NCCSP

Conservation Policy Initiative

CLEAN WATER POLICIES

The interpretation and implementation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) continues to evolve as a result of numerous state, federal, and local actions that affect water quality.  When a new state or federal policy is proposed we investigate and participate to ensure the policy is based on credible science so as to create the best possible protection.  We also work to ensure new policies are consistent with the Clean Water Act, and truly contribute to the national goal of ensuring high water quality in our rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands.

The summaries below illustrate the kinds of different, but intertwined, clean water policies the National Center works on.

Bear Creek Total Maximum Daily Load Standards

The CWA requires each state to create water quality standards meant to improve or maintain water quality for future generations. To do so, states must take three related actions.

• First, each state must designate uses for each water body; these often include such uses as fishing and swimming.
• Second, the state must establish water quality criteria which are parameters required to protect the designated uses.
• Third, the state must create an antidegradation policy; these policies are designed to protect existing uses, to stop further pollution from occurring on outstanding waters, and to minimize pollution in waters with high water quality.

Unfortunately water quality already is degraded in some areas, exceeding the state's water quality standards.  Where the water body is deemed water quality limited, the state is required to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), establishing caps for each pollutants that exist in excess of water quality criteria.  Further, the state must create a Water Quality Management Plan designed to reduce pollutant concentrations below the cap level.

The Bear Creek Watershed, a tributary to the Rogue River in southern Oregon, currently is undergoing the TMDL process for the second time.  Bear Creek’s first TMDL and management plans, developed in 1992, were among the first established in Oregon.  During the past decade and a half new concerns have arisen that the current TMDL must address.  The National Center is participating in the process, with the goal of dealing with the most pressing problems as part of our effort to restore water quality in this important system. Read our comments to the Department of Environmental Quality and their responses.

State of Oregon Turbidity Criteria Comments

The State Oregon proposed administrative changes to Oregon’s water clarity standards, referred to as turbidity.  These proposed changes purportedly had the goal of making the standards user-friendly while maintaining water quality protections.  However, our evaluation concluded that the proposed standards ultimately would weaken water quality criteria.  For these reasons the National Center opposed the proposed rule.

In our comments we applauded the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for attempting to create a standard protocol for turbidity measurement but expressed concern over the feasibility of ensuring uniform application of this protocol.  Moreover, we were strongly opposed to the less stringent standards and exceedance allowances (a short term ability to exceed standards for a legitimate purpose) the proposed turbidity criteria would have allowed for.

In addition to these concerns inherent to the proposal, we opposed claims raised at a public hearing by suction dredge miners that dredge operations should be exempt from turbidity requirements - a claim proffered by the miners on the basis that mining is recognized as a beneficial use of state waterways. We argued that beneficial uses, including mining, still are subject to CWA criteria and therefore, adherence by miners to the turbidity requirements is required.  Finally, we highlighted the dual purpose for regulating turbidity: recognizing its role as an independent pollutant and as a measured indicator of sediment pollution (which is known to harm fish).

These factors compelled us to determine the proposed criteria were not in the state's best interest.  As of early 2007 the new rule had not been adopted and Oregon continues to use the old, more stringent criteria.

Photo by Cindy Deacon Williams