You are here: home   Blogs   The GOAT Blog   Agricultural water pollution on the line
The GOAT Blog

Agricultural water pollution on the line

Document Actions
Tip Jar Donation

Your donation supports independent non-profit journalism from High Country News.

Enter amount:

$
Felice Pace | Jul 31, 2008 05:00 PM

The Bush Administration has been trying since 2005 to change Clean Water Act rules so that agricultural interests can dump polluted water into public lakes and streams without obtaining a permit. Each step of the way, Florida environmentalists represented by Earthjustice lawyers have filed lawsuits to block the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) from implementing the new rules. On June 9th, the Bush EPA tried once again and again environmentalists are going to court to block the proposed rules. Click here to read an article about the legal challenge.

The rule change proposal is the Administration’s response to three lawsuits – one in South Florida, one in Upstate New York and one in the upper Klamath River Basin. Each lawsuit seeks court action to require those discharging agricultural waste water into a public waterbody through a “discrete conveyance” (i.e. a pipe or a pump) to obtain a pollution discharge permit. Prior to these cases it was assumed that all agricultural discharges were “non point sources” and therefore exempted from the Clean Water Act’s discharge permit requirements. The Florida case went all the way to the Supreme Court which opened the door to permit requirements if agricultural wastewater is moved from one waterbody to another through a discrete conveyance. The Bush Administration countered with the rule change.

The implications of extending Clean Water Act permit requirements to agricultural discharges are huge in the West where water has been wheeled freely using subsidized power and giant pumps. The pumps in the photo below are owned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and operated by the Tulelake Irrigation District in far Northeast California. They pump agricultural wastewater high in phosphorus, nitrogen and pesticide residues into wetlands on the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge. If the Bush Administration’s attempt to exempt this type of discharge from Clean Water Act permit requirements fails, these pumps and many others on the Klamath Project and throughout the West will need permits and the water the pumps discharge will need to comply with requirements imposed by state or regional water quality authorities.

pumpsIn California and Oregon farms and ranches which discharge wastewater have, for the most part, avoided direct regulation by water quality officials. Instead state departments of agriculture and resource conservation districts with farmer and rancher dominated boards have been in charge of developing farm and ranch water quality plans that rely on best management practices to protect water quality. The voluntary compliance approach has not significantly reduced agricultural water pollution; good actors in agriculture are already using the BMPs and bad actors, who stubbornly resist change, scoff at voluntary plans.

In similar fashion, the TMDL process[1] - which is supposed to clean-up rivers and streams where non-point pollution is significant - has proven to be a paper tiger – creating plans that can not or will not be enforced.

Regulation of pollution from factory-style livestock operations and dairies is big news in the West. But considering the implications for western agriculture, westerners appear to be dumbfoundingly unaware of the battle concerning more traditional agricultural operations playing out in Florida courtrooms. You can bet, however, that water quality lawyers and activists are watching closely. The implications of this epic battle for the environment are huge. Over 30 years ago the Clean Water Act promised streams, rivers, bays and near shores that are “swimmable and fishable.” Where the promise has not been realized a major reason is failure to adequately limit agricultural pollution.

This is likely the Bush Administration’s last chance to exempt agricultural discharges from Clean Water Act permit requirements. If this attempt fails, the system of regulation which has dramatically reduces industrial pollution may finally be applied to discrete discharges of polluted water from farms and ranches - at least where those discharges are transfered into a different water body from the one in which they originated.


[1] TMDL stands for Total Maximum Daily Load. Water quality officials develop these plans to provide polluters with pollution allowances that, if obeyed, will result in receiving waters meeting water quality standards.
Energy Environment Forum
scotty
scotty
Jul 28, 2008 09:34 AM
Discuss Energy Environment Issues :
<a href="http://www.energyenvironmentforum.com">Energy Environment Forum</a>
It will be great to have you there !
Limit commercial nitrogen on corn
Mark Wright
Mark Wright
Aug 04, 2008 11:54 AM
On the operations mentioned in the aricle, they all have grass filter strips, holding ponds, and lagoons now.

