Sustainable Water Management

Daniel H. Chen, Daniel H. Chen

• Editorial: CRC Press
• Año: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781315356310
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Technology & Engineering
• Categoría: Chemical & Biochemical Engineering

While the world's population continues to grow, the availability of water remains constant. Facing the looming water crisis, society needs to tackle strategic management issues as an integrated part of the solution toward water sustainability. The first volume in the two-volume set Sustainable Water Management and Technologies offers readers a practical and comprehensive look at such key water management topics as water resource planning and governance, water infrastructure planning and adaption, proper regulations, and water scarcity and inequality. It discusses best management practices for water resource allocation, ground water protection, and water quality assurance, especially for rural, arid, and underdeveloped regions of the world. Timely topics such as drought, ecosystem sustainability, climate change, and water management for shale oil and gas development are presented.

• 
  
  

• Discusses best practices for water resource allocation, ground water protection, and water quality assurance.

• 
  
  

• Offers chapters on urban, rural, arid, and underdeveloped regions of the world.

• 
  
  

• Describes timely topics such as drought, ecosystem sustainability, climate change, and water management for shale oil and gas development.

• 
  
  

• Covers water resource planning and governance, water infrastructure planning and adaptation, proper regulations, and water scarcity and inequality

• 
  
  

• Discusses water resource monitoring, efficiency, and quality management.

1	Water Quality Management Kevin Wagner, Lucas Gregory, and Allen Berthold

CONTENTS

1.1 Water Quality and Its Management in the United States

1.1.1 Water Quality in the United States

1.1.2 Overview of Water Quality Management

1.2 Surface Water Quality Assessment

1.2.1 Water Quality Monitoring

1.2.2 Surface Water Quality Assessment Approaches

1.2.3 Alternative/Complementary Approaches to Current Surface Water Quality Assessment Methods

1.2.3.1 Risk-Based Approach

1.2.3.2 Increased Monitoring and Requirements for Impaired Status

1.2.3.3 Use of Surrogate Variables to Increase Data Frequency

1.3 Methods to Address Water Quality Impairments

1.3.1 Water Quality Standards Review

1.3.2 Verification Monitoring

1.3.3 Assessment of Recovery Potential

1.3.4 Watershed Planning

1.3.4.1 TMDLs and TMDL I-Plans

1.3.4.2 Watershed-Based Plans

1.3.5 Comparison of Methods

1.4 Watershed Planning Approaches

1.4.1 History and Evolution of Watershed Planning

1.4.2 TMDLs and I-Plans

1.4.3 Watershed-Based Plans

1.4.4 Comparison of TMDLs and WBPs

1.5 The Watershed Plan Development Process

1.5.1 Linking Process and Plan

1.5.2 Time Frames for Development, Tools Required, and Costs

1.5.3 Stakeholder Involvement: A Look at Various Approaches for Engagement and Effective Approaches

1.6 Key Practices and Programs Included in Watershed Plans

1.6.1 Common Practices and Programs

1.6.1.1 Agricultural NPS BMPs

1.6.1.2 Urban NPS BMPs

1.6.1.3 Wastewater Management

1.6.1.4 Educational Programs

1.6.1.5 Implementation Monitoring

1.6.2 Divergences

1.6.3 Emerging Practices for Sustainable Management

1.6.4 Recommendations for Improving Watershed Plans

1.7 Implementation of Watershed Plans

1.7.1 Transitioning from Planning to Implementation

1.7.2 Maintaining Momentum

1.7.3 Sustainability

1.8 Analysis of Watershed Plan Impacts

1.8.1 Characteristics of Successful Watershed Plans

1.8.2 Recommendations for Improving Watershed Plan Impacts

1.9 Impact of Training/Support Programs for Watershed Professionals on Success of Watershed Planning and Implementation Efforts

1.9.1 Professional Development Courses and Trainings

1.9.2 Watershed Coordinator Forums

1.10 Opportunities to Enhance the Success of Watershed Planning and Implementation Programs

References

1.1 WATER QUALITY AND ITS MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

The National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress (referred to as the 305(b) report) is the primary means for informing Congress and the public about water quality conditions in the United States. This report describes the level to which each waterbody is attaining established water quality standards.

