Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS

---

Washington Department Of Ecology Director Fitzsimmons delivered an important speech at the Annual Washington Water Law Conference in Seattle, May 7. It is much too long to publish here, but following is a brief synopsis. The full text is available on the Chehalis River Council's website, or to get a free printed copy send a stamped, self-addressed envelope to the CRC office. By Tom White, CRC Member

The Facts

• a. Water is one of the most important environmental issues of our time.
• b. Americans use more water per capita than any other country in the world.
• c. We personally use over 200 gallons of water in our homes each day, 40% of which is flushed down our toilets.
• d. It takes 13,000 gallons per person to handle our annual body wastes.
• e. Including our per capita share of agricultural and industrial uses, the average American uses 1,900 gallons of water per day. (40 gallons for each egg, 80 for each ear of corn, 150 for each loaf of bread, 2,500 for each pound of beef, 100,000 for each new car.)
• f. The water quality of 65% of all streams, 68% of all estuaries, and 37% of lakes in Washington State fails to fully support the desired uses of these waters.
• g. Aquatic life is not fully supported in 39% of streams and 72% of estuaries statewide.
• h. An estimated 30,000 acres of fish and wildlife habitat and 2,000 acres of wetlands continue to be lost in the state each year.
• i. The U.S. has lost over 50% of its wetlands, and only 2% of its river systems are still wild.
• j. 20% of the native fish runs in the western U.S. are extinct or endangered, including over 200 native naturally spawning stocks of salmon and steelhead.
• k. Many freshwater invertebrate groups are in decline; 72% of freshwater mussels in the U.S. qualify as threatened or endangered.

The Implications

• a. The ability of a water body to support healthy living systems directly determines the ability of that water body to support human goals.
• b. 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.
• c. Our present system of water resource administrative management is not working.
• d. Efforts to protect water resources for sustained human use are doomed unless they incorporate water quality, habitat structure, flow regime, energy source, and biotic interactions.

Key Policies

• a. Efficient use of existing water supplies.
• b. Protection of natural resources.
• c. Integration of responsible growth management planning with water supply planning.
• d. Fish restoration.
• e. Partnering with utilities, local government and Tribes.
• f. Sustainable water resource management at the watershed scale.
• g. Full cost accounting of water use and its environmental impact.

The Two Processes That Will Become The Cornerstone Of Our Future Approach

a. Watershed management - The Watershed Management Bill (HB 2514).

b. Water clean up plans - Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).

For a copy of the speech, send a stamped, self-addressed envelope to the CRC office.

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

What can you do about water concerns?

---

Each of us, in our own way, impacts the quality of water in the watershed where we live.

The cumulative effect of small acts of carelessness accounts for more than half the pollution in our water today. Can our actions make a difference? How can we be more aware and responsible as stewards of water?

This month we present part 2 of the series (Reprinted from:Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Guide Recommended Pollution Control Practices for Homeowners and Small Farm Operators Publication No. 87-30 (Revised) December 1997)

PASTURE MANAGEMENT

Good pasture management leads to better weed control, better soil structure, increased productivity over longer periods of time, and healthier animals. It helps the soil absorb excess water, manure, nutrients and other pollutants and protects local water quality by reducing the amount and improving the quality of runoff.

Maintenance

Pastures can be grazed intensively during peak periods of growth, but they need regular attention. They require regular rest and regrowth periods for root systems to recover and absorb nutrients.

