non-public users of
water identified by NJDEPE are listed in Table
3-2.
3.2 INCREASE IN WATER DEMAND
BETWEEN 1990 AND 2010
The population of Morris County has grown
steadily over the past decades, and Morris
County Planning Board (MCPB) analyses pro-
ject a continuation of that growth over the next
twenty years. An increase in demand for water
is expected to accompany the increase in popu-
lation. MCPB has developed population and
housing unit projections for the year 2010, using
past development trends, existing development
1
Data obtained from a spreadsheet "Depletive Water
Use for Regional Water Resource Planning Areas
(RWRPAs)" resulting from the Statewide Water
Supply Master Plan Revision Study. The spreadsheet
was named MASTERWW.WK3, and was dated 16-
July-1992, marked as "FINAL."
3-5
proposals, and results of a continuing municipal
zoning build-out analysis. The population pro-
jections assume a decrease in household size.
The population projections developed by
MCPB have either been assigned to public water
system purveyors, or were assumed to rely on
individual wells, depending on their location
and the availability of public water supply. The
estimated general future location of new growth
forms the basis of the future demand analysis.
For the purposes of this analysis, it has been
assumed that the decrease in household size in
existing housing units is not likely to decrease
the existing demand in public water systems.
Small reductions in household size, at the level
of the individual home, are usually offset by
increasing presence of water-using appliances
and slight increases in plumbing leakage. The
most significant changes in water system de-
mand will occur as a result of an increase or
decrease in the number of dwellings, and associ-
ated local business activity, served by public
water systems.
3.2.1 Public Water Systems
To determine the increase in dwellings
served by public water systems, the projections
for the number of dwellings served by each
purveyor in 2010 were compared with the exist-
ing number of dwellings served. The difference
represents the number of additional dwellings
(or the number of fewer dwellings, ifthere is a
projected decrease in served area for a purveyor)
served by each purveyor. The number of new
residents in these additional dwellings was
estimated by multiplying the number of new
dwellings by the average 201 0 household size in
that purveyor's served area.
2
The per capita
demand factor (calculated from the existing
2
The household size for each purveyor was calculated
by dividing the projected residential population
served (total minus group quarters served), by the
projected number of dwellings.
Morris County Water Supply Element
average daily demand and population served,
see above) was applied to the projected popula-
tion growth to determine the average daily
demand associated with the new growth.
The water demand from public water sys-
tems is projected to increase by 4.27 MGD
above the current public water system demand,
an increase of 10 percent above the current de-
mand. The results of the analysis of increased
public water system water use are presented in
Table 3-3. The water systems with the largest
projected increases in demand are SMCMUA,
Randolph Water Department, and Montville
MUA. The demand for supply from NJ-
American Water Company is also projected to
increase significantly; however, the increase is
primarily due to the acquisition of Mendham
Borough Water Department.
3.2.2 Individual Domestic Wells
The increase in water demand for individual
domestic well users was calculated in the same
way as for public water systems. The projected
increase in self-served dwellings was multiplied
by the future average household size to deter-
mine the number of people associated with these
new dwellings. Finally, the per capita demand
factor (80 gpcd) was applied to the increase in
population to arrive at the increase in demand
for water. Table 3-3 presents the results of this
analysis, and projects an increase of 0.83 MGD
in the demand exerted by domestic well users, a
14 percent increase over current estimates of use
by individual domestic wells.
3.2.3 Self-Supplied Industrial and
Commercial Uses
Based on an analysis of major industrial and
commercial water users that are self-supplied in
Morris County, it has been assumed for pur-
poses of water demand projections that no
increase in water usage is anticipated in this
category. Trends in current safe drinking water
Morris County Water Supply Element 3-6
and water quality testing requirements indicate
that most new business-related water uses will
likely require connection to public water sys-
tems.
3.2.4 Total Future Water Demand
Table 3-4 presents the future water demand
by purveyor for public water systems, and for
domestic well users. These figures are calcu-
lated by adding the increased water demand for
each purveyor presented in Table 3-3 to the
existing demands presented in Table 3-1.
Estimates of the approximate location of
future growth were prepared by MCPB for this
project in order to assess areas likely to require
additional future water supply. All growth has
been attributed to existing water systems or to
new domestic well supplies. Figure 3-1 indi-
cates (in a very approximate manner) locations
of future growth in water demand and is indica-
tive of the areas of increased demand on the
water resources of Morris County.
3.3 CONCLUSION
The existing demand for water supply in
Morris County is approximately 56.7 million
gallons per day (MGD). Approximately three-
quarters of this demand is supplied by public
water systems. The remaining one-quarter is
supplied by either domestic residential wells or
self-supplied industrial or commercial users. In
the next twenty years, demand for water in
Morris County is projected to increase by almost
10 percent to approximately 61.8 MGD. Ap-
proximately four-fifths of the increased water
demand will most likely be supplied by ex-
pansion of public water systems. The remaining
one-fifth will most likely be supplied by individ-
ual residential wells.
t'
I
Table 3-3
Increased Water Supply by Purveyor, 1990-2010
1990-2010 People in Per Capita 1990-2010
Purveyor Change in Additional Demand Additional
Dwellings Dwellings Factor Water Demand
Served Served (GPCD) (MGD)
Arlington Hills Water Co. 588 1,430 123.3 0.176
Boonton Town Water Dept. 129 308 102.9 0.032
Boonton Twp. Water Distr. #1 0 0 123.3 0.000
Buller Water Dept. 241 614 83.1 0.051
Chatham Bore. Water Dept. 20 47 127.6 0.006
Chester Bore. Water Dept. 62 145 170.4 0.025
Cliffside Park Water Co. 0 0 42.1 0.000
Denville Water Dept. 278 710 135.8 0.096
Dover Water Dept. 585 1,464 123.0 0.180
East Hanover Water Dept. 861 2,593 153.2 0.397
Elizabethtown Water Co. (ooc) 0 0 123.3 0.000
Fayson Lakes Water Dept. 0 0 93.5 0.000
Florham Park Water Dept. 149 395 130.6 0.052
Hackettstown MUA (ooc) 468 1,332 130.8 0.174
Jefferson Water Dept. 561 1,292 94.8 0.122
Kinnelon Water Dept. 0 0 112.0 0.000
Lake Shore Water Co. 0 0 142.6 0.000
Lake Stockholm Water Co. (ooc) 0 0 123.3 0.000
Lake Valhalla Water 0 0 123.3 0.000
Lincoln Park Water Dept. 578 1,402 112.1 0.157
Madison Water Dept. 258 595 124.2 0.074
Mendham Bore. Water Dept. (2,005) (5,485) 119.6 (0.656)
Mine Hill Water Dept. 91 225 74.8 0.017
Montville MUA 1,003 2,868 145.7 0.418
Morris County MUA 0 0 0.0 0.000
Mountain Shores Water Co. 0 0 123.3 0.000
Mt. Arlington Service Co. 0 0 74.8 0.000
Mt. Arlington Water Co. 0 0 82.0 0.000
Mt. Lakes Water Dept. 58 165 91 .8 0.015
MI. Olive Twp. Water Dept. 530 1,245 85.6 0.107
Mt. Olive Villages 0 0 64.0 0.000
Netcong Water Dept. 1 2 125.1 0.000
NJ American Water Co. (occ) 2,391 5,878 104.1 0.612
NJ Vasa Homes 0 0 59.5 0.000
Parsippany Water Dept. 795 1,875 138.5 0.260
Pequannock Water Dept. 800 2,187 114.4 0.250
Plausa Park Water Co. 0 0 94.3 0.000
Randolph Water Dept. 1,485 4,082 107.6 0.439
Riverdale Water Dept. 5 13 99.6 0.001
Rockaway Bore Water Dept. 198 500 129.5 0.065
Rockaway Twp Water Dept. 829 2,097 98.4 0.206
Roxbury Twp. Water Dept. 786 2,183 72.2 0.158
Roxbury Water Co. 31 88 78.0 0.007
SMCMUA 1,126 2,668 159.3 0.425
Washington Twp. MUA 1,258 3,636 105.5 0.384
West Jersey Water Co. 0 0 148.6 0.000
Wharton Water Dept. 60 143 147.8 0.021
Total Public Water Systems 14,220 36,697 4.271
Domestic Well Users 4,011 10,422 80.0 0.834
Self-Supplied Industrial and Agricultural Use- over 100,000 gpm 0.000
Self-Supplied Industrial and Agricultural Use - under 100,000 gpm 0.000
Small Public Community Systems 0.000
Total Increase in Water Demand 18,231 47,119 5.105
Note: No net change in self-supplied industrial or agricultural use is projected although changes in demand
may occur at individual locations.
Source: Camp, Dresser and McKee, 1992
3-7 Morris County Water Supply Element
Table 3-4
Future (201 0) Water Demand by Purveyor
Morris County Only 1989-1990
Purveyor Average
Dwellings Total Group Daily Demand
Served Population Quarters (MGD)
Arlington Hills Water Co. 588 1,430 0 0.176
Boonton Town Water Dept. 3,527 8,571 145 0.936
Boonton Twp. Water Distr. #1 77 320 126 0.042
Bulter Water Dept. 3,083 7,877 18 0.688
Chatham Boro. Water Dept. 3,174 7,565 28 1.028
Chester Boro. Water Dept. 170 398 0 0.070
Cliffside Park Water Co. 38 108 0 0.005
Denville Water Dept. 5,277 13,620 149 1.951
Dover Water Dept. 9,049 22,888 244 2.979
East Hanover Water Dept. 3,838 11,557 0 1.851
Elizabethtown Water Co. (ooc) 19 53 0 0.007
Fayson Lakes Water Dept. 699 1,956 0 0.193
Florham Park Water Dept. 3,077 8,306 151 1.148
Hackettstown MUA (ooc) 1,216 3,488 26 0.465
Jefferson Water Dept. 3,081 7,157 59 0.701
Kinnelon Water Dept. 144 402 0 0.048
Lake Shore Water Co. 95 223 0 0.034
Lake Stockholm Water Co. (ooc) 59 153 0 0.020
Lake Valhalla Water 35 101 0 0.013
Lincoln Park Water Dept. 4,492 11,556 664 1.316
Madison Water Dept. 5,822 15,663 2,237 1.876
Mendham Boro. Water Dept. 0 0 0 0.000
Mine Hill Water Dept. 793 1,961 0 0.154
Montville MUA 3,982 11 ,604 217 1.767
Morris County MUA 0 0 0 0.000
Mountain Shores Water Co. 29 65 0 0.008
Mt. Arl ington Service Co. 302 753 18 0.056
Mt. Arlington Water Co. 49 119 0 0.010
Mt. Lakes Water Dept. 1,298 3,687 0 0.360
Mt. Olive Twp. Water Dept. 4,662 11 ,006 52 0.990
Mt. Olive Villages 1,589 3,753 0 0.254
Netcong Water Dept. 1,416 3,162 0 0.420
NJ American Water Co. (occ) 8,710 21,755 343 2.341
NJ Vasa Homes 74 171 0 0.011
Parsippany Water Dept. 19,628 46,504 217 6.934
Pequannock Water Dept. 5,183 14,191 19 1.717
Pia usa Park Water Co. 54 145 0 0.015
Randolph Water Dept. 5,383 14,796 0 1.648
Riverdale Water Dept. 753 1,920 0 0.204
Rockaway Boro Water Dept. 3,195 8,073 0 1.104
Rockaway Twp Water Dept. 4,811 12,168 0 1.263
Roxbury Twp. Water Dept. 3,005 8,346 0 0.629
Roxbury Water Co. 2,677 7,707 67 0.637
SMCMUA 21,916 54,722 2,791 9.051
Washington Twp. MUA 2,783 8,044 0 0.873
West Jersey Water Co. 197 461 0 0.072
Wharton Water Dept. 2,180 5,230 17 0.819
Total Public Water Systems 142,229 363,735 7,588 46.885
Domestic Well Users 31,747 82,576 85 6.894
Self-Supplied Industrial and Agricultural Use- over 100,000 gpm 7.446
Self-Supplied Industrial and Agricultural Use- under 100,000 gpm 0.407
Small Public Community Systems 0.128
Total Future Water Demand 173,976 446,311 7,673 61 .760
Source: Camp, Dresser and McKee, 1992
Morris County Water Supply Element 3-8
Year 2010 Projected
Demand for Water
Public Water Supply Wells
0 Less than 0.03 MGD
0 0.03 - 0.09 MGD
0 0.09-0.27 MGD
(!) 0.27- 0.81 MGD
Projected Growth in
Total Households (HH)
D Lessthan JOOHH
D 100-JOOHH
300-600 HH
More than 600 H H
(!) More than 0.81 MGD ~ Census Tra<:t Boundary
N 0 R T
0 2
0 2 3 4
1 inch to 8,300 feet
H
3 4
5 6
5 Miles
7 Kilometers
8 C{!)R 0
SOURCE:
Served Areas: MCPB & CDM, 1992. 1:12,000.
Public Water Supply Wells: MCPB, 1992. 1:12,000.
Census Tracts: MCPB, 1992.
Population Projections: MCPB, 1992.
Map Prepared By:
Camp Dresser & McKee
Morris County Planning Board
ROCKAWAY TWP
T W P
(!)H A R D I N G
NG HI L L
T W P
BOONTON
T W P
T W P
1994 Water Supply Master Plan
County of Morris, New Jersey
Morris County Planning Board
Figure l-1: Year 2010 Projected
Demand for Water
CHAPTER FOUR
Regulatory Requirements Affecting
Provision of Water Supply
This section reviews current (and proposed)
federal and state laws which affect public com-
munity water supplies. Because federal and
state statues are implemented through adminis-
trative codes (i.e., "the regulations"), this sec-
tion provides a brief overview of federal and
state statutes while focusing on specific regula-
tory requirements related to the operation and
expansion of water utilities.
There are about 25 sections of the NJ Ad-
ministrative Code that apply to the development
and operation of water supply systems. Each
water supplier must comply with each of these
regulations, which range from water supply
development approval, source protection, water
4-1
withdrawal reporting, treatment requirements,
water quality criteria, pressure and storage
requirements, conservation, emergency backup
supply planning, water system budgeting for
maintenance activities, and plumbing code
compliance. In addition, there are a number of
programs for which the state has direct responsi-
bility, such as development of a Statewide
Water Supply Master Plan, but which involve
participation and data reporting by water sys-
tems.
A review of applicable regulations currently
in effect, as well as those currently being con-
templated by NJDEPE and US EPA, reveals that
the operation of a water supply system has
Morris County Water Supply Element
become increasingly complex. The regulatory
requirements to maintain the quality and assure
the reliability of our water supplies make it
extremely difficult for small (and some not-so-
small) water systems to continue to provide
water at relatively low cost. The increasingly
complex regulatory structure is expected to
result in fewer small water systems being able to
continue to meet public water supply re-
quirements.
Also included is this section are state and
federal programs related to protecting the purity
of water supplies. Programs such as NJDEPE's
Wellhead Protection Program and the State Spill
Law are intended to regulate activities that could
adversely affect water supplies, but which are
the responsibility of government agencies not
directly involved in provision of water supply.
Pending New Jersey legislation concerning the
regulation of land use in watersheds and protec-
tion of aquifer recharge areas are additional
examples of regulations that indirectly affect
drinking water quality.
4.1 FEDERAL WATER SUPPLY
REGULATIONS
4.1.1 Safe Drinking Water Act
The federal role in the control of public
community water supply systems is primarily
defined under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) of 1974. That Act provided USEPA
c
with authority over wa-
__..) ter suppliers within the
United States. Substan-
tially amended in 1986,
the Act required
USEP A to set forth
Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCL's) for pri-
mary and secondary
contaminants. Primary
contaminants are those
which could have an
Morris County Water Supply Element 4-2
adverse effect on health. Secondary contami-
nants are substances which can adversely affect
the acceptability of tap water for household use,
and include such parameters as taste, odor, and
color.
The SDWA also required EPA to establish
certain treatment level standards, for example,
the "Filtration Rule" which requires that all
surface water supplies be treated through filtra-
tion. The SDW A also mandates the develop-
ment of programs by states intended to protect
the quality or quantity of water supplies, such as
the Wellhead Protection Program.
The USEP A plays a limited direct role in
water supply or drinking water quality regula-
tions within the State of New Jersey. The
SDW A delegated public water supply regulation
to the state environmental agencies. The EPA
role is generally limited to the issuance of
MCL's and treatment performance standards,
which the states must include in their regula-
tions.
4.1.2 Sole Source Aquifer Protection
Program
This program is intended to protect the
quality of aquifers that have been identified as
the sole source of drinking water for at least 75
percent of the persons in the aquifer service
area. This designation is most important for
aquifers that are particularly vulnerable to
contamination because of their hydrogeologic
characteristics. No project may receive federal
financial assistance if the Administrator of EPA
determines that the project may contaminate
such an aquifer through a recharge zone so as to
create a significant hazard to public health.
The Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program
applies throughout Morris County, because Sole
Source aquifer recharge areas cover virtually the
entire county. However, the aquifer studies and
restrictions on actions authorized under the Act
apply only to projects using federal monies,
such as federal highways and federally funded
sewer facilities. Most of the residential and
industrial development projects in Morris
County are privately sponsored and do not fall
under the requirements of the sole source aqui-
fer program.
4.1.3 Clean Water Act
The federal government also plays a role in
the protection of raw water quality through the
passage and implementation of such laws as the
Clean Water Act. Again, the federal role is
limited to the promulgation of regulations and
standards; primary responsibility for imple-
mentation is delegated to the states.
4.2 NJ REGULATIONS REGARDING
OPERATION OF WATER UTILITIES
4.2.1 Compliance With Maximum
Contaminant Levels (58:12A-1 et seq.
N.J.A.C. 7:10-5.1 et seq.)
Legislation providing USEP A with authority
over all water supplies was embodied in the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974. The Act
required EPA to set primary drinking water
quality standards. The SDW A also required the
establishment of secondary drinking water
quality standards dealing with the aesthetic
quality of water such as odor and color. The
1986 Amendments to the SDWA required EPA
to promulgate Primary Maximum Contaminant
Levels (PMCL's) and Secondary Maximum
Contaminant Levels (SMCL's).
Under the SDW A, USEP A promulgates the
MCL's, but the primary responsibility for en-
forcement was delegated to the state environ-
mental agencies. Paralleling the federal actions,
New Jersey enacted the New Jersey Safe Drink-
ing Water Act in 1977. Commonly known as
"A-280", the New Jersey law was amended in
1984 to require periodic monitoring of commu-
nity water systems for a specified list of chemi-
cals.
4-3
The 1986 SDW A Amendments required
EPA to regulate a total of 83 contaminants.
These regulations have been divided into five
phases based upon the types of contaminants
regulated:
0 Phase I - Volatile Organic Chemicals
0 Phase II - Synthetic Organic Chemicals,
Inorganic Chemicals, and Microbiologi-
cal Contamination
0 Phase III - Radionuclide Contaminants
0 Phase IV- Disinfectant By-Product Con-
taminant Regulations
0 Phase V - 23 Additional Organic and
Inorganic Compounds
Since the enactment of the 1986 SDWA
Amendments, EPA has issued final regulations
for VOC's, fluoride, surface water treatment
(filtration rule), Phase II inorganic chemicals,
lead and copper. In New Jersey, there are cur-
rently 62 contaminants for which Primary Maxi-
mum Contaminant Levels or Treatment Tech-
nique standards are enforceable.
There are 18 Secondary Maximum Contam-
inant Levels in effect in New Jersey. These
include fifteen compounds for which final
SMCL's have been issued by USEPA plus three
additional (Hardness as CaC0
3
, Sodium and
Taste) parameters. The PMCL's are listed in
Table 4-1 and the SMCL's are listed in Table
4-2.
