AMERICA
WVTER
The States' Evaluation of Progress 1972-1982
-------
823R84003
CONTENTS
LETTERS 1
Reginald A. LaRosa 1
President, ASIWPCA
William D. Ruckelshaus 1
Administrator, U.S. EPA
WHAT A DECADE 2
CAN DO
WHAT THE STATES 2
REPORT
WATER QUALITY 4
Streams and Rivers 4
Achieving Fishablel 4
Swimmable Waters
Evaluating Water 4
Quality
Lakes and Reservoirs 5
,r
Estuaries 5
WHAT HAS 6
ALREADY BEEN DONE?
Treating Municipal 6
Wastewater
Reducing Municipal 6
Pollutants
What Has It Cost? 6
Treating Industrial 6
Wastewater
Controlling Nonpoint 7
Pollution
STATE PROGRAMS 8
Changes Through the 8
Decade
Regulating Dischargers 8
Significant 9
Wastewater Dischargers
State Compliance and 9
Enforcement
Current Pollution Problems .. 10
Point Source Pollution 10
Nonpoint Source 10
Pollution
Toxic Pollutants 10
ISSUES AND 11
CHALLENGES
LOOKING AHEAD 12
GLOSSARY 14
THE STEP PROJECT 16
Prepared by The Association of State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control Admin-
istrators in cooperation with The U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency. February,
1984
-------
-3- 7 -S-Y
During the past several decades,
the people of the United States have
devoted substantial resources to re-
storing and maintaining water qual-
ity. Local, State, and Federal govern-
ments have undertaken a variety of
programs towards this goal. Yet un-
til now, no system had been devel-
oped to produce a brief, comprehen-
sive report to the American public
on the progress being made toward
achieving cleaner water.
In 1982, the Association of State
and Interstate Water Pollution Con-
trol Administrators and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
joined together to produce such a
status report. Through an 18 month
effort, State and Federal environ-
mental managers worked coopera-
tively, first to design a system for re-
porting on surface water conditions
and then to produce this report.
AMERICA'S CLEAN WATER re-
flects data from 56 reports provided
voluntarily by State, Interstate and
Territorial water pollution control
agencies; it portrays the State per-
spective on the accomplishments of
the Clean Water Program and the
value derived from the tax dollars
and private investments made by the
American people to restore and en-
hance the quality of our Nation's
waters.
Reginald A. LaRosa
President, ASIWPCA
When we began this project, our
intention was to reduce the States'
reporting burden and enable a con-
sistent assessment of surface water
quality across the nation. I am
pleased to see that this effort has
achieved the original objectives and
also resulted in a broader accom-
plishment.
This report represents the first
time that EPA and the States have
agreed on a set of measures to de-
scribe progress in carrying out the
mandates of the Clean Water Act.
Such information is the core of an
effective State/EPA relationship
where States operate the programs
and EPA provides support and en-
sures national consistency. With this
as a base, we can now move forward
to develop additional measures
needed to cover such areas as
groundwater, estuaries, toxics, and
nonpoint pollution. We are also in a
position to integrate these measures
into other existing and future re-
porting mechanisms.
AMERICA'S CLEAN WATER
represents a significant accom-
plishment. We have documented the
steady progress in water quality and.
provided a solid base of information
which will enable us to work to-
gether to address future and emerg-
ing problem areas. I am pleased that
we have established such a success-
ful collaboration with our State
partners and I look forward to a
continuing productive relationship
with the States and with ASIWPCA.
TO THE
READER
William D. Ruckelshaus
Administrator, U.S. EPA
-------
WHAT A
DECADE
CAN DO
The news is good. The water is
cleaner.
Ten years ago, reports were all too
frequent of fish disappearing from
rivers and streams, lakes choked
with algae, and beaches posted
against swimming or shellfishing.
Recognizing that there was no
standardized approach to cleaning
up surface waters, Congress set
America on a course "to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the Nation's
waters" through the Clean Water Act
of 1972.
The States, who have "the primary
responsibility and rights" to prevent,
reduce, and eliminate pollution un-
der the Act, are now reporting back
to the Congress, to State leaders, and
to the public the results of their ef-
forts from 1972 to 1982.
In a decade when the nation's
population grew by 11% accompa-
nied by a sizeable increase in the use
of surface waters for industry and
recreation:
• 47,000 stream miles have im-
proved in quality;
• 390,000 acres of lakes show im-
proved water quality;
• 142 million people are receiving
secondary or more advanced
levels of sewage treatment, up
from 85 million in 1972; and
• cities and industries have substan-
tially increased compliance with
their limits on waste discharges.
