Nonpoint Source Pollution in Galveston Bay: Causes, Regulations, and Solutions, Study notes of Silviculture

Download Nonpoint Source Pollution in Galveston Bay: Causes, Regulations, and Solutions and more Study notes Silviculture in PDF only on Docsity! CHAPTER FOUR NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION Nonpoint source pollution is a general category for pollution which does not emanate from a single location. This pollution is associated with agriculture, silviculture, and urban runoff, as well as leaks from septic tanks and waste disposal sites. It originates from contaminants collected in surface water runoff, discharges from boats and marinas, and atmospheric deposition. Included in nonpoint source pollutants are pathogens, sediments, nutrients, toxicants, and oxygen demanding substances. Most of the pollutants originate on land and are then picked up by rainwater which carries them into streams and rivers that empty into the bay. Because Galveston Bay receives drainage from a large land area as well as discharges from boats and other water based sources, it is difficult to identify the numerous individual sources of pollution. As point source municipal and industrial pollution is reduced, nonpoint source pollution plays a relatively larger role in the degradation of the nation's waters. 65 percent of the nation's waters fail to meet water quality standards because of non-point source pollution. Similarly, 28 percent of the nation's assessed coastal areas, including lakes and estuaries, fail to meet water quality standards because of urban runoff and storm sewer discharges. Tables 4-1 through 4-3 provide background information on nonpoint source pollution in the bay area. Table 4-1 illustrates changing land use: as open land declines and the proportion devoted to residential, commercial, and industrial uses increases, NPS becomes more likely and more difficult to control. GBNEP's report on nonpoint source loadings provides two other estimates of land use. Tables 4-2 and 4-3 provide estimates of NPS, the former overall and the latter by land use category. Although Table 4-3 covers only a limited study area (while the others cover the entire 4-county area) it illustrates the differing kinds of NPS pollution associated with different land uses. From a policy standpoint, it would be more useful to normalize these data on a per acre or other appropriate basis. This would highlight which kinds of NPS are most serious for each kind of land use and suggest priority approaches to NPS. After a brief review of the general regulatory framework for nonpoint source pollution, this chapter considers several causes of nonpoint source pollution in Galveston Bay: agriculture, stormwater runoff, and septic tanks. Soil erosion, another important kind of nonpoint source pollution, is considered in chapter 12. Airborne pollutants that precipitate onto the water, or onto land and then wash into the water, may affect water quality as well. The extent of this problem is unknown, and it is not treated here. 59 Table 4-3 Non-Point Source Loads by Land Use Average Year in Study Area (thousand kg/year except where noted) Source Load Runoff (xlOA3 ac-ft) Total Suspended Solids (millions/kg) Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorous BOD Oil and Grease Fecal Coliforms (xlOA cfu) Dissolved Copper Pesticides Urban 766 157 1985 350 8000 12000 205 2.93 0.378 Residential 371 46 1561 362 7000 2000 101 1.419 0.183 Open 567 49 1056 84 4000 0 17 2.167 0.07 Agricultural 593 147 1142 264 3000 0 18 2.269 0.073 Barren 21 57 134 15 0 0 0 0.08 0.003 Wet 187 9 192 14 1000 0 4 0.716 0 Water 164 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Forest 345 17 353 26 3000 0 7 1.318 0.043 Total 3014 4S2 6423 1115 26000 14000 352 10.899 0.75 Source: Groundwater Services, Inc and Rice University. Characterization of Non-Point Sources and Loadings to Galveston Bay. Volume I, Technical Report. October 1991, pp. 5, 12. (We have changed portions of this table that were incorrect in the original document, such as adding up numbers with different metrics.) This brief overview of the laws that take a general approach to nonpoint source pollution reveals the weakness of the statutory framework. States are required to assess the problem but not control it, and federal funding for any aspect of the program is small and declining. In the following sections describing specific sources of NPS, however, we shall see that the major problem does not lie in weak federal or state laws. Instead, the problem is that reduction of NPS requires each individual to alter everyday behavior—something no law can effectively mandate. AGRICULTURE Agriculture is a major source of NPS. The Texas Clean Water Council Nonpoint Source Subcommittee believes that agriculture is the single largest contributor to NPS. Pesticides, animal and crop wastes, and soil itself may all run off from farms. Pollutants include sediments, nutrients, organic materials, pesticides, and, in the case of animals, even pathogens. The most common approach to controlling NPS from