- FDA has partnered with Purdue University and Indiana produce industry stakeholders to launch an environmental microbiology study to better understand the ecology of human pathogens, focusing on assessing risks related to Salmonella in the environment. The study is intended to develop a better understanding of the source of pathogens, their persistence, and how they transfer through the growing environment to ultimately help inform food safety practices.
- The study is in response to outbreaks of Salmonella linked to cantaloupe grown in the Southwest Indiana agricultural region where a specific source or route of contamination was not found. The identification of other Salmonella varieties that were genetically similar to other isolates collected in the region over the last decade suggests that Salmonella is a reoccurring issue and that multiple reservoirs for Salmonella spp. may exist. According to FDA, “[t]he outbreak investigations have shown that there are complex environmental survival, proliferation, and dispersal mechanisms of pathogens in this region that need to be better understood.”
- Researchers will sample air, soil, water, and animal scat, as well as collect weather data, to better understand what environmental conditions may encourage the survival, growth, and spread of pathogens. The study will occur at a farm in central Indiana, four Purdue-operated farms in northwest Indiana, and the Southwest Purdue Ag Center.
- Indiana ranks sixth in U.S. cantaloupe production, according to USDA data from 2018 when Indiana growers planted 1,800 acres of cantaloupe worth $8.6 million. Growers “want to participate in this study because of their commitment to do everything they can to keep their produce as safe as possible.”
Tag: water
The EPA and Army Corps’ “Waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) Rule to Become Effective on March 20
In January of 2023, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) published in the Federal Register (see Federal Register/Vol. 88, No. 11, January 18, 2023) new rules that define which water bodies are classified under the Clean Water Act (CWA) as “waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS). While this may not appear to be significant, the adoption of these rules will have major implications for how federal agencies will identify the types of water bodies that are subject to jurisdiction under the CWA. The January 18th Federal Register publication provides that these new rules will become effective on March 20, 2023.
The CWA is the law that provides federal agencies the authority to prohibit or limit various activities that can impact WOTUS, such as the regulation of industrial and municipal wastewater discharges to navigable waters, the dredging or filling of wetlands, and the requirement to prepare “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans” (SWPPP) for industrial facilities. It also is the basis for much State law water regulation.
Applicability of the CWA
To be classified as a WOTUS, a water body must be considered to be “navigable,” but this term is more arcane than it might at first appear. Navigable waters as defined by the CWA includes, “waters of the United States,” and has been further defined by regulation to include those waters that “are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.” This approach to navigability has led some states to adopt a “saw log test” as to whether the body of water could float a saw log for commercial purposes. In other states, such as Wisconsin, the test for navigability is whether the body of water can on a recurring basis – even if intermittent – support navigation by the smallest recreational craft, such as a canoe or kayak. Therefore, navigable waters not only can include larger lakes, rivers and streams, but can also include less obvious smaller water types such as wetlands adjacent to navigable waters, and even in some instances, ditches that hold water. While the CWA provides federal jurisdiction over WOTUS, the CWA does not actually define the term WOTUS; rather, it provides authority for EPA and the USACE to define WOTUS in regulations, which since the 1970s, the agencies at various times have done.
The Rapanos Decision and Competing Rationales
Further, the definition of what constitutes WOTUS has been reviewed in several U.S. Supreme Court cases, but the most significant case on this subject is the 2006 case of Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), in which the Supreme Court interpreted the definition of WOTUS using two separate tests. In a four-justice plurality opinion written by Justice Scalia, WOTUS was defined as “only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water forming geographic features that are described in ordinary parlance as streams[,] … oceans, rivers, [and] lakes,” and “wetlands with a continuous surface connection” to a “relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters.” However, Justice Kennedy applied a different approach in a concurring opinion and stated that WOTUS must possess a “significant nexus” to waters that are or were navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made.” He added that adjacent wetlands could possess a significant nexus if the wetlands “either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as ‘navigable.'”
