April 07, 2004

By: Janell Maycock
Website: http://www.1st-in-wellness.com

Reports on Federal Role in Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

Representative Bud Shuster, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, Chairman of its Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, commented on a report by the General Accounting Office on the Federal Role in Addressing – and Contributing to – Nonpoint Source Pollution.

Boehlert requested the report last year out of concern about the impacts of nonpoint source (or diffuse) water pollution and the potential costs of dealing with the problem.

This report should help in our Committee’s bipartisan efforts to review nonpoint source pollution, Shuster said. GAO has compiled valuable information on the increasing level of federal assistance for nonpoint source water quality problems and the need for better data on the true cost of solutions. The information is also timely in light of the increasing number of regulatory and legislative proposals to address nonpoint source pollution.

There is good news and bad news, said Boehlert. The good news is that we have paid increasing attention to nonpoint sources of water pollution over the past few years and we now invest approximately $3 billion a year in federal programs that help to address nonpoint sources. The bad news is that this amount is probably a drop in the bucket relative to the actual needs and, in addition, the federal government is a major contributor to nonpoint source pollution. In fact, in some states officials say that federal activities are the primary source of impairment to 50% or more of the watersheds.

As the report points out, Boehlert continued, we still need to do a better job understanding the actual scope of the nonpoint source problem, and what it will cost to correct it. According to GAO, when EPA estimates the costs of addressing nonpoint source pollution, EPA assumes runoff will occur and that all runoff will cause water quality problems, without taking into account factors like proximity to and sensitivity of waterbodies, soil type, rainfall, and vegetative cover. But other federal agencies that work on nonpoint source issues approach this problem on a watershed basis, taking into account site-specific conditions within watersheds.

I understand that EPA wants to approach nonpoint source pollution on a watershed basis, but EPA officials told GAO that EPA faces a 'significant barrier' to using such an approach because developing a watershed-based model would cost $750,000, while it will cost EPA only $25,000 to update and run its existing model.

I don't consider this to be a ‘significant barrier,’ Boehlert said. If it takes a few hundred thousand dollars to get EPA to adopt a watershed-based approach to the nonpoint source problem, that is money well spent. If we can use this model to prioritize watersheds that are most likely to have water quality problems, as GAO recommends, we can save tens of millions of dollars in both public and private spending. I am willing to work with the appropriators to make this 'barrier' go away.

The Subcommittee should find GAO’s report to be very useful over the coming weeks as we continue our investigation of nonpoint source pollution and other pressing Clean Water Act issues. I am hopeful the report will contribute toward the development of bipartisan legislation to improve the nation’s approach to water quality protection, Boehlert said.

About The Author:

Janell Maycock is a successful author and regular contributor to http://www.1st-in-wellness.com.  Obtaining and keeping good health through healthy living, natural healing, great mental health and healthy finances.