sorry I typed the last websight wrong..it is
http://www.fandm.edu/x16899.xml
hope this is right
Sewage Treatment Plant mandate
-
SoccerMom
- MVP Member
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:18 am
- If Mike has 13 apples, and gives six to Jane, how many does he have left?: 13
- Location: Warriors Mark, PA
Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate
Thanks for posting maryann, very interesting!
Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate
From the Williamsport Sun-Gazette
Math makes bay cleanup a state funding priority
POSTED: February 26, 2008
The cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay is late and necessary, but the price for those paying to do the dirty work seems to get higher by the day.
Since the start of February, estimates of the statewide cost have risen from $190 million to $610 million to “potentially $1 billion” from state DEP Secretary Kathleen A. McGinty.
McGinty’s estimate came during a session last week with sanitary officials who are responsible for executing and paying for the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay.
The early estimates on the local fallout is $90 a quarter for Williamsport Sanitary Authority customers. Given the recent track record of revised expense estimates, we suspected that predicted bill is on the low side.
Unless the state takes on more of the burden and/or finds new infrastructure funding sources.
We aren’t in the grant writing business and people in this region aren’t in the habit of asking for special funding attention from their state or federal governments.
But do the math. A $1 billion bill is just too much for the populous of the affected areas – largely rural – to bear.
Let’s call this for what it is. If this $1 billion bill were being dropped on the major metropolitan areas of the state, we have no doubt state leaders and the administration would be scrambling for funding solutions to reduce the local burden. See stadium projects and mass transit funding for recent examples.
The local sanitary authority has been a well-run operation for decades, often setting and meeting its own environmental standards above and before they were a matter of regulation on the state level. We have no doubt it will execute its part in the Chesapeake Bay cleanup and hope for the same from farmers, industries and others who must share in this pollution throughout the bay corridor.
But we’ve seen this state government shift funding priorities in a matter of days when it’s politically expedient. It’s time for the Chesapeake Bay cleanup to become a funding priority at the state level for the best reason. It’s the right thing to do.
Math makes bay cleanup a state funding priority
POSTED: February 26, 2008
The cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay is late and necessary, but the price for those paying to do the dirty work seems to get higher by the day.
Since the start of February, estimates of the statewide cost have risen from $190 million to $610 million to “potentially $1 billion” from state DEP Secretary Kathleen A. McGinty.
McGinty’s estimate came during a session last week with sanitary officials who are responsible for executing and paying for the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay.
The early estimates on the local fallout is $90 a quarter for Williamsport Sanitary Authority customers. Given the recent track record of revised expense estimates, we suspected that predicted bill is on the low side.
Unless the state takes on more of the burden and/or finds new infrastructure funding sources.
We aren’t in the grant writing business and people in this region aren’t in the habit of asking for special funding attention from their state or federal governments.
But do the math. A $1 billion bill is just too much for the populous of the affected areas – largely rural – to bear.
Let’s call this for what it is. If this $1 billion bill were being dropped on the major metropolitan areas of the state, we have no doubt state leaders and the administration would be scrambling for funding solutions to reduce the local burden. See stadium projects and mass transit funding for recent examples.
The local sanitary authority has been a well-run operation for decades, often setting and meeting its own environmental standards above and before they were a matter of regulation on the state level. We have no doubt it will execute its part in the Chesapeake Bay cleanup and hope for the same from farmers, industries and others who must share in this pollution throughout the bay corridor.
But we’ve seen this state government shift funding priorities in a matter of days when it’s politically expedient. It’s time for the Chesapeake Bay cleanup to become a funding priority at the state level for the best reason. It’s the right thing to do.
Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate
This is one of the best letters to the editor of all time:
Grants are our money
Altoona Mirror letter to the editor by Bill Fink
POSTED: February 28, 2008
Our government spends beyond its means, and why not? It isn’t officials’ money.
Taxpayers received a 2 percent to 3 percent cost-of-living increase, and the actual cost of living increases 10 percent. What’s wrong with this picture? If this isn’t bad enough, taxpayers now are faced with paying to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.
Remember getting hit last year with the one-half mill tax increase to support Fort Roberdeau and public libraries that was approved by an out-of-county judge? How about the $52 Local Services Tax to give government additional spending money? Did I forget to mention the higher school and county property taxes?
Government at all levels needs to stop giving away taxpayer dollars that only benefit special interests. That money should ensure taxpayers receive the essential services that they’re paying for. It’s everyone’s responsibility to ensure government understands its fiscal responsibilities and exercises them.