• Clip pastures after each grazing period. Clipping prior to a rest period will promote more uniform growth and more uniform grazing during the next grazing period.
• Maintain pasture fencing to keep animals away from surface waters and swampy areas.
• Keep as much distance as possible between fencing and surface water. Vegetated buffer strips provide filtration and absorption of pollutants, and are a very important part of proper animal management. Research has shown that strips between 25 and 130 feet wide are needed, depending on soils, the size and slope of the pasture, and the vegetative cover in the area. Consult your local conservation district representative for recommendations for your land.
• Provide adequate liming or fertilizer. Your conservation district representative can help you with information on soil testing, application rates, and appropriate timing.
• Drag pastures to spread droppings and promote uniform grazing. Harrowing prior to the rest period will increase the absorption of nutrients.
• Install subsurface drains or ditch swampy pastures to prevent flooding.
• Overgrazing Pasturing too many animals on a parcel of land, or allowing them to graze for too long in the same area reduces plant vigor and compacts soils, reducing absorption capacity and pasture recovery. Overgrazing is the main reason for pasture decline.
• The size and productivity of your land determine the number of animals you can pasture.
• Your conservation district can advise you on the proper stocking rate for your property.
• Restrict grazing when plants are dormant. If animals must be pastured during the winter, reduce use to a small winter confinement area.
• Restrict animals when soils are wet and easily compacted. Traffic in wet areas will damage root systems and lead to a bald, rough pasture.
• Place salt licks and feeding stations away from water supplies to encourage even grazing.
• Let grasses gain adequate growth before the autumn frosts. Strong healthy plants in autumn will yield big dividends in higher forage yields next spring and serve as a filter all winter long.

Pasture Rotation

Rest periods are critical to proper pasture growth. A grazing rotation that allows 21 to 28 days of regrowth between grazing periods is usually best. Divide pasture area into separate units (paddocks) if possible.

Remember that the smaller the area, the greater the chance of plant destruction, even when supplemental hay is given. Rotation will depend on the season, weather conditions, the specific crop, soil, water retention, the number of paddocks available, and the type of animals. Four or more equal-sized paddocks are recommended for starting a rotational grazing system. NOTE: Horses are especially hard on pastures. They graze plants down to the soil surface, so regrowth takes more time. They do not graze evenly and trample much of the forage area. If you have horses, or even one horse, your pasture anagement plans should include controlled grazing and rotation.

Pasture Renovation

Certain forage plants such as tall fescue and orchard grass will take two years to produce at their maximum rate, but once established, they can continue to produce for at least 10 years. Heavily grazed pastures of forage such as ryegrass will need reseeding every two or three years for top production. Ideal pasture renovation means plowing and growing an alternate crop such as corn, oats or annual ryegrass before tilling and reseeding with forage crops. If this is not possible, disking and reseeding will help. Animals must be kept off new seeding until it is well established.

Editors note: Next month the series concludes with information on Animal Waste, Stream Corridor Management and help on Alternatives and Who to Contact.

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

The Future of People and Salmon are Linked

---

This is the full text of remarks by Governor Locke to the Washington Association of Counties on June 10, 1998. Governor Locke's remarks focus on the issues, choices and responsibilities we face locally and statewide.

Thank you for this opportunity to talk about the future of salmon - and by implication, the future of people - here in Washington. Because it's a mistake to think we can ever discuss one without discussing the other. We inhabit the same world. We depend on the same rivers and streams and estuaries and wetlands. If our rivers are too polluted for salmon, they are also too polluted for humans.

Saving salmon is about keeping our ecosystems from unraveling. And saving salmon is about facing ourselves in ways we've tried too long to avoid. We have known for many, many years that our salmon runs were declining. But it has taken the threat of federal intervention under the Endangered Species Act to focus our attention on saving them.

In several Puget Sound watersheds, our wild salmon have less than a decade to live, unless we act now. And in many more rivers and streams, if the status quo continues, our wild salmon will be gone before my daughter Emily graduates from high school. So we just don't have any time to waste. For better or for worse, we are about to make history.

Need Three Things

To make history by saving salmon rather than letting them become extinct, we need three things:

First, we need a higher standard of collaborative decision-making than ever before. That high standard has already been set by the work of King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties, and by the counties and cities of the Lower Columbia.

But all across our state, we need ordinary citizens, local governments, tribal governments, state agencies, developers, loggers, farmers, fishermen, and environmentalists at the table. We need to practice democracy and collaboration more intently than ever before. And that means a relentless focus on the common good. It means that we, as elected leaders, must keep calling every stakeholder and every interest group back to that principle:

that the common good comes first.

