Proposed Rule - Definition of Waters of the United States Under the Clean Water Act (Docket ID No. EPA HQ OW )

Similar documents
April 15, National Corn Growers Association Comments on Revised Definition of Waters of the United States, 84 Fed. Reg. 4,154 (Feb.

UPDATE: Waters of the US Rulemaking

Waters of the United States. National Conference of State Legislatures August 20, 2014 Virginia S. Albrecht

Southeast Stormwater Association

Re: AFPM Comments on the Proposed Rule Definition of Waters of the United States Recodification of Pre-Existing Rules (82 FR 34899, July 27, 2017)

Waters of the U.S. Revisions

Waters of the United States Rulemaking

The Clean Water Act Waters of the US Proposed Rule -- What is it and what are the implications for agriculture?

The Clean Water Act. Clarifies protection under the Clean Water Act for streams and wetlands

Western State Water Issues Proposed Definition of. Waters of the United States

Association of State Wetland Managers. Understanding the Final Clean Water Rule and Changes to CWA Jurisdiction Included in Senate Bill 1140

THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY

The New Clean Water Rule

Oceans, Wetlands, and Communities Division Regulatory Community of Practice

Water Task Force Status Summary CBIA e 2 Council

See Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW , 82 Fed. Reg , proposed August 28, 2017,

Waters of the U.S.

Water Task Force Status Summary CBIA e 2 Council

EPA and the Army Corps Rule to Define Waters of the United States

Summary of Proposed Revised Definition of Waters of the U.S.

Attention-Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW

Water Task Force Status Summary CBIA e 2 Council

Paper 5. Sanitary Sewer Overflow Peak Excess Flow Treatment Facility Options Paper. I. State/EPA Efforts to Address Sanitary Sewer Overflows

Regulatory Program. B. ORM NUMBER IN APPROPRIATE FORMAT (e.g., HQ SMJ): NWS

Top Environmental Regulations Affecting Agriculture in 2015

Summary and Key Points from the Proposed Rule Revised Definition of Waters of the United States

SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS AND THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL

Overview of Clean Water Act Section 404 Permitting

Waters of the U.S. Potential Questions to Ask

American Farm Bureau Federation June 11, 2015

USACE Regulatory Program Ongoing Developments

Proposed Clean Water Act Rule on Designating Waters of the U.S.

May 15, Dear Mr. Fredericks:

Regulatory Program. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (AJD): October 11, 2018

Policy Resolution Water Quality in the West A. BACKGROUND

Regulatory Program. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (AJD): October 26, 2018

Regulatory Program. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): April 5, 2019

Regulatory Program SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (AJD): 11-MAR-2019

Regulatory Program. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): March 6, 2019

FINAL WATERS OF THE U.S. RULE

WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED WATERS OF THE U.S. RULES?

Regulatory Program. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): October 1, 2015

With enactment of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in

The Western Coalition of Arid States

The Western Coalition of Arid States W E S T C A S. Submitted electronically to:

Integrated Planning for Meeting Clean Water Act Requirements

Regulatory Program. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): March 04, 2019

Regulatory Program. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (AJD): 20 September 2018

NAR Fact Sheet Proposed Changes to Clean Water Act Regulations

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 441 G Street NW Washington, DC Washington, DC 20314

ITEM 4G. FUNDING FOR Safe Drinking. State. its stated position. Revolving. wastewater and. requirements. Background and. Rationale.

Regulatory Program SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):

May 15, RE: Docket ID EPA-HQ-OA Evaluation of Existing Regulations. Dear Ms. Rees,

Agricultural Production in the United States: Second Report, (Version 2), December Available at:

Regulatory Program. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): 15-Oct-2018

Regulatory Program. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (AJD): September 24, 2018

FLORIDA STORMWATER ASSOCIATION

Federal and State Water Law. Jennifer Gimbel, CSU Grad592 October 29, 2018

Regulatory Program. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (AJD): 13 September 2018

Regulatory Program. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (AJD): October 5, 2015

Regulatory Program. B. ORM NUMBER IN APPROPRIATE FORMAT (e.g., HQ SMJ): SWT

2015 Chestnut Street, Camp Hill, PA Phone: ,

Estimated Fiscal Impacts on Selected Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permittees

Water Is Not a Pollutant

Regulatory Program. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): 16 September 2015

Regulatory Program. A. COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (AJD): December 17, 2018

TMDLs & Storm Water. Connecting the Pieces. Minnesota PCA Technical Workshop St. Paul, MN. February 14, Discussion Lead: Bruce Cleland

Regulatory Program SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): 29 SEP 2015

Regulatory Program. B. ORM NUMBER IN APPROPRIATE FORMAT (e.g.. HQ SMJ): LRN

Regulatory Program SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): 11/26/2018

Water Quality Stewardship Plan (WaQSP)

US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG

Regulatory Program. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (AJD): February 27, 2019

Regulatory Program. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): September 23, 2015

Division of Surface Water Response to Comments

American Foundry Society Government Affairs Conference

(5) "EPA" means environmental protection agency.