Giving nonessential grants adds to the economic stress facing taxpayers and cannot be justified. The commonwealth didn’t hesitate to cut funding for parks and recreation, along with other nonessential services, several years ago when it was hit with a budget crunch.
Look out, though, those special interest groups will get hot under the collar if we use our money rather than give it to them.
Budget problems are self-inflected, so any fix must be self-imposed. Who should cover cleaning up the wastewater treatment plants and farms allegedly polluting the rivers and streams running into the Chesapeake Bay? The state has given local governments unfunded mandates to do it. That’s us.
Our leadership won’t point fingers at storm water runoff from our highways/by-ways or from the massive commercial construction projects funded through grants.
Every time we cut a chunk out of any hillside or alter wetlands, it disturbs what took nature thousands of years to create. Rivers and streams have developed as the landscape around them evolved to handle this runoff. Sudden change shocks the ecological system. What is really polluting the bay, and who is really responsible?
How grants are distributed and justified should concern taxpayers. When’s the last time you received a grant? The money being used is yours; shouldn’t someone be accountable to you?
The whole process needs to be re-evaluated. Handing out tax dollars for feel-good projects while essential needs and services are being neglected is unacceptable. Raising property taxes or increasing rates for needed services only adds to your ever-increasing family budget deficit.
Grant programs using our money for projects outside governmental services must stop. Our money should be used to support essential needs and services. That’s not building malls. It’s time to suck it up, folks, and do the right thing in Harrisburg and Hollidaysburg.
Our tax dollars should work for us, not special interests.
William C. Fink
Tyrone
Grants are our money
Altoona Mirror letter to the editor by Bill Fink
POSTED: February 28, 2008
Our government spends beyond its means, and why not? It isn’t officials’ money.
Taxpayers received a 2 percent to 3 percent cost-of-living increase, and the actual cost of living increases 10 percent. What’s wrong with this picture? If this isn’t bad enough, taxpayers now are faced with paying to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.
Remember getting hit last year with the one-half mill tax increase to support Fort Roberdeau and public libraries that was approved by an out-of-county judge? How about the $52 Local Services Tax to give government additional spending money? Did I forget to mention the higher school and county property taxes?
Government at all levels needs to stop giving away taxpayer dollars that only benefit special interests. That money should ensure taxpayers receive the essential services that they’re paying for. It’s everyone’s responsibility to ensure government understands its fiscal responsibilities and exercises them.
Giving nonessential grants adds to the economic stress facing taxpayers and cannot be justified. The commonwealth didn’t hesitate to cut funding for parks and recreation, along with other nonessential services, several years ago when it was hit with a budget crunch.
Look out, though, those special interest groups will get hot under the collar if we use our money rather than give it to them.
Budget problems are self-inflected, so any fix must be self-imposed. Who should cover cleaning up the wastewater treatment plants and farms allegedly polluting the rivers and streams running into the Chesapeake Bay? The state has given local governments unfunded mandates to do it. That’s us.
Our leadership won’t point fingers at storm water runoff from our highways/by-ways or from the massive commercial construction projects funded through grants.
Every time we cut a chunk out of any hillside or alter wetlands, it disturbs what took nature thousands of years to create. Rivers and streams have developed as the landscape around them evolved to handle this runoff. Sudden change shocks the ecological system. What is really polluting the bay, and who is really responsible?
How grants are distributed and justified should concern taxpayers. When’s the last time you received a grant? The money being used is yours; shouldn’t someone be accountable to you?
The whole process needs to be re-evaluated. Handing out tax dollars for feel-good projects while essential needs and services are being neglected is unacceptable. Raising property taxes or increasing rates for needed services only adds to your ever-increasing family budget deficit.
Grant programs using our money for projects outside governmental services must stop. Our money should be used to support essential needs and services. That’s not building malls. It’s time to suck it up, folks, and do the right thing in Harrisburg and Hollidaysburg.
Our tax dollars should work for us, not special interests.
William C. Fink
Tyrone
-
Bill Latchford
- MVP Member
- Posts: 608
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 2:09 pm
- If Mike has 13 apples, and gives six to Jane, how many does he have left?: 13
- Location: Tyrone, Pa
- Contact:
Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate
- Mr. Fink makes quite a few very good points throughout his "Letter To The Editor" from the Altoona Mirror. Every time I read through it, it proves to me that we really need to start holding those we all voted for accountable with our monies that we give them in the form of our tax dollars. Our Federal, State and Local Officials have to look at the needs of the many (Citizens) vs. the needs of the few (Special Interests).
