Pesticides and Water Quality - Texas Center for Policy Studies

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The TNRCC has also issued “statewide” monitoringwaivers for four pesticides—endothall, diquat,glyphosate and dibromochloropropane (DBCP).C. Ramifications ofthe Lack of WaterQuality Informationfor PesticidesAssessments for PublicDrinking Water SupplySourcesTotal Maximum DailyLoadsGroundwaterManagement Plans forPesticidesThe lack of water quality data for pesticides, combinedwith the general lack of location- and time-specific dataon pesticide use poses barriers to effectiveimplementation of new water quality protection efforts.As discussed in Section IV of this report, effectiveimplementation of these new programs will require moreextensive and accurate data on pesticide use and thepotential for that use to adversely affect water quality.First, the new source water assessments to be conductedunder the 1996 amendments to the federal Safe DrinkingWater Act will be an important tool for protectingdrinking water quality and possibly relieving somepublic water supply systems of high monitoring costs.Nevertheless, without better, site-specific informationon agricultural and non-agricultural pesticide use, thesource water assessments cannot effectively addresspotential pesticide contamination of drinking watersources. This data gap could have implications for boththe adequacy of the state’s overall source waterassessment program and for whether the assessments canbe used to reduce water quality testing burdens on publicwater supply systems, as contemplated by the federalSafe Drinking Water Act amendments.Second, Texas is gearing up a significant effort toimplement the requirements of Section 303(d) of thefederal Clean Water Act, which requires analysis andallocation of pollutant loading in water bodies that arenot meeting water quality standards. Without better dataon pesticide use, however, these efforts will behampered for those segments where pesticides arethreatening designated water uses.Finally, the state’s efforts to develop adequate plans forprotecting ground water from agricultural chemicals,particularly regarding the widely-used pesticides(atrazine, simazine, cyanazine, propazine metolachlorand alachlor) are going to depend on gathering and8
making available better pesticide use data. Ultimately,if the state plan is not adequate, the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency could move to ban the use of thepesticides, which could have significant economicconsequences for Texas farmers.D. Solution: PesticideUse ReportingBecause it is too expensive to test for all pesticides ineach water body, state regulators, local governments anddrinking water suppliers must carefully target the limitedresources available for testing and analysis efforts.Pesticide use data is the key to being able to target andtrack the effectiveness of water quality monitoring,source water protection and water pollution reductionprograms.Pesticide use data will: (1) allow better targeting of thevery limited resources available for testing for pesticidesin surface water, fish and ground water; (2) allow formore scientifically-sound source water assessments toprotect drinking water and to evaluate monitoring waiverdecisions; and (3) provide scientifically-sound data forthe state’s groundwater management plans for pesticides.Pesticide use data would also help water protectionauthorities more quickly identify and remedy any usesthat are posing potential risks to surface water or groundwater.A pesticide use reporting system for both agriculturaland non-agricultural uses of pesticides would provideagencies and the public with information on when,where, what types and in what quantities pesticides areused in Texas. This information, in turn, could be usedby TNRCC and other agencies, public water supplysystems and others to greatly enhance theimplementation and effectiveness of those water qualityprotection programs. The availability of pesticide usereporting data would have the following specific benefitsfor water quality protection in Texas 9 .• Provide site-specific information on pesticideuse for drinking water source assessments and9 PUR also has many other benefits. See TCPS, Realm of the Unknown:Pesticide Use in Texas (TCPS: Austin, 1998).9
Page 1 and 2: I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARYA. Effec
Page 3 and 4: courses, parks, highway right-of-wa
Page 5: 1992, 1994 and 1996 Clean Rivers Pr
Page 10 and 11: elated monitoring waivers under the
Page 12 and 13: II. PESTICIDES IN SURFACE WATERThis
Page 15 and 16: whether Texas water bodies are expe
Page 17 and 18: screening levels) for fish tissue a
Page 19 and 20: detected pesticides have been banne
Page 21 and 22: section of a segment was considered
Page 23 and 24: which examines the liver and reprod
Page 25 and 26: Water Body Year of Sample Pesticide
Page 27 and 28: Water Body Year of Sample Pesticide
Page 29 and 30: een detected in Texas public drinki
Page 31 and 32: E. Summary of Statewide DataThe fai
Page 33 and 34: The Clean Rivers Program also has a
Page 35 and 36: Brazos/Colorado Coastal BasinDuring
Page 37 and 38: mosquito control program conducted
Page 39 and 40: San Antonio River BasinThe 1994 Ass
Page 41 and 42: • Cibolo Creek Municipal Authorit
Page 43 and 44: Compound No. of Sites Detections No
Page 45 and 46: urban land use areas were the main
Page 47 and 48: These rural landowners are reported
Page 49 and 50: water include the Tulia and Friona
Page 51 and 52: IV. ENHANCING WATER QUALITY PROTECT
Page 53 and 54: 3. A determination of the public wa
Page 55 and 56: use, the source water assessments c
Page 57 and 58: V. CONCLUSION:TEXAS NEEDS A PESTICI
Page 59 and 60:
DRINKING WATER MONITORING WAIVERS F
Page 61 and 62:
At the time this report was being p
Page 63 and 64:
Proposed CMR 162 Alternative Monito
Page 65 and 66:
The need for reasonably location-sp
Page 67 and 68:
Table B-3. Pesticide Analysis Costs
Page 69 and 70:
application and treatment rates, al
show all

Pesticides and Water Quality - Texas Center for Policy Studies

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?