-------
I
Ul
X
a)
I
E
z
w
Q
a
§5
o
2
1
a.
i
S S.
2*
o
II
II
s
11
-------
t
-------
t
-------
"1
A SUMMARY OF
"PROTECTING AMERICA'S WETLANDS:
A FAIR, FLEXIBLE, AND EFFECTIVE APPROACH*
August 24,1993
1
•1
INTRODUCTION
The Clinton Administration is proposing a comprehensive package of improvements to the
Federal wetlands program that reflects a new broad-based consensus among Federal agencies.
For years, many have argued that the Federal government badly needed to improve its wetlands
program to make it 'fairer and more effective. But for too long, contradictory policies from
feuding Federal agencies have blocked progress, creating uncertainty and confusion. This
wetlands package reflects a sharp break through the past gridlock caused by waning Federal
agencies and contains a balanced, common sense, workable set of improvements that will make
the program simpler, fairer, better coordinated with state and local efforts and more effective at
protecting wetlands.
BACKGROUND
The Nation's wetlands perform many functions that are important to society, such as improving
water quality, recharging groundwater, providing natural flood control, and supporting a wide
variety of fish, wildlife and plants. The economic importance of wetlands to commercial
fisheries and recreational uses is also enormous.
The Nation has lost nearly half of the wetland acreage that existed in the lower 48 States prior
to European settlement. The Nation's wetlands continue to be lost at a rate of hundreds of
thousands of acres per year due ;: both human activity and natural processes. This continued
loss occurs at great cost to society.
Notwithstanding the importance of wetland resources, Federal regulatory programs to protect
wetlands have caused considerable controversy. Critics of Federal wetlands regulatory programs
have effectively characterized those programs as unfair, inflexible, inconsistent, and confusing.
Supporters of wetlands protection have responded — with equal effectiveness — by emphasizing
the environmental and economic benefits associated with protecting the Nation's wetlands.
As both sides have voiced their strongly held opinions, the debate over Federal wetlands policy
has become increasingly divisive, with agencies fighting agencies and generating enormous
confusion among the public and the states and stalling needed reforms in the program. In short,
wetlands policy had become one of the most controversial environmental issues facing the
.Federal government, slowing work on the reauthorization of the overall Clean Water Act.
-------
THE INTERAGENCV WORKING GROUP ON FEDERAL WETLANDS POLICY
The Administration convened the Interagency Working Group on Federal Wetlands Policy in
early June with the goal of developing a package of Clinton Administration initiatives to end the
wetlands wars, break the deadlock over Federal wetlands policy and develop a set of workable
improvements to die program. The group has been chaired by the White House Office on
Environmental Policy and has included the participation of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Office of Management and Budget, and the
Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Commerce, Energy, Interior, Justice, and Transportation.
The working group sought the views of a broad range of stakeholders representing all
perspectives in the wetlands debate. For example, the group has received presentations that have
included: a bipartisan group of eight members of the U.S. Congress; representatives of State and
local government; environmentalists; the development community; agricultural interests;
scientists; and others.
After listening to this broad range of interests, the working group established five principles that
serve as the framework for the Administration's comprehensive package of wetlands reform
initiatives.
FIVE PRINCIPLES FOR FEDERAL WETLANDS POLICY
1) The Clinton Administration supports the interim goal of ho overall net loss of the Nation's
remaining wetlands, and the long-term goal of increasing the quality and quantity of the Nation's
wetlands resource base;
2) Regulatory programs must be efficient, fair, flexible, and predictable, and must be
administered in a manner that avoids unnecessary impacts upon private property and the regulated
public, and minimircs those effects that cannot be avoided, while providing effective protection
for wetlands. Duplication among regulatory agencies must be avoided aad the public must have
a clear understanding of regulatory requirements and various agency roles;
3) Non-regulatory programs, sucj at advance planning; wetlands restoration, inventory, and
research; and public/private cooperative efforts must be encouraged to reduce the Federal
government's reliance upon regulatory programs as the primary means to protect wetlands
resources and to accomplish long-term wetlands gains;
4) The Federal government should expand partnerships with State, Tribal, and local governments,
the private sector and individual citizens and approach wetlands protection and restoration in an
ecosystem/watershed context; and
5) Federal wetlands policy should be based upon the best scientific information available.
•*• *•--".
-------
I
t
COMPREHENSIVE PACKAGE OF REFORMS
Building upon these principles, the working group has developed a comprehensive package of '
initiatives that will significantly reform Federal wetlands policy, while maintaining protection of
this vital natural resource. This package includes regulatory reforms and innovative, non- i
regulatory policy approaches; it includes administrative actions that will take effect immediately, |
and legislative recommendations for Congress to consider during the reauthorization of the Clean j
Water Act. The Clinton Administration looks forward to working closely with the Congress to i
implement this new approach to Federal wetlands policy. "1
The reform package includes the following Initiatives: '
• To affirm Its commitment to eonserring wetlands resources, the Administration will
Issue an Executive Order embracing the interim goal of no overall net loss of the
Nation's remaining wetlands resource base, and a long-term goal of increasing the
quality and quantity of the Nation's wetlands;
• To increase fairness in the wetlands permitting process, the Corps will establish an
administrative appeals process so that landowners can seek speedy recourse if
permits are denied without having to go to court;
* To make sure that decisions are made without delay, the Corp* will establish
deadlines for wetlands permitting decisions under the Clean Water Act;
• To reduce uncertainty for American farmers, yesterday the Corps and EPA issued
a final regulation ensuring that approximately 53 million acres of prior converted
cropland — areas which no longer exhibit wetlands characteristics — will not be
subject to wetlands regulations;
• To reduce duplication and Inconsistency for American farmers, the Soil
Conservation Service wfll be the lead Federal agency responsible for identifying
wetlands on agricultural lands under both the dean Wafer Act and the F-xxl
Security Act;
• To dose a loophole that has led to the degradation and destruction of wetlands,
yesterday the Corps and EPA issued a final regulation to clarify the scope of
activities regulated under the Clean Water Act;
• To emphasize that ail wetlands are not of equal value, yesterday EPA and the
Corps issued guidance to field staff highlighting the flexibility that exists to apply
less vigorous permit review to small projects with minor environmental impacts;
• To ensure consistency and fairness, the Army Corps of Engineers, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Soil Conservation Service, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service will alt .use the same procedures to Identify wetland areas;
-------
4
- To increase the predictability and environmental effectiveness of the Clean Water
Act regulatory program and to help attain the no overall net loss goal, the
Administration endorses the use of mitigation banks;
• To reduce the conflict that can result between wetlands protection and development
when decisions are made on a permlt-by-permit basis, the Administration strongly
supports incentives for States and localities to engage In watershed planning;
• To provide effective Incentives for farmers to restore wetlands on their property,
the Administration will continue to support Increased funding for the USDA's
Wetland Reserve Program; and
• To help attain the long-term goal of Increasing the quantity and quality of the
Nation's wetlands, the Administration will promote the restoration of damaged
wetland areas through voluntary, non-regulatory programs.
CONCLUSION
This package breaks the gridlock that has paralyzed wetland policy m the past and represents a
major advance in reforming and improving the wetlands program nationwide. It reflects the
President's broader commitment to "reinventing" government to make it more responsive, more
effective and more efficient.
The critics of the wetlands regulatory program have performed a service to the country by
highlighting the need for meaningful reform in the administration of wetland regulatory programs.
Many of the much needed reforms contained in this package — such as permit deadlines, an
appeals process, mitigation banking, and increasing the role of state and local government in
wetlands regulation — have been proposed by those seeking improvements in the operation of
the current regulatory program.
The supporters of wetlands protection have also performed a service by helping to inform the
Nation of the environmental and economic importance of wedands, a valuable natural resource
that was once routinely destroyed. Their strong commitment to protecting and restoring this vital
resource is also reflected in this package. For example, a loophole hat been closed m Federal
regulations that allowed the degradation and destruction of wetlands; the "Alaska 1% rule,"
which would have greatly relaxed wetlands protection in Alaska, wfli be withdrawn; and the
Administration will draft an Executive Order affirming its commitmest to the preservation and
restoration of wetland areas.
By adopting an approach based upon the effective protection of an important natural resource in
a manner that is fair and flexible, the Clinton Administration proposes a wetlands policy that
recognizes both the value of wetland resources and the need to minimise regulatory burdens.
For a copy of the Administration Wetlands Plan, call the EPA Wetlands Hotline
at 1-800-832-7828 (contractor operated)?:.
-------
V
s
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460
EPA800-F.-34-G03
May 1994
Clean Water: A Memorial Day
Perspective
:^&#~* **$&
StocyctodrtiKyctabl*
PrettM OB paper ttial contain*
at lent S0% ivqKMd «b«r
-------
s
-------
J'
f
Contents
Overview
Water-Based Recreational Activities
The Value of Clean Water: Profiles from Around
the Country
The Clean Water Act's Imprint: How Has It
Made a Difference?
Future Benefits from a New Clean Water Act
Conclusion
References by Section
22
23
Cover phoco by Pat Cunningham
-------
(
s
-------
i
t
Overview
t
The period between Memorial
Day and Labor Day marks prime
vacation time here in the United
States, and for millions of Americans
that means heading to the water.
Each year, our beaches, lakes, rivers,
, and wetlands provide multiple recre-
ational opportunities, such as fishing,
swimming, and boating. There is
compelling evidence of the contribu-
tion these activities make to local and
regional economies. Consider the $4
billion lost by the states of New York
and New Jersey from beach closures
following the medical waste washups
during the summers of 1987 and 1988.
While the full extent of economic
benefits to the Nation has not been
assessed, data suggest a significant
contribution to the Gross National
Product; billions of dollars are spent
and millions of jobs are created
annually from recreational activity.
The Clean Water Act is the
national statute that protects our
waters, and Congress is currently
considering how this Act might be
improved. The Clinton Administration
has put forward a proposal to reautho-
•rize the Clean Water Act to better
address those sources, such as
polluted runoff and toxic discharges,
that continue to pollute our waters,
and to provide states with more funds
to assist with cleanup and restoration
efforts. Those funds are expected to
create some 400,000 jobs over the next
decade, and they, will help to ensure
that clean waters are available for a
wide variety of purposes, including
enhanced recreational opportunities
for all Americans.
-------
\
Water-Based Recreational Activities
t
Water-based recreational activities
require clean water. If the water is
contaminated with toxics or lacks suffi-
cient oxygen, fishing suffers. If bacteria
are found, swimming can become dan-
gerous and beaches are closed. And, if
aquatic habitat is destroyed, bird-
watchers and hunters may find their
opportunities for recreational enjoy-
ment greatly diminished. Even non-
contact recreational activities, such as
boating, rely on aesthetically pleasing
water, free of debris and noxious odors.
The examples below highlight the
value of water-based recreation and
provide further evidence of the need to
keep our waters clean.
Sport Fishing
Each year, 36 million people par-
ticipate in some form of sport fishing
on our Nation's fresh and salt waters,
spending approximately $24 billion in
the process. These expenditures ripple
Each year, 36 million
people participate in
some form of sport fishing
on our Nation's fresh
and salt waters.
through the economy, generating
$70 billion in economic output and
supporting around 1 million jobs,
while also generating substantial tax
revenues for local, state, and federal
governments. In 1991, $1.2 billion
were contributed in federal income
taxes and over $2 billion were gener-
ated in state income and sales taxes.
Fishing continues to grow in
popularity. The number of anglers
increased 11 percent between 1985
and 1990 alone, and expenditures on
angling jumped 27 percent in that
same period. Participation in cold-
water fishing is expected to increase
threefold between 1990 and 2040,
while warmwater fishing is expected
to nearly double. Freshwater anglers
now number more than 30 million and
spend more than $15 billion annually.
-------
t
t
Swimming and
Beach Use
In 1987, there were 460 million
trips to participate in outdoor swim-
ming (nonpool). Much of this swim-
ming occurred at the beach where
Americans often choose to vacation.
One study of the southeast coastal
region found that beach visitors had
an average stay of 2.5 days and spent
approximately $234 per person. In
Florida, where the State's economy is
closely tied to tourism, a study showed
that beachgoers generated $2.3 billion
in economic benefits annually.
Wildlife-Related
Activities
About 40 percent of all American
adults made 342 million visits to
outdoor sites in 1991 to enjoy
nonconsumptive wildlife activities,
such as bird-watching and camping.
Of those involved in such activities,
23 percent visited oceanside areas;
64 percent visited lake and streamside
areas; and 39 percent visited marshes,
wetlands, and swamps. These visits
generated over $18 billion in spend-
ing.
Birdwatching is a prime example
of a nonconsumptive means of enjoy-
ing wildlife, and it continues to grow
in popularity. More than 76 million
people in the United States consider
themselves birdwatchers, and total
annual expenditures by this group
exceed $20 billion a year. The number
one interest of people observing birds
is waterfowl and shorebirds (64 per-
cent of total participants). Birders are
particularly interested in observing
unusual or rare bird species, and
60 percent of the bird species listed as
having unstable or declining popula- •
aons are dependent on wetland or
coastal habitats.
Bird observation is dependent on
clean water, and many heavily used
birdwatching spots are located in
riparian, estuanne, and coastal areas.
. For example, the 80,000 annual visi-
tors to Grand Island, Nebraska, to see
the Sandhill and Whooping Crane
migration account for $40 million of
economic activity in that area. And
coastal wildlife refuges routinely
experience larger numbers of visitors
than noncoastal refuges.
Companies catering to persons
interested in various types of nature
observation have enjoyed enormous
growth during the past 10 years.
Many shopping malls in the United
States now have some type of nature-
related store. The variety and total
number of field guide books sold to aid
in the identification and observation of
wildlife, fish, and plant life has grown
-------
t
considerably. Guided tours have
sprung up in all parts of the country.
In fact, ecotourism—long distance or
extended trips for the enjoyment of
nature—appears to be the tourist
industry's fastest growing sector.
Hunting of water-dependent spe-
cies is another important contributor
to economic activity in many parts of
the country, and much of this hunting
takes place in wetland areas. Approxi-
mately three million hunters spent
$686 million in 1991 hunting wetland-
dependent waterfowl.
A California rice grower earned
over $40,000 by managing and offer-
ing 4.500 acres of wetland habitat to
30 hunters for waterfowl and pheas-
ant hunting activities.
Boating
Americans took 220 million trips
in 1991 to participate in motor boat-
ing. Total expenditures on recreational
IB 1990, the boating-related
recreational industry
provided jobs for about
600,000 people.
boating (motorized and nonmotonzed)
quadrupled from 1970 to 1989. In
1993, some $11 billion was spent at
the retail level for new and used
boats, motors, accessories, fuel.
repairs, club memberships, and other
related items. In 1991, Americans
owned 16 million recreational boats,
half of which were motorized, with
the remainder being sailboats, canoes,
kayaks, and similar vessels. In 1990,
there were more than 6,200 manufac-
turers of boats and boating accessories
and 8.300 mannas, boat yards; and
yacht clubs. In that year, the boating-
related recreational industry provided
jobs for about 600,000 people.
-------
t
t
The Value of Clean Water:
Profiles from Around the Country
The previous section provides
an indication of how significant water-
based recreation is to the national
economy. What follows are profiles
from around the country depicting
how water quality conditions, some-
times improving and sometimes
degrading, can affect the economies
and quality of life in local communi-
ties. The effects are often far-reaching,
thus the profiles are not limited to
recreational impacts but include im-
pacts in other areas, such as real
estate values and commercial fishing,
as well.
Boise, Idaho
The Boise, Idaho, Chamber of
Commerce knows how to make an
impact. The first impression when
picking up a copy of the promotional
brochure for the state's capital city is
that of a beautiful river, bounded by
generous green space along both sides,
running through the middle of a thriv-
ing metropolitan environment. This
same picture would not have been
possible 30 years ago. For decades, the
river served as a dumping ground:
old cars were found scattered along
the banks and raw sewage from
homes and businesses was routinely
dumped untre; jd into the waterway.
Some said the wastes from slaughter-
houses literally caused the river to
•'run red."'
Beginning in the sixties, the
residents decided they had had
enough, and their outcry prompted
the beginning of a movement to clean
things up. A contiguous belt of
parkland, later to be called the
greenbelt, was established along a
corridor of riverfront property that
was owned primarily by the city.
