P^s^;s '^m$ ------- JUST over twenty years since the enactment of the Clean Water Act, many of us are an- ticipating a careful examination by Congress of what has been accomplished, what remains to be done, and what must be done to fully realize the impor- nt goals adopted two decades ago. It's an important opportunity for all of us here. I'm especially eager for these deliberations because two areas of my re- sponsibility, wetlands protection and control of nonpoint source pollution, are certain to be among the issues garnering much of the attention. But I must begin this "assessment" phase of the conference by noting that the assessment and monitoring programs we ad- minister with the states have not been de- signed to identify water quality status and trends, rather, they are structured to help us identify and understand water quality prob- lems. The need for better monitoring Conclusions about the condition of the na- tion's waters are complicated by the fact that data on water quality and the health of ecosystems are incomplete. Much of our cur- rent understanding of the condition of the water is based upon EPA's biennial section 305(b) Report to Congress, otherwise known as the Nation's Water Quality Inventory Re- port. This report is actually a compilation of state reports; and while the quality of these reports is improving and states are examining a more comprehensive array of indicators, e.g, wetlands function and values and habitat destruction, we are still striving to improve in the report. The report is based on an assessment of less than half of the nation's freshwater sur- face water bodies. We cannot well answer the basic questions, "How clean is our water and how is water quality changing over time" in spite of the fact that EPA and many other Reprinted from the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation July-August 1993, Volume 48, Number 4 Copyright © 1993 Soil and Water Conservation Society ------- organizations have spent millions annually monitoring water quality for a variety of pur- poses. Federal and state agencies have recog- nized this need. In January 1992, EPA and U.S. Geological Survey founded the inter- governmental task force on monitoring water quality. My office chairs the task force which is composed of representatives of 10 federal agencies and 10 states, and has de- veloped a nationwide integrated monitoring strategy that would be based upon existing monitoring, establishing comparable meth- ods, sharing monitoring data, and reporting water and related resource quality status and trends. EPA is also developing its own five-year water monitoring plan in conjunction with the states. New guidance for collection of data to be included in the biennial 1994 re- port has also been developed to make the data in the report as comprehensive and consistent among the states as possible. Although we are handicapped in our abil- ity to quantify water • quality improvements, we do know that tremendous efforts have been mounted by the public and private sectors to control water pollution and we are able to see some encouraging results. Twenty years of progress These improvements have come as a re- sult of a concentrated effort and significant public and private investments to control "traditional" point sources of pollution, largely from industry and municipalities. EPA has developed water quality criteria for toxic chemicals, which form the scientific basis for state water quality standards, calcu- lating the risks to humans for 105 substances and the risks to aquatic life for 27 sub- stances. Discharge standards, or effluent guidelines, have been developed for 53 cat- egories of industry, after carefully examining the costs and effectiveness of various tech- nologies. Limits on discharges of pollutants have been incorporated into permits issued to 64,000 industrial facilities, generally requir- ing greater than 90 percent removal over uncontrolled discharges. Since 1972, the Federal government has invested $65 billion in construction of facilities to control domes- tic wastewater. Between 1968 and 1983, U.S. GNP in- creased by 67 percent, the volume of sewage discharged increased by 20 percent and biological oxygen demand, an indicator of pollution from sewage, decreased 37 per- cent. As a society, we are spending $40 billion annually to protect and restore the quality of our rivers, streams, estuaries, and lakes. New problems identified Even though we have made improvements in water quality, problems remain, and new problems are, being'discovered. Twice as many rivers^rheet the'ir designated uses—con- tact recreation, fishery,, agricultural/industrial use—as did so when I came to EPA in 1974. But in that year, only one-third of rivers were of adequate quality to support designated uses. In the case of estuaries, our