Switchboard, from NRDC › Nancy Stoner's Blog

Joining together to clean up the Bay

2009-12-22T19:09:35Z

Nancy Stoner, NRDC alum

Growing up in Virginia, I gained an early appreciation of the region's farming history. The rich soils through the Piedmont and the Shenandoah Valley (where my family lived) have nurtured crops and livestock for hundreds of years, and it's not uncommon for one family to plant the same fields for six or seven generations or more.

That's why I pay attention when local farmers describe the drastic decline they have witnessed in farming and in the water resources that support farming. These men and women know the region better than most, and they have a front-row seat on the collapse of the streams that feed the Bay.

One farmer, David Blake of Buckland Farm in Warrenton, VA, comes from fifteen generations of farmers in Virginia and Maryland. In his mid-forties, Blake described the change he has seen in his lifetime:

"I have watched vast areas I knew well transformed by suburban development and tributaries we hunted/fished have died as poultry-agribusinesses changed farming practices. These changes brought with them devastation to the small farmer, the once-thriving seafood industry, watermen, and the small towns we all supported have nearly disappeared."

Blake wrote those words in a letter to Congress in support of the Chesapeake Bay Clean Water and Restoration Act of 2009. The bill is designed to clean up the soaring levels of pollution that are choking the bay and endangering the livelihoods of fishermen, owners of beach tourism businesses, and small farmers like David Black.

The guiding principle behind the bill is that every pollution source must do its fair share to help clean it up. This includes suburban communities and industries, but it also includes farmers.

Dirty runoff from farms is responsible for about half of the pollution in the Bay.

I have experienced some of that pollution first hand. Many times over the years, I have gone tubing or canoeing down the Shenandoah River and its tributaries only to find myself literally floating in cow pies. It was disgusting, but not just a nuisance to local citizens and an impediment to the tourism industry, but also a key contributor to the dead zones that leave major sections of the Chesapeake Bay lifeless in the summer.

It doesn't have to be this way. There are many proven and affordable ways to keep manure out of streams that can be integrated into current farming practices--solutions that will sustain farms and clean the Bay at the same time.

That's why Blake wrote in his letter, "Every farmer I know is very much in support of this bill and would ask that you all please do the same. We must not let another generation, as has my own, watch the environmental health of this remarkable asset continue to decline. I hope and pray that future generations will say that it was you who finally stood up to do what is right."

Unfortunately, agribusiness lobbyists don't appear to be consulting the farmers that Blake knows and who are eager to do the right thing. Some of them believe that farmers should have the right to choose not to clean up their part of the mess.

They want to continue on the current path of little or no pollution control, even though that path leads directly into a trashed Bay that will soon be unable to support the seafood or tourism industries.

The lobbyists may be looking out only for themselves and their richest clients, not the farmers in the region--as Blake illustrates. Many farmers in the region support the Chesapeake Bay bill. They want to see the bay cleaned up for future generations, and they are willing to do their part. Now it's time for them to follow Blake's lead and let their views be known to their elected officials.

Green Infrastructure Is Cheaper, So Let’s Remove the Hurdles

2009-12-09T16:32:24Z

Nancy Stoner, NRDC alum

The EPA is gathering information to support new rules that will help prevent dirty stormwater from ending up in our rivers and beaches. While they might sound like obscure regulations, they could in fact help change our built landscape, our waterways--and our checkbooks--for the better.

When developers build new communities, they don’t just build houses. They also install the infrastructure that will carry stormwater off driveways and streets.

It won’t surprise you that I think green infrastructure--things like pocket parks, green roofs, street trees, and other features that absorb rainwater--is the best way to prevent dirty stormwater from getting dumped into our rivers and beaches.

But it might surprise you to learn that many developers think green infrastructure accomplishes something else as well: it keeps costs down.

I routinely hear developers say that using measures like pervious pavement and urban forestry save them money during construction and increase profits at the point of sale.

I was just at a conference in Buffalo, for instance, where one of the speakers talked about his brother, a developer. His brother’s rule of thumb is that using green infrastructure in new neighborhoods costs 20 percent less than conventional techniques and generates 20 percent more in revenue.

These perceptions were confirmed in a groundbreaking EPA study called, Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development Strategies and Practices. It looked at seventeen case studies and found that in most cases, upfront costs were lower for LID projects than for conventional ones, and the savings in the LID cases ranged from 15 to 80 percent.

If you don’t put in curbs, gutters, and underground storm drains in a new development, but instead grassy swales with the landscaping designed to drain into them, it’s cheaper.

So if LID costs less than conventional ways of managing stormwater, why isn’t it more mainstream? If green infrastructure comes with a host of additional benefits--from making subdivisions more attractive to increasing property values--why isn’t it routine?

Because hurdles remain in the way, even if cost is rarely one of them.

The status quo is one of them. Some people believe the development industry is slow to change. As I said, I see plenty of developers touting the benefits of green infrastructure, including the National Association of Homebuilders, whose builders’ guide to LID asks:

Ever wish you could simultaneously lower your site infrastructure costs, protect the environment, and increase your project’s marketability? Using Low Impact Development (LID) techniques you can.

But it is a large industry accustomed to doing things a certain way. And many developers believe buyers want what is familiar to them. Gutters and curbs are familiar. Open streets and rain gardens less so.

Yet even more daunting than design norms is the thicket of ordinances that govern development. In some communities, builders are required to install gutters and curbs, and don’t have the leeway to explore alternatives. Sometimes they must meet a specific engineering standard, and it may be hard to prove to regulators accustomed to pipes that a swale will meet it just as well.

Almost always, these regulations were designed without the broader watershed in mind.

The EPA’s new rule making will not only remove some of those local hurdles but it will also prompt the development industry to embrace more green practices.

