New Page 1

The Nitrate Elimination Co., Inc. (NECi) -- Lake Linden MI 49945

Home Catalog Products NECi News Ordering
Nitrate & Your Health Nitrate FAQ NECi R&D About NECi

Nitrate in the News

Nitrate News -- July, 2000

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)Program (July 2000, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water (4503F) Washington, DC 20460 http://www.epa.gov/water/ ) EPA 841-F-00-008 Final TMDL Rule: Fulfilling the Goals of the Clean Water Act -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule to improve the national program for identifying polluted waters, determining the sources of pollution, and designing clean-up plans. This program, known as the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program, is the framework for working cooperatively with the States to finish the job of cleaning up America's polluted waterways and delivering on the promise of the landmark 1972 Clean Water Act. This new rule will provide a cost-effective, common-sense process for cleaning up America's polluted waters. Background Over 20,000 waterbodies across America have been identified as polluted by States, Territories, and authorized Tribes. These waters include over 300,000 river and shoreline miles and 5 million acres of lakes. The overwhelming majority of people in the U.S. live within 10 miles of one of these polluted waters. The Clean Water Act provides special authority for restoring polluted waters. The Act calls on States to work with interested parties to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads or TMDLs for polluted waters. A TMDL is essentially a "pollution budget" designed to restore the health of the polluted body of water. In August 1999, EPA proposed changes to its existing regulations to clarify and strengthen the authorities of EPA, States, Territories, and authorized Tribes (hereinafter referred to as "States") to implement the TMDL program. EPA considered over 34,000 comments on this proposed rulemaking and talked with hundreds of people in public outreach and information-sharing sessions. Goals of the Final Rule This final rule will make thousands more rivers, lakes, and coastal waters safe for swimming, fishing, and healthy populations of fish and shellfish. The final TMDL rule will: Strengthen States' ability to clean up polluted waters by identifying pollution reductions needed to meet clean water goals; Provide for a comprehensive listing of all the Nation's polluted waters; Encourage cost-effective clean-up by ensuring all sources of pollution are considered in the development of cleanup plans; Assure that TMDLs include implementation plans that define specific actions and schedules for meeting clean water goals. Components of the Final Rule Identification of Polluted Waters: States develop more comprehensive lists of all polluted waterbodies so that the public will have a clear picture of which waters are polluted and when they will be cleaned up. States are required to develop their lists every 4 years instead of the current 2 years. Threatened waters may be included on the list at the State's discretion. Prioritized Schedule: States will establish a schedule for clean-up plans for polluted waters within 10 years or be given an additional five years if needed. EPA is requesting that higher priority be given to polluted waters that are sources of drinking water or support endangered species. States can explain why a higher priority is not appropriate. Elements of a TMDL: TMDLs will contain key elements: waterbody name and location; identification of the pollutant and the water quality standard for the waterbody; amount of pollutant allowable to meet standards; load reduction needed to meet standards; sources of the pollutant; wasteload allocation for point sources; load allocation for runoff and other sources of pollution; and an implementation plan. margin of safety; consideration of seasonal variation; and allowance for reasonably foreseeable increases in pollutant loads. There is a transitional period so states can phase in new TMDL elements over time. The public will have the opportunity to comment on the methodology, lists, prioritized schedules, and TMDLs prior to submission to EPA. EPA will back-stop state efforts to develop TMDLs. Implementation Plan: The implementation plan should reflect both point sources, nonpoint sources, and other sources of pollution, including: A list of actions needed to reduce pollutant loadings and a time-line for implementation; Reasonable assurances that implementation will occur; A monitoring or modeling plan and milestones for measuring progress; Plans for revising the TMDL if progress toward cleaning up the waters is not made; and The date by which water quality standards will be met generally within 10 years. Runoff controls should be put in place 5 years after the implementation plan is developed, if practicable. Reasonable Assurance: For point sources, reasonable assurance is to be provided through National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permits. For nonpoint and other sources, load allocations in each TMDL must meet a four-part test: 1) they apply to the pollutant; 2) they will be implemented expeditiously; 3) they will be accomplished through effective programs; and 4) they will be supported by adequate water quality funding. State Flexibility: States have maximum flexibility to make their own choices about which sources of pollution to clean up, and in what manner, and to produce their own plans for local cleanups to ensure the full protection of public health. States set the water quality standards that waters need to meet. States develop the TMDLs to decide how to clean up their polluted waters. States will have more time to learn the problems, tailor implementation to local conditions, and give full credit to voluntary or incentive-based programs. Key Improvements in Final Rule: The rule has been upgraded to "major rule" status under the Congressional Review Act, allowing Congress ample time to review it if they choose. The proposed public petition process for review of lists or TMDL implementation has been dropped. States are not required to list "threatened waters." The proposal to require "offsets" before new pollution can be discharged to impaired waters prior to TMDL establishment has been dropped. The final rule does not include specific permit requirements for forestry, and EPA withdraws its proposed provisions for expanded authority for permitting aquaculture and animal feeding operations. The final TMDL rule is available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/finalrule/finalrule.pdf