progress has tapered off, and some are in decline once again. And these are some of our most valu- able and productive aquatic resources. Our progress in dealing with industrial and mu- nicipal pollution has revealed just how im- portant and detrimental are the many small insults that appear insignificant individually, but that cumulatively add up to big trouble. The most recent biennial reports to EPA on water quality show that nontraditional sources of pollution are clearly the leading reason for impairment in surface waters with runoff from agricultural lands being the lead- ing source. For rivers 35 percent of the im- paired river miles are impaired by siltation and 25 percent by nutrients, two pollutants normally associated with runoff. Further- more, by state accounts, nearly 50 percent of the impaired river miles are adversely im- pacted by agricultural sources, more than double the next highest ranking source cate- gory. However, much the credibility of the Section 305(b) report may be questioned, there is a general consensus that agricultural practices account for a substantial contribu- tion to our water quality problems. In addition to our concerns about control- ling nonpoint sources of pollution, we now recognize that we have not adequately calcu- lated the effects of the degradation or de- struction of wetlands, riparian zones, and wildlife habitat. We have destroyed or se- verely degraded millions of acres of wetlands that are as important to the biological health and productivity of a stream or an estuary as is the chemical "purity" of the water column itself; and we are reducing the biological di- versity of fish, shellfish, amphibians, and wa- terfowl with unknown consequences. These impairments, to use the jargon of the Clean Water Act, are costing us as a soci- ety. They reduce our recreational opportuni- ties, they limit the productivity of fisheries, and they increase costs of treatment for water intended for human consumption and indus- trial use. In Iowa, for example, sediments are the leading pollutant in surface waters. Iowa's Department of Natural Resources reports that sediment problems cost lowans approximate- ly $32 million every year in damages to recreation, fish arid wildlife resources, munic- JULY-AUGUST 1993 263 ------- ipal water supplies, transportation, and blocked drainage on agricultural land. New solutions required The number and diversity of enterprises and individuals contributing to these prob- lems can't be successfully addressed by rely- ing primarily on the "standard permits, in- spections, enforcements" model we employed successfully with the point source dischargers. There are two and a half million fanning operations alone in the country. Nevertheless, Congress and advocacy groups appear to be coming to the limits of their patience in awaiting progress in dealing with polluted runoff, since the problem was known in the earliest days of our water pol- lution control efforts. And many of us are now exploring new approaches to solving the remaining water quality and related envi- ronmental problems. One such approach can be found in the 1990 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments, through which Congress re- quired states with coastal zone management programs to adopt coastal nonpoint source programs. This January, EPA and NOAA is- sued guidance on the types of state programs and management measures to be adopted by the states. The law requires that states devel- op programs, which can be tailored to their particular needs, with enforceable policies and mechanisms for controlling nonpoint sources and submit these for approval within 30 months. If states fail to submit approvable programs they must, by law, forfeit a portion of their EPA and NOAA grants. Some have expressed interest in expanding this ap- proach throughout the country in a new Clean Water Act. Another promising approach, and one that is receiving much attention currently, is not really a new idea, but one that makes partic- ularly good sense given the nature of our re- maining problems. This is the watershed pro- tection approach, and the National Governors Association and Water Quality 2000 have advocated its broad adoption. It is built on the foundation of encouraging re- sults in the National Estuary Program and Clean Lakes Programs. The concept is simple: Federal, state, and local stakeholders, public and private, join to evaluate the quality of and threats to aquatic resources within a basin or other hydrologically-defined area. These stakeholders devise solutions that em- ploy the authorities, expertise, and resources available across the entire watershed team. While this approach is not new to EPA, neither is it in broad use. Nor is it new to other federal agencies, but these agencies, as well as Congress, are