Tag Archives: Riparian Buffers

The Future of Watershed-Based Water Quality Rules

June 22, 2016. A controversial water quality provision in the N.C. Senate’s proposed budget would repeal (and perhaps replace –that is less certain) all state rules adopted over the last twenty years to address pollution problems caused by excess nutrients.  Sec. 14.13 in the Senate version of House Bill 1030 further delays full implementation of the Falls Lake and Jordan Lake rules; creates a  $2 million study of nutrient management programs; and repeals all existing water quality rules addressing nutrients pollution effective December 31, 2020.

The Senate Proposal.  The provision requires the state’s Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to adopt new nutrient management rules based on the study results, but repeals all  existing rules at the end of 2020  even if no alternative  rules are in place.  In addition to Jordan Lake  and Falls Lake, the repeal/replace provision would affect water quality rules in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin; the Neuse River Basin; the Catawba River Basin; the Randleman Reservoir watershed; and the endangered species management plan in the Yadkin-PeeDee River’s Goose Creek watershed. It would also apply to any other riparian buffer requirements identified by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).   Still hoping for an alternative to  rules, the Senate budget also appropriates $500,000  to  study use of freshwater mussels to reduce the water quality impact of excess  nutrients.

In most cases, state nutrient management rules also satisfy a federal Clean Water Act requirement to reduce the discharge of a pollutant (in this case nitrogen and/or phosphorus) causing impaired water quality. In North Carolina’s  “nutrient sensitive” river basins and watersheds,  the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  has approved the nutrient reduction targets in state rules as meeting Clean Water Act  requirements.   To achieve the reduction targets, the rules require reductions in nutrient  discharges by wastewater treatment plants and nutrient runoff from agriculture and development activities. Walking away from the nutrient reduction targets has implications for Clean Water Act enforcement and the state’s delegated water quality permitting programs.

Although the Goose Creek rules rely on similar pollution reduction tools (including riparian buffers and stormwater controls),  those rules protect endangered species habitat.  The rules resulted from a lengthy negotiation with the  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which has responsibility for enforcing the federal Endangered Species Act. Repeal of the rules would likely bring both U.S. Fish and Wildlife  and EPA into the conversation.

Nothing similar to the Senate provision appears in the House version of the budget or in any other legislation pending in the House.  The two chambers are currently negotiating this (and other) differences between the House and Senate budget bills.

Have the Nutrient Rules Failed? The Senate provision describes the state’s existing nutrient management  programs as failures. In reality, legislation has prevented full implementation of the Falls Lake and Jordan Lake nutrient rules.  The rules that have been fully implemented  — such as those in the Neuse River and Tar River basins — significantly reduced nutrient loading from wastewater discharges, agriculture and stormwater runoff.  In judging the effectiveness of watershed-based strategies, some things to keep in mind: 1.  Population growth and development in the watersheds continued to increase; and 2. Existing nutrient reduction strategies do not address all potential nutrient sources (smaller wastewater treatment plants; failing septic tanks; atmospheric deposition of nitrogen; and soil erosion).

DEQ has tracked the effect of nutrient rules in the Neuse River and Tar-Pamlico River basins; some of the results can be found here.  A  number of independent academic researchers have also studied the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico  river basin rules.  All of the studies confirm that sources covered by the rules significantly reduced their nutrient discharges. Wastewater treatment plants met the goal of reducing nitrogen discharges by 30% from the baseline years even as population and wastewater flows increased. Agriculture met or exceeded the 30% reduction goal for agricultural operations through use of  Best Management Practices. A recent EMC report confirmed  the value of  riparian buffers as part of a watershed-based plan to reduce nutrient runoff from developed areas.

Complicating the picture is the fact that  total  in-stream nutrient concentrations  have not consistently remained below  baseline levels.  A DEQ  study completed in 2008 found that in-stream concentrations of inorganic forms of nitrogen  (nitrates and ammonia) declined at the monitoring sites, but  increases in organic nitrogen offset those reductions.   The rules haven’t  failed; given population growth and increased development in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico river basins,   nitrogen concentrations would have been higher in the absence of the rules. But the rules have not fully solved the problem of nutrient over-enrichment.

Opposition to the Nutrient Rules.  Opposition has tended to be strongest in the communities on the Haw River arm of the Jordan Lake watershed affected by the Jordan Lake rules. (The Haw River watershed includes the cities of Greensboro and Burlington.) Since EMC adoption of the Jordan Lake rules in 2009,  legislation to repeal or delay implementation of the rules has been introduced every year.  Objections  have focused on the cost of wastewater treatment plant upgrades to meet tighter discharge limits;  expansion of  stormwater programs;  and the development impact of new riparian buffer requirements. To these upstream Haw River communities, the costs have no local benefit; water quality improvements benefit downstream communities. (Although many of the downstream communities have met similar requirements under the Neuse River rules for years to benefit the Neuse River estuary.)

The City of Durham and Durham County, affected by both the Falls Lake and the Jordan Lake rules, also have concerns about the feasibility and cost of meeting nutrient reduction goals.

Also in the background — riparian buffer requirements have long been unpopular with real estate developers and homebuilders in all of the river basins/watersheds where buffers have been part of a nutrient reduction strategy.

DEQ’s Position.   DEQ has not taken a public position on the Senate proposal, but a February presentation by DEQ Assistant Secretary Tom Reeder to the legislature’s Environmental Review Commission questioned the effectiveness of the watershed-based nutrient rules.  Reeder’s presentation tended to emphasize the cost of the nutrient rules and  limited impact on instream nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations.  Asked what alternative to the nutrient management rules would protect the Falls Lake and Jordan Lake drinking water supplies, Reeder responded that drinking water treatment may become more expensive. The presentation suggested little DEQ commitment to defend watershed-based nutrient rules and a willingness to shift the cost of impaired water quality to communities using  Falls Lake and Jordan Lake as drinking water sources. Reeder’s presentation did not  address the impacts of a failure to reduce excess nutrients  on natural resources such as fisheries; recreational use of these rivers, lakes and estuaries; or compliance with the Clean Water Act.

Possible compromises.  Past studies of the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico rules suggest a need to fill gaps in the nutrient strategies, but do not provide a  scientific case for  abandoning watershed-based nutrient reduction strategies. Nearly seven years after final adoption of the Jordan Lake rules, opponents have not identified an alternative approach to protect drinking water  and meet Clean Water Act requirements.

At the same time, the  EMC’s recent riparian buffer report  identified potential buffer rule changes to ease the burden on property owners while maintaining the buffer’s  water quality benefits.  The legislature could also look at the possibility of  authorizing cost-sharing arrangements to allocate some of the upstream cost of water quality improvements to  the  downstream communities that will benefit. The idea surfaced briefly during development of the Falls Lake and Jordan Lake rules, but wasn’t pursued at the time.

N.C. Environmental Legislation 2015: The Bills

October 12, 2015.   The legislative session finally ended  in the wee hours of September 30 and changes to state  environmental laws continued to be in play until the very end.   Several of the provisions discussed below were enacted as part of  House Bill 765 (the Regulatory Reform Act of 2015) which has not yet been signed by the Governor. H 765 contains too many pieces to completely catalog here; some have been  very controversial.  The other bills referenced in the post have already become law.

Not a complete list, but some of the most significant changes affecting the environment:

“AG-GAG” LEGISLATION.   House Bill 405  allows an employer to take legal action against an employee who:  a.  takes photographs, makes recordings, or copies records; b. in a nonpublic area of the workplace; c.  without permission;  and d. uses those documents “against the interest of the employer”.   H 405 allows  the employer to sue the employee for monetary damages,  including legal fees and a $5,000 per day penalty. Animal welfare activists have characterized these kinds of  bills  as “ag-gag” legislation intended to prevent documentation of animal cruelty at agricultural operations.  House Bill 405,  however,  does not just affect agricultural workers or documentation of animal cruelty. The restrictions could also affect employee efforts to document ongoing environmental violations such as improper disposal of hazardous substances. See an earlier post for more on the implications of H 405. Note: Governor Pat McCrory vetoed H 405, but the General Assembly overrode the veto to allow the bill to become law.

