STATEMENT OF
G. TRACY MEHAN, III
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND WATER
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
September 16, 2003
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. I am Tracy Mehan, Assistant Administrator for Water at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
I appreciate this opportunity to discuss today’s water quality
challenges, and the Bush Administration’s vision for protecting and restoring
our Nation's watersheds.
INTRODUCTION
Last year, in a hearing on the 30th anniversary of
the Clean Water Act (CWA), I testified before the full Committee regarding the
tremendous progress that our Nation has made over the past three decades in
addressing water pollution problems.
Thanks to the investment of many local, Tribal, State, Federal, public
and private partners we have successfully controlled the most egregious sources
of pollution from municipal sewage treatment plants and industry. Many communities now enjoy the environmental
and economic benefits of cleaner water, such as thriving lakefront communities
in Cleveland and Chicago, restored fisheries in Lake Erie and the Potomac
River, and increased revenues from real estate investment, recreation and
tourism in many coastal communities such as Boston.
Despite those success stories, we recognize that many
challenges remain. There are signs that
some of our waters are in distress.
States are reporting increases in beach closures and fish consumption
advisories, and a large zone of low dissolved oxygen in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Our water programs are at a historic turning
point. Today I first want to share with
you our vision for the future and to discuss some of our top priorities: our efforts to reorient our programs towards
a watershed approach; establishment of a national-scale water
quality monitoring and assessment program; better implementation of the
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program; and, greater reliance on
innovative tools such as trading and watershed-based
permitting. All of these
activities are critical in addressing today’s water quality challenges more
effectively and efficiently. Finally, I
will address our efforts to control stormwater runoff.
THE WATERSHED APPROACH
Now that we have largely addressed problems from
discrete point sources of pollution, we need to turn our attention to threats
that are much more difficult to control, such as: nutrient over-enrichment, urban runnoff, ground water/surface
water interactions, invasive species, microbes in drinking water, and
atmospheric deposition. These complex
problems demand a more comprehensive or watershed-based approach that focuses
less on the “end of pipe” and instead
targets pollutants coming from the land – nonpoint source pollution or diffuse
runoff. This approach to environmental
management brings together public and private sector efforts to address the
highest priority problems, looking at all sources of pollution within
hydrologically-defined geographic areas.
The approach is grounded in sound science, characterized by robust
stakeholder involvement, and focused on environmental results.
Because most water quality problems are best solved
at the watershed level rather than at the individual waterbody or discharger
level, we need to examine how we can best integrate the efforts of local
watershed groups. Over the past decade
and a half, we have seen the rise of literally thousands of citizen-based
watershed organizations working to protect and restore their lakes, rivers,
wetlands, and estuaries.
To provide support for these locally-driven watershed
protection efforts, in May EPA announced nearly $15 million in grants to 20
watershed organizations selected as part of President Bush’s new Watershed
Initiative. The grants will support
community-driven initiatives to improve water quality and enhance outdoor
recreation. EPA intends to announce a
solicitation for new Watershed Initiative nominations for FY 2004. We are confident that these projects will
result in cleaner water for these communities and will serve as models for
other communities. We are grateful for
Congress’ enthusiasm for this Initiative and ask support for the President’s
request of $21 million for the Initiative for next fiscal year.
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS
As we transition from a technology-based approach to
a water-quality based-approach, and begin to reorient our programs on a
watershed basis, it is imperative that we strengthen our water quality
monitoring and assessment programs. In
the 1970's, monitoring was primarily carried out at or near the end of the
pipe, to measure how effectively individual permits were working. Today, however, we must be able to assess
the inputs of millions of diffuse sources of pollution, such as sediments from
construction sites, fertilizers from agricultural lands, and even pollutants
coming from the air. And, to enable the
use of more innovative tools and flexible approaches, such as trading between
pollution sources, we need better baseline monitoring data to help us keep
score.
How clean is the water? We currently have enough information to allow us to know what the
conditions are in some site-specific areas, but as stated in EPA’s Draft
Report on the Environment 2003, “At this time, there is not sufficient
information to provide a national answer to this question with confidence and
scientific credibility.”
Working with State, Federal, tribal, and local
agencies, with the private sector, with universities and with the public, we
must be able to provide answers to some very fundamental questions such as: How
clean is the water? Is it getting any
better? Are our management actions
working? Without answers to these
questions, we are challenged when it comes to making decisions about how best
to address water quality problems and allocate our limited resources for
cleanup, pollution prevention, and restoration.
