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-DirectorWater Resources CenterI give a brief background, who I am, encourage questions during the presentation.
2 Clean Water Act Overview Local and State governanceArticles and discussionTonight – 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 watersPotomac RiverCuyahoga RiverLake Erie and OntarioSoybean oil spill in MN RiverIn 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 toxicsIn 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 protestFirst earth dayUpsurge in citizen lawsuits over industrial dischargeOutrage over environmental conditionsI 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-1960sWater Quality Act of 1965 – water quality standards for interstate waters1970 executive order – Refuse Act Permit ProgramPrior 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 pollutePermits required to discharge pollutantsUse best technology possibleHigher standards only based on receiving watersI 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; FundingPermit Program (NPDES) for industrial dischargersRevision to wastewater treatment facility grant funding regulationsnon-point source program and funding; wastewater loan fundsCWA – October 1972Mention 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.1972197719811987
9 CLEAN WATER ACT Delegation to states EPA oversight role States can establish more stringent rulesEPA can over-fileBorder WatersEPA can withdraw delegationDelegation – formal document one time for each component – somewhere in the PCA commissioner’s office.Minnesota then seeks legislative authorizationEPA – 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 StandardsMonitor/AssessTotal Maximum Daily LoadEvaluateI 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.ImplementationPermitting andEnforcementBest ManagementPractices
11 Water Quality Standards Fundamental tool of the Clean Water ActCWA objective:“Restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation’s waters”“Fishable and swimmable” interim goalAddress 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 waterAquatic life and recreationIndustrial use and coolingAgricultural and wildlife useAesthetics and navigationOther usesLimited resource valueWaters have multiple usesExisting, designatedThese 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 1974Determine 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 recreationLimiting Phosphorus to 30 ug/LMost 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 StandardsMonitor/AssessTotal Maximum Daily LoadEvaluateTitle 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.ImplementationPermitting andEnforcementBest ManagementPractices
15 Goals of Monitoring Monitor/assess waters on a 10-year cycle Integrate agency, citizen & local effortsAssess conditions (not just impairments)Identify stressorsInform TMDL/protection strategy developmentTrack trendsReport to Congress every 2 yearsHere 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 standardsWaters identified as supporting beneficial use, not supporting use, or not assessedIn selecting monitoring data, consider:Data qualityMonitoring design/purposeFrequency of exceedenceLocal knowledgeEach 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 StandardsMonitor/AssessTotal Maximum Daily LoadEvaluateImplementationPermitting andEnforcementBest ManagementPractices
18 What is a Total Maximum Daily Load Calculation for waters that do not meet standardsPoint 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 AllocationFuture 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 runoffrural runoffWWTFsuburban runoffMOSRC
20 TMDLs by Pollutant Type State – 2010 list by pollutantNational – completed TMDLs by pollutantJust 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 watershedMonitoring: chemical, physical and biologicalProtection and restoration strategiesTaking a comprehensive, focused and targeted approachAdapting – revisit and build off what’s been done and see if it’s workingReduced costs of doing assessments and TMDLsI 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 MNLegacy Amendment has provided the funds necessary to implement watershed approach.
22 Implementation TableWater Quality ParameterCurrentConditionsWater Quality Targets by Parameter.StrategiesRequired AdoptionRateMeasuresWhoMilestoneTotal SuspendedSolidsWatershed Derived Sediment: approx. 35%Pervious Areas by land-use categoryCurrent Loading byFlow Zone all sources.Very High – 29 T/dayHigh 4.9 T/dayMid T/dayLow – 0.49 T/dayVery low – T/dayTSS levels reduced by _% by flow zones, to achieve WQ standards.Moving the 90% to 52mg/l TSS.Loading Capacity byVery High – 15 T/dayHigh – 3.1 T/dayMid T/dayLow – 0.40 T/daySource 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 targetsLand-ownersSWCDBWSRNRCS100% in 10 years.10% or more protected during each year.Watershed Derived Sediment:Impervious Areas. - MS4NA this watershedTSS levels reduced by _% to achieve WQ standards.BMPs designed to achieve target levels.Compliance with SWPPP None – no MS4s in watershedNPDESPermitHoldersMS4s.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 targetsPhosphorusNonpoint Phosphorus – by land-use categoryCurrent Loading byVery High –82 lbs./dayHigh – 8.4 lbs. /dayMid lbs./dayLow – 0.90 lbs./dayVery low – 0.15 lbs./dayReduce 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./dayMOS 1.84 lbs./dayLA:Very High –27 lbs./dayHigh – 4.7 lbs. /dayMid lbs./dayLow – 0.69 lbs./dayVery low – 0.13 lbs./dayAll 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 sourcesAn 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 AssessmentCondition monitoringEffectiveness monitoringWatershed Restorationand Protection StrategyTMDLProtection StrategyImplementation PlansImplementation ActivitiesBMPsPermitsetcEvery10 YearsJust to reinforce 10 year, and lead into next – just a different visual.2323
