http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14939987
Bill to provide $1 billion for San Francisco Bay restoration moves forward
By Paul Rogers and Mike Taugher
progers@mercurynews.com
Posted: 04/22/2010 05:42:25 PM PDT
Updated: 04/22/2010 10:13:47 PM PDT
A Bay Area lawmaker has introduced legislation in Congress that would elevate environmental restoration of San Francisco Bay to the heights of efforts in Chesapeake Bay, Lake Tahoe and the Florida Everglades.
The bill, scheduled to be unveiled at a news conference today by Rep. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, would authorize $100 million a year for bay restoration by 2021 — $1 billion total.
If approved and signed by President Barack Obama, the money would be overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Funding could be used to restore wetlands, clean up mercury pollution from old mines in South San Jose, filter storm water runoff, eradicate invasive plant and animal species and restore thousands of acres of former Cargill salt evaporation ponds that line the South Bay shoreline.
"The bay has suffered 150 years of degradation," said David Lewis, executive director of Save the Bay, an environmental group based in Oakland. "We have spent a decade putting together excellent plans to restore it to health. But to put them into action will require this major federal investment."
San Francisco Bay and the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta make up the largest estuary on the west coasts of North and South America. Since the Gold Rush, the bay has shrunk by one-third, due to diking, filling and development. Although most filling ended in the 1970s with modern environmental laws, the bay lost 79 percent of its tidal wetlands between 1800 and today — from 190,000 acres to 40,000 acres. Wetlands are critical habitat for hundreds of bay species.
There are at least 40,000 acres of pending wetland restoration projects around the bay that lack funding, including the former Cargill salt ponds and former salt evaporation ponds at Napa-Sonoma Marsh, as well as Hamilton Airfield in Marin County and Eden Landing in Alameda County.
State and federal officials estimated three years ago that the Cargill restoration alone would cost $987 million over the next 50 years, with roughly three-quarters of that money needed to upgrade vast systems of earthen levees that control flooding in South Bay communities.
Over the past 15 years, Congress has approved several billion dollars to address long-standing environmental problems at Lake Tahoe, the Florida Everglades and Chesapeake Bay. Although Cargill sold the former industrial salt ponds in the South Bay to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state Department of Fish and Game in 2003, only about $20 million to $30 million has been raised since then from private, state and federal sources to fund engineering and environmental studies and complete actual construction work.
That money has paid not only for studies and scientific research, but also for projects to install more than 50 tidal gates on existing levees. Those have brought water in the former ponds — which made salt for roads, food and medicine — to the same salinity as the bay, a key first step in restoring them to marshes. Already bird numbers have begun to increase.
"This the largest wetland restoration project on the West Coast. The benefits to the citizens of the United States, not only in job creation, but for the health of the bay, are at least as big as the benefits of restoring Lake Tahoe and the Everglades," said John Bourgeois, executive project manager for the South Bay Salt Restoration Project, overseen by the California Coastal Conservancy.
Apart from wetlands, the bay faces pollution challenges. Runoff from city streets, industry and occasional sewage spills foul its waters.
And special jobs, such as removing dozens of old military ships in the "Mothball Fleet" in Suisun Bay, loom.
"Cleaning up the bay is a critical undertaking," said Speier, the lawmaker who introduced the restoration measure. "We have to curb the harmful effects of pollution while conserving our water resources, restoring the natural landscape, protecting our fish and wildlife, and rebuilding our local communities."
The bill, HR 5061, is co-sponsored by 10 other Bay Area lawmakers, including Anna Eshoo, Mike Honda and Zoe Lofgren.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Chesapeake Bay health in 2009 met 45% of goals
http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/green/bal-md.gr.bay08apr08,0,1256808.story
Bay health in 2009 met 45% of goals
Some express disappointment over annual report card
By Meredith Cohn | meredith.cohn@baltsun.com
April 8, 2010
The Chesapeake Bay and its 64,000-square-mile watershed made modest improvements during the past year, according to a report card on the bay's health released Wednesday. But those who contributed to the assessment and other observers say that after 25 years of efforts, they were disappointed by the pace of gains.
About 45 percent of goals were met in 2009, an increase over the year before, according to the Bay Barometer. The annual report is produced by the Chesapeake Bay Program, a coalition of federal, state and nonprofit groups leading restoration of the nation's largest estuary.
"There were some improvements, but the bay was still at 45 out of 100," said Jeffrey Lape, director of the Chesapeake Bay Program, during a news conference in Annapolis to unveil the results. "That tells us the bay remains in degraded condition."
