Ann Swanson. Staff Briefing on S & H.R Chesapeake Bay Commission quarterly meeting November 13, 2009

Transcription

1 Ann Swanson Staff Briefing on S & H.R Chesapeake Bay Commission quarterly meeting November 13, 2009

2 Some History In 1996, 1998 and 2000, the Chesapeake Bay and several tidal tributary segments were listed by Maryland, Virginia and D.C. as impaired for dissolved oxygen, clarity, and Chlorophyll A all related to excess nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. In June 2000, the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement was signed by EPA, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, D.C. and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. Among many other goals, the Federal government and the states agreed to take the actions necessary to remove the Chesapeake Bay from the impaired lists by The Program admitted failure in Now EPA must develop the TMDL for the entire watershed. The process is well under way.

3 Current Efforts: The numbers On October 22, 2009 Bay Program leadership agreed to cap load allocations at 200 m lbs/yr Nitrogen and 15 m lbs/yr Phosphorus. Sediment will come later. According to the Bay Program, 58% of the pollution reduction efforts have been implemented in the past 24 years. We now must tackle the remaining 42% by 2025.

4 How much excess is there? In 2008, according to the Chesapeake Bay Program, the amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus being delivered to the Chesapeake Bay are: Nitrogen Phosphorus 284 million pounds 16.3 million pounds This means that, somehow, 84 million pounds of nitrogen and 1.3 million pounds of phosphorus need to come out every year. Based upon Phase 5.2 of the Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model

5 Current Efforts: Policy approaches 117 TMDL Executive Order

6 The Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act is the principal Federal law protecting U.S. water quality. The law in its current form was passed by Congress in 1972 and was last amended in Although it is generally acknowledged that the Clean Water Act needs to be updated with the times, Congress has been reluctant to begin the process of doing that over the past two decades.

7 Point Sources A key concept in the Clean Water Act is the distinction between point sources of pollution and nonpoint sources of pollution. Point sources are defined as some kind of pipe or conveyance, and are regulated through a system of permits called NPDES permits. * In most cases, the Federal government delegates the issuing of such permits to the states but retains some oversight.

8 Nonpoint Sources Nonpoint sources are everything else. They do not require NPDES permits, except for stormwater in certain municipal areas and on large construction sites and very large concentrated animal feedlot operations. *Creating the laws or regulations or incentives to control other nonpoint sources of pollution is left to the states.

9 What % of the Total Load is Federally Regulated? (Crosshatch depicts percentage of nitrogen regulated by Federal government)

10 Clean Water Act Section 117 Section 117 of the Clean Water Act, which establishes the Chesapeake Bay Program and sets Federal water quality policy specifically for the Bay watershed, was first added to the Clean Water Act in 1987, reauthorized in 2000, and expired in * It needs to be reauthorized again. There is no firm deadline to do this.

11 Process Any bill to reauthorize Clean Water Act Section 117 introduced in the Senate has to move through the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee (beginning with its Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife) before going on to the full Senate for a vote. On a parallel track, any legislation to reauthorize Section 117 must move through the House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee (beginning with its Subcommittee on Water Resource and Environment) before going to the full House.

12 Senator Cardin and Congressman Cummings bills SENATE: Maryland Senator Ben Cardin, the chairman of the EPW Water and Wildlife Subcommittee, has introduced S Hearing on November 9, 2009 HOUSE: Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings has introduced HR Roundtable on December 10.

13 S and HR The bills change Section 117 by: CODIFY THE BAY TMDL PROCESS Establishes a deadline of December 2010 to develop a Bay-wide pollution budget and requires states to develop Watershed Implementation Plans by May 12, 2011 with progress reports every two years.

14 S and HR The bills change Section 117 by: CLARIFY PROCESS FOR EVALUATING NONPOINT SOURCE REDUCTIONS Requires each jurisdiction to provide assurances through enforceable or otherwise binding agreements that pollutants not considered to be permitted point source pollution are controlled via reliable, verifiable methods.

15 Relationship to TMDL: Codifies the Process TMDL by December 31, 2010 Schedule for Implementation Divided into 2-year periods 60% by May 31, % when plan is submitted 100% by May 12, 2025

16 S and HR The bills change Section 117 by: USE A CLEAN AIR CONSTRUCT As in the Clean Air Act, the bill sets a Federal performance standard the TMDL allocations and allows for state flexibility in meeting it so long as they stay on schedule.

17 S and HR The bills change Section 117 by: ENSURE ACCOUNTABILITY Directs the Administrator to approve WIPs and reject plans that do not meet requirements. The Administrator may ask for corrections or plan revisions.

18 S and HR The bills Section 117 by: ESTABLISH CONSEQUENCES If a Bay State fails to submit a WIP, a biennial report or correct a missed commitment, the Administrator can withhold Clean Water Act funds and/or develop a WIP for the state that requires a 2:1 offset for all permits under Section 402 for new or expanded sources of N, P or Sediment.

19 S and HR The bills change Section 117 by: STORMWATER IN NEW DEVELOPMENT Although the Senate and House bills differ in detail, each would develop a new Federal standard for stormwater controls in new, private developments over a certain size threshold.

20 S and HR The bills change Section 117 by: EXPAND FUNDING Authorizes $2.125 Billion in new Federal money for the Bay, including $1.5 billion in project assistance for stormwater discharge reduction and $625 million in other grants for monitoring, implementation grants and technical assistance to farmers and foresters.

21 S and HR The bills change Section 117 by: REQUIRE ANNUAL FEDERAL ACTION PLAN Per the Presidential Executive Oder, by March 31 of each year EPA must develop a report that describes expenditures, annual assessment of the condition of the Bay, assesses the implementation of the prior year s plan, and provide recommendations to speed-up restoration.

22 S and HR The bills change Section 117 by: ESTABLISH BAYWIDE NUTRIENT TRADING Establishes an inter-state nitrogen and phosphorus trading program by May 12, 2011 to lower compliance costs, particularly for wastewater treatment plants. Establishes verification and certification while protecting local water quality conditions.

23 The potential annual revenue to farmers from Bay-wide nitrogen trading High estimate PRELIMINARY Farm Bill (2009 funding) State cost-share: MD, PA, VA (2008) Low estimate USDA programs** (2008) Million $ per year Potential revenue to farmers in a Chesapeake Bay interstate nitrogen trading program* Government agriculture conservation funding in the Chesapeake Bay watershed * Revenue generated after agriculture baseline has been met. High estimate credit price accounts for baseline practices agriculture would have to implement prior to selling credits and opportunity costs, but assumes no discounting or transaction costs. ** Includes Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Farm and Ranchlands Protection Program, Wetland Reserve Program, Grassland Reserve Program, and Conservation Security Program. Source: WRI analysis using data from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model and the U.S. Department of Agriculture

24 Why is a new 117 necessary? 1. It provides Billion in new authorizations for: Stormwater Monitoring Technical assistance 2. Establishes interstate nutrient trading Program 3. Ensures the legislative voice and oversight in the policy making process 4. Long-term clarity and predictability Outlasts administrations

25 CBC Staff Recommendations Support the legislation because of the significant funding opportunities, including nutrient trading. Continue our work as a Congressional liaison to make sure that the legislative language: 1. Reflects state and federal agreement on TMDL development 2. Maintains state flexibility with Federal oversight 3. Expands funding to support: state, local governments, academia and private sector technical assistance for farm & forest, Tidal and non-tidal monitoring 4. Does not violate the 10 th Amendment

26 Additional staff guidance?