Unattainable Surface Water Quality Standards may Diminish Widespread Public Support for Water Quality Improvements

Many state water quality standards were established in the early years of the Clean Water Act (CWA) when a key goal of the 1972 CWA was “to eliminate pollutant discharge to navigable waters by 1985.” Unfortunately, this admirable goal sometimes has resulted in required pollutant load reductions (e.g., TMDLs) that are based on unattainable water quality standards that reflect the environmental euphoria of the 1970s and 1980s. In my view, it is wise to consider if we should continue to develop water quality management plans focused on achievement of those goals, or if it is better to develop realistic goals and set attainable water quality standards. 

From a pragmatic perspective, working toward unattainable water quality standards diminishes our ability to achieve widespread buy-in on pollutant load controls.  I see this reaction to water pollutant control now in North Carolina, where unattainable standards are leading to a backlash against pollutant reduction, due primarily to extremely high costs of compliance with a TMDL. 

Unfortunately, this perspective may be given further support by long lag times between implementation of nonpoint source controls and observable water quality improvements, leading to skepticism that the required pollutant load reductions will have any effect.

For example, Falls Reservoir in North Carolina has a TMDL mandating a 77% reduction in phosphorus loading to attain the 40 ug/l chlorophyll a water quality criterion. Given the preponderance of nonpoint sources of phosphorus in the Falls Reservoir watershed, a 77% phosphorus load reduction is not feasible; even if it were, the cost of attainment almost certainly will far exceed the benefits derived for designated use. Given that situation, Falls Reservoir is in need of a Use Attainability Analysis (which determines if a designated use is technologically and economically feasible) or new site-specific nutrient criteria.

I believe that realistic and achievable water quality standards, with designated use (e.g., recreational fishing) improvements that is causally-linked to attainment of water quality criteria (e.g., chlorophyll a), are needed to gain widespread support for pollutant controls for water quality improvements. In Falls Reservoir, the backlash against the high cost of phosphorus load reductions has resulted in a state-sponsored plan for in-lake artificial mixing (using SolarBees). This is a waste of money, as whole-lake mixing is not feasible due to the large size of Falls Reservoir, and in-lake mixing will have little effect on nutrient concentrations. While I do not believe that water column mixing in Falls Reservoir is scientifically-defensible, I do understand that local and state elected officials may feel desperate enough to embrace even ineffective “solutions” in the hope of reducing pollutant control costs for their constituents.

It is unfortunate that the laudatory goals of the Clean Water Act are not everywhere attainable. Given that fact, I believe that the most effective way to achieve additional protection of designated uses is to adopt technologically and economically feasible water quality standards. This is likely to result in relaxation of a limited number of current water quality criteria. I wish that we could do better and eliminate pollutant discharges to navigable waters, but that is not going to happen. In my view, recognition of the need to set realistic water quality goals is the best pathway to achieve and maintain meaningful water quality improvements.