Topic 1: The Watershed Approach
Posted on March 16th, 2010 - 11:37 AMEPA has long focused on identifying impaired waters and restoring their water quality. Recently, EPA has begun efforts on the protection and conservation of healthy, functioning watersheds, which provide the ecological support system essential for achieving water quality restoration. Our challenge is to weave a range of voluntary programs, regulations, and strategies into an effective method of protecting whole geographically based drainage areas.
• If you have experience with protecting watersheds, what has worked and what hasn’t?
• How can we protect and improve watersheds given the challenges of various sources of pollution?
• What examples of effective practices and strategies can be “scaled up” to State and national levels for greater effectiveness and broader use?
For more detail about why and how conference participants will be approaching this topic, please see the Discussion Document at right.
| Permalink | TrackBack
March 17th, 2010 at 8:40 am
1. I think that all lawn chemicals should be banned. I can’t even walk past them in a home store without feeling them in my nose and throat. I once read in a gardening book that lawns came about as a status symbol to show that a person was wealthy enough to afford not to have graze or plant all his land. There are many herbs and ground covers that can be planted that don’t need pesticides or extra watering, an added advantage. Also as Maria Rodale mentioned in yesterday’s Morning Call, dandelions are edible, good for you and free (as long as they are not sprayed. The public needs to be made aware of the history of lawns and the problems pesticides create for us all. We need the crying Indian back (or an updated version.)
2. We need more vigorous policing of our lakes, rivers and streams for illegal discharges. This should be part of a WPA style recovery program. Unemployed people can be hired and trained to do this in their home towns. In this economy with universal health care still being held back from the people, we need ammunition to know who is making us sick. This could and should lead to a Health Care Superfund to provide the government with the means to protect people from not only illness, but bankruptcy when they get sick after 20 years of ingesting the chemicals that others make a profit from.
3. The parks in Allentown PA are currently being restored and improved with money from The Trexler Trust. Included in these improvements are natural areas that protect both the water and the wildlife while also providing recreational activities for residents and visitors.
March 17th, 2010 at 8:59 am
Viewing waterways as riparian corridors with parallel zones along either side will help to greatly improve water quality, habitat, and sustainable use, especially in areas where the rivers and creekways are narrow ribbons of water surrounded by essential migratory habitat.
Perhaps the most educational effort I’ve participated in over the last 5 years was a review of a riparian corridor near Kerrville, Texas. One rancher allowed his cattle unrestricted access to a spring fed creek. Another adjacent rancher upstream allowed his cattle a narrow passage to access or cross the stream.
The upstream rancher had a healthy cross-sectional profile to the habitat along almost all of his stream. There was excellent biodiversity. Trees, forbs, grasses and sedges were all balaced, healthy, and provided good cover. Downstream where cattle had unrestricted access to the stream in an area with virtually identical topography there was significantly less soil and ground cover and only about 10% of the species diversity. Both were successful ranchers but only the first protected downstream water quality, a natural flow regime, and a balanced habitat. The same riparian corridor approach can be used for ranching, the development of migratory pathways, or anthropogenic land uses. Limited waterway crossings that encourage natural habitat along the rest of the waterway will yield naturally healthier and sustainable uses.
March 17th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Without land use planning and land use management, the watershed approach is missing the largest component to protecting water… MAN.
March 17th, 2010 at 10:08 am
As a followup to my previous comment on manure. In many states the major source of water pollution is storm water runoff. It’s a huge pollutant. When EPA required municipalities to run all the runoff through their waste water treatment plants they failed to provide funding for the increase in in volume leaving many without sufficient capacity to treat both human waste and storm water runoff. In many states, including the one I live in it is quite common for a municipal waste treatment plant to bypass or overflow untreated human waste directly into a water body be it large lake or small streams. The law allows them to do this to prevent backups in the system which would flood raw sewage into residents basements. They can also do it if they have a breakdown in a piece of machinery. During the spring of 2008 a state in the mid west was inundated with spring storms increasing the volume of waste coming into treatment plants. Regulators stated that at least 200 municipal waste treatment plants opened the valves and let all the untreated waste run straight through the facility for over two weeks. Billions of gallons of highly toxic human waste ended up in the states water bodies and the public blamed farmers even though the regulators reported it was municipalities.
If you look at the components of cow manure and the components of human manure you will be shocked. Our waste contains all the medications we take only 10% of the pill is absorbed. Viagra, antibiotics and all other medication are found in large quantities in samples from the outfalls of treatment plants. The plants are not designed to filterer them out. Read the warnings on toilet bowl cleaner it is dangerous stuff. Every thing that goes down the drain or the toilet that cannot be filtered out is going into our waters. This can be halted in short order. Don’t allow any municipality that has had more than two sewage bypasses in any one year to put a moratorium on issuing any new building permits for structures that will connect to the sewage mains. Provide some cost share and issue statements that make the public aware of how large a problem this is. If they don’t know that they are significant contributors to significant water pollution, they will object to any tax increase to pay for improvements.
Also, we have to stop putting sewage sludge which contains a horrific number of serous pollutants. Heavy metals, very dangeous pathogens, pharmaceuticals, chemicals from personal hygiene products cosmetics and the list goes on. Sewer Sludge or Bio-Solids are materials that cannot get through the filtering process and settle to the bottom of the tanks. It has not been treated in any fashion and it is being applied to land on which our food is grown. This is the most serious pollutant being put into our environment by millions of pounds a day and we hear nothing about it.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment
March 17th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Combined efforts for protection and conservation of healthy, functioning watersheds need to give careful consideration to issue of dam removals. The debate over dams is stirring here in Ann Arbor and throughout the greater United States.
River ecologists from all over the world agree: dam removal creates cleaner water, better fish and wildlife habitat, greater species diversity, improved flows and phosphorus reduction among other major ecological benefits.
Federal agencies (including the EPA) who generally have jurisdictional control our nation’s dams and related structures have the opportunity to take an active leadership role so that we as a nation can scale dam removal efforts nationally.
Perhaps most the most compelling benefit, especially in these tough economic times, is the substantial tax cost savings. Dam removals will save millions of dollars in costs related to maintaining these often outdated and failing structures. Associated maintenance and environmental costs will only go up over time.
We need to adopt a national, micro-economic, watershed specific, strategy where we can target available Federal stimulus funds. Dam removal projects create jobs and reduce long term financial liabilities.
We need leadership that does not accept the status quo on this important watershed issue.
March 17th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
I have assisted with several watershed management efforts and when done properly the watershed approach is the most effective. In each case the key element is to get people to accept ownership of the issue and to build their capacity for making good science based decisions. Other things are needed – education, possible incentives, but the success is generally related to local people being asked what they are willing to do to help protect the environment and then getting them to act upon it. Getting a group in a watershed to work together requires time and patiences but the reward in long-term sustainability in watershed protection.
March 17th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Watersheds do not follow political boundaries. Therefore, a watershed-approach can’t be taken solely by one entity, agency, or municipality because the watershed exceeds its jurisdiction. You can manage your piece as holistically as possible, but if someone is managing or mismanaging their land upstream, it is all for naught. It takes collaboration of all entities working in some manner in the watershed. Collaboration is challenging and time consuming. A watershed approach needs an institution to match the scale; therefore, we need a legitimate watershed management department or unit, consisting of representatives of all entities working in the watershed, to undertake a watershed-based approach.
For example, LA County established a Watershed Management Division in 2000 to address the flood risk management, water quality, water conservation, open space, and recreational needs. Rather than focus on single-objective solutions for these Flood Control District priorities, the Division uses an integrated, multipurpose approach that is consistent with watershed management principles. These principles are carried out through a framework of collaboration and partnerships, combined with sound science and local knowledge, as a foundation for well-planned actions. Outcomes are monitored so that multi-purpose projects may be adapted over time to achieve improved results.
We will never truly achieve watershed management without encouraging partnerships such as this. One entity or organization cannot do it alone.
March 17th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
When I first started working on water issues a year ago I was astounded to find out that only 20% of the waters in Missouri are protected for fishing and swimming. I think people have the impression that someone is out there taking samples of all the waters, all the time to make sure that the waters are safe and clean when in fact there isn’t and they aren’t. Instead there is a permit process that does not look closely enough at cumulative watershed impacts and tends to bend towards the benefit of polluters to the detriment of the community’s water resources.
I believe that the best way to motivate people to make informed decisions is to make sure that every watershed is thoroughly and periodically assessed and that these assessments are effectively and repeatedly communicated with the people and businesses that live and operate within each watershed. It is important to have communities engaged in the decision making process on a watershed by watershed basis.
March 17th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
This healthy watershed approach is critical to complement all the restoration work throughout the country.Our TMDL lists are growing but we do not have official lists of healthy watersheds ( non or anti-TMDL ) that should be available to public and growing in size like the TMDL lists are.This non-TMDL list of Healthy Watersheds should have implementation plans ,like the TMDL list does, to keep it on the non -TMDL list.
March 17th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
It’s important to clean the watersheds upstream..we all forget that water runs downhill! This seems like a stupid comment but it’s given in a most serious way. Stormwater must be contained certainly in the urban areas, agricultural runoff must be contained and minimized, and I agree that yard chemicals for the average homeowner should be banned.
March 17th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
More funding must be made available for upstream projects and coastal projects. Coastal cities rely on tourism so testing funding is a must!
March 17th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
A watershed approach to protecting water resources can only work if it is taken seriously enough that watersheds not broken up by political boundaries. Currently the Sacramento River watershed is broken up by numerous counties and the mainstem of the river itself below Keswick Dam flows through and past 7 counties before even reaching Sacramento. That is 7 counties with different regulations and different levels of concern for the water except, in the extreme, to take what they want.
Additionally, watershed groups and watershed protection are largely funded by bond funded grants, at least in California which may or may not be available and, as we saw, in 2009, subject to freezing and the whims of the State government in it deems important enough to get funding restarted to.
March 17th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
The Watershed Approach is excellent. I am currently working on the North Branch Park River Watershed Management Plan project team, see http://www.northparkplan.net.
Here are my (quick) observations:
1) There needs to be stable funding for a public outreach/message coordinator, in order to engage the community in the watershed management plan. As state budgets are cut (unfortunately), there needs to be support for the evolution of citizen stewardship.
2) Schools (K-12 and higher ed) can bring community energy to the process of learning about local water quality issues – yet there needs to be clear educational guidelines and support for teacher/community stewardship training activities.
3) The professional design community needs to recognize that watershed management plans are a key resource for site specific planning. A lot of design firms (planners, engineers, architects and landscape architects) seem willing to overlook watershed management and water quality interests – as if these watershed management plans were just another formalist concept.
Trained as an architect, I would frankly rather be involved in the design of green infrastructure – however the message and potential of watershed planning has not been fully integrated into planning and design practices. Thus I am working as an advocate to establish the stewardship values that will be needed by the next generation. Hopefully Obama EPA will assist the grassroots by becoming leadership change agents.
March 17th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
A watershed approach provides a more comprehensive method of balancing economic, social and environmental issues.
An excellent example of an industry, state government and university partnership is the Clean Marina Program.
Despite the lack of significant, sustained funding, many states have developed Clean Marina programs that are based on voluntary participation. These programs focus on best management practices that go above and beyond state and federal regulations to protect water quality.
Michigan Sea Grant recently invested $100,000 in the development of an online Clean Marina training program that may eventually be applicable for any freshwater marina in the U.S. Clean Marina efforts have involved consulting with and training hundreds of marina owners and operators.
Marinas provide access to our coastal areas and are an essential component of coastal economies. Certified Clean Marinas are wonderful examples of watershed stewards.
March 17th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
1. Close loopholes for non-point pollution where they are due to regulatory decisions rather than weaknesses in the Clean Water ACt.
2. Do not allow states to weaken “intended use” designations, as I think is being considered presently in Texas.
3. Raise awareness of the role of native vegetation, especially deep-rooted perennial grasses, on the amount, time-course, and water quality of runoff in the plains states. Then, find ways to encourage landowners to re-establish native vegetation for the purpose of (among other things) protecting the downstream watershed.
March 18th, 2010 at 12:10 am
Corn bio fuel, a forth grader knows corn needs much fertilizer++
Agriculture back sets from the water are 25 ft ++ run off of fertilizer and irrrigation/stormwater.
Chicken farms need to run the waste into the bay or the price of a chicken would be too high??
Square miles of tailings from Sparrow Point heavy metal runoff ??
Pressure filling with ?? fluids for natural gas collection ?? at what cost to our waters and dependant creatures?
Our tiny river (a 1 mile back bay) is in the direct flow of the Susquehanna River south along the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay (dead zone). The Susquehana River Watershed has the highest concentration of population of people and animals on the east coast.
Rt 50’s runoff west of the Bay Bridge flows into our river. Cat Branch is a 1 1/2 mile fresh water stream flowing into our river along with every development’s storm water they could direct to it. This includes 5 cluster communities built scince the 80’s with their stormwater outlets right into the stream bed, a large High School, 3 recreational parks, and a large church.
This jewel on the flyway is spring/summer home to Eagles, Ospeys, Perigrine Falcon, Great Blue Herons, King Fishers, Egrets, River Otters, Cormorants and Muskrats. In winter we see hundreds of Canada Geese, Canvas Backs, Hooded Mergansers, Trumpeter Swans, Mallards, other diving ducks, Deer, Rabbits and Snow Geese.
The question, will the river fill in before it is unusable by any species?
We are trying to save our stream, a sub watershed of the Magothy River in the EPA watershed of the Lower Western Shore of the Chesapeake Bay. We can’t change what is coming at us in every direction. There is no industry maritime or other use. The property owners on the river do manage their runoff, except of course the cluster communities. Pet owners are doing their part. There is a rain garden to capture the sediment from the ball field in our community. There is little use of fertilizers. The main community on the river was developed in the 50-70’s by individual builders. There are 100 yr old trees, and it is well forested.
It is our governments that let us down, with mismanagement of stormwater, and poor enforcement of existing laws and regulations.
March 18th, 2010 at 6:35 am
The watershed approach EPA and other partners has promoted over the years is sound and should continue. However, I believe we have all been unrealistic is establishing timelines for watershed recovery, especially on large systems like the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay. These systems have been impacted for approximately 400 years and it will take some time for them to recover.
That said, setting tight deadlines for speeding restoration is a necessity. The TMDL program falls short in that there are no specific deadlines associated for implementation when plans are developed. The Chesapeake Bay TMDL is the only one I am aware of where there are specific timelines and consequences being established for not meeting specific restoration goals.
EPA needs to increase enforcement programs as well as ramp up voluntary programs so that citizens can easily become engaged in restoration efforts. One of your biggest hurdles to overcome is that many do not believe they can make a difference. To that extent, EPA needs to ramp up Environmental Education to both K-12 as well as communities, especially in urban communities.
It is time EPA started focusing on smal watersheds with targeted efforts so that you can start to see measurable success. You can engage citizens through volunteer water monitoring programs as a way to engage and educate them. High quality data collected by these citizens can be used to directly measure the success of conservation efforts in the watershed. This effort not only educates, but provides valuable data. You should look to Virginia’s use of Volunteer data in their 305(b)/303(d) programs to understand how citizen data can be effectively utilized throughout the nation.
Last, EPA needs to bring funding to the table in order to implement watershed plans. People are tired of money being spent developing these plans only to see them sit on a bookshelf gathering dust. The methods being developed to achieve “reasonable assurance” with the Chesapeake Bay TMDL needs to be applied nationwide. This needs to occur on all scales of TMDLs – small watershed and as wel as large systems.
March 18th, 2010 at 7:02 am
Almost all of us in the environmental world recognize the need to address problems on a holistic, comprehensive scale, whether that scale is watershed or airshed, or some other credibe “shed.” But at the tedious administrative level, one of the most frustrating barriers we face is the maze of conflicting and/or disconnected programs and funding sources that positively discourage such an approach.
Most of our federal agencies love to hand out money to to move dirt around; for us, that’s considered implementation and we can pat ourselves on the back for getting a project done. But even small restoration projects — especially in urban areas — can be extremely expensive and time-consuming. They need upfront planning, commitment to the long haul, and continuing project oversight. Yet there is very little if any support for the non-construction work of identifying the problem and effective solution, preparing the technical specifications, negotiating the array of permits and public outreach processes, contracting with construction or other entities, and in general holding the effort together. And all of this doesn’t even take into account the differing match requirements for federal funding sources, few of which can be combined with each other and all of which have their own application, reporting, and disbursement rules. Particularly for small grass-roots organizations, the passion and local knowledge they bring to their projects can quickly be withered by the competing demands of their various funders.
I recognize that we operate under different legislative authorities and misssions. Some requirements are based in statute. But if we are serious about seeking local, public engagement we have to make it easier and more efficient for organizations to work with us. Surely a topic for the summit could be consideration of ways agencies can pool their funding or develop common project application and matching processes.
These aren’t soaring or visionary suggestions, but they might make it a little less daunting for our partners to actually begin operating under a watershed approach.
March 18th, 2010 at 8:38 am
I agree that watershed management is key to keeping our waterways healthy. Here in Florida, and I’m sure this is common, we have lake management companies hired to keep lakes beautiful and we have landscaping companies hired to make communities beautiful. Unfortunately, these two entities almost never coordinate. I work for a lake management company, and many of our challenges in the water stem from lawn fertilizers and grass clippings beyond the shoreline. If regulations don’t start in the watershed, we cannot meet mandated goals for the water.