1.1.1 WATER QUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES

According to the 305(b) report, the majority of waterbodies in the United States do not meet established water quality standards. More than half (51%) of river miles, two-thirds (67%) of lake acres, and almost three-quarters (72%) of the bay and estuary areas assessed were impaired in 2010. More than 42,700 waterbodies were impaired in the United States in 2010, with Alaska having the fewest (35) and Pennsylvania having the most (6957).

Pathogens (in rivers and streams) and mercury (in lakes, reservoirs, bays, and estuaries) are the leading causes of water quality impairment (Table 1.1). Organic enrichment/oxygen depletion and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are common causes of impairment in all waterbody types as well. These impairments have affected the use of these waters for aquatic life harvesting; fish, shellfish, and wildlife protection and propagation; and recreation.

In many US waters, the source of the impairment is unknown. Where sources have been identified, atmospheric deposition, agriculture, and municipal discharges (Table 1.2) are the most common cause of impairment. With the exception of municipal discharges, the top sources of pollutants are nonpoint sources (NPSs), which present significant challenges in waterbody restoration.

TABLE 1.1

Top Causes of Impairment in Rivers/Streams, Lakes/Reservoirs, and Bays/Estuaries in the United States and Percentage of Assessed Miles or Area Impaired in Parentheses

Rank	Rivers/Streams	Lakes/Reservoirs	Bays/Estuaries
1	Pathogens (16%)	Mercury (43%)	Mercury (33%)
2	Sediment (12%)	Nutrients (18%)	PCBs (23%)
3	Nutrients (10%)	PCBs (16%)	Pathogens (21%)
4	Organic enrichment/oxygen depletion (9%)	Turbidity (8%)	Organic enrichment/oxygen depletion (17%)
5	PCBs (8%)	Organic enrichment/oxygen depletion (8%)	Dioxins (14%)

Source: EPA, 2014a, National summary of state information, Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results. http://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control (accessed August 18, 2014).

TABLE 1.2

Top Sources of Impairment in Rivers/Streams, Lakes/Reservoirs, and Bays/Estuaries in the United States and Percentage of Assessed Miles or Area Impaired by Source in Parentheses

Rank	Rivers/Streams	Lakes/Reservoirs	Bays/Estuaries
1	Agriculture (13%)	Atmospheric deposition (27%)	Atmospheric deposition (25%)
2	Unknown (10%)	Unknown (18%)	Unknown (18%)
3	Atmospheric deposition (10%)	Agriculture (5%)	Municipal discharges (17%)

Source: EPA, 2014a, National summary of state information, Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results. http://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control (accessed August 18, 2014).

1.1.2 OVERVIEW OF WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT

To address water quality impairments and ensure the aquatic integrity of the nation’s waters, the US Congress enacted the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) to be administered under the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The water quality management framework established by the CWA is based on the establishment and implementation of water quality standards (Figure 1.1). Water quality standards serve as the basis for administering permits, evaluating compliance, and assessing waterbody conditions.

Standards are established by each state, reviewed and approved by the EPA, and normally updated every 3 years. Water quality standards consist of three key elements:

1. Designated uses, which describe the waterbody’s uses

a. Examples: recreation, domestic water supply, aquatic life, fish consumption

2. Water quality criteria, which are scientifically based numeric or narrative criteria designed to protect designated uses

a. Example: The geometric mean criterion to protect primary contact recreation in fresh water is 126 colony-forming units (cfu) of Escherichia coli per 100 ml of water.

