Chapter VII

WATER RESOURCES

The League’s historic interests in clean water and protecting unspoiled areas quickly led to an involvement with national water policy issues. Throughout the years, the League has forcefully opposed many proposed dams and other water resource projects, while supporting others that it considered economically and environmentally sound. More importantly, it worked to update the basic rules by which water development decisions are made by perfecting the Water Resource Planning Act of 1965. The League also worked vigorously for water policy reforms for many years. Presented below are guidelines used by the League to judge water management proposals. The League emphasizes that each project must be evaluated on its own merits.

• A) Principles
  • 1) Conservation of water should be a priority component of all water resource planning programs. The fundamental national water policy should stress careful management of naturally available water resources, including recycling and re-use, as preferable to “water resources development.”
  • 2) Theriver basin is the natural unit for planning the management and use of water and related land resources. Comprehensive river basin planning is preferable to a piecemeal, project-by-project approach.
  • 3) The League supports the adoption and administration of local river corridor protection ordinances by appropriate government agencies and urges citizens to actively pursue such protections.
  • 4) As arule, the League believes an area’s water needs should be met from resources available within the watershed. The League opposes inter-basin transfer of water, since such transfer encourages recipient areas to ignore growth and development issues at others’ expense.
  • 5) Full consideration must be given to all environmental values affected by water management decisions, including scenic, recreational, and fish and wildlife values of in-stream uses of water. The League recognizes the need to leave certain rivers and other water resources free-flowing, otherwise undeveloped and in their natural state.
  • 6) Parks, wilderness, and other designated natural preserves must be protected from any encroachment by water development projects.
  • 7) Costs and benefits of proposed water development must be assessed realistically through:
    • a) Accurate initial cost estimates.
    • b) Inclusion of all costs.
    • c) Accurate estimates of project life.
    • d) Application of contemporary discount rates (interest charges).
    • e) Stringent accounting of claimed benefits.
    • f) Full accounting of the benefits of nondevelopment and of values destroyed by development (e.g., future productivity of lands inundated by an impoundment).
  • 8) Costs should be allocated realistically among all project purposes, and full project costs should be recovered from the direct beneficiaries of flood control, drainage, navigation and irrigation development— reducing direct and indirect subsidies until the price more closely reflects the true costs.
  • 9) Upstream-soil and other resource-conservation programs (including special controls on timber harvest practices and strip mining) should be related integrally to reservoir construction, since they prolong reservoir life through protection from siltation. All proposals for reservoir construction should contain assurance that upstream conservation programs will be implemented.
  • 10) All water development projects authorized in the past but never built should be deauthorized. Reauthorization should be consistent with modern policy requirements.
  • 11) Water management planning should respond to environmental and social needs as well as to economic opportunities. Project planning should explicitly consider the system-wide impacts and net benefits of a wide range of viable alternatives. Planning should be conducted with vigorous public participation and in full compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The League generally has supported the principles and standards for water resource planning issued by the Water Resources Council.
• B) Compliance
  • 1) The League supports the objective of the Clean Water Act to “... restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” To achieve that objective, the League supports the act’s goals, which state that the discharge of pollutants will be eliminated and that all waters will be both “fishable and swimmable.” Other Clean Water Act measures include:
    • a) Pollutants may be discharged into waterways only under the terms of a discharge permit that sets effluent limits and establishes a schedule for compliance.
    • b) Municipalities must use the best practical waste treatment technology (defined as secondary treatment).
    • c) Federal funds should be provided to help communities build municipal sewage treatment plants.
    • d) Industries should pay the full costs of cleaning up their own wastes.
    • e) Uniformtechnological requirements should be imposed to achieve and maintain water quality standards. Measures and practices should be in place to control nonpoint source pollution, and more stringent controls are needed for point source pollution.
    • f) States should adopt specific numeric water criteria for toxic pollutants that protect human health and the environment.
    • g) Industries discharging wastes directly into waterways must meet nationwide, technology-based requirements.
    • h) When, for point-source dischargers, technology-based requirements are not sufficient to ensure a water body will meet water quality standards, more stringent requirements shall be required for all dischargers that will ensure that water quality standards will be met with an adequate safety margin.
    • i) Because of its threat to human health and the environment, the use of chlorine as a disinfectant in sewage treatment should be minimized and, if possible, eliminated in favor of alternative methods.
