Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Clean Water Act Master Water Steward February 25, 2014

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Clean Water Act Master Water Steward February 25, 2014"— Presentation transcript:

1 Clean Water Act Master Water Steward February 25, 2014
Faye Sleeper, Co-Director Water Resources Center I give a brief background, who I am, encourage questions during the presentation.

2 Clean Water Act Overview
Local and State governance Articles and discussion Tonight – a quick overview, hopefully an hour. Will include governance. Then we will use the articles to dive deeper into governance, master water steward and citizen role.

3 Clean Water Act Context: Environmental Conditions
Condition of surface waters Potomac River Cuyahoga River Lake Erie and Ontario Soybean oil spill in MN River In the late 1960’s president johnson declared the potomoc river a national disgrace. Said you needed a tetanus shot if you fell in. Many of you may remember the cuyhoga River catching on fire due to industrial wastes and toxics In the same time frame, Lake erie and Ontario had so much nutrient run off that the algae blooms clogged drinking water intakes and there were many fish that suffocated and died. In Minnesota, we had our own issues. In 1962 and 1963 there was an oil pipeline break and a soybean oil tank failure, both sending oil into the Minnesota River – documented in an interesting paper at the Historical Society by Steven Lee (was at the MPCA – not sure if he has retired). Sometimes I also mention that Wisconsin sued MN over the floating sludge mats from the Pigseye treatment plant. With this audience, it is fun because they will remember these events.

4 Clean Water Act Context: Societal Action
1960s – time of protest First earth day Upsurge in citizen lawsuits over industrial discharge Outrage over environmental conditions I talk about 1960’s – civil rights, women’s movement, protests over Vietnam, etc. Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin – first earth day (can ask if others marked it some way – my school bused us out to a river to pick up garbage). Upper Midwest lead the way in environmental issues.

5 Clean Water Act Context: Values
Human Health – pre-1960s Water Quality Act of 1965 – water quality standards for interstate waters 1970 executive order – Refuse Act Permit Program Prior to the 1960s, the focus of society and the agencies on water quality was for human health concerns. There were laws, that were marginally effective, prior to the clean water act. In the 1950s, US citizens had more leisure time and started to spend more time in recreation involving water, so the emphasis shifted to include recreation, as seen by the WQA of President Nixon was beleagured by these issues, so issued an executive order to bring back the Refuse Act Permit (1899) program, but it wasn’t very effective. The Refuse Act applied only to navigable waters.

6 Listen to one of the key staff authors
Five minute video produced by MPCA. Oberstar talks about the work of the clean water act. He was actually a staffer to Congressman Blatnik at that time, and talks about the work to develop the CWA. Basically, Congress developed their own response when they saw Nixon’s response. At the end he gets a bit goofy about going to outerspace to find water, but this group might like that. Again, I emphasize that Minnesota and the upper midwest were leaders in the CWA development.

7 Four Key Precepts 40 Years of Public Policy Decisions
No right to pollute Permits required to discharge pollutants Use best technology possible Higher standards only based on receiving waters I often explain that there is a certain amount of each pollutant (sediment, phosphorus, ecoli/fecal coliform) that is allowable – our waters naturally are never pure, so the CWA allows a certain level of each pollutant. Historically, we have focused on technology and the source (wastewater treatment and industry – and what they are allowed) and we are now putting more emphasis on the receiving waters through the TMDL process. The clean water act addresses both, and we now integrate them more.

8 Clean Water Act Timeline
water quality criteria; designated uses; Permit program; Funding Permit Program (NPDES) for industrial dischargers Revision to wastewater treatment facility grant funding regulations non-point source program and funding; wastewater loan funds CWA – October 1972 Mention the key amendments – adding industrial permits in 1977, revision to grant funding (billions spent nationally to upgrade WWTF), and only as we addressed the point source, did we understand the issues that non-point source also posed. NPS was addressed in CWA through incentives and planning. I often quickly talk about point source as pipes, and nps as run off. However, the definitions are no longer that great, as some run off is permitted, such as CAFOs, as we see later. EPA has spent around $50 billion on clean water funding between 1972 and No significant amendments in the last 25 years. 1972 1977 1981 1987

9 CLEAN WATER ACT Delegation to states EPA oversight role
States can establish more stringent rules EPA can over-file Border Waters EPA can withdraw delegation Delegation – formal document one time for each component – somewhere in the PCA commissioner’s office. Minnesota then seeks legislative authorization EPA – larger issues – can override. I will often use Flint Hills as an example – they would be fined every 5 or so years (this was 15 – 20 years ago), and the fines were cheaper than the fix. EPA came in and issued much larger penalties (EPA has a longer statute of limitation – 5 years. Minnesota is only 3 years). Flint Hills now complies. Sometimes political pressures in states makes it more difficult to issue high penalties. State can call in EPA

