OACD

MEDIA NOTICE

Contact: Clay Pope, Executive Director

              Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts

              (405) 699-2087 or claypope@pldi.net

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

EPA declares water quality work done by Oklahoma Agriculture Producers and the Oklahoma Conservation Partnership successful; several state streams no longer impaired.

Oklahoma City — Efforts by farmers, ranchers and other landowners, in cooperation with the Oklahoma Conservation Partnership to address nonpoint source pollution through voluntary, locally-led means has resulted in several of the states streams being removed from a federal list of “impaired” water bodies and in even more streams never going on this list, according to Kim Farber, Vice-President of the Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts (OACD).  

“We are extremely proud of this accomplishment,” Farber said.  “When given the chance and the technical and financial help from the state and federal governments, Oklahoma’s agriculture producers and other landowners have answered the call to protect our water.”

According to Farber, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers a list of impaired streams commonly referred to as the 303(d) list.  Streams are put on this list when they don’t meet Oklahoma Water Quality Standards, usually because they have too much soil, nutrients or bacteria in the water.  Theses streams are then monitored on a rotating basis by the Oklahoma Conservation Partnership, consisting of the Oklahoma Conservation Commission, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and local conservation districts. The Conservation Partnership then works with farmers, ranchers and other landowners to address these water quality challenges through voluntary, locally-led implementation of best management practices. 

Recent monitoring in four of these streams, Wolf Creek in northwest Oklahoma, California Creek in northeast Oklahoma, Little Wewoka Creek in central Oklahoma and Little Elk Creek in southwest Oklahoma, has shown that because of the work done by the   landowners in these watersheds, sections of these streams can be removed from the 303(d) list for many of the reasons they were previously listed.  In addition, another 170 streams have been shown to meet most of the state’s water quality standards and won’t be listed for these pollutants, due again largely to work done by the agriculture producers and other landowners in these watersheds.

—more—

“In most of the streams monitored, conservation efforts and sound management by agriculture producers in these watersheds have preserved a sustainable living environment for fish and a healthy aquatic community,” said Shanon Phillips, head of the Oklahoma Conservation Commission Water Quality Division. “The fish and aquatic insects in a stream are an indicator of the health of that stream, but also the landscape that drains to the stream. If the aquatic community is healthy, then the stream is likely to be safe for other uses such as drinking water and agricultural and industrial needs.  This happens because agriculture producers have controlled soil erosion, have used pesticides or herbicides wisely and have made sure to not undertake other potentially damaging land use practices. While on some of these streams there may still be individual water quality challenges remaining such as bacteria levels or certain specific nutrient issues, for all intents and purposes the water is clean in these streams and it’s clean because the farmers, ranchers and other landowners who live in these watersheds have worked to keep it that way.”

According to Clay Pope, executive director of OACD, all of this shows once again that voluntary, locally-led conservation efforts work.

“In the past, the government learned that it was best to work cooperatively with landowners to address environmental concerns.” Pope said. “The agriculture producers of our state have shown time and time again that when they are provided financial and technical assistance to address a environmental problem, they will step up to the plate and do what needs to be done, even though it costs them money out of their own pocket.   This is how we addressed the Dust Bowl.  This recent de-listing of streams shows that this approach, when properly funded, will work to address our non-point water quality challenges as well. By working cooperatively with landowners we can get a handle on these issues.”

—30—