EPA as a 'satellite' view provider

[James Marple <jesl@carolina.net>]

Bob Carlitz:  
While Superfund cleanups are of course an important part of EPA duties I see its most useful function as putting together a clear view of the entire field of environmental protection.  This is critical if we ordinary folks who seek to improve the management of our environment are to become more effective in persuading neighbors to focus on the core of all management improvement efforts, choosing good politicians.  

No federal agency has given us a comprehensive view of the interactions between rainfall, land use, air quality and economic well-being, so our view of the whole forest of regulation is blocked by trees, individual issues close to us.  Individual agencies have done their jobs, but outside of the attempt by several federal agencies a decade ago to define wetlands in a multi-agency publication (an excellent effort killed off by agents of those who profit from mismanagement) they have produced no single 'manual' showing how pollution control starts where raindrops fall and carries through every activity in a watershed-bounded planning area. Without such a document few in the general public suspect the enormity of benefit that can come from integrating neighborhood planning into community and comprehensive watershed plans. 

Without an overall view it is hard to understand how a low decorative wall or berm around every yard can dramatically improve water quality while minimizing floods to a nuisance level.  Without impartial presentations of the hydrologic effects of saving rainfall on highlands, using inexpensive low-tech agricultural/silvicultural Best Management Practices, the public cannot comprehend that this can increase their energy storage and production dramatically, recharge their aquifers with more than enough pure water, allow wastewater to be cleansed at minimal cost by reuse, and eliminate the flooding that plagues most communities. 

I admit to being an extremist, in that my 31,000 hours spent researching alternative ways to manage public natural resources was focused upon identifying how individuals in public service have dealt with "catching raindrops" as a means to achieve the most cost-effective and publicly beneficial effects. The 35 years I spent grading landscapes previous to this research had shown me that water prefers to run downhill (many engineers provide advice that seems intended to persuade bureaucrats and politicians otherwise.) both aboveground and through soils, and could therefore be managed quite easily if basic rules are kept in mind. (What goes up ..., clay retards flow in soil, aquifer storage eliminates evaporation loss, most soils cleanse water, rainwater retention incrementally reduces flooding.) With these principles to guide me I've toured 49 states fairly extensively to communicate with individuals and public servants directly involved in managing water collection-distribution-cleansing. I found amazing variety in perceptions of the value of dealing with rainwater where it falls as a means to maximize benefits. 

Perhaps unfortunately my tours and discussions have created a mindset, locked me into believing that if EPA is to serve the public best it must become the unifying factor in educating us about opportunities to manage rainwater/wastewater to greatest advantage.  The excellent work of many EPA offices has accomplished wonders of environmental cleanup and protection so my suggestions are aimed at getting to the core issue of intercepting pollutants by preventing runoff that would transport toxics to surface and underground bodies of water.  A simplistic view, yes, but when I compare the $100 cost of storing a million gallons of stormwater with the $16,500 cost of protecting residents from it as floodwater, it seems sensible. My experience tells me the simpler approach of building 7,000 knee-high, 600-foot-long spreading terraces for $100 each beats the complex $90 million 'flood control' planning that has been pushed through in SW Riverside County, CA, by transient land speculators and their shills in the local community.

It should be noted that EPA officials tried hard to do their job of preventing this drainage-oriented planning that ensures ever-greater contamination of aquifers and streamflows. But the influence of local Congressmen over budgets of the Army Corps of Engineers prevailed, as usual, to bring approval of a proposal that will 'legitimize' deliberate disposal of twice as much pure water as the residents of this watershed use. The local environmental partnerships EPA tried to form to prevent adoption of this obviously inappropriate planning failed to materialize because this agency and the ones it works with lack a single game plan  that every concerned citizen may comprehend easily.

The few persons in this watershed who sought to have the retention-oriented planning recommended by UC-Davis, USDA, ACOE, EPA, USFS technicians were outshouted by agents of profiteers. (Who even bought a local newspaper chain to intimidate the others into downplaying alternatives to the County's channelization planning.)  Without a clearly illustrated, federally-approved plan and a public screen to project it onto these few citizens were only able to delay the inevitable for a decade and reduce its cost somewhat.  Their primary goal, adoption of simple-cheap-amazingly effective Best Management Practices like the ones Florida and metro Phoenix require, was submerged beneath political rhetoric and a barrage of propaganda from local officials. 

While this particular battle was won by persons seeking to perpetuate their jobs by locking residents into antiquated planning and design that would force permanent dependence upon imported water supplies, EPA may yet benefit from its reminder to concerned citizens that EPA officials were willing and able to go to bat for them, to put forth valuable and valiant efforts. So while this may not be a correctable situation, due to the relatively apathetic attitude of residents of this area who have never seen a clear illustration of their planning options, it could serve as a fine 'horrible example'. It can be pointed to as proof that the best efforts of EPA may be wasted if the public doesn't see how each element of resource management fits into the whole picture.  

I suppose I could have just said I believe that EPA should work with other agencies to assemble a single brief, colorfully illustrated manual covering the basics of protecting and preserving environmental/economic values by means of managing rainwater intelligently throughout the watershed. But I'd like readers of this discussion to recognize that many dedicated federal public servants tried hard to shine light on the value of sensible planning for the Santa Margarita River, and deserve better educational tools with which to defend our environment.