Many in the community joined in to
restore the area for public use. Some
of the rivers biggest polluters, such as
the slaughterhouses, determined they
could not continue to operate as they
had historically. They moved their
facilities away from the urban area,
and significantly upgraded their
operations and treatment capabilities
in the process. Approximately $30
million in federal funds were com-
bined with state and local resources to
build, upgrade, and expand the city's
wastewater infrastructure. The latest
water quality assessment from the
U.S. Geological Survey showed that
treated wastewater effluent from the
city's facilities was of sufficient quality
that it had no adverse impact on the
river. Further pollution control was
achieved through city and county
Management of the Boise
River has become a symbol
to the community of a
commitment to a lifestyle.
ordinances aimed at reducing polluted
runoff from development. Most
recently, multiple stakeholders from
within the watershed have banded
together to study and plan for the
liver's long-term management.
What have these efforts
produced? Todayb the citizens and
businesses of Boise enjoy a vastly
improved resource. David Eberle, a
visiting professor at Boise State
University, has studied the river and
-------
s
Boise River
its impact on the residents there. He
has found that "Boise residents have
an especially personal connection with
the great outdoors, and management
of the Boise River has become a
symbol to the community of a commit-
ment to a lifestyle." As one resident
put it, "People come to Idaho for the
outdoors and move to Boise for the
jobs."
Of all their environmental
attributes, he has found residents are
most proud of the river.
Swimmers, tubers, and canoers
now enjoy use of the same river that
was once considered unsafe for human
contact. As one frequent user
commented, "Ten years ago. I'd float
the river and never see a soul. Last
Saturday, there were 300 people and
over 70 boats on the river."
Fish and wildlife are also
benefiting. The river now supports a
considerable waterfowl population,
including an endangered species—bald
eagles. While problems with habitat
and low flows in winter months
prevent a self-sustaining fishery, the
river's water quality is sufficient to
allow 55,000 trout released every
Spring by the Fish and Game Depart-
ment to thrive. This is especially sig-
nificant in a state where eight times
as many people fish as the national
average.
To celebrate the river's comeback,
the city now holds an annual River
Festival. In 1992, nearly 600,000
people traveled an average of 558
miles over a 3-day period to attend
the celebration, and, according to Mr.
Eberle, spending for items such as
lodging, food, and souvenirs generated
over $20 million for the local economy.
The return of the river is
stimulating the economy in other
ways. While the Chamber of Com-
merce does not have exact figures
relating the economy to improving
water quality conditions, they do
report that the river is a frequently
mentioned attribute by businesses
considering locating in Boise. Jay
Clemens, Chamber of Commerce
president, commented that "'It's a
unique thing to be able to walk
behind your corporate workplace to
fish in a relatively natural setting."
Rather than avoiding the river, new
and existing businesses now consider
the waterfront a prime location. The
same is true for residents, and this
demand is reflected in average hous-
ing costs. On average, a waterfront
property sells for about $60.000 more
than those not on the waterfront.
Today, the river makes Boise a
special place to live. However, it is not
without its problems. In particular,
storrnwater runoff can have signifi-
cant water quality impacts, and, like
many cities, Boise is struggling to
control this runoff more effectively.
As the population continues to grow,
more and more people will desire
access to the river, placing the river
and its improved quality at risk.
Boise's challenge is to maintain the
dramatic achievements that have been
made, while also looking ahead at
ways to solve those problems that
remain. This dilemma was articulated
by Boise State Biology professor Bob
Rychert. In an interview with a Boise
magazine he stated, 'The Boise
River—as we study a limited stretch—
has pretty high water quality in my
view. The thing is, can you maintain
it?"
Connecticut River
and Long Island
Sound Watershed
Twenty years ago, the Connecti-
cut River was called "the prettiest
sewer in the Nation." Inadequate
levels of wastewater treatment,
discharges of toxic pollutants, and
polluted ninoff were responsible for
fouling this once wonderful waterway,
as well as Long Island Sound, the
estuary into which it drains.
Thanks to upgraded municipal
and industrial treatment systems and
federal and' state programs under the
Clean Water Act to control polluted
-------
I
Connecticut) Jtfiode
Island
Connecticut River-Long Island Sound
runoff, water quality in both the
Sound and the Connecticut River has
begun to improve, and this, in turn,
has generated economic benefits.
According to a recent assessment,
about $5 billion is generated annually
in the regional economy from boating,
commercial and sport fishing, swim-
ming, and beachgoing associated with
Long Island Sound, And very signifi-
cantly, Connecticut recently became
the country's leading producer of oys-
ters, surpassing both Louisiana and
the Chesapeake Bay in the amount of
revenue generated. In 1992, Connecti-
cut oyster farmers harvested a stag-
gering 894,000 bushels of oysters from
Long Island Sound—compared to
between 30.000 and 40,000 bushels in
the 1970s. The estimated worth of the
oyster industry is now $46 million.
John Volk, .Connecticut's Aquaculture
Director, attributes the remarkable
growth both to the water quality im-
provements-and to joint state/industry
efforts to aggressively cultivate oyster
beds off the coasts of Bridgeport and
Stratford.
The once degraded Connecticut
River is becoming a source of beauty,
recreation, and economic
revitalization. particularly in the
lower river, canoeists, anglers, and
outdoor enthusiasts now populate its
riverbanks, and the river's natural
ecological balance is returning. Al-
though the returns of Atlantic salmon
have not yet met expectations due to
problems in the ocean, water quality
improvements have contributed to
annual returns numbering in the
hundreds. The population of Atlantic
salmon continues to increase in the
river and is now supporting successful
commercial and recreational
opportunities.
The river is now becoming a focal
point for much recreational activity.
During the past 2 years, the river has
been host to a major triathlon compe-
tition, and the Greater Hartford
Convention'and Visitors Bureau
estimates that the event generates
approximately $4 million dollars
annually from the influx of visitors
to the state.
About $5 billion is gener-
ated annually in the
regional economy from
boating, commercial and
sport fishing, swimming,
and beachgoing associated
with Long Island Sound.
Bass fishing is becoming increas-
ingly popular along the river, and, for
an unprecedented 2 years in a row,
Connecticut Oyster Market Harvest
45
.40
35
-S 30
s
= 25
£
» 20
.2
3 15
10
5
0
\'.'>'* I- ', i '''" '\''',''"\ ,"' I ' '' i '\ ""- ' i " t : t_'?' "\
72 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
Year
Source: Connecticut Department of Agriculture, ia»4.
-------
s
the river was selected as the host site
for an eastern regional bass fishing
tournament. Anglers from 12 states
visited the Hartford area to partici-
pate. The tournaments lasted 6 days
and were estimated to have generated
about $1 million in revenue each year.
A professional "BassMaster" tourna-
ment is being planned for September
1994, which 'will be telecast on
national television. Competitors from
all over the United States are
expected to come and fish in the
Connecticut River.
Rowing has also experienced a
resurgence along the river, and Hart-
ford was recently selected over 14
other cities as the 1997 site for the
United States Rowing Association
Convention. Six hundred rowers from
across the country are expected to
attend, generating about half a million
dollars worth of business for down-
town hotels, restaurants, and shops.
''Hartford is an excellent choice
for our annual convention,' said
Sandra Hughes, Executive Director
of U.S. Rowing, "There is a strong
rowing community in the area and
Riverfront Recapture [a private non-
profit organization commited to im-
proving public access to the Connecti-
cut River] is doing excellent work—
developing an urban rowing program
and putting on an annual regatta, in
conjunction with renewal of the
Riverfront."
While these successes are encour-
aging, many larger economic benefits
are still unrealized as the riverfront's
transformation has just gotten under
way. Planners are beginning to look at
land just outside the floodplain for
potential development. New condo-
miniums and other tourist-related
developments are envisioned. The
value of these properties is expected to
be significantly enhanced by current
efforts to revitalize the riverfront as
well as by efforts to improve public
access to the waterway.
For the first time in more than a
century, downtown Hartford will soon
be reunited with the waterfront. A
landscaped plaza is being constructed
to link the city to grassy terraces that
will provide amphitheater seating for
as many as 20,000 people. A new
Science Center is part of the riverfront
restoration plans and is expected to
draw a half a million visitors per year.
In East Hartford, construction will
soon begin on an expanded Great
River Park, which will include a new
amphitheater capable of seating about
300 people.
While the water quality in the
Connecticut River is considered good
and continues to improve, the river
remains threatened by discharges '
from combined sewer overflows in
three major cities. Following rainfalls,
bacteria levels in the river exceed
acceptable limits. Through its com-
bined sewer overflow policy, however.
Connecticut plans to control or limit
the discharges vith the ultimate goal
of making the entire river safe again
for swimming. The community is
. beginning to recognize the tremendous
value of the Connecticut River. A
recent referendum on an $80 million
combined sewer overflow project in
nine greater Hartford communities
was overwhelmingly approved by a
4-to-l margin, demonstrating the
residents' willingness to invest in
water quality improvements.
With regard to Long Island
Sound, excess nutrients have led to
low dissolved oxygen levels, which
continues to threaten this fertile estu-
ary. The low levels of oxygen routinely
observed during late summer months
reduce the abundance and diversity of
aquatic species. Efforts are now under
way through the Long Island Sound
Management Conference to target and
reduce nitrogen loadings from both
wastewater dischargers and polluted
runoff throughout the Sound's drain-
age basin.
Cuyahoga River
For decades, industries along the
Cuyahoga River, a tributary of Lake
Erie that flows through the heart of
Cleveland, Ohio, dumped poorly
treated wastes, noxious chemicals,
used oil, and solid debris into its
waters. The effect of these unchecked
discharges was to create a highly
polluted river and shoreline for Lake
Erie.
In a 1968 report presented at
Kent State University, the authors
described a river whose "surface is
covered with brown oily film," where
'large quantities-of black heavy oil
flowing in slicks, sometimes several
inches thick, are observed frequently.
Debris and trash are commonly
caught up in these slicks forming an
unsightly floating.mess." The authors
also noted starkly that ''animal life (on
the river> does not exist."
On June 22 of the following year,
the Cuyahoga River caught on fire.
-------
f
A stray spark ignited oil and debris
that had accumulated on its surface. •
It was an event that embarrassed the
people of northeast Ohio and became
a symbol of the degradation that has
resulted from a century of industrial-
ization that took place without regard
to environmental consequences. It also
was one of the seminal events that led
to the rise of the environmental move-
ment, the establishment of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and the passage, 3 years later,
of the Clean Water Act..
In the 25 years since the
Cuyahoga River blaze, industries,
local governments in northeast Ohio,
and the federal government have
banded together in an effort to im-
prove the quality of the river's water.
Millions of dollars, much of it autho-
rized under the Clean Water Act, have
been spent to upgrade and expand
waste water treatment facilities.
Hundreds of permits limiting pollution
to the river have been written and
enforced by the Ohio and U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agencies. These
efforts have paid off. Levels of
dissolved oxygen have increased,
improving the conditions for aquatic
life, while levels of bacteria, ammonia,
and other contaminants have dropped
dramatically. Along with these
welcome changes'in the biological and
chemical attributes of the river have
• come marked improvements in its
aesthetic values.
In the early 1970s, downtown
Cleveland was a virtual ghost town
after the normal working day ended.
The area adjacent to the riverfront at
Lake Erie, known as "the Flats," was
a dilapidated warehouse district. The
success Cleveland has had in recent
years drawing crowds again to its
downtown area is due, in no small
part, to the revitalization of the Flats
and the improvement in the water
quality in the Cuyahoga River and
Lake Erie. Today, the harbor area
where the Cuyahoga River and Lake
Erie meet is no longer choked with
debns and reeking wastes. Instead, it
is bustling with pleasure boats, which
dock alongside fashionable restau-
rants and shops. The newly ciean
river has generated 3,500 tourist-
related jobs in this 820-acre lakefront
area, without sacrificing the 1,500
industrial jobs that already existed
there. The Flats is one of the top tour-
ist draws in Ohio, attracting seven
million visitors each year. It also
boasts a restaurant that is
Cuyahoga River
consistently at or near the top in gross
revenues for restaurants nationwide.
The restoration of the quality of
the Cuyahoga River and Lake Erie
waters is one remarkable measure of
the Clean Water Act's success, but the
data reveal areas where progress has
been slow. For example, increases in
the species of fish in a water body
typically lag behind other water qual-
ity improvements, and this has been
the case in the Cuyahoga River, where
fish populations are just now recover-
ing. Industry and local government
officials recognize that this recovery
must continue. As fish populations
increase, it signals more improve-
ments in water quality and the prom-
ise of increased commercial and recre-
ational fishing activities, and the jobs
these activities generate. For north-
east Ohio and other industrial areas
like it, it is a promise that can be
fulfilled by a continuing commitment
to the Clean Water Act.
-------
The Chesapeake
Bay
The Chesapeake Bay Water-
shed—the area that drains into
Chesapeake Bay—stretches over
64,000 square miles mto six states
(New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, West Virginia, and Vir-
ginia) as well as the District of Colum-
bia. Home to some 13.6 million people,
the watershed extends as far north as
Cooperstown, New York, the origin of
the mighty Susquehanna River, and
as far south as Norfolk, Virginia,
where its mouth opens up to the
Atlantic ocean. This wonderfully
diverse and complex coastal estuary is
surprisingly shallow—its waters aver-
age little more than 20 feet in depth.
Famous for its crabs and rockfish, the
Chesapeake is truly one of our
national treasures.
While it is difficult to quantify the
economic benefits of a resource as vast
and productive as the Chesapeake
Bay, a 1987 study done by Maryland's
Department of Economic Employment
and Development estimated the value
A 1987 study estimated
the value of the Bay from
commercial fishing, port
and ship building activities,
and Bay-related tourism
to be a staggering
$31.6 billion.
of the Bay from commercial fishing,
port and ship building activities, and
Bay-related tounsm to be a staggering
$31.6 billion. Recreational activities
such as boating, fishing, hunting,
sightseeing, and dining on regional
cuisine accounted for $8.4 billion per
year.
\ Delaware
Zl
Chesapeake
Bay
The Chesapeake Bay
From the 1960s to the late 1970s,
it became clear that the Bay was in
trouble. System-wide declines were
recorded in the bay's fisheries, its
underwater grass beds, and its oxygen
levels. Commercial harvests of shad
declined 35 percent in the Virginia
portion of the Bay and 95 percent in
Maryland, eventually causing a fish-
ing ban to be put in place. Similar
declines in striped bass resulted in a
ban for that fishery as well. Previ-
ously, the striped bass population had
sustained a sport and commercial
industry valued in the millions of
dollars annually.
The Bay's once prosperous oyster
industry—decimated by overharvest-
ing, disease and loss of habitat-
began producing record low harvests.
Major losses of underwater vegetation.
critical habitat for dozens of species of
fish and waterfowl, has also led to
declines in numerous waterfowl
species, including black ducks,
redheads, wigeons, and canvasbacks.
The loss of wetlands also contrib-
uted to the downturn in the quality of
the Bay. One study of a riparian
forest in a predominantly .agricultural
watershed showed that 80 percent of
the phosphorus and 89 percent of the
10
-------
t
nitrogen were removed from the water
by the forested wetland before enter-
ing a tributary of the Chesapeake
Bay. When wetlands are lost, so is the
ecosystem's natural buffering capacity.
In 1975, Congress directed the
EPA to investigate the causes of envi-
ronmental decline in the Chesapeake.
"The Chesapeake Bay is a
vast natural resource with
significant economic, recre-
ational and social value to
our state and our citizenry.
We are beginning to see a
recovery of the Chesapeake
Bay as a result of a decade
of hard work, determina-
tion, and commitment,
spearheaded by the Chesa-
peake Bay Program ...."
Maryland Governor
William Donald Schaefer
To achieve this goal, EPA established
a Chesapeake Bay Program Office
that has successfully formed partner-
ships with key Chesapeake Bay
states, federal agencies, and other
interested parties such as citizen
groups to take action where needed.
Initial efforts' have focused on the
Bay's most significant ecological prob-
lems: nutrient overenrichment, toxics,
and loss of aquatic habitat.
An historical Chesapeake Bay
agreement signed in 1983 formed a
binding partnership among EPA and
the governments of Virginia, Pennsyl-
vania, Maryland, and the District of
Columbia and moved the program
from a research to an action phase.
A second agreement, signed in 1987
expanded the scope of the original
agreement with 29 commitments for
action in priority areas, such as living
resources, water quality, and popula-
tion growth and development.