FRACKING.  One of the final bills of the session, Senate Bill 119,  severely limits local regulation of  hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) operations.  First, a little background. 2014 legislation prevented local governments from banning fracking altogether, but G.S. 113-415.1 allowed  cities and counties to continue to apply ordinances applicable  to all development in the jurisdiction — such as zoning and stormwater ordinances —  to fracking operations.  The state’s Mining and Energy Commission had authority to override a  local ordinance that had the effect of precluding natural gas exploration and development.

Senate Bill 119 rewrites the  2014 law to invalidate all local ordinances that directly regulate fracking, preempting ordinances that go beyond or conflict with state standards for hydraulic fracturing operations.  The bill also allows the oil and gas operator to challenge the application of  more general local ordinances (such as zoning and stormwater ordinances) to fracking operations.  These challenges go to the state  Oil and Gas Commission (which has replaced the Mining and Energy Commission in regulating oil and gas operations). The Commission will  decide “whether or to what extent to preempt the local ordinance to allow for the regulation of oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities”.  The  2015 amendments clearly  give the Oil and Gas Commission very broad power to preempt even general development ordinances. Preemption does not require a finding that the ordinance precludes natural gas exploration and development or conflicts with state standards.  As long as the natural gas operator has received  state/federal permits, the bill seems to direct the Commission to preempt application of general development ordinances to fracking operations if the Commission finds that fracking

…will not pose an unreasonable health or environmental risk to the surrounding locality and that the operator has taken or consented to take reasonable measures to avoid or manage foreseeable risks and to comply to the maximum feasible extent with applicable local ordinances.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT. For over 40 years, the State Environmental Policy Act  (SEPA) has required environmental review of  projects involving expenditure of public funds or use of public lands.   An earlier post provides some background on SEPA.   House Bill 795  limits  environmental  review under SEPA to projects that:  1.  involve expenditures of $10 million or more in public funds;  or 2. affect 10 acres or more of public lands and result in permanent changes to the landscape.  The  new thresholds mean many public projects with potentially significant impacts will be exempt from SEPA review. For projects that still require SEPA review,  House Bill 795 narrows  the scope of review to  direct project impacts — excluding indirect impacts  and the combined effects of  similar projects. The final version of the bill made some exceptions to these changes as applied to interbasin transfers (the movement of water from one river basin to another for water supply).   All interbasin transfer  proposals will continue to require SEPA review without regard to the amount of public money or public land  involved and the scope of review will include direct, indirect and cumulative impacts.

In an ironic twist, H 795  requires the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)  to create a  new environmental review process for water/wastewater infrastructure projects that receive loans from the Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund or the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund.  Federal rules  require  those projects to go through an environmental review equivalent to review under the National Environmental Policy Act.  Eliminating SEPA review  for smaller revolving loan projects had the  unintended  effect  of shifting the projects back into a lengthier federal environmental review process. In short, legislators liberated the projects from SEPA  only to create a SEPA-like environmental review process to avoid the still worse fate of federal review. The entire debate over H 795 indicated a  lot of  confusion about how SEPA works and the likely impact of the bill.  See another post for more on the misconceptions about SEPA that seemed to shape H 795.

LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCES.   The legislature also  took aim at local environmental ordinances. Section 2 of  House Bill 44 includes a somewhat opaque provision barring local governments from enforcing “voluntary” state environmental rules. The words “voluntary” and “rule”  do not generally exist in the same space;  a rule, by definition is not voluntary.  The provision  may really be intended to stop local implementation of stormwater ordinances adopted to comply with the  Jordan Lake water quality rules.  Section 2  applies not just to local implementation of  the elusive  “voluntary” state rule, but also to implementation of state rules that have been repealed; rules that have been adopted, but are not yet in effect; or rules that are “temporarily or permanently held in abeyance”. The Jordan Lake rules fall into the last category as a result of earlier legislation delaying state implementation of the rules.

The new provision affects both issuance of new development permits and enforcement of conditions on permits that have already been issued. Barring enforcement of conditions on  previously issued permits  has implications for both developers and local governments.  The questions that immediately come to mind (using the Jordan Lake stormwater requirements as an example): Can development already permitted under the Jordan Lake stormwater standards  move ahead without meeting any stormwater requirements?  or Will the development require a modified permit to reflect  stormwater standards that might have applied prior to local adoption of the Jordan Lake stormwater ordinances?

Section 13 of House Bill 44 limits local government authority to adopt riparian buffer requirements.  The bill defines “riparian buffer”  to mean any setback from surface waters —  which could include a setback imposed for flood control.  But much of the provision has been written to refer specifically to  riparian buffers for the protection of water quality.   Under the bill, a local government cannot adopt and enforce a riparian buffer ordinance for water quality protection  that  goes beyond requirements of state or federal law (or the conditions of a state or federal permit) unless the Environmental Management Commission approves the ordinance.

The bill also requires riparian buffers affecting  residential lots  to be shown on the subdivision plat. And an unusual provision addresses development projects that meet riparian buffer requirements by designating buffers as common area or open space:

When riparian  buffers are placed outside of lots in portions of a subdivision that are designated as common areas or open space and neither the State nor its subdivisions holds any property interest in that riparian buffer area, the local government shall attribute to each lot abutting the riparian buffer area a proportionate share [of the buffer area] ….for purposes of development-related regulatory requirements based on property size, including, but not limited to, residential density and nonresidential intensity calculations and yields, tree conservation purposes, open space or conservation area requirements, setbacks, perimeter buffers, and lot area requirements.

Allocating buffers designated as common area to adjacent property owners for purposes of meeting development standards may create some complications for developers.  Instead of allowing common area buffers to be used to offset density limits (or other requirements) for the development as a whole, the bill requires the benefits to go to  individual  lot owners. For example,  a lot owner may be able to build on a greater percentage of the platted lot because a proportional share of the adjacent buffer would be counted toward the lot area. But whatever flexibility the lot owner gains will be lost to the developer who  can no longer use the riparian buffer common areas to offset  built-on area (for example)  throughout the development as a whole.

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT PRIVILEGE/SELF-DISCLOSURE IMMUNITY.  Two of the most important changes to state environmental law can be found in House Bill 765  (the Regulatory Reform Act of 2015). The bill creates a new privilege for information a company gathers on its own environmental violations, preventing use of the information in a civil case. (The privilege does not apply in a criminal prosecution.)   The bill also grants immunity from civil penalties and fines for environmental violations voluntarily disclosed to state regulators.  Supporters of the bill believe these protections will encourage companies to conduct environmental audits to identify and correct environmental violations more quickly.

The bill excludes certain types of information from the audit privilege (such as data required to be reported under state and federal law). Although the  bill  creates some exceptions to the audit privilege, most of the exceptions require state regulators to show the violator deceptively withheld information or failed to correct violations in a timely way — which may be difficult without access to the audit information itself. H 765 protects environmental audit information from use  in both civil penalty cases and in actions to compel cleanup of environmental contamination.

Although less clear, the  bill may also shield environmental audit information from a private plaintiff seeking compensation for personal injury or property damage caused by an environmental violation.   The section of the bill creating the audit privilege says flatly that the audit information “is privileged and, therefore, immune from discovery and is not admissible as evidence in civil or administrative proceedings”. That section of the bill does not limit the privilege to  environmental enforcement cases brought by the state.  On the other hand, the section of the bill  on  revocation of the audit privilege has been written only to allow the “enforcement agency” to ask a court to revoke the audit privilege.  The bill needs to be clarified in one direction or the other — either the privilege applies only to state enforcement actions or it applies to other civil actions and the opportunity to ask for revocation of the privilege  should  be broader.

