Ineligible Project
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1361-DR-WA; Graham Hill Mutual Water Company; PW 549
Cross-reference: Ineligible Project
Summary: The Graham Hill Mutual Water Company (GHMWCo) lost water capacity in its wells due to a drop in static water levels after the Nisqually Earthquake, in February 2001. The GHMWCo proposed to replace Well #1 because the well has no screen or automatic shutoff and would be damaged if it continued to pump at the current 50 gallons per minute rate and drew down below the level of the pump. The proposed cost is approximately $148,000. Prior to the earthquake, the GHMWCo was already experiencing reduced static water levels due to severe drought conditions. In October 2001, FEMA denied the project, as it was difficult to determine whether well impacts are related to either the earthquake or the current drought. The GHMWCo appealed FEMAs ineligibility determination in July 2002. In November 2002, FEMA denied the appeal stating that the aquifer was affected, not the GHMWCo facility. The Water Company claims that the earthquake caused damage to the aquifer but the aquifer does not meet the entire definition of a public facility under the Stafford Act. Because the aquifer is not built by the applicant nor was it a natural feature improved and maintained by the applicant it is ineligible. The GHMWCo filed a second appeal in January 2003. The applicant clarified that the water system, not the aquifer had sustained damage as a result of the Nisqually Earthquake. It is the companys position that the earthquake damaged the water system, that the water system meets the entire definition of a public facility under the Stafford Act and that the system is therefore eligible for financial assistance.
Issues: Did Graham Hill Mutual Water Company sustain damage to its water system as a result of the Nisqually Earthquake?
Findings: No. The earthquake impacted the aquifer, which is not an eligible facility.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.221, Eligibility Definitions, 44 CFR 206.223, General Work Eligibility.
The Nisqually Earthquake, measuring 6.8 in magnitude, struck the Seattle, Washington region on February 28, 2001. After the earthquake the Graham Hill Mutual Water Company (GHMWCo) submitted Project Worksheet 549, citing a loss in system capacity due to a drop in static water levels in the aquifer. The GHMWCo proposed to replace Well #1 because the well had no screen or automatic shutoff and would be damaged if it continued to pump at the current 50 (gallons per minute) GPM rate and drew down below the level of the pump. The proposed cost of drilling a replacement well is approximately $148,000.
Prior to the earthquake, the GHMWCo was already experiencing a reduced static water level in its three wells, due to severe drought conditions. Subsequently, water levels dropped an additional 2-3 feet and have not returned to previous levels. The State recommended against the project, because GHMWCo has not demonstrated that the Nisqually earthquake caused damage or a disruption to its services.
In October 2001, FEMA determined that there was no eligible damage as it was difficult to determine whether well impacts are related to either the earthquake or the current drought. The decision was based on a June 11, 2001, memorandum from the Washington State Department of Ecology indicating that Washington State was experiencing one of the driest years on record. FEMA cited 44 CFR §206.223 (a)(1), To be eligible for financial assistance an item of work must be required as a result of the major disaster event. The GHMWCo appealed FEMAs ineligible determination for drilling a replacement for Well #1.
The State, in a January 10, 2002, letter asked FEMA to reconsider its previous decision. Enclosed with the letter was a report from the GHMWCo with supporting documentation of the drop in static water level and the loss of system capacity after the earthquake. In a February 13, 2002, letter, FEMA restated the ineligible determination, adding, The applicant has not clearly demonstrated what the eligible damage is to the wells. It is not clear how the drilling of a new well to the same depth and size is repair of the damage.
1st Appeal
The GHMWCo sent a letter dated July 12, 2002, appealing FEMAs ineligibility determination. The State in its transmittal letter to FEMA did not support GHMWCos appeal, stating that GHMWCo had not adequately demonstrated that the Nisqually earthquake caused damage or a disruption to their services. The aquifer is a natural feature, not under the direct control of the Water Company and is not a public facility. While it can be agreed that the Water Company has lost water capacity, it has suffered no loss in services to its members. FEMA concurred with the State, and in a letter dated November 1, 2002, denied the appeal, stating that the aquifer, not the GHMWCo facility was affected. The Water Company claims that the earthquake caused damage to the aquifer but the aquifer does not meet the entire definition of a public facility under the Stafford Act. Because the aquifer is not built by the applicant nor was it a natural feature improved and maintained by the applicant, it is ineligible.
