EPA moves to clamp down on nonpoint sources of water pollution At the same time that EPA officials touted success of the Clean Water Act on its 25th anniversary in October, the large, mostly unregulated nonpoint source pollution problem reared its head. Nonpoint source pollution, caused by runoff from urban and rural lands, including publicly owned treatment plants, forestry operations, and farms, is not regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Recent actions by Congress to control it have resulted in an expansion of the CWA discharge permit requirement for large pollution sources. Millions of small sources, however, such as private lawns and golf courses, still contribute to nonpoint source pollution. Almost half of the states have laws in place regulating polluted runoff, according to James McElfish, an attorney with the Environmental Law Institute, who worked with EPA on a report detailing state nonpoint source rules. But the effectiveness of state laws varies, McElfish said. In
almost all cases, agriculture is the most difficult area to regulate. In most states, nonpoint source programs for farmers involve voluntary measures; enforcement responsibility lies with local authorities who, for a variety of reasons, often don't follow through
The nonpoint source proposal "may penalize some of the farmers that are trying to do the right thing." —Dennis Stolte, American Farm Bureau Federation on making sure the controls are put in place, McElfish said. EPA has been working with farmers, state regulators and, until recently, environmental groups to craft a program to address nonpoint source runoff from farming operations. The discus-
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT Review of New York City watershed plan begins Concerns about the effectiveness of a $2.2 billion plan to protect New York City's drinking water sources are being investigated by a National Research Council (NRC) panel. Findings from this review will be used by EPA to evaluate the new watershed management actions, the success of which are critical to city efforts to avoid construction of a filtration plant for the majority of its drinking water. The watershed protection plan, signed by the city and state of New York, upstate communities, and EPA a year ago, was criticized by the city Comptroller's Office, which negotiated revisions to the agreement that included the creation of the NRC review panel. A statement by the Comptroller's Office last spring said that "serious questions remain about the agreement's ability to protect our irreplaceable water supply, and additional safeguards may be needed." The NRC panel is charged with assessing the technical and scientific validity of the agreement's watershed protection measures. Key issues include specifications for buffer zones, siting of new sewage treatment plants, design of water monitoring programs, and use of phosphorus trading. Panel chair Charles R. O'Melia of Johns Hopkins University praised the watershed agreement as "a massive achievement" but said the panel's review was needed because the details of the plan had not been subject to scientific scrutiny. At its first meeting in September, the panel decided not only to assess whether the plan will meet current water regulations but also to consider how it would meet anticipated new standards such as revisions to the Safe Drinking Water Act's Surface Water Treatment Rule. The panel's final report will be completed by October 1999, just as EPA, the city, and New York state begin their own reviews of the watershed plan's progress. —STEPHEN COLE
sions picked up steam following the fish kills in Maryland this summer. EPA's Office of Water has stepped up efforts to publish a policy to control water pollution from animal-feeding operations (AFOs), where most of the nation's chickens, pigs, and cows are raised. The policy will review current regulations controlling nutrients from AFOs to see whether they are still protective of the nation's waterways. New rules, including those that regulate smaller farming operations and the use of animal manure as fertilizer, will be proposed within the next five years, said Gregory Beatty of the Office of Water. "A lot has happened in the industry since 1976, when most of the regulations were established," Beatty admitted. EPA also will work with states on a separate enforcement program to target concentrated AFOs and identify those large enough to meet the requirement for a discharge permit under the Clean Water Act. Beatty says that there are 6600 large AFOs in the United States, and at least two-thirds of those lack discharge permits. "Nonpoint source pollution has been a big concern of ours for a long time, and the fish kills are just the latest problem to add to the stack. It just underscores the problems we have out there," said Jeff Grubbs, director of the assessment and watershed protection division in the Office of Water. EPA's interest in regulating farming is the wrong approach, said Dennis Stolte of the American Farm Bureau Federation, a lobbying organization. "We are generally opposed to [EPA's] initiative. We think it is very punitive and ignores many positive steps farmers have taken to reduce nutrients from confined animalfeeding operations," Stolte said. "The proposal may penalize some of the farmers that are trying to do the right thing." At least one small farmer supports EPA's moves. Much of the state and county law affecting farming comes after an accident, said Dave Roper, who farms 300 acres in southcentral Idaho. "Different counties and states are making regulations, hoping to catch the
VOL. 31, NO. 12, 1997 /ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE S TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 5 5 3 A