The Case for Operational Optimization

Chapter 3. What Does WOTUS Really Mean? Practical Consequences for Mining and Oil and Gas Operations

IZJ Office (Desk) and Field Determination. Office/Desk Dates: Field Date(s): September 13, 2018.

FACT SHEET STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ORDER NO STATEWIDE GENERAL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS

Cooperative Federalism State Input

Regulatory Program. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (AJD): December 19, 2018

Water Future A Perspective On Change in Western Water By Kris Polly

Sewer Overflow Prevention and Response Audit

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Western Governors Analysis and Recommendations

Permit Application Requirements

Variable Water Laws: What are the Implications for States?

PUTNAM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXHIBIT DD INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT

Regulatory Program SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (AJD): 3/8/2019

Infrastructure Element

City of Valdosta Land Development Regulations

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. Question 13: Wetlands

August 13, Lt. General Todd T. Semonite U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 441 G Street NW Washington D.C RE: EPA-HQ-OW

Industrial Minerals Events 3 RD Frac Sand Conference

What Does WOTUS Really Mean? Practical Consequences for Mining and Oil and Gas Operations

NEW CLEAN WATER RULE ON WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (WOTUS)

Water Management Task Force Status Summary CBIA EPC

NOXIOUS WEED REGULATORY GUIDELINES. Noxious Weeds in Aquatic Critical Areas: Regulatory Issues. What are Aquatic Critical Areas?

Transcription:

November 14, 2014 Water Docket, EPA Docket Center EPA West, Room 3334 1301 Constitution Avenue NW. Washington, DC. RE: Proposed Rule - Definition of Waters of the United States Under the Clean Water Act () The undersigned organizations represent the full spectrum of drinking water and wastewater service providers from both public and private sectors. Our organizations members include both publicly owned and investor-owned utilities serving communities throughout the United States. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the joint rulemaking between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to define Waters of the United States (WOTUS), and thus more clearly delineate which waters are subject to federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA). A wide cross-section of stakeholders recommended pursuing a rulemaking prior to development of guidance. We believe a rulemaking is the appropriate administrative process for clarifying CWA jurisdiction. And, we strongly support the agencies desire to provide greater clarity and predictability for jurisdictional determinations. The CWA, along with other environmental laws, is critical to protecting our nation s aquatic resources, including its drinking water sources. Thus, we continue to support EPA s work with other federal agencies using the CWA and other existing authorities to protect the chemical, physical, and biological, integrity of the nation s waters. While we encourage the federal government to protect drinking water supplies, the undersigned organizations urge EPA and the Corps regulators to adhere to the spirit of CWA policy-making, which historically has balanced policy objectives with pragmatic solutions. Thus, in finalizing the

Page 2 of 5 definition of WOTUS, we encourage the EPA and Corps to consider the implications of this rulemaking on drinking water supplies, balancing the broad interests of the CWA in protecting the nation s surface waters, while not unduly interfering with the provision of the nation s drinking water and water utility operations. Future water utility capital projects that are constructed in WOTUS should take reasonable and appropriate steps to avoid, minimize, mitigate harm to waters and wetlands. However as a practical matter, water infrastructure once constructed should not be managed under the WOTUS legal construct. We are concerned that under the broad terms, definitions, and concepts used in the proposal, routine operation and maintenance of drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater conveyances, aqueducts, canals, impoundments, and treatment facilities could potentially be subject to jurisdiction. We do not believe that it was Congress intent, nor that of the agencies to have such an effect, and firmly believe that this rulemaking should not alter the historic regulatory paradigm for managing water infrastructure. Infrastructure used to transport and store water are critical components of the systems used to provide drinking water, process wastewater, and manage storm water. With limited exceptions, current and past practice under the CWA has been not to treat water system infrastructure as subject to WOTUS restrictions when carrying out normal operational and maintenance activities. In particular, water supply and treatment operations and maintenance activities conducted by a water utility within or associated with water supply conveyances, storage, and treatment facilities should be specifically exempted from WOTUS restrictions. Similarly, the final rule should retain the current exclusion (33 CFR 328.3(a) and 40 CFR 122.2) for waste treatment systems and it should be clear that that the exclusions include residual management systems associated with drinking water treatment. The current rulemaking also presents an opportunity to clarify that release of drinking water or wastewater to dry land, such as through a sanitary sewer overflow (SSO), do not constitute a discharge to a jurisdictional water body. Water infrastructure facilities encompass a broad range of structures and activities, ranging from green infrastructure (e.g., infiltration trenches, swales, artificial wetlands, etc.) to ground-water recharge basins and percolation ponds, constructed wetlands, and groundwater wells, water recycling facilities, and stormwater retention basins. The final rule exclusion for water infrastructure should clearly and explicitly encompass the full breadth of water utility operations.

