Author: Brooke Rose

Introduction: The Importance of Salmon

Salmon are an integral part of the Pacific Northwest, both in terms of ecosystem and cultural value. They are considered a keystone species, which are species whose presence in an ecosystem has a disproportionate effect on other organisms within the system. As salmon travel to the ocean, more than 50% of their diet is insects; without Pacific salmon, there could be an explosion of insects in these ecosystems since salmon are the main insect predator in aquatic environments. When salmon spawn, their energy-rich bodies and eggs are crucial food sources for a variety of predators, ranging from wolves to bears to scavenging birds. Their carcasses also provide valuable nutrients to streams and rivers, increasing organic matter and nutrients that will enhance the productivity of the surrounding ecosystem and be transferred to all levels of the food chain.

Salmon have cultural significance in the northwest, especially to indigenous peoples of the region. The cultures, intertribal relations, fishing technologies, and economies have all been influenced by salmon, from ancient Native American trade routes to modern commercial fishing. Salmon plays a role in religious services, such as the celebration of the annual salmon return which facilitates the transfer of traditional values and lifestyles from generation to generation. Fishing continues to remain the preferred livelihood method of many indigenous groups, as salmon has been a primary food source for these people for thousands of years, and remains an essential part of their nutritional health.

Salmon Decline

The existence of salmon in the Northwest is in danger. Nineteen populations of wild salmon and steelhead are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and salmon have already gone extinct in 40% of their historical range. Fishery scientists have summarized the human factors implicated in salmon decline as the “four H’s”: harvest, hatcheries, habitat, and hydropower. Overharvesting of adult salmon in the early 20th century decimated populations throughout the Pacific Northwest. Construction and development have encroached along the shoreline of salmon habitats and on beaches where salmon find their food. An increase in pavement contributes to toxic storm water runoff, which threatens the health and safety of the salmon’s aquatic habitat. Dams block the passage of salmon from their spawning habitat as they travel back from the Pacific Ocean. For example, more than 40% of this habitat is permanently blocked by dams in the Columbia River Basin. By creating reservoirs, dams inundate the shoreline and can wipe out historical spawning grounds. Reservoirs also slow the flow of water, which can lead to rising temperature levels that can be lethal to salmon. 

Policy Interventions

The United States has a legal obligation to conserve salmon populations through a series of tribal and international treaties. Some treaties dating back to the 1850s granted Native American tribes “the right of taking fish from all usual and accustomed grounds and stations… in common with all citizens.” This right was reaffirmed in a 1974 Supreme Court ruling, known as the Boldt Decision, which validated the tribes’ treaty-reserved fishing rights.

The 1985 Pacific Salmon Treaty represents a commitment made by the US and Canada to maintain their salmon fisheries and enhancement programs to prevent overfishing and provides the framework for Pacific salmon conservation and management.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), is a national law creating a program for the conservation of threatened and endangered plants and animals. Salmon are protected under the ESA, and conservation efforts like transporting migrating salmon around dams, placing fishing restrictions on vulnerable stocks, and operating hatcheries in order to bolster populations are supported under the ESA. These efforts come at a price, with recent estimates indicating that salmon conservation in the Columbia River Basin costs $788 million per year. While these interventions have slowed the decline of salmon, they have not reversed the decline. As a result, restorationists have started to turn to more drastic steps in recent years, like dam removal, which helps restore stream habitats and natural hydrological connections. However, dam removal is often controversial because it can involve the loss of hydroelectricity and water for irrigation. 

Case Study: Klamath Water Wars

The Klamath Water Wars began with a 2001 drought, when the federal government cut off water deliveries to irrigators in order to maintain the habitat for salmon and other fish protected under the Endangered Species Act. This decision enraged farmers, and in an act of civil disobedience they formed a “bucket brigade” to manually put water back into the irrigation canals. The following year, the Bush Administration resumed normal water deliveries which significantly decreased the water flow in the rivers resulting in tens of thousands of fish in the lower river washing up dead. The Karuk and Yurok tribes of California were devastated by these deaths, as they traditionally depend on the salmon harvest. These opposing opinions created a controversy framed as farmers versus fish, demonstrating a common dichotomy that environmental and human interests are not aligned.

While the conflict was framed as fish vs farmers, it was really about water resources. Droughts in the western US are projected to grow more serious, exacerbated by climate change. This is likely to increase the urgency of issues related to water scarcity as policymakers seek to supply water to both people and animals.

In the Klamath Basin, leaders sought to address these challenges through collaborative negotiations with a wide range of stakeholders. In 2010, the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) were announced as the results of the multi-year negotiations amongst California and Oregon governments, as well as many interest groups. The KBRA helps restore Klamath and provides water deliveries to both wildlife refuges and federal project irrigators. The KHSA details the process that leads to the removal of the four privately owned dams spanning across Southern Oregon and Northern California on the Klamath River, which would be one of the largest and most complex removals ever undertaken. Though the agreements have not been enacted in Congress, recent reports say that these four dam removals are still proceeding and are scheduled to begin in 2023.