    • j) Statesshould take full advantage of the water quality certification authority granted by the Clean Water Act to ensure the protection of the existing integrity of their own waters.
    • k) Water quality standards should be used to augment technology- based standards when those standards alone do not adequately protect water.
    • l) Industries that discharge wastes into publicly owned treatment works must first remove any incompatible pollutants from their discharge as required by uniform, nationwide pretreatment standards.
    • m) In order for national and state water quality programs to be implemented properly, presidential administrations should request and Congress should fully appropriate funds authorized under the Clean Water Act.
    • n) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should assume administration of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater discharge permit program of any state that is not adequately administering the program pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.
  • 2) Clean Water Act regulations permit dilution of discharges of 128 chemical substances for which specific numeric criteria were established. The League believes that the most stringent level of discharge requirements must be used and measured at the end of the pipe without benefit of mixing zones for all water bodies. Further, certain substances known to persist and bioaccumulate should not be allowed to be present in the discharge.
  • 3) The League opposes watershed-based effluent trading, as proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, as contrary to the Clean Water Act because it:
    • a) Would be susceptible to manipulation and special privilege.
    • b) Would not be supported by required data sets.
    • c) Would rely on non-existent nonpoint source pollution data.
    • d) Would allow degradation of water quality.
    • e) Would allow pollution traders to bypass the Clean Water Act’s public participation process.
  • 4) The League opposes any attempt by the Environmental Protection Agency to weaken water-quality standards through the rule-making process. Any revision to water-quality standards should be guided by the goals of the Clean Water Act, not to accommodate polluters. Any revision of water-quality standards should address:
    • a) Sediment criteria.
    • b) Biological criteria.
    • c) Hydrologic balance criteria.
    • d) Whole effluent toxicity demonstrations.
    • e) Total maximum daily loading demonstrations.
    • f) Tightening of water quality certification under Section 401 of the act.
  • 5) The League supports state efforts to develop effective and enforceable Total Maximum Daily Load programs, and encourages states to develop citizen-based water monitoring programs.
• C) Channelization, Drainage, and Diversion
  • 1) Any proposal to modify the regimen of a stream must be evaluated carefully. The League recognizes that channelization, drainage, and stream-straightening projects might in some cases accord with the public interest. Most often, however, such projects have been noted for impairments to fish and wildlife habitat, timber, recreation, and other resource values. In 1973, the League called for a moratorium on federally funded channelization and drainage projects until new measures to protect environmental values were assured.
  • 2) The League calls on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to:
    • a) Stop issuing permits for channel and streambank modification without proper planning, review and mitigation for impacts.
    • b) Stopissuing permits for channel and streambank modification “after the fact.”
    • c) Stop “defining” free-flowing and/or navigable streams as irrigation ditches, thus allowing exemption from Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
  • 3) Any agreement developed between federal and state agencies to facilitate the Section 404 permitting process should:
    • a) Limit the size of modifications or repairs allowed.
    • b) Provide for public notice, comment, and hearings.
    • c) Not allow streams to be defined as irrigation ditches.
    • d) Provide for mitigation of stream impacts.
    • e) Retain and restore native trees and shrubs in the riparian corridor whenever possible.
• D) Flood Control
  • 1) Flood protection can be accomplished through control of water and through control of the human use of watersheds. Control in the latter sense, involving non-structural alternatives (including floodplain zoning and other restrictions on use of flood-prone areas), should receive first consideration in planning for flood protection. Federal funds should be reassigned to programs employing nonstructural techniques. Flood control programs should address first the restoration of natural retention capacity of the watershed, including re-establishment of wetlands, removal of structures in the 100-year floodplain, and restoration of the river to its original streambed.
  • 2) The League opposes development within the floodplain so that these areas might aid in the control of floodwaters. Therefore, while the League supports the principles inherent in the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, we urge that a policy be developed under these statutes for the protection and restoration of the environmental values of floodplains. To implement this policy, the Federal Emergency Management Agency should:
    • a) RequVire stricter floodplain management ordinances to protect the floodway and the floodway fringe from encroachment and unnecessary channelization of the waterway.
    • b) Expand the program of flood hazard area clearance.
    • c) Coordinate with other federal agencies to ensure protection of these lands from encroachment and fill.
    • d) Disallow recurring flood insurance claims totaling more than the property value.
    • e) Delineate coastal erosion zones and deny flood insurance for these zones.
  • 3) The League also encourages flood-prone communities to implement the zoning policies and construction standards required for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program.