This comprehensive report about
the Nation's surface waters shows
that the tremendous investment of
resources by State, Local and Fed-
eral water pollution control agencies
and the expenditures by wastewater
dischargers are paying off. Even
with substantial increases in the
number of waste sources, pollution
of the country's streams and lakes is
being reduced. Most of our water
has maintained its quality despite
the pressures of wastes from more
people and more industry. Other
waters have shown dramatic im-
provement, while some have been
degraded.
The report also emphasizes that
even as old problems continue to de-
mand careful attention, new prob-
lems—such as toxic pollutants and
groundwater contamination—are
appearing on the horizon.
The findings in AMERICA'S
CLEAN WATER about the status of
water quality are drawn from 56
reports prepared between June
and October 1983 by States, Terri-
tories and Interstate Agencies. The
complete reports can be found in
the Appendix, available from
ASIWPCA.
The methods used to reach the
conclusions that follow and the
number of reports reflected in each
calculation can be found in a "Statis-
tical Summary" also available from
ASIWPCA.
WHAT THE
STATES REPORT
America is rich in water re-
sources. States report a total of 1.8
million miles of streams and 33.4
million acres of lakes and reservoirs.
Findings in this report reflect the
States' evaluation of 42% of the Na-
tion's streams—758,000 stream
miles. Of these, roughly 169,000
miles of streams were monitored in
1982 for long-term trends in water
quality.
The States also evaluated nearly
half (16,320,000 acres) of the na-
tion's 33,450,000 acres of publicly
owned lakes and reservoirs. The
quality of 9.7 million of these acres
was monitored for trends in 1982.
Some States evaluated up to 100%
of their surface waters, others as-
sessed a limited part. The propor-
Of the nation's 1.8
million miles of
stream, 58% are gen-
erally free from
known water quality
pollution problems.
The remaining 42%
(758,000 miles) dis-
cussed in this report
represents the geo-
graphic locations
supporting America's
population and/or
industrial activity.
tion varied from State to State, de-
pending on the amount of waters,
the distribution and severity of pol-
lution sources, and the availability
of funds for monitoring.
Resources have generally been
concentrated on analyzing those
waters directly affected by human
activities or likely to be used by the
public. In some States, this may con-
stitute only 3 or 4% of the total
mileage. However, for the most part,
the quality of the waters not evalu-
ated is believed to be equal to or better
than that which was assessed.
States reached their conclusions
about water quality using a combi-
nation of:
• long-term trend monitoring rec-
ords;
• short-term intensive surveys; and
• professional judgments and direct
observations by staffs of pollution
control, fish and wildlife, and
other natural resource agencies.
-------
Water Quality 1972-1982
Numbers Reflect Stream Miles
In the 49 States that reported on water quality conditions between 1972 and
1982, 296,000 miles of streams were reported to have maintained the same water
quality, 47,000 miles improved, and 11,000 miles have been degraded.
3
-------
Stream Water Quality 1972-1982
Of 758,000 River and Stream Miles Assessed
272,000 miles
36%
488,000 miles
64%
410,000 miles
54%
68,000 miles'
9%
*\\'hile information on the water quality o/ man\
of these stream miles was nut available for 1972,
1972
1982
some proportion of them fell into each of the level*
of use support.
WATER
QUALITY
STREAMS AND RIVERS
"Fishable/Swimmable "
Waters:
The Clean Water Act establishes
as a goal Fishable/Swimmable water
quality "providing for the protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish,
and wildlife, and lor recreation in
and on the water" "wherever attain-
able." Most of the Nation's surface
waters have these uses designated as
their ultimate quality targets.
Over 120,000 stream miles are
designated for uses more stringent
than Fishable/Swimmable, such as
drinking or food processing. Only
32,000 miles have stream standards
set for less stringent uses.
Evaluating Water Quality:
States evaluate the quality of their
waters by the extent to which these
waters support the uses for which
they have been designated. [Terms
shown in bold are defined in the
Glossary, page 14.]
These uses, which can include
fishing, public water supply or agri-
culture, and the levels of quality
necessary for their maintenance, are
the components of water quality
standards. Standards are established
by each State in accordance with re-
quirements of the Clean Water Act
and State law. The U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is
responsible for overseeing compli-
ance with the Federal law.
States made significant accom-
plishments in water quality between
1972 and 1982. In the States that re-
ported on water quality changes
over this decade:
• 296,000 miles of streams main-
tained the same quality;
• 47,000 miles improved; and
• 11,000 miles were degraded.
