Waters of the US – Where are we today?

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 15

We at the Swamp School have been keeping up with and attempting to teach the ever-changing rules related to what is a Waters of the US. Much like the waterways they regulate they twist and turn disappear and re-appear finally ending up in the sea of government regulation. Then they are left to evaporate on the whims of the courts soon condensing in yet another regulation. We will call it the Waters of the US cycle.

This all began in the late 1890’s when a concern about blocking waterways used to transport good and services was seen as a threat to the national economy. The use of structural steel to cross great rivers was now presenting problems of railroads blocking traditional water based shipping. Free trade across state lines needed to be maintained and Congress (not the President – he vetoed the Act) passed the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Ever since then the Federal government has been regulating waters of the US.

Much later in 1972 Congress passed the Clean Water act. The President at the time (Nixon) also vetoed the Act. This law like the Rivers and Harbors Act did not explain what a Waters of the US was. Rather, it directed the Army Corps of Engineers to come up with a definition. They did and in 1986 they published the definition as a rule in the Federal Register. It is the same rule that we use today.

In the spring of 2011 the Obama administration leaked (pun intended) a draft Waters of the US guidance document. The guidance was never published but it did give notice to what the new administration was up to. In 2013, another leak of a new draft Waters of the US rule was revealed and in turn, a draft regulation that was published in the Spring of 2014.

The draft Waters of the US regulation has the unique honor of being the most commented regulation in the history of the United States. At the close of the public comment period it had received a little more than 1.2 million public comments. Other regulations tend to sport a few hundred to perhaps a thousand comments. Generally, this means that the regulation gets flushed and the agency starts over.

However, the EPA took the lead on the final version of the regulation and made some major changes including the regulation’s name. The new Clean Water rule was born. This rule was so different that half of the States field lawsuits along with a few private organizations alleging a number of procedural violations along with the Constitutional challenges to the merits of the regulation. For a brief while in 2015 about two thirds of the US was regulated by the Clean Water rule and the plaintiff states were not.

In October 2015, a nationwide stay of the Clean Water rule was imposed by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and that is where we float today. The Army Corps and EPA issued a directive that the 1986 definition of Waters of the US would be used until further notice.

The nationwide stay and the court cases bubbled and percolated in the courts until finally rising to the attention of the Supreme Court in 2016. President Obama had asked the Court not to hear the case but they turned him down. This was seen as a loss for the President as the regulation appeared all but domed and likely to go down the drain.

In an interesting turn of events, the new President Trump has also asked the Supreme Court to not hear the case. He was also turned down. However, this has been described as some sort of victory for the rule. Nothing new has happened between December 2016 when President Obama made the request and in early 2017 when President Trump made the request but the interpretation of the response seems very sinuous.

It appears that the high Court will render some sort of decision before the end of the year. Late fall is likely. So, we need to wade through another growing season with the old rule.

Just a few days ago, President Trump announced that there would be some new guidance, an executive order or the like regarding the implementation of the old rule. In a rather clever move, it was announced that the old 2008 US Army Corps guidance developed in response to the Rapanos case and based upon the lone Justice Kennedy option would be updated to reflect the plurality option of Justice Scalia in that same case. In short, what was become to be known as significant nexus would no longer apply. Justice Scalia only required a physical nexus to a navigable waterway. Justice Kennedy’s model would allow a chemical or biological connection in addition to or instead of a physical connection.

The establishment of the Scalia rule would simplify the jurisdictional process but as one might expect there will be lawsuits. In the meantime, we will keep a careful eye on the ebbs and flows of this turbulent process and await the next wave of regulations.

Trump Administration Announces Proposed Budget

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 14

On March 16, 2017, the Trump administration revealed their budget proposal.  The budget proposal provides the first look into the new administration’s top energy and environmental priorities, which include broad themes like reining in major environmental rules and spending on clean energy technologies and boosting energy production on public lands.

Below is a list of how the budget will affect the environment and water issues:

EPA: The Environmental Protection Agency would take the biggest percentage cut of all Cabinet departments and major agencies if Trump’s proposed plan is accepted as is. The EPA’s budget would be reduced by 31 percent and about 3,200 EPA employees would lose their jobs. Employees would not be the only thing affected by the budget cuts; some programs would also receive cuts.  The programs listed for cuts include climate change regulations, the Superfund program, enforcement efforts, the science office and environmental grants.