March 18th, 2010 at 9:36 am
I agree with Peter Schultz on native vegetation, it will help clean up the waterways by being natural filters. Having said that, I work on a highly polluted river doing water quality monitoring that I belive won’t be cleaned by vegetation even if we take out all of the lawns around it and plant only native vegetation. Everyone in the city knows the river is polluted; it smells, it has an oily film over it sometimes, and has a lot of foam at different areas. Studies are being done to reduce pollution on this river, but as Margherita says, funding and administrative barriers prevent its clean-up. We know what’s in the water, we know why it’s there, we know how to fix it, but the fix is a very expensive project. The City doesn’t want to tackle it because that means they won’t get to build their next multi-million dollar complex for limited use but beautification purposes.
I’m sure this happens in a lot of places; they know why and they know how to fix it, but no one is determined or foresighted enough to plan for a large and costly fix that will benefit more than just the people of the city. The problem isn’t in the fix itself (i.e. what to do), the problem is in the planning and implementation of the fix.
P.S. Tighter laws and regulations on dumping into an area that will affect a watershed (e.g. pesticides and herbicides from farm run-off) and elimination of combined sewer overflows.
March 18th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Achievable baseline regulation and policies for major watersheds is a must. We have found that from county to county policy varies too much and is not sensitive to watershed boudaries. It also creates a climate of distrust among counties, cities and regions. We are involved with a program developed in Minnesota that is called Community Clean Ups for Water Quality that really engages communities that should be spread nation wide. It sensitizes residents to the impacts of urban storm water and directs them to how they can individually or collectively prevent phosphorus and nitrate pollution from entering our surface water. The program is being rolled out state-wide and has been recognized for a Governor’s Award this year. Also we have agricultural tile drainage across the Minnesota River Basin that impacts our surface water significantly. We are engaged in introducing technical advances that exist right now which can increase crop production, reduce phosphorus, nitrogen, reduce rate flow of drainage water and recharge ground water that used to escape the system. This is also that is something that should be spread throughout the corn belt and any other area that uses plastic tile drainage. The term is Conservation Drainage. I would be glad to talk to anyone who will listen about these replicable actions which have proven measurable positive outcomes
March 18th, 2010 at 10:10 am
When will the EPA address the issue of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCDs) in wastewater? The FDA issued a position paper four years ago on the subject but there is no regulations in place for our local agencies to follow and many are unaware of the biological impacts on humans and aquatic life.
March 18th, 2010 at 10:30 am
When you look at our agricultural landscape, there are several things that should be obvious. First, the majority of our land is tilled and bare 2/3 of the time in a corn-soybean rotation. Live plants absorb soluble N and P. If you look at our best managemnt practices: buffers, waterways, cover crops all involve live plants. We should be using practices that mimic natural cycles. No-till plus a cover crop mimics natural cycles. Cover crops are making no-till work better. Look at topics discussed at the National No-till conferences.
Second, if you want to store more N and P in the soil, increase the soil organic matter (SOM) through carbon sequestration. Every 1% SOM in a six inch layer (15cm) holds about 1000 pounds of N. Considering that we have lost 60-70% of our SOM in the last 100-150 years due to excessive tillage, the soil can not hold as much N or P. Increase SOM (no-till plus covercrops) by 4-5% and you can hold 4,000 to 5,000 pounds more N and possibly about 100 pounds of P for every 1% SOM or 400-500 pounds P
Third, increasing SOM and live plants has another effect. Soil bulk density decreases which means that water infiltration improves and their is less water runoff, less erosion, and less sediment losses (high in N and P). Live plants slow down runoff, decrease flooding, AND absorb soluble nutrients. More N and P are recyclcled in the soil profile.
The other benefits include wildlife habitat, less carbon in the atmosphere, less fuel used for tillage, and possibly an energy source for ethanol. Support research and policies that use no-till farming with cover crops at the State and National level!
March 18th, 2010 at 10:33 am
I believe the watershed management approach is a good way to incorporate multiple stakeholders in building ownership and leveraging the resources needed to solve a complicated problem. In states where this has not been supported or required on a widespread basis, as it has in Oregon and California for example, there is still a long way to go in building local capacity for holistic watershed management. In my 12 years of coordinating collaborative watershed management in NC, I am seeing that success is dependent upon a combination of the following factors:
- A university or non-profit (such as a watershed group, or council of local governments) has staff with expertise in watershed science and public engagement, and funding dedicated for their time to lead watershed planning & implementation. Local government staff and citizen volunteers typically support and participate in efforts but do not lead them. Our state agencies will fund efforts, conduct scientific analyses, participate as technical help, occasionaly lead planning efforts required to meet specific wetland/stream mitigation needs, and conduct wetland/stream restoration projects to meet mitigation requirements.
-Funding is accessible from state and/or the federal government to implement restoration, protection, and educational projects. I’ve seen a limited number of local governments partially fund efforts, though they are more likely to provide in-kind cost-sharing through time, equipment, and meeting space. Funding from some private foundations is possible but doesn’t appear to be widespread for this type of work.
-A minimum small core of local government staff, elected officials, and citizens are supportive, provided information on issues, and willing to get engaged.
-A federal or state regulation drives local government planning to meet those rules (such as Phase II Stormwater Rules or rules specific to impaired waters such as the Neuse or large drinking water supply watersheds)
- A perceived or actual crisis with natural resources drives a community to participate in a planning process
Our state’s current model of relying on grants (mostly EPA319) to conduct and implement watershed planning results in scattershot efforts to restore impaired waters across this particular state, with occasional focus on protecting healthy waters. Some larger municipalities here do choose to enact and use stormwater utilities to fund watershed management efforts (Durham and Wilmington, NC are examples). Some (an example is Raleigh neighbor, the Town of Cary, at 130k people and rapidly growing) rely on the regular budgeting process to fund stormwater management activities, so in a bad economy, forget about it! If federal and state resources continue to be as limited as in the past, we will continue at this slow pace of watershed restoration and protection.
Focusing on protecting existing healthy watersheds is a good idea, particularly if incentives can be provided for local governments to adopt LID friendly ordinances, or to require LID. But also continue supporting work on restoring impaired watersheds- these often occur in high density areas where people see, interact with and care deeply about their natural resources. It is worth the resources to try to restore them- we should not give up.
Regarding the question of how to “scale up” with watershed management, I think that needs to be driven by and coordinated by state agencies. I believe most people are happy to spend a little time getting to know their upstream and downstream neighbors if provided the opportunity, but will work hardest in their own communities. Yearly planning or engagement exercises is probably a good way to engage people on a larger scale.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide input.
March 18th, 2010 at 11:02 am
1. Increasing participation by watershed residents is critically important. Four northeast Iowa watersheds have achieved participation levels of 40 (first year), 45, 65 and 70 percent. Participation rates like these build a watershed community and sense of obligation that the problem should be addressed by everyone, not just a few. The size and shape of the watershed is important – residents must be able to relate to others in their watershed outside of the watershed community, such as a common school, town or church. Our lowest participation watersheds are across more than one school boundary or are long and narrow where the people at one end do not know the people at the other end.
2. Providing specific field, farm and watershed performance data to residents and farm operators is quite important. Performance measures in the field must be relatable to water quality such as a phosphorus index or an agronomic nitrogen management performance that can be related to P and N results in the stream. Individuals must be able to compare their performance data to others in the watershed for it to make any sense or have an impact to promote change/improvement. Our results show that no one wants to have the worst performing field or farm a watershed.
3. Developing effective watershed councils, not just advisory boards, can be quickly scaled up on a state and national level if policy allows these councils to manage targeted watershed funding to improve their watersheds. Funds will be used more effectively on practices that are acceptable in each specific watershed and by allowing the councils more autonomy they can provide more flexible and inclusive incentive programs that increase voluntary participation. Determining baseline performance levels for watershed fields and farms will be a somewhat time consuming process, but once baseline levels are known watershed councils can set specific performance goals and watershed farm operators can adjust management strategies to work toward reaching these reasonable performance targets.
March 18th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Water pollution loads from atmospheric deposition that originate in areas outside the local juridiction is an issue of national importance, especially for nitrates and mercury. This is not an issue that local legislation can impact, but the impacts to local communities is substancial. There must be national policy and inforcement on air emmissions that cross political boundaries.
March 18th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
I have been involved with teaching students how to perform watershed assessments while working with the local communities. While hard, there is no better way to develop an assessment and stewardship plan that the community will accept as their own. Please continue to focus at this scale and encourage student training efforts to help local communities.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Drugs are chemicals too, and the most dangerous chemicals we make right now are pharmaceuticals. I don’t care how much aspirin or shampoo is in the water. For the most part pharmaceuticals at very low levels are not dangerous. However there is a category of drugs defined by OSHA (occupational safety and health administration) as hazardous drugs. OSHA has a list of 61 of them and NIOSH (national Institute of occupational safety and health) has a list of 140 four total of around 200 chemicals that are so dangerous that there is zero exposure allowed to people handling these chemicals. The chemicals are made by men in spacesuits and prepared by pharmacists in a level III biological safety cabinet as if they were anthrax. The chemical is then injected into the patient and in most cases he is sent home. Most of these drugs are cytotoxic and used to treat cancer patients.
As with every drug there is an absorption rate, the analogy I like to use is if you ever take a vitamin a couple of hours later you go to the bathroom your urine is a strange color it almost looks like you ate your highlighter. The color is the unaltered Vitamin passing through your body. Same thing happens with the chemotherapy drug, the absorption rate is typically very low sometimes less than 1% and that 1% that gets absorbed by the cells makes the patients hair fall out. The rest of it goes down the toilet into the septic system and if you’re a septic system you probably on a well and the drug is going directly into your drinking water.
The mechanism of action of cytotoxic drugs is to break into the cell attacking DNA and break off the chromosomes thereby mutating the cell. So when the cancer cell splits it has been mutated it is no longer a cancer cell, as happens with all cells affected. The drugs tend to work on fast-growing cells like hair, skin cells and the fastest growing cells we have, embryonic, people being born. Chemotherapy drugs are administered at all different levels some of them are injected into the patient at a nano gram per liter that is a part per trillion. Another analogy I like to use is if you have a trillion one dollar bills the stack them like a deck of cards it would reach from Boston to the middle of Ohio. And one dollar out of that trillion injected into a patient where only 1% is absorbed by the body and nearly kills the patient. Where does the rest go? You guessed it right down the toilet and into the drinking water.
A material safety data sheet for a cytotoxic drug states that it causes cancer, that it causes hereditable genetic damage and harm to the unborn child. Scientists believe that autism is a genetic disorder that is not hereditary, how do you have a genetic disorder that is not hereditary? You mutate the genes. One class of chemistry is designed specifically to mutate human genes and that is cytotoxic drugs.
I’m not saying to discontinue the use of cancer curing medicine I only suggesting that we contain the excrement from patients on these drugs. Every drug that is approved by the FDA must state the absorption rate in the body as well as how quickly it is excreted. Most are excreted within 72 hours. We just need to contain the excretion before it gets into the environment and properly dispose of the waste.
We should care about a chemical that is designed specifically to mutate human genes, is made by men in spacesuits, prepared by a pharmacists in a level III biological safety cabinet and is effective in a nano gram per liter.
I have a lot of information generated by OSHA the EPA and the American chemical society to back up what I am talking about, and even more information on how to safely collect and dispose of the waste generated by our quest to cure cancer.
March 18th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
When Congress passed the Clean water Act, it demanded a ‘technology-based’ implementation program’ by demanding best available sewage treatment and specifically rejected a ‘water quality- based’ program, which could be too easily manipulated by local politicians and thus defeat the intent of the Act itself to set uniform national sewage treatment standards.
Since watershed programs basically are water quality- based programs they may make sense, but should not be used to set treatment standards for point source sewage treatment. Those treatment standards should have been established by EPA, which it however could not do, because of the incorrect use of the BOD test, making it impossible to evaluate treatment efficiencies and comparing the different sewage treatment processes available, hence establishing ‘best available treatment’ criteria.
Correcting the BOD test and regulations are essential to implement the CWA as it was intended and also would solve many of the problems now encountered in the field and hindering solutions to clean up our open waters.
March 18th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Aldo Leopold first proposed “skyline zoning” in the 1930s, knowing that if there were problems at the tops of watersheds, they would impact any restoration work further “down” the watershed. There are a number of wetland plants that can take substantially degraded water quality, e.g. river bulrush. NO amount of regulation or government demands can substitute for an educated populace voting with their pocketbooks. When we start going “green” — really “green,” not chemlawn green, with our commercial and residential landscapes, then we will make real progress with improvement of water quality. As far as EPA, I agree with above statements that (1) cooperation and coordination is necessary between whatever govt units and private NGOs and landowners are in the watershed; and (2) EPA grants to private landowners should be much easier to apply for and receive. I know a number of private landowners who have been trying for years to get assistance with projects which would substantively improve surface WQ, filtration, etc. and we (landowner and me) can’t even get calls back from govt agencies.
March 19th, 2010 at 2:10 am
One of the best ways the EPA could help protect and improve the watersheads is to support organizations like the California Ocean Protection Council in their endeavors regarding Ocean Monitoring. Additionally,support the Marine Protected Act and the Marine Life Protection Acts to establish State Marine Reserves(SMR). These areas, like wetlands, could be used to study their ability to sequester greenhouse gases and as pollution reducing projects are implemented and the health of the SMR’s are measurably increased, possibly be revenue generating in the carbon trade market.
March 19th, 2010 at 7:38 am
1) As with anything, there has to be a push and there are cost involved. 2) I would contend there is a good bit of information/research in this area. 3) It is always a question of balancing the public with the private sector. It seems the private/development sector has the advantage.
In rural areas the watershed approach would seem to be practical. Given that in many cases land is available, often times it is just a matter of moving from point A to point B to alleviate a problem. Case in point, a farmer feeds his cows by the creek. Just by moving the cows 200 yards up the hill, would go a long way towards removing impacts to the creek. However in cities the problem is much more complicated. Access to buffers is almost non existent. Storm water discharges are in most cases directly to the stream. This is a problem with pollutants as well as the volume and velocity of the discharge. This doesn’t include the problems with old infrastructure. New development can be mitigated through new regs and rules, however in areas of old development, the cost can be quite prohibitive in trying to retrofit systems.
March 19th, 2010 at 9:24 am
I am a watershed coordinator for MRRP, which is a NPO watershed group in Dickenson County, Virginia. The successes in this area with cleaning up our watershed has been wetlands and planting trees. Since this is a heavily mined area, planting trees is extremely beneficial because it makes the soil stronger and more absorbent. Planting trees, brushes, and other native plants along riverbeds are important as well because they act as riparian buffers. Wetlands are the biggest importance for ANY watershed. Wetlands filter run-off the best, balance pH, control flooding, and promote biodiversity. We have yet to construct a wetland yet, but if you need to Tom Biebighauser is the best and cheapest route. Mr. Biebighauser works out of Morehead State University, and has planned and help construct over 50 wetlands around the country and Canada.
However, since the reforestation projects we have seen a decline in E. Coli content, pH balance, decrease in turbidity and sediment in most of our streams.
March 19th, 2010 at 9:38 am
More signage would help raise awareness that streams, wetlands and watersheds are loved and valued by someone.
Every road crossing should have signs identifying the body of water being crossed. This should also apply to wetlands and even watersheds and aquifers. I do cleanup at favorite toss sites in the Potomac Watershed. Folks who pollute often view these sites as unloved wastelands. If they knew the body had a name and that some people love it, they might think twice.
In cases where a body of water has no name, a community or school campaign to come up with a name would raise awareness about the site.
A variety of agencies would be involved, like highway departments, planning boards, and parks departments
March 19th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Establish a dam removal / sediment cleanup fund
Dam removal can result in dramatic and rapid improvement to river health. Across the country, momentum is building as local communities, NGOs, state and federal agencies realize and act on the benefits of removing structures from our waterways that are failing and/or no longer serve any useful purpose.
Unfortunately, the cost of contaminated-sediment cleanup prevents many dam removal projects from moving forward. In those situations, what remains is literally a ticking time bomb for our watersheds. Eventually, many of these dams will fail, and uncontrolled releases of contaminated sediment will occur. There are few alternative outcomes when the dam owner does not posses the financial resources to maintain the structure, let alone pay for costly sediment remediation.
Strong consideration should be given to the establishment of a dedicated federal funding source for contaminated sediment remediation. At countless sites, thousands of cubic yards of sediment containing PCBs, heavy metals, insecticides, and petroleum by-products are ripe for removal. Dams have been remarkably effective sediment traps over the past centuries, and now store an enormous volume of contaminated material. Let’s seize on this opportunity to forever rid our waterways of this material, and turn this ‘problem’ into an ‘opportunity.’ A major federal commitment to financing sediment cleanup is critical to the dam removal movement currently in progress, and for the future health of our watersheds.
March 19th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
I do not feel any success will be made in maintaining and improving the water quality and water quantity of our watersheds and individual streams until several existing elements are brought together and integrated into one sound paradigm, law,or enforceable rule. First regional approach to watershed management concerning any planning and implementation of proposed development including cumulative existing impacts and new potential impacts to be combined and calculated as planning tool. This would include individual watershed models that would have each additional applicants impacts added in. At such a time when the cumulative effect of the watersheds individual existing impacts are quantified and added up and include existing nutrients levels, erosion existing damage and levels , farm acreage, development acreage, total impervious surface, malfunctioning and total number of storm water devices, benthic macroinvertibrate diversity and health, and riparian soil health and amounts, and abilities to maintain and address base flow. If all these elements are not on a regional check list for each watershed with limits set for a combined and individual report card the point of TMDL,s is not as effective. Second a formula should be created that addresses all the above individual stream impact elements and creates a score card that can given planners,planning boards, zoning boards, counties,and states, a tool to know if a stream itself has reached build out. After such a score is given and limits are known a stream may or may not have already become impaired if impaired and score card shows excedence of any impacts TMDL,s would have to be created and enforced.
Our stream Crafts Creek continues to be under an assault from a huge potential for increased erosion and flooding from excess of storm basins that all add extra flash flows by increasing pre construction run off due to non adaptive design criteria .With dozens more basins in the application phase and Crafts Creek already flooding in 100 year flood plain from normal rain events destruction is close at hand. Our stream is in danger of becoming nothing more than a huge erosion ditch adding to the degradation of Delaware River.
March 19th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
The root cause of our environmental problems, including negative impacts on watersheds, is worldwide human overpopulation and continuing population growth, which results in overconsumption of our natural resources and pollution of our global aquatic environment. Treating the symptoms (water pollution, excessive stream and river diversions, deforestation, climate change, lower water tables, etc.) of population growth will not solve our watershed problems in the long run, unless worldwide human population numbers are stabilized, or preferably reduced, in the future.
I hope that the EPA and other government agencies (Federal, State, and local) and politicians will garner the political will to address the population growth issue by supporting voluntary family planning education programs ASAP. Not only is family planning cost effective, but it should be one of society’s top priorities as well.
As a retired senior fisheries biologist, I can say that nearly all of my colleagues agree with me that human population growth is continuing to decimate our native fisheries and their habitats by making unsustainable demands on the aquatic environment. This trend must be halted before it is too late to turn things around.
March 19th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
1. We have seen many farmers working to keep soil and nutrients in place on their farms and fence cattle out of streams. Voluntary efforts are paying off. Strong-arm tactics backfire.
2. It is well-known that about 95% of phosphorus (P) in rivers is on soil particles, so keeping soil in place must be a very high priority. Most of the problem of (P) in estuaries and rivers is due to dams being demolished and legacy sediment being washed downstream, and other dams loaded with silt so that any new silt added to rivers is forced to go over the remaining dams as well. We need to make sure that our computer models estimating damage to ecosystems are not flawed, and that costs of “cleanup” do not exceed benefits.
3. (a) The Lancaster County PA Conservation District and the Lancaster County Farm Bureau have developed a “Fence ‘Em Out” plan that encourages fencing livestock out of streams similar to the “flexible fencing” program of the Shenandoah Valley, VA which can be replicated widely.
(b) No-till and limited-till plans are growing in popularity nationwide and can be encouraged further.
(c) Educational materials on holding nutrients in place on soil can be disseminated widely
March 20th, 2010 at 5:55 am
Several years ago the New England Environmental Business Council was invited to meet with senior staff at EPA Region 1 to explore how to implement the watershed agenda.
The expectation was that we would somehow assemble an educational strategy for the region. Contrary to expectation we began to suggest that the root cause of the dilemma was not one of education but rather one of governance. Many of that same group, which includes traditional engineers, Bio-engineering professionals, community advocates an expert in collaborative design who is affiliated with the University of Massachusetts and a few others continue to informally work on the question that was posed to us.
The following is informed by my participation in this and other groups as well as my professional interests and civic interests in economic development.
INTRODUCTION
We have a window of opportunity in which we can create and institutional structure through which we can realize the watershed agenda by leveraging it into into job and capital formation.
At a time when Job formation is critical for industries like construction, engineering and the plumbing and electrical trades, when we are looking for ways to stimulate secure bank lending and when the EPA is searching for ways to advance the watershed agenda, converting existing septic systems to distributed sewer within the context of water resource management districts is economically compelling and could begin within months instead of years in most states.
Once you have the formation of water resource management districts you have an architecture for continuous improvement and the measuring of results that you need to realize integrated water resource and watershed management within the context of climate change.
WHY DO IT?
JOB AND CAPITAL FORMATION
A million septic systems converted to distributed sewer at $10,000 per home would generate about $10 billion in economic activity and 100,000 jobs. The Cadmus Group’s study for the 2008 Conference of Mayors indicates that water and wastewater infrastructure can have a multiplier affect as high as 6.38 on GDP and in 2.38 on job creation.
There were 22 million septic systems recorded on the 1980 census. The 1986 EPA report to the Congress recorded that forty-four states consider septic systems among the highest polluters of groundwater and nine states listed them as the most significant source of pollution. Other reports from that era, when onsite systems were considered a temporary solution awaiting central sewer, suggest their average useful life for those built in the 50s and 60s was between 10 and 15 years and that they should not be deployed in densities greater than 1 home per 16 acres or about 40 per square mile. Currently, Freddie Mac assumes a 15 to 25 year useful life for a septic system for purposes of property valuation.
WATER QUALITY AND SUPPLY
There were 25 million Septic systems recorded on the 1990 census. In a 2005 progress document Ben Grumbles (Asst EPA Administrator for the Office of Water acknowledged: “Septic systems are the second greatest threat to groundwater quality (as
viewed by State water quality agencies)
There is currently limited information to document health and water quality problems
resulting from poorly designed, operated and maintained systems, partly due to their
widely distributed nature. The amount of impact to groundwater and surface water from sub-surface dispersal or surface-discharging decentralized systems is generally
unknown. These impacts are currently being investigated by EPA.”
OBSOLETE PROGRAMMATIC STRUCTURES CAN’T GET THE JOB DONE
Since the mid 1990’s with the focus on nonpoint pollution and the watershed agenda, the emergence of integrated water resource management and more recently the focus on climate change the reductions in carbon, nutrient and water footprints and wastewater to resource and reuse strategies, it is increasingly apparent that we can not achieve these policy objectives without a distributed approach to infrastructure.
The realization of this potential is severely compromised by program structures that are over 40 years old and reflect a time when energy was inexpensive, the fate of nutrients was just beginning to be understood and climate change and sustainable principles were not even considered.
Public policy has recognized this since the mid 1990s. It is best summarized by G Tracy Mehan (Assistant EPA Director for the office of Water) in his presentation to the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee on November 30, 2001, “Building on Success – Going Beyond Regulation”,
• “Times have changed dramatically since the existing regulatory framework was put in place”.
• “Point source controls alone are not capable of achieving or maintaining ambient environmental standards.”
• “The assimilative capacity of our environment is limited and the technological and economic limitations of our existing regulatory framework are at hand.”
• “The remaining water pollution problems are significantly more complex when compared with the problems that we have already addressed.”
• “Complex problems require innovative solutions and entail a change in paradigm.”
In a later statement he urged; “Failure to fully incorporate the watershed approach into program implementation will result in failure to achieve our environmental objectives in many of our nation’s waters.”
THE INABILITY TO INTEGRATE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT WITH INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE, WATERSHED AND CLIMATE CHANGE AGENDA IS NOT TECHNOLOGICAL BUT SYSTEMIC.
Among the most dramatic expressions of this systemic failure is that despite the fact that “septic systems are the second greatest threat to groundwater quality (as viewed by State water quality agencies)” and despite the fact that they were considered a temporary solution, they now serve 25% of the population and about a third of new construction.
These are serious times and this is a serious possibility. I think it is particularly compelling because the Obama Administration understands the essential nature of “systemic failure” and what to do about it. His language about how to resolve systemic failures in national security reflects a precise understanding of “predictive network -centric intelligence”. Moreover, the military model of network-centric battle field warfare where the battlefield instead of the preferred technology platform defines the skills, the technologies, the processes and the organizational structures through which the battlefield may be most efficiently engaged is a performance based and context sensitive design model that would serve the watershed agenda. It is a model that needs an adaptive approach to infrastructure made possible through a distributed approach.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
A utility in one of the fastest growing counties in the country in 2007 is designing a treatment plant that in the current economic climate it is not expecting to build. Responding to scattered commercial demand for development, the Executive Director asked “What can you teach me about decentralized wastewater treatment”.
He was in pursuit of “distributed sewer”. More than this, however, he was in pursuit of an approach to infrastructure that placed the supply of his services in response to instead of in anticipation of demand.
Open almost any comprehensive wastewater management plan and you will find a “needs assessment”. It may include hydraulically or organically overloaded central systems, demand for access by other municipal partners, aging septic systems, TMDL compliance and a host of other local issues. It is almost never a perfect balance of supply and demand.
The dilemma is that under the centralized approach resolving one issue must wait for the provision of one prescribed and essentially dictated outcome Often pent up behind this dictated and delayed single source solution is the inventive energy and wealth creating capacity of the American economy. We need an approach to infrastructure that can be an adaptive interface between human communities and the natural systems on which they depend. We also need an infrastructure that will release the economic capacity that lies dormant beneath traditional programmatic structures and predetermined outcomes
Decisions that once made sense are now having vast unforeseen and unpredictable consequences. It is true in energy and transportation. It is also true for water.
Among the most important opportunities offered by a distributed approach to sewer are:
• There can be a much more efficient and cost effective alignment between the demand for infrastructure and its supply and
• It can supply highly effective and reliable treatment and diminish both the capital costs and the high energy life cycle costs of collection.
IMPROVEMENT IN PROPERTY VALUES AND HOMEOWNER EQUITY
Onsite wastewater treatment, which includes long obsolete cesspools, septic systems and alternative treatment units (ATU) at the residential level as well as small clustered and commercial treatment systems under the Health codes, have a set of common problems that are detrimental to property values the realization of environmental standards and results as well as economic development.
• The costs of replacement and management are excessive
• The codes under which they are installed impose restriction on use and development.
• The performance standards with respect to integrated water resource and watershed management are compromised
• The structure within which they are permitted does not anticipate watershed TMDL compliance, effective reuse water, water footprinting or climate change.
There is little hope of improving this situation because there is nothing in the Public Health mandate or mission to promote management. Aware of this the EPA developed a voluntary protocol for Responsible Management Entities (RME), however few have been created and none have the capacities to aggregate participation, raise funds, assess fees and establish trusted and responsible management that are inherent in sewer ordinances.
The following are representations of the potential economic advantages inherent in distributed sewer. They were developed based on the market conditions generally found in eastern Massachusetts. My pricing reflects pricing I have seen from the work of Teal Ltd, Northwest Cascade and others.
The first looks at property values using estimates I derived from a discussion with a selectman from the town of Dennis on the Cape. He agreed a repair could cost in the range of $30,000 and he conceded a 7.5% increase in property value could be expected with municipal sewer services.
REPLACEMENT REPLACEMENT
WITH ONSITE WITH DISTRIBUTED
SYSTEMS SEWER
Home value $350,000 $350,000
Market decline -$ 52,000 -$ 52,000
Market value $298,000 $298,000
Septic repair -$ 30,000
Distributed sewer $ 29800
Net difference in value $ 268,000 $ 327,800
Difference $59,800
In this model we assume the property value was $350,000 before the economic downturn which projects a decline of $52000 leaving a market value $298,000.
If a septic systems or cesspool must be replaced the projected cost is 30,000 and it is a direct burden on the homeowner.
If the homeowner upgrades to municipal infrastructure the upgrade cost is attached to the property and paid over 30 years. We have assumed the property has increased in value by 7.5 % as a result of the conversion to municipal sewer services.
The difference to the property owner is $59,800
In the following two illustrations we project three estimates of the cost per home of distributed sewer based on a 30 home cluster financed over 30 years at a rate of 3% for <5mg/l Total Nitrogen. We assume 30 homes financed for 30 years at municipal interest rates of 3%
Price $20,000 $18,000 $16,000
Month $84 $76 $67
Annual $1012 $911 $809
O+M $133 $133 $133
Total $1145 $ 1044 $942
This system seeks to take advantage of economies of scale to achieve compliance with performance standards higher than those of most wastewater treatment plants while eliminating the capital and life cycle costs of traditional collection systems.
I know it is not 3 mg/l TN but it is affordable.
The final illustration plots the $18,000 cost figure and maintenance and monitoring on an annual basis with the application of the Massachusetts income tax credit. Note that on a cash flow basis the impact on the property owner does not occur until the 6th year of the program.
Year CREDIT COST DIFFERENCE
1 $1500 $1044 $456
2 $1500 $1044 $913
3 $1500 $1044 $1369
4 $1500 $1044 $1825
5 $1044 $782
6 $1044 -$262
7
Even if you do all this in Massachusetts you are forced to do it in clusters of just less than 10,000 GPD and just less than 40,000 GPD because of O and M mandates in the codes.
IN CONCLUSION
What stands between an affordable infrastructure that could achieve integrated water resource and watershed management, prepare water resource management for climate change and pay for itself and its implementation are two things:
• Systemic inconsistencies that resist being reconciled and
• Institutional and programmatic structures that will not take responsibilities for the economic environmental and social consequences of their costs.
HOW DO WE DO IT?
CHANGE THE PLANNING MODEL TO SUSTAINABLE PRINCIPLES AND CONTEXT –CENTRIC DESIGN.
Ask city and county managers what they worry about the most and they will tell you;
• Water quality and supply
• Community preservation and quality of life
• Economic development
• Revenue
This is surprisingly similar to the “triple bottom line” of sustainability;
• ecological integrity
• social equity
• economic reality
Couple this with the principles of reducing the carbon, nutrient and water footprints and you have the elements for a planning process that will adapt infrastructure to community instead of the other way around.
This is a network-centric or context- centric or customized design instead of a platform centric approach to planning. Distributed wastewater management enables the context as it presents itself to define the technologies, the processes, the skills and the organizational structures that will deliver the best available outcome instead of the best available technology.
The convergence of context sensitive planning and design, the ability to significantly reduce the costs of collection and to more effectively align demand and supply provides opportunities for infrastructure far beyond those offered by “traditional sewer” and our “existing regulatory framework”.
That we have not been able to release these capacities is leaving water policy in the twentieth century while energy, transportation and other major infrastructures are being re-structured for the twenty-first.
USE SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT LEGISLATION TO CREATE WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS\\
Water needs to have the support of enabling institutions not policing institutions. The EPA has rightfully transferred responsibility for water to the states and local responsibility but states have not had the political will to assume responsibility for the watershed agenda. More-over existing institutions and their flows of funds do not support the creation of such institutions. Change the structure, change the incentives and you will get a different outcome.
Create incentives for water resource management districts to adopt the sewer ordinances. This allows for the capacities to aggregate participation, raise funds, assess fees and establish trusted and responsible management. It also provides freedom for property owners to develop their property without the restrictions imposed by environmental health and similar codes.
PROVIDE FOR DIVERSE OWNERSHIP
Allow for wastewater management to be designed built owned and operated by private, public and public private partnerships just the way other utilities are.
PROVIDE APPROPRIATE INSTITUTIONAL AND PROGRAMATIC STRUCTURES AS WELL AS MATCHING ECONOMIC INCENTIVES THAT ARE TAX AND INVESTMENT BASED
Stimulate the formation of water resource management districts through a portfolio of incentives including but not limited to “limited liability.”
There is a predisposition to centralization in law, the codes and popular opinion that sewer is only central and that it is too expensive to be done any other way than with grants. Sewer can be achieved on a distributed basis efficiently and reasonably. Fairhaven, Massachusetts quietly worked out the transition between the public health and its sewer authority over 10 years ago.
On a distributed basis sewers can be smaller and much less capital intensive so ike other utilities it can be easily scaled and considered on a private or public/ private partnerships as well as public basis.
My thoughts on how to do this include:
• Use the capacity in most states to establish special purpose districts.
• Provide incentive so that the special purpose districts adopt the model desired for integrated water resource management ant he watershed agenda.
• Recognize that these districts may be of any size so long as they meet or exceed existing and future performance standards for public health, watershed and water quality compliance.
• Allow them to be structured on a private, public / private and public basis etc so that you can stimulate a cross section of activity.
• Stimulate the public sector efforts with betterments and long term low interest loans, reverse mortgages etc.
• Stimulate homeowner interest by allowing income tax credits and loan guarantees but only for participation with others in substantial enough numbers to ensure operations maintenance and monitoring and performance standards.
• Stimulate private investment in the utility model with investment tax credits and accelerated depreciation.
• Allow public private partnerships to use a mix across the spectrum.
• This having been done set a deadline for the replacement of septic systems 25 years or older and a mandate that they be upgraded o performance based clusters.
• Commercial, institutional and residential clusters should be upgraded and meet at least secondary treatment or reduced nutrient standards. They should be encouraged to assimilate smaller clusters hat may be in the vicinity. Accellerated depreciation may be a way to encourage this.