taking a new look at this approach. There is a new spirit of cooperation among the federal partners, USDA/SCS, EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Interior/Fish and Wildlife Service, and USGS, among others, to work together, to more ef- fectively target our resources, and to get a job done. The future I believe the watershed approach is partic- ularly well-suited to addressing four areas that are key to addressing the challenges of the '90s, which I refer to as the four As— awareness, accountability, alliances, and af- fordability. First, we must make people aware of the impacts their activities can have on water quality. This is a significant challenge. With many groups it prompts anger and denial. And this appears to be particularly true for the farmer. Farmers perceive themselves as good stewards of the land, as indeed many are. They are wary of outside interference. Whereas national statistics and generalities about water quality impairment may do little to motivate individuals to take another look at their practices, learning that their aquifer has high nitrate levels or that their stream is too silted to allow fish spawning can have much more meaning. ' We are working to establish partnerships or alliances with and among the federal agencies, such as USDA's SCS and Extension Service, which have programs, skills, and a willingness to assist. And we are working with a coalition of other public and private organizations, including the National Associa- tion of Conservation Districts, to establish a national alliance to promote awareness of the problems and spur collective responsibility and actions at the local level. We want to build upon public-private alliances and net- works that have been established to promote the successful crop residue management campaign. Some of the most promising alliances are being formed at the local watershed or basin, scale. Frankly, this helps with the awareness and accountability problems. The dialogue changes from one about a general concern with water quality to the very real matter of what is the state of our lake or river and how is our aquifer being affected—and how farm- ing practices of individual farmers affect their neighbors. The local watershed approach is one way to promote an understanding that, along with property rights, come responsibili- ties and accountability. This and other actions to place account- ability on those who are hurting our aquatic resources has been an area of increased em- 264 JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION ------- the past eight or ten years, very significant .progress has been^made b^T point source arena We have ?JC have .. and we , * ^ S-f*& 4ssm,*H%m*&%& ^ £ $ source phospho- WHMM1 V* «« «• «,-»«.«,»-. «. ^eight years ahead of less so .ution. paritouaiT^ with le- _n}jjc^n^^^5lic«phorou'5k to be using 'at a much sace' «.',*- ar^tc^ successes" ancfac- SSBrnents, probably the (Chesa- a, ji t * Ht ^ <$t~s*(* w™~ as <* i^*1**** ^-4tK-=t Bay Progiara) is the envy of 8£l»i^sMS^awp!&**te**a*>if|!w sra^frfe^s?*^ ^ %> «i juntrv wjth,jhejiigh leyej^of . visibility ana^suppprt Every- "* Ksjaerejs a Chesageate am" tt'spolitical cteath not*"* ™4ippSrt*it^a^e^sfa^*^gffitures and^,erjnsy|va- "the past decade (UWt* Mr AS saivi^f^t gt, *w* MS* eenunprecedented This • (3ft!2tt8i9S£ «i«£ J&Wr^-Ttws^ t ^i^f ***«. ft nts sOrfant because I think |hat general geiception that tne_ ~is* being bankrolled by the ^alg^ i; f^ 'Fi®5!w ".afMi^yr f^r-^frSH'feg *w £nt , opment pressures aie crowding farm- land out, and we have recognized in our aiea that weVe got to get every fund of nutrient fiom everf SOUice « * ,1 •». weje gojijg to^rnage a djffe^rice for tlie future of the Bay * And* we've ^ ^ . ^.^ sjst s « j fvwir ^^ ^ A^n,' leally tried hard not to point fingeis, »4« ». ». » „ * « a => t ' not to l^.y uneven blame for any f /r v* J «A #t***- s *-t* * J souice or any segment of die ^opu- well H M^* * -TF*- *§'*.^1f^l^ ^«i ^E «J<'C ^Sfef ^ «&. JS^ "Probably the most important char- < ' *- i j «* i. * ?• •• <••«« ts»» « acgristic of the ChesapeakeJBay Pro- granTris that there has been a locus, a **.M ^ i-Sfen^e- w11* ^*r<™™^ ?^* ."f •" * tliat the_ states^, have been j. the federal government by i-^b ifrtju*^^ "e°u* ** •* Ji ;e measure access or aecomplish- ^ j£At~ 1 r ,», ** r- ^ , to the characteristic of '&' r ««*»**.. J8«<"< *•!•*»„ « Program is that mere's been *"*°« j * t •* . V*"* ' * i^npt to be even-handed in ^_ iroach that'sTb^ng taken Sci- :d*Ta_ decade^^^nujri^^ decade illution ^as "the^ mapr^proBlem ahg Water^quauty Degradation in "hesapeake Bay Nutnent pollu- W^TS-I, *. f^i fefe*,, * ^494 "s •* £ <% *v«j •>, ? oStog^ FrQn^ everywhere ^We on'i Ifve in afjrm 41 ea, welfve in a uibamzed area wher,e devel- i£ ductjon goaJ and they've putt a date on it. That goal,Jan<| that foBus on nutrient reduction, whichjsiscjnig- "jjung that non-technicaf jpeople can understand, ha"s leally ^rivlp.