Climate change programs: Trump’s proposed budget would get rid of climate spending across the government. The funding for the Clean Power Plan implementation would be gone as well as the EPA’s international climate change and climate change research programs would be discontinued. The State Department’s Global Climate Change Initiative would no longer exist, and funding for the Green Climate Fund would stop.

Water infrastructure: The budget proposal outlines an increase in cash for state revolving funds.  The outline states that “robust” funding for drinking and wastewater infrastructure promotes the administration’s “ongoing commitment to infrastructure repair and replacement.”

EPA science office: The administration’s budget proposal would cut the EPA’s Office of Research and Development’s budget from about $483 million annually to about $250 million. This is an almost 50 percent cut in funding.  If these cuts were to take place, the science office would prioritize activities related to “core environmental statutory requirements,” as opposed to “extramural activities,” the outline says.

Clean energy research: Clean energy, smart grid and electric vehicle initiatives would be eliminated or sharply cutback. These actions would be taken because the president believes that research aimed at jump-starting new technology should be left to the private sector.

To learn more about the Trump administration’s proposed budget and to see a complete list of ever sector, visit https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/2018_blueprint.pdf.

What are your thoughts regarding the proposed budget?  What areas do you agree with?  What areas do you disagree with?  How would you like you Congressional representatives to address Trump’s budget proposal?

Source: Bravender, Robin. “Big Winners and Big Losers in Trump’s Budget.” Greenwire. E&E News, 16 Mar. 2017. Web. 16 Mar. 2017.

Florida to Ban Fracking?

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 13

A bill that would stop oil and gas fracking from occurring in Florida was passed and moved along in the process by the Florida Senate.

The Senate Committee on Environmental Preservation and Conservation voted unanimously to prohibit “advanced well stimulation treatment,” like hydraulic fracturing, acid fracturing and matrix acidizing.

State Sen. Dana Young (R) sponsored the bill, S.B. 442.  Last year she opposed the banning but, after her Senate district was redrawn, she changed her stance.

When questioned about her change of heart, Young said, “Florida is unique. Florida is special, and we do not have to be like every other state in the nation.”

Some who oppose the bill are Exxon Mobil Corporation, the Florida Chamber of Commerce, the James Madison Institute, the Heartland Institute of Washington, D.C., the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Petroleum Council.

According to Florida Petroleum Council President David Mica, as a state, Florida uses 27 million gallons of gasoline every day.  This makes Florida the third-largest consumer in the nation.

“We have a shared interest in our industry to protect energy resources,” Mica said.

In response to Mica’s concerns, Young responded that the bill does not prohibit traditional oil and gas exploration.

“There may be some uncertainty, but the question is are you willing to roll the dice with the future of our state?” Young asked.

Do you think Florida should pass the bill?  Why or why not?

Source: “Bill to Ban Fracking Advances through Senate.” Greenwire. E&E News, 08 Mar. 2017. Web. 08 Mar. 2017.

Danada Wetland Restoration to Start

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 12

Starting the week of February 20, 2017, work has started on creating and restoring dozens of acres of wetlands and prairies in DuPage County in Illinois.

Originally, the area of the Danada Forest Preserve on the south side of Butterfield Road, a half mile west of Naperville Road were wetlands and prairie.  150 years ago it was converted from wetlands and prairie to farmland.  The process to convert the area back to its original state is set to begin.

Nick Fuller, Natural Resources Project Coordinator for the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County, says 21 acres will be turned back into wetlands while 23 acres are turned into prairie.

According to Fuller, the importance of the wetlands is to lessen the chance for flooding and to clean storm water naturally by allowing the water to better seep into the ground.

Fuller says the wetlands “act like sponges for capturing storm water, filtering it, allowing it to go into the groundwater table and recharge that groundwater which we use for drinking water.”

“The plan is to disable the buried tiles and install features that will bring back more natural groundwater conditions, according to the news release” (Tafoya).

In order to convert the area back into the native wetlands and prairie, the invasive species of plants that have taken over the area will be removed and natural species will be planted to restore the native area.

