EPA may increase oversight of state stormwater programs in Chesapeake region – Maryland Matters

By Karl Blankenship
Chesapeake Bay Journal

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is warning states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed that they are “significantly off track” in meeting goals to reduce stormwater pollution and that the agency may exert greater oversight of those efforts.

The warning came in the EPA’s most recent evaluation of state-written plans that will guide their actions through 2025, the region’s voluntary deadline for meeting goals to reduce pollution in the Bay.

State and federal officials now acknowledge that the target, established in 2010, will be missed by a large margin, mostly because of shortfalls in the agricultural sector, the largest source of water-fouling nutrients to the Bay.

But runoff from developed lands also contributes a significant amount of nutrient pollution — which includes both nitrogen and phosphorus — to the Bay and its rivers. And, according to computer models, the load is increasing as more land is turned into buildings, roads and parking lots.

Although stormwater runoff has steadily increased since 2010, the evaluations released Aug. 14 mark the first time that the EPA issued a warning to all Bay states that their programs could be subject to greater scrutiny. The warning was not given to the District of Columbia, which has met its goals.

The reviews did not say exactly what actions the EPA might take. But Adam Ortiz, administrator of the agency’s mid-Atlantic region, said he wanted to see “meaningful progress” from the states.

Ortiz said the agency had not warned of possible actions over stormwater programs in past reviews because of the need to focus on agricultural runoff, which states are counting on for the vast majority of future nutrient reductions. But state and federal agencies have greatly ramped up spending for farm conservation efforts in recent years, he noted.

“Agriculture is now going in the right direction overall, and stormwater has been the stubborn one for a variety of reasons,” Ortiz said. “It’s the toughest and most expensive, and it’s where we’re seeing the most growth with our populations and impervious surfaces.”

Ortiz said Bay states need to be more timely in issuing stormwater permits and demonstrate that they have enough staffing and funding to oversee their programs.

Much of the stormwater runoff is addressed through state-issued permits, which cover densely developed urban and suburban lands. But a growing amount of runoff comes from development in rural and dispersed areas that aren’t currently required to have stormwater permits.

Ortiz said the EPA could begin recommending that permit programs be expanded to such areas.

Kristin Reilly, director of the Choose Clean Water Coalition, which represents more than 300 organizations in the Chesapeake watershed, said she welcomed the stormwater emphasis, noting that it is an area her members have highlighted for years.

“We’re happy to see that it’s finally being called out,” she said, but added that the EPA had been unclear in its reviews about exactly what it would do to increase oversight.

She noted that states often have been late in issuing new permits and that those permits often don’t contain the specific measures needed to reduce runoff.

“It’s less about whether [the permit] was reissued,” Reilly said, “It’s more about what is in the permit. Is it a strong permit?”

The EPA’s evaluations covered plans written by each Bay jurisdiction outlining the nutrient reduction actions they plan to take in 2024-25, and it also included a review of state progress toward targets set for 2022-23. The plans, or “milestones,” are written in two-year increments as part of an effort to ensure that states are on track to meeting their goals.

If the EPA concludes that states are not showing adequate results, it can take a variety of actions to prod greater progress, such as withholding clean water grant money or forcing wastewater treatment plants to make up for shortfalls in other sectors, such as agriculture and stormwater.

Key environmental group seeks more action on Bay cleanup from feds, states

The agency has historically been reluctant to take such actions, though.

In its reviews, the EPA said all Bay states need to demonstrate that they are accelerating efforts to reduce agricultural runoff. Ortiz acknowledged there is “still a big gap” in meeting agricultural goals, but he said, “the bleeding has stopped, and we’re moving in the right direction.”

The EPA reviews also show that Delaware is particularly far off track. The state has achieved only 9% of the nitrogen reductions needed to meet its goals. “We’re in conversations with Delaware, the results have been concerning,” Ortiz said, adding “more to come.”

Among other jurisdictions, all but the District of Columbia and West Virginia were falling short of at least some targets they had set for 2023:

• Pennsylvania, Delaware and New York did not meet targets for nitrogen, phosphorus or sediment.
• Virginia did not achieve targets for nitrogen or phosphorus but it did for sediment.
• Maryland did not achieve targets for nitrogen but did for phosphorus and sediment.

The District of Columbia has met its nutrient and sediment goals, thanks to upgrades at the Blue Plains wastewater treatment plant. It also has undertaken massive upgrades to fix its combined sewer overflow system, which used to send untreated sewage into the Anacostia and Potomac rivers during heavy storms.

Most states are further off track than the EPA review indicates, though. The agency used an older version of a computer model to evaluate nutrient reduction progress. Had a newer version been used, states would have had even less progress.

The EPA said it would begin using the newer model to evaluate state progress beginning next year.