Countdown to the stormwater funding push in 2010

AWC and our partners in the environmental community will again ask the Legislature to establish a permanent funding source to support local stormwater management activities. During the 2009 legislative session, a coalition of city and environmental interests promoted legislation establishing a permanent funding source to help pay local government costs associated with managing stormwater. ESHB 1614 was introduced and passed the House (but not the Senate).

This has emerged as one of AWC’s preliminary Major Priority issues for 2010. It also is one of the environmental community’s three priority issues for 2010.

Stormwater challenges aren’t new to many cities. For years, they have had programs and made infrastructure investments aimed primarily at managing flows to avoid flood damage. Stormwaters transport pollutants from property and roadways and, if unchecked and untreated, deposit them in fresh or marine waters. The Federal Clean Water Act requires cities of certain sizes and population densities to address stormwater through public education, management and efforts to avoid contamination.

One hundred cities in all but one of the state’s 49 legislative districts are required to address stormwater under what are called NPDES (National Pollution Detection and Elimination System) permits. Thirty-seven other smaller cities in the 12 counties surrounding Puget Sound are also expected to somehow manage stormwater, although they aren’t currently required to do so under federal or state law.

The costs of addressing stormwater, both flows and water quality, are staggering. Cities and counties have the authority to establish stormwater utilities that charge monthly fees to landowners to support local stormwater management efforts. In 2008, 113 cities had established them and that year collectively raised $220 million (another 11 or so counties raised an additional $50 million in 2008 with fees collected on unincorporated areas). The vast majority of these cities have yet to focus expenditures on many of the pollution detection and elimination strategies needed to clean up stormwater. Those costs will be significantly higher.

As currently written, ESHB 1614 establishes and permanently funds a grant program to help pay for stormwater projects. As previously noted, cities already raise a significant amount of money to address stormwater – this bill asks that property owners alone don’t shoulder the costs. Use of petroleum products (primarily in fueling vehicles and contributing residues on roadways) are a major cause of pollutants in stormwater. Legislative sponsors of this bill have chosen to impose fees upon petroleum products as the source of funding. It would:

Impose a fee of $1.50/barrel of oil at the refinery. This would yield over $100 million per year – at least 97% would be available as grants to cities meeting stormwater challenges and obligations.
Provide at least 40% of available funds to help pay for either Phase I NPDES or Phase II NPDES permit requirements. A local "match" of 50% would be required – funds could come from local stormwater utility revenue or other sources.
Provide 100% grant funds for retrofit projects "over and above" what’s required in these permits. This funding would be available to both Phase I and Phase II cities/counties, as well as smaller cities in the Puget Sound basin.

Some of the remaining funds would be available to provide non-local match grants where jurisdictions couldn’t afford the match, but had good projects.

What happens next?

AWC and other bill proponents have been consulting with legislative supporters and oil industry and business opponents. We have indicated that we are open to other ideas on how to fund the proposed program at equivalent levels (at least $100 million/year). We have asked opponents to offer other suggestions.

In the meantime, AWC is updating a 2008 survey of Phase I and Phase II NPES cities to better quantify what projects and activities are expected, needed and funded to meet their obligations. There is clearly a funding "gap" on what’s needed and funds available.

What can you do?

Particularly if you’re a Phase I or Phase II city, contact your House and Senate members before they come to Olympia for the 2010 session.

Explain to them what needs you’ve identified to address stormwater.
Consider showing them in-person what types of projects are needed and how much they will cost.
Remind them, if appropriate, that your city residents and businesses are already paying a stormwater utility fee and those revenues alone can’t and won’t pay for what’s required.
New state revenue is needed to meet this mandate!

For more information please contact Dave Williams at davew@awcnet.org, Ashley Probart at ashleyp@awcnet.org or Sheri Sawyer at sheris@awcnet.org.

State adopts new stormwater, wastewater permit fees

The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) has adopted fee increases that will affect holders of stormwater and wastewater discharge permits in fiscal years 2010 and 2011. The state Legislature approved this move in SHB 1413.

Ecology administers state and federal permits to regulate wastewater and stormwater discharges into Washington’s surface and underground waters. In accordance with state water pollution control law (RCW 90.48.465), all permit holders are required to pay annual permit fees. Ecology uses the fee money to recover eligible costs associated with operating Ecology’s wastewater discharge permit program.

The move affects dairies, boatyards, aquatic pest control operators, and holders of municipal, industrial and construction stormwater permits. Fees will increase by 5.2% in the state’s fiscal year 2010, which began in July 2009, and by 4.6% in fiscal year 2011, beginning in July 2010.

AWC responds to reform ideas for Washington’s natural resource agencies

The 2009–11 Washington State operating budget instructed natural resources agencies to:

"Convene a work group consisting of representatives from the natural resource agencies. The work group shall consider the experience of other states and their organizational structures to identify consolidation opportunities to improve service delivery and reduce costs. The work group shall submit a comprehensive written recommendation to the Governor and the Office of Financial Management by September 1, 2009."

