# New EPA Clean Water rules



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

The article says "over 90%" of Utah's streams will be excluded from federal protections - alluding to the elimination of protection for ephemeral streams: 
those that run after rain or snowmelt, or only for a short time.

I'm sure that the new protection rules will affect our streams in one way or another -- but I'm having a hard time with the article, and the way it makes the majority of our streams and rivers sound like they only run part of the year. I guess if you count de-watering due to irrigation use, then maybe....but 90%?

I'd like to see a list of streams and rivers (by name) that are included in the exclusion. That would be more beneficial than just having someone throw out some random percent...

https://www.deseret.com/indepth/202...ent-rollbacks-hit-the-arid-lands-hardest-west


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

The linked EPA study actually puts the number at 79%, as a combination of ephemeral and intermittent combined. That seems about right to me, especially with the definitions in the report. It doesn't list each stream but it passes the "smell test" to me. I would wager someone could dig out the specific study for Utah but I'm not going that deep into the rabbit hole.

Glad more newspapers are linking to The Conversation. I think they have really stepped up as a reliable analytical news organization in a time of need.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

backcountry said:


> The linked EPA study actually puts the number at 79%, as a combination of ephemeral and intermittent combined. That seems about right to me, especially with the definitions in the report.


I agree, again based on the provided definitions. I would suspect that most of what we would consider "streams" in our minds would still fall under protected status. We ran into a similar definition battle during the stream access wars.

A couple of comments.

1. My initial reaction was that this was bad and the pollution would really intensify, if it withstood the court challenges. However, if we are talking about dry gullies that may have water in them once a year, I could see the point of reduced oversight. As with so many things, the devil is in the details. It will be interesting to follow this.

2. If we are dependent on the state to protect the water, as the article implies, we are in trouble.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> 2. If we are dependent on the state to protect the water, as the article implies, we are in trouble.


I agree.

Again, I fall back to the examples of Fish Lake vs. Panguitch Lake cabins and sewer systems. At Fish Lake the USFS required all cabins to be part of a sewer system with ponds outside the Fish Lake basin. At Panguitch the cabin owners thouht this was too expensive (ie: didn't like the Feds suggesting what they should do), so septics were allowed. We now have a sewage lagoon called Panguitch Lake that sees algea blooms with high toxins.

Sometimes having "big brother" telling you what to do isn't a bad thing.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Catherder said:


> 1. My initial reaction was that this was bad and the pollution would really intensify, if it withstood the court challenges. However, if we are talking about dry gullies that may have water in them once a year, I could see the point of reduced oversight. As with so many things, the devil is in the details. It will be interesting to follow this.


At first I thought the same thing as you Catherder....but, then I started thinking about such "streams" that provide excellent spawning habitat for trout--like the inlet at both Paragonah and Kolob Reservoirs. These streams will, on some years, dry up though they always provide excellent spawning habitat for rainbows and cutts in the early spring and summer months. Taking the protection away from some of these kinds of places might also be bad...

....just thinking out loud.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> At first I thought the same thing as you Catherder....but, then I started thinking about such "streams" that provide excellent spawning habitat for trout--like the inlet at both Paragonah and Kolob Reservoirs. These streams will, on some years, dry up though they always provide excellent spawning habitat for rainbows and cutts in the early spring and summer months. Taking the protection away from some of these kinds of places might also be bad...
> 
> ....just thinking out loud.


Good point. In reading about the regulation, it talks about the concept of a "significant nexus", which means any stream, even intermittent ones, getting protection if they enter a "major" system. Depending on interpretation, those Kolob tribs could still qualify for protection since they enter into a "major" system (Kolob Res). Again, the devil is in the details, and the judgement of the interpreter.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Haven't read up fully on it yet but it definitely gets my attention. I know several tributaries of the lower Green that meet the definitions listed and have had issues in the recent past. I wonder if these new proposed guidelines would mean there are no repercussions if a well or horse head leaks into what is seasonally a dry wash but which ultimately finds it's way to the river another season.

Looks like another item to catch up on to understand the details.


----------

