Sewage Treatment Plant mandate

[anne onimous1]

I certainly don't want to see anymore of our food imported than is already coming into this country. Something has to give. I realize the association of higher food prices with the higher gas prices but how can I not get upset that a gallon of milk is almost 4-5 bucks a gallon, depending on where you shop. Gas prices were about the same this time last year and the food prices are skyrocketing. Everyday items that I have been buying for years are almost a dollar more than just 8 months ago. (orange juice up .88, eggs, butter) Relying on corn for alternative fuel sources sounds great until you realize that the money you thought you would be saving on fuel costs will be going toward your food costs. I'm not out there buying just any kind of junk off of the shelves, but my food costs have gone through the roof.

[150thBucktailCo.I]

And the lawn care companies, don't get me started. The fact is the pesticide industry is one of the most powerful industries in the world, and one of the biggest, Monsanto, is one of the most profitable companies in the world. They should mandated to clean up the bay, not all these small communities who are already struggling!

I would have absolutely no problem supporting that, and completely agree 100%!

[Conan_the_Hoagarian]

The fact is the pesticide industry is one of the most powerful industries in the world, and one of the biggest, Monsanto, is one of the most profitable companies in the world. They should mandated to clean up the bay, not all these small communities who are already struggling!

Given that Monsato has already perfected the genetic modification of most food crops, perhaps they can begin diversifying.

A good starting point would be genetically modified cows with digestive tracts that utilize 99% of the food they eat and only expel water.
...sort've like the new hydrogen powered cars.

Another thing I'd like to see are dogs that use a litter box.

I say we start a petition.

[Bill Anderson]

I hear the Municipalitie's pleas, but for me they fall on deaf ears. They have had more than 12 years notice and have in most cases done nothing to get ready for the mandate to comply with the Chesapeake Bay pollution reduction requirements. For water treatment facilities this really boils down reducing the release of two pollutants, Nitrogen and Phosphorus. The argument that the Farmers are the real culprit when it comes to these pollutants, is really hollow and should be given little credance. Many of our streams are suffering from overloads of these two nutrients resulting from inadequate treatment by water treatment plants, not from farms. This is especially true for the Little Juniata River, where Agriculture adds very little in the way of pollutants, or run-off. The Little Juniata suffers greatly from inadequate water treatment by its three sewage treatment plants. The main culprit is phosphorus which promotes the brown algae growth which coats the Little j stream bottom, smothering aquatic life for its entire length. We as upstream, pollution contributing, Pennsylvanians, should care about the bay, and I agree that the state governments of the four states who signed the Chesapeake Bay pollution reduction agreement, should also help pay the bill. However, it is certainly in our immediate interest to improve water treatment and clean up our local rivers.

Bill Anderson
President
Little Juniata River Association

[sandstone]

Sewage Upgrade Costs To Hit Home
Article by David Dekok

Appearing in the November 12, 2007 issue of the Harrisburg Patriot News


The impact on midstaters could be staggering. Fifty million for Harrisburg. As much as $20 million for East Pennsboro Twp. More than $12.2 million for Middletown. And on and on and on. That’s what it might cost to upgrade sewage treatment plants in those communities to meet 2010 discharge limits for nitrates and phosphates that are a consequence of an agreement to clean up Chesapeake Bay that was signed by Gov. Tom Ridge in 2000. The Rendell administration agreed to specific nutrient and sediment reduction goals of about 30 percent in April 2003.

Upgrade costs for all 183 sewage treatment plants in the 31 Pennsylvania counties in the bay watershed are expected to total nearly a billion dollars, said John Brosius of the Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Association. Unlike in Maryland and Virginia, there’s little state aid to help pay for the upgrades. While there have been apocalyptic predictions by municipal officials that sewer rates will “double or triple” because of the high upgrade costs, those municipalities willing to talk actual numbers now say rates might rise by 20 percent to 67 percent.

