Clean Water Act

 

Minnesota Warns EPA Against Crippling The State’s Authority. According to Associated Press, “Minnesota officials have warned a federal agency in a letter that a proposal to streamline water quality laws would cripple their authority to protect drinking water, streams and wildlife from dozens of new projects each year. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal targets Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, which allows states to set their own conditions, conduct reviews and approve or deny projects that could potentially pollute waterways. The conditions become a part of the federal permit and its requirements. The change would give federal authorities power to dismiss conditions set by states or tribes and allow the EPA to overrule a state’s denial of a project. It also would prevent states from studying indirect sources of water pollution or potential pollution in seasonal streams, wetlands or any waters that are not designated as ‘Waters of the United States.’ Katrina Kessler, assistant commissioner for water policy and agriculture at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, wrote that the proposed changes are ‘akin to tearing up Section 401 and throwing it in the trash. The changes would ‘directly harm state and tribal water quality,’ she added. … ‘On the one hand, the EPA is telling us that the states need to be able to exercise their own authority to protect clean water,’ said Jared Mott, conservation director of the Isaak Walton League. ‘That’s the argument for limiting federal protections on (Waters of the U.S.). But now they’re weakening the rule that gives states the ability to do exactly that. It’s frustrating.’” [Associated Press, 11/25/19 (=)]

 

How The Trump Administration Could Clear Up Regulated ‘Waters’. According to The Daily Signal, “The Trump administration last month repealed the Obama administration’s infamous ‘waters of the United States’ rule, by which bureaucrats tried to use the Clean Water Act to regulate almost every water imaginable. But this repeal was just the first step in efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers to develop a new definition of ‘waters of the United States,’ referred to as WOTUS, that is consistent with the rule of law. This definition would clarify what waters may be regulated under the Clean Water Act. The second step, and the major one, is expected to take place within the next couple of months: The EPA and Corps will issue a final rule that includes their new definition. The importance of this new rule can’t be understated. For decades, the EPA and Corps struggled to develop a definition for ‘waters of the United States’ because they consistently sought to expand their power without regard for what the Clean Water Act actually authorizes. This overreach directly affects Americans, from farmers plowing land and families seeking to build their dream homes to cities and counties trying to build public safety ditches to help prevent flooding. In February, the EPA and Corps published their proposed new definition of ‘waters of the United States.’ To the agencies’ credit, they are doing something different: They actually are trying to respect the rule of law and the plain language of the Clean Water Act. They are not including in the definition, for example, ephemeral waters (dry land except when it holds water a few days a year after heavy precipitation). But this doesn’t mean that the proposed rule is very good. The agencies should make important changes to the final rule, including:” [The Daily Signal, 11/25/19 (-)]

 

Toxic Algae

 

Environmentalists Raise Climate Concerns Over EPA Algal Bloom Response. According to Inside EPA, “Environmentalists are urging EPA to take an aggressive approach as it crafts a congressionally mandated policy for assessing risks and assisting states dealing with harmful algal blooms (HABs), arguing that HABs are chronic events that are likely to increase as a result of climate change. For example, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), in recent comments, urged the agency to ensure that any response to HABs include remediation strategies, such as providing safe drinking water to vulnerable communities and provide additional funds to address the cause of the blooms. ‘Addressing the cause of blooms is much more cost-effective than responding to a bloom,’ CBF says in Oct. 31 comments, recommending that the response to HABs in the bay region should in part include ‘directing additional funds towards efforts that will address the causes of blooms and thus help mitigate future potential events.’ EPA earlier this year requested public comment on how it should develop a policy for determining when an HAB or hypoxia in freshwater is an event of national significance for which it can provide state assistance. The agency is developing the policy after 2017 congressional amendments to the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act (HABHRCA) authorized the agency to make such determinations for freshwater and provide financial assistance to affected state and local governments.” [Inside EPA, 11/25/19 (=)]

 