Regulatory Attempts to Define WOTUS Following Rapanos
Following Rapanos, the agencies have at various times developed guidance for implementing the WOTUS definition. For example, in 2015, under the Obama administration, the agencies amended their regulations defining WOTUS as part of the “Clean Water Rule, which expanded the definition of which water bodies were defined as WOTUS, and included the use of the “significant nexus” test. Again, in 2020, under the Trump administration, another rule was adopted, known as the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule” (NWPR), which limited the types of water bodies that were considered WOTUS under the previous 2015 Clean Water Rule. However, in 2021, in Pasqua Yaqui Tribe v. EPA, (Case No. 4:20-cv-00266), the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona vacated implementation of the NWPR nationwide. The new rules published in the January 2023 Federal Register represents the Biden administration’s effort to rewrite the WOTUS rules following the vacation of the NWPR, allowing the agencies the ability to use both Justice Scalia’s “relatively permanent” test or Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test in determining whether they have jurisdiction over water bodies.
WOTUS under the New Rule
Use of the “relatively permanent” test or the “significant nexus” test is apparent in the new rule’s definition of WOTUS. The 2023 rules identify the following waters as WOTUS:
- Traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, and interstate waters;
- Impoundments of waters otherwise identified as WOTUS;
- Tributaries of navigable waters, territorial seas, interstate waters, or impoundments if the tributaries meet the relatively permanent test or the significant nexus test;
- “Adjacent wetlands,” which includes wetlands adjacent to navigable waters, wetlands adjacent to and with a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent impoundments, wetlands adjacent to tributaries that are relatively permanent, and wetlands adjacent to impoundments or tributaries which meet the significant nexus test; and
- Intrastate lakes and ponds, streams, or wetlands not listed above which meet the relatively permanent test or the significant nexus test.
The 2023 rules specifically exclude the following from the WOTUS definition, though some activities may still be subject to Wisconsin rules:
- Prior converted cropland;
- Waste treatment systems;
- Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land, and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water;
- Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased.
- Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land, that are used exclusively for stock watering, irrigation, settling basins or rice growing;
- Artificial reflecting pools or swimming pools, and other small ornamental water bodies created by excavating or diking;
- Waterfilled depressions in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for obtaining fill, sand or gravel unless the construction is abandoned and the water body meets the definition of WOTUS; and
- Swales and erosional features that are characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow.
Where is this Going?
While these new WOTUS rules become effective on March 20, 2023, the future of these new rules is in question as the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing a case (Sackett v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 896 (2022)) in which the legal sufficiency of the “significant nexus” test, in the context of wetland permitting, is under review. The Court’s opinion is expected to be issued after the 2023 rules becomes effective. Therefore, depending on the Court’s opinion related to the “significant nexus” test, it is possible that the 2023 rules may need to be revised. Further, in early March, a federal Congressional Committee (the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee) approved a joint resolution to overturn the 2023 rules. In addition, several industry groups have filed suits to overturn the 2023 rules. These definitions have always been politically and scientifically contentious and we expect that to continue.
Due to the potential flux in which this new rule may ultimately be applied and considered, it will be increasingly important for the regulated public to keep abreast of which water bodies are ultimately determined to be classified as WOTUS, either by the agencies through regulation or guidance, by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sackett, and/or other legal or Congressional challenges. We will be tracking the implementation of this new rule by the agencies and related caselaw developments and Congressional challenges and will provide timely future Legal Updates. In the meantime, the extent of regulations of WOTUS – particularly wetlands – will continue to be very challenging.
©2023 von Briesen & Roper, s.c
EPA agreement with Kennedy Center protects water quality of Potomac River, Chesapeake Bay
PHILADELPHIA – The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. has settled alleged Clean Water Act violations at its facility in Washington, D.C., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today.
The Kennedy Center, located at 2700 F St NW, has a Clean Water Act permit regulating its discharges of condenser cooling water from the facility’s air conditioning system into the Potomac River, which is part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
This settlement addresses alleged violations of temperature and pH discharge permit limits required under the Kennedy Center’s Clean Water Act permit. EPA also cited the Kennedy Center for failing to timely submit monitoring reports and failing to submit pH influent data. Additionally, the agreement addresses alleged violations identified by the District of Columbia’s Department of Energy and Environment during a prior inspection of the facility.
As part of the settlement, the Kennedy Center is required to submit a compliance implementation plan. The Kennedy Center has certified that it is now in compliance with permit requirements.
