2005_0516_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

t r- lit t rd n Despite decades cifprogress in cleaning up uJater pollution) tHany cif our lakes) rivers) and streams are still not clean enough. Nearly 2) 000 waters do t10t meet water-quality standards designed to protect people) aquatic life) and recreation. veryone knows Minnesota as the "Land of 10,000 Lakes." But the phrase doesn't really do justice. If you count lakes under 10 acres, we actually have more than 14,000 and more than 92,000 miles of .11 streams. Three continental water- AI sheds meet within our borders. We have more water and more shoreline than any other state in the lower 48. \Vhat iVlInnesota really 11as, to use an old term, is an embarrassment of water riches. But there's a big problem looming in this picture. Despite decades of progress in cleaning up water pollution, many of our lakes, rivers, and streams are still not clean enough. Nearly 2,000 waters do not meet water-quality standards designed to protect people, aquatic life, and recreation. These waters contain too much sediment, bacteria, mercury, phosphorus, and other contaminants- even where wastewater treatment plants have installed required controls. And their number is growing. Federa! r19(l]lIlllHwemeIiilEs Section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act requires, states, territories, and authorized tribes to: /iii IdentifY and list surface waters that fail to meet applicable water-quality standards. !II Determine sources of pollutants causing the impairments and the reductions necessary to restore the waters to standards. I!Il Make reasonable progress in cleaning up or restoring impaired waters. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) published MinnesotJ's first impJired WJters list in 199C,. Since then fv1innesotans h,we been surprised By Lisa Thorvig to find how many impaired waters we have-more than 1,900 on the 2004 list. The MPCA has found that about 40 percent of those we've assessed thus far are impaired-a rate comparable with what other states are finding. At that rate, with only 8 percent of Min- nesota's river miles and 14 percent of its lakes assessed so far, we could have 10,000 impairments by the time we've assessed them all. For each impairment on the list, the Clean Water Act requires that a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) be prepared. The term "TMDL" describes both a process and a number. The pro- cess calculates the maximum amount of a pollutant the water body can receive and still meet water quality standards, identifies pollutant loads and sources (point and nonpoint), and allocates needed reductions among all the sources. I t must include a margin of safety for uncertainties in the calculation and account for seasonal variation in water quality, and may leave room for future expansion in discharges (reserve capacity). A completed TMDL is a clean up plan for the impaired water body, and includes implementation strategies and provides reasonable assurances that reductions can be mer. Public participa- tion is important throughout the process. A project typically takes between two to four years to complete and costs around $150,000, although costs can range lower or much higher depending on the project's size and complexity. C(Q)!i1lSftlr<llHli1IftS \lJ)1i1l gW\IJ)lJ'JftIl1l One of the factors driving the urgency of the impaired waters situation is the potential for regulatory restrictions on growth and development. Federal regulations adopted in the late 1980s provide strong incentives for states to complete TMDLs. These regulations apply to new, expanding or existing wastewater discharges. In a nutshell, a wastewater discharge cannot cause or contribute to a water-quality standard violation. And with the major- ity of permitted facilities in Minnesota already discharging to impaired waters, the issue of potential restrictions looms large. Specifically, according to 40 C.F.R. 122.4(i), no permit may be issued to a new source or discharger if the dis- charge could "cause or contribute" to the water impairment until a TMDL is completed. Other regulations [40 C.F.R. 122.44(d)(1)] also restrict expansion of existing discharges, and require permits to have effluent limits that will not cause or contribute to J viobtion. Already the expansion pbns of severJl jurisdictions hJve snagged on these provisions. The intent of the regubtions is to prevent further declines in WJter qual- ity prior to the completion of J TMDL, Jnd to ensure that permits are consistent ,vith it Jnd will not viobte stJ11dards. A TMDL will set goals for pollution reductions to bring an impaired water IVl I ~ !-. " () 1 .--\ \. __ I i-I )- '" l\ I' R 1 L :2 0 0 5