^the"" piogiam The effort in the Chesa- « \ ** $ 4-«wrt «£*,*«* f &*&< peake Bay began with almost total reliance on BMPs Its moved in the recent yeais to a stronger leliance on ^ jmtrient( management "Another important aspect of the .a 8*n* s* ^ * t V&K *T ^^ " *W" «f*ifi- J k Chesapeake Bay effort is the fact that theje has Joeen a pretty sound techni- cal foundation for this work WeVe spent a large amount of money and time building^ the best computer ^jnodels in the wadd. And we now know, not perfectly, but with some degree of assurance, that when some activities take glace on land that lead i jto Joad_ Deduction, ^eventuaE^^e'jfe Agoing to see benefits in the, rivers and finally in theJBay f "We need to focus evei more at- tention on(research, which 15,3 haid( thing to sell to politicians, and oui modeling efforts have shown us that the levei of technology, what we cur- icntly know how to do in the non- point source aiena isn't going to be good enough So we've got to invest i °* i,» cr f i ° tm /esearch, better BMPs,. better ways to,k^ep nutrients out of our estuanne waters "The biggest issue that we're fac- ing in the future is the issue of .growth, ajfthe things weve done in jfyg past are going to be wiped out if we do not figuie out how to deal ' »J t ° j! »J. t •, " r * t with our expanding population in ,< ^^^^antw rP^Ion- "^? need to look at policy options We want to keep agricultuie in our area, but it is becoming niorea ancLrnofe difficult f We need to get^the message out to our urban people that on an acre per racre basis, agriculture is less poEut- ing than suburbia We have to worry in the future about accountability If ^ •« te* w s. ' we say we're going to do something, we need to be able to demonstrate that we did it, and we've got to do better at how we count, how we track progress how we measure and repoit on that progiess And it's a major problem "WeVe adopted a watershed man- agement approach and our gover- nors last yeai set a new pokey goal for the Chesapeake Bay to actually hjwe.put in place nutrient i eduction pound numbers for the major tnbu- , jaries of the Bay We've just em- barked on a piocess of developing .watershed plans that will tell us how w,e aie( going to reach the specific tributary nutrient reduction numbeis by"the year 2000" Fian Flamgan, 4thancefor the Chesapeake Bay phasis for us. If the standards, permits, and inspection model is overkill and relying ex- clusively on education and exhortation is un- certain and slow, what other approaches as- sure that enterprises and individuals take responsibility? Finally, we're looking at ways to creatively address the affordability question, including making broader use of market mechanisms, such as nutrient trading. In addition to the new alliances and part- nerships being formed, there are other op- portunities for redirecting our collective ef- forts and resources toward more effective approaches to achieving clean water and im- proved ecosystems. For 40 years farmers have been guided by a U.S. agricultural policy, and advances in science and technology, that has rewarded production over other societal values. Over this period, improved farming practices have boosted agricultural productivity per work hour at twice the rate of that for manufactur- ing. Now we have excess productive capaci- ty, a decline in export of our agricultural products along with degraded ecosystems and impaired surface and groundwaters. The last two farm bills have recognized JULY-AUGUST 1993 , 265 ------- Viewpoint £ £ /•"•T^HK politics of balancing 11 " • biological protection , ;. JL with the nejds of soci- ety for food, fiber, energy, and" in- dustrial production long have Fo- cused On water availability and quality. So its no wonder that when the first Findings of pesticide concen- In gi6urid and surface v\a£ei ;* reported, tfie reguiatoiy re- sponse was to set allowable limits or Or maximum contaminant level ^MCO and dtpend on enforcement programs to keep dungs under con- trol, Irs a 198<5 report to Congress, yjl i I I I 1 D J h im m m I T m m EPA >Wted that die large portion ot tl)q Cation's water quality nioblems \vere attributable-to pollution from nonpWm sources I'm gf.id to say that progress has been made The groundwater and surface water monitoring data ineii- cates progress in preventing non- pfiint source contamination I think Sow? impoitant policy"questions" liuve l>eeri answered that conttibute to the improvements vve aie seeing^ *It Iia.s been recogni?cd that set- ting art MCL does not in itself fead"*to* ** fmm m a solution 'Hie MCL mi^ht be a tai- ga for cleanup^ but it does not give guidance on how to av oid a problem In the first