Idaho’s Water Quality Programs 1972-1992
A chronology of failure

The Clean water act became law in 1972 with the goal of addressing the nation-wide pollution of our waters by improving the quality of those waters so that they might once again be fishable and swimable.The following is an outline of the recent history of the state of Idaho’s failure to meet the goals of this act.

A (non-unique) Chronology of Failure

1972
Congress passes the federal Clean Water Act. The CWA establishes three broad categories for the nation’s waters with respect to water quality standards. They are, in descending order of quality:

High quality waters that are not allowed to be degraded from their pristine condition, identified in Idaho as Outstanding Resource Waters;

Waters that are determined to have a sufficient buffer to allow for some degradation, in the public interest, but are not allowed to be so polluted as to fall below state water quality standards: and

Waters that do not meet one or more water quality standards, Water Quality Limited Segments.

Spring 1980
Idaho deletes anti-degradation from its water quality standards for all pollution sources, both point and non-point, except for Special Resource Waters, those streams and other water bodies recognized as needing special protection due to point source pollution.

August 1980
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) disapproves Idaho’s water quality standards for exempting dams from anti-degradation requirements.

Summer 1982
State Agencies and conservationists object to potential impacts to Meadow Creek's anadromous fishery from a Nez Perce National Forest timber sale, calling the impacts unacceptable under state water quality regulations. Those regulations state that non-point source activities should result in no injury to a protected use.

The timber industry and Forest Service mount an intensive lobbying campaign and petition the state to lower its water quality regulations. Public hearings held across the state indicate strong support for water quality protection measures.

January 1983
Health and Welfare Board votes to lower the water quality standards. Changes "no injury" to "no serious injury." This allows water quality to be lowered if it is 'socially and economically justifiable." "Serious injury" is not defined.

Spring 1983.
A work group formed to define "serious injury". Group concentrates on fisheries impacts, since fisheries are one of the uses of water most sensitive to non-point source pollution.

1983
Serious injury amendments are sent to EPA for review. EPA postpones actions pending results of Serious Injury Work Group. Initial comments from EPA were that the amendments were not stringent enough.

May 1985
EPA indicates that Idaho's anti-degradation policy is inconsistent with the regulations of the Clean Water Act. The EPA gives Idaho until May 1986 to draft a sufficient anti-degradation standard. (Under federal law, if the EPA formally disapproves a state's standards, the state has 90 days to modify its standard or faces federal promulgation.)

Summer 1985
Serious Injury Work Group proposes a solid fisheries-based framework for defining "serious injury." The timber industry and the Forest Service oppose the concept, so the next step--public review--is never conducted. Further development and implementation of "serious injury" guidelines is dropped.

March 1986
Idaho Legislature passes H.B. 711, which limits IDHW-DEQ’'s role in water quality protection on federal lands. The bill also states that, if an operator is using Best Management Practices (BMP's), no serious injury could result to beneficial uses.

April 1986
Governor Evans vetoes H.B. 711 and forms the Non-Point Inter-agency (NPSI) Team. The NPSI Team is charged with revising the water quality regulations to conform with the CWA by September. EPA agrees to postpone the May 1986 promulgation deadline to September 1986.

November 1986
NPSI Team still working on anti-degradation. EPA extends the deadline until November 15, 1986
NPSI Team still haggling. EPA postpones deadline to March 31,1987.

March 1987
Idaho Legislature passes SCR 121, directing the NPSI Team to continue to work through the upcoming year and to present a final anti-degradation package to the next legislative session. New deadline for a draft anti-degradation policy--June1,1987.

Summer 1987
Public hearings held o;n a stream classification system to implement ante-degradation policy. Overwhelming public response is the proposed system is weak and stronger policies are needed.

August 1987
Timber industry announced it would not support any anti-degradation policy resembling the current proposal and walked out of the NPSI Team process.

November 1987
A lawsuit is filed by conservationists against the EPA for failure to comply with the CWA, specifically for failing to propose and promulgate anti-degradation rules in the absence of an approved state policy.

March 1988
Idaho Legislature passes H.B. 652, which would have adopted an anti-degradation policy without any implementation language, no public involvement process, and no site-specific evaluation of water quality impacts.

Governor Andrus vetoes H.B. 652; veto is sustained in the Senate by one vote. With the veto, Andrus mandates conservationists and industry representatives to initiate negotiations.

Summer 1988
The Northwest Renewable Resources Center in Seattle mediates negotiations between tribes, sportsmen, timber, mining, agricultural, and environmental interests. Per Andrus' rules, each side submits their preferred set of regulations. If either side fails to act in good faith, the other groups’ rules will be put into effect.

September 1988
The final Agreement to Implement an Anti-degradation Policy for the State of Idaho is finalized.

June 1989
As part of the new anti-degradation agreement, Idaho holds its first Basin Area Meetings throughout the state; citizens nominate 800 waters as Stream Segment of Concern (SSOC), a status that requires site-specific Best Management Practices and increased water quality monitoring.

June 1989
DEQ submits its first Water Quality Limited Segment (WQLS) list to EPA for approval, ten years after the deadline. EPA had 30 days to approve or disapprove the list. EPA failed to do either.

November 1990
EPA issues approval of Idaho's anti-degradation policy but notes that policy should be modified “to specifically include point sources.”

Winter 1990
The governor's Water Quality Advisory Working Committee approves less than 200 streams for SSOC status.

January 1991
Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) protection is proposed for 26 tributaries of the main stem of the Middle Fork of the Salmon River during the state legislative session. The bill fails.

February 1991
EPA promulgates a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for dioxin on the Columbia River. The TMDL affects one source in Idaho: the Potlatch pulp and paper mill in Lewiston.

January 1992
Epa approves a TMDL for sediment for the South Fork of the Salmon River.