This agreement is part of EPA’s National Compliance Initiative: Reducing Significant Non-Compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits. For more information about the Clean Water Act permit program, visit www.epa.gov/npdes.
Read this article in its original. form here.
© Copyright 2021 United States Environmental Protection Agency
Article by the EPA
Read more about the Clean Water Act in the NLR section Energy, Climate, and Environmental Law News.
EPA Issues New Emergency Response Requirements for Community Water Systems
On March 27, 2019, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Federal Register Notice for New Risk Assessments and Emergency Response Plans for Community Water Systems describing the requirements and deadlines for community (drinking) water systems to develop or update risk and resilience assessments (RRAs) and emergency response plans (ERPs) under America’s Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) which was signed into law on October 23, 2018 and amends the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Additionally, as described below, preparation of an ERP will enable owners or operators of community water systems to apply for grants from EPA for fiscal years 2020 and 2021.
Covered water systems. Community water systems that serve more than 3,300 people are covered by these requirements. EPA interprets the population served to mean all persons served by the system directly or indirectly, including the population served by consecutive water systems, such as wholesalers.
Deadlines. Each covered Community Water System completing an RRA and ERP must send certifications of completion by the dates listed below, and then review for necessary updates every 5 years thereafter:
|
Population Served by the Community Water System |
Risk and Resilience Assessment (RRA) Certification |
Emergency Response Plan (ERP) The dates below are 6 months from the date of the RRA certification, based on a utility submitting a risk assessment on the final due date. Depending on actual RRA certification, ERP due dates could be sooner. |
|
≥100,000 |
March 31, 2020 |
September 30, 2020 |
|
50,000-99,999 |
December 31, 2020 |
June 30, 2021 |
|
3,301-49,999 |
June 30, 2021 |
December 30, 2021 |
Risk and Resilience Assessment Requirements. Each covered community water system must assess the risks to, and resilience of, its system including:
- risk to the system from malevolent acts and natural hazards
- resilience of the pipes and constructed conveyances, physical barriers, source water, water collection and intake, pretreatment, treatment, storage and distribution facilities;
- electronic, computer, or other automated systems (including the security of such systems) which are utilized by the system;
- monitoring practices of the system;
- financial infrastructure of the system;
- use, storage, or handling of various chemicals by the system; and
- operation and maintenance of the system.
Emergency Response Plan Requirements (ERP). No later than six months after certifying completion of its risk and resilience assessment, each system must prepare or revise, where necessary, an emergency response plan that incorporates the findings of the assessment. The ERP must include:
- strategies and resources to improve the resilience of the system, including the physical security and cybersecurity of the system;
- plans and procedures that can be implemented, and identification of equipment that can be utilized, in the event of a malevolent act or natural hazard that threatens the ability of the community water system to deliver safe drinking water;
- actions, procedures, and equipment which can obviate or significantly lessen the impact of a malevolent act or natural hazard on the public health, safety, and supply of drinking water provided to communities and individuals, including the development of alternative source water options, relocation of water intakes, and construction of flood protection barriers; and
- strategies that can be used to aid in the detection of malevolent acts or natural hazards that threaten the security or resilience of the system.
The Federal Register Notice indicates that EPA is not requiring water systems to use any designated standards or methods to complete RRAs or ERPs, provided all of the requirements of the SDWA and AWIA are met. AWIA already defines resilience and natural hazards. EPA will provide additional tools to foster compliance with its provisions and baseline information regarding malevolent acts no later than August 1, 2019. With respect to the latter, it is anticipated that the agency will include consideration of acts that may (1) substantially disrupt the ability of the system to provide a safe and reliable supply of drinking water; or (2) otherwise present significant public health or economic concerns to the community served by the system.
Potential Impacts & Next Steps. Preparation of an ERP will enable the owners or operators of community water systems to apply for grants under the Drinking Water Infrastructure Risk and Resilience Program, under which EPA may award grants in fiscal years 2020 and 2021. If consistent with its ERP, a community water system may apply for grant funding for projects that increase resilience, such as:
- Purchase and installation of equipment for detection of drinking water contaminants or malevolent acts;
- Purchase and installation of fencing, gating, lighting, or security cameras;
- Tamper-proofing of manhole covers, fire hydrants, and valve boxes;
- Purchase and installation of improved treatment technologies and equipment to improve the resilience of the system;
- Improvements to electronic, computer, financial, or other automated systems and remote systems;
- Participation in training programs, and the purchase of training manuals and guidance materials relating to security and resilience;
- Improvements in the use, storage, or handling of chemicals by the community water system;
- Security screening of employees or contractor support services;
- Equipment necessary to support emergency power or water supply, including standby and mobile sources; and
- Development of alternative source water options, relocation of water intakes, and construction of flood protection barriers.
