October 18, 2022 • 45 mins
In honor of the Clean Water Act’s 50th anniversary on October 18, 2022, the Clean Water Pod podcast is launching to explore clean water efforts across the country. In this first episode, host Jeff Berckes is joined by John Goodin, former director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, and Tom Stiles, director of the Bureau of Water for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, to talk about their experience working in clean water administration.
Stay tuned for future episodes as we dive deeper into the programs of the Clean Water Act.
Follow us on Twitter @CleanWaterPod!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Jeff Berckes (00:24):
Welcome to the Clean Water Pod, the show about the challenges and successes in restoring and protecting water quality. My name's Jeff Berckes, and I'll be talking to dedicated professionals across the country to build an understanding of how policy and science work together to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act for fishable, swimmable and drinkable water quality in our nation's waters. When we talk about water quality, what does that actually mean for our rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, estuaries and more? How do people that work in clean water figure out what is going wrong and how to fix it? What are the most pressing issues facing our waters today, and how are people across the country solving those complex problems? If you've ever thought about those questions, you found the right podcast for you, as the Clean Water Pod will examine some of the amazing progress in improving water quality over the course of this series.
(01:56):
In Season One, we're going to examine the fundamentals of how all of this works from a big picture perspective, and try to understand the basics of clean water through the voices of those that work on those issues every day. Many of these jobs are made possible by the Clean Water Act, a bipartisan bill passed by Congress in 1972 with overwhelming public support. That's 50 years ago. In fact, the Clean Water Act was signed into law 50 years ago from the launch date of this podcast. Season One will lay the foundation for the rest of the series by taking a look at some of the programs that work toward cleaning up our waters that are not meeting our expectations. Each one of those programs will be featured in a future episode this season to get a deeper sense of what they do and how they work with the other programs that we'll be talking about. But for now, here's a quick rundown as I see them. The water quality standards program sets expectations for how a particular water body should perform given what we know about the pollutant and the water body based on how humans and aquatic life are impacted. The water quality monitoring program makes sure that we have enough information to compare against those water quality standards to figure out how our waters are doing. These are the people that you may see out on a lake taking a water sample, for instance. The third program is known as the impaired waters list, which is essentially an analysis of all the water quality monitoring information gathered against the water quality expectations in the water quality standards program, those waters that are not meeting expectations are listed as impaired or needing further attention and examination. Each program across the country publishes an updated list every two years. Those impaired waters are handed to the fourth program that we'll talk about, known as the total maximum daily load, or TMDL program. I know it's a mouthful, believe me, I know all too well as this was the program that I ran for the state of Iowa for over a decade. The purpose of this program is to figure out how much pollution a water body can handle without showing the issues that cause it to be impaired. A clever shorthand for remembering what this group does is the math and the path, basically finding the mathematical answer and charting a potential solution for how to get there, for how we reduce pollution in that particular water body. That information is then handed off to two implementation programs. The first is the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, or even you may hear NIPDES for short. I know it's another long name, but it's commonly just referred to as the permitting program, if that helps you. This is where any business, industry, or even your wastewater treatment facility, will apply for a permit to be able to release an appropriate amount of pollutant into the water body. These permits are closely monitored and help water quality professionals control water quality coming into waters from those facilities. A key term you'll hear is point source, which you can remember, just means that, that particular source of pollutant has a permit associated with it. It may come from a pipe, most likely it does come from a pipe, but that is not always the case. It's most correct to think of it as a permit is associated with a point source. The second implementation program work. With reducing pollution sources from places that aren't so easily reached, like in the permitting program. This program is called the non point source program, basically the opposite of point source. This program works with landowners to help reduce or eliminate pollution before it enters the water. This can range from working with farmers to fence out cattle from a stream, or to help cities install bioswales to help reduce pollutants and stormwater. It's a wide ranging program and has a lot of activities, all based on trying to reduce or eliminate the amount of pollution that comes into the water. I should mention that this podcast will have a bias telling stories that involve the impaired waters list and TMDL programs, but that is largely inevitable in this type of work. You can think of those programs like a bridge between the information gathering programs on one side and the implementation programs on the other. In order to get successful implementation for clean water, it sure helps to have the calculations and targets identified for you to help guide the work. We will get into more details on all of those programs and more as we get into future episodes, but for today, I'm thrilled to share with you an interview that I conducted with John Goodin and Tom Stiles. These two individuals helped shape the TMDL program I mentioned earlier through a series of collaborative meetings between the Environmental Protection Agency and state, and tribal programs. They are both articulate, visionary and most of all, passionate about clean water administration. Both of these gentlemen helped me out tremendously early in my career, and I'm proud to have made small contributions to the work initiated by these two. But with that, let's jump in to my interview with John and Tom.
John Goodin (06:48):
Great, well, thanks, Jeff. Appreciate that. My name is John Goodin, and I'm the recently retired director of EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, and I've had the good fortune to work for EPA for 32 plus years before my retirement on september 30, I had the chance to work over those three decades on a variety of programs related particularly to wetlands, coasts, inland waters and the programs that affect them and keep them healthy or restore them. I got an undergraduate degree, my Bachelor of Science from the University of Richmond in Virginia, and then I have a master's degree in zoology from University of Western Australia in Perth, I had a variety of other field and research experiences before I came to EPA in the late summer of 1990. Since being at at EPA, I held a variety of positions in the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds and so became familiar with the major issues that we deal with there everything from nonpoint source issues to wetlands issues to some of our ocean programs and vessel discharge programs. So pleasure to be here today.
Jeff Berckes (08:20):
Was water always something that interests you? Were you someone who, you know was out on the water recreated and it just was a natural draw? Or was this like, "this was the job that was available, and I got into it and just kind of stuck with it".
John Goodin (08:33):
I think a big motivator for me, particularly in in when I was an undergraduate, is as much as I was attracted to the research side, the policy development process and the opportunity to influence policy, (environmental policy) was a big attraction for me, and so when I started looking for, for full time work, that's really where I concentrated my efforts. But I've always had some strong interest in in water, either based on some of my college or earlier experiences, and one that I'm fond of drawing on. I grew up in the Midwest, outside of Chicago, and there are a series of what they called forest preserves at that time. I don't know if they still go by the same label. And when I was in elementary school, we had a spring forested wetland, kind of kiddy corner across from our our street. And my mom used to load me up with colored markers and paper, and I would go over there and draw the ducks and frogs and other things that were in the, in there. So if I have to point to the way back driver, I'd probably latch on to that elementary school interest.
