In sum, in light of the lack of reasoned decisionmaking and apparent errors in the rule’s scope of certification, the indications that the rule contravenes the structure and purpose of the Clean Water Act, and that EPA itself has signaled it could not or will not adopt the same rule upon remand, significant doubt exists that EPA correctly promulgated the rule.
Comments ACWA submitted to EPA regarding EPA’s Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15 (Preliminary Plan 15).
Repository of meeting materials from 2019 & 2020 State Summits on Water Reuse, hosted by ACWA, ASDWA, and other state partners.
Ruling: Upper Missouri Waterkeeper v. EPA – Ninth Circuit Opinion, 10.7.2021
The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA), the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), and the Western States Water Council (WSWC), which represent State environmental agencies and programs, strongly support increased funding for drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure that protects public health and the environment. However, in order to successfully implement the goals of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, state environmental programs need increased resources to administer their programs and support new infrastructure investments.
A Federal Register notice from EPA announcing the availability of the Draft FY 2022– 2026 EPA Strategic Plan for public review and comment, which is being revised as required by… Read More »
ACWA, ASDWA, ECOS Provided Comments in September, 2021 in Response to EPA’s Proposed Rule, “PFAS Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under TSCA Section 8(a)”
In these meetings, the agencies seek feedback on co-regulator and stakeholder experiences with implementing the various “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) regulatory regimes. We will benefit from learning about your experiences in the field and understanding how jurisdictional issues affect assumed/delegated programs and other state or tribal efforts. The agencies first intend to propose returning to the longstanding pre-2015 regulations, with amendments to be consistent with Supreme Court cases such as Riverside Bayview Homes, SWANCC, and Rapanos. A second rulemaking will then build on that framework with the benefit of additional stakeholder engagement. We recognize that these implementation-focused discussions may have implications for both rules but are planning to focus primarily on the first, forthcoming rule.
The states offer the following high-level recommendations to guide the agencies’ process of revising the definition of “waters of the United States” (hereinafter “WOTUS”),: (1) respect the role of the states as co-regulators and provide early, continuous, and meaningful opportunities for dialogue and input as any new rule is developed; (2) respect and follow the science; (3) recognize the geographic, geologic, climatic, hydrologic and leadership diversity among states and craft a definition that provides clarity but also flexibility for state implementers; (4) prepare to provide the states, well in advance, with technical assistance, tools and trainings to assist with implementation of any revised definition; and (5) include a delayed effective date to give state partners ample time to revise state regulations and/or to develop new state policy to cover any changes in coverage as a result of the revised jurisdictional definition.
The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA), the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities (CIFA), and Western States Water Council (WSWC), which represent state agencies and programs, strongly support the funding for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (H.R. 3684). Increased funding for drinking water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure will increase protection for public health and the environment – saving lives and safeguarding finite water resources for generations to come.
However, the requirement for state cash match on appropriations in the bill jeopardizes the ability of states to quickly and efficiently access this federal funding for water infrastructure projects.