TMDL what? : Finding out how much pollutant a body of water can handle is central to bay recovery
By E.B. FURGURSON III Staff Writer; The Capital October 14, 2006
Thank you to The Capital for permission to post this article!
Government officials around the Chesapeake Bay are scrambling for ways to repair the damage we have done to the nation's largest estuary. But it is not just because it is the right thing to do.
State and local jurisdictions are being pushed by the federal Clean Water Act to, well, clean up their act - and pay for it too.
That hallmark legislation limited and regulated pollutants discharged into the nation's waterways with some success. But in the 30 years since it was enacted, the bay has continued to deteriorate.
And one of the most frustrating elements in the process is the slow process of identifying pollutants and determining how to control them.
Welcome to the world of TMDLs.
It's a clunky acronym for the clunky process required to set Total Daily Maximum Load allowed for specific pollutants in individual waterways. A TMDL is the maximum amount of a specific pollutant that a water body can absorb and still meet water-quality standards.
The Environmental Protection Agency is charged with enforcing the Clean Water Act nationwide. But the 50 states must research and establish the pollutant TMDLs, which the EPA must approve.
In 1992, the Sierra Club sued the agency to take over Maryland's water-pollution program. A compromise was forged in 1997 based upon the state's demonstrated progress, slow as it has been.
It is a tedious process that starts with setting water-quality standards. Then each watershed is studied to see if those standards are being met. If not, it is identified as impaired and further distinguished by what type of pollutant sullies that river or watershed.
Spoiled waters
Anne Arundel County, for instance, is batting a thousand.
All of its rivers are impaired. Each of its 12 watersheds is crippled by at least four pollutants, six watersheds have five impairments and one, the Patapsco, has six.
The numbers are staggering.
In Maryland, 135 watersheds are impaired. A TMDL is forthcoming for each polluting agent in those watersheds.
"We average about 20 to 30 TMDLs a year, and have about 700 to do," Jim George, TMDL program manager in the Maryland Department of the Environment, told a recent forum on the issue held at Anne Arundel Community College. "We are making progress."
But it seems to be happening at a glacial pace.
"We have a target date to complete the TMDLs identified in 1998 by 2013," Mr. George said. And more have been added since then in a biennial review.
Only four TMDLs of the 54 required in Anne Arundel County have won final approval. All four are for bacteria, mostly from failed septic systems, human and animal waste in the Magothy, South and West rivers and the area known as West Chesapeake, bordering Herring Bay.
One other TMDL, for nutrient pollution in the Baltimore Harbor/Patuxent watershed has been completed and is awaiting final approval by the EPA.
Then comes the hard part, repairing the damage and making sure the water quality standards are met in perpetuity.
"Implementation will be very challenging," said Ginger Ellis, county environmental planning administrator.
Her office runs the county watershed management program and is charged with organizing response to the Clean Water Act and other requirements.
"It is a big nut to crack."
While individual impairments are listed per watershed, the solution can cast a wider net.
The TMDL implementation plan is a road map outlining the path to water quality restoration. It describes the group of corrective actions to be taken in a watershed along with a timetable and the resources needed to make it happen.
"There is some flexibility ... and we are learning as we go," Ms. Ellis said. "The state has issued general guidance ... for implementation. But how to get there it is up to (us)."
The program to address pollutants comes in two parts, restoring impaired waters then maintaining them.
The county has been busy setting up programs to restore watersheds, some through cooperative projects to fix sub-watersheds ruined by storm water runoff.
One way it plans to maintain water health is to fold the mind set developed while working to meet environmental requirements into land-use planning for the future. The county has developed a watershed management tool, one of the first of its kind in the country, to help identify how to plan with the environment in mind.
"It will help us determine where we will get the most bang for our buck, and what resources we can bring to bear," Ms. Ellis said.
Responsibility
Paying to fix problems associated with the pollutants largely comes down to counties and municipalities. That is because the land-use and permitting responsibilities resides with the local jurisdiction.
"Local governments have land-use authority we are really ultimately responsible. We are the level where TMDLs can be implemented," Ms. Ellis said.
"It falls on the shoulders of the counties," county Public Works Director Ron Bowen said at a forum on Clean Water Act implementation last week. "But it is really an obligation to the citizens, the people we serve."
Mr. Bowen illustrated the breadth of the problem, and its potential cost, by outlining just one plan to fix sediment and nutrient pollution in the North Branch near the Ritchie Highway commercial corridor in Severna Park.
That project to restore 2,200 feet of the creek bed, creating a 1-acre wetland, restoring 3 more acres of wetlands along the stream and 2 acres of forest will cost some $2.5 million.
It addresses the problems arising from stormwater damage from development built before storm water management regulations adopted in 1984, like the majority of the restoration work facing the county.
But it only takes care of one sub-watershed out of 364 in the county. Mr. Bowen projected that restoring watersheds in the county will cost in the neighborhood of $500 million.
At that same forum, sponsored by the county's riverkeeper organizations, Dan Nees from the Environmental Finance Center at the University of Maryland explained how jurisdictions have been organizing to meet the cost of Clean Water Act compliance.
"In order to succeed ... funding must be dedicated, sustainable and sufficient," he said. "We are the ones who are going to pay. The government is not responsible to pay, they will finance it, but not pay for it. Here the people who will pay are the citizens of Anne Arundel County."
He said the project outlined by Mr. Bowen underscored one underlying rule.
"It is cheaper to protect waterways than it is restore (them)."
And the toughest task facing communities who must pay for past sins is urban retrofitting, restoring watersheds that have been spoiled by stormwater rushing off paved surfaces where woods used to stand.
Mr. Nees, whose organization is one of six environmental finance centers set up nationwide by EPA, pointed out the proposal to create a dedicated watershed restoration fund based on a $60 annual fee charged to Anne Arundel homeowners based on the amount of impervious surface on their property.
"You are debating a plan to charge a fee," he said. "And there is argument over whether it is a fee or a tax. It does not matter. But I know it is not a property tax, it is more like a pavement tax. The more pavement on your property the more you pay."
Others have suggested the funds to meet Clean Water Act requirements might be found from other sources.
No matter what the financial source Mr. Bowen said he does not think government is the answer water quality woes.
"Government won't solve it alone. It will take a combined effort of private property owners, government and commercial interests," he said. "It is critical that we find a balance between economic growth and environmental needs."
And addressing needs outlined in TMDLs is just one step along the way.
Published 10/14/06, Copyright © 2006 The Capital, Annapolis, Md.
