Mississippi River Water Quality and the Clean Water Act Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities (2008) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 Implementing the Clean Water Act Along the Mississippi River
4 Implementing the Clean Water Act Along the Mississippi River
Pages 97-137
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 97... ...
The importance of Mississippi River water quality monitoring is discussed further in Chapter 5. This chapter discusses the multistate nature of the Mississippi River basin, and how this creates unique challenges regarding Clean Water Act implementation and effective water quality management.
|
From page 98... ...
This chapter examines administrative issues and challenges regarding implementation of the Clean Water Act along the interstate Mississippi River. It begins with discussion of the progress in controlling point source pollution and concludes with a focus on efforts to address the more complicated nonpoint source challenges.
|
From page 99... ...
IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN WATER ACT ALONG THE MISSISSIPPI 99 TABLE 4-1 Stage Agencies with Principal Clean Water Act Responsibilities Other Agencies Primary Sharing CWA Agency Web Site Predecessor Agencies Responsibilitya Minnesota Minnesota http://www.pca. Office of None Pollution state.mn.us/ Environmental Control Assistanceb Agency Wisconsin Wisconsin http://www.dnr.
|
From page 100... ...
. Sewage Treatment Under the Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act's construction grant and revolving loan fund programs have financed the construction and improvement of thousands of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
|
From page 101... ...
Box 4-1 lists examples of sewage treatment improvements and other advances in Mississippi River water quality realized under the Clean Water Act. The EPA and the states plan renovation of many existing POTWs, and expect construction of an additional 1,688 POTWs in the near future, more than 20 percent of which will be in the 10 mainstem states (USEPA, 2003a)
|
From page 102... ...
Currently, it treats about 80 percent of the waste water generated in the metropolitan area and daily discharges about 0.85 million cubic meters of treated wastewater into the Upper Mississippi River (D.
|
From page 103... ...
In light of an aging sewage treatment infrastructure, this 2003 report indicates that funding for sewage treatment infrastructure remains an important water quality issue under the Clean Water Act for the Mississippi River states and the nation as a whole. Beyond construction and rehabilitation of sewage treatment infrastructure is the issue of adequate sewage treatment in existing POTWs.
|
From page 104... ...
MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Although the EPA has oversight authority, particularly with regard to interstate water quality, states implement most of the Clean Water Act, including the establishment of water quality standards. For interstate waterbodies such as the Mississippi River, however, this multistate implementation of the Clean Water Act on the same river often undermines the act's effectiveness.
|
From page 105... ...
The UMRBA sponsors programs and studies related to ecosystem restoration, hazardous spills, water quality, floodplain management and flood control, commercial navigation, and water supply. The UMRBA issues reports on these upper Mississippi River issues and has a long-standing interest in water quality, water quality standards, and the Clean Water Act.
|
From page 106... ...
[2] The specific water quality criteria listed for a particular state for a particular pollutant may vary depending on the designated use for a specific segment of the Mississippi River.
|
From page 107... ...
meet regional goals. Use 0.25 mg/L to Use 0.39 mg/L to interpret narrative interpret narrative criteria along criteria along with biological with biological criteria unless criteria unless other other scientifically scientifically defensible defensible method is method is produced produced 0.4 ng/L 5.0 ng/L N/A[E]
|
From page 108... ...
dards reflect the early days of Clean Water Act administration, when the EPA did not rigorously review state-adopted standards for CWA compliance. Despite the act's requirements (Section 303 (c)
|
From page 109... ...
continued FIGURE 4-1 Designated uses of the Mississippi River.
|
From page 110... ...
(B) of the Clean Water Act, the EPA is empowered to prepare its own water quality standards for a state not only when the state submits one that the EPA deems inadequate to meet the statutory requirements, but also when the EPA, on its own initiative, determines "that a revised or new standard is necessary to meet the requirements of" the Clean Water Act.
|
From page 111... ...
. © 2004 by Upper Mississippi River Basin Association.
|
From page 112... ...
. © 2004 by Upper Mississippi River Basin Association.
|
From page 113... ...
Moreover, existing standards allegedly were insufficient in some cases to attain the fishable and swimmable objectives of the Clean Water Act. Finally, the petition noted the lack and inconsistency of water quality monitoring among states along the Mississippi River.
|
From page 114... ...
However, Missouri's Clean Water Commission ultimately chose not to designate a large portion of the Mississippi River for primary contact recreation, and that decision precipitated a review of the issue by EPA Region 7 (Kansas City)
|
From page 115... ...
unless otherwise indicated. bWhileIllinois assessed four reaches totaling 29% of its Upper Mississippi River miles for drinking water support, these reaches cover the areas upstream of 9 of the state's 12 public water supplies on the river.
|
From page 116... ...
. Reasons offered for the dearth of reliable lower Mississippi River water quality data (some of which also apply in the upper basin states)
|
From page 117... ...
. © 2006 by the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association.
|
From page 118... ...
. The lack of a full and adequate assessment of the Mississippi River for compliance with water quality standards is a crucial issue in considering the
|
From page 119... ...
that states must prepare and submit to the EPA biennially. The fact that a particular river segment is not listed as impaired does not necessarily mean that it meets its water quality standards; it may mean simply that the segment has not been assessed or the state does not believe that there is enough information to make a determination of impaired status.
|
From page 120... ...
Most states along the Mississippi River have no water quality standards for sediment, although some have turbidity standards and list "siltation" as a cause of water quality impairment. Both Minnesota and Tennessee list the river as impaired with regard to turbidity or siltation (see Figure 4-4)
|
From page 121... ...
listings Louisianak Bacteria 1 Currently unable to tell, Louisiana doesn't list mileage for impaired segments a2006 draft 303(d) report.
|
From page 122... ...
THE STATUS OF TMDL DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER The mechanism in the Clean Water Act for addressing impairments of water quality by specific pollutants is the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads of the pollutants for the impaired waterbody. In the case of the Mississippi River, impairments have been identified for various segments of the Mississippi River, and a few TMDLs have been developed.
|
From page 123... ...
impaired waters have not yet established TMDLs for all of those segments. Effective implementation of the TMDL program along the Mississippi River will entail adjustments to the normal state-centered processes of setting water quality standards, delineating river segments, identifying water quality impairments, and resolving significant legal issues.
|
From page 124... ...
(A) of the Clean Water Act provides that each state must identify for TMDL development waters "within its boundaries" that do not meet the water quality standards "applicable to such waters." The same apparent intrastate focus is found in Section 303(d)
|
From page 125... ...
. Although development of TMDLs along an interstate river such as the Mississippi River poses various challenges, this Clean Water Act mechanism for addressing water quality impairments can, in many instances, be implemented effectively through cooperation and coordination among the state regulatory entities whose jurisdictions are implicated.
|
From page 126... ...
. Even if the Mississippi River mainstem states ultimately develop numeric nutrient criteria for the stretches of the Mississippi River within or on their respective borders, achievement of those criteria would not necessarily resolve the problem of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.
|
From page 127... ...
The Mississippi River, however, would seem clearly to qualify for special treatment, being the nation's only waterbody with congressional recognition as "a nationally significant ecosystem and a nationally significant commercial navigation system," as stated in the Upper Mississippi River Management Act of 1986. Moreover, most of the area in the northern Gulf of Mexico that experiences hypoxic conditions is subject to exclusive federal control and protection under the Clean Water Act (see Chapter 3)
|
From page 128... ...
Improving Mississippi River water quality with respect to nutrients will require coordinated effort among states in TMDL development and other activities on a scale that is commensurate with the scale of the problem. This is a challenge, but there are precedents, most notably from the Chesapeake Bay, where the states in the bay's watershed have been cooperating under EPA leadership for the three-decade-long history of the program.
|
From page 129... ...
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Congress funded scientific research on the bay, and the findings pinpointed three areas that required immediate attention: nutrient overenrichment, dwindling underwater bay grasses, and toxic pollution. Once this initial research was completed, the Chesapeake Bay Program was established in 1983 as a regional partnership to direct bay restoration.
|
From page 130... ...
EPA agreed on the required load reductions that were allocated to each of the watershed's nine major tributary basins and jurisdictions in the form of "cap loads." These cap loads are defined as the maximum amounts of pollutants allowed to flow into a waterbody and still ensure achievement of state water quality standards.
|
From page 131... ...
Sediments suspended in the water column pose problems for bay ecology because they reduce the amount of light available to support healthy and extensive underwater bay grass communities. The Chesapeake Bay Program partners also agreed that sediment loads needed to be reduced in order to achieve water quality conditions that protect aquatic resources.
|
From page 132... ...
. This national guidance document as it applied Allocating the Cap Loads By 9 major river ...then by 20 major …then by 44 state basins tributary basins by defined tributary jurisdiction strategy subbasins Watershed Watershed Partners States Responsibility Responsibility FIGURE 4-7 Chesapeake Bay cap load allocations.
|
From page 133... ...
EPA's oversight authority with respect to water quality standards, along with a looming court deadline for a TMDL, provided the impetus for the actions taken. The collaborative efforts among the bay states set a precedent for cooperation in reducing nutrient pollution from sources that do not directly affect local waters.
|
From page 134... ...
As mentioned, nutrient loading reduction goals were set in 1987, and the subsequent 20 years saw a lot of give-and-take and numerous meetings and discussions in order to generate the cooperation embodied in the program today. To the extent that the Mississippi River basin states consider the Chesapeake Bay experience in moving forward with basinwide nutrient management programs, this 20year period should be taken as an indication both of the difficulties involved
|
From page 135... ...
Nevertheless, the Mississippi River states and the federal government should look to the Chesapeake Bay Program as a useful model in guiding future Mississippi River federal-interstate collaboration on defining and addressing water quality problems, setting science-based water quality standards, and establishing a comprehensive water quality monitoring program. SUMMARY The Clean Water Act has provided regulatory mechanisms and financial support that have improved the water quality of the Mississippi River from its pre-1972 condition.
|
From page 136... ...
Water quality standards differ significantly among Mississippi River states. The Clean Water Act does not necessarily require consistency among state water quality standards.
|
From page 137... ...
The EPA has failed to use its mandatory and discretionary authorities under the Clean Water Act to provide adequate interstate coordination and oversight of state water quality activities along the Mississippi River that could help promote and ensure progress toward the act's fishable and swimmable and related goals. The EPA should act aggressively to ensure improved cooperation regarding water quality standards, nonpoint source management and control, and related programs under the Clean Water Act.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.