Updates From The New York Times

The New York Times had two interesting articles today that caught my eye.

The first - on the front page - is a report that more than 20% of the U.S.'s water treatment systems have violated "key" provisions of the national Safe Drinking Water Act over the past five years. According to the Times, while regulators were made aware of the violations, less than 6% resulted in regulatory action (i.e. fines or other punishment). According to anonymous insiders at the EPA, the lack of action is due (1) to the concern that any fines or other punishments will simply be passed on to taxpayers; and (2) the fact that drinking water cases lack headline appeal.

This report highlights a significant problem with any regulatory regime. It is not enough to simply have laws and regulations. You have to enforce them. Given the EPA's new committment to enforcing water law in the U.S., perhaps we will start to see some action on this issue. (And thanks to Mike Campana over at WaterWired for the heads up on this story.)

The second Times story that caught my eye today is the announcement that the World Meteorological Organization has issued an analysis that the decade of the 2000's (2000-2009) is going to go down as the warmest decade since instrumental record keeping began more than 150 years ago. And though the year isn't quite done yet, 2009 may end up among the top 5 hottest years on record as well. This assessment is apparently consistent with similar independant assessments performed by NASA and the U.S. National Climatic Data Center.

We can only hope that this report puts to rest the argument (usually based on highly cherry picked data) that the Earth is actually cooling globally.

Nutrient Standards Under The Clean Water Act

There is an interesting lawsuit wending its way through the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The case is Florida Wildlife Federation v. EPA, Case No. 08-00324. It involves an attempt by the Florida Wildlife Federation (along with a variety of other environmental groups) to mandate the EPA to issue numerical limits on nutrient levels in Florida’s navigable waterways under the Clean Water Act.

Nutrients, like nitrates and phosphates, are distinct from other pollutants in that they are not only naturally present in bodies of water, they are necessary to maintain healthy aquatic ecosystems. But run-off from agriculture, and discharges from certain industries, can cause imbalances in nutrient levels that disrupt local ecosystems. Most people who live in coastal areas are familiar with the phenomenon known as red-tide, a sometimes harmful type of algal bloom that some have linked to nitrate and phosphate run-off from agricultural activity. Similar problems can crop up in lakes and rivers.

While Florida currently has a water quality standard for nutrients, the standard is “narrative.” It simply states, “Nutrients: In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna.” Rule 62-302.530(47)(b), Fla. Admin. Code. While this sort of regulation certainly serves as a nice mission statement, the devil – as always – is in the detail. The plaintiffs in Florida Wildlife argue that while this standard sounds nice, it is entirely subjective, and has resulted in ineffective efforts to regulate nutrient levels in Florida’s waters.

The plaintiffs’ initial legal hook was a 1998 EPA document called the Clean Water Action Plan, 63 Fed. Reg. 14,109, and a 1998 EPA report entitled National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria, 63 Fed. Reg. 34,648, which argue that nutrient pollution is a significant problem, and that the lack of numerical nutrient criteria makes it difficult to effectively regulate nutrient contamination. The Clean Water Action Plan actually commits the EPA to the development of numerical nutrient criteria by 2003. Needless to say, this didn't happen.

The plaintiffs in Florida Wildlife allege that the Action Plan and National Strategy constitute “determinations” under 33 USC §1313(c)(4)(B) of the Clean Water Act which would require the EPA to “promptly prepare and publish regulations setting forth a revised or new water quality standard for the navigable waters involved….” In other words, the plaintiffs argue that because the EPA issued the documents, the Clean Water Act requires the EPA to issue numerical nutrient regulations.

So why do we care?

We care because the Action Plan and National Strategy are not limited to Florida. If the report constitutes a “determination” within the meaning of the Clean Water Act, it would require numerical nutrient standards nationwide, and currently only a handful of states have them.

Unsurprisingly, the EPA initially resisted the lawsuit on the basis that the Action Plan and National Strategy were not formal determinations. But on January 14, 2009, some six months after the lawsuit was filed, the EPA did a complete about-face and issued a formal determination that numerical nutrient criteria are necessary for Florida (and only Florida). And now the plaintiffs and EPA have agreed upon a Consent Decree (in essence an agreed upon judgment that would be issued by the Court), that will require the creation and implementation of numerical nutrient standards for Florida by October 15, 2011. In essence, the Consent Decree amounts to the EPA consenting to a judgment against it.

The EPA, however, is not the only defendant in the suit. A number of Florida state agencies have intervened and are now crying foul at the consent decree. They have objected on the bases that (1) the 2009 determination appears to have been created solely to settle the lawsuit without any scientific support; and (2) the timeline set by the decree is entirely unrealistic and will lead to the adoption of scientifically indefensible standards.

Though I have to admit to being skeptical that valid standards can be arrived at within the time period allotted, that is actually not what interests me here. The EPA’s rather fishy 2009 determination, and the Consent Decree, will be like blood in the water for environmental organizations across the country.

This case has all the hallmarks of an environmental “test case,” prior to a larger national effort. It is remarkable therefore that the EPA has essentially rolled over and conceded the case. If the Consent Decree is approved, I would not be surprised to see copy-cat litigation nationwide. And because the legal issues would be identical, the Consent Decree could be used to force the EPA to mandate numerical standards in every state. That would be a massive undertaking given the technical complexities involved.