10 Current Process – Integrating Both Pathways
Set Standards Monitor/Assess Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluate I use this through out to remind them of the flow. Each step of the process. For this class, I don’t go into too much detail. Implementation Permitting and Enforcement Best Management Practices

11 Water Quality Standards
Fundamental tool of the Clean Water Act CWA objective: “Restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation’s waters” “Fishable and swimmable” interim goal Address three key questions: What and who are we protecting? What conditions are protective? How do we maintain high water quality? Standards are how much of each pollutant can a water body handle and still meet the uses for the water. Uses include

12 Beneficial Uses Seven classes in MN Rules: Waters have multiple uses
Drinking water Aquatic life and recreation Industrial use and cooling Agricultural and wildlife use Aesthetics and navigation Other uses Limited resource value Waters have multiple uses Existing, designated These are the use categories in Minnesota. Each stte determines their own use classes. Must be approved by EPA.

13 Setting Water Quality Standards
Set in 1974 Determine the use of the water body, what conditions are protective of those uses and ensure protection of those waters that are already good (anti-degradation) Eg. Use: swimming and recreation Limiting Phosphorus to 30 ug/L Most standards were set in The process should be consider the use of the water body, then how much of each pollutant. Because or the number of waters in the state and the small size of the Pollution Control Agency at that time (I think it was 100 – 200) they used the default of 2B – recreation, where they didn’t have other data. They did consider different standards for waters upstream of drinking water intakes, for example. I give the general phosphorus standard here….and come back to it later.

14 Current Process – Integrating Both Pathways
Set Standards Monitor/Assess Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluate Title of this slide refers to the joint focus on both sources and standards. Then we monitor. CWA requires monitoring of all waters in 10 years. Tough in MN. We used to only monitor 13% overall, because of the cost. Legacy Act (a bit more on this later) allows us now to monitor in compliance with CWA. There were federal funds for this, but not sufficient for MN. Implementation Permitting and Enforcement Best Management Practices

15 Goals of Monitoring Monitor/assess waters on a 10-year cycle
Integrate agency, citizen & local efforts Assess conditions (not just impairments) Identify stressors Inform TMDL/protection strategy development Track trends Report to Congress every 2 years Here I talk about watersheds and the new approach by watershed, start at the pour point (base of watershed) and work way up. Citizen lake and stream monitoring can identify problems that should be investigated further – secchi disc or sediment tube. Monitoring from PCA and others – have to meet a certain quality.

16 Assessment Data quality Monitoring design/purpose
Compare monitoring results to standards Waters identified as supporting beneficial use, not supporting use, or not assessed In selecting monitoring data, consider: Data quality Monitoring design/purpose Frequency of exceedence Local knowledge Each pollutant has protocols. For example, you might have to sample as a grab sample 2x/month for 5 months. Or sample weekly. PCA has these all online, based on pollutant, science, etc. From this you get the list of what meets WQ standards and what does not.

17 Current Process – Integrating Both Pathways
Set Standards Monitor/Assess Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluate Implementation Permitting and Enforcement Best Management Practices

18 What is a Total Maximum Daily Load
Calculation for waters that do not meet standards Point source (Waste Load Allocation) + Nonpoint source (Load Allocation) Margin of safety (+ reserve capacity) TMDL means the amount of that pollutant that a water body can handle and still meet WQ standards. For those waters that do not meet – I talk about this as assessing where pollutants come from, who is causing pollution. Where do we need to reduce. Then go into the example – just briefly….but then…..

19 Reducing the pollutant load
Current Allocation Future Allocation …you have to shrink the pie. Unlike this photo, you don’t have to shrink it proportional to contribution. You can, but it may be more cost effective to ask one entity to shrink more. Ideally, key sources can have a civil conversation. Here I also talk about the inequities of permitted vs. permitted. I try to give both sides: Unpermitted don’t want new regulations, and permitted feel it is an unfair playing field. urban runoff rural runoff WWTF suburban runoff MOS RC

20 TMDLs by Pollutant Type
State – 2010 list by pollutant National – completed TMDLs by pollutant Just some example sof types of pollutants. Different states may use different methods. For example, we use turbidity and many states use sediment. Turbidity is actually the murkiness, and is not always exact (waters that have tanins in them fail the turbidity standard or have a different standard, because it is naturally occuring.

