House Bill 1929 to Increase Pollution in AR waterways

[Half Ton]

FYI

Please contact your Representative and ask them to vote NO on HB1929, which will increase pollution levels in Arkansas waterways.

HB1929 is designed to streamline the process of establishing and enforcing water quality standards in Arkansas. Unfortunately, it does so in a way that creates a financial burden to the state and an environmental burden on fisheries, recreational areas, and drinking water sources. Water quality standards can and should be reformed by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality in a way that will work for Arkansas, not by a bill written and sponsored by those who would benefit from decreased water quality standards.

Please contact your Representative 00Q6000000ks3oNEAQ:
Arkansas House of Representatives: 501-682-6211


Ask 00Q6000000ks3oNEAQ to vote NO on HB1929.

Find more talking points on HB1929 below, or see the letter the CFC sent to your Representative.


Reasons to VOTE NO on House Bill 1929 weakening Arkansas water quality standards:

HB1929 allows increased pollution of our waters. The bill allows higher concentrations of minerals (mostly made up of salts) in our streams, lakes, and reservoirs. For a very large number of our surface waters, there will no longer be any numeric limits on the in-stream concentrations of minerals (again, largely salts).
HB1929 conflicts with the federal Clean Water Act. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated in correspondence with the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) that the bill does not comport with the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act that apply to the states and that govern the establishment and revision of state water quality standards. It could result in EPA disapproving the state’s water quality standards and taking back the administration of wastewater discharge permits from ADEQ. This would be bad for industry and conservationists alike.
HB1929 jeopardizes the state’s future drinking water supplies. The bill will take away the drinking water use designation and protections from many streams that aren’t currently thought to be potential drinking water supplies, but in fact may turn out to be a community’s best option for a water supply in the future. Many current and former public water supplies were created by damming small, low-flow streams. Even though the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) is responsible for the administration of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act in the state, the bill does not provide for the participation of ADH in the determination of which streams are to be protected as future water supplies.
HB1929 does not fully protect existing drinking water supplies. The broader protections the amendments would extend to water bodies within the watershed of a lake or reservoir used as a public water supply do not extend to the watersheds of rivers or streams that are used as drinking water supplies or to private drinking water supplies. Over 435,000 Arkansans get their drinking water from rivers and streams, rather than from lakes or reservoirs.
HB1929 contains unsound technical specifications that will harm existing and future drinking water supplies. The protections the bill may appear to provide to existing public water supplies are limited by unsound technical specifications and undefined terminology. The detailed requirements regarding the flow values to be used and the minimum number of samples required for various water quality assessments are not based on sound science, but rather are intended to allow higher levels of minerals to be discharged and to delay as long as possible the imposition of any discharge limits.
HB1929 is unnecessary. There are regulations already in place to address the issues certain industries and municipalities have regarding minerals without throwing the state water quality standards and ADEQ’s wastewater discharge permitting process into chaos. ADEQ has been moving forward to implement additional policies to further streamline the process.

From Citizens First Congress and AR Public Policy Panel -

This could impact waterways all across Arkansas.

[curly]

crickets.....

[hollohead]

Thanks for the heads up Half Ton, I will definitely call and give em heck. Seems to me, a lot of the dumb ideas being kicked around in Arkansas are a direct response and "in your face" to Washington politics. How's the song go? "clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you".

[Half Ton]

I think Murphy put it best "niether life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness are safe while legeslature is in session" or something like that.

This year's bunch is really producing a lot of legislation, no doubt. How much it will all cost in the long run in terms of tax dollars, quality of life, and environment remains to be seen.

Thanks Hollohead for making contact with your representatives on this one, and thanks also for being constantly involved! Citizens like you in AR really make a positive difference.

[we66erno1]

Was at the PEC meeting this morning and heard more about this bill. This is a bad deal and its apparently reckless. Supposedly if the State Senate votes for it, the state would get sued by the EPA. The EPA is completely against it, because it violates numerous federal laws.

I'm against this law completely. Arkansas is one of the few states that has a lot of streams with good water quality.

The ACC as a whole should come out against this bill.

I'm writing a letter to the Governer and to the Attorney General, that I'm against this new measure. The Governer can veto this. And if the EPA is prepared to sue the State if its passed, the AG will be forced to defend it.

I hope others will write and contact their representatives on this matter.

[Half Ton]

Brad - Thanks for your continual involvement in working to help keep our waterways clean!! Your personal actions of being part of a small guerilla crew that removed a large boat from a local stream, and your many other efforts are commendable and inspirational

[DeBo]

This Bill goes to the Senate Public Health Committee tomorrow. Please see details on the new thread that I posted with a catchier title. I will be there along with several other organizations opposing this Bill.