A centerpiece of the Bay agree-
ment was the establishment of a goal
to reduce nutrients by 40 percent by
the year 2000 and to maintain that
level or better thereafter. Nutrient
reduction is essential to restoring Bay
water quality. Excess phosphorus and
nitrogen literally choke the Bay by
contributing to abundant algae
growth, which then clouds the water
and blocks the sunlight needed by Bay
grasses. Without sunlight, these
grasses die and the essential habitat
and food supply they provide
vanishes Also, as the algae decom-'
poses, dissolved oxygen is used up,
forcing oxygen-dependent species to
either leave or die. "
Today, efforts to reduce nutrient
loadings and restore water quality are
beginning to have an effect. The Bay
is beginning to see encouraging signs
of improvement. Phosphorus levels in
the main stem of the Bay have been
reduced by 16 percent and nitrogen
levels have been stabilized, despite
significant population growth in the
Bay watershed. Baywide, approxi-
mately- 70,000 acres of underwater
grasses are now growing. This repre-
sents an 86 percent increase in acre-
age since 1984, significantly reversing
the declining trends of the 1970s.
Artificial oyster reefs are being cre-
ated in areas where oyster diseases
have less impact and oyster survival
is more likely. Watermen are being
employed in the off-season to
11
-------
construct these beds and reseed exist-
ing oyster beds. Finally, the latest
study on toxic releases showed a 52
percent reduction in reported toxic
emissions in the Bay watershed from
1987 to 1991, compared to a national
decrease of 22 percent from 1988 to
1991.
Future improvements in Bay
water quality will depend, to a large
extent, upon how well polluted runoff
is controlled. Sewage treatment plants
and air deposition are major nutrient
sources for the watershed; however, as
in so many parts of the country,
runoff from agricultural and suburban
lands continues to be the most signifi-
cant obstacle to further water quality
improvement.
The Great Lakes
The Great Lakes, collectively, are
one of the world's outstanding natural
resources, containing 20 percent of the
The Great Lakes
world's and 95 percent of the United
States' fresh surface water. The Great
Lakes Basin receives drainage from
eight States—Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and New York—and
the Canadian Province of Ontario.
More than 40 million people live in
the Basin, including nearly 20 percent
of the U.S. population and 50 percent
of the Canadian population.
The Great Lakes provide
tremendous economic and ecological
benefits to the area. One quarter of all
U.S. industry and more than 70 per-
cent of U.S. and 60 percent of Cana-
dian steel mills are in the Great
Lakes Basin. Over 23 million people
depend on the Great Lakes for drink-
ing water. The area affords habitat for
a vast array of plant and animal
species, many of which are native to
the Great Lakes Basin.
Recreational benefits are also
significant. Data from the mid-1980s
indicate that recreational boating
marinas employed almost 20,000
people. Boat sales and other boater
spending (marina fees, licenses,
repairs, etc.) amounted to almost $4
billion per year. Fishing in connection
with recreational boating and other
recreational fishing expenditures add
another $3 billion to $7 billion per
year.
Water quality in the Great Lakes
has improved significantly since the
passage of the Clean Water Act in
1972. Although discharge loadings
12
-------
f
from wastewater treatment plants
have increased due to population
growth and development pressures,
levels of dissolved oxygen have
steadily improved. Reductions in
organic material, solids, and phospho-
rus are noteworthy as well. For
example, phosphorus loadings to
Green Bay from the Fox River in 1971
were 4.8 million pounds. By 1982, this
level had been reduced to 1.2 million
pounds.
Chemical concentrations in
humans and the aquatic environment
have dropped sharply. Fish have
returned to some harbors from which
they had disappeared. The number of
double-crested cormorants, a water
bird that all but vanished in the Great
Lakes in the 1970s, has climbed to
12.000 nesting pairs, and the number
of bald eagles is nearing the highest
level ever measured in Michigan.
Improvements in Great Lakes
water quality have had a positive
economic impact on the recreational
'fishing industry. Fishing licenses
purchased in just one county of Green
Ohio's Lake Erie tourism
industry is now an $8.5
billion per year business.
I Bay, Wisconsin, increased from 19,000
| in 1970 to 51,000 in 1989. Boat regis-
trations more than doubled during the
same period, leading to an increase in
demand for launch ramps and other
boating facilities in the Green Bay
area. The revitalization of fishery
j resources in Lake Ontario has spurred
I
I :
the development of the charter boat
fishing industry, boater and angler
access sites, fishing derbies, and addi-
tional employment opportunities.
Water quality improvements and
increased lakeside development have
caused people to return to the shore of
Lake Erie to enjoy boating, fishing,
swimming, and other activities. Today
it is rare to see algal blooms, and
bacterial counts in Ohio beach areas
along Lake Erie have dropped over
90 percent from 1968 to 1991. As a
result, the comeback of Ohio's water-
front has also seen an increased num-
ber of boating, camping, and vacation
resort facilities. From 1986 to 1993
there was a 30 percent increase in the
number of marinas in the Lake Erie
Basin. Ohio's Lake Erie tourism
industry is now an $8.5 billion per
year business.
Lakeshore cities have begun to
restore their shorelines. Cleveland,
Ohio, is now transforming its
lakefront into a popular area for
families and cultural activities. A new
harbor and festival park have already
been completed. Several museums are
completed or under construction and
an aquarium is planned. All this on
the shores of a waterbody pronounced
"dead" just 25 years ago.
The New York and
New Jersey Shore
Every summer, millions'of people
flock to the New Jersey and New York
shores to vacation and enjoy the beach
environment. Unfortunately, during
1987 and 1988, garbage and medical .
New York and New Jersey Shores
wastes washing to shore and high
bacterial counts led to the closure of •
beaches. Although the washups
occurred for only short periods of time,
approximately 70 miles of beaches
were closed each year. Beach atten-
dance at Long Island dropped 50 per-
cent after the first washups, and a
New Jersey community reported that
the number of beachgoers dropped
from 1,200 per day to about 120 per
day. The economic impact from these
closures was significant: New York
and New Jersey tourism industries
lost more than $4 billion.
A 1991 report published by the
Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC), Testing the Waters HI,
Closings. Costs, and Cleanup at U.S.
Beaches, provides data on beach
closures and advisories due to high
counts of bacteria and other health
threats. The report- documents over
7,000 beach closures or advisories in
22 coastal states between 1988 and
1992. In 1989, there were over 1,000
closures or advisories and 70 percent
occurred in New York and New
Jersey; five New York beaches were
under advisories for the entire sum-
mer. In 1990, the same was true for
three beaches in New York. Urban
13
-------
t
runoff and combined sewer overflows
were identified as the primary pollut-
ant sources responsible for the
closures or advisories. •
While the impacts to tourism are
significant, other benefits are dimin-
ished by the same pollution that leads
to beach closures. Commercial fishing
is often affected as fish kills from
•polluted water reduce both the abun-
dance and distribution of fish and
shellfish stocks. For example, a mas-
sive fish kill that occurred off the New
Jersey coast in 1976 resulted in a loss
valued at $11.6 million to the state's
commercial and recreational fishery.
Future losses due to the resulting
reduced fish population from the kill
were estimated at $498 million.
Ecological quality also suffers.
Extremely high levels of water
pollution along New York and-New
Jersey's coasts have resulted in poor
and unproductive aquatic and terres-
trial habitats, which in turn results in
the loss of the necessary organisms
and aquatic vegetation that serve as
food and habitat for fish and other .
aquatic animals, as well as terrestrial
animals, such as birds.
• Today, problems due to washups
of floating garbage and medical
wastes have been largely controlled
along New York/New Jersy shores. An
interagency action plan to clean up
these wastes before they reach the
beaches is now in effect and includes
actions such as aerial surveillance to
identify floating slicks that could
potentially affect the shores and
scheduled cleanups of floating debns
around high moon tides and storms.
Nevertheless, the beaches still face
v J- -U f Sf ' ffl' ' '•%''*
'' ?„ /"*•'-'- '"•' • •••?'-•.-"£g^""$'?<
f ftt / f t f,% s^•x;A "^ " ' y5- J
, , * *".•>'•**< ^" N«. 5*^*^4 .s-V X*
threats from other pollution sources,
such as stormwater runoff and com-
bined sewer overflows. Whenever it
rains, these sources can lead to
serious water quality impacts. The
extent to which they are controlled
will be a key factor for future water
quality and recreational opportunity.
14
-------
* The Clean Water Act's Imprint:
How Has It Made a Difference?
In 1972, Congress passed the
Clean Water Act to address the exten-
sive pollution that was degrading the
Nation's waters. The original Act,
along with amendments added over
the years, has dramatically improved
the condition of waterbodies in most
parts of the country. As a result,
America's water-based recreational
opportunities, as well as other water
quality benefits, are far greater than
those available 20 years ago. More
waters are now fishable and more
waters are now swimmable.
Today, there are approximately
15,500 publicly owned wastewater
treatment plants in operation, 94
percent of which provide upgraded
levels .of treatment- The improvements
in wastewater treatment capabilities
have been possible, in large part,
because of federal resources. Approxi-
mately $60 billion in federal funds
have been made available since the
Act's passage, and these resources,
coupled with state and local resources,
have resulted iln dramatic wastewater
treatment improvements. As a result
of this investment, biological oxygen
demanding substances from waste-
water plants were reduced nationally
by 37 percent between 1968 and 1988.
This progress is even more remark-
able given, the 22 percent increase in
waste loadings to sewers from a popu-
lation increase of 27 million people
and a two-thirds increase in economic
and industrial activity.
Clean Water Act controls on toxic
discharges from industry have had a
similarly beneficial impact on water
quality. The states 'and EPA have
issued permits limiting pollutant
discharges from approximately 63,000
industrial and municipal facilities.
National effluent guideline standards,
which are used to set pollutant dis-
charge limits for specific industries.
have been established for over 50
industrial categories, such as steel
manufacturers and the oil and gas
industry, typically reducing toxic pol-
lutant loadings to'waterbodies by
15
-------
t
90 percent. These guidelines set toxic
pollutant limits based on use of the
best available technology that is
economically achievable, and a 1989
EPA study showed substantial water
quality improvements when these
limits were met.
Pretreatment, or reducing the
amount of toxic pollutants that indus-
tries discharge' to wastewater facilities
for treatment,, has also made a big
difference in water quality. From 1975
to 1990, pretreatment has resulted in
95 percent reductions in metals load-
ings and 40 to 75 percent reductions
in toxic organic loadings from regu-
lated industries.
Reducing losses of critical aquatic
habitat is another area where
progress has been made. From the
mid-1950s to the mid-1970s,
approximately 450,000 acres of wet-
lands were lost in the United States
every year. From the mid-1970s to the
mid-1980s, that figure dropped to
approximately 290,000 per year. This
change resulted primarily from the
Clean Water Act wetlands program,
combined with new state wetland
protection programs. Although data
are not available, it is generally
accepted that implementation of the
Clean Water Act and some provisions
of the 1990 Food Security Act. other-
wise known as the Farm Bill, have
reduced losses even further.
These estimates stand as testa-
ment to the success of the Clean
Water Act and its vision; however, the
job is not yet complete. In too many
places around the country, water
bodies are still not as clean as they
could be and aquatic habitats continue
to be degraded. Although many
improvements can be cited, previously
undetected problems are becoming
evident, and some problems continue
to persist. Polluted runoff from our
yards, streets, and farms is now the
leading source of water quality im-
pairment. And toxic chemicals con-
tinue to pose a risk to public health
and our environment.
These problems pose difficult
challenges, but, like the problems that
came before, they can be solved. The
pending Clean Water Act reauthoriza-
tion presents the Nation with an
opportunity to refine those portions of
the Act that need improving so that •
an even more effective national frame-
work is in place to guide future
actions.
States with More Than 50% Wetlands Loss
H
51KV to Sin Luss
>8i>"r Loss
Twenty-two States have lost at least 50% of their original wetlands. Seven of
these 22 (California, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa. Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio) have
lost more than 80% of their orginal wetlands.
Source: Dahl. I.E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United States 17Stfg in 1980's. .
U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service.
16
-------
Future Benefits from a New Clean
Water Act
In January 1994, the Clinton
Administration proposed a package of
legislative reforms for reauthorizing
the Clean Water Act. These recom-
mendations address the highest prior-
ity problems that are causing pollu-
tion and preventing communities from
fully enjoying their water resources. If
adopted and implemented, the recom-
mendations would bring appreciable
benefits, including more water-based
recreational opportunities. An over-
view of the Administration's key rec-
ommendations and the associated
benefits that could be expected is
provided below.
Controlling
Polluted Runoff
Most people think of water pollu-
tion in terms of toxic waste being
discharged from an industrial pipe,
and although these sources can still
be a problem, for the most part,
today's water quality problems are
much less obvious. Studies consis-
tently show that polluted runoff from
multiple diffuse sources is the single
biggest source of pollution affecting
our waters nationally.
Controlling polluted runoff from
hundreds or thousands of sources in
an area is not easy; however, the
magnitude and extensive nature of
the impacts can no longer be ignored.
The Administration is proposing a
more comprehensive, targeted
program that would be carried out
primarily by the states with assis-
tance from EPA. EPA would develop
guidance specifying how polluted
runoff should be controlled, and states
would establish programs to ensure
that these practices were put into
Strengthening controls on
polluted runoff would
improve the condition of
150,000 river miles and 7.1
million lake acres across
the country.
place for those waters that are either
threatened or impaired due to pollu-
tion runoff. After sufficient time for
implementation, enforcement
authority would be available to ensure
action where needed.
If fully implemented, the
Administration's recommendations
would reduce polluted runoff and
improve water quality in over 150,000
river miles and 7.1 million lakes acres
that are now impaired or threatened.
17
-------
s
Reducing Toxic
Discharges
While the number of waterbodies
being impacted by toxic pollutants are
fewer than those being impacted by
polluted runoff, where toxics occur,
the impacts to public health' and
aquatic ecosystems can be severe.
Toxics have been linked not only to
cancer, but also to adverse neurologi-
cal, reproductive, developmental, and
immunoiogicai effects. Some sensitive
species may die from exposure to
these substances. These problems
become even more acute when one
considers that many toxics do not
degrade easily and may be around for
very long periods of time.
The Administration recommends
greater authority for EPA to restrict
or prohibit the discharge of toxic
pollutants. Establishing limits on
industry and setting numeric criteria
for water quality are the two mecha-
nisms by which toxics are now con-
trolled; however, both can be costly
and time-consuming. When scientific
evidence demonstrates that a serious
threat exists, the Administration
would provide EPA with greater
authority to take more immediate
action so that public health and the
environment are adequately protected.
Decreasing toxics would have the
effect of better protecting the environ-
ment and public health. For example,
the number of fish consumption advi-
sories and bans that are now in effect
around the country would be reduced.
This is especially important for people
who depend on fishing for their liveli-
hood, such as Native Americans and
and those working in commercial or
charter boat fishing industries. In one
report, charter fishermen in the Great
Lakes reported routine declines in
business of up to 40 percent immedi-
ately following a fish consumption
warning.
Controlling Urban
Runoff
Whenever it rains, runoff in
urban areas, carrying a multitude of
pollutants, such as oii, grease, patho-
gens, sediments, and herbicides is
washed into local waterbodies. In
many cases, this runoff can seriously
affect water quality. For example:
Fish Consumption Advisories
in the United States
Number of Advisories
in Effect (1993)
ovi
O American Samoa
0
1-10
11-25
26-50
51-100
>100
Note: States that perform routine fish tissue analysis (such as che Great Lakes States)
will detect more cases offish contamination and issue more advisories than
States with less rigorous fish sampling programs.
Based on data contained in the EPA Fish Consumption Advisory Database as of
September 1993 .
18
-------
t
• According to the Natural
Resources Defense Council,
there were 1,592 days of beach
closures or advisories issued in
1990,2,008 days in 1991, and
2,619 in 1992. Combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) and storm
water were implicated as an
important contributor.
* In 1990, pollutants from
CSOs contributed to bans or
restrictions on 597,000 acres
of shellfish harvesting areas.
The current programs for reduc-
ing pollution from urban runoff are
considered too complex and too expen-
sive by many state and local govern-
ments. In the case of CSOs, the prob-
lem has been seen as so unmanage-
able that some cities have done little
or nothing at all. The Administration's
recommendations for controlling both
CSO and stormwater management
would improve-the existing regulatory
framework by providing communities
with greater flexibility to target and
adapt their efforts to better suit their
particular situation. This approach
would potentially save communities
almost $27 billion per year when
compared to implementation under a
strict interpretation of the existing
Clean Water Act—without compro-
mising water quality.
The Administration's proposal
would reduce the number of overflows
at CSO points from 50 to 80 events
per year to 3 to 4. In so doing:
• Violations of water quality
standards for these waterbodies
would be reduced from 100 to
200 days per year to no more
than 10 to 20.
• • Nationally, over 1 billion
gallons of raw waste that are
now being discharged untreated
would receive treatment.
These improvements, along with
a more targeted program for control-
ling stormwater, would reduce
shellfishing restrictions, fish kills, and
beach closures and greatly improve
the aesthetics of our Nation's waters.
Strengthening
State Revolving
Loan Funds
Much of the progress that has
been achieved under the Clean Water
Act can be linked to the federal
investment in wastewater infrastruc-
ture. Private citizens, industry, and
all levels of government have recog-
nized that money spent on clean
water improves not only public health,
but the health of the Nation's
economy as well.
Between 1972 and 1987, the
Clean Water Act authorized more
than $50 billion in grants to assist
-------
communities with their wastewater
infrastructure needs. In recent years,
the grants program was replaced with
a State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF).
Rather than awarding grants to mu-
nicipalities, the Act now authorizes
EPA to award grants to the states to
capitalize SRF loans. State agencies in
turn award low interest loans and
other forms of assistance to local gov-
ernments and individuals to finance
wastewater treatment needs. SRF
loans can be used to build treatment
works and sewer systems to serve
homes and industries or to install
measures to control polluted runoff
from city streets, farms, and
construction sites. These loans are
repaid so that the fiind is not depleted
and remains available to other com-
munities needing assistance.
Since the inception of the pro-
gram, the Agency has awarded more
than $8.5 billion in capitalization
grants to the states and Puerto Rico.
These states have also contributed
$1.7 billion in required matching
funds. Several states have also lever-
aged SRF assets to generate more
than $4.5 billion in bond proceeds.
The success of the SRF program
lies in the flexibility it has afforded
states to fund a variety of projects.
States have made loans to big cities to
build traditional wastewater treat-
ment projects, to local sewer districts
to build retention basins for nonpoint
stormwater runoff, and to rural towns,
which in turn make loans to home-
owners to replace failing septic
systems.
The Administration's recommen-
dations would provide states with
even greater flexibility, allowing such
items as pollution prevention and
water conservation to be funded.
The success of the program also
lies in the nature of loan funding,
inducing recipients to seek out the
most cost-effectivf ,,-ays to solve their
wastewater treatment problems. State
officials report that SRF-funded
projects proceed more quickly and at a
lower cost than projects funded with
direct grants.
The current authorization for
funding the SRF expires in 1994;
however, the Administration proposes
to extend funding through 1998, at
$2 billion a year with declining
amounts through 2004. This invest-
ment, coupled with state contribu-
tions, will generate $2 billion in SRF
loans each year for clean water infra-
structure and the jobs that investment
brings. By the Agency's estimates,
22,400 jobs in wastewater equipment
manufacturing and construction are
generated for ever)' billion dollars
spent on clean water infrastructure.
Thus, the additional $13 billion that
would be provide under the Adminis-
tration's proposal would generate over
290,000 jobs for the countty during
the next decade.
20
-------
• When the figure for the SRF
program is combined with other
Administration funding initiatives,
including $4.6 billion for a drinking
water SRF, $480 million for nonpoint
source controls, and $400 million in
grants for communities facing extraor-
dinary treatment needs, the total
federal investment proposed by the
Administration for clean water infra-
structure exceeds $18 billion, with a'
potential for creating over 400,000
jobs.
Continued funding of the
State Revolving Loan Fund
would generate over
290,000 jobs during the
next decade; total funding
for all clean water spend*
ing could generate over
400,000 jobs.
These job estimates are impor-
tant to note when considering the
economic benefits of the Clean Water
Act. However, they are conservative
figures. They do not take into account
the many jobs that would be created
or sustained as a result of improving
water quality conditions. Industries
such as lodging, charter boat fishing,
and recreationai equipment manufaci
turers al! depend on the availability of
clean water resources to attract their
customers.
Potential Job Creation Resulting from
Continued Funding of the State Revolving Fund
^^^^^^^•^^^^^^^^•PBBBBBMBBBBBBBMHi^^
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona •
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
r ' •
Louisiana
Maine
^^^^^^^MP^^H^^^^^^^Bi
Jobs
3,296
' 1,764
1,991
1,928
21,083.
2.358
3,611
1,447
1,447
9,951
4,984
2,283
1.447
13,332
7,104
3,990
2,661
3,752 ,
3f\A 1
,Z41
2,282
State
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota •
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
__ .
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Jobs
7,130
10,009
12,675
5,418
2,656
8.172
1,447
1,508
1,447
2,946
12.046
1,447
32.537
5,320
1,447
16,595
2.382
3,330
_
State
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
N, Marianas
Puerto Rico
TTofPalau
Virgin Islands
11,677 ^^^^^^^^^^^^|
BEE^H TOTAL
— • i
Jobs
3,020
1,447
4,282
13,474
1,553
1,447
6,033
5,126
• 4.595
7,969
1,447
265
191
123
3,845
107
154
291,198
21
-------
Conclusion
s
Clean water is an absolute essen-
tial for our economy and quality of
life. However, the job of protecting
this vital resource remains as
challenging as ever. The population
continues to grow, placing our waters
at increasingly greater risk. At the
same time, Americans maintain high
expectations about water quality
whenever they turn on their tap or
venture out to enjoy recreational
benefits at a lake, river, or beach. If
our high expectations are to be met,
we must sustain existing achieve-
ments and proceed aggressively to
control those pollutants that still
degrade our waters and prevent us
from fully enjoying their use.
More effective ways for controlling
polluted runoff, further reducing toxic
discharges, and providing financial
resources to support clean water
efforts are the keys to ensuring clean
water for ourselves and for future
generations. The Clean Water Act
reauthorization is the appropriate
forum for getting these improvements
in place. It is a critical opportunity,
and one the country cannot afford to
let pass.
22
-------
s
References by Section
Water-Based
Recreation
•
Alpine, L, Trends in special interest
travel. Specialty Travel Index, 13:83,
1986.
American Forestry Association,
Natural Resources for the Twenty-first
Century,.Island Press, 1990.
Flather. Curtis, and Thomas Hoekstra,
An Analysis of the Wildlife and Fish
Situation in the United States: 1989-
2040, General Technical Report
RM-178, U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Forest Service, 1989.
Groom, M.J., R.D. Podolsky, and C.A.
Munn, Iburism as a sustained use of
wildlife: A case study of Madre de Dios,
southeastern Peru, in Neotropical
Wildlife Use and Conservation,
Robinson and Redford (eds), University
of Chicago Press, 1991.
Kier, William M., Associates, Fisheries,
Wetlands, and Jobs: The Value of
Wetlands to American Fisheries,
Sausalito. California, March 1994.
Leeworthy, V., N. Meade, K. Drazek,
j and D. Schrueffer, A Socioeconomic
I Profile of Recreationists at Public Out-
j door Recreation Sites in Coastal Areas:
i Volumes 1-5, U. S. Department of Com-
; merce, National Oceanic and Atmos-
I phenc Administration, 1989, 1990.
t
Lingle, G.R., History and economic
impact of crane-watching in central
Nebraska, Proceedings of North Ameri-
can Crane Workshop 6:25-29, 1991.
Personal communication with Bob
•Moyat, National Marine Manufactur-
ers Association, January 1994.
National Marine Manufacturers Asso-
ciation, The Importance of the Recre-
ational Marine Industry, 1990.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Statis-
tical Abstract of the United States,
Bureau of the Census, 1994.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service and U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, 7357 National Survey of Fish-
ing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation, U.S. Government Printing
Office. Washington, DC, 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 7', Alternative Usages of Wet-
lands Other Than Conventional Farm-
ing in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and
Nebraska, EPA 171R-92-006, April
1992.
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wild-
life-Associated Recreation, Preliminary
Findings. September 1992.
Wiedner, David, and Paul Kerlinger,
Economics of birding: A national
survey of active birders, American
Birds, 44(2):209-13, 1990.
The Value of Clean
Water: Profiles from
Around the Country
Boise, Idaho
Personal communication with Jay
Clemens, Boise Chamber of Commerce,
May 1994.
Personal communication with David
Eberle, Visiting Professor, Department
of Economics, Boise State University,
May 1994.
Stahl, Amy, Urban pollution: Any
solution?, Focus Magazine, Fall 1993.
Personal communication with Lynn
McKee, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Idaho Operations
Office, May 1994.
Connecticut River and Long
Island Sound Watershed
Long Island Sound Management Con-
ference, The Long Island Sound Study,
The Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan, March 1994.
Personal communication with John.
Volk. Director of Aquaculture Division,
Connecticut Department of Agricul-
ture, May 1994.
Personal interviews with Stephen .
Gephard and Frea Banack, Connecti-
cut Department of Environmental
Protection, May 1994.
Persona! interview with Joseph R.
Marfuggi. Executive Director, .
Riverfront Recapture, May 1994.
-------
s
Cuyahoga River
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, Biological and Water Quality
Study of the Cuyahoga River,
Cleveland. Ohio, 1994.
Oxbow Association, Report of the Flats,
Cleveland, Ohio, 1994.
Chesapeake Bay
Adler, Robert W., Jessica C. Landman
and Diane Cameron, The Clean Water
Act Twenty Years Later, Natural
Resources Defense Council, Washing-
ton, DC, 1993.
Morton,.Thm, Chesapeake Bay—hang-
ing in the balance, The National
Geographic, June 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program, A Work in
Progress, A Retrospective on the First
Decade of the Chesapeake Bay Restora-
tion, Washington, DC, September 1993.
The Great Lakes
• Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies in cooperation with U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Long Term Water
Quality Improvements in the Lower Fox
Rii-er and Green Bay, 1993.
Dawson. Dhad, and.Michael P. Voiland.
The Development of the Lake Ontario
Sportftshery: Socioeconomic Impacts in
New York State, Living with North
America's Inland Waters Symposium,
1988.
Great Lakes Commission, Travel, Tour- .
ism and Outdoor Recreation in the
Great Lakes States: A Statistical
Profile, 1989.
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, 7992 Governor's Report on
Lake Erie, 1993.
Schneider, Keith, Progress, not victory,
on Great Lakes pollution. New York
Times, May 7, 1994.
Senate Committee on Small Busi-
nesses, Importance of Great Lakes
Environmental Quality to the Economy
of the Upper Great Lakes Region.
Congressional Hearing, August 1984.
Sierra Club Great Lakes Program,
Clean Lakes, Clean Jobs, 1993
The New York/
New Jersey Shore
Figley, W., B. Pyle and B. Halgren,
Socioeconomic impacts. In R. L.
Swanson and C.J. Sindermann (eds.),
Oxygen Depletion and Associated
Benthic Mortalities in New York Bight,
1976.
Patrick Halpin. Suffolk County Execu-
tive, in Oversight Report of the U.S.
Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, Coastal Waters in Jeopardy:
Reversing the Decline and Protecting
America's Coastal Resources, December
1988.
McLain, Ashley, Testing the Waters HI:
Closings, Costs, and Cleanup at U.-S.
Beaches, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Washington, DC, June 1993.
Swanson, R. L., and C.J. Sinderman,
Oxygen Depletion and Associated
Benthic Mortalities in New York Bight,
NOAA Professional Paper 11, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washing-
ton, DC, 1976.
U-.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2, Assessment of the Floatables
Action Plan: Summer 1989, New York,
New York, December 1989.
The Clean Water Act's
Imprint: How Has It
Made a Difference?
Dahl, T.E., and C.E. Johnson, Status
and Trends of Wetlands in the Conter-
minous United States, Mid-1970'$ to
Mid-198ffs, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC, 1991.
Personal communication with Nikos
Singelis, Office of Wastewater Enforce-. j
ment and Compliance, Office of Water, j
Washington, DC. May 1994.. i
Personal communication with Danna I
McDonald, Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance, Office of
Water, Washington. DC, May 1994.
Tiner, Ralph, Jr., Wetla nds of the
'United States: Current Status and
Recent Trends, Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington. DC, 1984.
24
-------
f
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Report to Congress: Water Quality
Improvement Study, Office of Water, .
Washington, DC, 1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Report to Congress: National Pretreat-
' merit Program, Office of Water, EPA
21W-4004, Washington. DC, 1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Report to Congress: 1992 Needs Survey.
EPA832-R-002, Office of Water,
Washington, DC, 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
The National Environmental Benefits
of the Clean Water Act, Draft Report,
Office of Water, Washington, DC, 1993.
Future Benefits from
a New Clean Water
Act
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Testing the Waters: A Study of Beach
Closures in Ten Coastal States,
Washington, DC, July 1992.
U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, The 1990 National
Shellfish Register of Classified Estua-
rine Waters, Rockville, MD, July 1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
President Clinton's Clean Water Initia-
tive, EPA800-R-94-001, Washington,
DC, February 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
President Clinton's Clean Water Initia-
tive: Analysis of Costs and Benefits,
EPA 800-R-94-002, Washington, DC,
March 1994.
25
-------
t
-------
-------
—* CD O
° 5 o
"O 5'
11
- 5 | f
S T) 3 2.
s i II
?«
o • •
I?
o
o
5
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
(4503F)
EPA841-F-94-002
April 1994
f v>EPA
FACT SHEET
NATIONAL WATER QUALITY INVENTORY
1992 REPORT TO CONGRESS
Background
The National Water Quality In-
ventory Report to Congress is
prepared every two years under
Section 305(b) of the Clean Wa-
ter Act. The 1992 Report is the
ninth in its series.
TheClean Water Act gives states
the responsibility to monitor and
assess their waters and report
the results to EPA. EPA pro-
vides technical assistance and
guidance on monitoring and re-
porting, and summarizes the re-
sults of the state assessments in
this Report to Congress.
This 1992 Report is based on
water quality assessments sub-
mitted by 57 states, territories,
interstate jurisdictions, and an
American Indian Tribe (hereaf-
ter collectively referred to as
states). These State assessments
describe water, quality condi-
tions during 1990-1991.
Rivers, lakes, estuaries, wet-
lands, coastal waters, Great
Lakes, and ground water are all
covered in mis Report. This Re-
port also contains information
on public health and aquatic life
concerns, water quality moni-
toring, and state and federal
water pollution control pro-
grams.
States measure water quality by
determining if individual wa-
ters are clean enough to support
uses such as fishing, swimming,
and drinking. These uses are
part of the state water quality
standards, are set by the States,
and are approved by EPA.
A Summary of Findings
For their 1992 reports to EPA,
the States assessed the quality of
roughly the same amount of
waters as in previous reporting
cycles. Many waters remained
unassessed in the 2-year report
period. States assessed:
• 18% of the Nation's 3.5 mil-
lion'river miles
• 46% of the Nation's 39.9 mil-
lion lake acres
• 74% of the Nation's 37,000
estuary square miles.
This represents a near doubling
of waters assessed in the inital
two year period for 1984 when
EPA first started to gather this
type of information.
i
About two thirds of assessed
waters are of good enough qual-
ity to support the uses states set
for them such as fishing and
swimming, and therefore meet
the Clean Water Act goals es-
tablished by Congress. There-
Five Leading Sources of Water Quality Impairment
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Riven
Agriculture
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Resource Extraction
Industrial Point Sources
Lakes
Agriculture
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
'' ftydrologic/Habitat
Modification
Municipal Point Sources
Onsite Wastewater
Disposal
Estuaries '
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/
Storm Sewers
Agriculture . •
Industrial Point Sources
Resource Extraction
Source; 1992 Report to Congress.
Rocycled/Rocyctabto
Prtnttd on pflptr that oofltabw
-------
1992 National Water Quality Inventory
Fact Sheet
Five Leading Causes of Water Quality Impairment
Rank
1
2
3
4
5 '
Rivets
Siltation
Nutrients
Pathogens
Pesticides
Organic Enrichment/ "
Low DO
Lakes
Metals
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment/
Low DO
Siltation
Priority Organic
Chemicals
Estuaries
Nutrients
Pathogens
Organic Enrichment/
Low DO '
Siltation
Suspended Solids
Source: 1992 Report to Congress.
retaining waters are impaired to
varying degrees.
In the one third of assessed wa-
ters that have water quality prob-
lems, theleadingcontributors to
problems are agricultural run-
off, municipal sewage treatment
plant discharges, storm sewers
and urban runoff. Agricultural
runoff is the most extensive
source of pollution in the
Nation's waters.
Nutrients, siltation, pathogens,
metals, and organic enrichment
are the mostcommonly reported
pollutants in impaired waters.
Nutrients can overstimulate the
growth of algae and weeds; silt-
ation smothers bottom-dwelling
organisms and destroys stream
habitat; pathogens cause shell-
fish harvesting restrictions,
drinking water restrictions, and
recreational beach closures; and
organic enrichment leads to re-
duced levels of dissolved oxy-
. gen in water..
Municipal sewage treatment fa-
cilities, industries, and others
that discharge into waterways
from "points" such as pipes con-
tinue to contributeto water qual-
ity problems. Municipal dis-
charges, for example, are the
leading pollution source in estu-
aries and the second leading
source in rivers. Industrial dis-
charges are often the source of
severe problems due to toxicants
and are the leading source of
fish consumption restrictions
and the second leading source
of fish kills. Storm sewers and
urban runoff have emerged as
significant problems nationwide
and are the second leading
source of impairment in lakes
and estuaries.
Wetland loss continues at a sig-
nificant rate "and is attributed
primarily to residential and ur-
ban development, agriculture,
resource extraction activities
such as mining, and the build-
ing of impoundments and high-
Page2
ways. Loss of these resources
(1) reduces the biological pro-
ductivity of waters because wet-
lands are nurseries and breed-
ing grounds for many fish, shell-
fish, and birds; (2) increases the
impacts of floods and storm sew-
ers that wetlands would other-
wise attenuate; and (3) deprives
open waters of a natural "filter"
for the removal of pollutants.
Toxic substances, though not as
widely found as other pollut-
ants, continue to cause locally
severe impacts. Among these
impacts are fish consumption re-
strictions, fish kills, and contami-
nation of bottom sediments.
Although, in general, the qual-
ity of the Nation's ground water
is good, an increasing number
of pollution incidents affecting
ground water have been re-
ported. Underground storage
tanks, septic systems, municipal
landfills, agriculture, and aban-
doned hazardous waste sites are
sources of ground water pollu-
tion cited by the states.
In ground water, the leading
pollutants include nitrates, met-
als, pesticides, petroleum prod-
ucts, and volatile organic com-
pounds.
River and Stream
Water Quality
For 1990-1991, fifty-five states
assessed the quality of 642,881
miles of rivers and streams, or
18% of theNation's total 3.5 mil-
lion miles of rivers and streams.
-------
April 1994
Section 305(b)
Of these 642,881 miles:
* 56% fully support swim-
ming, fishing, and other uses,
and an additional 6% cur-
rently support uses but are
threatened and could be-
come impaired if pollution
control actions are not taken;
• 38% are impaired. Of these,
25% are considered partially
supporting uses and the re-
River Miles Assessed
(For 1990-1991)
Total rivers = 3.5 million miles
Total assessed = 642,881 miles
18% Assessed
82% Unassessed
Levels of Overall
Use Support - Rivers
Fully Supporting
56%
Threatened
6%
Partially Supporting
25%
Not Supporting
13%
Not Attainable
<
I
mainingl3% are not support-
ing uses.
Leading sources-Slates attribute
72% of problems in assessed riv-
ers to agriculture; 15% to mu-
nicipal dischargers; 11% to re-
source extraction; and 11% to
storm sewers and urban runoff.
Leading pollutants - States at-
tribute 45% of problems in as-
sessed rivers to siltation; 37% to
nutrients; 27% to pathogens;.
26% to pesticides; and 24% to
organic enrichment.
NOTE
Lake and Reservoir Quality
For 1990-1991, forty-nine states
assessed the quality of 18.3 mil-
lion acres of lakes, ponds, and
reservoirs,or46%oftheNation's
39.9 million lake acres.
Of these 18.3 million acres:
• 43% fully support fishing,
swimming, and other uses,
and an additional 13% cur-
rently support uses but are
threatened and could be-
come impaired if pollution
control actions are not taken;
Page 3
Lake Acres Assessed
(For 1990-1991)
Total lakes = 39,920,000 acres
Total assessed = 18300,000 acres
46% Assessed
54% Unassessed
Levels of Overall
Use Support - Lakes
Fully Supporting
43%
Threatened
13%
Partially Supporting
35% .
Not Supporting
9%
Not Attainable
• 44% are impaired. Of these,
35% are considered partially
supporting uses, and the re-
maining 9% are not support-
ing uses.
Leadingsources-States attribute
56% of problems in lakes to agri-
culture; 24% to storm sewers
and urban runoff; 23% to hy-
drologic modifications; 21% to
-------
1992 National Water Quality Inventory
Fact Sheet
municipal dischargers; and 16%
to onsite wastewater disposal.
Leading pollutants - States at-
tribute 47% of problems in as-
sessed lakes to metals; 40% to
nutrients; 24%.to organic en-
richment; and 22% to siltation.
Pollution can accelerate the natu-
ral aging process of lakes/known
as eutrophication. Eutrophic
lakes are characterized by vari-
Estuary Square Miles Assessed
(For 1990-1991)
Total estuaries = 36,890 square miles
Total assessed = 27,227 square miles
Assessed 74%
Unassessed 26%
Levels of Overall
Use Support - Estuaries
Fully Supporting
56%
Threatened
12%
Partially Supporting
23%
Not Supporting
Not Attainable
0%
ous conditions, such as the
growth of weeds and algae due
to high nutrient levels; reduced
water clarity; and reduced lake
depth due to buildup of silt and
organic matter. Almost half of
all lakes assessed (47%) were
found to- be eutrophic or
hypereutrophic.
Estuary and Coastal
Water Quality
For 1990-1991,twenty-fivestates
assessed the quality of 27,227
square miles of estuaries, or
about 74% of the Nation's total
37,000 square miles.
Of these 27,227 square miles:
• 56% fully support fishing,
swimming, and other uses,
and an additional 12% cur-
rently support uses but are
threatened and could be-
come impaired if pollution
control actions are not taken;
• 32% are impaired. Of these,
23% are considered partially
supporting uses and the re-
maining 9% are not support-
ing uses.
Leading sources -States attribute
53% of problems in assessed es-
tuaries to municipal discharges;
43% to storm sewers and urban
runoff; 43% to agriculture; and
23% to industrial point sources.
Leading pollutants - States at-
tribute 55% of problems in as-
sessed estuaries to nutrients;
42% to pathogens; 34% to or-
ganic enrichment; and 12% to
siltation.
Page 4
Water quality reporting for
ocean coastal waters is limited.
Pathogens are the second
adinff pottution problem
Ift
States assessed water quality in
about 6% of the U.S. coastline
miles. Only 14% of the assessed
coastline miles were found to be
impaired.
Water Quality in the
Chesapeake Bay
The Chesapeake Bay Program
has implemented programs to
reduce .impacts from nutrients,
oxygen-demanding substances,
and pathogens. Nutrients (pri-
marily phosphorus and nitro-
gen) feed the excessive algal
growth in the Bay that results in
low dissolved oxygen concen-
trations and losses of underwa-
ter grasses that provide critical
food and habitat for waterfowl
and shellfish. Pathogen con-
tamination in shellfish beds re-
sults in shellfish harvesting re-
strictions.
Wastewater plant upgrades, en-
hanced compliance with per-
mits, bans on phosphorus de-
tergents in the Bay watersheds,
and nonpoint source controls re-
duced annual discharges of
phophorus into the Chesapeake
Bay by 40% (4.7 million pounds)
between 1985 and 1991. Over-
all, water quality monitoring
data confirm that the reduction
in phosphorus loading is reduc-
ing phosphorus concentration
-------
April 1994
Section 305(b)
in Bay waters. Total phospho-
rus concentrations in the Bay de-
creased by 16% between 1984
and 1992. However, total nitro-
gen concentrations have re-
mained stable in the mainstem
of the Bay and increased in some
tributaries.
The Cheaspeake Bay Program's
nonpoint source program em-
phasizes controls for runoff gen-
erated by agricultural activities,
paved surfaces, and construc-
tion in urban areas. The pro-
gram includes nutrient manage-
mentfor applying animal wastes
and fertilizers to cropland in
amounts calculated to meet crop
requirements without contami-
nating ground and surface wa-
ters.
Water Quality, in the
Great Lakes
For 1990-1991, seven Great Lakes
states assessed 5,319 miles of
Great Lakes shoreline, or about
99% of the Nation's total Great
Lakes' shoreline.
Of these 5,319 miles:
• 2% fully support fishing,
swimming, and other uses,
and an additional 1% cur-
rently support uses but are
threatened and could be-
come impaired if pollution
control actions are not taken;
These statistics only address
nearshore waters, not conditions
in the deeper, less stressed cen-
tral waters of the-Great Lakes.
States attribute a high percent-
age of problem waters in the
Great Lakes to fish consump-
tion restrictions in place for
nearshore areas.
Information on sources and pol-
lutants in the Great Lakes is lim-
ited. Atmospheric deposition,
contaminated sediments, and
landfills are the leading sources
of pollution, and leading pollut-
ants include toxicorganicchemi-
cals,:such as PCBs; metals; nu-
trients; and organic enrichment.
Persistent Great Lakes problems
include toxic contamination of
fish tissue and sediments. How-
ever, the trophic status of the
Great Lakes has improved due
to decliningphosphorus concen-
trations. -
Status of Wetlands
97% are impaired. Of these, Wetlands are being lost at a sig-
30% are considered partially nificant rate, totaling a net loss
supporting uses and 67% are of 2.6 million acres over the 9
not supporting uses. years of a recent U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Survey Report to Con-
Page 5
gress (Wetlands Status and Trends
in the Coterminous U.S., mid-1970s
to mid-1980s, September 1991).
States report that agriculture and
commercial and residential de-
velopment are the leading
sources of wetland losses.
Sedimentation and nutrients are
cited as the leading pollution
problems in wetlands.
Ground Water Quality
About 53% of the U.S. popula-
tion relies to some extent on
ground water as drinking wa-
ter.
•*•,
The most frequently cited
sources of ground water con-
tamination are underground
storage tanks, agricultural ac-
tivities, septic systems, munici-
pal landfills, industrial landfills,
and abandoned hazardous
waste sites.
The most frequently cited pol-
lutants in ground water include
nitrates, identified as a ground
water problem by 49 States, vola-
tile organic chemicals (48 States),
petroleum products (46 States),
metals (45 States), and pesticides
(43 States).
Public Health and
Aquatic Life Impacts
States report elevated concen-
trations of toxic substances in
8% of monitored river miles, 43%
of monitored lake acres, and 13%
of monitored estuarine square
miles.
-------
1992 National Water Quality Inventory
Fact Sheet
Forty-seven States cite 1,279 wa-
terways with fish consumption
advisories. Mercury, PCBs, pes-
ticides, dioxin, and other organic
chemicals and heavy metals are
most commonly cited pollutants
causing fish consumption re-
strictions.
Twenty-seven states discuss
problems with toxic contamina-
tion of bottom sediments. These
states reported 669 incidents of
contamination caused primarily
by heavy metals, PCBs, dioxin,
and pesticides.
Forty-three states reported 930
pollution-caused fish kills af fect-
ingmoremanSmillionfish. Low
levels of dissolved oxygen, pes-
ticides, manure and silage, oil
and gas, and chlorine are the
leading pollutants causing the
fish kills, and the leading sources
include agriculture, industrial
discharges, municipal sewers,
spills, and pesticide applications.
Thirty states reported 371 swim-
ming area closures, most of
short-term duration and attrib-
uted to bacteria from sewage
treatment plants, combined
sewer overflows, and urban run-
off.
Status of Pollution
Control Programs
Since the 1990 Report to Con-
gress, EPAand many States have
moved toward a more geo-
graphically oriented approach
to water quality management.
In 1991, EPA highlighted the
Watershed Protection Approach
(WPA), a framework for focus-
sing efforts on carefully chosen
watersheds. The WPA is not a
new government program, but
rather a means of pulling to-
gether the resources and exper-
tise of existing local, State/
Tribal, and Federal programs.
Point source dischargers are
regulated through permits is-
sued by the states or EPA. As of
June, 1992, most dischargers
were meeting their permit lim-
its, but 10% of major municipal
dischargers and 7% of directly-
discharging industrial plants
were not meeting their permit
conditions (i.e., were in "signifi-
cant noncompliance").
The National Pretreatment Pro-
gram protects municipal waste-
water treatment plants and the
environment from the impacts
of toxic discharges into sewers
from industrial sources. Fifty-
four percent of significant in-
dustrial users of sewage treat-
ment facilities are reported to be
in significant noncompliance
with discharge standards and/
or self-monitoring and report-
ing requirements. Thirty-five
percent of municipalities re-
quired to do so have not fully
implemented their pretreatment
programs.
All states have assessed their
nonpoint source pollution prob-
lems, and all have developed
nonpoint source management
programs to address them. EPA
has approved 51 state nonpoint
source management programs
and portions of all remaining
programs. Nonpoint sources are
primarily addressed through
Page 6
management activities imple-
mented at the state and local
levels.
The EPA is responsible for 20
programs related to ground
water protection. EPA issued
the National Guidance to assist
States in developing Compre-
hensive Ground Water Protec-
tion Programs (CSGWPPs),
which are a key component of
the Agenc/ s Ground Water Pro-
tection Strategy. The States have
adopted a variety of programs
to address ground water con-
tamination. These include
implementing ground water
protection strategies, enacting
comprehensive ground water
protection legislation, and estab-
lishing programs to protect well-
head areas.
Over the next few years, EPA
and the States are committed to
implementing a wide variety of
water pollution control pro-
grams. These programs include
the National Combined Sewer
>
Overflow Strategy, storm sewer
permitting requirements; and
water quality standards for wet-
lands.
Improving Nationwide
Monitoring: The Intergovern-
mental Task Force on Moni-
toring Water Quality
In 1992, the Intergovernmental
Task Force on Monitoring Wa-
ter Quality (ITFM) convened to
prepare a strategy for improv-
ing water quality monitoring
nationwide. The ITFM is a Fed-
eral/State partnership of ten
Federal agencies, nine State and
-------
April 1994
Section 305(b)
Interstate agencies, and one
Americanlndian Tribe. The EPA
chairs the ITFM with the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) as
vice chair and Executive Secre-
tariat as part of their Water In-
formation Coordination Pro-
gram pursuant to OMB memo
92-01.
The mission of the ITFM is to
develop and implement a na-
tional strategic plan to achieve
effective collection, interpreta-
tion, and presentation, of water
quality data and to improve the
availability of existing informa-
tion for decisionmaking at all
levels of government and the
private sector. The ITFM is also
producing products that can be
used by monitoring programs
nationwide. Forva copy of the
first and second year ITFM re-
ports contact:
" M* r^,.^ .,-,-, *,- "X .-** 1 * — "«
USGS Office of Water Data
Coordination
417 National Center
Reston, VA 22092
(703) 648-5023
For more information about the National Water Quality Inventory
Report contact:
Barry Burgan
National 305(b) Coordiantor .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (4503F)
401 M Street, SW
. Washington, DC 20460
"(202)260-7060 • : .--••-'
(202) 260-7024 (fax)
For copies of this report or the companion summary document,
use order form on page 8.
Page 7
-------
1992 National Water Quality Inventory
Fact Sheet
For copies of the National Water Quality Inventory: 1992 Report to Congress or the companion summary
document Quality of Our Nation's Waters: 1992 check the appropriate box(es) below and mail for Fax
this form the the address/Fax number indicatated below. Allow 2-3 weeks for delivery.
National Water Quality Inventory: 1992 Report to Congress (EPA841-R-94-001)
Quality of Our Nation's Waters: 1992 (EPA841-S-94-002)
Please print clearly:
Ship to:
Title:
Organization:.
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Daytime Phone:
Please include area code
Return this form to:
NCEPI
11029 Kenwood Road, Building 5
Cincinnati, OH 45242
FAX: (513) 891-6685
PageS
-------
t
Rhetoric: The CWA Initiative does not take a risk-based approach to our remaining
water quality problems.
Reality: The President's Initiative focuses on those pollutants and sources that are
the largest contributors to water resource impairment nationwide while
providing greater flexibility in directing resources where they will be most
effective. One of the key elements of the Initiative is a strengthened program
for addressing polluted runoff, targeted Qnlyjo those sources likely to be
contributors to water pollution. Up to now, the CWA has imposed strict
regulation on certain types of sources. Data from the States sugest that 72%
of the remaining problem in our lakes, rivers and streams comes from polluted
runoff. EPA's panel of top, independent scientists-the Science Advisory
Board-has identified nonpoint source pollution as a leading source of
. ecological risk to our nation's surface waters.
At the same time, the President's initiative seeks to exempt from stormwater
permitting millions of small sources that are not contributing to impairment,
the Administration's stormwater targeting will cut future costs by about $10
billion per year.
Also, the Initiative's watershed provision is a means of identifying the largest
sources of risk to human health and ecological resources in a particular locale,
and targeting programs and expenditures on cost-effective methods of
controlling priority sources.
-------
Rhetoric:
Reality:
The Clean Water Act has been successful in improving (he quality of the
nation's waters. The law ain't broke, so why fix it?