DuPage County Board Member Jim Zay says the project will cost $980,000 and will be paid for with fees charged to landowners who encroach on wetlands.

He says, “No taxpayer money on this. This is all coming out of these fees that developers and landowners pay.”

The Forest Preserve and its trails will remain open during most of the work, the news release revealed. However, the District may need to temporarily close trails and natural areas for visitors’ safety.

Do you think more original wetlands and prairies that have been converted for other uses should be brought back to the way they originally were?  Why or why not?  Are there any instances when you believe that it is more beneficial to an area to remove wetlands and prairies and change it for other uses?  Are there any areas that were not originally wetlands or prairie that you think would benefit from converting that area into wetlands and prairie?  Why do you think some people may be hesitant to continue bringing back converted wetlands and prairie?

Source: Tafoya, Bernie. “Forest Preserve District Set To Begin Danada Wetland Restoration.” CBS Chicago. CBS, 14 Feb. 2017. Web. 15 Feb. 2017.

Some Driveway Sealants are Polluting Streams

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 11

According to a study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, coal-tar sealants which are used on blacktop parking lots and driveways are the primary source of toxic chemicals found in the muck at the bottom of area waterways.

The study tested muck samples that were collected from 40 locations along 19 creeks and rivers in the metropolitan area of Milwaukee and dust from six parking lots.  It found that coal-tar sealants contributed up to 94% of all polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, in streambed sediment, according to the study, which was published Thursday December 22, 2016 in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

Of all of the samples, a total of 78% of them contained enough PAHs to be considered toxic and capable of causing adverse effects in aquatic animals, said Austin Baldwin, a USGS scientist and lead author of the study. The sample location which had the most toxic sediment came from Lincoln Creek and Underwood Creek.

PAHS gets into the streams when rain and melting snow rinse it and other contaminants off the pavement and into storm water storage basins or directly into storm sewers that carry the load to waterways.

“Even before the study was published, early circulation of its findings boosted support for local restrictions or even bans on the use of coal-tar sealants and a switch to sealants containing asphalt emulsions,” according to Chris Magruder, a retired Milwaukee sewer district scientist who is science advisory committee coordinator for the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust.

A previous federal study conducted in 2013 determined that PAHs posed a greater risk of harm to aquatic life in the streams than other chemicals but this study went beyond the previous study in two ways, Baldwin said.

The first was that researchers used multiple methods for identifying separate sources of PAHs in sediment, he said. Apart from coal-tar sealants, the remainder of the PAHs came from a variety of other sources, such as coal combustion at power plants and vehicle emissions.

The second was that this study exposed aquatic insects and small crustaceans to sediment taken from streams in the area.

“This study shows that PAHs pose a very real threat to aquatic organisms at the base of the food chain,” he said. Some of the adverse effects are fin erosion, liver abnormalities, cataracts and immune system damage. Additionally, exposure to the chemicals can cause high rates of tumors in fish.

“The study also reveals a costly consequence of regulations in Wisconsin and many other states requiring developers to excavate storm water storage basins next to massive parking lots. PAHs cling to dirt, sand and other particles in the storm water that settle to the bottom of the basins” (Behm).

It has been estimated by communities in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area that it will cost up to $1 billion to dispose of PAH-contaminated sediment in the storm water ponds when the basins are dredged for maintenance.

Source: Behm, Don. “Some Driveway Sealants Create Toxic Muck in Streams.” USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, 26 Dec. 2016. Web. 10 Feb. 2017.

Updated Population Estimate of Florida Panthers

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 10

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) have updated the estimated number of endangered Florida panthers in their breeding range, which is south of the Caloosahatchee River.

According to a February 2017 report from the agencies collaborating on conservation and recovery efforts, the updated population estimate is 120 to 230 adult and subadult Florida panthers.  This is an update from the number in 2014, which was an estimation of 100 to 180 adult and subadult Florida panthers.

To learn more, you can find the panther population report by visiting FloridaPantherNet.org.

