~ Water Resources Association ~

Water Resource Associations of the Delaware River Basin

Dec '07

WRA Comments on the Special Protection Waters Proposal

The following letter was submitted to Ms. Pam Bush at DRBC:
Dear Ms. Bush,

On behalf of the Water Resources Association (WRA), I would like to offer several comments on DRBC’s recent proposed rulemaking to reclassify portions of the lower Delaware River as “Special Protection Waters” (SPW). As you know, WRA represents a broad cross section of water utilities, municipal authorities, industry, the water resources consulting community and other entities interested in sound water resources management in the Delaware River Basin.

Like many other organizations that are docket holders or represent water users in the Basin we do not oppose the concept of maintaining and improving the quality of water within the Delaware River watershed. However, as with other organizations affected by the SPW proposal we continue to have concerns over the administrative, economic and technical issues that affect its implementation and impacts

First, the regulated community has had only a very short time, only two months, to review the details of this extremely complex proposal. It is also very difficult to make an evaluation of how the proposed program will affect a water user/discharger without a more detailed guidance document as to how docket applications will be reviewed. As we understood it from comments made by Commission staff at WRA’s November 8 fall conference such a draft document has been developed but has not yet been released for public review. We appreciate DRBC’s candor in this regard. As with most complex regulatory programs, the “devil is in the details” and therefore, we would respectfully request the Commission to defer any final decisions on the proposal until this guidance document is released and further discussions and public workshops are held with the regulated community and other concerned parties.

Second, we are dismayed that final comments after the December 4 public hearing are not due at least 15 to 30 days after the hearing. Two days (December 6 due date) is not enough time for all parties to adequately respond to verbal and/or written comments received at the hearing. We ask that the Commission extend the existing comment due date by at least 30 days if not 60 days.

Third, it is surprising that the economic impacts of this program were not fully evaluated. Modeling could be an expensive proposition for an applicant to develop, especially if it involves multiple parameters and an applicant with limited technical and financial resources (such as a small municipality). It would be useful for DRBC to determine how the costs for a docket applicant may increase and to perform an extensive cost/benefit analysis. We would also ask why a full NEPA review is not required.

Fourth, although non-point source issues are addressed with regard to “facilities”, how will non-pipe discharges (i.e.- roads, parking lots, etc.) be controlled and how does the Commission incorporate their impact when reviewing a docket application.

Lastly, we understand that many stakeholders are providing more detailed comments on the proposal. The magnitude and extent of those comments reflects the uncertainty that the regulated community has in how the program will be implemented. Rather than duplicate their comments, we strongly support a full evaluation and a written response in a follow-up document before any further action is taken by the Commission on this proposal and that any decision on the proposal be tabled at the next Commission meeting on December 12.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Sincerely yours,
Robert F. Molzahn
President