All of us must be willing to change, and to do whatever it takes to spread or share fairly the sacrifices that will be required. We must not put the burden of saving salmon only on rural communities, or fishermen, or farmers, or timber communities.

Second, we need a higher level of public understanding and citizen engagement than ever before.

We have to be careful not to take the wrong lesson from the recent court decision that declared Oregon's coastal recovery plan insufficient because of the heavy reliance on voluntary, citizen-led restoration efforts. The court ruled that wasn't enough. Talking about saving salmon won't cut it! Hoping citizens will voluntarily change behavior and restore salmon won't cut it! But that does not mean that we can save salmon only with mandatory efforts and regulation and without voluntary, citizen-led efforts. On the contrary, there is just no way we can save our salmon without sustained and expanded citizen participation. So we need to invest in public education, in citizen involvement, and in nurturing the sense that all the people of our state are engaged in a unified effort.

Third, we need to wake up every morning ready to challenge the status quo.

We all prefer to shepherd this issue along in ways that don't upset people.

We'd like to make progress without creating any opposition. That's an important and worthwhile goal, but it won't always be possible. And in part, that's because we have, in the past, been guilty of fostering unrealistic expectations.

We have let people believe that our water supplies are infinite that suburban sprawl is inevitable; and that private property rights are always more important than public objectives. Now we must foster a new understanding: the understanding that all of us must simply stop degrading the natural systems we're a part of.

There are real risks involved in even delivering that message, much less acting on it. There is, after all, that age-old tendency to shoot the messenger. But we cannot save salmon by doing business as usual. Our role as elected leaders is to take the heat, and to use it to generate forward momentum.

These three things - a deeper level of collaboration, greater public education and engagement, and a greater willingness to challenge the status quo - are our most powerful tools for saving salmon.

Examples

Let me give you some examples of how we must use these tools.

In some places, we have issued so many water rights that more water has been granted to water users than there is available. And there's not enough for salmon. To make matters worse, many of these watersheds are areas where significant growth and development are occurring. That's why the Joint Natural Resources Cabinet is looking at whether we should close these basins to any more water rights permits. The Cabinet is considering whether we should allow any more exempt wells near these streams and rivers.

The state has the authority under current law to take these actions. But I'm committed to collaboration, so I would much rather solve this dilemma in cooperation with local and tribal governments. In many areas, we could achieve the same effect if local governments fully enforced their own, local zoning and growth management laws. But this issue - the issue of enforcing the laws already on our books local and state - is one that we must take very seriously. And I want to state very clearly that I'm committed to full enforcement of existing state laws.

Here's another example. The federal EPA and the state Department of Ecology have documented that over 650 bodies of water in our state are polluted. In many cases the pollution levels are harmful to both fish and humans. The biggest sources are non-point pollution -- pollution caused mainly by agriculture, timber harvest and urban run-off. This pollution not only threatens salmon; but also violates the federal Clean Water Act.

Timber

Since last November, the parties to the Timber, Fish and Wildlife process have been negotiating new statewide forest practice rules that will help save both salmon and clean water for people. I've directed Curt Smitch to work with the TFW, the appropriate Joint Cabinet agencies and Jennifer Belcher, the state Lands Commissioner, to help bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion by the end of this summer. And I have been impressed by the timber industry's willingness to step up to this challenge. Perhaps because of their experience with the spotted owl, they understand what's at stake, and their leadership has been exemplary.

Agriculture

Steps have also been made to address the pollution caused by agriculture. In this year's supplemental budget, we set aside six million dollars in state money to initiate a new program provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture called the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. This program provides a four-to-one federal match for funds to acquire easements along riparian areas on agricultural lands. Over the next four years, Washington can expect to receive nearly $175 million in federal funds for this program.