The EPA is currently developing a comprehensive training schedule, which will include both classroom and webinar options.
© 2019 Van Ness Feldman LLP.
This post was written by Terese (T.C.) Richmond and Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming of Van Ness Feldman LLP.
Read more water infrastructure news on our environmental type of law page.
Congress Enacts Legislation to Promote New Hydropower Development
On October 23, 2018, President Trump signed into law the America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA), S. 3021, a comprehensive water resources bill that includes provisions specifically targeted to promote new hydropower development. The AWIA includes a package of hydropower bills that were previously approved by the U.S. House or Senate. These include bills to promote new hydropower development at non-powered dams, new closed-loop pumped storage hydropower, new hydropower at qualifying conduit facilities, as well as longer preliminary permit terms and start of construction deadlines for new projects. The legislation also provides incentives for redevelopment and modernization at existing projects during the license term.
BACKGROUND
Each individual bill that comprises the AWIA has been pending before Congress in one form or another for several years. Certain of these provisions were included in the comprehensive energy bill that failed to pass at the end of 2016. Since then, the bills have each been individually reintroduced before Congress and followed individual tracks. They were only recently combined into the AWIA bill. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent on September 4, 2018. It passed the House by a vote of 99-1 on October 10, 2018, with Congressman Mike Lee of Utah as the sole dissenting vote.
THE AWIA
The AWIA is composed of five major categories of hydropower reform: (1) extending preliminary permit terms and start of construction deadlines for new construction projects; (2) promoting new, small conduit hydropower facilities; (3) promoting hydropower development at existing nonpowered dams; (4) promoting development of closed-loop pumped storage projects; and (5) incentivizing investments and modernization projects at existing hydropower facilities.
First, the AWIA amends the Federal Power Act (FPA) to authorize the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to issue preliminary permits for up to four years, instead of the previous three-year limit. The legislation also authorizes FERC to extend a preliminary permit once for no more than four years, as opposed to the previous two years. This increases the total possible preliminary permit term from the current limit of five years to a possible eight years. The AWIA also codifies FERC’s current practice of issuing a new preliminary permit after the expiration of a permit under extraordinary circumstances. With regard to newly licensed projects, the AWIA authorizes FERC to extend the time a licensee has to commence construction under a license for up to eight years beyond the two years allotted under the license. Prior to enactment of the AWIA, FERC could extend the license once for no more than two years. This increases the total possible time to commence construction of a newly licensed project from four years to 10. These changes should facilitate developers’ ability to take projects from feasibility investigation to project completion without the recurring fear of expiring permits and frequent need for special legislation to extend license construction deadlines.
The AWIA also amends FERC’s current policy on the collection of annual charges for new projects. Under current regulations, private licensees of unconstructed projects must begin paying annual charges on the date by which they are required to commence construction, or if that deadline is extended, no later than four years after the issuance date of the license (i.e., no later than four years after license issuance). The legislation changes this policy to provide that annual charges for unconstructed projects commence at the later of (1) the date by which the licensee is required to commence construction, or (2) the date of any extension of the construction commencement deadline. Because FERC is now authorized under the AWIA to extend the commence construction deadline for up to eight years, this provision of the legislation delays the start of annual charges up to 10 years after license issuance. These provisions of the AWIA do not distinguish between private licensees and state and municipal licensees, who under current regulations are not required to start paying annual charges until the commencement of project operations. However, the language appears to permit commencement of annual charges at a later date, allowing FERC to preserve its current regulations on the timing of annual charges paid by state and municipal licensees.
