IMMEDIATE
RELEASE: Contact person – Patrick Porgans, Solutionist (916) 833-8734
pp@planetarysolutionaries.org
Public records attest to the fact that after 40 years of regulatory
programs, and more than $50 billion in expenditures, the Golden State’s water
bodies have increased in toxicity! Trends
Include 170% Increase In
CA
Toxicity
Listings Since 2006: Increased
water monitoring data shows the number of rivers, streams and lakes in
California exhibiting overall toxicity have increased 170 percent from 2006 to
2010.
More of California’s waterways are toxically polluted “water
quality impaired” than previously known, according to a list of polluted
waterways submitted by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water
Board) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and finalized by the
agency in 2011.[1] Map California’s
Impaired Waters.[2] All assessed waters in
the 2010
Report are
a compilation of the latest approved data.[3]The data
indicate an increase in toxicity and listing of water impaired bodies will
continue to rise. The State Water Board and regional water boards administer the
provisions of the CWA under an agreement with EPA.
Unfortunately,
the public may not know just how bad things are statewide until 2017or beyond,
as government regulators failed to provide an updated assessment listing the
status of the State’s waters. Even then, critics point out that water quality
monitoring, and the related data, are conducted almost extensively by the
polluters.[4]
Lack of Data not the Result of a Lack of Grant
Funds: Clean Water Act Section 106(e)(1)[5] and 40 CFR Part
35.168(a) provide that EPA award Section 106 funds to a State only if the State
provided for, or is carrying out parts of its program the establishment and
operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to
monitor and to compile and analyze data on the quality of navigable waters of
the State, and provisions for annually updating the data and including it in
the Section 305(b) 303(d) Integrated Report.[6]
This document recommends the basic elements of a State water monitoring program
and serves as a tool to help EPA and the States to determine whether a
monitoring program meets the prerequisites of CWA Section 105(e)(1).[7]
Since fiscal year 2000 through 2014-2015 FY,
California received $161,297,325 from EPA in grant funds (CWA, 106 Grants) for
the administration of the 303(d) listing program, and $170 million for CWA, section
319(h) non-point source Grant Program.[8]
Forty-two
years ago, a united Congress overrode President Nixon's veto of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which ordered
states to limit pollutants in the nation's waterways.[9]
Coupled with subsequent amendments, the CWA required all states to assess and
establish Total Maximum Daily Limits (TMDLs) of pollutants for lakes, creeks,
rivers, estuaries and ocean shorelines. If the states wouldn't do it, the EPA
“could” step in and impose safety limits.
“Under the CWA TMDLs
are not self-implementing, meaning EPA cannot enforce implementation of a TMDL
once the analysis is complete.”[10]
Goal of the Clean Water Act: The goal of the Clean Water Act (CWA)[11] is
"to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the Nation's waters" (33 U.S.C §1251(a)). Under section 303(d) of the
CWA, states, territories, and authorized tribes, collectively referred to in
the act as "states," are required to develop lists of impaired waters. These
are waters for which technology-based regulations and other required controls
are not stringent enough to meet the water quality standards set by
states.
The law requires that states establish priority rankings for
waters on the lists and develop TMDLs for
these waters. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a
water body can receive and still safely meet water quality standards. The CWA was
authorized to make U.S. waterways fishable and swimmable by 1983 and to achieve
“zero” discharge of pollutants to waterways by 1985. The records and status of the widespread pollution of the
public’s streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs and ground water basins are a
testament to the manner in which the federal CWA of 1972 and Safe Drinking Water Act[12] of 1974 are
administered by State officials.
The federal CWA requires states to develop
TMDLs for impaired water bodies; i.e. streams, rivers, and lakes. Informally, an impaired water body is any water that is not
meeting the water quality standards that have been established for that water.
Formally, an impaired water body is one that is not attaining water quality
standards after technology based discharge limits on point sources are
implemented. Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires each state
to maintain a list of impaired water bodies and revise the list from time to
time (currently in even numbered years).