We are also working with local, state and federal agencies to develop a common set of standards and guidelines for agricultural lands that will protect and restore our salmon. I'm hoping the first draft of those guidelines will be completed by the end of this year. These guidelines will be voluntary, but if they aren't effective because they're ignored, they will have to be supplemented with mandatory measures. And I have directed the Joint Cabinet to develop a set of options to address this possibility.

We all want to rely as much as possible on incentives rather than regulation.

But our ability to rely on incentives will depend on whether we, as elected leaders, can truly inspire the citizens and stakeholder we work with to do the right thing. And that, in turn, will depend on our ability to craft solutions that don't have farmers or other landowners making all the sacrifices, while city dwellers or other stakeholders do nothing.

Urban Run-off

And that brings us to the third -- and in many ways the most difficult cause of water pollution -- urban run-off. By paving the land around our streams, rivers and wetlands, we pollute our streams, raise the temperature of the water, and thereby harm salmon. We simply have to change our land use practices to solve this problem. Currently, the Joint Natural Resources Cabinet, along with the counties and cities, is reviewing Growth Management and Shoreline Management plans. They are analyzing whether full implementation of existing laws will be enough to solve this problem. The initial phase of this analysis will be done by September. And if the laws need to be changed, we will need to step up to this challenge, too.

All of the actions I've described will cost money - local, state, and federal money - which of course is all taxpayers' money. So I have asked all state agencies to identify what additional existing resources they can direct to salmon recovery in the next biennium before seeking new money. I've also asked the Joint Cabinet - in conjunction with local government and the tribes - to evaluate enforcement activities to determine if they need additional tools to protect and restore salmon. And I have asked for this information by September.

At the same time, we are developing a long-term strategy for requesting and allocating federal funds. Thanks to the leadership of Senators Murray and Gorton and Congressman Dicks, the state stands a very good chance of receiving approximately $25 million for salmon recovery in federal fiscal year 99, which begins in October. We want to thank counties - your staffs - for working with us to identify priority projects for that federal money.

New federal money will help, but the real work still has to begin at home: in our neighborhoods and communities and in our cities and counties. People have to see that we can win this struggle, and that every fish in every stream counts. Your role as local elected leaders, visionaries and motivators will be critical.

Local Responsibility

Thirty-five counties and 240 cities have adopted Critical Area Ordinances under the state Growth Management Act. These ordinances are powerful tools for the recovery of our wild salmon. But if these ordinances are not adequately enforced, their effectiveness is lost. I expect each county and city to adopt and fully enforce critical areas ordinances. I know this isn't easy, but it's the law - and it's the right thing to do.

These examples show just how difficult this issue will be in the months and years to come. But we have a very clear choice: We can work out these solutions among ourselves, or we can turn over control of our state and our future to the federal government. We can save our watersheds and our salmon, or we can be the last generation to live with the mystery and wonder of these wild fish. We can listen to what the plight of the salmon is telling us, or we can consign ourselves to the continuing degradation of the natural environment on which all our lives depend.

Every action we take commits to one choice or the other. And every day that goes by without action also commits to a choice. If wild salmon become extinct, they will be followed by many other species that depend on the same rivers, streams, estuaries, wetlands, and marine waters.

So the history we are about to make is about far more than fish. It is about our understanding of how all living creatures - including ourselves - depend on the health of the natural world. It is about our ability to be fair to each other, to govern ourselves, and to focus on the long term future. And more than anything else, saving salmon is about our capacity and our willingness to make sacrifices for our children, so that they too can experience the inexpressible wonder that has been the birthright of every Washington resident since the first humans settled in this state: seeing or even catching a wild salmon.

We cannot fail. Extinction is not an option. And so we must work together, respect each other, inspire and sustain a broad public commitment to this goal, and do what's best for our salmon, our citizens, and our future.

Thank you very much.

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

POLLUTED RUNOFF: THE LARGEST THREAT TO OUR NATION'S WATERS

---

What is Polluted Runoff?