• There is little reason for flows under 40,000 to 50,000 gallons per day to be rigorously scrutinized. This can be based on a self certification basis with engineered designs that must meet performance standards and engineers licenses and the legal system should be sufficient to ensure compliance. Existing regulatory structures should receive reports be paid for their expertise in solving problems and police compliance as they currently do.
The idea has been not to force anything on an existing locality, but rather to impose a mandate on dealing with a significant contributor to ground water pollution in a forceful way and to simply load the incentives to create water resource management districts in the early years with declining incentives in the outer years in order to stimulate immediate activity.
Once you have the formation of water resource management districts you have an architecture for continuous improvement and the measuring of results that you need to realize integrated water resource and watershed management.
IN CONCLUSION
We always intended to convert onsite wastewater treatment into conventional sewer. Do it. There is nothing in the sewer ordinances that suggests that sewer has to be centralized and can not be distributed.
Most of what we need to do it is already available. It simply needs to be reassembled into institutional and programmatic structures that release instead of inhibit its potential.
I offer as references:
G. Tracy Mehan; Assistance EPA Director for the Office of Water (2001-2003)
Jeffrey Osuch; Executive Secretary for the Town of Fairhaven.
Dr. Jean MacCormack; Chancellor, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Dr. John Farrington: Dean; School for Marine science and Technology University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Thank you,
March 20th, 2010 at 10:11 am
I suggest that prevention and education are also important pieces of the watershed preservation equation. Prevention is often a more cost effective and more efficient tool than enforcing regulatory prohibitions.
The recreational waters industries are principal stakeholders in the preservation of the watershed because of the economic impacts to their interests.
It is important to work with recreational boaters and marinas to educate these groups on the proper disposal of toxic chemicals used in boat cleaning and the proper techniques of fueling to prevent accidental spillage into waterways.
Recreation boaters and fishermen can also be a significant source of unintended spreading of Invasive Aquatic Nuisance Species. These species can overcome native indigenous species, deprive waterways of oxygen supplies and introduce excessive amounts of algae producing nutrients into the waterways.
The US Wildlife and Fisheries Service have an initiative which is endorsed by the US Coast Guard known as the “Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers”. Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers is an educational outreach program aimed teaching techniques for the preventing the spread of aquatic nuisance species. Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers compliments the US Coast Guard’s “Sea Partners” program which has similar goals but is targeted towards prevention of unintentional discharges of toxic chemicals into the waterways.
Both of these programs invite partnerships with other groups with similar goals of adopting a holistic approach to the prevention of damage to the watershed.
March 20th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
In our area nothing seems to garner much involvement. The area of SW Missouri is rural in nature and frankly backward.
I would advocate that all WWTP in a watershed get on a same date basis for permit renewal. New technology and methods would be addressed for that watershed and the receiving watershed. All cities would be on the same page and be brought up to standards at the same time. This would result in demonstable results when retrofit is completed. The permits would start tomorrow. The five year period starting immediately. New restrictions, methods of compliance and other factors would be metted out. This would give the WWTP five years to get in compliance before the next permit would be issued. All would be on same time line and could possibly lower costs when a company knows that all cities in the local area are going to need essentially the same upgrades or construction and thus assure them of a longer term period of employment and multiple purchases of equipment.
Corporate farming is ruining this area of the state and the waters that flow through it and to neighbor states. We need to strongly oversee litter(manure) deposition and its movement from state to state. At this time it is not applied in Arkansas and thus is moved to Missouri with no or very little oversight. Missouri counties receiving it are already overloaded and are getting illegal litter from a neighboring state. It goes on and on like that. Missouri moves it to Kansas and Oklahoma is dumping it into both Kansas and Missouri. The DNR cannot or will not over see this movement and the Feds have no possible way of taking care of it.
March 20th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
If we’re so interested in keeping our waters pristine why is DEP always running short handed. We should put whatever tax we need on drilling so that DEP has all the people they need to stay on top of the drillers. We seem to cut people in DEP just when we need them the most. As far as treating the frac water we have the technology to treat the water all the way back to where we could drink it so why should we settle for anything less??
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:23 am
After 25 years of protecting and restoring the Clark Fork Watershed in western Montana and northern Idaho, the Clark Fork Coalition offers these suggestions:
- Ensure states establish–and enforce–numeric nutrient criteria for waterways. Set-up frameworks for complementary water pollution mitigation banks to trade “water pollution credits” so that the criteria can be met.
- Invest in dam removals, repairs, and irrigation infrastructure improvements only if coupled with restoration projects that restore flow and function to the stream, lake, or river where the infrastructure is improved.
- Create federal tax incentives/credits for landowners who transfer water rights from consumptive (irrigation) use to leave more water in streams and rivers.
- Provide low- or no-interest loans to municipalities for water and wastewater system improvements if they have growth policies and rules that promote water quality protections and efficient land use.
- Invest in education and check stations in partnership with states and local governments to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species, like zebra mussels.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:25 am
Please halt winter land application of biosolids and manure. It causes early snow melt and it JUST RUNS OFF of the frozen ground.
It should be tilled or drilled otherwise the net result is runoff.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:39 am
Interest is growing in creating monitoring solutions for entire water resources – rivers, bays, catchments and so on. These work by integrating 3rd party sensors, existing data feeds such as those from USGS and EPA, and water agencies’ SCADA systems into modeling, analytics and visualization tools to create “collaboration platforms” for all of the stakeholders to that water resource. The water resource is given, in effect, its own sensing and systems infrastructure. The idea is to enable all the stakeholders to share “a single version of the truth” such that the quality of decision-making processes is improved. In so doing, you don’t remove the politics, but you do elevate the quality of the debate.
In the course of this work a number of things have become evident:
1) Data may or may not be available to manage water quality and water resources, but where it does exist it is likely to be fragmented, incompatible, and on the wrong scale for the decisions to be made. Tools are needed to enable the required level of integration between the multiple sources that exist, supported with additional sensing and data collection to “fill in the gaps”. This in turn requires definition of models and frameworks for applying IT to water management and also a sustained long-term investment in areas such as standards.
2) There is much work at the federal/regulatory and university levels to collect and integrate data, but the voice of local operational water managers in water agencies is missing from these efforts. Water resources need to be managed day to day with the same (or compatible) data that is used at the federal level to monitor their health, drawing on the latest university work.
3) Too much academic research on water issues seems to look backwards and/or to be content just to test hypotheses and publish papers without applying the learnings from that activity to day-to-day management of water resources. A more profitable line of approach would be to create scientifically valid models of the behavior of specific water resources that can be used to drive day-to-day operational decisions.
4) We don’t yet fully know what we don’t know. For example, one can anticipate that there will be needs to monitor emerging contaminants such as decomposition byproducts from pharmaceuticals – but these byproducts are only now becoming apparent, and sensors that can monitor them in situ do not yet exist. We expect that over time, they will come to exist and that water managers will want to add the capabilities they offer to their monitoring activities. One of the key issues when designing collaboration platforms is therefore the capability of adding additional devices for purposes that cannot be foreseen today, but at very low marginal cost, given that the infrastructure to support them will already be in place.
5) Related to the previous point, there needs to be a sustained effort to create and apply sensing technologies to water resource management, for example with emerging contaminants as just stated, pathogens and so on. The goal needs to be to create devices that can operate on riverbanks for extended periods, unattended – but at present too much is dependent on lab tests in part because the technologies needed don’t yet exist, or if they do exist, they are not sufficiently robust. Lab tests, while very accurate, do not provide the same kind of “truth” as continuous, even if less accurate, time-series readings from in-situ devices.
6) While not everything needs to be real-time, there is more and more awareness of the value of real-time data, and the concept of real term inference generation from running models on-line to the decision process and in real time. In this way, advanced warning of preconditions for algal blooms, flow and temperature fluctuations, and so on, will be available along with the chance in some cases to take preventive action.
6) It is not just about data. It’s also about models, applications and visualization tools to make use of that data. This tends to get forgotten in many discussions on water management.
I hope these comments based on my experience of using technology to create “collaboration platforms’ to manage water resources are helpful. I’d be pleased to elaborate further if there is interest.
Peter Williams
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Soil conservation efforts have been “on the ground” for decades, yet nutrients (and soil) continue to leave the field. Voluntary efforts coupled with cost-share dollars are obviously not the solution. Why do we provide funds to install GMPs for those creating problems and then allow them to back out of their contract if they decide they don’t like it.
How about rewarding those who are managing their production well. A straight out financial bonus for exemplary behavior, that continues only as long as the behavior continues or is improved. This has been proposed before, but never seems to be put into practice.
Two examples of success, both based on people:
A farmer happened to be caught out in a fast-driving rain. He observed the water running off from his field and noted the bank sluffing off and being carried away. That was an “aha” moment, when he truly realized that failing to maintain terraces was allowing his fields to lose topsoil and effectively become smaller. That meant less ground for cropping… less income. He began implementing GMPs.
A small city surrounded by ranching and farming had no stormwater management. A passionate and knowledgable woman hired as a watershed specialist by the Extension Service, began public outreach programs that targeted people of all ages in the entire watershed. She organized events for families that taught them about stormwater management. She wrote grants to support monitoring of stormwater flows by students, then used the data collected to prioritize areas causing problems. She persisted with the City Council to collaborate in addressing these areas.
People are the key to success in any endeavour.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Obviously the best practice for improving water quality is to strictly control both point and non-point sources of pollution and limit the amount of toxins and chemicals that don’t belong in our rivers.
The second most important practice is the removal of obsolete dams that block water passage. Dam ponds change local environmental conditions, defeat the survival of indigenous plants, animals and insects. Dams also greatly contribute to thermal pollution of water bodies and this degrades water quality downstream.
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:09 pm
The waterways of Tennessee, Alabama, Appalachia, and all of the 25 coal mining states are under attack from the coal industry. While I type this mountains are being blown to bits by the coal mining industry, coal fly ash is pouring into the Emory, Clinch, and Tennessee Rivers, and coal burning power plants are dumping millions and possibly billions of pounds of pollution onto and into the land, air, and water. With the latter the pollution dumped into the air and onto the land finds its way into the water at some point.
I want the EPA to start doing its job by enforcing the laws of the land and regulating the industries that are out of control throughout coal country. Right now there are untold amounts of heavy metals suspended in water being discharged through sediment ponds through NPDES permit points which amount to unpermitted discharges. All of these metals are providing a heavy load and undue burden on the critters and cleanliness of the water. I am asking that EPA hire more personell to get out into the field and test the water coming from these coal mines for the entire spectrum of heavy metals that have ever been associated with coal in this country. I am also asking that EPA take over control of the water monitoring of coal mines that is occurring right now because the states have dropped the ball on this monitoring by turning it over to the coal industry, in effect allowing the polluters to police themeselves or by requiring the coal industry to only test for a few metals or no metals at all. I am also concerned with the fact that the NPDES limits that are set for water monitoring don’t apply during rain fall events. This means that an untold amount of sediment is being flushed into our waterways during rain events. What is point in even having sediment ponds if the companies aren’t required to maintain the effluent limits during rain events? This is a crime of geologic and hydrologic scale.
I think that EPA needs to step up the plate and declare coal fly ash a hazardous waste. This is a critical step in ensuring that this most dangerous of substances is handled in a responsible manner and instead of like solid waste (household garbage) such as what is happening here in Tennessee.
What I don’t understand is with the TVA Coal Ash Disaster why EPA is so concerned with protecting the communities of Roane County and Swan Pond in Tennessee yet has turned a blind eye to the destruction of the Environmental Justice Community of Union Town in Perry County, Alabama.
In fact I am using this comment to file an official complaint with the EPA about the lack of proper regulation and protection of the community of Union Town in Perry County, Alabama. I am filing a complaint to let you know that Arrowhead Landfill is not using Flexterra to control the airborne coal fly ash dust coming from the uncovered landfill like EPA forced TVA to do in Roane County, TN. There is not adequate wheel wahsing of trucks and all vehciles leaving the landfill area which has led to coal fly ash being tracked into the surrounding community. I am also filing a complaint that the landfill is dumping the leacheate (landfill juice ) into the ditches surrounding the landfill and right next to people’s homes. This is injustice at its worst and EPA has taken an active role in locating this landfill for TVA to dump the coal fly ash from Roane County, Tennessee.
I would like to speak with an represenative of EPA about these complaints so that we can resolve them in a timely manner and provide some relief for the impacted residents.
Thank you, matt landon
http://www.unitedmountaindefense.org
http://www.mountainjustice.org
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Watershed-scale management is meaningless if it doesn’t engage citizens, and for the most part, it doesn’t. There are several reasons for this: (1) most government agencies are guided by a top-down regulatory approach, rather than a collaborative approach: (2) the goals of EPA and corresponding state agencies are mainly a few targeted pollutants that may or may not matter to citizens in the watershed (how does one convince a farmer in MN to reduce fertilizer input to save the Gulf of Mexico, when his main focus is his/her own economic survival?) Often this means working with citizens on the problems in their watershed (in the case of the farmer, improving his/her economic condition); (3) the TMDL approach is heavily model based, whereas an adaptive management approach might be more useful; (4) agencies often have barriers to working with citizens (e.g., work rules that disallow evening meetings – when working citizens can meet: (5) many less formal watershed groups cannot take advantage of funding because they are not 503c groups; agencies could help by serving as financial agents; (6) pollution agencies aren’t trained (generally) to communicate with citizens (naming a program “TMDL” is probably the worst possible way to communicate the idea of a “pollution reduction plan” (it takes me two full lectures in a graduate water policy class to explain the TMDL concept); (7) most water quality data is either unavailable to citizens who lack database management tools (which is to say, nearly all of them) or incomprehensible (it need not be).
Nonpoint source pollution is, to a very large extent, pollution coming from private lands, either households or farms. It is nearly impossible to regulate (except possibly for animal ag), so it is imperative to engage citizens in a meaningful way.
So far we haven’t, and have had little success at controlling NPS pollution.
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:43 am
Retired College Prof Volunteering on 319 Grants in East Central Indiana
region. CAFOs ( 50 new CAFOs in our area) regulated as far as site of production is concerned, but not as manure leaves site for land application. No regulation. Being applied on frozen ground and during high runoff peroids without any incorportation in to soil. Results every 12 digit HUC has E. coli above limits most of time.
We can sample above and below application zone and treat as point source. No longer dealing with nonpoint pollution in rural areas. Dozens of sources equal to small towns now being created. EPA must change attitude about these potential sources. No regulation in Indiana. IDEM
Water Quality Division only becomes involved with a split event. Division of Land Management Division solely responsible for CAFOs and they don’t know what they are doing. The State Government does not want to find what is going on.
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:27 am
FINALLY, the EPA will repoen the investigation of natural gas hydrofraccing of high volume horizontal wells. Those of us whose neighborhoods are threatened have seen new horror stories every week- well beyond the example in Pavillion, WY, studied by the agency. Open pits filled with chemicals that are not disclosed to the public- yet are subject to flooding and frequent spills is not an acceptable price to pay for cheaper energy. And given the millions of gallons for each of the thousands of wells, these spills have been inevitable. Many neighbors of these wells cannot shower or wash with the contaminated water, let alone drink it. And the notion of repairing the aquifer is absurd- our property values plummet, as no one would willingly buy a home in such a place.
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Taking a watershed approach is conceptually the right thing to do but is challenging in actual practise. For example, when a watershed is the size of the Mississippi River a “one-size-fits-the whole watershed” strategy will not achieve the desired goal. Strategies that engage local stakeholders in a collaborative process will achieve greater progress and acceptance than top-down, heavy handed mandates. The EPA should review and utilize individual State Best Management Practices for agriculture and silviculture for practical, proven tools to manage non-point source pollution. Florida is an example of a state that has engaged diverse stakeholders in the development of BMP’s with a sound scientific basis and proven benefits to aquatic systems.
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:49 pm
As a federal agency I think the EPA needs to look at the BIG picture. I agree that we need some changes in regulations, BMPs etc. But the only way we are going to make long term chnages is to educate and inform the citizens, especially the young. If they have the knowledge they will change the way we do things. Local schools just do not have the resources to get this done. Our local non profit has many success stories from participants in our service learning projects, attendees at our 4th grade water festivals, restoration volunteers, boy scout eagle projects etc. Years later they tell us how what they learned from us has made a difference in how they lead their lives. We need to find more funding for local non profits that are on the front line and are doing good work so that they can change the way we think and act. That is what is going to change our practices 20 years from now and keep it sustainable.
March 23rd, 2010 at 4:49 pm
I am a volunteer with a State EPD Adopt A Stream (AAS) program. The state as two staff peoples that Train and Certify volunteers to monitor state streams. The chemical data (five criteria) is collected monthly and biological data collected quarterly is posted by certified volunteers to the state EPD data base over home computers. The state has 5,000 certified volunteers and 50 volunteer trainers supporting the program all across the state. This part all works fine. It requires a lot from volunteers and EPD few AAS staff.
• protecting watersheds, what has worked and what hasn’t?
The AAS program works up to a point. That point is when state elected officials lean on EPD as a result of Home Builders and Developers political pressure or money influence from Developers paid lobbyists. It is at that point that all the stream monitoring or buffer protection and Best Management Practices mean nothing.
