Kathleen Gildred, Director of SCCED: The Representatives were unable to be here because Congress is still in session.
The Clean Water Act Reauthorization HR 961, passed the U.S. House of Representatives in May 1995, with a vote of 240-185. It is now pending in the Senate.
Marcia Hanscom, representing the Earth Trust Foundation, the Wetlands Action Network, and the Wetlands Working Group. We are pleased that Clinton vetoed the funding bill for USEPA, which would have greatly reduced the EPA oversight of wetlands. We have lost over 90% of our wetlands in California and need to protect what little we have left. We have prepared a letter congratulating the President on the veto, and urging him to ensure that any new bill has wetlands protections. Senate Bill S851 Wetlands Regulatory Reform Act is being considered now. It would endanger wetlands.
Bob Miele, L.A. County Sanitation Districts
Our agency collects waste water for 80 cities, encompassing 4 million people and many businesses and industries. We are a publicly owned treatment works (POTW).
The waste water community is very interested in watershed management, which we see as necessary to cleaning up the nation's waters. The area that has been well regulated since the original Clean Water Act of 1972, has been the point sources, such as sewer treatment systems, which have been cleaned up a lot.
But our water is not clean, primarily because of polluted runoff from so-called non-point sources such as abandoned mines, leaking sewer systems, agricultural runoff, etc. This is in part because EPA does not think it has the authority or money to deal with non-point sources, even though there was some authority in the 1987 Reauthorization. Congress should give EPA the authority and the money to do research and deal with the non-point sources.
The problem is that the POTWs are having to spend more on treatment, when the big issue is the non-point sources. This is the reason that many Sanitation Districts are supportive of the approach in this reauthorization legislation, especially funding for research on non-point sources. Another is making it easier to privatize facilities.
Rep. Steve Horn put an amendment that will allow us to apply for a 301(h) waiver. We believe that our present treatment is adequate protection of the ocean, but we were turned down on a waiver by EPA, as a result of a NRDC lawsuit, so now we are required to go to secondary treatment of our ocean outfall by 2002.
There is some DDT on the bottom of the ocean released from our system in the 1940s and 1950s. Much of it has dissipated, but about 10% of it remains. Some of us were looking at getting rid of the DDT, our contribution would have cost $45 million, but the judge threw out the case, so there is nothing being done about the DDT problem.
But the act has some things the wastewater community does not agree with, such as relaxation of wetlands protections.
I do not believe there is going to be a Clean Water Act in this Congress. If HR961 were passed it would be vetoed by the President.
Mark Gold, Executive Director, Heal the Bay
We have 10,000 members. Our mission to make the Santa Monica Bay and all coastal waters healthy for humans, plants and animals.
1995 has been a terrifying year for water quality. When HR961 was introduced in March and sailed through the House and passed in May, the environmental groups felt completely helpless. But Sen. John Chaffee is the environmental hero of the year. He bottled up HR961 in the Senate Environment committee. He only had a brief hearing on it just last week. We believe that bill is not going anywhere.
HR961 would be catastrophic for this region. Storm water is the major contribution to pollution on our beaches. The bill would make storm water pollution permits voluntary and put much less effort on controlling non-point sources. There would be no regulation of municipalities under 100,000 population, and cities over 100,000 would have only voluntary compliance, through unenforceable "storm water management plans."
Under current legislation California has a general industrial storm water permit that applies to 50,000 industrial facilities. So far only 20% have even turned in a 2-page form to indicate intent to comply. There is much worse compliance with the general construction permit. The states are not adequate to control this. Agriculture has been completely unregulated all this time, so there is no regulation of the run-off from farm lands. Forestry is unregulated, so when the clear-cutting causes large erosion and runoff there is no recourse. Even mining is still largely unregulated.
An attempt to kill Section 6217 of the Coastal Management Act did not happen. However, California has not taken that provision seriously, just having the State Water Board make a very weak submission of a plan to comply, saying that the municipal permits handle the issue. It only covers within 5 miles of the ocean coast. And the agriculture problem is not dealt with at all.
HR961 had some other unfortunate language. It threw out the National Academy of Sciences definition of a wetland. It would allow the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge without EPA oversight, which means the contaminated dredging from Ballona Creek could be dumped on Dockweiler State Beach without regulation.
San Diego's Point Loma Sewage Treatment Plant is doing no secondary treatment, just emitting water into the ocean that has had only primary treatment. However, EPA has approved a waiver for San Diego. The result is unfair to L.A. and Orange Counties, which means we have a lot higher sewage fees. Section 301(h) says you can discharge non-secondary treated water, only if you can show no impact on the marine life.
We need to tie laws and regulations into benefiting uses, such as making water safer to swim, wildlife protected, etc.
My hope is that the Sanitation Districts will join the environmentalists in supporting storm water discharge permits for the smaller municipalities. Everyone should have to pull their own weight.
Terrence McNally: If the HR961 is dead, what is the political situation facing us?
Bob Miele: The Senate doesn't want to pass any bill, because then there will be a Conference discussion over HR961. So Senator Chaffee is saying, "Let's look at it one issue at a time, such as just storm water." However, Rep. Bud Schuster has said any bill has to include the wetlands issue.
I believe the Republicans and Democrats will look at the polls and if it appears that there is going to be a Republican President, then the Democrats will go along with some Clean Water Act, this year, otherwise they will hold out for no bill.
Mark Gold: Public polls show that people want to protect the Clean Water Act, so Congress chose the wrong fight. There is a possibility Chaffee will introduce something on storm water, and combined sewer overflow.
Bob Miele: I believe the House Republicans will not stand for that. Rumors are that the Republicans will remove Chaffee from chair of the Senate Environment Committee.
Brian Johnson, City of Santa Monica: What about overgrazing?
Bob Miele: The Agriculture bill is up for reauthorization and there might be some new language in that bill. Farmers would receive some money or tax credits if they took steps to reduce pollutant runoff. However, there has been no discussion on the grazing issue.
Roger Gorky, Heal the Bay: It is time for POTWs to do more. What is the waste community doing to level the playing field for the bad actors, to have more storm watershed management?
Bob Miele: The POTW community has taken a long view on the non-point source pollution issue. We say, let's look at the beneficial issues. Let's do watershed management. I'm not sure a permitting program is the most cost-effective way to do it, but no one trusts the waste community to do what is right without regulation. Now we have built the treatment plants and we are environmentalists.
Mark Gold: Heal the Bay spent much time trying to get the City of L.A. to oppose the Horn amendment, but Ron Deeton, City legislative relations, pushed Horn for the amendment because he was sick of San Diego getting all the breaks.
Bob Miele: We told Ron not to play that game. We don't see ourselves in competition with San Diego. If San Diego met the criteria to get a waiver, they should get one. We don't believe that we should be required to do secondary treatment, but we lost and we will comply.
Susan Wheatly, Orange County Sanitation District: The issue is beneficial uses, the quality of the water output, not the kind of treatment. We in Orange County do not believe we should have to do more treatment, unless you can show the water quality is lowered. We should put our resources into water reclamation, rather than making the ocean outfall just a little cleaner. We do care about the ocean. POTWs will work with communities to identify where pollution problems are coming from. The big challenge is dealing with the storm water issue.
John Shaughnessy, Progressive Legislative Action Network: If it is clear that moderate Republicans among the voting public will support clean water, can we get a better act this year?
Mark Gold: Theoretically that could work, but the public does not care about the environ-ment as a high priority. There is no one in the moderate Republican leadership that will support that this year. The media ignores the environment, even in the budget issues.
Bob Miele: The House Republican leadership is in a sacred bond with all the Republican members, so nothing moderate can happen. The House even tried to put many environmental riders in the budget bill, but that failed.
Judy Ligget, SCCED: How much money and energy goes into educating the public that clean water is a public right, so that individuals and businesses reduce their pollution?
Bob Miele: Public education is the key on the non-point sources. For example, Heal the Bay's stenciling of the storm drains has been very helpful. We are supportive of coalition building. We are educating school kids through the Think Earth program. Everyone is on the same side on this.
Judy Ligget, SCCED: How can an outfall make a difference so many miles out in the ocean?
Bob Miele: The fact is that everything has to go somewhere. If there were unlimited money, perhaps we could elim