Water Resource Management:
What the Future Holds
Annual Washington Water Law Conference
12:30 -- 1:45 p.m.,
Thursday, May 7, 1998
Cavanaugh's Inn on Fifth Avenue,
Seattle
Tom Fitzsimmons, Director WaDOE
Thank you for the kind introduction, Bill. And, thank you for your work each year in organizing this prestigious gathering of professionals involved with water issues.
Good afternoon -- When I addressed the participants in last year's water law conference, I had been in this position for only about two months. In retrospect, I must have looked a little like a deer caught in a set of halogen headlights. Since then however, as a result of tutoring by some of you in this room, I have learned a great deal about the challenges our state faces in managing our water resources. So it is an honor to return -- this time knowing a little something about the subject -- to share my thoughts with you.
I have been asked to talk today about: "What the Future Holds For Water Resource Management." Specifically, I am to share my vision for your future.
In accepting this ominous task, I must tell you that I will heed the advice of Abraham Lincoln to avoid talking too much about the future. As he warned, "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
Let me begin, by having all of you consider a set of facts which I believe are -- in combination with a number of other factors -- propelling us into a very different construct for how water resources will be managed in the future. Then I wish to outline my own views about some of the key public policy elements of this different construct and close by talking about two processes that I believe are central catalysts for the transition to our future: watershed management and establishment of total maximum daily loads.
To be honest, in a way I will be just borrowing your watch to tell you what time it is.
Water is one of, if not the most important, environmental issues of our time. According to the World Bank, 80 countries representing 40 percent of the world's population now face water shortages. Limited supplies of water and water associated resources already replace religion, ethnic strife, and defense of land as the fulcrum for conflict in many places in the world -- including the western U.S. Americans use more water per capita than any other country in the world. New York City uses about half a billion gallons a day -- three times as much as London, a city of comparable size. We personally use over 200 gallons of water in our homes each day -- 40 percent of which is flushed down our toilets. In fact it takes some 13,000 gallons per person to handle our annual body wastes.
Including agricultural and industrial uses, the average American uses 1,900 gallons of water per day. It takes 40 gallons to produce one egg, 80 gallons for an ear of corn, 150 for a loaf of bread, 230 for a gallon of whiskey, 2,500 for a pound of beef and 100,000 gallons to make a new car.
Another set of factors that are driving how water resources will be managed in the future relate to the condition of our water bodies and streams. As many of you know, the Clean Water Act was put into play nationally in the early 70's. The goal was to make waters fishable and swimmable by 1983 and to ban all toxic pollution and eliminate all pollution into navigable waters by 1985. We are a ways from achieving these goals in our state:
The water quality of 65 percent of all streams, 68 percent of estuaries, and 37 percent of lakes statewide fails to fully support the desired uses of these waters.
Aquatic life is not fully supported in 39 percent of streams and 72 percent of estuaries statewide.
An estimated 30,000 acres of fish and wildlife habitat continue to be lost each year, including 2,000 acres of wetlands.
Wetland loss and water quality are issues on a national scale. Some estimates suggest that the US has lost over 50% of its wetlands. A national rivers inventory concluded that only 2% of our nation's river systems qualified as still wild.
A final set of factors which are affecting our future relate to endangered species and the federal response under the ESA. In part, due to insufficient water in streams and poor water quality, 20 percent of the native fish in the western U.S. are extinct or endangered, including over 200 native naturally spawning stocks of salmon and steelhead. Many freshwater invertebrates groups also are in decline. A recent review found nearly 72 percent of freshwater mussels in the U.S. to qualify as threatened or endangered. U.S. Fish & Wildlife surveys has recently estimated that 81 percent of stream fish communities are adversely affected by environmental degradation. These declines of freshwater species mirror the declining quality of our streams and rivers. A U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990 survey indicates that 85 percent of inland water surfaces are manipulated by some form of structure which isolate landscape and fragments aquatic habitat.
As you know, in 1992, the National Marine Fisheries Service listed three Snake River salmon stocks as endangered. Earlier this year, it proposed listing lower Columbia River and Puget Sound Chinook steelhead and other stocks as threatened. Any activity involving a federal agency decision and water listed with an endangered species could require the federal agency to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine if the activities planed would harm the listed species.