2nd Appeal
The GHMWCo filed a second appeal January 17, 2003. The State in its transmittal letter of March 6, 2003, again recommended that FEMA deny the second appeal. In the second appeal the applicant clarified that the water system, not the aquifer, had sustained damage as a result of the Nisqually Earthquake. It is the companys position that the earthquake damaged the water system, that the water system meets the entire definition of a public facility under the Stafford Act and that the system is therefore eligible for financial assistance. The damage was defined as a loss of system capacity on the order of 75 gallons per minute. In support of its argument that the wells are part of an overall water system, GHMWCo quotes in its Project Worksheet 529 (dated July 13, 2002):
The Water Companys definition of system from the Washington State Department of Healths Chapter 246-290-010 (effective April 9, 1999)
(1) Public Water system shall mean any system providing water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances, excluding a system serving only one single family residence and a system with four or fewer connections all of which service residences on the same farm. Such term includes: (a) Collection, treatment, storage, and/or distribution facilities under control of the purveyor and used primarily in connection with such system
GHMWCo interprets collection to mean the production of wells including, but not limited to, casings, pumps and control equipment. This is the system that was damaged by the earthquake.
DISCUSSION
The GHMWCo water system may include the aquifer. However, the aquifer is not an eligible facility under 44 CFR §206.221. While the Water Company may own the well and pumping equipment, water levels within the well are dependant upon the aquifer, which it does not own. Project Worksheet 529 describes no actual damage to the facility, only that it has experienced a reduction in pumping capacity due to lowered water within the well.
Actual versus potential damage
The GHMWCo clearly indicates in the Project Worksheet that it is attempting to protect the water system from potential damage to its well from either an additional drop in static water levels, or from planned future increases in water demand. The Water Company stated:
· Well #1 had the largest draw down of the three wells and, due to its construction, was singled out as the most likely to fail if static water levels do not return to pre-earthquake levels. The well is simply a casing without a screen. There is no automatic (based on draw down) pump shut off control for the well. It is estimated that the 50 GPM pumping rate is close to the limiting yield of the well.
· The capacity of the system was significantly reduced which jeopardizes the Companies ability to provide and adequate supply of potable drinking water. [The] Water Company has concern that decreased water levels may impact planned expansion to 510 new connections.
There has been no reduction in service to the Water Companys customers as a result of the drop in water level. The State pointed out out, The Water Company contends the water system has suffered damage from the Nisqually Earthquake based on the loss of up to 3 feet State water level in each well. In an attempt to better understand the Water Companys lost capacity, contact was made with the Washington State Department of Ecology. [The Department indicated that] the applicants approved Water Rights Certificate allowed for service to 250 homes with a combined pumping rate at the three wells of 330 gallons per minute and an annual withdrawal of 173 acre feet. GHMWCo current total yearly usage appears to be under 20,000,000 gallons, or 63 acre feet, 1/3 of the approved amount. Even with the highest rate of usage, it seems that the GHMWCo has enough capacity and redundancy to serve their customers without fear of interruption.
CONCLUSION
The GHMWCo has not demonstrated that it has suffered damage to its water system. The aquifer is not an eligible facility pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.223. The wells, casings, control equipment and other components were and still are operational and able to meet the same level of demand that existed prior to the Nisqually earthquake. Furthermore, if any damage were actually sustained to the wells as a result of the disaster, FEMA would restore the facility only to the extent needed to provide the level of service that existed prior to the disas d
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1361-DR |
| Applicant | Graham Hill Mutual Water Company |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 053-083D3-00 |
| PW ID# | 549 |
| Date Signed | 2003-06-19T04:00:00 |
Appeal Letter
June 19, 2003
Ms. Donna Voss
Deputy State Coordinating Officer
State of Washington Military Department
Emergency Management Division
MS: TA-20 Building 20
Camp Murray, Washington 98430-5122
Re: Second Appeal Graham Hill Mutual Water Company,
PA ID 053-083D3-00, Aquifer Water Level, FEMA-1361-DR-WA, PW 549
Dear Ms. Voss:
This letter is in response to your January 10, 2002, letter forwarding the referenced second appeal on behalf of Graham Hill Mutual Water Company (GHMWCo). The GHMWCo disputes the Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMAs) eligibility determination that the earthquake damaged its water facility. The amount in question is $148,000.