place Programs are need- ed to address specific practices. "§oil and vvatei management pro- grams have been implemented under three key federal statutes, Over 10 states have EPA-approved nonpoint souice protection plans The 1990 farm bill's conserv ation compliance program will affect 35 million acres (98 percent of the high- ly erodible land) by, 1995, Ground-. water protection programs require state management plans "foaadress " proper use an resource protection. These progiams aie pioving to be effective Fiona an agncultuialcheim- cal perspective, it has been recog- nized that while some situations re «OK 5 **i $,. *{~*i» ft%tiW*T^^ quiie a chemical-specific approach, most of the pesticide ground "or suP * & ~ ^K, f ^f~ face water contamination issues are not caused by winch chemical is used but rather by how and where it is used * ™"° 1 mm « IM muttrn mi *mm ma tw nWtaiawsw.. «Mfts"S5W> t^a^miaity, I have two recommendations mat I believe will fuither enhance die tf fectivenest. of this practices" ap- proach Afst continue woik orT & state-by-state Sasis* to estaSlish* effec- tive^ state p'estKide^ma'nagemenf plans These plans should have the V . t rti- « objective of pi eventing or mmimiz ing the nsk of movement of agncul "turafcEermcaTs ^^jj^jg'-I^J™^?™" face waters. "As a manufacturei of pesticides^*" we favor solutions that are voluntary i tfc «*«W«™M me « «M ^S»«S|SW ^ MM* m*m based on sound technical knowl edge, and can be failored* "t5*1rjee*site' " ' specific situation One tion is the adoption of best manag*emenrpractices that ad- dress die entire environmental situa tion for a specific farm Such mea sures include selection of fanning piactiees that minimize runoff and soil eiosion foi that specific farm field with senous considferation of conservation tillage methods, selec_ tion of pesticides and fertilizeis based oln soil/crop nutuent assess t nlejit and integrated vegetation arid .. | pest management;, application meth- * /~\/-lc tV\at- minimi'?^ rvffcif^ mi"tx;f»m*»nt , -a^sii^a-^Mr^t i (4 [ n ^W«ltef vHfci ff-< 1 {&i»fr»*t n^^^^^-.^-.^^ ods that minimize offsite. applied, use of buffer aieas and fillet _ ships mtegiated managementTjfant- rnal as well as human wastes, prop"'"™ er well construction, "and pesticide ,.„._, ^JZSL JMJfaA *K »!»«. w-t* *Bri| load and mixing piactiees that mini- * mjze. tKe'pbtential foi gioundwaTef _contaminatiSn. Second, education and training TOgiamslhat assist chemical users' n*piopei*storage, "handling, mB3hg7 applicaHon* afTa container cleaning and disposal methods the edtka tlonal materials offeied by the Na | -X .a 1 tional AgnculfuiarChemicals AssocT j aubn's Alliance for a "Clean' RiiraF" ^TSnviionment aie excellent and have been pioven effective Also, there is an* opportunity for Industry to wolk* ' coopeiatively with state training and ^ "certiflcaticH piogiams*™*" *" " "** **~ -i!All of these steps require a coop- eration between"chemical manufac ^\ turers, users the govemrrient, and *~* ^menni^*die™puFjTic"*in "order to^re *"*" ally "work "Focusing on piactiees jn'J** "ecfueation combined with specific* " chemical plans where needed is an effective *ap"pioach to nonpoTnT" A souice control of agricultural ehemi ~ cals It can accomplish both goals— food pioduction and environmental management. Robe>tL Harness, Monsanto Company (i I •a J and promoted an increasing role for conser- vation in the way we handle our agricultural business. It is logical to expect this trend to continue and increase with the 1995 farm bill. Public interest and investment in Ameri- can agriculture is substantial. Net farm in- come last year was approximately $40 billion, $20 billion of which was public monies—$17 billion in farm payments/price supports and $3 billion in services from state and federal agencies. This presents a powerful tool with which to shape farming practices in a more environmentally sound manner. As I have mentioned previously, the reau- thorization of the Clean Water Act will also present opportunities for shaping solutions to the problems of agricultural runoff, the de- struction of ecosystems and wildlife habitat, as well as improving the monitoring of our nation's waters. But we must be very thoughtful and inclusive as we design our so: lutions. One person's incentive may be an- other's regulation as in the example of swampbuster, or in the case of the agricultur- al community's reaction to the Section 404 program. We have much to gain from each other, from our collective knowledge and experi- ences, and our interest in shaping a future that considers all of our needs—a strong rural and farm economy, good quality sur- face and groundwater that can be used for the purposes we want it, and healthy ecosys- tems with a diverse wildlife population. Q 266 JOURNAL OF SOU AND WATER CONSERVATION ------- |