Under the ESA, many activities we do in Washington State involving water quality and quantity decisions are likely to require consultation:
EPA approval of water quality standards, EPA approval of 303(d) lists -- waters not meeting water quality standards -- and Total Maximum Daily Loads -- TMDLs, Federal grant awards, EPA approval of Nonpoint Plan -- under section 319 of the federal Clean Water Act, Agricultural cost share practices, And of course all Army Corps of Engineers 404 permits.
So how are these factors from our past and present shaping the future of how we manage our water resources?
One clear implication from these factors is that management of resources in the future needs to begin taking very seriously the fact that the ability of a water body to support healthy living systems directly determines the ability of that water body to support human goals. As James Karr points out, "water bodies and the biota they contain reflect the status and quality of their landscapes." On a more global scale, Stewart Udall makes the point well when he proclaimed "our culture must come to grips with the inherent inconsistency of sustaining growth on a finite planet." Paul Simon makes the same point in musical verse: "There are too many holes in the crust of the earth so the planet groans when it registers another birth."
Rather than addressing causes we have attempted in the past to manipulate the loss of species through introduction of native species and hatchery supplementation, in the future our challenge is entire ecosystem restoration.
Another clear implication on our future that stems from factors I have reviewed here is that our present system of water resource administrative management is not working. Backlogs have been a constant fact for over five years. We have been focused on resolving these backlogs as opposed to constructing a comprehensive management system in the context of watershed health.
Yet another implication is that we are only beginning to recognize the intimate connection of water quantity and quality and build systems and science around this connection. Perhaps the most powerful force shaping how we manage water resources in the future however, is the plain fact that in spite of significant expenditure and continual intervention programs and regulations, our aquatic systems have been and continue to be degraded. With this degradation has come the inability to sustain both aquatic organisms and human consumptive needs.
Efforts to protect water resources are doomed unless they incorporate water quality, habitat structure, flow regime, energy source, and biotic interactions. For me it is not a stretch from present circumstances to suggest that a successful water resource management system must focus much more heavily on watershed outcomes and restoration as opposed to allocation of water itself.
This system must rely on management processes that will better integrate, make real commitments, and resolve long standing conflicts, with administrative processes that are timely, maintain useful data, and have enforcement capacity. Let me turn now to what I believe are some of the key policies that should be the cornerstone of our future resource management system.
Sustainable management of water resources requires both efficient use of existing water supplies and protection of natural resources. It also involves the following policies:
Responsible growth -- water allocation must address planned growth.
Responsible growth includes better integration of growth management planning with water supply planning. To meet obligations under GMA, municipal purveyors must have clarity in municipal water rights law, certainty regarding what water is available for future supply development, and the operational flexibility to implement GMA approved plans.
Fish restoration -- water allocation must address the needs of fish. Water must be restored to the stream where needed for the health of the fish resource. Where instream flows are sufficient, these flows must be institutionalized and actively protected.
Efficient water use -- water allocation must ensure efficient use of the water. Incentives for efficient use of water must be established, including authorizing use of conserved water for new service connections. Conservation goals and water consumption standards, linked to demand projections and demand management methods, are also needed.
Reuse of water -- water allocation must include clear consideration and necessary steps to implement reuse of water. Forward-looking policies and incentives, plus additional resources are needed to assist purveyors in reclaiming water.
Partnering with utilities, local government and Tribes -- water allocation and management should involve close collaboration with public utilities and municipalities. Water purveyors can be part of the solution if they are actively engaged in protecting natural resources.
Watershed scale -- water allocation should be decided on a regional, or watershed, scale. The state will need to work closely with all parties in a watershed to ensure that all interests are met in a responsible and balanced fashion.
Protection of existing uses - existing, efficient, and authorized beneficial uses of water, both for instream and off-stream purposes, should be protected.
Certainty of water rights -(inchoate rights) and certainty of future water supply will require development and approval of a comprehensive watershed management/water supply plans.
