DC Environmental Agenda 99: Next | Table of Contents
The District's water resources are substantial and diverse. Within the city, there are 39 river miles, 238 acres of lakes, reservoirs and ponds, 6.1 miles of estuaries and harbors, and 123 acres of tidal wetlands.
The City's economic redevelopment and social goals depend on the health and sustainability of the Anacostia River, as well as the Potomac. Yet the Anacostia is among the most polluted rivers in the country. Twenty-five years after the nation declared a policy of making all waters safe for swimming and fishing, the District's waters are anything but that. A wide array of contaminants -- including e.coli, toxic metal and organic compounds, pathogens, oil and grease, excessive nutrients, and tons of discarded trash -- not only make our waters unsightly and foul-smelling -- they also jeopardize the health and well-being of residents and wildlife. Notably, every body of water in the District of Columbia fails to meet mandatory Federal water quality standards.
The District's drinking water is drawn from the Potomac River near Great Falls (occasionally from Little Falls), upstream from the city. The D.C. Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) is responsible for distributing the water after it is treated by the Army Corps of Engineers. The city's aging system of buried water pipes must be flushed on a regular basis to reduce the buildup of solids and biofilms and the attendant risk of waterborne disease from microorganisms, including coliform bacteria. The importance of effective pathogen control cannot be overstated.
The solutions to the problems with D.C.'s drinking water and rivers are not always apparent, not always inexpensive, and not always achievable over the short term. Water and sewer rates are increasing nationwide at a rate of about 3% per year in real terms. WASA projects rate increases of about 4.5% per year over the next 10 years, in large part necessitated by $1.8 billion of anticipated capital improvements. But even more needs to be done, as indicated below.
Modernize Our Drinking Water System to Reduce Health Threats
After the 1993 city-wide "boil water" alert struck the District due to concerns about possible Cryptosporidium and other contaminants in our water supply, a major water industry consulting firm, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., was hired to do a top-to-bottom review of the District's drinking water treatment and distribution system. The two final reports issued in March 1994--the Comprehensive Performance Evaluation and the Conceptual Plan for Modernization--recommended an overhaul of the treatment, operation, and maintenance of our water system. The reports noted serious deficiencies in how the water was treated and in how the distribution system was configured, operated, and maintained, which could pose significant public health threats now and into the future. Many of the important long-term recommendations for modernizing our drinking water system have been largely ignored.
The Corps of Engineers uses what is essentially Victorian-era pre-WWI-vintage technology for treating D.C.'s drinking water. While alum coagulation and sedimentation, filtration with sand/crushed coal, and chlorine disinfection were once state-of-the-art, the basic underlying technology does not do enough to assure that dangerous microbial and chemical contaminants are removed or killed jeopardizing the health of our vulnerable populations. Our system is much like Milwaukee's before their famous 1993 Cryptosporidium outbreak forced them to upgrade.
Two years ago, the District and Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments recommended to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that a waterborne disease surveillance program in D.C. should be established to assess the problem in the City. Studies show that as much as one-third of all gastrointestinal illness nationwide may be from drinking water contamination, and local governments around the country are addressing the problem. Cincinnati, Ohio and a large system serving southern New Jersey communities have recently upgraded their drinking water systems to incorporate granular activated carbon (GAC) filtration and/or ozonation disinfection (which actually kills Crypto and Giardia and reduces the toxic byproducts of chlorination) at the additional cost of $25 to $30 per family per year.
The additional disinfectants (chlorine) added by the Corps to control microbial problems do not kill either Crypto or Giardia and create a number of dangerous families of chemicals called "disinfection byproducts" that according to several studies are associated with increased bladder and rectal cancer in people exposed. Several recent studies also indicate that high spikes of these chemicals ingested by pregnant women in their first trimester may be associated with birth defects like spina bifida and an increased likelihood of miscarriage.
While many of the first priority, immediate actions that were recommended in the Comprehensive Performance Evaluation and the Plan for Modernization have been completed, (including many of the pipe flushing and reservoir cleaning suggestions) most of the long-term recommendations of the Plan for Modernization have not been implemented. In order to assure the long-term health of district residents, the District must commit to assuring that our drinking water system is modernized.
