- Filed Under
- Local News
Oshkosh public works officials say Gov. Scott Walker's proposal to roll back costly state rules regulating phosphorus content in storm-water runoff may not have the intended effect of reducing the city's storm-water control costs.
Businesses and some municipalities have complained that stringent standards approved last year would be overly costly to comply with and far exceed the state's present phosphorus control requirement and those of neighboring states. Phosphorus is a naturally occurring nutrient that is also used in fertilizers and some soaps. It fuels algae and weed growth when it is carried into lakes and rivers.
Oshkosh Wastewater Utility Superintendent Steve Brand said complying with the phosphorus regulations Gov. Scott Walker wants to eliminate are expected to cost the city an estimated $30 million. The money, currently included in the city's 2015 capital improvement program would pay for a wastewater plant upgrade to filter out phosphorus.
The wastewater treatment plant presently uses a chemical treatment to reduce phosphorus emissions to the required one part-per-million level. But Brand said new rules would push allowable limits into the parts-per-billion range where chemical treatment might not go far enough.
"If the (new) limits go beyond the threshold of the chemical treatment process, we'd have add effluent filtration processes. And that's where the big cost is," Brand said.
The Wisconsin State Journal reported that Walker wants to replace the numeric standards for how much phosphorus reaches state waterways with a narrative description of efforts to reduce phosphorus runoff. The new numeric standard was developed together by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Natural Resources to comply with the federal Clean Water Act and to resolve a lawsuit brought against the state in 2009 by Midwest Environmental Advocates.
Brand's concern is that the EPA could assume control of enforcement if the state rolls back the agreed-to limits, which could lead to increased compliance costs.
"(Under Walker's proposal), our limits might not be as stringent as proposed, so we could implement them more easily and for less cost," Brand said. "But the rules proposed were ones worked out between the DNR and EPA that met the Clean Water Act requirements. If those rules are taken away, the potential is … the EPA would take over enforcement. If it falls to the EPA, it could be a shorter implementation time and more costs."
Natural Resources Board members last week asked Walker to reconsider his proposal to roll back the phosphorus regulations out of concern that the less-stringent standards would be in violation of the Clean Water Act and not address the problem of algae and weeds that clog some state waterways.
The budget bill also proposes to eliminate pollution control regulations that require storm water utilities to reduce the volume of temporary suspended solids in storm runoff. Current law requires the city to reduce the volume of temporary suspended solids by 40 percent by 2013. Oshkosh met a requirement to reduce pollution by 20 percent by 2008 through construction of detention basins, street sweeping and other measures.
Oshkosh Public Works Director David Patek said the city is unlikely to meet the 40 percent reduction level by 2013, but continues to work toward it. He said the value of pollution reduction to a community that prides itself on its waterways means he plans to continue to design pollution controls into storm water management projects even if Walker's proposal passes.
"We're a community that sees a lot of benefit from the waterways that surround us," Patek said. "Our emphasis has always been to solve flooding issues, but if we can resolve pollution issues at the same time, we're going to do it."
Patek said it also makes sense to include pollution reduction in storm water management plans because pollution control could increase in the future even if they are rolled back now. Patek said he would prefer to build those controls into projects now rather than have to go back and redo them in the future.
"The unfortunate part of these rule changes is you have to deal with the initial rules, then someone else's interpretation and then any subsequent revisions," Patek said. "We maybe could have saved some money by eliminating pollution controls included in our wet detention basins by building them as dry basins, but if a new rule came down in five years, it would be costly to have to go back and retrofit them."
Jeff Bollier: (920) 426-6688 or jbollier@thenorthwestern.com.