agriculture is to teach farmers about methods both for minimizing runoff and reducing the contaminants in the runoff and to give them loans or grants to acquire necessary equipment. Cooperative Extension Agents offer more generalized technical assistance, including information on proper use of pesticides. Best Management Practices Under the Clean Water Act, concentrated animal feeding operations are considered point sources of pollution and are subject to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Program (NPDES). Other farm discharges are considered nonpoint sources. The U.S. Soil and Water Conservation Service (SCS) is directed to administer a program to assist farm operators in learning and deploying Best Management Practices (BMPs) for controlling NPS. Many of the federal and related state programs focus on teaching farmers BMPs or providing them with money to implement BMPs. The SCS is a technical agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) established in 1935 to carry out a continuing program of soil and water conservation of private lands. Through a federal/local partnership with Conservation Districts, SCS provides technical assistance to private individuals, community and watershed groups, and public agencies. The agency studies the characteristics of soil, water, and vegetation and compiles technical guides describing best management practices, and their costs, for controlling runoff and reducing erosion under various types of local conditions. SCS provides on-site technical assistance from conservation specialists to individual farmers to help plan and apply BMPs which will control runoff and erosion. Based on the specific soil and site conditions, Conservation Plans are developed for individual farms. The plans offer suggestions for structural and nonstructural BMPs that will retain precipitation where it falls or move excess water from the land slowly so as to minimize soil loss. 65 The U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) is also a part of USDA and works closely with SCS. ASCS provides cost-share grants (up to $3,500 per year) as part of the Agricultural Conservation Program. These grants are provided to individual farms for the installation of BMPs which involve capital improvements such as pollution control facilities, drainage control facilities, and streambank stabilization programs. ASCS conservation programs are administered through local ASCS offices. A farmer-elected Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation committee works with people in the community to assess conservation problems and determine which measures should be offered to landowners in their areas to solve these problems. Under the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) of the ASCS, local committees establish the amount of cost-sharing required for each practice. In the five county area surrounding Galveston Bay, the primary ACP cost-sharing practices used are 1) reorganizing irrigation systems to conserve irrigation water, improve water quality, control erosion, and reduce pollution of water or land from agricultural nonpoint sources, and 2) constructing sediment retention, erosion, or water control structures to reduce erosion and pollution of land or water from agricultural or silvicultural nonpoint sources. The 1992 ACP allocation for Texas was $13.2 million, which is distributed among the counties based on a formula that considers conservation needs. The ACP contribution is limited to $3500 per producer. In the typical cost-share program, 50-75 percent of the cost is paid by the USDA/ASCS. In 1992, Harris County received $2,558; Galveston, $2,498; Brazoria, $8,327; Liberty, $7,250; and Chambers, $15,299. The relatively small amounts are explained in part by the flatness of the area, which makes these counties ineligible for other programs involving soil loss. In addition, some counties, including Harris, require extensive permitting to receive grants; farmers are discouraged by the requirements and do not ask for money. Because allocations are determined in part by previous demand, the amount the counties are allocated has decreased. Of the five counties, Chambers has the strongest program, with 10 to 12 farms (out of an estimated 240 farms) participating each year. Other funding sources for BMP capital investments include the Farmers Home Administration (also in USDA) and the Small Business Administration (SBA). The State of Washington uses its State Revolving Fund to make loans and grants to counties which then make them available to individual farmers for nonpoint source control measures. The Texas Water Development Board could set up a similar program. Finally, a federal program funding conservation ponds for flood control and for watering cattle has had the unexpected side effect of arresting sediment runoff. In Texas, there are 3,000 of these ponds. The Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board implements state laws relating to conservation and protection of soil resources, including programs for abating agricultural and silvicultural