• How can we protect and improve watersheds? Sound rules and honest enforcement is critical. There is a third and that is not having Laws passed that negate the court system. EPA needs to insure it has sound rules and honest enforcement. My present concern is a contaminated Supreme Court.
• What examples of effective practices and strategies can be “scaled up” to State and national levels. 1. Allowing citizen monitoring that actually takes their data and when a deviation from the norm is found, EPA actually checks to verify. 2. In Real estate it is location, location, location. For EPA it must be enforcement, enforcement, enforcement. Everyone knows the rule. The problem is developers live by: Do what they want, do not get caught and if you do it is it is all about whom you know and money.
EPA has got to have a President that supports it and be allowed to stay above all congressional influence and corporate money.
March 23rd, 2010 at 5:37 pm
I think watershed-based approaches are extremely valuable but there needs to be more push for higher standards from state and federal levels if we are to attain clean water goals. Meanwhile habitat destruction and loss of biodiversity threaten to pull the legs out from under the stool. This is where federal EPA leadership, vision and funding to support the highly-leveraged watershed efforts, is needed.
I have no doubt that watershed-based efforts are highly cost effective due to the large numbers of people and land areas involved per dollar invested in any overhead administration.
My group has trouble pursuing project grants because we can’t afford to pay a staffer. Grants all want to fund projects, not staff to make them run. Although we have many hundreds of volunteers working on projects each of the past several years in my small urban watershed (85 sq mi.). With a 319 grant, my group did successfully remove 2 lowhead dams cost-effectively and restored 2 miles of river to meet CWA goals for the first time in 3 generations.
Education of all watershed residents is the final frontier, and we need more help (not less) on this to solve the difficult remaining nonpoint source pollution challenges.
Emerging Threats to our waters:
I am concerned about plastic pollution in NPS stormwater, PCPPs and also about nanomaterials which each aren’t being effectively treated or prevented right now, and which will adversely impact marine life and the food chain integrity for a potentially long time. All public agencies are at a disadvantage addressing these due to the silo effect of departments and programs.
Thus far I don’t believe the EPA has sufficiently gotten ahead of these issues to manage them in other than a reactive fashion. We may not get a second chance to recover some marine ecosystems if they are hit from too many things (overfishing, ocean acidification due to GHG pollution, as well as the above causes) at once.
When a consumer liquid hand soap is sold with pesticide-like antimicrobial ingredients as well as tiny plastic beads in it, something is wrong with our system of oversight at the national level, because I don’t think POTWs are geared for these things. Not to mention the PCPPs which have received some press lately… What other nanomaterial (nonbiodegradable) products and risks are in the offing?
The watershed approach works for some things, but more proactive national leadership and action is still needed to address the big issues just mentioned above.
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:57 pm
A comprehensive watershed approach can not be implemented without ‘landscape intelligence’. We must realize that implementation of resource management occurs everyday, by many people within and without government assistance. We need to capture this information value with an economic system. EcoCommerce is an excellent start. http://www.conservationinformation.org/partners/March2010/economics.asp
March 24th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
During the early 1990s there was an attempt at a major reauthorization of the Clean Water Act (this is often called the “Baucus” bill – for Max Baucus of MT) that would have expanded the goals and policies of the Act to include the protection of habitat (this to expand and augment the nonpoint source goals that were a major addition under the 1987 reauthorization). Somehow taking the needed steps to add this concept to the CWA would be very valuable for watershed management approaches to move attention into vital riparian corridors and related aquatic habitat areas.
March 24th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
• If you have experience with protecting watersheds, what has worked and what hasn’t?
Oregon’s watershed councils work. The board members live within the geographic watershed area and hire a watershed coordinator who is paid by the state. The coordinator helps polluters/restorationists with grant applications and other paperwork. They have quarterly/monthly meetings and is an open creative forum for finding solutions. It would be great if EPA would provide 50/50 matching funds to states for these coordinator positions. The reason it works is because it is run by locals and is funded by the state/national/private grants. Check out this example:
http://oregonwatersheds.org/oregoncouncils/crookedriver
• How can we protect and improve watersheds given the challenges of various sources of pollution?
Watershed councils are site specific so they have maximum flexibility in addressing various sources of pollution. They also have quite a bit of creativity in problem solving.
• What examples of effective practices and strategies can be “scaled up” to State and national levels for greater effectiveness and broader use?
The watershed council approach from Oregon could be scaled up by offering other states a 50/50 match for funding the watershed coordinator position (elected by watershed board members). I think the watershed councils are 501c organizations.
March 24th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution does not authorize Congress to legislate in the area of the environment
, therefore, it is unconstitutional. All 50 states of the Union have their own version of the EPA as authorized under the 10th Amendment. There is no need for a federal agency. The states of the Union can handle their own environmental needs as authorized by their legislatures.
March 25th, 2010 at 6:57 am
The watershed approach has been successful. I agree with an earlier comment that the 319 grant program for subwatersheds has used a scatter-shot approach. Now that we have a tested and successful model at the scale of subwatersheds, we need to change strategies a bit. My impression is it needs to be scaled upward to larger watersheds now. However, the funding that is necessary to make changes in larger watersheds is not available currently.
March 25th, 2010 at 10:26 am
I just returned from my 3rd visit to Europe and am once again amazed at how countries, that have existed for many centuries before ours, remain immune to urban sprawl and unsustainable growth.
I would like zoning laws enacted that would force developers to “revive” urban areas and prohibit further destruction of farmland and watershed areas (the kidneys of our water supply)
Of course, everyone would cry “government takeover!” but subsequent generations would thank us.
Fighting greedy developers tooth and nail until I die,
Louise Maurer
March 25th, 2010 at 10:28 am
From the perspective of one working for many years for water quality and natural resource sustainability in western Oregon salmon habitat, it appears that the CWA pressures the states to list polluted waters in the 303d listing process. The intent of the CWA becomes subverted due to the biases created. The state legislators know that they must find funding to fix any problems on the 303d lists, and try to avoid having to do this. They are hardpressed to come up with enough funding to deal with all of their problems. They do not want to have any more problems discovered that would therefore increase these pressures for water quality. Yes, this is shortsighted, but is the reality. The state resists doing water quality assessment that is pointedly investigative of suspected toxics parameter problems. They will only fund work on already known problems, however, the 303d list only covers the problems that were known in the past, via ‘existing data’. The states will not assess their waters effectively within this current paradigm. The 303d lists DO NOT reflect the actual water quality reality, and won’t as long as this bias remains a driving force in the dynamic. As conservationists working in the field, we desperately need to do pointedly investigative assessment of water quality contaminant problems that we see as likely toxic threats and limiting factors to salmon population and aquatic health recovery, yet the funding only goes to ’safer’ baseline gathering, or to work on reducing the 303d listings. The longer we put off discovering all of the WQ toxics parameter problems we face, the longer we will keep making our societal behavioral mistakes that produce these hidden limiting factors to aquatic health improvement. We desperately need to discover and begin dealing with our mistakes before time runs out. The funding biases must be corrected to allow pointedly investigative work for priority pollutants.
March 25th, 2010 at 11:36 am
EPA must change its program approach to sludge dumping before there is any possible way to protect the watersheds, drinking water, food, and public health. Using the agricultural stormwater runoff exclusion to protect solid waste open dumping on farmland does nothing to protect the environment
Most people at EPA don’t know that on October 17, 1994, Robert E. Lee, John Walker and Robert Bastian set up a program to use 104(b) 3 grant money (intended to prevent pollution) to contaminate watersheds with sewage sludge. Specifically, the money was directed at covering up “horror stories” and possible wetlands work in watersheds. On 12/29/1994 John Walker and Robert Bastian set out an adgenda for the WEF to hire a writer recommended by them and a list of Candidates for the Rest of the Story to be debunked. They included sick and dead animals, tree kills, loss of crops, bioaerosols, bankers liability, pathogen regrowth, and the BLM policy oposing biosolids use equating it with hazardous waste dumping and landfilling raising Superfund liability concerns.
http://deadlydeceit.com/EPA-PR.html
The second major change required is to change the reporting requirements. In 1989, FR Vol. 54, No. 23, P 5829, EPA listed 25 families of pathogens, yet, it claims there are none in sludge biosolids. In fact, the use of the 1904 Ejikman Test to prove sludge is safe is a disservice to the nation and makes EPA look like it is deliberately putting farmers and the publics health at risk. Why would EPA claim looking for only 5% of the culturalable thermo-tolerant E. coli in sludge indicates there may be pathogens in sludge. Why would EPA claim fecal coliform is something other than E. coli or that E. coli is not pathogenic outside the gut?
Not only that, but FR, Vol. 54, No. 23, P. 5777 lists 21 cancer causing agents that may be in sludge, five of which caused disease by inhalation. Yet, in the 1995, A Guide to the 503 Risk Assessment, EPA and USDA stated they did not do a risk assessment for any chemical, pathogens and didn’t consider any metal chemicals to be cancer causing agents.
Until there is an honest appraisal of the sludge disposal program there is no possible way to protect watersheds.
March 25th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
A key to water quality protection is to focus on land use activities and their impact on water quality. Adherence to the 2000 Unified Federal Policy For Ensuring A Watershed Approach To Federal Land and Resource Management is still valid and appropriate. To be effective, federal agencies should be collaborative and coordinate with state, regional and local land managers as well as with each other.
Monitoring and 319 funding are critical to protect water quality to spot trends and address them before costly restoration projects are necessary. Its much cheaper to protect high water quality than it is to restore it. During the past 10 years, there has been a proliferation of watershed groups blossoming all over the country. (There are over 70 such groups in Colorado alone.) These groups need continued financial support from EPA for planning, coordination, monitoring and installation of BMPs to address non-point sources of pollution. Assisting these groups might also be an effective way to implement TMDLs.
States need additional financial support to ensure compliance, inspections and enforcement for permitting programs to be effective. Many states are woefully understaffed to properly implement their delegated authority.
Groundwater protection is an area that states could use additional assistance with. This can happen through the Continuing Planning Program agreements.
The EPA should immediately embark on rewriting the guidance rules for protection of wetlands. There is too much confusion and uncertainty related to jurisdictional wetlands no thanks to misguided political interference by the courts. Until Congress adds more clarity with the passage of the Clean Water Restoration Act, EPA can slow down the loss of wetlands by creating new rules for US Army Corps that are truly protective.
March 25th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Restoring our impaired watersheds and protecting our high quality watersheds is a task that will continue to require all agencies, non-profit organizations and the local people. Many people still do not understand how their activities in building new sub-divisions, maintaining local drainage and growing agricultural crops and forests affect their water quality. So, eduacation will continue to be an important aspect fo our watershed programs in Louisiana.
We have had successes in the agricultural community through our collaborative efforts with Farm Bill Programs and Local Soil and Water Conservation Districts, but we still need to work with our urban communities to get them more involved in watershed protection. Cities have so many other issues to deal with that they do not seem to have enough funding to do what they need to protect their urban streams.
States face uphill climbs on getting all of their databases and data incorporated into their GIS frameworks so that they can manage both the point source and nonpoint source pollutants and protect their wetlands too. Many of these programs are still very seperate so techology may be one avenue to bring all of the information together into a cohesive picture that managers can see and understand.
The Healthy Watershed Initiative will allow the states more flexibility to chose what they need to focus on within their watersheds. They can see their best systems and work to protect them and also continue their restoration efforts through the TMDL and watershed implementation plan process. NGOs and the fish and wildlife agencies should be able to assist the water quality agencies with these watershed protection initiatives.
One of the major challenges over the next 3-5 years will simply be sufficient funding and staff to maintain existing efforts plus initiating these new efforts. Budget cuts are a reality so states will need to maintain open communication with EPA and other funding agencies if progress is to be made. Data sharing and honest communication on what is possible each year will help to make these challenges possible to meet.
March 25th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
I am proposing a code proposal to the I.A.P.M.O. that when high water pressure exists, and pressure regulators are required by existing code, that the regulator be placed at the meter. This will include the outdoor watering to be lower pressure saving runnoff due to blown off heads and over spray and as well as save water. Cost of this change is extremely low. Savings are very high, look at the EPA #’s on national water use and BMP.
I am a member of IA, IAPMO, ASPE….and a 35 yr. veteran in water biz.
Greg Chick, greg@ramo0nasplumber.com
March 26th, 2010 at 7:59 am
Hi,
Although we will not be directly affected by natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale area in southern New York State, I believe that the possibility of the local aquifer becoming contaminated should cause the project to be reconsidered. In the future, clean water will be of more value than cheap natural gas. We need to protect our water resources. It is short sighted and irresponsible to allow gas extraction techniques that could jeopardize the quality of water for the residents of the area.
Thank you, Sue Rau
March 26th, 2010 at 8:55 am
As we all know, managing stormwater is not an easy task but it is certainly worth the effort. The speed in which we are developing new technologies and chemicals from all industries is far exceeding our understanding of their long term environmental affects on plants and people and our abilities to properly dispose of the residuals and by products of manufacturing processes.
I believe we need to focus more of our educational efforts toward industries that have been prime polluters in the past, commercial entities and residential homeowners. Our educational efforts should be on the public television stations and developed in a dramatic way to strongly encourage water conservation consciousness. The educational efforts should dramatize the dire consequences of how pollution moves through the human body and attacks the individual cells of the body over time and how it originates from surface water or ground water that we depend on and drink daily.
There is too long of a lag time between when we discover the source of non point solution and when we eliminate the cause or source by all stakeholders. We need to modify our behaviors more rapidly for the sake of generations to come.
If we do not begin to move more rapidly to stop water pollution, we will see more doctors entering the field of genetic engineering to design humans by altering DNA that will make us more resistant to disease, cancer and other chronic illnessess caused by a polluted water environment. People will praise the doctors for creating a hybrid baby or man or woman. But our creator God will frown mightily because humans would then be made in the image of man instead of the image of God. Ultimately, if we neglect God in this effort to preserve ourselves, we will end up destroying ourselves through pridefulness and lack of holiness.
Keep the fight of faith.
March 26th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
I am very pleased to see the EPA taking public input into this very important issue. When considering issues in the upcoming Coming Together for Clean Water conference, the EPA must realize that not only are the waters of the United States habitat to fish and wildlife, they are also the source for most people’s drinking water. There is a clear disconnect between the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) which regulates drinking water systems and the Clean Water Act (CWA) which regulates sewage systems. For years the EPA has enacted rules and regulations putting the burden on drinking water systems to remove contaminants, many of which are anthropogenic and can be traced directly to wastewater discharges. This had been extremely costly to drinking water systems and much of this cost would be unnecessary if the control were instead placed on the wastewater systems where many contaminants could be more effectively controlled.
A good example of this is a recently enacted rule called the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. This rule was largely in response to a waterborne disease outbreak in Milwaukee, WI in which over 400,000 people were made ill from an organism called Cryptosporidium as a direct result of sewage contamination of the source of drinking water. With this new rule, the EPA requires drinking water systems to monitor for Cryptosporidium in its source water, and then take certain actions if the Cryptosporidium levels are above threshold levels. In essence the EPA is regulating drinking water systems not on the quality of its finished drinking water, but on the quality of the water in its source. The CWA, however, does not require any monitoring or any control of this disease causing micro-organism. In essence, the cost and control of this organism is borne by the drinking water systems.
There are many other examples of regulated substances that are not controlled by the CWA and as we are starting to see, there are many other unregulated (or not yet regulated) compounds or microorganisms of concern that are not addressed at all in the CWA, but have their origin in wastewater effluents. Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, certain viruses are all examples of this.
Even some of the discharge parameters that are regulated are still of concern to drinking water treatment systems at levels allowed through the CWA. Ammonia is a good example of this. Ammonia is currently controlled as a nutrient by the CWA. However, drinking water systems typically have difficulty removing ammonia. It could easily happen that ammonia is legally discharged into a body of water and if even at low levels is brought from the stream into the drinking water treatment plant, it can react with chlorine which is used as a disinfectant. This can result in the drinking water plant not being able to disinfect the drinking water.
Another area of disconnect is in communication. There are currently no requirements for wastewater systems to notify downstream drinking water systems or other water users if there are raw sewage bypasses, overflows, or breakdown in the treatment processes resulting in untreated or undertreated sewage being released into the receiving stream. If downstream drinking water systems or other water users were notified, they may be able to take precautions to protect public health. However, if users are unaware, they cannot react.
Former USEPA Administrator G. Tracy Mehan III wrote two memoranda to the USEPA regions February 8, 2003 and October 1, 2003 (copies of the memos are available, if needed) which clearly state:
“Protecting public health under the Clean Water Act is a critical element of our (USEPA) mission. To protect a public water supply use, we must protect the ambient water quality upstream of each drinking water intake.”
“The operating principle of these policy efforts is that, while public water systems are legally accountable for the delivery of safe drinking water to their consumers, no water system should have to provide more treatment than that which is necessary to address naturally occurring pollutant concentrations, e.g., minerals leaching from rock formations, wildlife contamination unrelated to anthropogenic activities.”
I sincerely hope that the EPA will take these concepts into consideration and protect these precious resources not only as habitats and recreational enjoyment, but with the realization that these are the sources of our own drinking water.