As described in the enclosed appeal analysis, I have determined that GHMWCo has not proven that its water system was damaged by the disaster. Accordingly, I conclude that GHMWCo is not eligible for assistance. Therefore, I am denying the appeal.
Please inform the GHMWCo of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Laurence W. Zensinger
Acting Director, Recovery Division
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate
Department of Homeland Security
Enclosure
cc: John E. Pennington
Regional Director
FEMA Region X
Ms. Donna Voss
Deputy State Coordinating Officer
State of Washington Military Department
Emergency Management Division
MS: TA-20 Building 20
Camp Murray, Washington 98430-5122
Re: Second Appeal Graham Hill Mutual Water Company,
PA ID 053-083D3-00, Aquifer Water Level, FEMA-1361-DR-WA, PW 549
Dear Ms. Voss:
This letter is in response to your January 10, 2002, letter forwarding the referenced second appeal on behalf of Graham Hill Mutual Water Company (GHMWCo). The GHMWCo disputes the Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMAs) eligibility determination that the earthquake damaged its water facility. The amount in question is $148,000.
As described in the enclosed appeal analysis, I have determined that GHMWCo has not proven that its water system was damaged by the disaster. Accordingly, I conclude that GHMWCo is not eligible for assistance. Therefore, I am denying the appeal.
Please inform the GHMWCo of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Laurence W. Zensinger
Acting Director, Recovery Division
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate
Department of Homeland Security
Enclosure
cc: John E. Pennington
Regional Director
FEMA Region X
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDThe Nisqually Earthquake, measuring 6.8 in magnitude, struck the Seattle, Washington region on February 28, 2001. After the earthquake the Graham Hill Mutual Water Company (GHMWCo) submitted Project Worksheet 549, citing a loss in system capacity due to a drop in static water levels in the aquifer. The GHMWCo proposed to replace Well #1 because the well had no screen or automatic shutoff and would be damaged if it continued to pump at the current 50 (gallons per minute) GPM rate and drew down below the level of the pump. The proposed cost of drilling a replacement well is approximately $148,000.
Prior to the earthquake, the GHMWCo was already experiencing a reduced static water level in its three wells, due to severe drought conditions. Subsequently, water levels dropped an additional 2-3 feet and have not returned to previous levels. The State recommended against the project, because GHMWCo has not demonstrated that the Nisqually earthquake caused damage or a disruption to its services.
In October 2001, FEMA determined that there was no eligible damage as it was difficult to determine whether well impacts are related to either the earthquake or the current drought. The decision was based on a June 11, 2001, memorandum from the Washington State Department of Ecology indicating that Washington State was experiencing one of the driest years on record. FEMA cited 44 CFR §206.223 (a)(1), To be eligible for financial assistance an item of work must be required as a result of the major disaster event. The GHMWCo appealed FEMAs ineligible determination for drilling a replacement for Well #1.
The State, in a January 10, 2002, letter asked FEMA to reconsider its previous decision. Enclosed with the letter was a report from the GHMWCo with supporting documentation of the drop in static water level and the loss of system capacity after the earthquake. In a February 13, 2002, letter, FEMA restated the ineligible determination, adding, The applicant has not clearly demonstrated what the eligible damage is to the wells. It is not clear how the drilling of a new well to the same depth and size is repair of the damage.