This begs the question - what is going on at the EPA? Is this an indication of changing priorities regarding regulation and enforcement? If so, it wouldn't be the first indication.

There will be a fairness hearing on the Consent Decree on November 16th. It will be interesting to see whether the Court approves it.

Clean Air = Dirty Water?

There is an interesting article over at the New York Times regarding an unintended side-effect of stricter air pollution regulations on coal fired power plants.

The gist of the article is that tougher clean air laws have forced power plants to scrub their air emissions. Unfortunately, the plants apparently dump much of the scrubbed material into local rivers and water supplies. And while the material they are dumping is supposedly "treated," the treatment doesn't remove everything - including a number of heavy metals that have been shown to be carcinogenic.

The EPA is currently considering tougher regulations on power plant discharges, and has attempted to enact them in the past. But the lobbyists are out in force opposing any heavier regulation.

I take away from this article the importance of regarding environmental regulation in a holistic sense. This problem was created with the best of intentions - the desire to clean up air pollution. But an inability or unwillingness to look at the situation as a whole - i.e. "where are the plants' by-products going to go if not into the air?" - has simply shifted the environmental impact rather than ameliorated or eliminated it.

I also believe that regardless of the lobbying efforts to the contrary, greater regulation of power plant emissions will happen. I believe that is simply the political reality of the 21st century. And it would behoove the industry to get ahead of the problem.

The Clean Water Restoration Act

There is a fight brewing – big surprise – over the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2009 (“CWRA”)(S.787). The stated purpose of the CWRA is to “restore” the authority of the EPA under the Clean Water Act and roll back the clock to the state of the law prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) (“SWANCC”) and Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).

According to U.S. Representative James Oberstar (D-MN) and Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), as well as environmentalists who support the bill, the CWRA is needed to restore the original authority of the EPA under the Clean Water Act. Others disagree and allege that the CWRA vastly expands the scope of the EPA’s authority to waters never contemplated under the Clean Water Act.

The crux of the dispute is that the Clean Water Act of 1972 (as amended) does not clearly define what waters it applies to. The Act refers to “navigable waters” (33 U.S.C. §§1311(a) and 1342(a)), but then defines that term as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” (§1362(7)) Prior to the Supreme Court’s decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos, the Act was believed by some to apply broadly to non-navigable (in the traditional sense of the word) bodies of water, including intrastate wetlands. SWANCC and Rapanos changed all that. Under those decisions, the extent of the Clean Water Act was read to include only “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water…” Rapanos at 739. Further, the Court read the Act to cover only those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to an otherwise covered “water”. Id. at 742. This had the effect of excluding numerous intrastate “waters” and wetlands that had previously been deemed to fall within the scope of the Act.

So – here comes the CWRA. This legislation will either “restore” or “dramatically expand” federal jurisdiction under the Act – depending on whether you support or oppose it. The CWRA would extend the Act to include, “all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the foregoing...” (S. 787, §4(3)). In comparing this definition with the one currently found in the Act, I think I have to agree that this expands - not restores - federal jurisdiction under the Act. Environmentalists may not be happy with the Supreme Court’s reading of the Act in Rapanos, but it is reasonable. Those who dislike the decision should vent their ire not at the Supreme Court, but at the legislators who failed to adequately describe what the Act was supposed to cover. The more important question however is not whether the CWRA is restoration or expansion, but whether or not it is a good idea of itself.

As a general proposition, I am often leery of attempts to expand federal regulatory authority for the simple reason that there are often much more efficient means of addressing our problems on a local level. Despite this, there are numerous areas where federal regulation is not only beneficial, but indispensable. One need only look at where the deregulation of the financial industry has gotten us to see a dramatic example of the need for regulation. As to the CWRA, I am mindful of the expansion of federal jurisdiction it entails, but that is outweighed in my mind by the simple fact that water – like the financial industry – is all interconnected. It is a fundamentally dynamic resource that is constantly cycling through our environment – much like air. As such, I have difficulty truly imagining water that is solely “intrastate” or otherwise completely isolated from all other water sources or supplies. To me, that fact weighs heavily in favor of comprehensive regulatory controls that provide consistent treatment of water nationwide.

Pharmaceutical Discharges

There is a new AP article on PPCP contamination (you can see my last posting on that here). This time the focus is on pharmaceutical manufacturers. The article states:

Researchers have found that even extremely diluted concentrations of drugs harm fish, frogs and other aquatic species. Also, researchers report that human cells fail to grow normally in the laboratory when exposed to trace concentrations of certain drugs. Some scientists say they are increasingly concerned that the consumption of combinations of many drugs, even in small amounts, could harm humans over decades.

With the results of studies regarding the impact of PPCP's on our environment expected this year, it seems likely that this issue will gain additional press coverage and traction with the public. I believe that it is important not just for the EPA and FDA, but also those in the water industry to get out ahead of this issue. As the tone of the AP article suggests, statements like this one - "Scientists, doctors and the EPA say there are no confirmed human risks associated with consuming minute concentrations of drugs. " - simply don't cut it.