By Rich Anderson
November 7, 2011

Mayors attending the 2011 Mayors Water Summit in Washington (DC) met with top EPA Officials on October 28, where the Agency made its first public briefing on a new Integrated Planning Guidance on Clean Water. This guidance directly addresses many of the concerns raised by mayors who have held a series of meetings with EPA since 2009. Those meetings between the mayors and EPA discussed more economically-sensitive and environmentally-beneficial approaches to solving stormwater overflow issues. EPA was represented at the October 28 meeting by Deputy Administrator Robert Perciasepe, EPA Region 3 Administrator Shawn Garvin, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistant Administrator Cynthia Giles, and Office of Water Acting Assistant Administrator Nancy Stoner.

Perciasepe described the commitment EPA has made to work with cities and other organizations to use an integrated planning process to help financially challenged local governments identify opportunities to achieve clean water by controlling and managing releases of wastewater and stormwater runoff in an effective and cost efficient manner.

The integrated planning process is outlined in a guidance memorandum dated October 27 that was sent to EPA’s regional offices from EPA’s Office of Water and Office of Enforcement and Compliance. Almost exactly one year ago, The U.S. Conference of Mayors submitted a series of recommendations on flexibility related to consent agreements involving sewer overflows. The newly issued EPA guidance is responsive to the Conference of Mayors policy recommendations, and will serve to help municipalities prioritize infrastructure investments to address the most serious water quality issues and provide flexibility to use innovative, cost-effective stormwater and wastewater management solutions.

The memorandum addresses the need for EPA to act as a single entity. Mayors have raised concerns about regional EPA officials who either prefer not to be flexible or who do not think they have the ability to be flexible and how that has resulted in exceedingly costly compliance solutions. Garvin stated that the Regions have to work with HQ to build the process. He said the results could be something that could make us all proud. Garvin stated, “We see no more important relations we have at EPA than the one they have with cities.”

Cities will approach the integrated planning opportunity by arraying the multiple regulatory requirements they are subject to, and make a case to permitting authorities in their regions for investing limited local dollars in those actions that yield the greatest environmental results. One of the goals is to find solutions that address more than one water quality requirement and leverage investments focused on public health and environmental improvements that may be associated with other water quality requirements. City water professionals will articulate how to leverage capital investments and meet operation and maintenance requirements for multiple requirements rather than ignore synergies and miss opportunities when requirements compete for the same available dollars.

Based on several discussions over two years with EPA, the cities view the integrated planning approach as a way to achieve water quality goals recognizing that addressing each water quality regulation separately is neither affordable, nor reasonable. There is no expectation that EPA will relax, or “roll-back” existing public health or environmental protection. As the process unfolds in practical terms, the Agency, state permitting authorities, local government permit holders, and other interested parties can work together to figure out how to continue progress toward water quality goals.

One example of how this has worked is through substituting green infrastructure for the more costly traditional gray infrastructure. Many communities are incorporating low impact development, green roofs, rain gardens, planter boxes, and permeable pavement to reduce storm flow; and those actions are proving effective and are less expensive than building retention tunnels that rely on energy intensive pumping to store and move large volumes of water.

Pleasanton (CA) Mayor Jennifer Hosterman stated, “Together, with many mayors across America, I am pleased that our hard work through lengthy discussions over the past few years with the EPA has resulted in a body of language that we can agree to base future discussions on this most onerous subject of forcing taxpayers to shoulder the burden of compliance with forced water investments. By and large, mayors lead the charge for clean water and air to maintain healthy communities, but we agree that most American families simply cannot afford an ever'shrinking paycheck.” She then added that the hard work to get to this point has resulted in great value, but there is much more to be done to make the new integrated planning approach work.

The EPA announced in the meeting that several Agency staff (identified in the Memorandum on the web at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/integratedplans.cfm) would continue to develop details on how the integrated planning approach will be implemented. Stoner stated that input from cities and other organizations is welcome. She suggested that the Agency is aiming to complete work on the detailed document by the end of this year.

The mayor thanked the EPA officials for drafting and releasing the integrated planning memorandum. She stated that the last meeting with EPA was full of local government frustration, but the current meeting is very positive and the memorandum is a step in the right direction. She views the integrated planning approach consistent with triple bottom line results- it is good for Baltimore’s social need, environment, and local economy. She also stated that EPA should add drinking water regulations into the integrated planning approach to make sure that the people footing the bill get full value for their dollar and that their money is not wasted.

One important provision missing in the October 27 guidance memorandum is a treatment of new technology. He stated that no one wants to make a huge investment in today’s technology when improved technology that is cheaper is probably around the corner. He cited the rapid new generation mobile phone technology as an example. He asked the EPA to include provision in the guidance to allow for technology improvements to lower the overall cost obligations cities bear to comply with the water quality regulations. He emphasized that if we can replace a deep tunnel by doing something biological, chemical or physical to meet water quality standards that can be cheaper than constructing an underground tunnel it would help the affordability problem.

Q. Kansas City (KS) Mayor Joe Reardon: Given where my city is in the consent agreement process, how does the new guidance affect that process?

A. Giles: For cities interested in pursuing the topics in the guidance, EPA is happy to engage with you. Indianapolis came to the Agency with a new and better solution, so EPA worked with the city to amend the consent agreement. The result is better and cheaper, the city saved over $700 million. EPA will welcome such approaches.

A. Perciasepe: It is possible to continue to run current negotiations and modify them simultaneously.

Q. Baltimore (MD) Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake: How will the new framework impact consent decrees, (or?) are you thinking about setting new timelines?

A. Giles: Cities that want to move forward now and we know many cities want to in the interest of certainty, that is okay. Cities that think they have a better way to proceed we will listen to your proposals.

Q. Indianapolis (IN) Public Works Director David Sherman: As we begin this integrated planning process who do we call if we think Regional EPA staff is problematic?

A. Garvin: If you encounter a problem at the staff level you can always elevate it up to me in Region 3 or the Regional Administrator in another Region if that is where your city is. If you are not satisfied at the Regional level, then you can come to Head Quarters and we can initiate a dialogue.

Q. Indianapolis (IN) Public Works Director Dave Sherman: If Indianapolis generates new green infrastructure information and can provide good data is EPA open to modifying existing agreements to change their plans?

A. Giles: We are open to consider changes to existing plans and agreements if adaptive management changes to or a different plan with an environmental result that is as good or better.

A. Garvin: At the Regional permitting level we need good data, examples of how things work in different towns of different sizes with different conditions.