1st Appeal
The GHMWCo sent a letter dated July 12, 2002, appealing FEMAs ineligibility determination. The State in its transmittal letter to FEMA did not support GHMWCos appeal, stating that GHMWCo had not adequately demonstrated that the Nisqually earthquake caused damage or a disruption to their services. The aquifer is a natural feature, not under the direct control of the Water Company and is not a public facility. While it can be agreed that the Water Company has lost water capacity, it has suffered no loss in services to its members. FEMA concurred with the State, and in a letter dated November 1, 2002, denied the appeal, stating that the aquifer, not the GHMWCo facility was affected. The Water Company claims that the earthquake caused damage to the aquifer but the aquifer does not meet the entire definition of a public facility under the Stafford Act. Because the aquifer is not built by the applicant nor was it a natural feature improved and maintained by the applicant, it is ineligible.
2nd Appeal
The GHMWCo filed a second appeal January 17, 2003. The State in its transmittal letter of March 6, 2003, again recommended that FEMA deny the second appeal. In the second appeal the applicant clarified that the water system, not the aquifer, had sustained damage as a result of the Nisqually Earthquake. It is the companys position that the earthquake damaged the water system, that the water system meets the entire definition of a public facility under the Stafford Act and that the system is therefore eligible for financial assistance. The damage was defined as a loss of system capacity on the order of 75 gallons per minute. In support of its argument that the wells are part of an overall water system, GHMWCo quotes in its Project Worksheet 529 (dated July 13, 2002):
The Water Companys definition of system from the Washington State Department of Healths Chapter 246-290-010 (effective April 9, 1999)
(1) Public Water system shall mean any system providing water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances, excluding a system serving only one single family residence and a system with four or fewer connections all of which service residences on the same farm. Such term includes: (a) Collection, treatment, storage, and/or distribution facilities under control of the purveyor and used primarily in connection with such system
GHMWCo interprets collection to mean the production of wells including, but not limited to, casings, pumps and control equipment. This is the system that was damaged by the earthquake.
DISCUSSION
The GHMWCo water system may include the aquifer. However, the aquifer is not an eligible facility under 44 CFR §206.221. While the Water Company may own the well and pumping equipment, water levels within the well are dependant upon the aquifer, which it does not own. Project Worksheet 529 describes no actual damage to the facility, only that it has experienced a reduction in pumping capacity due to lowered water within the well.
Actual versus potential damage
The GHMWCo clearly indicates in the Project Worksheet that it is attempting to protect the water system from potential damage to its well from either an additional drop in static water levels, or from planned future increases in water demand. The Water Company stated:
· Well #1 had the largest draw down of the three wells and, due to its construction, was singled out as the most likely to fail if static water levels do not return to pre-earthquake levels. The well is simply a casing without a screen. There is no automatic (based on draw down) pump shut off control for the well. It is estimated that the 50 GPM pumping rate is close to the limiting yield of the well.
· The capacity of the system was significantly reduced which jeopardizes the Companies ability to provide and adequate supply of potable drinking water. [The] Water Company has concern that decreased water levels may impact planned expansion to 510 new connections.
There has been no reduction in service to the Water Companys customers as a result of the drop in water level. The State pointed out out, The Water Company contends the water system has suffered damage from the Nisqually Earthquake based on the loss of up to 3 feet State water level in each well. In an attempt to better understand the Water Companys lost capacity, contact was made with the Washington State Department of Ecology. [The Department indicated that] the applicants approved Water Rights Certificate allowed for service to 250 homes with a combined pumping rate at the three wells of 330 gallons per minute and an annual withdrawal of 173 acre feet. GHMWCo current total yearly usage appears to be under 20,000,000 gallons, or 63 acre feet, 1/3 of the approved amount. Even with the highest rate of usage, it seems that the GHMWCo has enough capacity and redundancy to serve their customers without fear of interruption.
CONCLUSION
The GHMWCo has not demonstrated that it has suffered damage to its water system. The aquifer is not an eligible facility pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.223. The wells, casings, control equipment and other components were and still are operational and able to meet the same level of demand that existed prior to the Nisqually earthquake. Furthermore, if any damage were actually sustained to the wells as a result of the disaster, FEMA would restore the facility only to the extent needed to provide the level of service that existed prior to the disas d
Last updated