- "IceMan" you ask the question of "Who Should Clean Up The Bay?" Good question...I personally believe we all should be paying for it, but not as a rate payer but as a tax payer. I think we have earned that from the Government. You can't pass this type of a mandate without offering help to the people. We pay taxes to do this type of activity. We should not be paying taxes to fund the nonsense things that are divvied out as grants. I do admit we even do that on a local level also
How do you reform such a thing? I would ask Mr. Fink. Do we start on the local level and say to our Legislators, look this is how it is done? If someone wants to build something and asking for State or Federal monies to help do it, ask yourself, will these tax dollars that we are giving this business benefit the community or area at large, or does it just benefit the business? How do we get this type of mind set to proliferate through our Local, State and Federal Governments?
So in response to your post "IceMan" I say it is us that must pay, but I think we already did in this case, with our tax dollars.
You also mention "Every time we cut a chunk out of any hillside or alter wetlands, it disturbs what took nature thousands of years to create." Well how are you going to stop progress? I don't totally mean progress as a positive thing also. We as humans are going to move about the Country, heck about this Planet, to find places to inhabit. The Earth is not getting any bigger, it is only growing smaller to an ever growing population of humans. So of course we are going to cut into hillsides. We are trying to protect wetlands, but what happens when that is now needed to support this growing population. This is happening all over the world. Unless the Government declares a law stating 1 child per household here in the US, then you are going to have people putting developments into hillsides and such. We just have to figure out ways to deal with the after affects of our species on this Planet. The last time I looked there were no life rafts attached to the Earth. So we need to start somewhere with taking care of it. So lets somehow convey to our Legislators, start using our tax dollars a bit more efficiently and for the common good, not just as Mr. Fink stated " feel-good projects " that only benefit some "Special Interest Group" You know something there is one "Special Interest Group" that we all should pay attention to and that is "Humanity". :thumb:
- "IceMan" you ask the question of "Who Should Clean Up The Bay?" Good question...I personally believe we all should be paying for it, but not as a rate payer but as a tax payer. I think we have earned that from the Government. You can't pass this type of a mandate without offering help to the people. We pay taxes to do this type of activity. We should not be paying taxes to fund the nonsense things that are divvied out as grants. I do admit we even do that on a local level also
How do you reform such a thing? I would ask Mr. Fink. Do we start on the local level and say to our Legislators, look this is how it is done? If someone wants to build something and asking for State or Federal monies to help do it, ask yourself, will these tax dollars that we are giving this business benefit the community or area at large, or does it just benefit the business? How do we get this type of mind set to proliferate through our Local, State and Federal Governments?
So in response to your post "IceMan" I say it is us that must pay, but I think we already did in this case, with our tax dollars.
You also mention "Every time we cut a chunk out of any hillside or alter wetlands, it disturbs what took nature thousands of years to create." Well how are you going to stop progress? I don't totally mean progress as a positive thing also. We as humans are going to move about the Country, heck about this Planet, to find places to inhabit. The Earth is not getting any bigger, it is only growing smaller to an ever growing population of humans. So of course we are going to cut into hillsides. We are trying to protect wetlands, but what happens when that is now needed to support this growing population. This is happening all over the world. Unless the Government declares a law stating 1 child per household here in the US, then you are going to have people putting developments into hillsides and such. We just have to figure out ways to deal with the after affects of our species on this Planet. The last time I looked there were no life rafts attached to the Earth. So we need to start somewhere with taking care of it. So lets somehow convey to our Legislators, start using our tax dollars a bit more efficiently and for the common good, not just as Mr. Fink stated " feel-good projects " that only benefit some "Special Interest Group" You know something there is one "Special Interest Group" that we all should pay attention to and that is "Humanity". :thumb:
Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate
Bill Latchford wrote:- Mr. Fink makes quite a few very good points throughout his "Letter To The Editor" from the Altoona Mirror. Every time I read through it, it proves to me that we really need to start holding those we all voted for accountable with our monies that we give them in the form of our tax dollars. Our Federal, State and Local Officials have to look at the needs of the many (Citizens) vs. the needs of the few (Special Interests).
