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
------- |