HARRISBURG, Pa. - As a new national farm bill is considered in Congress, there is concern that Pennsylvania farms and municipalities could lose vital funding. The bill is reworked every five years, usually with hearings and public input, but this year, it's being rolled into the budget duties being taken on by the so-called "Super Committee."

Doug Siglin, federal affairs director with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, says the new process could jeopardize farm bill funding for vital conservation programs, including the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative (CBWI), which helps control runoff and other pollution that starts upstream and ends up in the Bay.

"We're concerned that program might get dropped and that Pennsylvanians might not even get the opportunity to say very much to their representatives about how important that program is to them."

He says most farms, and cities and towns for that matter, need all the federal help they can get when it comes to Bay pollution reduction.

"Municipalities, townships are going to have to upgrade their wastewater treatment plants and their urban runoff, and farmers are going to have to get their fertilizer under control, and they're being asked to lay out capital to do all those things."

It appears Pennsylvania does have some factors in its favor. Republican Senator Pat Toomey sits on the Super Comittee, and there are three other Capitol Hill lawmakers from Pennsylvania who are close to the issue.

"That's Senator Bob Casey and then Tim Holden and Glen Thompson. Presumably, they're going to be looking out for Pennsylvania's interests and going to be pushing the Super Committee to include things that are in Pennsylvania's interests."

Siglin says that even as it stands now the CBWI doesn't have enough funding on hand to help farmers who want to manage their runoff. He says ending the program would cripple efforts to improve water quality in Chesapeake Bay.




get more stories like this via email

The futures of tourism, wildlife and ranching in Mono County are now at the mercy of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - according to environmental groups - now that a court has upheld the agency's authority to cut irrigation water.

For about 100 years, the agency has leased its land and provided water for ranchers to graze cattle in Long Valley and Little Round Valley. But Wendy Schneider, executive director of the nonprofit Friends of the Inyo, said the damage from allowing less water to irrigate these valleys would be widespread.

"We are talking about taking away the scenic value and the recreational value, of a large portion of the county," said Schneider. "Also, this area is really important for the survival of the bi-state sage grouse population."

Schneider also said she worries about the survival of trout and the potential for increased dust storms and fire danger.

The DWP did not immediately respond to a request for comment - but has argued in court that it has the right to modify its leases and that the historic drought has forced its hand, since its primary mission is to serve millions of families in the Southland.

The current watering season will continue through September. The DWP hasn't said how much it plans to cut water deliveries to the alpine meadows near Bishop.

Stacey Simon, legal counsel for Mono County, said the court did provide a backstop to prevent the city from cutting off the water entirely.

"The court is saying, 'Look, we can't direct this public agency as to how to exercise its discretion,'" said Simon. "'But we do say that, if it goes so far as to dry out these lands completely, that's a new project, environmental review is required.'"

The DWP first notified leaseholders about its intention to cut back on water in 2018. A trial court initially sided with Mono County and the Sierra Club, but the appeals court partially reversed that decision on Thursday.

According to Simon, if the agency turns off the flow altogether, stakeholders would consider litigation under the California Environmental Quality Act.

June is National Rivers Month, and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (DEP) is getting ready to nominate Lake Tahoe and likely some of the state's mountain streams for special protection.

The state has been working for two years to come up with a list of Extraordinary Ecological, Aesthetic, or Recreational Waters, as required by the Clean Water Act.

Pam Harrington, field coordinator for Trout Unlimited, said the Silver State is playing a bit of catch-up.

"Nevada has lagged far behind in having special protections for the highest quality waters," Harrington observed. "Nearly every other state in the United States has a policy in place for this. So we've been behind."

Harrington said Tahoe would be a no-brainer, but she would like to see protections for some streams in the Ruby Mountains and for the Mahogany and Alder streams feeding into Summit Lake; important habitat for native Lahontan trout. The Nevada Conservation League is pressing the state to streamline the nomination process to make it easier for laypeople to participate.

Harrington added the changes would preserve the status quo and protect against future degradation.

"An ecological and aesthetic or recreational water in the state of Nevada would be afforded the highest level of protection," Harrington explained. "To disallow new pollution sources to be introduced into those waters."

The DEP has held multiple webinars with government, tribal, environmental and industry stakeholders. The state environmental commission gets the final say on the policy and is expected to take up the matter this fall.

Two decades of extreme drought have put a squeeze on Arizona's water supply, but a once-obscure state agency could soon be at the forefront of keeping the taps flowing.

The Arizona Water Bank, created in 1999, keeps track of any surplus water from the state's annual allotment from the Colorado River. But the river water has reached critical levels this year, triggering mandatory restrictions.

Virginia O'Connell, director of the Arizona Water Banking Authority, said the agency, for the first time, could be deciding how to get the "banked" water to where it's needed, while making sure the supplies last.

"So, this is a first for us," she said. "We'll be distributing credits for that purpose, or that entitlements have even been shorted. We're all working together to make sure that we're prepared, and we're ready to go when there is a shortage."

Arizona normally receives 2.8 million acre-feet of water per year from the Colorado River, but the restrictions will cut the state's allotment by 18%. O'Connell said the Water Bank currently manages about 3.75 million acre-feet of water credits.

She said most of the banked water is kept in storage by a group of utilities and other entities that have credits in the bank's watery "vault."

"Basically, it's an accounting system to keep track of how much water is stored, because that actually gives you ownership of that water," she said, "and then you can recover those credits in the future when you need that water."

In the 1990s, O'Connell said, state officials became concerned that unused portions of Arizona's water allotment could be claimed by other states. So, they set up the Water Bank to preserve any surplus for use during droughts and other shortages.

"Their task was to store all of the unused portion of Colorado River water in Arizona, and that water would be made available in the future when there are times of shortage," she said. "And that's kind of where we are now."

Under the current agreement, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation will annually assess the available water supply. O'Connell said the Water Bank will use that data to determine how much water can be released and who will get it.