Water Headlines for the week of June 27, 2011

This is a good synopsis of national water happenings from the EPA.  You can subscribe yourself - there are directions at the bottom of the post.

Water Headlines is a weekly on-line publication that announces publications, policies, and activities of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Water

In This Week’s Water Headlines:

1) Federal Agencies Partner to Revitalize Urban Waterways In Communities Across The U.S.
2) Update on Waters of the U.S. Draft Guidance
3) EPA Seeks Public Comment on the Draft Reasonable and Prudent Alternative in NMFS’ Draft Biological Opinion on the Proposed Pesticides General Permit
4) New Tool to Support Community-Based Water Resiliency Initiative
5) “Sustainable Communities, Healthy Watersheds” 2010 Annual Report Available Online
6) Subscribe to Water Headlines

1) Federal Agencies Partner to Revitalize Urban Waterways In Communities Across The U.S.
U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, White House Domestic Policy Council Director Melody Barnes, Council for Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley and representatives from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced a new federal partnership along the Patapsco River in Baltimore on Friday where they participated in environmental education activities with Baltimore students. The partnership aims to stimulate regional and local economies, create local jobs, improve quality of life, and protect Americans’ health by revitalizing urban waterways in under-served communities across the country.

The Urban Waters Federal Partnership (UWFP), an innovative federal union comprised of 11 agencies, will focus its initial efforts on seven pilot locations: the Patapsco Watershed (Maryland), the Anacostia Watershed (Washington DC/Maryland), the Bronx & Harlem River Watersheds (New York), the South Platte River in Denver (Colorado), the Los Angeles River Watershed (California), the Lake Pontchartrain Area (New Orleans, LA), and the Northwest Indiana Area. Each of the pilot locations already has a strong restoration effort underway, spearheaded by local governments and community organizations. Lessons learned from these pilot locations will be transferred to other cities in the country.

Americans use urban waterways like the Patapsco River as sources of drinking water and for a variety of activities including boating, fishing and swimming. Cleaning up and restoring these water resources is essential to protecting Americans’ health and improving their overall quality of life. Revitalizing these urban waterways will also reconnect citizens to open spaces, and will have a positive economic impact on local businesses, tourism and property values, as well as spur private investment and job creation in these communities.

For more information, visit www.urbanwaters.gov

2) Update on Waters of the U.S. Draft Guidance
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have extended the public comment period by 30 days for the draft guidance on Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act. In response to requests from state and local officials, as well as other stakeholders, EPA and the Corps will take additional comment until July 31, 2011 on this important draft guidance that aims to protect U.S. waters. These waters are critical for the health of the American people, the economy and ecosystems in communities across the country.

This change in the public comment period will not impact the schedule for finalizing the guidance or alter the intent to proceed with a rulemaking.

Public input received will be carefully considered as the agencies make final decisions regarding the guidance.  These comments will also be very helpful as the agencies prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

The original 60-day public comment period was originally set to expire on July 1, 2011. The agencies will be publishing a notice of this 30-day extension in the Federal Register.

More information:
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/CWAwaters.cfm

3) EPA Seeks Public Comment on the Draft Reasonable and Prudent Alternative in NMFS’ Draft Biological Opinion on the Proposed Pesticides General Permit
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to examine the potential impact of EPA’s pending Pesticide General Permit (PGP) on the nation’s threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat.  As part of this consultation, on June 17, 2011, NMFS submitted to EPA a draft Biological Opinion containing a suggested “Reasonable and Prudent Alternative” (RPA) that NMFS believes would avoid the likelihood that endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat would be jeopardized by the permit. EPA is taking public comment for 30 days on the draft RPA proposed by NMFS and will provide the public comment to NMFS for review. EPA is not making any final decision on the terms of the PGP at this time. Comments are due no later than July 25, 2011.

For additional information, visit:  www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides  or contact Jack Faulk, EPA Office of Wastewater Management via e-mail at faulk.jack@epa.gov.

4) New Tool to Support Community-Based Water Resiliency Initiative
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a new tool to support the Agency’s Community-Based Water Resiliency initiative.  The tool will raise awareness of drinking water and wastewater (water sector) interdependencies with other community services to support emergency preparedness and response efforts. Critical infrastructure sectors have interdependencies with drinking water and/or wastewater services.  Many community services fall under these sectors (such as hospitals and power plants), and their operations could be severely affected by a water service disruption.