For example, the consultants recommended that we reduce the threats from Cryptosporidium and other parasites, and reduce our relatively high levels of cancer-causing and possibly birth defect and miscarriage-inducing disinfection byproducts in our water. The first step recommended--switching to chloramines as a disinfectant--is underway. However, the consultants' recommendation that by the year 2002 the District's water be treated using modern technology that can both kill Cryptosporidium and reduce the threats from disinfection byproducts--ozone and Granular Activated Carbon filter caps, full treatment of recycle streams, filter to waste, and several other changes in treatment - have not been initiated.
Moreover, the District needs to adopt a modernization program for its pipes in the distribution system. Many of these pipes are well over 100 years old, and are crumbling. There are still many "dead ends" where the water is stagnant, serving as an excellent growth medium for bacteria. The problem with old, leaky drinking water pipes is compounded by the fact that there are over 440 identified "cross connections" with the city's decaying sewer lines where the two lay proximate to each other, potentially allowing raw sewage to leak into our "treated" drinking water supply. In addition, the water line flushing program has identified many of the valves in the system that are so old and brittle that they break. Thus, a citywide, long-term prioritized plan to replace or rework older, at-risk reservoirs and pipes (and, as noted elsewhere, to replace lead pipes and fittings), should be adopted, to address these problems before it again becomes a citywide crisis.
Recommendations for Action:
(1) The D.C. Water & Sewer Authority (WASA) and the Army Corps of Engineers should convene a public, open process to adopt and commit to funding a step-by-step 5 to 10-year modernization plan. The plan should outline how to convert our water treatment plants to modern technology, such as ozone, granular activated carbon, or other modern treatment technologies, to reduce both microbiological and chemical contamination risks.
(2) WASA should adopt a long term distribution modernization, operation and maintenance plan. This should set specific timelines and priorities for pipe and valve replacement, dead end removal, cross-connection elimination, and routine flushing and reservoir cleaning.
(3) WASA and the Health Department should cooperate with CDC and EPA to carry out the recommended waterborne disease surveillance program in the District.
(4) WASA should convene a public advisory group. The group should include community, environmental, consumer, and other non-governmental leaders to solicit input from the community on the above issues, the Consumer Confidence Report (or "right-to-know" report), source water assessment, rate structure and the Intended Use Plan.
(5) WASA should adopt a progressive rate structure and "Lifeline Rates" for low-income individuals. Other cities such as Philadelphia, insulate low-income households from inevitable rate increases that occur when the system is upgraded and improved and the District should do the same.
Contact for more information: Erik Olson, Natural Resources Defense Council.
Protect the Source Of Our Drinking Water
The District has recently begun efforts to fulfill its mandate under the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to draft a "Source Water Assessment Plan" (SWAP) (due to EPA in February 1999).
In order for the SWAP to be effective, the D.C. Health Department and WASA will have to include citizens throughout the whole process and coordinate with Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, and to a lesser extent Philadelphia on the assesment. The SWAP Citizens Advisory Committee, which met a few times in 1998-1999 strongly urged that the District to maintain the Committee and to continue public participation throughout the actual implementation of the assessment plan, when the all-important assessment of pollution sources is being conducted.
The extent of the threats to D.C.'s source water cannot be overstated. One-half billion chickens are reared and processed in the Potomac Basin each year with waste flowing off the land upstream of D.C. In addition, dairy, logging and agribusiness operations and a new hog concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) operate in the region, raw sewage overflows and treated sewage effluent are a recurring problem, and an explosion of suburban sprawl in recent years has further compounded the runoff problems threatening the water quality of the Potomac Basin. What is urgently needed is an honest appraisal of the problem (including new monitoring as necessary), naming the known and potential polluters, and an action plan to address the major pollution sources.
Recommendations for Action:
(1) The Department of Health should work with the SWAP Citizen Advisory Committee to complete a detailed Source Water Assessment Plan, using an open, public process. The assessment should name known and potential polluters and undertake new monitoring to track down additional pollution sources.
(2) The Department of Health should adopt a Source Water Protection Plan to implement source water pollution control. The District should use all legal and other powers available to it to limit source water pollution.
Contact for more information: Paul Schwartz, Clean Water Action.