Every time it rains, or in the spring when the snow melts, water dribbles off rooftops, runs through backyards, trickles across parking lots, and flows down street gutters. In most urban areas, water goes into a vast network of storm sewers which dump directly into local rivers, streams, and wetlands. In rural areas, water flows across farms and grazing land into nearby waterways. Water from rain and snowmelt becomes polluted runoff when it picks up pollutants as it makes it way into our nations's waters. The Environmental Protection Agency's latest data from 1994 indicates that 40% of our nation's waters are not meeting water quality standards, and polluted runoff is the biggest reason.

Polluted runoff is also referred to as "nonpoint source pollution," because it is not directly discharged from a single factory or sewage treatment plant. Polluted runoff comes from many diffuse sources and exists in rural, suburban, and urban environments.

Poor Land-Use Practices:

Suburban Runoff:

In suburban areas, polluted runoff comes from a wide range of sources, most of which can be found in your own home. Household chemicals, which include everything from laundry detergent to paint thinner, get poured down household drains or run off driveways and backyards into underground aquifers and sewers and end up in the nearest water body. Large amounts of fertilizer and pesticides from backyards, golf courses, and other landscaped areas also pollute our waterways during storms or by over watering. As a result, the substances we buy in stores--the ones that come in containers with warning labels--are the same substances going into the water we drink, fish, and swim in. Construction activities associated with suburban sprawl can cause serious damage to nearby streams by dumping large amounts of sediments.

Urban Runoff:

City activities are also a source of polluted runoff. Toxics, such as oil, antifreeze and other automobile fluids, wash away from parking lots and streets into the nearest storm drain, and then fed to the nearest water body. Major storms can also cause city sewer systems to become overloaded causing untreated, bacteria-laden sewage to spill into our waters.

Impacts of Polluted Runoff on Our Nation's Waters

Polluted runoff can cause a number of public health and environmental problems in surface and ground waters. In streams, lakes, and estuaries, polluted runoff can take oxygen out of the water, jeopardizing the fish and other aquatic life that need oxygen to live. Fertilizers containing nitrogen and phosphorus that end up in lakes and streams will promote growth of vegetation, including algae, that clog the waterways. Furthermore, pesticides can be toxic to animals and humans, potentially causing cancer and other serious health effects. Human waste, from city sewage overflows, and livestock waste, from grazing and animal farms, also threaten our health with dangerous levels of bacteria. For instance, the cryptosporidium (bacteria) outbreak in Milwaukee's drinking water system killed over 100 people and made over 400,000 people ill, and was most likely caused by dairy cattle waste. Another example is the outbreak of the micro-organism Pfiesteria in North Carolina, which is blamed for massive fish-kills in the lower Neuse River. The outbreak appears to be caused by polluted runoff containing animal waste from large farms.

Polluted runoff also has serious economic impacts. When runoff gets into sources of our drinking water, the water must receive more intensive treatment to make the water safe for drinking. This requires more facilities, labor, energy, and tax dollars. Additionally, polluted runoff fouls beaches, lakes, and other waters used for recreation. Businesses dependent upon tourism and recreation, such as swimming, boating, fishing, and surfing, can suffer serious economic losses as a result. Properties adjacent to polluted waters also decrease in value. The livelihoods of commercial and recreational anglers depend on clean water. For example, commercial salmon fishing in the Pacific Northwest is an estimated one billion dollar a year industry, and, due to polluted runoff, there has been widespread devastation of Pacific salmon runs in that region.

Polluted Runoff: Unregulated and Uncontrolled

Polluted runoff is clearly our largest remaining water quality challenge. Yet federal and state environmental laws do not adequately address polluted runoff. Federal and state governments must be required to develop and implement enforceable polluted runoff programs targeted on key watersheds threatened by polluted runoff in order to achieve waters that are safe for fishing, swimming and drinking.

Section 319 of the CWA:

The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted in 1972 to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters". In 1987, Congress enacted Section 319 of the CWA, which established a national program to control polluted runoff. The provision encourages states to adopt polluted runoff management programs and implement them over several years. However, these programs are entirely voluntary and have not led to significant reductions in polluted runoff.

