Kahle Jennings, WaDOE, Drops of Water - December 1999 edition
In 1996 the Department of Ecology developed a strategy to control sources of water pollution that were identified during extensive water quality studies of the upper Chehalis River watershed. These studies found several pollutants that caused regular violations of state water quality standards. The source of the pollutants included treated effluent from municipal sewage and industrial wastewater (also known as "point sources"), and "nonpoint sources" of pollution such as livestock manure, failing septic systems, and urban stormwater runoff.
|
Sites that attracted Ecology's attention had one or more of the following characteristics -- obvious contamination with livestock manure, bank erosion due to livestock trampling, and destruction of waterfront vegetation due to direct animal access. |
Prior to the project described in this article, the Department of Ecology modified point source discharge permits to reduce pollution loads, and inspected all known milking dairies in the Upper Chehalis River watershed. The dairy inspections identified pollution sources and required pollution control measures as directed by the legislature under the Dairy Nutrient Management Act.
This project had two primary objectives.
The first objective was to identify sources of pollution that could be traced to non-dairy livestock operations. The second objective was to contact the owners/operators, make them aware of their liability under state pollution control laws and encourage them to voluntarily implement best management practices (BMPs) that would stop the pollution. Sites that attracted Ecology's attention had one or more of the following characteristics -- obvious contamination with livestock manure, bank erosion due to livestock trampling, and destruction of waterfront vegetation due to direct animal access.
An attempt was made to evaluate as many livestock operations in the upper Chehalis River watershed as possible during the 15-month project period. Just finding sites was often a challenge. In all cases, pollution sources were observed during a courtesy visit approved by the landowner or from public rights of way.
Approximately 100 people with livestock operations were personally contacted. Out of those one hundred, 78 livestock operations were evaluated for pollution sources. Thirty-six (36) of the livestock operations evaluated (46 percent) were found to have an obvious pollution problem or to have a significant potential to pollute. Another 18 operations (23 percent) were judged to have a moderate potential to pollute and 19 (24 percent) had a low potential.
Each contact included a description of the pollution prevention and control resources that are available through local conservation districts. These resources include free technical assistance with the development of a farm conservation plan, free design of pollution control practices, and often, partial financial help with installing the practices necessary to control pollution.
|
VOLUNTARY INTEREST IN COMPLIANCE Out of 100 livestock operations contacted, 78 were voluntarily evaluated for pollution sources. 36 had an significant potential to pollute 23 had a moderate potential to pollute 19 had a low potential to pollute but only 11 sought technical or financial assistance |
Was the project successful in correcting sources of pollution?
You be the judge. Since it can take several months to actually install pollution control practices, and years of monitoring to scientifically document water quality improvements, it was decided that for this short-term project the best measure of success would be whether or not the people contacted by Ecology actually followed up by getting in touch with their local conservation district for technical assistance.
At the time this project was completed (June 1999) this is the type of voluntary response that we were able to document:
Lewis County -- Five individuals contacted the conservation district
Grays Harbor County -- One individual contacted the conservation district
Thurston County -- Three individuals contacted the conservation district
In addition, Two individuals have contacted the Chehalis Tribe for the habitat restoration assistance it can provide.
A total of 11 individuals (or 14 percent) voluntarily contacted their local conservation districts or the Chehalis Tribe for technical/financial assistance. How many of these will actually complete the farm planning process and install practices is unknown. However, experience has shown that the number of these 11 people that will actually obtain a farm plan and implement water quality BMPs without regular encouragement by either Ecology or their local conservation district will be small.
Here are some of the things we learned from this project:
There is a great deal of distrust of government among the individuals in the basin.
There was also a denial that a problem exists, or a rejection of the idea that contamination of water by their livestock could be a problem.
The non-regulatory nature of the project was intended to get more people willing to allow access to their property. Yet, because many people were distrustful, they didn't allow access anyway.
Because there was a commitment to a non-regulatory approach during this project, there was no consequence if someone was unwilling to correct an identified problem voluntarily.
Providing financial assistance to landowners for implementation of water quality BMPs can be a problem. Many individuals resisted fencing or other fixes due to the costs. Some of these same people were not willing to go through the bureaucratic process of contacting the conservation districts that may have access to funds to help landowners install these types of projects.
Where we go from here?
That hasn't been decided. What we do know is that the state can be sued under the Federal Clean Water Act if it fails to stop pollution and correct known water quality problems. Other states have consistently lost these kinds of court cases, resulting in court-mandated solutions and costs to the general taxpaying citizen. Private individuals can also be sued under the same laws, resulting in financial loss and court mandated actions. We all benefit when problems are corrected voluntarily. Contact your local conservation district today to see if can help prevent this from becoming an issue for you!
Grays Harbor Conservation District (360)249-5980
Lewis County Conservation District (360)748-0083 extension 4
Thurston Conservation District (360)754-3588
For further information about this project contact Kahle Jennings at the Department of Ecology (360) 407-6310.
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council