Second, the AWIA directs FERC to issue a rule establishing an expedited process for licensing non-federal hydropower projects at certain existing nonpowered dams. In establishing this expedited process, the legislation requires FERC to convene an interagency task force with appropriate federal and state agencies and Indian tribes to establish licensing procedures that, to the extent practicable, ensure that such projects will not result in any material change to the storage, release, or flow operations of the nonpowered dam. This appears aimed at ensuring, if possible, that federal licensing will not result in impairment of dams for their existing nonpower purposes such as irrigation and water supply. Qualifying projects must not have been previously authorized for hydropower and must use for generation the withdrawals, diversions, releases, or flows from an existing dam, dike, embankment, or other barrier that is or was operated for the control, release, or distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, navigational, industrial, commercial, environmental, recreational, aesthetic, drinking water, or flood control purposes. Qualifying projects also must not propose to materially change the operations of the nonpowered dam. The expedited licensing process would result in an order not later than two years after receipt of a completed license application. The AWIA also directs FERC and the Secretaries of the Army, the Interior, and Agriculture, within 12 months, to develop a list of existing nonpowered federal dams with the greatest potential for non-federal hydropower development. The Secretary must provide the list to Congress and make it available to the public.
Third, the AWIA directs FERC to issue a rule establishing an expedited process for licensing closed-loop pumped storage projects. Like the provisions for expedited licensing of projects at existing nonpowered dams, the legislation requires FERC to convene an interagency task force to coordinate the regulatory authorizations required to construct and operate closed-loop pumped storage projects. Although leaving to FERC to develop a definition for “closed-loop pumped storage,” qualifying pumped storage projects must cause little to no change to existing surface and groundwater flows and uses and be unlikely to adversely affect species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. This would appear to narrow the class of qualifying projects considerably. An expedited licensing process would result in an order not later than two years after receipt of a completed license application. The AWIA also directs FERC to hold a workshop to explore potential opportunities for development of closed-loop pumped storage projects at abandoned mine sites and provide guidance to assist applicants for such projects.
Fourth, the AWIA amends the FPA with respect to the criteria and process to qualify as a qualifying conduit hydropower facility. Under the 2013 Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act, certain hydropower facilities located on non-federally owned conduits with installed capacity of up to 5 megawatts (MW) are not required to be licensed or exempted by FERC. The AWIA increases the size limitation to 40 MW for such facilities. It also reduces the time for FERC to make a qualifying conduit determination decision from 45 to 30 days after an entity files a notice of intent to construct such a facility.
Fifth, the AWIA directs FERC, when determining the term of a new license for an existing project, to give equal weight to project-related investments by the licensee under the existing license, including rehabilitation or replacement of major equipment, and investments proposed under the new license. This is a modification to FERC’s license term policy issued in 2017, which exempts all “maintenance measures” from consideration toward a new license term. The AWIA allows a licensee to seek a determination from FERC, within 60 days, on whether any planned, ongoing, or completed investment would be considered by FERC in determining a new license term.
IMPLICATIONS
The hydropower provisions included in the AWIA bill are a meaningful first step in modernizing the hydropower licensing process. They are intended to generate renewed interest in new hydropower by allowing licensees more time and certainty to secure required approvals and financing for new projects, which was a challenging feat under current deadlines. While the majority of the provisions in the AWIA are intended to promote new hydropower development, Congress also sought to promote major modernization and rehabilitation projects at existing hydropower projects by ensuring that the investments in such projects are rewarded in the term of a new license.
The AWIA does not include a number of other hydropower relicensing reforms that were included in the bipartisan Senate energy bill in 2016. These include provisions: (1) designating FERC as lead agency for coordinating federal authorizations from all agencies needed to develop a project; (2) authorizing FERC to refer agency disputes to the Council on Environmental Quality; (3) requiring resource agencies to give equal consideration to developmental and non-developmental values when imposing mandatory conditions or prescriptions; and (4) expanding the definition of renewable energy for federal programs to include all forms of hydropower. Unless these reforms are passed in the lame duck session, they must be reconsidered in the new 116th Congress beginning in 2019.
© 2018 Van Ness Feldman LLP
The ‘Commoditization’ of Water in The West
The treatment of water as a commodity, rather than a utility service, is gaining momentum in the western U.S. A recent Pro Publica/The Atlantic (February 9, 2016) article addresses the acquisition of water by hedge fund investors as commodity investments, instead of water service.