nonpoint source pollution. It prepared the agricultural and silvicultural components of Texas' NPS assessment and management documents and published 13 fact sheets related to agricultural management for water quality. It has conducted NPS workshops and tours for 66 the directors of local Soil and Water Conservation Districts, who pass the information on to producers in their districts. The Texas Soil Conservation Law makes it possible for local landowners to manage their own soil and water conservation districts. Each of the 211 local districts develops a long-range program and plan of work and an annual plan of operations to guide the district in solving its conservation problems. After a landowner signs a cooperative agreement with the district, a conservation plan is developed for the individual farm or ranch. There are now more than 204,000 cooperative agreements in force covering about two-thirds of the agricultural land in Texas. All state-owned tracts leased for agricultural and grazing purposes must have Soil and Water Conservation Plans. In 1990, approximately 290,000 acres under surface lease had such plans; small and scattered leases surrounded by large private tracts do not have plans because they are not considered manageable units of land. The General Land Office (GLO) requires the lessees in these small tracts to follow minimal guidelines to protect land from erosion and overgrazing. In order to assure that guidelines are followed in these cases, letters of understanding are signed by the lessee and the GLO. Rules newly proposed by TWC would require concentrated animal feeding operations, an agricultural business where contamination may almost be considered a point source, to ensure that rainfall runoff from open lots is contained. Other proposals include new BMPs to decrease lot runoff volume and wastewater discharges to watercourses. The several federal and, to a lesser extent, state programs that give farmers assistance in implementing BMPs are small in scope and, at the present rate, will take a decade or more to reach every farmer. The program most likely to be effective is assistance in reducing soil loss, because farmers can clearly see that they save money, saving in fertilizer costs more than they must spend on structural controls. Programs to increase the efficiency of irrigation, in contrast, are not attractive because water doesn't cost the farmers any money, a policy we will again call into question in chapter 7 on freshwater inflow. However, both these programs are much more likely to succeed than those for reducing pesticide use, which may constitute an equally important source of NPS pollution, because no agency yet offers technical assistance for reducing pesticide use analogous to that provided for using BMPs. Pesticides The Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) is the lead agency for pesticide regulation in Texas. TDA may license pesticides for use in Texas independent of EPA's actions; the state also certifies applicators for certain especially potent pesticides. Most pesticides are registered with EPA, which develops a label based on the manufacturer's studies that describes its legal uses. Pesticide labels, often booklets of 50 pages, include the crops and pests for which the product may be used, the timing and concentration of applications, and methods for disposing of 67 source because it is discharged from a pipe.1 Stormwater systems were divided into two categories: industrial discharges and urban runoff discharges. Only industrial stormwater was regulated. Spurred by EPA's lack of success at formulating a comprehensive storm water regulatory program and the findings of the National Urban Runoff Program that urban runoff posed a threat to the nation's waters, Congress included a stormwater program in the WQA of 1987. It established a new management structure for permitting storm water discharges, imposed new deadlines for the regulatory program, and established a two-stage process for city permits. Part I applications are preliminary: they describe discharges and precipitation, the nature of the receiving waters, and the strengths and weaknesses of both the physical stormwater system and its management and regulatory underpinnings. Part II applications, which outline the specific controls on stormwater to be used in implementing a BMP approach and their costs, will result when approved in a permit valid for five years. Table 4-5 lists the deadlines. Table 4-5 Deadlines for Stormwater Runoff Permits Regulated Entity* Municipal >250,000 (with separate storm sewers) Municipal (100,000-250,000) (with separate storm sewers) Industrial facilities>250,000 (owned and operated by government) Industrial facilities (100,000-250,000) (owned and operated by government) Uncontrolled sanitary landfills, power plants, and airports <100,000 (owned and operated by government) Deadlines Part I 11/18/91 5/18/92 9/30/91 5/18/92 5/18/92 Part II 11/16/92 5/17/93 10/1/92 5/17/93 5/17/93 *Omits some subtleties regarding individual, group, and general permit for industrial facilities. Source: Federal Register, November 16, 1990; March 21, 1991; November 5, 1991 Permits for municipal systems may be issued on a system or jurisdiction-wide basis, must include a requirement to prevent non-storm sewer discharges into the storm sewers, and must require methods of control which eliminate the 1 NRDC v. Train. 