Bay Cleanup Plans Called Too Costly

Reprinted courtesy of the Bay Journal

 

Members of Congress continued their attacks on the EPA’s new Bay cleanup plan during a November hearing, saying it was forcing huge costs upon farmers and local governments, and criticizing the computer models the agency uses to set pollution goals.

 

The Nov. 3 hearing was the second time this year that a subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee delved into the total maximum daily load, or pollution diet, which many of its members fear will be used as a pollution control template for other areas in the country. Several members sought, unsuccessfully, to block funding for Bay TMDL implementation this year.

 

Many of the comments from panel members followed a line of criticism pursued all year by many members of the Republican-controlled House who have painted the EPA as an out-of-control regulator hurting the economy by inflicting high costs on businesses.

 

“Ultimately, we must be certain that the federal government is not executing the facets of this plan in a heavy-handed manner, which will place undue burden upon states and localities, during a time when we need fewer hindrances to economic growth and job creation, not more,” said the subcommittee’s chairman, Glenn Thompson, R-PA.

 

Even some Democrats joined the criticism. Rep. Tim Holden, D-PA, said that Bay cleanup efforts “should not impede on the livelihood of our family farmers. It is important that EPA works with the states as true partners to ensure the proper balance between a healthy environment and a health economy.”

 

Much of the criticism from committee members and witnesses focused on the EPA’s failure to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the cleanup effort, and on the computer models the EPA uses to estimate where nutrient and sediment pollution is coming from, and how it impacts the Bay.

\

EPA Region III Administrator Shawn Garvin defended the models, noting that the Bay Program’s independent Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee recently issued a report that supported their use in setting cleanup goals.

 

He also said the agency was moving forward with a pledge made during the earlier hearing to estimate the costs and benefits of implementing the TMDL and that he expected to have initial estimates by late next year.

 

Garvin also said the EPA was working with states to resolve disagreements over the development of cleanup plans, noting that the EPA recently clarified that it was no longer requiring states to establish local level nutrient reduction targets measured in pounds.

Instead, he said, targets “should be based on what makes the most sense to the states and their key local partners.”

Other witnesses contended the TMDL was placing too great a burden on local governments and farmers.

 

Edgar Perrow, a member of the Lynchburg City Council in Virginia, said costs to meet Bay goals could be $12 million a year for his city, which translates into a 4 percent increase in overall expenses, or $140 more per household. At the same time, he said, the city has already cut its budget 11 percent and anticipates another 2 percent reduction.”As a result of this Great Recession, our local government has trimmed all the fat we canfind in our budget, but this year we’ll cut deeper,” he said in testimony submitted to the committee. “The added cost of the Bay TMDL program cannot be sustained in our budget.”

 

In addition, he said the city may need a $70 million upgrade for its wastewater treatment plant to meet Bay goals, forcing an increase in its sewer rates which are “already among the highest in