The tool will assist water utilities and all community stakeholders in increasing their preparedness for all-hazards impacting the water sector and their ability to respond to and recover from water service interruptions.  The electronic tool has a self-assessment feature which enables stakeholders to assess the strengths and weaknesses of current resiliency efforts, and provides a summary report with tailored recommendations for using resources within the tool that would aid in enhancing resiliency. Individual modules have been developed for water utility owners and operators; the healthcare and public health sector; the emergency services sector; state or tribal drinking water primacy agencies; elected officials; community members, and other non-water sector entities.

To access more information about the initiative and to download the new tool, go to: http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/watersecurity/communities/index.cfm

5) “Sustainable Communities, Healthy Watersheds” 2010 Annual Report Available Online
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW) has released its 2010 Annual Report titled “Sustainable Communities, Healthy Watersheds.” Sustainable Communities and Healthy Watersheds are two major themes for EPA's national water program.

The report contains information about EPA's work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the development of new draft guidance on Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act (also known as the Waters of the U.S. Draft Guidance), progress in better protection of water quality in Appalachia from the harmful effects of surface coal mining operations, and advancement in the work of the National Ocean Council.  The report also includes information about OWOW's response to the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill through data monitoring evaluation, design monitoring plans and other efforts. Information about efforts to address nitrogen and phosphorus pollution through the development of a recommended Framework for states  as well as a new guidance that addresses polluted runoff from federal land management activity in the Chesapeake Bay watershed are also included in this publication

The report can be viewed at: http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/owow/upload/owowannualreport2010.pdf

For information about the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds: http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/owow/

6) Subscribe to Water Headlines
Please forward this message to your friends and colleagues who share an interest in water-related issues and would like to hear from EPA's Office of Water. To subscribe to the Water Headlines listserv:  Send an email message, leave the subject line blank, and address it to:  waterheadlines-join@lists.epa.gov

In the body of the message write:
Subscribe Water Headlines first name last name
(Please leave one blank space between each word, do not include any other message, and use your actual name - i.e. Subscribe Water Headlines Robert Jones)

Nonpoint Source Outreach Tools

I seem to be on a cumulative effects rant this week.  Too many hours on the computer, too few steps by my body, each little tailpipe on the road, or as a previous post pointed out, too many bodies pooping.  But this is not so much a rant as a point to tools to use while you rant in a politically correct manner.  Public funds at work for you, so take advantage!  Rant away!

Nonpoint Source Outreach Toolbox Upgrade Released


EPA has released a significant upgrade to its Nonpoint Source Outreach
Toolbox today. This new version is available online at www.epa.gov/nps/toolbox/.


This version includes two important new features, along with other improvements:

1. A robust new search feature to help you find the most applicable TV, radio or print materials in the Toolbox's product catalog to meet your specific nonpoint source/stormwater outreach needs (available directly at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npstbx/index.cfm)  
2. Significant new content of outreach material—TV, radio and print ads on various nonpoint source and stormwater topics of concern.
   

The Nonpoint Source (NPS) Outreach Toolbox is intended for use by state and local agencies and other organizations interested in educating the public on nonpoint source pollution or stormwater runoff. The Toolbox contains a variety of resources to help develop an effective and targeted outreach campaign.

Outside the Box - 1

I've gotten a few heads' ups over the last few weeks that I've been turning around in my head (as opposed to getting things posted in cyberspace). One came from a professional venting a spleen about institutional stupidity, another from a resident venting along similar lines, and a third from a newspaper article that seemed remarkably well timed considering the first two events. Also coincidentally, each of these comes from Central Oregon, which makes me wonder what's in the wind. Or perhaps the folks that care about what I say are concentrated there. Dunno.

The first that I'll talk about comes from a citizen that had a conversation about a commercial development in Bend that often suffers from sewage overflows because the development was approved in an area that does not have the sewage line capacity to take what this commercial area doles out. This person asked why the city doesn't require that the commercial development treat its wastewater and reuse it on the landscaping that is required for all commercial developments. This approach has been taken in other places in the country and has the effect of reducing demand on an overloaded collection system and increasing capacity at the treatment plant to serve other areas that perhaps are more easily served.