396 F. Supp. 1393. 70 discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. Runoff from agriculture, mining, and from oil and gas exploration, production, treatment, or transmission is exempted if the discharge does not come into contact with any raw material, product, byproduct, or waste product located on the site. In the Galveston Bay area, the City of Houston, Harris County, and the Harris County Flood Control District filed a joint application as municipalities over 250,000 in population. For part two of the application, due in November 1992, Houston conducted a specialized water monitoring to characterize stormwater runoff from at least five kinds of sites: high density (apartments); residential; commercial; industrial; and open space. The plan focuses on pesticide application, household hazardous waste, and erosion from construction sites. A management handbook for construction activities has been issued. Because the cost of implementing the NPS plan will be significant, the city must develop funding mechanisms and, even more important, obtain community support for both its costs and required actions. Finally, planners must determine whether their jurisdictions have sufficient authority to implement the plan or whether action by the City Council or even the Texas Legislature will be required. Texas law recognized the problem of urban runoff in 1989, requiring cities with populations of 5000 or more to establish nonpoint source pollution control and abatement programs. Under this law, plans must be established and implemented for controlling and abating pollution or potential pollution resulting from generalized discharges of waste which are not traceable to a specific source, such as storm sewer discharges and urban runoff from rain water. TWC reviews the city programs and may adopt rules guiding them. The rules initially proposed were not well received by the cities, and the agency is presently working on revisions which were to be published in summer 1991 but had not yet been published in spring 1992. The rules are now being considered as part of the larger efforts of the Clean Water Council. Mitigation Programs. TWC's Urban Surface Runoff Program relies on education and technology transfer as the most effective methods for delivering BMPs to the local level. The BMPs for the Urban Surface Runoff Program are contained in the TWC manual "Best Management Practices for the Control of Urban Runoff Water Pollution", which TWC is distributing to cities in Texas with populations over 5,000. TWC is also working with local entities to develop demonstration projects that address urban surface runoff. Among the BMPs to be funded as demonstration projects are extended detention ponds; wet ponds; infiltration trenches; infiltration basins; porous pavement; water quality inlets; vegetative practices; non vegetative practices; and nonstructural controls. TWC's Nonpoint Source Assessment, required by EPA, determined that Lake Houston and the Houston Ship Channel are second priority water bodies which are therefore targeted to receive technical assistance relatively soon. Other TWC educational and outreach programs include a quarterly newsletter, a video library, radio public service announcements, and citizen's monitoring of the bay. The agency's proposed programs include an advertising campaign which will target individual behaviors contributing to NPS; news media publicity aimed 71 at providing media coverage to significant NPS events; a community outreach project which will use a public education and awareness campaign conducted by entities at the local level; and a public education grant program directed for public, private and non-profit groups to conduct public education and information projects pertaining to NPS pollution. As noted in chapter 3, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) is responsible for administering federal and state water finance programs, including the State Revolving Loan Funds (SRF) which provides loans for construction, improvement or expansion of sewage treatment and collection facilities and nonpoint source pollution control projects. At the moment, there are no SRF loans which specifically target NPS, although TWDB will entertain funding proposals for nonpoint source projects on the same basis as point source projects. The Galveston Bay National Estuary Program (GBNEP), in cooperation with the EPA, TDH, GLO, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, TWC, and the counties of Brazoria, Chambers, Galveston, Harris and Liberty, has developed a handbook that advises on how individuals living in the Galveston Bay area can contribute to the Bay's protection. The handbook addresses four main issues including lawn care, hazardous household