Currently, most States monitor only a portion of
their waters. While some States are
using new approaches like statistically-based surveys to characterize the
overall condition of waters from a representative sample, many are still in the
beginning stages of using these tools.
And, because State standards and assessment methods vary across State
lines, we find we cannot add up the data.
In varying degrees, States are working to improve their monitoring
systems, and EPA is working with them to help them identify and implement the
key tenets of good monitoring programs.
Many Federal agencies have, over the years, conducted
a range of monitoring programs that have yielded valuable water quality
data. However, none of them were
designed to characterize the overall national condition of the waters of the
U.S. in a comprehensive, statistically-valid fashion. Because of the lack of comprehensive, national-level data, we
cannot yet systematically document whether or not our pollution programs are
effectively improving water quality on a national scale.
Besides EPA’s recent Draft Report on the
Environment 2003, the Heinz Center Report on the State of the Nation’s
Ecosystems, and various reports from the General Accounting Office, the
National Academy of Public Administration and others show that there are major
gaps in aggregate nationwide data on water quality and overall ecosystem
health. These reports call for a
national investment to build a
cost-effective, scientifically-sound foundation for our water quality
management decisions.
We need, therefore, to take four critically important
steps to achieve our goal of better monitoring for better management. First, we need to work with States to
improve and strengthen State monitoring programs so that they can generate
credible, comparable, comprehensive information. EPA is currently working with the States to ensure that they all
achieve, for the first time, a set of basic monitoring elements including a common
set of core water quality indicators that can be compared over time and across
State boundaries. In March 2003, EPA
provided States guidance on such elements for a State monitoring and assessment
program. Second, we must promote
the use of multiple monitoring tools such as statistically-based surveys,
predictive monitoring, and remote sensing to support the full range of water
quality decisions. Statistically-based
surveys, such as EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program for
example, provide a scientifically rigorous way to sample a subset of waters and
then provide an estimate of the quality of all waters, along with a statement
about the uncertainty surrounding that estimate. Third, we must manage our electronic data systems to share
and improve compatibility of monitoring information and make data more
accessible to the public. And fourth,
perhaps most importantly, we must build stronger partnerships at the Federal,
State, Tribal, and local levels to facilitate the sharing of comparable data
and the use of multiple monitoring tools.
We need to continue working with States, Tribes, and
our Federal partners to identify what investments are needed for long-term
improvements in water quality monitoring.
We need to look for efficiencies through new monitoring approaches, such
as statistically-based surveys or the use of models, through better
collaboration, and through data sharing.
And, we need to secure commitment from all stakeholders to better
monitoring for better management of our water resources. We will be able to target our control
actions wisely, and achieve the level of protection we need.
THE TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD PROGRAM
As we look to manage our watersheds more
holistically, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program is one of our key CWA
tools. In enacting Section 303(d),
Congress retained a water quality-based approach for waters that remained
polluted after the application of technology-based and other controls. TMDLs do not themselves require compliance;
they simply establish a pollution budget for impaired waters. This information is key to determining what
actions should be taken in a watershed to address ongoing water quality
problems. The TMDL is then translated
into permit requirements for point sources.
For other pollution sources, the program relies on local, State, Tribe
and Federal watershed plans and programs to achieve implementation of the TMDL.
This part of the CWA was not a priority for about 20
years while EPA focused primarily on industrial and municipal dischargers. Few States were addressing the TMDL
requirements in the CWA until the wave of litigation began in the early 1990's,
when environmental groups, anxious to get the program off the ground, filed
lawsuits in a total of 40 States. EPA and
States now operate the TMDL program pursuant to judicial settlements or decrees
in 22 States. Prior to 1999 fewer than
1,000 TMDLs were completed. As of
today, States and EPA have approved or established about 8,000 TMDLs. States and EPA continue to work to improve
the quality of TMDLs and use TMDLs to achieve water quality goals on a
watershed-basis.
Because TMDLs are water-quality based, they can be
information-intensive, sometimes prompting widespread and systematic monitoring
to identify and characterize problems and priorities, and to track progress in
solving them. Public involvement can
contribute to this information process both directly and through increased
visibility for problem-solving. In
addition, such public involvement can help make sure that TMDLs get translated
from allocations into action, because information brought before the public is
itself a driver for action.
