Clean Water Program Reports

Search • RSS Feed

A Clean Water Future For California: How California’s Water Boards Can Clean Up Nine of the State’s Biggest Polluted Rivers, Lakes and Bays 2/2/2006 clean_water_future.pdf News Release

Executive Summary

California’s waterways are at a crossroads. On our current path lies a future filled with great bays too polluted to swim in much of the year, signature rivers emptied of salmon, and vital drinking water sources polluted by pesticides and other chemical pollutants.

This future, however, is not inevitable.

Under a 1997 U.S. EPA policy and several court orders, California’s water boards are required to establish cleanup plans called Total Maximum Daily Loads, or TMDLs to clean up the state’s most polluted waterways in the next decade. Through a series of straightforward measures in these legally mandated plans, the water boards have the potential to make Santa Monica Bay safe for swimming throughout the year, return salmon to the San Joaquin and protect the clarity of Lake Tahoe.

While current state and federal law provide the authority needed to adopt strong clean-up plans, many plans that have already been drafted do not fully use this authority to ensure that nine of the largest polluted waterways in the state will be cleaned up.

Without a change in direction, cleanup plans for the waterways profiled in this report may simply codify the status quo and miss the historic opportunity to clean up many of California’s largest polluted bays, rivers and lakes.

California’s State Water Board and Regional Water Boards should shift course. To fulfill their legal mandate, cleanup plans they draft should include a series of straightforward measures that

• Require dramatic reductions in new pollution such as agricultural and stormwater runoff reaching our largest waterways

• Establish a renewed California Superfund program to clean up existing toxic contamination, which is paid for by polluting industries

• Compel dam operators to allow river flows sufficient to maintain healthy waterways and

• Increase funding for habitat restoration

With the adoption of such measures in cleanup plans, California’s water boards can put the state on a path to a clean water future.

The Bays: Santa Monica Bay, Humboldt Bay and San Francisco Bay
California’s great bays collect large amounts of contamination such as grease, trash and toxic pesticides from inland areas and highly developed coastal cities. The destruction of local habitat exacerbates this problem by weakening nature’s ability to filter out the pollution before it reaches the bays. Wastewater treatment plants also discharge a range of toxic constituents which, while less in volume than the pollution contained in urban runoff, can be highly concentrated.

Air pollution is also a significant source of contamination in the waterways. A consequence of this contamination is mercury and Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) pollution that coats bay floors in many areas and builds up in marine life, threatening the health of subsistence fishermen.

Cleanup plans for Santa Monica Bay contain several strong requirements to limit trash entering the waterway, redirect stormwater to treatment plants and reduce toxic chemical pollution. Plans to clean up PCBs and dioxin pollution, however, have yet to be established for Humboldt Bay and a proposed cleanup plan for mercury in San Francisco Bay was recently rejected by the State Water Board as insufficient to address the pollution.

To bring California’s largest bays back to health, California’s water boards should ensure that cleanup plans:

Stop New Pollution: Cleanup plans should require the full enforcement of existing clean water laws and commit to specific inspection schedules and other measures that will ensure mandated pollution reductions are met. Plans should also require that stormwater polluters adhere to the same strong pollution reduction standards as other sources of pollution. Such an effort would include strong permits that contain numeric limits for stormwater pollution. Cleanup plans should also require that wastewater treatment plants reduce the pollution they discharge into the bays to the maximum extent possible. The North Coast Regional Water Board should also recognize Humboldt Bay as seriously polluted with the extremely toxic chemical dioxin and pursue the polluters responsible to immediately clean up sources of contamination.

Clean Up Existing Pollution: To ensure cleanup of toxic mercury and PCB ‘hot spots’ in the bays, cleanup plans should establish a renewed California Superfund program, paid for by polluting industries. Regional water boards should also pursue polluters directly responsible for legacy PCB pollution in the bays for cleanup funds.

Restore Habitat: Where feasible, cleanup plans should require restoration of coastal and watershed habitat for creeks, estuary and streams that naturally filter water entering the bays and shelter wildlife. Specifically, cleanup plans should support local restoration efforts around San Francisco and Humboldt Bay and recommend genuine stewardship of the Ballona Wetlands and threatened lagoons that line Santa Monica Bay.