The report said some gains were made in water clarity, underwater bay grasses, bottom-dwelling species and blue crabs. Dissolved oxygen was down.
On the restoration front, the report said the bay program reached 64 percent of its goals on pollution reduction, oyster reefs, forest buffers and environmental education in schools. But while improvements were made to wastewater treatment plants, reducing the harmful nutrients, there hasn't been much progress on reducing runoff from farms or air pollution from cars and power plants.
Further, the report said, more people moved into the area and their activities offset many of the gains. Since 1950, the number of people in the watershed has doubled, the report says. Agricultural runoff is the bay's biggest source of pollution, but polluted storm water runoff from urban and suburban areas is increasing the fastest.
Rich Batiuk, the bay program's associate director for science, said the mixed and somewhat disappointing results are common. Some years are a little better than others, largely depending on the weather: More rain means more polluted runoff. All of the recent rain could mean that this year will be a little worse.
But in the report and during the news conference, Batiuk, Lape and others pointed to areas of potential progress. The six watershed states and Washington have set new, short-term goals on nitrogen and phosphorus to speed cleanup and increase accountability. And an executive order from President Barack Obama puts new emphasis on pollution reduction.
Lape called the report a mix of "hope and reality."
Others in the environmental community said residents must cut down on fertilizer and driving and demand more from lawmakers. As an example, they asked for support for a bill sponsored by Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, to expand federal authority to regulate all sources of bay pollution.
On Wednesday, however, no one said that change would come quickly. Cardin's bill, for example, has met opposition from lawmakers in neighboring states. New federal regulations enacted since the executive order on pollution will take years to take effect. And a state law to curb runoff from development was modified recently to grandfather many projects.
"People of this region who are disappointed year in and year out with the results of this report card need to contact our elected officials and hold them accountable for the repeated failures to restore clean water," said Hilary Harp Falk of the Choose Clean Water Coalition, which represents nonprofit groups in the bay area.
Beth McGee, senior water-quality scientist for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said that pressure won't come until bay supporters do a better job of communicating the link between people's actions and the cleanliness of local drinking water and recreational and economic opportunities. "Clean water has everyone's support; they just have to see the connection," she said.
Some environmental activists said the outcome for the bay is not certain.
"This annual report has become a broken record, and it's time to fix it," said Tommy Landers, a policy advocate for Environment Maryland. "Fortunately, we have the best chance yet to make significant progress on bay restoration. Some of our leaders are stepping up to the plate. The question is whether they'll swing hard or bunt."
What you can do
The report offers some steps that the 17 million people in the bay watershed can take to help improve the estuary's health:
•Don't fertilize your lawn because that adds to nutrient pollution
•Pick up dog waste to keep bacteria out of the bay
•Use a phosphate-free dishwasher detergent to reduce phosphorus in wastewater
•Drive less to reduce emissions
•Plant native trees, shrubs and wildflowers to filter pollution and attract wildlife
•Install a rain barrel or rain garden to collect and absorb runoff
•Volunteer to clean up a stream, creek or river in your community
An earlier version misattributed some statements concerning a bill sponsored by Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin. The Sun regrets the error.
Copyright © 2010, The Baltimore Sun
Bay health in 2009 met 45% of goals
Some express disappointment over annual report card
By Meredith Cohn | meredith.cohn@baltsun.com
April 8, 2010
The Chesapeake Bay and its 64,000-square-mile watershed made modest improvements during the past year, according to a report card on the bay's health released Wednesday. But those who contributed to the assessment and other observers say that after 25 years of efforts, they were disappointed by the pace of gains.
About 45 percent of goals were met in 2009, an increase over the year before, according to the Bay Barometer. The annual report is produced by the Chesapeake Bay Program, a coalition of federal, state and nonprofit groups leading restoration of the nation's largest estuary.
"There were some improvements, but the bay was still at 45 out of 100," said Jeffrey Lape, director of the Chesapeake Bay Program, during a news conference in Annapolis to unveil the results. "That tells us the bay remains in degraded condition."
The report said some gains were made in water clarity, underwater bay grasses, bottom-dwelling species and blue crabs. Dissolved oxygen was down.
On the restoration front, the report said the bay program reached 64 percent of its goals on pollution reduction, oyster reefs, forest buffers and environmental education in schools. But while improvements were made to wastewater treatment plants, reducing the harmful nutrients, there hasn't been much progress on reducing runoff from farms or air pollution from cars and power plants.
