Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
April 14, 2008
4. Water Quality
SPILL PREVENTION:
Inland spill team not flush with cash; 'We have to triage,' state official says -
AG ISSUES:
Farm water monitoring might go beyond runoff - Chico Enterprise Record
REGULATION:
Editorial: $3 million taint doesn’t reach new gravel pit -
DRINKING WATER ISSUES:
Feds not addressing drugs in water - Associated Press
SPILL PREVENTION:
Inland spill team not flush with cash; 'We have to triage,' state official says
By Michael Gardner, staff writer
But when the state's rivers and streams are in jeopardy from a pipeline rupture, overturned tanker truck or train derailment, the response rarely matches the outpouring of attention given to beaches and seabirds caked in oil.
Every day, they must decide whether there is enough time and money to personally respond to spills that could threaten public health, drinking water and wildlife.
“We have to triage,” said Capt. Paul Hamilton, who oversees the inland program for the state Department of Fish and Game.
That could soon change. Two Democratic lawmakers are pushing legislation before the Assembly Judiciary Committee tomorrow to aid the financially crippled program, including guaranteed revenues to add the program's staff.
“Very minimal – and not sufficient,” Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, D-Davis, said of the state's record of responses to inland threats.
For example, in the first nine months of 2007 the inland program received 1,391 spill reports. State officials physically responded to 160 reports – an 11 percent rate. Many other smaller incidents were turned over to local authorities to contain.
“We hit the biggest ones,”
There were 523 inland incidents unattended by the state due to “lack of resources,” according to Fish and Game's own analysis. In contrast, the offshore oil spill unit responded to all but 30 of its 764 calls. None of the 30 non-responses was attributed by the marine unit to a “lack of resources.”
In determining their strategy, the six inland division field coordinators stationed up and down the state must quickly assess each spill report to determine whether their immediate response is demanded. Once on site, they help coordinate efforts to contain the pollution, maintain public safety, protect wildlife, direct cleanup and investigate for possible civil or criminal charges.
There is one full-time coordinator assigned to inland waterway spills in
“It gets tough,” said Lt. Bryan Gollhofer, the state spill-response investigator in that five-county region.
Gollhofer, who works for Fish and Game, said the program is fairly anonymous, despite its mission.
“I don't think the public knows a lot about us. There's not a lot of us, in the first place,” he said.
Wolk and Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara, say their legislation will help change that.
The bill would take an undetermined share of the 25-cent-per-barrel fee on imported oil now dedicated to marine response programs and shift it to inland efforts. The offshore program has financial reserves, taking in more than it spends. Inland division spending has outstripped revenues for much of this decade.
Wolk and Nava say statistics back up their campaign. Sixty-five percent of all spills were inland– 1,391, compared with 764 offshore, according to Fish and Game figures from the first nine months of 2007.
The lawmakers also are exploring whether to try to extend the per-barrel fee to domestic oil and pipeline owners. That money then would be delivered to the inland division.
Wolk conceded that it will be a challenge to fashion a fair fee because oil companies are not the only culprits in spills.
“The oil industry is very concerned that the fee goes to the need – that there is a direct connection. I agree with that,” she said.
Hamilton, who has not endorsed the measure, said he supports a comprehensive approach.
“No way is it only an oil problem,” he said, noting that the oil industry can be blamed for only about half of the spills.
Construction sediment, wineries, dairies, sewer and power plants, vehicle rollovers and railroads also are sources of spills,
Oil industry representatives have been negotiating with state Fish and Game officials for several months, but no agreement has been reached.
“Those discussions are still ongoing. . . . They're not anxious to pay,” said Bud Leland, deputy administrator of the state's Office of Spill Prevention and Response.
Tupper Hull, a spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association, said the industry is concerned that the measure could take away from the offshore program.
“There are major differences between marine spill prevention programs and effective prevention at inland operations,”
Lawmakers also propose a sharp escalation of fines and penalties to be levied against polluters that could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars per day. It also would make it easier to file criminal charges. Most spills are now classified as misdemeanors, punishable by fines of up to $2,000. The department can file civil complaints seeking far greater penalties, including court orders to recover the costs of responding and cleanup.
“Some of these are horrendous environmental crimes,”
Environmentalists say the inland program has been shorted for too long, exposing drinking water, fish and wildlife to harmful toxins.
“The state simply isn't responding to spills in any meaningful way,” said Linda Sheehan, executive director of California Coastkeeper Alliance. “They don't have clear authority, they don't have enough staff and they don't have funding. That's three strikes against them.”
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill. Schwarzenegger resists general tax increases, but has endorsed higher fees on polluters and the public to address shortfalls in selected environmental protection programs.
If Assembly Bill 2912 is signed into law, the fee would represent the first ongoing revenue source for the inland program after years of relying solely on polluter fines to replenish its budget.
Seed money for an independent inland response unit came from a major 1998 court settlement involving Unocal Corp.'s leaky pipes in
Since then, the startup fund has been slowly disappearing. The inland program's annual budget has fallen from $3.7 million in 2000-01 to $2.6 million this fiscal year – the lowest amount this decade. Significantly, spending has outpaced income over the past five fiscal years by a combined $6 million.
In contrast, the marine program's operating budget climbed from $15.5 million in 2000-01 to $25 million this fiscal year. In the last decade, the offshore program annually took in from $5 million to $11 million more than it spent.
“This is our drinking water,” he said. And, for fish and wildlife, “some of these waterways are the only thin bands of life left.” #
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080414/news_1n14oilspill.html
AG ISSUES:
Farm water monitoring might go beyond runoff
By Heather Hacking, staff writer
DURHAM -- In addition to monitoring water that leaves farmland and goes into surface waterways such as rivers and lakes, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Agency is considering whether farming's impact on groundwater should be monitored.
Another issue being considered is whether non-irrigated pastures should be regulated.
For several years, most growers have been required to join a coalition of landowners and pay for water monitoring. The program is set up so that if farm water affects wildlife and habitat, farming practices will be improved.
If water testing shows harm to the environment more than once in three years, a water management plan is required by the state.
The program was always meant to be a short-term solution to water quality concerns, explained Joe Karkoski, chief of the irrigated lands regulatory program for the State Water Resources Control Board, during a meeting at the Durham Memorial Hall last week.
Karkoski and others from the state board met with about 35 people to ask for input on ways to put the permanent rules in place.
Monitoring groundwater can get complicated because something such as nitrates could have originated 50 years ago, Karkoski said. Also, there might be some places where groundwater is good and increased regulation isn't necessary.
Tina Lunt, with the Northern California Water Association, told the water board speakers that every time the program changes, it costs more to growers and that "adding groundwater (monitoring) could cause growers to balk."
"It needs to be justified," Lunt said. "Over-regulation can cause farmers to stop farming."
Pia Sevelius, manager of the Butte County Resource Conservation District, said there should be an "offramp" for growers who have good management practices, rather than paying money but having little incentive to make improvements.
"It would seem like incentives would be more effective than penalizing people" for trying to earn their living, she said.
What do growers think?
A questionnaire is being circulated asking growers to give input about what direction a long-term water monitoring plan should take, such as:
- Should managed wetlands and nurseries be exempt from the program?
- What issues would come up if the monitoring was expanded to include groundwater?
- How can a long-term regulatory program be cost-effective for the state and for growers?
- What should be done to make sure the program is fair and effective?
For information, go to: www.waterboards. ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/irrigatedlands.
Comments are due by May 30 and can be sent to awlaputz@waterboards.ca.gov; or Adam Laputz, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, 11020 Sun Center Drive, No. 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114; 1-916-464-4848. #
http://www.chicoer.com/advertise/ci_8907180?IADID=Search-www.chicoer.com-www.chicoer.com
REGULATION:
Editorial: $3 million taint doesn’t reach new gravel pit
Redding Record Searchlight – 4/10/08
Our view: It’s past time for the owners of toxic sludge ponds to clean up the mess they knowingly bought.
So is the former Simpson Paper Co. property near
Or is it a fine site for digging up riverbank sand and gravel, with no industrial taint remaining from the decades of paper-making?
Actually, it's both, according to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, but it depends on which piece of land we're talking about.The mill owned and used both properties, but Jim Pedri of the water board stressed that the land targeted for cleanup is separate from the Shasta Ranch, possible future home of a controversial gravel pit off Balls Ferry Road.
The $3 million fine applies to old settling ponds still filled with sludge seven years after the mill filed for bankruptcy and four years after the current owners bought the land.
Neighbors who oppose the gravel pit fear contamination from the ponds and have sued to stop the project, but Pedri said the Shasta Ranch doesn't have water-quality problems. While treated wastewater from the mill ponds irrigated the Shasta Ranch, the water wasn't used on the land that spans the first two phases of the gravel operation. The third phase, 10 to 20 years down the road, will be subject to special monitoring, Pedri added.
If the Shasta Ranch appears basically free of dioxin and other contaminants, the mill ponds are another story, and it's time to clean that muck up.
The environmental problems were no secret when the property was sold. For that reason, an initial 2004 bankruptcy auction, with a minimum price of $1.5 million, drew no bids. It was later sold for $500,001 -- one buck over the minimum -- in an auction with a single bidder, a company known as Winnemucca Trading Co.
Those speculators knew about the sludge they were buying and knew they'd have to clean it up. Four years later, nothing's happened.
The $3 million might be a local record-breaker, but in the circumstances it sounds about right. #
http://www.redding.com/news/2008/apr/10/3-million-taint/
DRINKING WATER ISSUES:
Feds not addressing drugs in water
Associated Press – 4/13/08
By Martha Mendoza, staff writer
WASHINGTON—A White House task force that was supposed to devise a federal plan to research the issue of pharmaceuticals in drinking water has missed its deadline and failed to produce mandated reports and recommendations for coordination among numerous federal agencies, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
More than 70 pages of the task force's documents, including e-mails and weekly reports, were released under the Freedom of Information Act as a Senate subcommittee prepares to convene a hearing Tuesday prompted by an AP investigation about trace concentrations of drugs in America's drinking water.
The working group on pharmaceuticals in the environment was formed two years ago through the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The panel has met several times for briefings and is aware of public concern about pharmaceuticals in water supplies, according to the documents.
In a weekly report dated March 24, 2006, then-task force coordinator Kevin Geiss, wrote: "There has been considerable congressional interest in this topic."
But it is impossible to track any possible progress by the group because the White House has classified task force agendas and minutes as internal documents, and therefore cannot be released, said spokeswoman Kristin Scuderi. The group's annual report is in draft form and therefore also cannot be released at this time, she added.
While providing some documents to the AP, Rachael Leonard, a White House deputy general counsel, said "10 inches worth of documents" were not being released.
The group's deadline to produce a national research strategy came and went in December. Scuderi said the task force needs extra time to "serve as an internal federal vehicle to further enhance interagency collaboration."
The group includes representatives from nine federal agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture Department and the Food and Drug Administration.
The lack of public disclosure and failure of federal agencies to act on the pharmaceutical issue is expected to be a focus at Tuesday's hearing before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Among others, officials from the EPA and U.S. Geological Survey are scheduled to testify.
The hearing could produce a showdown between committee members and EPA officials.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who heads the committee, and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., chairman of the Transportation, Safety, Infrastructure Security and Water Quality Subcommittee, wrote to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson on March 18 asking what the agency plans to do to address concerns about pharmaceuticals in water. The EPA had not responded, a Senate staff member said Friday.
The hearing was prompted by a five-month-long inquiry by the AP National Investigative Team that disclosed the presence of trace concentrations of pharmaceuticals in the drinking water of at least 41 million Americans.
The AP found that while water is screened for drugs by some suppliers, they usually don't tell their customers of results showing the presence of medications including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones.
The series revealed how drugs—mostly the residue of medications taken by people, excreted and flushed down the toilet—have gotten into the water supplies of at least 24 major metropolitan areas, from Southern California to Northern New Jersey. The stories also detail the growing concerns among scientists that this pollution has adversely affected wildlife, and may be threatening human health.
EPA officials responded with concern, pledging to organize additional research and by saying people should be informed if drugs are detected in their water supplies.
But Kyla Bennett, a lawyer and former EPA biologist, said the EPA "is moving with all deliberate delay."
Bennett, who directs the
"When it should be pressing forward, EPA is spinning in place, as if it has overdosed on pharmaceuticals," she said.
Others say funding has been pulled and priorities shifted.
"The EPA has missed the boat in really addressing the serious consequences of pharmaceutical disposal," said Anna Gilmore-Hall, executive director of Healthcare Without Harm.
Hall's nonprofit now runs what was the EPA's Hospitals for a Healthy Environment stewardship program, designed to reduce mercury use and improve the environmental footprint of the health care industry.
The EPA cut the $200,000-per-year program in 2003 after five years, despite widespread interest and involvement from hospitals, declining to even sit on the nonprofit's board.
Clean Water Action's New Jersey campaign Director David Pringle, slated to testify at the hearing, said he plans to tell the senators that "while it's not time to panic, it's a time of concern and we need to take action."
Pringle said existing regulations are not being used and that federal officials have known for years there are problems. "They've clearly been dragging their feet," he said.
Local hearings and public meetings have already been held in various cities including
####
No comments:
Post a Comment