Changes for another 90,000 miles
were reported to be unknown.
The maintenance of water quality
during the past decade represents a
major accomplishment in itself. The
nation's population has grown 11%,
and in many areas, surface water use
for industry, resource development
and recreation has increased dra-
matically. Growing populations and
-------
Lake Water Quality 1982
Of 16.3 Million Lake and Reservoir Acres Assessed in 1982
13.8 million
acres
84%
1.7 million acres
10%
development pressures often result
in increased generation of domestic
wastewaters and industrial wastes
that must be managed. Sizeable in-
vestments in better waste treatment
processes have been made by dis-
chargers, and government agencies
have devoted substantial time, effort
and resources to assure that the
monies spent contributed to achiev-
ing the goals of the Clean Water Act.
While the past decade's changes
reflect significant accomplishments,
many streams have yet to achieve the
level of water quality needed to sup-
port their designated uses fully. 64%
of stream miles fully supported their
uses in 1982. 22% provided partial
support, and 5% did not support
their designated uses. Simply stated,
many streams assessed in 1982 still
have water quality problems which
prevent full use support.
LAKES AND RESERVOIRS
During the past decade, many pol-
lution control agencies increased
their emphasis on evaluating and re-
solving lake water quality problems.
Based on their findings about trends
during this period, program man-
agers recognize that further atten-
tion to these problems will be neces-
sary in the years ahead.
Between 1972 and 1982, States
found that:
• 10,130,000 lake acres maintained
the same quality;
• 390,000 acres improved in qual-
ity;
• 1,650,000 acres were degraded;
and
• 4,150,000 acres were unknown or
not reported.
ESTUARIES
Seventeen Stales reported on
changes in the water quality of their
17,330 square miles of estuaries. In
the decade between 1972 and 1982:
• 12,800 square miles (74% ) main-
tained their quality;
• 3,800 square miles (22% ) showed
improvements;
• 560 square miles (3% ) were de-
graded; and
• 170 square miles (l'<) were un-
known.
-------
WHAT MAS
ALREABY
BEEN BONE?
Water quality gains throughout
the country have been achieved by a
combination of State, Federal, and
Local programs.
TREATING MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER
^
The provision of adequate munic-
ipal wastewater treatment to a grow-
ing population has been one major
accomplishment of the past decade.
In addition, the level of sewage
treatment provided to the American
public rose enormously.
With only a modest $260 per cap-
ita expenditure for municipal sew-
age system capital costs, noticeable
improvement in water quality can be
demonstrated nationwide between
1972 and 1982.
Of the approximately 224 million peo-
ple in the United States in 1982:
• 142 million were served by the
generally required secondary
treatment or by more advanced
levels; this reflects an increase of
57 million people since 1972.
• Approximately 23 million people
were served by treatment facilities
which provide less than secondary
treatment.
• The population served by sewer
lines carrying raw wastewater to
streams dropped from 5 million
in 1972 to 1 million.
• The number of people requiring
but not receiving public sewage
collection and treatment dropped
from 21 million to 14 million.
• 44 million people did not need
municipal sewage systems because
they were adequately served by
on-site disposal systems.
Reducing Municipal Pollutants:
Upgrading the level of sewage
treatment produces direct benefits
by reducing pollutant discharges to
waterways. The most widely used
measure of municipal pollution is
the extent to which the treated
waste's organic content depletes the
receiving water's oxygen, reducing
the amount available to fish and
other aquatic life. This municipal
organic pollution decreased dramat-
ically during the past decade. Treat-
ment capabilities increased at a
higher rate than the nation's popula-
tion grew.
What Does it Cost?':
While substantial investments
have already been made in control-
ling municipal wastewaters, the
States and U.S. EPA have deter-
mined in the 1982 "Needs Survey"
that $118 billion are still required to
meet public wastewater system
needs.
TREATING INDUSTRIAL
WASTEWATER
Industry has responded positively
to the mandates of the Clean Water
Act. During the past decade, indus-
trial dischargers have invested heav-
ily to reduce their water pollution.
While total expenditures were not
available in each State, there are
numerous reports of improved water
quality resulting from reduced
discharges.
Under the Act, industries must
meet discharge limits based on the
"best practicable" and "best avail-
able" treatment technologies as de-
fined by U.S. EPA. One key measure
of industries' cleanup effort and
progress is the greatly increased
level of their compliance with State
or Federally established discharge
limitations, especially for plants
with the largest wastewater flows.
