Stroud Water Research Center Summer 2008 Upstream Newsletter
Small headwater streams like this one make up more than 90% of the streams in the United States – and they’re the ultimate source of much drinking water. Because of their size or intermittent status, they are not assured protection under Pennsylvania law and the current interpretation of the Clean Water Act.

Stroud Scientists at WorkThe Imperative to Protect Our Headwaters“Most of our legislation and policies predate the recent advances in freshwater science. We now have the basis for - and the duty to - bring these regulations up to our level of scientific understanding,” said Robin Mann, Vice President of Conservation, Sierra Club, shown here with her sons Ted and Lindsay. Robin Mann was first introduced to the Stroud™ Water Research Center in the late 1970’s when pollutants from an upstream poultry operation were impacting the stream and ponds on her family’s property. Center scientists analyzed the water and recommended best management practices to mitigate the situation. In her current role as Vice President of Conservation for the Sierra Club, Mann’s interest in the Stroud Water Research Center’s findings has a much broader application — the potential to inform both local and national policy about protections afforded our nation’s freshwater sources.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Mann’s recent focus regarding water issues relates to an historical ruling in 2001 by the U. S. Supreme Court (Rapanos et ux., et al. v. United States or “Rapanos”), which challenged the scope of the Clean Water Act, a law enacted by Congress in 1972 to help restore and protect our nation’s freshwater resources. The ruling, which limited federal jurisdiction over isolated, non-navigable, intrastate waters, was interpreted broadly by the federal agencies to narrow the scope of the Clean Water Act, and strip federal protection from many isolated wetlands and streams - integral components of our watersheds and important sources of drinking water.

Under the new policy, protections were no longer assured for millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of miles of “ephemeral washes or streams” — intermittent streams that typically flow for fewer than six months a year, as well as streams without a groundwater source. The policy change threatened to eliminate protection for a majority of the streams in the western states and a significant number of streams in Pennsylvania as well. Its modification did not account for recent scientific research that demonstrated the links between these waters and protected waters downstream.

USING SCIENCE TO PROTECT FRESHWATER RESOURCES
“We doggedly went about reversing this ruling — and being able to use the findings of the stream ecologists at the Stroud Water Research Center to make the case for the importance of headwater streams in relation to downstream water quality gave us a lot of traction,” said Mann. That initial traction was the result of a 2003 paper on small streams and wetlands co-authored by Stroud scientists entitled, Where Rivers are Born.

“The impact of this paper was huge,” says Mann. “It was and continues to be widely cited by federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and advocacy groups like Sierra Club, both of which rely on independent research to support their case for environmental protections.” The paper’s scientific data became a compelling educational and advocacy tool for communicating with legislators as well as the public at large.

Adding to the challenge, a 2006 ruling by the Supreme Court further limited the reach of the Clean Water Act. In the “Rapanos” case a divided Court again ruled that a headwater stream is protected under the Clean Water Act only if it has either a relatively permanent flow or a demonstrable functional link to downstream waters.

The Sierra Club and other groups are working furiously to educate the public and the Congressional delegation about the negative impacts of this ruling and what’s at stake. Headwater streams that are denied federal protection are vulnerable to pollution discharges without a permit. In the balance are waters like Avondale Creek in Alabama, polluted by the dumping of industrial waste by a manufacturer. To date, hundreds of EPA enforcement cases have been shelved because the streams in question are no longer covered by the Act.

DEFINING THE VALUE OF HEADWATER STREAMS
A new paper from a team of scientists at the Stroud Water Research Center, Protecting Headwaters: The Scientific Basis for Safeguarding Stream and River Ecosystems, may prove of significant value in the continued effort to strengthen protection of our freshwater resources. In this paper, based largely on 40 years of research on the White Clay Creek watershed, Stroud scientists describe the special nature of headwater streams, their critical role in stream ecosystems, their fragility and vulnerability to human disturbance, and the benefits that ensue when headwaters are protected by forested riparian buffers.

In particular, the scientists argue that headwaters:

  • support a biodiversity of communities, including communities of aquatic insects and microorganisms that are selected for by the physical and chemical conditions found primarily in headwater and intermittent streams;
  • provide energy that helps support life in larger downstream reaches;
  • can arise as permanently flowing streams from very small watershed areas and can include ecologically important intermittent streams that flow from even smaller watershed areas;
  • are integrated into landscapes, which means that the quality of their water depends on land use conditions; and
  • with intact forested riparian buffers influence the processing of nutrients and contaminants.

According to Mann, this new paper provides important underpinnings for addressing policy improvements at both the federal and state levels — particularly with regard to reforming the Dam Safety and Encroachments Act Chapter 105 regulations, which regulate disturbances like ditching, filling and stream enclosures related to development. The research findings reported in this paper will play a pivotal role in educating fisheries, conservationists, environmentalists and legislators at both the state and national levels about the imperative to protect headwater streams.

Links:
Downloadable copies of the scientific papers mentioned in this article can be found at the following URLs:

Where Rivers are Born: The Scientific Imperative for Defending Small Streams and Wetlands — complete paper
http://www.stroudcenter.org/about/pdfs/lk_Meyer2003_
Defending_Streams.pdf

Where Rivers are Born: The Scientific Imperative for Defending Small Streams and Wetlands — executive summary and complete paper
http://www.sierraclub.org/healthycommunities/rivers/

Protecting Headwaters: The Scientific Basis for Safeguarding Stream and River Ecosystems — executive summary and complete paper
http://www.stroudcenter.org/research/PDF/ProtectingHeadwaters.pdf

Protecting Headwaters: The Scientific Basis for Safeguarding Stream and River Ecosystems — executive summary
http://www.stroudcenter.org/research/PDF/Protecting
Headwaters_ExecSummary.pdf

The Clean Water Act 
http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa/

Sierra Club Clean Water Campaign
http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanwater/facts/index.asp


Back to Fall 2008 Upstream Newsletter

Home

 
 
© 2008 Stroud Water Research Center. Stroud and the Stroud Water Research Center logo are trademarks and the Leaf Pack Network is a registered trademark of the Stroud Water Research Center. All other trademarks are the property of their respective holders.