In the State Water Boards’ 2008-2010 report to EPA, Region IX, it lists
impaired water bodies adopted by the Board in September 2008.[13]
California has some of the most
magnificent rivers, lakes and coastal waters in the country. However, of its
3.0 million acres of lakes, bays, wetlands and estuaries, 1.6 million acres are
not meeting water quality goals, and 1.4 million acres still need a pollution
clean-up plan, known as a TMDL. Of the 215,000 miles of shoreline, streams and
rivers, 30,000 miles are not meeting water quality goals, and 20,000 miles
still need a TMDL.[14] The most common
contaminants in these waterways are pesticides and bacteria, followed by metals
and nutrients, according to EPA.[15]Last count, California
has 1,021 impaired water bodies listed on the 303(d)
list, according to EPA’s website.[16]
To its credit the Golden State ranks eight in “Approved TMDLs by State”.[17]
Site-Specific Targeted Monitoring
Results of California Rivers and Streams in 2010: The data indicate
California still has a long ways to go in assessing and establishing TMDLs
statewide. EPA’s latest published report revealed only 15.8%
of the State’s 211,513 miles of rivers and stream was assessed; 84.2%
unassessed of which 89.5% classified as “water-quality impaired”.[18]
Monitoring Results of California Lakes,
Reservoirs, and Ponds in 2010: Site-specific targeted monitoring results for California
2,086,230 acres of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds indicate that 99.9 percent were
unassessed; 97.9 percent impaired, and 72.6 percent needed TMDLs.[19]
More specifically, the monitoring results indicate 99.8 percent
of the agricultural supplies as impaired; cold fresh water 82.6 percent
impairment; commercial and sport fishing 80.2 percent impaired; estuarine
habitat 100 percent impaired; ground water recharge 100 percent impaired; municipal
and domestic supply 67.6 percent impaired, and wildlife habitat 100 percent
impaired. According to the report, the major causes of impairment, arsenic,
mercury, nutrients, DDT, salinity, selenium, bacteria, phosphorus, nitrogen,
and PCBs.[20]
http://iaspub.epa.gov/water10/attains_index.control?p_area=CA#LAKE/RESERVOIR/POND
Monitoring Results of California Bays
and Estuaries in 2010: Site-specific
targeted monitoring results of California bays and estuaries indicate that 58.1
percent of the 2,139 square miles were unassessed; 100 percent were impaired, and
99.5 percent of the threatened and impaired bays and estuaries were in need of
TMDLs. The data also indicate of the square miles assessed agricultural supply
was 100 percent impaired; cold freshwater habitat 98.5 percent impaired; commercial
and sport fishing 99.7 percent impaired, estuarine habitat 96.9 percent
impaired; marine habitat 91.2 percent impaired; municipal and domestic supply
100 percent impaired, warm freshwater habitat 99.9 percent impaired and
wetlands habitat 100 percent impaired. Government lists the causes of impairment”
from mercury, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PBSs), invasive species, and pesticides.
as non-point source discharges (includes, agricultural drainage); subsurface
mining; unknown sources; industrial point source discharge; atmospheric
deposition of toxics; ballast water releases; and municipal point source
discharges, and urban runoff/storm sewers.[21]
Monitoring Results of California Wetland
in 2010: Site-specific
targeted monitoring results of California 357,064 acres 99.9 percent were
unassessed; the 219.2 acres assessed were 100 percent impaired, and 100 percent
of those acres needed TMDLs. The data also indicate of the square miles
assessed agricultural supply was 100 percent impaired; cold freshwater habitat 100
percent impaired; commercial and sport fishing 100 percent impaired, estuarine
habitat 100 percent impaired; shellfish harvesting 100 percent impaired; water
contact recreation100 percent impaired, and warm freshwater habitat 100 percent
impaired.[22]
CWA Strategies for Managing Water Quality: The
federal CWA contains two strategies for managing water quality. One, a
technology-based approach that envisions requirements to maintain a minimum
level of pollutant management using the best available technology, was the
great innovation of the 1972 Act. The other, a water quality-based approach,
relies on evaluating the condition of surface waters and setting limitations on
the amount of pollution that the water can be exposed to without adversely affecting
the beneficial uses if those waters. Section 303(d) bridges these two
strategies.