No one will know for sure until the bids come in. East Pennsboro Twp. Manager Robert Gill predicted that rates will go from $274 per year to $330-$350, an increase of 20 percent to 28 percent. “DEP has a hammer to our heads and we have to comply,” Gill said. “We have to move forward.”

With the 2010 deadline approaching, municipalities across central Pennsylvania are becoming anxious about the coming financial hit to their residents. Municipal officials worry that competition for a limited supply of engineers and construction firms able to do the work will drive up prices and drag out construction times.

And they pointed out what they see as a major inequity, that central Pennsylvania farms – sources of most of the nitrates, phosphates, and sediment flowing south to the bay – are not being asked to spend nearly as much.

Agriculture is responsible for 49 percent of the nitrates entering the bay, according to the Department of Environmental Protection, while sewage treatment plants contribute 11 percent. Agriculture contributes 63 percent of the phosphates while sewage treatment plants contribute 18 percent. Agriculture sends 72 percent of the sediment, sewage plants none.

“From everything I’ve heard, a small percentage of the problem will be rectified by a billion dollars in spending,” East Pennsboro Twp. Commissioner James H. Hertzler said.

Cathleen Curran Myers, DEP deputy secretary of water management, denied that farms are getting off easy, even though the approach is mainly voluntary. “Education, voluntary measures and incentives for participation are the foundation of our strategy for reducing agricultural runoff,” the department stated in its December 2004 document outlining the bay strategy.

Much of the Rendell administration’s approach to the agriculture runoff problem appears rooted in the belief that agriculture is “the second-largest industry in the commonwealth.” DEP stated that, “We are absolutely committed to preserving and supporting this sector of our economy.” Yet statistics for 2005 from the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis show that agriculture ranks about 35th among Pennsylvania industries, contributing 0.5 percent of the state economy. If food processing and the restaurant and tavern businesses are added in, it rises only to ninth. Even then, it contributes just 3.8 percent of the state economy.

“It doesn’t matter what it is,” Myers said. “We’re still going to treat them based on their contribution to the problem and their ability to fix it and the programs and tools we have to work with them. They’re different. We don’t have permits for them. We don’t have that kind of system.” DEP has required large farms, especially the so-called “factory farms” that raise large numbers of hogs or chickens indoors, to file manure-management plans. These farms represent 5,000 to 6,000 of the state’s 45,000 farms, yet account for nearly half of the manure produced. Some smaller farms might be required to file manure-management plans, but Myers conceded that the state lacks the enforcement muscle to effectively monitor compliance. “We’re asking for more money to apply to enforcement and compliance,” she said. “If we hear of a problem, we trot out, but you’re not going to get out to 45,000 farms on a regular basis. There’s a lot of honor system involved.”

All farms, no matter their size, are encouraged by DEP and local conservation districts to voluntarily employ farming practices that reduce nutrient and sediment runoff. The incentive to do so is earning nutrient credits they can sell to municipalities and sewer authorities. That can make sewage upgrades cheaper, Myers said.

Tom Simpson, a professor at the University of Maryland and chairman of the nutrient subcommittee of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Water Program, said scientists believe changes in farming practice can significantly reduce nutrient runoff, but they lack sufficient documentation on how well farmers follow the practices and the actual results achieved. If voluntary measures don’t work well enough, Simpson said, government might have to consider paying farmers to use less fertilizer or switch to crops that release fewer nutrients. Corn and Soybeans release a lot of nitrogen and phosphorus, he said, while crops such as hay or prairie grass do not.

Myers is less that sympathetic to the financial plight of the municipalities, suggesting they created many of their own problems. She said they deferred maintenance on their sewage treatment plants, didn’t regularly raise their rates and are ignoring cost-saving options such as buying nutrient credits from farmers. Sewage plant upgrades necessary to extract the additional nitrates and phosphates will cost about $190 million, Myers said. The rest of the billion-dollar total comes from work on the plants that is necessary but not directly related to the 2010 requirements. Maryland has paid for 50 percent of the cost of the sewage plant upgrades by implementing a “flush tax” that costs residential sewage customers $30 a year. Myers snorted at the idea of implementing a similar tax in Pennsylvania. “Have you seen a tax get passed in this state in the last five years?” she asked. “We would be happy to have investment, but that would have to be a legislative decision.”