Tom Stiles (09:56):
Okay, I'm Tom Stiles. I'm currently director of the Bureau of Water at the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. I've been with the agency 24 years, now with State of Kansas for 40 years, and got my Bachelor's at Colorado State in watershed science, and then bopped around the West doing field work. I then went to the University of Minnesota for my master's in forestry, and then came down to Kansas in 1982 and started off at the state, the water office, which was the planning and policy agency of which I knew nothing. But it was a job, and I thought, okay, I'll do this for a year, and then we'll flip over to do something I really want to do. And I stayed there 16 years, and doing things like establishing in stream flows and reservoir management stuff and just overall, getting up an appreciation for what it took to establish policy and strategic plans. Then I slipped over to KDHE to start the Total Maximum Daily Load program there, and it was like, this is what I was born to do. But I just kind of built upon that resume over the years to add on more and more things to the point where I'm at now, where I'm basically overseeing all things clean water and all things Safe Drinking Water Act.
Jeff Berckes (11:23):
Alright, so when I started at the Iowa Department of Natural Resources as the program coordinator for the total maximum daily loads, my third week on the job was a four state meeting with the Environmental Protection Agency and our sister states, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri, down in NOAA building, down in Kansas City. I knew very little about what job I had just taken on. I had basically knew how to spell the program name and could find the bathrooms at the at the Iowa DNRs building, and I'm down in Kansas City, and I meet Tom Stiles, I meet John Goodin, I meet a whole host of characters from other states. So I met you guys early on in my tenure, and I did not know then, of course, just how important both of you would be to my understanding of this work and the work that you guys accomplished together, and I played a small role in helping move along a lot of the concepts and ideas in, in water quality management. And I want to start by having that big picture conversation, because the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, 50 years ago. That's the launch of this, of this podcast, and there's been a lot of accomplishments in clean water over the last 50 years. But it's not like the Clean Water Act was set in stone and hadn't evolved since 1972 there have been numerous times where things have moved along, and it's been people like you guys who have figured out how to manage these challenges in the face of an evolving society to try to get towards that goal of cleaner waters throughout the US. So with that backdrop in mind, what do you guys see as the original state of things as you saw it from 1972 and where do you see things? The major accomplishments that the Clean Water Act has helped provide a foundation for in terms of clean water successes in the country? John, we'll start with you.
John Goodin (13:38):
All right. Well, certainly one of the most significant accomplishments since 1972, is I think, the far more general recognition of the importance of water quality among the general public, and how that manifests itself in everything from our economy, to the natural areas, and other areas that we enjoy as a society. I think folks at the time were aware that you know, something is wrong, something needs to be fixed. If we have rivers on fire, if we have the sort of use of our waterways as a disposal area that was unregulated in many, in many circumstances, and that over the last 50 years, growth in appreciation for the value of water and the value of water quality has been tremendous. And obviously there have been a lot of specific programs that have helped to move that along. But I'd say that was, is really one of the biggest successes of of the act, is growing that appreciation among the general public and then facilitating the public's actions that can help with that water quality objective.
Jeff Berckes (15:04):
Tom?
Tom Stiles (15:05):
I pose this type of a question. I always pay reference deference to everyone that came before me, because I say I'm, I'm playing with house money. By the time I got into basically starting to do Clean Water Act stuff, it had been 15 years at least, had gone on since the act had been passed. And really, John is talking about, you know, the breadth of the Clean Water Act, and if you go look through the text of the law, it's there's all sorts of stuff in there. But really it boils down to two to three things that have to get done. One is water quality standards have to be established, setting each state defining what use is going to be made of its waters, and then from that, what is the appropriate physical, chemical, characteristics of the water that would support those those types of uses. And then regulate and keep pollutants out of those waters through the NPDES program, and for our predecessors to basically from plain cloth, be able to weave out what the overall policies and goals and water quality for each state looks like, and then to fashion a permitting program that allows for discharge, but with conditions and limits. It is huge, notwithstanding the onslaught of tremendous federal aid that came with construction grants to build all the municipal wastewater treatment plants and to literally lift us out of the dirges of the 60s and early 70s into something that started making a mark of really attacking critical water quality areas there. So everything has been iterative and has been cumulative and built up that the nice thing with what John and I experienced is that when it came to the 303(d) programs, not much had been done there. So it was almost like our our chance to weave something out of out of plain cloth and craft it in a manner that made sense, to basically, not just be a bureaucratic exercise, but to actually make a difference in starting to set a direction in terms of how to strategically make a mark to improve water quality. So I always pay again, deference to the people that came before because of their Herculean efforts to get conditions so much better. And then to basically take the baton and say, now, where can I help make things and get things improved there. And I think we've, we've registered that, if not on the environmental front as significantly as those early days, certainly on the awareness and the interaction between local, state and federal government and understanding everyone's role in helping craft improved water quality.
Jeff Berckes (18:01):
So, when you, you both have vast experience communicating with partner groups, with stakeholders, with the general public on clean water issues, when you talk about the Clean Water Act as a big concept like, how do you best describe what it is, what it does.
Tom Stiles (18:22):
For me, it is before it was adaptive management, before adaptive management became a thing. And I try to preach that a lot to all the groups understanding, let's not get all wrapped up in the detail of what is exactly right and wrong no matter what the issue is, let's just say we all, everyone agrees that the current condition is not satisfactory. We need to improve it. So let's make a step. But water quality standards are revisited every three years. Our 303(d) lists and impaired waters are revisited every two years, and our permits are redone every five years. Each one building upon the past success of the previous version. To me, that's adaptive management, and so viewed it again as at the end of the day for all that it does it, the Clean Water Act basically requires two things define what water quality is for your state, and establish a program that removes the delivery of pollutants into those waters of the state so that those uses can be attained.
John Goodin (19:26):
And I think I would add that the fundamental objectives of the Act really frame out that target that Tom alluded to, so that we can restore and protect waters in, in our country. So what does that mean? You know, we need that water quality target if we're going to do that. And then a little bit on how we do that. The relationship between states and the federal government is articulated in a division of labor in those programs that help address point source discharges, non point source discharges, etc. So I think the targeting of what is considered clean water, and the way in which we go about doing that, the shared responsibility of states and the federal government to achieve those goals.
Jeff Berckes (20:21):
Talk a little bit more about that. Because we're talking to a someone who is a director of a state water quality bureau. We're talking to somebody who was the director, or the head of OWOW, which is the greatest acronym ever-
John Goodin (20:37):
Office of wetlands, oceans and watershed.
Jeff Berckes (20:40):
Talk about the you know, there's going to be a lot of examples of this, depending on which aspect of the Clean Water Act you're talking about, but you and Tom specifically have a very good working relationship, where you were able to hear him and his ideas and what the states were going through and try to meet him halfway for what the federal government needed out of these programs.