• E) Navigation
  • 1) Commercial navigation is only a part of the nation’s transportation picture. Navigation development should not be regarded as an integral part of every water development program or an automatic need for every major river. Navigation development should proceed only when clearly needed to advance public benefits from transportation as a whole, only when economically justified, and only to the extent that other values of water and related resources are not unduly impaired. For example, the League has been concerned about the effects of commercial navigation on the Upper Mississippi River ecosystem and therefore opposes expansion of navigation capacity in the basin.
  • 2) The costs of navigation development should be paid in the form of user fees by those who benefit directly.
  • 3) Bargefleeting and mooring on the inland waterways should be regulated through a system of permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard and the states to protect safety, fish and wildlife habitats, water quality, recreation, and natural areas. Barges carrying ecologically hazardous cargoes should be equipped with double hulls, and a rapid spill response should be developed.
  • 4) The League opposes any legislation that would authorize the extension of any locks on the Upper Mississippi River prior to completion of an adequate planning process and required Environmental Impact Statements. We oppose expansion of navigation facilities on the Upper Mississippi River and urge Congress, relevant federal agencies, and states to restore the degraded habitat and other natural resources contained within the watershed. We call for a qualified independent study to review the Corps’ economic studies supporting the project. The League calls for a comprehensive action plan concerning the economic and ecological sustainability of the Upper Mississippi River, and urges that a citizen- based task force be established to monitor the implementation of such a plan.
  • 5) No dam that is impassable or otherwise adverse to migratory fish should be constructed on any river that supports valuable resources of such fish. Rivers that are especially important to fish- eries should be declared fish sanctuaries, with construction of dams forbidden.
  • 6) The League opposes any additional alterations to the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River system for the purposes of accommodating larger commercial vessels and winter navigation. The League also opposes additional funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers studies to determine the feasibility of increased navigation on these waterways because previous independent reviews have found that the project is economically unjustified and environmentally unacceptable.
  • 7) Public access should be provided to all important streams, lakes, and other waters.
  • 8) Every reservoir constructed with public funds or under public license should be accessible to the public and appropriately developed for recreational use and to enhance fish and wildlife.
  • 9) To guarantee free public access, the federal government should secure linear easements along the shores of the lakes and streams within the 44 million acres of Alaska lands transferred to native ownership.
• F) Mitigation
  • 1) Mitigation of fish, wildlife, and recreational values damaged or destroyed by water development projects is a minimum goal. Such values should be enhanced whenever practical.
  • 2) The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the basic authority for mitigating fish and wildlife impacts of federal water resource development projects, should be strengthened to:
    • a) Apply to all water projects constructed, licensed, or assisted by the federal government, including those of the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
    • b) Ensure that fish and wildlife become “equally considered purposes of water development plans.”
    • c) Require replacement of habitat losses.
• G) Barriers to Fish Passage
  • 1) Dams and other artificial barriers are among the most significant obstacles to restoring the integrity of river systems and are a primary cause of fishery declines throughout the Lower 48 states. Many opportunities exist to remove these barriers in an ecologically sound manner. The League supports:
    • a) Increased commitment of state and federal resources to the study and removal of dams and other artificial barriers to fish migration.
    • b) Congressionally appropriated funds dedicated to studying sediment transport in streams and potential adverse ecological impacts from release of accumulated sediment.
    • c) Notice to all potentially affected agencies prior to the release of accumulated sediment-laden water.
    • d) Holding owner/operators financially responsible for fish and wildlife losses and restoration costs when such releases cause damage to natural resources.
  • 2) The League advocates modifying hydropower facility operations to reduce their adverse impacts whenever such facilities are required to be relicensed, and encourages members to participate in such re-licensing processes. The League believes that the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission should:
    • a) Make re-licensing decisions on a watershed and river-system basis.
    • b) Consider all alternatives to re-licensing projects.
    • c) Ensure that hydropower projects are consistent with water quality requirements.
    • d) Restore sufficient flows and habitat to rivers.
    • e) Establish a mitigation fund for river conservation and restoration programs.
    • f) Mandate needed facilities for upstream and downstream fish passage.
    • g) Ensure free public access to rivers.
    • h) Guarantee sufficient funding for dam decommissioning.
    • i) Limit re-licensing to a term not to exceed 20 years.