The report focuses on conveying the importance and difficulty of obtaining accurate panther population estimates, which is similar to estimating the other puma populations in western states.  At this time, Florida scientists are researching and evaluating several methods to improve their ability to estimate the panther population size, including the use of trail cameras and panther road mortality data.  The current numbers, developed jointly by USFWS and FWC scientists, are obtained using annual counts of panthers primarily conducted on public lands.  “Density of panthers on these areas is then multiplied across the larger area that makes up the primary breeding range in south Florida. Although there are some panthers outside of this range in south Florida and in areas north of the Caloosahatchee River, they are primarily dispersing males and do not significantly contribute to the breeding population” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

“This latest Florida panther population estimate is good news, an indication that conservation efforts are on track in helping recover this endangered animal,” said Kipp Frohlich, FWC’s Deputy Director for the Division of Habitat and Species Conservation. “In the 1970s and 1980s, it was estimated only 20 to 30 panthers remained in Florida.”

Larry Williams, the USFWS’s Florida State Supervisor of Ecological Services, is hopeful after looking at the new estimates and believes the new numbers indicate things are moving in the direction they want them to, which is due, in part, to a strong partnership with the State of Florida.

“Continued recovery will require a long-term concerted effort by many partners committed to finding common sense solutions that balance many different and competing interests, yet are grounded in a shared purpose of conserving the lands that support Florida’s native wildlife and its ranching heritage,” Williams said.

If anyone stumbles upon panthers or their tracks, they are encouraged to report these sightings, and in particular photos, to MyFWC.com/PantherSightings.  Any reported sightings will be used to help with panther research and management. Of particular interest to the biologists who keep track of the panthers are pictures of panthers north of the Caloosahatchee River, which runs from Lake Okeechobee to Ft. Myers.

If you are from Florida and want to help panther conservation efforts, you can do so by purchasing the “Protect a Panther” vehicle tag from your local tax collector’s office.

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Florida Panther Population Estimate Updated.” U S Fish and Wildlife Service. U S Fish and Wildlife Service, 22 Feb. 2017. Web. 23 Feb. 2017.

EPA Argues Against Order Demanding Study of Job Losses

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 9

A West Virginia federal judge has ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate coal industry job losses.  Attorneys for the agency argue that the order imposes “substantive obligations” and has “no basis in the statute” in a filing on February 21, 2017.

“In an opening brief, the Justice Department asked the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss the order and instruct the lower court to either dismiss the case or rule in favor of the agency” (Reilly).

The order was “outside the bounds of the court’s authority,” Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys told the appeals court. At a minimum, they said, the 4th Circuit should issue a new “straightforward” injunction that tracks with the Clean Air Act.

“At issue is last month’s decision by U.S. District Court Judge John Preston Bailey for the Northern District of West Virginia to require EPA to submit by July 1 an evaluation of how its Clean Air Act regulations affect coal jobs, mine closures and power plant shutdowns” (Reilly).

Bailey sided with Murray Energy Corporation, who filed a lawsuit in 2014 against the EPA.  The lawsuit argues that the EPA failed to comply with a section of the Clean Air Act that requires the continued economic evaluations of its regulations. Bailey issued the July 1st deadline after determining that the EPA’s initial plan to comply with the provision was insufficient.

While most of the action regarding the lawsuit was handled under Obama’s administration, Trump’s Department of Justice has moved to appeal the ruling.

In its opening statement, the government raised both procedural and substantive arguments against Murray’s claims in the lawsuit. It should be noted that Murray CEO Robert Murray is a major Trump supporter.

The DOJ argued that the district court did not have the jurisdiction to hear Murray’s claims because the Clean Air Act did not impose an enforceable mandatory duty on the EPA to evaluate job losses.

The government is also arguing that Murray lacked standing to bring the lawsuit because the firm couldn’t point to specific harms caused by the EPA’s alleged failure to do the economic evaluations.

“Murray alleges that the coal industry as a whole is economically distressed, but the company did not provide any ‘specific facts’ showing that it specifically has been harmed,” EPA’s brief said.

The brief also argues that even if it crosses the procedural thresholds, the 4th Circuit should still reverse the order because the EPA already did the required evaluations.

The agency pointed to 64 documents that it says analyzed the economic impacts of its actions — even if those evaluations weren’t specifically done to comply with the Clean Air Act section at issue.

“Individually and collectively,” the brief says, “EPA’s documents evaluate the ‘potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the administration or enforcement’ of the CAA.”

