Impaired waters three

Status of non-listed waters

If your river isn't listed, does that mean it is clean and healthy? Not necessarily. It is possible that your river simply wasn't monitored enough to detect problems or to meet data requirements. It is also possible that your state's standards are too weak to trigger a listing.

You need to play an active role in ensuring that “threatened and impaired waters” lists are
complete. Make sure that:

• standards are strong;
• the chemical, physical and biological health of your waters is regularly monitored under the
  most critical conditions; and
• all reliable water quality data are considered by the state whenever the impaired waters list
  is updated.

Since a listing can lead to restrictions on new discharges, changes to existing permits, targeting of restoration funds, and improved management practices to reduce non-point source pollution, the effort to make sure that threatened and impaired waters (303(d)) lists are complete is worthwhile.

Next steps for listed waters

Once a water body is placed on the “threatened and impaired waters” list, it becomes one of many in line for evaluation and development of a plan for solving the problems.

States are required by the regulations to base priorities for addressing problems on the severity of the pollution and the sensitivity of the uses to be made of the waters (40CFR130.7(b)(4)). A 1991 EPA guidance document includes the following criteria for setting priorities:

• level of risk to human health and aquatic life;
• degree of public interest and support;
• importance of recreational, economic and aesthetic uses;
• aquatic habitat’s vulnerability or fragility;
• immediate programmatic needs (e.g., allocations needed to write permits or to implement best management practices); and
• national policies and priorities.

(57Fed.Reg.33040, 33045 (July 24, 1992) and EPA’s 1991 Guidance)

Additional factors subsequently identified by EPA for priority setting include: court orders and consent decrees, rotating basin schedules, data availability, “logistical efficiencies” and likelihood of delisting in the near future (Guidance for 2004 Integrated Report).

Your state may have its own regulations and guidance about priority setting for threatened and impaired waters. While state regulations can’t contradict federal regulations, they can contain more detail. If you feel that the criteria your state is using to set priorities are incomplete or simply wrong, propose some additional ones for your state agency to consider. You may also wish to inform the EPA, elected officials, public interest groups and the media about your suggestions.

In addition, once impaired waters are placed on the 303(d) list, proposals for new and increased discharges should receive greater scrutiny. Clean Water Act regulations prohibit new discharges that “will cause or contribute to the violation of water quality standards” (40CFR122.4(i)).