Waterworks Archive

Kentucky Outlook 2000: A strategy for Kentucky’s third century

By Lyle V.A. Sendlein, director of KWRRI

In May of this year, the results of a three-year activity that evaluated risks to humans and the environment in Kentucky from various human activities were released. The approach used included the establishment of a steering committee, a public advisory committee and a technical committee. More than 130 individuals from the private and public sectors comprised these three committees. Another 50-plus state employees participated in this effort as well.

The environmental issues identified were many, but those singled out by this process as the most important ones to address and their relative environmental risk ranking are:

Rated High Risk

Pollution from sewage
Pollution from agricultural, urban areas and mining
Pollution from toxic air releases
Habitat loss
Lead and children’s health

Rated High to Medium Risk

Pollution from illegal and open dumps
Rated Medium Risk
Pollution to drinking water
Endangered forests and silviculture

Rated Medium to Low Risk

Pollution from Brownfields and    Superfund sites

Along with the environmental risk ranking of activities, strategies to address them were also recommended. It was also recognized that there are other factors (called "Cross Cutting Strategies" in the report) are also important when addressing these environmental risk issues. They include:

• Environmental Education
• Environmental Monitoring and Inventory
• Data Management
• Good Science
• Public Access to Environmentally-Related Information
• Environmental Planning
• Coordination with Other Agency/Organizations

From this report, it would seem that the first priority should be placed on addressing pollution from sewage, toxic air releases, lead, and activities related to agriculture, urban areas and mining. There should also be an effort to reduce the loss of habitats. Every state government has been encouraged by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to complete this process, but only a few states have. This study has value because it brings together the public perception of problems and the perspective of the scientific and technical community. It is clear from the study that while a lot of scientific information is available, it is insufficient in the kind and availability for practical application.

How will the results of this study be used?

It would seem that for this study to have an impact apparent to the public, follow-up actions must be referenced to this study in a document that will have wide distribution,

otherwise this effort will be lost in the daily activities of the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet (NREPC). The NREPC is involved with different aspects of each of these risk issues and progress on any of them would be lost. For example, there are regulatory aspects directed toward preventing and cleaning up pollution from all of the environmental risks identified. While any progress is reported to the Federal government, the public may not realize what progress has been made, and in fact this progress may not easily feed back into the NREPC planning loop. Because of this, the progress of activities on these identified risks should be officially highlighted on a regular basis.

Also, it is very possible, that based on the study results, one could formulate a coordinated plan to secure funds from the EPA and other federal agencies to focus attention on the prevention and clean up of the targeted risk issues. Such a proposal should include funds for all of the "Cross Cutting Strategies." For example, a proposal to the EPA should have an element of environmental education, the ability to conduct environmental monitoring and inventorying, a data management plan coordinated with many agencies that includes an information dissemination plan, support for investigations to support good science, and support for an environmental planning infrastructure.

Currently, EPA is providing Kentucky with funds to address many different aspects of environmental protection and clean up. Many of them addressing, to different degrees, the high priority risk issues identified by the study. These funds are provided to Kentucky under administrative procedures developed by the EPA. Programs such as the Nonpoint Source Pollution Program address educational and some scientific and information issues related to pollution from nonpoint sources. Water Watch is a very successful educational program involving citizens’ participation. Is it possible that a proposal could be developed that would increase the funding level to Kentucky to address these priority issues, while at the same time, continue to address the issues identified by the EPA?

Although strategies have been developed by this study for each of the identified environmental risks, how will all of those who worked on this project know what progress has been made? What will be done differently as a result of this very positive effort?

Last modified: December 1997

Copyright © 1995-1997 Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute, University of Kentucky