- "IceMan" you ask the question of "Who Should Clean Up The Bay?" Good question...I personally believe we all should be paying for it, but not as a rate payer but as a tax payer. I think we have earned that from the Government. You can't pass this type of a mandate without offering help to the people. We pay taxes to do this type of activity. We should not be paying taxes to fund the nonsense things that are divvied out as grants. I do admit we even do that on a local level also
How do you reform such a thing? I would ask Mr. Fink. Do we start on the local level and say to our Legislators, look this is how it is done? If someone wants to build something and asking for State or Federal monies to help do it, ask yourself, will these tax dollars that we are giving this business benefit the community or area at large, or does it just benefit the business? How do we get this type of mind set to proliferate through our Local, State and Federal Governments?
So in response to your post "IceMan" I say it is us that must pay, but I think we already did in this case, with our tax dollars.
You also mention "Every time we cut a chunk out of any hillside or alter wetlands, it disturbs what took nature thousands of years to create." Well how are you going to stop progress? I don't totally mean progress as a positive thing also. We as humans are going to move about the Country, heck about this Planet, to find places to inhabit. The Earth is not getting any bigger, it is only growing smaller to an ever growing population of humans. So of course we are going to cut into hillsides. We are trying to protect wetlands, but what happens when that is now needed to support this growing population. This is happening all over the world. Unless the Government declares a law stating 1 child per household here in the US, then you are going to have people putting developments into hillsides and such. We just have to figure out ways to deal with the after affects of our species on this Planet. The last time I looked there were no life rafts attached to the Earth. So we need to start somewhere with taking care of it. So lets somehow convey to our Legislators, start using our tax dollars a bit more efficiently and for the common good, not just as Mr. Fink stated " feel-good projects " that only benefit some "Special Interest Group" You know something there is one "Special Interest Group" that we all should pay attention to and that is "Humanity". :thumb:
The quotes that you attribute to me are not mine, but Bill Fink's. I merely colored the font red to emphasize Bill Fink's points. They're not my comments.
-
Bill Latchford
- MVP Member
- Posts: 608
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 2:09 pm
- If Mike has 13 apples, and gives six to Jane, how many does he have left?: 13
- Location: Tyrone, Pa
- Contact:
Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate
Oh sorry for the mistake...Thought you were setting responses to his comments. I did not see the original article. I will talk to Bill about some of his thoughts. Thanks "IceMan"
Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate
Here's Mr. Fink's letter on the Mirror website: http://altoonamirror.com/page/content.d ... ml?nav=737Bill Latchford wrote:Oh sorry for the mistake...Thought you were setting responses to his comments. I did not see the original article. I will talk to Bill about some of his thoughts. Thanks "IceMan"
-
coveredbridge
- New Member
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:41 pm
Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate
It seems mostly like incoherent rambling to me.Ice Man wrote:This is one of the best letters to the editor of all time:
That first part about the cost of living increases and the real cost of living, what is that about? What "taxpayer" is getting a 2 to 3 percent COLA? Is he referring to SS recipients? If so, he should recognize that those SS benefits are being paid by current workers' payroll taxes at 15.3%, on top of Federal, State and Local income taxes and property taxes that these workers are paying. As for the actual increase of 10% in the cost of living, where is the support for that figure? It is grossly exaggerated.
Also, what "massive commercial construction projects funded through grants" is he referring to? I wonder if he feels the same way about American Eagle, which would still be boarded up, employing no one and contributing to the general decay of Tyrone if not for the massive government support that project received?
The comments about stormwater runoff and upstream development seem to reflect the same narrowminded view that the residents of Tyrone maintained back in the '70's (see related thread re: Herald article), and which is perpetuated by Fink, Anderson and their ilk. That is, rather than have the taxpayers of Tyrone help to pay for flood control that is necessary because they chose to build a town in a flood zone, government should usurp the private property rights of upstream property owners by preventing all development, even though such development complies with stormwater management regulations.
By the way, who was Mr. Fink's employer? Wasn't it the U.S. government? Has he ever not been dependent on the taxpayer for his livelihood?
-
sandstone
- MVP Member
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 1:09 am
- If Mike has 13 apples, and gives six to Jane, how many does he have left?: 13
- Location: Sinking Valley
Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate
Blair County's population is decreasing at close to 1% annually, in spite of the Logan Town Centre and Keystone Opportunity Zones (both funded partly with government handouts.) How about Antis Township's KOZ on Brush Mountain?! What a joke! Developing a mountainside at taxpayer expense and then bailing out flood victims at taxpayer expense!Bill Latchford wrote: You also mention "Every time we cut a chunk out of any hillside or alter wetlands, it disturbs what took nature thousands of years to create." Well how are you going to stop progress? I don't totally mean progress as a positive thing also. We as humans are going to move about the Country, heck about this Planet, to find places to inhabit.