March 28th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
What has worked? Well, one point was that during WQ assessment project planning we proposed to the EPA that we do
sampling and analysis for lead and cadmium in streams, at points of high suspected risks. We needed to narrow our prospective site list to get ‘the biggest bang for the buck’. We needed to pick only sites where several risk factors overlapped. In order to do this effectively we proposed a site selection phase of the project in which we would do sampling and analysis at a somewhat lower QA/QC than the main body of the project, which would be done at full UC protocols for quality assurance. We were told that EPA does not pay for any data gathering that is less than the best. So, we were faced with having to redesign and do it at a much higher cost to accomplish essentially the same work, or we could fund the site selection work at our own expense even though it clearly seemed that the cost/benefit for the whole project would have benefitted from our carefully considered approach to a higher quality design that had included a lot of cost saving innovative planning. It was not clarified by the EPA why there could not be a line item set up for ’site selection only’ data. The effectiveness of the project, and the QA/QC would not seemingly be affected negatively as long as the selection data was either allowed to be designated as such within the report, or not even recorded as data at all, but just an aid to effectively planning where to sample at the higher protocols.
Why can’t there be a way of reducing this extra cost of doing such a project, and still maintain high level of QA/QC?
March 28th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
What EPA should focus on are Appalachian streams that are being BURIED by mountaintop removal of coal. There’s some watershed issues to be concerned about — entire streams being buried, and these are beautiful, mossy, rock-filled, babbling streams. It’s a travesty & a sin what’s happening. WHY ISN’T THE EPA STEPPING IN TO ENFORCE THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND STOP THIS HORROR?
Mountaintop removal of coal has to end NOW, before we lose more of our mountains & our mountain streams.
March 29th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
1. By the river continuum model, headwaters are linked to estuaries are linked to the ocean. It is inefficient to separate fresh water and salt water management concerns in different agencies. Changes in streamflow can influence salinities lower down, affecting the food web farther down. Toxics in fresh water become toxics in brackish water become toxics in salt water. There is every reason for keeping in mind cumulative impacts along the flowing continuum.
2. Regarding shoreland zoning violations, there should be a time limit on how long grandfathered nonconforming structures should be allowed to exist. I know of several that have survived a statute of limitations, becoming sacred and untouchable. All grandfathered nonconformities should sunset in a fixed number of years, say 15 or 20.
3. Every estuary is now going through a transition period due to climate change and sea-level rise. Shoreline erosion is increasingly evident, and accelerating. Which places estuarine ecosystems at risk because their ability to adapt to changing conditions is unknown. Fresh water inputs are doubly important under these circumstances regarding their loads of pollutants, nutrients, sediments, etc. Standards should be heightened, not lowered.
4. The concept of clean water must include salt water in the receiving waters toward which streams and rivers drain.
3.
March 29th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Require land use planning strategies as a stormwater best management practice and a part of watershed protection efforts.
Abundant research over the past three decades has shown that site-level practices, in the absence of land-use strategies, cannot protect aquatic ecosystems from decline. Much of the literature suggests that the most effective means to protect water quality while accommodating growth and development is to limit new development to urbanized subwatersheds that have already been compromised. The Southeast is one of the fastest-growing regions in the country, and also one of the most sprawling in terms of land use. While it is important to manage stormwater of new development at the site scale using low-impact development and green infrastructure, a number of planning principles to manage the creation of impervious surfaces at the watershed level would be more effective in preventing water quality degradation. We recommend requiring the following:
1. Encouraging higher density development to accommodate growing populations on smaller impervious footprints.
2. Promoting infill and redevelopment to reduce the amount of land consumed both within and outside of the development.
3. Incorporating transportation planning to reduce the amount of pollutants associated with vehicle-miles traveled, and the amount of runoff generated by infrastructure such as roads and parking lots.
As stated in EPA’s report entitled Protecting Water Resources with Higher-Density Development; low-density development, as compared to higher-density, can have a significant negative impact to water quality at the regional and neighborhood scales. This is the caveat to requiring low-impact development in our region. In the Upstate region of South Carolina, it is currently much more difficult to meet stormwater requirements on compact, urban sites than it is in areas where land is cheaper and more readily available. In particular, local municipalities feel very uncomfortable permitting the use of low-impact techniques on high-density development sites. Thus, applying stringent requirements for low impact development equally across all different types of sites could have the unintended consequence of encouraging sprawl.
In recognition of the impact of planning for growth, the recently approved West Virginia MS4 permit provides incentives for brownfields redevelopment, redevelopment, mixed-use development, and high-density development. This approach to water quality protection should be used as a model for accommodating growth while protecting water quality when making changes to the stormwater rules.
March 29th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
The USEPA and the States have an extremely difficult task in protecting and rehabilitating the Nation’s waters. Fortunately, those waters are not in as serious a condition chemically as when the Clean Water Act was passed. The watershed approach may offer an appropriate means of approaching the diverse sources of stressors, or at least of thinking about them in the manner that Section 208 of the original Act appeared to intend. However, the USEPA and the Nation are ignoring the root causes of water quality deterioration, reduced water supplies, and reduced biological diversity. Those root causes are continued economic and population growth. We will continue to threaten our waters until we develop a steady-state economy at a much lower GDP than at present combined with a zero growth human population, again at a lower level than currently exists. Regardless of the clean up efforts initiated by the States and USEPA, they will be eventually be overwhelmed by a human population that doubles every 35 years and by an economy that doubles its resource extraction and waste disposal every 14-23 years.
March 29th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
EPA: Although I work with two watershed groups, these coments are my personal ones.
For almost 20 years I have been working with watershed efforts and in every case, they have made significant improvements resolving many complex natural resources problems because of the many great team members. During this timeframe, the amount of watershed efforts went from just a few to VERY many nationwide.
Unfortunately, the resources to assist these groups has kept pace with the need. State and federal agencies have been very good at helping start up local watershed efforts but then do not have the abaility to help sustain them. So in many cases these groups fall apart or just fold up shop.
I feel that the EPA should take a lead in finding more funds to help sustain these local efforts that are truely making a difference in cleaning up the waters of this nation. Without this help, there will be even fewer watershed efforts working to work on cleaning up our waters. This will then leave many people unwilling to participate again in local watershed efforts when more funds do become available.
Bottom line, need more agency people and funds on-the-ground if you want local watershed efforts to continue to be successful.
March 29th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
What has not worked well is that EPA and the state water agencies have created a perverse incentive for restoration efforts: only waterways and watersheds listed as “impaired” under CWA 303(d) can achieve priority status for funding. In California, this perverse incentive has prevented some clean streams from getting delisted (that were erroneously listed) because local watershed groups are afraid of losing their funding if delisted. Once dependent on clean water grants, it’s hard to let go. So we have a watershed that is 98% designated Wilderness Area that local groups and tribes oppose for delisting. What incentive is there to delist? Agencies also are “rewarded” with budgets for listed streams, not for clean streams. Please rethink this strategy!
March 29th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Very simply: what does NOT work for preserving healthy watershed systems in our region: Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining, with it’s accompanying Valley Fills (essentially = death to a living stream). We have had far too many mountains blown to bits, and the rubble/refuse from these mining operations dumped into the streams that run in the valleys between our mountains. There is NO WAY to effectively regulate more Valley Fills and Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining; it MUST be stopped! I hope Ms. Jackson and other high level EPA officials will visit what’s left of the Mountains of Central Appalachia very soon to see the devastation for themselves.
March 29th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
I want to know why if Shelby County, Alabama is in non compliance with it’s SWMA as evidenced from a 2009 EPA federal audit that the county and city of Vincent can even think of putting in a 886 acre quarry less than a mile from the river.
This quarry will eventually be 450 feet deep, much deeper than the nearby river.
Shelby County is sorely lacking in enforcement, proper permits and inspection capability.
How can they do this when they cannot even take care of what they already have??????
March 30th, 2010 at 7:18 am
My concern is mercury. I operate a small wastewater treatment plant in Michigan. As was required by the EPA my State instituted a mercury policy. The goal level set for wastewater discharge was 1.3 ng/L with the best achievable at 10 ng/L. Currently, according to the Illinois State University the mercury content in rain water has been measured at up to 44 ng/L. Why are wastewater plants that are lagoon systems and those plants with combined sewers going to deal with that? Additionally, the major source of mercury pollution is the rainfall. We need to regulate the atmospheric emitters of mercury too. Also, the maximum contaminant level for mercury in drinking water is 2 ug/L or 200 times the level for a wastewater. Why is that? Thank you for receiving comments.
March 30th, 2010 at 8:04 am
The link to the EPA audit for Shelby County, Alabama 2009 SWMA:
http://www.southernenvironment.org/uploads/fck/file/epa%20audit%20of%20shelby%20county%20-%20June%202009.pdf
Accompanying abstract with report:
http://www.alabamarivers.org/press-room/headlines/statement-from-the-southern-environmental-law-center-and-the-cahaba-river-society-shelby-co-not-doing-enough-to-reduce-stormwater-pollution/
BARDs influence:
http://www.pitchengine.com/southernenvironmentallawcenter/epa-clears-up-stormwater-program-in-alabama-county-an-selc-press-release/18993/
Petition against ADEM:
http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20100116/ARTICLES/1165030/1011/NEWS?Title=Environmental-groups-petition-against-ADEM
USA Today, Smokestack Effect Toxic Schools released 3/17/2010;
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-03-17-epa-children-pollution_N.htm
March 30th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Pure water is one of the most vital things in our lives!
March 30th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Thanks for giving us the chance to give input.
Protecting Watersheds: what has worked, what has not
I applaud the EPA’s effort to look beyond the “waters” to the watershed. This means you are more apt to treat the causes of impairments and not the symptoms. In our community, there are some things that have worked – but more that has not.
First, dealing with homeowners and property owners is more contentious than dealing with people who use the regulated waters. People live in the watershed, and anything from voluntary to regulatory enforcement means bigger lifestyle changes than changing use of waters. A typical watershed has many existing degradations and enforcing current zoning or other requirements is difficult. Homeowners will assert their “rights” to develop and use their property without comparable consideration of their responsibilities to the community and the environment. In addition, the watershed probably extends to people that may not have access or use of the waters under protection, which requires a different motivational message.
We have attempted education and persuasion. These actions haven’t been adequate to prevent the “tragedy of the commons”. It may be that regulation is required to manage watersheds.
The second category of issue comes about because the boundaries of the geographic watershed may be very different from political boundaries. Watersheds may cross town, county, and state boundaries, and home rule regulations may be very different from one to another. This has meant that even good local regulations can be ineffective in practice. For example, if regulations limit the sale of goods within the area, for example limiting sales of fertilizer with phosphorus, the population can go to the next town to purchase those goods. Or if there are construction requirements, contractors from neighboring towns may not be aware of the regulations and may not comply with the laws. However, getting a larger area to agree on the rules, and fitting them into their existing framework, may be very difficult. For that reason, regulations may be necessary at the federal level to appropriately protect watersheds.
A third type of issue involves the time scale of change by attempting to improve watersheds. People who act directly on waters – say with herbicides or algacides – can see nearly immediate change. Acting by protecting the watershed may take much longer.
How can we protect and improve watersheds?
We must improve our definition of waters. The EPA cannot deal only with watersheds of “navigable” waters. We must extend our protection to waters and wetlands regardless of size. Recognizing not all have the same value, we must aim to preserve and improve the function of the wetlands, whether that is free stormwater management, general biodiversity support, or populations of specific endangered species.
We must regulate impervious surfaces in watersheds. Today, too often we measure impervious surface on a lot, or a development, but not the watershed.
We must regulate watersheds as a system, and consider land use, steep slopes, watercourses, what’s upstream, and what’s downstream. To help the watershed continue to function as a system, we must control invasive species and encourage the use of native species. A resilient system, with redundancies at many levels, is more capable of coping with pollution.
Effective practices and strategies for scaling up:
As previously stated, many rules and regulations are more effective when consistent across a larger scale.
In addition, I am a great believer in the value of citizen science and monitoring. Perhaps all versions of citizen science work could be supported. One example of simple but effective citizen science is CoCoRaHS, and there are a variety of state and local stream monitoring, lake monitoring activities. Suggestions for scaling and support: improved marketing and communications, some common tools such as database support, GIS or other mapping layers, some help with standard components across state or local programs.
March 30th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
I think that cumulative hyrdrologic impact needs to be taken into more account when looking at any kind of new permit. Because of environmental justice issues, it is often the case that one watershed receives enormous burden while other watersheds are relatively safe.
For example, in West Virginia, my watershed is dealing with gas and oil drilling, mountaintop removal, all forms of coal mining and processing chemical plants and coal ash from multiple coal fired power plants, as well as other heavy industrial processes. This is not sustainable and there isn’t – as far as I know – anyone really looking at what impact this is having on drinking water, etc.
It also seems that human health and watersheds – particularly in areas with high reliance on well water for drinking – deserves a great deal more attention.
I agree with several who mentioned above that watersheds don’t know political boundaries – negotiating – and tracking impacts – across these lines is an important role for federal groups like the EPA.
Lastly, to reiterate – not only is mountaintop removal devastating watersheds in central Appalachia – but the cumulative impact of numerous industry abuses to the local watersheds of central Appalachia as well as nationally should be observed and examined as an environmental justice issue.
March 30th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Protecting our remaining wetlands, headwaters, and intermittently flowing streams is fundamental to ensuring healthy watersheds and clean water supplies. These aquatic ecosystems are our natural green infrastructure and protecting them is our most cost-effective means of maintaining and restoring the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of our waters long-term. We support a systems-approach that uses the best available science to protect watersheds as systems: biota, habitat, and hydrological processes including in-stream flow. We urge EPA leadership to work across federal and state agencies to protect aquatic ecosystems on a watershed basis rather than through a piecemeal approach.
Science has made clear that intact headwater streams, intermittently flowing streams, and wetlands are crucial to healthy watersheds and water quality, especially in light of climate change. Healthy streams and wetlands:
o reduce flooding by storing flood waters from rain events and snow melt, which will be increasingly important as major storm and flooding events increase;
o recharge groundwater and replenish downstream flow, which will be increasingly important as water quantity and stream flow are stressed by increases in droughts and evaporation rates;
o By storing water, headwater streams and wetlands moderate flow rates and can provide cooler waters to downstream streams and rivers, functions that will become increasingly vital as climate change places stresses on stream flow and causes temperatures in many waters to increase;
o filter out harmful pollutants such as nutrients and pathogens, which will increase with increased intensity of storm events; and
o Small streams remove nutrients and other pollutants as water makes much more contact with the bed of the stream in smaller streams.
Despite the importance of these wetlands and streams, millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of miles of streams are losing Clean Water (CWA) protections in the wake of Supreme Court decisions in 2001 (SWANCC) and 2006 (Rapanos) and subsequent Corps of Engineers and EPA guidance. EPA must restore CWA protections for waters that were protected prior to 2001 to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”
Water resources at risk unless CWA protections are restored include:
Intermittently flowing streams: According to EPA, 59% of stream miles in the coterminous U.S. are intermittent or ephemeral and many are at risk of losing Clean Water Act protection as a result of the 2006 Rapanos decision and 2007-2008 Rapanos guidance. These smaller streams provide important drinking water, flood control, and aquatic habitat functions.
Wetlands: An estimated 20 million acres of wetlands – or 20% of all remaining wetlands in the lower 48 states – are already losing Clean Water Act protection after the SWANCC decision. Many more are at risk after Rapanos.
Drinking Water: EPA estimates that one-third of Americans get their drinking water from public supplies fed in whole or in part by intermittent, ephemeral, and headwater streams vulnerable to pollution under these decisions. Treating polluted drinking water is expensive. New York City estimates that pollution of small streams and wetlands in the city’s drinking water source areas could cost up to $6 billion for treatment plant construction and $300 million/year for operation. Healthy watersheds with greater forest cover substantially reduces drinking water treatment costs. See http://www.epa.gov./healthywatersheds/concept.html.
Migratory Bird Habitat: After the 2001 SWANCC decision and guidance, the Corps and EPA abandoned Clean Water Act protections for millions of acres of geographically isolated wetlands, including those of the Prairie Pothole Region. These wetlands provide essential breeding habitat for 50- 75% of North America’s duck population.
Flood Control: The Midwest has suffered two 500-year floods in a recent 15 year timeframe. Wetlands and intermittently flowing streams naturally absorb flood waters, moderating peak flood stages and reducing flood damage. A 1% loss of a watershed’s wetlands can increase total flood volume by almost 7%. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), floods caused an average $15 billion in damage annually between 2003 and 2008. Recent flooding in Illinois and Iowa underscores the need for wetland protection. These two states have lost over 85% of their wetlands.
Enforcement of Clean Water Act Pollution Controls: Uncertainty due to the Court decisions and agency guidance is undermining enforcement of the Clean Water Act’s pollution controls. EPA recently estimated that more than 1,500 major pollution investigations have been compromised in the last four years. About 500 enforcement cases – involving oil spills, waste discharges and filled wetlands – were affected during an 18 month period in 2006 and 2007.