Right now, the EPA is in the information gathering stage. If you have experience with green infrastructure--as a developer, designer, buyer, or stormwater manager--I urge you to share your knowledge with the agency.

This is our chance to inform the direction of the rules so that they encourage a practice that is good for watersheds, good for communities, and good for the bottom line.

Philadelphia Has Ambitious Plan to Solve the Sewage Problems Described by the New York Times

2009-11-24T17:40:58Z

Nancy Stoner, NRDC alum

On Monday, the New York Times ran an excellent article about the amount of raw sewage that flows into the city's waterways during rainstorms. I welcome the piece; like the other articles in the paper's series on water pollution, it will draw attention to a major urban hazard.

But I have one problem with the article: it could leave the reader thinking that little can be done to address this costly challenge. It gives the sense that sewage is flowing, and no one can stop it.

That simply isn't true, and as the article mentions, Philadelphia is one of the cities working to prove it. .

Philadelphia is undertaking one of the most ambitious stormwater plans in the nation. Instead of simply building more storage pipes to hold runoff during rainstorms, Philadelphia is investing $1.6 billion in green infrastructure--things like urban forestry, street-edge gardens, and pervious pavement-- to prevent most of the runoff from hitting the pipes in the first place.

In fact, it has committed to capturing 80 percent of combined sewage and stormwater that would otherwise flow into the Schuylkill and Delaware Rivers and nearby creeks every time it rains and put it back into the ground, let it evaporate, or store it for re-use such as for watering plants.

Entitled "Green City, Clean Waters," the plan calls for Philadelphia to do in a comprehensive fashion what other cities are currently doing piecemeal. And because the green infrastructure will be so widespread, the city is essentially launching a public works campaign that will bring broad economic, public health, and jobs benefits to Philadelphia.

I recently blogged about the ways green spaces enhance urban communities and property values. Philadelphia wanted to measure those benefits, so it commissioned a triple-bottom-line analysis of its plan (a TBL looks at environmental and social implications, as well as economic ones). The study compared the green infrastructure measures to a traditional 30-feet-wide tunnel option. The findings are instructive.

While the green infrastructure would create an additional almost 250,000,000 days of people enjoying creekside recreation, the tunnel would create zero.
While the green infrastructure would save an astonishing 193 people from dying of heat-related illnesses, the tunnel would save zero.
And while the green infrastructure would save almost 370,000,000 kilowatts-per-hour of electricity thanks to the cooling effect of trees, the tunnel would save zero.

Just as important during the recession, the green infrastructure creates new opportunities to hire local labor. Building a tunnel requires workers too, of course, but they are highly skilled laborers who likely would already be employed in construction. Stormwater landscaping and restoration, on the other hand, could generate more than 15,250 new entry-level green jobs.

The research shows that green infrastructure can save Philadelphia money--money it would have to spend on unemployment benefits, public health services, and climate change adaptations.

But how do you pay for these investments up front? The New York Times article implied that federal funding is the only option. I would never say anything negative about federal funding--cities and states absolutely need access to federal dollars to restore their waterways. But there are a lot of other ways to finance green infrastructure solutions as well, and Philadelphia is experimenting with some of them right now.

For instance, the city has incorporated green infrastructure into the development process. Every time land is developed for streets, homes, businesses, or industry, sustainable stormwater management must be part of the plan: new projects must meet a 1-inch onsite retention standard.

The city has also its changed stormwater fees. Water rates typically cover how much water you use, which doesn't send a price signal about how much stormwater you generate. Now property owners in Philadelphia will be charged according to the amount of impervious surface area they have, which means the businesses that generate the most stormwater in the city will contribute proportionally to cleaning it up.

DC, where I live, also changed to an impervious-based rate last year, but it has not yet adopted a citywide greening plan, as Philadelphia has. Hopefully the article in the Times will inspire DC to learn from Philadelphia's example.

Study Confirms that Green Spaces Are Good for People, Not Just Fish

2009-11-12T19:48:11Z

Nancy Stoner, NRDC alum

Sometimes when people learn that my job is to help clean America's waterways, they assume I care about more about fish than people.

The truth is that the best way to keep dirty stormwater and other urban pollution out of our rivers and off our beaches is to use green infrastructure: things like pocket parks, green roofs, street trees, and rain gardens. It turns out that these green measures have tremendous benefits for people as well.

A recent study done at the University of Rochester, for example, concluded that when people come into contact with nature, even in the simple form of a tree or potted plant, they become kinder, more generous, and more community-minded than when they focus on artificial, human-made surroundings.

I have read similar studies in the past. Many researchers have concluded that natural settings make people happier and healthier, but this is the first one to recognize that green spaces can make people nicer.

The Rochester study confirms something I already knew about the importance of green infrastructure in our communities. But it also confirmed something I knew about myself.

After spending most of my day in office buildings in Washington, DC, I relish the chance to get outside. I live in suburbia, but when I walk along the Matthew Henson bike/walk trail, I feel transported. And when I stroll through the lovely county-owned garden near my house, I start to unwind, and I start to smile at the other people who are enjoying nature just like I am.

I am sure many of you have favorite escapes too, places that help you relax in the midst of stressful city living. Indeed, most of us know from experience that having tree-lined streets and nearby parks make urban neighborhoods much more livable, not to mention more valuable. But green oases aren't just pretty. They have real and lasting social benefits.

The Rochester study included four separate tests, and in each one of them, the people who were exposed to natural elements said they valued close relationships and community more than the people who were exposed to spaces devoid of nature. But this is only the latest study. Others have found links between green infrastructure and lower crime rates, less violence, faster recovery from illness, and better grades for students.