-
Bill Anderson
- New Member
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:52 am
Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate
As Sandman correctly points out, we here in Blair County are not dealing with population growth. The population actually peaked some years ago and has fallen since. Our storm water control issues are due to the willingness to allow construction of malls and highways without regard for downstream affects. Sure the investors in these projects go for as much "free" (taxpayer) money as they can get. I would too. They also comply with existing DEP rules regarding stormwater run-off. Albeit often grudgingly and with heavy political pressure on township officials to approve faulty plans. The problem is that the DEP rules are inadequate and almost totally lacking in enforcement after implementation. No reflection on our DEP professionals, they are inadequately staffed for the task. Its time for new rules which hold the property owner responsible for controlling the before, during and after, run-off from each site. This reply should probably be on the other thread, but there is a strong connection between allowing inadequate sewage treatment thus facilitating innappropriate development.
Bill Anderson
Bill Anderson
-
SoccerMom
- MVP Member
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:18 am
- If Mike has 13 apples, and gives six to Jane, how many does he have left?: 13
- Location: Warriors Mark, PA
Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate
Monday, Mar. 03, 2008
Dozens of towns sue Pa. over Chesapeake Bay cleanup costs
- The Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. — Dozens of municipalities have sued the state government over the cost to upgrade wastewater plants as part of a strategy to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.
The lawsuit, filed in Commonwealth Court on Friday, argues that wastewater ratepayers in towns across much of central and eastern Pennsylvania bear an unfair share of the cleanup costs.
The lawsuit also contends that Pennsylvania entered into an illegal agreement in 2000 with Maryland and Virginia to improve the water quality in the Chesapeake Bay, which led to the federal government making the agreement mandatory five years later.
If the 2010 deadline isn't met, the federal government could enforce much stricter standards, state officials say.
Many municipal officials have expressed anger that the state has not committed money for the improvements, particularly when other sources, such as farms, contribute more pollution.
Officials at the Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Association estimate that the bill to improve the watershed's 184 largest treatment plants will total at least $1 billion.
advertisement
Neil Weaver, a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection, declined comment on the lawsuit but said the state will continue trying to help local officials meet the federal government's water quality requirements.
The state also allows a less costly alternative to improve water quality, Weaver said. That method involves buying "credits" from farms or wastewater plants elsewhere that have reduced their polluting to a greater extent than required.
Pennsylvania contributes more sewage, farm runoff and other pollutants than any other state into the 200-mile long Chesapeake Bay. The pollutants, such as nitrogen, feed algae in the bay which makes much of the estuary uninhabitable for fish, crabs and oysters during the summer.
The Capital Region Council of Governments, a municipal association in suburban Harrisburg, had been collecting contributions from towns across the Chesapeake Bay watershed to help pay the legal costs of the suit. The council's executive director, Perry Albert, said 61 municipalities have signed on to the lawsuit, and more were expected to join.
Dozens of towns sue Pa. over Chesapeake Bay cleanup costs
- The Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. — Dozens of municipalities have sued the state government over the cost to upgrade wastewater plants as part of a strategy to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.
The lawsuit, filed in Commonwealth Court on Friday, argues that wastewater ratepayers in towns across much of central and eastern Pennsylvania bear an unfair share of the cleanup costs.
The lawsuit also contends that Pennsylvania entered into an illegal agreement in 2000 with Maryland and Virginia to improve the water quality in the Chesapeake Bay, which led to the federal government making the agreement mandatory five years later.
If the 2010 deadline isn't met, the federal government could enforce much stricter standards, state officials say.
Many municipal officials have expressed anger that the state has not committed money for the improvements, particularly when other sources, such as farms, contribute more pollution.
Officials at the Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Association estimate that the bill to improve the watershed's 184 largest treatment plants will total at least $1 billion.
advertisement
Neil Weaver, a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection, declined comment on the lawsuit but said the state will continue trying to help local officials meet the federal government's water quality requirements.
The state also allows a less costly alternative to improve water quality, Weaver said. That method involves buying "credits" from farms or wastewater plants elsewhere that have reduced their polluting to a greater extent than required.
Pennsylvania contributes more sewage, farm runoff and other pollutants than any other state into the 200-mile long Chesapeake Bay. The pollutants, such as nitrogen, feed algae in the bay which makes much of the estuary uninhabitable for fish, crabs and oysters during the summer.
The Capital Region Council of Governments, a municipal association in suburban Harrisburg, had been collecting contributions from towns across the Chesapeake Bay watershed to help pay the legal costs of the suit. The council's executive director, Perry Albert, said 61 municipalities have signed on to the lawsuit, and more were expected to join.