Reduce Our Exposure to Lead in Drinking Water
Drinking water is the source of a portion of the "burden" of lead that we all carry in our bodies. For most of us, the overall burden is low, and the portion attributable to drinking water is also low. However, those exposed to lead from the flakes or abrasion of lead paint or lead-contaminated soils may be carrying dangerously high levels of lead, and lead levels in drinking water may aggravate such unsafe conditions. Children are most vulnerable to experiencing permanent damages from excessive levels of lead.
Lead has not been found at dangerous levels in drinking water as it enters the D.C. system. However, our drinking water passes through brass plumbing fixtures which contain lead, indoor plumbing that may be soldered with lead, and for about 24,000 households (nearly 1 out of 4 in the District), lead pipe service lines connecting water mains in the street to individual homes. Most often, films accumulate on the inside of these conveyances that isolate the leaded material from the water, rendering it relatively harmless. However, disturbance to established piping, such as leaks and efforts to repair leaks, may expose the water to lead anew. What's more, the chemical characteristics of the water entering the system affect the degree to which lead can be scoured from the piping system as water passes through.
Monitoring for lead in D.C. tap water was begun in 1992, and is currently underway. About 100 households thought to be representative of the most "at-risk" populations are tested over a 6-month period. Results are analyzed by the Corps at Dalecarlia, the only certified drinking water lab in the city.
Though legally the problem should have been addressed many years ago, the Corps, EPA, and WASA have yet to agree on a preferred buffering agent to add to drinking water at Dalecarlia. Lime has been used for several years, but other agents are under consideration, including zinc phosphate, which also has benefits for pathogen control. The Corps' latest consultant's study is now at EPA for review.
During the late 80's (before the creation of WASA), DPW was budgeted for lead line replacement, and about 2,800 lead service lines were replaced before the program ended in the early 90's. Currently, as WASA detects the need to replace water mains in the street, lead service lines are replaced at the same time (but only up to the property line; it is up to the homeowner to arrange for replacement of the balance of the line to the house.) About 1,000 lead lines have been replaced in this manner since 1985.
Due to the permanent nature of damages to children from excessive lead, steps to reduce this risk should be taken quickly.
Recommendations for Action:
(1) The D.C. Water and Sewer Authority, EPA, and the Corps of Engineers should promptly resolve outstanding issues and introduce an improved lead buffering agent at Dalecarlia to reduce the reactivity of drinking water with lead in pipes, joints, and plumbing.
(2) WASA should increase the frequency of tapwater testing for lead beyond EPA minimums and have test results periodically analyzed at other labs in addition to Dalecarlia.
(3) WASA should change current policy and require complete replacement of lead lines when adjoining water mains are replaced.
(4) WASA should restore capital funding for high priority lead line replacement for populations most at risk.
Contact for more information: Ed Osann, Potomac Resources, Inc.
Manage Stormwater Discharges to Reduce Pollution
Stormwater is responsible for a significant share of the pollution entering our waterways. When rainfall strikes unvegetated ground, city streets, parking lots, rooftops and other impermeable surfaces, it begins a virtually straight path to our rivers, via underground conduits. At the beginning of this journey, before reaching sewer grates, stormwater picks up an enormous load of garbage and pollution. Oil and other vehicular fluids, pesticides, road de-icers in the winter, leaves in the fall, sand and dirt, air pollution that has fallen from the sky, dog, bird and other animal wastes and trash are well represented, particularly in the "first flush" during the first few hours of a storm.
Another very important pollutant, though invisible, is heat. When a summer storm "cools off" the city, much of that heat is simply being transferred to our rivers. And with every 1-degree increase in river temperature, ambient concentrations of oxygen plummet, killing the fish that depend on it.
(In large portions of the city, storm sewers serve the dual purpose of conveying sewage as well as surface runoff. During periods of heavy rain or snowmelt, these "combined sewers" carry more water than can be treated at Blue Plains and at several points overflow, carrying untreated sewage into Rock Creek, the Potomac, and especially the Anacostia. Combined sewer overflows are addressed in the next section of this Agenda.)
Under the Clean Water Act, D.C. is required to obtain a Federal permit that sets forth how the District will control pollution carried by stormwater. The District has failed to develop its program, and thus has failed to meet two deadlines for applying for this mandatory Federal permit.