Our country has been successful in cleaning up most wastewater
discharges from municipal and industrial treatment plants and other
"point sources", but this progress has unmasked problems created by
polluted runoff. A reauthorized Clean Water Act must contain improved
measures to address this wet weather runoff from farms, city streets,
construction sites, mining operations and other "nonpoim sources", to help
States organize their own mixes of solutions for the water quality problems
affecting entire watersheds, and to restore and maintain valuable wetlands.
President Clinton's Clean Water Initiative would encourage State and local
governments to organize efforts according to their own priorities for
controlling both point and nonpoint sources of pollution in an entire watershed.
It would also equip local governments with tools to control more cost-
effectively combined sewer overflows and stormwater runoff. The
Administration also proposes to reauthorize, sustain and fully capitalize the
State Revolving Fund that has contributed to the success of the Clean Water
Act funding for which is schedule to expire this year. Finally, the
Administration's wetlands plan will make wetlands protection fairer, more
streamlined, flexible and effective.
t
-------
I
Rhetoric: A reauthorized Clean Water Act will only bring along more federal mandates
with which the States and communities have to comply.
Reality: Implementation of President Clinton's Clean Water Initiative will improve
the existing framework by providing States and communities greater
flexibility to target and adapt their efforts.
States and communities are encouraged to look at a variety of ways to achieve
clean water-getting away from one size-fits-all regulation. The storm water
provisions in the Initiative give municipalities and States extensive time to
identify and apply the incremental, cost-effective means to fix the most serious
storm water discharges which pose the greatest risk of harm to local waters
and avoid imposing controls where they are not receded. The Initiative will
provide communities with CSOs the flexibility to consider environmental and
economic impacts of various options in selecting final CSO controls.
Presently, there is a proliferation of reports and requirements used to
characterize water quality, many of which are overlapping and redundant. The
Administration recommends a consolidated inventory and listing of threatened,
impaired, and special resource waters that can be used to apply Federal, State,
and local resources and control requirements in the most cost-effective
manner.
Finally, the Clinton Administration also proposes to further reduce polluted
runoff from non-point sources by setting clear performance requirements while
assuring that States can use a range of flexible measures and further,
discretionary, site-specific adaptations. The Administration is committed to an
approach that will achieve water quality goals while allowing enough time to
adapt and implement good management practices.
Rhetoric: The Act will force both large and small municipalities to use expensive end-of-
pipe controls to treat storm water discharges.
Reality: Under the current Clean Water Act, millions of small businesses, including
light industrial, commercial, and retail facilities could be included in
permitting requirements beginning in October of 1994. The President's
Initiative seeks to exempt sources that take steps to prevent pollution, exempt
small construction sites, allow states and localities to decide what, if any
action is needed from small facilities. EPA has already tried some of these
approaches-but under the current law, the court considering the regulations
has rejected them. The President's Initiative seeks a change in the law to
allow local flexibility and targeting of our resources to the most important
problems.
-------
Rhetoric: Onty industry causes water quality problems
Reality: For the last decade, states and others have consistently reported that
oonpoint source pollution is the main reason that water quality objectives
are not being met. States report that the leading contributors to water
quality problems are agricultural runoff, municipal sewage treatment
plant discharges, storm sewers and urban runoff. Although industrial
discharges continue to pose serious threats — they are the leading source of
fish consumption restrictions and second leading source of fish kills - states
now report that agricultural runoff is the most extensive source of
pollution in the Nation's waters. According to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency's 1992 National Water Quality Inventory
Report to Congress, problems in 72 percent of assessed river miles, 56 percent
of lake acres and 43 percent of estuarine square miles can be attributed to
agriculture. Leading pollutants causing these problems are nutrients from
fertilizers and animal wastes, siltation from soil erosion, and pesticides. Storm
sewers and urban runoff have also emerged as significant problems nationwide
and are the second leading cause of impairments in lakes and estuaries.
Also, in many older communities, wastewater from homes and businesses are
combined with storm systems. When there are heavy rains, many times these
systems are unable to handle the overflow, resulting in discharges of raw
sewage, untreated commercial and industrial wastes, and storm water. These
so-called combined sewer overflows (CSOs) have many adverse effect on
plants, animals and people that live in, or near, the water. CSOs were
implicated as a important contributor to some 2, 619 days of beach closures in
1992 and contributed to bans or restrictions on 597,000 acres of shellfish
harvesting areas in 1990.
f
-------
Rhetoric:
Reality:
The Clean Water Act proposals are too tough on farmers
Currently pending bills in Congress and the Administration's proposal
would provide fanners wide flexibility to tailor appropriate and affordable
water quality protection practices to their farms. With the active assistance
of the United States Department of Agriculture, EPA would publish broad
management measure guidance that would consider the costs and the pollution
and risk reductions achieved and would be broad and flexible enough to allow
for wide state discretion and appropriate local, site-specific tailoring. It would
not tell agricultural producers how to farm or what water quality practices to
apply. Rather, the guidance would set forth goals to be achieved or factors to
be considered. For example, an erosion control measure could set a goal of
minimizing the delivery of sediment from agricultural lands to receiving waters
by applying the erosion control component of the USDA's conservation
management system. To achieve this goal, producers could choose from a
variety of practices available under the system, including conservation tillage,
strip cropping, contour farming, or terracing.
It is important to note that not all farmers and ranchers would be required to
implement measures to protect water quality. The Administration's proposal is
specifically limited to apply only to watersheds of impaired or threatened
waters or a limited number of special high quality waters designated by the
states. New farms or facilities would also implement basic common-sense
measures as pollution prevention, to ensure that currently clean waters stay
clean.
Finally, states would be provided flexibility to rely initially on successful
voluntary approaches. States would have considerable time to implement their
nonpoint source programs - 2 1/2 years to develop their upgraded programs
and five more years to implement them. States would be expected to have
enforceable implementation programs as a means of motivating voluntary
activity and, over time, to address situations where necessary implementation
is clearly not taking place.
-------
Rhetoric:
Reality:
The Watershed Provisions are too prescriptive
The Administration's proposal for watershed management is strictly
voluntary, simply providing a federal framework for successful state
watershed management. The program requirements and incentives
outlined below are consistent with the watershed management provision
proposed by the National Governors' Association. The minimum
requirements are not prescriptive. States, for example, would be expected to:
1) identify the watersheds most in need of attention-those that are impaired,
threatened, or in need of special protection; 2), designate multidisciplinary,
multiorganizational teams and their lead agencies; and 3) charge those teams to
establish environmental objectives (which would include water quality
standards and other important environmental goals) and develop and implement
watershed plans to address the highest priority problems within those
watersheds. States would also be expected to lay out a schedule so that ail
priority watersheds are meeting environmental objectives in 15 years. States
would have the lead role in developing their watershed programs, .and the
Federal government would issue guidance and assist states in developing their
programs.
States that voluntarily choose to implement a comprehensive program would
actually be afforded greater flexibility and would be eligible for incentives that
would help streamline statutory requirements and reduce administrative
burdens. States with approved watershed programs, for example, would be
eligible to receive a multi-purpose water grant, to tailor nonpoint source
controls, and to align NPDES permit terms on a watershed basis. To the
maximum extent possible, watershed plans would be allowed to satisfy other
Clean Water Act inventory, ranking, planning and reporting requirements,
including requirements under Sections 208, 303 (d), 303 (e), 305 (b), 304 m,
314, 319 and 320.
-------
t
Chlorine Study
Rhetoric: EPA wants to ban the use and manufacture of chlorine.
Reality: EPA would like to study the uses and impacts of chlorine and chlorinated
compounds in a limited number of areas to explore both the benefits and
adverse impacts on human health and the environment. Chlorine has many
beneficial uses. For example, it is important in the treatment of drinking water
and wastewater in reducing risks from microbiological contaminants. It is also
important to the manufacture of many products used in daily life. However,
the use of chlorine and chlorinated compounds in certain circumstances can
also cause adverse human health and ecological impacts.
As part of its Clean Water Initiative, the Clinton Administration proposes that the
EPA initiate a process to examine the uses and impacts of chlorine and chlorinated
compounds in a few important areas. The purpose of this effort would be to engage a
wide range of public and private sector experts in a study of the impacts and benefits
of current uses and of potential substitutes or process alternatives. The proposal
does not call for any immediate regulatory action nor does it indicate whether or
not regulatory action would take place on the completion of the study.
The proposed study would have three phases:
phase 1 - Convene a Task Force of national experts. This group would initially
identify which chlorinated compounds to study.
Phase 2 - The Task Force would collect and evaluate all current information on
the use, and environmental and health impacts of chlorine and
chlorinated compounds associated with the areas listed above; and the
availability, safety and effectiveness of potential substitutes. The Task
Force would submit a report to the Administrator.
Phase 3 - After obtaining public comment, the Administrator would issue a
national strategy describing any scientifically-based actions deemed
appropriate in light of the information collected in and assessed by :.-.e
study. Using existing statutory authorities, these actions could incite
both voluntary and regulatory programs.
-------
Rhetoric:
Reality:
Rhetoric:
Reality:
Rhetoric:
Reality:
Rhetoric:
Reality:
WETLANDS
All wetlands are treated equally under the Section 404 program.
The Administration recognizes that all wetlands are not the same and has
taken steps to ensure that the Section 404 program is implemented accordingly.
In the context of individual permit reviews, the Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines
currently provide the Corps and EPA with the flexibility to appropriately scale
the regulatory response to the relative function of the affected wetland, the
character of the proposed discharge, and the probable environmental impact.
In August 1993, as pan of the Administration's Wetlands Plan, EPA and the
Corps issued guidance to their field staff to emphasize, clarify and standardize
implementation of that flexibility. In addition, most activities authorized under
Section 404 occur under general permits, where no individual review is
required due to the minor nature of the environmental impact.
Most Section 404 wetland permits are denied.
The vast majority of wetlands permits are granted. For example, in fiscal
year 1992, the Army Corps of Engineers made decisions on over 16,000
individual permit application, denying fewer than 400. It is estimated that at
least 80,000 additional activities are authorized by Corps general permits
yearly, In the 21 year history of the Section 404 program, EPA has "vetoed"
only 11 permits,
Getting a wetlands permit takes years.
Approximately 92% of all permit evaluations what, technically, is an
evaluation? Does additional review or processes need to occur before the
successful applicant can proceed? (that is both general and individual
permits) are completed in less than 60 days after a completed application has
been received by the Army Corps of Engineers.
EPA and the Corps regulate wetlands that aren't even wet.
The great ecological importance of wetlands stems from the variety of vital
functions they perform • and those functions aren't necessarily always
accompanied by the presence of visible water. As International Paper, a
worldwide paper and forest products company stated in a recent advertisement,
"For a good part of the year, many wetlands look as dry as can be. The
wetness is under the surface, at the water table, With the right combination of
water, soil, vegetation, you've got wetlands. And you have something very
important to the ecosystem." Some of the most well-known wetlands, such as
the Everglades and Mississippi bottomland hardwood swamps, often appear
t
-------
t
dry.
Rhetoric:
Reality:
So we may not always know a wetland when we see one. Since the 1970's,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CORPS) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) have used the same definition of wetlands for -
regulatory purposes. The definition is as follows: "wetlands are areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface of ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support a
prevalence of vegetation tvpicaJly ffitflpted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands eenerallv include swamos. marshes, boss and similar areas."
In more common language, wetlands are areas where the frequent and
prolonged presence of water at or near the soil surface sustains the natural
systems - the kind of soils that form and the plants that grow, and the fish
and/or wildlife communities that use the habitat. Swamps, marshes and bogs
are well-recognized types of wetlands, but there are many important wetland
types, such as vernal pools, playas and prairie potholes, that have drier or
more variable water regimes than those well-recognized by the public.
EPA and the Corps are currently using the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual to delineate wetlands for the Clean Water Act Section 404
permit program. The 1987 manual organizes field indicators into three.
categories—soils vegetation, and hydrology—and has evidence thresholds, or
criteria for each category. With this approach, an area that meets all three
criteria is considered a wetland. The 1987 Manual will remain in use pending
the ongoing National Academy of Sciences study of wetlands delineation.
The Government is throwing innocent people in jail for wetlands violations.
EPA and the Corps reserve their criminal enforcement for only the most
flagrant and egregious Section 404 violations and only where the violator
knew clearly, in advance of his actions, that he was violating the law. Since
enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1972, EPA and the Corps have taken
fewer than 20 criminal enforcement action in response to Section 404
violations - on average, less than one per year. Moreover, of those found
guilty of criminal Section 404 violations, fewer than 10 of these violators have
actually been sentenced to jail.
United States v. Pozsgai - In December 1989, a Philadelphia jury convicted
John Pozsgai on 40 counts of knowingly filling wetlands in Bucks County,
Pennsylvania, without a Section 404 permit. Mr. Pozsgai was sentenced to
three years in jail, ordered to restore the site upon his release, and assessed a
10
-------
fine. His conviction and sentence have been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Even prior to purchasing the 14-acre tract in 1987, Mr. Pozsgai was told by
private consultants that the site contained wetlands subject to the requirements
of Section 404. He purchased the property at a reduced price due to the
presence of wetlands, and then proceeded to ignore no less than 10 warnings
from EPA and the Corps field staff to stop filling the wetlands without first
getting a Section 404 permit. He also defied a temporary restraining order
(TRO) issued by a Federal court judge. In fact, the government documented
violations of the TRO on videotapes, thanks to the cooperation of neighbors
whose homes were being flooded as a result of Mr. Pozsgai1 s filling in his
wetlands.
Thus, wetland protection is not only a matter of sustaining very important
ecological functions, but typically also of preventing harm to other property
owners, downstream residents, or water users.
United States v. Ellen. In January 1991, William Ellen was found guilty by a
Maryland jury of knowingly filling 86 acres of wetlands without a Section 404
permit. He was sentenced to six months in jail and one year supervised
release. The U.S. Supreme Court denied review of the conviction and
sentence.
Mr. Ellen is a consultant who was hired by Paul Tudor Jones to assist in the
creation of a private hunting club and wildlife preserve on Maryland's Eastern
Shore. With Mr. Ellen's assistance, Jones selected a 3,000-acre site in
Dorchester County that bordered Chesapeake Bay tributaries and consisted
largely of forested wetlands and tidal marshes. As project manager, Mr. Ellen
was responsible for obtaining environmental permits and ensuring that the
project compiled with all applicable regulations. However, despite being
repeatedly told by his own consulting engineers that a Section 404 .permit
would be required, Mr. Ellen supervised extensive construction work,
destroying wetlands at the site without first obtaining a Section 404 permit.
Moreover, despite repeated requests to Mr. Ellen from the Corps, this
unpermitted activity did not stop until the Corps contacted Mr. Ellen's
subcontractors directly.
United States v. Qcie and Carev Mills - On January 26, 1989, a federal jury
sitting in Pensacola, Florida, found Ocie Mills and his son Carey guilty of
knowingly excavating waters and filling wetlands without federal permits in
violation of the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbor Act. The judge
sentenced each defendant to 2 \ months in jail and one year supervised release
after the prison term, which was conditioned on government approved
11
-------
t
restora&on of the site. The convictions and Sentences were affirmed by the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Ocie and Carey Mills own waterfront property in a sparsely developed
residential area adjacent to Florida's East Bay, The Mill's purchased this
property at a supposedly reduced rate with the knowledge that the prior owner
had discharged a small amount of Mil on the site. Despite clear warnings from
the Corps and the State environmental agency, the Mills filled the site and
built a canal without first obtaining a Section 404 permit. Their illegal activity
resulted in the loss of hardwood swamp and intertidal marsh habitats,
Rhetoric: If you have wetlands on your property, you can't do anything at all to develop
or build on that property.
Reality: The presence of wetlands does not mean that a property owner cannot
undertake any activity on the property* Qyej^M, mote than 9? percent of ail
projects are authorized within 60 days of application. In fact, wetlands
regulation under Section 404 does not necessarily even result in a restriction
on use of the site. For example, many activities are either not regulated at all,
explicitly exempted from regulation, or authorized under general permits.
Moreover, in situations where individual permits are required, the Federal
agencies can work with permit applicants to design projects that meet
requirements of the law and protect the environment and public safety, while
accomplishing the legitimate individual objectives and protecting the property
rights of the applicant.
12
-------
Rhetoric: The Administration proposes expanding citizen suit authority to allow suns
against farmers.
Reality: Neither the Administration's proposals, nor the bills before Congress
propose to expand the types of citizen suits that can be brought against
fanners. Under current law, certain types of fanning operatiosn which are
classified as "point sources" (such as certain combined animal feeding
operations) are already subject to citizen suits and will continue to be.
However, with the exception of reversing the Gwaltnev decision, which may
subject some "point source" agricultural operations to penalises for past
violations, the Administration proposes no new citizen suit authority
against fanners.
t
13
-------
t
Rhetoric:
Reality:
Groundwater provisions in the President's Initiative will generate an entirely
new permit program that will apply to all discharges to groundwater~tnclu4m%
all ponds and lagoons.
The groundwater provisions are narrowly tailored to protect surface water
by closing a loophole in the Clean Water Act. EPA has compiled evidence
that some surface impoundments into which industrial wastewater is discharged
are directly causing impairment of surface water through the groundwater.
Courts are divided about whether the requirements imposed by the Act can
simply be avoidetf i>y transporting pollution to surface water through ground
water To limit the provision to such situations, the Administration seeks a
requirement that only those discharges to ground water with a close
hydrologic connection' to surface water are included. The new provision
would cover a small number of facilities, and would level the field for
facilities that are now meeting normal discharge requirements.
14
-------
t
-------
L III 101
Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Water
4101
EPA
May 1994
t
i&*x
Sheets:
Combined Sewer Overflows and Storm Water
Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are remnants
from some of our country's earliest infrastruc-
ture. Today, when communities build their water
handling systems, they design separate systems
to convey and treat wastewater from homes and
businesses and wastewater from storm runoff. In
earlier times, the wastewater from homes and
businesses were combined with the storm water
systems. The problem is that when there are
heavy rains, they may not be big enough to handle
the flow. The result is an overflow. When CSOs
occur there are discharges to local waters of raw
sewage, untreated commercial and industrial
wastes, and storm water.
Storm water is water from precipitation that flows
across the ground and pavement when it rains or
whensnowand ice melt. The water seeps into the
ground or drains into storm sewers. These are the
drains you see at street corners or at low points on
the sides of the streets. All this draining water is
called storm water runoff and is a concern be-
cause of the debris, chemicals, and other pollut-
ants it carries.
How do CSOs and Storm Water Affect Me?
When these polluted discharges reach our water-
ways, it can have many adverse effects on those
plants, animals, and people that live in, or near,
the water. Some examples that may directly
affect you are:
According to the Natural Resources Defense
Council, there were 1,592 days of beach clo-
sures or advisories issued in 1990,2,008 days
in 1991, and 2,619 in 1992. CSOs and storm
water were implicated as an important con-
tributor to those beach closures.
Shellfish (oysters, clams, etc.) become con-
taminated with pollutants that settle to the
bottoms of rivers, streams, and oceans, mak-
ing the shellfish dangerous to eat. In 1990,
CSOs contributed to bans or restrictions on
597,000 acres ofshellfish harvesting areas.
The debris that is picked up and discharged by
CSOs and storm water can choke, suffocate or
disable marine life such as dolphinsand turtles.
Soil that is washed off construction sites, as one
example, clog fish gills, damage fish habitat,
and block the sunlight that the underwater
plants need to survive.
Under the current Clean Water Act, the scope of the
storm water program is not well defined. To help
control storm water discharges, the Clinton Initia-
tive would focus on high-priority storm water dis-
chargers by continuing to exempt small sources.
The Clinton Initiative focuses municipal action on
the practices that generate the most pollutants.
President Clinton's Clean Water Initiative would
allow communities with CSOs the flexibility they
need to address their.particular problem. This is
not a one-size-fits all national mandate, it encour-
ages communities to look at a wide variety of
control options. It also allows the communities to
take cost into consideration when making their
final decision.
Reau thorization is needed to do this because im pie-
mentation of the CSO policy in the President's
Initiative will provide adequate treatment for over
1 billion gallons of raw sewage, urban runoff, and
industrial wastewater. Implementation of thestorm
water provisions in the President's Initiative will
not only focus on the high-priority storm water
dischargers; it would also give municipalities and
States time to find the best way to keep storm water
discharges from harming local waters. A direct
result will be better protection of public health and
fewer instances when CSOs and storm water dis-
charges contribute to beach closures, fish kills, and
shellfish bed closures. Water bodies will be able to
meet their intended uses (fishable, swimmable)
more often. The Clinton Administration sees this
as a way to strengthen environmental protection
while providing communities with the flexibility
they need to pursue workable, cost-effective solu-
tions.
-------
I
-------
united iiates
Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Water
(WH-4105F)
EPA
May 1994
JFact Sheets
CONTROLLING AGRICULTURAL SOURCES OF WATER POLLUTION
How Big is the Problem?
Nonpoint source pollution is the leading source of
water pollution in the United States today. States
have reported that only 56% of assessed river
miles, 43% of assessed lake acres, and 56% of
assessed estuarine square miles fully support their
designated uses (e.g., fishing, swimming, and
drinking).
The States have also reported that the leading
causeof these impairments is agricultural nonpoint
source pollution. The States attribute problems in
72% of assessed river miles, 56% of lake acres, and
43% of estuarine square miles to agriculture. Lead-
ing pollutants causing these problems are nutri-
ents from fertilizers and animal wastes, siltation
from soil erosion, and pesticides.
^Agriciiltiire is the leading source of
impalrnient in. the Nation's drivers
: and Jakes, affecting 72% of the itri-.
^paired river miles ami 56% of im-
paired lake acres. •;".. ... r-!: •; :
How does the Clinton Administration
propose to solve the problem?
To address these water quality problems, the
Clinton Administration has proppsed, as a center-
piece of its Clean Water Initiative to amend the
Clean Water Act, upgrading existing State pro-
grams that address nonpoint source pollution.
The program would be targeted to water quality
problems. .
Under the Administration proposal, States would
focus on reducing nonpoint pollution in water-
sheds of impaired, threatened, and special pro-
tection waters identified by the States and on
protecting all waters from impairment by new
sources. For these areas, States would imple-
ment best available management measures for
categories of nonpoint sources causing or signifi-
cantly contributing to water quality impairments
or threatened impairments.
The program would be flexible and
results-oriented.
With the active assistance of the US. Department
of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) would publish a guidance
documentprovidingmanagement measures that
would consider the costs and the pollution and
risk reductions achieved and would be broad
and flexible enough to allow for appropriate
local tailoring. Site-specific plans and adapta-
tions to local soil and climatic conditions would
be encouraged, providing that the resulting level
of control is no less stringent than that estab-
lished by management measures.
The management measures guidance would set
forth goals to be achieved and would not pre-
scribe that particular practices be used. It would
not tell agricultural producers how to farm or
what water quality practices to apply.
For example, an erosion control measure could set
a goal of minimizing the delivery of sediment
from agricultural lands to receiving waters by
applying the erosion control component of the
USDA's conservation managementsystem, (These
systems in turn provide a choice of a variety of
practices, such as conservation tillage, strip crop-
ping, contour farming, or terracing.) An animal
waste measure could be tailored, based on eco-
nomics, to range from no requirements for the
smallest facilities to modest practices for
-------
t
-------
medium-size facilities to storage and containment
for the larger facilities.
•Similarly, a nutrient management measure could
ask the producer to develop a plan to apply nutri-
ents at rates necessary to achieve realistic crop
yields, account for all sources of nutrients (such as
legumes and animal manures), and improve the
timing of application. A pesticide measure could
call on producers to use integrated pest manage-
ment strategies that apply pesticides when an
economicbenefit to the producer will be achieved,
Similarly flexible and cost-effective approaches
could be set forth to reduce potential water pollu-
tion problems from grazing and irrigation prac-
tices.
The program would focus on voluntary action but
be backed by enforcement if voluntary efforts
should fail.
States would be provided flexibility to rely ini-
tially as much as possible on successful voluntary
approaches. States would have 71/2 years to
implement their NPS programs. States would be
expected to have enforceable implementation
mechanisms in their nonpoint source manage-
ment programs as a means of motivating volun-
tary activity and to address situations where nec-
essary implementation of measures is clearly not
taking place.
The program would be cost-effective.
The management measures would be written with
great flexibility, allowing the farmer to select prac-
tices that would achieve the goal in the most cost-
effective manner available. Indeed, many of the
available practices to reduce agricultural n'onpoirtt
sources are among the most cost-effective controls
available to help solve our Nation's water quality
problems. Total annual costs for producers to
implement these measures nationwide are esti-
mated to be between $430 million and $810 mil-
lion. Considerable amounts of Federal funds from
USDA and EPA are available to help producers
implement the measures. Many States also have
existing funding programs in place to assist pro-
ducers in implementing these same measures.
Thus^griculturalproducerscansuccessfullysolve
nonpoint source pollution problems while remain-
ing economically viable and productive.
-------
1
-------
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Water
(WH-4105F)
EPA
May 1994
t
Clean Water Act
Fact Sheets
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT - EMPOWERING STATES AND LOCALS
Clean Water is like good health —: we take it for
granted until it is in jeopardy. The newly released
National Water Quality Inventory, an assessment
of the health of our Nation's waters, shows that
our lakes, rivers, and estuaries are in a tenuous
state. Approximately one'third of the waters
states assessed are not safe for swimming and
fishing.
Tackling the nation's most significant remaining
water quality problem —urban, agricultural and
industrial nonpoint runoff — requires that we
look more broadly upstream to determine all the
stressors impacting our waterbodies. By focusing
on the watershed as a whole, rather than on spe-
cific sources of pollution, wecan identify thegreat-
est risks specific to each watershed and develop
tailored, workable solutions to meet those needs,
while involving stakeholders in every phase of the
process.
Through the reauthorization of the Clean Water
Act, we offer this Nation a precious opportunity to
attain its enviommental goals and to do so in a
more cost effective and efficent manner by em-
powering states and local governments to practice
comprehensive watershed management. Experi-
ence with the National Estuary Program, Clean
Lakes Program and scores of grass roots efforts
has taught us that people are most likely to protect
what they know — the stream in their backyard,
the beach where they vacation — the local re-
sources upon which they depend for their drink-
ing water, recreation, sustenance, or their liveli-
hood. The watershed provides a logical area
within which to build on this local commitment; to
coordinate private sector, regulatory and volun-
tary programs; and to conduct monitoring. We
can no longer assume that "national" solutions
will, by themselves, solve all local problems. In-
deed, we recognize that other levels of govern-
ment and the private sector often have expertise,
institutional arrangements, or legal authorities
more appropriate toaddressing problems in these
ecosystems than EPA or other federal entities.
The Administration proposes that the Clean Wa-
ter Act guide and reward voluntary state pro-
grams for comprehensive watershed management
that would:
• Identify the watersheds most in need of attention-
those that are impaired, threatened, or in need of
special protection.
• Designate multidisciplinary, multiorganizational
teams and their lead agencies. Charge those teams
to:
- Establish environmental objectives,
which would include water quality
standards and other important envi-
ronmental goats.
- Identify the highest priority problems
in the watershed.
- Create and carry out action plans to solve
those problems.
- Revise their plans and actions, as needed.
• Lay out a schedule so that all priority watersheds
have management plans in place within 10 years
and all waters are meeting environmental objec-
tives in 15 years.
The Clinton Initiative proposes several incentives
to reward states that choose to implementa water-
shed program, including the opportunity to tailor
or target nonpoint source controls; the opportu-
nity to receive a multi-purpose water grant; the
opportunity to obtain flexibility and streamlining
under the wetlands program; and the opportunity
to realign permits on a watershed basis.
"WatersJieds are the
fundamental
building blocks"
President Clinton
-------
-------
Lniii:i.i ,y.iu-s
Environmental
Proicciion Agency
Of five- of \Vjicr
410] ?
EPA
Mav 1994
9
Sheets-
Wetland Fact Sheet: H.R.1330
The Administration is concerned-that H.R. 1330,
the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and
Management Act of 1993, is fundamentally in-
consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Administration Wetlands Plan and would be det-
rimental to wetlands protection. H.R. 1330, with
relatively minor revisions, is now part of a pro-
posal developed by several Members of the House
Public Works Committee as a substitute to Chair-
man Mineta's Clean Water Act reauthorizetion
bill, H.R. 3948.
On March 22,1994, the Administration provided
testimony opposing the wetlands categorization,
federal agency roles, compensation, mapping,
and delineation aspects of H.R. 1330. The Ad-
ministration asserted that its Wetlands Plan iden-
tifiesacombinationoflegislativeand administra-
tive proposals that address provisions in the bill,
but in a manner that is more fair and flexible while
ensuring effective protection of the Nation's valu-
able wetlands.
The Administration's position on H.R. 1330 is
supported by the Association of State Wetland
Managers (ASWM), which analyzed in detail the
bill and rejected its approach. Essentially, they
conclude that there are twelve major implemen-
tation problems with H.R. 1330; particularly se-
vere are the difficulties posed by the restrictive
delineation criteria, the categorization criteria,
and the compensation scheme.
For example, H.R. 1330 calls for mapping and
categorizing all wetlands "up front" as either
"high-", "medium-", or "low-value" which would
govern the regulatory response for a specific per-
mitappIication.Whileconcephjallythisapproach
may be appealing, its technical, fiscal and envi-
ronmental implications make it unworkable.
Mapping the lower 48Statesata scale suitable for
detailed regulatory use would involve a mam-
moth undertaking yielding nearly 14 million
maps and costing in excess of 5500 million. In
addition, there is no scientific basis for a nation-
wide ranking of functionally distinct and diverse
wetland types. Finally, an a priori categorization
and ranking approach could furthercomplicate the
Section 404 program by failing to consider the
individual impacts associated with specific projects.
ASWM determined H.R. 1330's compensation
scheme "is confusing, inequitable, and would be
extremely expensive to implement." The Congres-
sional Budget Office estimates that the cost to the
government to buy all "high-value" wetlands for
thelower48Statesalone could cost over $10 billion.
ASWM also points out that this provision "would
(potentially) result in thousands or hundreds of
thousands of small and unmanageable parcels in
federal ownership."
The wetlands delineation criteria in H.R. 1330 are
based on, but more restrictive than, the 1991 pro-
posed delineation manual which,after field testing
and opportunity for public comment, was widely
discredited as technically unsound and unwork-
able in the field. ASWM found, that H.R. 1330's
delineation criteria would exclude "many wetland
types with water quality protection, flood control,
and other functions and values important to the
achievement of Clean Water Act goals....This in-
cludes many areas that are universally recognized
as 'true' wetlands."
The Administration Wetlands Plan n -ngnized the
need to deal more effectively with property rights,
and other regulatory concerns. Asa result, the Plan
contains provisions that deal directly with these
issues. The Administration has committed to es-
tablishing a Section 404 administrative appeals
process, so landowners can challenge regulatory
decisions without having to go to court. The Ad-
ministration has also committed to more stringent
timeframes on permit decision-making. In addi-
tion, support for advance, comprehensive plan-
ning, greater State and local involvement in wet-
lands regulation, and the elimination of duplica-
tion among federal agencies, particularly with re-
spect to agriculture, will further address these con-
cerns. '
: A copy:of; the ASWM analysis^and the; i y-;;:
Adimrijstratiori Wetlands Plan can be obtained
from the Contactor-operated toll-free Wet^!
MdsHbtlitteal -I-800-832-7828.:- -:tf^flMm
-------
-------
linked Suiics
Environmental
Protection Agency
Offict of Water
4101'; &
EPA
May 1994
Glean Water Act
Fact Sheets
The Issue: WJun does a government action affecting private property
amount to a "taking," and what are the takings implications of wetlands
regulation?
The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of
private property by the government for a public
use without payment of just compensation. A
body of law hasbeen established by theSupreme
Court (and lower courts) that is used to deter-
mine when government
actions affecting use of
privateproperty amount
to a "taking" of that prop-
erty by the government.
When private property
is "taken" by the govern-
ment, the property
owner must be fairly
compensated.
The Fifth Amendment
to the Constitution of the
United States of America
Initially/ the courts rec-
ognized takings claims
based on governmental
action that resulted in a
physical seizure or occu-
pation of private property. The courts subse-
quently ruled that, in certain limited circum-
stances, government regulation affecting private
property also may amount to a taking.
In reviewing these "regulatory" takings cases,
the courts generally apply a balancing test, and
examine the character of the government's ac-
tion and its effect on the property's economic
value. Government actions for the.purpose of
protecting public health and safety, including
many types of actions for environmental protec-
tion, generally will not constitute takings. The
courts also look at the extent to which the
government's action interferes with the reason-
able, investment-backed expectations of the prop-
erty owner.
