Who is Going to Control Your Water?

Water shortages are nothing new a consistent and clean supply of water has been problematic throughout human history. Climate does change, the Sahara Dessert had adequate surface water only 5,000 to 6,000 years ago. There were lakes and rivers and the Sahara was green. Water supply will not just be a problem in developing countries and does not even require the climate to change. Today the combination of inadequate supply of water in some locations, mismanagement of resources and the pollution of fresh water supplies with endocrine disruptors and trace chemicals from recycled water and runoff will grow into an outcry. Non-point source pollution and water ownership will become the issues in the United States and the developed world. After reducing point source pollution over the past 40 years, we are faced with the more difficult problem of non=point source pollution, Suddenly, everyone will be aware that the fresh water in some locations has annual limits (in truth we have impacted the recharge rate of our fresh water resources) and that the water supplied to their tap by public water companies includes the output stream of the waste treatment plant, urban and agricultural runoff still containing all the trace elements not tested for in our water supplies. There are limits to this renewable resource and it needs to be managed. Political influence is the recipe for mismanagement of water resources. There will be rationing in critical locations and ownership of water rights will become contested. Groundwater and surface water are tied in ways that are not yet fully understood. Changes, diversions, pumping can effect quantity of the water supply.

Non-point source (NPS) pollution is a major factor impacting the quality of the water supply in the United States today. These pollutants are transported to surface water bodies by runoff, which results from precipitation or snow melt (Leeds et al., 1993). Storm water is part of the natural hydrologic process; however, human activities, especially urban development and agriculture, cause significant changes in patterns of storm water flow and infiltration and the type and quantity of contaminants carried from land into receiving waters. The Federal Clean Water Act gives regulatory authority to restrict pollutants discharged into rivers from point sources, such as waste water treatment plants. When the regulations were created 40 years ago, they were intended to address the 85% of pollution believed to be caused by large industrial polluters. Recently William Ruckelshaus (first administrator of the EPA) wrote in the Wall Street Journal “The current generation of (environmental) problems that we are facing, though, is much more subtle, much less visible to the naked eye- and often not nearly as susceptible to a top-down, command-and-control approach.”

Federal authority does not extend to non-point sources, such as farms and septic systems, and in truth Mr. Ruckelshaus is right those problems could not be solved by federal or state regulation. The states need to address these non-point sources using other approaches. Reductions in discharge of contaminants can be achieved through the implementation of “agricultural best management practices” operations and good environmental stewardship practices; however there is building support for direct control of non-point source contaminants and control of water supplies. The suggestions for regulation made by advocacy groups are invasive and far reaching including ownership of the water itself. This will never work. A citizen collaboration between farmers and citizens needs to be created that will encourage and enable prosperous farms, safe drinking water, healthy fish and estuaries and sustainable development. These collaborations are slow to form and function and must begin with knowledge.

Water regulation movements are moving quickly, but they are of the command-and-control variety. Virginia is one of the 40 states with water ownership always assumed to pass with the land. Water is wealth and having the government assume control of water allocations either in a permitting process or direct allocation is frightening, but that is what is happening. The Virginia Ground Water Management Act of 1992 mandates the regulation of large groundwater withdrawals in certain portions of the Commonwealth to prevent adverse impacts due to over utilization of the resource. In the past year there were two proposed changes to the regulations. It was proposed that the Eastern Virginia Ground Water Management Area be expanded to include area beyond the eastern shore and even the confines of the Tidewater, west of the fall zone, into other groundwater basins. The second proposed change was ambiguous and seemingly ambitious in its reach: the Board and DEQ propose “to consider amending the Ground Water Withdrawal Regulation, 9 VAC 25 610 to address the increasing demand on limited groundwater resources, changes to the administrative review process, and regulatory changes necessitated by new information on the coastal plain aquifer system.” Towards that goal the Commonwealth is forming a State Water Plan Advisory Committee without any citizenship/landowner representation. Who is going to control your water?

Sustainable Garden Maintenance

First of all, I am not a gardener. I have no natural gift for it and limited inclination and experience. However, as time goes on, am developing a deep affection for my garden. I am attempting to develop a flourishing and sustainable organic ornamental garden surrounding my house. I am trying to concentrate on native species assuming they will be the most likely to flourish with my form of benign neglect. I did not originally start out to be organic, I actually never thought about it until faced with a nursery consultant wanting to sell me bags of chemicals the year I began planting my garden. The groundwater that I drink is very shallow with limited soil overburden to protect it. In addition, nutrient runoff is a major problem in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. For the most part, the back seven acres of my property are part of the Resource Protected Area under the Chesapeake Protection Act. Anything that goes into my septic system, is spread on my lawn, or sprayed around my house could easily find its way into my water or the water shed (someone else’s water). My first reaction to the offer of fertilizer and weed killers was no. Since that time the more I read about pesticides, herbicides and insecticides derived from naturally occurring substances that are now commercially available, the less I am inclined to use any synthetic chemical products in the garden. Some of the more natural pesticides were introduced in the 19th century, and are derived from the roots of tropical vegetables. At the moment I am practicing a form of feeding the soil through composting. I try to always use the least toxic method to address any pest issues. This requires an integrated pest management approach that includes a series of methods for preventing and managing pest populations based on an ecological understanding of the problem. Time, patience and diligence are necessary for the success of any natural program of sustainable garden and pest management. Chemical annihilation of pest colonies and weeds are not an option.

These older, methods and naturally occurring chemicals are a step back, but believed to be safer than the new generation of pesticides and herbicides developed during last quarter century (encouraged by the US EPA to replace the first round of pesticides banned by the agency). The lower concentrations of the new chemicals and their breakdown products rendered them virtually invisible in water. We could not detect them and assumed they were not present. Now it seems that the degradation products of these new chemical herbicides are far more persistent in the environment that originally believed or hoped. Recent studies have documented endocrine disruption in a wide variety of marine gastropods, frogs, and fish associated with exposure to low levels of non specific endocrine disrupting chemicals of unknown sources. The current state of analysis only allowed the documentation of EDC presence. EDCs are a structurally diverse group that includes natural and synthetic estrogens, alkyl phenols surfactants, phthalates, bisphenol A, brominated flame retardants and some pesticides.

Pesticide' is a broad term, covering a range of products that are used to control pests. The slug pellets, ant powder, weed killers, and rat and mouse baits that you may use in your everyday life are all pesticides. Other pesticides you may have heard of including: insect killers (insecticides), mould and fungi killers (fungicides), weed killers (herbicides), slug pellets (molluscicides), plant growth regulators, bird and animal repellents, and rat and mouse killers (rodenticides). Often people only think of pesticides as chemicals, but they include a very large range of different types of products. Some as described above are natural, while many are altered versions of natural chemicals. I choose to stay away from the synthetic chemicals. My organic garden requires me to weed the beds on a regular basis, where spraying 2, 4-D, commonly found in household weed killers is certainly much easier. However the more chemical pesticides are investigated the more questions are raised. For example, in a 1991 National Cancer Institute study examined dogs whose owners' lawns were treated with 2,4-D four or more times per year. The study found those dogs had double the risk of developing canine malignant lymphoma than dogs whose owners do not use the herbicide. Our knowledge of the consequences of pesticide use is really so limited considering the widespread use of the substances. I think just doing without pesticides and weed killers in my garden are best. There is simply no justification for adding chemical contaminants to the earth and the watershed for a greener lawn and prettier flowers.

Without the need to spread fertilizer or weed controlling chemicals, my spring clean up of my garden involved, edging, weeding and mulching the beds, replacing the shrubbery that the deer pulled out and the snow crushed and replacing the snowplow damaged sections of the lawn with sod and calling it a day. (It was actually 5 man days and 50 bags of mulch.) For full disclosure purposes I still have one of the worst lawns in my neighborhood, I apply no chemicals to my lawn and never water. However, I do hope to improve the lawn by continuing my fall program of aerating and over seeding and applying my limited amount of compost. So far, not so good despite soil analysis that showed decent soil composition. I may not have a great garden, but at least it is a neat one. Next we are onto assessing the condition of my dozen hollies trees that appear to have been severely damaged by the harsh winter we just had. The arborist will be out to determine what can be saved and what needs to be replaced and I will plant some saplings on the forest edge to increase its footprint.

Rethinking Organic

Recently, I read “Organic Inc.” by Samuel Fromartz. The book did two things, first it allowed me to understand the origins of organic food and how the concept of organic food has evolved with the regulation of the market and industry. The insight Mr. Fromartz provided to the organic food industry and farming made me rethink my position on organic food. Though traditionally, before the government stepped in to regulate the market, organic foods were grown under natural conditions (without the use of inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides; and either not processed, or processed without the use of additives). Now, under standards adopted by the U.S. Agriculture Dept. (USDA) in 2000 and fully effective in 2002, organic food is food grown, raised and processed without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and antibiotics may not be used in raising organic foods, in addition, the use of irradiation, biotechnology, and sewer-sludge fertilizer is also banned. Food whose ingredients are at least 95% organic by weight may carry the "USDA ORGANIC" label; products containing only organic ingredients are labeled 100% organic.

However, under the government regulations the word "organic" refers strictly to the way farmers grow and process agricultural products, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy products and meat. Organic farming practices are designed to encourage soil and water conservation and reduce pollution. Farmers who grow organic produce and raise organic meat don't use conventional methods to fertilize, control weeds or prevent livestock disease. The USDA organic label means that the food was produced using organic methods sanctioned by the USDA. So far there has not been any hard evidence that organic food is more nutritious of better for you. Food health studies are exceedingly difficult to run long term. So to a large extent the health benefits of not eating fruits, vegetables and grains with pesticide residue and meat without antibiotics and feed grain or grass without pesticide residue has to be taken on faith.

In the past I have bought organic where I thought it mattered to protecting my family from exposure to chemicals. Like strawberries, lettuce, apples, vegetables especially root vegetables where the outside of the fruit and vegetable is eaten. Other than that, I tried to buy only American grown produce, vegetables, herbs, beans and grains (though occasionally I do buy a couple of bananas). In terms of meat, I purchase organic, grass fed and pastured beef, pork, lamb and free range chicken. We only eat wild caught fish. I started buying grass fed beef back in the day when I was doing environmental evaluations of farms, dairies and concentrated animal feed operations (CAFOs). I will not go into the highly gross details of that work that have resulted in me barely ever eating meat. However, my concerns for the animal welfare, mad cow disease, and environmental impact of CAFOs pushed me to buy my meat from the first sustainable farm I inspected. In addition grass fed beef (and other animals) is lower in saturated fat and better for you. This was confirmed by Marion Nestle, author of “What to Eat” and Professor of nutrition at NYU School of Public Health. I asked her at a lecture I attended and she said that grass fed beef was as low in saturated fat as chicken.

Organic crop land is less productive than conventional farm land. Organic farming also requires more labor to keep weeds down. The average corn crop yield per acre in organic farming is 17 percent lower than down in traditional farming. Results range between 5 percent for corn to 35 percent for rye. For potatoes, root vegetables and turnips, crop yields are on average 14 percent lower than in traditional farming. In various fruits the yield was reported to be around 20% per acre lower with organic. That reduction in yield is basically why organic food sells for a premium. This loss of yield is an expense of organic farming, though there is a cost savings in not utilizing chemicals and in having soil retain its fertility through organic techniques of crop rotation. The chemical pesticides add to the cost of the crops in conventional farming, and conventional farming requires more irrigation water than organic farming.

Not only does conventional farming utilize more water, but the pesticide runoff impacts both surface and groundwater. The true cost of water is not expressed in the irrigation water charges in many places and the cost of the pesticide impact to water is not yet known and only recently have we begun to think about that impact. These days I am buying American grown organic to do my tiny part to protect the health of the soil, surface and groundwaters at least in my “neighborhood.”