<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [Vision2020] Moscow Water Treatment
Center</title></head><body>
<div><tt>Tim,</tt></div>
<div><tt><br></tt></div>
<div><tt>My column from today's paper.</tt></div>
<div><tt><br></tt></div>
<div><tt>Mark</tt></div>
<div><tt><br></tt></div>
<div><tt>*********</tt></div>
<div><tt><br></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000"> TOWN CRIER II: State at fault for
Moscow's water woes<br>
<br>
By Mark Solomon</font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000">Wednesday, December 6, 2006 - Page
Updated at 10:53:38 AM</font></tt><br>
<tt><font color="#000000"></font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000"><br></font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000">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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.</font></tt></div>
<div><tt><font color="#000000"><br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.</font></tt></div>
<div><tt><br></tt></div>
<div><tt>At 5:38 PM -0800 12/6/06, Tim Lohrmann wrote:</tt></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt><font
color="#FF0000"><b>CAUTION:</b></font><font color="#0000FF"><b> NO
CHRIST-CHURCH OR DOUG WILSON-RELATED
CONTENT.</b></font></tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt><font
color="#0000FF"><b
> <span
></span> REGULAR POST-ERS STRONGLY
CAUTIONED!!</b></font></tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt> </tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt> </tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt><b>What's the latest on the City of
Moscow's water treatment center?</b></tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt><b>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.</b></tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt><b>I guess I haven't looked hard
enough, but I haven't seen anything else about
it.</b></tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt><b>
TL</b></tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt> </tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt> </tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt> </tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt> </tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt> </tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt><i><b>"Those 'technicalities'
have a name, Bobby. They're called the Bill of
Rights."</b></i></tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite><tt><i><b
> <span
></span
> <span
></span
> <span
></span
> <span
></span
> <span
></span
> <span
></span
> <span
></span
> <span
></span
> <span
></span> ----Hank
Hill</b></i></tt><br>
<tt></tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt> </tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>
<hr size="1"></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt>Cheap Talk?</tt> <a
href=
"http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman8/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39663/*http://voice.yahoo.com"><tt><span
></span>Check out</tt></a><tt> Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call
rates.</tt></blockquote>
<div><tt><br></tt></div>
</body>
</html>