WATER QUALITY TRADING
EPA believes that water quality trading, which allows
sources to find the least cost alternative to achieving clean water, can be a critically
important tool for restoring impaired watersheds efficiently and cost
effectively. In its analysis of the
Clinton Administration’s Clean Water Initiative, EPA concluded that the total
potential savings from all types of trading (point to point, point to nonpoint,
and pretreatment) ranges from $658 million to $7.5 billion annually. Another study of three watersheds in the
Midwest found that the cost of controlling phosphorus loadings from point and
nonpoint sources could be reduced by 40% in Wisconsin and by more than 80% in
Michigan when trading was applied between point and nonpoint sources. These examples illustrate the potential for
water quality trading to reduce pollution with greater efficiency and to
achieve significant water quality and
environmental benefits.
Market-based approaches to improving the quality of
the environment are not new. Air
emissions trading programs date back to
the Acid Rain program and the lead-in-gasoline phase-down programs implemented
under the Clean Air Act. These and
other programs have clearly demonstrated that market-based approaches can
dramatically and quickly reduce emissions at substantially lower costs.
In January, EPA issued its 2003 Water Quality Trading
Policy. The Policy provides guidance on
aligning trading programs with the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations
and identifies common elements of credible trading programs. The Policy supports trading to improve or
preserve water quality in a variety of circumstances. In unimpaired waters, trading may be used to preserve water
quality by offsetting new or increased discharges of pollutants. In waters impaired by pollutants, trading
may be used to achieve earlier pollutant reductions and progress towards water
quality standards in advance of the development of a TMDL. And, trading may be used to reduce the cost
of achieving reductions contemplated by a TMDL. The Policy highlights existing Clean Water Act flexibility that
can facilitate trading programs and emphasizes the need for accountability and
safeguards to ensure that trading programs protect our resources and maintain
progress towards attaining water quality standards.
Key Principles and Safeguards for Water Quality
Trading
A number of core principles and environmental
safeguards form the foundation of EPA’s Water Quality Trading Policy, and these
principles help ensure that trading programs create actual pollutant
reductions, avoid hotspots, provide accountability for trading activity, and
involve the public:
<Trading programs operate within the existing regulatory
structure and are consistent with all aspects of the Clean Water Act.
<Trading programs are designed to meet water quality
goals including TMDLs.
<Trading programs ensure that water quality standards
are not exceeded.
<Trading programs retain enforceability of National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
<Trading can be used to comply with water
quality-based effluent limitations; however, EPA does not support trading to
comply with existing technology-based effluent limitations except as expressly
authorized by Federal regulations.
<Trading programs include accountability mechanisms
for nonpoint sources that trade to ensure that promised pollutant reductions
actions are taken.
<Trading programs are visible and engage the public in
program design.
<Trading programs monitor to ensure anticipated load
reductions are achieved, or to take corrective action if loads are not
adequately reduced.
<Trading is voluntary and based on collaboration among
watershed stakeholders. States and Tribes may choose to establish trading
programs in accordance with EPA’s Policy.
There is no requirement to implement or participate in a trading
program.
Water Quality Trading: Examples of Environmental Innovation
We already see evidence that
water quality trading programs work.
For example, the State of Connecticut’s nitrogen credit exchange program
is expected to save the State an estimated $200 million in control costs
through trading, while also making significant gains in cleaning up pollutants
in Long Island Sound.
In the Cherry Creek watershed in
Colorado, a trading program conducted in conjunction with a TMDL has reduced
phosphorus loads to the Cherry Creek watershed by approximately 450 pounds per
year. The nonpoint source projects that
were implemented to create the phosphorus credits have provided ancillary
environmental benefits such as flood control and wildlife habitat. A partnership trading effort in Illinois’
Piasa Creek along the Mississippi River will save several millions in capital
improvements to an aging drinking water treatment facility, while reducing
sediment loads to the Mississippi River.
The Grasslands selenium trading program in California, the nation’s
first nonpoint source cap and trade program, utilized an innovative penalty and
rebate system to create economic incentives to substantially reduce selenium
levels in Kesteron reservoir that were adversely harming bird populations.