The self-disclosure immunity provisions in H 765  grant immunity from civil penalties and fines based on voluntary disclosure of the violation.  The bill sets conditions that must be met to make a self-disclosure “voluntary”.  The final version of the bill also put limits on  how often a person (or company) can claim self-disclosure  immunity — no more than once every two years; twice in a five-year period; and three times in a ten-year period.  The bill never defines “civil penalties and fines”, leaving some questions about the breadth of the immunity being granted.  For example, the bill is silent on whether “civil penalties and fines” includes natural resource damages. (An example would be  fish kill damages assessed as a result of a wastewater spill.)

For a more detailed comparison to past DENR and present U.S. Environmental Protection Agency enforcement policies on self-disclosed violations, see an earlier post.  Note: EPA has long opposed statutory audit privilege out of concern that  withholding information from regulators will  hamper effective environmental enforcement.

RISK-BASED REMEDIATION. House Bill 765 also makes changes to state laws allowing the person responsible for environmental  contamination (the “responsible party”) to do a partial cleanup of  groundwater and soil contamination by relying on land-use controls to limit future exposure to contamination that remains on the site.  The biggest changes:

♦  Sites where contamination has migrated onto adjacent properties would become eligible for risk-based cleanup.  Existing law requires  contamination that has migrated off the property where it originated to be remediated to “unrestricted use standards”  — meaning  levels safe for any possible land use without reliance on land use controls to prevent exposure to contamination.  That effectively means remediation of contaminated groundwater to meet  state groundwater standards. Risk-based cleanup of contamination on adjacent properties had not been allowed because of the additional complications of managing exposure to those contaminants on property the responsible party does not control. H 765  makes  a risk-based cleanup on adjacent property possible with the property owner’s permission. The cleanup would have to meet the same remediation standards applied to the  source site  with an additional stipulation that the remediation plan cannot cause contaminant levels on the adjacent property to actually increase.

♦ The bill removes statute language that had limited risk-based remediation to contaminated sites reported to DENR  before the risk-based remediation law went into effect in 2011, allowing   lower-cost, risk-based remediation as an option for future pollution events.

♦ H 765 adds new categories to an existing statutory list of sites excluded from these particular  risk-based remediation provisions.  The new exclusions cover coal ash disposal sites and animal waste management systems.

♦ The bill creates a separate risk-based remediation program for above-ground petroleum storage tanks (ASTs). The AST program closely follows  the model of the basic risk-based remediation statute, but imposes lower fees on the person responsible for cleanup.

WHAT DIDN’T HAPPEN AFTER ALL.  Other high profile (and controversial) changes came and went as the legislation session wound down. Among the proposals discarded for now:

♦ Broad changes to riparian buffer rules.  Proposals to significantly roll back riparian buffer requirements for nutrient sensitive waters fell away in negotiations between the House and Senate.  Instead, House Bill 44 requires a study of the buffer rules, including ways to reduce regulatory burden on owners of property platted before their adoption.  The legislature did enact a few limited changes to buffer requirements.  House Bill  44 directs the Environmental Management Commission  to allow case-by-case modification of the requirement to maintain woody vegetation in riparian buffers  if the landowner shows that  alternative measures will provide equal or greater water quality protection. House Bill 765  alters  state stormwater rules to  (among other things)  allow more intensive development in riparian buffers along shellfish waters, outstanding resource waters and high quality waters if stormwater  from the development is collected, treated and discharged through the vegetated buffer. The provision doesn’t put any upper limit on the amount of impervious surface allowed in the area previously known as a buffer, so it isn’t clear how much vegetated buffer will remain to discharge the stormwater through.

♦ Repeal of state fees supporting electronics recycling programs. The repeal proposed by the Senate turned into a legislative study of electronics recycling.

♦  Repeal or significant  rollback  of the state’s Renewable Energy Portfolio standard.  Efforts to freeze the REPS standard at 6% of retail sales failed. (Although not before popping up in multiple bills.)

♦  LImits on the state Environmental Management Commission’s authority to adopt federal air quality standards. The proposal could have put North Carolina’s delegated Clean Air Act program at risk. In the end, the General Assembly settled for a provision prohibiting the state air quality program from enforcing federal standards for wood heaters. The provision doesn’t have any real effect since  EPA has never delegated enforcement of the  standard for wood heaters to the states.

The  next session of the N.C. General Assembly convenes on April 25, 2016.

Regulatory Reform 2015: A New NC Senate Proposal

July 13, 2015. Before leaving for the Fourth of July holiday, the N.C. Senate turned a minor House bill into a vehicle for major changes to environmental rules.  The Senate had already proposed changes to environmental standards in a regulatory reform bill (Senate Bill 453) that has not yet passed the Senate; in individual Senate environmental bills; and in the Senate budget bill.  The House has not yet voted on many of the earlier Senate proposals. The Senate version of House Bill 765  may be the most aggressive regulatory reform legislation to date —  putting constraints on air quality rules; creating new immunity from environmental enforcement actions; reducing air quality monitoring; changing laws on remediation of contaminated property; and  proposing outright repeal of the state’s electronics recycling law. In response to DENR concerns, the Senate delayed some proposed changes to stormwater and environmental permitting requirements to allow for study.  Reportedly, the floor amendments adopted by the Senate eliminated DENR objections to the remainder of the bill which continues to have far-reaching implications for state environmental policy:

Sec. 1.4 allows a state agency to automatically recover attorneys fees from a person who unsuccessfully challenges a state action on environmental grounds. A citizen or organization challenging a state construction project or an environmental permitting decision could be at significant financial risk —  a risk that would not be shared by citizens challenging state actions for other reasons.

Sec. 4.2 repeals the state law requiring computer and television manufacturers  to pay fees that support local electronics recycling programs. It isn’t clear that all of the city and county electronics recycling programs could survive the loss of state recycling fee revenue. State law would continue to prohibit disposal of discarded televisions and computers in landfills; the question is whether there would continue to be electronics recycling programs in all 100 counties.

Sec. 4.7 makes changes to state laws allowing risk-based remediation of environmental contamination. A risk-based remediation allows the person responsible for the contamination (the “responsible party”) to do a partial cleanup of  groundwater and soil contamination by relying on land-use controls to limit future exposure to contaminated soils or groundwater remaining on the site.  The biggest changes:

1. Sites where contamination has already migrated onto adjacent properties would become eligible for a risk-based cleanup.  Existing law  does not allow a risk-based cleanup if contamination has migrated off the property where it originated  because of the additional complication of managing exposure on property the responsible party does not control. The Senate provision allows a  responsible party  to do a risk-based cleanup on adjacent property with the property owner’s permission. The provision does not require land use controls on the adjacent property to prevent future exposure to remaining contamination — normally a necessary condition of a risk-based cleanup. Existing remediation standards may allow DENR to disapprove a risk-based cleanup unless the entire area has appropriate land use controls, but the new Senate provision on risk-based cleanup of adjacent property is silent on the issue.

2. The bill removes existing statute language that limits risk-based remediation to contaminated sites reported to DENR  before the risk-based remediation law went into effect in 2011, allowing   lower-cost, risk-based remediation as an alternative for future pollution events.

