Volume 141, No. 49 covering the 1st Session of the 104th Congress (1995 - 1996) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1995” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E613 on March 16, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1995
______
HON. BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN
of arkansas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 15, 1995
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Stormwater Management Improvement Act of 1995, legislation to assist small cities and small businesses in their compliance requirements under the Clean Water Act.
Under the Clean Water Act, cities and industries must obtain permits for stormwater discharges. This act has required cities serving a population of 100,000 individuals or more to comply with the permit requirement. However, as of October 1994, smaller cities are also technically required to comply with this section of the law even though the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] has not issued regulations for the cities with populations less than 100,000.
While the smaller cities have received assurances from the EPA that it will not enforce the stormwater requirements, many cities fear that citizens will file suits against them for not complying with the act.
The objective of the Stormwater Management Program is to ensure that runoff from city streets and parking lots into stormwater drainage pipes and ditches meets the water quality standards set out in the act. Under a stormwater discharge permit, cities must adopt programs to reduce the amount of pollution entering our waterways. These programs include street cleaning, household hazardous waste pickup, leaf pickup, cracking down on illicit discharges of raw sewage and other pollutants and public education. These management plans are worthwhile, but very expensive to implement.
According to the National League of Cities, the average cost of obtaining a permit is $625,000. In Little Rock, AR, it cost $525,000 over three years to get the permit and it is estimated to cost an additional $125,000 per year to run the program. These costs for a small community would be disastrous. In a rural area, where financial resources are scarce because of the limited tax base, these requirements would detract from other essential programs, such as sewage treatment and safe drinking water requirements. With scarce resources, these small communities need to focus on the bare necessities to preserve the health and safety of their residents.
The Stormwater Management Improvement Act of 1995 would provide the needed relief from this permit requirement for cities with population less than 50,000 individuals by exempting them from the permit requirements. The bill would also delay permit requirements for cities with population between 50,000 and 100,000 until October 1, 2001, and instruct the EPA to promulgate regulations for these cities. Nonurbanzied areas are completely exempt from the permit requirements.
In addition, industries must also comply with the stormwater permit requirements. However, we run into the same situation where the requirements apply equally to both the large industrial polluters and the small businessmen. Again, one size does not fit all. In my own congressional district, a small businessman who runs a portable sawmill was required to obtain a stormwater permit. He travels from tree stand to tree stand to harvest the timber. In the process, he leaves some sawdust behind. This man is not a point source nor do his activities contribute to the degradation of the quality of the surrounding waterways. However, he is forced to obtain an expensive permit that results in very little water quality control and is treated in the same way as the large lumber mills.
My bill would exempt the small business or industry that employs no more than 25 people from the permit requirements unless the EPA or delegated state agency determines that the facility contributes to a violation of a water quality standard or is a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States.
I am not an advocate of promoting dirty industry over the health of our environment, nor do I want to see polluted waterways. However, I do want to ensure that we get the biggest bang for our buck by focusing on the big problems. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to ease the Federal mandates imposed on our smaller cities and businesses.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up