Clean Water Advocacy - Newsroom - NACWA in the News
Stupak Will Lead Bipartisan Attack on EPA Wastewater Language
Tasha Eichenseher and Darren Samuelsohn, E&E Daily reporters
As the House Appropriations Committee heads into today's markup of the U.S. EPA's fiscal year 2006 spending measure, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) yesterday confirmed he intends to introduce an amendment that would prevent EPA from issuing new guidance on a controversial method for treating sewage during storm events.
Stupak said he and Rep. Clay Shaw (R-Fla.) plan to offer the amendment next
week when the full House takes up the spending bill for EPA, which also funds
the Interior Department and U.S. Forest Service.
Wastewater management is expected to be a primary focus of the markup and full
floor debate, as the new House Interior and Environment Appropriations
Subcommittee last week approved a $240 million cut to the EPA's Clean Water
State Revolving Loan Fund. The CWSRF provides seed money for local wastewater
infrastructure upgrades and repairs.
Cuts to the fund were the sharpest in EPA's budget under the House plan, with
the wastewater program shrinking from just over $1 billion last year down to
$850 million.
The federal government has estimated a funding gap of more than $300 billion
over the next 20 years to bring aging wastewater infrastructure up to date and
help communities and facility managers comply with water quality standards.
Others have estimated that number as high as $1 trillion over the next 20 years.
With funding so tight this budget cycle, in part because of a restructuring of
the appropriations process which now pits EPA against Interior and the Forest
Service for limited dollars, some Hill Democrats have indicated that Stupak's
amendment is a means of drawing attention to the wastewater infrastructure issue
without forcing a tedious debate over money.
On the other hand, aides to key Hill Democrats last week said they may have
success increasing the popular loan program for wastewater treatment plant
infrastructure if they can find offsets in the same spending bill that do not
adversely affect other programs.
The blending debate
Stupak's amendment would link infrastructure funding shortages to a
controversial method of wastewater management called blending or bypass -- a
process in which facility operators skip a secondary treatment step and mix
untreated and treated wastewater to manage flows during peak storm events.
The need for blending is the result of outdated infrastructure that is either no
longer extensive enough to serve a growing population or is suffering from
corrosion and leaks. Both problems can result in a lack of capacity to store and
treat wastewater when sewer systems are flooded by rain.
During a Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee hearing last month on
sewage blending, local government officials said they have allowed the practice
for years and argued it can be an effective and safe way of dealing with
wastewater.
In November 2003, EPA proposed a blending policy that codified blending
treatment under certain conditions as long as discharges met all Clean Water Act
standards. The public comment period for the proposed policy ended in February
2004. According to EPA, the agency is in the process of analyzing the more than
98,000 comments it received. The proposed policy says that blending is allowed
under certain conditions as long as all end-of-pipe discharges meet Clean Water
Act standards.
But environmentalists and bipartisan coalitions of senators and representatives
have said the practice of sewage blending is a violation of the CWA and
endangers public health and the environment by releasing raw sewage and its
associated bacteria.
Eliminating secondary treatment results in water "filled with viruses, parasites
and nutrients," said Nancy Stoner, an attorney with the Natural Resources
Defense Council.
"We think that practice should be discouraged and only allowed when there is no
feasible alternative," Stoner said.
EPA is trying to define blending as something else so that it will not be under
the jurisdiction of the "bypass" rule, Stoner added, arguing that according to
EPA's figures, under current wastewater management practices, there will be as
much sewage in the nation's waterways by 2025 as there was in 1968 before
passage of Clean Water Act.
The industry has said that without blending, facilities nationwide would have to
pay up to $200 billion for upgrades that are not necessary.
Ken Kirk, executive director of the National Association of Clean Water
Agencies, formerly the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, contends
that overflows during storm events are hard to address by expanding facility
capacity and that eliminating blending will result in more sewage discharges,
not less.
"It's a long-standing practice that has been supported by the EPA and is
necessary during peak weather events," he said. "There is a critical
infrastructure crisis before us and, if anything, blending highlights the need
to focus our attention on wet weather [issues]."
EPA said it proposed guidance on the matter "in response to confusion over Clean
Water Act requirements for blended wet weather discharges from sewage treatment
plants." A decision by EPA's office in Philadelphia to bar blending prompted
Pennsylvania wastewater treatment plants to sue the agency. Although the federal
district court overseeing Pennsylvania largely upheld the practice of blending
in a decision last year, the plaintiffs have appealed it to the U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Oral arguments are expected this
month (E&E Daily, April 11).
At the heart of the issue for many is a lack of information on and standards for
pathogens, including cryptosporidium and giardia, in the nation's waterways.
Joan Rose, a professor in public health at Michigan State University, testified
before a Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee that more studies are
needed to link wastewater effluent from blending to human health.
NRDC's Stoner contends that part of the problem is that blended effluent may
meet existing water quality standards, but those standards do not cover the
pathogens found in wastewater. Both have described blending as a risk to human
health (E&E Daily, April 14, 2005).
Stupak's solution
Stupak said he plans to offer H.R. 1126, which he introduced in March, as an
amendment to the spending bill.
The "Save Our Waters From Sewage Act" would block EPA from implementing their
proposal to allow blending by amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
to prohibit a wastewater facility from diverting flows from the treatment
facility with the exception of unavoidable situations or when the facility warns
the public of the bypass.
A Stupak spokesperson said the amendment would block spending for EPA's proposed
guidance, a common strategy used to halt policy changes.
"This is an important issue, especially in the Great Lakes, where there are 400
cities dumping 400 billion gallons of sewage a year," Stupak said, adding that
releases destroy aquaculture, the environment and tourism.
With nearly 90 bipartisan cosponsors at this point and a chance to testify on
the issue in front of Transportation and Infrastructure Water Resources and
Environment Subcommittee Chairman John Duncan (R-Tenn.), Stupak said he is
encouraged and expects at least one more hearing.
In February, the congressman joined 134 other members of the House of
Representatives in sending a letter to acting EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson
in opposition of blending.
"The proposed guidance is inconsistent with sewage treatment standards," the
members wrote. "It would undo many of the public health and environmental gains
achieved over the last 30 years under the Clean Water Act."
Twenty-five Republicans signed the letter. Last December, Senate Democrats and
independent Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont wrote a similar letter to EPA. Stupak
said the agency did not address the concerns raised in the letter, saying they
were still reviewing the policy (E&E Daily, Feb. 23).
Democrats have said the overall House GOP budget is the cause for the wastewater
shortfall. The wastewater loan fund, they note, has been reduced almost $500
million over the last two fiscal years by tightfisted Republican budget writers
(E&E Daily, May 5).
Today, the Appropriations Committee is considering a $26.2 billion spending bill
that includes $7.71 billion for EPA. The EPA budget was a cut from its $8.02
billion funding level for FY '05, but House Republican leaders were also quick
to note that their bill is $187 million above President Bush's proposal of $7.52
billion (E&E Daily, May 9).