The authors of the Rochester study believe these findings have major implications for city planning. "There's a real value to having green space. It serves the community," said Dr. Richard Ryan, one of the lead researchers.

Keep this in mind the next time your community is weighing the benefits of new green infrastructure. Using rain gardens to stop dirty stormwater from ending up in your city's river isn't just good for the fish. It is good for you too.

EPA unveils new federal strategy for cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay

2009-11-09T17:09:40Z

Nancy Stoner, NRDC alum

Today, after several weeks of obtaining public comment, officials from EPA released a final strategy to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay. The strategy follows an Executive Order from President Obama in June that challenged federal agencies to better assist states in cleaning up the streams and rivers that feed into the Chesapeake Bay.

Despite decades of work and billions in spending, Bay states have not yet met water-quality goals. Nutrient pollution from lawns and parking lots, agricultural crop production and large-scale animal feedlots and sewage continue to leave Bay waters unsafe for fishing, drinking and swimming. New landscape conservation techniques, monitoring technologies and adaptation and research on the effect of climate change on the Bay are needed to restore and protect the watershed. The past has shown us that states can't do it without the assistance and leadership of the federal government. Today's draft strategy outlines a strong new framework for cleaning up our waters and better targeting federal dollars to assist Bay states.

Accountability is a core component of EPA's plan. For too long, clean up efforts have been largely incentive-based and voluntary, so participation has been low. In other cases, there has been little or no enforcement - so pollution controls have gone ignored without penalty. Under the new strategy, states would create specific implementation plans with clear, enforceable deadlines along the way to ensure that our waterways are clean by 2025. Publicly available tracking and reporting programs would help rebuild public confidence while focusing resources on strategic priorities. Failure to make progress would bring consequences.

Another key provision of the plan would require aging stormwater systems and factory farms - leading sources of Bay pollution that have not been required to clean up - to modernize their operations to use plants and soils to soak up contamination that now runs into waterways untreated.

Finally, the strategy includes important new technical, scientific and financial assistance to help states and municipalities meet the clean up goals. Already, states receive significant federal funding through the Clean Water Act and the farm bill to help restore the Bay. Today's strategy would ensure that funding is used efficiently and effectively to deliver long-overdue results. New legislation, the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act, is a strong complement to the administrative strategy and provides over $2 billion more in funding to help states meet Clean Water Act requirements, while expanding market-based programs to reduce costs of compliance.

The Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection strategy is sensible and overdue - finally providing the federal leadership we need, with funding to back it up, to clean up this national treasure. You can raise your voice in support of the plan by submitting your own comments here.

Chesapeake Bay water – and users – to benefit from Senate bill

2009-10-19T13:54:50Z

Nancy Stoner, NRDC alum

Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., has introduced a bill to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay. Standing at Sandy Point State Park, a popular beach destination that has been plagued in the past with periodic episodes of bacteria pollution, I could imagine the shorebirds, crabs, oysters and the next crop of sunbathers, cheering him on.

Sen. Cardin's bill, the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act, contains important new provisions to hold the Environmental Protection Agency and the states accountable for setting and enforcing strict limits on pollution. It calls for a clear, enforceable limit on nutrient pollution and assigns specific federal, state and local responsibilities and funding mechanisms to meet pollution reduction goals. The bill also calls for an interstate program to help achieve timely, cost-effective pollution reductions and offer new market opportunities for farmers and others innovating pollution reduction controls.

The bill delivers what the Bay and the public deserve most: accountability and results from the billions in federal dollars that go to agricultural conservation and water quality assistance programs within the Bay watershed. The Act will help states and localities focus tax dollars on the most cost-effective ways to reduce pollution to our rivers and streams. If pollution reductions aren't being met, EPA will step in to make sure the job gets done. This is good for the Bay, good for the water and good for the country.

For more than 25 years, the region has struggled - and failed - in a largely voluntary effort to protect the Chesapeake Bay. Thousands of miles of streams still do not meet basic water quality standards due to pollution from leaking septic systems, sewer outflows, factories, animal waste and runoff from roads, crops, lawns, and construction sites.

Thankfully, President Obama and his administration have shown historic federal leadership to clean up the nation's largest estuary, including issuing an Executive Order in May. Earlier this month, NRDC released the report Seizing a Watershed Opportunity: NRDC's Plan to Clean Up the Chesapeake Bay and its Beaches, outlining numerous threats facing the Chesapeake Bay and providing a Congressional playbook to solve them with the one-two federal punch we need to finally make progress in restoring the Bay. Sen. Cardin's legislation was a top priority in our report.

Many local rivers in Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, West Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C. - all areas with waters that drain into the Bay - remain unsafe for swimming, fishing, and drinking. We have the tools to clean up this mess. The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act will end the excuses and inaction and put those tools to work.

While this is an important first step, the real work still lies ahead. Support from other congressional leaders is critical to the bill's success. Anyone living in the watershed benefits from this bill. Your drinking water, favorite swimming beaches, best fishing spots - and even your crab cake and rockfish sandwiches - all come from the Bay or the waters that flow into it. It's time to raise our voices in support of this opportunity to protect the water that sustains us.

New NRDC Report Outlines Federal Remedy to Save the Chesapeake Bay

2009-10-08T18:24:41Z

Nancy Stoner, NRDC alum

Today, NRDC is releasing Seizing a Watershed Opportunity in the Chesapeake Bay, our report tracking the decline in the Chesapeake Bay's water quality. The report makes it clear that this is a pivotal time for the Bay. The Obama Administration, Congress, and even the Bay states are committed to reviving the Chesapeake. But if we don't press for real action, clean Bay beaches and Chesapeake seafood could become a thing of the past.