John Goodin (21:07):
Sure, and one of the things that I think was so wonderful about that individual example of connection between state and Feds on the program to identify impaired waters and, and respond with the plans to clean them up, is that, as Tom mentioned earlier, there was somewhat of a blank slate at the point at which the two of us began to put our our heads together in that there hadn't been too much done in that program in a comprehensive way across all of the states, and as a result of the slow start on that portion of the Clean Water Act, identifying waters that are not meeting their standards and the plans to clean them up, it resulted in a tremendous amount of litigation, and more than half the states had lawsuits. There were a number of court ordered agreements and other settlement agreements, and as those played out, some very important strides were made. The various state and federal entities figured out how to develop what we call the math and the path, you know, what do we need to reduce, and how are we going to reduce those, those pollutants? But it had become somewhat of a rote exercise, and our vision for moving the program forward was, how do we turn that into something that truly reflects the priorities of the states, that accomplishes the larger federal mission of the Clean Water Act? And the only way you can do that is by getting getting folks in a room together and talking about what those priorities look like and how you can best accomplish them. And that was really the the stage setting for the effort that we began in late 2011.
Tom Stiles (23:12):
so after we the states exited out of their obligations of of court decrees, the playing field was wide open for us to basically drive the programs to what was much more purpose-driven, of what we wanted to set for water quality strategies and priorities that then frame direction we did in putting appropriate limits on npds permits and where we wanted to focus practices under 319 Non-Point Source Programs. So it became much more value added after we came out of the litigation.
Jeff Berckes (23:46):
What about, what about the relationship between federal and state? What about that relationship, and does it come down to individuals? Does it come down to, you know, having a, you know, the framework of, you know, say, like the Association of Clean Water Administrators, where you have, you know, opportunities, is it the face to face interaction, to try to understand where each other's coming from, so that you can forge a path forward that makes sense for both parties?
Tom Stiles (24:13):
It, I think it is personality driven. I think and John and I are an example of that, where our personalities meshed with a strong penchant for give a little, get a lot, between both of us and understanding where the other side was coming from. It's never been about what needs to be accomplished. It's always been about how is that, how is that to be accomplished? And but it just, gosh, everyone I talked to, when they talk one on one with their federal counterpart and back and forth, they can come to an agreement relatively quickly. So I think individuals can win the day. I think as you build up organizations and with their own agendas and external influences tend to get bogged down a little bit more into posturing and dogma at times, but I again, if we everyone takes an attitude of this more adaptive management, we don't have to get it exactly right. Let's agree on what we can agree on, kick it down, literally kick it down the road again, and we'll revisit it as we get more information and experience. We can keep improving conditions year in, year out.
John Goodin (25:28):
Well, you know, the thing that has struck me over the years is this mission driven focus that everyone that works in the water environment area from from states and from federal government really have it's really difficult to find someone who isn't in it for the fundamental purpose of trying to make water quality better. And so that, I think, is not always the case in other fields and in other businesses and things like that. But I think one of the advantages that, that the water area has with respect to federal and state entities implementing Clean Water Act is how you know virtually to a person, people are motivated by that fundamental objective of making the water better. They live there, their families live there, they're recreating there, they get their water from the taps, from, you know, the nearby reservoir. So there's a lot of very visceral and present reasons for people to be motivated to, to do a good job in that in that area, and I think that provides a really good base from which the states and EPA work together to define common objectives and help carry those out.
Tom Stiles (26:58):
I think, I think it's important for states to understand the pressures that EPA is under, because ultimately, they're the ones that are accountable when there's litigation from environmental advocates, they don't sue the states, they sue EPA. When Congress asks a question of, how come this program is not being run appropriately, they don't ask the states, they asked EPA. And so the states are carrying out the objectives of EPA, but they got to understand where EPA is coming from, in terms of from the truly big national picture of what it's trying to accomplish. And EPA, in turn, has to understand that, yes, one size doesn't fit all, and what works in Idaho isn't going to work in Iowa and isn't going to even translate category down to down to Kansas. We all have our unique geographic, economic, hydrologic, ecological and political back stories that we've got to weave through to try to affect good, improve improved water quality. So that's what EPA has to understand, is the uniqueness of the states. The states have to recognize the big picture responsibilities that EPA is is carrying.
Jeff Berckes (28:14):
So, when we talk about the in talk about the Clean Water Act, and then as like a whole big picture, and then you quickly get into the individual programs, which, you know, one issue with that is, you know, siloing of programs. But for the most part, if the Clean Water Act is working well, it's working as this continuous flow through throughout the programs, where they complement each other, information from one program feeds into the next program, and in this podcast series, we're going to go through each program is going to have its own episodes. We will dive into deep, we'll dive in a little deeper on each of those particular programs, but I want to just kind of talk about it as the, it flows through, how do you see the Clean Water Act programs flowing through and complementing each other?
Tom Stiles (29:00):
Well, Jeff, you've created the ultimate visual on that, which was, on one side you have standards and monitoring, and on the other side you have permitting and and 319, and non-point source. And 303(d) and TMDLs was the bridge between those two, those two sides. And that basically is the business model or the workflow that basically, I think, is the most effective way to realize the goals of the Clean Water Act is to understand that I think 303(d) and the three of us have cut our teeth on with TMDLs and listings, etc, are the ultimate silo busters, because we can't just focus on one side of that overall. Our archway, we've got to deal with everything from standards and monitoring to permitting and 319 implementation all across the board. So we've had the best of all worlds to see everything, and we have the worst of all worlds trying to hurt all those cats.
John Goodin (30:08):
Yeah, I like, I think what you've laid out, Jeff is that that classic arc of the programs covered under the Clean Water Act, the standards that establish what our targets are, and then measuring against those targets in the monitoring program, assessing what that monitoring data is telling us, you know, developing the plans to restore waters that aren't meeting water quality standards or protect those waters that already are, and then the implementation programs, such as the non-point source program and the the point source programs, to carry out those those objectives, and there are a host of other programs under the Clean Water Act that all help to feed in and contribute to those specific areas, but that, as you laid out, is the fundamental arc of programs there. I, like Tom, I also, my time in the in the watershed program, definitely talked about the impaired waters and TMDL program, the 303(d) program under the Clean Water Act as being that connection point, translating standards into fundamentally, the work that needed to be done on the other end to restore and protect water quality. So the interrelationship between those programs is strong, and in most states, those programs are housed pretty closely together and in EPA offices as well. There is communication among those those programs to help ensure we're looking for efficiencies and improvements in delivering those programs that, that make sense for each of them along that arc as you described.