-------
CONTROLLING
NONPOINT SOURCE
POLLUTION
States have given increasing atten-
tion during the past ten years to
nonpoint source pollution—diffuse
runoff of pollutants from various
sites, such as mines, city streets and
agricultural lands. State and Local
governments have conducted studies
to evaluate the extent of these prob-
lems and then have emphasized citi-
zen education and demonstration
projects to promote use of the best
management practices available to
reduce or prevent runoff.
Since the nature of the problem
varies markedly from site to site and
over time, State control programs
are also highly variable.
Agricultural nonpoint pollution is
generally being addressed through
voluntary programs. Cost-sharing is
used in critical areas of several
States to promote installation of
suitable controls. Cooperative pro-
grams that coordinate the water pol-
lution control agency and the U.S.
Soil Conservation Service or local
Conservation Districts are being
used to advantage in many areas.
Control of urban runoff is also
generally instituted voluntarily. In a
few instances, States have adopted
legislation enabling or requiring lo-
calities to manage their stormwater
with the State agency providing
technical assistance.
Nonpoint pollution from mining
and construction activities are the
only categories that are commonly
subject to State regulation. In the
case of mining, both active and
abandoned sites must be addressed.
In some instances, Federal mine
land reclamation programs are
being used to deal with drainage
from abandoned mines. Over a
dozen States report they use some
type of erosion and sediment control
legislation to mandate reduction of
construction site runoff.
Municipal Sewage Plant
Performance 1972-1982
Oxygen-Demanding Pollutants Entering Plants
Oxygen-Demanding Pollutants Leaving Plants
Between 1972 and 1982, the amount of oxygen-
demanding pollutants entering the nation's sewage
plants grew b\ 12f/<. During that same span, the
amount released into waterways dropped by -}6(/(.
Had treatment capabilities nut improved at a faster
rate than the nation's population was growing,
States collectively estimate that /9
-------
National Costs for Sewage Treatment
1972-1982
Capital Costs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Facilities
Construction
Grants
Program
Local
Expenditures
State Grant Programs
Other Federal Programs
'illion)
100% (£56.2 billion)
Of tin' nver 5 V> Hi/lion in public funds iiwested:
5 ?-/.'' liilliini comes from the I'S EPA
construction grant program, Sl-t.V Million are
local expenditures in mutch federal funds or
independently construct facilities, 55 Billion
provided in the form of grunts or loans, and SI. -f
Million leas under other Federal programs (e.g.
Department of Housing innl ('rhan Development,
I .S/M'v Fanners' Home Administration, and the
Economic Development Administration).
STATE
PROGRAMS
CHANGES THROUGH THE
DECADE
State water quality programs have
undergone a marked change in em-
phasis in recent years. In the period
just after 1972, administrators con-
centrated on establishing or improv-
ing regulatory permit programs to
limit municipal and industrial dis-
charges to streams and rivers. Atten-
tion during those years focused on
pollutants that had been known for
some time to harm water quality or
public health.
8
Later in the decade and into the
1980's, the focus has been broadened
to identify and control nonpoint
source pollution, to measure and re-
duce toxic pollutants from point
and nonpoint sources, and to protect
groundwater resources. During re-
cent years, attention in many States
has also expanded from streams and
rivers to increase emphasis on lake
quality.
REGULATING DISCHARGERS
The regulation of municipal and
industrial point source dischargers
has been a continuing focus of State
pollution control programs. While a
number of States had regulatory sys-
tems prior to the 197()'s, the 1972
-------
Clean Water Act required virtually
every point source to obtain either a
federal or State permit specifying its
allowable discharge limits. Thirty-
six States now administer pollution
control permit programs. In the re-
maining States, dischargers obtain
permits from the U.S. EPA.
Significant Wastewater Dischargers:
In 1982, more than 22,000 peV-
mits to municipalities were in effect,
nationwide. 16% of these, or 3,600,
were to Significant Facilities.
There were 4,500 Significant In-
dustrial Facilities. These constituted
11% of the 41,000 industrial facili-
ties holding State or Federal permits
in 1982.
In managing regulatory enforce-
ment programs, States concentrate
their attention on facilities in Signif-
icant Non-Compliance. For the pur-
poses of this report, facilities that
were not in significant non-com-
pliance were deemed to be in com-
pliance.
The proportion of significant in-
dustrial and municipal dischargers
in compliance with the treatment
levels required of them in 1982 in-
creased substantially during the past
decade. This finding parallels trends
recorded by U.S. EPA.