USEPA also issued final MCL's for 18
organic and 5 inorganic Phase V compounds on
July 17, 1992. These limits have an effective
date of January 17, 1994, however, NJDEPE has
already issued enforceable MCL's for Endrin
and Methylene Chloride. The Phase V con-
taminants are also shown on Table 4-1.
Morris County Water Supply Element
Contaminant
lnorganics
1. Arsenic
2. Asbestos
3. Barium
4. Cadium
5. Chromium
6. Copper
7. Flouride
8. Lead
9. Mercury
10. Nitrate (as N)
11. Nitrite (as N)
12. Total Nitrate/Nitrite
13. Selenium
Organics
6
14. Benzene
15. Carbon Tetrachloride
16. Chlordane
17. mono-Chlorobenzene
18. meta-Dichlorobenzene
19. ortho-Dichlorobenzene
20. para-Dichlorobenzene
21. 1 ,2-Dichloroethane
22. 1, 1-Dichloroethylene
23. 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
(cis and trans)
24. Methylene Chloride
25. Biphenyls (PCBs)
26. Tetrachloroethylene
27. Trichlorobenzene (s)
28. 1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
29. Trichloroethylene
30. Vinyl Cloride
31 . Xylene (s)
Volatile Organics (Federal)
32. 1 ,2-Dichloropropane
33. Ethyl benzene
34. Styrene
35. Toluene
Pesticides
36. Alachlor (Lasso)
37. Aldicarb (Temick)
38. Aldicarb Sulfone
39. Aldicarb Sulfoxide
Table 4-1
New Jersey Drinking Water Standards
Primary Maximum Contaminant Levels
EPA Status Level (mg/1)
Regulation
lnterim
1
Final 0.05
Phase 11
2
Final 7 MFL
3
Phase II Final 2.0
Phase II Final 0.005
Phase II Final 0.1
Lead/Copper-4 Final 1.3
Rule
Flourides
5
Final 4.0
Lead/Copper Final 0.015
Rule
Phase II Final 0.002
Phase II Final 10.0
Phase II Final 1.0
Phase II Final 10.0
Phase II Final 0.05
Phase Final 0.001
Phase Final 0.002
Phase Final 0.0005
Phase Final 0.004
N/A Final 0.6
Phase Final 0.6
Phase Final 0.075
Phase Final 0.002
Phase Final 0.002
Phase Final 0.010
Phase V
7
Final 0.002
Phase II Final 0.0005
Phase II Final 0.001
Phase V Final 0.008
Phase I Final 0.026
Phase I Final 0.001
Phase I Final 0.002
Phase II Final 0.044
Phase II Final 0.005
Phase II Final 0.7
Phase II Final 0.1
Phase II Final 1.0
Phase II Final 0.002
Phase II Final 0.003
Phase II Final 0.002
Phase II Final 0.004
40. Atrazine (Atranex, Crisazina) Phase II Final 0.003
Morris County Water Supply Element 4-4
(Action Level)
(Action Level)
A-280 Chemical
A-280 Chemical
A-280 Chemical
A-280 Chemical
A-280 Chemical
A-280 Chemical
A-280 Chemical
A-280 Chemical
A-280 Chemical
A-280 Chemical
A-280 Chemical
A-280 Chemical
A-280 Chemical
A-280 Chemical
A-280 Chemical
A-280 Chemical
A-280 Chemical
A-280 Chemical
Contaminant
41. Carbofuran (Furadan 4F)
42. Dibromochloropropane
(DBCP, Nemafume)
43. 2,4-0
(2,4-0ichlorophenoxacitic Acid)
(Formula 40, Weedar 64)
44. Endrin
45. Ethylene Dibromide
(EDB, Bromofume)
46. Heptachlor (H-34, Heptox)
47. Heptachlor Epoxide
48. Lindane
49. Methoxychlor
50. Pentachlorophenol
51. Toxaphene
52. 2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
53. Trialomethane (s)
Treatment Techniques
54. Acrylamide
55. Epichlorohydrin
Mircobiological Contaminants
56. Coliform bacteria
57. Total Coliform
58. Fecal/E. Coli
Turbidity
59. Turbidity
Radiological Contaminants
60. Gros Alpha Activity
61. Radium 226
62. Radium 228
63. Beta particle and photon
radioactivity
64. Uranium
65. Radon
Notes:
Table 4-1 , Continued
EPA Status
Regulation
Phase II Final
Phase II Final
Phase II Final
Phase V Final
Phase II Final
Phase II Final
Phase II Final
Phase II Final
Phase II Final
Phase II Proposed
Phase II Final
Phase II Final
Interim Final
Phase II Final
Phase II Final
TCR
9
Final
TCR Final
TCR Final
Final
Interim Final
Interim Final
Interim Final
Interim Final
Radiological Final
Radiological Final
Level (mg/1)
0.04
0.0002
0.07
0.0002
0.00005
0.0004
0.0002
0.0002
0.04
0.001
8
0.003
0.05
0.1
0.005% dosed at 1 mg/1
0.01% dosed at 20mg/1
0 pos. if single sample collected
1 pos sample if less than 40 samples
5% pos. from all samples
Positive Total Coliform or E. Coli
combination between routine and
repeat
0.5 NTU (95% of samples) at
combined filter effluent
15 pCi/1
5 pCi/1 (Ra226+Ra228)
20 pCi/1
4 millirem/yr
20 pCi/1 (proposed)
300 pCi/1 (proposed)
1
EPA Interim regulations were issued pursuant to Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974.
2
Final Phase II regulations covering 38 Synthetic Organic Contaminants (SOCs) and Inorganic
Contaminants (IOCs) were completed in July, 1991.
3
MFL = Million fibers per liter with fiber lengths> 10 microns.
4
U.S. EPA Lead/Copper Rule issued July, 1991.
5
Promulgated April, 1986. Primary and secondary MCLs currently being re-evaluated.
4-5 Morris County Water Supply Element
Table 4-2
New Jersey Drinking Water Standards
Secondary Maximum Contaniment Levels
Contaminant EPA Regulation Level (mg/1)
66. Aluminum Phase II Final 0.05- 0.2 (surface water
treatment MCL pending)
67. ASS/LAS Interim Final 0.5
(Foaming Agents)
68. Chloride Interim F,inal 250
69. Color Interim Final 10 color units (standard cobalt
scale}
70. Copper Interim Final 1.0
71 . Corrosivity Interim Final Within ± 1.0 of the optimum pH
as determined by the Langelier
Index; or by another method
acceptable to the NJDEPE
72. Flouride Flouride Final 2.0
73. Hardness (as CaCo) N/A Final 250 upper limit
50 lower limit
74. Iron Interim Final 0.3
75. Maganese Interim Final 0.05
76. Odor Interim Final 3 Threshold odor number (TON)
77. pH Interim Final 6.5 to 8.5
78. Silver Phase II Final 0.1
79. Sodium N/A Final 50
80. Sulfate Interim Final 250
81 . Taste N/A Final No objectionable taste
82. Total Dissolved Solids Interim Final 500
(TDS)
83. Zinc Interim Final 5.0
6
Pursuant to New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act 1977 (Act 280).
7
Final Phase V regulations covering 18 organic and 5 inorganic contaminants were issued July 17, 1992,
and became effective January 7, 1994.
8
EPA taste and odor guidelines of 0.03 mg/1 .
9
Total Coliform Rule promulgated June 24, 1989.
10
Surface Water Treatment Rule promulgated June 29, 1989.
Source: Camp, Dresser and McKee, 1993
Morris County Water Supply Element 4-6
(
4.2.2 Performance and Action Levels for
Water Treatment
Pathogen Removal
Under the USEP A Surface Water Treatment
Rule, surface water supplies and ground water
sources which are under the direct influence of
surface waters are required to achieve a three
log (99.9) percent removal and/or deactivation
of Giardia Lamblia cysts, and a four log (99 .99)
percent removal and/or inactivation of viruses.
Filter effluent turbidity under the Surface
Water Treatment Rule must be less than 5.0
turbidity units at all times, and less than 0.05 in
more than 95 percent of all samples. Residual
disinfection entering the distribution system
must be at least 0.2 mg/1.
The Total Coliform Final Regulations estab-
lish a minimum contaminant level for coliform
based upon the presence or absence of coliform.
Systems with a service population greater than
33,000 may not obtain coliform positive results
in more than five percent of the samples. Sys-
tems with service populations less than 33,000
may not have a coliform positive result in more
than one sample per month to stay in compli-
ance with the MCL.
Lead and Copper
EPA's Lead and Copper Rule, finalized in
July, 1991, sets action levels rather than MCL's
for lead and copper. The regulations require
-
c-
semi-annual sam-
:
- piing offi lead h ~ n d h
copper rom 1g
risk locations such
as homes in which
lead solder has
been installed
since 1982, or
which have lead
service lines. If
more than 10 per-
4-7
cent of distribution system samples exceed
0.015 mg/1 for lead or 1.3 mg/1 for copper,
treatment technique requirements are triggered,
consisting of optimizing corrosion control,
source water treatment and public education.
Systems with service populations exceeding
50,000 will be required to conduct corrosion
control studies if they exceed the lead or copper .
action levels. These studies are intended to lead
to a corrosion control program by the utility.
Medium and small systems which, subsequent
to exceeding an action level, fall below the
action level for two consecutive sampling peri-
ods may be considered to have an optimized
corrosion control program.
The first round of sampling for large systems
ended June 30, 1992. Small and medium sys-
tems were required to complete their first round
ofsamplingbyDecember31, 1992. Based upon
the first round of samples, at least one water
supplier in Morris County has exceeded the
action level for lead.
4.3 NJREGULATIONOFWATER
ALLOCATIONS AND WITHDRAWALS
4.3.1 Water Supply Allocation (N.J.S.A.
58: 1A-1, N.J.A.C. 7:19-1 et seq.)
NJDEPE regulates ground and surface water
withdrawals through a water allocation permit-
ting process. Permits are issued for diversions
of ground or surface water exceeding more than
100,000 gallons of water per day for diversions
which will last more than 31 days annually.
Each permit specifies the amount of water
that can be diverted based upon hydrological
evaluation of the safe yield of the source. Ap-
plicants must also demonstrate that existing
users of the supply source will not be impacted.
Water Allocation Permits also require mainte-
nance of the quality of the water source, and
specify procedures to determine the location,
extent, and quality of water supplies.
Morris County Water Supply Element
Permit holders are required to submit annual
(or semi-annual) reports to NJDEPE detailing
monthly water usage for each permitted source
(7:19-2.8).
4.3.2 Water Diversion Fees (N.J.S.A.
13-1B.3,58:1A-1, N.J.A.C. 7:19-4.1 et
seq.)
Water diversion fees are collected by
NJDEPE for all withdrawals from surface wa-
ters of the State of New Jersey and for with-
drawals of ground water from wells on land that
is controlled (i.e., owned) by the state.
Fees for surface water withdrawals are based
upon a formula which includes average daily
stream flows, the minimum passing flow re-
quired to maintain designated water quality or to
serve downstream uses, and total daily diver-
sions (N.J.A.C. 719-4.7(c). Ground water fees,
where applicable, are currently $1.00 per million
gallons.
4.3.3 Well Drilling Permits (N.J.S.A.
58:4A-14)
Prior to drilling a new well for a public
community or non-community water supply a
well drilling permit must be obtained from the
NJDEPE Well Permitting and Regulations
Section of the Bureau of Water Allocation. The
construction of the well and related appurte-
nances such as pumps and piping must also be
approved by the Bureau of Safe Drinking Water
through the issuance of a Waterworks Approval
permit.
Well drillers must be licensed in the State of
New Jersey by the Well Drillers and Pump
Installers Advisory Board. Within sixty days of
completion of the well drilling, the drillers must
submit a standardized report describing the
materials penetrated, size and depth of the well,
the diameters and lengths of casings, static and
pumping levels and yields of the well.
Morris County Water Supply Element 4-8
4.4 NJ REGULATIONS FOR PROTEC-
TION OF GROUND WATER SUPPLIES
4.4.1 Wellhead Protection Program (Fed-
eral Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S. C.
1428)
The 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking
Water Act required that states develop programs
to protect well water and wellfields from con-
taminants that could adversely affect public
health. New Jersey's final Wellhead Protection
Program Plan was approved by USEPA on
December 4, 1991.
The Wellhead Protection Program's purpose
is to minimize the risk to water supplies posed
by potential ground water pollution. The Well-
head Protection Program (WHPP) focuses on
the protection of water supplies in the area
around a well. The WHPP relies on existing
state, county, and municipal regulatory powers
to regulate the locations and operation of poten-
tial and actual sources of pollution discharges,
and to regulate the location of new wells.
The Wellhead Protection Program Plan is
based upon the delineation of a three tiered
Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) for each
well. WHP A boundaries are determined based
on aquifer characteristics, well pumping capac-
ity, and a time of travel (TOT) factor which
estimates how quickly pollutants could migrate
to a well. The three concentric tiers correspond
to different TOTs, reflecting potential vulnera-
bility to different types of contamination (e.g.,
bacterial, chemical spill, chemical storage).
Areas within Tier 1 have a TOT of 200 days.
Tier 1 focuses on the protection of the well from
pathological contamination from such sources as
leaking sewerage systems. Areas within Tier 2
have a TOT of five years, and are directed at
protection from hazardous waste discharges.
Areas within Tier 3 have a TOT of twelve years,
and focus on monitoring of potential pollution
sources and control of pollutant discharges. The
intent of tier three is early identification of
discharges which could threaten the well years
in the future.
The Wellhead Protection Areas will be
delineated by NJDEPE. NJDEPE's initial efforts
will focus on public community water supply
wells and clusters of domestic wells. Public
noncommunity wells will be addressed at a later
date. NJDEPE will first issue interim WHP A's
using regional aquifer data and an inventory of
NJDEPE regulated pollution sources. Potential
sources of pollution will be identified from
existing state permits (e.g. NJPDES surface
water discharge permits). Municipalities and
counties will also be asked to supplement the
state's data on potential sources of ground water
pollution.
Final WHP A delineations will be proposed
by interested parties such as municipalities or
well owners. The final delineations are to be
based on site-specific aquifer data, and hence
delineations may be different than the interim
areas set by NJDEPE. The criteria for estab-
lishing final WHP A's are set forth in NJDEPE
regulations.
- -
County and municipal 9overnments
will be encourased to use existins powers
to make wellhead protection a
part of land use decision-makin9 and
public health code enforcement.
-
Protection of wellheads will be achieved
through existing NJDEPE permitting programs
and through local land use and public health
regulation. NJDEPE does not anticipate a
"Wellhead" permit, rather the WHP A delin-
eations will be used in future permitting deci-
sions under current programs.
4-9
County and municipal governments will be
encouraged to use existing powers to make
wellhead protection a part of land use decision-
making and public health code enforcement.
There is currently no statutory mandate that
county or municipal governments or public
water purveyors participate in the program.
However, NJDEPE may encourage participation
through state permitting processes, e.g. the
renewal of water allocation permits.
4.4.2 Wellhead Perimeter Protection
(N.J.A.C. 7:10 -11.4)
In addition to the Wellhead Protection Pro-
gram outlined above, the current NJ Safe Drink-
ing Water Act regulations concerning the con-
struction of public community water systems
require the following ground water source
protection actions:
0 Duplicate wells and pumping
equipment or an approved inter-
connection with a public commu-
nity water system are required for
systems with more than 100 ser-
vice connections.
0 All land within a minimum of 50
feet of a well must be acquired or
under the control of the water sup-
plier.
0 Sewer lines within 1 00 feet of a
well must be of steel, cast iron,
ductile iron, etc, and must be com-
pletely watertight and without
manholes.
Applications for construction permits for
wells from the Bureau of Safe Drinking Water
must include maps showing existing and
planned ground water sources, flood plain
elevations, and potential pollution hazards such
as landfills, chemical storage areas, etc.
Morris County Water Supply Element
4.4.3 Aquifer Recharge Area Protection
Program (Assembly Bill1340, 1993
Legis.)
The Aquifer Recharge Area Protection
Program (ARAPP), mandated by state law, is
intended to protect the quality and quantity of
water entering the state's aquifers. These re-
charge areas are generally larger than the well-
head protection areas described above, and may
be a considerable distance from the wells which
withdraw from an aquifer.
The goals of the program are to reduce .
depletive uses of water. and to identify
potential sources of aquifer contamination.
This program will complement the Wellhead
Protection Program by focusing upon ground
water quantity and quality issues within entire
aquifers. The goals of the program are to reduce
depletive uses of water, and to identify potential
sources of aquifer contamination.
NJDEPE will initially focus upon ground
water recharge zone mapping. As data avail-
ability and methodologies allow, NJDEPE will
refine the analysis from regional water with-
drawal: water recharge ratios to include the
movements of water through an aquifer from the
points of recharge.
NJDEPE intends to use this data to support
recharge planning at the local and county levels.
Aquifer recharge areas would be protected
through best management practices. NJDEPE
was required by the Legislature to develop
general ground water recharging planning
methodologies. These methodologies are cur-
rently being published by NJDEPE and will be
available in September, 1993. A training semi-
nar on ground water recharge planning has been
preliminarily scheduled for November of 1993.
Morris County Water Supply Element 4-10
NJDEPE plans to implement the ARAPP in
several phases. In phase 1, NJDEPE will de-
velop water withdrawal/recharge water balances
for the state's aquifers. The output of this activ-
ity will be a set of aquifer recharge maps. Phase
2 of the state's activities will expand the re-
charge mapping to include ground water trans-
port modelling in relationship to withdrawal and
recharge locations.
There is currently no requirement for county
or municipal participation in the ARAPP. It is
anticipated by NJDEPE that recharge planning
be included in the evolving State Development
and Redevelopment Plan process.
4.4.4 Well Abandonment (N.J.S.A. 4A-4.1)
Any well which has not been used for more
than three years or which is not properly main-
tained is considered to be abandoned under New
Jersey law, and must be filled and sealed. Wells
deeper than 25 feet must be filled with neat
cement, cement-bentonite mixture, or bentonite.
Wells should be sealed with a three foot grout
plug. The well filling and abandonment must be
conducted by a licensed well driller, and a well
abandonment report must be filed with NJ-
DEPE.
4.5 WATERSHED PROTECTION
4.5.1 Watershed Protection Act
(Proposed- Assembly Bill 560)
The proposed legislation would require
buffer zones for all watershed lands associated
with water supply reservoirs. This bill is essen-
tially identical to Senate Bill No. 2339 which
the Legislature failed to enact in 1990.
Under the proposed legislation, a buffer zone
would be defined as a strip of land which is left
undisturbed or which is planted with specific
vegetation to achieve sediment and soil erosion
control. Watershed lands are broadly defmed as
"those lands located above or upstream from a
(
terminal water supply reservoir or intake, in-
cluding the land surrounding tributaries or
feeder streams entering the water supply reser-
voir." The proposed legislation calls for a
"multi-tiered" buffer zone approach.
Within one year of enactment, NJDEPE
would be required to issue implementing regu-
lations, utilizing best management practices.
This concept can be attributed to the 1989
NJDEPE Report Evaluation and Recommenda-
tion Concerning Buffer Zones Around Public
Water Supply Reservoirs. The report concluded
that while 50- to 300-foot buffer zones around
reservoirs can reduce non-point sources of
sediments and dissolved contaminants, pollut-
ants would continue to reach the water supply
unless the buffer concept is also applied to
tributaries.
-
-
A buffer zone is a strip of land which
is left undisturbed or which is planted with
specific vegetation to achieve
sediment and soil erosion control.