Sec. 4.9 changes a state law providing incentives for redevelopment of contaminated property (or “brownfields”).  The state Brownfields Redevelopment Act uses the term “prospective developer” to describe a person eligible for liability protection and economic incentives under the law.  The term excludes anyone who caused or contributed to the contamination. The Senate proposes to redefine the term to cover a  “bona fide prospective purchaser”, a “contiguous landowner” and an “innocent landowner” as defined in the federal Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Redevelopment Act (amending the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act or “CERCLA”). In CERCLA, the terms describe categories of landowners who have acquired  property contaminated by hazardous substances, but have no legal liability for the contamination. Generally, the definitions cover landowners who acquired the property after the contamination occurred and have no relationship to a person (or company) responsible for the contamination.

All of the federal definitions referenced in the Senate provision concern liability for “hazardous substance” contamination as defined in CERCLA. CERCLA defines “hazardous substance” to include a specific list of compounds and unlisted substances with similar characteristics.  The definition also excludes some substances  — most notably petroleum and natural gas products — with similar health and environmental risk. (Other federal laws address contamination caused by petroleum spills and leaks.)

In  redefining  “prospective developer” based on CERCLA terms, the Senate provision also eliminates language in the existing definition that excludes a person who caused or contributed to contamination on the site. The question is whether those changes, in combination,  could give a property owner responsible for contamination unrelated to a CERCLA  “hazardous substance”   liability protection and other benefits under the state Brownfields law. That result would be inconsistent with the original intent of the Brownfields Redevelopment Act and undermine the state’s ability to require cleanup of environmental contamination.

Sec. 4.14  would allow private engineers to self-permit onsite wastewater systems (such as septic systems), eliminating the need for a local health department permit.  (The provision does not affect wastewater systems that discharge to the land surface or to rivers, lakes and streams; those systems require permits from DENR.)  The property owner’s engineer would have to give the local health department a notice of intent to construct the wastewater system and a final post-construction report, but the engineer would be completely responsible for design and installation.  The provision also allows the engineer to use wastewater system technology that has not been approved by the State “at the engineer’s discretion”.

In place of health department enforcement of on-site wastewater standards, the bill puts the burden on the property owner to sue the engineer or soil scientist if the wastewater system fails.  The risk to the property owner is that problems may develop several years after installation, leading to an expensive fight over the  cause of the failure  — bad engineering; inappropriate siting; improper installation; or lack of maintenance. Treating a failed wastewater system as a problem strictly between the engineer or soil scientist and property owner also overlooks the possible impact on other property owners and the public.  A septic system located too close to a water supply well may contaminate the well; a failing wastewater system can contribute pollutants to already stressed streams and lakes. Although the bill requires the engineer to give notice of the proposed construction to the local health department,  it isn’t clear that the provision allows the health department to prevent installation of an engineer-approved system however poorly designed or improperly sited.

Sec.4.15 changes state review of applications for innovative or experimental onsite wastewater systems. For the most part,  the bill  seems to replace state approval of experimental waste treatment systems with reliance on national certification of the technology.

Sec. 4.18 reduces  state protection of isolated wetlands by limiting the application of state water quality permitting rules  to basin wetlands and bogs — excluding other isolated wetlands from environmental protection. DENR has identified seven other categories of isolated wetlands: Coastal Isolated Wetlands, Seep, Hardwood Flat, Non-Riverine Swamp Forest, Pocosin, Pine Savanna, and Pine Flats.  Note: “isolated wetlands” are wetlands that do not have any connection to surface waters that fall under federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction.

Sec. 4.19 allows more development to be considered “low density” under coastal stormwater rules, raising the low density limit from 12% built-upon area to 24% built-upon area. The significance of the change is that low density projects do not require engineered stormwater controls. The bill also eliminates one trigger for compliance with coastal stormwater rules — the addition of 10,000 square feet or more of built-upon area as part of a non-residential development.  The Senate provision would trigger coastal stormwater standards for both residential and non-residential projects based on the need for a sedimentation plan (required for disturbance of one acre or more) or a Coastal Area Management Act permit. Before adoption, the Senate amended the effective date for Sec. 4.19 in response to DENR concerns about the coastal stormwater changes. The provision would go into effect on July 1 2016 to allow for study in the interim.

Sec. 4.24 requires repeal of the state’s heavy duty vehicle idling rules. The rule, 15A NCAC 2D.1010, limits excessive idling of heavy duty vehicles as another way to reduce the impact of vehicle emissions on air quality.

Sec. 4.25 requires the state Division of Air Quality to remove air quality monitors that are not specifically required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The provision would significantly reduce the number of air quality monitors used to assess air quality and demonstrate compliance with federal ambient air quality standards.

Sec. 4.30 deals with mitigation of stream impacts  permitted under Sec. 404 of the Clean Water Act. Under Sec. 404,  many projects involving deposition of fill material in surface waters  require a federal permit. In most states,  the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issues the 404 permits. The Clean Water Act requires an applicant for a  404 permit to provide the Corps with a certification (under Sec. 401 of the Act) that the project will be consistent with state water quality standards.  The Senate provision affects state issuance of the 401 Certification in two ways. First, it prevents DENR from using the 401 Certification to put stream mitigation conditions on a project impacting less than 300 feet of stream without making specific findings — even if the mitigation requirement simply matches mitigation required under the federal 404 permit. The provision also limits state requirements for stream mitigation to a 1:1 ratio of stream impact to mitigation provided; in some cases, that will result in less mitigation than the Corps will require for the 404 permit. Since the permit applicant will have to meet federal mitigation conditions in any case, the reason for these new restrictions on parallel state mitigation conditions isn’t clear.

Sec. 4.31 completely eliminates state mitigation requirements for isolated streams (that is, streams that fall outside federal Clean Water Act permitting jurisdiction).

Sec. 4.37 makes changes to riparian buffer rules. The provision requires the buffer on an intermittent stream to be measured from the center of the stream rather than normal high water level. The most significant change allows unlimited development in a riparian buffer as long as the project complies with state stormwater requirements. The change appears as an amendment to a stormwater statute and does not directly refer to riparian buffer rules adopted by the Environmental Management Commission. Other bills that propose changes to riparian buffer requirements specifically list the rules affected — such as the Neuse River and Jordan Lake rules.  Since this provision makes no reference to the riparian buffer rules, it may be intended to apply only to buffers required under the state’s minimum stormwater standards and local stormwater ordinances. It isn’t clear.

The bill also includes several provisions that appeared earlier in other Senate bills. Sec. 4.1 makes another run at putting environmental audit/self-disclosure immunity into state law. The Senate had included those same provisions in Senate Bill 453; see an earlier  post for more detail. Sec. 4.3 and Sec. 4.4 repeat limitations on state adoption and enforcement of federal air quality standards already approved by the Senate in Senate Bill 303; see previous posts  here and here.

The extensive Senate changes to House Bill 765 mean the bill now goes back to the House for a vote on concurrence. If the House refuses to accept all of the Senate changes, the bill goes to a conference committee. The General Assembly will be back in session this week, but it isn’t clear what priority the House will give H 765.

The Battle Over Riparian Buffers

June 22, 2015. An earlier post  described  changes to state  buffer rules proposed in House Bill 760 (Regulatory Reform Act of 2015).  Last week, the North Carolina Senate put its own set of buffer changes into House Bill 44 (Local Government Regulatory Reform). The buffer provisions added by the Senate look very different from those approved by the House in H 760.

First, the purpose of  riparian buffer rules. In several areas of the state,  water quality rules limit clearing, grading and development activity within 50 feet of  rivers, lakes and streams. For the most part, the state buffer rules responded to water pollution problems caused by excess nutrients.   A  number of large fish kills,  including a 1995  fish kill in the Neuse River estuary that lasted more than three months and killed tens of millions of fish,  prompted  nutrient rules for the lower Neuse River and the Tar-Pamlico River basin.  The rules required stream buffers to  reduce  nutrient runoff and also put stricter limits on wastewater discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus.  More recently, similar nutrient problems led the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to adopt  buffer rules for the  Falls Lake  and Jordan Lake watersheds.  State buffer rules also apply to the main stem of the Catawba River  and in the  Randleman Reservoir watershed to prevent development of nutrient problems. The rules  require a 50-foot vegetated buffer —  Zone 1  (the first 30 feet back from the water) has undisturbed natural vegetation;  Zone 2  can be graded and replanted.

