Why the Clean Water Act Overlooked Agricultural Pollution
Reluctance to address land use practices means nutrient reduction measures are voluntary for farmers.
By Codi Yeager-Kozacek
Circle of Blue
January 19, 2014
By Codi Yeager-Kozacek
Circle of Blue
January 19, 2014
There are no pollution discharge permits required for crop farmers. There are no limits on the amount of fertilizer that they can apply. The exclusion of agriculture and other nonpoint source polluters from much of the Clean Water Act’s regulatory reach was seen as a serious oversight even when the 1972 law was passed. But lawmakers were wary of tackling a problem that was both complex and politically touchy.
“There was just a general reticence for Congress and other legislators to really get involved with land use—regulating how people use their land,” said Ken Kilbert, associate dean for academic affairs at the University of Toledo College of Law.
But the growing algae problems coupled with the high cost of Clean Water Act investments have created a sense of frustration among public utility officials, who see their communities paying the price for pollution that is now largely created upstream.
“We’re doing everything we can right now,” Dave Welch, Toledo’s director of public utilities, told Circle of Blue. “We’re spending $US 521 million to correct most of this, and yet we have agriculture practices upstream of us, and all of that washing into the system.”
The federal government left decisions about nonpoint source pollution up to the states, which have also been reluctant to regulate agricultural practices like fertilizer application and tilling. Instead, both levels of government have relied on subsidies and incentive programs to encourage farmers to implement best management practices (BMPs). Kilbert described these voluntary programs as relying heavily on a “carrot” without the regulatory “stick” to enforce the measures.
To complicate matters, most states use narrative water quality standards that rely on subjective descriptions of the water as the basis for permits and regulatory action, as opposed to numeric water quality standards that set definable limits for pollutants like phosphorus. For example, a narrative rule governing water quality in Ohio might say that a stream cannot contain phosphorus levels that create nuisance algae blooms. A numeric rule would say that a stream cannot contain phosphorus levels above 1 milligram per liter.
The numeric standards can be difficult to set initially, but they can also allow for more enforcement action, according to Kilbert. He added that opportunities to address the phosphorus pollution problem are available both within the current framework of the CWA and beyond it.
“I think setting numeric water quality standards for phosphorus would be a big step in the right direction, under the existing tools,” he said. “If I had to then go one step farther, and say ok, I’d like to bolster the existing tools with some new tools, I think really that’s a matter of states taking action to more focus on the issues of agricultural runoff and phosphorus.”
© 2023 Circle of Blue – all rights reserved
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
OKLearn moreWe may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.
Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.
These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.
Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.
We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.
We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.
We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.
Google Webfont Settings:
Google Map Settings:
Google reCaptcha Settings:
Vimeo and Youtube video embeds: