Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Controlling nonpoint <br />source pollution is a <br />complex, costly and <br />politically difficult task, <br />because it involves changing <br />land use patterns. <br /> <br />The federal government is <br />the most appropriate <br />vehicle to undertake basic <br />water research and to set <br />minimum national water <br />quality standards to ensure <br />consistency across states. <br /> <br />Some examples are: <br />· Pennsylvania: $300 million special loan fund for public water supply; <br />· Texas: $600 million revolving loan fund for water supply and wastewater <br />treatment; <br />. Massachusetts: $60 million GO bond for water supply leak detection and <br />rehabilitation-$260 million GO bond for wate~-related construction; <br />· California: $1.75 billion in GO bonds for water activities (total to date); <br />· New Jersey: $1 billion in GO bonds since 1969 for water-related activities; <br />· Florida: $75 + million annually from ad valorem taxes levied by water <br />management districts. <br /> <br />State Regulatory Programs <br /> <br />In terms of water quality, US. Geological Survey data have shown little change <br />over the past few years. Major degradation of the nation's water bodies has been <br />halted, in spite of increasing population and industrial activity, Both surface and <br />groundwater quality continues, however, to be affected by pollutants from <br />nonpoint sources, runoff from forest, agricultural and urban lands, <br /> <br />Controlling nonpoint source pollution is a complex, costly and politically <br />difficult task, because it involves changing land use patterns. The controls or <br />best management practices (BMPs) must be site-specific, and the results are very <br />difficult to measure, The program costs are potentially very large and, in many <br />cases, must be borne by those who do not perceive the benefits. It would be <br />virtually impossible to design a federal regulatory program for controlling <br />non point sources, <br /> <br />Many states have established their own control programs, with varying degrees <br />of success. Such programs include education and training in addition to financial <br />incentives, such as low-interest loans, tax incentives and cost-hiring. One ofthe <br />best examples may be Wisconsin's program, which provides cost-sharing and <br />local assistance funds for priority watershed projects selected by state and local <br />representatives. The funds cover 50 to 70 percent of the costs for each BMP. There <br />are 19 projects now under way, typically taking eight to nine years to complete. <br />A preliminary evaluation of the results of two priority watershed projects has <br />been completed five years after the projects were begun in 1979. <br /> <br />Groundwater: Effective Non-Federal Approaches <br /> <br />Finally, another issue that demonstrates the changes in water management <br />responsibilities is that of groundwater protection and depletion. Notwithstanding <br />recent federal court decisions that have found groundwater to be an article of <br />interstate commerce, management of groundwater logically lends itself to <br />regional, state and local approaches, The varying hydrological conditions, <br />geological nature of the aquifers, and the historical and legal traditions argue <br />against a federal system of controls. <br /> <br />In 1973 the National Water Commission report recommended "greater utilization <br />of the compact approach for dealing with regional water problems other than <br />through federally directed and dominated programs," The Delaware River Basin <br />and Susquehanna River Basin Compacts already provide for broad planning, <br />licensing, regulatory and project construction powers at an interstate level. The <br />Western states are currently examining the use of interstate compacts in managing <br />groundwater depletion, <br /> <br />Perhaps the best known example of state groundwater management is the <br />Arizona program, It calls for an inventory of groundwater, establishment of active <br />management areas, conservation plans for all water users, and eventual purchase <br />and retirement of farmlands, The cost will be recovered, in part, from <br />groundwater withdrawal fees. <br /> <br />New Jersey and Florida have adopted state groundwater quality standards. Some <br />states are considering classifying their groundwater aquifers to provide guidance <br />on the allowable uses of lands above the aquifers, <br /> <br />33 <br />