Experience with trading has also
taught us that trading will not work everywhere. For example, the level of pollutant reductions that would need to
be achieved from all sources in a given watershed may be such that additional,
or surplus, reductions cannot be achieved so as to allow trading. Certain watersheds may not have the number
and mix of sources necessary for trading to be successful. In addition, trading programs that work in
one State or Tribal area may not be successful in others. Just as each watershed has unique
characteristics and needs, each trading program will be tailored by State
agencies and stakeholders to meet environmental goals. EPA recognizes that States and Tribes face
diverse water quality issues, sociological and economic factors and political
considerations. EPA’s Trading Policy is
intended to provide consistent guidance, while allowing sufficient flexibility
for States and watershed stakeholders to create workable solutions.
EPA believes that water quality
trading programs, where carefully designed and implemented, can be powerful and
effective tools for States, Tribes, local governments and citizens to use in
achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act, while also saving taxpayer dollars.
WATERSHED-BASED PERMITTING
An important part of the
watershed approach includes fostering innovations that provide data and
information in ways that allow stakeholders at the local level to better assess
and address their unique problems. Watershed-based
permitting is one such innovation. To
clearly communicate support for watershed-based permitting, on January 7, 2003,
we issued the Watershed-based Permitting Policy.
Watershed-based NPDES permitting
is an approach to developing NPDES permits for multiple point sources located
within a defined geographic area (watershed boundaries). Through this approach,
NPDES permitting authorities consider watershed goals and the impact of
multiple pollutant sources and stressors, including nonpoint source
contributions. Watershed-based
permitting may encompass a variety of activities ranging from synchronizing
permit issuance within a basin to developing water quality-based effluent
limits using a multiple-discharger modeling analysis.
To better understand how
watershed-based permitting approaches work, EPA is working with permit holders
and State agencies to document different approaches currently being
implemented. The lessons learned from
these approaches are documented in a series of case studies featuring
watersheds across the country. The case
studies provide background information on the watershed, give an overview of
the permitting strategy or project goals, and describe the expected outcomes
and measures of success. These case
studies will provide stakeholders with the information and lessons learned
necessary for implementing this approach in other watersheds. Current case studies include: the State of Connecticut and the Long Island
Sound; State of North Carolina and the Neuse River; and ConocoPhillips in
Colorado. Municipal case studies
include Louisville-Jefferson County, Kentucky; Sanitation District #1 in
Kentucky; and Clean Water Services in Oregon.
These case studies are available on EPA’s web site at www.epa.gov/npdes.
EPA has also been working with
municipalities through the CWA section 104(b)(3) grants program to investigate
additional ideas and approaches.
To help interested parties
implement watershed-based approaches, EPA published draft Implementation
Guidance in the Federal Register on August 25, 2003 (we are soliciting
comments until Sept. 24th).
Technical Guidance, which will focus on developing permit requirements
and procedural issues for permit development and issuance, will be issued later
this Fall. In addition, EPA is
providing training course materials, brochures, speaking at conferences and
meetings all designed to create a network for sharing lessons learned, and
innovative approaches to NPDES permitting.
STORMWATER
I am informed that the
Subcommittee is interested in the stormwater program, particularly our efforts
to implement the Phase II Rule that became effective on March 10, 2003. Stormwater runoff from urban, agricultural,
and industrial areas is the most common problem affecting our nation’s rivers,
lakes and coastal waters. In the latest
reports from the States, urban runoff was cited as the source of impairments on
34,871 miles of rivers and streams, 7.7 million acres of lakes, and 5,045
estuary square miles. EPA’s NPDES
program addresses stormwater runoff from urban as well as industrial areas.
Stormwater Phase I
The Clean Water Act directs EPA
to address stormwater from urban and industrial sources, including construction
sites. In 1990, EPA promulgated Phase I
of the stormwater program. That rule
requires permits for the control of stormwater discharges for communities with
populations over 100,000, construction sites disturbing more than five acres,
and many categories of industrial facilities.
Over the last 13 years, EPA has worked closely with the States and
municipalities to implement the stormwater program. Many have risen to the challenge and developed excellent,
comprehensive programs. San Diego’s
“Think Blue” campaign is a highly successful effort that educates local
citizenry on the impact of daily life on one of the City’s most precious
resources: the Pacific Ocean. The City of Austin, Texas has developed a
comprehensive program to protect the Edwards Aquifer and the famous Barton
Springs recreational area that includes local ordinances and comprehensive
educational and voluntary efforts and involves a wide spectrum of homeowners,
developers, and industry. Another
successful effort involved the clean up of the lower Charles River that runs
through Boston. The City of Boston focused
on detecting and eliminating illicit discharges to its storm sewer system. This effort has lead to the discovery and
removal of dozens of illicit discharges and prevented over 1 million gallons of
contaminated flows from entering the River.