Here is the City of Bend's response:

The City Engineer said that the City would allow alternate sewage treatment systems for these types of facilities, provided they met DEQ and EPA standards. However, the City would require a hookup to the City's system as a backup in the event of failure of the on-site system. The City does not want to be put into the position of having to take over these systems if they fail -- it would not be an efficient use of resources.

Any alternative system would have to meet standards. The water has to be treated to an appropriate level so that it meets the standards of wherever it will be discharged/applied. There will be solids that will have to be applied in a permitted location.

The City's existing treatment plant currently treats wastewater to a high level, and the solids and liquid are disposed of with minimal environmental impact. One concern the City has is whether any alternative system would meet the same standards as the City's treatment system. However, if the City is satisfied that the alternate system meets applicable standards, the City would cooperate in reviewing and approving the system.

In essence the City requires that the developer of such a system obtain the appropriate permits to operate a wastewater treatment system (perhaps under the same permit system that the city itself operates under) AND pay to hook up to the city system. Firstly, it appears that the city is assuming DEQ/EPA authority in specifying permits and permit requirements, which I would be curious if they in fact have that authority. That would take some more research on my part to figure out. Secondly, the city is requiring a hook up immediately, rather than waiting for a potential problem to manifest itself. This smacks of greed because they want the hook up fee now rather than later. Not surprising from a city that has exhibited similar greed in the past. Thirdly, there is a bald statement that a separate system would not be efficient if the city had to take over its operation. Why would the city ever have to take over operation of a private facility if the DEQ were doing its job? Why is this necessarily inefficient? I, for one, would be interested in seeing a cost-benefit analysis of operating a separate system versus blasting big holes for miles in bed rock to increase collection system capacity.

Stay tuned for part 2...

Murray Stein, Crusader Against Water Pollution, Dies at 92

 He did some great work.  We've fixed a lot of the big problems that had our streams running with sewage and industrial waste.  Who is our champion for the accumulation of effects from uncounted "nonpoint" pollution sources across our country side?  Who is the champion for the groundwater?

The New York Times
By DENNIS HEVESI
Published: June 4, 2010


Murray Stein, who for more than 20 years led the federal government’s fight against water pollution and did much to overcome the prevailing attitude that the nation’s waterways could serve as sewers, died May 24 at his home in Falls Church, Va. He was 92.

His daughter Judith Sloane confirmed his death.

Mr. Stein, who retired in 1976, was something of a diplomat without portfolio, traveling from state to state with the difficult mission of seeking compliance through steps that avoided penalties or court action. His technique was to preside over hearings at which local officials and corporate executives were confronted with evidence of pollution and then invited or cajoled into adopting remedial programs.

It was not easy. Most polluters were reluctant to cooperate, much less spend millions of dollars to remediate. State officials often challenged the constitutional right of the federal government to intervene.

Mr. Stein usually dealt with resistance through soft-spoken amiability. His standard lines were: “We’re dealing with facts subject to scientific measurement. Once we get agreement on the facts, the solutions will present themselves.”

In 1967, he presided over a conference in Manhattan during which federal and state officials agreed on a 1972 deadline for ending water pollution in the Hudson River.

A year later, he negotiated an agreement in which officials from four states bordering Lake Michigan unanimously approved a program that called for full treatment of all waste, chlorination of effluent to further purify it and a ban on the dumping of all dredging materials into the lake.

Sometimes Mr. Stein pushed for precautionary measures. He was the principal negotiator of an agreement in 1966 in which officials from California and Nevada approved an unusual engineering program to prevent pollution of Lake Tahoe, one of the world’s clearest bodies of water. As federal authority over water-pollution control was reorganized and transferred from one agency to the next between 1955 and 1971, Mr. Stein also made the shifts: from the Public Health Service to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to the Department of the Interior and to the Environmental Protection Agency.

William D. Ruckelshaus, the first E.P.A. administrator, depended on him. In a 2005 profile of Mr. Ruckelshaus, The Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, said, “In the course of his travels, Murray Stein had learned where all the worst water pollution problems were, and when Bill Ruckelshaus wanted to move out with an aggressive enforcement program, Murray could tell him where to begin.”

