Ditching Our Innocence: The Clean Water Act in the Age of the Anthropocene

Lewis & Clark College | May 10th, 2018

Humanity has entered the Age of the Anthropocene, a geologic era marked by the emergence of human activity as the single most dominant influence on Earth’s environment.

Humanity has entered the Age of the Anthropocene, a geologic era marked by the emergence of human activity as the single most dominant influence on Earth’s environment. Every ecosystem shows signs of anthropogenic influence, and the environments we experience everyday are often shaped almost entirely by human actions and decisions. The new discipline of reconciliation ecology recognizes this reality and suggests that we must manage the new habitats we create in order to protect species diversity and ecosystem services. But the 2015 rule defining the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act explicitly excludes many manmade environments, including many artificial lakes, farm ponds, reflecting pools, and most ditches, treating these landscape features as faux nature somehow unworthy of protection. This treatment is a marked departure from past Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers practices, which allowed for consideration of such places on a case-by-case basis. This departure finds no support in the Supreme Court precedent leading up to the new rule and seems to be based entirely on a shortsighted view of these places as somehow unimportant to protecting the waters of the United States. Based on the law and science surrounding ditches, we conclude that such places merit protection under the Clean Water Act.

Draft Monitoring Special Study Plan

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | August 15th, 2022

Delta Estuary (Bay–Delta Plan), as amended through 2006, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) set salinity objectives for the interior southern D

Delta Estuary (Bay–Delta Plan), as amended through 2006, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) set salinity objectives for the interior southern Delta. In Water Right Decision 1641 (D-1641), as part of the implementation of the 1995 Bay–Delta Plan, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) were assigned partial responsibility for meeting these objectives, including maintaining Specific Conductance (EC) levels at three monitoring stations (Interagency Stations No. C-6, C-8, and P-12) in the interior southern Delta waterways (Figure 3-1)1. In 2018, the State Water Board adopted amendments to the Bay–Delta Plan. Per the 2018 Bay-Delta Plan amendments, DWR and Reclamation are working to develop a Monitoring Special Study (MSS). This document serves as the study plan for the MSS and identifies three goals, consistent with section B(1)(iv) of the 2018 Bay–Delta Plan. Since early 2021, using best-science practices, DWR and Reclamation have been soliciting input from participating agencies and working with State Water Board staff to design technical studies to accomplish the following goals. 1) Characterize the spatial and temporal distribution and associated dynamics of water level, flow, and salinity conditions in the southern Delta waterways. 2) Identify the extent of low- or null-flow conditions and any associated concentration of local salt discharges. 3) Inform the development of a Long-Term Monitoring and Reporting Plan that will: a. Assess attainment of the salinity objective in the interior southern Delta; and b. Include long-term monitoring and reporting protocols, including specific compliance monitoring locations in, or monitoring protocols for, the three river segments that comprise the interior southern Delta salinity compliance locations.

DRAFT Staff Report/Substitute Environmental Document in Support of Potential Updates to the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary for the Sacramento River and its Tributaries, Delta Eastside Tributaries, and Delta

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | September 28th, 2023

DRERIP Ecosystem Conceptual Model: Chemical stressors

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | February 5th, 2008

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecosystem comprises many different habitat types, and is home to a large number of species. Thousands of chemical contaminants have been

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecosystem comprises many different habitat types, and is home to a large number of species. Thousands of chemical contaminants have been or are being introduced into the Delta. The conceptual model presented here is therefore general in nature, and is intended to provide a framework for more refined models for individual species, habitats and, in particular, contaminants of interest, for example selenium, mercury and pyrethroids. The model consists of three major submodels (Figure 1). Submodel 1: Exposure assessment which includes fate and transport of contaminants and the co-occurrence of chemicals with Delta organisms; the intermediate outcome of this submodel is “Exposure Concentration”. Submodel 2: Bioavailability of contaminants to Delta organisms; the intermediate outcome of this submodel is “Bioavailable Concentration” or “Dose”.  Submodel 3: Toxic effects assessment with the final model outcome “Population Level Effects”. In the following narrative, we provide a description for each submodel, its parameters, and linkages to other models. We discuss the model’s limitations and provide recommendations for its application in management.

DRERIP Ecosystem Conceptual Model: Longfin smelt

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | May 1st, 2010

This model describes the importance of stressors on the life history of longfin smelt in the San Francisco Estuary. In addition, the model identifies the degree to which

This model describes the importance of stressors on the life history of longfin smelt in the San Francisco Estuary. In addition, the model identifies the degree to which we understand the nature of a relationship between stressors and successful completion of the life cycle (“understanding”) and the certainty surrounding how important a particular stressor is for a particular life stage (“certainty of impact”).

