Water Quality Standards Continued
Designated Uses
Designated uses are human uses and ecological conditions that are officially recognized and protected. States must designate one or more uses for each water body.
What are "designated uses?"
A water body's designated uses must include existing and desired uses that require good-to-excellent water quality. Not every conceivable existing use of a water must be formally designated, but taken together the designated uses should establish high enough standards to support and protect all existing uses.
Designated uses should include human uses such as fish consumption, shellfish harvesting, drinking water supply, primary contact recreation and secondary contact recreation. In addition, a state's designated uses must include one or more "aquatic life" uses.
What exactly is meant by "fishable/swimmable" water quality?
An "aquatic life use" is the "use" of a water by a healthy, balanced population of native aquatic life. The term "fishable" is often used to summarize this level of quality. This term, while memorable, is misleading because it is overly simplistic. Providing water quality to support a healthy, balanced population of native aquatic life means far more than simply providing anglers with a reasonable chance of catching some type of fish.
The EPA says that "to be consistent with the… interim goal of the Act, states must provide water quality for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and provide for recreation in and on the water [fishable/swimmable water quality] where attainable."
"Swimmable" is shorthand for the quality necessary to support safe recreation in and on the water - and includes all types of water-based recreation. "Fishable" is shorthand for the quality necessary to support the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
Does the designation of one use prohibit another?
Uses not requiring good water quality and uses that have water quality impacts are not necessarily prohibited, but they are not protected uses under the Clean Water Act, either. For example, the "use" of a stream as a place to receive and carry away pollutants is specifically not a protected use, because the control of such activities is the Act's very purpose.
In other words, the designation of a use does not imply a license to employ it to excess. To the contrary, it implies that the level of quality necessary to support each use must be maintained.
How are uses designated? Who designates them?
The most common way states recognize uses is by giving waters specific "water quality classifications." Whatever system a state adopts must provide a way to recognize and protect the full range of designated uses.
In some states, water quality standards are adopted by the state legislative body and signed into law by the governor. In other states, standards are adopted through an administrative agency's rulemaking procedures. For Native American tribes, the governing tribal body or authority is responsible for adopting water quality standards.
What is the difference between a "designated" and an "existing" use?
The Clean Water Act makes an important distinction between "designated" and "existing" uses.
Existing uses are those that have been attained at any time since 1975, when the CWA regulations regarding use designation were established.
Existing uses include: 1) uses actually being made, whether or not the level of quality to fully support the uses exists; and 2) uses for which the level of quality has been attained, whether or not the use is yet being made.
Designated uses are simply those uses that have been officially recognized by the state. Designated uses may be added or removed by states when specific procedures are followed, provided that the effect is not to remove protection of an existing use.
But, in any event, the level of water quality necessary to support all existing uses must be strictly maintained and protected.
If a water has a "swimming" classification, is it safe to swim there?
Waters with a "swimming" classification are not necessarily always safe for swimming. Neither are waters with a "fishing" classification necessarily safe for aquatic organisms - or for the health of people who eat them.
Agencies are often reluctant to upgrade a water body's classification for new uses unless consistently satisfactory water quality conditions for the new uses already exist.
But waters should be classified to protect all uses that already exist, even if water quality is not yet as consistently good as it ought to be for that use. For example, if people are actually swimming in the water, the water should be classified for swimming, even if existing water quality makes swimming sometimes unsafe. This is significant, because the lack of an official designation for swimming in the water can make it all the harder to achieve safe conditions.
A water quality classification recognizes uses, sets standards, and establishes goals. It does not necessarily make any statement about existing water quality conditions.
Why is it important to designate the right uses?
Designation of the right uses is necessary to ensure the establishment of the right water quality goals. The right goals drive the development of adequately protective criteria - which in turn
determine which waters must be cleaned up, and how much. So, unless the right uses are designated, the rest of system cannot possibly work properly. If you want to make sure that the Clean Water
Act works properly in your watershed, you must begin by making sure that the right uses are designated.
Are "agriculture, industry, and navigation" uses that need to be "protected?"
Some states still list "agriculture, industry, and navigation" among their designated uses. These are, in fact, uses that the Clean Water Act directs states to protect. However, these uses do not usually require high water quality, and almost never require higher quality than other uses that also must be protected. While it does no harm to designate these uses (unless they
are the only designated uses), it does little or nothing to improve or protect water quality.
Only the designation of uses that require good to excellent water quality has real meaning for a water body and the people who use it. Only the designation of the most sensitive uses, accompanied by the most stringent criteria, can lead to the level of protection that a water body needs.
Fishable/swimmable water quality will always support agriculture, industry, and navigation. But the reverse is not true. To settle for designation only of an agricultural, industrial, or navigation use for your water is to concede the quality the Act was intended to provide.
States may classify waters for uses that are anticipated or desired.
For instance, a state may choose to classify a water for a "drinking water" use, even though no one is currently using it as a drinking water source. The drinking water classification would help the state set official clean-up and protection goals. It would also help prevent
new activities that would make it harder to achieve and maintain the desired level of quality.
Can designated uses be removed?
The removal of designated uses is discouraged, and may occur only in specific, limited circumstances. "Downgrading" is prohibited if it would remove protection of any existing use. It is also prohibited if water quality to support the designated use is not currently being
achieved but can be attained.
Can there be any exceptions that allow for lower than "fishable/swimmable" quality?
More than a quarter-century after the passage of the Clean Water Act, fishing and swimming should be the designated uses for nearly all the nation's waters. At least once every three years, the state must re-examine all waters where fishing and swimming have not been designated.
New uses must be considered attainable if they can be achieved through regulatory control of point sources and the application of "best management practices" for controlling nonpoint sources. The method for making this required determination is called a "use attainability analysis."
If "fishing" and "swimming" uses are not designated for a water, the state must formally re-visit the issue at least once every three years. States cannot simply omit the designation of these basic uses and walk away from the issue. But many of the nation's waters that still do not enjoy a "fishable/swimmable" designation have never been the subject of
a formal use attainability analysis. Like many of the supposedly required elements of the Clean Water Act, this one has largely fallen through the cracks.
The designation of a use is the essential first step toward protecting the use. The next is the application of strong water quality criteria.
 |
 |
|||
| Next: Water Quality Criteria |