STATE COMPLIANCE AND
ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES
Virtually all States use a tiered ap-
proach to enforce pollution control
requirements. In such systems, the
*Fafilities in Compliance are defined as those not
in Significant Non-Compliance. L .S. EPA's defini-
tion of major dischargers and means of metisnrni^
compliance differ slightly from those included in
this report.
Compliance by Municipal and Industrial
Facilities
Significant Municipal and Industrial Facilities
Not in Significant Non-Compliance with 1982 Requirements*
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Municipal 1972 figures as reported by 42
Facilities: States; 1982 figures as reported
by 50 States.
Industrial 1972 figures as reported by 37
Facilities: States; 19N2 figures as reported
by 51 States.
4500
2500
2600
42 States
1972
37 States
50 States
1982
51 States
-------
primary emphasis is on achieving
compliance by cooperation. The
first step of enforcement for infre-
quent or minor violations of allow-
able discharges is usually a type of
pre-administrative action that in-
cludes notification of the violation
often accompanied by technical as-
sistance.
When compliance is not achieved
by these means, or for more serious
violations of discharge limits or
schedules for installing facilities,
administrative actions may be neces-
sary; these can include the assess-
ment of civil penalties through con-
sent or administrative orders, permit
denials, or the imposition of sewer
connection bans. Judicial action is
generally used as a last resort for ex-
tended or severe violations.
Among 1,223 significant facilities
reported to be in significant non-
compliance with their permits in
1982, 61% were subject to pre-
administrative action; 23% to
administrative action; and 11% to
judicial action during the course of
the year.
These figures do not include en-
forcement actions taken by U.S.
EPA. It should also be noted that in
some instances—depending on the
violator's responses—subsequent ac-
tion may have been taken by the
State during 1983.
CURRENT POLLUTION
PROBLEMS
As noted above, despite the ad-
vances made in reducing pollution
discharges over the past decade, 27%
of the stream miles evaluated in 1982
did not fully support their designated
uses. States have estimated the prin-
cipal pollution sources for those
waters by ranking them in terms of
the relative percent of stream miles
affected. Reduced quality was attrib-
uted to nonpoint sources, municipal
wastewater facilities, industrial dis-
chargers, or other sources such as
naturally occurring substances.
While these various pollution
sources may cause less than full sup-
port of designated uses, they do not
necessarily preclude uses.
Municipal sources—generally sew-
age treatment systems—were ranked
first by 19 States, while 20 others
considered them the second major
cause limiting full support of uses.
Industrial point sources were ranked
first by only 3 States and 24 reports
gave these sources the third highest
ranking. Nonpoint sources were
ranked first by 26 States and second
by another 13. The results for lakes
and reservoirs showed essentially the
same pattern.
Point Source Pollution:
The primary pollutants dis-
charged by municipal and industrial
sources differ. Ensuring control of
these discharges has been and re-
mains a major focus of State pro-
gram managers' attention.
For municipal wastewater treat-
ment facilities, the components of
major concern have been those that
reduce the oxygen levels of the
waters to which they are discharged,
disease-related bacteria, and nutri-
ents that stimulate undesirable
growth of algae.
Pollutants that reduce oxygen lev-
els are also among the most signifi-
cant industry-related water quality
problems according to many reports.
But toxic pollutants are judged the
key industrial pollutant concern by
an even greater number of States.
Nonpoint Source Pollution:
In contrast to the discharges from
point sources, particularly of munic-
ipal wastewaters, that occur 24 hours
a day, 365 days per year, nonpoint
source discharges are intermittent.
The resulting pollutant loadings to
streams may have less potential for
affecting designated uses.
States evaluated the severity and
geographic extent of nonpoint
source pollution from various
sources. In judging 'severity' States
considered the degree to which each
source impaired designated uses; the
proportion of waters affected by a
particular source was evaluated as
'geographk extent.'
The nonpoint source pollutants
most seriously affecting water qual-
ity in most States are suspended par-
ticles of solid materials, chemical
nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus)
that promote undesirable growth of
algae, waste-related bacteria, and
pesticides and heavy metals, often
considered toxic pollutants.
Because of its diffuse nature, non-
point source pollution has been dif-
ficult to define and measure. It oc-
curs intermittently, often in
association with heavy rainfall, and
many sources can contribute to any
one problem. The complexity of
demonstrating the effectiveness of
particular control practices has also
made it difficult for Federal, State
and Local governments to prevent
and control such pollution.