Further, the report said, more people moved into the area and their activities offset many of the gains. Since 1950, the number of people in the watershed has doubled, the report says. Agricultural runoff is the bay's biggest source of pollution, but polluted storm water runoff from urban and suburban areas is increasing the fastest.
Rich Batiuk, the bay program's associate director for science, said the mixed and somewhat disappointing results are common. Some years are a little better than others, largely depending on the weather: More rain means more polluted runoff. All of the recent rain could mean that this year will be a little worse.
But in the report and during the news conference, Batiuk, Lape and others pointed to areas of potential progress. The six watershed states and Washington have set new, short-term goals on nitrogen and phosphorus to speed cleanup and increase accountability. And an executive order from President Barack Obama puts new emphasis on pollution reduction.
Lape called the report a mix of "hope and reality."
Others in the environmental community said residents must cut down on fertilizer and driving and demand more from lawmakers. As an example, they asked for support for a bill sponsored by Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, to expand federal authority to regulate all sources of bay pollution.
On Wednesday, however, no one said that change would come quickly. Cardin's bill, for example, has met opposition from lawmakers in neighboring states. New federal regulations enacted since the executive order on pollution will take years to take effect. And a state law to curb runoff from development was modified recently to grandfather many projects.
"People of this region who are disappointed year in and year out with the results of this report card need to contact our elected officials and hold them accountable for the repeated failures to restore clean water," said Hilary Harp Falk of the Choose Clean Water Coalition, which represents nonprofit groups in the bay area.
Beth McGee, senior water-quality scientist for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said that pressure won't come until bay supporters do a better job of communicating the link between people's actions and the cleanliness of local drinking water and recreational and economic opportunities. "Clean water has everyone's support; they just have to see the connection," she said.
Some environmental activists said the outcome for the bay is not certain.
"This annual report has become a broken record, and it's time to fix it," said Tommy Landers, a policy advocate for Environment Maryland. "Fortunately, we have the best chance yet to make significant progress on bay restoration. Some of our leaders are stepping up to the plate. The question is whether they'll swing hard or bunt."
What you can do
The report offers some steps that the 17 million people in the bay watershed can take to help improve the estuary's health:
•Don't fertilize your lawn because that adds to nutrient pollution
•Pick up dog waste to keep bacteria out of the bay
•Use a phosphate-free dishwasher detergent to reduce phosphorus in wastewater
•Drive less to reduce emissions
•Plant native trees, shrubs and wildflowers to filter pollution and attract wildlife
•Install a rain barrel or rain garden to collect and absorb runoff
•Volunteer to clean up a stream, creek or river in your community
An earlier version misattributed some statements concerning a bill sponsored by Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin. The Sun regrets the error.
Copyright © 2010, The Baltimore Sun
Global Warming ; SRM ; Ocean Fertilization, etc
Pages 42-47 THE ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007
Risky Gamble
Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases may be well intentioned and even
helpful. But as the sole strategy for climate change control it is nevertheless
inflexible, expensive, risky, and politically unrealistic, according to this government economist. Such a strategy could even make matters worse.
Fortunately, there is a better solution.
ALAN CARLI N
Alan Carlin is a Senior Economist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The views expressed in this article are his own and should not be taken to represent official U.S. policy.
"Fortunately, recent research illustrates that nature has worked out an efficient system for removing carbon dioxide from the seas: fertilizing ocean plankton to stimulate them to absorb carbon dioxide (much as plants do) and transport it to the sea floor. Humans have not yet figured out a very efficient way to emulate nature in this regard — seeding the ocean with iron particles has been suggested — but ocean fertilization may be the best current hope, whether under either the ERD or the SRM approach. Given the magnitude of the threat, research on and implementation of geoengineering or other solutions to ocean acidification also needs to become a top priority."
Risky Gamble
Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases may be well intentioned and even
helpful. But as the sole strategy for climate change control it is nevertheless
inflexible, expensive, risky, and politically unrealistic, according to this government economist. Such a strategy could even make matters worse.
Fortunately, there is a better solution.
ALAN CARLI N
Alan Carlin is a Senior Economist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The views expressed in this article are his own and should not be taken to represent official U.S. policy.