[Cadron Boy]

Hopefully everyone will study this issue in detail before jumping on yet another groupthink bandwagon. A good place to start might include Sarah Clem's Triennial Review at:[url =http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/branc ... ennial.pdf] Regulation 2 Minerals Sub-Group [/url].

The ADEQ -- and thus the people of Arkansas -- are placed in a difficult position when it comes to regulating certain minerals in some of our streams due to immense local variations in water quality thanks to our rich geological foundation. For example, there are many springs emerging from the ground (often those small streams under 4cfs) that are extremely rich in naturally occurring minerals -- we have salty brines (chlorine) and water so stinky (sulphur) you can smell it from nearly a mile away. To treat and classify every waterway the same regardless of its natural condition and variability over time to secure a specific "water quality" is simply asinine. Overzealous and needless regulation would follow which could certainly be a detriment to us all.

Please also note that EPA water quality criteria do not have the force of law until the state translates them into permit limits and imposes specific regulations; and, through the legislative process to establish such laws we have bills like HB 1929. Now, the EPA recognizes the importance of local oversight in the protection of our nation's streams and encourages -- often to the point of mandating -- that every state develop and run their own water quality assessments. Thus you will find these regulations that arose through the Clean Water Act differ from state to state -- Oklahoma's is different that Texas' which is different than Louisiana's and so forth. Moreover nearly every state has existing water quality regulations on their books that do not have EPA approval and which may never acquire EPA approval -- and that doesn't necessarily mean long expensive protracted legal battles with the EPA or federal government. For example, in a recent assessment of State Implementation Plans regarding GHG emissions the EPA found 13 states in need of corrective action -- some states like Arkansas didn't even have EPA approved GHG guidelines until just last week! And now Arkansas is the first state in our region to replace a federal implementation plan with a specific state program which will eliminate the need for businesses to seek air permits from two separate regulatory agencies. And all without a expensive legal battle!

Early on the ADEQ adopted "ecoregions" to serve as the basis in establishing specific criteria as to possible contaminants that may foul our waters. It was a good approach, even thoughtful in its recognition of environmental and geological disparities, to establish natural background measures for minerals within our water. But sadly, there is simply too much variation in water quality among our smallest of streams to be fully applicable -- especially when the standard for most of the streams for which we are concerned are deemed to be suitable for domestic water uses. And this variability extends to the deepest reaches of our groundwater -- that is why you can have a place like Heber Springs where a half dozen springs emerge within a few feet of one another but which are distinctly different in their chemical properties. You simply cannot lump them all together -- not even within a common ecoregion. Yet if the EPA and the ADEQ can acknowledge that non-attainment of certain criteria is often due to natural source concentrations of minerals why can't the public at large especially when the toxicity of minerals is typically due solely to ionic imbalances. Sadly the people that fear minerals in their water are the same folks pissing pharmaceuticals into potable water and using petro-chemicals in cleansing and rinsing their skin and dishes.

And then you have places like Evraz Stratcor near Hot Springs and ADEQ's apparent laxity in regulating effluents from their holding basins. The Stratcor vanadium mine lies in the vicinity of an igneous extrusion that once supported a large resort community -- Potash Sulphur Springs -- that was famous for its "mineral water". Water today that most of us today would find particularly distasteful and which only marginally complies with EPA's Clean Water criteria. Is Stratcor any more culpable than earth's natural processes in contributing to the high mineral content of the effluents leaving the site through small first and second order streams? Just how accountable do we hold the company? Should they "cleanse" the water to a level of purity and clarity that even exceeds its natural occurrence?

I personally fail to see where this regulation places a new environmental burden on small fishing, recreation and drinking water. Let's see some specific examples. I believe there are none -- its only an assumption, a possibility. Now I do concur it will polarize water issues for years to come -- that is, if we allow it to do so -- but for the vast majority of us we'll never ever be impacted and we'll forget the matter like yesterday's news. As to the possibility that the state is going to be burdened by legal expenses in confronting the EPA in this matter -- poppycock! Federal intervention and interpretation of our state's environmental regulations is the norm not the exception -- that is basis of current enviornmental law. Moreover, the ADEQ who enforces environmental laws is beholden to the EPA (that is why we have triennial reviews) and federal intervention and oversight of ADEQ is continuous. And as for the claim that those smaller streams (<4cfs), so critical to our recreational pursuits as they feed into larger order streams, will no longer be protected -- well, that is probably over-reaching a bit for a stream of less than 4cfs is quickly diluted and achieves a mix commensurate with natural background concentrations within a few feet of whatever larger stream to which it contributes. And I can't even begin to fathom how this could ever become a interstate legal matter aka the Illinois River and Oklahoma/Arkansas -- please someone enlighten me.

Now with all that said -- and with the intent to present opposing viewpoints -- I am with Debo and also oppose HB 1929, just for different reasons. Albeit I have no particular objections as to the content of the bill and appreciate the dilemma in which the ADEQ has found itself my fear lies in what the bill doesn't say -- that is, it leaves the door open, just slightly, to those who might wish to slip through and bypass the intent of the bill -- the potential is a person, a farmer, an industry might consider fouling one of our smaller streams thinking he might be able to stay under the limits imposed by the ADEQ by containing such pollutants to such a small backyard stream. Now it would likely take a most unusual set of circumstances for such "violations" to go undetected very long because as we know all small streams eventually become a larger stream for which water quality criteria will remain ever so stringent (debatable point!) -- but nevertheless, I will sleep better at night knowing that such possibilities are far less likely to occur.

One last thing -- it is my opinion that this bill represents good intentions, its just not quite what we need. With some revisions and restrictions I think a similar bill could be developed which better addresses all parties and interests. This one needs to go back for a re-write.

[sig]

More crazy a**, poorly written legislation from the teapot head clown mobile. Hopefully it goes down tomorrow in committee.

[we66erno1]

Cardon Boy,

Post what you want. But your wrong. Even Half-Ton is against this bill. And we don't agree on much. But we both agree on being against this bill. All small streams end in a larger tributary, that in turn ends in a major river, that eventually ends in the ocean or in your drinking glass. Both of which need all the regulation we can muster.

Since you own a livery business on one of these large tributaries to the Arkansas river, I figured you'd be against this bill. Just because of your business and the water it depends on. I hope you change your tune, once you realize how bad this bill could hurt all the streams in Arkansas, including the one that Cadron Creek Outfitters is situated on.

[Half Ton]

Hahaha. Yeah. There is a thread about this topic that was recently posted and has a more catchy name

And YES CADRON BO is back!!! @ cadron, hey you are right on several points about the rules and joe they do not take into account naturally occurring sources of minerals and metals which are naturally occurring, yet still result in an impaired listing for some streams and that adeq and EPA don't always see eye to eye.
You are also right that the EPA does allow states to set their own WQ standards to an extent. However, taking away the restrictions for every day minerals that can be discharged into surface waters at the rate of 6.5 million gallons a day in many cases is not a good thing. Especially since depending on what Eco region these discharges occur in could lead to different problems in each one. Not as bad in some, worse than in others and dependent on what mineral and how much is discharged. 6.5 million gallons a day discharge times .1 ppm (mg/ml) can equal several thousand pounds of a particular substance into a stream. A watershed with many waste water discharges can even surpass 100,000 lbs discharged into waterways. Now, that's just for waste water treatment of our poop. What about all the other discharges out there? Even more! There might be some good intent behind this one, but we've all heard what the road to hades is paved with right?

[summerbee]

anti 1929. called, written, 'nuff said.

[Half Ton]

HB1929 passed committee 5-0

[Cadron Boy]

Whoa... Read a little further we66erno1 and you'll see that I too oppose the bill but was trying to simply present other "sides of the issue". All environmental issues are multifactorial in nature with immense depth in their complexity -- for many there are no right or wrong answers just suppositions based upon our best science and gut instincts. Albeit my field of study is currently hydrogeology I also have a MS in Clinical Decision Analysis -- for three years I studied why and how we make decisions, many of which involved life and death situations. Believe me, the more information you gather and process -- even in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance -- the better the outcome of one's decision making. Moreover, I could play devil's advocate all day long with this one and still not convince myself to support this bill.

My family's first home lies in the Buffalo River watershed where above our home -- gravity fed, Chimney Spring served our needs for many years. Later when we went to "city water" it was Gray's Spring -- again unfiltered, unprocessed, unchlorinated. Walkabouts for me were drinkabouts -- never a canteen, never a faucet. I would even wager there is no man in Arkansas today who has drank from more open springs and small streams across the state than myself -- I can count over a thousand! And today I live aside a treasured "extraordinary resource" waterway that is threatened, degraded and slowly but surely being turned into a ecological wasteland every day. I do so know the importance of water and I cherish what Arkansas has to offer of nature's most wondrous substance. And of course, this is why I love the hell out of you and others who frequent this message board and paddle our waters and drink from our springs and who take the time to commit to preserving the very purity and essence of the universe's grand gift.

Our minds work different but our hearts --and that includes you too Half Ton -- are in a good place in our opposition to this bill. I just wish predictions had not had come true -- for as you know the bill is still in forward motion.

In developing environmental rules and regulations you can't have any "cracks" -- this bill is too "porous" to be allowed to become law in its current form. Because I love water -- I oppose House Bill 1929.