Basically when Spring comes, they pump the lagoons to ferilize the fields to grow crops...so it's a good thing.

One thing that never comes up, and this is primarily a Midwest concern:
Is the big time grain production operations which have No livestock, thus No natural fertilizer, use giga tons of mostly artificial nitrogen commercial fertilizer ( anhydrous ammonia for alot of it ).

Most of that is for corn production. Guys that do not rotate crops thus corn on corn tend to put on 200 to 250 lbs of nitrogen on per year ( basically they tend to over fertilize due to the high demand for corn ie ethanol craze ).

1/3 to Half of that nitrogen ends up going down the Mississippi River and creates a Huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

It seems with all the govt programs in corn...that the govt itself could put requirements on the farmers to optimally fertilize rather than Maximally fertilize. ( perhaps NO corn on corn acres thus the soy corn rotation which works best anyway for all )

Yields will be about the same anyway...because corn that was soy the year before enjoys a 50 to 70 lb actual nitrogen boost from those beans. On real good ground, one does not have to add any more N. On more marginal ground, add 70 lbs of extra N, and with decent weather it will yield 225 bu per acre.

Many are now adding to much extra N now because the thought process is: with N at 40 to 50 cents per lb...and each extra lb added supposedly adds a bushel of corn yield worth $6 ...it's a trade that gets abused.
 

Email Newsletter

The West in your Inbox

Follow Us

Follow us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter! Follow our RSS feeds!
  1. Hard choices for an uncertain future | After seeing a talk by climate activist Tim DeChri...
  2. Two blocks from the Mexican border | The author watches migrants run across the border ...
  3. New Mexico on fire | From wildfire to starving wildlife, the effects of...
  4. The power grid may determine whether we can kick our carbon habit | How the huge and fragile network of wires intertwi...
  5. Wild, free and out of control | Calling out an NBC-TV program for romanticizing wi...
  1. The power grid may determine whether we can kick our carbon habit | How the huge and fragile network of wires intertwi...
  2. The latest: Channel Island foxes rebound | A massive restoration effort has helped the tiny f...
  3. The latest: A worrying amphibian decline | A new study finds frogs and toads are disappearing...
  4. Is the Violence Against Women Act a chance for tribes to reinforce their sovereignty? | A new provision lets tribes prosecute non-tribal m...
  5. Two blocks from the Mexican border | The author watches migrants run across the border ...
More from Climate & Pollution
What's eating the snowpack? Researchers untangle the causes of unusual snowpack declines throughout the Rockies
Arctic ship logs help scientists reconstruct climatic history Sailors' journals detailing the weather of voyages past could improve the accuracy of climate models' projections of the future.
Hard choices for an uncertain future After seeing a talk by climate activist Tim DeChristopher, the author wonders: which energy source is the lesser of many evils?
All Climate & Pollution

Most recent from the blogs

 
© 2013 High Country News, all rights reserved. | privacy policy | terms of use | powered by Plone | site by Groundwire | design by Ryan Foster

HCN Logo High Country News in your inbox!


Sign up now to receive our weekly email newsletter!

• The best weekly collection of Western environmental news

• An at-a-glance look at our latest news and analysis


This box was designed to only appear once. It uses a "cookie" (a small file stored on your computer) to remember that it has shown the box to you.

If you are seeing this box appear multiple times, then something is not allowing the cookie to be stored properly. Browsers can be set to not allow cookies, and some people choose to disallow cookies for security reasons. If your browser is setup this way, please consider adding "www.hcn.org" as an exception to your no-cookies rule. For information about how to do this, just search the Web for "browser cookie exceptions."

If you're sure this isn't the problem, then it could be related to how your browser has stored information from our site in previous visits. Browsers often "cache" images, text and other website content in order to make them appear faster if you ever go back. Sometimes the browser's cache can be corrupted or become outdated. The simplest fix for this is to try reloading the page. If that doesn't fix the problem, it may be necessary to clear your temporary items from your browser. Again, a web search will provide you with lots of options and instructions.

Either way, we're sorry to hear that this box is getting in the way of your enjoyment of the HCN website. If you continue to have trouble, please contact our Subscriber Services team.