[Vision2020] Moscow Water Treatment Center

Thu Dec 7 12:05:40 PST 2006

One update to Mark's column in the Daily News,

The editorial in the Daily News mentioned that Alaska and Idaho are the
only two states that do not have discharge permitting authority; while
this is currently true Alaska, as of June 29, 2006, applied for primacy
under the Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program as
authorized under Alaska Statues and Code.   The EPA, on August 1, 2006
determined that the stated NPDES application was incomplete; the state,
in November, began the process of addressing the inadequacies and will
submit an updated application sometime in the next couple of months.
After the EPA accepts this updated application, the EPA has 90 days to
approve the application.  Alaska DEQ fully expects to have discharge
permitting authority sometime around March or April 2007.  

 Alaska was not under in great rush to complete this paperwork until the
EPA closed the Anchorage office and moved operations to Seattle.   Once
this closure had occurred, former Governor Murkowski, together with the
State legislature, decided to move forward with obtaining permitting
authority.  

After Spring 2007, Idaho will be the only state to not have discharge
permitting authority.   

Chris Storhok

________________________________

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Mark Solomon
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 9:46 PM
To: Tim Lohrmann; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Moscow Water Treatment Center

Tim,

My column from today's paper.

Mark

*********

 TOWN CRIER II: State at fault for Moscow's water woes

By Mark Solomon

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 - Page Updated at 10:53:38 AM

In the Daily News editorial (Weekend, Dec. 2 & 3), Murf Raquet comes
down on the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed penalties for
discharge violations at the Moscow sewage treatment plant blaming the
EPA - that big, bad, out-of-touch federal agency - for once again
threatening an innocent victim. Unmentioned in the editorial is what I
believe is the underlying source of the regulatory problem: the Idaho
Legislature's failure to trust its own agency, the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality, with implementing the federal Clean Water Act in
Idaho.

The Clean Water Act was written with the intention that the states would
implement the law. EPA was directed to act in an oversight capacity
providing unified guidance to the states, but first, each state had to
show it had the capability, from both a statutory framework and a
staffing point of view, to administer a technically challenging
regulatory program.

Two states failed to do that. Idaho and Alaska have the dubious
distinction of being the only states in the nation that do not have
their own water pollution point source permitting program. The result:
all of Idaho's waste water discharge permits are written and monitored
long-distance by EPA staff in Seattle rather than by Idaho's Department
of Environmental Quality.

The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System regulates water
pollution from point source dischargers such as Moscow's sewage plant.
Wastewater dischargers vary both in size and pollution production. EPA,
in Idaho's absence, has to oversee wastewater operations from small
trailer park sewage lagoons to huge industrial facilities, a daunting
task even if they weren't hundreds of miles away.

Every few years the howls from Idaho water pollution dischargers tired
of the seeming randomness of regulatory attention from EPA get loud
enough to move the Legislature to consider creating an Idaho NPDES
program. Unfortunately, the Legislature deems the costs of implementing
such a program to be too high. The costs come in two forms: hard cash
for funding the program and serious political exposure if the state were
to take on the responsibility of regulating major Idaho industrial
polluters.

As an example of how Idaho fails even when it does take on its
responsibility of monitoring pollution, let's sidestep into air
pollution for a moment. Unlike water, Idaho has been in charge of air
permitting since 1978 except for the years 1980-1983. The Clean Air Act,
like the Clean Water Act, specifies state implementation under EPA
guidance. In 1980 DEQ complied and wrote the first air pollution permit
for the largest air polluter in Idaho, the Potlatch mill in Lewiston.
Potlatch didn't like it, saying the cost of cleaning up their pollution
was too high despite the fact that a good acid rainstorm would have the
paint peeling off houses and cars in Lewiston not to mention the effects
on people's health. This being Idaho, Potlatch made this troublesome
permit disappear by successfully lobbying the Legislature to zero out
the entire DEQ air quality budget.

Much to Potlatch's dismay, eliminating Idaho's air quality program did
not make the Clean Air Act go away. Instead, EPA wrote Potlatch's
permit, but it did not have the charge or incentive to negotiate
solutions to some of the technical issues raised that occurred when
Idaho was in control. After three years of EPA oversight, Potlatch and
other big Idaho polluters were back at the Legislature asking for money
to reinstate DEQ's air program. Their wish was granted, but this time
when the agency went back to work there was an ominous cloud in the
office: having been dismissed once, DEQ became gun shy when it came to
writing and monitoring Potlatch and other industrial pollution permits.
They tended, then and now, to fall on the industry side of any question
rather than on the side of public interest.

Back to water: Who would I prefer be writing permits for the public
interest: DEQ or EPA? That's a tough one as long as agencies are run by
appointees more responsive to political masters' and permittees'
interests than to science and public health. All things being equal, I
prefer a decision that is made locally.

There are other issues that complicate Moscow sewer plant discharge
requirements beyond the matter of who is actually writing the permit.
But until the Idaho Legislature embraces environmental protection by
authorizing a state NPDES program, adequately funding DEQ and staying
the heck out of permitting issues for their corporate campaign
contributors, EPA, whether they deserve the post or not, is the name of
the game.

At 5:38 PM -0800 12/6/06, Tim Lohrmann wrote:

	CAUTION: NO CHRIST-CHURCH OR DOUG WILSON-RELATED CONTENT.

	                 REGULAR POST-ERS STRONGLY CAUTIONED!!

	What's the latest on the City of Moscow's water treatment
center?

	It was reported last week that it is not in EPA compliance, and
needed to be brought up to specs or that the city was to be fined.

	I guess I haven't looked hard enough, but I haven't seen
anything else about it.

	    TL

	"Those 'technicalities' have a name, Bobby. They're called the
Bill of Rights."

----Hank Hill

________________________________

	Cheap Talk? Check out
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman8/*http:/us.rd.yahoo.com
/evt=39663/*http:/voice.yahoo.com>  Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone
call rates.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20061207/b81e14e6/attachment-0001.html 