Sewage Treatment Plant mandate

[sandstone]

Any comments on this editorial from the Harrisburg Patriot-News?:

State needs to help its municipalities meet sewage plant upgrades for the Chesapeake

Friday, January 11, 2008

The grumbling among municipal officials in Pennsylvania is growing louder as they work toward required upgrades to sewage treatment plants that could cost as much as $1 billion.

Under an agreement reached by governors of states with tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay, Pennsylvania plants along the Susquehanna River must significantly reduce discharges of nitrates and phosphates that are harmful to life in the estuary. The deadline will be as early as 2010 for some plants.

But unlike other states, Pennsylvania is providing no meaningful funding to assist with the upgrades, so the costs largely will be passed along to residents through steep increases in sewer bills -- possibly as high as 55 percent in the Harrisburg area.

Several midstate municipalities have passed resolutions calling this another "unfunded mandate." Municipal officials also are upset with what they see as a double standard for the agriculture industry. They note farming contributes three to four times the amount of phosphates and nitrates to the bay watershed as sewage treatment plants, but haven't been subjected to the same nutrient reduction requirements by the state Department of Environmental Protection.

They raise valid points in both cases, though many farms are subject to nutrient restrictions and a large number also have done so voluntarily.

But the Rendell administration should listen to these local officials while it's putting together the governor's proposed 2008-09 budget. The lack of funding is a departure from financial assistance that previously has been made available to municipal sewage treatment facilities. As a result, too much of a burden is being put on Pennsylvania residents and businesses within the bay watershed.

The long degradation of the Chesapeake, to which Pennsylvania has contributed, needs to be addressed, yet the necessary treatment upgrades carry a significant price tag. The governor is right that Pennsylvania bears a large obligation in helping to clean up the bay -- but the key word here is Pennsylvania.

[anne onimous1]

As with everything that is mandated by the government there is not enough or absolutely no funding. I guess the money will just be pulled out of our.....hats! As important as it is to improve our environment the funding for all that is necessary just is not there. When we start paying $10-$15 dollars for a light bulb perhaps some of that money can be contributed to the "FUND". As always, the taxpayer will foot the bill.

[RedhairNFreckles]

Have your PA politicians call my FL politicians....we've got plenty of s**t heads in our political cesspool that could come up with some kind of idea......

[My2Cents]

They are already telling us that this is how we can spend the money that we are to receive from each windmill !!! This is going to be the next big excuse for having to put them in !!! The public will be shown the $$$$$$$ coming's and going's again !!!! Most folk around here will see that sewage rate increase..... and be told how atrocious it will be, but the turbines will help pay the bill.

[150thBucktailCo.I]

As with everything that is mandated by the government there is not enough or absolutely no funding. I guess the money will just be pulled out of our.....hats! As important as it is to improve our environment the funding for all that is necessary just is not there. When we start paying $10-$15 dollars for a light bulb perhaps some of that money can be contributed to the "FUND". As always, the taxpayer will foot the bill.

The state and federal governments' favorite thing to do is mandates, and put the responsibility upon the county and/or local governments. Hence, the major source of the problems that the Blair County government is having. I believe the main reason the state and federal governments do this is to protect their elected positions. They force the local governments to raise taxes so the local elected officials look like the bad guys, and the state and federal representatives are off the hook.

Something to think about the next time you go and vote for Mr. Long-Term Incumbent legislator both at the state and federal level.

And don't expect farmers to be paying into the bill for this one. Thanks to state legislators like Rep. Jerry Stern and his REAP program, they get taxpayer funded grants and tax credits (i.e. free money) to pay for the clean up of their fields and farms so the manure runoff doesn't flow into the watershed. Farms, with the amount of chemicals in the fertilizer and manure, are one of the largest sources of the Chesapeake Bay pollution.

So, in other words, we are giving our money to farmers for them to clean up their mess by way of the state government.

[Bill Latchford]

This is a very similar topic to the Wind Turbine debate, in that It is said and pretty much proven that having Wind Turbines will do very little for helping out with the electricity demands of our state. Well we are being told to upgrade our Waste Water Treatment facilities when it is proven that most of the nutrients in the tributary system of the Chesapeake Bay is from farm run off. It is a shame that the rate payers in Tyrone may have to foot the entire bill for these upgrades to our plant, just as many along the rivers will. 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? So in a way when the Borough joins in with other Municipalities in adopting an ordinance to let the State know we are not happy about their decision to make the local rate payers responsible for a problem that we are barely contributing to, it is like your petition that you have signed and circulated around to get the Borough Council to listen to you all about your opposition to the proposed Wind Plant.