Please note that the percentages of nitrogen and phospohorus referred to by the Patriot-News article relate to the Chesapeake Bay as a whole, not to the Little Juniata River. As Little Juniata River Association President Bill Anderson correctly points out, agriculture's contribution to pollution in the Little Juniata River is dwarfed by the pollution caused by sewage treatment plants in the Little Juniata River's watershed.

http://littlejuniata.org/

[sandstone]

The farmers are asked to voluntarily help out and if they are doing something I wonder if they are being helped out by the State Government monetarily to do so?

Resource Enhancement and Protection Program (REAP) http://www.agriculture.state.pa.us/agri ... 3&q=145155

BACKGROUND

Act 55 of 2007 created the Resource Enhancement and Protection Program (REAP). REAP allows farmers and businesses to earn tax credits in exchange for Best Management Practices (BMPs) on agricultural operations that will enhance farm production and protect natural resources.

The program is administered by the State Conservation Commission (Commission) and the tax credits will be granted by the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue.


Eligible applicants may receive between 25% and 75% of project costs as state tax credits for up to $150,000 per agricultural operation. The amount of tax credit available to a recipient is dependent on the type of BMP implemented.

Up to $10 million in credits may be issued in fiscal year 2007-2008.

PARTICIPATION

There are three ways for farmers to participate in the REAP program ? Self, Sell or Sponsor
Implement eligible BMPs and receive tax credits directly to reduce a state tax bill. (Self)
Sell tax credits to another Pennsylvania taxpayer. (Sell)
Work with a sponsor that will help finance a farmer?s BMPs. The farmer will be compensated for making improvements and the sponsor will receive the tax credit. (Sponsor)

USING REAP TAX CREDITS

Tax credits for 75% of eligible costs include the following:
Nutrient Management Plan, Ag. E&S Plan and/or Conservation Plan development
BMPs for animal concentration areas and barnyard runoff, stream bank fencing and 50 foot forested riparian buffers.
Tax credits for 50% of eligible costs include:
operation, design and equipment to reduce existing sediment and nutrient concerns
stream bank fencing and 35 foot riparian buffers.
Eligible BMPs and equipment approved by the Commission for tax credits of 50% may include:
manure storage systems
alternative manure treatment practices
filter strips, grassed waterways, management intensive grazing systems
no-till planting equipment.
Tax credits for 25% of eligible costs include remediation of legacy sediments (after July 1, 2008).
No tax credit will be provided for a publicly funded portion of a project.
The tax credit is to be returned if the practice is not maintained for the life span of the practice.
Tax credits can only be awarded to projects completed after the effective date of the Act, which is October 23, 2007.

ELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS

The following are eligible costs of a project to which a tax credit may be applied:
Project design, engineering, and associated planning
Project management costs, including constructing, document preparation and applications
Project construction and installation
Equipment, materials and other eligible project components
Post construction expenses
Interest payments on loans for project implementation for up to one year prior to the awarded of the tax credit.
Any of the above services provided by a Conservation District
A tax credit may not be applied to any portion of the project cost for which public funding was received.

SOME REMINDERS

REAP differs from traditional conservation programs. It is a tax credit where, unless the farmer works with a sponsoring business, the farmer must finance all up-front costs. The tax credit is issued after the installation of a practice, or purchase of eligible equipment. State or federal cost-share portions of a project are ineligible for REAP tax credits.
Some producers owe few, if any, state taxes. REAP tax credits can be used for up to fifteen years, and are transferable and can be sold to other taxpayers. Through REAP's sponsorship program, another business could help finance a project and apply for the tax credit instead of the producer. An accountant or other financial professional can advise farmers on the benefits of REAP for their operation.

REAP tax credits may also be sold, and there are individuals and corporations that wish to reduce their tax liability by purchasing tax credits. Several brokers in Pennsylvania help arrange tax credit transfers.

