Building a Green Maryland : Maryland Green Building Lawyer & Attorney : Megan Reuwer : O’Malley, Miles, Nylen & Gilmore Law Firm : MD Green Building, Sustainability

Before launching into an analysis of Senator Cardin’s bill (S. 1816, the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act) as promised, I have a quick update on last week’s post, in which we learned that some people found fault with the EPA’s plan to implement its task of protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay. We were also made aware that the EPA had sent a “consequence” letter to the six watershed states outlining the potential steps that the EPA might take should a state fail to meet the EPA’s expectations for developing a Watershed Implementation Plan or should that state not meet its performance milestones. A copy of the Region III letter is now available; I have also made a pdf of the letter that I’ve marked up to highlight the consequences that may resonate the most with the building industry (see Enclosure B, in particular, for the real meat of the consequences as presented to the states).

Now, on to S. 1816 – let’s begin with a few basic facts:

• Title of bill: A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to improve and reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program.
• Sponsors of bill: Sen. Benjamin Cardin (MD), Sen. Barbara Mikulski (MD), Sen. Edward Kaufman (DE), and Sen. Thomas Carper (DE)
• Last major action: November 9, 2009 (Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife)

Several notable provisions of the bill (of general interest):

1. Calls for the continuation of the Chesapeake Bay Program
2. Proposes establishment of additional grants to Bay states
3. Calls for the creation of a nitrogen and phosphorus trading program
4. Similar to the EPA's announced strategy for restoring and protecting the Bay in response to Executive Order 13508, the bill requires that each Bay state adopt a Watershed Implementation Plan (due on or before May 12, 2011). The Plan must include state-adopted management measures that are binding and enforceable as well as an enforcement mechanism to include a penalty structure for failures (example: fees or forfeiture of State funds). In light of the "consequences" letter sent by the EPA discussion above, it's interesting to see that the bill asks the Bay states to craft their own penalties - as least with respect to their Watershed Implementation Plans.

Provisions of the bill that specifically impact land development:

1. Stormwater Permits - effective January 1, 2013, Bay state must provide assurance that the owner or operator of any development or redevelopment project with an impervious footprint size to be determined through rulemaking, will use strategies "to the maximum extent technically feasible" to maintain or restore the predevelopment hydrology of the property with regard to stormwater temperature, rate, volume and flow, AND the property owner or operator will compensate for any unavoidable impacts.  A definition of the terms "predevelopment hydrology," "development or redevelopment impervious footprint," and "compensation" does not yet exist and regulations defining these terms aren't "due" until December 31, 2012...!
2. Federal oversight of projects resulting in impervious development - (1) Administrator to establish guidance for site design, construction, and maintenance to ensure land maintains previous hydrology; and (2) establish model ordinances for low-impact development infrastructure techniques.

I think this bill, if passed into law, will significantly broaden federal control and oversight of the Bay states.  This could be positive if the end result is actual protection and restoration of the Bay and its ecosystem; but there's also a federalism issue here that could prove quite negative.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a Washington Post article titled “Chesapeake Bay advocates call EPA cleanup plan too weak,” published December 31, 2009, author David A. Fahrenthold reports that a collection of scientists, environmentalists and ex-politicians have stepped forward to admonish the EPA that its plans to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay  in response to Executive Order 13508 aren’t nearly tough enough. 

Fahrenthold writes that the 38-member group, brought together by a former Maryland state senator, said the EPA is not moving aggressively enough to curb pollution that drains off farmland or to protect the forests that serve as a natural water filter.

According to Fahrenthold, the group gathered at the Maryland State House and included several "waterkeepers" -- advocates for the Patuxent, Severn, Choptank and other bay tributaries -- and prominent scientists who study crabs, oysters and water pollution. Former U.S. representative Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-Md.) and former U.S. senator Joseph D. Tydings (D-Md.) also were there.

The EPA has said that it plans to punish states that lag behind their cleanup goals (sanctions could include some prohibitions on new subdivisions or sewage plants, more restrictions on farms and tighter controls over federal grants to states), but the group said that the federal government should do more than that, and is calling for Congress to pass legislation to expand that power to punish.

They said all but the smallest farms should face tight restrictions on the disposal of animal manure, which can wash into bay tributaries and feed the algae that cause dead zones. And they said the EPA should require forests to be protected -- or replanted -- on 85 percent of the shoreline of the Chesapeake and its tributaries.

Fahrenthold further writes that the group also called for Congress to pass legislation sponsored by Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) and Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) that would give the EPA more muscle to punish states (S. 1816, the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act). The bill has been opposed by agricultural groups and home development firms, which say it will impose crushing costs on their industries.

Next week, we'll take an in-depth look at S. 1816 (introduced October 20, 2009 and referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee) to get a sense of possible industry ramifications should this bill become law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay released its Draft Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay on November 9, 2009 (concurrent with the Draft Strategy, an Executive Summary was released). Comments on the Draft Strategy are due by January 8, 2010 and the final strategy for protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay is to be completed and released by May 12, 2010.

The Draft Strategy isn't very different from the Draft 202(a) Report submitted by the EPA to the Federal Leadership Committee. Some of the recommendations that may be of particular interest to the building industry include:

1. Development of an Economic Market for Ecosystem Services: Federal agencies will support the development of innovative technologies and economic markets as a way to provide landowners with an incentive to practice sustainable agriculture and forestry. Essentially, entities such as urban water utilities, industrial polluters, and land developers who must pay to mitigate negative impacts to the watershed will pay for the implementation of conservation practices that offset those impacts. USDA will lead a collaborative federal effort to develop ecosystem markets in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

2. Promote Smart Growth and Sustainable Development: Because land use has a direct impact on the environment, federal agencies will promote sustainable development and smart growth through assistance and tools to local governments. DOT, EPA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development will convene a series of forums and partner with local governments to conduct integrated transportation, land use, housing, and water infrastructure planning in a sustainable and environmentally sensitive manner. DOT will promote use of public transportation, bicycling, and walking, and partner with the Department of Energy (DOE) on a pilot project to support increased use of electric cars.