Page 3 of 5 This request for an exclusion, which is consistent with historical practice, speaks directly to the rulemaking goal of a clear definition of WOTUS and consistent implementation of the CWA. For situations that fall outside of any exclusions for ongoing operations and maintenance activities, further efforts also need to be made to eliminate the ambiguity introduced by a number of important terms in the proposed definition. Terms like adjacent, tributary and wetland must be clearly defined to ensure that they are not construed as applying to water utility infrastructure, including facilities and practices such as those listed above. In addition to clarifying the definitions of adjacent, tributary, and wetland, EPA must provide clear definitions of all key words and phrases in the rule, including: neighboring, bordering, aggregation, in the region, and similarly situated. It is also confusing when the proposed rule creates terms that are used differently in other regulatory contexts and/or are ill-defined in describing WOTUS. An example is use of the words floodplain and riparian area to define adjacency. For the rulemaking to achieve its goal of increased clarity, the final rule language should communicate both where WOTUS starts and where WOTUS ends. In explaining the agencies intent, the EPA s and Corps subject-matter experts refer to current guidance and preamble language. However, guidance and preamble do not have the force of law, and existing guidance will likely be replaced after the rule is finalized in favor of interpretation of the revised rule language as it is written. Consequently, in addition to the definitions listed above, the final rule language should provide a clear basis for: 1. Distinguishing between a tributary and water infrastructure such as stormwater ditches and swales. 2. Defining when water is sufficiently physically remote as to be no longer adjacent. Contemporaneously with publication of the final rule, the EPA and Corps should issue guidance incorporating photographs to illustrate definitions and thereby provide clarity for regulatory staff, regulated entities, and the public. Such guidance can also provide additional clarity to the regulatory text by conveying generally understood conventions for delineating WOTUS. Such conventions can speed and provide nationwide consistency in implementation. For situations that fall outside of any exclusions, we also recommend that, when this rulemaking is finalized, the Corps and EPA re-visit the eligibility criteria for nationwide permits. The final definition of WOTUS will have a direct impact on whether the current triggers are sufficient to ensure that (1) Corps and EPA staff resources remain focused on site-specific projects that have significant potential impacts and (2) water utilities and other

Page 4 of 5 entities engaged in construction, maintenance, repair, expansion, and diversification projects incorporate generally accepted practices to assure protection of WOTUS, while minimizing regulatory burden and avoiding associated project delays. For water utilities, the ability to engage in timely construction and other maintenance and improvement projects has significant implications for infrastructure function, system integrity, public health, fire protection, local economies, and the local community s quality of life. It is critical that the Corps and EPA structure nationwide permits so as to not delay water system maintenance, repair, and construction activities. The transfer of water for purposes of water supply is an essential element of water resource management and that management warrants close attention and clarity as to the jurisdiction of the CWA. In defining WOTUS, EPA and the Corps should be clear that waters transferred from one water body to another without intervening municipal, industrial, or agricultural use should not be subject to WOTUS restrictions for purposes of water utility operations and maintenance. The WOTUS rulemaking also raises questions regarding federal recognition of state water quantity management. Again in keeping with the rule s purpose of clarifying historic practice in the context of recent court rulings, when finalizing the rule, EPA and the Corps must explicitly defer authority over water quantity to states, as required by CWA section 101(g). The rule language must give full force and effect to and not diminish or detract from States authority over water allocation and water rights administration. In summary, we support attempting to clarify the definition of WOTUS. However, unless changes are made to the current proposal, the paradigm under which water utilities operate their infrastructure will change. In finalizing the proposed rule we expect EPA to provide clear exclusions from CWA regulatory oversight for routine operation and maintenance of drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater conveyances, aqueducts, canals, impoundments, and treatment facilities; remove ambiguity by providing practical definitions for key terms used in the rulemaking; and take additional steps described above to assure sound implementation of the final rule. A clear final rule, consistent with historic practice, can effectively protect the environment, provide important protections to the nation s drinking water supply, and assure the sound function of public water infrastructure.

Page 5 of 5 If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact any of the undersigned individuals. Sincerely, Diane VanDe Hei Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies Michael Deane National Association of Water Companies Timothy H. Quinn Association of California Water Agencies Thomas W. Curtis Deputy American Water Works Association