-
150thBucktailCo.I
- MVP Member
- Posts: 342
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 8:43 am
- If Mike has 13 apples, and gives six to Jane, how many does he have left?: 13
- Location: Blair County
Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate
Chambersburg Borough joins 63 others in lawsuit over mandates to clean up Chesapeake Bay watershed
http://www.publicopiniononline.com/localnews/ci_8444256
By JIM HOOK Senior writer
The Borough of Chambersburg and 63 other municipalities and authorities have challenged the state's strategy for cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay.
They have asked Commonwealth Court to strike down a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection strategy requiring them to spend $1 billion to upgrade their wastewater treatment plants to meet more stringent discharge limits.
Municipalities across the Potomac and Susquehanna watersheds face deadlines for improving wastewater treatment plants with little hope of state or federal grants. Sewer rates would increase dramatically to pay for the improvements.
"We're probably looking at a potential increase of 40 percent," Chambersburg Borough Council President William McLaughlin said. "In other places sewer bills will double. That's not DEP's problem. When push comes to shove this is when local government pushed back because we feel we're being saddled with a disproportionate share."
Chambersburg would increase sewer rates to pay for a $38 million project -- more than $10 million to meet the new discharge requirements and $28 million to handle growth in the borough and the townships of Greene, Guilford and Hamilton.
"DEP's unfunded, unlawful, unfair and unrealistic strategy is doomed to failure and represents a disastrous burden to ratepayers," according to the lawsuit filed Friday. "Far less expensive agricultural reductions are not being pursued actively and aggressively by DEP."
Pennsylvania's 35,000 small farm owners discharge four times more nutrients, but DEP is asking only that they voluntarily comply with the strategy, according to the lawsuit. DEP does not routinely inspect the farms.
The disparity in the way farms and sewage plants are treated is "discriminatory, and DEP should be enjoined from continuing such actions," according to the lawsuit filed by Harrisburg law firm Hawke McKeon & Sniscak LLP.
"I can't comment on pending litigation," DEP spokesman Neil Weaver said. "This is a very real federal water mandate."
Clean water
Pennsylvania and the other states whose surface waters flow into the Chesapeake are under federal court order to clean up the bay. Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., agreed in 1983 to do something. They have until 2010 to finish or face fines.
Nitrogen and phosphorous pollution of the bay has improved little. The nutrients that come from sewage plant discharges and farm fertilizer runoff feed algae in the bay. The algae grow rapidly then die and create vast dead zones when they decompose. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation gave the bay a barely passing grade in nutrient pollution for 2007.
Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy arose from the Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement signed by the states.
DEP's strategy: Because sewage plants are responsible for 20 percent of nutrients from Pennsylvania in the bay, sewage plants must cut their pollution by 20 percent; since runoff from farms and parking lots is responsible for 80 percent, those sources must cut nutrient loading by 80 percent.
DEP imposed new maximum nutrient loads on sewage plants without going through the proper legal process allowing public input, according to the lawsuit. The standards are designed to meet the stricter water quality standards of Maryland.
The Clean Water Act has been tested in court, and it doesn't matter what it costs to clean up water, according to Harry Campbell, staff scientist for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in Pennsylvania.
"This is not a Pennsylvania issue," Campbell said. "This is a federal Clean Water mandate. It has nothing to do with DEP's strategy."
Resolution
If the municipalities win their lawsuit, it's unlikely to resolve the issue.
"My concern is this delay may simply increase costs," said Bryan Salzmann, a Chambersburg area environmental attorney. "Municipalities may have to upgrade anyway and construction costs generally never go down. Even if the current challenge is successful, I'm confident there'll be a new strategy put in place. I don't think it's accurate to say there's nothing the municipalities will have to do."
Salzmann said the court is likely to act expeditiously, in three to six months, given the magnitude of the issue.
"It's been brewing for a long time," Salzmann said. "Many have questioned whether it's an effective strategy, given the significant cost to upgrade wastewater treatment plants."
The Capital Area Council of Governments spearheaded the lawsuit. Chambersburg is paying $2,000 initially to sign on, McLaughlin said.
The borough will continue with plans for its sewer plant while the court case proceeds, he said. The Chambersburg area is one of the first in the state required to comply with the new requirements. The deadline is 2010.
The Franklin County General Authority is the other local sewer agency to join the lawsuit. The deadline for the plant serving the Cumberland Valley Business Park is 2012.