Watershed Protection Dept. Fears Zebra Mussels Could Feed Harmful Algae. According to KEYE-TV, “The City of Austin is warning those who choose to let their pets swim at Red Bud Isle to do so at their own risk. On Monday afternoon, Jack McKee let his black lab, Paco, run free around Red Bud isle. ‘Anytime I say Red Bud Isle he starts jumping up and down all over the walls,’ said McKee. The last time McKee and Paco were able to be at Red Bud Isle was in early August, the day before the area shut down for several months because of harmful algae. ‘It was pretty scary. All that stuff was in the water and I was letting him run around,’ said McKee. Blue-green algae found around Red Bud Isle was responsible for the death of five dogs this summer. Recent Watershed Protection Department tests looking to any harmful, blue-green algae didn’t show up in the water nor anywhere visible to environmental scientists. ‘It pretty much all dissipated for what we can find or see,’ said Brent Bellinger, a limnologist with Watershed Protection. Bellinger said cooler water temperatures and regular water flow helps keep the harmful algae away but there is one worry Watershed Protection will have to keep their eye on for the foreseeable future. ‘There’s a possibility that the zebra mussels in the cycling of the nutrients made dissolved nutrients more accessible in the water column and on the bottom, and it was a different confluence of conditions that favored the sign of bacteria over the green algae that tends to be associated with them,’ said Bellinger.” [KEYE-TV, 11/26/19 (=)]

 

PFAS

 

EPA Lays Out Potential Approaches To PFAS Reporting. According to Politico, “EPA today laid out potential approaches the agency may take in a forthcoming rule to require public reporting on emissions of toxic PFAS chemicals. Requiring facilities to publicly report their air and water emissions of toxic PFAS chemicals is seen as an important step in helping environmental officials and communities to locate areas of potential contamination. The Trump administration committed to pursuing public reporting of PFAS emissions under the Toxics Release Inventory in February in EPA’s PFAS Action Plan. Congress has also moved to require public reporting under the inventory in provisions to the Senate’s National Defense Authorization Act. In an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released today, EPA requests comment on which PFAS have sufficient toxicity information to warrant inclusion on the inventory and whether to require reporting for each chemical individually, in groups, or as an entire class. The agency also indicates in the notice that it is considering setting a lower reporting threshold for PFAS than the typical defaults, since the chemicals are toxic and bioaccumulative. The agency asks for comment on what the reporting threshold should be. The notice will be open for public comment for 60 days after it runs in the Federal Register.” [Politico, 11/25/19 (=)]

 

EPA Weighs Greater Reporting Of 'Forever Chemicals'. According to The Hill, “The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering increasing the monitoring of a cancer-linked chemical that has been leaching into the water supply. Their efforts focus on a class of chemicals abbreviated as PFAS, which are used on a variety of nonstick products like raincoats and cookware. One study found that 99 percent of individuals tested had PFAS traces in their blood, and it’s been deemed a ‘forever chemical’ due to its persistence in both the body and the environment. EPA’s announcement Monday asked the public to weigh in on a proposal to add PFAS to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), which would push municipalities to alert people right away if the substance has been found in tap water. It would also require manufacturers who use PFAS to report annually how much of each chemical is released to the environment. ‘Exploring the addition of certain PFAS chemicals to the TRI is an important step that can enhance this tool and provide important information to the public on these chemicals for the first time,’ EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a release.” [The Hill, 11/25/19 (=)]

 

EPA Seeks Comments On Universe of PFAS Subject To TRI Reporting. According to Inside EPA, “EPA has floated a proposal seeking comment on which per- and polyfluoroakyl substances (PFAS) should be reported to the agency’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), one of several regulatory items on the agency’s PFAS action plan, though it is unclear which, if any, of the estimated 4,500 PFAS chemicals will eventually be added. EPA Nov. 25 released its advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) seeking comment on which PFAS chemicals to add to TRI, whether PFAS chemicals should be added to TRI in groups, information the public has on PFAS chemicals and whether TRI’s threshold of requiring reporting from those facilities who manufacture, process or use 25,000 pounds or more per year of a listed chemical should be lowered for some PFAS because of their persistence in the environment. How the agency addresses these questions could potentially impose broad reporting obligations on a wide universe of entities, which manufacture or use the chemicals or products containing them. The rulemaking is among several on EPA’s 2019 PFAS Action Plan, a point that EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler underscored in his announcement. ‘EPA continues to show critical leadership on addressing PFAS as we aggressively implement our PFAS Action Plan -- the most comprehensive cross-agency plan to address an emerging chemical ever taken by EPA,’ he said in a Nov. 25 statement.” [Inside EPA, 11/25/19 (=)]

 

Navy Asks Court To Halt Key PFAS Case Pending EPA Superfund Listing. According to Inside EPA, “The Navy is asking a federal court to stay for six months a landmark suit seeking the military’s payment for medical monitoring to detect health issues that may develop after exposure to perfluorinated chemicals, citing the potential for EPA and/or Pennsylvania to list two of the chemicals as a ‘hazardous substance’ and moot the military’s arguments. A stay, the Navy tells the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in a filing last week, ‘could substantially narrow the matters to be decided by the Court and avoid needless and duplicative litigation in this case.’ The unexpected request comes as EPA and federal lawmakers are considering separate efforts to list perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), the two most common per- and polyfluoroakyl substances (PFAS), as ‘hazardous substances’ under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), a step that would subject responsible parties to cleanup liability. While lawmakers are debating whether to include legislative requirements on a CERCLA listing into pending defense legislation, EPA has pledged to issue a proposed rule by the end of the year. But both processes face significant uncertainty, creating doubts on whether or when any policy action will be finalized. And in Pennsylvania, Gov. Tom Wolf (D) announced in September the creation of a PFAS Action Team to take a number of steps to address PFAS while state lawmakers have introduced bills to amend state hazardous cleanup law to cover at least four PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS.” [Inside EPA, 11/25/19 (=)]

 

Michigan AG Offers Ohio AG ‘Friendly Wager’ Over Rivalry Game: Asks Ohio To Stop Contaminating Lake Erie. According to Michigan Live, “University of Michigan alumna and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel got an early start on making bets around the school’s football game with rival Ohio State this weekend, baiting Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost on a wager. ‘With the big game coming next weekend, I offer my Buckeye friend @OhioAG Dave Yost this friendly wager,’ she tweeted on Sunday. ‘OSU wins and I wear the scarlet and grey for a week. Michigan wins and Ohio starts regulating phosphorous run-off into Lake Erie creating deadly toxic algae blooms. Deal???’ Yost, a Ohio State University alumnus, responded with a counter-wager on Twitter, offering up a rendition of ‘The Victors’ from Ohio State’s field. Michigan and Ohio have struggled with harmful algae blooms in Lake Erie in recent years. Researchers have pinpointed the primary cause as runoff from farms in the Maumee River basin. In 2014, the plumes got so bad 400,000 people in and around Toledo, including 30,000 people in Michigan, temporarily lost access to safe drinking water. This year, the plume turned toxic due to concentrations of hazardous Microcystis cyanobacteria.” [Michigan Live, 11/26/19 (=)]

 

Misc. Waterways

 

'Russian Roulette'? EPA Weighs Release Of Drilling Wastes. According to E&E News, “Pennsylvania’s natural gas industry is pushing EPA and state environmental regulators to allow companies to treat and dispose of more wastewater in rivers and streams. The move is similar to a push in the Southwest’s oil-producing states, where environmental regulators are asking EPA to give them delegated authority over permitting for oil and gas waste disposal (Energywire, Nov. 13). But Pennsylvania’s drilling industry has tried disposing of oil and gas waste in its surface water before, and state regulators largely closed down the practice in 2011. And unlike in the Southwestern states, drilling in the Marcellus Shale is clustered around populated areas like Pittsburgh in the southwest corner of the state. ‘Why would we play Russian roulette with people’s drinking water and with our natural waterways?’ said Tracy Carluccio, deputy director of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network. The debate has played out as EPA studies its regulations related to oil and gas wastewater, also known as brine or produced water. One of the goals of the study, which is expected to be finalized later this year, is determining whether new regulations should allow more of the waste to be discharged into surface water bodies. The Marcellus Shale Coalition, which represents Pennsylvania’s unconventional drillers, submitted comments encouraging EPA and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ‘to provide the natural gas industry additional regulatory flexibility through the permitting of facilities that allow for the discharge of treated produced water.’” [E&E News, 11/26/19 (=)]