Stormwater Phase II Implementation
Phase II of the stormwater
program requires smaller communities located in urbanized areas to develop and
implement storm water controls to restore and maintain local water
resources. Phase II also extends
permitting requirements to construction activities that disturb between one and
five acres of land.
At present, 45 States are
authorized to administer the NPDES program and thus issue permits, including
storm water permits, in their respective States. These States are also responsible for working with communities to
implement the Phase II requirements.
Unfortunately, implementation of this program happens to coincide with
one of the most serious economic crises facing State and municipal
governments. State governments are
reducing their budgets and their staffs and are also reducing the funds they
normally provide to communities. These
budget problems are affecting the ability of States and communities to
implement these new stormwater requirements.
In short, implementation is going a bit slower than expected.
There are two important
milestones that are good indicators of State progress in implementing the Phase
II program – issuance of NPDES permits to municipal separate storm sewer
systems (MS4s) and to construction sites disturbing 1 to 5 acres. EPA has encouraged States to use general
permits to cover all activity within a regulated category for the entire State
– issuing one general permit for construction and one for MS4s. To date, approximately 28 of the authorized
States have issued permits for MS4s and approximately 34 have issued permits
for construction activity. Indications
are that the other States are working hard to finalize these permits and all
are expected to have them finalized within the next year.
EPA was behind schedule in
reissuing its construction general permit (issued on July 1, 2003), and several
of the EPA Regional offices (Regions II, VI, IX, X) still have not issued
permits for MS4s in those handful of States where EPA remains the permitting
authority. However, two of these
Regions (VI, and IX) have proposed permits.
We have anecdotal information
that many communities did not meet the deadline for applying for and obtaining
permit coverage, often due to the fact that there was no State permit in place
under which they could apply for coverage.
Because of the real economic problems causing delays, EPA is taking a
supportive approach to helping States and communities come into compliance with
these requirements. It is also important
to keep in mind that the Phase II regulation allows communities five years to
develop and implement their programs; therefore, full implementation is not
expected until 2008.
To assist States and
communities, EPA is working on a number of fronts. First, financing is critically important. As you know, the 1987 Amendments to the
Clean Water Act created the State Revolving Fund (SRF) system. Every State and Puerto Rico now operates a
successful revolving fund that provides low-interest loans to fund a wide
variety of projects to clean up rivers, lakes, coastal waters. The President’s FY 2004 Budget extends the
federal commitment to capitalize the CWSRF through FY 2011, providing an
additional $21 billion in loans over the next 20 years. We continue to work with each State and are
encouraging them to target their financing toward important water quality
efforts, including stormwater projects.
EPA has been working to develop
useful tools to assist States and communities as they implement this new
program. EPA has developed a
comprehensive “Menu of Best Management Practices” to help communities plan
design all aspects of their stormwater programs. In addition, EPA has produced guidance on developing measurable
goals to help States and communities evaluate the effectiveness of their
programs. Finally, EPA has invested
considerable effort in its stormwater website (www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater)
to ensure that States and communities have the tools and information they need.
Oil and Gas Extension
I understand that the committee
is also interested in hearing about the extension EPA recently finalized for
oil and gas construction activities.
When EPA wrote the Phase II regulation over five years ago, we significantly
underestimated the number of oil and gas sites that would be affected. Since that time, EPA has become aware of new
information on the impact of the regulation on this industry indicating that it
may impact as many as 30,000 facilities.
Additionally, questions have been raised about the appropriateness of
some aspects of the program for these sites.
Considering these factors, EPA decided to postpone the effective date of
these requirements until March 10, 2005.
Over the next two years, we intend to analyze the impact of these
regulations on the oil and gas industry and to evaluate the appropriateness of
the program requirements.
CONCLUSION
All of the tools I have been
discussing represent a major programmatic shift that is necessary to make
further progress in cleaning up America's waters. It is time to expand our focus:
from an almost exclusively point source orientation to one that examines
all sources of pollution, including nonpoint; from relying largely on
technology-based standards to a water quality-based approach; and, from
emphasizing inputs to focusing on environmental outcomes. We have made tremendous progress in cleaning
up our waters over the past three decades -- an achievement that is even more
remarkable in view of substantial increases in our population. As a nation, we can be proud of how far we
have come. These successes should strengthen our resolve to complete the hard
work ahead.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
* *
*