After years of tracking water quality at America's vacation beaches, I have noticed a disturbing trend in the Chesapeake. The bay is home to many community beaches, but increasingly, residents leave their local beaches behind, brave the traffic on the Bay Bridge, and drive all the way out to Ocean City to go for a swim.

Why? Because Bay residents realize that the water at their hometown beaches is dirtier, has more algae, and carries more illness-causing bacteria than ocean beaches.

In other words, locals are adapting to constant pollution. They know they can't eat blue crabs out of the Bay anymore, so they import it from other states or even other countries. Now, they realize that their beaches are contaminated, so they go to the ocean to swim.

It doesn't have to be this way. We don't have to give up on the idea that the Bay can be home to safe, clean waters. We can restore it, and the NRDC report outlines how.

President Obama's recent Executive Order on the Bay was an excellent start--indeed it was an unprecedented display of federal leadership. But, as our report explains, we need to take the next step.

And that means passing the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem Restoration Act, sponsored by Senator Cardin. Right now, the Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA to spend a small amount of money to support an office for studying the Bay. And indeed, the office has done its jobs of monitoring the Bay's decline--year after year.

Senator Cardin's bill would take that data--which we have in abundance--and actually do something with it. It would set a cap on all water pollution in the Bay, and if states don't meet their limits, the EPA can take action against them.

And here is the encouraging part. States want the EPA to step in. Last month, I went to hearings on Chesapeake Bay restoration in the House Water Resources and the Environment Subcommittee, and was surprised to hear state representatives actually asking federal lawmakers to take action.

This is highly unusual. In my experience, states typically take the position: "We have it under control, and we don't need the EPA involved in our business." But when it comes to the Chesapeake Bay, states want the backing of the federal government.

They also want to know other neighboring states are doing their part as well. Anyone who has ever lived in a group house can understand this. You are less inclined to leave your dirty dishes sitting in the sink if you know your housemates clean their dishes promptly. It's a simple matter of everyone doing their fair share.

NRDC's report describes what that fair share might look like. But we won't stop here. We will continue to press for real action.

For even though this is a hopeful time in the Bay's history--when the White House, the EPA, and the states are all committed to restoration--NRDC wants to make sure this moment is not squandered. We want to make sure that when legislation passes through Congress, it is strong enough to do the restoration right.

The Senate’s Climate Bill Must Support Water Adaptation

2009-09-28T15:39:10Z

Nancy Stoner, NRDC alum

On Wednesday, Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer plan to unveil the Senate's version of climate change legislation, a counterpart to the bill that passed in the House of Representatives this past June. A lot of the attention surrounding the bill is focused on mitigating climate change - that is, minimizing global warming's effects by decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. However, the bill will also address the equally important issue of adaptation: the process of preparing for and coping with the adverse impacts of climate change that will occur even if we take action now to reduce global warming pollution.

As NRDC has reported before, America's water resources face serious threats from climate change, including long and frequent droughts, more intense storms and floods, and pollution from increased runoff, just to name a few. That's why it's so important for Congress to pass comprehensive climate change legislation this year, and also why it's so critical for the Senate climate bill to include provisions that help communities make their water resources strong and resilient enough to adapt to whatever changes come their way.

When the bill is introduced, we're hoping to see strong support for water-related adaptation efforts. Here are some of the particular things we're looking for:

We need climate legislation that provides funding and technical support for local water authorities who manage water resources to assist them in developing and implementing water adaptation strategies, plans, and projects. With the responsibility for communities' water resources in local authorities' hands, it's important that they get the resources they need to anticipate future difficulties.
Climate change will affect different regions in very different ways. While global warming may leave some areas with too little water, other areas may have more to fear from floods and heavy rains. Any adaptation provisions in the bill should provide flexibility for states and local governments to tailor their strategies to their specific water needs. A "one size fits all" solution simply won't work in addressing the wide-ranging effects climate change will have nationwide.
That being said, some strategies to deal with water issues have proved more effective than others. The Senate bill should provide incentives for implementing two cost-effective strategies that offer multiple benefits: water efficiency measures, which help conserve water and save energy at the same time, and "green infrastructure" (a.k.a "low impact development"), building practices that manage water resources by mimicking nature's own processes to retain, filter and store water through increased vegetation and porous materials (i.e. green roofs, tree boxes, permeable pavement).
And in order to help water resources adapt to climate change by staying healthy, the Senate bill must address the role agriculture plays in clean water. This legislation is a great opportunity to help farmers solve two problems at once: their businesses' impact on global warming and runoff pollution from their farms. Fortunately, these are two problems that have a lot of the same solutions.
Any strategy to adapt water resources to climate change will be more effective if multiple governing bodies work together. After all, a watershed - the geographic area that drains into one larger body of water through its rivers and streams - can span city borders and state lines. The federal legislation should encourage coordinated regional water planning approaches so that authorities in the same watershed work together to manage their water resources more effectively.
Of course, even though local governments play a major role in the water management process, federal government should take responsibility as well to ensure that water resources all across the country are ready to adapt to climate change. Accordingly, the bill should require the federal natural resources agencies - like EPA, NOAA, DOI, USDA, and the Army Corps of Engineers - to establish an advisory board and develop a national natural resources adaptation strategy evaluating the impacts of climate change on water and other resources.

Impacts on water could be many Americans' most direct experience with the effects of climate change. No matter where your community is located, it will probably have to adapt its water management strategy in the months and years ahead to keep its water supply clean and abundant. We are looking to the Senate to show federal leadership on water adaptation strategies in their version of the climate bill, along with support for the local governments taking action, to help ensure strong and healthy water resources across the country and into the future.