[SoccerMom]

Before we all start bashing farmers, you know the people that produce the food that we so enjoy, consider the following statistics:

Insecticide use by homeowners in general, and in turf specifically, is significant. Number of lbs. of pesticide active ingredient used and # of products available is very large.

• Home & garden use of herbicides insecticides, fungicides accounts for
approximately 78M lbs. of pesticide active ingredient (a.i) released into the
environment.

• 31% of all households (rural, urban and suburban) purchase lawn and garden insecticides, spending ~ $1.4 billion/year (1997).

• The "Big Three" homeowner insecticides; diazinon, chlorpyrifos and
carbaryl, account for 5-11M lbs. ai. used in 1997 estimates.

• These insecticides were found more often and at higher concentrations in
urban streams than in agricultural streams (USGS study). Detect levels are
frequently at levels of concern for aquatic life.

• Similar data exist for homeowner herbicide use, which is at even higher
levels than insecticide use.


Turf pesticide use is high and treatments often run off during significant rain events. Is this important?

• Turf acreage in the Northeast US is highest overall = est. 9.6 million acres
(21% of US total est. 46.5 million acres)

• Home lawns comprise about half, or 4.8 million of these acres, followed by
commercial lawn areas at 26% or 2.5 million acres.

• Overall insecticide use on turf is estimated at 15M # a.i. Of this,
homeowner applied products account for 6.2 M #a.i. and lawncare operators
6.6 M # a.i. respectively.

• The NE region turf insecticide use is highest in the US at 3.7M # a.i. (24%
to total). Of this total, over 1.5M # a.i. (42%) are applied by homeowners
themselves. Lawn care operators apply another 1.6+ M # a.i. (44%).

• Five heavily used homeowner herbicide products are common detects in
urban waters nationwide.


Homeowner & commercial use of pesticides, esp. insecticides is a significant contribution to NPS pollution. Major national water quality studies show that water quality repeatedly suffers peaks of insecticide contamination from stormwater runoff.

Homeowner "Big Three" insecticides: diazinon, chlorpyrifos and carbaryl, when sampled for are consistently detected in urban seasonal run-off. There is no reason to think this trend is NOT having an impact on the Chesapeake Bay also; a rapidly urbanizing environment. Widespread continuing occurrence of chlordane and other organochlorine insecticides in the Bay and all other significant watersheds indicate that whatever is being applied on the land gets in the water. Chlordane just happens to stay there longer. Endocrine disruptors? Significance still unknown.

Think about it the next time you get out the "weed and feed" or "bugs be gone".

[SoccerMom]

FARMERS MAY APPLY NOW FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM (EQIP)
Contact: Ed Sanders, 717-237-2201

HARRISBURG, Jan. 3, 2007- USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is currently taking applications for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP-one of the largest programs in the 2002 Farm Bill-is a voluntary conservation program that provides producers with incentive payments for conservation activities that help limit soil erosion, improve water and air quality, and protect wildlife habitat.

New to EQIP this year is the Winter Cover Crop Program and Nutrient Management-Use Efficiency Program. The cover crop program offers an annual incentive payment on eligible acres at $20/acre/year, up to 100 acres per year for up to 3 years. Under this program, approximately $1.2 million is available for winter cover crops. Under the nutrient management-use efficiency program, Pennsylvania NRCS will reward producers who implement nutrient management techniques that go beyond the minimum requirements of the nutrient management standard. Incentive payments for the development and implementation of a nutrient management plan will be authorized on eligible acres for up to 3 years.

Producers engaged in livestock or agricultural production are eligible for EQIP. Eligible land includes cropland, pasture, private non-industrial forest land, and other farm or ranch lands. NRCS works with the participant to develop a conservation plan that identifies problems, land use objectives, and planned practices. This plan becomes the basis of the cost-share agreement between NRCS and the participant. NRCS provides cost-share payments to landowners under these agreements that can be up to 10 years in duration. Persons interested in entering into a cost-share agreement for EQIP assistance should apply by February 2, 2007 to be considered in this second round of funding. Depending on the requests received, and the available funding, this may be the last funding opportunity in 2007.