products and wastes, automobile care and boat care. A list of contact numbers is also provided in the book. Sources of Nonpoint Source Pollution Many different substances may enter the waters of Galveston Bay after being emitted to and carried in the air. Although these air emissions are regulated as point sources by the Texas Air Control Board, they constitute a potential nonpoint source of water pollution. Many organic air emissions are volatile or dissolve, but others include metals that do not dissolve but rather concentrate on the bottom or are ingested by living organisms. The extent of this problem is difficult to measure, although new information about the nature and quantity of air emissions of many toxics is now available under SARA Title III. Because the five-county area contains the largest concentration of air pollution emitters in the nation, it would seem worthwhile to study the nature of these deposits and their effect on water quality. Industrial sites may also create NPS pollution through runoff. Industry believes this is a trivial problem adequately controlled on-site, and TWC has few resources to monitor these dispersed sources. Only when people complain does the agency investigate or take action. Pesticides. Urban pesticide use is of two types: inside or structural, for control of cockroaches, rats, and other indoor pests, and outdoor. Outdoor uses that may create noticeable nonpoint source pollution arise primarily from lawn applications (fertilizers present the same problem and will not be considered separately), mosquito control, and, sometimes, park management. There is virtually no control of any of these outdoor uses, and the public is generally unaware of any side effects of outdoor pesticide use. 72 quality (most use a biomonitoring system) and upgrading wastewater treatment plants. Very few managers recalled receiving TWDB grants for upgrading their plants. These survey results suggest the need for improved communication between state and city officials as well as some collaborative research into affordable methods (or additional funding) for meeting the new stormwater regulations. Lack of awareness or understanding by relevant city officials will be a major impediment to meeting the stormwater runoff standards and, especially, to trying to get citizens to reduce NPS voluntarily. Other programs, especially developing strong regulations for construction sites and land uses, will tax political resources as much as financial ones. In this case, the state may be able to help by requiring cities to develop such regulations, accepting the criticism that would otherwise fall on local politicians who might be less able to ensure compliance. Finally, educating people to adopt habits that limit NPS will be the most difficult task of all. They must learn not to dispose of used motor oil or hazardous liquids down the drain and to limit their use of lawn chemicals and fertilizers. Cities must develop ways of tying these behaviors to costs. We envision an advertisement like this: "Every time you throw a can of used oil down the drain, you raise your taxes 3 cents." SEPTIC TANKS There are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of septic tanks in the five-county area. Many, especially the older ones and those nearest to Galveston Bay, pose a threat to its water quality. Although leaks from septic tanks frequently affect groundwater, they may also affect surface water in two ways: when the water table is shallow and when systems fail, creating runoff. Poorly designed or failing on-site sewage disposal septic systems can discharge pathogens and household chemicals. Septic tank systems may contaminate groundwater with phosphates, nitrates, pathogens, and organic wastes. Preventing degradation of water quality by septic tanks requires ensuring that they are properly designed, constructed, and maintained. Regulatory Framework In the United States, public health has generally been regarded to be a state or local function, in part because only local governments could construct and maintain sewers. Thus the federal government plays a very small role in regulating septic tanks, although the Clean Water Act does require EPA to conduct research into alternative on-site systems and provides some grants to states for pilot projects to demonstrate them. Several agencies, including EPA, the Farmers Home Administration, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, provide (a decreasing amount of) technical assistance and funding to states and local governments for wastewater management projects. FmHA and HUD require prospective homeowners to certify that a septic system is operating properly before obtaining a housing loan. 75 The Texas Department of Health (TDH) was the primary authority over septic tanks. After September 1, 1989, TDH either delegated authority to permit and inspect new on-site sewerage disposal systems to counties or exercised this authority in counties without approved waste control orders. On March 1, 1992, the portion of TDH concerned with all aspects of municipal