• H) Wetlands
  • 1) Wetlands are critical economic and ecological resources. To maintain the integrity of the nation’s waters, all wetlands must be protected against destruction by dredging and filling.
  • 2) The U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should fully evaluate not only the environmental impact of any single proposal to drain or fill a wetland or alter a wetland or shoreline, but should also consider the cumulative impacts of any such proposals.
  • 3) The League opposes any legislative or regulatory proposals that would reduce the jurisdictional scope of the Section 404 program under the Clean Water Act.
  • 4) The League endorses the concept of “no net loss of wetlands” and urges adoption of a comprehensive wetlands policy that would:
    • a) Eliminate federal programs that subsidize and encourage wetlands destruction.
    • b) Increase funding for nationwide wetlands mapping and for restoration projects.
    • c) Require wetland lossesto be mitigated through the sequential process of avoiding, minimizing, and compensating on a greater than 1:1 acreage ratio for adverse environmental impacts.
    • d) Require no net loss of either acreage or function.
    • e) Require on-site compensatory mitigation or mitigation in the same watershed.
    • f) Stop the filling of wetlands for non-water-dependent projects.
    • g) Require long-term commitment to the success of compensatory mitigation projects.
    • h) Expand the Clean Water Act’s Section 404 program to apply to drainage, as well as filling activities.
  • 5) We encourage state and federal governments to adopt a wetland conservation tax-credit program to provide incentives for private landowners to restore and conserve their wetlands.
  • 6) In order to minimize or prevent the destruction of small wetlands by ditching, draining and excavating, the League supports including the principles of the Tulloch rule into the Clean Water Act and state wetland regulation.
  • 7) It is the practice of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Department of Transportation to mitigate for impacts of projects that destroy or degrade wetlands by buying “credits” in wetlands mitigation banks. Those monies are spent on wetland creation, restoration, or enhancement projects at other locations. The League believes that mitigation banking is one alternative for sustaining wetlands acreage, but that it must be carried out with stringent protections including:
    • a) Adherence to and enforcement of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 404(b)(1) guidelines which call for avoidance, minimization, and mitigation—in that order.
    • b) General prohibition against wetlands mitigation banks (WMBs) that create wetlands. The focus should be on restoration.
    • d) Prohibition against locating WMBs in a different watershed from the one in which wetlands impacts occur, except when relocation can be shown to be the most ecologically favorable alternative.
    • e) Priority acquisition of conservation and flowage easements.
    • f) Setbacks of development and agricultural activity.
    • g) Significant reduction in conventional drainage activity that results in conversion of wetlands.
    • h) Economic incentives for wetland owners to adopt protective and restorative measures, and fuller implementation of provisions addressing this goal in the Farm Bill.
  • 8) The League urges local entities, individual states, and the United States Congress to strengthen and/or pass legislation to protect all of America’s valuable wetlands, including isolated wetlands. Furthermore, the League urges these same governing bodies to pass legislation that would strengthen and implement new conservation programs to bolster support by producers for wetland and water protection in their management plans.
• I) Marine Resources
  • 1) The natural resource jurisdiction of the United States should extend to the outer limit of the continental shelf, or 200 miles seaward from the coast—whichever is greater.
  • 2) The public should be permitted access to and use of U.S. beaches.
  • 3) The League supports the preservation of especially significant natural resource values through the designation of marine sanctuaries, public acquisition of wetlands, and establishment of shoreline and underwater preserves.
  • 4) The federal government should:
    • a) Protect critical coastal resources through easements and fee acquisition.
    • b) Assure opportunity for coastal recreation near urban centers.
    • c) Stimulate rehabilitation of existing ports and urban waterfronts to focus commercial and other water-oriented activity in already-developed shoreline areas.
    • d) Deny federal flood insurance for new construction in highhazard coastal areas.
    • e) Protect fisheries and vital fisheries habitat.
• J) Barrier Islands
  • 1) Nofederal funds should be provided or permits issued for projects that would alter or destroy the recreational, scientific, or environmental values of any barrier island or barrier beach. The League strongly supports the designation of all undeveloped coastal barri- ers as units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, particularly along the Great Lakes, Pacific Coast, Florida Keys, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The League urges Congress to include all areas recommended by the U.S. Department of the Interior.
• K) Coastal Zone
  • 1) TheLeague urges each state to plan for and protect the resource values of its coastal zone.
  • 2) The federal government should develop and implement a coastal zone management program for any state that fails to do so.