To eventually secure Federal approval for its stormwater permit, the District will need to establish a sustainable funding mechanism for its stormwater operations and investments. A pro bono organization, D.C. Appleseed, is now conducting a study that is evaluating the methods that other cities use to finance their stormwater management programs. It is expected that the D.C. Appleseed report will recommend that revenues for a stormwater management program be generated through a user fee. It is also expected that the report will recommend that the District create or designate an existing agency with the responsibility for managing its stormwater management program. Some have suggested that WASA should be designated as the District's stormwater utility. WASA's managers have signaled a willingness to accept lead agency status for stormwater management if the District of Columbia is listed as permitee, and if dedicated revenues are authorized to be collected by WASA or are passed through to WASA, to finance system improvements from a source other than water and sewer rates.
Recommendations for Action:
(1) The District must take immediate steps to ensure that its stormwater program is developed and the permit application is filed. In its application, the District should:
(a) Establish a lead agency that will be accountable for keeping the District focussed on stormwater management. The District currently has four agencies involved in stormwater functions: the Department of Health, the Department of Public Works, the Water and Sewer Authority, and the Corporation Counsel. Regardless of which agency holds the stormwater permit, the District must place lead responsibility for the stormwater program in a single agency to ensure that, as with other environmental programs, the District does not lose focus and blur accountability for results.
(b) Develop mechanisms for reducing stormwater flow into the sewers, and not merely for improving the quality of stormwater. The District must take steps towards source reduction, such as limiting the development of green space, actively planting and preserving trees, and providing incentives for the owners of existing structures and parking lots to retain more stormwater before it reaches the street. Such steps will not only reduce pollution of waterways caused by direct stormwater discharges, but will also reduce the frequency and duration of raw sewage discharges through combined sewers.
(c) Quickly implement two pilot projects to capture floating debris at the point of discharge. New technology is available to prevent the outpouring of trash from storm sewers into our waterways.
(d) Finance the stormwater program with an equitable user charge ensuring that the Federal government pays its fair share. Stormwater management is made necessary by development. Accordingly, the Federal government, which owns 41% of the land in the District, should contribute to financing the stormwater program. Relying solely on the local property tax or on the District's General Fund will preclude the Federal government from contributing. This is an issue with significant financial and equity ramifications, and the Mayor should be involved in these discussions at the earliest possible date.
(e) Address Federal agency non-compliance with D.C. stormwater control laws and regulations. The City will never be able to fully control stormwater runoff to District waters without the cooperation of the Federal government. Nevertheless, Federal agencies are recalcitrant in responding to these requirements. Many major Federal construction projects proceed without D.C. permits and inspections, resulting in increased runoff and water pollution. Action is needed to bring the Federal government into compliance.
(f) Improve and fully fund the DOH's Stormwater Regulation & Permitting Program to support Federal permit requirements and future economic development. New Federal stormwater management requirements taking effect in early 1999 will impose approximately $360,000 in unfunded requirements on the D.C. government (e.g., increased monitoring and laboratory analysis, investigation and enforcement of illegal discharges, evaluation of proposed stormwater controls). This funding is in addition to over $2 million in funding requirements DOH has identified as necessary to achieve a viable stormwater control program. Failure of the City to meet these requirements could result in a Federal enforcement action and hefty fines. More importantly, these components of effective stormwater control are essential to support new economic growth.
(2) The Mayor should initiate an intergovernmental summit to address suburban stormwater runoff. Even if the City were to solve its own contributions to water quality impairment, D.C. water resources like the Anacostia would still not meet water quality standards due to floating debris and sediments streaming in from the waters upstream in Maryland. Suburban dumping will not stop until the Mayor demands that it stop. The Mayor should initiate negotiations on this issue with Governor Glendening, the Prince George's and Montgomery County Executives, and the Army Corps of Engineers. If the suburban jurisdictions fail to respond, the Mayor should call for an EPA-led arbitration to resolve the issue.
Contact for more information: Josh Wyner, D.C. Appleseed Center; Ed Osann, Potomac Resources, Inc.
