Clean Water Advocacy - Newsroom - NACWA in the News
Repairing Treatment Plants, Permit Fees, Combined Sewers Dominate Agenda at EPA
The Environmental Protection Agency this year plans to seek new sources of funding for repairs at wastewater treatment plants, to clarify its position on clean water permit fees, and to issue final policies for water transfers, wastewater treatment during heavy rains, and runoff from livestock farms.
EPA officials told BNA they will continue their outreach efforts
with wastewater and drinking water utilities and state officials to promote
"full cost pricing."
State and wastewater treatment groups plan to redouble their efforts in Congress
to seek reauthorization of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) that the
Bush administration wants to replace with a self-financing fund.
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), the new chairwoman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee on water resources and environment, told BNA that securing passage of the Water Resources Development Act and reauthorization of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund are her two top priorities in 2007.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the new chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, declared at a December news conference that she would work to restore funds to the State Revolving Fund.
Johnson said she intends to push a "pro-environment and pro-infrastructure" agenda because the "environment has taken a backseat" for too long under Republican control. She said she expects to hold oversight hearings on EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers programs on wetlands, water quality, and infrastructure funding.
Also up for reauthorization is the farm bill, which is drawing the attention of the environmental community as well as the wastewater treatment industry. Both groups see the farm bill as a potential source of funds to curb the nonpoint-source pollution that arises from agricultural runoff.
On the legal front, EPA has to decide whether to challenge two federal district court rulings requiring regulation of ballast water as a pollutant under the Clean Water Act. The agency already has filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Johnson said she is likely to consider legislation to curb the transport of invasive species in the ballast water of ships.
EPA is expected in late January to issue a final policy that
outlines when wastewater treatment plants can blend fully treated and partially
treated wastewater during heavy rains. Also expected in January is a decision on
a rule that would allow wastewater treatment works to grant "removal credits" to
industrial users.
Two rules affecting National Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES) permitting
requirements are expected in 2007. The first major NPDES rulemaking, due out in
March, would clarify that transfers of water between two water bodies in
circumstances in which the water is not subjected to industrial, commercial, or
municipal use do not require a permit. The second rule, due out in June, would
require permits for livestock operations only if the operations discharge or
propose to discharge pollutants.
Financing Wastewater Treatment Plants
With the Democrats now in control of Congress, wastewater industry representatives and state water officials are optimistic that funds will be restored to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF), which they say is barely able to fund upgrades to wastewater systems.
The Bush administration's $688 million fiscal 2007 proposal for the State Revolving Fund, if approved by Congress, would mean three years of declining amounts allocated to the program, from a high of $1.35 billion in fiscal 2004 to $1.1 billion in fiscal 2005, and $887 million in the current year.
Benjamin Grumbles, the agency's assistant administrator for
water, told BNA last spring that EPA plans to provide $6.8 billion for the State
Revolving Fund from 2004 through 2011, which would yield enough money to
establish a self-sustaining fund that could provide $3.4 billion annually for
the years 2015 through 2040.
An EPA report in 2002, which agency officials still cite, estimated a $500
billion gap would exist by 2020 between the amount of money water systems need
for repairs and the amount that will be available, if the funding is not
increased.
"I hope they will restore some of the money," Linda Eichmiller, executive director for the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, told BNA. "That's a fundamental issue for us."
Johnson told BNA that she is aware the infrastructure is aging,
revolving funds are needed, and the "longer we wait, the costlier it becomes."
"We are getting into a crisis with clean water and safe drinking water, not only
for purification, but also for sewage removal," Johnson said.
The population in the United States has exceeded 300 million and
is placing pressure on the infrastructure, much of which was built at the turn
of the 20th Century, according to Adam Krantz, managing director for government
and public affairs at the National Association of Clean Water Agencies.
Krantz said the costs to repair and upgrade wastewater treatment and collection
systems is rising because personnel costs, health costs, and the cost of
construction materials have increased. He also cited the huge demands placed on
global steel reserves by China and India.
Alexandra Dunn, general counsel at the National Association of
Clean Water Agencies, said, "We need to look at alternative approaches to treat
wastewater."
Dunn said Indianapolis and Chicago are among cities that have begun using
wetlands as filters for wastewater effluent from treatment plants.
Johnson said she believes the first step to restore money for the State
Revolving Fund is legislation to reauthorize the fund, which has not occurred
since the late eighties.
"I know realistically we have to come up with some sort of a plan," Johnson said.
Johnson said she intends to restore EPA funds and to make EPA, through oversight hearings, account for its plans to phase out the State Revolving Fund and for its inability to find the money to help upgrade water and wastewater facilities.