waste, including septic tanks, became a part of the Texas Water Commission. In the following paragraphs, we discuss the regulatory program naming TWC as the state agency but recognizing that most policies have been brought over from TDH and that there has been little time to redefine them. Following that, we consider some problems arising from the merger of the agencies. On-Site Sewage Facilities (OSSFs) are regulated in three ways: they must be permitted (by TWC or the designated county authority), they must be inspected, and the installers must be trained and licensed. TWC has promulgated standards for construction based on many characteristics, including soil type, volume, topology, and distance from other facilities. OSSFs may have to be lined in order to meet the permit criteria. To obtain a permit, an owner submits a proposed design and a permit fee; the permitting agency may visit the site or approve the permit on the basis of the information provided. Once the OSSF is installed, agency staff inspect it for design and quality of construction. State law provides for fines ranging from $50 to $100 for a first offense and $125 to $500 for later offenses if an unlicensed person constructs an OSSF or constructing one without a permit. TWC oversees the programs administered by local entities for adequate performance and compliance with state statutes through an annual review. Enforcement is largely a matter of responding to citizen complaints. OSSF complaints must be investigated within 21 days; complaints received by TWC will be forwarded to the regional offices or authorized agent within 7 days of receipt. The regional office has 30 days to resolve or reasonably attempt to resolve the problem after the regional office is notified of the complaint. Unfortunately, county officials often impede enforcement. Because the On-Site Wastewater program is a local option program, TWC may monitor and enforce only with local cooperation. This problem is exacerbated by the lack of administrative penalties, making TWC dependent upon local Justices of the Peace, who are generally uninterested in OSSFs, to impose fines. TWC is seeking a means to make enforcement more effective, perhaps through an existing but obscure administrative penalty. In the meantime, to improve relations with local programs, TWC staff would like to hold a series of seminars for the county commissioners explaining the importance of well-constructed and well- maintained septic tanks. Another problem for TWC is fee collection in the districts. TWC's general policy prevents the agency from collecting fees in the field. Installers who have not been required to pay at the moment they apply for a permit often build the systems without permits. TWC or the county loses the money and an unmonitored system is built. 76 Merging the Program into the TWC. Costs are always incurred when a program moves from one agency to another. At a minimum, staff time is devoted to moving rather than to program implementation. The move of the TDH Bureau of Solid Waste Management to TWC has been relatively smooth. At TDH, several staff members worked for the On-Site Waste water program but were not included in its budget. These staff members were not transferred to TWC, leaving the program short of personnel. The most obvious manifestation of the problem is the inability to conduct inspections, which are quite time- consuming. In the first five months of 1992, the program has conducted 15 out of 193 necessary inspections. Two other enforcement problems noted above—the inability to collect fees in the field and the lack of administrative penalties—are unexpected consequences of the transition; TDH rules did not create these problems. Statutory or regulatory changes will be needed. Conversely, the transition has also resulted in some important benefits. The On-Site Wastewater employees are now housed in the ground water section of TWC, allowing for improved coordination between the two programs. Considering that groundwater is frequently contaminated by leaking septic tanks, this new office arrangement is highly desirable. The heightened sensitivity to environmental concerns the staff find at TWC confirms the arguments made by proponents of merging the two agencies and seems to justify the transition. In addition to the TWC, another agency, the On-Site Wastewater Treatment Research Council, has responsibilities for septic tanks. The Council, which is composed of 11 members appointed by the governor, awards grants for research on wastewater treatment technology. TWC has an opportunity to suggest people for the council, most of whose members are required to have specific skills or backgrounds. County Programs TWC has delegated authority for septic tank programs to all five of the bay-area counties' health departments. Here we briefly review the programs in three of the counties as illustrations of the problems. Brazoria. The Brazoria County Health Department began issuing permits in June 1985. Six inspectors conduct two inspections for each tank during the construction process: first when the