A regulatory alphabet soup involving the EPA, the state CDPHE and what are called TMDLs has some local government and elected officials and business-community representatives signaling SOS.
They’re worried that proposed limits on surface water pollution for much of the Grand Valley may result in costly measures in pursuit of goals that are impossible to meet.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s Water Quality Control Division is proposing the limits for 11 Colorado River tributaries in the valley with impaired water quality because of high levels of dissolved selenium and total recoverable iron, and in the case of two of the tributaries, E. coli.
The river itself along that stretch, which meets water quality standards for selenium and E. coli, but not iron, is not itself targeted by the proposal, although it would benefit from it.
As required by the federal Clean Water Act and by Environmental Protection Agency regulations, the state is developing what it calls total maximum daily loads (TMDL) that would establish how much of those pollutants can enter each of the tributaries each day while maintaining water quality standards.
The area being targeted by regulators altogether encompasses about 138 square miles, stretching from Lewis Wash in the Clifton area to Salt Creek in western Mesa County. The area is all north of the Colorado River and is bounded on the northern end by the Government Highline Canal.
That location beneath the canal is noteworthy because selenium is naturally occurring in the Mancos shale geological formation in the area, but at high levels in water can be harmful to fish and aquatic birds. The Water Quality Control Division, in its draft Grand Valley TMDL public notice, says that “the predominant source of selenium in all of the watersheds is likely groundwater inflow from canal seepage and deep percolation from irrigated lands.”
Put another way, the valley’s irrigated agriculture, lying downgrade of the Government Highline Canal, is mostly driving the selenium problems in the drainages.
But as it happens, state water-quality regulators have little say over that agricultural activity. The Water Quality Control Division holds permitting authority over point sources of surface water discharges. Agricultural stormwater discharges, and return flows from irrigated agriculture, aren’t considered point sources under the Clean Water Act.
The state relies on incentive-based approaches to encourage partners to work on voluntary measures to address contaminants, something that grant funding is available to support. This can include measures such as lining or piping canals and changing irrigation methods and schedules to reduce the leaching of selenium.
The Water Quality Control Division says its “Nonpoint Source Program has a long-standing history of working with local partners in the Grand Valley area to reduce nonpoint source pollution and will continue to do so to support the implementation of this TMDL through technical assistance and funding assistance (contingent on funding availability).”
URBAN IMPLICATIONS
Still, a concern for some people, including Trent Prall, public works director for the city of Grand Junction, is that because of the state’s lack of authority over the agricultural side of things, it will lean on permitted sources of surface water discharges to fix a problem that is largely agriculture-driven.
Both Prall and Carrie Gudorf, regulatory programs manager for Mesa County, in a joint interview voiced concern about whether the state is accurately allocating pollution loads between point sources and nonpoint sources in the 11 tributaries.
A total maximum daily load established by the state for a pollutant in a waterway is the sum of loads from permitted point source discharges, that’s attributable to natural or nonpoint sources, a margin of safety, and in some cases a reserve capacity for future growth.
The concern is what measures point source permittees might be required by the state to implement, based on the total load allocation allowed for point sources.
Among some point source permit holders in the county that directly discharge to impaired tributaries are Mesa County School District 51 and some private businesses. A key permit is held by Mesa County. It’s called an MS4, or municipal separate storm sewer system, permit.
“Mesa County has intergovernmental agreements with the City of Grand Junction, City of Fruita, and Town of Palisade to implement, administrate, and enforce all aspects of the MS4 Stormwater Program,” the state TMDL document says.
Erin Garcia, a health and environment spokesperson, said in an email that while pollution covered by local MS4 permits isn’t a significant pollution source for the Colorado River, it is a significant source in some tributaries and the primary source in the urban watersheds of Lewis and Indian washes.
“There is no way to attain standards in these tributaries without some reductions in pollutant contributions from MS4s,” she said.
Said Gudorf, “There’s going to be additional requirements to our permit. We don’t know what those implications are going to be yet.”
She said additional work most likely will be required when the permit is renewed. That renewal is to occur over the coming year or so.
Gudorf said Colorado Springs just went through an MS4 permit renewal process, and the new permit is requiring a lot more water sampling, and also best management practices to try to reduce contaminants, which could include from nonpoint sources.
Garcia said that typically in the case of MS4 permits and general industrial stormwater permits, “initial TMDL requirements are focused on monitoring and identifying pollutant sources within the permitted area.”
MORE COSTLY DEVELOPMENT?
One question looming large is how developers of housing and commercial projects could be affected by potentially stricter stormwater permits. Gudorf said that within the urbanized boundary of Mesa County, projects disturbing more than an acre require both a state and an MS4 municipality permit.
“I don’t know entirely how (TMDLs) will affect the homebuilders and what exactly that piece will look like,” he said.
Diane Schwenke, president and CEO of the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce, worries that the pollution limits will result in an undue burden on urban areas, driving up the costs of housing and commercial development to fund measures to address contaminants in waterways.
She added, “My simplistic view of it is they’re setting us up for failure. … Everything we’re hearing from all the experts on this is the (TMDL) level they’re setting is not attainable. With current technology, we can’t even get there.”
Garcia described the TMDL undertaking as “the first step in determining if a standard is not feasible.”
“MS4 permittees need to do additional monitoring and implement measures for the Water Quality Control Commission to evaluate whether standards are or aren’t feasible,” she said.
Nonpoint sources of pollution from agricultural activities “also need to be voluntarily addressed as part of evaluating the water quality standard,” and implementing the TMDL will facilitate “data collection and evaluation of feasible water quality improvements,” she said.