"Fortunately, recent research illustrates that nature has worked out an efficient system for removing carbon dioxide from the seas: fertilizing ocean plankton to stimulate them to absorb carbon dioxide (much as plants do) and transport it to the sea floor. Humans have not yet figured out a very efficient way to emulate nature in this regard — seeding the ocean with iron particles has been suggested — but ocean fertilization may be the best current hope, whether under either the ERD or the SRM approach. Given the magnitude of the threat, research on and implementation of geoengineering or other solutions to ocean acidification also needs to become a top priority."
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Manage cyanobacterial blooms using adapted Bacillus cereus
http://www.soley.cn/controlling-algae.html
Controlling Algal Bloom
Exact and permanent solution for toxic algal-bloom by organic way.
Manage cyanobacterial blooms easily by using adapted Bacillus cereus without any environmental damage.
Adapted Bacillus cereus is capable of lysing cyanobacterial cells.
Bacillius cereus produce nontoxic substances for against microalgae microcystis.
Required strain for each 1 m3 water - 0,02ml
1800 USD per 100 ml
-------------------------------------------
Thus cost for 1 million liters is $ 360.
Nualgi required for 1 million liters is 1 kg - $ 10.
Bacillus cereus only kills the cyanobacteria and will not deal with the N and P in the water, hence the cyanobacteria may again bloom after a few weeks.
Diatoms will consume the N and P and hence is a permanent solution.
Controlling Algal Bloom
Exact and permanent solution for toxic algal-bloom by organic way.
Manage cyanobacterial blooms easily by using adapted Bacillus cereus without any environmental damage.
Adapted Bacillus cereus is capable of lysing cyanobacterial cells.
Bacillius cereus produce nontoxic substances for against microalgae microcystis.
Required strain for each 1 m3 water - 0,02ml
1800 USD per 100 ml
-------------------------------------------
Thus cost for 1 million liters is $ 360.
Nualgi required for 1 million liters is 1 kg - $ 10.
Bacillus cereus only kills the cyanobacteria and will not deal with the N and P in the water, hence the cyanobacteria may again bloom after a few weeks.
Diatoms will consume the N and P and hence is a permanent solution.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Animals not requiring Oxygen
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/04/first-oxygen-free-animal-discovered-marine-dead-zone.php
First-Ever Animals Found Living Without Oxygen in Marine Dead Zone
by Brian Merchant, Brooklyn, New York on 04. 8.10
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Life Will Find a Way . . .
You're likely familiar with the ever-growing marine dead zones, areas in the ocean where no life was believed possible due to depleting oxygen levels. But in a truly startling discovery, scientists have stumbled upon the first animal that can survive without oxygen--a feat that until now was only possible in bacteria. This has a number of implications: both regarding the possibility that life may yet adapt to more severe conditions on earth, and on whether life is possible on other oxygen-free planets--and may be more abundant than we thought.
It looks like a tiny jellyfish in a protective shell. It measures around a single millimeter. And it can survive and reproduce without any oxygen at all. The new species of Loriciferan, named already named Spinoloricus Cinzia after the wife of the scientist who discovered it, and it could be the biggest biological discovery in recent times.
The BBC reports that scientists from the Marche Polytechnic University in Italy found the creature in the Mediterranean Sea's L'Atalante basin--which is "about 3.5km (2.2m) deep and is almost entirely depleted of oxygen, or anoxic." They collected some specimens, which they incubated in an oxygen-free environment--and the eggs hatched successfully in the complete absence of oxygen.
The Oxygen-Free Animal
From the BBC:
"It is a real mystery how these creatures are able to live without oxygen because until now we thought only bacteria could do this," said Professor Danovaro, who heads Italy's Association of Limnology (the study of inland waters). "We did not think we could find any animal living there. We are talking about extreme conditions - full of salt, with no oxygen." The discovery of the new Loriciferans represents, he said, a "tremendous adaptation for animals which evolved in oxygenated conditions".
This discovery is especially important when paired with the facts that these marine dead zones are doubling in size around the world every 10 years. This is happening largely because of human activity (of course); it's the result of nitrogen-rich sewage spewing into the coastlines across the globe.
A partial map of marine dead zones--where oxygen-free creatures may yet flourish. Via NASA
Marine Dead Zones
The New York Times has a good explanation of what happens:
Nitrogen from agricultural runoff and sewage stimulates the growth of photosynthetic plankton on the surface of coastal waters. As the organisms decay and sink to the bottom, they are decomposed by microbes that consume large amounts of dissolved oxygen. Most animals that live at the bottom of the coastal ocean cannot survive as oxygen levels drop.
And this is happening all around the world (global warming has been found to play a major role, too). With oxygen-deprived areas expanding, it therefore becomes imperative for sea life to adapt to survive without it--which may be what has happened with this Loriciferan. We'll have to see what details emerge about the creature's life cycle, but needless to say, this could be big. The scientists say that it could additionally help them better understand the possibilities of life existing on other planets with radically different atmospheres. In other words, this probably helps the case that it's out there.
First-Ever Animals Found Living Without Oxygen in Marine Dead Zone
by Brian Merchant, Brooklyn, New York on 04. 8.10
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Life Will Find a Way . . .
You're likely familiar with the ever-growing marine dead zones, areas in the ocean where no life was believed possible due to depleting oxygen levels. But in a truly startling discovery, scientists have stumbled upon the first animal that can survive without oxygen--a feat that until now was only possible in bacteria. This has a number of implications: both regarding the possibility that life may yet adapt to more severe conditions on earth, and on whether life is possible on other oxygen-free planets--and may be more abundant than we thought.
It looks like a tiny jellyfish in a protective shell. It measures around a single millimeter. And it can survive and reproduce without any oxygen at all. The new species of Loriciferan, named already named Spinoloricus Cinzia after the wife of the scientist who discovered it, and it could be the biggest biological discovery in recent times.
The BBC reports that scientists from the Marche Polytechnic University in Italy found the creature in the Mediterranean Sea's L'Atalante basin--which is "about 3.5km (2.2m) deep and is almost entirely depleted of oxygen, or anoxic." They collected some specimens, which they incubated in an oxygen-free environment--and the eggs hatched successfully in the complete absence of oxygen.
The Oxygen-Free Animal
From the BBC:
"It is a real mystery how these creatures are able to live without oxygen because until now we thought only bacteria could do this," said Professor Danovaro, who heads Italy's Association of Limnology (the study of inland waters). "We did not think we could find any animal living there. We are talking about extreme conditions - full of salt, with no oxygen." The discovery of the new Loriciferans represents, he said, a "tremendous adaptation for animals which evolved in oxygenated conditions".
This discovery is especially important when paired with the facts that these marine dead zones are doubling in size around the world every 10 years. This is happening largely because of human activity (of course); it's the result of nitrogen-rich sewage spewing into the coastlines across the globe.
A partial map of marine dead zones--where oxygen-free creatures may yet flourish. Via NASA
Marine Dead Zones
The New York Times has a good explanation of what happens:
Nitrogen from agricultural runoff and sewage stimulates the growth of photosynthetic plankton on the surface of coastal waters. As the organisms decay and sink to the bottom, they are decomposed by microbes that consume large amounts of dissolved oxygen. Most animals that live at the bottom of the coastal ocean cannot survive as oxygen levels drop.
And this is happening all around the world (global warming has been found to play a major role, too). With oxygen-deprived areas expanding, it therefore becomes imperative for sea life to adapt to survive without it--which may be what has happened with this Loriciferan. We'll have to see what details emerge about the creature's life cycle, but needless to say, this could be big. The scientists say that it could additionally help them better understand the possibilities of life existing on other planets with radically different atmospheres. In other words, this probably helps the case that it's out there.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Sampath Kumar's speech at TEDx Velammal, Chennai
Sampath Kumar – TEDx Velammal Talk on Feb 9, 2010.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IefdNXMsxHw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IefdNXMsxHw
Friday, April 2, 2010
Environmental groups seek fix for Gulf dead zone
http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20100331/ARTICLES/100339834/1211/NEWS01?Title=Environmental-groups-seek-fix-for-Gulf-dead-zone
Environmental groups seek fix for Gulf dead zone
By Nikki Buskey
Staff Writer
Published: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 12:05 p.m.
HOUMA — Farmland runoff is creating an “environmental disaster” in the Gulf of Mexico, and state and federal agencies should strengthen agricultural-pollution regulations to rectify that, environmental groups say.
The Environmental Law and Policy Center and the Mississippi River Collaborative released a joint report this week called “Cultivating Clean Water.” The report examines the effectiveness of state regulatory programs that control agricultural pollution and recommends policies the groups say will result in cleaner water.
The dead zone, an annual phenomenon in which oxygen is sucked from a swath of Gulf waters, is blamed on fertilizer and other farming-related chemicals that find their way into the Mississippi River. The runoff drains into the Gulf of Mexico where, once combined with warm water and summer temperatures, it creates an area of low-to-no-oxygen incapable of sustaining plant and marine life. Creatures are forced to flee the dead zone or die.