For more information about the program, visit http://www.pa.nrcs.usda.gov/ or contact your local USDA Service Center.

[Bill Latchford]

SoccerMom - Thank you for the great information...of course this along with everything else there will be some that have great information and experience to help us that don't know all sides of a topic understand it better. This one will also lead us to learn more from others. I hope no one bashes the farmers, I personally believe farmers are some of the hardest working people on this planet. They turn the earth into food for us all and I thank them for it. So I will keep an eye on this topic also. This is one of those things that are going to possibly cost this Borough millions in the near future and all should pay attention to this very important topic.

[SoccerMom]

Its just easier to blame someone else. The truth of the mater is, non-agricultural use of pesticides from the 98 percent of people not directly involved in agriculture represents a significant non-point source of environmental pollution of surface waters and an unknown risk to these pesticide users. While agricultural workers have long had training requirements in the use of pesticides and some minimal understanding of the risks of products they were using, the general public has none. Many feel that if some is good, more is better. The highest percentage of pesticide contamination in streams now comes from urban runoff. (USGS 1999). This raises concern for vulnerable groups such as children, whose bodies have heightened sensitivities to many kinds of toxins including pesticides (NRC 1993).

[150thBucktailCo.I]

I don't have a problem with farmers, and this isn't to bash them. But I posted the previous entry to draw awareness of where much of the tax (increase) money is going in regards to this main issue.

I do have a problem with farmers getting loads of taxpayer money to clean up the mess their cows and crops leave. And I believe the reason they are getting that isn't necessarily because of the product they produce. It's because of their ability to lobby the government and their voting power, since Agriculture is the #1 business in PA with tourism being #2. And shouldn't a successful business be supporting itself rather than rely on government assistance?

Now, if I use weed n feed and grub killer on my yard, shouldn't I be getting state funding to purchase something more environmentally friendly, if there is that? Perhaps the state should regulate the types of lawn fertilizer. Of course, then large corporate businesses such as Scotts would be having a fit about that. And we know they have the money to lobby the elected officials to their will.

And how about all those landscaping companies? And God knows there's a lot of them. And they are a business, and employ many, many people across the state. Yet, I don't see anyone in government rushing to the landscapers' aid with promises of monetary support and grants to keep it green and clean.

Now that I vented that, I do understand that the recourse is to raise food prices should farmers not get this funding. My conflict is which is the cheapest route for me, Joe Taxpayer. Taxpayer money to farmers via increased taxes, or pay for increased food prices at the store?

[My2Cents]

Talk about "timing"..... clean up the Bay made the front page of the Herald this morning !!! I do believe this is another topic that, if we all get together and think about it.... there has to be a "way" we can do this from our little corner of the world !!! Amazing how this is now being thrown in right in the middle of... "windmills or no windmills"... all of this will start turning heads in our community once again. If the wording is right, on the right day.... guess what..... here we go again... the people will see the $$$$$$ part of it. We are not the only "state" running H2O into the Bay.... I do believe, this is a clean-up job for ALL to share and I don't think small communities should be made to pay, huge amounts, seperately. It's a very good article in the Herald and our council really DOES CARE for us !!! We do need to figure out some good ideas to tackel this without casting blame on why/who's contaminating the Bay.... that's already been done. We need to figure out how all can share in the clean-up.

[SoccerMom]

Understood Buktail. You have to keep in mind thought that conservation practices that are being reimbursed through programs under NRCS were put in place to try to help farmers stay competitive with foreign imports. We really don't want to rely on other countries for our food supply, do we? Trust me, farmers aren't getting rich as a result of these inscentive programs. Most that I know are just making it. I understand your frustration though.

Its frustrating to me to go to Lowes and see all the pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizer on the shelves, some with active ingrediants that I thought I heard were be pulled from consumer use. Then you ask an employee about a product and they don't know anything. People think that because these products are on the shelf, they must be safe. 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!

[skippy]

I have not seen today's Daily Herald article regarding this issue. However, I am aware that the Borough's consulting engineer prepared a study outlining the improvements and associated costs to upgrade the wastewater treatment plant. The engineer concluded that Borough residents may see their sewer bills rise at least $7 a month, and could increase as much as $18 a month to fund the required improvements at the plant. Tyrone is not alone in struggling with this unfunded mandate. Communities all across central Pennsylvania are scrambling to address this matter.

[Luke]

Will it make the stink go away?