To carry out this directive, state natural resources agency directors, Commissioner of Public Lands Peter Goldmark and their staff worked with Governor Gregoire’s policy and budget staff to develop approaches to reform how natural resources are managed and protected. This list of ideas can be found at www.governor.wa.gov/priorities/reform/naturalresources.asp.

Certain themes emerged from the ideas that were suggested:

Major reorganization of agency responsibilities and authorities
Innovative approaches to how agencies work together
Sharing technology and resources
Making processes more efficient
Enhancing program or agency authorities to improve customer service

Comments were requested by October 28. With somewhat limited input (more is still welcome!), AWC submitted a letter containing the following general remarks:

As our membership becomes more aware of your efforts, they are:

Enthusiastic and supportive of efforts to make reviewing, commenting upon and permitting projects clearer and more efficient. This holds true for projects within their jurisdiction as well as projects (such as city road projects) or programs (like implementing Shorelines or Growth Management) that they are responsible for themselves. There are several ideas that have been put forth aimed at such improvements (more detailed comments are attached).

Encouraged by and supportive of ideas that promote and foster improved customer service. Cities across the state have focused their attention on this with considerable success. Like our state partners, there is always room for improvement. We support efforts, such as those by the Office of Regulatory Assistance, to help "make sense" of the regulatory process for project applicants.
Less enthusiastic about overall agency structural or administrative changes if they do not save time or fiscal resources. At first glance, all of the ideas for consolidating various agencies don’t save money – at least not at first. Upon further review, cities are sympathetic to the fact that organizational changes aimed at efficiencies take time and have longer term benefits and savings. Don’t be discouraged!
Skeptical that reforms and efficiencies can be accomplished without some degree of change to agency missions as articulated in each agency’s underlying authorizing statutes. For example, numerous resource agencies seek to attain no net loss of habitat for a variety of plant and animal species. After almost 20 years of efforts to implement the state’s Growth Management Act (GMA), there remain unresolved questions on how to accomplish this while also requiring cities to accept and provide infrastructure for significant amounts of job and residential growth. As such, we are most interested in exploring concepts put forth in Idea 1-5 – developing a unified state vision of resource protection, and Idea 1-8 – increased agency collaboration.

One idea in particular caught our attention: Idea 3-1 suggests that because Washington State is approaching the 20-year anniversary of passage of the GMA, it might now be the time to conduct some sort of review of it. While a review may well be appropriate, we are reluctant to embrace it at this time.

GMA is one of the most litigated series of statutes in Washington and overall, one that is a critical foundation of who cities are and where their futures lie. Great care and thought must be taken if such a review is pursued.
Furthermore, cities and counties representing a majority of the state’s population are now undertaking their mandatory every 7-year review and update of local GMA plans and regulations. Should the state embark upon any comprehensive review of the very same statutes these jurisdictions are simultaneously using to update local comprehensive plans and development regulations, there should be a delay or "pause" for this mandate as the review takes place. It makes little sense to move forward with this costly and potentially litigious local process while the state seriously ponders changing "the rules and expectations."
If a review is undertaken, it is critical that the full range of policy and implementation issues be evaluated. Cities across Washington have been successfully implementing the GMA. They have accepted more growth, higher densities and helped foster economic development. It has not been easy or inexpensive. Our public infrastructure investment capacity is seriously strained. Meeting the goals of GMA cannot and will not be met unless our infrastructure funding crisis is addressed.

What happens next?

The Governor’s Natural Resources Sub-cabinet meet after the October 28th initial public comment period. They reviewed all input and are considering recommendations on how to focus this reform effort. AWC expects to stay engaged by continuing to seek city ideas/suggestions and consulting with key Administration staff and other interested parties, such as counties, ports, business and environmental interests.

The House General Government Appropriations Committee has scheduled a work session to get an update on this topic on December 1 at 1:30 pm in Olympia.

EPA announces Puget Sound watershed management assistance grants

The EPA is currently accepting proposals for the Puget Sound Watershed Management Assistance Program. The total amount available for this program is $10 million. Proposals are due by January 5, 2010.

The purpose of Puget Sound Watershed Management Assistance Program is to support the protection and restoration of high value, Puget Sound aquatic resources in areas threatened by growth. The program will assist local and tribal governments and special purpose districts in implementing the Puget Sound Action Agenda and conduct activities to support EPA national goals for Puget Sound. Through comprehensive watershed protection and management approaches, these grant funds will assist in managing land uses while protecting watershed processes, functions, and values.

Successful projects will match proposed activities to the appropriate watershed scale to ensure environmental results. Approximately 15 grants will be available and will range from $300,000 - $1,000,000. The required match will be 33% of federal funds requested. EPA will be hosting a public workshop on Monday, November 16, at 1 pm at the EPA Region 10 office located at 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle; Room 12B.

More information can be obtained from EPA staff, Dan Steinborn, at Steinborn.Daniel@epa.gov.

House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee plans December 4 work session in Olympia

At 1:30 pm in House Hearing Room B (or live on TVW), the Committee will hold a work session on the following items – if interested, tune in!

Wildfire response and prevention
Reclaimed water and water rights impairment
Water resource policy considerations

[ previous article ] [ return to top ] [ next article ]