- -
The report recommended that buffer zones
around reservoirs be supplemented by one or
two zones covering the remainder of the water-
shed. Land uses leading to potential pollution
would be banned or controlled through best
management practices. It can be assumed that
the land use control aspects of the legislation
would have little direct impact on the operations
of purveyors. If the buffer zone concept were
successful in reducing the contaminant loading
to surface water supplies, water purveyors
should be better able to comply with Safe Drink-
ing Water Act maximum contaminant levels
(MCL's) for pesticides and other chemicals.
4-11
4.5.2 Watershed Conveyance Act Of 1988
(New Jersey Public Law 1988, C. 163)
The Watershed Conveyance Act established
a procedure to review and regulate the sale and
development of watershed lands associated with
public surface water supplies. The Act mandat-
ed that NJDEPE study watershed buffer zones.
The Act also imposed an 18-month ban on the
conveyance of any land owned by a municipal
or investor-owned utility unless approved by the
Watershed Property Review Board. The Board
consists of the Commissioners ofEnvironmental
Protection and Community Affairs and the
President ofthe Board of Public Utilities.
Senate Bill No. 2036, enacted in May 1990,
extended the conveyance moratorium until
NJDEPE issues watershed protection regulations
under the proposed Watershed Protection Act
(S.B. 2339). The ban on conveyance of water-
shed lands remains in effect pending action on
the current Watershed Protection Bill. In Morris
County, approximately 13,700 acres ofwater-
shed properties are affected by the ban. Most of
these lands are owned by Jersey City and New-
ark.
4.6 REGULATIONS AFFECTING
CONSTRUCTION AND EXPANSION OF
WATERWORKS
4.6.1 Approval Of Community Water
Systems (N.J.S.A. 58:12A-1 et seq.,
N.J.A.C. 7:10-11 et seq.)
Pursuant to the New Jersey Safe Drinking
Water Act, the Bureau of Safe Drinking Water
must review and approve the plans and specifi-
cations for wells, treatment facilities, distribu-
tion piping and appurtenances prior to con-
struction. This review is limited to "sanitary
engineering features of public health signifi-
cance".
Morris County Water Supply Element
Applications for construction permits must
include a variety of site maps and a detailed
engineer's report (N.J.A.C. 7:10-11.2(c)).
Depending upon the scope of the project, the
Engineer's Report should include data about the
safe or dependable yield, raw water quality,
hydrogeological data (ground water supplies),
pilot testing results, details about the process
train, wastewater treatment provisions, current
and design year populations and water demands,
and environmental impacts.
The design standards for the construction of
public community water systems are given in
Subchapter 11 ofthe New Jersey Safe Drinking
Water Act Regulations (N.J.A.C. 7:10-11.1 et
seq.). NJDEPE does not follow the "Ten State
Standards,"
1
and no technical guidance manuals
are published by NJDEPE although NJDEPE
does require verification of the adequacy of the
proposed treatment process with respect to state
and federal treatment standards.
4.6.2 Air Pollution Control Permits
Certain water treatment process and auxiliary
equipment may require Air Quality Permits
from the Bureau ofNew Source Review within
NJDEPE. In general, any potential source of air
pollution emissions is subject to permitting.
Equipment most likely to require permitting
includes air strippers, ozone destruction units,
chemical storage tanks, and standby electrical
generators.
Air permits are required for air stripping
equipment if any toxic volatile organic sub-
stance (VOS) included in the regulations
(N.J.A.C. 7:27-17) exceeds 100 parts per billion
by weight and the total concentrations of VOS
exceeds 3,500 parts per billion and the air strip-
ping equipment has a capacity exceeding
1
Recommended Standards for Water Works of the
Great Lakes Upper Mississippi River Board of State
Public Health and Environmental Managers, Health
Education Services, Albany, N.Y., 1992.
Morris County Water Supply Element 4-12
100,000 gallons per day (N.J.A.C.
7:27-8.2(a)(12)).
Standby generators that consume diesel fuel
at a rate exceeding one million BTU's per hour
must be permitted, based upon the emission of
particulates. Generators are unlikely to require
emissions control equipment. NJDEPE com-
pares estimated emission levels from the equip-
ment manufacturer with industry standards for
similar equipment.
Any stationary storage tanks for liquids other
than water or distillates of air with capacities
exceeding 10,000 gallons must also be permit-
ted. This requirement would apply to treatment
chemicals such as alum, sulfuric acid, caustic
soda, and sodium hypochlorite.
4.6.3 Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act
(N.J.S.A. look up, N.J.A.C. 7:31-1 et seq.)
Under the rules implementing the New
Jersey Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act
(TCPA), several water treatment chemicals such
as ozone, gaseous chlorine, and chlorine dioxide
are listed as extraordinarily hazardous sub-
stances. Water systems which store or utilize
more than the listed registration quantity for
each material must enter into a permitting pro-
cess which culminates in the issuance of an
administrative consent agreement with the
Bureau of Release Prevention within NJDEPE.
Ninety days prior to the start of construction
on any equipment that must comply with TCP A,
registration forms must be submitted, a safety
review report and a risk assessment must be
prepared. Prior to the initiation of operation of
the facility, a Summary Risk Management
Program must be approved by NJDEPE. This
program incorporates operation and mainte-
nance and emergency response procedures,
including coordination with local officials.
(
4.6.4 Discharge Prevention Containment
and Control (N.J.A.C. 7:1E-1.1)
Under the NJDEPE Spill Compensation and
Control Act regulations, facilities at which
hazardous chemicals are used or stored must
register the facilities and prepare 1) a Discharge
Prevention, Containment and Countermeasure
Plan (DPCC) and 2) a Discharge Cleanup and
Removal Plan (DCR). The DPCC consists of
design features, i.e. secondary containment, and
operating procedures. The DCR addresses the
procedures to be followed in the event of a spill.
NJDEPE approval of the plans must occur prior
to the initiation of operation.
The regulations cover several chemicals
commonly used in water treatment, such as:
ozone, alum, sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide,
sodium hypochlorite, and fuel oil. The regula-
tions cover all loading areas, storage, yard
piping and utilization areas, including truck
docks, chemical storage areas, and pipe galleries
leading to chemical feed or mixing areas.
Truck unloading areas must have secondary
containment with sufficient capacity to hold the
contents of the largest compartment of a chem-
ical tank trailer, plus an additional capacity to
accommodate six inches of rainwater, if the
secondary containment or diversion structure is
located such that rainwater could accumulate in
it. Extensive environmental mapping of
sensitive areas is required covering the "maxi-
mum area of potential impact" in the event of a
failure of the secondary containment system. In
addition, an Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Protection Plan must be developed and certified
by an aquatic biologist and an ornithologist.
The area covered under these requirements
could range up to 15 miles down-gradient of the
plant.
These requirements may be reduced through
the demonstration of tertiary containment
demonstration of limited environmental threats
posed by the chemicals used at the facility.
4-13
4.6.5 Local Planning Board Approval
And Building Approvals
The construction of water treatment facilities
or the installation of water mains require ap-
proval of the planning boards of the munici-
palities in which the project is located. Projects
are typically reviewed concerning stormwater
management, set-back requirements and compli-
ance with the local zoning. The installation of
utility facilities is a conditionally acceptable use
under most municipal zoning ordinances.
Local building permits are also required for
water supply and distribution expansions. The
building plans and specifications (if applicable)
are reviewed by the local code enforcement
officer for compliance with the BOCA code.
Most municipalities have a Class 1 approval
authority from the New Jersey Department of
Community Affairs (DCA). Lacking this, the
plans must be reviewed by the DCA.
4. 7 ASSURANCE OF WATER SYSTEM
RELIABILITY
4. 7.1 Takeover Of Small Water Compa-
nies (N.J.S.A. 58:11-59 et seq. N.J.A.C.
7:19-5)
NJDEPE may order the acquisition of private
water companies if the small water system
serves fewer than 1,000 customer connections
and is unable to deliver water that meets state
drinking water standards. A hearing is held be-
fore NJDEPE and the Board of Public Utilities
(BPU) to determine the actions required to bring
the water company into compliance. These
actions may include takeover of the company by
another private water company or by a public
agency, and the adjustment of customer rates so
that systems directed to take over small systems
do not suffer financial hardship.
A number of small community water sys-
tems exist in Morris County that could be sub-
Morris County Water Supply Element
ject to this Act if they fail to meet water quality
testing schedules, fail state inspections, meet
state facility requirements, and/or provide water
that does not meet drinking water quality stan-
dards.
4. 7.2 Water Purveyor Emergency Re-
sponse Planning (N.J.S.A. 58-JA-1 et
seq., N.J.A.C. 7:19A-3.2)
To insure that public community water
purveyors have the institutional capacities to
maintain water service during emergencies,
water purveyors must obtain NJDEPE approval
of an emergency response plan. Key aspects of
the plan include the identification of supply
interconnections and/or back-up sources, interim
water use restriction plans, emergency response
teams, and inter-agency coordination plans.
Water utilities are also required to perform a
vulnerability assessment and solicit water use
contingency plans from their largest customers.
These requirements are in effect for all
water purveyors serving more than 3,000 cus-
tomers. Prior to March, 1990, the requirements
had been limited to purveyors with more than
50,000 customers. The level of compliance
among small purveyors is not known. The
vulnerability assessments could provide useful
sources of information as to the needs for future
coordination and water distribution system inter-
connections.
4. 7.3 Minimum System Pressure and
Storage Requirements (N.J.S.A. 58:/A-5,
N.J.A.C. 7:19-6.7)
To insure that water systems provide ade-
quate delivered pressure and volumes for fire-
fighting and other uses, a minimum water pres-
sure of 20 lb/square inch is required at street
level. Minimum daily storage requirements
range from 30 to 100 percent of average daily
demand, depending upon the availability of
back-up supplies.
Morris County Water Supply Element 4-14
4. 7.4 Interconnections (N.J.S.A. 58:/A-5,
N.J.A.C. 19:6-8)
To assure the availability of water during
emergencies or droughts, NJDEPE may require
interconnections for all Class 2 (service popula-
tion between 10,001 and 50,000) and Class 3
(service populations greater than 50,000) water
utilities. If conditions warrant, NJDEPE may
also require interconnections for Class 1 (service
populations of 10,000 or less).
Upon notification from NJDEPE, the water
utility must conduct an interconnection feasibil-
ity study to identify the most cost-effective
alternative and schedule for project completion.
The completed study must be approved by
NJDEPE prior to project implementation. If two
systems are within 1,000 feet of each other, it is
assumed to be cost effective to interconnect. If
the systems are greater than 1,000 feet apart, but
within a mile of one another, then a feasibility
study must be completed.
Unless otherwise demonstrated to NJDEPE,
it is assumed that the benefits of interconnection
are shared by both systems, and hence the costs
of the project are to be divided proportionately
between the systems. NJDEPE must approve
this cost allocation and interconnection agree-
ment.
4.8 WATER EMERGENCY, SHORTAGE,
AND DROUGHT-RELATED
REGULATIONS
4.8.1 Emergency Water Supply Alloca-
tion and Conservation (N.J.S.A. 58:1A-1
et seq., N.J.A.C. 7:19A-1 et seq.)
NJDEPE is authorized during a state of water
emergency (as declared by the Governor) to
order reductions in water use, to prohibit use of
a water source, to require the use of an alternate
water supply, to make emergency interconnec-
tions between water systems, and to order trans-
(
fers of water from one system to another.
NJDEPE can also order water purveyors to
increase, decrease, or suspend their production,
or to ration water among classes of users accord-
ing to priorities established by NJDEPE. Sur-
charges are authorized to enforce water use
restrictions, and the Governor is empowered to
suspend any laws conflicting with these emer-
gency water supply provisions.
These provisions are applicable in Morris
County, and could be used to transfer water
either into or out of the county during supply
emergency, specifically drought, but also in
cases of emergency loss of major supply sour-
ces.
4.8.2 Water Supply Critical Areas
(N.J.S.A. 58:1A-1 et seq., N.J.A.C.
7:19-6.10)
NJDEPE may determine, after a public
notice and hearing, that an area has insufficient
sources of water to provide for authorized uses
while maintaining water quality standards. A
critical area may be declared if ground water
overdrafting beyond the long-term dependable
yield of an aquifer results in aquifer deteriora-
tion. For Morris County and other non-coastal
areas, the declaration of critical supply areas
would be considered only if a clear trend were
identifiable showing major deficiency in water
quality or quantity or the existence of a wide-
spread pollution threat which adversely affects
the provision of safe water.
Upon the declaration of a Critical Water
Supply Area by the Governor, NJDEPE has a
broad range of authority to take steps necessary
to insure reliable water distribution, including
the following:
0 Specialized supply source water quality
sampling
0 Ground water recharge actions
4-15
0 Ordering mandatory reductions in with-
drawal amounts
0 Utilization of alternative water sources of
supply.
4.8.3 Determination of Safe or Depend-
able Yield (N.J.S.A. 58:1A-5, N.J.A.C.
7:19-6.3)
All water suppliers are required to provide
for a safe and dependable yield from their own
sources or from water supplies available by
contract, sufficient to meet the normal demands
of their customers, net of contractual obligations
to provide other systems. Water obtainable
through inter-connections with other systems
may not be included in the safe yield calculation
unless the supply cannot be canceled or sus-
pended during droughts. NJDEPE must review
and approve all such service contracts.
The safe/dependable yields of permitted
sources are determined by NJDEPE; however,
the water supplier can submit calculations of an
alternative safe yield. A progressive reduction
in the water table in the aquifer is considered by
NJDEPE as presumptive evidence that the
dependable yield is less than current withdraw-
als.
If a supplier determines that the
safe/dependable yield is less than normal de-
mands, it may announce its intention to revise
existing contracts to serve other suppliers. In
such cases, NJDEPE may order a ban on new
services and/or the acquisition of additional
supply capacities.
4.8.4 Large User Contingency Plans
(N.J.S.A. 58:1A-5, N.J.A.C. 7:19A-3.4)
Water suppliers are required to request that
all customers with water use exceeding 250,000
gallons/day develop contingency plans for
dealing with water supply emergencies or
droughts. These contingency plans should
Morris County Water Supply Element
address potential conservation steps, alternative
supplies available to the users, and the conse-
quences of a shut-down due to interruptions in
the water supply.
4.9 STATEWATERSUPPLY
DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES
4.9.1 New Jersey Water Supply Authority
(N.J.S.A. 58:1B-1 et seq. (1981))
The New Jersey Water Supply Authority was
established to provide for unified jurisdiction
over all state water supply facilities, including
those established pursuant to the Water Supply
Bond Act of 1981 (see below). The Authority
consists of the Commissioner of NJDEPE and
six members of the public. The Authority is
empowered to issue bonds and to use the pro-
ceeds to establish water supply facilities consis-
tent with the New Jersey Statewide Water
Supply Plan. The Authority also has the power
of eminent domain. It is also empowered to
develop new supply sources and to provide
wholesale distribution of water to areas of need
as identified by the State Water Supply Master
Plan.
No supply projects are currently proposed
for Morris County in the Water Supply Master
Plan. However, the Master Plan update process,
for which a major revision is underway, is likely
to identify supply enhancement alternatives for
Morris County. Public comments submitted to
NJDEPE, pursuant to its request for input on
issues to be addressed in the Master Plan, have
requested that NJDEPE consider both structural
(e.g., reservoirs) and non-structural (e.g., con-
servation) approaches to new supply. The
Authority could play a major role in new source
development or transmission of new supplies to
Morris County.
Morris County Water Supply Element 4-16
4.9.2 North Jersey Water Supply
Commission (N.J.S.A. 58:5-1 et seq.)
The North Jersey Water Supply Commission
was established in 1916 to develop, acquire and
operate water supply systems for the twelve-
county North Jersey Water Supply District
(Sussex, Warren, Hunterdon, Passaic, Morris,
Monmouth, Somerset, Bergen, Hudson, Essex,
Union and Middlesex Counties). The Commis-
sion owns and operates the Wanaque Reservoir
system which serves the City of Newark and
other areas. The North Jersey Water Supply
Commission is not involved in any projects for
the development of future water supplies for
Morris County.
4.10 STATE WATER SUPPLY PLANNING
ACTIONS
4.10.1 Statewide Water Supply Planning
(N.J.S.A. 58:1A-1 et seq.)
The NJ Water Supply Management Act gave
the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy a broad mandate to
control, conserve and manage the water supply
in the state to ensure its adequacy. In pursuit of
this end, NJDEPE is authorized to issue rules
controlling water supply for the entire state or
for any region within the state (N.J.S.A.
58:1A-5).
The Water Supply Management Act requires
formulation of the New Jersey Statewide Water
Supply Plan, which is to be updated every 5
years. The plan identifies water sources, esti-
mates future demand for water, recommends
legislation and administrative action to protect
watersheds, and recommends construction of
and improvements to state water supply facili-
ties, construction of interconnections, and con-
solidation of water supply systems (N.J.S.A.
58:1A-13).
I
I
The Water Supply Management Act makes
it clear that NJDEPE has ultimate legal authority
over the potable water supply in the county, and
that Morris County's efforts must be coordinated
with state programs. This act also authorized
the institution of Critical Water Supply Areas,
whereby use of specific ground water sources in
central and southern New Jersey is restricted
because of aquifer deterioration.
4.1 0.2 Statewide Water Quality Planning
(N.J.S.A. 58:11A-1 et seq.)
Under the NJ Water Quality Planning Act,
the future locations and discharges of potential
water pollutants are to be planned for by desig-
nated planning agencies and by NJDEPE. This
legislation was adopted in response to Section
208 of the federal Clean Water Act of 1972.
Each designated planning agency is required
to conduct an area-wide waste-treatment plan-
ning process to address the anticipated munici-
pal and industrial wastewater treatment needs of
the planning area, and to identify sewered and
unsewered locations. The agencies are also
required to address the control of non-point
source pollution.
The Water Quality Planning process is
relevant to water supply concerns for several
reasons. The implementing regulations specify
that water allocation and Public Water Supply
construction permit applications must be re-
viewed for compliance with the area water
quality management plan. Thus, at least in
theory, NJDEPE considers the secondary im-
pacts on water quality resulting from the expan-
sion of water supply and distribution systems.
Expansions of water supply systems that are not
coordinated at the municipal or county level
with corresponding wastewater treatment capac-
ities are likely to encounter regulatory delays.
4-17
4.11 WATERCONSERVATION
4.11.1 Water Conservation Planning
(N.J.S.A. 58-1A-1 et seq., N.J.A.C.
7:19-6.5)
To encourage water conservation through
distribution system leak corrections and through
demand reduction, all public community water
systems are required to conduct conservation
planning as a condition of the utility's water
allocation permit.
Water suppliers must report to NJDEPE on
water usage, leak detection activities, and other
activities. Leak detection programs must be
carried out at least once every three years. The
regulations also require that new services must
be metered in systems serving more than 500
customers.
The regulations also require that rate struc-
tures encourage conservation. These may
include seasonal rates and increasing block
rates: however, uniform rates are more typical in
New Jersey.
All water suppliers in Morris County are
subject to these requirements. While NJDEPE
appears to enforce the water use reportina
0 0
reqUirement, the rate structure, leak detection
and other aspects of the conservation planning
regulations are not actively enforced at this
time.
4.11.2 Unaccounted For Water (N.J.S.A.
58-1A-1 et seq., N.J.A.C. 7:19A- 6.4)
Unaccounted for water (UA W) is defined as
the difference between the quantity of water
entering a distribution system and the metered
consumption. NJDEPE has set a goal of 15%
for UA W, including fire fighting, leakage, and
other known but unmetered uses (e.g., schools,
public facilities.
Utilities with service populations exceeding
500 people must report the level of UA W to
Morris County Water Supply Element
NJDEPE annually. Those uses within the top
35% UAW levels within their size class are
considered "provisionally delinquent" by NJ-
DEPE, and are required to submit a corrective
action plan to the state. The utilities remain
delinquent until their UA W levels fall to the
median of the size class.
