Waters of the United States Conference of Western Attorneys
General July 22, 2014 Deidre G. Duncan
Slide 3
WOTUS Under the Proposed Rule 3 1.All waters currently, in the
past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign
commerce, including tidal waters; 2.All interstate waters,
including interstate wetlands; 3.The territorial seas; 4.All
impoundments of waters identified in 1-3 above; 5.All tributaries
of waters identified in 1-4 above; 6.All waters, including
wetlands, adjacent to waters identified in 1-5 of this section; and
7.On a case-specific basis, other waters, including wetlands, that
alone or in combination with other similarly situated waters in the
region have a significant nexus to a water identified in paragraphs
1-3
Slide 4
New Definition: Tributary 4 Water body physically characterized
by a bed and bank and ordinary high water mark which contributes
flow directly or through other water bodies to waters in 1-4. A
water does not lose its tributary status if there are man- made
breaks (such as bridges, culverts, pipes, dams) so long as bed and
bank can be identified upstream of the break. A wetland, pond, or
lake can be a tributary, even if it lacks an OHWM and bed and bank,
provided it contributes flow to 1-3. A tributary can be natural,
man-altered, or man-made and includes rivers, streams, lakes,
impoundments, canals, and ditches (unless excluded).
Slide 5
Affects All CWA Programs The Proposed Rule replaces the
definition of navigable waters and waters of the United States in
the regulations for all CWA programs, and in particular sections
311, 401, 402, and 404: 33 C.F.R. 328.3: Section 404 40 C.F.R.
110.1: Oil Discharge Rule 40 C.F.R. 112.2: Spill Prevention,
Control and Countermeasure Plan 40 C.F.R. 116.3: Designation of
hazardous substances 40 C.F.R. 117.1(i): Notification of discharge
of hazardous substances required 40 C.F.R. 122.2: NPDES permitting
and Storm Water 40 C.F.R. 230.3(s) and (t): Section 404 40 C.F.R.
232.2: Section 404 exemptions 40 C.F.R. 300.5: National Contingency
Plan for oil discharges 40 C.F.R. 300, Appendix E to Part 300, 1.5:
Structure of plans to respond to oil discharges 40 C.F.R. 302.3:
Petroleum exclusion 40 C.F.R. 401.11: Effluent limitations 5
Slide 6
Increased Obligations to Set and Meet Water Quality Standards 6
If ephemeral streams are included as WOTUS as proposed, Kansas
estimates an increase from 32,000 miles of streams to 134,000 miles
of streams subject to water quality standards Currently Designated
WOTUS in KansasAdditional WOTUS in Kansas
Slide 7
Cost of Compliance with Water Quality Standards Park ditch that
provides no environmental or human benefits other than flood
control would be considered WOTUS under the proposed rule Cost to
bring this ditch to current water quality standards would be
$31,351,460 7 % Reduction Needed Lbs Reduction Needed Cost per
LbCost for Reduction Total Nitrogen27%3,795 lbs$3,500/lb$13,282,500
Total Phosphorus64%1,547 lbs$11,680/lb$18,068,960
Total$31,351,460
Slide 8
Increased Obligations for Stormwater Management ^v!
Installation of baffles and weirs for removal of pollutants,
required by stormwater permits, would require complex section 404
permits
Slide 9
Increased Obligations for Water Delivery Systems Central
Arizona Project Picacho pumping plant Regulators would have to
require: NPDES permits for storm flows diverted for water supply
Section 404 permits for maintenance activities in water delivery
systems
Slide 10
Water Reuse Systems Sun City Regional Water Reclamation
Facility recharge ponds Alessandro Reclamation Facility recharge
pond abuts San Jacinto River.
Slide 11
Green Infrastructure Would Require Permits 11 Green
infrastructure reduces flooding and protects water quality using
natural processes Not exempt under proposal Section 404 permits,
other permits, monitoring could be required Would discourage
development of green infrastructure
Slide 12
Increased Enforcement 12 Confusion and uncertainty over what is
WOTUS put governments and industry at risk for criminal and civil
penalties In December 2013, a gas drilling company paid a $10
million settlement for CWA violations, including a $3.2 million
fine for damaging wetlands without permits
Slide 13
Risk of Third Party Litigation 13 Confusion and uncertainty
over what is WOTUS put governments and industry at risk for third
party litigation Despite an agreement with EPA excluding ephemeral
waters, Missouri was sued by a third party because it failed to
designated uses and set water quality criteria for all waters,
including ephemeral waters County of Monterey, CA, was found liable
for not maintaining a failed levee, even though its CWA permit was
not approved on time by the Corps
Slide 14
Deidre G. Duncan Hunton & Williams LLP 2200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20037 (202) 955-1919
[email protected]