In Section 13 of House Bill 44, the Senate proposes to  shrink the riparian buffer required under the Neuse River rules from 50 feet to 30 feet and allow more  disturbance within 30 feet of the water.  The  Senate bill then directs DENR and the Environmental Management Commission  to “implement all other rules adopted by the Commission for the protection and maintenance of existing riparian buffers for nutrient sensitive waters”  in the same way until the beginning of the 2016 legislative session. The implications:

♦ Stream  buffers on waters already stressed by excess nutrients will be significantly narrowed; it isn’t clear whether the narrower buffer will be as effective in reducing polluted runoff.

♦  The Senate provision allows grading, clearing and revegetation of the entire 30-foot buffer.

♦  Changes to the Neuse River buffer rule would be permanent, but  changes to buffer rules on other nutrient sensitive waters expire at the beginning of the next legislative session in May 2016.  (Although nothing in the bill suggests the Senate actually  intends to allow those buffer rules to return to their current form  in 2016.)

♦  Whatever happens in 2016, temporarily  reducing riparian buffer requirements on nutrient sensitive waters could set off a frenzy of buffer clearing during the one year interim.

♦ Since the provision only applies to  buffer rules adopted by the EMC  “for nutrient sensitive waters”,  buffer rules adopted for  Randleman Reservoir and  the main stem of the Catawba River  would be unchanged.

The Senate  and  House also differ on the method for measuring riparian buffers on coastal wetlands. The Senate provision (in Section 14 of House Bill 44) requires all coastal wetlands  — even those regularly flooded on the tides — to be considered  part of the riparian buffer.  The change would potentially allow clearing, grading and development activity up to the edge of a regularly flooded  coastal wetland.  H 760 requires the riparian buffer on a coastal wetland to be measured from the normal water level,  likely preventing use of regularly flooded wetlands as the buffer.

The House quickly voted not to accept the Senate changes to House Bill 44; the bill  has been sent to a conference committee to work out the differences.  The Senate has not yet taken up  H 760.  Legislative conferees can sometimes color outside the lines, but as things now stand the choice seems to be between:  1. Maintaining existing 50-foot riparian buffer requirements, but exempting a large number of  properties from the rules entirely (the House proposal in H 760);  or 2. Reducing the riparian buffer from 50 feet to 30 feet on nutrient sensitive waters and allowing grading, clearing and revegetation in the entire buffer  (the Senate proposal in H 44).

Note on Goose Creek: Buffer rules for the Goose Creek watershed protect habitat for a federally listed endangered species. The rules, which were negotiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,  require broader buffers than those on nutrient sensitive waters. The Senate buffer provisions in H 44 do not affect the Goose Creek rules.  The buffer exemption in H 760 could apply in the  Goose Creek watershed, which may undo the negotiated agreement with U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

Reforming Riparian Buffers Out of Existence

May 7, 2015.  Yesterday, the N.C. House approved House Bill 760 (Regulatory Reform Act of 2015) after adopting several amendments. House Bill 760 has  attracted a lot of media attention because of  the renewable energy provisions.  Less attention has been paid to part of the bill that will significantly weaken use of riparian buffers to reduce water pollution.

An earlier post  described the original riparian buffer provisions in House Bill 760. By amendment,  the House changed the provision on measurement of riparian buffers adjacent to coastal wetlands.  The new language requires the buffer to be measured from the normal water level, recognizing that some coastal wetlands regularly flood on the tides. The bill continues to have confusing language on  local government authority  to adopt riparian buffer ordinances outside of the river basins and watersheds covered by state buffer rules. Amendments  improved those provisions a bit,  but I am not sure even the amended bill  allows for all of the circumstances in which a local government may need to adopt a buffer ordinance to meet state and federal environmental standards.

But in what may be the most under-discussed section  of House Bill 760, the bill  still creates an exceptionally broad exemption from riparian buffer rules that apply in the state’s nutrient impaired river basins and watersheds. None of the amendments  to House Bill 760 narrowed the scope of the  buffer exemption.  In  areas covered by state nutrient sensitive waters (NSW)  buffer rules, the bill exempts all tracts of land platted before the buffer rules went into effect — even if the property could be developed for its intended purpose in compliance with the buffer requirement. (There are already exemptions and variances that cover previously platted lots that cannot be developed in full compliance with the buffer requirement.) The only condition on the exemption:

Other than the applicable buffer rule, the use of the tract complies with either of the following:

a. The rules and other laws regulating and applicable to that tract on the effective date for the applicable buffer rule set out in subsection (a) of this section.

b.The current rules, if the application of those rules to the tract was initiated after the effective date for the applicable buffer rule by the unit of local government with jurisdiction over the tract and not at the request of the property owner.

The conditions  don’t narrow the exemption  much — if at all.  Enforcing (a)  requires someone in the present to  determine whether use of the property complies with laws and rules in effect as much as 15 years ago.  And (b) appears to be the “Get Out of Jail Free” card that allows a property owner to claim the exemption based on meeting all current local ordinances other than the buffer rule. Unless  I am missing something, the property owner can just opt out of the riparian buffer requirement as long as a development project meets other current standards.

The exemption applies whether the riparian buffer rules are enforced by the state or by a local government with  delegated authority to enforce the  buffer requirements.  The exemption also seems to apply to both undeveloped properties and to properties already developed and currently in compliance with the buffer requirements.  If so, owners of developed properties would be free to clear vegetation and create new encroachments in the buffer. (Failure of the bill to distinguish between developed and undeveloped properties in applying the exemption criteria may have led to some unintended consequences —  although the exemption language is so aggressively broad,  I am not sure that is the case.)

The buffer  rules are  part of  broader  water quality restoration plans designed to meet  federal Clean Water Act requirements. The Clean Water Act requires the state  to adopt a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) —  a cap —  for any pollutant causing impaired water quality. A number of state  water bodies, including the Neuse River estuary, Falls Lake and Jordan Reservoir,   have had impaired water quality due to excess nitrogen and phosphorus.   For those river basins and watersheds, the nutrient management rules provide the underpinning  for  TMDLs that set nitrogen and phosphorus reduction targets.

North Carolina ‘s longstanding  policy has been to share the burden of pollution reduction among all of the major nutrient sources so the rules include tighter controls on wastewater dischargers; measures to reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus leaving agricultural lands; and stormwater controls and riparian buffer requirements to reduce nutrient runoff from developed areas.  Each set of nutrient management rules reflects a long negotiation  involving  all of the  interests  affected — local governments, agriculture, landowners, real estate developers, environmental organizations — to balance the pollution reduction burden.

The House Bill 760 buffer exemption has the potential to upset the balance of the nutrient management plans and jeopardize the state’s ability to meet nutrient reduction targets in the TMDLs.  Understanding the impact of the exemption will require the answers to a number of questions yet to be asked or answered in the legislative debate:

1.  How many properties in each nutrient sensitive  river basin or watershed potentially qualify for the exemption and what percentage of riparian area  could be affected?

2.  How much nutrient reduction has the Division of Water Resources credited to protection of the riparian buffers in the approved TMDLs?

3.   Would the exemption affect the state’s ability to meet nutrient reduction goals for these impaired water bodies?

4.  Would the state have to ask for more nutrient reductions from other sources (such as wastewater treatment plants and agricultural operations) to make up the difference?