Judge Bailey’s order goes “far beyond” the Clean Air Act by requiring evaluations not just on economic shifts but on how coal “families” and “communities” may be at risk, the brief said.

Murray’s response is due on March 31.

“EPA has for years now sought to shirk its obligation to evaluate the loss and shifts in employment from its actions under the Clean Air Act,” Murray said in an earlier court filing.

Source:  Reilly, Amanda. “EPA Fights Order Requiring Study of Job Losses.” Greenwire. E&E News, 22 Feb. 2017. Web. 22 Feb. 2017.

EPA to Review Oil and Gas Waste Regulations

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 8

As a result of a lawsuit from several environmental groups that was brought forward in May of 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has agreed to look into its regulations regarding how companies should dispose of oil and gas waste.

“Safeguards to protect our scarce water resources in the San Juan Basin, home to 40,000 wells, have been ignored for far too long,” said Dan Olson, executive director of San Juan Citizens Alliance. “Updating rules for oil and gas waste, deemed inadequate 30 years ago, is critical for this region.”

In May 2016, a coalition of environmental groups came together and filed a lawsuit against the EPA.  They claim that the agency has failed to meet its own expectations set in the 1980s to review oil and gas regulations, as well as guidelines for states, every three years.

“Since that time, nearly nine successive three-year deadlines have passed with no further review,” according to a notice of intent filed in August 2015. “(Current regulations) do not specifically address issues relevant to the modern oil and gas industry.”

A settlement was reached between the EPA and environmental groups on December 20, 2016.  Per the agreement, the EPA will review its regulations on oil and gas waste, and if the agency deems it “necessary,” make revisions to the guidelines.

The deadline for the EPA to determine whether or not changes are warranted for “wastes associated with the exploration, development, or production of crude oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy” is March 15, 2019.

Per the agreement and the court document, the EPA must make a formal announcement no matter what their decision is, and then they must provide a decision of notice to the environmental groups who brought forth the lawsuit within seven days of their announcement.

“The EPA itself deemed current regulations inadequate nearly 30 years ago,” said Erika Brown, with the San Juan Citizens Alliance. “The consent decree is a big step forward for holding the EPA accountable to regulate oil and gas waste in ways that protect human and environmental health.”

Part of the settlement includes a clause regarding then President elect and now President Donald Trump.  It discusses the possibility that President Trump will make good on his promise to defund the EPA.  “(Environmental groups) and EPA recognize that the possibility exists that a lapse in appropriations by Congress resulting in government shutdown could delay EPA’s performance of obligations contained in this Consent Decree,” the court document says.

“In the event of a government shutdown affecting EPA that occurs within 120 days prior to a deadline … deadline shall be extended automatically one day for each day of the shutdown.”

Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, include the Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthworks, Responsible Drilling Alliance, West Virginia Surface Owners’ Rights Organization, and the Center for Health, Environment and Justice.

Do you think the EPA will make any changes to the regulations after their review?

Source: Romeo, Jonathan. “EPA Agrees to Review Regulations on Oil and Gas Waste.” Durangoherald.com. Durango Herald, 12 Jan. 2017. Web. 08 Feb. 2017.

Will the Tailoring Rule Stay?

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 7

Though the Tailoring Rule was not finalized until May 13, 2010, the reason the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created the rule dates back to President George W. Bush’s administration.  Under Bush’s term, the Supreme Court ruled that if the EPA designated emissions as a “hazardous air pollutant,” then the EPA was allowed to regulate the pollutant under the Clean Air Act.  The Clean Air Act states that if more than 10 tons of one hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons of a combination of hazardous air pollutants is or has the potential to be admitted by one source, than that source needs to have a permit from the EPA.

The measurement used for the Clean Air Act was tons not percentages, which is 1,000 times larger than tons.  This becomes a problem if a gas like carbon dioxide (CO2) is classified as a hazardous air pollutant because it is measured in percent not tons.  Under the Clean Air Act, if CO2 is classified as a hazardous air pollutant, then millions of sources including schools and churches would need to acquire permits.  The EPA is not equipped to handle that many requests for permits.  The EPA was not overloaded with permit requests under Bush’s administration because they did not classify CO2 as a hazardous air pollutant, so their only permit requests came from big industries.