21 Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy
The goal is clean water. To get there we are: Monitoring all 81 watersheds by 2017; by watershed Monitoring: chemical, physical and biological Protection and restoration strategies Taking a comprehensive, focused and targeted approach Adapting – revisit and build off what’s been done and see if it’s working Reduced costs of doing assessments and TMDLs I talk about the old way of doing it – pressure to get them done and not enough money to use the watershed approach (15 years ago). Now, more effective, we only go in once, etc. Still have to incorporate each TMDL (each impairment) to meet CWA, but done via watershed. This was a dream in the early years…..but law suits in other states and EPA breathing down our necks (I used to be called monthly on how many did we have done – EPA did not want a law suit in MN). WRAPS, unlike TMDLs, includes protection for waters that meet current standards. We knew watershed approach was the best approach, there was no money and too many waters in MN Legacy Amendment has provided the funds necessary to implement watershed approach.

22 Implementation Table Water Quality Parameter Current Conditions Water Quality Targets by Parameter. Strategies Required Adoption Rate Measures Who Milestone Total Suspended Solids Watershed Derived Sediment: approx. 35% Pervious Areas by land-use category Current Loading by Flow Zone all sources. Very High – 29 T/day High 4.9 T/day Mid T/day Low – 0.49 T/day Very low – T/day TSS levels reduced by _% by flow zones, to achieve WQ standards. Moving the 90% to 52mg/l TSS. Loading Capacity by Very High – 15 T/day High – 3.1 T/day Mid T/day Low – 0.40 T/day Source Prevention: Interception & Treatment: In-Channel Work: All cropland continuously protected by 30% residue or equivalent. 100 year flood plan in permanent vegetation. * Top 5% of EBI areas protected. *  Percent of TSS reduced by flow zone per year to meet TMDL reduction targets Land-owners SWCD BWSR NRCS 100% in 10 years. 10% or more protected during each year. Watershed Derived Sediment: Impervious Areas. - MS4 NA this watershed TSS levels reduced by _% to achieve WQ standards. BMPs designed to achieve target levels.    Compliance with SWPPP  None – no MS4s in watershed NPDES Permit Holders MS4s. Schedule of Compliance if needed. Near-Channel Derived Sediment. Approx. 65% Channel embeddedness.  Percent of TSS reduced from near channel sources to meet TMDL reduction targets Phosphorus Nonpoint Phosphorus – by land-use category Current Loading by Very High –82 lbs./day High – 8.4 lbs. /day Mid lbs./day Low – 0.90 lbs./day Very low – 0.15 lbs./day Reduce phosphorus levels to FWM 18.4 lbs. /day or less. This level set to achieve compliance with D.O. WQ standard during 7Q10 flows. WLA – 0.02 lbs./day MOS 1.84 lbs./day LA: Very High –27 lbs./day High – 4.7 lbs. /day Mid lbs./day Low – 0.69 lbs./day Very low – 0.13 lbs./day All manure applied at agronomic rates for phosphorus. 25 foot permanent vegetation buffers around all pasture lands.*  Percent of flow-weighted mean goal achieved from nonpoint sources An example of the implementation table in the new WRAPs. One Watershed, One Plan- Allows/encourages SWCDs, WMOs and Counties to collaborate on one plan for each watershed in their jurisdiction, rather than a separate plan for each LGU

23 Rotating Through the Major Watersheds on a Ten-Year Cycle
Monitoring and Assessment Condition monitoring Effectiveness monitoring Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy TMDL Protection Strategy Implementation Plans Implementation Activities BMPs Permits etc Every 10 Years Just to reinforce 10 year, and lead into next – just a different visual. 23 23

24 Current Process – Integrating Both Pathways
Set Standards Monitor/Assess Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluate Implementation Permitting and Enforcement Best Management Practices

25 Implementation : Regulatory and Voluntary
Regulatory (through the Permits) Industrial and Municipal wastewater Large Animal Feeding operations Permitted Storm water Voluntary (incentives) Non-permitted urban run-off Agricultural run-off Septic Systems Self explanatory

26 Municipal Wastewater Treatment - Regulatory
National Pollutant Elimination Discharge System (NPDES) Permit Direct discharge into waters of the United States Navigable waters and tributaries Interstate waters Storm water used to flow into the sanitary sewer I talk about the fact that they actually get limits on each pollutant. This might be too much detail: Going back to Phosphorus, a typical standard for phosphorus is 1.0 mg/L WQ standard was 30 ug/L (micrograms) which converts to 0.03 mg/L. There is a mixing zone and in this case there is an allowance for dilution.