A New York City hedge fund manager, Disque Dean Jr., has identified numerous financially distressed agricultural properties with valuable water rights. Mr. Dean has acquired a number of these properties through his Water Asset Management fund, with an eye toward bringing a market based approach to water allocation.
Historically, access to water in the West has been allocated on the principle of “prior appropriation”-a concept of “first in time, first in right” to the water. While numerous limitations on the use (“beneficial use” is required to retain water rights) and its transfer, Mr. Dean asserts that allowing the purchase and sale of water on a market basis is one solution to the issue of the growing scarcity of water west of the Mississippi.
The experience of Crowley County, Colorado however, is offered as a cautionary tale on the treatment of water as a commodity. One of Colorado’s most fertile agricultural areas has dried up in the face of the sale of water to metropolitan water districts located far from the area where the water rights were originally held. Farmers and ranchers in the area seized the opportunity to cash out on their valuable water holdings, leaving much of the county’s former farm land high and dry. While other western states have dealt with the water as commodity issue more successfully (California’s Palo Verde Valley is offered as a success story) the creation of “water markets” and their ultimate impact in the West, is still up for grabs.
©2016 All Rights Reserved. Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP
Phosphorus in Wisconsin: The Clean Waters, Healthy Economy Act
On April 23, 2014, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed the Clean Waters, Healthy Economy Act (Act) into law. This legislation establishes the basis for creating a multi-discharger variance for point sources struggling to meet Wisconsin’s stringent numeric phosphorus water quality criteria. Although several conditions must be met before it is available to permit holders, this legislation could have significant impacts on Wisconsin agribusinesses that hold Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permits, as well as agricultural produces that may be targeted for non-point source reductions of phosphorus. In addition, since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has noted that it generally favors these multi-discharger permit approaches, Wisconsin’s approach may be replicated in other areas of the country that are considering stricter water quality standards for nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen.
What does the Act do?
Very simply, the Act sets in motion the collection of economic information to justify a multi-discharger variance based on a finding of adverse widespread social and economic impact. The Act requires the Department of Administration (DOA) to look at costs of compliance for categories of point source dischargers statewide. If the DOA finds that the “cost of compliance with water quality based effluent limitations for phosphorus by point sources that cannot achieve compliance without major facility upgrades” would cause substantial adverse social and economic impacts on a statewide basis, then the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will seek approval from the EPA for a variance under 40 CFR Part 131. The Act also defines the criteria for qualifying for the variance and what a point source must do if it opts into the variance.
How would this multi-discharger variance work for permit holders?
Agribusinesses that hold WPDES permits may be eligible for the variance. To qualify, permit holders will need to:
1) Demonstrate the economic determination made by the DOA applies to the source;
2) Certify the permittee cannot achieve compliance without a major facility upgrade (defined to mean the addition of both new treatment equipment and a new treatment process); and
3) Agree to comply with the requirements of the variance.
Once DNR has confirmed these requirements have been met, the permittee may participate in the variance for up to four permit cycles as long as it meets the discharge limits established by the multi-permit variance and takes steps to reduce phosphorus contributions from other sources.
First, the permit must comply with decreasing phosphorus discharges. These concentrations begin at 0.8 mg/L in the first permit term and then drop to 0.6 mg/L and 0.5 mg/L in the third and fourth permit term, respectively. In the fourth permit for which the variance is available, the DNR will require the permittee to achieve – by the end of the term of that permit – the water quality based effluent limit for phosphorus that would apply without the variance.
Second, while complying with these reduced discharge limits, the permittee must also undertake some activity to reduce phosphorus contributions from other sources in its watershed. This concept borrows from Wisconsin’s EPA-approved adaptive management program, and requires the permittee to:
1) Enter into a binding, written agreement with the DNR under which it implements a project or plan designed to reduce phosphorus contributions from other sources; or
2) Enter into a binding, written agreement that is approved by DNR with another person under which the other person implements a project or plan designed to phosphorus contributions from other sources; or
3) Make a payment to the counties of the watershed in which the permittee is located. These payments are calculated by multiplying $50/lb times the difference between what the permittee is currently discharging, and what the permittee would discharge if its effluent met a target limit. The target limit is either the limit set by a TMDL (total maximum daily load), if applicable, or 0.2mg/L if no TMDL is approved.
