EPA Shirks Stormwater Duty

EPA Really Doesn't Seem Eager To Issue A Post-Construction Stormwater Rule

A pretty good article on how EPA is going slow on making the regulations and enforcement on an upcoming rule on stormwater on pre-existing development.  Sort of insider baseball sort of stuff, but it bears out much of my thinking on how things get done within the Bay.

On Friday, E&E News reported that EPA had – for the fifth time – missed its deadline for proposing regulations governing stormwater discharge from post-construction activities. Apparently, EPA and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which was the plaintiff in the original litigation, are negotiating a new deadline. Good luck with that.

EPA is not in a good place at the moment. There is significant congressional opposition to any rule, with comments questioning not just the wisdom of a rule, but EPA’s authority to issue a post-construction rule at this point. Addressing stormwater will undoubtedly be extremely expensive. The same E&E story noted that EPA just approved a new stormwater plan for Philadelphia with an expected price tag of $2.4 billion. Even though the Philadelphia plan is a separate issue from regulation of post-construction discharges, it does give some idea of the economic magnitude of the issue.

By the way, did I mention that there will be an election in the fall? I know from experience in Massachusetts that even Democratic members of Congress are very sympathetic to claims from municipalities that they simply cannot afford to comply with EPA stormwater requirements. There may be less sympathy, at least on the Democratic side, with private landowners, but EPA has to be aware that it does not have a broad popular mandate for this rule.

EPA cannot make this about big, bad, coal companies. This is about municipalities and private landowners. The regulated community with respect to stormwater is very large. Sometimes a large number of opponents is too diffuse to act and faces free rider problems. That does not seem to be the case here, as the costs are sufficiently high that they still matter to individuals, and there are large, well-funded, trade groups to minimize the free rider problem.

Indeed, the EPA is at it's most powerful when it attacks, crucifies if you will, isolated and potentially unpopular targets like oil and energy companies.  When it has to pass and enforce regulations that effect the large Blue interests in urban areas, it's a lot slower and more careful.