 The Columbus Dispatch
Michael Hawthorne Ohio's rivers and streams are getting cleaner, but a new report suggests more dramatic improvements might require tougher rules for farmers and developers. The state's latest Water Resource Inventory, issued yesterday by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, shows 54.6 percent of the rivers and streams monitored meet goals established by the federal Clean Water Act, up from 53.3 percent two years ago. However, the rate of improvement is slowing as the state cracks down on flagrant polluters and completes work on more-effective sewage treatment plants. State officials and environmentalists are shifting their focus to controlling runoff and stream-bank destruction from farms and housing developments -- sources of pollution that are more difficult to track than discharges from sewers and factory drainpipes. "We're moving into a more complicated system intended to protect entire watersheds," said Trinka Mount, supervisor of the EPA's water quality modeling section. "It's a more holistic approach." States generally have been reluctant to delve into comprehensive stream- protection policies because they raise politically sensitive questions about land use. Environmentalists nudged state regulators into becoming more aggressive about controlling runoff with successful lawsuits in other states. The latest reports highlight the problem. Alteration of stream channels and runoff from farm fields are the top sources of pollution impairing stream quality, according to the EPA report. By contrast, discharges of ammonia, a toxic component of wastewater, now are the 10th leading cause of stream impairment, down from second in 1988. Regulators clamped down on discharges of ammonia and other "point sources" of pollution by withholding permits until improvements were made. Runoff and other "non-point" sources historically have been controlled through voluntary programs, though state officials are trying to broker a deal intended to encourage more sweeping changes in farming and development practices. "This is a problem that has been ignored for far too long," said Jeff Skelding, water-policy coordinator for the Ohio Environmental Council. "They can't get the job done with the system they're using now." Forging a consensus won't be easy. The debate includes longtime combatants in the Ohio General Assembly, including environmental activists, home builders, farm lobbyists and industrial engineers. Their sometimes-bitter differences were on display last month when the Ohio Senate approved legislation shifting regulation of the state's growing factory-farm industry to the Department of Agriculture from the EPA. Environmental groups contend the EPA is best-suited to control waste from large chicken and hog farms, which some officials have blamed for high nitrate levels in municipal drinking water supplies. The Ohio Farm Bureau Federation argues that the Agriculture Department would be a better watchdog. Farm Bureau leaders know they're under a microscope, though. Last year the organization hired Larry Antosch, a former surface-water specialist at the EPA, to work on water-quality issues. "Everybody who lives in a watershed impairs the quality of the water," said Deering Dyer, the Farm Bureau's director of local affairs. "We all need to take responsibility to meet those water-quality standards." Like the Farm Bureau, developers want any additional pollution controls to remain voluntary, in the form of tax credits, loans and incentives to keep land in conservation tillage. Vince Squillace, a lobbyist for the Ohio Association of Home Builders, said current laws work well enough. "The EPA's report shows our environment is getting cleaner,'" he said. "It shouldn't be used as an excuse to impose more regulations." Ten years ago, only a third of Ohio's rivers met federal standards intended to ensure fishable and swimmable waters. Former Gov. George V. Voinovich vowed in the early 1990s that at least 75 percent of the state's rivers and streams would qualify by this year. EPA officials quietly amended that goal to 80 percent by 2010 after it became clear they wouldn't meet the goal Voinovich set. Money to embark on a more-aggressive stream-protection program could come from the $ 400 million bond issue state lawmakers placed on the November ballot. "We've got a real opportunity here to make a difference," said Sam Speck, director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. "It doesn't have to be controversial if we all focus on the shared goal of ensuring our water is clean." Back to Ohio state page
|
|