DRERIP Ecosystem Conceptual Model: Mercury

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | January 24th, 2008

Mercury has been identified as an important contaminant in the Delta, based on elevated concentrations of methylmercury (a toxic, organic form that readily bioaccumulates

Mercury has been identified as an important contaminant in the Delta, based on elevated concentrations of methylmercury (a toxic, organic form that readily bioaccumulates) in fish and wildlife. There are health risks associated with human exposure to methylmercury by consumption of sport fish, particularly top predators such as bass species. Original mercury sources were upstream tributaries where historical mining of mercury in the Coast Ranges and gold in the Sierra Nevada and Klamath-Trinity Mountains caused contamination of water and sediment on a regional scale. Remediation of abandoned mine sites may reduce local sources in these watersheds, but much of the mercury contamination occurs in sediments stored in the riverbeds, floodplains, and the Bay-Delta, where scouring of Gold-Rush-era sediment represents an ongoing source. Conversion of inorganic mercury to toxic methylmercury occurs in anaerobic environments including some wetlands. Wetland restoration managers must be cognizant of potential effects on mercury cycling so that the problem is not exacerbated. Recent research suggests that wetting-drying cycles can contribute to mercury methylation. For example, high marshes (inundated only during the highest tides for several days per month) tend to have higher methylmercury concentrations in water, sediment, and biota compared with low marshes, which do not dry out completely during the tidal cycle. Seasonally inundated flood plains are another environment experiencing wetting and drying where methylmercury concentrations are typically elevated. Stream restoration efforts using gravel injection or other reworking of coarse sediment in most watersheds of the Central Valley involve tailings from historical gold mining that are likely to contain elevated mercury in associated fines. Habitat restoration projects, particularly those involving wetlands, may cause increases in methylmercury exposure in the watershed. This possibility should be evaluated. The DRERIP mercury conceptual model and its four submodels (1. Methylation, 2. Bioaccumulation, 3. Human Health Effects, and 4. Wildlife Heath Effects) can be used to understand the general relationships among drivers and outcomes associated with mercury cycling in the Delta. Several linkages between important drivers and outcomes have been identified as important but highly uncertain (i.e. poorly understood). For example, there may be significant wildlife health effect of mercury on mammals and reptiles in the Delta, but there is currently very little or no information about it. The characteristics of such linkages are important when prioritizing and funding restoration projects and associated monitoring in the Delta and its tributaries.

DRERIP Ecosystem Conceptual Model: Pyrethroids

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) | February 27th, 2008

To illustrate the applicability of the general model outlined in Delta Chemical Stressors conceptual model Werner et al. (2008), we are providing an example of its implem

To illustrate the applicability of the general model outlined in Delta Chemical Stressors conceptual model Werner et al. (2008), we are providing an example of its implementation for a specific group of contaminants, synthetic pyrethroid insecticides.  Although numerous different pyrethroids exist, the members of this group share many chemical and toxicological characteristics. The US EPA’s decision to phase out certain uses of organophosphate insecticides because of their potential for causing toxicity in humans has led to their gradual replacement by pyrethroids, a class of synthetic insecticides applied in both urban and agricultural areas. They are applied in urban areas primarily for structural pest control, in agricultural areas on crops such as almonds, alfalfa, cotton, lettuce, pistachios, and peaches, and in the home in pet sprays and shampoos. In 2005, five pyrethroids were among the top 21 agricultural insecticides by acres treated in California: lambdacyhalothrin (rank 7), permethrin (rank 9), esfenvalerate (rank 11), cypermethrin (rank 14) and cyfluthrin (rank 21) (California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Pesticide Use Reporting database: www.cdpr.ca.gov). Both winter storm runoff, as well as irrigation return water may be important routes of transport into aquatic systems. Pyrethroids at toxic concentrations have been detected in the majority of sediment samples collected from water bodies draining agricultural areas in the Central Valley (Weston et al., 2004; California Regional Water Quality Control Board Agricultural Waiver Program, 2007), as well as from urban creeks in the Bay/Delta region (Amweg et al., 2006; Woudneh and Oros, 2006 a, b). Pyrethroid concentrations toxic to aquatic life were detected in water samples from Central Valley agricultural drains and creeks (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2005; Bacey et al., 2005), and tributaries to San Francisco Bay (Woudneh and Oros, 2006 a, b). Aquatic organisms, in particular insects, crustaceans and fish, are highly sensitive to pyrethroid insecticides (Oros and Werner, 2005). Acute toxicity to fish and aquatic invertebrates is generally observed at concentrations below 1 ?g/L, and sublethal effects have been reported at low ng/L concentrations. Although it is difficult to model sublethal responses to toxicants and predict ecotoxicological impact or risk, measures of sublethal effects are likely to be as important, or more important, than the measures of acute or chronic lethal effects to accurately assess the consequences of contaminant exposure. All pyrethroids are potent neurotoxicants (Bradbury and Coats, 1989; Shafer and Meyer, 2004), can inhibit ATPases (Litchfield, 1985), and have immunosuppressive effects (Madsen et al., 1996; Clifford et al., 2005). In addition, these compounds and their breakdown products can disrupt hormone-related functions (Go et al., 1999; Tyler et al., 2000; Perry et al., 2006; Sun et al., 2007). As pyrethroid concentrations in the Delta would be expected to peak during the winter/spring storm season (Werner et al. 2004, 2006), as well as after peak agricultural application in the summer and fall (Weston et al., 2004), early life-stages of important Delta fish species or their prey may be directly exposed to these contaminants. The storm season coincides with the spawning and rearing period of several important fish such as the delta smelt, which spawns from February to June (Moyle, 1976). Juvenile fish depend on planktonic crustaceans, small insect larvae, and mysid shrimp as their major food items (Moyle 1976), which are highly sensitive to pyrethroids. It has been suggested that urban and agricultural pesticide use in the Central Valley and Delta region might play a role in the pelagic organism declines observed in the upper estuary (Oros and Werner, 2005).

Drinking Water and Exclusion: A Case Study from California's Central Valley

California Law Review | February 1st, 2012

The American West is notorious for its water wars, and California's complex water allocation and governance challenges serve as a bellwether for contemporary water gove

The American West is notorious for its water wars, and California's complex water allocation and governance challenges serve as a bellwether for contemporary water governance across western states, Policy makers and environmental advocates typically represent California's water woes as a regulatory problem - a failure to balance the needs of growing urban populations with ecological preservation and agricultural irrigation. These debates, however, often elide the issue of water deprivation, and they do not adequately address the concerns of an important constituency: low-income, rural communities. This Comment argues that a focus on regulation misses a fundamental feature of water inequality: the structure and design of local water districts. Utilizing a case study of California's Central Valley to illustrate how these structural barriers operate, I argue that Calfornia's complex system of local water districts fractures governance, limits electoral participation, and undermines the State's stated environmental, equity, and utilitarian water goals. I offer suggestions for alternative local water district organization in order to address the constraints of Calfornia's current water governance regime.

Drinking water nitrate and human health: An updated review

Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) | July 23rd, 2018

Drinking Water Notification Levels and Response Levels: An Overview

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | February 6th, 2020

The Division of Drinking Water’s precursor, the Drinking Water Program of the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and earlier, the California Department of H

The Division of Drinking Water’s precursor, the Drinking Water Program of the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and earlier, the California Department of Health Services, CDHS, established health-based advisory levels, called “notification levels” (referred to as “action levels" through 2004), as needed since the early 1980s. These have been used to provide information to public water systems and others about certain non-regulated chemicals in drinking water that lack maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).  When chemicals are found at concentrations greater than these levels, certain requirement and recommendations apply.  Generally, notification levels have been established in response to actual contamination of drinking water supplies, e.g., perchlorate, which now has an MCL. However, notification levels for a number of chemicals were established in anticipation of possible contamination, such as from a hazardous waste site containing many pesticides (in the 1980s), or from a Superfund site (in the 2000s).  Chemicals for which notification levels are established may eventually be regulated by MCLs (through a formal regulatory process), depending on the extent of contamination, the levels observed, and the risk to human health. Most, however, have not proceeded to MCLs. Once established, a notification level generally stays in place, unless it is replaced by an MCL.On occasion, though, we have revised the numeric value of an individualnotification level to reflect new risk assessment information on the particularchemical. For some of the chemicals that had advisory levels established early on, if noMCL was adopted and the need for the notification level had passed, the advisory levelwas archived. Archived advisory levels may nevertheless be updated to reflect any newrisk information that may become available, and may be used as notification levels ifneeded. To date, of the 93 chemicals for which notification levels have been established; 40 now have MCLs. Of the remaining 53 chemicals, 29 are chemicals with current notification levels. 24 are chemicals with archived advisory levels (AALs). Note that following adoption of an MCL, the notification level is no longer used. For more about AALs and notification levels, go to: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/NotificationLevels.shtml.