How might the Act affect producers as nonpoint sources?
Counties that receive money through this program must use at least 65% of the amounts received to fund cost-sharing for projects governed by 281.16(3)(e) or (4) (the state’s nonpoint source program). These must be applied to projects that have been prioritized by their potential to “reduce the amount of phosphorus per acre entering the waters of the state, based on an assessment of land and land use practices in the county.” Up to 35% can be used for staffing, or toward modeling or monitoring to evaluate the amount of phosphorus in waters for planning purposes. In Wisconsin, producers that are not currently meeting state performance standards may be asked to install certain practices when cost share dollars are available. The Act has the potential to increase the amount of cost share dollars available to county work in this area.
What’s Next for the Act?
Before this program is available to permittees, a number of things must happen. First, the DOA must complete an economic study that demonstrates compliance with the phosphorus standard will have adverse and widespread social and economic impact. This study must also identify the categories of dischargers that will be eligible for the multi-discharger variance. Second, EPA must approve the variance before it may be implemented in Wisconsin. Finally, permittees would need to apply for the variance to alter any existing permit conditions that have been imposed to implement the phosphorus standard. Look for further updates in 2015!
Of:
EPA’s Proposed Waters of the U.S. Rule: Does It Regulate Puddles? – Environmental Protection Agency
In a leaked draft, EPA was seen to have been contemplating explicitly excluding puddles from regulation, but, in the end, didn’t do so. EPA provided an explanation as to why, but the rule is so broad, we think EPA’s explanation may not be completely relevant. In other words, because the rule is so broad, many puddles actually might fall under federal jurisdiction. The reason is the host of new definitions proposed by EPA. Previously undefined terms like tributary, neighboring, and floodplain are all now defined, and in a way that creates a web of federal jurisdiction. Here’s how:
- The rule starts with an initial list of jurisdictional areas, which includes (a) waters that are, have been, or could be used in interstate commerce, (b) interstate waters, and (c) the territorial seas.
- The rule then adds to this list all tributaries of these waters. Tributary gets defined for the first time as any feature with a bed and bank that contributes flow to any water on the initial list. Many features, like dry arroyos and mountain channels, have bed and bank even though they only flow when it rains or the snow melts:
- The rule then continues, adding to the list of jurisdictional waters all waters that are adjacent to the initial waters and their tributaries. Adjacent is “bordering, contiguous or neighboring.”
- EPA then defines neighboring for the first time to include any water in the floodplain or a riparian area of the initial waters and their tributaries. These also get new definitions. Floodplain is an area along a water, formed by sediment deposition and inundated during moderate to high flows. Riparian area is one bordering any water where surface or groundwater “directly influence the ecological processes and plant and animal community structure in that area.”
The end result is that areas are jurisdictional, as far upstream as one can find a bed and bank, and as far outward from that bed and bank as the area “directly influences” the area’s ecology or is formed by sediment and gets inundation from high flows. That is a lot of area. To give you a sense of the potential breadth of areas “subject to inundation,” this map shows in blue the flooding along the Mississippi River in 2011 and the counties/parishes at risk of significant flooding:
Fully one-third of Arkansas was covered. One half of the counties in Illinois were at risk.
This brings us back to puddles. In the proposal’s preamble, EPA says it removed puddles from the “not jurisdictional” list for clarity, not to imply they are jurisdictional.
Some puddles, it says, are not jurisdictional. The language of the rule, however, suggests that puddles are arguably jurisdictional if they are in floodplains or riparian areas. The fact that puddles aren’t always wet may not be decisive: EPA considers streams which flow only when it rains or snow melts to be jurisdictional and identifies dry features as “water”:
We’re not saying that EPA would take the position that puddles are jurisdictional – our only point is that the language of the proposed rule is so broad that it could. And we haven’t even started on the “significant nexus” test.
This is the second in a series of posts regarding EPA’s proposed rule redefining “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act.
For Part One, click here.
Photo credits, from top: Photo of the Las Cruces Arroyo from Wikipedia. Mississippi River map from the US Census Bureau. Photo of a wetland from the Arid West Region Regional Supplement to the Corps’ Wetland Delineation Manual.
Of: