AGC recently signed onto a joint comment letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that urges the Agency to abandon its proposed Information Collection Request (ICR) for a series of surveys on “Valuing Improved Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Using State Preference Methods.” The proposed ICR is one of many steps that EPA and affected states have taken over the last year and a half to meet the requirements of the extensive Chesapeake Bay clean-up plan — Total Maximum Daily Load or TMDL — finalized in 2010.
The July 23 joint letter argues that EPA’s proposed surveys do not meet the criteria for ICRs as established under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The three strongest criticisms of the surveys are that (1) the scope of the benefits to be evaluated by the surveys exceeds the scope of the clean-up plan for the Chesapeake Bay, (2) the surveys fail to distinguish between respondents who live in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and respondents who live outside of it and (3) the policy scenarios posed by EPA in the surveys are misleading and unrealistic. EPA is conducting a cost benefit analysis for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL that is expected to be ready for Congressional review in December of this year and for publication in 2013. These surveys are intended to help inform EPA of the value of improved water quality in the Chesapeake Bay.
A clean-up plan of this scale has never before been attempted; and there are serious questions about the costs associated with the TMDL, whether the TMDL will actually bring about the intended benefits in water quality and how to measure them. Undoubtedly, the costs associated with improving the Bay’s water quality will be hard to ignore. EPA and states in the Bay watershed already have spent significant funds on research and clean-up efforts. Implementation of the Bay TMDL over the coming decades will be even more expensive as states establish and administer programs that address aged centralized and decentralized wastewater infrastructure, industrial discharges, agricultural stormwater runoff, and runoff from new and existing development. Estimates of costs have ranged from a little less than $10 billion to approximately $28 billion to achieve water quality goals in the Bay; however, Virginia has estimated its costs alone to be in excess of $15 billion. States are now evaluating strategies — such as putting in place stormwater fees and pollution trading schemes — and developing programs to help pay for the meeting the TMDL requirements.
Getting Involved
Because EPA has identified development and developed land (including stormwater runoff from construction sites) as a contributor to the poor water quality of the Chesapeake Bay, the Bay TMDL will likely impact future construction in the Bay area, making projects more expensive and complex.
AGC has participated in meetings and conference calls with EPA and the states to discuss the development of offset programs for new growth, as well as the establishment of a new inter-state allocation trading program (for nutrients and sediment). The “offsets for new growth” programs are anticipated to take effect at end of 2013 and are certain to affect construction projects in the Bay watershed. Simply stated, these programs are designed to (1) help projects offset any stormwater pollution associated with new development or (2) facilitate the purchase of water quality credits that would cover additional discharges. (The credits could be sold by a farmer, for example, who installed Best Management Practices to reduce runoff from the farm.) Several industry groups argue that the water quality trading programs are essential to manage costs, encourage more businesses to participate and to meet the new growth offset requirements.
In 2013, EPA is expected to introduce a rule that would impose offset requirements for impaired waters nationwide; it will be modeled after the Chesapeake Bay program. This would eventually apply to all watersheds in the U.S. for which TMDLs for nutrients and sediment have been established.
AGC encourages members in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to be active participants in determining how their state plans to meet the TMDL requirements. At a minimum, states in the Bay area will heighten their focus on stormwater runoff from construction activities — through their permitting and enforcement programs as well as the incorporation of post-construction and “low impact development” strategies to reduce runoff from developed sites. Construction companies outside of the Bay area should be aware that other states and jurisdictions with water quality concerns may adopt the same strategies being put in place for the Bay TMDL. Additional Information In December 2010, EPA issued a clean-up plan (TMDL) for the Chesapeake Bay—one that other states will look to as a model for establishing clean-up plans for their own impaired waterways. The Bay TMDL affects jurisdictions in Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia as well as the District of Columbia—compromising 64,000 square miles of watershed. For a summary, read the AGC’s Environmental Observer article published when the Bay TMDL was finalized; or go to EPA’s Chesapeake Bay TMDL website to read the TMDL, fact sheets and other resources. To comply with the Bay TMDL, affected jurisdictions are developing watershed implementation plans (WIPs) that outline their water quality goals and the steps they will take to achieve those goals. States must achieve their two-year milestones and with measures in place by 2017 to meet 60 percent of the necessary pollution reductions and all measures in place by 2025. States submitted the second phase of their WIPs in March 2012; and EPA commented on those plans in May 2012. State WIPs and EPA’s evaluations are available online. EPA also has a “Who’s Who” contact sheet for state WIPs. For more information, please contact AGC’s Melinda Tomaino at tomainom@agc.org.