The CWA gives States the primary responsibility for protecting and
restoring surface water quality. Under the CWA, States that administer the CWA
must review, make necessary changes, and submit the CWA section 303(d) list to
the EPA. CWA Section 305(b) requires each State to report biennially to EPA, on
the conditions of surface water quality. The EPA has issued guidance to States
which requires the two reports to be integrated. For California, this combined
report is called the California 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Reports.[23] Section 303(d) of the
Clean Water Act requires states to identify all seriously polluted, or
"impaired," water bodies every two years. The states put each
polluted water body and its associated contaminants on what they call the
"303(d) list." In California,
the State Water Resources
Control Board
and nine Regional Water Boards[24] maintain and update
the 303(d) list.[25]
Navigating the State Water Boards’ websites to ascertain the total number of
impaired water bodies was difficult, even with the assistance of Board
personnel. A water body may be assessed for several different uses. In order to
be considered "good," it must meet all the uses for which it was
assessed. It is considered "threatened" if it is meeting all assessed
uses but if water quality conditions appear to be declining. It is considered
"impaired" if any one of its assessed uses is not met,” according to
EPA.[26]
What Happens
when a Water Body Is Placed on the 303(D) List?: Once a water body is placed on the 303(d) list,
Regional Board staff evaluates the nature of the impairment and begins
developing a TMDL, if appropriate and necessary. For each TMDL
developed, State Water Board staff will also develop an implementation or water quality
control plan for each water body and associated pollutant/stressor on the list. The TMDL and the
implementation plan serve as the means to attain and maintain water quality
standards for the impaired water body. During each 303(d) listing cycle the
water bodies on the list are prioritized in order to facilitate scheduling and
budgeting to develop TMDLs and implementation plans.
State Water Board Did Not Adopt CWA Section 303(D)
List Until 2004: TMDLs were first required by the CWA in 1972.
EPA first issued regulations governing states development of TMDLS in 1985 but little
to ensure that states enforced them. In recent years, lawsuits alleging
inaction by EPA and the states have spurred increased attention to the development of TMDLs by imposing
judicial deadlines in some states.
The State Water Board did not adopt a Water Quality Control Policy for
Developing California’s CWA Section 303(d) List, until September 2004. The 2011EPA approved
TMDL list[27] from which portions of this data was
extrapolated is the latest numbers available from the Boards’ 2008-2010 report to EPA[28] (two-year reporting
cycle). An
updated TMDL list was due from the State Water Boards back in the year 2013 for
the 2011-2012 reporting cycle.[29]
However, the public may not know just how bad things are statewide until 2017or
beyond, as state water officials failed to provide an updated 303(d) and 305(b)
lists to EPA, and requested several
delays in submitting the data. [30] [31] [32] [33]
Four Decades
Later and More than $50 Billion Spent – State’s Clean And Safe Drinking Water
Acts Track-Record is in Question: Although
billions of dollars
have been expended for Clean and Safe Drinking Water programs; reportedly
only a dozen previously listed
water bodies have been restored in California since 2002.[34] Request have been
made to the government to provide the total amount of money expended on CWA and
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) grant programs; however, the total dollar
amounts have yet to be received. Amount EPA allocated to States since 1972-2010
was $85 billion;[35]
sources contend California received about 9% to 10% of the historical
appropriations, estimated to be about $7 to $8.5 billion for Clean Water
funding. However, more than $50 billion of federal taxpayer funds and
state borrowed money have been spent under the guise of “Safe, Clean, and
Reliable Drinking water supply”. In California, the
amount of federal funds for CWA and SDWA programs pale in comparison to the
vast sums of funds the State gets from the issuance of voter approved General
Obligation (G.0.) bonds. Since the mid-1990s, a significant portion of the $26
billion in G.O. bonds approved has been used for CWA and SDWA programs and
related projects. The money to repay debt on G.O. bonds comes from the State’s
General Fund which receives revenue from the taxpayers. According to the State
Treasurer’s Office for every dollar borrowed in G.O. bonds cost a total of $2
in repayment.[36]
Since 1997, EPA has provided the California Safe Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund more than $1.5 billion for infrastructure projects
throughout the state, much of which was used to help disadvantaged communities.
