 Water Quality Standards are a critical part of working towards the goal of fishable/swimmable waters in the United States. Network members are active in writing and submitting comments on the water quality standards regulations and in defending their water quality standards from attacks.
News
AMERICAN RIVERS-NOAA PARTNERSHIP NOW ACCEPTING PROPOSALS FOR RIVER RESTORATION GRANTS
EPA’s Proposed “Water Transfer” Rule Allows Polluters to Divert their Pollution without a Permit
EPA’s Plan to Revise Selenium Standard Could Lead More Polluted Waters and Harm to Fish, Wildlife, and People
Victory for Clean Water in New Mexico!
Clean Water Network Groups Send Comments to EPA to Dump the Polluted Pumping Rule
Request for Proposals for The Mississippi River Water Quality Collaborative's Water Quality Standards Workgroup
Sample Pollution Pumping Comment Letter
Upcoming Meeting: July 31- Multi-Stakeholders' Public Meeting on Designated Uses and August 1 Use Attainability Analyses in Seattle, Washington
CWN Nutrient Standards Letter to EPA (March 2004)
U.S. EPA and the states are developing water quality criteria
Bush EPA Proposing Water Protections Rollback
Fact Sheets & Reports
EPA’s Wadeable Streams Assessment
Several members of CWN’s Steering Committee recently attended a briefing on EPA’s Wadeable Streams Assessment report, which is a collaborative survey of the nation’s streams. The EPA released a draft of the report in May and has made it available for public review and comment at http://www.epa.gov/owow/streamsurvey The report provides a baseline of statistically valid survey data on the condition of the nation’s wadeable streams, which comprise 90% of the nation’s flowing waters. For the study, wadeable streams were defined as perennial “streams and rivers that are shallow enough to sample without boats.” The EPA and its collaborators in the states collected data on: 1) benthic macroinvertebrates (used by most states as indicators of biological conditions: Includes stoneflies, dragonflies and mayflies) for a measure of stream health and 2) key chemical and physical indicators of stress or degradation. The most widespread problems encountered were nitrogen, phosphorous, streambed sediments and riparian disturbance. According to the report, only 28% of the U.S. stream miles are in good condition and 42% are in poor condition compared to the best available reference sites in their regions. In the West 45% of streams are in good condition, while only 18% are in the Eastern Highlands region (Appalachia region up through New England). In the coming years, the EPA will conduct similar assessments of coastal waters, lakes, large rivers and wetlands. For more information or a copy of the briefing presentation please email Natalie Roy at natalieroy@cleanwaternetwork.org.
Oregon Environmental Council Publishes Cleaner Rivers Report
www.oeconline.org/rivers
The production of this report was supported in part by the Network's State Assistance Fund. For more information on the SAF, see click here. Oregon Environmental Council Publishes Cleaner Rivers Report
Water quality status report uncovers threats and opportunities, examines Oregonians’ necessary and complex relationship with our rivers
PORTLAND, Ore.—April 9, 2007—We Oregonians love our rivers, yet every major river in Oregon is violating Clean Water Act standards. This disconcerting fact is the first of many contained in “Cleaner Rivers for Oregon: Why Our Rivers Need Our Help.” The 32-page report, the first water quality survey of the state’s ten major rivers published by the Oregon Environmental Council, seeks to make information about the health of our rivers more accessible to Oregonians.
The report uses water quality information compiled biannually by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, as well as real life stories of Oregonians implementing solutions particular to their own watershed. The report includes information for Oregonians who want to know how their local river is doing, useful tips for river-friendly living, and resources to help people get involved in efforts to clean up our rivers.
“Most Oregonians have heard about the Willamette River’s pollution problems, but they are not aware that every major river in Oregon violates clean water standards,” said Teresa Huntsinger, the Oregon Environmental Council’s program director for clean rivers. Since every square mile of the state is part of a watershed, the health of Oregon’s rivers and its people are intrinsically linked. By educating people about the pollutants that are impacting our rivers, and about the positive steps that can, and are, being taken to clean them up, the Oregon Environmental Council seeks to find solutions and enable Oregon’s citizens to take action.