Toxic Pollutants:
Fourteen thousand stream miles
in 39 States have been affected by
toxic materials from point and non-
point sources as well as naturally oc-
curring chemicals such as mercury,
arsenic, or lead.
Sixteen States report that toxic
pollutants have had adverse water
quality impacts on 638,000 acres of
their lakes.
Approximately 920 square miles
of estuaries in 8 States were consid-
ered to be adversely affected by toxic
pollutants.
These numbers may understate
the full extent of toxic pollution, be-
cause the States' assessments were
focused on known acute situations
or identified "hot spots."
Knowledge of the extent and ef-
fects of toxic pollutants has in-
creased fairly recently, so State pro-
grams for monitoring, establishing
control strategies for toxicity elimi-
nation and regulating discharges of
these materials are still maturing.
10
-------
Nonpoint Source Pollution
The results from the 45 States reporting on Severity and Geographic Extent were:
GEOGRAPHIC
TYPE OF SOURCE
Severe
16*
11
15
12
6
7
4
2
SEVERITY
Moderate
20
20
10
11
23
18
7
9
EXTENT
Minor
8
12
13
17
14
14
21
10
Widespread
29
8
2
5
7
5
6
1
Localized
12
35
36
35
34
33
27
21
ISSUES AND
CHALLENGES
While much has been accom-
plished through water pollution
control programs, several significant
problems still require attention and
resolution.
Municipal Wastewaters:
Various aspects of the comprehen-
sive municipal water pollution con-
trol program were reported as spe-
cial concerns by 29 States during the
past decade. 47 reports cited compo-
nents of this program among their
major problems in the future. Meet-
ing the challenges will require:
• Obtaining adequate funds to build
needed municipal sewage facili-
ties, emphasizing innovative
methods to finance facility con-
struction, expansion, and re-
placement;
• Assuring proper operation and
maintenance of facilities by trained
and qualified personnel;
• Developing regulatory programs
to assure pretreatment of industrial
wastes discharged into municipal
sewage facilities;
• Controlling stormwater that runs
into combined sanitary and storm
sewers, occasionally overloading
treatment plant capacity; and
• Establishing regulatory programs
for managing sludge produced
during wastewater treatment.
Nonpoint Source Pollution:
In looking toward the future, 40
reports noted the necessity of con-
trolling nonpoint sources if water
quality is to continue to improve as
point sources are better regulated.
Water quality degradation from
abandoned industrial operations—
particularly mining facilities—was
highlighted as one of the problems
that will be especially costly to re-
solve. Other types of nonpoint
source pollution, notably runoff of
soil, nutrients, and pesticides from
agricultural lands and urban runoff,
were frequently cited as major water
quality problems that will need ad-
ditional attention.
II
-------
Groundwater:
47 States regard assurance of ade-
quate groundwater quantity and
quality as a primary focus in coming
years, up from 27 States that specifi-
cally highlighted this issue as a spe-
cial problem over the past decade.
Groundwater protection cannot be
isolated from State attention to toxic
pollutants, many of which contami-
nate groundwater as they percolate
into the ground from hazardous
waste and former industrial disposal
sites. Other frequent causes of
groundwater contamination include
faulty septic systems, leaking indus-
trial and petroleum storage tanks,
and spills.
Toxic Pollutants:
41 States report that identification
and control of toxic pollutants is one
of the major problems they expect to
be confronting in the years ahead.
States and the U.S. EPA are develop-
ing new approaches to move beyond
the Clean Water Act's regulations
that mandate use of the best avail-
able technology to eliminate toxicity.
ASIWPCA has endorsed incorpo-
rating a Toxicity Elimination And
Management Strategy (TEAMS) into
the national Clean Water Program.
Under TEAMS, control programs
are to be directed at eliminating
toxic effects; the results of biological
monitoring are the key determinants
in judging such effects.
U.S. EPA has developed an inte-
grated regulatory strategy through
which they and the States will use
both biological and chemical meth-
ods to address toxic pollutants from
industrial and municipal sources.
Other Problems:
Many other water quality prob-
lems that have warranted special
State attention during the past dec-
ade are also seen as demanding con-
tinuing attention in the years ahead:
• Improvement or maintenance of
surface water quality and assur-
ance of adequate quantities;
• development pressures, notably in
relation to energy resource devel-
opment;
• the need to assure adequate pro-
tection for specific types of
waters, such as high-quality recre-
ation waters, wetlands and coastal
zones;
• regidnal water management to ad^
dress problems that cross State or
national boundaries;
• salinity of surface and ground-
waters; and
• acid precipitation.