Cleaning Up Animal Waste

2009-09-21T13:45:18Z

Nancy Stoner, NRDC alum

Charles Duhigg from the New York Times has written another excellent article on the Clean Water Act - this time on the massive feedlots that dump untreated animal waste into lagoons where it seeps into groundwater, onto vast waste fields where it runs off into waterways, and sometimes even directly into ditches that flow into lakes and streams. The result is predictable - contaminated wells, contaminated streams, and an increasing number of rural areas of the U.S. that are no longer safe or pleasant to live in.

This is not a new problem, but one recognized by Congress as early as 1972 in the Clean Water Act, which requires concentrated animal feeding operations to get the same kind of discharge permits as other types of industrial operations. Unfortunately, EPA and state environmental agencies have never required treatment for animal waste as they have for industrial wastes and human sewage. They instead have used the permitting program to authorize the kind of waste dumps that Mr. Duhigg writes about and shows through the video and slides. Even small steps, such as prohibiting animal waste dumping on fields during the winter or during storms, are the exception, not the rule.

NRDC has been working for more than a decade to try to get EPA to do its job through exposing the problems and solutions, educating the public and policymakers, and using the courts to enforce the Clean Water Act. So far, EPA hasn't been interested. It refused to require treatment of viruses and bacteria in animal waste, and it refused to require all large feedlots to get a discharge permit. You might be surprised to know that EPA doesn't even know where all the factory farms are located. The operators claim a right to keep that kind of information confidential, so EPA has to use flyovers or analysis of GIS maps to find the facilities that don't apply for permits.

So, here's the good news. EPA has another chance. Last year, NRDC challenged a Bush administration feedlot rule that was riddled with loopholes. EPA can settle that lawsuit - and more importantly, fix the problems that Mr. Duhigg identified in his article - by revising that rule. There are a variety of excellent approaches for cleaning up these filthy facilities (and I see that many readers have already commented on them on-line). Time to end the excuses, and to start on the solutions.

Feds to Release Plan to Clean Up Chesapeake Bay

2009-09-10T13:37:12Z

Nancy Stoner, NRDC alum

Today, officials from EPA, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture will be releasing reports with a series of recommendations to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay. The reports are called for under an Executive Order, signed by the President in May, that recognized the Chesapeake Bay as a national treasure and called for federal leadership in protecting our nation's largest estuary.

Pollution in the Bay comes from a variety of sources. Runoff from lawns and parking lots, agricultural crop production and large-scale animal feedlots, and sewage all add dangerous levels of nutrient and pathogen pollution to our waters. These anticipated Executive Order reports will include recommendations that touch on all of the sources of Bay pollution. NRDC has been particularly focused on recommendations to improve agricultural practices and reduce urban and stormwater runoff.

When these recommendations come out later today, we'll especially be looking for a few big things:

With 22 percent of the watershed in agricultural production, improved agricultural crop practices have a tremendous impact on the health of streams throughout the Bay. There are a number of steps that farmers can take to reduce the fertilizer runoff that feed algal blooms that rob streams and the Bay of oxygen that fish and shellfish need to survive. There is also funding available to assist farmers to take those steps. Some farms have taken advantage of this opportunity to reduce fertilizer use or put in stream buffers, but those who haven't continue to foul downstream water resources. The federal plan needs to put effective controls on the fertilizer that contaminates the Bay and its tributaries.
Animal waste is also filled with bacteria and other pathogens can run off into streams and rivers if not treated properly. In 2008, the EPA finalized a rule that requires all large, animal factory farms (typically those with 1,000 animals or more) to include a manure management plan as part of their Clean Water Act permit applications. However, due to strong opposition from corporate agricultural interests, the rule continues to exempt many large factory farms. Data supplied in March to NRDC by U.S. EPA confirms that large feedlots in Maryland and Virginia may not be obtaining Clean Water Act permits under the new EPA rule - indicating they have not addressed their contribution to manure pollution that contaminates the Bay. Although the compliance deadline had passed, not a single large operator had obtained a permit in Virginia, and only 14% of Maryland's had permits. Expanded definition and scope of pollution controls for factory farms are critical to the Bay's long-term health.
Similarly, as the fastest growing source of water pollution in the watershed, policies to curb urban stormwater runoff - such as green roofs, rain gardens, permeable pavement and other great solutions highlighted in NRDC's Rooftops to Rivers report - are also sorely needed. Environmental site design approaches are now in use in many communities throughout the Bay watershed. These approaches are visually appealing, very effective at reducing pollution into the Bay and the streams that feed into it, and usually more cost-effective than other approaches as well. These approaches must be expanded to protect all the rivers and streams that flow to the Chesapeake Bay.

The recommendations for the Bay restoration reports will outline critical steps needed to control pollution in the streams, rivers, and water that millions of people depend on. These reports, coupled with strong legislation announced by Senator Cardin, the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem Restoration Act, outline a bold new approach to cleaning up our nation's largest estuary. They move beyond a series of previously ineffective efforts to control all the major sources of water pollution to achieve real results in restoring the health of the Bay. They also create new partnerships that encourage expanded use of proven, cost-efficient practices and policies to reduce pollution and restore fisheries.

The Chesapeake Bay watershed spans portions of six states and more than 60,000 square miles. The only way to clean up the Bay is to get all of those states and the pollution sources in them to work at home to clean up the streams that supply drinking water, recreational opportunities, and economic heft to communities large and small throughout the watershed. Federal leadership is critical to making this happen, so we are delighted to see that the Obama Administration is choosing clean water as one of its earliest priorities.

A Surprise Way to Keep Our Beaches Clean: Pass a Climate Bill

2009-09-01T15:43:48Z

Nancy Stoner, NRDC alum

For the more than two decades I have been working to clean up our nation's beaches and waterways, the Clean Water Act has been the primary tool of my trade. But this year, I have a new solution to turn to: the clean energy and climate bill working its way through Congress.