Water supply decisions should be linked to watershed management plans that meet clear standards for responsible growth, efficient use of water and protection of natural resources.
Finally, I firmly believe that we should manage our resources through a set of economic policies that shift business activity and resource use to support sustainability.
These policies would at their heart burden water use and its impact on the environment with the full cost of associated externalities.
The dairy business is a good example of why these policies are needed.
In a recent publication touting the economic vitality of the industry, it was suggested that Darigold, the largest Northwest producer, sells five billion pounds of fresh milk per year which brings in about one billion in total sales. Darigold's sales are three percent of the $65 billion national dairy industry.
The Pacific Northwest accounts for eight percent of the 165 billion pounds of milk produced annually. Our dairy industry is 10 percent of U.S. farm receipts. And Washington ranks second highest in the nation for milk production per cow.
Yet, dairy pollution is a very real problem. In Washington's streams that have pollution problems, nearly 60 percent of the pollution comes from contaminated runoff -- much of which is associated with certain agricultural practices, including poorly managed dairy farms.
Less than one-fifth of all dairies in Washington adequately manages manure and contaminated runoff so they protect surface and ground water. Every day a mature dairy cow produces as much bodily waste as 20 people. This means even a moderate-sized dairy farm of 300 animals produces bodily waste equal to a town of 6,000 people each day. Can you imagine a town in Washington State without sewage or septic systems? We must help the dairy industry transition all small and large farms to be more harmonious with the environment.
I believe we have what is needed -- critical need and opportunity -- to redefine the existing framework for water resource management to satisfy the water needs of people, industries, farms, and fish. I further believe that our existing statutory and administrative structures for water resource management are not sufficiently predictable, flexible, nor provide the accountability to address the challenges of today.
We must move toward sustainable water resource management at the watershed scale.
Now let me move to talk about the two processes that I think will become the cornerstone to our future water resource approach -- watershed management and TMDL's. I have said a year ago at this conference, and many times since that time, watershed management is critical to planning for our current and future water uses -- for our state's growing population, industries, farms, and endangered and threatened fish.
The watershed planning bill (HB 2514) passed this past session is a much-needed approach for local communities to build a sustainable environment for current and future water needs. Many of you have likely read and analyzed HB 2514. So, you know that the main tenet of the bill is that watershed management needs to be locally based -- directed by local people affected by water use in their communities.
I know there is fear and apprehension about this new law. It does put local communities in the driver seat for watershed management. Tribes have felt excluded from the planning unit make-up. Some local governments are expressing concern about working with other local governments -- counties or cities they may have never worked with before.
HB 2514 is related to HB 2496 in that both bills relate to salmon recovery.
HB 2496 is our state's new primary non-regulatory law to address salmon recovery. The Watershed Management Bill:
Doesn't authorize the issuance of water right permits.
Doesn't authorize the adoption of water quality standards or TMDLs.
Doesn't change local ordinances or state rules or permits.
Now, that I've given you an outline of the new law. I'd like to talk about implementing it. In compliance with the watershed management law, Ecology is now seeking out local governments who would like to do watershed planning and management.
Right now, we are accepting grant applications from communities throughout the state.
By June 30 of this year, we must issue $1.4 million in grants to help local communities get organized in order to initiate watershed management activities. Then, we have until June 30, 1999 to distribute another $2.5 million in grants.
Now let me move onto the final topic that I'd like to discuss this afternoon -- the landmark decision agreed to this year involving cleaning up nearly 700 polluted waters in our state.
Ecology, US Environmental Protection Agency -- EPA, and two environmental organizations agreed to an expedited 15-year schedule to address waters not meeting water quality standards in Washington state. The decision is the result of a lawsuit the Northwest Environmental Advocates and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center filed against the two agencies in 1991. The agreement outlines how Ecology will accelerate work to clean and improve polluted waters in Washington.
The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit saying the environmental agencies had an inadequate program to assess the condition of the state's water bodies and to develop the required water cleanup plans called Total Maximum Daily Loads -- TMDLs.