LOOKING
AHEAD
Great progress has been made in
national water cleanup during the
past decade.
It has been a combined effort.
State, Federal and Local Agencies
have together carried out the man-
dates set by Congress in 1972. The
public has been supportive and in-
dustries have contributed and com-
plied. As a result, America has
moved into the 1980's with:
• better water quality in many
streams and lakes;
• more waters supporting desig-
nated uses;
• more people served by adequate
sewage treatment;
• more dischargers complying with
their treatment requirements; and
• greater public awareness of water
quality and interest in sustaining
past gains.
Clearly, however, much remains to
be done. There are communities
that still need adequate sewage
treatment facilities. Ways must be
found to ensure the proper opera-
tion and maintenance of facilities al-
ready built and in use. The effects of
toxic pollutants must be better un-
derstood and their release into the
Nation's waters controlled. Non-
12
-------
point source pollution must be re-
duced, and the protection of
groundwater must be expanded. A
number of water program managers
recognize the possibility that further
progress in water quality improve-
ment may be both more difficult and
more costly to achieve than our ac-
complishments to date.
Future gains must be achieved
while the Nation's population con-
tinues to grow. But the past decade
has laid a solid foundation. For the
most part, we have maintained our
water quality and we have begun to
improve it. The majority of States
have also improved their systems for
evaluating and reporting on water
quality.
The progress made toward cleaner
water will serve us well as we build
on past accomplishments in the
years ahead.
Challenges for the Future
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATE
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
DWATER
TOXIC POLLUTANTS
OTHER PROBLEMS
13
-------
GLOSSARY
Those water uses identified in State water quality
standards which must be achieved and maintained
as required under the Clean Water Act. Uses can in-
clude cold water fisheries, public water supply, agri-
culture, etc. For purposes of this report: Uses are
Fully Supported if monitoring indicates no chemi-
cal pollution exists, biological communities are fully
supported, and/or the most sensitive designated use
is observed to be supported.
Uses are Partially Supported if there is minor chem-
ical pollution, the presence of balanced biological
communities is uncertain, or the most sensitive use
is not supported at a maximum level.
Uses are Not Supported if there is major chemical
pollution, aquatic communities are stressed or ab-
sent, or the most sensitive designated use is severely
impaired or impossible.
Regions of interaction between rivers and near-
shore ocean waters, where tidal action and river
flow create a mixing of fresh and salt water.
Pollution sources that are diffuse, from which pollu-
tants run off the land. The commonly used catego-
ries for such sources are: agriculture, forestry, ur-
ban, mining, construction, dams and channels, land
disposal and saltwater intrusion.
For purposes of this report, a source was judged:
Severe if it impaired designated uses;
Moderate if it interfered with, but did not preclude,
uses;
Minor if it had minimal effects on designated uses;
Not Applicable if it did not occur or did not affect
designated uses.
Widespread if it affected 50% or more of the State's
waters;
Localized if it affected less than 50% of waters.
Discharges into waterways through discrete convey-
ances, generally pipes and channels. Municipal and
industrial wastewater treatment facilities are the
most common point sources; these also include over-
flows of combined storm and sanitary sewers.
14
-------
(/.
7 -
Biological processing of wastewater that removes
soluble oxygen-demanding materials and suspended
solids. The minimum level of municipal treatment
generally required under the Clean Water Act.
Industrial dischargers which have been calculated
by States to cumulatively release 95% or more of the
total flow from all industrial plants in the State. Ex-
cept where otherwise noted, these sources are the
ones referred to in this report as "Industrial Facili-
ties."
Those publicly owned sewage treatment plants that
discharge 1 million gallons per day or more and are
therefore considered by States to have the potential
for substantial effect on receiving water quality.
Except where otherwise noted, these sources are the
ones referred to in this report as "Municipal
Facilities."
Violations by point source dischargers of sufficient
magnitude and/or duration to be considered a regu-
latory priority. Categories are: violations of require-
ments resulting from previous enforcement action;
violations of permit compliance schedules; and vio-
lations of permit effluent limits which have the po-
tential to cause or have caused adverse environmen-
tal effects or pose a human health hazard.
Materials that cause death, disease, or birth defects
in organisms that ingest or absorb them. The quanti-
ties and length of exposure necessary to cause these
effects can vary widely. Organic and inorganic
chemicals, including heavy metals, are the most
common pollutants of concern, but ammonia and
chlorine can also cause toxicity problems.