3. Antidegradation policies, which are designed to keep clean waters clean

Because water quality standards serve as the basis for water quality management, appropriate standards must be applied to each waterbody. Applying incorrect designated uses and water quality criteria can result in wasted time, taxpayer money, and effort; take away resources from waters that truly require it; and, in the process, degrade stakeholder confidence in and support for restoration efforts. For example, when water quality standards were established in Texas, all classified segments, except those with significant ship or barge traffic, were designated as being used for primary contact recreation (i.e., swimming). No site assessments were completed to determine whether waterbodies were actually used for primary contact recreation or if they could physically support recreation (i.e., possessed needed width, depth, or accessibility). Over time, this resulted in hundreds of rivers and streams being identified as not supporting contact recreation (i.e., impaired). Subsequently, significant funding was, and continues to be, dedicated to develop and implement strategies to address these “impairments.” This was partially corrected in the 2010 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards, and efforts are now underway to conduct the individual site assessments needed to accurately identify the true use of each river and stream.

Once water quality standards are established, each state monitors and evaluates water quality data collected to assess its compliance with applicable water quality standards. Waterbodies not complying with established standards must undergo remedial efforts to bring them into compliance. For those waters meeting standards, antidegradation policies are applied to ensure that they stay in compliance and their designated uses are maintained and protected.

FIGURE 1.1 General water quality management framework in the United States. (Adapted from Parrish, G. 2006. Tribal WQS Training Academy—Introduction to assessment and attainment of water quality standards. First National Forum on Tribal Environmental Science. September 27, 2006, Ocean Shores, WA. http://www.epa.gov/osp/tribes/NatForum06/4_25a.pdf.)

1.2 SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Routine monitoring is conducted to assess overall water quality, evaluate changes over time, document pollutant loading identify areas needing protection, and assess the effectiveness of programs designed to restore and protect water quality. Monitoring assists in setting water quality standards, developing restoration strategies for waterbodies not meeting standards, and evaluating wastewater permits (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality [TCEQ] 2013). The CWA gives states the primary responsibility for monitoring and assessing the nation’s waters and reporting on their quality. However, the EPA maintains oversight of state monitoring programs via CWA §106, which requires the EPA to determine if states have monitoring programs that meet CWA requirements.

1.2.1 WATER QUALITY MONITORING

In the United States, only 29% of river and stream miles, 43% of lake and reservoir acres, and 38% of bay and estuary area have been assessed (EPA 2014a). Because of financial and logistic limitations, states have made trade-offs between the number of sites sampled and the frequency with which they sample. Monitoring is typically planned to maximize available resources so that data collected are (1) reasonably representative of the monitored waterbody both spatially and temporally, (2) acceptable for the planned uses of the data, and (3) focused on priority waters.

In Texas, sampling is generally carried out quarterly, allowing representation of the range of seasonal temperatures and flows (TCEQ 2013). Because of the general adoption of this monitoring frequency, Texas was able to evaluate 1214 waterbodies for its 2012 Integrated Report (TCEQ 2012b). Although this level of monitoring (quarterly) is suitable for providing baseline data when carried out over a long period, in many cases, it is not sufficient for characterizing watershed conditions and loadings, particularly for parameters with high variability (i.e., bacteria). As a result, waterbodies identified as impaired must routinely undergo verification monitoring to confirm the impairment and provide sufficient data for loading calculations.

1.2.2 SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT APPROACHES

In compliance with CWA §305(b) and §303(d), states must routinely assess and report the current conditions of the states’ waters and identify those not meeting water quality standards. EPA guidance requires states to document and submit this assessment biennially, in even-numbered years (TCEQ 2012a). Water quality is evaluated according to assessment guidance developed by each state. Based on the evaluation, waterbodies are placed in one of five categories: those attaining all standards (Category 1), those attaining some standards but data are insufficient to assess all uses (Category 2), those with insufficient data to make an assessment (Category 3), those where standards are not supported but no total maximum daily load (TMDL) is required (Category 4), and those where standards are not supported (Category 5).

Water quality criteria and screening levels generally apply to perennially flowing streams when flow exceeds critical, low flow conditions. Low flow measurements are excluded from waterbody assessments to help prevent inappropriate impa...