HARRISBURG, Pa. - Pennsylvania's Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan for reducing pollution flowing into Chesapeake Bay can't meet its 2025 goals, but the Environmental Protection Agency is not taking required actions.

Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA is supposed to impose consequences on any Chesapeake Bay watershed state that fails to meet its goals under the Clean Water Blueprint.

According to Harry Campbell, executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in Pennsylvania, the Keystone State has a good plan, but it falls short of pollution reduction goals by 25% and is underfunded by more than $300 million a year.

"Without that resource investment in clean water, that plan will not be fully implemented," Campbell points out. "And a plan, no matter how good it is, is only as good as it's implemented."

The EPA has released its evaluation of the plan but did not take action to hold Pennsylvania accountable for its deficiencies.

Ninety percent of the pollution flowing into Chesapeake Bay comes from the watershed states, including Pennsylvania.

Campbell notes that the EPA has a variety of actions it can take when those states' pollution reduction efforts miss the mark.

"Withholding permits that EPA is obligated to review," he explains. "Making more farmers and municipalities and wastewater treatment plants obtain permits. Withholding or redirecting funding."

In 2010 the Chesapeake Bay Foundation sued the EPA for failing to uphold the Clean Water Act and in light of the agency's failure to act may consider doing so again.

But Campbell says ultimately, it's up to state lawmakers to ensure that the funding is there to help farmers control nutrient and sediment pollution and municipalities control storm water runoff that affects water quality in Pennsylvania and downstream,

"Any delay in supporting those folks working on the ground is another day we lose for flooding, fewer trees planted, cover crops that keep soils on the land and polluted runoff that impacts our rivers and streams, our drinking water, health and wellbeing," he states.

Campbell adds that Pennsylvania's 33,000 family farmers are working hard to reduce pollution, but they can't do it alone.

Wyoming's irrigation infrastructure is aging and the state gets regular requests to update it but in some cases, project benefits may not outweigh the costs.

Parts of the Bighorn Basin are some of the driest in Wyoming, according to state data. The proposed Alkali Creek Reservoir Project would provide supplemental, late-season water to 33 irrigators across 13,000 acres of land, a design in the works since 2007.

Jason Mead, director of the Wyoming Water Development Office, said a recently announced potential design change, from an open irrigation ditch to a pipeline, added about $30 million to the dam's price tag. It also decreases the ratio of benefits to costs, a calculation the office does for any water storage project it works on.

"In regards to the grant and loan, we can grant up to 100% of a project per our criteria," Mead explained. "But it's not to exceed the public benefit."

Benefits include boating and fishing in the reservoir, the short-term benefits of dam construction and the indirect benefits to local and regional economies through increased crop production. Mead noted other considerations are the life expectancy of the dam, the ability and willingness of the users to pay for it and, of course, the direct benefit to irrigators themselves, who plan to use the water mainly for alfalfa, corn, sugar beets and barley. Opponents said the dam will disrupt natural watershed functions.

Dagny Signorelli, Wyoming director for the Western Watersheds Project, said the dam could reduce spring flows in Paint Rock Creek by 33%, in Medicine Lodge Creek by 16% and in Alkali Creek up to 100%.

"In general, dams disrupt natural river ecosystems by altering their flow patterns and reducing the frequency and intensity of natural flooding events," Signorell pointed out.

Signorelli added it could alter habitat for wildlife both upstream and downstream, with special concerns for trout, pronghorn, elk, mule deer and raptors. Plus, according to permit objections submitted by Western Watersheds Project in 2018, greater sage grouse use five breeding grounds within a four-mile radius of the project.


get more stories like this via email

Oregonians have until July 22 to submit comments on the implementation of new environmental restrictions for the state's largest farms.

When the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 85 last year, regulations were signed into law for Confined Animal Feeding Operations. Now, the Oregon Department of Agriculture is working to implement them.

Brian Posewitz, staff attorney for the group WaterWatch of Oregon, said the new rules will help protect one of Oregon's most important natural resources.

"All Oregonians should care about that, because all Oregonians should care about our water supplies, both in the streams and rivers as well as in the groundwater," Posewitz emphasized. "Because those water supplies are precious to everybody."

The regulations mean more closely monitoring the amount of water used by the large farms and considering the placement of the operations to reduce nitrate contamination in groundwater caused by manure. The move to protect Oregon's water supply coincides with an increase in demand for water as the state reenters its wildfire season.

As important as Oregon's water is, regulations often come with a price tag. Large ag operations could be more limited in their site selection, disposal of waste and use of water. The Oregon Farm Bureau predicted tougher rules will affect people's trips to the grocery store.

Lauren Poor, vice president of government and legal affairs for the bureau, thinks the new rules will make it harder to buy local, and wonders if the changes are justified.

"There wasn't a clear indication that there needed to be changes to this program to protect Oregon's waterways or Oregon's water supply," Poor contended.

According to Poor, the previous regulations were working, and continuously changing them can be difficult for producers. The deadline is July 22 to submit public comments to the Oregon Department of Agriculture before the regulations are finalized the end of this summer.


get more stories like this via email

The CEO of Austin Master Services - owner of a fracking-waste storage facility in Martin's Ferry, Ohio - will attend a hearing by phone today in Belmont County, facing contempt-of-court charges for failing to clean up 10,000 tons of waste - far beyond what the company was permitted to store.

Advocates and local officials continue to express concerns about the Ohio Department of Natural Resources' handling of toxic fracking waste and oversight of these types of facilities.

Beverly Reed, director and community organizer with the citizens' group Concerned Ohio River Residents, said they are on alert about potential water contamination - noting the facilities' proximity to the city's water supply and football field.

"When you have one of these facilities by a water supply, by where people recreate - anywhere, basically," said Reed, "it's concerning because of what's actually getting into the environment and what could be getting to water. "

ODNR spokesperson Karina Cheung said in an email that the agency is closely monitoring the situation and stands ready to clean up the facility if Austin Master Services fails to comply with the court's order - and that in April, before the court's contempt order, the Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management removed hundreds of barrels of liquid waste from the facility.

Fracking waste contains high levels of radium, volatile organic compounds, and at least one thousand chemicals.

Mayor of Martins Ferry John Davies argued that ODNR hasn't taken enough action to clean up the public health threat as quickly as possible.

"I'd like to see ODNR take responsibility, because they were responsible to permit the waste, and they're the ones that allowed it to go from 600 tons to 10,000 tons," said Davies. "The city has no jurisdiction. So I would like to see ODNR take control of the situation and clean it up."

Davies said he hopes the state shuts the facility down permanently, rather than issuing a new permit to potential waste storage companies that want to buy it.

"We do not want it re-permitted in the city of Martins Ferry," said Davies. "It's too close to our water source, and we're hoping that ODNR doesn't permit another company to enter the facility."

Davies added that the city continues to check it's water supply more frequently to ensure the community remains safe.