This program is currently in place for all
community water systems serving more than
500 customers.
4.11.3 Uniform Plumbing Code- Water
Saving Appliances (New Jersey Uniform
Building Code Law (N.J.A.C. 5:23-3.15))
The State ofNew Jersey utilizes the National
Standard Plumbing Code consumption standards
for water fixtures. The code was revised in
1990 to encourage water conservation through
the use of water-saving plumbing fixtures and
appliances through the use of state-specific
standards.
Under current NJDEPE regulations, water
purveyors are supposed to include public educa-
tion in their conservation plans. Water utilities
are not required to provide water-saving devices
such as low flow shower heads or toilet tank
dams.
The New Jersey Plumbing Code prescribes
water consumption standards for certain plumb-
ing fixtures such as toilets and showers. For
example, all toilets installed in new construction
or as replacements are required to utilize no
more than 1.6 gallons per flush.
4.12 SYSTEM FINANCING
4.12.1 System Rehabilitation Planning
and Budgeting (N.J.S.A. 58:1A-5,
N.J.A.C. 7:19-6.6)
To insure the long term reliability of treat-
ment and distribution systems through sched-
uled renewal and replacement programs, water
Morris County Water Supply Element 4-18
utilities are required to perform a management
and status survey within one year of the issuance
of NJDEPE criteria. These criteria have not
been issued to date. · Upon approval of the
survey by NJDEPE, the utility is required to
implement the renewal and replacement sched-
ule during the following fiscal year. Any utility
not submitting an approvable survey is required
to commit ten percent of total gross water sup-
ply revenue to renewal and replacement activi-
ties.
While this requirement is technically in
place, NJDEPE has not issued management and
status survey criteria against which the rates of
renewal and replacement activities may be
compared. NJDEPE is not currently enforcing
this requirement.
4.12.2 Financing Water Supply Improve-
ments (Water Supply Bond Act of 1981,
L. 1981, c. 261, N.J.A.C. 7:1A-1.1 et seq.)
The Water Supply Bond Act of 1987 autho-
rized the issuance $350 million in state general
obligation bonds to provide funding for the
planning, design, acquisition or construction of
state water supply facilities. The Act also
authorized loans to state or local programs for
improvement of inadequate water supply facili-
ties. Either the county or municipalities within
the county can borrow funds under this act to
improve eligible water supply facilities deemed
inadequate. Only limited grant funding for
supply improvement has been available.
4.13 PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY
4.13.1 New Jersey Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (N.J.S.A. 58:JOA-1,
N.J.A.C. 7:14-1.1 et seq.)
The state requires dischargers to obtain
permits for discharge to state waters, to disclose
the nature and volume of their discharges, to
report accidental discharges to NJDEPE within
24 hours, to impose specific limitations on
pollutant discharges, and to monitor and report
to NJDEPE their compliance or noncompliance
with these limitations.
Enforcement of the provisions of NJPDES
permits helps to maintain the quality of the
county's ground and surface water supplies.
Any point-source facility that allows pollutants
to flow into the ground or surface water system
is required to obtain a review and permit under
this program. Facilities covered by this regula-
tion include lagoons, storage piles, storage
areas, discharges to the land surface, and efflu-
ent pipes. Dischargers include any person,
business, or process with a waste product.
4.13.2 Identification and Cleanup Of
Hazardous Waste Sites (N.J.S.A.
58:10-23.11 et seq., N.J.A.C. 7:1E-1.1 et
seq.)
The federal Superfund law establishes a
system for identifying, ranking, and cleaning up
hazardous substances released into the environ-
ment, whether the release is a one-time occur-
rence (e.g., from a spill) or a continuing process
(e.g., from an old disposal site). This act also
establishes a fund to finance cleanup of aban-
doned hazardous waste sites and other cleanup
actions to protect the environment. Those sites
eligible for cleanup under this act are placed on
the National Priorities List (NPL).
The NJ Spill Law prohibits the discharge of
petroleum products and other hazardous sub-
stances and provides for prompt cleanup of
spills. In addition, it makes the responsible
parties strictly liable for cleanup costs and for
direct and indirect damages caused by the spill.
The spill law also establishes a fund to pay for
cleanup when costs cannot be recovered from
the responsible parties. These laws provide
procedures and funds to remove, treat, or con-
tain hazardous substances to prevent their com-
ing into contact with potable water supplies.
4-19
Funds are not disbursed from the NJ Spill Fund
iffunds for the same purpose are available from
the Superfund.
4.13.3 Regulation of Transportation Of
Hazardous Waste (40 U.S.C. 2:1801 et
seq., 42 U.S. C. 6901 et seq.,· N.J.S.A.
39:5B-25 et seq; 49 CFR 171; 40 CFR
263; N.J.A.C. 16:49)
Under the Federal Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act, the U.S. Department of
Transportation regulates shipments of hazardous
materials by interstate carriers, including intra-
state shipments. The regulations list more than
1,200 hazardous materials. If a discharge of a
hazardous material occurs during transport, the
transporter must either clean it up or take other
action required or approved by federal, state or
local officials to prevent the spill from posing a
threat to human health or the environment. In
addition, all discharges occurring during trans-
port must be reported.
New Jersey law empowers the state Depart-
ment of Transportation to adopt regulations
conforming to the requirements of the federal
regulations governing transportation of hazard-
ous materials. The NJDOT regulations gener-
ally adopt the federal regulations by reference
and extend their coverage to all intrastate ship-
ments.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act and the regulations implementing it estab-
lish a hazardous waste tracking system designed
to discourage illegal disposal by making it
possible to assign liability for improper handling
of the material at any point from generation to
final disposal and beyond. During transporta-
tion, hazardous waste is tracked using a manifest
system. Spills of hazardous waste must be
reported.
These provisions of federal law can help
officials keep track of spills of hazardous mate-
rials that may occur in the county, especially as
related to the transportation system. The mani-
Morris County Water Supply Element
fest and reporting systems are administered by
NJDEPE, and relevant information is available
from the NJDEPE Division ofHazardous Waste
Management.
4.13.4 Inventory Of Hazardous Sub-
stances And Their Locations (Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act (Federal), 42 U.S. C. 2' 1101 et seq.;
Worker and Community Right-to-Know
Act, N.J.S.A. 34:5A-1 et seq. (1983))
To keep employees and host communities
informed of the presence of hazardous sub-
stances in the workplace for health and safety
purposes, businesses and utilities are required to
disclose the hazardous substances that are pres-
ent at their facilities. Awareness of the presence
of hazardous material in each community can
help to avoid water contamination problems and
help to trace the source of contamination should
it occur. The New Jersey law requires that busi-
nesses provide separate lists of substances that
are a hazard in the workplace and substances
that are a potential threat to the environment.
The lists of substances for any business are
available to the public on written request to the
New Jersey Department of Health.
4.13.5 Stormwater Permitting (33 USC
1251 et. seq.; N.J.S.A. 58:1 et seq.; 7
N.J.A.C. 14A:1 et seq.)
The 1987 amendments to the federal Clean
Water Act expanded the NPDES permitting
process to include discharges of stormwater by
large municipalities and industries. The USEPA
stormwater regulations (40 CFR 122 - 124)
issued on November 16, 1990 required permits
from municipalities exceeding 100,000 in popu-
lation and from industries falling into 28 Stan-
dard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories.
Potable water treatment facilities are not in-
cluded among these 28 industrial categories;
Morris County Water Supply Element 4-20
however, municipal wastewater treatment plants
were listed.
To handle the estimated 10,000 industries in
New Jersey subject ·to these regulations,
NJDEPE intends to issue a general permit for
most industrial users which are not subject to
NJPDES discharge permitting for their process
waters. Proposed regulations were published on
July 6, 1992 (24 N.J.R. 2352) Affected indus-
tries must submit a Request for Authorization
within six months of the effective date of the
regulations.
The control of stormwater pollution will
emphasize management practices rather than
point of discharge treatment. Industries must
develop a two-phased Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SPPP). The SPPP must con-
tain a listing of materials which are exposed to
the elements, drainage diagrams, and a de-
scription of best management practices to ensure
that the facility does not discharge through
storm sewers, and storm water that is exposed to
source materials.
The stormwater permitting process will in
theory reduce the levels of stormwater borne
contaminants entering the raw water supplies of
Morris County; and the proposed best manage-
ment practice approach parallels the approach to
source control to be taken through the Wellhead
Protection and other programs.
The proposed stormwater permitting process
does not yet include any municipalities within
Morris County; nor does the program address
pollution from parking lots, roadways, lawns
and other potential sources of contamination
from residential and commercial land uses.
(
CHAPTER FIVE
Conclusions and Recommendations
Extensive ground water and surface water
resources are present in Morris County, as a
result of the geology of the county and the
rainfall patterns in New Jersey. Analysis of
water demand versus supply indicates that there
should be sufficient water supplies to meet the
needs of Morris County residents and businesses
through the year 2010. Nevertheless, several
important issues have been identified in this
Element concerning the distribution, quality,
and protection of the county's water supplies.
These issues must be addressed in order to
ensure that sufficient potable water is available
at a reasonable cost to all consumers within
Morris County.
5-1
Issues:
1. Allocation of Water Resources
Morris County has an abundance of
ground water resources overall; however,
some areas are water-rich while others are
water-poor. No plan exists nor has a policy
been created which addresses how the water
resources of the county should be equitably
distributed to meet the current and future
needs of municipalities throughout the
county.
2. Surface Water Exportation
Approximately 54 million gallons per day
(MGD) of water is exported from Morris
County compared to the total of 47 MGD of
water used to serve Morris County residents
Morris County Water Supply Element
and businesses. Most of the exported water
is transferred from four large reservoirs
located in central and northwestern portions
of the county. Although the county has an
abundance of surface water resources, almost
all of it is used to serve those who reside
outside ofthe county.
3. Water Mining and Aquifer Depletion
Other than those portions of the county
served by on-site septic systems, most of the
water withdrawn from wells is eventually
discharged into surface water (streams and
rivers), and not recharged into the ground
water aquifers. Water is being "mined" in
the county, not "recycled" into the ground.
The county is dependent on precipitation to
recharge the aquifers and, therefore, may be
more susceptible to aquifer depletion during
drought conditions.
The Central Passaic Buried Valley Aqui-
fer in the south-eastern portion of the county
is suffering from ground water depletion.
Drawdown of the aquifer can be attributed to
a number of factors including the historic
accumulation of diversion rights, excess
pumpage, and the reduction of recharge
areas.
4. Aquifer Recharge Protection
Over 95% of Morris County residents are
dependent on ground water. No coordinated
program exists to protect the ground water
recharge areas. The development of an
aquifer protection program by a municipality
is an important step towards aquifer protec-
tion. However, since political boundaries do
not coincide with the recharge areas, concern
for adequate aquifer protection is warranted.
5. Water Supply Contamination Monitoring
There is no response plan at the county
level in the event of water supply contami-
nation. Although the state has a program for
well testing and actions to be immediately
taken by the purveyor in the event of con-
tamination, no long term solutions to the
Morris County Water Supply Element 5-2
problems of contamination have been devel-
oped by the state.
6. Water Quality Protection
There has only · been a piecemeal ap-
proach to resolving the incidence of con-
tamination of public and private wells in
Morris County. Currently each contamina-
ted site is remedied on an individual basis.
The Wellhead Protection Program is the only
area-wide program directed at protecting
water quality.
Analysis indicates that there
should be sufficient water supplies to
meet the needs of Morris County residents
and businesses through the year ZO 1 0.
7. Water Quality Testing Standards
Small purveyors and many municipal
water departments do not have the expertise
or funding available to comply with the
current and pending water quality testing
requirements.
8. Distribution ofSupply
Within Morris County, over 45 purveyors
serve parts of 39 municipalities. The effi-
cient allocation and distribution of potable
water is a concern with this many water
systems. Since the costs of developing
supply sources, as well as maintaining and
upgrading the systems, are spread over a
limited customer base, the cost of water per
household may be greater especially for the
smaller purveyors.
9. Information Management
Because of the increasing number and
complexity of regulations governing water
supply, many municipal and small private
purveyors may require technical assistance
(
in order to comply with state and federal
requirements. In addition, information
needed for water supply planning is not
readily available. The only source for water
supply data is the NJDEPE which has several
divisions and bureaus regulating various
aspects of water supply. However, each
bureau develops and maintains its own infor-
mation which, in most cases, is not compati-
ble with another bureau's data.
5.1 QUANTITY OF EXISTING AND
FUTURESOURCESOFVVATERSUPPLY
5.1.1 Existing Supply and Demand
In 1990, the average daily demand for
potable water supply within Morris County was
approximately 57 MGD. Public water systems
supplied three-quarters of this average daily
demand (approximately 43 MGD) to Morris
County residents. In addition, approximately 6
MGD was used on an average day by domestic
well users, while nearly 8 MGD was used by
self-supplied industrial and agricultural users.
All of the water systems surveyed for this
plan reported no problems meeting the current
average-day demands. However, East Hanover
Water Department did indicate difficulties
meeting peak demands due to water quantity and
quality problems.
The county-wide average per capita demand
for potable water in 1990 was 123 gallons per
capita per day (gpcd). For individual water
systems, the per capita demand factor ranged
from 42.1 gpcd to 170.4 gpcd. The per capita
demand factors vary because industrial and
commercial uses are often served by public
water systems. Thus, the per capita water
demand factor includes not only individual
indoor and outdoor residential water use, but
also a share of any local commercial or indu-
strial water use provided by the public water
system.
5-3
5.1.2 Future Supply and Demand
By the year 2010, the number of people
living in Morris County is projected to grow by
approximately six percent, to some 446,000
residents. Associated with this growth is a
corresponding increase in water demand.
Projections based on current per capita water
use indicate that the demand for water will
increase over the next 20 years by about ten
percent, from 57 MGD to approximately 62
MGD.
Approximately one-fifth of the increased
demand is expected to be supplied by new
individual residential (domestic) wells. The
remaining four MGD of the increase in water
demand is expected to be supplied by existing
public water systems, drawing from either
currently under-utilized sources or through the
development of new sources.
The water systems with the largest projected
increases in demand are SMCMUA, Randolph
Water Department (supplied by MCMUA), and
Montville MUA. East Hanover Water Depart-
ment and Washington Township MUA also
show a substantial increase in demand. With the
possible exception of East Hanover, all of these
water systems should be able to supply this
demand with current or newly developed sour-
ces. Due to existing water quantity and quality
problems, East Hanover is in the process of
searching for additional supplies from sources
outside of the township.
Water demand supplied by domestic wells is
predicted to increase from 6 MGD to 7 MGD,
while self-supplied industrial and agricultural
use is expected to remain fairly constant over
the next 20 years.
While many of the water systems surveyed
for this plan are concerned about their ability to
provide for future growth, there appears to be
sufficient water supply resources in the county
overall to accommodate the projected 2010
growth. However, to avoid further depletion of
the currently stressed aquifers, the reallocation
of the water resources should be considered to
Morris County Water Supply Element
more equitably meet the needs of all water users
in the county.
5.2 DISTRIBUTION OF WATER
RESOURCES
5.2.1 Allocation of Water Resources
Although the county is projected to have
sufficient water resources overall to meet future
demands, some areas of the county have more
available water resources than others. The more
highly developed areas in the eastern portion of
the county, situated over a substantial aquifer
system, are apparently stressing this ground
water system. The less developed western
portion of the county appears to have significant
water supply potential which is not currently
being fully tapped. (MCMUA has advanced
several proposals to develop and protect water
supplies available from this location.)
-
-
Projections based on current per
capita water use indicate that the demand
for water will increase over the next
20 years by about ten percent. from 57
MGD to approximately 62 MGD.
---
-
NJDEPE has contributed to the isolation and
segregation of small water systems through its
ground water allocation regulations. NJDEPE
has followed the policy that water supply can
only be provided in response to near-term future
need (i.e., development proposals). Existing
NJDEPE regulations do not allow the creation
and protection of water supplies in advance of
actual development. Water resource
management can be an important growth
management tool that potentially contributes to
Morris County Water Supply Element 5-4
more efficient development patterns and better
use of the resource.
There is currently no plan or policy which
addresses how the water resources of Morris
County should be equitably distributed to meet
the current and future needs of municipalities
throughout the county.. Thus, while the total
supply of water appears to be adequate for a
twenty-year planning horizon, there is no means
of ensuring that this water will be allocated
equitably among the residents of Morris County.
Several crucial issues must be addressed
when considering any policy that would result in
re-allocation of water supplies in the county,
specifically: system level of investment in the
resource; threat to the supply; and availability of
alternate supplies, among others. Ideally, some
parity should exist between water supply in an
area and development potential. Furthermore,
the relationship between resource protection
(e.g., protection of recharge areas) and aquifer
yield should be addressed, so that locations
providing aquifer protection do not do so at the
cost of ratables lost to another location.
Finally, transfer of water between major
drainage basins should be reserved for emer-
gency supply situations. Inter-basin transfer can
disrupt the water balance in a system and lead to
aquifer depletion and stream baseflow reduction
in the sending basin, and potential flooding in
the receiving basin.
5.2.2 Surface Water Exportation
According to the preliminary data collected
from NJDEPE on water supplies within Morris
County, approximately 54 MGD of surface
water and 47 MGD of ground water, for a total
of 101 MGD of supply, are diverted within
Morris County. However, more than half of this
water (nearly all of the surface water) is
transferred out of Morris County for use as
potable water elsewhere.
The major source of this out-of-county
transfer of water is the withdrawal of nearly 50
~
(
MGD from the Boonton Reservoir by Jersey
City. Because Jersey City owns this reservoir
and has obtained the necessary state permits to
withdraw supply from this source, Morris
County has no control over its use.
However, the county and state should
consider the effects of any additional proposed
transfers of water out of Morris County and the
effects of any proposed transfer of water into
Morris County. Most immediately, Morris
County should further investigate whether the
7.5 MGD of supply that is available from the
Jersey City Boonton Reservoir can be effective-
ly utilized.
5.3 GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT
5.3.1 Water Mining and Aquifer
Depletion
Other than those portions of the county
served by on-site septic systems, most of the
water withdrawn from wells is eventually
discharged into surface water (streams and
rivers) via wastewater treatment plants. In
Morris County, surface water bodies are most
oftenjedby ground water, instead ofthe surface
water recharging the aquifer. Thus, once water
is discharged into a stream it is lost as a supply
source for Morris County (particularly because
many wastewater treatment plants discharge to
the Passaic River, the Pequannock River, and
the Pompton River, all located on the edges of
the county).
Water has been historically "mined" in the
county, and withdrawals have exceeded re-
charge needed to maintain the supply. The long-
term effects of this are seen in certain sections
of the Central Passaic Buried Valley Aquifer
which are suffering from depletion (dewatering).
The Central Passaic Buried Valley Aquifer is
located in the southeastern portion of Morris
County, where over 39 percent ofthe county's
residents live, and is the source of water for the
purveyors serving this section of the county.
Drawdown of this aquifer can be attributed to a
5-5
number of factors, including the historic
accumulation· of diversion rights and intensive
pumping patterns.
With the development of more accurate and
detailed information on the geology, hydrogeol-
ogy, location, and extent of the buried valley
aquifers by the USGS and NJGS, the cumulative
impacts of ground water withdrawal by all
purveyors can be more precisely assessed.
(Initial findings suggest that withdrawals have
exceeded recharge in this area.) Comprehensive
management of the ground water resource
utilizing new hydrogeologic models should
reduce aquifer depletion, while still providing
substantial and sustainable amounts of water for
public water supply.
5.3.2 Aquifer Recharge Protection
Over 95 percent of Morris County residents
are dependent on ground water. The ultimate
source of this water is precipitation (primarily
rainfall) that percolates into the ground and
recharges the ground water. The area that
provides recharge to a ground water aquifer is
called the recharge zone. Depending upon the
specific aquifer, the recharge zone may be
directly above the aquifer (as is the case for
unconfined aquifers), or may be distant from the
aquifer (as is the case for confined aquifers).
Even within a general area that may recharge a
particular aquifer, specific locations vary
regarding recharge capability based on soils,
topography, and other factors.
Identification of the recharge area associated
with an aquifer is important because proper
management of land use in this area protects
both the quantity and quality of the water
available from that aquifer. Development in the
recharge area tends to increase the amount of
impervious surface area (e.g., roads, parking
lots, rooftops), preventing precipitation from
percolating into the ground. In addition, inap-
propriate development within a recharge area
may lead to pollution of the aquifer.
Morris County Water Supply Element
Instead of providing recharge, stormwater
runoff in developed areas is often conveyed
through culverts and pipes into surface water
bodies, with little possibility of recharging the
ground water system. Thus, impacts on known
recharge areas should be considered when
determining appropriate land development
patterns. Several municipalities in Morris
County have adopted master plans and zoning
ordinances that recognize the importance of
ground water recharge. Development densities
in these areas are based on the water bearing
characteristics ofthe subsurface geology.
However, the development and implementa-
tion of aquifer recharge protection programs at
the municipal level is difficult. First, identifi-
cation of recharge areas in Morris County has
not been completed by the technical agencies.
NJGS and USGS are in the process of conduct-
ing studies to more precisely identify the
important recharge areas. Second, recharge
areas do not coincide with political boundaries,
and the recharge area for the ground water used
in one town may well lie within the jurisdiction
of another town. A united and coordinated
effort towards aquifer recharge protection is
needed by all local and regional agencies in
order to protect the county's water resources.
5.4 WATER QUALITY
5.4.1 Water Supply Contamination
Ground water quality problems have been re-
ported in several parts ofthe county, including
in portions of Chester Township, Dover, East
Hanover, Hanover, Mine Hill, Montville, Mount
Arlington, Netcong, Randolph, Rockaway
Borough, Rockaway Township, Roxbury,
Washington Township, and Wharton. Figure
5-1, "Hazardous Waste Sites," depicts the more
environmentally complex sites in the county
which have been polluted by several sources
and/or multiple contaminants. In many cases,
more than one media (soil, ground water, and/or
Morris County Water Supply Element 5-6
air) has been affected by the contamination
1
.
However, no detailed analysis ofwater quality
was conducted for this plan which focused on
sources and demand for water.
In order to more accurately determine the
effect that contamination is having, or may yet
have, on Morris County's water supply, a
detailed study of water quality should be per-
formed. This study should include analysis of
existing water quality data collected by well
owners and surface water users in the county, as
well as an examination of known or suspected
sources of contamination (such as Superfund
sites, underground storage tanks, etc.). The
results of such a water quality study would be
invaluable to the county in protecting the quality
of the water resources.
5.4.2 Water Quality Protection
Ground Water Protection Practices
Actions that can be taken to prevent well
contamination are known as ground water
protection practices (GWPP's). Although the
clean up of ground water is technically possible
through remedial actions, it is very expensive,
requires replacement supply during remediation,
and can require decades until contamination is
reduced to drinking water standards. Or
alternatively, contaminants in water must be
removed (or reduced) as part of a water treat-
ment operation which is also a costly approach.
For these reasons, GWPP's focus on minimizing
pollution sources and on having monitoring
mechanisms in place to detect contamination
before it impacts potable supplies. This section
presents several GWPP's that are useful in
minimizing possible ground water contamina-
tion.
Sources of drinking water pumped from sur-
face aquifers can be affected by pollution that
1
NJDEPE, 1991 Site Remediation Program Site
Status Report, Fall1991.
Hazardous Waste Sites
Legend
• Hazardous Waste Site
..- Well
Buried Valley Aquifer
N 0 R T H
0 2 3 4
\ .,
......
, ___............. _
5 Miles
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 Kilometers
1 inch to 8,300 feet
.....
/
/
(
l
,I
/
1 • .--
1 · --
·--·---·
:--
SOURCES:
.J.....--
. ~ ·
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Toxic & Hazardous Materials Agency,
"Remedial Investigation Concept Plan for Picatinny Arsenal", March 1991
NJDEPE "Site Remediation Program; Site Status Report", 1991
This report contains the more environmentally complex sites being
remediated. It does not reflect all remedial activities. The report
contains those sites where there are multiple sources of contamination;
multiple environmental media affected; multiple contaminants; and/or
a multi-phased approach is being applied.
All Superfund sites; the more complex ECRA cases; major cases
overseen by the Division of Privately Funded Site Remediation's Party
Cleanup Program; & other non-superfund publicly funded sites.
. Map Prepared By:
Morris County Planning Board
/
/
/
:-·
i
i
1994 Water Supply Master Plan
County of Morris, New Jersey
Morris County Planning Board
Figure 5-1: Hazardous Waste Sites
(
enters the aquifer from individual points of
discharge (point sources), or from pollution
contained in runoff that carries pollution depos-
ited on the land surface (non-point sources).
Potential point sources include leaking under-
ground storage tanks (containing gasoline,
heating oil, industrial chemicals), chemical
spills, landfills, septic systems, or other local-
ized discharges of chemicals into the ground,
such as poor product storage and handling
practices.
Sources of non-point pollution include road
salt, lawn fertilizers, household pesticides, and
parking lot and roadway runoff. Non-point
source pollution generally contaminates ground
water over larger areas but at lower concentra-
tions than point sources.
Controlling Point Sources of Pollution
Underground Storage Tanks. Underground
storage tanks (UST's) are used by many private
and public institutions to store heating oil,
gasoline, and hazardous materials. Federal and
state regulations address the design and con-
struction ofUST's and have requirements for the
release of substances to the environment.
Installation of new UST's in accordance to those
regulations, such as using noncorrosive tanks
and/or secondary containment chambers, should
minimize the discharge of hazardous substances
to ground water. However, existing tanks
installed before 1965 should be replaced and all
tanks should be periodically tested for
"tightness."
Septic Systems. Septic systems that are not
properly maintained may discharge bacteria and
viruses into ground water which may then cause
disease if ingested in the drinking water.
Existing research indicates that the life of
bacteria and viruses in ground water is limited to
less than one year. Thus, improperly maintained
septic systems pose significant threats of
contamination to potable water supplies if they
are within the tier 1 wellhead delineation zone
(attenuation of microbial pollutants) which has
5-7
a time of travel range of one year. In addition,
uninformed owners of septic systems may pour
household chemicals down sink drains. A range
of household chemicals may inhibit the proper
operation of septic systems, and may also leach
into the ground water causing contamination.
Known Discharges of Contaminants. Exist-
ing sources of pollution are regulated by the
state. The state seeks to control current dis-
charges from pollutant sources and to remediate
any ground water contamination that has oc-
curred. This task may be difficult to accomplish
without altering the supply of water when
chemical discharges occur near wells. In
addition, the state manages contamination on a
site-by-site basis and does not routinely consider
the cumulative impacts of geographically
proximate contamination sites.
Controlling Non-Point Sources of Pollution
Roadwqy Pollutants. Pollutants, such as oil
and grease, that build up on roadways and
parking lots between rainstorms can pollute both
ground and surface waters. Rainwater carries
the pollutants through storm sewers and into
streams. Once in streams, the concentrated
pollutants may pass
through stream beds
to the ground water
system by a
mechanism known
as induced recharge.
Municipalities and
the county may
partially control
these sources of pollutants through land use
planning and review. As part of their routine
street cleaning, municipalities might consider
cleaning commercial parking lots and seek
reimbursement from owners.
Roadwqy De-icing. Similar to other types of
pollution on roads, road salt may contaminate
both surface and ground water following snow
melt or rain. The application of road salt should
be carefully monitored so that only the amount
Morris County Water Supply Element
necessary to protect the safety of the travelling
public is applied. The use of less harmful
de-icers should also be evaluated.
Motor Vehicle Services. Businesses which
service automobiles often generate and store
many potential pollutants at their facilities.
Such businesses include service stations, car
dealers, and auto repair shops. The hazardous
materials that these facilities utilize can include:
lead-acid batteries, waste oil, Freon, antifreeze,
and wash water. If, in the operation of these
facilities, chemicals are improperly stored and
waste products are improperly disposed,
chemicals may be discharged to septic systems,
sewage systems, storm water systems, or directly
to the ground water. Owners of such facilities
may not be aware of the potential for pollution
from their business.
Agricultural Uses and Landscaping. Proper
use of fertilizer and pesticides on farms and
home and business landscaping may substan-
tially reduce pollution caused by these sources.
Lawns that are regularly aerated, thatched, and
on which grass clippings have been left, require
less water and fertilizer. Increased use of shade
trees may also reduce the stress on a lawn, and
thus require less water and fertilizer. In
addition, alternative (native) forms of vegetation
and organic fertilizers may reduce pollution.
Unregulated Sources. Other sources of
non-point pollution come from small unregulat-
ed sources such as home heating oil tanks,
leaking sewer lines, and stormwater detention
basins. Municipalities should encourage resi-
dents to have their heating oil tanks checked for
leaks. They should also regularly maintain
detention basins within their jurisdiction to
ensure the basins are working properly, and that
accumulated sediments/contaminants are
removed and disposed of properly.
Land Use Controls
Municipalities have the authority under
Municipal Land Use Law to adopt ordinances to
Morris County Water Supply Element 5-8
regulate development in order to protect the
environment and safeguard public health.
Ordinances may be constructed that will mini-
mize risk to ground water supplies through
appropriate spatial distribution of future devel-
opment. Development with high ground water
pollution potential may specifically be guided
away from prime aquifer recharge zones.
Because gr-ound water- tr-avels acr-oss
municipal bor-der-s. neighbor-ing townships
should be ur-ged to cooper-ate.
Coordination is required between state,
county, and local governments to optimize
protection of ground water resources. Each unit
of government has jurisdiction over different
sources of pollution and has available different
methods of controlling pollution. In addition,
because ground water travels across municipal
borders, neighboring townships should be
informed of water quality protection programs
and urged to cooperate in their implementation.
Wellhead Protection Program
New Jersey has recently adopted a Wellhead
Protection Program Plan, which calls for the
identification of wellhead protection areas
(WHPA's) around each public community
supply well. These WHP A's are designed to
identify existing (and discourage future) poten-
tially contaminating land uses within an area
where water reaches the well within 12 years.
(Due to the relatively slow rate of movement of
ground water-often measured in feet per
day-this area is usually much smaller than the
entire recharge area of the well.) WHPA's are
intended to be delineated for wells in uncon-
fined, surficial aquifers, because wells in con-
fined aquifers are not as susceptible to surface
(
contamination sources. NJDEPE proposes to
delineate WHP As around all public community
supply wells in coming years, but the timetable
is not well defined and will depend on the staff
availability.
The NJ Wellhead Protection Program relies
on existing state, county, and municipal regula-
tory powers to manage the locations and opera-
tion of potential and actual sources of pollution
discharge, and to regulate the location of new
wells. Protection of wellheads will be achieved
through existing NJDEPE permitting programs
and through local land use and public health
regulation. County and municipal governments
will be encouraged to use existing powers to
make wellhead protection a part of land use
decision-making and public health code
enforcement. There is currently no statutory
mandate that county or municipal governments
or public water purveyors participate in the
program. However, NJDEPE may encourage
participation through state permitting processes
(e.g., the renewal of water allocation permits).
Morris County should consider a role in
NJDEPE's implementation of the Wellhead
Protection Program in the county. Boundaries
of WHP A's often cross municipal borders, and
planning, zoning, and enforcement coordination
between neighboring municipalities needs to be
facilitated.
5.5 WATER SUPPLY REGULATION
Current regulations affecting the provision of
water supply in New Jersey indicate that at least
25 sections of Administrative Code and
Regulations affect the development, treatment,
and distribution of water. From the raw water
source to the customer tap there is now a
continuous trail of regulations that govern how
water supply is withdrawn, treated, and distrib-
uted. State and federal agencies currently
regulate all aspects of water supply, from water
supply development and protection, to raw water
withdrawal, to physical facilities for treatment
5-9
and distribution, to operation and maintenance
of treatment and distribution facilities.
The newly established Maximum Contami-
nant Levels (MCL) for chemicals in potable
water now require more extensive testing of
water supplies and potentially requires more
sophisticated treatment processes for removal of
chemicals to below the MCL level. In New
Jersey, there are currently 62 primary MCL
parameters and 18 secondary MCL parameters
which must be evaluated in the water supply and
be removed where MCL's are exceeded. The
1986 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments
require EPA to promulgate a total of 83
contaminant levels. The Phase V contaminants
were finalized in 1992, and set regulations for
23 contaminants (from among the list of 83).
Rules for synthetic organic contaminants (SOC)
and inorganic contaminants (IOC) were pro-
mulgated by EPA in 1991. These parameters
cover a broad range of organic and inorganic
chemicals, and conventional testing compo-
nents. Recent changes to MCL levels for lead
and copper have received substantial press
attention, and have required an extensive
sampling and analysis program (as well as
remediation where levels are exceeded).
Anticipated in the future are regulations from
EPA regarding disinfection byproducts for
surface water supplies, and increases in the
number and strictness of MCL's. Furthermore,
EPA is currently proposing a fmal radionuclides
rule, which will regulate, among other radio-
nuclides, the amount of naturally occurring
radon permitted in water. Also, EPA intends to
propose what is known as the Ground Water
Disinfection Rule in 1994 that will include
specific treatment requirements for disinfection
of water supply sources, as well as monitoring
and analysis.
Simply tracking a water system's compliance
with 25 different sets of regulations and
remaining current on the state and federal water
supply regulations is a complex and arduous
task, even for large water systems. For small
water systems, the cost of administration, the
Morris County Water Supply Element
cost of water quality testing, and the cost of
potential treatment processes will potentially
lead to significant rate increases for water
systems with limited customer bases. The
potential to be out of compliance with the bevy
of regulations that affect water supply is in-
creasing over time.
The implications of existing and future water
supply regulations, especially as related to water
quality testing and compliance, suggest that
larger water systems, with a broader customer
(revenue) base, will be better able to continue to
meet evolving regulatory requirements. Small
water systems are likely to require, at minimum,
increased assistance in compliance, and at worst,
small systems may ultimately be unable to meet
the increasingly strict requirements of
maintaining a public water supply system. This
issue is significant in Morris County because of
the presence of a large number of small water
systems.
5.6 DISTRIBUTION OF SUPPLY
Morris County is served by approximately
50 different purveyors, delivering about 43
million gallons of water per day for users within
the county in 1990. The purveyors serving
Morris County range from small community
systems to large water supply companies. Some
purveyors act solely as water distributors,
purchasing their water supplies from other
purveyors. Another purveyor acts solely as a
water "wholesaler", selling water only to other
purveyors. The majority of the purveyors,
however, are involved in both supplying and
distributing potable water to individual ·
residential and business customers.
With such a large number of purveyors,
Morris County is somewhat unique in New
Jersey. The efficiency of allocation and
distribution of potable water can be lessened
with so many water systems. For example, the
cost of water per household is usually greater for
the smallest purveyors, because the costs of
Morris County Water Supply Element 5-10
developing supply sources and maintaining and
upgrading water treatment and distribution
systems are spread over a limited customer base.
A large number of purveyors can be an
advantage if the ground water pumping pattern
is broadly distributed. The geographic dis-
persion of water supply wells has two positive
effects: ( 1) the principal source of water supply
is generally located proximate to the customer
location, increasing transmission efficiency; and
(2) the dispersion of ground water withdrawal
throughout the county has resulted in minimal
effects on the yield and level of ground water
supplies. The exception is southeastern Morris
County, where ground water levels have de-
clined as a result of intensive pumping.
Morris County is served by approximately
50 different purveyors. delivering
about '+3 million gallons of water per day
for users within the county in 1990.
USEP A defines a "small" water system as
serving fewer than 3,300 people. Eighteen of
the purveyors in Morris County (approximately
40 percent) would be considered "small" under
this definition. Furthermore, thirteen of these
small systems serve fewer than 500 people.
The fifteen water systems in Morris County
that each produce over 1.0 MGD provide supply
to about 260,000 (75 percent) of the 345,600
residents who rely on public water systems.
However, 25 percent of the county residents
(85,700 people) who rely on public water
systems receive their water from 32 different
water systems that each produce less than 1.0
MGD. In addition to the water supplied by
public water systems, about 18 percent of the
county's residents are served by on-site domestic
wells.
(
I
A 1987 national level report studying water
supply found that small water systems as a
whole "are the greatest impediment to the
successful implementation of the SDW A [Safe
Drinking Water Act] Amendments"
2
• The
following characteristics of small water supply
systems highlight the problems that these
purveyors face because oftheir size:
6 owned by a homeowner association,
institution, or mobile home park entre-
preneur;
6 no full-time or part-time water system
operator; .
6 little or no knowledge of water system
management or operations;
6 little or no knowledge of water system
finances;
6 no water rate to support the full cost of
service delivery;
6 no economies of scale;
6 little or no access to capital;
6 often serve a fixed income population.
Many of these characteristics are typical of the
small purveyors in Morris County. Additional-
ly, small purveyors in the county have few or no
observation wells for monitoring aquifer water
levels and do not have the capability to clean up
polluted wells.
The current land development pattern in the
western and northern portions of Morris County
is characterized by clusters of development,
separated by vacant, agricultural, or undevel-
oped land areas. A multitude of small localized
water systems have developed in association
with this land use pattern. However, the
geographic separation of most ofthe small water
systems makes them unable to share supplies in
the event of an emergency or to support new
growth.
2
Wade Miller Associates, Inc. The Nation's Public
Work: Report on Water Supply. National Council on
Public Works Improvement, May 1987.
5-11
Also of note in Morris County is the geo-
graphic location of the large and small water
systems. The eastern, developed areas of Morris
County are served by large water systems.
However, growth in Morris County is projected
to occur in the central and western sections of
Morris County, where small water systems
predominate.
Small water systems are increasingly bur-
dened by the greater complexity and number of
maintenance, operation, water quality, and
treatment requirements imposed by federal and
state agencies. The revenue base of small water
systems is limited, and increasingly complex
regulatory requirements make compliance
difficult. Furthermore, small water systems in
the central and western portions of the county
may not have the capital financing sources
available for the needed system expansion to
accommodate the anticipated additional growth.
When these systems fail or are abandoned,
NJDEPE can require that the municipality or
other local purveyor take over the operation of
the system and make improvements to meet
state requirements. The takeover of these small
systems can be a costly burden to municipalities
(or adjacent water systems) which do not have
the technical expertise or capital necessary to
operate and improve the system.
Thus, the existing distribution of water
supplies is recognized to be relatively efficient
at the local level, given the historic (dispersed)
land development patterns in Morris County.
The distribution system is inflexible with
respect to facilitating effective system intercon-
nections, and does not support the most effective
placement and grouping of wells. Proper
distancing of wells by adjacent systems can
reduce well interferences; coordinated action by
adjacent systems can result in more effective
well pumping patterns that take into account
local aquifer characteristics.
A central theme of this Water Supply Master
Plan Update is the need to introduce a
formalized mechanism for water system coor-
dination in the county. The existing level of
Morris County Water Supply Element
water supply coordination in Morris County is
unlikely to be the most effective approach to
protecting well supplies in the future, nor is it
the most effective approach to development of
new well supplies to meet the demands of new
growth. The proliferation of more small water
systems is not desirable, and due to the vulner-
ability of the ground water system to pollution
(in runoff, from spills and discharges, and from
leaky underground storage tanks), new develop-
ment should be provided with water from an
existing water system. A new small water
system should not be created to serve an indi-
vidual subdivision or other development project,
whenever feasible.