[skippy]

I hear the Municipalitie's pleas, but for me they fall on deaf ears. They have had more than 12 years notice and have in most cases done nothing to get ready for the mandate to comply with the Chesapeake Bay pollution reduction requirements. For water treatment facilities this really boils down reducing the release of two pollutants, Nitrogen and Phosphorus. The argument that the Farmers are the real culprit when it comes to these pollutants, is really hollow and should be given little credance. Many of our streams are suffering from overloads of these two nutrients resulting from inadequate treatment by water treatment plants, not from farms. This is especially true for the Little Juniata River, where Agriculture adds very little in the way of pollutants, or run-off. The Little Juniata suffers greatly from inadequate water treatment by its three sewage treatment plants. The main culprit is phosphorus which promotes the brown algae growth which coats the Little j stream bottom, smothering aquatic life for its entire length. We as upstream, pollution contributing, Pennsylvanians, should care about the bay, and I agree that the state governments of the four states who signed the Chesapeake Bay pollution reduction agreement, should also help pay the bill. However, it is certainly in our immediate interest to improve water treatment and clean up our local rivers.

Bill Anderson
President
Little Juniata River Association

Many local municipalities and authorities have been waiting for adequate funding to address this mandate (and are still waiting). You are correct that the nutrient removal requirements essentially boil down to reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus discharges, but you are incorrect about the major cause of excess nutrients in the bay. Water treatment plants contribute essentially no nitrogen and phosphorus. On the other hand, various studies have shown that wastewater treatment plants contribute between 10 and 20 percent of these nutrients to the bay. I do not want to sound like I am bashing farmers, but agricultural activities have been shown to produce between 50 and 70 percent of this pollution within the bay. I am not aware of any studies specific to the Little Juniata River watershed, but would be interested in viewing the results if anyone can put their fingers on such a study. Agricultural activities also produce a great deal of sediment (between 70 and 75 percent). Sediment deposits could be greatly reduced if farmers maintained natural, undisturbed buffer areas along streams.

It is my belief that local municipalities and their wastewater treatment plants have been targeted for these required upgrades (even though it has been documented that they are not the major culprit) for several reasons. Since treatment plants contribute a "point source" discharge that may be easily monitored, and since there are less treatment plants than farms in Pennsylvania, it is easier for DEP to go after the treatment plants.

[sandstone]

There's not much agricultural activity upstream of Ironville.

[no-it-all]

To go along with what Skippy's point, with regards to the 'lil J, the nutrient problem is like night and day just between Bellwood and where Tyrone's plant joins. Mind you, I'm not the expert, but in talking to Tim Nulton who runs our treatment plant and has forgot more about this stuff than any of us will ever learn; I believe the problem upstream deals more with phosphates, where as our plant actuall spends thousands a month adding nitrates and such to the water because the water coming out is TOO pure(imagine that).
It is much easier for DEP to go after treatment plants than farms because plants are running on taxpayer $$ and the farms are in bad enough shape already that half would declare bankrupcy and they'd never get their money. It's just another way for bigger gov't to get into your pockets without creating more or raising taxes to actually do something they are supposed to be in charge of monitering and controling already.

[Luke]

Is this Bill Anderson the guy that doesn't let people go down the juniata river fishing saying that it belongs to him?

[skippy]

There's not much agricultural activity upstream of Ironville.

Please define "not much". Neither the bay watershed nor the Little Juniata River watershed ends in Ironville. However, the Little Juniata River watershed collects runoff from farms in Antis Twp, Snyder Twp, Tyrone Twp, and Warriors Mark Twp (and maybe other municipalities) prior to Ironville. I do not wish to sound argumentative. The point of my previous posts was to demonstrate that this unfunded mandate will cost customers of the wastewater treatment plants a great deal of money, and will do very little to fix the problems in the bay. Please keep in mind that even after the improvements are made to the wastewater plants, they will still discharge nitrogen and phosphorus, just at lower concentrations. Tyrone Borough customers can expect to pay between $7 and $18 more each month (or $84 to $216 more per year) for these improvements. To put this into perspective, if Tyrone goes forward with the windfarm proposal, collects $60,000 annually, and decides to reduce sewer rates with this "windfall" (pun intended), a savings to sewer rates each month would only be about $2.50 (assuming 2,000 customers).

