summer2001bulletin, page three.html

ONRW means ‘Outstanding National Resource Water’. This is the less-than user-friendly jargon of the federal Clean Water Act, which in 1972 brought together several existing pieces of anti-pollution legislation, including the so-called antidegradation policy, and molded them into a statute designed to comprehensively tackle the nation’s many freshwater pollution problems, from industrial and municipal discharges all the way to NPS, or diffuse, sources deriving from agriculture and land mismanagement. Antidegradation was a kind of ratcheting mechanism designed to protect hard-won gains and push freshwater quality to ever better levels. No reduction in water quality was to be permitted where it was only just meeting the needs of designated uses (Antidegradation Tier I), degradation was to be permitted if justifiable but discouraged where the water in question was above standards and thus had some supposed ‘assimilative capacity’ (Tier II), and no degradation at all was to be allowed in nationally exceptional waters, which should be designated Tier III, or Outstanding National Resource Waters. The antidegradation policy has been one of the least-implemented portions of the Clean Water Act, particularly in New Mexico. When Amigos Bravos participated in the Triennial Review of water quality standards by the state Water Quality Control Commission in 1998, we pointed to inadequacies in the ONRW nominating procedure and the implementation of antidegradation more generally, an assessment with which the Hearing Officer agreed: "A number of participants, along with the EPA, argue forcefully that the current antidegradation policy and implementation plan fall far short of what is necessary to comply with the letter and spirit of the federal Act." The Hearing Officer’s report to the Commission, a finding of fact and law from the public proceeding which should have been highly influential in the Commission’s final decisions about changes to the state’s water quality rules, advised that the ONRW nominating procedure should be made much more concrete, with the Commission determining specific criteria for nominations. The federal statute only requires that ONRWs should be "waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance," leaving more precise guidance to the individual states. The Hearing Officer recommended that the required data for nominations should be limited to what is "available and relevant", and brought before the Commission for their final decision.

Unfortunately, the Commission did not follow the Hearing Officer’s advice, preferring to adopt a proposal by the San Juan Water Commission that economic impact studies should be completed, despite the Hearing Officer’s finding that these "would certainly discourage, if not prevent, ONRW nominations." The Commission felt that "the open-ended nature" of this requirement "will prevent it from being an undue burden on an applicant." In its subsequent review of the Commission’s rulings, EPA concluded that the new procedure was still an "issue of concern" requiring further improvement because "the process laid out… may effectively bar the general public from nominating any waters." EPA conditionally approved the provision "based on the State’s representation that limiting application was not the intent of the process. EPA will monitor the implementation of this provision…. If in fact no waters are nominated, EPA will consider whether to exercise its authority to amend the nominating process."

The ONRW nomination process is thus in a state of limbo. Not a single ONRW yet exists in New Mexico, and even with EPA support, it is not going to be easy to nominate one when the rules presently stand as follows (2000 Standards for Interstate & Intrastate Surface Waters, State of New Mexico): 20.6.4.8 B: "A petition to classify a surface water of the state as an ONRW shall include:… (3) supporting scientific evidence demonstrating that one or more of the applicable ONRW criteria listed in Subsection C of this section has been met… (5) a discussion of activities that might contribute to the reduction of water quality in the proposed ONRW… (6) any additional evidence to substantiate such a designation, including an analysis of the economic impact of the designation on the local and regional economy…." Subsection C in fact gives no "applicable ONRW criteria", which does not suggest that the Commission is exactly being proactive in its drive to get ONRWs designated.

However, all this does mean that there is now a major opportunity for a citizens’ group to get New Mexico’s first ONRW designated – if we can make headway through the conflicting regulations – and that we have the chance to set many of the terms for this and subsequent designations. Amigos Bravos has chosen the upper Rio Santa Barbara, on the north side of the Pecos Wilderness in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, for our first
nomination.

Rio Santa Barbara
The upper Santa Barbara is special not only because it is one of the largest wilderness streams in New Mexico, but also, according to most contemporary accounts, because it still runs clear following heavy downpours, an indication of exceptional watershed health. As Craig Martin writes in his guidebook, 75 Hikes in New Mexico, "Few watersheds have been as fortunate as that of the Rio Santa Barbara. The rugged slopes and remote location of its upper canyon have protected the forests from the ax and chainsaw. The Rio Santa Barbara watershed is the most pristine in New Mexico,
remaining much the same as it was in the 1830s when American mountain men out of Taos, just a few miles to the north, trapped beaver in its waters. A walk along the clear, cold waters of the Santa Barbara is like traveling back in time."

