States Lack Money to Enforce Clean Water Act

Study: States too underfunded to prevent water pollution

By Don Thompson
ASSOCIATED PRESS

October 12, 2004

SACRAMENTO ­ More than 30 years after passage of the federal Clean Water
Act, many states lack the money to provide enough regulation, according to a
new study.

Budget problems mean California enforces just 23 percent of federal
wastewater standards and monitors just 60 percent of storm water
regulations, according to Clifford Rechtschaffen, director of San
Francisco's Golden Gate University's environmental law program and
co-director of its Environmental Law and Justice Clinic.

The majority of the other 16 states he surveyed also had too little money to
fully enforce the key federal act, Rechtschaffen said in the study released
Monday for the Center for Progressive Regulation. The nonprofit group is
made up of university professors with experience in health, safety and
environmental regulation.

The report comes at a time when environmental groups nationwide are pushing
for more enforcement.

Last week, environmental groups in Florida sued the state's Department of
Environmental Protection alleging it has done a poor job of enforcing the
federal law over the last decade. The federal suit asks that the U.S. EPA be
ordered to control Florida's water pollution instead of leaving it to the
state.

Last month, the Environmental Integrity Project, a nonprofit advocacy group,
said the federal EPA and a half-dozen Great Lakes states are failing to
enforce storm water runoff regulations, threatening the regions' waterways
and wildlife.

Under the 1972 Clean Water Act, the EPA delegated enforcement responsibility
to the states as they met certain criteria. Forty-five states now fully or
partially enforce the law within their boundaries.

Colleen Castille, Florida's environmental secretary, pointed out the federal
government has neither the money nor manpower to enforce the law in every
state, which is why enforcement was often delegated to states in the first
place.

"The sorry truth is that the lack of enforcement by the states is
undermining key provisions of the law," Rechtschaffen said.

He focused his survey on enforcement of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System, under which states are supposed to issue permits to
polluters. States were asked to list how much money and staff they had for
enforcing the permit system, and how much they would need to do the job
properly.

Seventeen states responded: Alabama, Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, New Jersey,
Nevada, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Eleven said they lack enough money. Georgia said it had just 20 percent of
what it needed, and Wyoming 29 percent.

California reported its regional water boards were finding it more difficult
to reissue permits, inspect polluters and enforce violations, and respond to
public complaints.

The Natural Resources Defense Council urged the federal government to retake
control of California's storm water program in the late 1990s, arguing the
state was doing a poor job, said Alexis Strauss, regional director of the
U.S. EPA's water division.

The federal government increased its scrutiny and encouraged the state to
devote more money to the program, she said. That strengthened state
enforcement, but prompted some cities to complain about the cost of
compliance, a controversy still echoing today in the Los Angeles area.

"States have had quite devastating budget consequences the last 10 years.
They've dealt with them in different ways," Strauss said. Though comparing
states' compliance is difficult because they pursue differing enforcement
policies, she said the U.S. EPA intends to try on a Web site that should be
available in another month or so.

The five states that said they have enough money ­ Alabama, Delaware,
Florida, Nevada and New Jersey ­ generally depend more heavily on fees paid
by polluters, Rechtschaffen said. He recommended other states follow their
lead. One state did not report its funding.

The lack of money means many polluters are operating under old and
inadequate permits, he found. States often then fail to inspect the sites or
punish excess discharges, and fines that are levied are often too small to
encourage compliance.

However, California two years ago began requiring penalties for repeat,
serious violators, which other research has shown has increased compliance.

On the Net:

Read the report at:
www.progressiveregulation.org/articles/Enforcement­WP­Oct­200 4.pdf