Cadmium puts Rocky Mountain wildlife at risk (ENN News, Thursday, July 13, 2000, By Margot Higgins) The white-tailed ptarmigan may be the first of several wildlife species to feel the effects of cadmium toxicity, according to a recent study. The report, "Cadmium Toxicity Among Wildlife in the Colorado Rocky Mountains," focuses on the effects of cadmium mining in an area of south-central Colorado known as the "ore belt," which stretches from Denver and Fort Collins to Durango. Excavated in the Rockies for more than a century, cadmium is a silver-white metal used in rechargeable batteries, alloys and galvanized chrome on auto parts and appliances. Cadmium usually finds its way into the environment through ore tailings at abandoned mine sites. (For map, click here.) In the white-tailed ptarmigan, a member of the grouse family, cadmium was found to cause kidney damage, which reduces the bird's ability to process calcium. Forty-six percent of the adult birds surveyed in the 10,000-square-kilometer area were found with alarmingly high cadmium accumulation in their kidneys. "Birds in the winter get really hammered," said James Larison, an alpine ecologist at Oregon State University and lead author of the study, which appears in today's issue of Nature. "Their bones fracture easily so they die at a younger age and they don't have enough calcium to build normal egg shells." While the toxicity of cadmium is already established through short-term lethal-dose experiments, the ptarmigan study is the first to show the subtler effects of chronic exposure to the metal in a plant-based diet. "Cadmium has a similar chemical structure as calcium," Larison explained. "It attaches to the soil the same way that calcium would and competes with calcium for those binding sites. As calcium would normally move through the food web, cadmium moves through instead." Larison and colleagues found that willows were "biomagnifying" or concentrating cadmium, which was then passed along to the ptarmigan population. "(The trees) act as biological pumps, increasing the concentrations of cadmium by two orders of magnitude," he said. "Birds eat a lot of willow, especially in the winter when other foods are scarce." To make matters worse, mining areas that are rich in cadmium also tend to be deficient in calcium, due in part to the high acidity of the water and soil. As a result, the birds have little chance of replenishing the calcium they need for strong bones and eggshells. "The findings are not unlike those that linked the pesticide DDT to the problem of laying thin eggs shells among peregrine falcons," Larison noted. Ptarmigan aren't the only animals that eat willows. Deer, elk, moose, snowshoe hares and beavers include willows in their diet and might face similar problems. Worse yet, other plants may also have the ability to biomagnify cadmium, Larison said. "My work should trigger further interest in studying the effects of cadmium on wildlife," Larison said. "Birds are exceptionally good indicators of environmental problems. Because they have to eat a lot to stay alive, high levels of contaminants go through their system."

Delaware to probe fish kill (Environmental News Network, Tuesday, July 11, 2000) Delaware authorities said late Monday they were investigating a fish kill to see if was caused by the toxic Pfiesteria microbe which in 1997 jeopardized tourism and fishing in the Eastern Shore region. The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) issued an advisory against any contact with the waters of the Pepper Creek as it flows from the town of Dagsboro, in southernmost Delaware, to the Indian River Inlet in the state's coastal area. DNREC said "a significant number" of the thousands of dead juvenile menhaden found on Monday had the Pfiesteria-like lesions thought to cause symptoms like memory loss, confusion, and skin rashes. "We are concerned because this is the first time Delaware has found lesions associated with a fish kill and we want to take every precaution to ensure the public's health," said Roy Miller of the Division of Fish and Wildlife in a statement. Researchers believe Pfiesteria converts from a harmless microbe into a toxic one in the presence of tidal waters polluted with nutrients, like chicken manure, and under conditions of increased temperature and salinity. After the 1997 breakouts in the Chesapeake and coastal bay areas of Maryland and Virginia, Maryland became the first state to limit the use of chicken manure as a farm fertilizer, followed by Delaware and Virginia. DNREC has sent water samples from Pepper Creek to unnamed laboratories for analysis. The state Divisions of Public Health (DPH) and of Agriculture are working with local doctors and hospitals. To date there have been no confirmed cases of Pfiesteria-related illnesses, health officials said. No one at DNREC or DPH could be reached for comment.