It seems that the Santa Barbara’s spruce forests may in fact have been logged back in the ‘Twenties when the Santa Barbara Tie & Pole Company built a railroad into the canyon and sent the logs downriver during runoff, sometimes dynamiting temporary check dams to give the flows an extra boost. According to Bill deBuys in Enchantment and Exploitation, the definitive account of this portion of the Sangre de Cristos, "Through the last half of the nineteenth century and until relatively recent times the lands around Santa Barbara [mountain] were chronically overgrazed by domestic livestock" too.

Given these apparent historical impacts the Santa Barbara watershed appears to have made a remarkable recovery. It came out as a top choice for ONRW designation at Amigos Bravos’ recent Clean Water Act workshop, and has some of the best Rio Grande Cutthroat (native trout) fishing left in New Mexico, so is a favorite among anglers who are prepared to hike the long trail into the Pecos Wilderness. Not only does the upper Santa Barbara appear to fulfill the Clean Water Act’s ONRW criteria of "exceptional recreational or ecological significance", but a local citizens’ alliance is forming which could potentially support a nomination. Picuris Pueblo is presently drawing together a coalition of interests in an attempt to improve water quality in the lower Santa Barbara and its sister stream, the Rio Pueblo. Local residents fear contamination of their drinking and irrigation water by fecal coliform from inadequate wastewater controls, and the Santa Barbara here (though not in the Wilderness stretch upstream) is listed for aluminum and sediment impairments. A pristine water supply from the Wilderness Santa Barbara is clearly of considerable social and economic value downstream, and Amigos Bravos will work this summer to gain support for an ONRW designation from the local and user-group interests who stand to benefit from keeping it that way.

Following Amigos Bravos’ 1998 lawsuit against the Carson National Forest for its failure to identify streams suitable for federal Wild & Scenic listing, the upper Santa Barbara has now been identified as a high-priority candidate (with many ‘outstandingly remarkable’ values). It is also almost wholly within the Pecos Wilderness. Given these designations, potential and existing, you might ask why ONRW status is now necessary or useful. This issue provides an opportunity to address some of the more complex questions about the antidegradation policy.

First, as we know only too well in cases such as that of the lower Red River, Wild & Scenic (and even Wilderness) designation is no guarantee at all against pollution. Secondly, the focus that ONRW designation would place on an entire, relatively pristine watershed should be very valuable for learning purposes. There are huge gaps in our knowledge about how New Mexico’s watersheds work, and about the reasons for the water quality they produce. Scientific data which will be necessary both for designation and subsequent protection, and the use of that data akin to a scientific ‘control’, may be very valuable in identifying land-use impacts which have degraded water quality downstream, and in comparing with less healthy watersheds elsewhere.

Third, there is economics. One of the main reasons for the failure to designate ONRWs so far may have been that the strict limit on water quality degradation that designation imposes is seen as a bar to future economic development in the watershed. A preferred alternative among development interests has been the antidegradation ‘Tier II’ policy, which permits water quality degradation down to levels just supporting existing uses by utilizing the stream’s supposed ‘assimilative capacity’. Correctly utilizing assimilative capacity assumes excellent knowledge about impact thresholds and ecological interactions (knowledge which is usually lacking), and in practice this antidegradation loophole has often been abused. ONRW designation can be a tacit recognition of our ignorance, and thus the need for precaution in protecting our most socially and economically valuable waters. In addition, ONRW designation does not in fact mean that economic development and existing land-uses within the watershed are prohibited. In states that have designated ONRWs, existing land-uses continue and new ones are permitted so long as they have very strong pollution controls – surely not too much to ask for the protection of nationally outstanding waters, even if the treatments cost money.

Lastly, there is the question of threats. Why designate a stream for a high level of protection when it is not threatened? The Water Quality Commission has now required "a discussion of activities that might contribute to the reduction of water quality in the proposed ONRW." Amigos Bravos argued at the 1998 Triennial Review that this was too speculative, requiring a ‘crystal ball’ and so discouraging citizen nominations, and the Hearing Officer agreed, advising that there was nothing in the federal statute suggesting such a requirement. So far, we know of no immediate threats to the Santa Barbara watershed: logging, mining and increased grazing look unlikely. One might speculate that forest thinning to prevent wildfires may soon be needed – a temporary activity to improve ecological health which ONRW designation would allow, though it would place particular onus on minimizing disturbance and resulting pollution (for example, from carelessly constructed forest roads). The lack of existence of immediate threats should certainly not bar designations: the nation’s present environmental rollbacks show only too clearly that new threats can arise unexpectedly and with alarming speed.