*Does not reflect the definition used by the U.S. EPA.
Requirements authorized by State law which consist
of designated uses for all waters and minimum ac-
ceptable levels of water quality that will permit
achievement of these uses. The criteria can be nu-
merical or narrative. Standards are developed in a
public decision-making process and reviewed and
approved by U.S. EPA.
15
-------
THE STEP
PROJECT
This report is the product of the
Association of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Adminis-
trators, (ASIWPCA) in cooperation
with the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (U.S. EPA).
ASIWPCA, the national profes-
sional organization of State directors
who implement the nation's Clean
Water Program, has for many years
focused attention on the need to im-
prove water quality reporting to
more accurately reflect progress to-
ward achieving the goals and re-
quirements of the Clean Water Act.
ASIWPCA's proposal to design a
system for streamlined reporting
and to develop common definitions
for water quality evaluation resulted
late in 1982 in the initiation of a
project labeled STEP—the States'
Evaluation of Progress in the Clean
Water Program.
All States, Territories and Inter-
state Agencies were asked to com-
plete reports using the STEP system.
Because data and records needed to
answer many of the questions were
limited or unavailable—especially
for 1972—the responding States
were encouraged to supplement
monitoring results with their profes-
sional judgment and direct observa-
tions. In some cases, data were ex-
trapolated back to 1972 from records
gathered later in the 1970's.
The respondents used standard-
ized instructions and formats to de-
rive and display their findings. The
national results contained in this re-
port are based on those State re-
sponses completed in accordance
with the instructions.
The Project's activities were
guided by a policy-making Steering
Committee and implemented by a
Task Force of State and U.S. EPA
representatives. Members of these
groups merit recognition and appre-
ciation for their contributions to-
ward making the project successful.
THE STEERING COMMITTEE
The Steering Committee was co-
chaired by J. Leonard Ledbetter of
Georgia, and Roberta (Robbi)
Savage, ASIWPCA's Executive Di-
rector. State members included:
Reginald (Tex) LaRosa (VT), Daniel
Barolo (NY), Robert Touhey (DE),
Roger Kanerva (IL), Emory Long
(TX), Gyula Kovach (KS), Calvin
Sudweeks (UT), Ronald Miller (AZ),
Harold Sawyer (OR), J. Edward
Brown (IA), and George Britton
(NGA Subcommittee on Water Man-
agement). U.S. EPA was represented
by: the Assistant Administrator for
Water: Eric Eidsness (October 1982-
May 1983) and Jack Ravan; Joseph
Cannon (October 1982-July 1983),
Associate Administrator for Policy &
Resource Management; Lewis
Crampton, Director, Office of Man-
agement Systems and Evaluation;
Lester Sutton (October 1982-March
1983), Region I Administrator;
Thomas Eichler, Region III Admin-
istrator; Charles Jeter, Region IV
Administrator; and Dick Whitting-
ton, Region VI Administrator.
THE TASK FORCE
The Task Force, chaired by Carol
Jolly, the STEP Project Manager for
ASIWPCA, included as its State
members: David Clough (VT); Paul
Sausville (NY); Robert MacPherson
(DE); Jack Dozier (GA); Robert
Clarke (IL); Clyde Bohmfalk (TX);
Karl Mueldener (KS); Jay Pitkin
(UT); Bill Shafer (AZ); and Mary
Halliburton (OR). It also included as
U.S. EPA representatives: Frederick
Leutner (Office of Water); John
Wilson (Office of Policy, Planning
and Evaluation); Chuck Rossoll (Re-
gion I); Billy Adams (Region IV);
and Ken Kirkpatrick (Region VI).
Christine Parent served as the
STEP Project Assistant. Members of
ASIWPCA's staff are: Linda Eich-
miller, Deputy Director, and Carol
Greenwood, Administrative Assistant.
16
-------
For further information about
ASIWPCA or this report, contact RobbiJ.
Savage, Executive Director, at (202)
624-7782.
The collection of information during the
course of this project was approved by the
Office of Management and Budget under
I.C.R. Number 2040-0036.
The reporting system used to prepare
this document was funded in part by the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency under Assistance Agreement
CX-810589 to the Association of State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control Admin-
istrators.
This document has been reviewed and
approved for publication by the Office of
Water and the Office of Policy, Planning
and Evaluation of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). While U.S.
EPA believes that the data used form a
valid base for a national report, approval
does not signify that the contents reflect
the views and policies of the Agency.
Designed by Levine & Rudd, Inc.
Printed by Colortone, Inc.
------- |