EPA works with the California State Water Resources Control Board and other
local and state agencies to assist providers who are working with small
drinking water systems to enhance their technical, managerial, and financial
capability to reliably provide safe drinking water to communities.[37] However, California failed to
spend $455 million in federal safe-drinking-water funds and isn't adequately
managing the program that administers the money.
Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific
Southwest,
sent a notice of noncompliance to the California Department of Public Health,
warning that if the state doesn't take corrective action within 60 days, EPA
may suspend grant payments to the program.[38]
In response to the Notice of Noncompliance, the California Department of Public
Health developed a Corrective Action Plan for full compliance
by June 2016.[39]
California Voters Pass $7.5 Billion Bond: On November 4, 2014,
California voters approved a $7.5 billion injection of taxpayer funds to
address the state’s aging water infrastructure. The bond was the fourth largest
in California’s history. The bond, known as Proposition 1, is intended to help
California’s ability to cope with drought conditions, increase its water
storage capacity and protect drinking water.[40] Albeit,
California’s waterways remain contaminated, and, according to the data, the
problem is getting worse. Clean water is vital to
California’s public health, economy, recreation and wildlife. California has
done an excellent job of increasing the amount of water monitored.
Unfortunately, much of the data points in the wrong direction. The list of
impaired waters is a wake-up call to continue critical local and statewide work
needed to heal California’s damaged waters, according to EPA.[41]
Data indicate a synergistic[42]
problem with toxic in our water, in need of assessment.[43]
Nationwide Funding Needs for Drinking and
Wastewater Infrastructure: In its
most recent needs surveys, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated
that the funding needs for drinking water infrastructure totaled $335 billion
((in 2007 dollars) and wastewater infrastructure needs totaled $298 billion (in
2008 dollars).[44]
EPA Celebrates Safe Drinking Water Act 40TH Anniversary: On 16
December 2014, EPA Celebrates 40th Anniversary of the Safe Drinking Water Act. “Every day more than 38 million
Californians rely on clean water for cooking, washing, and bathing,” said
Blumenfeld. “We have made incredible progress in improving water quality and
are tackling the remaining challenges so that every American will have access
to clean drinking water.”[45]
California Underperforms in Productive Use of funds: According to a
2004 Report of the California Performance Review,[46]
California ranked second nationally in total Revolving Fund federal grant
awards for wastewater treatment ($1.5 billion), but ranks 23rd for
productivity. Productivity is measured by the percentage of total financial
assistance provided (includes federal grant, state match, loan repayments, and
leveraging) to the amount of federal capitalization grant awarded from 1988 to
2003. For the Drinking Water Fund, California ranks first in total federal
grant awards ($360 million) among the states, but ranked 50th for productivity
from 1996 to 2003. California has provided $2.7 billion of Revolving Fund
assistance and $190 million of Drinking Water Fund assistance.[47]
The Performance report indicate that
California officials have a lack-luster track-record in productivity for its
expenditure of CWA and SDWA funds, failure to provide required updated 303(d),
and the vast amounts of water bodies yet to be assessed is indicative of a
system in need of innovative progress, oversight and regulatory reform.
Disclaimer: The information in this article provides a
synopsis of California’s “progress” and efforts to adhere to the requirements
mandated in the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). The information and findings
contained herein are prefaced entirely on the latest government approved data
and records. [Please be advised that Planetary
Solutionaries cannot attest to the credibility,
accuracy or validity of government data; questions/ambiguities in the data
should be discussed with its source.]