EPA Clinton complete water rule end run (Environmental News Network, Wednesday, July 12, 2000 By Associated Press) Congressional critics accuse the Clinton administration of conducting a "power grab" by moving to require states to develop new pollution control plans for dirty waterways just days before legislation blocking such regulations can go into effect. Now the question is whether Republicans can muster enough bipartisan support to overturn the action by the Environmental Protection Agency within 60 days, as provided by the law. Such a prospect is slim in an election year when few lawmakers — Democrats or Republicans — want to be labeled anti-environment. The decision may fall to Texas Gov. George W. Bush, if he is elected president, to decide whether to roll back the new rules before they take effect late next year, some opponents of the regulations conceded. The regulations issued Tuesday by the EPA require states to examine more than 20,000 lakes, streams and other waterways, establish which ones are most polluted and develop a cleanup program to meet federal water quality standards. The new cleanup requirements eventually could cost farmers, businesses and other polluters billions of dollars a year. President Clinton called the new regulations "a critical common-sense step to ensure clean, safe water for all Americans" and said the rules can be implemented "in close partnership" with states and local communities. EPA Administrator Carol Browner issued the new regulations only days before Clinton was expected to sign into law a must-have emergency spending bill that contains a provision specifically barring the EPA from issuing the rule. "It's a tremendous thumb in the eye to the United States Congress," complained Sen. Tim Hutchinson, R-Arkansas, echoing other GOP lawmakers angered over what they viewed as "a slap in the face" of Congress, which had wanted the rules delayed for 16 months. Opponents of the new rules accused the Clinton administration of pushing out the rules despite widespread concern from many governors, the business community, farmers and lawmakers on Capitol Hill about the requirements' costs and complaints that the EPA was trying to thwart the authority of states in dealing with water quality issues. "Presidential politics and not public interest are guiding the administration's decisions at this point," complained Sen. Bob Smith, R-New Hampshire, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Although some believe the time allowed for waterway cleanup is still far too long, many environmentalists said the EPA action marks the first time the federal government has directly addressed the problem of waterways polluted by runoff from agriculture, industry, construction and other so-called non-point sources. Largely because of such pollution, 40 percent of the country's lakes and streams currently are so dirty people can't fish or swim in them, according to the EPA. Instead of requiring specific plants or businesses to reduce pollution through restrictive permits, as already is done widely, the EPA wants states to examine the waterways individually, determine the maximum amount of pollution that each can sustain, and craft a cleanup plan that brings the water within federal health standards. The process could take 15 to 25 years, but if states don't act the EPA can develop a water pollution control plan for them. The regulations follow numerous lawsuits that have been filed in recent years by environmentalists, contending neither the states nor the EPA has moved aggressively to develop cleanup plans as required by the Clean Water Act. "This requires for the first time comprehensive planning on a river by river, lake by lake, bay by bay basis by local and state governments," Browner said. "It is the most important action in a generation to clean up the nation's waters and beaches." She said because of the rider tacked onto the spending bill about to be signed into law, the EPA would not be able to enforce the new rules until Oct. 1, 2001. But agency officials said the delay should not cause a serious problem — barring intervention by a future president — since states would not be required to submit their first cleanup plans until April 2002. Opponents of the new requirements include an array of powerful interests from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the utility industry and farm groups, as well as many governors. They argue the rules infringe on states that already have waterway cleanup plans and could cost as much as $3 billion a year. The EPA estimates the cost to states at $20 million to $30 million a year, but senior agency officials acknowledge the overall cost to industry, agriculture and others affected could be in the billions of dollars.