Restore the Anacostia River
The greatest negative impacts of water pollution in the District are found along the Anacostia River. The river's pollution is delaying economic redevelopment and denying the City's most needy communities incalculable social benefits. A clean Anacostia River will increase property values and attract new business and investment. It will also open the way for residents and tourists to use and appreciate neglected attractions such as the Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens, the Fredrick Douglas House, and the National Arboretum. The intangible social benefits from a clean Anacostia are even greater. Restoring the Anacostia from an open sewer to a healthy and attractive ecosystem is an apt metaphor for the civic renewal now anticipated throughout Washington.
In addition to the stormwater problems identified above, at least three major issues must be faced early in the Anacostia restoration effort.
Combined Sewer Overflows
The current permit from EPA for municipal wastewater discharges in the District will expire in July 1999, and the process for developing the terms and conditions for a new permit is underway. This next permit will be critical for finally addressing the District's combined sewer overflow (CSO) problems, whereby untreated sewage is discharged into Rock Creek, the Potomac, and especially the Anacostia River virtually every time it rains. EPA will require, as a condition for this new permit, that the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority will have completed a long-term CSO control plan by mid-2001 and will be seeking its approval from the D.C. Department of Health and EPA. In March of 1999, WASA will convene a group of stakeholders for public participation in the preparation of the long-term plan by WASA's contractor. A broad array of control measures is expected to be considered, with a wide range of costs and cost-effectiveness.
In addition to discharging untreated sewage, the combined sewer system is a significant source of floating debris and litter in the Anacostia, and WASA currently operates a debris removal vessel on the river. Environmentalists are seeking early action on new technology to capture floating debris at the outfalls, in lieu of booms and skimmer boats. WASA believes that evaluation and implementation of such measures could take 18 months. This project could probably be speeded up with the involvement and support of the Mayor.
Water Quality Standards
The D.C. government long ago set water quality standards for the Anacostia River that were intended to restore the river to fishable and swimmable condition. A succession of plans and permits over the years has failed to significantly close the gap between these aspirations and the deplorable quality of the river's waters and bottom sediments. As WASA begins to evaluate seriously its potential new investments in CSO and stormwater control measures (see above), officials at EPA, the D.C. Department of Health (which sets water quality standards), and WASA are beginning to question the wisdom of maintaining such high targets for river restoration. The argument is also made that notwithstanding even unprecedented levels of new investment by WASA, making the Anacostia fishable and swimmable will be impossible without huge investments upstream in Maryland, for which no such commitments have been received.
At some point, water quality standards and the plans to achieve those standards must match up. According to EPA guesstimates, the investment needed in D.C. alone to achieve D.C.'s water quality standards as written could exceed $1 billion. In order to make the planning process for the long-term control plan for CSO's meaningful, questions should be resolved about the goal for Anacostia clean-up, and how achievement of the goal will be measured.
Community and environmental advocates would strongly oppose any effort to "write off" portions of the Anacostia by limiting the application of the fishable and swimmable designation.
Contaminated Sediments
The sediments in portions of the Anacostia riverbed are contaminated with high levels of toxic pollutants, such as PCB's and chlordane. The sources of this contamination include historical discharges from Federal facilities, industrial facilities, leaking underground storage tanks, and discharges upstream in Maryland. The presence of these toxics threaten to negate any long-term water pollution control measures on the Anacostia. The characterization and clean up of contaminated sediments is a complex and expensive proposition that will not occur without the participation and assistance of the Federal government and other responsible regional parties.
Recommendations for Action:
(1) The Mayor should set high goals for Anacostia River restoration as a benchmark for the upcoming efforts to abate the pollution coming from the District's combined sewers. Public must get focused on developing cost-effective ways of meeting fishable and swimmable objectives, rather than seeking to remove the goalposts that are the basis of the community's expectations for Anacostia River restoration.
(2) WASA should immediately initiate several CSO abatement projects for completion within the coming year, including repair and upgrade of the swirl concentrator; rehabilitation of the Main/O Street and Eastside pump stations; and complete repair or replacement of fabridams.
(3) The Mayor and Council should encourage and facilitate stakeholder participation in the planning process for controlling CSO's that WASA will begin this March. This will be a multiyear effort, and the City should ensure that public participation in the process is meaningful.
(4) WASA should install and evaluate two new pilot projects for interim abatement of CSO's using newly available technology. For example, the Equaflow System is a device to capture and contain CSO effluent until after storm event, when the effluent is pumped to the treatment plant.
