ACWA memorandum on internal state authority to regulate waters of the state, based on a survey, dated March 2018.
The template describes the overall purpose of the real-time review, and standards the EPA considers during the review. It describes the State-EPA agreed processes for selecting permits to review; timelines for review; tracking mechanisms for review progress; and process of dispute resolution. A list of acronyms is also provided.
ECOS, ACWA, and ASDWA, and ASTSWMO, shared comments on the EPA PFAS Action Plan with Administrator Wheeler outlining their concerns with the Action Plan.
ACWA-ECOS joint letter in support of the Clean Water SRF submitted to House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment
Discussion questions provided by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers during state WOTUS outreach sessions.
States are the primary authority for allocating, administering, protecting, and developing water resources, and they are primarily responsible for water supply planning within their boundaries. States have the ultimate say in the management of their water resources and are best suited to speak to the unique nature of western water law and hydrology. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), Congress deliberately preserved states’ authority to manage and protect their water resources by establishing a system of cooperative federalism through which states serve as co-regulators for the implementation and enforcement of federal statutory programs. CWA Section 401 represents a critical state authority which protect states’ authority over water resources and ensures that states have a meaningful role in the certification of federal permits and licenses for projects that may affect water quality in a state.The CWA Section 401 Process Improvements have been developed in collaboration with associations of state officials and are intended to identify possible reforms to the water quality certification program that do not compromise or curtail states’ well-established legal authority to manage and protect their water resources. As states are co-regulators with the federal government in administering the CWA, it is critical that states be afforded early, meaningful, substantive, and ongoing consultation in the development of any changes to the Section 401 program or to the balance of state and federal authority under the statute.
A chart of EPA’s budget including the FY 2019 omnibus bill
In this comment letter submitted to EPA and USACE through regulations.gov, ACWA, ECOS, ASWM, and AFWA request a 60-day extension of the existing 60 day comment period for the proposed rule redefining Waters of the United States.
A USACE memo to the agency, directing District Engineers to restrict the timeline for state review for 401 certification to 60 days. States may request additional time, but the decision is entirely at the discretion of the District Engineer, and extensions may not be granted if requests are “based on workload or resource issues or… Read More »
This Resource Analysis project indicates nationally there is a significant gap in resources needed by states for managing water quality programs. At the highest level of aggregation, this resource gap indicates that state agencies are receiving less than one-half of the resources that they need to fully implement the requirements of the federal Clean Water… Read More »
“This report highlights key steps we have taken to achieve this goal and to protect the environment and public health. In 2018, we have been particularly focused on providing greater certainty to the American public: certainty in our EPA programs; certainty to the states, tribes, and local governments; and certainty on how we communicate risk. The American public have a right to know the truth about the risks they face in their daily lives and how we are responding. It is our responsibility to explain it to them clearly and consistently.”
We encourage EPA to consider these issues during the rulemaking process, as well as the following: 1) additional uncertainty about assumable waters in response to ongoing Water of the United States proposed rulemaking; 2) limited state and tribal experience with assumption for other states and tribes to build on; 3) the possibility of allowing partial assumption; and 4) the impact of assumption on consistency with federal statutes such as the Endangered Species Act, National Historical Preservation Act, etc., considerations. Most importantly, we strongly encourage EPA to continue an engaged stakeholder process with states and tribes.