During the state legislative session ORW protection is proposed for two tributaries of and the main stem of the Middle Fork of the Salmon River. The bill is never printed.

March 1992
EPA staff document "many issues that have been delayed repeatedly" by Idaho on water quality standards, including failure to conduct triennial reviews with public input, as required by Clean Water Act.

May 1992
EPA reviews DEQ's draft WQLS list, expresses concerns regarding the non-comprehensive nature of the list, and recommends stream for further inclusion.

August 1992
DEQ submits another list of WQLSs to EPA, as well as revisions of Idaho water quality standards to delete use designations for South Fork Coeur d’Alene river.

December 1992
Idaho’s Water Quality Status Report to EPA states that, in order to fully implement ante-degradation, a budget of $1,502,700 and 22 additional staff people are needed. Despite this request, the state legislature appropriated only $557,500 and a 5.5 staff people for monitoring.

February 1993
EPA “conditionally approves” DEQ’s 1992 WQLS list. EPA’s conditions require DEQ to reevaluate certain streams, open the list to public comment, and re-submit the list within 90 days. DEQ misses the 90 day deadline. EPA separately disapproves Idaho’s removal of use designations for South Fork Coeur d’Alene.

April 1993
EPA advises Idaho of need to comply with triennial review requirements of Clean Water Act, which Idaho has never undertaken.

June 1993
ICL submits comments regarding the state's WQLS list and recommends specific segments for listing. Comments were ignored.

July 1993
Conservation groups file suit against EPA for failing to meet its Clean Water Act responsibilities regarding Water Quality Limited Streams in Idaho.

August 1993
EPA approves DEQ's list of 36 WQLSs and a TMDL for Billingsley Creek. EPA separately advises Idaho of need to adopt "fishable" standard for waters without designated use classifications--constituting over 90.000 miles of rivers, lakes and streams.

January 1994
EPA again advises Idaho of need to reinstate use designation for SF Coeur d’ Alene river, and to adopt “fishable” standard for unclassified waters.

February 1994
Idaho advises EPA that it “postponed the proposed rule making on water quality standards” and would not address “adding the designations for unclassified waters.”

April 1994
U.S.. District Court holds that EPA’s approval is arbitrary and capricious because the WQLS list is under conclusive. Court directs EPA to draft its own list of WQLS for Idaho within 30 days.

May 1994
EPA opens for public comment a proposed list of 844 WQLS.

July 1994
Idaho completes first-ever triennial review and adopts revised water quality standards, but fails to reinstate use designations for SF Coeur d'Alene or adopt "fishable" standard for unclassified waters.

October 1994
EPA submits to the Court a final list of over 962 water quality limited streams for Idaho.

March 1995
Idaho legislature passes and Governor Batt signs timber industry-drafted water legislation (SB 1284) that fails to meet Clean Water Act standards. The law exempts agriculture from mandatory application of best management practices and creates a loophole to exempt most existing mining pollution from control under TMDLs. To develop TMDL recommendations, the new law defines advisory groups that are dominated by commodity development representatives.

May 1995
U.S. District Court rules that EPA must prepare a “complete and duly adopted reasonable schedule” within one year for TMDL development on all 962 Idaho WQLS. The Court notes that, “In sixteen years, Idaho has promulgated only two TMDLs covering four WQLS. At that rate, it would take millennia for TMDLs to be established on all Idaho’s WQLSs”.

October 1995
EPA advises Idaho of "serious concerns" about revised Idaho water quality standards submitted in July 1994. Among the deficiencies identified by EPA are Idaho’s failure to adopt "fishable" standard for over 92,000 stream miles; inadequate temperature criteria for bull trout and other aquatic species; exemption of point sources from anti-degradation policy; exclusion of "private waters" from water quality standards; and others.

February 1996
Idaho advises EPA that it will not address concerns raised in EPA's October 1995 letter until some future time.

May 1996
Conservation groups file suit against EPA for failure to ensure that Idaho water quality standards meet Clean Water Act requirements.

June 1996
EPA formally disapproves Idaho water quality standards in response to conservationists’ lawsuit. This disapproval triggers 90 day period for Idaho to adopt adequate standard.

July 1996
The State of Idaho Bull Trout Conservation Plan is issued but fails to assure implementation of conservation measures to protect bull trout.

September 1996
U.S. District Court rules that EPA and Idaho TMDL schedule is arbitrary and capricious. The schedule sets a pace of 6 TMDLs per year, which could delay TMDL development for more than 100 years on some Idaho waterbodies. The Court holds that "nothing in the law could justify so glacial a pace". The Court directs that the Idaho TMDL schedule be revised to complete TMDL development in approximately five years.

Also, Idaho fails to revise its water quality standards in response to EPA's June 1996 disapproval letter. Idaho advises EPA that it may address issues raised by EPA in 1996 and 1997 rule makings.

November 1996
Idaho and EPA continue to delay preparation of TMDLs, instead focusing on procedures to delete waterbodies from Court-approved list of WQLS. U.S. Forest Service fails to meet 1996 deadline for implementing sediment reduction activities agreed to in the South Fork Salmon River TMDL--the only TMDL adopted in Idaho on Forest Service land, in a key watershed for bull trout and salmon.

February 1997
U.S. District Court Judge Dwyer rules EPA failed to promulgate water quality standards for Idaho, and orders EPA to do so , which it does.

February 1998
State of Idaho proposes a higher temperature standard for Bull TRout than set by the
EPA and submits it to the legislature . The legislature debates ignoring Dwyers September, 1996 ruling.


(The Above document was produced by the Idaho Conservation League .Past November 1996 The Center for Environmental Education and Information has made addtions to bring this chronology up to date with the help of the Idaho Sporting Congress.)