Other answers
"What we have is an unfunded mandate," said John Van Horn, executive director of the county general authority. "The commonwealth is going after municipal treatment plants when they aren't the largest part of the problem. However, they are permit holders; they are under the control of DEP."
The only financial assistance available to the sewage plants is through "nutrient trading," according to Van Horn. A plant discharging little nitrogen into a stream gets nutrient credits it can sell to someone discharging more nitrogen than it should.
"To date, nutrient trading has not been the effective program many had hoped," Salzmann said.
"Unfunded mandates happen all the time," said Campbell of the Bay Foundation.
When builders went to court claiming Pennsylvania's storm water management rules were too costly to meet, the case was thrown out without a hearing, he said. The state requirement was based on federal law.
With $10 million, the efficiency of the eight-year-old Chambersburg treatment plant would increase from 80 percent to 86 percent, McLaughlin said. The borough would do better with "off-site remediation," financing farm improvements to keep runoff out of streams. A 1,000-cow herd produces as much nutrient as the 20,000 people in Chambersburg do in a year.
Agricultural programs that would improve the bay's water quality have an annual shortfall of $165 million, Campbell said. The bay cleanup is mentioned in the federal Farm Bill under consideration in Congress.
"You cannot achieve the reduction that we are federally mandated to do by simply focusing on one source," Campbell said. "You physically cannot get there if we just focus on one or two sources."
DEP's Weaver said the department will continue to meet with those involved in the bay cleanup process. DEP has conducted 200 meetings in the past two years on the issue.
----------
Jim Hook can be reached at 262-4759 or jhook@publicopinionnews.com.
http://www.publicopiniononline.com/localnews/ci_8444256
By JIM HOOK Senior writer
The Borough of Chambersburg and 63 other municipalities and authorities have challenged the state's strategy for cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay.
They have asked Commonwealth Court to strike down a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection strategy requiring them to spend $1 billion to upgrade their wastewater treatment plants to meet more stringent discharge limits.
Municipalities across the Potomac and Susquehanna watersheds face deadlines for improving wastewater treatment plants with little hope of state or federal grants. Sewer rates would increase dramatically to pay for the improvements.
"We're probably looking at a potential increase of 40 percent," Chambersburg Borough Council President William McLaughlin said. "In other places sewer bills will double. That's not DEP's problem. When push comes to shove this is when local government pushed back because we feel we're being saddled with a disproportionate share."
Chambersburg would increase sewer rates to pay for a $38 million project -- more than $10 million to meet the new discharge requirements and $28 million to handle growth in the borough and the townships of Greene, Guilford and Hamilton.
"DEP's unfunded, unlawful, unfair and unrealistic strategy is doomed to failure and represents a disastrous burden to ratepayers," according to the lawsuit filed Friday. "Far less expensive agricultural reductions are not being pursued actively and aggressively by DEP."
Pennsylvania's 35,000 small farm owners discharge four times more nutrients, but DEP is asking only that they voluntarily comply with the strategy, according to the lawsuit. DEP does not routinely inspect the farms.
The disparity in the way farms and sewage plants are treated is "discriminatory, and DEP should be enjoined from continuing such actions," according to the lawsuit filed by Harrisburg law firm Hawke McKeon & Sniscak LLP.
"I can't comment on pending litigation," DEP spokesman Neil Weaver said. "This is a very real federal water mandate."
Clean water
Pennsylvania and the other states whose surface waters flow into the Chesapeake are under federal court order to clean up the bay. Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., agreed in 1983 to do something. They have until 2010 to finish or face fines.
Nitrogen and phosphorous pollution of the bay has improved little. The nutrients that come from sewage plant discharges and farm fertilizer runoff feed algae in the bay. The algae grow rapidly then die and create vast dead zones when they decompose. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation gave the bay a barely passing grade in nutrient pollution for 2007.
Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy arose from the Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement signed by the states.
DEP's strategy: Because sewage plants are responsible for 20 percent of nutrients from Pennsylvania in the bay, sewage plants must cut their pollution by 20 percent; since runoff from farms and parking lots is responsible for 80 percent, those sources must cut nutrient loading by 80 percent.
DEP imposed new maximum nutrient loads on sewage plants without going through the proper legal process allowing public input, according to the lawsuit. The standards are designed to meet the stricter water quality standards of Maryland.
The Clean Water Act has been tested in court, and it doesn't matter what it costs to clean up water, according to Harry Campbell, staff scientist for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in Pennsylvania.
