The City of Huntsville plans to ask state regulators for changes to the state’s water-quality regulations this Friday at the monthly meeting of the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission in North Little Rock.
Charles Nestrud, a Little Rock-based lawyer, filed a petition with the commission June 12 on behalf of the city to make specific mineral discharge allowances for the city’s wastewater treatment facility. The facility, located about 20 miles north of Huntsville on Arkansas 23, holds permits to discharge treated water into a chain of waterways beginning with Town Branch, flowing into Holman Creek, War Eagle Creek and finally into the White River.
The White River, in turn, feeds Beaver Lake, a major drinking water source in Northwest Arkansas.
State standards for waterways designated as current or potential drinking water sources limit mineral concentrations to 250 milligrams per liter of both chlorides and sulphates, and 500 milligrams per liter of “total dissolved solids,” a combination of the two.
Holman Creek was placed on the department’s list of impaired water bodies after levels of total dissolved solids exceeded 500 milligrams per liter in more than 10 percent of monthly samples over five years. In 2011, as the primary wastewater permit-holder in the area, the Huntsville wastewater treatment facility was given three years to bring mineral concentration levels into compliance by one of two means: Upgrade the facility’s treatment equipment to filter out more mineral content, or scientifically establish that mineral discharge from the facility would not negatively impact drinking water quality in the area.
Larry Garrett, executive director of the Huntsville Water Department, said the city, together with Butterball LLC, commissioned a $75,000 study to determine the potential impact on drinking water. Butterball, which operates a poultry processing facility in north Huntsville, is the chief contributor to the city’s mineral discharge levels, Garrett said.
The study determined that the city could increase its total dissolved solid to 525 milligrams per liter without an adverse affect.
“These are waterways that nobody drinks from,” Garrett said, referring to the sections of Town Branch and Holman Creek.
New law
The city’s petition reaches the commission at an interesting time, less than two months before new legislation goes into effect that both environmental activists and some regulators said could change the landscape of enforcing Arkansas drinking-water standards.
Under current law, all waterways are considered to be potential drinking water sources by default, unless established otherwise by scientific study. Teresa Marks, director of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, said that in August, when Act 954 becomes law, only waterways currently used as drinking water sources or listed in the Arkansas Water Plan as a potential source will be automatically designated as such.
The new law, which amends Arkansas Code Annotated 8-4-202, will also change the way water flow in small streams is calculated. That change will in turn affect how maximum allowable mineral discharges are calculated.
According to the language of the act, the criteria for calculating stream flow for the purpose of mineral concentrations will be based on either the actual average flow of the stream in question, or a flow rate of 4 cubic feet of water per second, whichever is greater.
“It will be a new ball game after August,” Marks said of the standard. “We haven’t been mandated to do that in the past. Raising the total dissolved solids limit to a higher level will affect the stream designation itself.”
For stream segments such as Town Branch and Holman Creek, which are often dry for long periods, such a calculation would significantly increase the amount of minerals the state would allow from facilities such as the wastewater treatment plant in Huntsville.
Act 954’s intent
Part of the intent of Act 954 was to alleviate financial burden on small Arkansas municipalities. Towns have typically faced the prospect of either funding environmental studies like the one Huntsville did or investing millions of dollars in water treatment plant upgrades.
John Whiteside, policy director for the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, a lobbying organization, said that while his group appreciated the financial situation of small towns, the new legislation was overbroad in its effect on environmental regulation.
“It helps small towns that don’t have the wherewithal to meet the mineral standards,” Whiteside said. “But this is too broad a change. We’re not against towns like Huntsville, but this was an overreach, and misguided in its approach.”
Environmental Quality Department officials haveopenly stated that they are unsure how the Environmental Protection Agency will react to changes in water quality that may occur as a result of the new law.
During the 2013 Arkansas legislative session, Marks, the state environmental quality director, was among those testifying against HB 1929, which later became Act 954. Marks’ office had earlier been notified by the EPA regarding concerns that language of the bill was in conflict with requirements of the federal Clean Water Act.
Marks warned that the federal agency had previously stepped in and taken over enforcement when Arkansas had failed to meet federal guidelines, but Legislators went forward with the bill’s passage.
Revised water plan
The Arkansas Water Plan is currently being revised for the first time since 1990, said Ed Swaim, chief of water resource management at the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission. A list of existing and potential drinking water sources is not part of the state’s water plan and will need to be incorporated in the revision, he said.
“Now that this is law, we’ll have to find a way to acknowledge potential drinking-water supplies,” Swaim said.
The revised water plan is scheduled to be complete Nov. 28, 2014, and will project water planning for the state through 2050, Swaim said.
Huntsville’s petition proposes that Regulation 2 be amended so that total dissolved solid standards for each of the three waterway sections affected by Huntsville’s wastewater be set at 525 milligrams per liter, based on a flow rate of 4 cubic feet per second. The city arrived at that figure based on the study the city undertook with Butterball.
Katherine Benenati, an Environmental Quality Department spokesman, said it is unclear whether the drinking water designation for waterways such as Holman Creek will change under the new law, and whether petitions from cities like Huntsville will become a moot point.
Randy Young, executive director of the Arkansas Natural Resources Council and chairman of the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission’s rules committee, said Huntsville likely is carrying through with a task begun long ago.
“I think the process Huntsville’s going through is a fairly expensive one, and I think most of the work’s already been done, so they may as well stay on the track they were already on,” Young said.
Nestrud, the lawyer representing the city, could not be reached for comment.
Huntsville’s petition is the sixth such proposal to amend state environmental regulations to come before the commission in 2013.
Northwest Arkansas, Pages 7 on 06/27/2013