In the 1992 decision, Lucas v. South Carolina
Coastal Council, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled
that a State regulation that deprives a property
owner of all economically beneficial use of that
No person shall.. be deprived
of...property without due process of law,
nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.
property can be a taking. However, even then a
regulation will not result in a taking if the regula-
tion is consistent with "restrictions that back-
ground principles of the State's law of property
and nuisance already place upon land owner-
ship." Some
commentators
have stated that
the Lucas ruling
is not likely to
have a signifi-
cant effect on en-
vironmental
regulation, be-
cause it is explic-
itly limited to
those relatively
rare situations
where the gov-
ernment action
denies all eco-
nomically beneficial use of the property. x
Wetlands and Takings
The presence of wetlands does not mean that a
property owner cannot undertake any activity on
the property. In fact, wetlands regulation under
Section 404 does not necessarily even result in a
restriction on use of the site. For example, many
activities are either not regulated at all, explicitly
exempted from regulation, or authorized under
general permits. Moreover, in situations where
individual permits are required, the Federal agen-
cies can work with permit applicants to design
projects that meet the requirements of the law and
protect the environment and public safety, while
accomplishing the legitimate individual objectives
and protecting the property rights of the applicant.
Overall, more than 95 percent of all projects are
authorized.
-------
-------
f
United Stales
Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Water
(WH-4105F)
EPA
May 1994
Clean Water Act
Fact Sheets
MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR CONTROLLING NONPOINT SOURCE
POLLUTION FROM ROADS AND HIGHWAYS
How Big is the Problem?
Nonpoint source pollution is the leading source of
water pollution in the United States today. States
have reported that only 56% of assessed river
miles, 43% of assessed lake acres, and 56% of
assessed estuarinesquare miles fully support their
designated uses (e.g., fishing, swimming, and
drinking).
One of the leading sources of water quality impair-
ment is urban runoff. This category of sources
includes runoff from impervious surfaces includ-
ing streetsand other pavedareas that enter a ditch,
pipe, or sewer before discharging into surface
waters. The States have identified urban runoff as
the second largest source of water qualtiy impair-
ment to lakes and estuaries, and the third largest
source of impairment to rivers.
How does the Clinton Administration
propose to solve the problem?
To address urban runoff and related water quality
problems caused by nonpoint sources, the Clinton
Administration has proposed, as a centerpiece of
its Clean Water Initiative to amend the Clean
Water Act, upgrading State programs that address
urban runoff and other sources of nonpoint source
pollution. The Clinton proposal would apply to
urban runoff which is not already subject to more
stringent national stormwater regulations under
the national permits program. For example, con-
struction of roads and highways that disturb five
acres or more is subject to National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination Systerh stormwater permits
rather than to the nonpoint source program.
The program would be targeted to water quality
problems.
Under the Administration proposal to address
nonpoint sources, States would focus on reducing
nonpoint pollution in watersheds of impaired,
threatened, and special protection waters identi-
fied by the States and on protecting all waters
from impairment by new sources. For these areas,
States would implement best available manage-
ment measures for categories of nonpoint sources
causingorsigniftcantlycontributingto water qual-
ity impairments Or threatened impairments.
EPA would provide national management mea-
sures guidance that would consider the costs and
the pollution and risk reductions achieved and
would be broad and flexible enough to allow for
appropriate local tailoring. Site-specificplansand
adaptations to local soil and climatic conditions
would be encouraged, providing that the result-
ing level of control is no less stringent than that
established by management measures.
The management measures guidance would be
patterned after the guidance published in January
1993 to support the coastal nonpoint source pro-
gram under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthoriza-
tion Amendmentsof 1990 ("CZARA"). That guid-
ance sets forth goals to be achieved but does not
prescribe thatparticularpractices be used. It does
not tell local communities how to build their roads
or what water quality practices to apply. Rather,
it sets forth goals to be achieved or factors to be
considered.
-------
t
-------
"Where transportation systems are
clearly needed, they should be planned
and executed with the protection of
wetlands, riparian habitat, coastal
waters, and ground and surf ace ivater
resources in mind."
A National W.itcr Agenda for.the 2.1st Q
(Wilier Qunlity 2000, November 1992)
The programwould be flexible and cost-effective.
For example, the CZARA measures provide that
during and after construction, road builders should
simply "reduce erosion and to the extent practi-
cable, retain sediment onsite." Following con-
struction, themeasure provides a series of choices:
By design pj performance, the average annual
loading of suspended solidsshould be reduced by
80%, or the post-development loadings should be
no greater than pre-development loadings. These
choices, and the focusing of the measure on the
performance level to be achieved ratht. than the
manner in which it is achieved, ensure that States
and local communities will be able to protect
water quality from urban runoff in the most
cost-effective manner available.
Similarly, for operation and maintenance of roads
and highways to control nonpoint source pollu-
tion, the management measure provides simply:
"Incorporatepollution prevention proce^ui esinto
the operation and maintenance of roads, high-
ways, and bridges to reduce pollution loadings to
surface waters." Decisions on how best to achieve
this goal are left entirely to the States and commu-
nities that operate and maintain these facilities.
EPA worked closely with the Federal Highways
Administration to assure that these measures
would be achievable and reasonable and allow for
cost-effective achievement in a variety of geo-
graphical settings. EPA also assured that these
measures are consistent with existing State trans-
portation guidelines, such as those established by
the American Association of State Highway Trans-
portation Officials.
The program would focus on voluntary action
but be backed by enforcement if voluntary efforts
should fail
States would be provided flexibility to rely ini-
tially as much as possible on successful voluntary
approaches. States would have 71/2 years to
implement their NPS programs. States would be
expected to have enforceable implementation
mechanisms in their nonpoint source manage-
ment programs as a means of motivating volun-
tary activity and to address situations where nec-
essary implementation of measures is clearly not
taking place.
-------
t
-------
L'nued Suites
Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of
(WH-4105F)
EPA
Clean Water Act
Fact Sheets
CITIZEN SUITS
Citizen Siut Authority
The authority for citizens to enforce Federal
environmental law has existed for nearly a
quarter of a century. This authority was
first included in 1970 in the Clean Air Act,
and was included in the Clean Water Act
when the statute was extensively amended in
1972. It is now an important component of
nearly every environmental statute.
Congress authorized citizen suits for three
primary reasons: 1) to assure that citizens
are able to protect themselves and their
communities from the threats posed by
pollution; 2) to supplement Limited Federal
and State enforcement resources; and 3) to
assure that when the. EPA or the States
failed to enforce, a polluter could still be
brought to justice. Congress viewed citizens
as both partners in the Federal and State
effort to secure compliance with the point-
source requirements of the Act, and as
watch-dogs to assure that violators who
escaped the EPA/State enforcement net, for
whatever reason, could still be subject to
citizen enforcement.
Citizen Enforcement Has Proven Itself
Over the years, citizens have proven
themselves to be responsible CWA
enforcers, providing an indispensable
supplement to Federal and State
^enforcement. Citizen suits have established
a number of the key legal precedents that
the Federal government and States rely on
today for CWA enforcement The claim
that citizens file numerous "frivolous" suits
under the CWA is simply unfounded.
Moreover, there are mechanisms currently
in place to ensure that citizen suits are used
appropriately, including court rules
penalizing frivolous actions.
The Administration believes that the
American public should be empowered to
protect their health and environment,, and
the health and environment of their
communities, from the threat posed by
illegal environmental pollution. For this
and many other reasons, the Administration
supports removing existing impediments to
citizen enforcement.
In particular, the Administration proposes
that the CWA be amended to reverse the
1987 Supreme Court decision in Gwaltnev
of Smithfield v. ._.CJie$apejke Bay
Foundation, which restricted citizen suits to
instances in which the violations are
"ongoing" at the time the citizens file their
complaint. This reading of the CWA
inappropriately restricts the ability of
citizens to enforce for past violations of the
CWA. It removes the deterrent threat of
penalties for past violations from any
polluter who can cease its violations in the
period between the required notice under
the CWA and the date a citizen may file its
-------
lawsuit." In effect, a violator may avoid
penalties for past violations, regardless of
their seriousness, if it can correct the
violating conduct before the citizen is
allowed to sue.
However, in recognition of the potential
injustice associated with imposing large
penalties for long-past violations that were
few and promptly corrected, the
Administration proposes amending the Act
to require a court - when determining the
amount of a penalty to impose for wholly
past violations - to consider several
equitable factors related to the good faith of
the violator both before and after the
violation.
Citizen Suits and Fanners
The Administration's proposals for
enhancing citizen enforcement authority do
not expand citizen authority to allow citizen
suits against fanners. Under current law, a
very small set of farming operations are
classified as "point sources" (such as certain
concentrated animal feeding operations) and
are therefore already subject to citizen suits.
The vast majority of farming operations
result in non-point source discharges which
are not now, and will not be, subject to
citizen suits. The Administration does not
propose authorizing citizens to sue for any
non-point source violations.
-------
L'nued Slates
EnvironmeniaJ
Proieciion Agency
Office of
(WH-J105F)
EPA
Clean Water Act
Fact Sheets
FEDERAL AND CITIZEN OVERFILING OF STATE ACTION
The Administration takes pride in the
enforcement relationship that exists between
EPA and the 40 States that are approved to
operate the CWA point source permitting
scheme. This relationship is renewed State
by State on a yearly basis through
EPA/State agreements. It is long-standing
EPA policy that States be given the first
opportunity, to take enforcement action
%. when violations are discovered. On
occasion, however, EPA finds it necessary to
take enforcement action even where a State
has taken action. It is the Agency's policy
that it will "over-file" a State enforcement
action only where the State action is not
timely or is not an "appropriate" response to
the violations.
The Administration is very concerned about
a provision in the current Clean Water Act
(CWA §309(g)(6)(A))% added through an
amendment in 1987, that may bar the
Federal government and citizens from
enforcing if a State has already brought an
administrative penalty action. We are
concerned because this provision denies the
Agency - and citizens - the oversight role
that was intended under the Act, and
because courts have very broadly construed
that language of the provision vastly
expanding the enforcement bar: . In the
leading adverse decision, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit held that an
enforcement action by a State that is not
approved to operate the CWA permitting
and enforcement program, and that imposes
no penalty will serve to bar further
enforcement. The Administration believes
that this case was wrongly decided, but
several Federal District Courts have already
followed it.
EPA's ability to take additional enforcement
action in such cases is critical if the Agency
is to carry out its role of overseeing State
implementation of the CWA regulatory
program. Though the Agency uses this tool
only rarely, it is a powerful tool for ensuring
that violators are deterred and that State
enforcement is adequate.
Citizens were also intended to play a role in
overseeing State water enforcement. When
Congress enacted the CWA citizen suit
provision, citizen enforcement was seen as a
valuable supplement to federal and state
enforcement activities. Citizens are often
much closer to the pollution problems that
affect their communities - and therefore are
often in a better position to act quickly to
stop harmful violations of the law. In this
regard, where a State action inadequately
addresses the CWA violation at hand,
citizens should be empowered to . take
additional action to ensure that the violator
does not profit from its violations and is
deterred from future violations of the law.
t-r- •-
-------
In order to assure adequate oversight of
State implementation of the CWA, and to
reverse the broad reading given to the bar
to Federal and citizen enforcement, the
Administration advocates removing the state
enforcement bar.
:•, v c.:-"-
..y_.;.. *
--:'«: \m
.>.; -?£•(• "
S&A'
-------
t
FACT SHEET
ALASKA WETLANDS INITIATIVE
May ,1994
The completion of the AJaska Wetlands Initiative and the withdrawal of the 1992
proposed "Alaska 1%" rulemaking implement two recommendations regarding Federal
wetlands policies included in the Clinton Administration's August 24, 1993, fair, flexible,
and effective approach to protecting America's wetlands. The final Summary Report of
the Alaska Wetlands Initiative details the environmentally appropriate actions that are
being taken to ensure regulatory flexibility in protecting Alaska's wetlands. The
proposed rule, if promulgated, would have excepted all wetlands in the State from
National mitigation requirements.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army
Corps of Engineers in Alaska co-chaired the seven-
month Initiative, that was developed in consultation
with a diverse and comprehensive group of Alaskan
stakeholders and the public, and responds to
concerns of Alaskans regarding wetlands regulation in
the State. The public was invited to attend all
stakeholder meetings, submit written comments, and
participate in a Statewide teleconference linking 20
locations throughout Alaska.
Stakeholders and the public identified concerns with
the wetlands program, focusing on how circumstances
in Alaska, such as climate and the extent of wetlands,
affect implementation of regulatory requirements in
the State.
Commercial Fbhing
.. Development
Environment
: Forestry
: Municipal GovemBent
'pi and Gaa
Spottfishjng
Stale of Alaska
ToutioB
OS. Bah and WJtdKfe Service/
Natkmal Marine Fbberies Service
Department of Eoetjy
Conclusions in the Report are built upon the factual information and technical data
identified during the Initiative. Strong agreement among the Federal agencies provides
the basis to implement the actions in a manner that ensures effective protection of
Alaska's valuable wetlands while providing appropriate regulatory flexibility to reflect
circumstances in Alaska.
Key actions in the Summary Report Include:
• implementation of abbreviated permit processing procedures for the construction of
water, wastewater, and sanitation facilities in wetlands in Alaskan villages
• continued development of general permits, which efficiently allow activities with
minimal impacts to proceed without the need for individual permit authorization
• strengthening relationships with the State, local governments, and Native corporations
and villages through such measures as establishing written partnerships regarding the
regulatory program and placing greater emphasis on providing assistance for local
wetlands planning mechanisms as they relate to the regulatory program
* clarifying "practicability" and "flexibility" considerations that allow implementation of
the regulatory program to reflect circumstances in Alaska
Copies of the Report may be obtained from the EPA Wetlands Hotline: (800) 832-7828.
-------
W* i. tsii"'T-'.'" • '* * •'
fei'liS^lf ^'f^
t
'"'. , fl: i" ""•':
.ft-
-------
I
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Water
(WH-410SF)
EPA
Clean Watir Act
- __ -• .--.-•• .••"_.—""• ".• -. - - *' -?
Fact Sheets
APPROPRIATE INJUNCnVE RELIEF
The Clean Water Act currently allows the
United States to commence a civil action for
"appropriate injunctive relief when there
are CWA violations. Courts have long had
the power 10 grant broad equitable relief,
and EPA and the Department of Justice
have taken the position that appropriate
relief may include an order requiring clean-
up of the conditions resulting from the
violation. However, because the issue is not
squarely addressed in either the CWA or
controlling judicial precedent, the
Administration supports legislative
confirmation of the kinds of injunctive relief
that a court may order as a result of a CWA
violation. This clarification will avoid
extensive litigation over the scope of
appropriate relief.
Assertions that this proposal represents an
expansion of existing law are erroneous. In
numerous CWA .cases involving the illegal
discharge of fill material into wetlands,
courts have ordered remediation and
restoration of the affected waters. See e.g..
U.S. v. Bradshaw. 541 F. Supp. 880 (D.Md.
1981) and U.S. v. Campiattj 615 F.Supp.
116 (D.NJ. 1984). In U.S. v. Outboard
Marine Corp.. 549 F.Supp. 1036, 1043
(N.D.I11. 1982), the court indicated that
remediation of contaminated sediments is
within the scope of the relief available to a
court in Clean Water Act cases. . In
addition, upon request from the Senate
Environment and Public Works staff, the
Congressional' Research Service recently
investigated this question and concluded.
that the proposed amendment is merely a
clarification of existing law.
Using these authorities, and the CWA
"appropriate relief language, EPA and the
Department of Justice have filed cases
seeking sediment remediation as an element
of relief (see complaints in United States v.
Inland Steel. Civ. No. 90-0328, N.D. Ind.
and United States v. Hammond Sanitary
District. Civ. No. 2:93CV 225JM (N.D.Ind.),
and has reached consent decrees providing
for sediment remediation as an element of
the defendant's injunctive obligations
(Inland Steel and United- States v. USX
Corp.. Civ. No. H88-558 (N.D. Ind.)." While
these cases also utilized other authorities
(although not Superfund), the CWA was an
essential element of the claim.
Using the CWA to obtain cleanup can have.-
dramatic environmental benefits. EPA's
successful efforts to obtain sediment
remediation in Northern Indiana has already
resulted in substantial enhancement of the
water quality in the Grand Calumet River,
which historically has been a pipeline of
pollution into Lake Michigan.
It is entirely appropriate that violators be
held responsible to clean up and correct any
environmental harm that'has resulted from
their CWA violations. Equity dictates that
those harmed, by the actions of another
should be made whole. It is the American
public that is harmed when a person
violates the CWA and thereby harms.the
-------
environment; and the American public will
if 4the , violator is
t
to clean lip its mess.
-------