Jeff Berckes (32:05):
One memory for me that sticks out is during the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, I attended a conference with the Association of Clean Water Administrators, and they had a guest speaker there, who was part of the staff for one of the Congress people that helped pass the Clean Water Act. So he was at the end of his career, during the beginning of his career, he was part of that effort, and he spoke about what it was like back in 1972 when they were getting this passed and getting a bipartisan bill passed at that time, and what that meant, and what he saw were the successes over the first four years. For me, I want to know what stories stick out to you guys as the big successes that you've seen that don't necessarily have to be the ones that you were specifically involved with, but the stories that you've heard over the years that you say, well, that was a really great success of this working.
John Goodin (33:04):
Well, maybe I can offer one or two that would fit that, that question, Jeff, one that comes to mind is the importance of wetlands as waters in the US that are key to water quality and to protecting the other uses that we have, habitat for nursery grounds, for, for fish, the recharge areas for our drinking water systems in many, in many places, carbon storage, and other other uses. So I think even in the late 80s, it was true that there was a real significant under appreciation of what these wetland areas served. And there was a fair amount of controversy at that, at that juncture, and over the early 90s, and mid 90s, there was a tremendous effort made on the part of EPA and the states, to both educate the public on the value of these of these areas, as well as to respond to legitimate concerns that folks had in terms of these areas and their relationship to economic development and other issues. And I think although certainly the there, there's still litigation, there's still disagreement on utility and value of individual wetland systems. I think a tremendous success story from from that decade, and I point to the 90s in particular, is this broad. Appreciation of the functions and values of wetlands. Even the term wetlands was not common parlance in that-
Jeff Berckes (35:08):
Swamps, right?
John Goodin (35:09):
Swamps and marshes and and even other terms that had, you know, far more derogatory implications, but, but I think there's been a real appreciation and growth and understanding of the value of those of those systems. And if you're out there, you know fishing and catching your favorite fish, chances are, those fish rely on wetland systems when they're growing up to a size that you can catch for for their development. And when you're drinking a glass of water and right out of the tap in many parts of the country, wetland areas are the areas that are allowing us to recharge those underground aquifers. So I think that appreciation has really been a great success. And I'll pause there. I'm sure Tom has a few as well.
Tom Stiles (36:05):
Well, when I look at successes, I'd say 90% of the success has occurred through what Congress intended, which was the elimination of pollutants being delivered to waters there, which was the point source programs. That's where we're seeing it, that will attack the acute problems that were the issues of the day back in the 70s. Rivers aflame, Lake Erie dead, fish kills everywhere, raw sewage going into, into our rivers. Those days are over that we really did a great job of handling acute problems and, and we did that with, with permitting. Now we're dealing with chronic problems, more long range and more diffuse sourcing of those pollutants, and it's a much longer slog of trying to ultimately bring about those improvements. I still think there's a role there, but it's time for the non-point, source side of the the equation, to really bring their A game work to start reducing the delivery of those, of those pollutants into, into the waters there. I always frame it from because I'm a hydrologist, I can't frame it in the context of the hydrograph. I'd say the quality of our waters at base flow, at dry weather, has really, really been markedly improved, and that's because of the investments that have been made over the five decades with, with point source and infrastructure and operations. When it rains, all bets are off. And I think that continues to be the the ongoing challenges. How do we improve water quality when conditions are approaching a little wetter, a little more normal, and we still are able to support the uses that are intended for for our waters. Recognizing there's a there's an end limit that if given too much rain, too much wet weather, it doesn't matter what the quality is necessarily, because the the uses basically go offline for the duration of that storm, and trying to find that policy balance of how far do we push it and invest, is going to be an interesting exercise in this next decade to say, where are we going to best invest our monies in terms of improving water quality? Where on the hydrograph should we focus?
Jeff Berckes (38:38):
Okay, those are my questions. Any final thoughts?
Tom Stiles (38:40):
I'll say this. I've been thinking about this a lot. This country was built on the principle of checks and balances, and I believe Clean Water Act is a microcosm of checks and balances between the federalism relationship between states and federal government and EPA, also with the possibility of citizens being able to intervene through citizen suits to basically, when they see things are not going the way that they think they should, they can intercede as well. I think if everyone maintains a rational, big picture outlook that it continue, will continue to score success. If we get dogmatic, start hardening our positions, then all our progress falls by the wayside.
John Goodin (39:36):
And maybe Jeff, I'd I'd add that there are many challenges in the clean water world out there, and the ability to get information now in near instantaneous fashion makes us even more aware of those challenges, regardless of where they're occurring or what they what they constitute, and it's easy to get pessimistic as that kind of accumulates, and we see how challenging the situation is. But, but two things really keep me very positive and very excited about the future. One is to look at where we started, 50 years ago, and the sorts of improvements that have occurred since then. At the time, there were many folks that felt that those improvements were not possible without severely impacting some other element of society. And we found over the years that that was actually not the case. We were able to figure out whether it was through new technologies, through our ability to to turn toward the right decisions and do things that we figured it out. And so I'm very optimistic that those types of characteristics exist for us, even, even today, in issues that seem really difficult. The other thing that keeps me super positive about this, is new folks that either I've hired or seen hired by the states and and federal government. I often joke that I would not want to be competing with them for a job coming out of school, 30 years later, here, it's just amazing to see the talent and the smarts and the good people that are really attracted to this issue and this, this line of work, and you know, just already seeing in the last few years, some of these newer folks that have arrived, younger folks that have arrived, tackling some of the biggest issues that we are dealing with right now. And that's that gives me as well, a lot of confidence for the coming years.
Tom Stiles (41:56):
Yeah, I'll own that as well, that the human factor can't be understated, but whether it's the wastewater treatment operator understanding the nuances of his of his plant, or it's the scientists at the state level trying to glean out, convert data into information that then yields good policy, and then continually pushing out technology and scientific breakthroughs from EPA to bring the bear on the new suite of complex problems there, what I'm, I'm encour- like John, I'm really encouraged, because we have had no shortage of applicants that have come in to fill our vacancies and bring in new talent, as we've seen staffs ebb and flow. And so I'm very encouraged that environmentalism continues to be a career path. The new generation bringing a new set of tools that in terms of technology, and scientific methods, and statistical applications that render my slide rule and Texas Instruments calculator to a display at the Smithsonian.