EPA Institutes Water Regulations, Before a Bill Blocking Them Becomes Law (New York Times, July 12, 2000, By MATTHEW L. WALD with STEVE GREENHOUSE) WASHINGTON, July 11 -- The Environmental Protection Agency issued new water pollution rules today, trying to outmaneuver members of Congress who thought they had killed the measure two weeks ago. And while it drew criticism from representatives for the tactic, the agency also came under attack by a public advocacy group, which said it had delayed publicizing reports on the workplace dangers of a toxic chemical featured in the film Erin Brockovich. Opponents of the new antipollution rules, which would set pollution limits based on local water conditions, attached an amendment blocking them to an unrelated military construction bill. But the E.P.A. said today that it would make the rules official by publishing them in the Federal Register on Thursday morning -- a few hours ahead of when President Clinton is scheduled to sign the military construction bill into law. The agency's move thus effectively sidesteps the efforts to kill the new water regulations. Today Mr. Clinton, in a statement, called the rules "a critical, common-sense step." But the maneuvering did not play well with lawmakers who thought they had won the previous round. "E.P.A.'s arrogance under this administration has risen to new heights," said Representative Bud Shuster, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The E.P.A. designated the new regulations as a "major rule," which makes them subject to recall by Congress for 60 days. But Carol Browner, the agency's administrator, predicted that Congress would not vote to stop the rules if it involved "a full review, and a public review." Some opponents of the rules conceded that she was probably right. A two-thirds majority would be needed to block the regulations. At issue was a new approach to water pollution, called Total Maximum Daily Load, which, like the current law, seeks to make each body of water "fishable and swimmable." Rather than national allowable levels of emissions, under the new program states would set levels of emissions for local areas. The rule will require "comprehensive planning on a river-by-river, lake-by-lake and bay-by-bay basis by local and state governments, working in partnership with the E.P.A.," Ms. Browner said. It will also add "non-point sources" of pollution, including sites like farmers' fields, or woods where trees are harvested, to "point" sources like factories and sewage treatment plants. E.P.A. lawyers determined that while the agency could get the rules on the books before the military construction bill became law, it would have to abide by another part of Congress's provision: one that delays the effective date of the new rules until October 2001. The agency also made some changes to the regulations -- based in part, Ms. Browner said, on complaints from members of Congress -- giving the states more flexibility in how to enforce them.

Few Left Untouched After Deadly E. Coli Flows Through an Ontario Town's Water (NY Times, July 10, 2000, By JAMES BROOKE) WALKERTON, Ontario -- Almost two months after North America's deadliest outbreak of E. coli contamination hit this town, people's sentiments are captured on a road sign: "E. coli, please go away." In this once obscure farming community near Lake Huron, residents live in fear of the bacteria that entered their lives through their drinking water. Lingering in a closed branch of the municipal water system, the fatal strain, Escherichia coli O157:H7, still infects a well that was sealed when the outbreak became public, on May 23. Since then, E. coli has been identified as the killer of seven people and is being investigated in nine more deaths. In addition, 90 people were admitted to hospital, almost 1,000 were treated and released, and another 1,000 called medical professionals to complain of diarrhea or cramps. All in all, the bacteria laid low about 40 percent of Walkerton's population of 4,800. "This would be the first water-borne outbreak in North America," said Dr. Murray S. McQuigge, medical officer for the region, who first raised the alarm. (Editor’s note – this is not true there were E. coli outbreaks borne by water in Atlanta, GA, and New York State last year – see Nitrate in the News Reports on these incidents). Since the fatal strain of E. coli was identified in 1982, it largely has been transmitted through food. The tragedy has thrust Walkerton -- a pastoral town about three hours northwest of Toronto -- into the middle of a political tussle over Canada's future: to the conservatives who hope to recapture the national government in elections next year, Walkerton symbolizes bureaucratic incompetence; liberals, meanwhile, use it to illustrate the danger of making cuts in Canada's social net. For the left, the contamination was detected too late because Mike Harris, premier of Ontario and Canada's most powerful conservative in office, cut the budget of the Environment Ministry by 42 percent after taking power in 1995. Nine hundred staff members were fired. The ministry halved the number of annual water utility inspections. "Walkerton dramatized that a right wing, market-based agenda of deregulation and privatization leaves people vulnerable," said Maude Barlow, chairwoman of the Council of Canadians, a liberal group. For the right, Walkerton would have been spared the tragedy if the water system had been privatized and run for profit by efficient managers. The conservative side admits, however, that Mr. Harris's government was sloppy when it handed water testing over to private laboratories without requiring that the laboratories be accredited or that they send test results to health and environmental oversight agencies. After the E. coli scandal broke, a mid-June poll showed that the Liberal Party lead over Mr. Harris's Progressive Conservative Party had doubled to 7 percent in just two months. The day after this poll was completed, the Harris government dropped plans to privatize Ontario's public water systems. During the first four months of this year, water samples submitted by Walkerton's public water company tested positive for E. coli bacteria five times, according to Ontario's Environment Ministry. But, in a violation of procedure, these test results were not passed to the regional medical officer, Dr. McQuigge. They also did not cause undue concern for Stan Koebel, manager of the water company, which forwarded them to the ministry. On May 12, a heavy rain fell when a chlorinator on one well had been out of service for a month. Public health officials theorize that flood waters washed into wells manure contaminated with E. coli, a bacterium that is found, at any given time, in roughly 10 percent of North American cows, sheep and deer. "A lot of times we would end up with fecal matter in the water, and boil the water for a while, but this is the first time that water killed people," said John Markauskas, a high school science teacher. "I don't think people realized that you can get E. coli from water. You thought it was from uncooked food." After Mother's Day, May 14, town residents and visitors started falling ill with diarrhea. On May 15, Mr. Koebel shipped water samples marked "Rush, Rush, Rush" to a private laboratory that regularly tested the town's water. According to John Martin, an environmental lawyer contracted by the town, the results came back the next day showing that "Well 7 had high levels of total coliform and E. coli." Well 7, the only town water source at the time, was not receiving chlorine, which normally would have killed the bacteria. As the week progressed, more and more residents appeared at local hospitals suffering from bloody diarrhea. Dr. McQuigge said that toward the end of the week, he, two assistants and a local nursing home director separately telephoned the water company to ask whether the water was contaminated. Each caller was assured that the water was fine, he said. At the same time, according to Mr. Martin, the water company started adding chlorine to the water to kill the bacteria. "I can't conjecture why we were told four times that the water was all right," Dr. McQuigge mused. "We spent two days needlessly looking around for possible food sources." On Sunday, May 21, he said his staff started marking a town map with a yellow dot for each diarrhea case. "At the end of the day, the map of Walkerton was yellow," he said. "We knew there was only one thing that can do that -- the water supply." Dr. McQuigge ordered Walkerton residents to boil their drinking water. Mr. Koebel, meanwhile, insisted in a May 23 interview in the local newspaper that the cause of the diarrhea outbreak was still a mystery. Later on May 23, Dr. McQuigge received results of water tests that he had independently commissioned. After telephoning Mr. Koebel and telling him that the town water was contaminated with E. coli, the health officer said the water manager "broke down" and "said he knew that." Since the tragedy, Mr. Koebel has been in seclusion, refusing to give interviews or to make public statements. He is the subject of a police investigation. Meanwhile, anger is rising. Residents expect to depend on bottled water into August, restaurants have written off the tourist season, and supermarkets have had a slump in sales. Premier Harris rubbed many residents the wrong way when he came here and implied that outsiders were stirring up trouble. "We have seven dead already, we have children with permanent organ damage, we face six to eight more weeks without water, we have massive business losses," said Bruce Davidson, a massage therapist who has started a pressure group, Concerned Walkerton Citizens. "We don't need any help in being agitated."

Lower Phosphorus Limits Urged for Reservoirs (NY Times, July 6, 2000, By ROBERT WORTH) Phosphorus pollution has reached harmful levels in the reservoirs that supply New York City with its drinking water, two state officials said yesterday in calling for efforts to reduce the pollutant. Phosphorus, a pollutant from sewage, fertilizers, runoff and soaps, has been a growing problem, often forcing the city to shut down the flow from some reservoirs for months during the summer and fall. It promotes algae blooms, causing discolored water that tastes and smells bad, and it triggers a chain reaction that can elevate toxic elements in water. The two officials, Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer and John P. Cahill, the commissioner of the State Department of Environmental Conservation, urged the Federal Environmental Protection Agency to tighten phosphorus pollution limits in the city's seven source reservoirs, which serve as the last stop before the water is sent to the city. "Ensuring that the level of phosphorus is low enough to permit the reservoirs to be used as a source of drinking water is critical," said Mr. Spitzer, who released his own report yesterday. The state is required to propose phosphorus limits to the federal government, which is required to rule on those limits. The officials urged that phosphorus limits be tightened by 25 percent. By law, the federal agency has 30 days to accept or reject the state's recommendation, which was released Friday by the D.E.C. The new recommendation is based mainly on scientific studies conducted last year by the city's Department of Environmental Protection, which urged the state in February to adopt a stricter standard. Previously, officials at the state environmental agency had said there was no need to tighten the standard of 20 micrograms per liter for the reservoirs east of the Hudson River, which are set to be filtered by 2007. However, the New Croton reservoir, which provides drinking water for about 900,000 people daily, is already severely affected by phosphorus at the current average level of 17 micrograms per liter, said James Tierney, the inspector general for the watershed. The attorney general and the state agency have recommended lowering the standard to 15.

Pollution Fight Moves to the Beaches (New York Times, July 12, 2000, By BARBARA WHITAKER) LOS ANGELES, July 11 -- For years, Southern California has been engaged in an epic pollution battle, the struggle to get rid of the brown smog that hangs over the skyline on a hot summer day. Now the region is caught in another struggle that will provide a new test of its political will and the social conscience of its residents: rethinking a system that dumps nearly a trillion gallons of polluted urban runoff each year into the ocean alongside some of Southern California's most fabled beaches. In the dry summer months, Southern California's beaches are considered among the cleanest in the nation, with pollution concentrated near storm drain outlets and in the protected coves preferred by mothers and their children. But during winter rains, the region's entire coast suffers. Beaches that attract some 50 million visitors annually become off-limits as storm drainage races to the ocean, bringing with it the waste of everyday life, from cigarette butts to oil, lawn fertilizer, human waste and animal feces. The outcome here is expected to be a test for the rest of the nation. The pollution of coastal waters has reached a crucial stage, with beach closures last year reported from Huntington Beach, Calif., to Key West, Fla., to Southern New England. To be sure, the pollution caused by runoff in Southern California is not a new problem. Indeed, it is a function of the way the region developed its storm system, a network of concrete waterways designed to avert flooding by directing runoff to the ocean. But rampant development and increased water testing that revealed the extent of the problem and the related health risks are raising the level of debate among environmental advocates, state and local officials and the federal government. Experts predict that solving the problem will cost billions of dollars and will rival the efforts to control smog. With pressure for a solution mounting, Congress is considering legislation that would require water testing and the posting of unsafe conditions at beaches nationwide. The Environmental Protection Agency has already established minimum quality standards for recreational waters and has developed a program, still in its infancy, to give the public access to water-quality information. In California, Gov. Gray Davis recently provided an additional $5 million for jobs to help enforce regulations regarding discharges and polluted runoff, while public awareness campaigns urge residents to think twice before pouring something down their gutters. "What we need more than anything else is a real sea change of people's understanding of the problem," said David Beckman, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council in Southern California. "It's about the environment and public health, and if you don't care about those two things, it's about your wallet." Mr. Beckman likens storm drains to "bazookas pointed at the ocean" bombarding swimmers and surfers with bacteria and other pollutants. From Ventura to the Mexican border, the volume of runoff grew to nearly a trillion gallons annually in 1995 from 65 billion gallons a year in 1972, said the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, a consortium of sanitation districts and regulators. A 1996 study by the University of Southern California and the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project of 17,000 people found that people who swam near a storm drain were 50 to 150 percent more likely to report symptoms like fever, diarrhea, nausea and upper respiratory ailments than those swimming farther away. But as the problem worsens, environmental groups say government agencies are not enforcing regulations that would limit it. The resources defense council, a nonprofit environmental group, has petitioned the E.P.A. to force the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board to enforce regulations regarding discharges or be removed from its role as overseer. "The Clean Water Act requires big cities, large industrial entities and large construction sites to comply with storm water regulations, but noncompliance is rampant," Mr. Beckman said. Alexis Strauss, the director of the E.P.A.'s water division for the Western states, said the governor's approval of $5 million for additional manpower for the water quality boards would probably help resolve the defense council's concerns in Los Angeles. Of the 150 employees on the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, 7 work in the storm water program, overseeing some 3,500 industrial operations, 96 cities and 2 counties plus construction sites. "We have taken every effort to deal with storm water pollution commensurate with our capability," said Dennis Dickerson, executive officer for the control board. Mr. Dickerson noted that the board established measures to limit litter discharge and has increased its efforts to enforce municipal permits on runoff levels. In January, the board approved stricter standards that would force builders to install abatement measures in many commercial projects. But the new standards are being challenged by a number of cities, builders and oil companies. Richard Montevideo, who represents 32 of the 33 cities in Los Angeles County that have challenged the regulations, said they were poorly written, not well researched and might hold unknown dangers for the environment. The regulations require new development projects to filter or treat the first three-quarters of an inch of runoff in a 24-hour period. The standard is written to include projects like commercial developments of more than 100,000 square feet, gasoline stations, auto repair shops and developments of more than 10 houses. But, Mr. Montevideo said, the wording would also seem to make the rules apply to some homeowners -- specifically those on hillsides or those living in environmentally sensitive areas -- if they make improvements. He also said the new regulations would hamper the development of low-to-moderate income housing because of the cost involved. Mr. Montevideo, who also represents building-industry groups, wants the state water board to consider a less restrictive program. Los Angeles, Santa Monica and West Hollywood have all endorsed the new standards, and several innovative projects to address the problem are in place or in the works. For example, Los Angeles County has established diversions affecting five drains where polluted runoff is a problem. During dry weather the runoff is first channeled into sewage treatment plants. The county is also using nets and other barriers to collect trash that flows into drains and has spent $5 million in the last four years to educate residents about how they can help eliminate the problem. In Santa Monica projects include a $10 million recycling plant that will treat the water and then pump it for use irrigating parks and street medians. While such projects provide alternatives in dry weather, the solution for handling runoff in wet weather remains elusive. Whatever the outcome of the debate, the Los Angeles region is at ground zero for the runoff issue, which exists nationwide. "We're seeing the effects of runoff pollution at beaches all across the country," said Kelli McGee, coastal programs counsel with the American Oceans Campaign, which is dedicated to preserving oceans and coastal habitat. Quantifying the problem, Ms. McGee said, is difficult because only 10 states have monitoring programs. The House has passed a bill that would require coastal states to establish minimum standards for water quality, monitor them and post when levels exceed safe levels. A similar bill is working its way through the Senate. The federal legislation is modeled after a California bill passed in 1997 that required testing of water for bacteria at beaches with 50,000 visitors a year between April and October and required warnings when bacteria reached a certain level. The Los Angeles region is problematic because storm water systems are separate from sewage systems. This is to prevent the torrential rains, which typically occur during the winter, from overwhelming sewage treatment systems. In the Los Angeles area, with some 10 million residents living in what amounts to a concrete bowl that slopes toward the ocean, rainfall is directed into paved rivers and creeks that force the water to the ocean. But along with that water comes every piece of garbage and a variety of pollutants left behind on streets. "That, in a nutshell, is the problem," Mr. Beckman said. The pollution problem is most prevalent in the winter when rains are heaviest. That fact is best illustrated by the annual report done by Heal the Bay, a group that for 10 years has issued a review of water quality at the beaches. Of the 263 beaches reviewed this year, 174 or 66 percent received an A, for excellent water quality in dry weather. In wet weather, that figured dropped significantly, with only 25 percent of the beaches receiving an A or a B for excellent to good water quality during weather. Although the problem is worse during the winter months, it still occurs during the summer. Much of Huntington Beach was closed to swimming from July 1 through Labor Day last year because of high bacteria counts. The cause is still unknown, but investigators have zeroed in on runoff. And beaches geared for children, many of which are near storm drains and in calmer waters, tend to be a problem year-round. Mother's Beach in Marina del Rey, for example, is routinely declared unfit for swimming. While strides are being made to divert or treat runoff during the summer, solutions are nonexistent for the winter months.

Go To the Home Page for Nitrate in the News

For information - Email to: ellenr@nitrate.com or Call Toll Free 1-888-NITRATE (1-888-648-7283)