{"id":30177,"date":"2025-03-31T16:56:51","date_gmt":"2025-03-31T20:56:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ncseagrant.ncsu.edu\/coastwatch\/?p=30177"},"modified":"2026-06-29T14:35:38","modified_gmt":"2026-06-29T18:35:38","slug":"spring-2025-safeguarding-water","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ncseagrant.ncsu.edu\/coastwatch\/spring-2025-safeguarding-water\/","title":{"rendered":"Safeguarding Water"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

A new approach to watershed health protects the Falls Lake drinking water supply for 500,000 North Carolina residents.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n

\n \n
\n \n FROM THE SPRING 2025 ISSUE<\/span>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/svg><\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n\n <\/div>\n\n\n\n

On a Sunday morning in June 1969, in Cleveland, Ohio, the Cuyahoga River was burning \u2014 again. It wasn\u2019t the first, second, or even third time this had happened for the heavily industrialized waterway, which snakes and weaves through northern Ohio before pouring into Lake Erie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was at least the dozenth fire on the Cuyahoga.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today, the river has become a familiar anecdote when discussing the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the passage of 1972\u2019s Clean Water Act (CWA). The fires\u2019 role in creating these agencies is more complicated than simple cause and effect, but the river nevertheless became both a symbol of industrial pollution and a common rallying call to action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Cuyuhoga<\/a>
Firefighters spray water on a 1952 fire that began in an oil slick on the Cuyahoga River.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Over 50 years old now, the CWA established a framework for controlling the release of pollutants into the nation\u2019s waters from a \u201cpoint source\u201d \u2014 \u201cany single identifiable source of pollution,\u201d according to the EPA, such as a factory or wastewater facility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Non-point source pollutants<\/a> are more diffuse and difficult to trace, such as runoff from development, agricultural areas, and roads, as well as from unmanaged regions, such as forests. Both point-source and non-point source pollution can lead to an excess of nutrients, notably nitrogen and phosphorus, in waterways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While nutrients are naturally occurring and necessary, high quantities can be problematic, causing an overgrowth of algae and increased algal toxins, as well as unsafe waters for consumption or recreation, leading to closures and advisories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Sackett v. EPA decision in 2023 reduced the CWA\u2019s jurisdiction over wetlands nationwide. However, even terrain under its safeguard may not be protected enough from pollutants from unmanaged lands. Researchers from the University of Georgia concluded that CWA policies do not reduce nutrient pollution sufficiently to meet the water quality goals the CWA outlines<\/a>. The study notes up to 58% of stream and river miles in the U.S. are in poor condition due to excess phosphorus and 43% due to excess nitrogen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Map<\/a>
Falls Lake provides drinking water for over one-half million North Carolinians, processing 41 million gallons per day.<\/em> Credit: NCDENR.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In addition, according to the EPA, many states report non-point source pollution as a leading concern for water quality problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But how do we control pollutants from non-point sources and unmanaged lands?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The recent efforts of the Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA)<\/a> to update the Falls Lake watershed regulations have revealed some innovative solutions. The UNRBA offers a new framework for addressing challenging state and federal regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Falls Lake: A Case Study<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

 In 1965, Congress authorized the construction of the Falls Lake Reservoir project as part of the Flood Control Act to mitigate flooding from the Neuse River. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed and filled Falls Lake Reservoir in the late 1970s and early 1980s by blockading the river at a natural fall line.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Sunset<\/a>
Over 70% of the Falls Lake watershed consists of unmanaged land, including forests, wetlands, and undeveloped areas, and much of the nutrient load in the lake originates from these areas. Credit: MadeYourReadThis\/CC-SA-4.0 Int.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Once they completed the dam in 1981, the resulting \u201cFalls Lake\u201d \u2014 named after the \u201cFalls of the Neuse,\u201d where the dam was constructed \u2014 was congressionally authorized to act as flood control for downstream communities, as well as a drinking water supply, recreational area, and habitat for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today, Falls Lake serves as the source of drinking water for over 500,000 North Carolinians, processing 41 million gallons per day. Falls Lake receives water from the Upper Neuse River watershed, a 770-squaremile region across Orange, Person, Durham, Granville, Wake, and Franklin counties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe watershed provides the majority of Raleigh\u2019s drinking water supply,\u201d says Jane Harrison, North Carolina Sea Grant\u2019s economics specialist and a UNRBA board member. \u201cWe\u2019re very much invested in how we balance development with environmental needs and ensure that we have a clean and ample drinking water supply into the future.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, Harrison says, managing the watershed\u2019s health is complicated. Because a riverine environment was converted to a lake, water that once moved quickly through the area remains there longer. As a result, the water has more time to accumulate phosphorus and nitrogen, contributing to \u201ceutrophication\u201d \u2014 when nutrient levels are excessive \u2014 as well as high levels of chlorophyll-a (an indicator of algal growth).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Barbara<\/a>
North Carolina Sea Grant’s Barbara Doll. Credit: Julie Leibach.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n