Jeff Berckes (43:20):
All right, that's episode one. Thank you so much for listening to this first episode of this new series. Episode Two will focus on water quality standards. I have a couple of great guests lined up for that. That is going to be a great episode. If you have any questions about this, or future episodes, please get in touch. You can find us on Twitter at cleanwaterpod, or send me an email at cleanwaterpod@gmail.com. we'd love to hear from you what questions you have and what you'd like to hear on the pod and until next time, Thank you For listening.
Welcome to the Clean Water Pod, the show about the challenges and successes in restoring and protecting water quality. My name's Jeff Berckes, and I'll be talking to dedicated professionals across the country to build an understanding of how policy and science work together to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act for fishable, swimmable and drinkable water quality in our nation's waters. When we talk about water quality, what does that actually mean for our rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, estuaries and more? How do people that work in clean water figure out what is going wrong and how to fix it? What are the most pressing issues facing our waters today, and how are people across the country solving those complex problems? If you've ever thought about those questions, you found the right podcast for you, as the Clean Water Pod will examine some of the amazing progress in improving water quality over the course of this series.
(01:56):
In Season One, we're going to examine the fundamentals of how all of this works from a big picture perspective, and try to understand the basics of clean water through the voices of those that work on those issues every day. Many of these jobs are made possible by the Clean Water Act, a bipartisan bill passed by Congress in 1972 with overwhelming public support. That's 50 years ago. In fact, the Clean Water Act was signed into law 50 years ago from the launch date of this podcast. Season One will lay the foundation for the rest of the series by taking a look at some of the programs that work toward cleaning up our waters that are not meeting our expectations. Each one of those programs will be featured in a future episode this season to get a deeper sense of what they do and how they work with the other programs that we'll be talking about. But for now, here's a quick rundown as I see them. The water quality standards program sets expectations for how a particular water body should perform given what we know about the pollutant and the water body based on how humans and aquatic life are impacted. The water quality monitoring program makes sure that we have enough information to compare against those water quality standards to figure out how our waters are doing. These are the people that you may see out on a lake taking a water sample, for instance. The third program is known as the impaired waters list, which is essentially an analysis of all the water quality monitoring information gathered against the water quality expectations in the water quality standards program, those waters that are not meeting expectations are listed as impaired or needing further attention and examination. Each program across the country publishes an updated list every two years. Those impaired waters are handed to the fourth program that we'll talk about, known as the total maximum daily load, or TMDL program. I know it's a mouthful, believe me, I know all too well as this was the program that I ran for the state of Iowa for over a decade. The purpose of this program is to figure out how much pollution a water body can handle without showing the issues that cause it to be impaired. A clever shorthand for remembering what this group does is the math and the path, basically finding the mathematical answer and charting a potential solution for how to get there, for how we reduce pollution in that particular water body. That information is then handed off to two implementation programs. The first is the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, or even you may hear NIPDES for short. I know it's another long name, but it's commonly just referred to as the permitting program, if that helps you. This is where any business, industry, or even your wastewater treatment facility, will apply for a permit to be able to release an appropriate amount of pollutant into the water body. These permits are closely monitored and help water quality professionals control water quality coming into waters from those facilities. A key term you'll hear is point source, which you can remember, just means that, that particular source of pollutant has a permit associated with it. It may come from a pipe, most likely it does come from a pipe, but that is not always the case. It's most correct to think of it as a permit is associated with a point source. The second implementation program work. With reducing pollution sources from places that aren't so easily reached, like in the permitting program. This program is called the non point source program, basically the opposite of point source. This program works with landowners to help reduce or eliminate pollution before it enters the water. This can range from working with farmers to fence out cattle from a stream, or to help cities install bioswales to help reduce pollutants and stormwater. It's a wide ranging program and has a lot of activities, all based on trying to reduce or eliminate the amount of pollution that comes into the water. I should mention that this podcast will have a bias telling stories that involve the impaired waters list and TMDL programs, but that is largely inevitable in this type of work. You can think of those programs like a bridge between the information gathering programs on one side and the implementation programs on the other. In order to get successful implementation for clean water, it sure helps to have the calculations and targets identified for you to help guide the work. We will get into more details on all of those programs and more as we get into future episodes, but for today, I'm thrilled to share with you an interview that I conducted with John Goodin and Tom Stiles. These two individuals helped shape the TMDL program I mentioned earlier through a series of collaborative meetings between the Environmental Protection Agency and state, and tribal programs. They are both articulate, visionary and most of all, passionate about clean water administration. Both of these gentlemen helped me out tremendously early in my career, and I'm proud to have made small contributions to the work initiated by these two. But with that, let's jump in to my interview with John and Tom.
John Goodin (06:48):
Great, well, thanks, Jeff. Appreciate that. My name is John Goodin, and I'm the recently retired director of EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, and I've had the good fortune to work for EPA for 32 plus years before my retirement on september 30, I had the chance to work over those three decades on a variety of programs related particularly to wetlands, coasts, inland waters and the programs that affect them and keep them healthy or restore them. I got an undergraduate degree, my Bachelor of Science from the University of Richmond in Virginia, and then I have a master's degree in zoology from University of Western Australia in Perth, I had a variety of other field and research experiences before I came to EPA in the late summer of 1990. Since being at at EPA, I held a variety of positions in the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds and so became familiar with the major issues that we deal with there everything from nonpoint source issues to wetlands issues to some of our ocean programs and vessel discharge programs. So pleasure to be here today.
Jeff Berckes (08:20):
Was water always something that interests you? Were you someone who, you know was out on the water recreated and it just was a natural draw? Or was this like, "this was the job that was available, and I got into it and just kind of stuck with it".
John Goodin (08:33):
I think a big motivator for me, particularly in in when I was an undergraduate, is as much as I was attracted to the research side, the policy development process and the opportunity to influence policy, (environmental policy) was a big attraction for me, and so when I started looking for, for full time work, that's really where I concentrated my efforts. But I've always had some strong interest in in water, either based on some of my college or earlier experiences, and one that I'm fond of drawing on. I grew up in the Midwest, outside of Chicago, and there are a series of what they called forest preserves at that time. I don't know if they still go by the same label. And when I was in elementary school, we had a spring forested wetland, kind of kiddy corner across from our our street. And my mom used to load me up with colored markers and paper, and I would go over there and draw the ducks and frogs and other things that were in the, in there. So if I have to point to the way back driver, I'd probably latch on to that elementary school interest.