Lastly, I would like to thank you for bringing this issue to light and Bill Anderson for his efforts to keep the Little Juniata River a great natural resource that we may continue to use and enjoy.

[skippy]

Will it make the stink go away?

no

[skippy]

Is this Bill Anderson the guy that doesn't let people go down the juniata river fishing saying that it belongs to him?

I do not believe so...I think it was somone else (who I will not name) who was in litigation with the state over this matter.

[sandstone]

Is this Bill Anderson the guy that doesn't let people go down the juniata river fishing saying that it belongs to him?

No. Donny Beaver is "the guy that doesn't let people go down the juniata river fishing saying that it belongs to him."

http://troutunderground.com/2007/06/17/ ... idge-club/

Judge Confirms Smackdown Against Donny Beaver and Spring Ridge Club
By Tom Chandler on Jun 17, 2007 in News

Good news for Little Juniata anglers (from Alert Underground Reader LS). Bad news for Donny Beaver.

A Huntingdon County jurist has confirmed his prior ruling guaranteeing the rights of citizens to have access to the Little Juniata River for fishing, boating and other recreation—a move applauded by the state agencies participating in the case.

In addition to upholding his findings that the Little Juniata River is navigable, and therefore public, Kurtz permanently enjoined the defendants “from interfering with the public’s rights in the Little Juniata, including the posting and/or hanging of signs, advertising the Little Juniata River as private waters and threatening, harassing and otherwise attempting to exclude the public from fishing, boating, wading and/or recreating on and in the Little Juniata River and the submerged lands owned by the commonwealth.”

Essentially, the judge affirmed an earlier decision that precluded Donny from doing things like stringing cables across the Little Juniata to keep the public from floating through. (Nice move from our “conservationist” eh?)

Bad Donny. Baaad Donny…


Bill Anderson is president of the Little Juniata River Association http://www.littlejuniata.org/

Purpose of the Organization

The purpose of the Little Juniata River Association is to: Monitor, preserve and improve the Little Juniata River and its tributaries as a cold water resource.

To further this objective, the LJRA shall:

Periodically assess the biological integrity of the aquatic Macro-invertebrates inhabiting the Little Juniata River and its tributaries.
Monitor critical water quality parameters including temperature, oxygen content, ph, phosphates and nitrates.
Consult and work with individuals, local, state and federal government, colleges and universities, as appropriate, to further the purpose and goals of the LJRA.
Form alliances with other organizations such as local watershed groups, sportsmans groups and landowners.
Inform the public and government agencies of threats to the Little Juniata River.
Inform the public and government agencies of opportunities for improvement to the Little Juniata River.
Promote and develop public access for users of the Little Juniata River.

[My2Cents]

.............................. The point of my previous posts was to demonstrate that this unfunded mandate will cost customers of the wastewater treatment plants a great deal of money, and will do very little to fix the problems in the bay. Please keep in mind that even after the improvements are made to the wastewater plants, they will still discharge nitrogen and phosphorus, just at lower concentrations. Tyrone Borough customers can expect to pay between $7 and $18 more each month (or $84 to $216 more per year) for these improvements. To put this into perspective, if Tyrone goes forward with the windfarm proposal, collects $60,000 annually, and decides to reduce sewer rates with this "windfall" (pun intended), a savings to sewer rates each month would only be about $2.50 (assuming 2,000 customers).Lastly, I would like to thank you for bringing this issue to light and Bill Anderson for his efforts to keep the Little Juniata River a great natural resource that we may continue to use and enjoy.[/quote]

Which is certainly not worth a windmill !!
Thanks for info skippy.