July 16, 2017. A few notes on the final state budget which became law following legislative override of the Governor’s veto.
Funding for Environmental Protection Programs. The final budget continues a 7-year trend of annual reductions in environmental protection programs. (See an earlier post describing the impact of those earlier reductions.) The most significant new cuts to programs in the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) affect:
Energy Programs. The budget takes almost $1 million from energy programs. The budget reduces pass-through funding for university-based energy centers from around $1 million to a total of $400,000 divided equally between centers at Appalachian State University and North Carolina A& T University. North Carolina State University’s Clean Energy Technology Center will receive no funding. The budget also eliminates 3 of 5 positions in DEQ’s Energy Office.
Regional Offices/Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service. DEQ’s seven regional offices house frontline permitting, compliance and technical assistance staff for multiple environmental programs including water quality, water resources, air quality and waste management. Since 2011, the legislature has made the regional offices a particular target for reductions in positions and funding. The 2017 budget reduces appropriations supporting DEQ’s Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service by $500,000 and requires DEQ to meet the cut in part by eliminating one position in each of the seven regional offices. The Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service is a non-regulatory program that provides technical assistance to businesses on water conservation, energy efficiency, waste reduction and other measures to improve environmental compliance.
Conservation Funding. Most funding for conservation programs, such as the Clean Water Management Trust Fund and the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund now go through the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources budget. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services also manages some conservation funds through the Farmland Preservation Trust, which purchases conservation easements on agricultural lands. Conservation funding in both departments generally remained stable. The legislature increased funding for the Clean Water Management Trust Fund and the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund, earmarking a combined $1 million of the increase for an acquisition project on Archer’s Creek (Bogue Banks). The budget also allocates an additional $2.6 million to the Wildlife Resources Commission for acquisition of gamelands and an additional $2 million to the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund.
Surprisingly, the budget did not include state funds to match a federal Department of Defense (DOD) challenge grant of $9.2 million to acquire conservation lands to provide buffers around military installations. DOD announced award of a Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration (“REPI”) grant to North Carolina earlier this year for acquisition of buffers around the Dare County Bombing Range and endangered species habitat near Camp Lejeune. The federal award anticipated a state contribution of an additional $10.1 to be put toward the projects. The final state budget failed to earmark any funding for the state match. The Clean Water Management Trust Fund and other state conservation agencies could provide some of the state match, but in the absence of a legislative earmark the REPI projects would be competing with other applications for those grant funds.
Special provisions. As usual, the budget bill (Senate Bill 257 ) includes a number of “special provisions” that change existing law. Those include:
Air quality. The budget allows DEQ to use fees from automobile emissions inspections to support any part of the air quality program. Previously, inspection fee revenue could only be used to implement the automobile inspection and maintenance program. In the past, the legislature has tilted toward keeping inspection and maintenance fees as low as possible while still providing adequate reimbursement to inspection stations. The 2017 provision divorces the fees from the needs of the vehicle inspection and maintenance program for the first time.
The budget also requires legislative approval of DEQ’s plan to use approximately $90 million the state will receive from the Environmental Protection Agency’s national settlement of an air quality enforcement case against Volkswagen. (The case concerned VW’s installation of software to defeat vehicle emissions control systems.) Funds from the settlement will be divided among the states and must be spent for purposes specifically allowed under the EPA settlement agreement. The agreement gives states a number of options and the legislature clearly wants to influence DEQ’s decision about use of the funds.
Solid Waste. The budget shifts $1 million from a fund for assessment/cleanup of contamination caused by old, unlined landfills to the City of Havelock to be used for “repurposing” property previously owned by a recycling company. (See Sec. 13.3) Phoenix Recycling operated on property just beyond the city limits, but closed in 2000 as a result of environmental violations. In 2012, the City of Havelock received a state grant to assess environmental contamination on the property. In 2015, Havelock’s city manager advised the town council that if the city acquired the property, it could be eligible for up to $550,000 in federal “Brownfield” grant funds under an EPA program to support cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated sites. In 2016, the city acquired the property and annexed it into the city. It isn’t clear whether the city ever applied for the federal Brownfields grant. The 2017 budget provision would instead provide state funding for redevelopment of the property. A Progressive Pulse blogpost provides a good overview of how the earmarking of these funds for the Phoenix Recycling property will reduce funds available to cleanup other, higher priority contaminated sites.
Another provision (Sec. 13.4) allows the owner of an old, unlined landfill site to exclude the property from a state program to cleanup contamination from “pre-1983” landfills. (Modern standards for solid waste landfills went into effect in 1983). Under the provision, the owner can remove property from the state cleanup program by accepting liability for any contamination and providing financial assurance to address contamination. Financial assurance would not be required if the landfill had received solid waste from a local government (which was often the case). This is a very odd provision in several ways:
♦ Under current law, DEQ has responsibility for assessment and cleanup of pre-1983 landfill sites; revenue from a statewide solid waste disposal tax pays for the remediation. Under the new provision, a property owner would waive state responsibility for cleanup and potentially accept environmental liability they might not otherwise have.
♦ The provision has not been restricted to sites that present a low environmental risk; the only limitations seem to be the property owner’s willingness to take on the liability and ability to provide financial assurance if required.
♦ The provision describes the opt-out as a “suspension” of the state cleanup program for as long as the person owns the property. That clearly means the state itself would not undertake any assessment or cleanup activity on the site, but the law does not suspend enforcement of state groundwater standards and other environmental remediation requirements. Those programs normally seek remediation by the person(s) responsible for the contamination; under the new provision, the property owner must volunteer for the liability whether they contributed to the contamination or not.
♦ The implication of a “suspension” is that the state may again have responsibility for the site if it changes ownership in the future. Suspending environmental remediation until a change of ownership could simply delay necessary cleanup activities without regard to environmental risk.
It isn’t clear why a property owner would ever choose to do this.
The budget bill also requires a study of DEQ’s use of revenue from the solid waste disposal tax. The opt-out in Section 13.4 may be a hint of additional changes to the solid waste disposal tax and the state cleanup program for pre-1983 landfills.
Water Quality: Nutrient Pollution. The (now annual) budget provision concerning nutrient management strategies directs DEQ to use $1.3 million to test use of algaecides and phosphorus-locking technologies as an alternative to state rules imposing tighter wastewater limits and stormwater controls to address excess nutrients in Falls Lake and Jordan Lake. Those rules have been temporarily suspended by the legislature. (For background on the nutrient rules, see a previous post; the proposal for an automatic sunset of the nutrient rules described in the earlier blogpost was ultimately replaced by legislation further delaying implementation of the rules and a university-based study.) Based on discussion in committee, legislators had a specific technology developed by a North Carolina-based company in mind.