Tom Stiles (09:56):
Okay, I'm Tom Stiles. I'm currently director of the Bureau of Water at the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. I've been with the agency 24 years, now with State of Kansas for 40 years, and got my Bachelor's at Colorado State in watershed science, and then bopped around the West doing field work. I then went to the University of Minnesota for my master's in forestry, and then came down to Kansas in 1982 and started off at the state, the water office, which was the planning and policy agency of which I knew nothing. But it was a job, and I thought, okay, I'll do this for a year, and then we'll flip over to do something I really want to do. And I stayed there 16 years, and doing things like establishing in stream flows and reservoir management stuff and just overall, getting up an appreciation for what it took to establish policy and strategic plans. Then I slipped over to KDHE to start the Total Maximum Daily Load program there, and it was like, this is what I was born to do. But I just kind of built upon that resume over the years to add on more and more things to the point where I'm at now, where I'm basically overseeing all things clean water and all things Safe Drinking Water Act.
Jeff Berckes (11:23):
Alright, so when I started at the Iowa Department of Natural Resources as the program coordinator for the total maximum daily loads, my third week on the job was a four state meeting with the Environmental Protection Agency and our sister states, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri, down in NOAA building, down in Kansas City. I knew very little about what job I had just taken on. I had basically knew how to spell the program name and could find the bathrooms at the at the Iowa DNRs building, and I'm down in Kansas City, and I meet Tom Stiles, I meet John Goodin, I meet a whole host of characters from other states. So I met you guys early on in my tenure, and I did not know then, of course, just how important both of you would be to my understanding of this work and the work that you guys accomplished together, and I played a small role in helping move along a lot of the concepts and ideas in, in water quality management. And I want to start by having that big picture conversation, because the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, 50 years ago. That's the launch of this, of this podcast, and there's been a lot of accomplishments in clean water over the last 50 years. But it's not like the Clean Water Act was set in stone and hadn't evolved since 1972 there have been numerous times where things have moved along, and it's been people like you guys who have figured out how to manage these challenges in the face of an evolving society to try to get towards that goal of cleaner waters throughout the US. So with that backdrop in mind, what do you guys see as the original state of things as you saw it from 1972 and where do you see things? The major accomplishments that the Clean Water Act has helped provide a foundation for in terms of clean water successes in the country? John, we'll start with you.
John Goodin (13:38):
All right. Well, certainly one of the most significant accomplishments since 1972, is I think, the far more general recognition of the importance of water quality among the general public, and how that manifests itself in everything from our economy, to the natural areas, and other areas that we enjoy as a society. I think folks at the time were aware that you know, something is wrong, something needs to be fixed. If we have rivers on fire, if we have the sort of use of our waterways as a disposal area that was unregulated in many, in many circumstances, and that over the last 50 years, growth in appreciation for the value of water and the value of water quality has been tremendous. And obviously there have been a lot of specific programs that have helped to move that along. But I'd say that was, is really one of the biggest successes of of the act, is growing that appreciation among the general public and then facilitating the public's actions that can help with that water quality objective.
Jeff Berckes (15:04):
Tom?
Tom Stiles (15:05):
I pose this type of a question. I always pay reference deference to everyone that came before me, because I say I'm, I'm playing with house money. By the time I got into basically starting to do Clean Water Act stuff, it had been 15 years at least, had gone on since the act had been passed. And really, John is talking about, you know, the breadth of the Clean Water Act, and if you go look through the text of the law, it's there's all sorts of stuff in there. But really it boils down to two to three things that have to get done. One is water quality standards have to be established, setting each state defining what use is going to be made of its waters, and then from that, what is the appropriate physical, chemical, characteristics of the water that would support those those types of uses. And then regulate and keep pollutants out of those waters through the NPDES program, and for our predecessors to basically from plain cloth, be able to weave out what the overall policies and goals and water quality for each state looks like, and then to fashion a permitting program that allows for discharge, but with conditions and limits. It is huge, notwithstanding the onslaught of tremendous federal aid that came with construction grants to build all the municipal wastewater treatment plants and to literally lift us out of the dirges of the 60s and early 70s into something that started making a mark of really attacking critical water quality areas there. So everything has been iterative and has been cumulative and built up that the nice thing with what John and I experienced is that when it came to the 303(d) programs, not much had been done there. So it was almost like our our chance to weave something out of out of plain cloth and craft it in a manner that made sense, to basically, not just be a bureaucratic exercise, but to actually make a difference in starting to set a direction in terms of how to strategically make a mark to improve water quality. So I always pay again, deference to the people that came before because of their Herculean efforts to get conditions so much better. And then to basically take the baton and say, now, where can I help make things and get things improved there. And I think we've, we've registered that, if not on the environmental front as significantly as those early days, certainly on the awareness and the interaction between local, state and federal government and understanding everyone's role in helping craft improved water quality.
Jeff Berckes (18:01):
So, when you, you both have vast experience communicating with partner groups, with stakeholders, with the general public on clean water issues, when you talk about the Clean Water Act as a big concept like, how do you best describe what it is, what it does.
Tom Stiles (18:22):
For me, it is before it was adaptive management, before adaptive management became a thing. And I try to preach that a lot to all the groups understanding, let's not get all wrapped up in the detail of what is exactly right and wrong no matter what the issue is, let's just say we all, everyone agrees that the current condition is not satisfactory. We need to improve it. So let's make a step. But water quality standards are revisited every three years. Our 303(d) lists and impaired waters are revisited every two years, and our permits are redone every five years. Each one building upon the past success of the previous version. To me, that's adaptive management, and so viewed it again as at the end of the day for all that it does it, the Clean Water Act basically requires two things define what water quality is for your state, and establish a program that removes the delivery of pollutants into those waters of the state so that those uses can be attained.
John Goodin (19:26):
And I think I would add that the fundamental objectives of the Act really frame out that target that Tom alluded to, so that we can restore and protect waters in, in our country. So what does that mean? You know, we need that water quality target if we're going to do that. And then a little bit on how we do that. The relationship between states and the federal government is articulated in a division of labor in those programs that help address point source discharges, non point source discharges, etc. So I think the targeting of what is considered clean water, and the way in which we go about doing that, the shared responsibility of states and the federal government to achieve those goals.
Jeff Berckes (20:21):
Talk a little bit more about that. Because we're talking to a someone who is a director of a state water quality bureau. We're talking to somebody who was the director, or the head of OWOW, which is the greatest acronym ever-
John Goodin (20:37):
Office of wetlands, oceans and watershed.
Jeff Berckes (20:40):
Talk about the you know, there's going to be a lot of examples of this, depending on which aspect of the Clean Water Act you're talking about, but you and Tom specifically have a very good working relationship, where you were able to hear him and his ideas and what the states were going through and try to meet him halfway for what the federal government needed out of these programs.