(5) The Mayor should request Federal funds and support to clean up contaminated sediments in the Anacostia River. The characterization and clean up of contaminated sediments is a complex and expensive proposition that will not occur without substantial Federal assistance. Currently, however, the District has no strategy or plan to obtain funding for contaminated sediment remediation.
(6) The Mayor should announce plans for 8 to 10 new public boat access points to the Anacostia River. Drawing the public back to the Anacostia is one key to the river's recovery. In conjunction with the dedication of the new Anacostia Fish Hatchery in June of 1999, the Mayor should invite the public to return to the river through new paddlesport boat access ramps. Such ramps could be funded through existing and planned waterfront improvement projects at locations such as Southeast Federal Center, Poplar Point, Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens, and Kingman Island.
Contact for more information: Robert Boone, Anacostia Watershed Society.
Help Get the Chesapeake Bay Clean-Up Back on Schedule
The District, through the Office of the Mayor, is a participant in interstate agreements pledging to clean up Chesapeake Bay. As the largest wastewater treatment plant in the entire Chesapeake watershed, D.C.'s Blue Plains plant is one of the lynch-pins in Bay clean-up efforts. On a pilot basis, D.C. Water and Sewer Authority has been running half of the discharge of the plant through an advanced process known as Biological Nutrient Removal, or BNA. The BNA process has achieved greater success at nitrogen removal than expected. However, delays within other jurisdictions have led to public acknowledgement that the interstate goal set to reduce nitrogen inputs to the Bay by 40% in the year 2000, originally set in 1987, will not be met.
WASA's ability to further reduce large amounts of nitrogen on a cost-effective basis puts the District in a position for leadership on Bay clean-up.
Recommendation for Action:
(1) The Mayor should express to EPA and the Governors of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania a willingness to implement further nitrogen removal at Blue Plains in return for reciprocal commitments of additional action from the states.
Contact for more information: Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
Set Maximum Pollution Loads that Protect Our Waterways
An important regulatory tool for reducing water pollution is known as the "total maximum daily load" ("TMDL"). Unlike the technology-based discharge limitations that serve as a standard for most discharges (e.g., "best available technology"), TMDL's represent an actual physical limit on the total amount of pollution that can be discharged to a given waterway or waterway segment. For example, TMDL's might contain a weight-based ceiling on the amount of oil and grease that is discharged into the Anacostia River above East Capitol Street.
TMDL's must assure protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife. Thus they provide a backstop that protects public health and the environment where conventional, technology-based point source controls prove inadequate. They permit regulators to assure that we are on the path toward fishable and swimmable waterways.
The Clean Water Act sets for a firm deadline for the issuance of TMDL's for every waterway in the country: June of 1979. However, 15 years after that deadline, not a single TMDL had been established in the District. In fact, it wasn't until earlier this year that the District made its first step to submit TMDL's for EPA's review, and that submission was only half a loaf at best.
Litigation is now underway to compel the District to develop these important standards. It would be better to invest the District's resources in developing the standards than in paying lawyers to litigate. Virtually every other state in the country has developed, or is developing, TMDL's.
Recommendation for Action:
(1) The Environmental Health Administration should end its delays and set quantitative limits on the amount of pollution that can be discharged to our public waterways, segment by segment, as required by the Clean Water Act.
Contact for more information: Jim Dougherty, Sierra Club New Columbia Chapter.
Complement Infrastructure Needs with Water Conservation Measures
In most years, rainfall in the Potomac River Basin is ample enough to obscure the value of conserving water and preventing waste. But facing the enormous fiscal and physical needs to improve its water and wastewater infrastructure, the District and the neighboring jurisdictions that share portions of these systems can no longer afford to overlook the benefits of cost-effective opportunities to save water.
Regarding wastewater, the Intermunicipal Agreement (IMA) of 1985 between the District, Fairfax County, Montgomery County, Prince George's County, and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission allocates the right to use and the obligation to pay for wastewater treatment at the District's Blue Plains treatment plant. For some time, the average annual wastewater flows from the District have been running significantly above D.C.'s allocation. No suburban jurisdictions have forced the issue as of yet. But either the District must find effective steps to reduce its average inflows to Blue Plains, or it must purchase the right to use more of the capacity of the plant from suburban jurisdictions that may be reluctant to sell, or a process must be initiated to renegotiate or replace the IMA.
