editorial
Runoff poses next big control challenge Whether or not pollution from outfalls is ever curbed, nonpoint sources will have to be tackled in earnest
1 he major thrust of federal, state, and local water pollution control programs always has been, and continues to be, directed against the point source polluter. Of course, it must immediately be acknowledged that even where authorities have known where the discharge pipes were, and what was coming out of them, it has generally not been easy to curb pollution. Perhaps the main reason for this is that water quality standards, rather than effluent standards, have been the regulatory criteria with which water pollution control officials have had to work. Relating the character of one waste stream to the quality of a body of water that is simultaneously receiving many other streams from other sources has proved so difficult, indeed, that it is hardly surprising the federal EPA is pushing hard for specific effluent restrictions (story, this issue, p 778). If EPA has its way, and a new water pollution control law based on two bills being compromised in a House-Senate conference committee is passed, the government may at last have an enforceable weapon against point-source pollution. With at least the prospect of point sources coming under better control, water pollution from nonpoint sources naturally assumes greater visibility. Indeed, a study performed for the Council on Environmental Quality and described in the just-released CEQ annual report suggests that nonpoint sources are often the dominant sources of water pollution, even in river basins with relatively uncontrolled point sources. Enviro Control, Inc., a Washington, D.C., consulting firm, was retained by CEQ to examine the mounds of water quality data collected over the years by federal and other agencies and to come up with an analysis of trends. There is certainly no shortage of data (see “Water quality surveillance: the federal-state network,” ES&T, February 1971, p 114), but their accuracy and comparability leave a great deal to be desired. Nevertheless, Enviro Control was able to arrive at some conclusions based on the most reliable data
and some analysis tools specially developed for the study. The “most startling” conclusion (to use CEQ’S reaction) concerns the effect of increased stream flow on pollution. Whereas the popular notion is that heavy rain and the consequent increased flow in streams somehow “dilute” pollution, the figures for both rural and industrialized areas seem to indicate that pollution is no less, and often even worse, during high flow periods, suggesting a large contribution due to runoff from land. In fact, these runoff effects were so widespread that only 20 of the basins reviewed were seen to be dominated by point sources. CEQ, in its report, is quick to try to allay any possible misconceptions that industrial and municipal pollution are not significant contributors to the overall problem. These sources, says the Council, dump “a large share” of pollutants into the country’s waterways, and account for “most of” the toxic discharges. Nevertheless, ‘‘. . . if the Enviro analysis is confirmed by further work, it points up the need to place much greater emphasis on nonpoint sources of pollution.” Behind CEQ’Ssoothing generalities lies the stark fact that practical measures available to control feedlots, fertilizer and pesticide applications, unsewered urban runoff, building and ground clearing practices, and the like, have barely begun to be applied, let alone become effective. And most regulations promulgated so far have been entirely in the province of the states, which lack the manpower (and sometimes the enthusiasm) to enforce them. It is clear that all those concerned with the control of water pollution must think seriously about abandoning their traditional emphasis on point sources. What is needed instead is a much broader view, one that encompasses watershed management as well as waste treatment technology.
Volume 6 , Number 9, September 1972 771