The Rivers: The Sacramento, San Joaquin and Klamath
New pollution continues to enter three of the largest polluted rivers in the state.Agricultural operations leak farm waste that can contain pesticides, salt, toxic metals and nutrients into the waterways. Urban runoff also carries numerous pollutants into the rivers and legacy mercury pollution leaked into the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers from old mine sites threatens the health of local communities and river ecosystems. Low flows from dams and water diversions in the Klamath River and San Joaquin River have devastated local fish populations and degraded water quality. The destruction of wetlands and forests that lined the waterways removed important buffer zones that can filter out pollution before it reaches river waters.

Despite their degraded state, a cleanup plan for the Klamath River has yet to be drafted and existing cleanup plans for the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers do not require dramatic reductions in agricultural pollution, a comprehensive plan to clean up toxic contamination, safeguards against increased use of more dangerous pesticides or ensure water flows necessary to protect water quality.

To return these rivers to health, California’s water boards should ensure that cleanup plans:

Stop New Pollution: Cleanup plans should require dramatic reductions in the amount of agricultural pollution entering the Klamath, San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers. Officials can do this by issuing strong clean water permits that require significant and measurable reductions in agricultural pollution, overall reductions in pesticide use and agricultural water conservation measures that reduce the amount of irrigation water released into the waters. In addition, the state should order mining operations in the Klamath River that degrade water quality to immediately cease operation.

Clean Up Existing Pollution: Cleanup plans should establish a renewed California Superfund Program, paid for by polluters, which will clean up pollution from mines. Until contamination is fully addressed, plans should also establish aggressive risk reduction programs to protect the health of surrounding communities from exposure to toxic pollution.

Ensure Sufficient Flows: Cleanup plans should require that dams on the Sacramento, San Joaquin and Klamath are operated in a manner that ensures the water quality of the river downstream is healthy enough to sustain vibrant fish populations and larger ecosystems. Specifically, plans should withdraw water rights and withhold Clean Water Act certification for dams that degrade downstream water quality. In addition, the Central Valley Regional Water Board should establish limits on salt pollution for the entirety of the San Joaquin River and require increases in water releases from Friant Dam to meet these limits.

Restore Habitat: Cleanup plans should require, where feasible, funding for the establishment of protective vegetative buffer zones along the waterways that will further protect them from further pollution.

The Lakes: Clear Lake, Eagle Lake, and Lake Tahoe
Despite strong measures to curtail urban runoff into Lake Tahoe, a lack of development around Eagle Lake and a cleanup plan for mercury pollution in Clear Lake, three of the largest polluted lakes in California face several remaining challenges on the road back to health. New pollution continues to enter Lake Tahoe and Clear Lake. Nitrogen and phosphorous deposited by urban runoff and air pollution fuel the growth of algae that chokes off oxygen and clouds Lake Tahoe. Fine particles of dirt pollution, called sediment, are carried into the lakes by runoff and erosion of streams and further threaten its clarity. The pollution of the lakes is exacerbated by the destruction of local wetlands that can filter out pollution. Eagle Lake and Clear Lake also face a set of unique challenges: Non-native Eastern brook trout interferes with the ability of native Eagle Lake rainbow trout to reproduce naturally. Mercury pollution from an inactive mine on its banks seriously impairs Clear Lake.

Despite the seriousness of the issues facing the lakes profile din this report, cleanup plans for Lake Tahoe and Eagle Lake have yet to be drafted and the cleanup plan for mercury pollution in Clear Lake does not guarantee ongoing funding for continued cleanup efforts.

To bring these lakes back to health, cleanup plans should:

Stop New Pollution: Cleanup plans should restrict development that contributes to the runoff of nitrogen, phosphorous and fine particle pollution and strengthen runoff controls on existing development. In addition, working with state and local air quality officials, the plans should limit air pollution that deposits nitrogen contamination into Lake Tahoe. Finally, cleanup plans should stop new pollution entering the waterways from septic tanks.

Clean Up Existing Pollution: Cleanup plans should establish a renewed California Superfund program, paid for by polluters, which will ensure funding for cleanup of pollution caused by old mine sites.

Restore Habitat: Where feasible, cleanup plans should require the restoration of wetlands habitat and the establishment of buffer zones along lakeshores and lake tributaries that will revive ecosystems, filter pollution and prevent the erosion of streams into the lakes. The Lahontan Regional Water Board should also list Eagle Lake as seriously polluted with non-native fish species and take steps to control nonnative fish species that hinder the natural life-cycles of native fish populations.