Report No. 14
Idaho Water Quality Policy for Nonpoint Source Pollution: A
Manual for Decision-Makers
Executive Summary
(Part 5)
4. Will the new Idaho policy be effective?
It is too early to attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of Senate Bill 1284 (Idaho Code 39-3601 et seq.). BAGS are just beginning to understand their role, and few WAGs have been appointed (L. Koenig, personal communication).
Idaho's policy has been revamped to include new monitoring efforts through the BURP process that will allow meaningful designation of aquatic life beneficial uses and determination of the level of support for aquatic life through the WBAG process (Figure 3). The policy has been decentralized to the basin and watershed level to include local interests in planning water quality programs that affect them through BAGs and WAGs (Figure 3).
The two policy ingredients now necessary are [1] adequate funding for monitoring, assessment, and pollution control programs at the basin and watershed level; and [2] patience as locally crafted solutions to water quality problems begin to emerge from the BAGs and WAGs.
Alphabet soup: BURP, WBAG, BAG, and WAG.-- The approach for restoring and maintaining water quality in Idaho is somewhat complex and takes some effort to understand. Figure 3 illustrates the various processes and the responsibilities of organizations and agencies involved in Idaho's approach to water pollution control.
Successful implementation of the EPA's water quality-based approach to pollution control (recall from Figure 1) begins with realistic water quality standards and relies on the installation and modification, as monitoring reveals is necessary, of pollution control mechanisms, including the array of BMPs by those engaged in land-use activities.
The water quality-based approach requires determining to what degree a stream or other water body supports its designated beneficial uses, and thus whether it meets state water quality standards. This evaluation is called the Water Body Assessment Guidance (WBAG) process (IDEQ 1996).
BURP process monitoring data, indicated on Figure 3, is but one source of data; Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) assessment data (see IDL 1995) would be another. If the WBAG assessment indicates that designated uses are not fully supported--that is, water quality standards are not met--the water body is placed on the "303(d) list" and its priority for TMDL development is determined.
Figure 3 identifies the responsibilities of government agencies and BAGs and WAGs. BAGs are responsible for assigning priorities for TMDL development. BAGs may recommend that designated beneficial uses be changed, which requires not only a TMDL, but also a "use attainability analysis" and legislative rulemaking. WAGs are responsible for the identification of pollution control actions that are part of a TMDL. WAGs recommend modification in BMPs or NPDES permits.
In Idaho, the EPA has responsibility for the NPDES permit process for point source controls. For nonpoint source controls, the Idaho Department of Lands is responsible for enforcing BMPs for forestry and mining operations; the Idaho Soil Conservation Commission has responsibilities for incentives and other programs to encourage agriculture and grazing operations to implement BMPs.
What agencies are involved in watershed management?-- The roles of Idaho state and local agencies in water quality policy (see Table 6) have not changed since 1991, when the Policy Analysis Group reported on "State Agency Roles in Idaho Water Quality Policy" (Turner and O'Laughlin 1991).
The Idaho DEQ has the major responsibility for most pollution control activities. The Idaho Department of Lands is responsible for enforcing the mandatory BMPs for forestry and mining. The Soil Conservation Commission and its local Soil Conservation Districts encourage the installation of voluntary agricultural BMPs. The local Public Health Districts play a role in maintaining water quality in lakes; the Clean Lakes Coordinating Council also is involved in lake water quality in northern Idaho (Table 6).