The bill now goes to the Senate, which has more often been the starting point for legislation to  limit use of stormwater controls and riparian buffers to restore water quality in impaired waters.

Regulatory Reform and the Environment II: Targeting Environmental Rules

November 21, 2013.   In North Carolina,  “regulatory reform” has had a strong focus on environmental rules for  nearly twenty years. An earlier post sketched a very broad history of regulatory reform in N.C. starting with the creation of the Rules Review Commission in 1986. But from 1977 into the early 1980s,  the General Assembly  actually had an Administrative Rules Review Committee made up of legislators. The committee tracked the number of rules adopted by state agencies and reviewed rules for statutory authority. I was able to find committee reports from 1979-1983. (After that, the online  trail went cold.)  The reports list all of the rules the committee objected to for lack of statutory authority and how those objections were resolved. Environmental rules didn’t  receive  much   attention from the committee; some of the most common objections concerned rules assessing fees not authorized by law; state agencies creating criminal penalties by rule;  and professional licensing  boards overstepping their authority.

Environmental rules may have had a lower profile simply because of  the times. Congress  had just adopted the major federal environmental protection laws  in the early to mid-1970s —  the Clean Air Act  in 1970, the Clean Water Act  in 1972, the  Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974 and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (regulating hazardous waste)  in 1976.  In the 1970s and early 1980s,  state environmental agencies were  adopting rules  needed to run delegated permitting programs under those federal laws: water quality  and air quality standards; drinking water regulations;  hazardous waste permitting rules;  and regulations for petroleum underground storage tanks. Environmental rulemaking may not have been without controversy, but  there was also significant support for environmental programs and for the most part  the General Assembly seemed to let the  regulatory agencies  handle the controversies.

That started to change as water quality rules in particular began to have a greater impact on development activity. The first generation of  environmental permitting rules largely affected local government and  industry.  In the water quality program, local government wastewater treatment plants  and industries directly discharging wastewater to a stream  needed a Clean Water Act permit.    A developer only needed an environmental permit if the project involved filling wetlands or a segment of stream.  As  the state  began to grapple with the impact of development activity on  coastal resources and water quality in the late 1980s, environmental  permitting came to have a much greater effect on developers and private property owners.

By 1984, the state’s Coastal Resources Commission had adopted the first standards for development on the state’s ocean and inlet beaches. Those rules included oceanfront setbacks and restrictions on use of seawalls and jetties to protect oceanfront structures from erosion.  In the late 1980s, the state’s water quality program  began  work on  rules to address high bacteria levels in coastal shellfish waters.  Those  rules included the first state stormwater management requirements for new development projects.  Since then, a  series of water quality initiatives have used stormwater  standards, density limits and  riparian buffers to reduce the impact of polluted runoff from developed areas. A combination of density limits, buffers and stormwater controls became part of the basic water supply watershed program designed to prevent pollution of drinking water supplies. Those same tools became part of the comprehensive water quality strategies to reduce nutrient over-enrichment in the Tar-Pamlico River, Neuse River,  Falls Lake and Jordan Lake.  In the nutrient  strategies,  development standards represented one part of a much larger set of pollution reduction measures  that also  included  tighter controls on wastewater discharges and  best management practices to limit agricultural runoff.

Legislative  Disapproval of  Environmental Rules.  Legislative action on regulatory issues can  take other forms, but tracking disapproval bills gives a fair indication of where legislative attention has been  focused. For the first few years after the General Assembly amended the Administrative Procedure Act to allow for legislative disapproval of rules, virtually all of the disapproval bills concerned environmental rules.  The first disapproval bills introduced in the General Assembly (in 1998) targeted the Neuse River stream buffer rules and the Tar-Pamlico nutrient  rules (which also included buffer and stormwater requirements).   Based on a  search of the General Assembly bill database, legislators introduced bills to disapprove at least 41 state agency rules between 1998 and 2012.   Sixteen of the disapproval  bills  targeted environmental protection rules;  in some cases, a single bill  covered multiple rules. Another four bills proposed to disapprove Wildlife Resource Commission regulations. All of the other regulatory programs in state government (public health, worker safety, building code, occupational licensing boards, food safety, insurance regulation, etc.)  accounted for just another 16 disapproval bills during the same period. (See Legislative Disapproval Bills for a complete  list of the disapproval bills that I  found.)

Of the 16  bills to disapprove environmental  rules, ten concerned water quality rules.  The list  includes the Neuse River  buffer rules, the Tar-Pamlico River nutrient rules, coastal stormwater rules, rules classifying streams as trout waters or Outstanding Resource Waters,  water quality standards for municipal storm sewer systems,  and the Falls Lake and Jordan Lake nutrient management strategies. That list of water quality rules includes  the most debated (and negotiated) environmental rules adopted in the last 15 years, addressing some of the state’s most complicated water quality  problems. One common thread  is that all of those regulations  use development standards as one tool to address a water quality problem. The other common (and related) factor is that all encountered opposition from realtors,  developers, and owners of waterfront property.

Amending the APA to make environmental rulemaking more difficult. There has also been an effort to make environmental rulemaking more difficult by putting limits or requirements on environmental rules that don’t apply to other kinds of regulations. In 2005, the General Assembly  amended G.S. 150B-21.4 ( fiscal notes on rules) to require a special fiscal analysis of environmental rules — and only environmental rules — affecting state highway projects. The change responded in part to expansion of   stormwater  requirements,  which affected state highway projects as well as conventional building projects.

In 2009, several House and Senate bills proposed to put a moratorium on  rulemaking by the state’s Environmental Management Commission (the citizen commission  that adopts air quality and water quality rules).  House Bill 1335 actually passed the House and received a favorable report from a Senate committee before being pulled off the Senate floor without a vote.  But the 2011 Regulatory Reform Act, Session Law 2011-398, picked up the effort to restrain environmental rulemaking  and put new  limits on environmental rules that do not apply to other state rules.   G.S. 150B-19.3 prevents a state environmental agency from adopting a rule that is more stringent than a corresponding  federal environmental rule except in very limited circumstances.  As a practical matter,  the new law  will  be much more difficult to apply than legislators may have expected. Many federal environmental rules  provide  a framework for regulation rather than comprehensive standards and permitting procedures, making the “more stringent than” comparison difficult to impossible — although it should provide fertile ground for argument.  More about the policy implications of handcuffing state environmental regulations to federal rules in  a future  post.

The focus on environmental regulations continued in the  2013 Regulatory Reform Act, Session Law 2013-413.  The  most recent  legislation requires review of existing rules every ten years causes rules to automatically expire if the review does not occur. Although the review requirement  applies  to all state regulatory programs, the legislation specifically directs the  Rules Review Commission to schedule existing state water quality and wetland rules for the first round of review in 2014. The legislation also puts a one-year moratorium  on adoption of local government ordinances that address environmental issues  covered  by state and federal environmental rules. During that year,  the legislature’s Environmental Review Commission will study local government authority to adopt environmental ordinances. Like the 2011 limitation on state environmental rules, the moratorium on local ordinances almost certainly has some unintended consequences. More about that in a future  post as well.

Why has regulatory reform come to focus so heavily on water quality rules?   In one way, water quality rules seem  to be an odd focus for so much regulatory reform activity since federal requirements drive so many of the rules.  But while  federal law requires the state to  reduce  pollution causing impaired water quality  (like the nutrient problems in the Tar Pamlico River, Neuse River, Falls Lake and Jordan Lake), federal rules do not dictate the remedy.  The legislative disapproval bills have targeted the remedy —  a comprehensive strategy that reduces direct discharges of the pollutant (from wastewater treatment plants and industrial dischargers) and indirect runoff from agriculture and developed areas.