Neither WASA nor DPW before it has developed an effective program to reduce unnecessary wastewater flows to Blue Plains, and some future measures to curb untreated discharges from combined sewer outfalls (CSO's) in the District (see above) may actually increase average flows to the plant even further.
Measures to reduce D.C.'s average wastewater flows to Blue Plains might include --
As for drinking water, about 25 % of the treated water that enters the D.C. water distribution system is "unaccounted for" -- either lost to leaks in the system, underrecorded through faulty meters, diverted without authorization, or used to an unknown degree for system flushing or firefighting. This is about double the accepted benchmark of 10 to 15% for the water utility industry, and triple the level achieved by many well-run water systems.
Leaking water mains often turn into broken water mains. Water main breaks have sharply increased, from an average of 12 per month in the first half of 1998, to 35 to 45 per month in the second half of the year, to 141 in the month of January alone.
Clearly WASA must act to reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance, and funds have been budgeted for this purpose. But in addition, a regular program of leak detection -- typically involving the use of acoustical monitoring equipment -- and preventive repairs would offer the mutually reinforcing benefits of conserving water, preventing contamination, improving service reliability, and reducing the volume of water treatment plant sludge produced at Dalecarlia. Today WASA must respond to a growing number of emergency breaks. In coming years, WASA crews should be finding small leaks before they turn into disruptive and hazardous geysers.
Recommendations for Action:
(1) WASA, EPA, and suburban jurisdictions should enter in to a regional agreement to identify, evaluate, and implement cost-effective measures to reduce excessive inflows to Blue Plains. A full range of water conservation measures should be included in this program.
(2) WASA should institute a regular program of leak detection and repair for the drinking water distribution system, using state-of-the-art equipment to find leaks ands schedule them for repair. The entire system should be surveyed at least once every three years, with large mains and problematic areas surveyed annually.
(3) Churches, social service agencies, public housing, and low income homeowners should receive priority attention from WASA in the development of programs to conserve water and reduce water and sewer bills.
Contact for more information: Ed Osann, Potomac Resources, Inc.
Protect and Restore Urban Riverfronts
Washington's waterfront land is a valuable asset. While much of this land is owned by the Federal government, the District should act to ensure the protection of all remaining waterfront parkland while encouraging sound redevelopment of waterfront "brownfields" and land that has previously been put to industrial use (e.g., the Florida Rock site, Buzzard's Point, etc.).
Unfortunately, several recent actions have been taken that would -- if left unchallenged -- diminish the natural values of our waterfronts. Since 1995, the D.C. government has allowed and even encouraged the transfer of almost 100 acres of National Park System land for private development. Kingman and Heritage Islands were deeded to the District, which in turn gave development rights to a developer proposing a theme park. Currently, a 42-acre parcel along Oxon Cove is in the process of being transferred from the National Park Service to a private developer for construction of a prison. These actions were undertaken with the support or acquiescence of a number of D.C. elected officials, most notably former Mayor Barry. With such a blessing, Congress has felt free to give away these public lands for inappropriate purposes.
Recommendations for Action:
(1) The City Council should adopt a resolution declaring that waterfront parkland will remain as parkland and be off limits to development not directly related to enjoyment or protection of the water (For example, public boathouses, nature centers and the like would be appropriate uses.) This resolution should then be widely circulated to Congress, the Zoning Commission, and other bodies that affect the disposition of waterfront land in the District.
(2) The Council should amend the D.C. Comprehensive Plan to preclude development on waterfront parkland except for uses appropriate to a park.
(3) For private lands, the City should offer incentives for environmentally sound, creative uses of waterfront parcels. Such development should allow public access to the rivers. It would serve to spur additional economic development in adjacent areas.
(4) The Zoning Commission should re-examine existing zoning regulations for private waterfront property and amend the regulations to account for the impact of riverfront development on the river and its adjoining habitat.
Contact for more information: Gwyn Jones, Sierra Club New Columbia Chapter; Anna El-Eini, Friends of the Earth.