5. 7 POTENTIAL COUNTY WATER
SUPPLY ACTIONS
As discussed throughout this report, Morris
County exhibits a profusion of small water
systems dispersed throughout its area. The
small water systems are likely to require assis-
tance in the future for: engineering and
fmancing of system expansion; providing supply
backup capability; meeting regulatory require-
ments; meeting water quality goals; and pro-
viding enhanced treatment or alternative sup-
plies where pollution has affected wells. Also,
there is a need for development of additional
water supplies in Morris County to meet the
demands of new growth, which will occur
primarily in the central and western sections of
the county.
The current administrative and regulatory
process for developing and distributing water
supply in Morris County does not provide
adequate coordination and planning among the
47 water systems and 39 municipalities. The
MCMUA currently serves as a supply
development agency as well as a supply
wholesaler, serving existing and future water
customers. However, because MCMUA serves
as a wholesale purveyor to several water
systems in the county, it cannot be considered a
Morris County Water Supply Element 5-12
disinterested arbiter of local supply and land use
issues. For these reasons, the primary recom-
mendation of this Water Supply Element is that
the county intensively explore appropriate
means of coordinating water supply efforts
throughout the county. Coordinating actions are
best provided at the county (regional) level,
because the ground water resources that provide
water to the majority of county residents encom-
pass large sections ofthe county. In fact, three
principal buried valley aquifer systems are the
sources of virtually all the county's ground
water.
Given the changes in NJDEPE water supply
policy, science, technology, and regulations as
related to water quality, and land development
trends since the 1982 Morris County Water
Supply Master Plan, there is also a need for the
county to consider new and/or expanded water
supply management and development functions
for the reasons discussed below.
6 New water supply policy initiatives are
being developed at NJDEPE as an out-
growth of the findings of the revisions to
the Statewide Water Supply Master Plan
update process. New approaches being
discussed are watershed-based ap-
proaches to determining yield of supply
sources, as well as new approaches that
link wastewater management and water
supply, in terms of inter-basin transfer of
resources and quality management.
6 Improvements in technology have al-
lowed detection of increasingly small
amounts of contamination in water.
Often, knowledge of the presence of
previously undetectable contaminants in
water supplies has led to concern about
the potential health effects of chemicals
in the supply, and has motivated research
in reducing exposure and ingestion of
such materials. Improved understanding
of the physiological effects of various
constituents in drinking water has led to
increased stringency in water quality
regulation. A case in point is EPA's new
lead rule, which has dramatically lowered
the acceptable amounts of lead in
drinking water, while simultaneously in-
creasing the near-term monitoring for
lead.
{) Land development trends have moderated
in Morris County since the preparation of
the 1982 Water Supply Master Plan. The
influence of the State Development and
Redevelopment Plan on municipal
planning and zoning is presently
unknown.
The need to protect existing ground water
supplies, to develop and protect new ground
water supplies, to assist the numerous small
water systems serving county residents, and to
integrate new water supply arrangements to
provide the most reliable sources and systems
for supply, indicates that a coordinated effort is
required to address the water supply issues
facing Morris County. The county's actions
should focus on the six general areas presented
below to assist local purveyors in ensuring that
sufficient potable water is available for the
county now and into the future.
1. Supply Development.
In order to ensure that sufficient clean
water is available at a reasonable cost in the
future, the extent of involvement by the
county in the development of new supplies
should be determined. Actions range from
source protection strategies, to siting for new
supply sources, to actual development of
new supplies depending on the levels of
support obtained from other agencies.
2. Water Quality Protection.
The county may wish to consider
"clearinghouse" activities to help local water
systems obtain information relevant to
operations. Such information might include
data from federal, state, and local programs
designed to assist water systems to
implement new water quality testing and
treatment requirements, and data regarding
5-13
funding assistance sources where supplies
have been contaminated. The county may
also wish to consider approaches to facilitate
implementation of wellhead protection by
water systems serving the county. Along
with other strategies, such protection will
help assure the quality of ground water
sources into the future.
3. Growth Management/Recharge Protection.
Land use planning and zoning approaches
and growth management strategies, are
potential tools in protecting ground and
surface water supplies. Stream corridor
buffers, density restrictions, and structural
and non-structural stormwater management
mechanisms have been implemented in
various locations to achieve water supply
protection.
4. Conjunctive Use Strategies.
Morris County currently relies primarily
on ground water supplies. However, because
additional supply is potentially available
from the Jersey City Boonton Reservoir, the
county should determine the optimal use of
both ground and surface water resources so
as to minimize stress on each source of
supply.
5. Emergency Response.
The county has currently assigned all
drought response actions to the county Emer-
gency Response Coordinator. The existing
plan which sets forth specific levels of
emergency and specific categories of re-
sponse is done in cooperation with the
Morris County MUA. We strongly
recommend that the drought plan's scope be
expanded to include emergencies related to
the loss of water supply form well/source
contamination due to spills and pollution.
As already noted in this element, the current
water supply distribution network and
regulatory constraints on water supply
source availability is highly complex in
Morris County. The Morris County MUA
has the water supply expertise to be the lead
Morris County Water Supply Element
agency to assist in the preparation of the
expanded emergency plan. Furthermore, the
amended plan should establish a functional
response procedure to allow for a joint
coordination role between the county
Emergency Response Coordinator and the
county MUA as contamination emergency
situations arise.
6. Future Use of Domestic Wells/Domestic
Well Testing.
Several local and county governments in
New Jersey have implemented mandatory
hook-up requirements where public water
supplies are within a specified distance of
the new development. Other counties have
implemented domestic well water testing
requirements when title transfers occur in
order to assure the quality of ground water
supplies. Morris County might consider ac-
tions, in concert with local governments, that
would reduce dependence on domestic wells,
as well as actions to encourage water quality
testing of domestic wells.
5.8 RECOMMENDED COUNTY WATER
SUPPLY ROLES AND APPROACHES
In order to address some, or all, of the areas
of action discussed above, the county may wish
to consider the following potential roles and
administrative approaches to water supply
planning and management. (Please note that
some activities are mutually exclusive.)
0 Establish a water advisory body to the
Board of Chosen Freeholders. This body,
representing municipalities, county
agencies, watershed associations, public
and private purveyors, would help create
a forum to discuss the many water-related
issues raised in this Element such as
supply development, recharge protection,
emergency response, and technical
assistance. Currently, each issue is
addressed individually and on a piece
meal basis. There is benefit in the
Morris County Water Supply Element 5-14
sharing of ideas and resources as well as
in presenting a unified voice for action.
0 Review opportunities to use existing
MCMUA staff and functions to serve the
technical assistance needs of smaller
water systems, and to coordinate devel-
opment and protection of new water
supplies. Furthermore, with respect to
MCMUA, consider roles that contribute
to consolidation of small water systems
and interconnection and upgrade of small
system facilities.
0 With input from local water companies
and municipal water departments, , the
MCMUA should develop a functional
plan for the exploration and development
of future regional water supplies. The
MCMUA, in conjunction with NJGS,
should also identify aquifer recharge
areas and other sensitive water supply
areas which should be permanently
protected. The MCMUA is eligible to
receive funding for the acquisition of
these areas from the Morris County Open
Space Trust Fund.
0 Provide a "clearinghouse" for informa-
tion on local supply source issues and
problems. By consolidating information
in a central repository, and updating in-
formation regularly, it is often possible to
discern patterns of problems, specifically
as related to source yield and quality.
Sharing information among local system
regarding supply and operations issues
can improve the effectiveness of small
system operations.
0 Undertake a water quality study to
determine the extent of ground water
contamination in the county.
Highlighting known hazardous waste
sites will depict areas not only where
ground water contamination presently
exists but where potential problems could
be in the future. In addition, the county
(
should analyze the effect of the new
water quality testing requirements on the
ability of local purveyors to comply with
the stricter standards.
0 Consider enhancements to the land
development review process to increase
the integration of local planning and
county planning with respect to water
resource protection.
0 The county should also act as a clear-
inghouse for information that relates to
potential threats to the ground water
system. While NJDEPE and USEP A
bureaus and divisions each regulate and
monitor point source discharges and
5-15
potentially contaminating activities, such
as registration and testing of underground
storage tanks, there is no single agency
responsible for identifying, tracking, and
monitoring the status of all potential
sources of ground water contamination.
In addition, there is virtually no regu-
latory oversight or monitoring of the
effects of non-point source pollution.
Because the county provides an excellent
interface between the municipalities and
the state and federal agencies, it is in an
excellent position to provide broad
coordinating actions to protect the
drinking water supply.
Morris County Water Supply Element
(
APPENDIX A
NJGS Base Flow Analysis
For their analysis, NJGS used two methods to
estimate the base flow from the long-term records:
the sliding interval method (Pettyjohn and
Henning, 1979) and the Posten (Posten, 1982)
method. These two methods differ in the
analytical approach used to determine baseflow
from streamflow records, and thus they provide
different estimates of stream baseflow given the
same data. NJGS also reported base flow
estimates for three time periods: (1) the period of
record for each station, (2) the period of 1940 to
1989, and (3) the drought period of 1960 to 1966.
For the analysis of stream baseflow conducted for
this report, an average of the Posten and sliding
interval methods for the period of record was used.
The ten streamflow gaging stations were
numbered I to 3, and 6 to 12 (stations numbered 4
and 5 were initially selected, but later found to be
A-1
redundant with station 6). The drainage areas
upstream of these streamflow gaging stations were
determined using the tertiary drainage basin
divides provided by USGS. These ten stations and
a description of their upstream drainage area are
presented and described in Table A-1.
The ten streamflow gaging stations represent
most of Morris County's drainage area (see
Figure 1-3). Only sma]l portions of Mendham
Township, Chester Township, Chester Borough,
and Washington Township are not included. This
is because these areas are drained by streams
whose nearest downstream station (that was
evaluated by NJGS) was so far downstream as to
make the results of the analysis for the entire drain-
age area unrepresentative of the small portion
within Morris County.
Morris County Water Supply Element
TABLEA-1
USGS GAGING STATIONS
Map USGS
# Station Description
1379500 Passaic River near Chatham. The drainage area of the Passaic River and
its tributaries upstream ofthis station includes most of Chatham Township
and Harding, all of Passaic, and portions or Morris Township, Morristown,
Mendham Township and Mendham Borough. Additionally, sections of
Union and Somerset Counties are included in this drainage area. The in-
county portion of the drainage area is approximately 52 sq.mi., while the
entire drainage area is listed by USGS as 100 sq.mi.
2 1380500 Rockaway River above Boonton Reservoir at Boonton. The drainage area
of the Rockaway River and its tributaries upstream of this station includes
portions of Boonton Town, Montville, Mountain Lakes, Mine Hill, and
Randolph; Rockaway Township and Jefferson Township and Kinnelon;
most of Denville and Boonton Township; and all ofRockaway Borough,
Dover, Wharton, and Victory Gardens. Additionally, a small portion of
the drainage area extends into Sussex County. The in-county portion of
the drainage area is approximately 112 sq.mi., while the drainage area of
this station is listed by USGS as 116 sq.mi.
3 1381500 Whippany River at Morristown. The drainage area of the Whippany River
and its tributaries upstream of this station includes portions of Morristown,
Morris Township, Morris Plains, Parsippany, Randolph, Mendham Town-
ship and a small comer of Harding. The entirety of this drainage area is
included in Morris County. USGS lists the drainage area for this station as
29.4 sq.mi.
6 1388500 Pompton River at Pompton Plains. The drainage area of the Pompton
River and its tributaries (e.g. the Pequannock River) upstream of this
station includes portions of Pequannock, Kinnelon, Rockaway Township,
and Jefferson, and all of Butler and Riverdale. In addition, the drainage
area extends into Passaic and Sussex Counties (via the Ramapo and
Wanaque Rivers and their tributaries). The in-county portion of the
drainage area is approximately 30 sq.mi., while the entire drainage area of
this station is listed by USGS as 355 sq.mi.
Morris County Water Supply Element A-2
(
TABLEA-1
USGS GAGING STATIONS
Map USGS
# Station Description
7 1389500 Passaic River at Little Falls. This station is located in Passaic County, and
is not within the boundaries shown on Figure 1-3. The drainage area of the
Passaic River and its tributaries upstream of this station includes the drain-
age area associated with stations 1, 2, 3, and 6 described above (all of these
stations are on the Passaic River or one of its tributaries upstream of
station 7). To avoid overlapping of drainage areas the drainage area for
this station excludes the drainage area of stations 1, 2, 3, and 6. Results
are reported for only the drainage area of the Passaic River and its tributar-
ies between stations 1, 2, 3, and 6 and station 7. This drainage area in-
cludes all of Lincoln Park, East Hanover, Hanover, Florham Park, and
Chatham, and portions of Pequannock, Kinnelon, Montville, Boonton
Township, Boonton Town, Mountain Lakes, Parsippany, Morris Plains,
and Madison. In addition, the drainage area includes portions of Essex,
Passaic, and Union Counties. The in-county drainage area associated with
this station is approximately 92 sq.mi., while the entire "incremental"
drainage area associated with this station is reported by USGS as 161.6
sq.mi. (the 762 sq.mi. drainage area listed for this station minus the 600.4
sq.mi. drainage area listed for stations 1, 2, 3, and 6).
8 01456000 Musconetcong River near Hackettstown. The drainage area of the Musco-
netcong River and its tributaries upstream of this station includes all of
Netcong and portions of Jefferson, Mount Arlington, Roxbury, and Mount
0 live. Additionally, the drainage area extends into portions of Sussex
County. The in-county drainage area for this station is approximately 28
sq.mi., while the entire drainage area is listed by USGS as 70 sq.mi.
A-3 Morris County Water Supply Element
TABLEA-1
USGS GAGING STATIONS
Map USGS
# Station Description
9 01457000 Musconetcong River near Bloomsbury. This station is located in Warren
County, and is not within the boundaries shown on Figure 1-3. The drain-
age area of the Musconetcong River and its tributaries upstream of this
station includes the drainage area associated with station 8 described above
(also on the Musconetcong River upstream of this station). To avoid over-
lapping of drainage areas the drainage area for this station excludes the
drainage area of station 8. Results are reported for only the drainage area
of the Musco netcong River and its tributaries between station 8 and station
9. This drainage area includes portions of Mount Olive, and Washington.
In addition, the drainage area includes portions of Hunterdon and Warren
Counties. The in-county drainage area associated with this station is ap-
proximately 15 sq.mi., while the entire "incremental" drainage area associ-
ated with this station is reported by USGS as 71 sq.mi. (the 141 sq.mi.
drainage area listed for this station minus the 70 sq.mi. drainage areas
listed for station 8).
10 1396500 South Branch Raritan River near High Bridge. This station is located in
Hunterdon County. The drainage area of the South Branch Raritan River
and its tributaries upstream of this station includes portions of Roxbury,
Mount Olive, Chester Township, and Washington. In addition, the drain-
age area includes portions of Hunterdon County. The in-county drainage
area associated with this station is approximately 54 sq.mi., while the
entire drainage area is listed by USGS as 65.3 sq.mi.
11 01398500 North Branch Raritan River near Far Hills. This station is located in
Somerset County. The drainage area of the North Branch Raritan River
and its tributaries upstream of this station includes portions of Randolph,
Mendham Township, Mendham Borough, and Chester Township. In addi-
tion, the drainage area includes portions of Somerset County. The in-
county drainage area associated with this station is approximately 22
sq.mi., while the entire drainage area is listed by USGS as 26.2 sq.mi.
12 01399500 Lamington (Black) River near Pottersville. The entire drainage area of the
Lamington River and its tributaries upstream of this station is located in
Morris County and includes portions of Mount Arlington, Mine Hill,
Roxbury, Randolph, Chester Township, Chester Borough, and Washing-
ton. The drainage area of this station is listed by USGS as 32.8 sq.mi.
Note: Map# refers to the number of the station presented on Figure 1-3.
Morris County Water Supply Element A-4
APPENDIXB
Purveyor Descriptions
B-1 Morris County Water Supply Element
Arlington Hills Water Company
Municipalities served: Portion of Mount Arlington
Number of connections: 3 total
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
Interconnections: NONE
DESCRIPTION:
0
3
0
0
2
0
Max. diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion:
Total storage capacity:
Treatment: N/ A
9.3 MGM
0.46MGM
0.30 MG
The Arlington Hills Water Company was created to serve a new planned unit development, Seasons Glen.
Once completed the 202 acre PUDwill consist of 588 residences, 280,000 square feet of office space,
and a 120,000 square foot shopping center. The site is also to be served by its own central sewerage
system. At this time it is not known if there are plans for the water company to interconnect with any
other system.
Boonton Town Water Department
Municipalities served: Boonton Town, portions of Boonton Township and Montville
Number of connections: 2,658 total Max. diversion rights: 91.45 MGM
residential: 2,638
commercial: 6 Actual ave. diversion: 29.23 MGM
industrial: 14
public: 0 Total storage capacity: 1.55 MG
Supply: wells: 5 Treatment: manganese/iron removal, VOC
reservoirs: 1 removal
Interconnections: Two - Denville, Boonton Township Water District #1
DESCRIPTION:
The Boonton Town Water Department is one of the few purveyors in the county that derives it supply
from both ground and surface water sources. All of its sources are located outside of the town. The
reservoir is located in Montville and Kinnelon and its major wellfield is located in Boonton Township.
In addition to directly serving a portion of the township, the Water Department also wholesales about
0.45 MGM to Boonton Township.
Morris County Water Supply Element B-2
(
Boonton Township Water District #1
Municipalities served: Portion of Boonton Township
Number of connections: 102 total Max. diversion rights: N/A
residential: 98
commercial: 3 Actual ave. diversion: N/A
industrial: 0
public: 1 Total storage capacity: N/A
Supply: wells: NIA Treatment: N/ A
reservoirs: NIA
Interconnections: One- Boonton Town Water Department
DESCRIPTION:
This municipal water department serves only a small section of Boonton Township along Powerville
Road adjacent to the boundary with the Town of Boonton. The Water District purchases all of its water,
approximately 0.45 MGM, from the Boonton Town Water Department which it distributes directly to
each user since it has no storage facilities.
Butler Water Department
Municipalities served: Butler Borough, portions of Kinnelon
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
2,290 total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
0
1
Max. diversion rights: 124.00MGM
Actual ave. diversion: 24.55MGM
Total storage capacity: 2.0MG
Treatment: pH adjustment, iron removal,
disinfection
Interconnections: Six- Newark (1), Kinnelon Borough Water Department (2), Passaic Valley
Water Commission (1), Riverdale (1), and Pompton Lakes (1).
DESCRIPTION:
The Butler Water Department is the only purveyor in Morris County which relies solely on surface water
as supply. The Kakeout Reservoir is located entirely within neighboring Kinnelon Borough. Presently,
the water department has excess capacity which it is interested in selling to other purveyors.
B-3 Morris County Water Supply Element
Chatham Borough Water Department
Municipalities served: Chatham Borough
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
2,881 total
2,712
168
0
1
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
3
0
Max. diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion:
Total storage capacity:
Treatment: N/ A
Interconnections: Four- Madison (1), NJ-American Water Company (3)
DESCRIPTION:
50.00MGM
31.70MGM
1.38 MG
The Chatham Borough Water Department has had its own water supply system since 1897. The only
system deficiencies noted by the department are dead-ended mains which need to be looped. The
Chatham Borough system draws from the Central Passaic Buried Valley Aquifer.
