State agencies and public-interest groups are voicing concerns over proposed legislation that would lift regulatory burdens from municipalities and industries discharging minerals into Arkansas waterways.
House Bill 1929, sponsored by Rep. Andy Davis, R-Little Rock, would amend Arkansas Code Annotated section 8-4-202, which governs state environmental law and testing. Under current regulation, all waterways in Arkansas are held to purity standards set for drinking water, and municipalities and industries must either treat their wastewater to fall within those pollution standards, or conduct a study that shows that the level of minerals discharged will not endanger the quality of the body of water in question.
HB1929 would eliminate the general assumption that all waterways are potential sources of drinking water unless otherwise designated, instead limiting that designation to waterways that are actively used for drinking water, or that would appear on a list of potential drinking water sources to be maintained by the Arkansas Natural Resources Council.
On Tuesday, Teresa Marks, director of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, appeared before the House Committee on Public Health, Welfare and Labor to testify that the bill, as written, would lead to an immediate schism between her agency and the federal Environmental Protection Agency.
“Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, we have to adopt designated uses for our waterways, and we have to adopt water-quality standards designed to support those uses,” Marks said. She added her agency’s power is delegated from the EPA, and that the federal agency can, and has, stepped in and taken over enforcement when the state has failed to follow federal guidelines.
In a Feb. 26 letter addressed to Marks from the EPA’s regional office in Dallas, Water Quality Protection Division director William Honker outlined 10 concerns related to HB1929, highlighting several problems the state likely will encounter if the legislation is adopted.
“As now written, the draft bill appears to contain language which contradicts statutory and regulatory requirements and precludes public participation,” the letter states in its introduction.
Curiously, the letter also states that Arkansas is free to consider modifying its policy of declaring waterways as drinking-water sources by default.
“Arkansas has long held a default drinking water use for all waters. Such a designation is not required by the CWA (Clean Water Act) or standards regulation. The removal of designated uses does not require legislative action, although the state cannot remove existing uses. EPA would not object to the state proposing modifications of its standards removing the drinking water use where it is not an existing use,” the letter states.
Federal guidelines under the Safe Drinking Water Act sets limits for levels at 250 milligrams of sulphates, 250 milligrams of chlorides, and 500 milligrams for a combination of the minerals regulators refer to as “total dissolved solids” per liter of drinking water. Arkansas has varying mineral limits for different ecological regions that are significantly lower than the national standards.
Marks said Tuesday that her agency recognized that these standards are sometimes onerous when applied to restricted waterways that would likely never be used for drinking water, but that the wholesale removal of the drinking-water designation from hundreds of waterways would be in violation of the case-by-case assessment process required by federal law.
The language of the bill was written by members of the Arkansas Environmental Federation, a nonprofit industry trade group that claims about 350 members, including about three dozen public entities and more than 300 manufacturers. Robert Blanz, president of the federation, also spoke to the legislative committee Tuesday, emphasizing that current legislation placed an undue burden on cities and industries.
“We don’t feel this is a drinking water issue at all,” Blanz said. “We feel it’s a common sense issue, a public policy issue, and a good science issue.”
Calls to the federation’s Little Rock headquarters seeking further comment Wednesday were not returned.
HB1929 passed through committee Tuesday. It is scheduled to go to the House floor for a vote today. The bill also contains an “emergency clause,” which means the bill would become law immediately after passing in both chambers and is either signed by the governor, the veto period is allowed to expire, or a veto is overridden.
Ross Nolan, an environmental lawyer with the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, a nonprofit public-interest group, testified Tuesday that eliminating the drinking-water designation from waterways not currently being used for drinking water could unintentionally limit Arkansans’ future water options.
“It’s important to note, we will all need additional drinking-water supplies in the future, and the water plan at this time does not contain such a list,” Nolan said.
Nolan also objected to the likelihood that HB1929 would circumvent public input on decisions regarding wastewater discharge into any given body of water.
Darcia Routh, geological supervisor for the Arkansas Department of Health, told the committee that the bill doesn’t allow the input of geological or aquatic engineers from her department, and that she feared the state’s 29 river water sources would be left vulnerable to upstream pollution.
Northwest Arkansas, Pages 7 on 03/21/2013