Pennsylvania has released its DRAFT 2018 PENNSYLVANIA INTEGRATED WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT REPORT. This might seem esoteric and of interest to just a few, but it’s worthwhile to think about what U.S. water quality regulations are supposed to accomplish and how much they are actually accomplishing.

• The authority to regulate the water quality of “navigable waters” rests with Congress, under the concept that water quality is important to interstate waters. In practice, most rivers, streams, and lakes that do not dry up at any point during a typical year are covered. There is an enormous, long-running legal fight over water bodies at the margins of this definition, such as wetlands that are connected to larger bodies of water sometimes but not all the time.
• Congress makes the law, the EPA is required to implement them, and the EPA in most cases delegates this to state-level agencies, although it can supervise them and, in theory at least, take over at any time. This very occasionally happens.
• State level agencies are required to map all the water bodies in the state that come under these regulations, break them up into segements, and specify the “uses”, such as type of aquatic ecosystem and type of recreation, to be protected for each and every one.
• Then they are supposed to collect data and determine whether each and every segment is “attaining” each and every use.
• If any segment is not attaining its use, the state is supposed to determine an exact cause.
• If the cause is a specific pollutant, it is supposed to identify all the sources of that pollutant, how much it needs to be reduced for the use to attain, and how much each source of the pollutant is required to reduce their discharges.
• The results of this process, called “total maximum daily load”, are not immediately enforceable. Now the numbers have to flow down into enforceable permits and other programs.

It’s all very logical and straightforward. Now here are some of the problems.

• The federal and state agencies don’t have the funding, personnel, and expertise to do the data collection right. This means that the determinations are often done on very little data, by people of questionable expertise, and the conclusions are easy to challenge by permitted polluters with some means. “Polluters” as I use the term here are not necessarily bad actors – they are cities, towns, businesses and farmers. In short, civilization causes pollution and the idea is to control the amount and type to what the environment can assimilate.
• When a reasonable amount of data is collected, it is usually paid for by the polluters themselves. Again, they are not necessarily bad actors. They may be perfectly ethical people who want to be regulated based on accurate information. But sometimes not, and either way there is a conflict of interest involved. Data collection is also an effective delay tactic – when data is inadequate, the problems are not well understood and the most appropriate solutions are not easy to identify, a data collection effort can be a good compromise among all parties involved and an alternative to endless legal action.
• Even when there is a lot of data, the science is complicated, there is a lot of uncertainty, and this makes any required reductions fairly easy to challenge by those with financial means.
• Cities and towns are required to limit stormwater pollution, but in practice stormwater pollution is generated by thousands or millions or individual property owners. Fixing this would require changing the way we build and use land. Technological solutions exist, and are not even necessarily high-tech or expensive, but there is enormous uncertainty built into current political and institutional arrangements.
• Agriculture is almost entirely unregulated, and is an enormous source of pollution. It is controlled only through a patchwork of voluntary and incentive programs funded mostly at the state level. Some states do this better than others, but it is never adequate.
• The concept of chemical “water quality” as we tend to think of it does not really guarantee the restoration of functioning ecosystems. The legal framework probably could be implemented in a way that would do this, but there is a critical lack of system understanding even among educated professionals, and even if a critical mass of people had that understanding, there is enormous resistance to change built into our institutions.
• The regulatory agencies tend to go after a few big polluters, because that is how they get the most bang for their buck. Numerous small polluters, who collectively add up to most of the pollution, don’t get addressed. The big polluters are able to delay enforcement, sometimes indefinitely, through a variety of legal tactics. Third party advocacy groups get involved in lawsuits and add to the fray.