Chester Borough Water Department
Municipalities served: Chester Borough
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
112 total
100
12
0
0
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
2
0
Interconnections: NONE
DESCRIPTION:
Max. diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion (1989):
Total storage capacity:
Treatment: Hydrochlorination
N/A
1.38 MGM
0.21 MG
The department was created when the borough took over the Chester Water Company, a private purveyor.
The system dates back to 1932. Chester Borough has made several improvements including the
construction of a 200,000 gallon storage tank and the creation of new wells in the Olde Chester Towne
and Shadow Woods developments.
Morris County Water Supply Element B-4
(
Cliffside Park Water Company
Municipalities served: Portion of Washington Township
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
38 total
38
38
0
0
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
0
1
Interconnections: NONE
DESCRIPTION:
Max. diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion:
Total storage capacity:
Treatment: N/A
N/A
0.15MGM
N/A
Cliffside Park Water Company, one of the smallest water systems in the county, is located in the extreme
south-western comer of Washington Township. The only source of water for the 38 residences is a
spring-fed underground reservoir. During times of water shortage, residents are not permitted to wash
cars or water lawns, and at times, wash laundry.
Denville Township Water Department
Municipalities served: Denville, portions ofBoonton Township, Mountain Lakes, Parsippany-Troy
Hills, and Randolph.
Number of connections: 4,953 total Max. diversion rights: 70.00MGM
residential: 4,513
commercial: 415 Actual ave. diversion: 48.98MGM
industrial: 15
public: 10 Total storage capacity: 3.46 MG
Supply: wells: 5 Treatment: Air stripper for VOC removal,
reserv01rs: 0 manganese removal
Interconnections: Boonton Town, Mountain Lakes, Parsippany-Troy Hills, Randolph Township
MUA, Rockaway Borough, proposed-Morris County MUA
DESCRIPTION:
The water supply source for the Denville Water Department's five wells is the glacial moraine which
follows the Rockaway River. Two wells are located in Randolph, one of which has been contaminated
by VOC's. An interconnection with MCMUA is being constructed to insure sufficient water to serve the
southern portion of the township.
B-5 Morris County Water Supply Element
Dover Water Department
Municipalities served: Dover, Victory Gardens, portions of Randolph, Rockaway Township, and
Wharton.
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
6,068 total
5,245
693
69
61
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
4
0
Max. diversion rights: 112.00MGM
Actual ave. diversion: 85.48 MGM
Total storage capacity: 4.25 MG
Treatment: Air stripper to remove VOC's
Interconnections: Five- Rockaway Borough (1), Wharton (2), Randolph (2)
DESCRIPTION:
Water distributed by the Dover Water Commission is currently supplied by three wells all located in
Water Works Park adjacent to the Rockaway River. A fourth well off Hooey Street is presently not in
use because ofVOC contamination. An air stripper is being installed to remove the contamination. The
total number of connections has increased approximately 12% from 5,429 in 1981.
East Hanover Water Department
Municipalities served: East Hanover
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
2,900 total
2,626
256
0
18
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
3
0
Max. diversion rights: 69.75MGM
Actual ave. diversion: 44.23 MGM
Total storage capacity: 1.00 MG
Treatment: Air stripper for removal ofVOC's.
Interconnections: Four- NJ-American Water Company (1), SMCMUA (1), Florham Park (2)
DESCRIPTION:
Because of extensive ground water contamination, almost all of the East Hanover is served by the
township's Water Department. Contamination was also found in one municipal well. The Water
Department is presently seeking outside sources of water to supplement its own supply since the present
system is not able to meet peak demands and new wells can not be developed within the township.
Morris County Water Supply Element B-6
(
Elizabethtown Water Company
Municipalities served: Small portion of Chester Township
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
19 total
Supply: wells:
reservorrs:
Interconnections: N/ A
DESCRIPTION:
19
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
Max. diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion:
Total storage capacity:
Treatment: N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
The Elizabethtown Water Company, one of the largest water purveyors in the state, only serves a very
small portion of Morris County. The Water Company had taken over the Peapack-Gladstone water
system which had served homes located in the southern portion of Chester Township. All of the sources
of water and storage facilities are located outside of the county. There are no plans for extending service
further into Morris County.
Fayson Lakes Water Company
Municipalities served: Portion ofKinnelon
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
798 total
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
Interconnections: NONE
DESCRIPTION:
794
2
0
2
6
0
Max. diversion rights: 10.00MGM
Actual ave. diversion: 5.81 MGM
Total storage capacity: 0.33 MG
Treatment: Iron and manganese removal
The Payson Lakes Water Company, a private water company, serves the primarily residential areas
surrounding Payson Lakes. The system is not interconnected with any other water system. According
to the water company, there are difficulties in meeting the summer peak demands.
B-7 Morris County Water Supply Element
Florham Park Water Department
Municipalities served: Florham Park
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
3,055 total
2,193
142
0
0
Max. diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion:
Total storage capacity:
54.25 MGM
34.15 MGM
1.25 MG
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
3
0
Treatment: Gas chlorination, sodium
hexametaphosphate
Interconnections: Seven- NJ-American (1), Madison (3), East Hanover (2), SMCMUA (1)
DESCRIPTION:
The Florham Park Water Department only supplies water with the Borough of Florham Park. The
interconnections with other purveyors are for emergency use only. According to the Water Department,
the sources of supply are adequate to meet present and future (20 1 0) demands.
Hackettstown Municipal Utilities Authority
Municipalities served: Portion of Washington Township and Mount Olive
Number of connections (Morris): 762 total
residential: 655
commercial: 95
industrial: 12
public: 0
Supply: wells (Morris):
reservoirs (Morris):
Interconnections: NONE
DESCRIPTION:
1
3
Max. diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion:
Total storage capacity:
Treatment: N/ A
75.00MGM
65.50 MGM
2.40 MG
The MUA has supply sources both in Morris and Warren Counties. The sources located in Morris County
consist of one well in Washington Township and three reservoirs located along Mine Brook which
extends from Washington Township into Mount Olive. Presently, the Hackettstown MUA serves the
portion of Washington Township which is adjacent to Hackettstown. The MUA is interested in supplying
service to additional users within Washington Township provided that all municipal and private
agreements are satisfied.
Morris County Water Supply Element B-8
'
(
Jefferson Township Department of Municipal Utilities
Municipalities served: Jefferson Township
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
2,565 total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Supply: wells:
reservOirs:
11
0
Interconnections: NONE
DESCRIPTION:
Max. diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion:
Total storage capacity:
Treatment: N/ A
32.00MGM
17.60 MGM
0.81 MG
The township acquired several small water systems through donation, court order, and purchase from the
early 1970's through the early 1980's. Most of these systems only served a few homes, had only one well
as their source of water and had substandard infrastructure. The Department of Municipal Utilities is now
the major purveyor within Jefferson. In 1991, the township developed a water supply master plan which
notes the deficiencies of the existing systems and contains plans for upgrades and interconnections
between the various systems.
Kinnelon Water Department
Municipalities served: Portion of Kinnelon
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
257 total
Supply: wells:
reservOirs:
250
4
0
3
0
0
Interconnections: Two - Butler Water Department
DESCRIPTION:
Max. diversion rights: N/A
Actual ave. diversion: N/A
Total storage capacity: O.SOMG
Treatment: N/A
The Kinnelon Borough Water Department obtains all of its supply from the Butler Water Department.
In 1990, the Department purchased an average of 1.53 MGM from Butler. The service area for the Water
Department consists of small primarily residential areas adjacent to Butler Borough.
B-9 Morris County Water Supply Element
Lake Shore Water Company
Municipalities served: Portion of Harding
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
95 total
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
Interconnections: NONE
DESCRIPTION:
95
0
0
0
3
0
Max. diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion:
Total storage capacity:
Treatment: N/ A
N/A
0.04MGM
0.04MG
The Lake Shore Water Company serves the residential community around Mount Kemble Lake in
Harding. It is not interconnected with any other water system.
Lake Stockholm Water Company
Municipalities served: Small portion of Jefferson Township
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
59 total
Supply: wells:
reserv01rs:
Interconnections: NONE
DESCRIPTION:
59
0
0
0
1
0
Max. diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion:
Total storage capacity:
Treatment: N/ A
N/A
N/A
0.025 MG
The Lake Stockholm Water Company, a private water system, serves a lake community primarily located
in Sussex County a portion of which extends into Jefferson Township. Only the company's water storage
tank is located within the Morris County section of its franchise.
Morris County Water Supply Element B-10
Lake Valhalla Water Company
Municipalities served: Small portion ofMontville
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
35 total
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
35
0
0
0
1
0
Interconnections: One - Montville MUA
DESCRIPTION:
Max. diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion (1989):
Total storage capacity:
Treatment: None
NIA
0.30MGM
N/A
The Lake Valhalla Water Company's franchise was taken over by the Montville MUA in 1992. Relying
on one well, the water company could not meet the daily demands on its system.
Lincoln Park Water Department
Municipalities served: Lincoln Park
Number of connections: 3,480 total Max. diversion rights: N/A
residential: 3,350
commercial: 85 Actual ave. diversion: N/A
industrial: 40
public: 0 Total storage capacity: 1.55 MG
Supply: wells: 0 Treatment: N/ A
reservoirs: 0
Interconnections: Three- Passaic Valley Water Commission (1), Pequannock (2)
DESCRIPTION:
The Lincoln Park Water Department no longer has any of its own sources of supply; the water
department purchases its supply from the Passaic Valley Water Commission and the Pequannock
Township Water Department. In 1990, the average monthly consumption was 37.87 MGM.
B-11 Morris County Water Supply Element
Madison Water Department
Municipalities served: Madison, small portion of Florham Park
Number of connections: 4,912 total Max. diversion rights: 108.50 MGM
residential: 4,780
commercial: 120 Actual ave. diversion: 56.25 MGM
industrial: 0
public: 12 Total storage capacity: 1.25 MG
Supply: wells: 5 Treatment: Chlorine
reservoirs: 0
Interconnections: Eight- SMCMUA (1), Florham Park (3), NJ-American (3), Chatham Borough
(1)
DESCRIPTION:
All of Madison is served by the Water Department. According to the Department, the wells are not
presently used to capacity and are believed to be adequate to meet future (2010) demands. The wells of
Madison Water Department draw from the Central Passaic Buried Valley Aquifer which is the water
source for the major purveyors serving the southeastern portion of the county.
Mendham Borough Water Department
(Now owned and operated by NJ-American Water Co.)
Municipalities served: Mendham Borough, portions of Mendham Township
Number of connections: 1,978 total Max. diversion rights:
residential: 1,886
commercial: 87 Actual ave. diversion:
industrial: 0
public: 5 Total storage capacity:
Supply: wells: 4 Treatment: N/ A
reservoirs: 0
Interconnections: Four- MCMUA (1), NJ-American (1), SMCMUA (2)
DESCRIPTION:
7.40 MGM
7.40MGM
1.2MG
In 1992, Mendham Borough sold its water franchise to the New Jersey-American Water Company and
no longer operates its own water system. The Mendham Borough system still utilizes the same water
sources. In addition, New-Jersey American Water Company has completed an interconnection with its
system. Because of the inability of the system to meet peak demand, additional water is purchased from
MCMUA. In 1990, MCMUA sold approximately 12.12 MGM to the borough.
Morris County Water Supply Element B-12
I
I
Mine Hill Water Department
Municipalities served: Mine Hill
Number of connections: N/A total Max. diversion rights: N/A
residential: N/A
commercial: N/A Actual ave. diversion: N/A
industrial: N/A
public: N/A Total storage capacity: OMG
Supply: wells: 0 Treatment: None
reservoirs: 0
Interconnections: Two- MCMUA (1), Roxbury Water Company (1)
DESCRIPTION:
The Mine Hill Water Department has no supply sources of its own. The MCMUA supplies
approximately 4.38 MGM and, according to the Roxbury Water Company, they supply approximately
1.14 MGM to the township Water Department.
Montville Municipal Utilities Authority
Municipalities served: Montville
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
3,270 total
2,950
320
0
0
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
3
0
Max. diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion:
Total storage capacity:
Treatment: None
Interconnections: NONE, except to the Jersey City Pump Station.
DESCRIPTION:
86.60MGM
43.92MGM
4.5MG
The Montville MUA has expanded its system to serve almost all the developed areas of the township.
The MUA has no interconnections with any other local systems; however, a possible connection with the
Town of Boonton's system was proposed.
B-13 Morris County Water Supply Element
Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority
Municipalities served: Mine Hill, Randolph, Mendham Borough, SMCMUA
Number of connections: N/A total Max. diversion rights: 142.80 MGM
residential: NIA
commercial: NIA Actual ave. diversion: 66.87MGM
industrial: NIA
public: N/A Total storage capacity: 7.46 MG
Supply: wells: 7 Treatment: N/ A
reservoirs: 0
Interconnections: Six- SMCMUA (2), NJ-American (1), Mine Hill (1), Roxbury (1), Randolph
(1)
DESCRIPTION:
MCMUA only wholesales water to other municipal utility authorities and water departments. MCMUA
presently obtains its water from the Alamatong Wellfield located in the southwestern corner of Randolph
Township and from the Flanders Valley Wellfield in Mount Olive. In order to obtain a reliable source
of surface water, MCMUA has entered into a contract with Jersey City to divert up to 7.5 MGD from the
Boonton Reservoir. The agreement is contingent upon NJDEPE approval.
Mountain Lakes Water Department
Municipalities served: Mountain Lakes, Portion of Boonton Town, Boonton Township, Denville,
Parsippany-Troy Hills
Number of connections: 1,380 total Max. diversion rights: 30.00MGM
residential: 1,294
commercial: 84 Actual ave. diversion: 20.65MGM
industrial: 0
public: 2 Total storage capacity: l.SOMG
Supply: wells: 4 Treatment: Chlorination
reservoirs: 0
Interconnections: Three - Denville ( 1 ), Parsippany-Troy Hills (2)
DESCRIPTION:
The Mountain Lakes Water Department serves all of Mountain Lakes as well as small portions of the
neighboring municipalities of Denville and Parsippany. The borough has one major production well
located in the southern portion of the municipality; the remaining wells are used for emergency or back-
up purposes only. Two wells are located outside ofthe borough within the "Valley" area ofDenville.
Morris County Water Supply Element B-14
(
Mountain Shores Water System
Municipalities served: Portion of Jefferson Township
Number of connections: 22 total
Supply:
residential: 22
commercial: 0
industrial: 0
public: 0
wells:
reservOirs:
2
0
Interconnections: NONE
DESCRIPTION:
Max. diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion:
Total storage capacity:
Treatment: N/ A
N/A
N/A
0.012 MG
The Mountain Shores Water System is a private water company serving a small residential area near
Nolans Point in the southern portion of Jefferson. It is not interconnected with any other water system.
Mount Arlington Service Company
Municipalities served: Portion of Mount Arlington
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
264 total
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
Interconnections: NONE
DESCRIPTION:
264
0
0
1
2
0
Max. diversion rights: N/A
Actual ave. diversion (1991): 1.61 MGM
Total storage capacity: 0.14 MG
Treatment: Gas chlorination
The Mount Arlington Service Company provides water to single family homes, an apartment complex
and a school within the borough. The water company has no interconnections with any other system.
B-15 Morris County Water Supply Element
Mount Arlington Water Company
Municipalities served: Portion of Mount Arlington
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
49 total
Supply: wells:
reservOirs:
Interconnections: NONE
DESCRIPTION:
. N/A
NIA
NIA
NIA
2
0
Max. diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion:
Total storage capacity:
Treatment: N/ A
N/A
0.34MGM
NIA
The small private water company serves a small residential area adjacent to Lake Hopatcong in the
central portion Mount Arlington. It is not interconnected with any other system.
Mount Olive Township Water and Sewer Department
Municipalities served: Portion of Mount Olive Township
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
4,084 total
3,990
94
0
0
Supply: wells:
reservous:
20
0
Interconnections: NONE
DESCRIPTION:
Max. diversion rights: 44.00MGM
Actual ave. diversion: 27.72 MGM
Total storage capacity: 1.00 MG
Treatment: Gas chlorination, iron sequestration,
pH adjustment, calcite filters
The township water department operates eight separate water systems located through the township.
Most of these systems were originally operated by private water companies or were created to serve a
residential development. Most of the water systems are not interconnected. The township has undertaken
a program of upgrading the substandard elements of its overall water system.
Morris County Water Supply Element B-16
(
Mount Olive Villages
Municipalities served: Portion of Mount Olive
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
1,336 total
1,333
0
0
3
Max. diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion:
Total storage capacity:
13.00MGM
7.39MGM
0.50MG
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
3
0
Treatment: Lime addition, air stripper for C02
Interconnections: NONE
DESCRIPTION:
The Mount Olive Villages service area is located in the south western portion of Mount Olive generally
bounded by the Washington Township border, Shop Lane, Mt. Olive Road, and encompassing a portion
of Route 46. It is not interconnected with any other system. According to the water company, it
presently has sufficient supply but will have to develop new sources in order to accommodate additional
growth.
Netcong Water Department
Municipalities served: Netcong, small portion of Mount Olive
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
Supply: wells:
1,284 total
1,203
4
77
0
4
reservoirs: 0
Interconnections: One- Stanhope (Sussex Co.)
DESCRIPTION:
Max. diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion:
Total storage capacity:
Treatment: Gas chlorination
17.80MGM
12.23 MGM
1.00 MG
The Netcong Water Department serves a small portion of Mount Olive and is the only purveyor serving
the borough. Its wellfield is located outside ofNetcong in the neighboring municipalities ofMt. Olive
and Roxbury. According to the water department, its sources are adequate to meet current demands,
however, a back-up reservoir may be needed in the future.
B-17 Morris County Water Supply Element
New Jersey-American Water Company
Municipalities served: Portions of Chatham Township, Long Hill Township, Florham Park, Harding,
Mendham Borough, and Mendham Township.
Number of connections: 7,313 total Max. diversion rights: N/A
residential: 6,996
commercial: 302 Actual ave. diversion: N/A
industrial: 15
public: 0 Total storage capacity: 3.62MG
in Morris County
Supply wells: 4
(Morris Co.) reservoirs: 0 Treatment: Chlorination
Interconnections: Six- East Hanover, Florham Park, Madison, MCMUA, Chatham Borough, and
SMCMUA.
DESCRIPTION:
The New Jersey-American Water Company, the largest private purveyor in the state, serves six
municipalities in the southeastern portion of the county. The water company has completed construction
of a pipeline as part of its WaterSource project which would bring in water from the Passaic Valley Water
Commission into southeastern Morris County. SMCMUA is under contract to purchase a portion of this
water.
New Jersey Vasa Homes
Municipalities served: Portion of Mount Olive
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
74 total
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
Interconnections: NONE
DESCRIPTION:
74
0
0
0
3
0
Max. diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion:
Total storage capacity:
Treatment: None
N/A
0.34MGM
0.0005 MG
New Jersey Vasa Homes serves a small private community in the western portion of Mount Olive. It is
not interconnected with any other water system. According to the water company, its sources are
adequate to meet current and future needs.
Morris County Water Supply Element B-18
(
Parsippany Water Department
Municipalities served: Parsippany and small sections of Denville and Mountain Lakes
Number of connections: 12,480 total Max. diversion rights: 280.00MGM
residential: NIA
commercial: N/A Actual ave. diversion: 204.18 MGM
industrial: N/A
public: NIA Total storage capacity: 10.50 MG
Supply: wells: 20 Treatment: Chlorination
reservoirs: 0
Interconnections: Four- Denville (1), Mountain Lakes (2), SMCMUA (1)
DESCRIPTION:
The Parsippany Water Department is the largest municipal water department and serves the second
largest population within Morris County. The water department service area consists of the entire
township including the Greystone State Psychiatric Hospital. In addition to its own well supplies, the
township purchases water from SMCMUA. The Water Department believes that its sources are adequate
to meet current and short-range future demands.