24 Current Process – Integrating Both Pathways Set StandardsMonitor/AssessTotal Maximum Daily LoadEvaluateImplementationPermitting andEnforcementBest ManagementPractices
25 Implementation : Regulatory and Voluntary Regulatory (through the Permits)Industrial and Municipal wastewaterLarge Animal Feeding operationsPermitted Storm waterVoluntary (incentives)Non-permitted urban run-offAgricultural run-offSeptic SystemsSelf explanatory
26 Municipal Wastewater Treatment - Regulatory National Pollutant Elimination Discharge System (NPDES) PermitDirect discharge into waters of the United StatesNavigable waters and tributariesInterstate watersStorm water used to flow into the sanitary sewerI 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 permitPre-treatment permitRegulated byNPDES permitholderDirect 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)IndustrialConstruction
29 Storm water – Urban Runoff (MS4) Who is coveredPublicly owned or operated storm water infrastructureCities, townships, public institutionsApril 2008: 243 MS4sUniversity of Minnesota is one
30 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System No effluent limitsStorm water Pollution Protection PlanPublic educationPublic participationAnnual meeting and reportA plan to detect illicit discharges
31 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Six elementsConstruction-site runoff controlsPost construction runoff controlsStorm 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 lossDisturb one acre or more – need permitGeneral permitStorm water pollution prevention plan – how they will control storm waterI 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 industriesStorm water associated with industryIndustry categoriesBenchmark monitoringBenchmark ValuesBMPsStorm water Pollution Prevention PlanMore of an FYI. Not impact them
34 Current Process – Integrating Both Pathways Set StandardsMonitor/AssessTotal Maximum Daily LoadEvaluateImplementationPermitting andEnforcementBest ManagementPractices
35 Non-regulated “urban/rural” runoff Not under a permitSmaller municipalities and rural communitiesVoluntary measuresRain gardensBuffersKeeping water where it fallsHomeowners and businesses
36 Voluntary Agricultural restoration I talk about the various practicesBoard of Water and Soil Resources PhotoPennsylvania Dept. of Transportation Photo
37 Current Process – Integrating Both Pathways Set StandardsMonitor/AssessTotal Maximum Daily LoadEvaluateJust a summaryImplementationPermitting andEnforcementBest ManagementPractices
38 Clean Water Act What isn’t regulated Ground waterState protection, no federalSeptic SystemsState law, no federalAgricultural runoffHuge controversyI might mention the safe drinking water act as having source water protection.
39 The Constitutional Amendment Funding33% Habitat33% Water14.25% Parks19.75% Arts & Culture
40 Primary State Agencies – Water Responsibilities AgencyA Primary roleOther rolesAgriculturePesticidesloan program; ag/water researchEnvironmental QualityWater planCoordination, environmental reviewHealthDrinking waterGround waterNatural ResourcesWater QuantityDrought; lakes; training; ground water permittingPollution ControlWater Quality – point and nonpoint sourceGround water; local monitoring; training & certificationWater & Soil ResourcesLocal implementationWetland conservation actI use this as a starting point. In the exercise, I hope this gets filled in a bit.
41 Local Governments and their roles CitiesCountiesSoil and Water Conservation DistrictsWatershed DistrictsWatershed Management Organizations
42 Cities Wastewater treatment Stormwater treatment Drinking water Regulated and regulatoryVary in capacityLand use planning
43 Counties County water plan Comprehensive Plan Land use planningDelegation for portions of:Feedlots (not NPDES)Septic SystemsStormwater
44 Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) 1st MN SWCD 1938In response to dust BowlInitially established to more wisely use our soil and water resourcesNow authorized under Minnesota Statutes 103cWetland authorityConservationFundingNeed 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 1955Manage water by watershed districts rather than other political subdivisionsBoard of Managers + staffVoluntary
46 Watershed Management Organizations Metropolitan area only1982 Metropolitan Area Surface Water Management Act (103B)Implement comprehensive surface water management plansMandatoryStorm water managementFunding
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 informationincentivesstakeholder involvementinter-personal communication and persuasiondevelopment of new social normspeer pressureremoval of barriers to participationLocal, small scale focus
49 What does NOT workCommunication 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 itit comes in many forms and from many sourcesit provides alternatives regarding what to do (provides sense of control vs. anxiety)Communication of information can change behavior if…
51 What worksCommunication is most effective when it comes from an individual that someone knows personally --or that they care aboutRelativesFriendsNeighborsCrop consultants, etc.Especially important if message is controversial or if government has no credibilityImpersonal efforts (mass media campaigns, general information mailings, newsletters, etc.) do little to effect long-term behavioral changes by themselves