EPA must also restore CWA protections for waters that were protected prior to 2001 to ensure the resiliency of watersheds and communities in the face of climate change. EPA’s National Water Program Climate Strategy has acknowledged that climate change will cause several threats to water quality, including:
o shorelines moving as a result of sea level rise;
o changes to ocean chemistry that alter aquatic habitat and fisheries;
o warming water temperatures that change contaminant concentrations in water and alter aquatic system uses;
o new patterns of rainfall and snowfall that alter water supply for drinking and other uses and lead to changes in pollution levels in aquatic systems;
o more intense storms that threaten water infrastructure and increase polluted stormwater runoff. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, National Water Program Strategy: Response to Climate Change (hereinafter “National Water Program Climate Strategy”), EPA 800-R-08-001 (September 2008) at ii.
EPA has concluded that “[t]he number of waters recognized as ‘impaired’ is likely to increase, even if pollution levels are stable.” Id. This is largely because warmer temperatures will lead to warmer water, which holds less oxygen, and can foster harmful algal blooms and increase the toxicity of some pollutants. Id. Similarly, EPA has found that more extreme water-related events, such as increased and more intense storms, will have negative water quality impacts by causing more intense flooding and other events that result in high flows, increased sediment and erosion, and a resulting increase in nutrients, pathogens, and toxins entering waterbodies. Id.
Temperature increases will also change aquatic biology, disrupting aquatic system health and often resulting in the establishment of invasive and non-indigenous species in certain waters at the expense of existing species. Id. at ii-iii. As EPA has determined, this alone may “result in significant deterioration of aquatic ecosystem health in some areas.” Id. at ii-iii.
Additionally, climate change will displace shore lines, change flow rates in streams and lakes, change the size of streams and wetlands, and result in other disruptions relating to the flow, quantity, and presence of water in many of our waters. Id. at ii.
EPA’s National Water Program Climate Strategy calls for EPA to “adapt implementation of core water programs to maintain and improve program effectiveness in the context of a changing climate.” Id. at 23. The Clean Water Act permitting programs are core water programs and restoring these protections to wetlands, lakes, and streams is one key strategy for climate adaptation.
EPA and the Obama administration should provide expeditious leadership supporting legislation to restore the Clean Water Act’s historic jurisdiction in the wake of the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions. Under the previous Administration, the EPA’s and Corps of Engineers’ response to SWANCC and Rapanos was unwarranted legally and not protective of important resources. The 2003 SWANCC Guidance fails to protect so-called “isolated” wetlands and waters. The 2007-2008 Rapanos Guidance removes protection for certain tributaries, and makes it extremely difficult to protect many others, particularly intermittent and ephemeral headwater streams. It also makes it very difficult to protect many of the important wetlands that neighbor such streams and tributaries.
The Rapanos Guidance sets up an unpredictable, inconsistent and cumbersome process for determining the jurisdictional status of many waters on a case-by-case basis that provides little clarity over what waters are or are not covered within major watersheds, leaving many watersheds at risk of pollution and degradation.
March 30th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Working at the watershed scale can optimize resource benefits to people while minimizing environmental impacts. TNC’s Freshwater Ecoregional Planning prioritizes lakes and rivers for protection in order to maximize biodiversity and connectivity within a watershed. ELOHA is a regional approach for determining the quantity and timing of water flows needed to maintain acceptable ecological conditions in the remaining water bodies as they provide hydropower, water supplies, and other benefits. The Active River Area delineates stream corridors that, if protected, can help maintain high water quality standards. Although these jump-start approaches to watershed protection are well accepted, funding is needed to implement them across the US.
March 30th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
If every river, stream, lake and pond in the country had a protected riparian buffer of undisturbed vegetation of sufficient width to filter out contaminants, most of the nonpoint source water quality problems in the country would be solved. USEPA needs to focus significant resources on making this situation a reality. Riparian buffer protection is the single most cost-effective measure we can take to improve the nation’s water quality.
In the past, the USEPA has focused major national educational campaigns on the environmental impacts of acid rain and nonpoint source pollution, turning these once little-known issues into household words. The results of the recent National Lakes Assessment show that it is past time for a similar national educational campaign focused on the environmental impacts of shoreland development. The attributable risk analysis of the NLA data suggests that eliminating the effects of poor lakeshore habitat cover could improve the biological condition in 40% of the nation’s lakes.
In addition to a national educational campaign focused on protecting and restoring shoreland habitat, states and local organizations need funding to adapt national educational messages to local situations, to provide technical assistance to communities and property owners seeking to protect or restore shoreland habitat, and to implement shoreland restoration projects.
Funding similar to that previously provided for acid rain research and monitoring, and nonpoint source management, is needed to address this most significant source of lake degradation. Technical guidance to state lake assessment programs on determining how much unbuffered lakeshore development lakes can sustain before becoming impaired would also be helpful.
The National Lakes Assessment pointed out the relative importance of lake stressors for restoring and maintaining lake integrity. The degradation of lakeshore habitat cover is the most important stressor of lakes nationwide, affecting more than one-third of the nation’s lakes. I urge USEPA to act quickly to develop a national educational campaign and provide targeted funding and technical information to assist states and local organizations before any more of our lakes are degraded due to the loss of lakeshore habitat.
Broadening the educational campaign to include habitat cover along rivers and streams would significantly increase the water quality improvements that can be achieved by motivating people to protect the land along our waters.
March 31st, 2010 at 7:22 am
I am a state agency aquatic biologist.
EPA should redirect resources toward prevention of BIOLOGICAL DEGRADATION (loss of species and healthy, sustainable aquatic ecosystems), and restoration of BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY in rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands, through increased support to biological monitoring programs in state CWA regulatory agencies. A large measure of the “value” society places on watersheds, and all associated aquatic resources, resides in the waterbodies’ capacity to support and sustain a diverse, dynamic community of indigenous species, including fish, macroinvertebrates, mussels, etc, and the associated birds and mammals that are dependent on them. All WQ problems are ultimately expressed as either human health problems or as problems expressed in the loss and alteration of AQUATIC LIFE . Since implementation of the CWA much attention has been directed to preventing and controlling water quality problems that affect human health but very little attention has been directed to manage for optimal aquatic life condition. The science of biological assessment and biologically-driven management of water quality has advanced far beyond the antiquated EPA policies that are still driving the allocation of WQ management fiscal resources.
Consideration of aquatic biological data in the context of state agency water quality management programs allows scientists and managers to strategically address the following questions: What is the current biological condition of this waterbody? What are the critical risks to this resource? What is its highest attainable aquatic life goal condition? What are the actions needed to protect/restore it to maintain/attain its aquatic life goal condition?, Did the actions taken achieve the desired results, in terms of optimal biological outcome? Because biological assessment evaluates the actual health and sustainability of the aquatic life living within managed resources it is uniquely able to help drive resource management institutions towards optimal environmental outcomes by providing information feedback about the overall success of management decisions and activities. Biological assessment focuses on the end result of ALL management actions, thus it is the only way to know if WQ management is doing what it is supposed to do. Watersheds cannot be deemed to be “protected” or “restored” in the absence of sound biological assessment information. Several State monitoring programs that are based upon sound applications of biological assessment and biological criteria (e.g., VT, ME, OH, MN) are producing more effective and innovative water resource management approaches to prevent and to solve biological and general water quality and quantity problems. These innovations include Best Management Practices designed to reduce the detrimental biological effects of urbanization and impervious cover, in order to achieve an improved biological outcome; evolution of progressive state landuse and shoreland protection rules designed to maintain existing high biological quality in streams subjected to land use alteration; and water quality standards that incorporate tiered aquatic life uses that trigger Clean Water Act anti-degradation provisions in very high quality waters, to PREVENT problems, when biological decline is likely. New tools are available that allow highly technical biological assessment and stressor information to be readily grasped by managers and the public (e.g., the US-EPA Biological Condition Gradient ) . Future generations will truly condemn us if we continue to relegate our national treasures of aquatic biological diversity to the backwaters and stagnant side-channels of state and national water policy.
March 31st, 2010 at 9:38 am
Watershed management requires civic engagement of people in the watershed. Civic engagement requires us to go beyond traditional consultation practices of the past and empower citizens to own and solve water quality problems. This idealistic vision needs to be achieved in a climate of regulation and enforcement, increasing polarization and severely limited resources. There are examples of good civic engagement. Watershed projects experience in stakeholder participation ranges across a spectrum of good to poor, and inconsistent. MN has created a vision of civic engagement, priniciples and tools and has begun to roll them out. We are well aware of the challenge and also aware our own culture must change to make this shift from consultation to engagement.
March 31st, 2010 at 10:41 am
Locally administered programs are better able to achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act. The CWA does not give EPA authority over nonpoint source pollution controls. This authority lies with individual states. We oppose any attempts by EPA to dictate specific practices and regulations to control nonpoint source pollution.
We recommend: (1) Nonpoint source programs should emphasize a voluntary, incentive-based approach; (2) Efforts to address nonpoint runoff and improving water quality should target impaired watersheds using a “worst case first” approach; (3) Federal funding must be adequate to develop site-specific information, technical assistance, cost-sharing for local programs.
Farm Bureau also endorses Best Management Practices as an alternative to numerical standards to more effectively address the point and nonpoint sources of pollution that greatly vary in a regional watershed.
However, Iowa and other states need to develop a more comprehensive approach to prioritizing its watersheds. That’s because funding to meet farmer demand for conservation programs to address nonpoint source challenges always seems to fall short. Iowa farmers’ requests for combined federal and state cost-share dollars to match with their own money to protect Iowa’s soil and water may exceeded funds available by anywhere from $25-$100 million in a given year.
Iowa will need significant additional resources to deal with our remaining soil, water and nutrient issues. That’s why the Water Resources Coordinating Council was created by the Iowa Legislature in 2008 to help establish watershed plans and to prioritize limited financial resources. This is especially important today, given our state budget limitations. And while the WRCC has been focused on flooding issues lately, it’s time for it to get back to the issues that led to its creation, to help all Iowans systematically and thoughtfully address our remaining nutrient, soil loss and water quality issues.
March 31st, 2010 at 10:47 am
As is apparent from the comments on this item, the term “watershed approach” means very different things to different people. Often, the term is invoked to describe a wide range of approaches that may or may not comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA). Therefore, at the outset EPA must clearly define what is meant by the “watershed approach” it intends to endorse.
EPA must also ensure that any watershed-based approach is implemented as an additional layer added on top of existing CWA requirements, and that it in no way undermines or causes violations of the existing CWA framework.
(1) The CWA and its implementing regulations require each State to identify water quality-limited segments and prioritize them by severity of pollution and designated uses. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1313(d)(1)(A) and (C). While watershed-scale analyses and implementation measures might be useful, they cannot supplant mandatory legal requirements and priority rankings that apply to individual waters within a given watershed. For example, even if states and EPA choose to adopt pollution limits or control measures on a watershed scale, they must still adopt and enforce limits for impaired segments. They must also measure compliance with limits in those individual segments, and not just at the larger watershed scale. Cleaning up individual segments is fully compatible with protecting the entire watershed.
(2) EPA has acknowledged that watershed-scale models and water quality analyses are almost invariably more complex and more time consuming than those for individual stream segments. EPA and the states are past due in adopting many legally required pollution limits (including updated water quality criteria, TMDLs, and NPDES permits), much less in enforcing them. The desire to use watershed approaches cannot justify further delaying already overdue action.
(3) Although nonpoint sources need to be addressed, there are well known hurdles to regulating nonpoint sources. Until these hurdles are overcome, watershed approaches cannot justify allocating pollution reduction responsibilities to categories of sources for which the states and EPA have no clear regulatory mechanisms for mandating and enforcing such reductions.
(4) EPA has suggested in other contexts that watershed approaches might facilitate pollution trading. The CWA and implementing rules establish mandatory requirements for how pollution reduction obligations must be established, pollution trading schemes cannot undermine these legal requirements.
March 31st, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Amen, Dana! I hope Congress, EPA and state agencies read your insightful comments and recommendations carefully. The current policies need to be radically up-dated and overhauled.
March 31st, 2010 at 1:03 pm
The system for regulating sources of water pollution is, if not broken, then badly bent. In my home state of Kentucky the list of impaired waterways continues to grow. Sadly, KY is an example of what does not work. Identification without restoration is the most the state’s Division of Water can manage, where even the Endangered Species Act does not command enough importance to enact protection. Political influences (Farm Bureau, agribusiness) are harder at work than the Clean Water Act. Stronger regulations are necessary, but enforcement of existing regulations would go a long way towards cleaning up the waterways. Non-point sources of water pollution are a major contributor to the degradation of the state’s water. Suggestions for improvement include requiring Confined Animal Feeding Operations to install ground water well monitors, testing surface waters before and after waste disposal on farm land, designing impermeable membranes in deep pit waste storage systems, and last but not least, hold violators accountable.
March 31st, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The idea of a watershed approach is vital if we want to truly have healthy U.S. waters. This watershed approach means that we have to recognize that pollutants in one part of a watershed have a direct impact downstream. These waters do not recognize agency jurisdiction or state borders. EPA must be strong in being a leader to make sure that states have water quality standards that not only protect their waters, but also downstream uses. A poster child of where this is not working is the Mississippi River and the resulting Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
We have been hearing a lot about a “watershed approach,” but I have not seen much real implementation of this approach. By this, I mean we must make sure that our headwaters and wetlands are fully protected by the Clean Water Act, we must make sure that point sources are using current technologies to maximize pollution reduction, and we must make sure that non-point polluters are held accountable for the pollution that they contribute.
March 31st, 2010 at 1:59 pm
EPA must stop sludging America’s farms with residential and industrial wastes. This practice works against what the CWA and RCRA were created for. How can we destroy our land, rivers, aquifers, food supply, and ultimately our very own lives? Everyone knows this is all about metro areas getting rid of their wastes the easiest and cheapest way and in most cases for the profit of a few. Those rural communities that are on the receiving end of the sludge can’t even stop it once permitted. Energy can be a solution for this waste and ultimately our rivers and all waters could remain clean and valuable for future generations as the intent of the CWA. If this does not happen soon, many people will pay the price.
March 31st, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Taking a “watershed approach” is an encouraging idea but will require the agency’s and its partner’s deliberation into just what that approach really means, and investment toward how it can be developed. There are two significant obstacles. First, surprisingly, may be the Clean Water Act itself. Not that it is flawed but rather that it is antiquated and in serious need of revision and upgrade to be effective. Water quality management, and water quality, has changed radically and mostly for the good, but the CWA is poorly suited to today’s management needs and USEPA’s implementation of the Act is poorly suited to a watershed approach. The CWA is very pollutant and point-source directed, and devised primarily to address impairment issues. Its tools, such as NPDES, pollutant criteria, TMDLs, etc., have limited application and are inefficient for management at a watershed scale which requires coordinated attention to a variety of environmental effects not contemplated when the Act was originated. Many of these environmental problems only revealed themselves after the overwhelming effects of industrial and municipal wastes were controlled by the Act. If we look at the evolution of water quality issues, we have gone from controlling pathogens, to oxygen demanding wastes and general crud, to toxicity problems, to sublethal toxicity, to nutrients, to endocrine disruptors and PPCPs with yet-to-be disclosed effects. As each problem was controlled it revealed the next layer of problems. Layered over those pollution issues and interacting with them are stream alteration, riparian degradation, landscape change, flow, invasive species, and ………. climate change.
The second obstacle is the agency itself. The design of the USEPA is very program-based. This has resulted in poor cross-program coordination, something that needs to be a key ingredient in a watershed approach. The agency has very defined programs, however, most all are focused on fixing a specific activity, which is often equated to making a waterbody fit some predesigned criteria. This engineering approach to ‘fix’ discrete problems will not work well in a watershed context where the interaction of stress and relief factors can be very complex, involving multiple waterbody types, and a mix of regulated and unregulated activities. Today’s language of impairment often identifies conditions as syndromes – complex interactions with variable and multiple responses. A watershed approach requires the ability to identify and analyze those syndromes, and then to propose remedies that engage a variety of resources efficiently. A second shortcoming of the agency is its perceived indifference to invest in the protection of high quality waters or the improvement of good quality waters to their potential. At the watershed scale, it is important to protect and improve the high quality resources along with repairing the impairments. In fact, if attention is given only to impaired waters then the agency will not be practicing a ‘watershed approach’ regardless of what you decide to call it.
A watershed approach will absolutely require assessment of environmental response. The history of the agency has been to focus on monitoring sources and concentrations of pollutants, the input end of assessment but not the outcome-response end. This is much too inefficient given the suite of pollutants and other conditions identified above that determine watershed condition. Many states have already begun development of ecologically-based analysis of their waters. Biological assessment of waters provides an integrative outcome-defining tool that addresses the stress and relief conditions that are interactive within the watershed. That biological outcome is also what the public wants to know – is it a natural, sustainable ecosystem, has aquatic life increased, has a fishery been restored, are the fish healthy. Interestingly, the agency has tools in development that can assist in a transition to response-based assessment. Notably, the Biological Condition Gradient provides the kind of informative tool that can be used across programs to evaluate both management needs and effectiveness, and is intuitively understandable to a wide audience. Unfortunately, investment in these integrative approaches is lagging and in decline at the agency.
March 31st, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Please consider the watershed scale impacts of fracking for natural gas. This process uses millions of gallons of water and yet no restrictions are made on what must happen to that water after it is contaminated. I live in the “Natural” State of Arkansas and gas companies are being allowed to dump their pollutants back into the pretty streams of our state. Please create and enforce regulations that would apply to gas and oil companies in regard to our Clean Water Act. Water is limited in the forms and quality that we need and we need to protect it.
