[OKC] FW: Tulsa World 3/22 Clean water

[Susie Shields]

This bill is dead now, thanks to all the folks who stood up against it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Harder, Hannah [mailto:HRHarder at owrb.state.ok.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:03 PM
To: 'okc at sustainableokc.org'
Subject: [OKC] FW: Tulsa World 3/22 Clean water 




> Clean water
> By World's Editorial Writers
> 3/22/2006
> 
> View in Print (PDF) Format
> <http://www.tulsaworld.com/TWPDFs/2006/Final/W_032206_A_12.PDF>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chlorophyll limits are needed now
> 
> The prime suspects in the degradation of eastern Oklahoma's waterways 
> are attempting to stop a simple, appropriate measure that would 
> improve the water quality for thousands of Oklahoma residents.
> 
> Because of inaccuracies being put forth by representatives of the 
> poultry industry, some lawmakers are opposing a rule proposed by the 
> Oklahoma Water Resources Board to control the amount of chlorophyll in

> lakes or streams that supply drinking water.
> 
> Why is the amount of chlorophyll in a water-supply lake important? 
> 
> Think back to middle-school science and you'll remember that 
> chlorophyll is present in plants -- in this case, algae, which causes 
> taste and odor problems in public drinking water.
> 
> Algae blooms occur when plenty of nutrients find their way into a 
> water supply. Excess poultry litter applied in eastern Oklahoma and 
> western Arkansas watersheds is a major source of nutrients for algae.
> 
> Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson has filed suit against 
> numerous poultry companies, aiming to force them to properly dispose 
> of litter, and state environmental officials are attempting to
regulate the problem.
> 
> The new standard under attack would place a 10-parts-per-million
> 
>  <http://adserver.tulsaworld.com/?sht=opinionstory336x280>
> 	
> limit on chlorophyll. The rule is needed to meet Environmental 
> Protection Agency regulations for public water supplies. If states 
> don't impose new limits, cities and other jurisdictions might be 
> forced to undertake expensive treatment measures to comply with EPA's 
> orders. They also would be subject to civil suits for not meeting
clean water standards.
> 
> Among those that would be helped by the new rule are the cities of 
> Tulsa, Claremore, Jay, Guthrie, Edmond, Lawton, Duncan, Tahlequah and 
> Norman, and also universities, improvement authorities and water
districts.
> 
> About 150 entities support the new rule, and only one -- the Oklahoma 
> Farm Bureau -- publicly opposes it.
> 
> The farm bureau has taken on the cause of the poultry industry, 
> prompting the forthright Edmondson to dub the agency the "dirty-water
lobby."
> 
> The farm bureau, in a letter of opposition, claims the water resources

> board "is too far removed from water quality standards implementation"

> and that OWRB's "priorities are not in step with the state's overall 
> water quality priorities."
> 
> We suspect the water resources agency is closer to the people's 
> priorities regarding clean water than the farm bureau.
> 
> A measure that would stall the new chlorophyll limit is before 
> lawmakers, and there is great concern the poultry industry has a
chance to prevail.
> 
> Scare tactics regarding the cost of the new rule have gotten some 
> lawmakers' attention.
> 
> The new rule will require some investment in treatment facilities by 
> the cities but not nearly as much as could be required by the federal 
> government if the state fails to act.
> 
> Oklahoma communities face orders to install more than $600 million in 
> treatment equipment to meet EPA requirements. That compares with $24 
> million to $48 million in voluntary steps that chlorophyll 
> contributors might be asked to take on with state and federal
assistance.
> 
> The city of Tulsa spent more than $4 million on an algae "bloom" 
> during 2000-2001. Such problems will not go away and likely will 
> multiply without action.
> 
> If Oklahomans had the chance to vote, there's no question what their 
> response would be:
> 
> Clean up the drinking water. Now. 
> 
>