The TMDLs or water cleanup plans are a significant requirement of the federal Clean Water Act. The water cleanup plans tell us how much pollution is going into a particular surface water, what the sources of that pollution are, and what's needed to cut back pollution from those sources in order to make the water healthy for fish, drinking, recreation, industries, and others.
In general, the agreement:
Sets out general procedures for evaluating polluted lakes and streams, developing water cleanup plans, and moving toward clean water in Washington.
Establishes a 15-year schedule to develop water cleanup plans for nearly 700 water segments not meeting or not expected to meet water quality standards.
Uses Ecology's watershed approach to organize work to systematically assessing water quality conditions, issuing wastewater discharge permits, and taking other protective actions.
Looks to Ecology to develop a process to set priorities for conducting TMDLs within watersheds or areas of the state.
Improves public participation and tribal involvement in decisions on cleaning up waters.
Requires EPA to conduct the TMDLs if Ecology does not meet the 15-year schedule.
The agreement is a very positive step toward creating healthy watersheds, including good fish habitat.
Since signing the agreement, Ecology has been clear about two elements necessary for success. The Governor's 1998 supplemental budget request to the Legislature called for 12 staff people, totaling $905,000 to implement the agreement during the next year. The Legislature did not approve the funding request.
As a result of the lack of funding, the Northwest Environmental Advocates and Northwest Environmental Defense Center have initiated steps to reopen the lawsuit settlement agreement and proceed to judgment.
We are in dispute resolution with EPA and the plaintiffs now. We hope the settlement does not go back to court. Implementing the settlement agreement is an integral part of our state's salmon recovery plan.
The Legislature set money aside to study the TMDL issue and the agreement with EPA. We appreciate the interest of the Legislature. So here is my first set of facts that I believe are shaping the management of water resources in our state in a powerful way.
There are over 5,300 pending applications for new or changed water rights in our state.
Forty-one percent of these pending applications are for agriculture-related purposes. These applicants have been waiting for their decisions a long time. They are not happy about the wait and blame Ecology because fundamentally they believe there is plenty of water to appropriate.
At the same time, there are over 165,000 claims for water rights in Washington filed consistent with the original Claims Registration Act of 1967 and subsequent changes to the Act and reopening of claims filing periods. Nearly 77 percent of these claims are for ground water.
Since the beginning of registration, there have been fewer than 15 adjudications involving less than 2000 claimants. No action has been taken by Ecology to examine the legitimacy of these claims.
Here is another set of facts that are clear enough an evaluation can be completed quickly.
Although we are working with EPA, to combine our resources to speed up polluted water cleanup work, we do not think that we can meet the long-term schedule in the settlement agreement without substantially more staff resources devoted to TMDLs.
To conclude, I'd like to focus on all of you. Many of you have spent years wrestling with water issues. From practicing law and real estate to making financial lending decisions and developing and implementing ordinances and rules in local and state government. All of us are dedicated to water issues.
We may very well come to these issues from varying perspectives, but I wager we are truly interested in similar outcomes. I've said it for more than a year now, the Washington State Department of Ecology is in the business of providing cool, clean water to people, industries, farms, and fish. I'm convinced that the best way to do that is through watershed management.
Will watershed management allow us to provide water to all that want it? No, but it gives us the information, the values, the forum to make those decisions about how we want to use our water, how we can ensure we'll have clean water for people, industries, and farms, and a healthy habitat for fish. I challenge you to get involved and help make watershed management successful.
Do we stop there? Absolutely not. Watershed management gives us the framework and place to start. When we begin to think through what is needed for successful watershed management, we will recognize additional tools we need.
In order to achieve successful watershed management, we'll need more answers and direction on issues facing municipalities, connections between ground and surface water, and water spreading-conservation issues. We are hoping to make some progress on those issues this year and during the 1999 legislative session.
I remind you what George Bernard Shaw said:
"The reasonable person adopts to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adopt the world to them. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable person."
Again, as I said when I began speaking this afternoon, we need to take one step at a time. Now, is the time to focus on making watershed management successful.
Back to Whats New Index Page
Back to CRC Index Page
Back to Watershed Index Page