€SGT REGULATORY FOCUS
I
Nonpoint source pollution
Alvin L. Alm In nidny respects. the Cleaii Water Act has been the most successful of environmental statutes. Most industrial firms and municipalities have installed treatment facilities. The Act’s technology-based standards a n d permit programs have been much more workable than the Clean Air Act: the Kesource Conservation and Recovery Act: or the Comprehensive Enviionniental Kesponse, Compensation, and Liability Act. The amount of puhlic funds spent on water treatment facilities dwarfs that speiit on treating other media. Huwever, although examples csful cleanupsLake Erie and the Cuyahoga and Potomac rivers-inanv water bodies are not meeting quality standards. wid national progress is stymied. There are many reasons succrss is so elusive. Many water bodies have so little flow that very high levels of waste treatment are required. ToxiL air pollutants rain down on some water hodies, notably t h e Great Lakes. The most serious problem by far. however, is nonpoint source discharges froiii agriculture, si1vii:ulture, and urban sites. Of the three sources, agricultural runoff is the largest contributor to most watcr bodies. It deposits massive amounts of sediment into rivers and lakes and carries pesticides and fertilizers into surface water and groundwater. Clearcutting and road building lead to serious sedimentation problems in forests. Runoff Erom urban con. struction can result in soil runoff in fast-growing areas. Historically. Congress has relied on the states to take action to meet the water quality standards. Such
actions have not been particularly effective because states lack explicit regulatory authority. Attempts toreqiAre or &ink buiter manbgement priictices have been spotty at best. As part of the 1987 reauthorizalion of the Clean Water Act, Congress authorized a $50 million per year grant program to states to prepare nsscssinents and pldns to control nonpoint source runoff. I t is too early to determine its success, but the sunis are so modest that even if individual grauts are illrating objectives, the program cmiiot hi! considered an adequate responsi’. Congress is considering tougher iiiedicine in the p r i ~ of reauthorizing the Clean Wat ct. Because of committee jurisdiction. however. thc measures probahly will cover onlv activities that H’A aiid state envirorunental agencies i:du condu(:t. Agricultural runoft cannot be controlled without either draniatic diariges in the iiiforniation and inwntives that are prusiiled to farmt!rs or new regulatory programs. Over inany deradrs. the Departmcnt of Agriculture and the land grant colleges have transformed U.S. agriculture into the world’s most productive systcm. ‘The treniendous information flow from the l a n d grant ~ o l l c g e sto farniers through the Exteiision Service is probably the best example of t e h nology transfer froin the public t o the private sector. As R result, soil erosion has been substantially reduced. However. use of pesticides and tertilizers has increased, and runriff has become a more toxic; and thereby a more serious water pollution problem. The Uepartmcnt of Agriculture has not seriously tried to prevent off-farm damage from nonpoint 11111off into water t i d i e s until recently. President Bush’s Water Quality Initiative. a repackaging of research and outreach activities, is aimed at reducing off-farm damage. but its scope is insufficient. There arc st!vt!ral ways to attdck the agricultiirnl nonpoint pollution problem. One is to consider larl-
Wl3-936x191.0925-1369$02.50~0 i 1991 A w i c a n Cnemica8 Soci
to help manage nonpoint sources, similar to the irrigation districts in the western IJnited States. Such entities could receive federal funds to assist in planning. but an ultimate driver would need to he some form of federal enforcement. ‘The must realistic option now is a strong congressional mandate to the Department of Agriculture. Althmgh in recent years the Department has been conscientiously promoting control of nonpoint sources, that alfort has not resulted in adequate improvement. If Congress fashioned a strong bill that linked subsidies and information programs i n an all-out assault on nonpoint sources. the chances for success would bu much greater. Control of urban sediment is mow difficult becau5e regulatury control is iiormally at the county level. Nevertheless, if infrastructure departments (such as HUD and Transportation) had a strong mandate to curh urbaii runoff. they cnnld provide many incentives. Fur e x a m p l e . transportation projects contribute heavily to urban runoff and receive major federal funding; thus they are priine candidates for creating incentives to reduce runoff. The highly touted SAB report, Reducing Risk. recommended the integration of environmental concerns with other national policies. In a sense, energy and environmental policies are becoming integrated at the national. and even international, level. But the relationship between water quality, transportation. and urban and agricultural policies is much weaker. Until better integration occurs, nonpoint pollution will remain the largest residual water pollution problem. Alvin L. Alm is director a n d senior vice-prPsidentforenergyondtheenvimnmenf for Science Applicotions lnternotionol Corp.. a supplier of hightechnology products und services related to the environnient, energy. hwlth, ond nutionalsecurify.