That was not the case for the Obama administration.  The EPA under the Obama administration classified CO2 as a hazardous air pollutant, so they needed to come up with a solution to shrink the number of requests for permits.  Thus the controversial Tailoring Rule was created.  The Tailoring Rule increased the threshold for sources requiring permits for CO2 and other greenhouses gases to 100-250 tons per year, a hundred times increase to what is required by the Clean Air Act.  Additional the Tailoring Rule states that if a source was admitting greenhouse gases and other hazardous air pollutants than they would need a permit if their emissions exceeded 75,000 tons per year.  Sources would also need a permit if their greenhouse gas emissions exceeded 100,000 tons per year regardless of the amount of other hazardous air pollutants they emitted.

While this solved the EPA’s problem regarding the number of permit requests they would receive, the new was very controversial.  Regulatory agency are not supposed to be able to change laws, they are just supposed to enforce them.  The EPA is a regulatory agency and the Clean Air Act is a law.  By creating the Tailoring Rule, the EPA is changing the law so that they would not be overrun by the number of permit request they would get.  Legal analysts agree that the Tailoring Rule oversteps the EPA’s bounds but the Tailoring Rule is still in effect today.

With a new administration in the White House, the question becomes will the new administration keep or do away with the Tailoring Rule?  If they do away with the Tailoring Rule, will the EPA change the classification of CO2 and other greenhouses gases as hazardous air pollutants and if not, how will the EPA deal with the number of permit requests they will receive?  At the moment, we will just have to wait and see if the new administration will even address the Tailoring Rule or just let it be.

“Clean Air Act Permitting for Greenhouse Gases.” EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 29 Nov. 2016. Web. 06 Feb. 2017.

“EPA’s “Tailoring” Rule.” Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, n.d. Web. 06 Feb. 2017.

New EPA Program with $1 Billion Available for Water Infrastructure

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 6

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that about $1 billion in loans are now available to be used towards water infrastructure projects under the new Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program.

The type of loans the EPA’s WIFIA program will provide are long-term, low-cost credit assistance and will come in the form of direct loans and loan guarantees to creditworthy water projects.  In addition to the State Revolving Funds and bond market, WIFIA is another way to receive funding on large infrastructure projects that cost at least $20 million.  The WIFIA program is open to state, local, and tribal governments; private entities; partnerships; and State Revolving Fund programs.  It has been estimated by EPA that funds appropriated to the WIFIA program can be leveraged at a ratio greater than 50 to one, this means the programs budget of $17 million could allow the EPA to make approximately $1 billion in loans and stimulate about $2 billion in total infrastructure investment.

“The launch of the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program marks a huge step forward for modernizing our nation’s aging water infrastructure,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “WIFIA gives us a new opportunity to provide billions of dollars in low-interest loans to communities to build large infrastructure projects, significantly accelerating investments that benefit our nation’s public health and water security for generations to come.”

The Environmental Protection Agency is only allowed to loan out the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act money on projects that improve water infrastructure.  Some examples of projects that are able to receive loans from WIFIA are:

  • drinking water treatment and distribution projects
  • wastewater conveyance and treatment projects
  • enhanced energy efficiency projects at drinking water and wastewater facilities
  • desalination, aquifer recharge, alternative water supply, and water recycling projects
  • drought prevention, reduction, or mitigation projects

To determine whether projects fall under Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act funding, the Environmental Protection Agency will be considering the extent to which the project is nationally or regionally significant, helps maintain or protect public health or the environment, protects against extreme weather, and serves regions with significant water resource challenges.  Selections will be made by the EPA on a competitive basis.

It has been estimated by the Environmental Protection Agency that the United States needs about $660 billion in investments that go towards drinking water, wastewater, and storm water infrastructure over the next 20 years.

To find out more information about the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program visit www.epa.gov/wifia.

Do you think the EPA should be putting their resources towards water infrastructure?  If not, what should the EPA be putting their time, money, and talents towards?  Do you think the EPA’s estimates about the amount needed to be invested towards drinking water, wastewater, and storm water infrastructure in the next 20 years is correct?  If not, why do you think the amount is too high or too low?

Source: “EPA Launches New Program With $1 Billion in Loans Available for Water Infrastructure Projects.” EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 10 Jan. 2017. Web. 20 Jan. 2017.