Nutrient pollution is a big thing these days. When it was confined to some faraway patch of salt water in the Gulf of Mexico I suspect many people, especially freshwater types (ahem...), gave it short shrift. But now that Lake Erie is being subjected to the plague it's no longer enough to blame Haber and Bosch for getting us into the mess by making it 'easy' to produce lots of water-soluble nitrogen. The there's Hennig Brand, who isolated elemental phosphorus. There is far more to the problem than blaming a trio of dead Euros.
So what is a person to do? Got a couple of items to read....
1) U.S. Water Alliance, NACWA and WEF.Policy Brief
Here is part of the preface from a policy brief prepared by the U.S Water Alliance, National Association of Clean Water Agencies, and the Water Environment Federation, titled, Addressing Nutrient Pollution in Our Nation’s Waters: The Role of a Statewide Utility:
Nutrient pollution is a complex and massive problem for our nation’s
waters. It is a challenge for many different bodies of water across many different regions, but the responses to nutrient pollution have been siloed and fragmented. To forge large-scale progress on nutrient pollution, we are going to need a new approach that is more strategic and holistic in its structure and execution. This policy brief was developed by the US Water Alliance, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, and the Water Environment Federation. Our organizations know that a collaborative approach will be the only way to achieve our nutrient reduction objectives. We are proud of this partnership and offer this policy brief with the hopes of advancing innovative solutions to such a critical and complex challenge.
The report proposes a statewide utility:
As described in further detail in this paper, a statewide utility could be structured and empowered to:
• Draw on a statewide base of funding, re ecting a shared burden/shared bene t model for the residents of a state;
• Be accountable, through the composition of its Board of Directors, to a full range of nutrient reduction stakeholders;
• Pursue the highest value and most cost-effective nutrient reduction investments on a statewide basis; and
• Provide the technical, nancial, and operational capacity needed to design, build, and operate large-scale projects (e.g., wetlands installations) that are called for in-state nutrient reduction plans.
Give it a read! Thanks to BC Water News for bringing this to my attention.
2) GAO Report: Water Pollution - Some States Have Trading Programs to Help Address Nutrient Pollution, but Use Has Been Limited
Download USGAO_Report_Water_Pollution
Download USGAO_Report_Water_Pollution_Highlights
What GAO Found
In 2014, 11 states had 19 nutrient credit trading programs, and trading provided flexibility for some point sources, such as wastewater treatment plants, to meet nutrient discharge limits, according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data and officials. The majority of nutrient credit trading during 2014 occurred in three state programs—programs in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. A review of trading data from these programs showed that most point sources participating in the three state programs did not purchase credits in 2014 to meet their discharge limits, which are established in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits under the Clean Water Act. For the point sources that did purchase credits in 2014, state officials in the three states told GAO that the total amount in pounds of nutrients that point sources purchased as credits was generally small. Nevertheless, state officials explained that nutrient credit trading was useful because it allowed point sources to manage risk, reduce the cost of compliance, and better manage the timing of upgrades of nutrient removal technology.
States oversee nutrient credit trading programs, and EPA helps ensure that programs are consistent with the act. States oversee nutrient credit trading programs by approving and verifying the generation of credits to ensure that credits represent real reductions in nutrient pollution. A state’s approval and verification process varies depending on whether the credit generator is a point or nonpoint source, such as runoff from agricultural and urban areas. For point sources, the states GAO reviewed followed a process for verifying credits that is based on the existing oversight process for NPDES permits. Because nonpoint sources do not have NPDES permits, states use a separate process to approve and verify that nonpoint sources’ pollution reduction activities have generated credits for trading. When questions or concerns arise, EPA uses its oversight authority to ensure that trades and trading programs are fully consistent with the act. EPA officials told GAO that they conduct oversight primarily through the regional offices, which (1) review NPDES permits, (2) review and comment on state regulatory frameworks for trading, (3) conduct periodic on-site inspections, and (4) provide national-level guidance and training to state programs and stakeholders.
According to stakeholders, two key factors have affected participation in nutrient credit trading—the presence of discharge limits for nutrients and the challenges of measuring the results of nonpoint sources’ nutrient reduction activities. Officials from the three states GAO reviewed and other stakeholders cited the importance of discharge limits for nutrients as a driver to create demand for trading. Without such a driver, point sources have little incentive to purchase nutrient credits. The challenges of measuring nutrient reductions by nonpoint sources create uncertainties about the value of credits generated by nonpoint sources. In part, because of these uncertainties, the states GAO reviewed either did not allow nonpoint sources to trade or created special rules for nonpoint sources. State officials and stakeholders also told GAO that even if a program allows nonpoint sources to trade, point sources often prefer to trade with other point sources because they have similar permit and monitoring requirements.
Enjoy them both! Thanks to Tim Smith for bringing this report to my attention.
"Water should be judged not by its history, but by its quality." - Dr. Lucas van Vuuren
Comments