[Read more: Patrick Porgans, Porgans & Associates, and Lloyd
Carter, Save Our Streams conducted reports on the CWA, and Safe Drinking Water
Act. Part I: Health and Safety Gaps in Safe
Drinking and Clean Water Acts,[48] Part II: State and Regional Boards and State
Health Department run afoul of Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act.][49]
Note: To date, financial
support for this Fact Sheet was provided by Save Our Streams and Patrick
Porgans & Associates.
Note: To date, financial
support for this Fact Sheet was provided by Save Our Streams and Patrick
Porgans & Associates.
ENDNOTES:
[1] EPA Finalizes California’s List of
Polluted Waters, Trends
Include 170% Increase in Toxicity Listings since 2006,
Release Date: 10/11/2011, Contact Information: Nahal Mogharabi, mogharabi.nahal@epa.gov.
[2] EPA, 2010 Integrated Report, All Waters Assessed; http://www.epa.gov/region9/mediacenter/impaired-waters/
[4] Patrick Porgans, Planetary Solutionaries’ email
communication with Division of Water Quality staff, Subject: When does SWRCB
Intend to send 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 303(d) and 305(b) listing cycles to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nov. 7, 2014.
[6] EPA, Information Concerning 2012 Clean Water Act Sections
303(d), 305(b), and 314 Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions;
[8] State Water Board’s partial response to Porgans &
Associates request for Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts grant
appropriations, December 2014.
[12] Summary of Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §300f et
seq. (1974) http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-safe-drinking-water-act
[14] News Release, EPA Finalizes California’s List of
Polluted Waters 11 October 2011; http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/F2D3C71584D71DE4852579260068780E
[20]
EPA, California Water Quality Assessment Report,
Site-Specific Targeted Monitoring Results, California Lakes, Reservoirs, and
Ponds, 2010; http://iaspub.epa.gov/water10/attains_index.control?p_area=CA#LAKE/RESERVOIR/POND
[23] State Water Resources Control Board, The 303(d) List of
Impaired Water Bodies, http://waterbaords.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/303dlist....
[26] State Water Board, TMDL Program, Background, http://www.waterbaords.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/background.shtml
[29] Victoria Whitney, Deputy Director, Division of Water Quality, SWRCB letter to Ms. Jane Diamond, Director,
Water Division, U.S. EPA, Region 9,
Subject: Clean Water Act Sections 303(s)305(b) Integrated Report Process Moving
Forward, July 15, 2013. www.waterbaords.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/lttr_epa_integrrpt.pdf,
[30] Nick Martorano, Chief, Surface Water Quality
Assessment Unit, Division of Water Quality, SWRCB to Interested Parties,
Subject: California Integrated Report [Clean Water Act Sections 303(d) and
305(b) Update, Nov. 12, 2013. www.waterbaords.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/integr_rpt_memo_final1113.pdf,
[32] Ibid, Patrick
Porgans, Planetary Solutionaries’ email communication with Division of Water
Quality staff, Nov. 7, 2014.
[35] Congressional Research Service, Water Infrastructure
Financing, History of EPA Appropriations http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652976.pdf
[37] EPA Celebrates 40th Anniversary
of the Safe Drinking Water Act, Release Date: 12/16/2014, Contact Information:
Nahal Mogharabi, telephone 213-244-1815,
Mogharabi.nahal@epa.gov
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/3881d73f4d4aaa0b85257359003f5348/6ffec69f2014acb385257db0007778b6!OpenDocument
[39] California Department of Public Health, Division of
Drinking Water and Environmental Management, Report to the Legislature, Safe Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund and Source Water Protection Program, State Fiscal
Years 2010-11 and 2011-14, June 2014. http://www,waterbaords.ca.gov/drinking_water/services/funding/documents//srf/SDWSRF%202014%20Report%to%20Legislature.pdf
[41] EPA
Finalizes California’s List of Polluted Waters, Trends Include 170% Increase in Toxicity
Listings since 2006. Release
Date: 10/11/2011, Contact
Information: Nahal Mogharabi, mogharabi.nahal@epa.gov.
[46] Note to reader: Attempts to locate an updated report by
the Governor’s California Performance Review team could not be found.