Introduction

Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution refers to pollution sources that do not emerge from a single point of origin, which stands in contrast to point source pollutants where there is a single identifiable source of the pollution. Pollutants coming from NPS are generally carried by stormwater run-off, and some common industries such as agriculture, mining, and urban development. Examples of NPS pollutants include excess fertilizers and herbicides, oil, grease, and bacteria from human and animal waste. While the exact sources of NPS cannot be identified, scientists have developed systems to reduce pollution in environments that create a high volume of pollution (ex. urban areas, agricultural operations, marinas). Examples include buffer strips that absorb pollutants before they reach the water, retention ponds that capture runoff and stormwater, and sediment fences that filter pollutants and slow runoff.

Implications for Human and Environmental Health

NPS is responsible for a host of damaging effects on environmental and public health. One example is eutrophication. Certain forms of NPS, such as agricultural run-off, create an overabundance of nutrients in bodies of water. Algae feed on these nutrients and become algae blooms, which block sunlight and can sometimes release toxins. The dissolved oxygen in the water is consumed as the algae are decomposed by bacteria. When the oxygen is removed, it makes it difficult for fish and other aquatic organisms to breathe, creating what is called a “dead zone” because so few life forms are able to survive in areas with such low oxygen levels. The Gulf of Mexico has the largest dead zone in the United States; this 6,500 square mile area has been created due to NPS pollution from the Mississippi River Basin. The high nutrient levels and algal blooms associated with dead zones have harmful community effects, such as releasing toxins into drinking water that in turn cause illness for humans and animals.

NPS affects not just the ecosystem, but also the economy. If pollution causes mass die-offs and dirty-looking water, then the jobs, tourism, and recreation that rely on the waterways may experience financial losses. Human health is also at risk. For example, urban runoff carries bacteria and viruses due to improper sewage treatment, which contaminates drinking water sources and can even result in severe human illness. One common bacteria found in NPS pollution is Escherichia coli (E. coli), which is associated with human and animal waste. A major source of E. coli in urban and suburban areas is pet waste that is left on lawns and then washed into sewers and waterways. E. coli can lead to human illnesses such as diarrhea, urinary tract infections, pneumonia, and other respiratory illnesses. 

Current Policies and Responses

United States

In the United States, there are initiatives at the national and state level to address NPS. Nationally, the USDA runs the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, a voluntary conservation program. Through this program, the USDA provides both financial and technical assistance to farmers to help them address concerns about natural resource management and create environmental benefits. Another federal program that addresses NPS pollution is the EPA’s 319 Grant Program for States and Territories. The 319 Grant Program was established under the Clean Water Act and provides funding for state efforts to reduce nonpoint source pollution. One limitation of this program is that the EPA has no regulatory authority over the programs created by the states and must rely heavily on their voluntary participation. However, a benefit is that each state can use these funds to craft an approach that best fits its particular context. 

California’s NPS programs are directly funded by the 319 Grant Program. One example is the Porter-Cologne Act, the central law regarding water quality in the state. This policy regulates all activities and factors that could affect water quality and declares that the state can exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the water and prevent degradation. To continue combatting NPS, California is instating the 2020-2025 Nonpoint Source Program Implementation Plan. It aims to reduce NPS pollution through waste discharge requirements, create a grant program focused on controlling NPS, and continually evaluate the success of the NPS Program through tracking activities and water quality improvements.

Overall, NPS programs in the US have had mixed success. A federal review of the 319 Grant Program found that state programs have not reliably yielded measurable water quality improvements and some of the funds were not effectively implemented or were not clearly linked to water quality improvements. Limitations include budget constraints, which have led states to prioritize the most cost-effective projects instead of simply the most effective projects, and inconsistent levels of EPA involvement and support in state programs. Despite this, the 319 Grant Program has reduced agricultural runoff of sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus.

China

Within the international community, China takes a markedly different approach to NPS prevention. While many US policies are aimed at state and local levels, NPS policies in China are focused on the national level. For example, China’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs started implementing new policies around NPS prevention in 2015, including water-saving agriculture practices and a “zero-growth” action plan for regulating fertilizer and pesticide application. These policies have been successful in decreasing the amount of NPS pollution in China from 2016 to 2020. While these policies have been achieving their goals, there are additional areas to continue addressing NPS. One area of potential is in China’s new national emissions trading scheme, where the trading between point source and nonpoint source pollution can trigger the adoption of new techniques and methods for the proper production and management of natural resources. This program is still in the early stages of development but shows potential, as the market behaviors associated with NPS have been untapped in reducing pollution.

Future of NPS

The effects of NPS pollution will likely be exacerbated by climate change, which is predicted to cause more frequent and intense rainstorms. Rain will fall more frequently and in new parts of the world on infrastructure not built to withstand this amount of water, leading to polluted runoff. This runoff as well as potential sewer overflows would contribute to a great increase in NPS pollution and negative effects on human health.

However, a number of new technological advances and policies may help control and prevent further pollution. These include the refinement of practices to reduce the application of nitrogen and phosphorus, the use of ecological ditch systems to remove agricultural runoff, and end treatment technologies that remove pollutants from waterways. Many of these technologies show promise for controlling nonpoint source pollution.