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee plans to take up legislation to reauthorize the clean water State Revolving Fund to pay for repairs to sewage treatment plants and pipes. Jim Berard, the committee's Democratic spokesman, said forthcoming legislation to reauthorize the State Revolving Fund will be modeled after a bill introduced in 2003, but not enacted. That bill would have authorized $20 billion for the fund over a five-year period. The committee has scheduled a hearing Jan. 19 on this matter.
Uncertainty About EPA's 2007 Budget
Before recessing in December, Congress passed continuing resolutions to keep the
government running until February. Democratic members of Congress have indicated
their intentions to keep the continuing resolutions going until October 2007.
Under the current continuing resolution, federal agencies apart from the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security are funded at the lowest of three appropriation levels--that approved by the House of Representatives or the Senate for fiscal 2007 or the amount approved for fiscal 2006. Defense and Homeland Security appropriations passed Congress earlier in the year.
Eichmiller and Krantz said "nobody knows" what is going to happen to the earmarks in the EPA appropriations bill for wastewater upgrades or to the level of the State Revolving Fund.
"We don't know which level the Democrats will choose to fund in the continuing resolution," Krantz said.
Eichmiller said the news about the continuing resolution will not make life any easier for state regulators grappling with increasing regulatory burdens and decreasing federal funds.
Farm Bill Offers Opportunities for Water Quality
In a white paper issued in August, the National Association of Clean Water
Agencies said the reauthorization process for the 2007 Farm Bill offers "prime"
opportunities to partner with conservation groups, farm groups, state
governments, and environmental organizations to "push funding toward
agricultural programs that benefit the environment, especially water quality."
They pointed out that the previous farm bill had $9.2 billion for conservation programs over a five-year period, wile Congress appropriated $6.5 billion for the State Revolving Fund during the same period.
Stormwater runoff from farmlands is an unregulated source of
contamination in the nation's lakes, streams, and rivers, according to EPA.
The Environmental Working Group said more funds for Department of Agriculture
conservation programs are needed to prod farmers to adopt agricultural practices
that cause less soil erosion and improve water quality in streams, lakes, and
rivers near agricultural lands.
Dunn, of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, said,
"In the last go around, we recognized the significance of the farm bill, but
didn't organize ourselves in time. By that time, the bill was pretty far gone.
This time around, we are really looking at the farm bill as a way to address
nonpoint solutions."
Grumbles said he intends to work with state regulators to develop numeric
criteria for nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorous. Nitrogen, phosphorus,
and sediment runoff from soil erosion, tree removal, and land paving activities
are smothering fish and polluting nearly half of the nation's streams, according
to a statistical survey on the health of streams released by EPA in May 2006.
A final rule is expected this June for permitting requirements for concentrated animal feeding operations that discharge or propose to discharge pollutants. The CAFO rule responds to a February 2005 decision by the Second Circuit, which held that the Clean Water Act only requires EPA or state governments to regulate actual discharges. The Second Circuit rejected arguments that runoff from fields sprayed with wastes from the facilities should be regulated as a point source discharge and subject to NPDES permitting requirements (Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA, 399 F. 3rd 486, 59 ERC 2089 (2d Cir. 2005)).
Trading Water Pollution Credits
State governments and wastewater groups also are looking to EPA and the
Department of Agriculture to issue guidance on water quality trading this year.
That guidance is expected to streamline the process by which wastewater
treatment plants can trade pollution credits with farmers and ranchers.
EPA's water quality trading policy issued in 2003 was designed to find a
cost-effective, market-based solution to reduce sediment, nitrogen, and
phosphorus runoff, which typically comes from nonpoint sources of pollution,
notably agriculture.
Under the agency's trading policy, one source, such as a sewage treatment plant, could meet water quality standards for a particular watershed by purchasing credits generated by another source, such as a farm that has reduced pollution by planting riparian buffers or stabilizing stream banks to guard against nutrient and sediment runoff.
Three years after EPA issued its trading policy, the Department of Agriculture and EPA agree that the absence of a clear definition of terms is preventing the emergence of a full-fledged water quality trading market. A recent memorandum of understanding signed between the two agencies is expected to pave the way for this guidance to emerge.
Lobbying for Clean Water Trust Fund
Meanwhile, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies intends to step up
its efforts to lobby Congress about the benefits of a Clean Water Trust Fund.
During the 109th Congress, the association supported a bill (H.R. 4560)
introduced by then water subcommittee chairman John Duncan (R-Tenn.) that would
have created a $7.5 billion fund over five years through a system of user fees.
