Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OD1G70 <br /> <br />water legislation in 1972, it was aware that agricultural runoff was a major source of water <br /> <br /> <br />pollution and that the goals of the law would not be met unless. the problem was addressed. <br /> <br /> <br />The form finally given the problem in the statute had the effect of defining the inevitable <br /> <br /> <br />. . tension between the traditional conservationist approach to agricultural runoff and the command <br /> <br /> <br />and control system of eIDuentcontrol advocated by the vigorous environmental movement. <br /> <br /> <br />Since 1972 the history of the "nonpoint source" pollution problem has actually been the slow <br /> <br /> <br />but forceful competition between the conservationist's approach and the environmentalist's <br /> <br /> <br />approach. Shall efforts to get agriculture to reduce its water pollution be voluntary, subsidized, <br /> <br /> <br />and locally controlled? Or shall agriculture be subjected to the same regulatory regime that has . <br /> <br /> <br />been applied to industry, commerce, and our municipalities? In many respects, the policy <br /> <br /> <br />discussion of how irrigation districts will be asked to address water quality problem requires a <br /> <br /> <br />rework of the conservation versus environment debate. <br /> <br />IMPEDIMENTS TO CONTROLLING POLLlITION FROM IRRIGATION <br /> <br />Numerous arguments have been put forth descnbing why it is difficult to hold irrigators <br /> <br />directly liable for water pollution, and these will be catalogued briefly in this section. <br /> <br />1. As mentioned in the previous section, the EP A believes that the number of irrigators <br /> <br />is so large that it is impractical to bring them under a regime of direct regulation, such as the <br /> <br />NPDES permit system. <br /> <br />35 <br />