  • 3) Major interstate coastal resource areas, such as the Chesapeake Bay, should be managed according to formal interstate agreement or by the federal government if no such agreement exists.
  • 4) States should have the right to participate in Outer Continental Shelf decisions that affect their coastal zones whether such activities are within, landward, or seaward of the zones.
• L) Coral Reefs
  • 1) Congress should prohibit the sale of all reef coral in the United States and regulate the use of fish traps and other practices contributing to despoliation of reef communities.
  • 2) The League urges the U.S. Secretary of Commerce to:
    • a) Establish cooperative global initiatives to safeguard these systems worldwide.
    • b) Establish and implement a National Coral Reef Ecosystem Conservation and Protection Plan that includes a prohibition on live-rock harvest, except for permitted research purposes.
    • c) Conduct a status review of coral species and associated organisms for possible listing under the Endangered Species Act.
• M) Offshore Oil/Petroleum Facilities
  • 1) The League generally is opposed to siting any refinery, oil port, bunkering station or petroleum transfer facility in any estuary, wetland, or other shoreline or offshore area not already affected significantly by petroleum pollution.
  • 2) National policy on offshore oil and gas development should include:
    • a) Separating the exploration phase from leasing and development.
    • b) Assuring comprehensive assessment of economic, social and environmental impacts before leasing.
    • c) Requiring physical and biological baseline research prior to leasing.
    • d) Withholding from drilling areas that have high environmental value or high risk of damage.
  • 3) Congress should pass legislation to protect coral reefs from potential negative impacts due to oil tankers and other coastal shipping by moving shipping lanes farther offshore and by siting an oil spill response station in south Florida.
• N) Sea Level Canal
  • 1) Because of the potential adverse effects of mixing the marine organisms of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, the League is opposed to construction of a sea-level canal across the Isthmus of Panama, pending adequate biological study.
• O) Drift Nets
  • 1) Monofilament drift nets used by ocean fishing fleets indiscriminately kill thousands of marine mammals, birds, sea turtles, and fish. The League supports a global treaty banning the use of drift nets and urges a boycott of any company that knowingly sells seafood caught with ocean drift nets.
• P) Florida Keys and Everglades
  • 1) The League calls for a moratorium on major development in the Florida Keys until the state has implemented a program to limit future development to the carrying capacity of the area. The League also urges the acquisition of all private lands on North Key Largo that do not have inhabited homes.
  • 2) The League urges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the state of Florida to purchase all land contained in the Everglades Agriculture Area as it is retired from agriculture. We also call on the relevant authorities to condemn and acquire the “8.5-squaremile” area so that efforts to protect the Everglades National Park can be completed.
• Q) Sarasota and Chesapeake Bays
  • 1) The Sarasota and the Chesapeake bays were identified as National Priority Estuaries under the Water Quality Act of 1987. The League supports the development and implementation of comprehensive management plans to restore and protect these bays, and urges Congress to provide sufficient federal funding for this purpose.
• R) Mississippi Delta
  • 1) Due to human activities, the Mississippi River Delta marsh areas are eroding at a rapid pace. Therefore, a comprehensive emergency program should be developed to restore inflows of fresh water, repair wetlands damaged by canals and dikes, and prohibit the construction or expansion of canals in the coastal zone.
• S) Great Lakes and Lakeshores
  • 1) The League supports the Great Lakes Initiative, as well as programs and policies that will result in “zero discharge” of bioaccumulative, persistent toxic substances into the Great Lakes.
  • 2) Lakes and reservoirs comprise 39.9 million acres in this country. Lakeshores are experiencing increased development, both residential and commercial. Largely due to this development, 39 percent of U.S. lakes are impaired by pollution according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s 1996 report. The League urges federal, state, and local governments and private agencies to ensure adequate protection of our inland lakes by enforcing existing laws and regulations and by developing new policies and programs that:
    • a) Place the highest priority on protecting lake-water quality, ecological integrity and natural beauty.
    • b) Emphasize the crucial role that individual shoreline and nearshore landowners play in protecting these values.
    • c) Make provision for education, financial, and other incentives to implement conservation practices.
    • d) Ensure that shoreline and near-shore zoning regulations adequately address development and land-management practices that threaten the ecological values of lake resources.
    • e) Provide needed technical and financial assistance to local governments to operate programs and enforce regulations that protect inland lakes.
    • f) Facilitate full participation by a representative cross-section of the public in data collection, planning, program design and implementation.