Total Maximum Daily Loads:

Until recently, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) provision of the Clean Water Act went largely unused, and states concentrated most of their efforts on getting pollution reductions from municipal and industrial sources. The TMDL program requires states to prioritize polluted waters for clean-up based upon the severity of pollution and the intended use of the area. The states determine how much pollution these priority waters can handle and still meet water quality standards. This pollution load, or TMDL, is then divided among the polluters in the watershed, including those who are responsible for polluted runoff. Currently, over 20 lawsuits have been brought by the environmental community to enforce this provision. The courts have directed EPA and States to establish TMDLs in these states, but the courts orders have not been carried out yet and, in the other states, there are no court order to force action.

Coastal Zone Act:

The Coastal Zone Management Act, in conjunction with the CWA, provides protection for coastal areas threatened with polluted runoff. Section 6217 of the statute requires coordination between state and local agencies, and encourages local solutions to local pollution problems. However, the program is not as effective as it could be because it is under funded.

How You Can Help Control Polluted Runoff

There are two key actions which will be necessary to solve our polluted runoff problem. First, the government must be given the authority to establish enforceable programs for managing polluted runoff. Second, each one of us can and must lessen the amount of polluted runoff we produce in our daily lives.

Policy Solutions:

The Clean Water Act must be amended to require enforceable plans to control polluted runoff, implemented in a cost-effective and flexible manner. These regional plans should focus on watersheds impaired by polluted runoff. Individual farmers and landowners must be given the option of obtaining approval of alternative site-specific management plans that are more cost-effective, yet still get the job done. Financial assistance through the CWA and the 1996 Farm Bill must also be available to small farmers and landowners to help develop and implement plans. You can contact your elected officials on the local, state, and federal levels, and ask them to control polluted runoff. The government must consider all sources of pollution in order to achieve water quality standards.

Making a Difference:

We can all work together to reduce and prevent polluted runoff in our communities. Many people don't realize that when they wash their car in their driveway, rake their leaves into the street, spill motor oil, or spray pesticides on their lawns, they are polluting nearby waters. An easy way to decrease polluted runoff is to reduce or eliminate toxic substances used in your homes. For instance, use non-toxic alternatives to fertilizers in your garden and try planting pest and disease resistant plants in your backyard. There are many other common sense things you can do to cut down polluted runoff: dispose of your used oil and anti-freeze at a car dealership or local waste management center instead of pouring it down the storm drain, sweep driveways, sidewalks, and patios and pick up pet waste instead of hosing them down, use biodegradable and phosphate-free soaps and detergents, have your septic tank inspected and maintained on a regular basis, and avoid unnecessary water use during storms so you don't contribute to sewer overflows.

Reprinted with permission of the National Wildlife Federation.

Back to top or back to home page or back to Whats New

-

YOUTH CORNER

Over the past months a lot of information has been provided. Here's a chance to test yourself on this information. Do you know these words? Match the words with the correct definition.

These definitions have been paraphrased or verified from:

Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitat. Edited by William R. Mehan

Pacific Salmon Life Histories. Edited by C. Groot & L. Marcolis

Peterson's Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes.

1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory (SASSI). By the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Western Washington Treaty

Indian Tribes.

Youth Corner Answers

---

01 - 2; 02 - G; 03 - E; 04 - K; 05 - F; 06 - AA; 07 - S; -8 - CC; 09 - DD; 10 - FF; 11 - A; 12 - V; 13 - H; 14 - W; 15 - B; 16 - X; 17 - HH; 18 - J; 19 - R; 20 - O; 21 - BB; 22 - M; 23 - C; 24 - P; 25 - GG; 26 - I; 27 - U; 28 - T; 29 - D; 30 - EE; 31 - Y; 32 - N; 33 - Z; 34 - L

Back to top or
Back to Whats New Index Page
Back to CRC Index Page