What does an energy bill have to do with beachwater? An awful lot, it turns out, because global warming poses an immediate risk to nearly every town and city beach across the country.

I saw for myself how this works just a few weeks ago. Like millions of Americans, I fled the August heat by heading to the beach. My family chose Block Island, just off the coast of Rhode Island, for our swimming holiday. But our trip was cut short when Hurricane Bill loomed on the horizon and prompted many vacationers to evacuate.

It turns out Hurricane Bill wasn't as powerful as expected. Still, I don't regret leaving early. I have learned from my years as a water advocate that you don't want to swim at the beach after a powerful rainstorm, whether it's a hurricane or a sudden downpour.

Why? Because when it rains on town and city streets, water rushes into storm drains pulling oil, toxins, and fertilizers along with it. In many communities, stormwater gets passed through the same pipes as sewage, and when the system gets swamped by rain, the sewage gets dumped raw--with all its cargo of infectious bacteria, viruses, and parasites-- right next to nearby beaches.

In NRDC's Testing the Waters: A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches, we discovered that there were more than 20,000 days of closings and advisories in 2008. Stormwater runoff was the number one identified cause.

Global warming could send these beach closing numbers through the roof.

Global warming will cause more extreme storm events, including downpours. And the more powerful storms we have, the more pathogens will end up in our beaches--specifically more microbes that cause stomach flu, diarrhea, skin rashes, and neurological and blood infections.

Luckily, those of us who care about keeping our beaches safe and clean and open have this new tool at our disposal: the climate legislation that passed through the House in June and is now headed to the Senate.

The bill could help protect our beaches in three critical ways.

It will set firm limits on global warming pollution, which will help minimize the impacts of climate change, including storm events.
It calls for protecting the wetlands, coastal dunes, and other natural systems that buffer us from storms and help filter out pollutants in stormwater.
It offers funding for water utilities and sewage treatment plants to update their storm drains and make their infrastructure more resilient to climate change.

Since the Senate has not yet released its own version of the bill, we don't yet know exactly which programs will be included in the final version. But I remain optimistic.

Senator Ben Cardin from Maryland, for instance is not only a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee charged with drafting the Senate climate bill, but he is also the chair of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee. He is well information about and able to communicate the interplay between fighting global warming and keeping our water clean.

I encourage you to add your voice to this effort. Click here to tell your senator that you support combating climate change and preserving our beaches at the same time. You can also click here to find out how well your favorite beaches are handling stormwater, and then contact your local officials to encourage them to support the climate bill--the newest thing in clean water protection.

Best Urban Beaches

2009-08-27T13:46:51Z

Nancy Stoner, NRDC alum

As an urban dweller and water advocate, I love The Huffington Post's contest to rank the best city beaches in the United States. It's true that many of our coastal cities boast some spectacular, easily accessible beaches.

But all too often they also offer something else: an elevated risk of contracting rashes and diarrhea because failing urban pipes dump untreated sewage and polluted stormwater flows right into our beaches after heavy rains.

The number of these events is startling. Every year, NRDC releases Testing the Waters: A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches. In this year's report, we discovered that there were more than 20,000 days of closings and advisories in 2008 because beachwater exceeded public health standards.

For instance, one of Huffington's featured beaches, Zuma Beach in Los Angeles County, exceeded health standards for beachwater quality (indicating the presence of human or animal waste) 11 percent of the time in 2008. While some beaches fared worse, that's 4 percent higher than the national average, and shows that Zuma is prone to dirty runoff.

This is the case in communities all around our country, but the effect is more intense in metropolitan areas. When it rains on city streets, water rushes into storm drains pulling oil, toxins, pet waste, fertilizers, and trash along with it.

In many cities, stormwater gets passed through the same pipes as sewage, and when the system gets swamped by a downpour, the sewage sometimes bypasses the treatment plant and gets dumped raw--with all its cargo of infectious bacteria, viruses, and parasites-upstream from urban beaches.

This is what occasionally happens at San Francisco's Ocean Beach, another beach included in Huffington's contest and one popular with surfers. City officials closed certain stretches for several days in 2008 because mixed stormwater and sewage was discharged after heavy rains.

The best way to keep beaches open is to keep the pollution out of the water in the first place.

Federal and local governments can make this a priority by requiring better controls on stormwater and sewage. A key solution is to use something called low impact development--techniques that retain and filter rainwater where it falls, letting it soak back into the ground rather than running off into waterways.

But in the meantime, if you want to enjoy the last days of summer by taking a dip in your city's best swimming holes--and you want to avoid a trip to the emergency room--take a look at NRDC's beach guide before you go. It will tell you how well your city officials monitor local beaches and how often they have exceeded health standards.

You can also take a look at our 5-star rating guide for 200 of the nation's most popular beaches. This is a good place to find swimming options that are fun and healthy. The water at these beaches is monitored more than once a week and almost always meets public health standards. In addition, the public is promptly informed whenever contamination is found.

Here is a sample of some well rated beaches (5 stars):

Gulf Shores Public Beach (AL)
Laguna Beach-Main Beach (CA)
Bolsa Chica State Beach in Huntington Beach (CA),
Newport Beach (CA)
Ocean City (MD)
Park Point - Community Club Beach in Duluth (MN)
Hampton Beach State Park in Hampton (NH).

And for tips on how to have a healthy trip to the beach, check out this live chat with me from earlier in the summer.

With Beach Closings on the Rise, It's Time to Pioneer Clean Water Solutions

2009-08-10T19:27:09Z

Nancy Stoner, NRDC alum

I spent most of last week talking to reporters about NRDC's 19th annual beachwater quality report, Testing the Waters. I walked them through our findings: that that there were more than 20,000 times when beaches were deemed unhealthy for swimming--mostly because of sewer overflows and stormwater pollution.

