Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Non-Point Source (NPS) Water Pollution: A Comparative Analysis of Management Policies in the US, UK, and Canada PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Non-Point Source (NPS) Water Pollution: A Comparative Analysis of Management Policies in the US, UK, and Canada

Non-Point Source (NPS) Water Pollution: A Comparative Analysis of Management Policies in the US, UK, and Canada

246 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Non-Point Source (NPS) Water Pollution: A Comparative Analysis of Management Policies in the US, UK, and Canada

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Non-Point Source (NPS) Water Pollution: A Comparative Analysis of Management Policies in the US, UK, and Canada Christina Motilall ZacRuzycki Amy O’Shea Jon Sperl V550 8/4/2011

  2. Non-Point Source Water Pollution (NPSP) • What is the basic nature of the challenge? • Why does the problem exist? • What human behaviors create/contribute to the problem? • What threat does this pose to the environment and human health? • What changes in management would appropriately address the issue?

  3. NPSP: The Nature of the Challenge • What is non-point source pollution? • Originates from many diffuse sources • Types of NPSP

  4. Ongley 2006

  5. Non-Point Source Water Pollution (NPSP) • What is the basic nature of the challenge? • Why does the problem exist? • What human behaviors create/contribute to the problem? • What threat does this pose to the environment and human health? • What changes in management would remedy the problem?

  6. Why does this problem exist? • Human activities • Urban Areas • Rural and Industrial Areas

  7. Source: US NOAA

  8. Non-Point Source Water Pollution (NPSP) • What is the basic nature of the challenge? • Why does the problem exist? • What human behaviors create/contribute to the problem? • What threat does this pose to the environment and human health? • What changes in management would remedy the problem?

  9. Threats NPSP represents • Human health threats • Threats to the ecosystem • Threat to the economy

  10. Non-Point Source Water Pollution (NPSP) • What is the basic nature of the challenge? • Why does the problem exist? • What human behaviors create/contribute to the problem? • What threat does this pose to the environment and human health? • What changes in management would remedy the problem?

  11. How could management changes address the problem? • Provision of resources and information • Promotion of Best Management Practices • Transitioning regulation turning now to non-point source pollution

  12. United States • NPS pollution has been largest source of water pollution in US waterways since 1980s • ‘Conjoint federalism’ characterizes US system of government • Federal, state, and local authorities blend and apply policy concurrently, though to varying degrees • Generally, for NPS water pollution, federal government has limited power to compel action and mostly sets standards and supplies funding, but power has been expanding • States have varying degrees of regulatory power; • Idiosyncrasies of NPS water pollution naturally push onus to local gov’ts

  13. Early Federal Legislation • Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA) passed in 1948; Water Quality Act in 1965 to address water quality • Not until major amendments in 1972 was NPS water pollution formally addressed • Section 208 of WPCA directed state/local gov’ts to form pollution management plans; identify needs for NPS • Very little was done; agricultural, industry pressure not to act

  14. Section 319 • Section 319 added to CWA in 1987 • New NPS Management Program requires states to identify NPS problems, propose Best Management Plans (BMPs) • Federal grants for up to 60% of cost of state implementation • Like Sec. 208, Sec. 319 lacks federal regulatory teeth; no pollution limit; no enforcement requirement • Required for plans to be drawn up on a watershed-basis (more holistic approach) • Encouraged watershed stakeholders to coordinate efforts • Increased environmental efficacy and cost efficiency

  15. CZMA • NPS water pollution often empties into coastal zones (e.g. Midwest run-off going to Gulf, hypoxic dead-zone) • Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) amended in 1990 to address NPS water pollution • Section 6217 supplies federal funding for states to identify threatened areas, provides technical assistances through NOAA and EPA • Again, no enforcement requirement

  16. USDA • NPS pollution predominantly comes from agricultural run-off; US Department of Agriculture has run various programs in past; presently, • Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) • Provides cost-sharing, technical, and educational assistance to farmers • Programs are overwhelmingly based on BMPs • Statutory requirement to consider “institutional, political, social, economic, and technical feasibility”

  17. TMDLs • Sec. 319 funding has declined since peak in 2004 • EPA increasingly trying to use CWA’s Section 303(d) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) framework to force more stringent action on NPS pollution • Sec. 303(d) does not specifically mention NPS pollution but requires the setting of standard for all water pollution in a waterbody (combined point and NPS) • Courts have ruled EPA can require standard even if 100% of pollution is NPS • Again, implementation and enforcement is entirely up to states

  18. State and Local Level • Federal involvement has increased substantially since 1950s but state/local gov’ts largely control policymaking and implementation • Federal funding is awarded to state/local gov’ts on watershed or project basis • Focus on volunteerism, localism, participation of community stakeholders like: • Watershed councils • Soil conservation districts • Resource conservation councils and departments • Farmers, industry • Environmental groups