There are a couple of statements in the Draft Strategy that seem to directly address some of the concerns raised by the industry during listening sessions with the EPA. For example, page 23 of the Draft Strategy addresses the cost implications for more stringent stormwater management practices for new construction but ultimately concludes that change is more valuable:

Demonstrating the value of changing our behaviors is a difficult task. Often, such changes are viewed as a threat to people’s lifestyle or economic well-being. Reducing stormwater runoff, for example, may require the installation of new technologies in both residential and commercial developments. Requirements to use new roofing technologies or porous pavement have the potential to raise the price of such development. Partnering with states and communities to lead change in community planning and individual choices is important to bring all stakeholders and residents into the effort to achieve and sustain a healthy system.”

Here are a few statistics cited in the Draft Strategy that builders and developers may find interesting:

1. Between 1990 and 2000, the amount of land in the watershed covered by impervious surfaces increased by about 41 percent, while population in the Bay watershed grew by 8 percent. Stormwater running off urban and suburban lands is now the fastest-growing source of pollution in the Bay. (Draft Strategy p.19)

2. Construction sites can contribute, on a per-acre basis, 10 to 20 times more sediment than do agricultural lands. (Draft Strategy p. 22)

3. A one-acre parking lot produces about 16 times the volume of runoff that comes from a one-acre meadow.” (Draft Strategy p.31)

4. Development has increasingly altered both natural and cultural landscapes, tearing at the very fabric that defines the region and supports our way of life….Moreover, converting forests and open spaces to development simply exacerbates pollution problems now harming the Bay and its rivers. On average, an acre of forest delivers just 3.3 lbs of nitrogen to streams annually; an acre of developed land delivers 32.9 lbs of nitrogen annually. (Draft Strategy p. 33)

If you have any statistics, data, or general comments that you'd like to make to the FLC and the EPA as they go forward in developing a more concrete strategy, it's important to submit them by January 8, 2010 to be considered. Comments can be provided via this link.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On October 27, 2009, I attended the second listening session hosted by the EPA to discuss the building industry’s comments, concerns, and suggestions in response to the Draft 202(a) Report (Draft Report Fulfilling Section 202a of Executive Order 13508) issued by the agency on September 9, 2009. This report, as its title states, is a draft that will be considered by the Federal Leadership Committee as it prepares its draft strategy to restore the Bay. The draft strategy report is expected to be available for public comment on November 9, 2009.

Before jumping into the industry’s concerns about the draft report, here’s a brief summary of some of the potential 202(a) strategies outlined in the report itself:

1. Accountability Program: Creating a new accountability program to guide federal and state efforts to restore the Bay. This could be created in conjunction with the TMDL process that will begin in December 2010. The TMDL will allocate pollutant reductions to both point and non-point sources (including stormwater and agricultural runoff). As part of the TMDL implementation, EPA will expect Maryland to provide documented “reasonable assurance” that the non-point source loading restrictions will be achieved. EPA will use its authority under section 117(g) of the Clean Water Act to determine and set “expectations” for a Clean Water Accountability Program. Success of the program may be evaluated by two-year milestones detailing actions taken and progress made towards reaching water quality goals.
2. Consequences: If jurisdictions fail to commit to an accountability program OR if they fail to meet their two-year milestones, then the EPA may (a) revise the TMDL to assign more stringent reduction responsibilities to point sources; (b) object to state-issued NPDES permits; (c) take action to limit or prohibit new or expanded discharges of nutrients and sediments; (d) withhold or reallocate federal grant funds; (e) or take other action as appropriate.
3. New rule-making: To address stormwater concerns, this could include expanding the jurisdiction of the regulatory MS4 program to include high-growth areas and establish minimum performance standards within permits consistent with Bay water goals. EPA asserts that its authority for this new rule-making could fall under the Clean Water Act.

There were representatives from various home builder associations in attendance at the meeting, along with developers, builders, attorneys, and members of planning agencies. Here is a synopsis of the most compelling reactions and concerns:

1. Some of the proposed consequences and rule-making seems to exceed the EPA's regulatory authority.
2. There is a concern among residential builders that some of the nitrogen attributed to new construction activities fails to take into consideration the fact that this nitrogen could be the result of homeowner activities.
3. The building and development industry is an easy target for rule-making because it is one of the most heavily regulated industries. How is the EPA going to distribute the burden of paying for the clean-up initiatives required under the program? Has it considered the possibility of creating more oversight over industries such as agriculture (which is a top pollutant source)?
4. Has the EPA considered enacting a retrofit program for existing development? Upgrading stormwater management facilities in older neighborhoods could greatly help in reaching the 202(a) goals.
5. It's important to build some flexibility into whatever the final strategies will be - we need to have the ability to mitigate off-site especially in those urban, redevelopment areas that many planning agencies have targeted as smart growth areas.

The EPA seemed responsive to the concerns voiced during this listening session, but since the next phase (the draft strategy report) will be issued so quickly (a mere two weeks after this meeting), I have some doubts that any of these concerns can be adequately addressed in time. It's going to be very important for those expressing concern over the strategies once they are revealed on November 9, 2009, to get those comments submitted into the record. I'll post a link to the announcement in the Federal Register once the draft strategy is released.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks