Federal Clean Water Act

« BACK TO SUBJECTS/ISSUES
  1. Guidelines and rules for water quality assessments being implemented at the state level under the direction of the EPA lack statistically sound procedures.

    • EPA has approved of the use of a "tally mark" system vs a statistical comparison for 303(d) listings of impaired water bodies. In a study published in 2003, it was found that the tally method had an average false rate of 35% compared to 5% false rate using statistical comparison on listing a stream as polluted. In other words 1/3 of impaired water listings were incorrect. (Gibbons, R. 2003. A statistical approach for performing water quality impairment assessments. JAWRA 39:841-849.)

    • Using statistical testing methods a person can state that they are 95% confident that stream water is not polluted. The 303(d) listings and assessment is a statistical decision problem and is not just a tally marking task. Without statistical testing, false decisions about compliance will be made either in declaring a stream is in violation when it is not, or in declaring a stream is not in violation when in fact it is. (Robertson, D.M. 2003. Influence of different temporal sampling strategies on estimating total phosphorus and suspended sediment concentrations and transport in small streams. JAWRA. 39:5:1281:1308)

    • Failure to properly identify impaired streams (ie false positive) results in not only unwarranted planning costs but also the cost of forgone benefits to society.

    • It has been estimated that further implementation of the Clean Water Act through the total maximum daily load planning on 25% of TMDLs will cost $50,000.00 to $200,000.00 per plan, 65% will cost $300,000.00 to $400,000.00 and 10% will run $600,000.00 to $1,000,000.00 per plan. Costs are figured on how difficult the TMDLs are. (Smith, E., Y. Keying, C. Hughes and L. Shabman. 2001. Statistical assessment of violations of water quality standards under section 303(d) of the clean water act. Environmental science and Technology 35:606-612. )

  2. EPA has "married" the Clean Water Act to the Endangered Species Act. Extraordinary amounts of money and time are now spent negotiating between the EPA, US Fish and Wildlife, and NOAA Fisheries when an activity is planned on a salmon stream.

    • Water science and fish science are not the same. EPA treats the two as being the same. Fish have taken precedence over all other beneficial uses and there is little factual information to back the agency opinions up.

    • The agencies have mixed the CWA "point sources" with "non point sources" by suggesting the two can be managed the same. Point sources can be controlled by preventing an input at a specific site and source. We can stop a discharge of a pollutant from entering a stream by removing the means of conveyance. Non point sources are ones from vast acres of land and in many cases are "natural" in a watershed system. We may be able to control the rate that non point source runoff enters a stream but it is unlikely that we will be able to stop runoff in a river basin.

    • Federal grazing allotments are being lost due to agency "opinions" that livestock harm fish habitat if they are near water sources. Streams are being fenced (cost = $4000 per mile) and in some areas 100-300 ft. riparian buffers are being proposed ($1000 per acre). For a landowner the costs to exist and make a living are mounting rapidly. The cost to the livestock industry and agriculture communities is growing at a rate that is threatening livelihoods.

    • The Clean Water Act requires states to establish the amount of pollution that can be in a stream once it is listed on the 303(d) list. The process is called "total maximum daily load" (TMDL) planning. EPA has not identified how watershed planning under the Clean Water Act should look at non point source contributions.

    • EPA has admitted that they don't have the authority to tell a state how to regulate non point source pollution. The Clean Water Act established a grant program in EPA so that non point source pollution could be controlled through voluntary actions. However, EPA has set clean water standards on a national level aimed at non point source contributions. The Pacific Northwest Region has approved temperature standards for fish bearing streams expecting non point sources to limit maximum temperatures with riparian buffers.