~ Water Resources Association ~

Water Resource Associations of the Delaware River Basin

Apr '08

Chairman's Message- Spring 2008

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us… and so opens Charles Dickens book “A Tale of Two Cities”. How not so different are the diametrically opposed views on the Delaware River and the management of flows and its reservoirs. All of our members should look to the DRBC web site and read the resource entitled “Setting the Record Strait: Facts Required for an Informed Debate”. Your WRA submitted comments as to the DRBC’s Proposed Rulemaking to Implement a Flexible Flow Management Program for the New York City Delaware Basin Reservoirs. Our letter is available at the WRADRB web site and hopefully our members added their specific comments to those offered on the behalf of our members.

In a recent article written to the Philadelphia Inquirer Gov. Rendell hit several key points and was titled “Flood prevention must be weighed with the need for drinking water”. Quotes such as “Even those who estimate the potential flood relief the reservoirs might produce, admit it is uncertain whether not filling the reservoirs reduces flood crests by a few inches or a few feet” and “The release of reservoir water at low flow also pushes salt water back toward the Delaware Bay. I cannot act in a way that would threaten Philadelphia's drinking water supply in order to reduce flooding” are in the interest of public health and safety for the 50 years when we didn’t have three floods nearing the impact of the 1955 flood. We also experienced severe droughts in the early 1960’s and 1980’s where all of the water supply needed to be maximized. This is also applicable to New Jersey where Trenton, Tri County and the Delaware Raritan Canal all rely upon the Delaware for a potable water supply.

There is no silver bullet or quick answer to the competing views of supply vs. flooding, but all need to be involved.

- Dennis W. Palmer, P.E.

Update: Special Protection Waters in the Lower Delaware

In 2005, despite well-founded concerns of various entities, the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) temporarily classified the Lower Delaware’s 76 miles, from the southern edge of the Water Gap Recreation Area to Morrisville, PA, as Special Protection Waters (SPW)/Significant Resource Waters. Despite receiving extensive comments on the proposed final classification regulations in December, 2007, DRBC is now planning to finalize these regulations at its May 14, 2008, meeting. Also affected is the Lower Delaware’s entire drainage basin:

- In Pennsylvania, the entire Lehigh basin and thence south to Morrisville; west to Berks County; north to Lackawanna/Wayne Counties; south to the Blue Ridge; and northeast to the Delaware at Slateford, PA; and
- In New Jersey, northwest from Trenton in a 3- to 5-mi.-wide strip up to
I-78, northeast up the Musconetcong Valley to north of Newton (Sussex Co.) and down the Appalachians to the Delaware above Columbia, NJ.

The proposed DRBC regulations are complex, yet too vague to allow adequate estimation of their overall cost. DRBC has likewise prepared no cost-benefit analysis, despite repeated requests to do so. While the regulations will undoubtedly discourage further economic investment in the Delaware basin, wastewater dischargers to a municipal plant or stream whose flow ends up in the Lower Delaware may also encounter extra costs from:

- DRBC’s cumbersome project approval process;
- New capital equipment requirements to meet DRBC’s “no measurable change” (NMC) requirement for river quality;
- Strict operational and effluent requirements, even on dischargers meeting NMC in river quality; and
- Sewer rate hikes to pay for advanced wastewater treatment mandates on municipal treatment plants.

Despite elevated bacterial levels in the Delaware basin, DRBC’s goal for the SPW designation is to maintain (not improve) Lower Delaware water quality. If wildlife and runoff are found to cause much of this bacterial contamination, the regulations’ burdens on regulated dischargers will have been misplaced. Unfortunately, DRBC has consistently opposed conducting bacterial source studies to assess the need for these regulations before implementing them. DRBC’s proposed project review thresholds are set relative to 2004 averages. These include new or expanded

(1) Wastewater discharges or “substantial” treatment system alterations (including sequential major equipment replacement in kind) for flows averaging >10,000 gpd OR flows/constituent loadings greater than allowed in a facility’s DRBC docket or NPDES permit;
(2) Water withdrawal projects of >100,000 gpd (monthly average); and
(3) Impoundments of >100 MG capacity.

Projects above thresholds (1) and (2) will be delayed until all municipalities in the project’s service area have implemented a DRBC-approved nonpoint source pollution control plan. This requirement can truly snarl a worthwhile project, as one municipality could have the ability to hold up development in another municipality.

To not fall under these regulations, dischargers must maintain 2004 average treatment plant performance for nutrients and other constituents, not existing NPDES permitted capacities. This is fundamentally unfair. If 2004 was a low-production year for a firm, or (because of rainfall variation) a year of lower flow relative to some future year, a production increase or future higher rainfall could trigger a costly DRBC review. In one discharger’s docket, DRBC indicated it would work with PADEP to constrain future flows/loadings at 29 other dischargers in the subbasin, to achieve NMC. This approach penalizes dischargers with effluent better than permit limits, cutting safety factors for future expansion and protection against noncompliance protection (which results in increased legal exposure). First-come, first-serve capacity allocation, and transferring “excess” capacity from one discharger to another will justifiably unsettle dischargers, as they may face curtailment of their permitted allowances at any time without regard to potential future facility needs or regulatory compliance records.
DRBC-regulated dischargers to the Delaware or its tributaries must provide emergency power, remote alarms, and an emergency management plan. Direct discharges to the Delaware itself are “discouraged,” chlorination for disinfection is banned, and undefined “highest possible treatment levels” are required to limit mixing zones. Direct dischargers to the Delaware must meet best demonstrable technology (BDT) monthly average criteria, including BOD or TSS (10 mg/l), ammonia (1.5 mg/l), total nitrogen (10 mg/l), and total phosphorus (2 mg/l).
Except for disinfection method changes or nutrient removal, projects on the Delaware itself that exceed the above DRBC review thresholds (even if they would improve water quality or cause NMC) must go through a series of hurdles. These steps must prove that

(1) It is technically and/or financially infeasible to stop discharging, or reduce constituent loadings to surface water (e.g. spray irrigation);
(2) It is technically and/or financially infeasible to implement “natural” (e.g. wetlands) treatment;
(3) The project is in the vaguely defined “public interest;”
(4) The project is compliant with the BDT standards; and
(5) The project will cause no measurable change in Delaware River quality (which may require costly modeling).

This sequential process is unduly complex and costly, if step (5) is demonstrable from the start! DRBC-regulated dischargers to tributaries to the Lower Delaware must sequentially meet items (2) and (5).

To simplify and refocus these regulations on the Delaware’s real problems, a group of major Lehigh Valley and New Jersey wastewater treatment providers and public officials met with DRBC on February 11. Not reaching agreement, an advisory committee from the regulated community was suggested (as yet not formed by DRBC) to further discuss the proposed regulations before DRBC action is taken. DRBC did, however, agree to meet again. With DRBC’s May 14, 2008 meeting only a few days away, we are hopeful that there will be more discussion between DRBC and dischargers’ on common issues of concern.

For more information or updates, please contact Ruth Baker, P.E. of Environmental Resources Managment Inc. (ERM) at ruth.baker@erm.com or (610) 524-3511.

WRA thanks Ms. Baker for providing this article and summarizing the issues and concerns of dischargers located in the lower Delaware River.