27 Industrial Wastewater
NPDES discharge permit Pre-treatment permit Regulated by NPDES permit holder Direct industrial discharge gets a permit. If they discharge into a sanitary sewer, they get a pretreatment permit. In the metro – most industry discharges into the santary sewer and are regulated by met council (the holder of the permit). Photo courtesy of Great Lakes United

28 Storm water Three permit types
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Industrial Construction

29 Storm water – Urban Runoff (MS4)
Who is covered Publicly owned or operated storm water infrastructure Cities, townships, public institutions April 2008: 243 MS4s University of Minnesota is one

30 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
No effluent limits Storm water Pollution Protection Plan Public education Public participation Annual meeting and report A plan to detect illicit discharges

31 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
Six elements Construction-site runoff controls Post construction runoff controls Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) SWPPP – how they will control storm water – both quantity and quality. Minnetonka SWPP- Have a copy to look at during break.

32 Construction Storm water
EPA estimates that 20 – 150 tons soil/ acre loss Disturb one acre or more – need permit General permit Storm water pollution prevention plan – how they will control storm water I describe a general permit – one permit to cover a class. Individuals have to apply and get “coverage” under the general permit.

33 Industrial Storm water
Certain industries Storm water associated with industry Industry categories Benchmark monitoring Benchmark Values BMPs Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan More of an FYI. Not impact them

34 Current Process – Integrating Both Pathways
Set Standards Monitor/Assess Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluate Implementation Permitting and Enforcement Best Management Practices

35 Non-regulated “urban/rural” runoff
Not under a permit Smaller municipalities and rural communities Voluntary measures Rain gardens Buffers Keeping water where it falls Homeowners and businesses

36 Voluntary Agricultural restoration
I talk about the various practices Board of Water and Soil Resources Photo Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation Photo

37 Current Process – Integrating Both Pathways
Set Standards Monitor/Assess Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluate Just a summary Implementation Permitting and Enforcement Best Management Practices

38 Clean Water Act What isn’t regulated
Ground water State protection, no federal Septic Systems State law, no federal Agricultural runoff Huge controversy I might mention the safe drinking water act as having source water protection.

39 The Constitutional Amendment
Funding 33% Habitat 33% Water 14.25% Parks 19.75% Arts & Culture

40 Primary State Agencies – Water Responsibilities
Agency A Primary role Other roles Agriculture Pesticides loan program; ag/water research Environmental Quality Water plan Coordination, environmental review Health Drinking water Ground water Natural Resources Water Quantity Drought; lakes; training; ground water permitting Pollution Control Water Quality – point and nonpoint source Ground water; local monitoring; training & certification Water & Soil Resources Local implementation Wetland conservation act I use this as a starting point. In the exercise, I hope this gets filled in a bit.

41 Local Governments and their roles
Cities Counties Soil and Water Conservation Districts Watershed Districts Watershed Management Organizations

42 Cities Wastewater treatment Stormwater treatment Drinking water
Regulated and regulatory Vary in capacity Land use planning

43 Counties County water plan Comprehensive Plan
Land use planning Delegation for portions of: Feedlots (not NPDES) Septic Systems Stormwater

44 Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD)
1st MN SWCD 1938 In response to dust Bowl Initially established to more wisely use our soil and water resources Now authorized under Minnesota Statutes 103c Wetland authority Conservation Funding Need to ask who knows the status of Henn conservation district and who has the authorities now. Important for this group.

45 Watershed Districts Boundaries follow natural watershed boundaries
Est. by legislature in 1955 Manage water by watershed districts rather than other political subdivisions Board of Managers + staff Voluntary

46 Watershed Management Organizations
Metropolitan area only 1982 Metropolitan Area Surface Water Management Act (103B) Implement comprehensive surface water management plans Mandatory Storm water management Funding

47 Citizen Engagement Old tools:
1) Command and control approaches (regulation) 2) Market-based incentives “New tools”-- rely on voluntary behavioral changes: 1) Education (encourages understanding, creates values and norms for behavior) 2) Information (provides facts intended to change behaviors) 3) Voluntary measures

48 New tools effective for addressing local environmental problems
Encourages use of a strategic combination of: education and information incentives stakeholder involvement inter-personal communication and persuasion development of new social norms peer pressure removal of barriers to participation Local, small scale focus

49 What does NOT work Communication of information alone cannot overcome other factors affecting behavior (inconvenience, expense, difficulty, legal barriers) Many communication efforts fail because they do not address these underlying barriers to behavioral change

50 What works Communication of information can change behavior if…
incentives are coupled with it it comes in many forms and from many sources it provides alternatives regarding what to do (provides sense of control vs. anxiety) Communication of information can change behavior if…

51 What works Communication is most effective when it comes from an individual that someone knows personally --or that they care about Relatives Friends Neighbors Crop consultants, etc. Especially important if message is controversial or if government has no credibility Impersonal efforts (mass media campaigns, general information mailings, newsletters, etc.) do little to effect long-term behavioral changes by themselves

52 Faye Sleeper Water Resources Center Website

Download ppt "Clean Water Act Master Water Steward February 25, 2014"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google