Agenda Packets - 1985/10/07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

EPA estimates that there are more than one million separate storm water discharge points within the country's 366 major urban areas. EPA has given municipal agencies two years to complete a complex and expensive permit application for each dcher .a point which Includes detailed sampling and laboratory test proce isuses The cost of merely completing the applications easily could exceed $8.5 •1 . tra.� the Federal Government 1 n• ♦e Yllilui,j vi � vuuvi, ,Tivrr. ed_rs. p_a.._ contribute to water pollution treatment facilities construction over the next three years. The enormity of the problem for cities across the nation strains credibility. Kansas City, Missouri's, waste treatment system requires just 12 permits, and annual monitoring costs $160,000. The city estimates it will need to apply for 20,000 storm water permits, at a cost of more than $90 miilionl The cost impact will vary for each of' Minnesota's cities, depending on how many identifiable storm sewer discharge points there are in the community. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency wou:d issue the permits. There is the possibility of issuing one or several permits to cover all the cities in the state, as well as modifying the proposal to mitigate the consequences of requiring permits but no League staff member is confident thut the EPA r•:;ulations can be written to ensure that Minnesota's cities will not be faced with another expansive federal regulatory system. Cities should also know that the issuance of .reguiatory permits is tilt first step to requiring "best management practices" or treatment of storm water discharges to eliminate any possible pollution. Cities contemplating separation of their storm and sanitary sewer systems may want to ask their Congressmen whether the systems should be separ"ted or whether the city should seek federal funds to increase their treatmert facility so that all storm water can be treatei. I know it is difficult to take such an absurd proposal sFriously. Ma m potentially affected parties whom I have talked to have thought the Proposal totally insane and were amused to think that Congress might actually do something so damaging to the gcali of the Clean Water Act. I am afraid, however, that unless city officials speak up, and loudly, that there is a very real possibility that Congress will allow the permitting to begin. It seems clear to League staff that the best solution to this Froblei is to admit that the proposal to permit, regulate, monitor and/or treat storm sewer discharges is not feasible at this time. The costs and difficulties of applying the permit proQess to intermittent storm water discharges are only now coming into focus. Congress must be requested to act to ensure that the letter of th! Clean Water Act does not overwhelm the spirit of the law -- to clean up the waters of the United States effectively, efficiently and in a manner which addresses the highest priority pollution control needs first.