line and tank is set and again after the tank has been finished and the dirt is replaced. Although the county had planned to reinspect the tanks every 3 years, they have neither the time nor the manpower; furthermore, the county commissioners were reluctant to charge for a new permit after a reinspection. No reinspections are performed unless there is a problem reported with the tank. Texas Sea Grant has a multi-agency program which networks with the Brazoria County Health Department, the Texas Agricultural Extension Service, and the Texas Engineering Extension Service to train septic tank installers through one-day topical seminars focusing on pollution problems. Thus far, the program has identified improper installation 77 SUMMARY EVALUATION: NONPOINT SOURCE 1. Problem. Dispersed pollution from everyday activities gets into storm water through runoff, reducing water quality. This is a growing problem, especially as point sources are brought under control. 65 percent of national waters fail to meet water quality standards because of non-point source pollution. Similarly, 28 percent of the nation's assessed lakes, estuaries and coastal areas fail to meet water quality standards because of urban runoff and storm sewer discharges. 2. Authority. The Federal Clean Water Act requires cities to treat stormwater runoff before discharging as a point source. States must develop NPS plans. TWC requires cities to develop plans. Little authority over specific activities generating NPS: localities permit septic tanks properly constructed; urban pesticide use unregulated; agricultural land use (soil erosion) and pesticide use largely unregulated; construction sites permitted for other purposes by localities. Best management practices (BMPs) have been developed for cities treating stormwater, for farmers, and for other entities to help them control runoff. 3. Capacity. Low, because reducing NPS requires working with thousands of individuals. TWC has a NPS program. 4. Policy. Incentives and technical assistance to farmers to improve practices through agricultural agencies. TWC committed to reduction within available authority. Localities generally not yet coming to terms with their responsibilities. 5. Technical and environmental results. Extent of problem not clearly defined. No baseline data for measuring improvement or worsening, although presumably NPS rises with increase in impervious cover within watersheds. 6. Barriers and problems. Multiple agencies and governments, each focusing only on one aspect (such as agricultural erosion). Complexity of problem: different crops and soil types have different best management practices. Dispersed nature of the problem. Difficulty of getting people to change individual behavior. 7. Recommendations. a. Encourage city use of SRF for NPS reduction—presently allowed but unused. Allow use of SRF at TWDB to make NPS loans to counties for further loan to individual farmers, other entities. b. Develop means for using the market to encourage individuals to reduce NPS analogous to refundable deposits on bottles and auto batteries. c. Develop ad campaigns based on cost: "Every time you dump used oil into the storm sewer, your taxes rise 3 cents." "Every time it rains, you lose one ton of topsoil, which has to be replaced by $500 worth of fertilizer." d. Legislature should require cities and counties to include runoff controls and waste disposal restrictions in construction permits. Anderson, Frederick R., et al. Environmental Protection: Law and Policy Little, Brown and Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1990. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, "Oil Recycling—A Boost for the Bay." Homeowner Series. April, 1989. Copeland, Claudia. Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, June 12, 1991. Galveston Bay National Estuary Program. "Galveston Bay Area Residents' Handbook." Webster, Texas. Mouche, Carol. "Approaching 2000: A Regulatory Overview." Environmental Protection, vol. 3, no. 1., January/February 1992, pp. 32-42. Nonpoint Source Advisory Committee. "Nonpoint Source Water Pollution for the State of Texas: Recommendations for the Future." Austin, Texas, September, 1990. Texas General Land Office. "Nonpoint Source Pollution." Issue Brief prepared for the Coastal Management Plan Advisory Committee. Austin, Texas, February 28,1990. Texas Water Commission and the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board. "1990 Update to the Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Management Report for the State of Texas." Austin, Texas, August, 1991. U.S. Department of Agriculture. ASCS Conservation Programs. Program Aid Number 1355. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., August, 1984. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Commerce. "Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance." Washington, B.C., October, 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Proposed Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters." U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, B.C., May 1991. 81