  19. Best Management Practices (BMPs) • BMPs are dominant policy tool for most states; examples include • Field crop rotation • Soil/water management • No-till farming • Pesticide storage, handling, and application • Fish and wildlife habitat, farm forestry, or woodland management • Home, lawn, and garden management • Tree, shrub, or windbreak planting • Reduced vehicle speed • Access restrictions

  20. Standards • More rare because they involve more government intrusion • Wisconsin passed an NPS Abatement Program prior to federal passage of Sec. 319 • Uses federal funds simply to supplement its own • Partly in response to increased federal pressure under TMDL framework, Wisconsin has new two-tiered framework: • BMPs are voluntary • Performance standards for ‘critical sites’

  21. Tax Incentives • Typically, non-profit groups (land trusts, water trusts) set up agreements with landowners that restrict certain environmentally destructive behaviors • For example, limiting use of pesticides, requiring more sustainable farming practices • In exchange, landowner gets tax breaks recognized by the government; failure to comply makes landowner liable in court • Some trusts receive Sec. 319 funding; trusts are growing rapidly; water trusts are gaining ground in NPS arena

  22. Water Quality Permit Trading • Growing policy tool but still relatively rare due to difficulties in measuring and monitoring NPS water pollution • EPA released ‘Toolkit for Permit Writers’ in 2003 to assist states in formulating their plans • Trading occurs within a watershed for which a TMDL has been set • Major issue is setting point-nonpoint source ratio and baseline • Credits are generated by implementing BMPs beyond its baseline

  23. Canada and NPSP • Canada Constitution Act (1867) • 10 Provinces, 3 Territories • Power under Constitution Act? • ‘Distributed’ or ‘Runoff’ • Where does it come from? • Agriculture (fertilizer & pesticides) • Atmospheric Deposition

  24. Key Regulations • Canada Water Act (1970) • Governor General must consult provinces • Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (1972) • 1978 & 1987 • Canadian Fisheries Act (1978) • Narrow, but thorough • Canada Environmental Protection Act (1999) • More extensive, more vague • Federal Water Policy & other regulations

  25. British Columbia • 14 pieces of legislation related to NPSP • Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act • Action Plan (1999) • Education & Training • Prevention at the site • Land use planning • Assessment & Reporting • Economic incentives • Legislation & Regulation • 3 phases

  26. Quebec • Large Agricultural Sector • Pigs (2nd largest for Quebec) • Employs over 30,000 people • Poor Watershed • Environment Minister aware of problem • Restrictions in place • Voluntary Approaches • Some initiatives already taken • Ex: Buffer Strips

  27. Manitoba • Water Policies • Policy 1.4 • 65% increase in livestock • 17% of Phosphorus in Lake Winnipeg • Manitoba Water Stewardship • Not just agricultural sampling

  28. Ontario • Focused on pollutants rather than pathways • Pesticides • Nitrate • Pathogens • Still focused on agriculture • A few market systems • Tax Incentives • Still asking for BMPs

  29. Milestones in EuropeanUnion Water Policy • 1st wave: Dangerous Substances Directive • 2nd wave: 1998 seminar aid out: • Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive • Nitrates Directive • 3rdWaveNew European Water Policy : • Directive for Integrated Pollution and Prevention control (IPPC) • Drinking Water Directive

  30. The Water Framework Directive Source: The European Union

  31. River Basin Management Plans Source: The Scottish Government

  32. UK Policies • Environmental Permitting Regulations of 2010 • Precautionary Principal • Code of Good Agricultural Practices • Sustainable drainage systems • Voluntary compliance awards • Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery methods • Public Awareness • Bathing Waters Directive mandated signage

  33. Comparative Analysis • Governmental Structure • Preferred Policy Tools • Legal and Political Culture

  34. Governmental Structure • US federal gov. is generally more involved than Canadian federal gov. • US has high institutional capacity, greater intergovernmental cooperation; EPA is experienced from addressing point source pollution • Canadian federal gov. has not subsidized provincial governments conditionally or unconditionally • UK has more top-down approach than US; most environmental policies come from EU, are approved by national gov’ts and carried out by local gov’ts

  35. Preferred Policy Tools • US: federal and state cost-share subsidies for BMPs requiring state-societal partnerships • Varying supplemental use of standards, tax incentives, water trading at state level • Canada: varies greatly by province, but generally voluntary agreements for BMPs without federal funding or incentives • UK: voluntary BMPs; mandatory local and regional development frameworks

  36. Political, Legal, and Cultural Factors • Necessity of pollution policy, as function of geography, population, industry and agricultural intensity • US and UK have done more because they have to • Institutional capacity • Greater in US and UK • Political culture • Bigger, more centralized government in UK • General cultural aversion to big government in US; federalism constraints • Canada prefers local governance