In these instances, things happening under the banner of “regulatory reform” are not so much about eliminating unnecessary and burdensome regulations. It is really about how the state will  solve complicated environmental problems and whether  the burden of pollution reduction will be shared by all of the sources contributing to the problem.  Since  2013  legislation also delayed further implementation of the Jordan Lake rules to  convene a  legislative study committee on Jordan Lake water quality (see Session Law 2013-395), the current General Assembly will have  a chance to  struggle with  those questions.

May Day at the General Assembly: Environmental Bills

May Day: An ancient celebration of spring.  “Mayday” : an international distress call. 

There will be lots of activity on significant environmental legislation today at the N.C. General Assembly:

Renewable Energy.  Rep. Mike Hager will attempt to revive House Bill 298 repealing the state’s renewable energy portfolio standard (REPS). Earlier posts on the REPS bill can be found here and here. The bill will be back in the House Public Utilities and Energy Committee at noon. A  motion to approve the bill failed in the same committee last week by a 5-vote margin, but the committee never voted to disapprove the bill.  A  story by John Murawski in today’s Raleigh  News and Observer suggests little change in the lineup for and against the bill. Conservative political organizations (including Americans for Prosperity) and anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist continue to push for repeal of the renewable energy standard as part of a national political strategy that has little to do with the costs and benefits of  repeal  in  North Carolina. Some key House lawmakers  still  oppose the bill because the renewable energy standard has brought new private investment and jobs to the state. A Senate version of the  REPS repeal bill  (Senate Bill 365) will get a first hearing in the Senate Finance Committee today. Rarely does an issue so clearly require a legislator to choose between the state’s interest and a position being promoted  by national political organizations.

Regulatory Reform. Senate Bill 612 (Regulatory Reform Act of 2013) will be up for a floor vote in the Senate this afternoon.  See an earlier post on bill language essentially repealing Neuse and Tar Pamlico River buffer requirements and a  more recent  post about  a provision requiring  environmental agencies to repeal state rules that are more stringent than federal regulations on the same subject. (Putting those two proposals in the same bill is interesting all by itself since the Neuse and Tar Pamlico buffer rules are critical parts of  federally required and federally approved state plans to reduce nutrient pollution in the two river systems. It appears that even a federal requirement may not be enough to save environmental rules in some cases.)

The idea  that  state environmental rules  can simply track federal regulations  really misreads  federal environmental law. Senate Bill 612  assumes that federal agencies have adopted environmental regulations that can be simply picked up and applied by the state and that isn’t the case. Federal regulations alone would not, in most cases, be enough to make for a functioning   environmental permitting program  — or one that actually responds to the state’s needs.   All federal environmental laws  assume — and in many cases require —  that individual states will tailor the  federal  program to  address conditions in the state. (Since you won’t find estuaries in Arizona, that state’s Clean Water Act program does not look like  North Carolina’s program.)  This misunderstanding of the relationship between federal law and state environmental  rules means the most likely outcome of the Senate Bill 612 repeal requirement  will be conflict and confusion. It is unclear why the Senate chose to use a sledge-hammer rather than focus regulatory reform efforts on issues actually raised by citizens in comments to the Joint Committee on Regulatory Reform or through the rule review process  created  in G.S. 150B-19.2.

Water System Management.  House Bill 488 (transferring the Asheville water system to the Buncombe County Metropolitan Sewer District)  has come out of a conference committee to resolve differences between House and Senate versions of the bill. See an earlier post for background on the Asheville controversy.   The Senate has approved the conference report; the conference report does not appear on today’s House calendar yet, but could be added. Note: The Buncombe County MSD  had a major sewer spill yesterday;  the details (such as cause and the total amount of raw sewage spilled to the French Broad River)  are not yet clear. The spill caused me to look at House Bill 488 again and it turns out that the bill does not condition transfer of the Asheville water system on the MSD’s compliance with environmental standards or on actual transfer of the water system’s operating permit to the MSD.

Regulatory Reform 3.0

April 29, 2013:  Last Thursday, the N.C. Senate’s Committee on Commerce approved a new version of Senate Bill 612 (Regulatory Reform Act of 2013) — the third in a series of “regulatory reform” bills developed since Republicans gained control of both houses of the General Assembly in the 2011. The bill may be on the Senate calendar tonight.

The bill attempts too  much  to describe in one post, but  the  most significant provisions would  repeal stream buffer requirements in the Neuse River and Tar-Pamlico River basins  and  require  repeal or modification of any state rule  that “imposes a more restrictive standard, limitation, or requirement” than a federal law or rule on the same subject. ( See an earlier post  for more detail on the  Senate Bill 612 stream buffer language.) The idea of prohibiting  state agencies from adopting rules (particularly environmental rules) that  go beyond minimum  federal requirements has been around for awhile. The Regulatory Reform Act of 2011     ( Session Law 2011-398 )  prohibited  state environmental  agencies — and only environmental agencies — from adopting  more restrictive standards or requirements  than federal rules on the same subject.   The  law had exceptions  for  rules to address a “serious and unforeseen threat to public health, safety or welfare” and rules required by state law, federal law, state budget policy or a court order.  Even then, the General Assembly had an eye on existing rules as well. The same legislation directed all state agencies to provide the Joint Select Regulatory Reform Committee with a list of existing rules and indicate for each rule whether the rule was mandated by federal law and whether the  rule was more stringent than an analogous federal regulation. (The session law defined analogous to mean that a federal rule regulated the same conduct or activity.)

The Regulatory Reform Act of 2012 (Session Law 2012-187)    did  not follow up on the reports  submitted in the fall of 2011.  Senate Bill 612 also ignores the information submitted by state agencies in 2011. Instead of using the 2011 reports to focus regulatory reform efforts, Senate Bill 612 directs state environmental agencies — and only environmental agencies —  to  repeal or modify any rule that exceeds minimum federal requirements unless the rule fits under one of  the exceptions set out in the 2011 legislation for new rules.  The bill  also takes away the authority of  city and county governments to adopt local ordinances that go beyond state and federal environmental standards.

It isn’t clear how   legislators  mean to interpret the Senate Bill 612 provisions. Even the most detailed federal environmental regulations (like those adopted by EPA under the Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act) have gaps that need to be filled by state rules.  Federal regulations often lack  detail on program implementation, such as record-keeping and monitoring  requirements. Sometimes the gaps are more substantive; environmental and public health issues of great concern  in North Carolina have not always been national priorities.  Most  federally delegated or authorized  environmental programs  operate under federal regulations  that are much  less detailed than  the Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act standards. The  state’s  water quality,  solid waste and coastal management programs  all operate under federal  laws  that  create  a framework for state regulatory programs, but  for the most part leave development of specific environmental standards to the state.  For those programs, it will be  difficult to directly compare state rules to federal regulations and determine what is more or less stringent.

So,  the Senate Bill 612 language  raises a number of questions:

— Where fairly detailed federal  standards  exist, would the bill require repeal of state rules that address gaps in the federal regulations?   Or can state rules go beyond  federal regulations to  describe the content of a complete permit application or establish specific  monitoring  and record-keeping requirements?

— In programs that operate under a federal framework for regulation that  leaves  specific standard-setting largely to the state agency (with federal oversight),  will Senate Bill 612 require repeal of  types of standards and requirements not specifically  identified  in the   federal regulations?   Will  the state’s water quality program, for example,  be limited to using regulatory  tools provided under the Clean Water Act (such as wastewater discharge permits) to solve  a water pollution problem? Or can the program continue to address all major water pollution sources and use innovative approaches not contemplated in the federal rules?

— Does the exception for rules addressing a  “serious and unforeseen threat to public health, safety and welfare”    allow state rules to go beyond minimum federal requirements because of particular conditions  in the state or in response to concerns that may not have come up in development of the federal regulation? Or will the General Assembly take the position that if EPA doesn’t think putting a petroleum underground storage tank (UST)  near a drinking water well is a problem, then it must not be a problem?

The  2011 DENR report  to the Joint Legislative Committee on Regulatory Reform identified a number of state environmental rules that go beyond the requirements of  federal rules on the same subject. From a quick review, I found some examples of state rules that may have to be repealed under Senate Bill 612 :

● State waste management rules  requiring minimum separation from groundwater for land application of septage (to prevent groundwater contamination) and maximum slopes for land application sites (to prevent runoff to surface waters).

● State rules requiring water systems to  treat drinking water with excessive levels  of iron and manganese; both can cause discoloration of skin and teeth, as well as odor and taste problems.  Federal rules have only “advisory” standards for manganese and iron and do not require water systems to provide treatment to improve the water quality.

● State rules requiring a public water system to notify  the  owner  if routine water system monitoring  finds  a drinking water standard violation or high levels of fecal coliform bacteria in a water sample from a building. Federal rules only require water systems to provide notice to customers  if the water system overall violates Safe Drinking Water Act standards. Since  a water system can  exceed drinking water  standards at some number of  individual monitoring locations without  being in violation as a system (the exact number varies depending on the size of the water system and number of monitoring sites), the federal rules do not require the water system to notify  individual  property owners of  a problem  confined to a particular site. The state notice rule was adopted in 2006 after complaints that local water systems did not notify  citizens of high lead  levels in their drinking water after it was detected in routine water systems monitoring.

● Rules  prohibiting  location of a petroleum  underground storage tank (UST) within  100 feet from a  well serving the public or within 50 feet of any other well used for human consumption.

● Rules requiring setbacks for land application of all wastewater residuals (both sewage sludge and other solids  from wastewater treatment) and setbacks for disposal of coal combustion byproducts. The  rules include setbacks from property lines, public and private drinking water supplies, other water supply wells, and surface waters.

● Limits on emissions of  three toxic air pollutants (arsenic, beryllium and chromium)  by   industrial, medical, hazardous waste and sewage sludge incinerators.

It isn’t clear that these are the kind of “regulatory reforms”  that the General Assembly actually wants to see.

You can find the full report at:  http://www.ncdenr.gov/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=00ccda5a-8c0d-4579-a7d5-f0af4b1474f3&groupId=2444522

Note: Why the General Assembly believes  environmental rules  to be a greater burden on North Carolina citizens than other types of regulation will be  a subject for another day.

The Legislative Game of Jenga

Jenga: A game of skill played with a stack of wooden blocks. Each player removes a block from the stack and balances it on top, creating a taller and increasingly unstable  tower  as the game progresses. (Hat tip to the  Wikipedia  entry for a simple explanation.)  As you may have guessed, the goal  is to not be the player who causes the tower to collapse.

Since the  1990s, the state has adopted several very complex sets of  water quality rules in response to  excess nutrients  in the Neuse  River, the Tar-Pamlico River and  the Falls Lake and Jordan Lake reservoirs. Excess nutrients  in the water (such as nitrogen and phosphorus) can  cause algal blooms and — particularly in hot weather — lead to large fish kills. In a reservoir, algal blooms may also  affect drinking water quality and increase water treatment costs.

Section 5 of Senate Bill 612 (Regulatory Reform Act of 2013)   would pull one block out of the   carefully  balanced  tower of  nutrient management rules in  the Neuse River and Tar-Pamlico River basins by  effectively  eliminating  stream buffer requirements.   Stream  buffer rules  have been  part of the Neuse River nutrient management strategy from the beginning.  Every  set of state nutrient  rules since 1997  builds on the foundation of the Neuse strategy and all include stream buffers as a  critical block.  Before pulling a block out of the tower, it  is worth looking back at how the tower was built.

The history of the stream buffer rules begins with development of a nutrient management strategy for the Neuse river basin in the late 1990s.  In 1995,   the  N.C. General Assembly responded to a series of large fish kills in the Neuse River estuary and a toxic algae scare by directing the state’s  Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to adopt rules to reduce nitrogen loading in the Neuse by at least 30% (Session Law 1995-572).   To reach the reduction goal, the EMC  allocated the reduction (in pounds of nitrogen)  among  the  largest  nitrogen sources in the river basin. The allocation was done by source category (wastewater dischargers, agricultural operations and developed areas)  based on the  nitrogen contribution from each type of source.

The final Neuse rules required  large  wastewater  treatment plants  to  reduce  the amount of nitrogen being discharged to rivers and streams;  set up a nutrient trading system to allow  wastewater dischargers to generate and trade credits for additional nitrogen reductions; required farmers to develop best management practices to reduce nutrient runoff from row crop agriculture and  animal operations; and required  maintenance of  vegetated buffers along streams in the river basin.  Just as  tighter wastewater discharge standards and agricultural best management practices reduce nutrient  loading from those sources,  stream buffers  reduce nutrient loading from developed areas by allowing  trees and shrubs  to  absorb nitrogen  in runoff from developed areas. The  EMC then modified  an  earlier  nutrient management strategy  for the Tar-Pamlico River  to add stormwater and stream buffer  requirements  similar to those adopted for the Neuse. By August 1, 2000, stream buffer rules were in effect in both the Neuse and the Tar-Pamlico river basins.

Section 5 of Senate Bill 612 appears to be identical to language supported by the N.C. Homebuilders Association and the N.C. Association of Realtors in 2012.  The proposed exemption is very broad.  It  would exempt   all private property from the buffer rules as long as there was a plat  of the property on record with the Register of Deeds before August 1, 2000.  (The language does not limit the exemption to  residential lots or to lots shown on an approved subdivision plat; it appears that any type of  recorded map  could  qualify a property for the exemption.)  In 2012, concern about this same language led to  compromise legislation.  Session Law 2012-200   extended a stream buffer  exemption that already existed  in the coastal  area to all waterfront lots in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico river basins.  The exemption (which applies to residential lots platted before August 1, 2000)  allows development activity in the stream buffer if  the lot is too small for construction of a single-family home (and  onsite wastewater system if needed) entirely outside the buffer.

The risk in pulling the buffer rules out of the nutrient management strategy entirely  is that the nitrogen and phosphorus reductions provided by the stream buffers would be lost. Since both rivers have been listed as having  impaired water quality because of excess nutrients,  the  federal  Clean Water Act requires the state to reduce nutrient loading to the rivers.  Loss of the nutrient reductions provided by stream buffers will simply shift more of the burden (and cost) of nutrient reduction to  other sources — local government wastewater treatment plants, industrial wastewater dischargers,  and agricultural operations.

Not to abuse the Jenga metaphor,  but the  General Assembly  has again been asked to  pull a block from  the center of the tower  blindfolded — that is, without being able to see the relationship of one block to the others.  The state’s nutrient management rules are not sacred and untouchable; they were not handed down on stone tablets.  But in developing nutrient management strategies for the Neuse and the Tar-Pamlico river basins,  state environmental programs  began  moving toward something like negotiated  rulemaking — trying to  find the right balance with all of the parties (public and private) at the table. Those other parties also need  a seat at the table before a decision is made to significantly change the rules.

Senate Bill 612 raises two questions. The first:  Can the state solve nutrient problems in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico rivers without using stream buffers to reduce reduce runoff from developed areas? The second  has implications well beyond the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico rivers: How will the General Assembly  respond to political pressure to change  a rule  in a way that benefits  just one of the many businesses, industries, local governments, and nonprofit organizations who compromised to solve a complicated environmental problem?

The answer to the second question will affect  the state’s ability to   deal with other difficult environmental issues in the future. (Competition for water supply comes to mind.)