Shawna Grieger, executive director of the Western Colorado Contractors Association, expects to see municipalities implementing permit fees to pay for projects related to reduction of contaminants, and developers of commercial properties having to pass on additional costs to business owners buying properties.
“Ag is exempt so it does fully fall on those business owners and developers,” she said.
GUNNISON LESSONS
Concerns about selenium go beyond the Grand Valley. High dissolved selenium levels led to the Lower Gunnison River being added by the state to its impaired waters list in 1988. Canal lining and pipeline projects and irrigation efficiency measures involving partners from federal agencies to local ditch companies and conservancy districts contributed to the Lower Gunnison being removed from that list last year.
The Colorado River District was a leader in that effort and is supporting a local stakeholder group that already has been working on the Grand Valley issue.
“Because there are similarities, those similarities, we can certainly take the lessons learned to good benefit,” said Dave Kanzer, a river district official long involved in the Lower Gunnison work.
But there are differences as well. Kanzer said he thinks the sand and gravel industry was the main one affected by the lower Gunnison River’s listing as impaired. The more urbanized Grand Valley looks like it could be a different story, and Kanzer noted that the situation is more complicated because it involves not just selenium but high iron and E. coli levels.
Like selenium, iron is naturally occurring in Mancos shale, and is considered a threat to aquatic life.
The high E. coli levels are found in Adobe and Leach creeks. People recreating in contaminated water can become sick from E. coli. The bacteria typically is introduced into waterways via animal or human waste, and among the possible local sources of the contaminant in the two creeks are faulty septic systems and small farms bordering the creeks, according to the state.
MORE TIME, PLEASE
Last April, representatives for Grand Junction, Mesa County, Fruita and the Grand Valley Water Users Association wrote to the state to raise concerns about the TMDL process and ask for a three-year delay in its implementation.
“Our concern is that it’s based on inadequate data,” Prall, one of those who signed the letter.
The letter noted that Grand Valley stakeholders are updating a 2012 watershed plan for the Lower Gunnison River Basin and Grand Valley, and pointed to water quality monitoring the U.S. Geological Survey is doing and research on the E. coli issue that Colorado Mesa University is conducting.
“The Updated Watershed Plan will enhance the Grand Valley area with information and develop a water quality monitoring strategy to understand the data gaps and pollutant loadings causing stream impairments,” the letter said.
Schwenke likewise would like to see the process by the state delayed.
“We have concerns about the data that they have been using and their methodology,” she said.
The state says in its current TMDL draft document that a delay isn’t warranted because “sufficient data are available to fulfill the scope of a TMDL analysis.”
It said the Water Quality Control Division “acknowledges the unique nature of the Grand Valley watershed and encourages monitoring efforts by local stakeholders to continue to help facilitate effective implementation,” but added that the division lacks resources to do a more in-depth analysis for the region due to obligations to do TMDL analyses elsewhere.
Garcia said the division already delayed the TMDL once, three years ago, at the request of stakeholders so more data could be gathered.
She said that selenium levels are 20 times higher than the nonimpairment standard in some tributaries.
Said Garcia, “Collecting more data will only continue to confirm existing impairments and not change the conclusions of the TMDL.”
The document says that in response to concerns raised by stakeholders, the division updated its methodology for quantifying current selenium loading conditions “by specifically including the unlined ditches as a source of selenium. While this is a unique approach compared with other TMDLs in Colorado, the division determined that these revisions were warranted for the Grand Valley, because the urban and agriculture lands are significantly interspersed.”
Many unlined ditches go through urban areas in the valley, the document noted.
Barbara Bennett, work group lead for the division’s TMDL group, said in a recent online meeting on the proposal that additional analysis of selenium contributions from unlined ditches as a nonpoint source resulted in a reduction of contributions attributed to permitted urban stormwater sources.
IMPLEMENTATION PHASE
Peter Brumm, regional TMDL coordinator for the EPA, said in that meeting that TMDLs are plans to restore waters not meeting standards, and aren’t self-implementing.
Rather, they are implemented through regulatory means via permits and through voluntary programs.
Mary Welch, who works in stormwater permitting for the state, said permits can be modified to incorporate TMDL requirements, or that can happen at the time of renewal. She said a stakeholder process occurs during permitting that involves getting feedback, and permittees also have the opportunity to comment on a draft permit once it is issued.
She said that in the case of MS4 permits, the state tends to implement a practice-based approach to target the pollutants a TMDL focuses on, rather than assigning fixed numbers when it comes to the allowable amount of pollution. Garcia said required actions might involve things such as street sweeping and pipe inspection and lining.
Welch said the state likes to work with permittees regarding which practices make the most sense.
Also, she said, when developing a permit, the state can consider what practices permittees already have implemented.
Garcia said that for industrial stormwater permits, “if the industrial activity is a likely source for pollutants, the permit may include a numeric effluent limit, and the source will then need to determine the strategy for meeting that limit.”
The state also usually sets out a compliance schedule in the case of new requirements, providing an extended timeframe for meeting them.
“It’s an understanding that there needs to be time to accomplish those things,” said Randi Johnson-Hufford, stormwater permitting work group lead for the state.
Some local officials and other community leaders, however, continue to hope that instead more time is provided to allow for more data collection and analysis before the TMDL is finalized.
Said Prall, “At the end of the day we all want good water. We’re just asking the CDPHE to move forward with good science.”
[ad_2]
Originally Appeared Here