Many of the journalists I spoke to were surprised by how much human and animal waste is fouling our beaches, especially in the Great Lakes, where 13 percent of beachwater samples violated public health standards

After all, we live during the 21st century in the richest country in the world. We shouldn't have to cancel beach trips-or contract diarrhea or skin rashes-because our aging stormwater and sewage systems dump waste into our streams and coastal waters. Surely we can do better than this, right?

The answer is yes, America can do a better job of keeping our beaches and waterways clean. In the past, we pioneered major innovations in water treatment and public health.

The trouble is there hasn't been much innovation in the United States in our treatment of water and wastewater in decades.

We desperately need to embrace the next wave of modernization in our water systems. The solutions already exist, and a number of forward-thinking cities have begun to implement them, but in order to put them in place on a widespread scale, we need new national standards that will motivate cities to take action.

Until we do, our trips to the beach will continue to send far too many of us rushing to the bathroom or the emergency room.

No Major Innovation since the 1980s

If you ask water gurus what the major accomplishment of the Clean Water Act was, the first answer you will often get is: it required the secondary treatment of sewage.

Before the law passed, most cities were still dumping raw sewage into rivers, lakes, and oceans, or they were only treating providing primary treatment-simply removing the solids.

The Clean Water Act of 1972 changed that. It required all sewage to undergo secondary treatment and, as a result, plants today use both biological and mechanical treatment methods to remove contaminants. This is how Lake Erie was cleaned up. It is how the Hudson, Potomac, Ohio, and many other rivers were cleaned up too.

We Have a History of Making Clean Water Breakthroughs

The Clean Water Act's mandate of secondary sewage treatment was a public health milestone. But it was one of many in American history. Back in the 1800s, when cholera epidemics were killing thousands, people figured out that you shouldn't get your drinking water from the same place you dump sewage. This prompted cities to put intake pipes upstream of waste discharge.

This system worked for awhile until people realized that one city's downstream sewage dump was another cities upstream drinking water source. Just think of how many communities draw water and dump sewage along the Mississippi River.

Experts suggested that cities start treating sewage before it got released into waterways. As early as 1916, some U.S. cities stepped up their treatment techniques. The results were astonishing. Many public health advocates say that improvements in sanitation saved more lives than any medical innovation in the 20th century.

But even though the treatment technology was available, not all communities adopted it--not until the Clean Water Act passed and mandated improved controls.

Time to Confront the Next Generation of Pollutants

That was back in 1972. We haven't had a major nationwide technological innovation since then. And yet current secondary treatment methods don't address what is now the biggest source of water pollution in the United States: nutrients.

Nutrients fuel algal blooms, and when algae die, the process sucks up oxygen in the water, creating the infamous Dead Zones in the Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of Mexico. These deadly nutrients come primarily from fertilizer, either organic or manufactured, sewage, and animal feedlots.

Most current treatment plants were designed to reduce organic waste, not nutrients. This is a next generation problem, and we need to implement the next generation solution. The technologies exist to help sewage plants do this, but for many, there is no incentive, no mandate, and very little funding to support their use.

Similarly, for contaminated stormwater-the largest identified cause of beach closings and advisories-we can utilize low impact development, or "green infrastructure." These techniques, including rain gardens along sidewalks and streets, green roofs for absorbing rain on buildings, and permeable pavement, help rainwater soak back into the ground instead of running off and carrying urban pollution into overtaxed sewer systems and waterways.

Now, more than three decades after the passage of the Clean Water Act, it is time to leap forward once again. We need new standards and new techniques to protect our water and our health. We must require facilities to reduce their nutrient pollution. In many cases, this can be accomplished with relatively minor adjustments to existing biological treatment processes.

For stormwater, we need to we design our neighborhoods, office buildings, and strip malls to protect water resources. EPA has been talking about why these approaches are better for almost a decade - now it is time to put them into action comprehensively.

Once these innovations become routine--just as secondary treatment once did--we will enjoy cleaner, safer waters for swimming. And NRDC's Testing the Waters report will no longer have to count beach closings in the thousands (click here to see if your beach is clean). I look forward to that day.

A Bold New Idea Could Change How We Manage Water

2009-07-30T20:21:14Z

Nancy Stoner, NRDC alum

This week the Aspen Institute released a groundbreaking report that should help transform the way America looks at our water system.

When most people hear the term "water infrastructure," they tend to think of pipes, drains, and maybe a water main or two. But thanks to this new report, additional images may soon leap to mind: the wetlands, grassy plains, and other natural systems that are now being recognized as the most cost-effective way to recycle and filter our water.

This is a bold new idea, and that was the goal of the Aspen Institute's Dialogue on Sustainable Water Infrastructure--to look at the big picture, long-term needs of our water resources and envision new ways of managing them.

I was fortunate to be a member of the dialogue, along with about 25 other people from various sewer authorities, private water companies, and other environmental groups. We gathered for four workshops and had the chance to rethink traditional approaches to water.

You see, we have been working on a pretty old model for the past several decades. For sewage treatment is goes like this: transport the sewage to a treatment plant, treat it, and discharge it into a waterway. For stormwater, it is about putting the dirty water in pipes and getting it off the land as quickly as possible. Anything outside of that loop--say, the nearby wetlands that might have helped filter the stormwater--wasn't often considered as a useful tool.

If you went to a conference of sewer authorities or wastewater operators--as I have done many times--most of the discussions have focused around particular, day-to-day problems: how do we detect leaking pipes? What is the best way to biologically remove nutrients from treatment plants?