“We need to pay close attention to the health of our rivers,” said Huntsinger, “and there is a lot that people in both rural and urban areas can do to help, including encouraging our elected officials to invest in water quality protection and stream restoration efforts.”
“Cleaner Rivers for Oregon: Why Our Rivers Need Our Help” is a key component of the Oregon Environmental Council’s clean rivers program. The simple goal of the program is to ensure that future generations of Oregonians will have the freedom to swim, boat, and fish in our rivers – and to eat what they catch – without being concerned about their health. The report demonstrates that many Oregonians do not currently have that freedom, but with cooperative partnerships, there is much that can be done to find both statewide and localized solutions. The report is available online at www.oeconline.org/rivers and upon request at the contact information on this release.
About the Oregon Environmental Council Founded in 1968, the Oregon Environmental Council (OEC) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization with members throughout the state. We bring Oregonians together for a healthy environment. Through creation of programs such as the Bottle Bill and curbside recycling, OEC has played a leadership role in helping Oregonians be part of the solution to environmental problems. Our current programs focus on protecting kids’ health from toxic pollution, cleaning up Oregon’s rivers, slowing global warming, and building a sustainable economy. For more information, visit www.oeconline.org.
First Annual Streamflow Summary Available from USGS
http://water.usgs.gov/waterwatch/2006summary/
USGS News Release | January 12, 2006 | Harry Lins | 703-648-5712 | hlins@usgs.gov |
First Annual Streamflow Summary Available
This past year has produced some record-breaking high streamflow conditions in the Northeast, as well as some near-record lows in other areas of the country, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In a new USGS publication, “Streamflow of 2006 – Water Year Summary,” changes in streamflow over the course of 2006 are examined relative to conditions over the past 75 years.
Some areas of the country experienced higher streamflow than usual. For example, parts of New England recorded their highest annual flows since 1930. At the same time, below normal conditions were prevalent in Texas and other states in the central and southern Great Plains, parts of the Southeast, and Alaska.
“Despite these regional highs and lows, however, streamflow conditions nationwide were relatively typical,” says Harry Lins, hydrologist with the USGS surface-water program. “We expect in any given year that one percent of streamgages will experience a new all-time record high or all-time record low streamflow. In 2006, two percent of streamgages reported new record high streamflow, most of which were in New England, and one percent of streamgages experienced new record lows.”
USGS plans to provide similar summaries every year. Robert Hirsch, Associate Director for Water, said “These types of summaries are very important as they place annual streamflow in a historic context and help to provide insights on whether conditions reflect short-term (year to year or seasonal) hydrologic fluctuations or longer term, more global influences. They reinforce the critical need for a stable streamflow monitoring network over the long term.”
This first-ever USGS summary of seasonal, regional, and national streamflow conditions for water year 2006 can be accessed at http://water.usgs.gov/waterwatch/2006summary/.
For more than 125 years, the USGS has monitored flow in selected streams and rivers across the U.S. The USGS collects data from more than 7,400 streamgages, many of which provide real-time data in 15 minute increments (explore this information at http://water.usgs.gov/waterwatch/). The information is routinely used for water supply and management, monitoring floods and droughts, bridge and road design, and for many recreational activities.
Access an even larger variety of USGS data, such as for ground water and water quality, through the National Water Information System Web Interface (NWISWeb), which contains over 1.5 million sites, and averages over 25 million hits per month (log onto at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/. For more information, visit www.usgs.gov.
Backgrounder: Information on EPA's Proposed Pollution Pumping Rule
The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Pollution Pumping rule would allow polluted water to be dumped directly into clean waters without any federal oversight.
Water transfers can spread any number of pollutants through our waters, including industrial chemicals, biological hazards such as toxic algae, and invasive species, such as the zebra mussels that are now overwhelming the Great Lakes.
The Clean Water Act forbids the discharge or addition of any pollutants into the waters of the United States unless the discharger has a permit such as those issued under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program. In a move that jeopardizes public health, degrades water quality, and runs completely counter to the goals of the Clean Water Act, the EPA’s proposed Pollution Pumping rule tries to specifically exempt water transfers from the NPDES permitting requirements, in violation of the Act itself.
EPA's Proposed Polluted Pumping Rule
On June 1, 2006, EPA announced its intent to exempt transfers of polluted water from the Clean Water Act's point-source permitting program. The EPA defines a water transfer as "an activity that conveys waters of the United States to another water of the United States without subjecting the water to intervening industrial, municipal or commercial use."
The rule-making comes on the heels of a pending court decision in Florida where the sugar growing industry and the South Florida Water Management District are being sued for pumping water loaded with phosphorous pollution into the Everglades.
The applicability of this rule spans many industries and has major implications for water quality all across the country. Unregulated water transfers of polluted water into clean water also raises serious human health risks for people who come in contact with these waters or eat fish that are caught in the receiving waters. This rulemaking sets a terrible precedent by exempting an entire class of dischargers from Clean Water Act regulations. The new rule would allow contaminants to be dumped directly into drinking water sources, as well as lakes and streams, by water transfer operations. This rule is contrary to the Act's purpose of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of our nation's waters, as it would allow the practice of pumping pollution from one water into another without a permit, no matter how polluted the source water, nor how clean the receiving water.
The agency is ignoring not only the plain text of the Clean Water Act itself, but also a number of federal court decisions that have explicitly rejected the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Water Act and its position that water transfers should be exempt from permitting.
Examples of Water Transfers that should be subject to individual permitting requirements under the Clean Water Act’s NPDES program: New York:
For many years, New York has diverted water from a reservoir in the Catskill Mountains through a 15-mile tunnel into a creek in order to provide drinking water for the city. If not for the tunnel, water from the reservoir would not reach the creek, and the turbidity from the reservoir’s water is negatively affecting the trout in the creek. The Second Circuit found that the transfer of water is an “addition” of pollutants under the Clean Water Act. North Dakota:
Devils Lake, a closed water system with high levels of sulfates and a high degree of salinity, has risen significantly over the last decade. Purportedly to relieve flooding, the state constructed an outlet to drain water from the lake into the Sheyenne River, which feeds into the Red River and Lake Winnipeg. A 402 permit had been issued prior to the operation of the pumps, which lasted only eleven days before violations of water quality standards stilled the pumps. The state is currently seeking to modify the 402 permit in order to allow renewed operation of the pump. Had a 402 permit never been issued, the severe violations of water quality standards—necessitating shutdown after only eleven days—would have continued, causing enormous damage to the receiving waters.
Antidegradation -- Keeping it Clean
The intent of the Clean Water Act is not just to restore polluted waters, but also to maintain the integrity of clean waters. This intent is expressed in the Clean Water Act’s very first paragraph: "The objective of [the Act] is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." Antidegradation policy is designed to achieve the maintenance piece of that goal: to keep clean waters clean and prevent undue degradation of others.
In addition to the resources available below, River Network has compiled many useful antidegradation tools. Their website includes federal and regional U.S. EPA regulations and guidance on antidegradation. They also have a searchable database with state by state information on how to access your state's antidegradation rules.
For more information on Tier III or Outstanding National Resource Waters (ONRWs) see Antidegradation Policy and Outstanding National Resource Waters in the Northern Rocky Mountains by Judith M. Brawer and Richard Levitt. (2000) While it focuses on Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, it will be useful to anyone. The authors analyze the ONRW process in the three states, providing information on the public's role, decision-making, and more. Be sure to read through to the end where attachments include: A Guide to Nominating a Waterbody as an ONRW and a Sample Petition.
Mixing Zones -- The Wrong Solution
Mixing zones allow regulators to modify or circumvent the normal restrictions (Water Quality Standards) on waste dumping. The Campaign to Safeguard America's Waters (C-SAW) has compiled useful materials on mixing zone policies and citizen action tools.
US EPA's draft water quality standards strategy
On May 7, 2002, the U.S. EPA published an important strategy document that will drive the agency's water quality standards work over the next seven years. Water quality standards are the basis of much of our water protections -- from point source permits to watershed cleanups to riparian area restorations. The strategy document is currently out for comment -- comments were due July 15, 2002. To view the strategy and comment details, visit the EPA's water quality strategy document.
|