 

Arizona Tribes Oppose Plan To Dam Colorado River Tributary. According to Associated Press, “Native American tribes, environmentalists, state and federal agencies, river rafters and others say they have significant concerns about proposals to dam a Colorado River tributary in northern Arizona for hydropower. Phoenix-based Pumped Hydro Storage company is seeking preliminary permits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to study sites on the Navajo Nation, east of Grand Canyon National Park. The company’s manager, Steve Irwin, has touted the potential economic benefits of damming the Little Colorado River in four locations, including paved roads, tourism and jobs. The Navajo Nation owns the land, and the projects won’t move forward without the tribe’s OK. The tribe wrote in comments posted online Monday that the dams could negatively impact its land, water, wildlife and cultural resources. Cameron, the Navajo community closest to the proposed projects, already has asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to deny the permits. … The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has no hard deadline to act on the request for the preliminary permits. Construction would not start on the dams for at least a decade if they ultimately are licensed. … It’s also the primary spawning habitat for the endangered humpback chub in the lower Colorado River basin. Two-thirds of that habitat could be destroyed if the dams are built, the Interior Department wrote in its comments.” [Associated Press, 11/25/19 (=)]

 

Chicago Battered By 12-Foot Waves As Water Levels Surge. According to E&E News, “Chicago is taking a climate beating from Lake Michigan. City beaches and parks are disappearing under record-high water levels. Autumn gales are landing 12-foot waves against Lake Shore Drive. Federal, state and city agencies are scrambling to armor the shore, and infrastructure repair is taxing an already cash-strapped city. Like other major coastal cities, Chicago can’t afford to lose the fight. Lake Michigan’s shoreline is the city’s raison d’être, giving meaning to its title as capital of the ‘Third Coast.’ High water has chewed away millions of cubic yards of sand and soil on the city’s north and south shores. Last week, the Chicago Department of Transportation and the Chicago Park District initiated an emergency shoreline protection project at Juneway Beach about 10 miles north of downtown, with additional projects to follow at other nearby beaches. A city spokeswoman said the lake is about 3 feet higher than average for the month of November, and a quarter-inch below the record high-water mark for November. ‘People who don’t frequent the lake in the winter are going to see a very different shore than the one they remembered from the end of the last beach season,’ said Rob Moore, a Chicago-based climate adaptation expert with the Natural Resources Defense Council.” [E&E News, 11/26/19 (=)]

 

AP | Forest Service To Review Diversions That Could Harm Salmon. According to E&E News, “The Forest Service has agreed to complete environmental reviews of 20 water diversions in central Idaho that a conservation group says could be harming imperiled salmon. A U.S. district court judge on Thursday signed off on the agreement between the Forest Service and Idaho Conservation League involving the water diversions in the Sawtooth Valley. The conservation group says the Forest Service is violating the Endangered Species Act by failing to complete consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries about the water diversions. The Forest Service has three years to complete the reviews of the diversions that mostly supply water to homes in the area. The diversions are on tributaries or the Salmon River, which is home to federally protected salmon, steelhead and bull trout. Salmon and steelhead swim about 900 miles up the Columbia, Snake and Salmon rivers to arrive in the Sawtooth Valley. ‘Any salmon that makes it up that far doesn’t need to get sucked into an [irrigation] ditch or run into a dry creek,’ said Marie Callaway Kellner of the Idaho Conservation League. Some landowners have also filed lawsuits contending the land where six of the diversions are located doesn’t belong to the Forest Service. The Forest Service review will look into that question.” [E&E News, 11/25/19 (=)]

 

 

Please do not respond to this email.

If you have questions or comments please contact mitch@beehivedc.com