WSP11270

• File Number: 8273.500
• Description: Colorado River Basin Salinity Control - Federal Agencies - EPA
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 1/1/1990
• Title: EPA - Rural Clean Water Program - RCWP
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

......
'-0
o
to

Ideal RCWP PrtJlect
Elements

Ideally, a RCWP project went through
the following steps:

. Coordination between local and State
levels.

. An assessment of the wllter quality
problem, Including inipaired uses and
economic damage. 71Ie relative
contribution of point and nonpoint
sources were determined,
emphasizing the agri4ultural portion of
the nonpoint sources.

. Location of major agrl9ultural
nonpolnt sources In tile project area.
The feasibility of eliml(latllig the water
quality problem by controlling these
sources was estlmate<i.

. Establishment of proj8ct goals and
objectives.

. Development of water quality
monitoring plan.

. Development of a plari to Implement
best management practices (BMPs)
and to monitor their effectiveness.
The plan included delineating the
critical areas most neeiJing pollution
control to eliminate theiwater quality
problem.

. Project application an<f,approval.

. Initial contacts with farmers to explain
the RCWP and seek th~ir voluntary
participation. InformatlO!land
education activities aocompanied this
step.

. Development of conservation plans
for Individual farms.

. Establishment of contrapts (3-10
years) with farmers, incf~ding cost
sharing.

. Farmer Implementation of BMPs.

. Ongoing monitoring of water quality
and BMPs. This included operation
and maintenance of BMPs over the
life of the practices and/Qr the
contracts, and a continuing
Information and educatl~n program.

. Annual project evaluatlo"s and
reporting.

Conclusions

Though the RCWP projects have had varying degrees of success in com-
batting nonpolnt source pollution, overall, the Rural Clean Water Program
should be considered a success. As an experimental program designed to
test methods for preventing and controlling non point source pollution in
rural areas, RCWP has accomplished that charge andrec;orded ~nd pub-
lished its findings.
Annually, each project reports its activities and accomplishments, with
program-wide analyses by various agencies and organizations. Many
RCWP recommendations are now being applied by federal, state,and
local agencies and groups in their nonpolnt source programs and projects.
But the book is far from closed on RCWP; more water quality effects arid
valuable conclusions and recommendations are expected.
Perhaps the most important finding of this program, however, is that
farmers themselves are key to the success of each RCVIIP project. Agen-
cies can evaluate and plan and coordinate forever - but only a high level
of farmer participation will ensure the success of aproject. And while cost-
sharing Is effective, it is not the overriding reason farmers partiCipate In
projects. .
Farmers participate because they see a reason to: it may be to avoid
regulation (or comply with It), or because other farmers are doing so, or for
economic or environmental reasons. But even though that partiCipation
may be tempered with reluctance, a farmer will not partic;ipate blindly,
without knowing why. '
Education, therefore, is the cornerstone of a voluntary program. A
project's initial work plan must include a carefully thought out component
for communicating with the user, the rural community. Opportunities to
publicize such a project are myriad - radio and TV talk shows, local
newspaper articles, printed materials and handouts, appearances before
community groups (including Farm Bureau and 4-H); Cost-Sharing needs
to be explained, as do the types of technical assistance project personnel
will offer. .
Most important, however, is the one-on'one 'contact between project
personnel and farmers, particularly those who operate targeted properties.
On-site discussions between project personnel and operators can do more
to encourage participation than any other tactic. Cost-sharing andtechni-
cal assistance provide incentive, but people make the project work.
The farmer who helps develop the local program and contributes to
plannirig the project will be its most enthusiastic supporter and partiCipant.
Of all the lessons learned by the Rural Clean Water Program, this is the
clearest: the user, guided by technical' expertise from the agencies, must
be the driving force behind a successful project.
As the RCWP completes its mission, states are formulating their own
non point source management programs as mandated by section 319 of
the Clean Water Act. The progression is clear: the guidelines for a planned,
sound approach to non point source management are discernible 'nthe
RCWP, which has encouraged change and new ideas in the nation's ap-
proach to non point source pollution.
Among the technologies emerging from RCWP are innovative designs
for animal waste and conservation tillage systems, vegetative filter strips.
and high intensity water control practices. Many practices have been

12