By Lois M. Shade
Department of Agriculture/National Forest Service (NFS) is proposing to amend its policy on ground water management as part of watershed management on National Forest System land and is taking comments before the August 4th deadline. The proposed directive 2560 was noticed in the Federal Register on May 6, 2014.
The May 2007 Technical Guide to Managing Ground Water Resources is a 281-page dissertation on ground water on and adjacent to National Forest System land to address concerns about depletion of ground water storage, reduction in stream-flow, loss of ecosystems, saltwater intrusion and changes in ground water quality, as well as impacts of human activities.
US Forest Service mission statement …”to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations” is a laudable role but leaves many of us who depend on ground water as our main source of water to wonder what role Forestry feels it plays in managing and securing that resource for the human arena.
Forestry unequivocally believes because the federal government set aside land as the National Forest System, along with a series of laws regarding groundwater and various bodies of water whose source is on their land that NFS is the keeper of groundwater and surface water. At question are states’ rights over water within their borders and regional water regulations and laws.
The NFS Technical Guide points out certain federal laws related to water management that Forestry says provides “pertinent direction” but these laws don’t specifically provide direct management or control onsite or offsite.
1.Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) – provides standards to ensure safe, quality drinking water from under or above ground sources and directs Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish standards to protect our drinking water not Department of Agriculture or Forestry.
2.Resource Conservation & Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) – gives EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from “cradle to grave” enforcing generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal. Office of Water (OW) within EPA ensures safe drinking water and maintains/restores … “oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic ecosystems to protect human health, support economic and recreational activities, and provide healthy habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife”. OW is charged with oversight of agencies, including Forestry, to establish safe drinking water.
3.Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund) – again, EPA is in charge and responsible for clean-up of old hazardous material contaminated sites and reimbursement to the government for costs involved in the clean-up. Amendments in 1986, known as SARA, gave more responsibility to states and more input from citizens. No specific mention or assigned responsibilities mentioned for Forestry.
I found parts of the document a little confusing when it referenced sections I was unable to track down, like:
“In addition, judicial doctrine and water-rights case law provides the legal interpretations of Federal and State statutes about usage and management of ground water. The national ground water policy sets out the framework in which ground water resources are to be managed on NFS lands.”
There was nothing I could find that once again gave Department of Agriculture or Forestry any control over water or water source, above or below ground. When the Technical Management Guide talks about a national ground water policy the closest to that is NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) overseen by EPA and provides:
“ … federal agencies [must] integrate environmental values into their decision-making processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. To meet NEPA requirements, federal agencies prepare a detailed statement known as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). EPA reviews and comments on EISs prepared by other federal agencies, maintains a national filing system for all EISs, and assures that its own actions comply with NEPA.”
That seems to me to mean the National Recreation Area legislation and proposed Wild & Scenic River legislation will, under any circumstances, no matter who is designated as “in charge”, have to go through an environmental review process. It also seems the Forestry will be under the gun to go through the permit process when they propose projects within their jurisdiction.