John Goodin (21:07):
Sure, and one of the things that I think was so wonderful about that individual example of connection between state and Feds on the program to identify impaired waters and, and respond with the plans to clean them up, is that, as Tom mentioned earlier, there was somewhat of a blank slate at the point at which the two of us began to put our our heads together in that there hadn't been too much done in that program in a comprehensive way across all of the states, and as a result of the slow start on that portion of the Clean Water Act, identifying waters that are not meeting their standards and the plans to clean them up, it resulted in a tremendous amount of litigation, and more than half the states had lawsuits. There were a number of court ordered agreements and other settlement agreements, and as those played out, some very important strides were made. The various state and federal entities figured out how to develop what we call the math and the path, you know, what do we need to reduce, and how are we going to reduce those, those pollutants? But it had become somewhat of a rote exercise, and our vision for moving the program forward was, how do we turn that into something that truly reflects the priorities of the states, that accomplishes the larger federal mission of the Clean Water Act? And the only way you can do that is by getting getting folks in a room together and talking about what those priorities look like and how you can best accomplish them. And that was really the the stage setting for the effort that we began in late 2011.
Tom Stiles (23:12):
so after we the states exited out of their obligations of of court decrees, the playing field was wide open for us to basically drive the programs to what was much more purpose-driven, of what we wanted to set for water quality strategies and priorities that then frame direction we did in putting appropriate limits on npds permits and where we wanted to focus practices under 319 Non-Point Source Programs. So it became much more value added after we came out of the litigation.
Jeff Berckes (23:46):
What about, what about the relationship between federal and state? What about that relationship, and does it come down to individuals? Does it come down to, you know, having a, you know, the framework of, you know, say, like the Association of Clean Water Administrators, where you have, you know, opportunities, is it the face to face interaction, to try to understand where each other's coming from, so that you can forge a path forward that makes sense for both parties?
Tom Stiles (24:13):
It, I think it is personality driven. I think and John and I are an example of that, where our personalities meshed with a strong penchant for give a little, get a lot, between both of us and understanding where the other side was coming from. It's never been about what needs to be accomplished. It's always been about how is that, how is that to be accomplished? And but it just, gosh, everyone I talked to, when they talk one on one with their federal counterpart and back and forth, they can come to an agreement relatively quickly. So I think individuals can win the day. I think as you build up organizations and with their own agendas and external influences tend to get bogged down a little bit more into posturing and dogma at times, but I again, if we everyone takes an attitude of this more adaptive management, we don't have to get it exactly right. Let's agree on what we can agree on, kick it down, literally kick it down the road again, and we'll revisit it as we get more information and experience. We can keep improving conditions year in, year out.
John Goodin (25:28):
Well, you know, the thing that has struck me over the years is this mission driven focus that everyone that works in the water environment area from from states and from federal government really have it's really difficult to find someone who isn't in it for the fundamental purpose of trying to make water quality better. And so that, I think, is not always the case in other fields and in other businesses and things like that. But I think one of the advantages that, that the water area has with respect to federal and state entities implementing Clean Water Act is how you know virtually to a person, people are motivated by that fundamental objective of making the water better. They live there, their families live there, they're recreating there, they get their water from the taps, from, you know, the nearby reservoir. So there's a lot of very visceral and present reasons for people to be motivated to, to do a good job in that in that area, and I think that provides a really good base from which the states and EPA work together to define common objectives and help carry those out.
Tom Stiles (26:58):
I think, I think it's important for states to understand the pressures that EPA is under, because ultimately, they're the ones that are accountable when there's litigation from environmental advocates, they don't sue the states, they sue EPA. When Congress asks a question of, how come this program is not being run appropriately, they don't ask the states, they asked EPA. And so the states are carrying out the objectives of EPA, but they got to understand where EPA is coming from, in terms of from the truly big national picture of what it's trying to accomplish. And EPA, in turn, has to understand that, yes, one size doesn't fit all, and what works in Idaho isn't going to work in Iowa and isn't going to even translate category down to down to Kansas. We all have our unique geographic, economic, hydrologic, ecological and political back stories that we've got to weave through to try to affect good, improve improved water quality. So that's what EPA has to understand, is the uniqueness of the states. The states have to recognize the big picture responsibilities that EPA is is carrying.
Jeff Berckes (28:14):
So, when we talk about the in talk about the Clean Water Act, and then as like a whole big picture, and then you quickly get into the individual programs, which, you know, one issue with that is, you know, siloing of programs. But for the most part, if the Clean Water Act is working well, it's working as this continuous flow through throughout the programs, where they complement each other, information from one program feeds into the next program, and in this podcast series, we're going to go through each program is going to have its own episodes. We will dive into deep, we'll dive in a little deeper on each of those particular programs, but I want to just kind of talk about it as the, it flows through, how do you see the Clean Water Act programs flowing through and complementing each other?
Tom Stiles (29:00):
Well, Jeff, you've created the ultimate visual on that, which was, on one side you have standards and monitoring, and on the other side you have permitting and and 319, and non-point source. And 303(d) and TMDLs was the bridge between those two, those two sides. And that basically is the business model or the workflow that basically, I think, is the most effective way to realize the goals of the Clean Water Act is to understand that I think 303(d) and the three of us have cut our teeth on with TMDLs and listings, etc, are the ultimate silo busters, because we can't just focus on one side of that overall. Our archway, we've got to deal with everything from standards and monitoring to permitting and 319 implementation all across the board. So we've had the best of all worlds to see everything, and we have the worst of all worlds trying to hurt all those cats.
John Goodin (30:08):
Yeah, I like, I think what you've laid out, Jeff is that that classic arc of the programs covered under the Clean Water Act, the standards that establish what our targets are, and then measuring against those targets in the monitoring program, assessing what that monitoring data is telling us, you know, developing the plans to restore waters that aren't meeting water quality standards or protect those waters that already are, and then the implementation programs, such as the non-point source program and the the point source programs, to carry out those those objectives, and there are a host of other programs under the Clean Water Act that all help to feed in and contribute to those specific areas, but that, as you laid out, is the fundamental arc of programs there. I, like Tom, I also, my time in the in the watershed program, definitely talked about the impaired waters and TMDL program, the 303(d) program under the Clean Water Act as being that connection point, translating standards into fundamentally, the work that needed to be done on the other end to restore and protect water quality. So the interrelationship between those programs is strong, and in most states, those programs are housed pretty closely together and in EPA offices as well. There is communication among those those programs to help ensure we're looking for efficiencies and improvements in delivering those programs that, that make sense for each of them along that arc as you described.