"This is not a Pennsylvania issue," Campbell said. "This is a federal Clean Water mandate. It has nothing to do with DEP's strategy."
Resolution
If the municipalities win their lawsuit, it's unlikely to resolve the issue.
"My concern is this delay may simply increase costs," said Bryan Salzmann, a Chambersburg area environmental attorney. "Municipalities may have to upgrade anyway and construction costs generally never go down. Even if the current challenge is successful, I'm confident there'll be a new strategy put in place. I don't think it's accurate to say there's nothing the municipalities will have to do."
Salzmann said the court is likely to act expeditiously, in three to six months, given the magnitude of the issue.
"It's been brewing for a long time," Salzmann said. "Many have questioned whether it's an effective strategy, given the significant cost to upgrade wastewater treatment plants."
The Capital Area Council of Governments spearheaded the lawsuit. Chambersburg is paying $2,000 initially to sign on, McLaughlin said.
The borough will continue with plans for its sewer plant while the court case proceeds, he said. The Chambersburg area is one of the first in the state required to comply with the new requirements. The deadline is 2010.
The Franklin County General Authority is the other local sewer agency to join the lawsuit. The deadline for the plant serving the Cumberland Valley Business Park is 2012.
Other answers
"What we have is an unfunded mandate," said John Van Horn, executive director of the county general authority. "The commonwealth is going after municipal treatment plants when they aren't the largest part of the problem. However, they are permit holders; they are under the control of DEP."
The only financial assistance available to the sewage plants is through "nutrient trading," according to Van Horn. A plant discharging little nitrogen into a stream gets nutrient credits it can sell to someone discharging more nitrogen than it should.
"To date, nutrient trading has not been the effective program many had hoped," Salzmann said.
"Unfunded mandates happen all the time," said Campbell of the Bay Foundation.
When builders went to court claiming Pennsylvania's storm water management rules were too costly to meet, the case was thrown out without a hearing, he said. The state requirement was based on federal law.
With $10 million, the efficiency of the eight-year-old Chambersburg treatment plant would increase from 80 percent to 86 percent, McLaughlin said. The borough would do better with "off-site remediation," financing farm improvements to keep runoff out of streams. A 1,000-cow herd produces as much nutrient as the 20,000 people in Chambersburg do in a year.
Agricultural programs that would improve the bay's water quality have an annual shortfall of $165 million, Campbell said. The bay cleanup is mentioned in the federal Farm Bill under consideration in Congress.
"You cannot achieve the reduction that we are federally mandated to do by simply focusing on one source," Campbell said. "You physically cannot get there if we just focus on one or two sources."
DEP's Weaver said the department will continue to meet with those involved in the bay cleanup process. DEP has conducted 200 meetings in the past two years on the issue.
----------
Jim Hook can be reached at 262-4759 or jhook@publicopinionnews.com.
-
Bill Anderson
- New Member
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:52 am
Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate
Are we missing the point? Concern about the water quality in the bay is real and justified. However, bay or no bay we should be reducing nutrients (read as pollution) in the Little Juniata River for the benefit of the local people and the Tyrone economy. A healthier river will bring added economic benefits and quality of life advantages to all our citizens. The Little Juniata already has a growing national reputation as a premier wild trout stream. With water quality improvements it could become The premier trout stream in the east ! Bringing tourist dollars, retiring Baby Boomers, real estate appreciation and new businesses. If you doubt this take a look at small towns such as Hancock NY (upper Delaware River), Mountain Home Arkansas, (White River), Victor Idaho (Teton River), Rosco NY (Beaverkill River) and dozens of others nation wide. What these towns have in common (in fact the only thing they have in common) is that excellent wild trout fishing exists on a nearby stream.
Bill Anderson
Bill Anderson
-
150thBucktailCo.I
- MVP Member
- Posts: 342
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 8:43 am
- If Mike has 13 apples, and gives six to Jane, how many does he have left?: 13
- Location: Blair County
Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate
I think we need to look at both the BIG, overall picture of this issue, as well as the LOCAL, specific picture of this issue. Since we are part of the Bay watershed, we better keep tabs on and make ourselves aware what other municipalites are doing since morethanlikely their actions could affect us in some way. Merely focusing on ourselves and our area, but not the others may not be wise.Bill Anderson wrote:Are we missing the point? Concern about the water quality in the bay is real and justified. However, bay or no bay we should be reducing nutrients (read as pollution) in the Little Juniata River for the benefit of the local people and the Tyrone economy.
Bill Anderson