Born in Brooklyn on Oct. 16, 1917, Mr. Stein was one of two children of Leonard and Mary Newmark Stein. His father was a food distributor to grocery stores, his mother a clerk at Macy’s. Mr. Stein studied at City College of New York for two years before moving to Washington. During World War II, he served as a medic in the Army.

After the war, while completing his bachelor’s degree at George Washington University, and earned his law degree there in 1949.

Mr. Stein’s wife of 65 years, the former Anne Kopelman, died in 2005. Besides his daughter Judith, he is survived by another daughter, Toby Mullvain, and two grandchildren.

Not all of Mr. Stein’s dealings with local officials were amiable.

In 1969, he was aboard a boat inspecting the Passaic River in New Jersey when it ran aground on putrid muck lining the river bottom. The boat was soon freed, but an argument ensued. “This is not a pristine, babbling brook,” a state official told Mr. Stein. “This is an industrial river.”

“Industrial river is a euphemism for open sewer,” Mr. Stein replied, adding that the river was “a disgrace to the United States.”

EPA Launches Web Forum on How to Best Protect America’s Waters

Unfortunately I got this too late to post and/or participate but it is interesting to read the comments that resulted from this:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking public input on how the agency can better protect and improve the health of our waters.  For a two-week period, EPA is holding a Web discussion forum on how the nation can better manage some of the most significant water pollution problems facing our nation. The feedback received on the online forum will help shape the discussion at EPA’s upcoming conference in April, Coming Together for Clean Water, where EPA will engage approximately 100 executive and local level water leads on the agency’s clean water agenda.

"We look forward to reviewing the ideas and feedback from the public,” said Peter S. Silva, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Water. “This online discussion is for anyone who wants to share their best solutions for restoring healthy waters and creating sustainable communities across the country."

EPA wants to receive input from water professionals, advocates, and anyone interested in water quality issues about best solutions—from planning, scientific tools, low impact development, to green infrastructure and beyond—in controlling water pollution and how resources can be better focused to improve these efforts.

To join the discussion: http://blog.epa.gov/waterforum/

Is water quality protection only worthwhile where humans are involved?

This link from the Oregonian highlights a conundrum that I have often pondered.  (EPA may fund mine cleanup)  While this particular situation appears to be getting a fix, there are so many others that are not being fixed because there is not that grand conjunction between an environmental crime and impacts on humans.   At what point is it stupid to say that, just because humans aren't immediately affected, we shouldn't fix a problem?  Hmmmm, I have to admit, on retrospect, that my own question smacks of one of those legendary stupid questions in light of all the problems that do have an effect on humans that don't get fixed.

For example, check out the red dots on the map on this site:  http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/onsite/nitrate.htm.  While this particular web page focuses on the headwaters of the Deschutes River, the map is a statewide view of groundwater contamination in the state by one contaminant, nitrate, for which there is a federally established drinking water standard of 10 mg/L nitrate as N.  All the little red dots show where groundwater resources exceed that standard.  I know of the voluntary groundwater management programs that Oregon DEQ has undertaken in the southern Willamette, Umatilla and Malheur regions  (see the map at:  http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/groundwater/gwmas.htm) and am somewhat skeptical of real progress in those areas, but at least there is DEQ attention.  After all this is our state agency that is concerned about environmental protection.  But what about all the other clusters of red dots in Oregon?  Many of these dots are are located in areas of much higher population densities than where GWMAs have been designated and, by extension of the line of reasoning with which I began this post, there would be a greater conjunction between environmental contamination and impacts on humans.

But of course, more humans means more politics and we have witnessed the politicizing of DEQ over many, many years.  To be fair, I will point out that the story with which I began this post related to the EPA's Superfund program to deal with hazardous waste and the red dot map relates to nitrates and not toxic substances.  However, it is interesting to note that EPA gives priority where there is the contamination/human impact conjunction, whereas in a very broad brush look, it appears, merely based on active groundwater management programs, that DEQ's first priority is vague to say the least.  And while I do not say that DEQ acting on groundwater issues in less densely populated regions is a measure of their backbone in protecting the environment in general, I would have to poke a thorn firmly in the side of the DEQ for not taking action on these other areas of the state, particularly in those areas where the problem has been studied for decades.