This proposal would have provided a combination of loans and grants to help
control sewer overflows, to enhance fisheries and wetlands, to encourage
research, to enhance investment in small and rural utilities, and to protect
critical regional waters, such as the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and the
Gulf of Mexico.
The bill itself would not have raised the $7.5 billion, but would have authorized EPA to propose a system of user fees. H.R. 4560 did not even make it through the subcommittee because it did not include the Davis-Bacon provisions that require workers to be paid prevailing market wages on federally funded projects. Without the Davis-Bacon provisions, Johnson, then the subcommittee ranking member, did not support the bill.
As the incoming chairwoman, Johnson declined to say whether she
will support similar legislation establishing a Clean Water Trust Fund.
"We might need a trust fund, or a revolving fund, or both," Johnson said.
EPA has not taken a position on the Clean Water trust fund
legislation. However, "one of the highest priorities of the Office of Water is
to develop sustainable and market-based solutions for infrastructure financing
and management," Benjamin Grumbles, EPA's assistant administrator for water,
told BNA.
In December, the agency invited utility representatives, local planners, and
state officials to discuss how infrastructure management can be improved from a
"sewershed" or "sourcewatershed" perspective. Elaborating on the sewershed
concept, Grumbles said, the idea is to have utilities share ideas about how they
can collectively improve planning across a watershed rather than limit planning
to their immediate plants.
Grumbles said the series of meetings will culminate in an Atlanta summit organized by EPA in March on "paying for environmental infrastructure," where he expects utility, state, federal, and other stakeholders to come up with solid ideas for innovative financing and sustainability.
Charging Fees to Process NPDES Permits
EPA is under attack from Congress, state regulators, and wastewater utilities
for proposing a rule in December that would reward a state with monetary grants
if it recovers through permit fees at least three-fourths of the money it spends
on operating an NPDES permitting program.
"State water programs are at the breaking point," Eichmiller said. "The decline in resources and increase in requirements is just about stretching them to the limits."
Dunn told BNA that the members of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies are concerned because they have to obtain NPDES permits to discharge treated water into lakes, rivers, and streams.
The White House Office of Management and Budget directed EPA in
its fiscal 2007 budget request to propose a rule that would reward states for
charging fees to process NPDES permits. The House stripped the language from the
EPA-Interior appropriations bill, but the Senate has yet to take up the
appropriations.
To reduce regulatory burdens on states, Eichmiller said EPA would be better off
streamlining existing permitting requirements and reporting requirements for
impaired waters. State regulators now are required to list impaired waters every
two years under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and to reissue NPDES
permits every five years.
"Streamlined reporting would be nice, such as trying to get a 303(d) listing cycle every four years instead of two and being able to deal with permits every 10 years instead of five," Eichmiller said. "Things don't change that much in two years. It's a huge bureaucratic burden for us."
Key Rules, Policies Expected from EPA
Grumbles did not say whether EPA would support New York City's petition seeking a Supreme Court review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit judgment that water transfers are subject to NPDES permitting program under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. (City of New York v. Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, U.S., 11/20/06).
Complicating the final issuance of this rule is a recent federal district ruling in Florida that declared pumping of polluted water into Lake Okeechobee was subject to NPDES permits.
Also in late December 2005, EPA proposed a "peak water flows" policy that would require wastewater treatment plants to seek regulatory permission before blending untreated and treated wastewater during heavy rains. The agency was scheduled to issue a final policy in late October, but the policy is still undergoing an "interagency review."
Grumbles declined to provide a specific timeline for issuing the policy.
"I am more focused on making sure we work through the final
details and coordinate with the stakeholders rather than trying to provide a
date," Grumbles said.
He emphasized that the policy is "tremendously important" because it goes to the
heart of EPA's green infrastructure policy that is aimed at reducing sewer
overflows and peak flows of untreated wastewater during heavy rains.
Grumbles said EPA will continue to encourage green infrastructure, such as rain gardens with plants designed to absorb excess stormwater, cisterns, and other devices to reduce stormwater flows.
However, Katherine Baer, director of the healthy waters campaign for American Rivers, cautioned against efforts by the home building industry to weaken stormwater regulations through legislation. She pointed to H.R. 5558, legislation introduced in June 2006 by Duncan that would exempt residential home builders from permitting requirements to discharge stormwater from construction sites into a city or town sanitary sewer system if that system already has an NPDES permit.
"We need to strengthen fundamental controls on stormwater flows, not weaken them," Baer said.
She said she hopes Congress, in reauthorizing the State Revolving Fund, will allocate more funds for research and development into stormwater controls and decentralized wastewater systems that are more energy efficient than conventional treatment plants.