Jeff Berckes (32:05):
One memory for me that sticks out is during the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, I attended a conference with the Association of Clean Water Administrators, and they had a guest speaker there, who was part of the staff for one of the Congress people that helped pass the Clean Water Act. So he was at the end of his career, during the beginning of his career, he was part of that effort, and he spoke about what it was like back in 1972 when they were getting this passed and getting a bipartisan bill passed at that time, and what that meant, and what he saw were the successes over the first four years. For me, I want to know what stories stick out to you guys as the big successes that you've seen that don't necessarily have to be the ones that you were specifically involved with, but the stories that you've heard over the years that you say, well, that was a really great success of this working.
John Goodin (33:04):
Well, maybe I can offer one or two that would fit that, that question, Jeff, one that comes to mind is the importance of wetlands as waters in the US that are key to water quality and to protecting the other uses that we have, habitat for nursery grounds, for, for fish, the recharge areas for our drinking water systems in many, in many places, carbon storage, and other other uses. So I think even in the late 80s, it was true that there was a real significant under appreciation of what these wetland areas served. And there was a fair amount of controversy at that, at that juncture, and over the early 90s, and mid 90s, there was a tremendous effort made on the part of EPA and the states, to both educate the public on the value of these of these areas, as well as to respond to legitimate concerns that folks had in terms of these areas and their relationship to economic development and other issues. And I think although certainly the there, there's still litigation, there's still disagreement on utility and value of individual wetland systems. I think a tremendous success story from from that decade, and I point to the 90s in particular, is this broad. Appreciation of the functions and values of wetlands. Even the term wetlands was not common parlance in that-
Jeff Berckes (35:08):
Swamps, right?
John Goodin (35:09):
Swamps and marshes and and even other terms that had, you know, far more derogatory implications, but, but I think there's been a real appreciation and growth and understanding of the value of those of those systems. And if you're out there, you know fishing and catching your favorite fish, chances are, those fish rely on wetland systems when they're growing up to a size that you can catch for for their development. And when you're drinking a glass of water and right out of the tap in many parts of the country, wetland areas are the areas that are allowing us to recharge those underground aquifers. So I think that appreciation has really been a great success. And I'll pause there. I'm sure Tom has a few as well.
Tom Stiles (36:05):
Well, when I look at successes, I'd say 90% of the success has occurred through what Congress intended, which was the elimination of pollutants being delivered to waters there, which was the point source programs. That's where we're seeing it, that will attack the acute problems that were the issues of the day back in the 70s. Rivers aflame, Lake Erie dead, fish kills everywhere, raw sewage going into, into our rivers. Those days are over that we really did a great job of handling acute problems and, and we did that with, with permitting. Now we're dealing with chronic problems, more long range and more diffuse sourcing of those pollutants, and it's a much longer slog of trying to ultimately bring about those improvements. I still think there's a role there, but it's time for the non-point, source side of the the equation, to really bring their A game work to start reducing the delivery of those, of those pollutants into, into the waters there. I always frame it from because I'm a hydrologist, I can't frame it in the context of the hydrograph. I'd say the quality of our waters at base flow, at dry weather, has really, really been markedly improved, and that's because of the investments that have been made over the five decades with, with point source and infrastructure and operations. When it rains, all bets are off. And I think that continues to be the the ongoing challenges. How do we improve water quality when conditions are approaching a little wetter, a little more normal, and we still are able to support the uses that are intended for for our waters. Recognizing there's a there's an end limit that if given too much rain, too much wet weather, it doesn't matter what the quality is necessarily, because the the uses basically go offline for the duration of that storm, and trying to find that policy balance of how far do we push it and invest, is going to be an interesting exercise in this next decade to say, where are we going to best invest our monies in terms of improving water quality? Where on the hydrograph should we focus?
Jeff Berckes (38:38):
Okay, those are my questions. Any final thoughts?
Tom Stiles (38:40):
I'll say this. I've been thinking about this a lot. This country was built on the principle of checks and balances, and I believe Clean Water Act is a microcosm of checks and balances between the federalism relationship between states and federal government and EPA, also with the possibility of citizens being able to intervene through citizen suits to basically, when they see things are not going the way that they think they should, they can intercede as well. I think if everyone maintains a rational, big picture outlook that it continue, will continue to score success. If we get dogmatic, start hardening our positions, then all our progress falls by the wayside.
John Goodin (39:36):
And maybe Jeff, I'd I'd add that there are many challenges in the clean water world out there, and the ability to get information now in near instantaneous fashion makes us even more aware of those challenges, regardless of where they're occurring or what they what they constitute, and it's easy to get pessimistic as that kind of accumulates, and we see how challenging the situation is. But, but two things really keep me very positive and very excited about the future. One is to look at where we started, 50 years ago, and the sorts of improvements that have occurred since then. At the time, there were many folks that felt that those improvements were not possible without severely impacting some other element of society. And we found over the years that that was actually not the case. We were able to figure out whether it was through new technologies, through our ability to to turn toward the right decisions and do things that we figured it out. And so I'm very optimistic that those types of characteristics exist for us, even, even today, in issues that seem really difficult. The other thing that keeps me super positive about this, is new folks that either I've hired or seen hired by the states and and federal government. I often joke that I would not want to be competing with them for a job coming out of school, 30 years later, here, it's just amazing to see the talent and the smarts and the good people that are really attracted to this issue and this, this line of work, and you know, just already seeing in the last few years, some of these newer folks that have arrived, younger folks that have arrived, tackling some of the biggest issues that we are dealing with right now. And that's that gives me as well, a lot of confidence for the coming years.
Tom Stiles (41:56):
Yeah, I'll own that as well, that the human factor can't be understated, but whether it's the wastewater treatment operator understanding the nuances of his of his plant, or it's the scientists at the state level trying to glean out, convert data into information that then yields good policy, and then continually pushing out technology and scientific breakthroughs from EPA to bring the bear on the new suite of complex problems there, what I'm, I'm encour- like John, I'm really encouraged, because we have had no shortage of applicants that have come in to fill our vacancies and bring in new talent, as we've seen staffs ebb and flow. And so I'm very encouraged that environmentalism continues to be a career path. The new generation bringing a new set of tools that in terms of technology, and scientific methods, and statistical applications that render my slide rule and Texas Instruments calculator to a display at the Smithsonian.
Jeff Berckes (43:20):
All right, that's episode one. Thank you so much for listening to this first episode of this new series. Episode Two will focus on water quality standards. I have a couple of great guests lined up for that. That is going to be a great episode. If you have any questions about this, or future episodes, please get in touch. You can find us on Twitter at cleanwaterpod, or send me an email at cleanwaterpod@gmail.com. we'd love to hear from you what questions you have and what you'd like to hear on the pod and until next time, Thank you For listening.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!