STEVENSON, Wash.— During the short time he has served as assistant Environmental Protection Agency administrator for water, Peter Silva said he has determined that nutrient management and stormwater runoff are the two biggest water pollution issues.

Silva, who spoke Aug. 31 at the annual meeting of the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), said EPA officials are struggling with how best to address these issues, which have spurred lawsuits and ongoing debate.

For example, as the result of a lawsuit, EPA has had to step in to set numeric nutrient standards for the state of Florida. How to set these standards has raised questions, and some have been concerned this might set a precedent for such actions in other states, Silva said (Florida Wildlife Federation v. Johnson, N.D. Fla., No. 4:08-cv-324, 8/19/09; 162 DEN A-7, 8/25/09).

Nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen from agricultural activity and stormwater runoff pollute waterways and can kill aquatic life and destroy ecosystems.

Silva called the Chesapeake Bay Initiative a microcosm of all of these issues. In May, President Obama issuing an executive order (Exec. Order No. 13,508) directing six federal agencies—including the departments of Agriculture and Transportation—to join with EPA and bay states on efforts to restore the bay, which has been affected by nutrient and sediment stormwater runoff from agriculture and developed land (90 DEN A-13, 5/13/09).

“We have to get our agricultural partners involved,” he said, referring to the problem of agricultural runoff from nonpoint sources. Silva said he was pleased with recent discussions between EPA and Department of Agricultural officials on selecting some watersheds feeding into the bay and agreeing to provide money and help for developing nutrient management plans. “I'm optimistic and hopeful this is something we can work with [USDA] on,” he said.

“The Chesapeake Bay is important for all of us,” he said. “Keep an eye out. It's going to be a very important program. It will be a real test for what EPA can do with its federal partners.”

Question of Whether to Regulate

As assistant EPA administrator, Silva told BNA, the big issue he will face regarding nutrients will be whether they should be regulated, and if so, in what form and how much. Should numeric standards for nutrients be set, or should there be best management standards or targets? “It's obviously a long-term issue,” he said.
Several other speakers discussed nutrient management. Marcia Willhite, who heads a nutrients innovations task group of representatives from ASIWPCA, EPA, and the Association of State Drinking Water Agencies, cited a cost of $28 billion to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Willhite is chief of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

Urban stormwater, municipal wastewater treatment, air deposition, livestock production activities, and agricultural row crops account for the major sources of nutrient pollution, Willhite said. Municipal wastewater treatment plants, which are among the most heavily regulated sectors, treat more than 18 million tons of human waste annually, she said.

However, nutrients from agriculture are much greater, Willhite said. Livestock production results in 1 billion tons of manure annually, a substantial portion of which is not regulated by a federal rule governing concentrated animal feeding operations. Stormwater runoff and irrigation return flows from agricultural row crops are exempt under the Clean Water Act, with highly variable controls at state levels, Willhite said.

The most promising tools to address the problem, she said, are a ban on phosphates; federally mandated water quality standards; green labeling; nonpoint source regulations; and updated secondary treatment regulations. There should be a combination of regulatory and incentive approaches, she added.

Roger Wolf, director of environmental programs for the Iowa Soybean Association, conceded the agricultural community has had problems reducing nonpoint source pollution. “It's a complicated business,” he said, noting some of the problem is due to private landowners making independent decisions regarding land use.

Future programs will need to help farmers know the potential environmental ramifications of their actions, he said. They need to provide incentives and support for organized initiatives for groups of farmers in watersheds. In addition, they will need to find new ways to track and identify success, Wolf said.

NACWA Seeks ‘Radical Shift.’

Charles Logue, director of regulatory affairs for Clean Water Services, a wastewater and stormwater public utility in Hillsboro, Ore., said wastewater treatment plants are not the major source of nutrients in most watersheds, “but we must be part of the solution.” Logue, who represents the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, called for a “radical shift in the regulatory framework.”

“The Clean Water Act itself is in need of a fix” to ensure the nation's water quality, Logue said.

NACWA advocates a comprehensive watershed approach that addresses all sources in a watershed, Logue said, calling nonpoint sources the “800-pound gorilla in the room.”

NACWA has been developing watershed legislation, the 21st Century Watershed Act, Logue said, noting the draft legislation incorporates some of the regulatory framework of the Clean Air Act, including statewide implementation plans, and that it would provide for the establishment of watershed commissions. It also would include watershed improvement plans to address watershed stressors in a prioritized fashion, he said. A copy of the draft legislation has not yet been made available.

By Linda Roeder