Pequannock Water Department
Municipalities served: Pequannock, small portion of Lincoln Park
Number of connections: 4,286 total Max. diversion rights: 106.00MGM
residential: 4,078
commercial: 192 Actual ave. diversion: 50.40MGM
industrial: 8
public: 8 Total storage capacity: 1.00 MG
Supply: wells: 2 Treatment: N/A
reservoirs: 0
Interconnections: Seven- Newark (4), Lincoln Park (2), Riverdale (1)
DESCRIPTION:
The Pequannock Water Department is the only purveyor in the county which utilizes water on an as-
needed basis from the City of Newark's supply system. It has an agreement to purchase up to 6.0 mgd
from Newark to supplement its supply. The water department also sells an average of0.28 MGD of water
to the Lincoln Park Water Department. Sampling in one of the township's wells has revealed
concentrations of TCA. The Department believes that its supplies are not adequate to meet future
demands.
B-19 Morris County Water Supply Element
Plausha Park Water Company
Municipalities served: Portion of Montville
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
57 total
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
Interconnections: NONE
DESCRIPTION:
57
0
0
0
1
0
Max diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion:
Total storage capacity:
Treatment: None
N/A
0.54MGM
0.07MG
The private water company serves a residential area in the Towaco section of Montville Township.
Although its source of water consists of only one well, the company believes that it has sufficient supply
to meet current and future demands. However, the company states that an interconnection with another
system would be desirable for additional protection.
Randolph Water Department
Municipalities served: Major portion of Randolph, small portions of Mendham Township, Mine
Hill, and Chester Township
Number of connections: 3,786 total Max. diversion rights: N/A
residential: 3,697
commercial: 81 Actual ave. diversion: N/A
industrial: 0
public: 8 Total storage capacity: 1.40 MG
Supply: wells: 0 Treatment: N/ A
reservoirs: 0
Interconnections: Six- Dover (2), Denville (1), Parsippany (1), SMCMUA (1), MCMUA (1)
DESCRIPTION:
The Randolph Water Department does not have any supply sources of its own. Instead, Randolph
purchases its water, an average of 36.03 MGM, from MCMUA. The water department serves most of
the township south of Route 10, in addition to small sections of several neighboring municipalities.
Morris County Water Supply Element B-20
(
'
Riverdale Water Department
Municipalities served: Riverdale
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
750 total
648
97
5
0
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
2
0
Max. diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion:
Total storage capacity:
Treatment: N/ A
Interconnections: Two- Pequannock (1), Pompton Lakes (I)
DESCRIPTION:
12.40 MGM
6.58 MGM
NIA
The Water Department serves the eastern, developed portion of Riverdale. The department believes that
its supplies are adequate to meet current and future demands.
Rockaway Borough Water Department
Municipalities served: Rockaway Borough, portions of Rockaway Township and Denville
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
2,800 total
N/A
NIA
NIA
N/A
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
3
0
Max. diversion rights: 44.40MGM
Actual ave. diversion: 39.33 MGM
Total storage capacity: 2.05 MG
Treatment: air stripper for VOC removal
Interconnections: Three - Dover (I), Denville (1), Rockaway Township (1)
DESCRIPTION:
In addition to supplying water directly to consumers within its service area, the water department sells
approximately 6 MGM to the Rockaway Township. The borough obtains its water supply from three
wells located off of Union Ave. In 1980, VOC contamination was discovered in the Water Department's
wells. Activated charcoal filters and air strippers were installed in 1981. The wellfield was placed on the
Superfund list in 1983. Federal studies completed in 1991 recommended the current treatment as the
preferred remedy.
B-21 Morris County Water Supply Element
Rockaway Township Water Department
Municipalities served: Major portion of Rockaway Township
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
3,251 total
3,192
35
20
4
Max. diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion:
Total storage capacity:
62.00MGM
25.16MGM
3.75 MG
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
4
0
Treatment: air strippers for VOC removal
Interconnections: One - Rockaway Borough
DESCRIPTION:
The Water Department primarily serves the White Meadow Lake area of the township. The township
draws water from wells situated in the Valley Fill Aquifer which is a Sole Source Aquifer. All wells are
located between Green Pond Road and the Denville border; the original wellfield is about 1/2 mile north
of Route 80 and the newest well is near Meridan Road on Hewlett Packard's property. In 1979, VOC
contamination was found in the Department's wellfield. An air stripper and carbon filtration system were
installed the following year. The wellfield was placed on the Superfund list in 1983.
Roxbury Water Company
Municipalities served: Portion of Roxbury
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
2,930 total
N/A
NIA
N/A
N/A
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
7
0
Interconnections: NONE
DESCRIPTION:
Max. diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion:
Total storage capacity:
Treatment: NONE
40.00MGM
18.86 MGM
2.50MG
The private water company serves an area of Roxbury south of the High Bridge Branch Railroad and
Route 10. It is the major purveyor within the township in terms of the total number of connections.
Roxbury Water Company's wells are scattered throughout its service area. The water company also sells
approximately 1.14 MGM to the Mine Hill Water Department.
Morris County Water Supply Element B-22
(
Roxbury Township Water Department
Municipalities served: Portion of Roxbury, Mount Arlington
Number of connections (1988): I,830 total
Supply:
residential: I, 728
commercial: I 02
industrial: 0
public: N/A
wells:
reservoirs:
I2
0
Interconnections: One-MCMUA
DESCRIPTION:
Max. diversion rights: 26.00MGM
Actual ave. diversion: I4.25 MGM
Total storage capacity: 1.30 MG
Treatment: N/A
The municipal water department serves Roxbury Township north of the High Bridge Branch Railroad
and Route I 0. All of its wells and most of its service area are located in the Shore Hills section and the
Skyview Estates and Lookout Estates residential subdivisions. Service is currently being extended to the
Kenvil area because of ground water contamination. In order to obtain sufficient water to serve Kenvil
as well as to meet future demands, an interconnection to MCMUA was made to supplement the existing
sources.
Southeast Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority
Municipalities served: Morristown, Morris Plains, Hanover, Morris Township, portions of
Mendham Township, Chatham Township, Harding, and Florham Park.
Number of connections: 16,5 84 total Max. diversion rights: 360.00MGM
residential: NIA
commercial: NIA Actual ave. diversion: 259.79MGM
industrial: NIA
public: NIA Total storage capacity: 16.17MG
Supply: wells: 13 Treatment: Manganese removal, filtration,
reservoirs: 1 chlorine, lime, polymer additives.
Interconnections: Thirteen- Madison (1), MCMUA (2), NJ-American (5), Parsippany (2),
Randolph (I), East Hanover (1), and Florham Park (I).
DESCRIPTION: SMCMUA is the largest purveyor in the county in terms of the number of connections.
The MUA obtains most of its water from wells which draw from the Central Passaic Buried Valley
Aquifer. In addition, an average of I4.35 MGM of water is purchased from MCMUA. SMCMUA has
documented drawdown in its wells. In order to alleviate the demand on its wells, the MUA has entered
into an agreement to purchase up to 6 MGD from the NJ American Water Company through its
WaterSource project.
B-23 Morris County Water Supply Element
Washington Township Municipal Utilities Authority
Municipalities served: Portions ofWashington Township
Number of connections (1992): 1,719 total Max. diversion rights: 23.28 MGM
residential: 1,674
commercial: 41 Actual ave. diversion: 15.04 MGM
industrial: 0
public: 4 Total storage capacity: 1.40 MG
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
11
0
Treatment: Chlorination, pH adjustment,
caustic soda.
Interconnections: NONE
DESCRIPTION:
The Washington Township MUA provides water to three service areas within the municipality:
Schooleys Mountain, Wooded Valley, and the Hagar systems. Eleven wells area located through these
systems which are interconnected. The MUA is in the process of extending service to the area of
Washington and Chester Townships contaminated by the Combe Fill South landfill and Cleveland
Industrial Park. In order to provide sufficient water, the MUA is exploring for new well sites.
West Jersey Water Service, Inc.
Municipalities served: Portion of Mount Olive
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
214 total
Supply: wells:
reservoirs:
Interconnections: NONE
DESCRIPTION:
214
0
0
0
4
0
Max. diversion rights:
Actual ave. diversion:
Total storage capacity:
Treatment: Chlorination
N/A
1.85 MGM
0.05 MG
The service area of this small water company is located just west of Budd Lake. The system is at
maximum capacity and does not anticipate any additional hook-ups. Many of its lines are undersized and
the system requires substantial upgrades. In 1988, the West Jersey Water Service offered to sell its
system to Mount Olive Township which rejected the purchase because of the system deficiencies.
Morris County Water Supply Element B-24
(
Wharton Water Department
Municipalities served: Wharton
Number of connections:
residential:
commercial:
industrial:
public:
1,790 total
1,729
45
8
8
Supply: wells:
reservOirs:
3
0
Interconnections: Two- Dover
DESCRIPTION:
Max. diversion rights: 40.30MGM
Actual ave. diversion: 24.15 MGM
Total storage capacity: N/A
Treatment: Air stripper for removal ofVOC's
The Department serves only the Borough of Wharton. VOC contamination was discovered in the two
wells located between the Rockaway River, West Central A venue and the Central Railroad in the northern
portion of the borough. These wells were put temporarily out of service until air strippers are installed
to remove the contamination. Presently, the Water Department is only using one well which is located
in the southern section of the borough also adjacent to the river. There is concern that this well is also
susceptible to contamination because of its shallow depth.
Notes:
1. All information provided is as of 1990 unless otherwise indicated.
2. MGM = million gallons per month
3. MGD = million gallons per day
4. VOC =volatile organic compounds
5. MUA =municipal utilities authority
B-25 Morris County Water Supply Element
(
APPENDIXC
Bedrock Geology Map
C-1 Morris County Water Supply Element
Bedrock Geology
Legend
Early Jurassic/Late Triassic
- Boonton Formation --OJ .
[]]IIJ] Hook Mountai n Basalt
-
0.
-............ Towaco Formation "0
-/ --------
Quartz Pebble Conglomerate-._
Basalt Clast Conglomerate a_
Quartzite Clast Conglomerate
IIIII Limestone Clast !
Passaic Quartzite Conglomerate/
I TRc J Quartzite Clast Conglomerate
Devonian Period
- Bellvale Sandstone
- Cornwall Shale
- Undifferentiated Kanouse Sandstone,
Esopus Formation, and Connelly
Conglomerate
Si l urian Peri od
I Spbv I Undifferentiated Berkshi re Valley
Formation and Poxono Island Format ion
0 Longwood Shale
Green Pond Con_glomerate
Ordovician Period
- Martinsburg Formation
- Bushkill Member of Martinsburg Formation
- Jutland Klippe Units
- Beekmantown Group, Epler Formation
- Beekmantown Group, Rickenbach Formation
- Allentown Dolomite
Cambrian Period
[!0 Lei thsville Formation
00 Hardyston Quartzite
N 0 R T H
0 2 3
0 2 3 4 5
I inch to 8,300 feet
6
Precambrian Period
-
Hornblende Granite "'-. _
,.,
- Hornblende Syenite
- Biotite Granite
- Microperthite Ataskite I
-
Pyroxene Gran1te -.... :;-
r-
-
Pyroxene Syenite §."'
ro :;:·oro
- Pyroxene Alaskite _...-
- Potassic Feldspar Gneiss
Microcline Gneiss
Biotite-Quartz-Feldspar Gneiss


!'!,
. 3
Hornblende-Quartz-Feldspar Gne1ss 3
- Gneiss
- Pyroxene Gneiss g
- Franklin Marble --- ;It"
Quartz-Oligoclase Gneiss ---

Granite 1;
Biotite-Quartz-Ol igoclase
Hyperstene-Quartz- Piagioclase Gneiss \
::o
Amphibolite Q
"'"
EYmg I Monazite Gneiss :;c· 2,
I Yhp I Hornblende-Ciin?pyroxene-
Plagioclase Gne1ss . <9:!§.
I Ybp I Biotite-Plagioclase Gneiss
1 Yma I Microantiperthite Alaskite /
4 5 Miles
7 Kilometers
----- Faults- Dashed where concealed; queried uncertain
; ; 4 ; ; Inclined thrust fault - Sawteeth on upper plate


J
t
n: --..
v
--..

FOLDS
Antiform - Showing crestline and direction of plunge
Synform - Showing troughl ine and direction of plunge
Overturned antiform Showing trace of axial
surface, di rection of dip of limbs, and plunge
Overturned synform Showing trace of axial
s·urface, direction of dip of li mbs, and plunge
Anticline- Showing crestli ne and
direction of plunge
SOURCE:
N]GS, 1992. See complete listing for references.
Map Prepared By:
Morris County Planning Board
1994 Water Supply Master Plan
County of Morris, New Jersey
Morris County Planning Board
Appendix C: Bedrock Geology
(
APPENDIXD
Sources Consulted
D-1 Morris County Water Supply Element
: , . .
Introduction
Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders. Report upon the Long Range Water Requirements for
Morris County. Prepared by Elson T. Killam Assoc. September 1958.
Morris County Planning Board. Future Water Supply Requirements for Morris County. 1956.
Morris County Planning Board. 1971 Water Supply Master Plan. Prepared by Elson T. Killam
Assoc. 1971.
Morris County Planning Board. 1982 Water Supply Master Plan Element. Prepared by Elson T.
Killam Assoc. Adopted October 1982.
Chapter One
Canace, Robert, W.R. Hutchinson, W.R. Saunders, and K.G. Andres. Results ofthe 1980-1981
Drought Emergency Ground Water Investigation in Morris and Passaic Counties. New Jersey.
NJGS Open File Report No. 83-3, 1983.
Gill, Harold E. and John Vecchioli. Availability of Ground Water in Morris County. USGS Special
Report No. 25, 1965.
Hoffman, Jeffrey L. Plan of Study for the Central Passiac River Basin Hydrogeologic Investigation.
NJGS Open File Report 88-4, 1989a.
Hoffman, Jeffrey L. Simulated Drawdown. 1972-1995. in the Pleistocene Buried-Valley Aquifer in
Southwestern Essex and Southeastern Morris Counties. New Jersey. NJGS Open File Report 89-1,
1989b.
Morris County Water Supply Element D-2
Lewis, J. Volney and Henry Kummel. Geologic Map ofNew Jersey. NJGS Atlas Sheet #40. 1910-
1912. Revised by Henry B. Kummel, 1931, and Meredith F. Johnson, 1950.
Markewicz, Frank, R. Dalton and R. Canace. Stratigraphy, Engineering and Geohydrologic
Characteristrics of the Lower Paleozoic Carbonate Formations ofNorthern New Jersey. Presented
at the Design and Construction of Foundations on the Carbonate Formations ofNew Jersey and
Pennsylvania Conference. March 1981.
McAuley, Stephen D., RobertS. Nicholson, Julia L. Barringer (USGS) and George J. Blyskun
(NJGS). Plan to Evaluate the Hydrogeology of the Valley-Fill and Carbonate-Rock Aquifers
near Long Valley in the New Jersey Highlands. NJGS Open File Report 92-3, 1992.
Meisler, Harold. Computer Simulation Model ofthe Pleistocene Valley-Fill Aquifer in Southwestern
Essex and Southeastern Morris Counties. New Jersey. USGS, 1976.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy. New Jersey Statewide Water
Supply Master Plan Revision. Task Reports 1-6 prepared by CH2M Hill, Metcalf and Eddy, and
New Jersey First, 1992.
Schaefer, F.L., P.T. Harte, J.A. Smith and B.A. Kurtz. Hydrologic Conditions ofthe Upper
Rockaway River Basin. New Jersey; 1984-1986. USGS Water Resources Investigation Reports
91-4169, (Prepared in cooperation with NJDEP), 1991.
Stanford, Scott D., Ronald W. Witte and David P. Harper. Hydrogeologic Character and Thickness
of Glacial Sediment ofNew Jersey. NJGS, 1990.
Chapter Two
Boonton Township. Reexamination Report. Prepared by Robert Catlin and Associates. Adopted
November 7, 1988.
Chatham Township. Chatham Township Wastewater Management Plan. Prepared by Metcalf and
Eddy. Dated March 27, 1991.
D-3 Morris County Water Supply Element
Borough of Chester 1986 Master Plan. Prepared by E. Eugene 0ross Associates.
11, 1986.
Township. A Reexamination and Comprehensive Revision of the Chester Township Master
by Kinzler and Ritter/Land Planning. A9opted September 13, 1988.;
Hanover Township. Land Use Element of the Master Plan. Prepared by Robert Catlin and
November 1980.
Harding Township. Master Plan. Township of Harding. Prepared by Townplan Associates. Adopted
December 17, 1984.
Jefferson Township. Township of Jefferson. 1991 Master Plan Update. Prepared by Suburban
Consulting Engineers, Inc. Adopted October 8, 1991.
Jefferson Township. Jefferson Township Water Supply Master Plan. Prepared by Elam & Popoff.
Dated December 1991.
Mendham Borough. 1988 Mendham Borough Master Plan. April 1988. Prepared by Malcolm Kasler
and Associates, P.A. Adopted November 14, 1988.
Mine Hill Township. Master Plan. Township of Mine Hill. Prepared by John Cilo, Jr. Associates.
Adopted August 11, 1988.
Mount Arlington Borough. 1977 Master Plan Revision. Borough of Mount Arlington. Dated October
26, 1977.
Mount Arlington Borough. Master Plan Reexamination Report. Dated December 1983.
Mount Olive Township. Township of Mount Olive Master Plan. Prepared by Queale and Lynch, Inc.
Adopted August 21, 1986.
MotiiltOlive Township. Mount Olive Township Natural Resources Inventory. Prepared by Dresdner,
Robin & Assoc. 1988.
Parsippany-Troy Hills Township Water Department. Parsippany-Troy Hills Water Conservation
Plan. March 1988.
Parsippany-Troy Hills Township. Parsippany-Troy Hills Planning Report for Department of Water
Supply and Distribution. Prepared by Elam & Popoff. Dated May 1990.
Pequannock Township. Township of Pequannock. Master Plan Reexamination. Pequannock
Township Planning Board, March 1990. Adopted June 4, 1990.
Morris County Water Supply Element D-4
(
Randolph I -Master Plan. Township of Randolph. Morris Countv. New
Prepared by Moskowitz, Heyer & Gruel, P.A. & Madden/Kummer, Inc. Circulation PHm
prepared by McDonough & Rea Associates. Adopted July 20, 1992.
Borough ofRiverdaJe. Master Plan Revision. Borough of Riverdale. December 1985. PreparedJJ)i
Michael F. Kauker Associates. Adopted February 18, 1986.
. .. ' (
Rockaway Township. Rockaway Township Master Plan Summary Report. 1992. AdoptedJ tily 13,
1992.
Roxbury Township. Master Plan. Comprehensive Revision. 1990. Prepared by Madden/Kuminer,
Inc. Adopted August 1, 1990.
Southeast Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority. Southeast Morris County Municipal Utilities
Authoritv Water System Master Plan. Prepared by Killam Assoc. Dated March 1991.
Victory Gardens Borough. Borough ofVictorv Gardens. Master Plan. Prepared by P. David
Zimmerman. December 1980.
Washington Township. Master Plan and Master Plan Reexamination. Township of Washington.
Prepared by P. David Zimmerman. Adopted December 10, 1988.
Chapter 4
.,
_,
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy. Evaluation and Recommendations
Concerning Buffer Zones Around Public Water Supplv Reservoirs. December 1989.
-'
t ..
D-5 Morris County Water Supply Element
'
r
;:.
!j
!

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd