DNR, EPA work on Missouri's impaired water list

JOPLIN, Mo. (AP) -- The Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the federal Environmental Protection Agency are at odds over which bodies of water in the state should be identified as impaired.

After reviewing the list, which was created for 2006, the EPA agreed with the state that 61 streams and rivers should be listed as impaired, and that 42 should be delisted. But the EPA would not approve the delisting of 49 other water bodies, and after examining state data, the EPA also added 86 water bodies to the list.

"After an extensive and exhaustive review of the relevant and available data, EPA believes that Missouri should have identified more waters on its impaired-waters list," said John B. Askew, the EPA's Region 7 administrator.

Coming up with ways to remedy water pollution is the objective of sections of the federal Clean Water Act, said John Ford, head of the Department of Natural Resources' water protection program.

The act requires that each state submit every two years a list of water bodies that are impaired. If a water body is placed on the list, the Department of Natural Resources must try to correct the problem, if it can. The EPA is the final arbiter on which waters are placed on the list.

"The EPA added a number of waters to the 2006 list because of a very strict interpretation of the federal Clean Water Act. Our interpretation was a little looser," Ford said. He said the basic disagreement was over the issue of "dissolved oxygen."

Ford said some streams in Missouri have low levels of dissolved oxygen in the summer. He said the Department of Natural Resources believes that what is being observed is a natural process unrelated to human impact. The department, he said, does not believe it should commit staff time to something that is not a problem.

Another disagreement with the EPA is over mercury, which is found in most water bodies in the state because of global cycling of the toxic substance in the atmosphere.

"All waters of the state are affected to some degree," Ford said. "We, through our tests, were aware of a few waters. We did not list them because people would think that other streams were OK when, in fact, they were not. We now have more data and are able to list 90 streams for the 2008 list of impaired waters."

Another dispute is over bacteria and what constitutes an acceptable level. Ford said the EPA rejected the Department of Natural Resources' standard as too lenient. The EPA added 23 streams to the list because of bacteria.

Ken Midkiff, chairman of the Sierra Club's Clean Water Campaign in Missouri, said the Department of Natural Resources' decision not to list some streams polluted with bacteria was troubling.

"It is particularly of concern that a number of the streams that the DNR and the Clean Water Commission had left off their list are impaired by bacteria," he said. "These streams are hazardous to human health and are situated in or near major metropolitan areas. Thankfully, the EPA did the right thing."

But with the 2008 list under development, Ford said the department is getting closer to resolving its differences with the EPA.

Ford said specific causes of water pollution can be addressed if the source is easily identified. But with farmland, it's more difficult to pinpoint all the contributing sources.

"That's why we have watershed groups forming down there in southwest Missouri to help local residents determine ways to reduce pollutants from entering a water body," he said.

A public comment period on the EPA's proposal with regard to Missouri's impaired streams ends on Nov. 24. The EPA will consider written comments in reaching its final decision on the water bodies to be identified for inclusion.

------

Information from: The Joplin Globe, http://www.joplinglobe.com