“We live at the mouth of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers, so we’re getting pollution from 42 percent of the nation flowing past us,” said Matt Rota, water-resources director with the Gulf Restoration Network.
The report focuses on nitrogen and phosphorus pollution because the Environmental Protection Agency considers those the most harmful. The two also trigger massive algal blooms in the Gulf. Those blooms eventually die, sucking oxygen from the water as they decompose.
“Louisiana could do a better job of making an outcry, saying that we have this major environmental disaster on our hands,” Rota said.
The report points out the country has a fragmented and poorly implemented state-based agricultural-pollution regulations. Currently, most programs attempting to curb runoff are voluntary. Farmers typically get an incentive if they take part, but participation isn’t mandated.
Environmental officials said targeted, money-backed programs could play an important role in reducing water pollution.
“It is clear that voluntary programs alone will not get the job done and funding for voluntary programs continues to fall under the budget knife,” said Craig Cox, of the Environmental Working Group.
The report examines existing state programs and suggests five commonsense practices:
n Vegetative buffers between farmland and water.
n Buffers between fertilizer and manure applications and waterways.
n Restrictions on winter applications of manure.
n Keeping livestock out of water bodies.
n Restrictions on applying fertilizer in fall.
The report says several states have regulations to control agricultural pollution, though all fall short on enforcement and monitoring due to small budgets, limited staff and political resistance.
“We need to make cleaning up these watersheds a priority,” Rota said.
Whitney Broussard, a researcher at The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, said the solution is a multi-agency and multi-state cooperation.
“A watershed problem, like the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, requires a watershed approach, and watersheds pay no attention to political lines,” Broussard said.
Nikki Buskey can be reached at 857-2205 or nicole.buskey@houmatoday.com.
Environmental groups seek fix for Gulf dead zone
By Nikki Buskey
Staff Writer
Published: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 12:05 p.m.
HOUMA — Farmland runoff is creating an “environmental disaster” in the Gulf of Mexico, and state and federal agencies should strengthen agricultural-pollution regulations to rectify that, environmental groups say.
The Environmental Law and Policy Center and the Mississippi River Collaborative released a joint report this week called “Cultivating Clean Water.” The report examines the effectiveness of state regulatory programs that control agricultural pollution and recommends policies the groups say will result in cleaner water.
The dead zone, an annual phenomenon in which oxygen is sucked from a swath of Gulf waters, is blamed on fertilizer and other farming-related chemicals that find their way into the Mississippi River. The runoff drains into the Gulf of Mexico where, once combined with warm water and summer temperatures, it creates an area of low-to-no-oxygen incapable of sustaining plant and marine life. Creatures are forced to flee the dead zone or die.
“We live at the mouth of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers, so we’re getting pollution from 42 percent of the nation flowing past us,” said Matt Rota, water-resources director with the Gulf Restoration Network.
The report focuses on nitrogen and phosphorus pollution because the Environmental Protection Agency considers those the most harmful. The two also trigger massive algal blooms in the Gulf. Those blooms eventually die, sucking oxygen from the water as they decompose.
“Louisiana could do a better job of making an outcry, saying that we have this major environmental disaster on our hands,” Rota said.
The report points out the country has a fragmented and poorly implemented state-based agricultural-pollution regulations. Currently, most programs attempting to curb runoff are voluntary. Farmers typically get an incentive if they take part, but participation isn’t mandated.
Environmental officials said targeted, money-backed programs could play an important role in reducing water pollution.
“It is clear that voluntary programs alone will not get the job done and funding for voluntary programs continues to fall under the budget knife,” said Craig Cox, of the Environmental Working Group.
The report examines existing state programs and suggests five commonsense practices:
n Vegetative buffers between farmland and water.
n Buffers between fertilizer and manure applications and waterways.
n Restrictions on winter applications of manure.
n Keeping livestock out of water bodies.
n Restrictions on applying fertilizer in fall.
The report says several states have regulations to control agricultural pollution, though all fall short on enforcement and monitoring due to small budgets, limited staff and political resistance.
“We need to make cleaning up these watersheds a priority,” Rota said.
Whitney Broussard, a researcher at The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, said the solution is a multi-agency and multi-state cooperation.
“A watershed problem, like the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, requires a watershed approach, and watersheds pay no attention to political lines,” Broussard said.
Nikki Buskey can be reached at 857-2205 or nicole.buskey@houmatoday.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