The Aspen Dialogue and the accompanying report offer a chance to step back and think about what makes water infrastructure sustainable in the long run--both environmentally and economically.

When we looked at infrastructure on these terms, it became clear that the natural systems that nurture and sustain our water must be included in water planning. These include soil, vegetation, and even the water cycle itself, so that groundwater and surface water supplies are replenished as we use them.

And another bold idea follows from that conclusion: preserving these wetlands and forests is not only in the interest fish and wildlife, but also in the interest of people. We need these ecosystems to remain healthy so they can keep the water we drink and swim in healthy.

Local water authorities will be responsible for using these new approaches, but we agreed that the federal government also has a role to play. It can set minimum standards s that wherever you go in the United States, you'll know that you can drink the tap water, swim in the lakes and beaches, and eat the fish without getting sick.

The federal government can also encourage innovation--which is much needed considering the last wave of water treatment innovations occurred over 20 years ago. And the federal government can help low-income communities pay for these new approaches.

Funding new ways of doing things is always a challenge, and it became a contested issue at the Aspen Dialogue. NRDC supports the trust fund idea that was recently introduced in the House in the Water Protection and Reinvestment Act. The bill would help cities invest not only in existing infrastructure, but also in long-term solutions such as green infrastructure and water conservation and reuse.

It is my hope that both the Aspen report and the legislation will inspire water managers across the country--from city sustainability offices to global warming adaptation initiatives--to start including natural systems in their infrastructure planning.

And I hope they do it soon, because our waterways are in urgent need of help. Just yesterday, NRDC released our annual Testing the Waters report of beach closures. And with more than 20,000 days last year when beaches deemed unhealthy for swimming--largely due to sewage and stormwater overflows--it is clear our nation needs to a new vision for managing our water resources.

NRDC's Beach report out today

2009-07-29T14:25:30Z

Nancy Stoner, NRDC alum

NRDC's 19th Annual Beach Report, 5-Star Guide to 200 U.S. Beaches Out Today

When you're daydreaming about a trip to the shore this summer - I'm guessing human or animal waste in the waves that can send you running to the bathroom, doctor's office - or worse - the emergency room, isn't part of the picture. Am I right?

Unfortunately - that is reality, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council's 19th annual Testing the Waters report that was released today.

Beachwater pollution can give swimmers the stomach flu, skin rashes, pinkeye, ear, nose and throat problems, dysentery, hepatitis, respiratory ailments, neurological disorders and other serious health problems. For senior citizens, small children, and people with weak immune systems, the results can be fatal. But don't let it bum you out. There are things you can do to keep you and your family from getting sick at the beach, as well as improve beachwater quality.

Read on to see how your favorite beach stacked up in our *5-STAR RATING GUIDE TO 200 POPULAR U.S. BEACHES* and get an overview of this year's results!

DETAILS:

5-STAR GUIDE TO AMERICA'S BEACHES
The report's 5-star rating guide ranks 200 of the nation's most popular beaches based on indicators of beachwater quality, monitoring frequency, and public notification to protect beachgoers from contamination. Check out the complete list here to see how your favorite beach fared!

WHAT'S CLIMATE CHANGE GOT TO DO WITH IT?
For the first time ever, the Testing the Waters report this year also explores the effects of climate change on beachwater quality, revealing that it is expected to make pollution worse due. Temperature increases, and more frequent and intense rainstorms, will lead to increased stormwater runoff, sewer pollution and disease-causing pathogens - including those that cause stomach flu, diarrhea and neurological problems - in America's beachwater.

HOW CLEAN WERE AMERICA'S BEACHES IN 2008?
Last year there were more than 20,000 closing and advisory days issued at ocean, bay and Great Lakes beaches for the fourth consecutive year. Seven percent of beachwater samples violated health standards nationwide, indicating fecal contamination and showing no improvement from the last two years. From 2005-2008, the Great Lakes have consistently tested the dirtiest, while the Southeast and Delmarva Peninsula proved relatively cleaner than other regions. The primary pollution sources, stormwater runoff after heavy rains (responsible for 38 percent of closing & advisory days) and sewage pollution (responsible for 8 percent) continue to be serious problems that haven't been addressed. For the full report, go to www.nrdc.org/beaches.

SOLUTIONS
There's a wide variety of things that can be done to improve outlook for America's waves.

Prevention is the best way to protect swimmers from beachwater pollution. Federal, state and local governments can make this a priority by requiring better controls on stormwater and sewage, the two largest known sources of pollution. Key solutions include upgrading sewage treatment facilities and using low impact development techniques that retain and filter rainwater where it falls and let it soak back into the ground, rather than runoff it into waterways (i.e. strategically placed rain gardens in yards, tree boxes on city sidewalks, green roofs that use absorbent vegetation on top of buildings, and permeable pavement that allows water to penetrate the material, instead of asphalt or concrete).
Climate legislation: The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) [http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/legislation/default.asp] that recently passed the House of Representatives will help communities prepare for further impacts of climate change on coastal communities such as flooding, sea level rise, increased stormwater pollution and sewer overflows, in addition to capping global warming pollution.
Better testing: The Clean Coastal Environment and Public Health Act pending in Congress would provide money for more beachwater sampling and for finding and cleaning up sources of beachwater pollution. It would also require use of faster testing methods so people get timely information about whether it is safe to swim.
Simple steps in your daily life: Individuals can help clean up beach pollution by picking up pet waste, maintaining septic systems, putting plastic pants on babies, keeping trash off the beach, and properly disposing of household toxics, used motor oil and boating wastes.

Stay healthy this summer - and help us clean up our beachwater for our vacations to come. Check out NRDC's website for more information: http://www.nrdc.org/beaches.