Also, please consider requiring riparian zones within the flood plains that you delineate and make the requirements for permitting much more stringent. These are highly sensitive areas along streams that take up nutrients and reduce bank erosion and sedimentation.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
March 31st, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Farm Bureau supports the concept of cleaning up our nation’s waters with a focus of meeting fishable and swimmable standards. It is important that EPA recognize that efforts to regulate agriculture in a manner that sets unattainable standards or places undo financial burdens on farmers, will ultimately not help EPA meet the objectives of the Clean Water Act.
As EPA moves forward to protect water resources, it is vitally important the agency recognize that 98 percent of America’s farms and ranches are operated by families; families who live and work on the land to provide food for our country. Our members strive to protect the natural resources that provide for their livelihood and seek to leave those natural resources in better condition than they received them in hopes of creating a future for the next generation of agriculturalists. It is in that vein that we encourage EPA to view America’s farmers and ranchers as partners, not as adversaries, in a broader effort to protect the quality of our nations waters.
Voluntary, incentive based approaches to conservation are vital to protecting water quality. Programs administered at the local level with buy-in from local people and the farming community, are the best way to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act.
It is important to note that the Clean Water Act does not give EPA the authority to regulate nonpoint source pollution controls as that power is vested with the states. For those reasons, Farm Bureau opposes any attempts by EPA to dictate specific practices and to place regulations to control nonpoint source pollution. To help move forward in addressing nonpoint water quality concerns in a fashion that is more compatible with farming interests, we recommend: (1) Nonpoint source programs that emphasize a voluntary, incentive-based approach; (2) Targeting efforts to address nonpoint runoff and improving water quality to impaired watersheds using a “worst case first” approach; (3) Providing federal funding adequate to develop site-specific information, technical assistance, cost-sharing for local programs. (4) Utilizing best management or accepted agriculture practices that are developed locally with farmer involvement.
Furthermore, we believe BMPs should be used as an alternative to numerical standards to more effectively address the point and nonpoint sources of pollution which can greatly vary in a regional watershed.
In closing, we encourage EPA to move forward with strategies that empower local people to take ownership and responsibility in helping protect water quality. As part of that process we believe EPA would be better served to recognize the positive role farmers and ranchers can play in meeting the objectives of the Clean Water Act and to work with them in a collaborative fashion to protect our water resources and the people who provide food for America.
We appreciate the agency’s consideration of these comments.
March 31st, 2010 at 3:45 pm
As stated in the discussion document, EPA should begin addressing more diverse sources of pollution. Agricultural and silvicultural (forestry) runoff, stormwater discharges from urban and suburban development, and hydrologic and habitat modification (such as channeling, creating dams or waterway erosion) are among the leading sources of water quality impairments in the United States, and they are even more important to consider in as-yet-unimpaired watershed where new development is occurring.
EPA can integrate its watershed protection work with its Smart Growth initiatives – the biggest threat to many watersheds is the current land use patterns of low density, sprawling subdivisions, shopping areas, and office parks. To maintain a watershed’s health in the face of increased population, communities must change current patterns of development by encouraging higher density where infrastructure already exists, and holding onto natural areas so they can continue to provide the ecological services necessary to maintain quality of water, air, land, and life.
This becomes especially important climate change concerns – it will be even more important to maintain a watershed’s resiliency against climate change by keeping its natural areas, and to bring greater efficiencies to our cities, transportation systems, and infrastructure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (see http://www.hrwc.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/FINALWinter2009.pdf for more information on climate change’s impact on a watershed level)
We would support further EPA efforts (the Healthy Watersheds Initiative) on the protection and conservation of healthy, functioning watersheds, which provide the ecological support system essential for achieving water quality restoration. Identifying the locations of healthy watersheds and using that information to prioritize restoration and protection efforts can provide a strategic, cost-effective approach for State water resource management.
EPA needs to have more tools to address nonpoint sources of pollution from agricultural lands and maintained drains in rural areas. USDA should require performance measures of conservation practices and expand cost-share programs through the Farm Bill to include two-stage channels as an accepted conservation practice – this will require a change in how the national Farm Service Agency values BMPs based on soil type.
We recommend EPA expand TMDLs to flow impairments and iIntegrate the TMDL program with state and federal programs for regulated dams, including FERC relicensing. We have successfully used TMDL’s to create watershed management plans for many of the subwatershed in the Huron River watershed – EPA needs better enforcement to ensure the plans are implemented by the stakeholders (local communities, etc.) who participated in creating the plan.
EPA needs to provide adequate personnel and financial resources at state level so focus is on protecting and restoring water resources.
Michigan needs riparian buffer protection at the state level. Currently each of the 1800 local units of government in Michigan make their own regulations regarding all manner of land use planning, including stormwater, setbacks from waterways, wetland protection, etc. Many regulations related to watershed protection could be made more consistent through enacting state laws.
March 31st, 2010 at 4:06 pm
One of the things that has worked in the Long Island Sound watershed is creating watershed plans for small local or regional watersheds. If the watershed planning process includes local stakeholdres, the people on the ground have an investment in implememting the plan. Even without local input, the municipalitities and local orgranizations can use the watershed protection plan to help govern land use, development and conservation.
Public outreach and education about simple information reagrding pollution and how individuals can amke a differnece is important. Infomraing people not to litter, to turn off their cars, conserve water, and create permeable areas are examples of this.
The States should provide GIS infomation and mapping to the region.
March 31st, 2010 at 6:53 pm
The United States can have neither healthy waterways nor healthy communities based on a “watershed approach” unless all of the waters of the U.S. traditionally protected by the federal Clean Water Act remain protected from pollution under the law. Support for legislation to ensure safeguards for these waters are restored must be the Obama Administration’s top priority when it comes to national clean water policy, and strategies to achieve passage of such legislation should be a major focus of this forum.
The Clean Water Act, long considered one of the country’s most successful environmental laws, is broken due to confusion and uncertainty resulting from Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006. Only Congress can overturn the Supreme Court decisions that have led to much of the current disastrous situation for the nation’s waters. Every day that Congress fails to act, more streams, rivers, wetlands and other waters that have long been protected by the Clean Water Act are being polluted or destroyed.
Why is this legislation urgently needed? Here are just a few of many reasons:
The Environmental Protection Agency has admitted that they dropped enforcement of hundreds of alleged violations of the Clean Water Act, lowered others in priority, and has had to fight frequent attempts by defendants to escape legal responsibility. In sum, over 500 enforcement cases were affected during an 18 month period in 2006 and 2007. They have not done a new survey, but agency staff confirm this is an ongoing problem.
Further, there are a great deal more foregone enforcement cases involving waters deemed to be “isolated” by EPA and the Corps. EPA has acknowledged that the government effectively stopped enforcing the requirement of its regulations that protects intrastate waters, the use, degradation, or destruction of which may affect interstate commerce. In 2008, EPA Assistant Administrator for Water Benjamin Grumbles testified before Congress that they have not asserted jurisdiction over any such waters for over seven years, even where the agency retains the legal authority to do so.
The federal courts are struggling to determine how to implement the Supreme Court’s decisions, resulting in conflicting decisions and uncertain standards in different parts of the country. One EPA estimate suggests that, since the SWANCC decision in 2001, to date, the Corps has left well over 10,000 water bodies out of the Clean Water Act’s pollution control program – perhaps as high as 15,000.
Public health and safety are threatened each day this situation continues until Congress fixes the law. Waters losing protections include headwater, intermittent, and ephemeral streams that supply public drinking water systems that serve more than 110 million Americans – 5,646 public water supply systems.
More than 40% of facilities (14,800) with individual Clean Water Act NPDES permits discharge into small or intermittent streams, and already several such facilities are arguing that because or Rapanos and SWANCC, they no longer require permits which impose limits on their pollution levels.
Dredging or filling streams, and draining and filling wetlands, can cause or exacerbate flooding downstream with significant public safety and economic implications. A single acre of wetland can store 1 to 1.5 million gallons of flood water. Wetlands in the continental United States save an estimated $30 plus billion in annual flood damage repair costs.
March 31st, 2010 at 7:11 pm
What has worked for us in the Upper Gila Watershed of Arizona, which is in the Southeastern part of Arizona, is that only if we include and involve our stakeholders can we implement projects and programs that protect and restore our environment.
Our work has taught us that to engage critical stakeholders, nothing is more important than knowing their history and background, understanding their issues and priorities, and addressing their immediate and long-term concerns. And this is not a top-down process for us. It means truly forming a partnership between our funders and our community, where we can all agree or disagree respectfully, without fearing reprisal, and together learn about the threats to the health of our watershed and work towards our common goals.
On a day-to-day basis, it means partnering with stakeholders in the decision-making process, hiring within the community, and ensuring that the stakeholders get what they need out of the process. There are no short cuts. We have to put in the time. But we have found that making the investment makes the difference between failure and success.
What hasn’t worked is being forced by regulations and laws what to do and how to do it. Most rural communities tend to move a little slower, resist new ideas until they are proven to work distrust new technologies, and to discount all information from outsiders. Sure the laws and regulations will work in the end. But it’s a lot less expensive and painful for us all to work together.
To protect and improve our watersheds, we believe it’s best to address the challenges on a local level. If we partner together with our state and federal agencies, we can bring together the necessary science and funding with the local knowledge and skills will get the job done.
March 31st, 2010 at 9:09 pm
One key strategy for healthier watersheds and sustainable communities is to improve the efficiency of water use. Greater efficiency can diminish the need for withdrawals, including transbasin diversions, and helps sustain riverine and estuarine habitat as well as water quality. Water quality is also improved when efficiency reduces base flows in our collection systems, reducing the frequency and duration of discharges that exceed design capacity.
Saving water saves money, for both consumers and communities. One of EPA’s major challenges in meeting critical unmet needs is financial, and water use efficiency should be viewed as a cost containment strategy for all flow-related capital infrastructure, both upstream and downstream of end users. Over time, billions of dollars in savings can be realized — dollars that can be applied to helping more communities address their water quality problems.
Water use efficiency can now encompass a wide range of measures, including more efficient appliances and equipment, more effective strategies for curtailing customer leakage, rainwater harvesting, and various measures for reducing losses and curtailing property damage from distribution system leaks and breaks. User-friendly tools like the EPA WaterSense voluntary labeling program should be expanded, and LID features promoted.
And EPA has another important role to play. Although water use efficiency receives attention in arid states, the benefits of efficiency — particularly the financial benefits — are available in all 50 states. States should be encouraged to consider water efficiency options whenever CWSRF capital assistance for flow-related projects is requested. States employing water use efficiency as a cost containment strategy are better stewards of limited financial resources, and should be recognized and rewarded as such.
March 31st, 2010 at 9:35 pm
I am concerned about the natural gas exploration in upstate New York and how drilling could impact NY drinking water.
March 31st, 2010 at 11:17 pm
CORALations is an award winning, non-profit coral reef conservation organization founded in 1995, and based on the island of Culebra Puerto Rico. The Caribbean archipelago of Culebra lies almost equidistant the big island of Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands. The island enjoys a productive and successful Academic, NGO and community partnerships, led by the local Fishermen’s Association that proposed and pushed for the designation of the first No Take Marine Protected Area in Puerto Rico’s waters. The collaborators produce and manage the first (and only to date) coral farm in US Caribbean waters with education and outreach geared at training local youth as guides and coral farmers. These accomplishments were achieved with little funding in difficult region demonstrating that success in the face of adversity is possible with dedicated partners.
Illegal deforestation/ devegitation is a major problem for Culebra’s watersheds and indeed has been identified in local action strategies to address through US Executive Coral Reef Task Force to little result. Pro active conservation measures depend on planning and planning processes have largely been corrupted for the past decade of our observations both at local and federal government agency levels. This likely is not going to change. Today we have a blatantly anti-environmental governor at the helm yet again, and are struggling against the systematic dismantling of local environmental oversight through permitting law changes on which proper implementation and enforcement of the Clean Water Act depend.
The municipal islands of Culebra and Vieques are considered within the coastal zone and locally present a tremendous opportunity to protect from ridges to reefs under single municipal governments respectively. Combine this with the stellar natural resources in the coastal waters and it spells conservation opportunity…now under enormous pressure as last gold coast green space.
Technically, Culebra has been protected by a Law (PR Ley 66, 1975 as amended) which states as public policy the protection of the ecological integrity of the island. Steep sloping highly erodable volcanic lands were protected by a special low density zoning. Coastal waters and beaches have been Federally listed as Critical Habitat for over a decade, and coastal waters have recently been additionally listed for corals. Coastal sea grass beds have been listed as critical habitat with some further designated as Resource Cat 1 which USFWS considers irreparable if destroyed.
Caribbean conservation management:
Watershed planning and management is the conservation opportunity in our region. On Culebra, the construction of poorly planned and placed illegal dirt roads typically bisecting or plowed down the centers of dry creek and river beds results in the canalization of tons of mud into coastal wetlands and waters…even massive hillside clearing does not meet the damage such a road can do that would not come close to meeting the minimum area required to trigger EPA oversight for storm water construction permitting. In addition to steep slopes, erodable volcanic soils, and a corrupted planning and permitting process, extremely dry lands are held together with fragile xeric vegetation are often challenged by as much as 10 inches of rain in less than 24 hours. Rarely are plans made to accommodate this rainfall and stormwater.
Current Reframing and Funding Issues in Puerto Rico:
In the seventies, local management plans recognized the issues with development in violation of soil constraints and imposed conservative zoning to protect sensitive areas from ecological fragmentation and coastal waters from resulting runoff. Today in Puerto Rico in general, rampant urbanization and sweet heart zoning consultations blatantly ignore protective zoning and with many local community groups are documenting if not litigating. Unfortunately to obtain an injunction in court you have to demonstrate irreparable harm to the environment. This means harm has already been done to water body and clean water act aspirations were not met. We believe EPA can change play a very critical role in protecting watersheds at the NPDES general construction permitting level simply by imposing a permitting contingency on local permits. This would at least insure some planning prior to NPDES permitting. This would also provide additional oversight to a local permitting process that is typically abused by corruption at this most important step, the clearing of the land.
Change in thinking…
In Puerto Rico, all watershed restoration monies went to a single watershed project, geographically un-representative of any of the island’s typical rampant unplanned urbanization challenges. There was also a discussion of “monitoring” coastal corals for the impacts from sedimentation. First, most of all coral reef conservation money over the past decade has gone into monitoring. As predicted, monitoring corals has left us with an expensive record of where reefs used to be. Money must be placed into infrastructure, planning and enforcement. Planning limitations (corruption) need to be defined, recognized and delt with for proactive results to be recognized. Second, consensus has sedimentation causing impact to corals and this investigation is re-framing the question from “How can we cost effectively prevent contaminated runoff given these situations?”…to…”How much sedimentation can corals tolerate?” This is why I also hate TMDLs.
This “re-framing”, if you will, of a consensus understanding is moving us backwards. Watershed money now myopically focused on one watershed in our region will (hopefully, at least ) benefit this one watershed. Give the crisis situation, future funding must go into propagating and empowering with educational products and discourse, local watershed stewards throughout the region.
Problems with current watershed protections:
EPA is inadvertently permitting illegal development. NPDES construction permits can actually “greenwash” unsustainable development projects that are moving in violation of, or with disregard to, local zoning and permitting policies, thus facilitating unplanned work…. Unplanned work destroys watersheds and fails to adequately control erosion in sensitive regions.
Solution: Require local permit review in order to obtain federal storm water or construction discharge permits. (I heard same complaint from a State official that monitors erosion control compliance in the US.) This process would also provide additional oversight to a local permitting process that is typically abused by corruption at this critical first juncture of land clearing.
Identify and protect dry creek and river beds.
EPA always defers fill reports to Army Corps and Army Corps always defers our fill reports to EPA. Meanwhile this is what’s happening to coastal water from a “reforestation” cooperative agreement with USFWS and PR Land and Fruit SE on Culebra. You can see ramifications of fill to dry creek beds and in this case dirt roads were even constructed over shoreline boulder forests. This dramatic damage did not trigger local EPA or US Army Corps of Engineers oversight due to technicalities….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWwSQTr9vQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XraKlKmJkA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmHGFLYHhxo
Roads should always be considered infrastructure construction. Poorly planned and constructed dirt roads can cause a lot more damage by canalizing mud off the watersheds during storms, then sometimes deforesting acres of hillsides.
These islands need to identify (map) their ghutts, (aka quebradas, or major intermittent runoff areas….the ghutts then need to be protected by pro active management incentives…. Once the ghutts are identified, reforest along the sides creating vegetative buffer….and look to slowing the runoff from the slopes with well planned and constructed ponds. In urban areas folks would be incented to help if they can be given fruit trees to plant and care for and folks will if they see them as beneficial to their quality of life. EPA could spearhead a movement to do this….this runoff is defined by Location Action Strategies as the major problem for coastal Caribbean waters and dying coral reefs. Vegitative buffers along the ghutts may help with phyto-remedication of other problem chemicals otherwise transported to sea.
Thank you for this opportunity, Mary Ann Lucking, Director