The Clean Water Act, passed by the US Congress in 1972, was designed to address the cumulative impacts of a myriad of pollutants that affect the waters of the United States. The law mandates that government regulators identify “streams for which the effluent limitations required by section 301(b)(1)(A) and section 301(b)(1)(B) are not stringent enough to implement any water quality standard applicable to such waters.” In plain English, this means that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), who is ultimately responsible for the enforcement of the Clean Water Act at the federal level, must require each state to identify streams that have become “impaired” as a result of a particular pollutant.

Then, the EPA must determine how much of that particular pollutant is the threshold beyond which the stream can no longer support a particular use, such as drinking water, swimming or fishing. This threshold is called the “total maximum daily load” (TMDL), and it is a measurable quantity of, for instance, sediment, fecal coliform, mercury, etc. So in sum, states must do two things to ensure clean water: 1) Identify threatened waters and 2) Determine levels of pollution that may cause them to be impaired. The EPA has delegated this inventory process to each state.

Almost one quarter of a century passed before states were forced to identify threatened waters and establish TMDLs. Until the late 1980s, the EPA and their designated counterparts at the state level addressed only “point sources” of pollution. A point source is defined as………….Even though the Clean Water Act requires attention to both point and non-point source pollutants, regulating agencies previously concentrated on point sources because monitoring what comes out of the end of a pipe or ditch was easier to do.

But as the more nebulous and often deadly impacts of cumulative non-point pollution was spawned from our ever-increasing commerce and population, citizens and organizations launched a flurry of lawsuits in the late 1980s, which were resolved by requiring the EPA and other regulatory agencies to delve into the uncharted area of TMDLs and non-point pollutants.

The EPA has now been sued in 34 states, forcing the issue of TMDLs. Arguably one of the most significant of these was in 1997 in the state of Georgia (Sierra Club v. Hankinson), and resulted in a Consent Order requiring the EPA to propose TMDLs for public comment in accordance with a special schedule. This schedule is among the shortest time frames for any TMDL program in the nation. While most states have up to 15 years to establish TMDLs, Georgia is required to complete their TMDL designations by the year 2004.

As a result of these factors, the EPA and Georgia’s Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) have set up a rotating schedule to conduct monitoring, develop TMDLs for individual impaired waters, identify control strategies for pollutants of concern, and to implement these controls. The Savannah River watershed was chosen to begin this process, and at the vanguard of this focus is Stekoa Creek, a major, impaired tributary to the Chattooga River whose abysmal water quality is known to all who frequent the lower stretches of the river.

Stekoa Creek has been classified as impaired because of excessive levels of fecal coliform and sedimentation. Further emphasis on the need to clean up Stekoa Creek stems from the fact that Stekoa flows into a National Wild and Scenic River, often with a dramatic visual contrast in water quality. This set of circumstances thrust Stekoa Creek and the Chattooga watershed to the forefront of one of the most important water quality programs in the nation.

To date, the EPA has circulated three iterations of sediment TMDLs for Stekoa Creek with the most recent, “final” draft appearing in December 2000. Stekoa Creek has also been the focus of a “technical advisory group,” which is using the Stekoa TMDLs as a test case for identifying problems with the entire process’ scientific method.

Regarding the Stekoa TMDLs, the EPA’s proposed strategy for achieving them rely on applying Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the general areas of forestry, development and agriculture. BMPs are land use and timber harvesting guidelines determined by state agencies such as the State Forestry Commission. However, we believe this strategy is inadequate because of the unfortunate reality that BMPs have been in place for decades without bringing about compliance with the Clean Water Act’s mandates.

Meanwhile, in a parallel effort to address Georgia’s TMDL Consent Order, the GA EPD has contracted with the Rural Development Commission to work with watershed groups, county governments and other “stake holders,” to come up with strategies for reducing pollutants in impaired waterways. Regarding Stekoa, to date several meetings have been held to prioritize areas of concern, and to come up with a plan for helping reduce pollutants in Stekoa Creek as well as other “impaired” streams in the Georgia portion of the Chattooga watershed. The Chattooga Conservancy is participating in this process. We hope the group will act upon a clear agenda to identify the specific sites along Stekoa Creek that are major pollution sources, and then to use positive incentives and enforcement to bring violators into compliance.

The TMDL process looms ahead as a bureaucratic entanglement of field data and agency protocol that may yet yield a promising tool for cleaning up our nation’s abundant water resources. However, it appears that much oversight of the process will be needed to ensure that this aspect of the Clean Water Act’s goals can be met. Please join us in helping make TMDLs work to clean up your drinking water supplies, and favorite fishing and swimming holes.

Back to the Top