I add my testimony to that of other representatives from across the United States: from South Carolina, from New Hampshire, from Pennsylvania, and Utah. There are many more like us who could also testify to the successes that come from devolution of environmental responsibilities. Because while the issues may be similar across the states, there are marked differences in how those issues should be approached. Quality air, good water, safe waste disposal these are the goals to which we all adhere. Geology, climatic conditions, topography, industrial and commercial activity, population clusters, diversity of natural resources these are some of the variables that make each of our states unique and that require responses that are tailor-made rather than cut down from a one-size-fits-all.
EPA cannot begin to respond to the unique needs and circumstances of each state. The sheer size of this country makes that a foregone conclusion. Rather, EPA works best when it serves as our partner, providing oversight, guidance and assistance.
I say this with profound conviction born of first-hand experience through baptism by fire.
Let me lay out the scene for you:
I was appointed to the TNRCC by Governor George W. Bush in January of 1999. I stepped into the position just as Texas, after 25 years of effort, was delegated responsibility from the EPA for administering the NPDES program. NPDES is the national program for issuing permits to all facilities that discharge wastewater. Permittees range from huge industrial complexes and municipal wastewater treatment facilities to confined animal feeding operations to facilities serving a single subdivision or mobile home park. Permits specify a whole host of criteria: the volume of wastewater that can be discharged under differing conditions as well as the composition of the discharge, such as the concentration of chemicals, nutrients, and other substances contained in the discharge. Those who fail to comply with the terms of the permit face significant penalties. NPDES permits expire after five years; when reissued, they often require the permitted facility to meet tighter discharge parameters. This process ensures continued progress toward enhanced water quality . . . at least in theory.
In reality, the NPDES program for Texas was not in very good condition. When Texas inherited NPDES from EPA we also inherited a backlog of some 4,000 permit files, including many applications, some for renewals, others for new permits. Many of the files were obsolete. Some of the files included applications that were 20 years old . . . and had never been acted on.
This is not to say, however, that no one in Texas was tracking, monitoring, assessing, and, when appropriate, enforcing water quality regulations. The state of Texas was handling these tasks and handling them well. Texas knows how to properly run a water permitting program. During the 25 years that NPDES had remained a federally managed program in Texas, we had been issuing state discharge permits to a much broader universe of facilities. Although NPDES requires permits of all facilities, the program as administered by EPA was focused on major facilities. As demonstrated by the backlog, it was unable to handle most of the minor facilities. Texas waste-water discharge permits, on the other hand, were being issued to all facilities, major and minor. This is significant because we are unique among states in having significantly more almost five times more minor facilities as major ones. Our current tally is about 550 major facilities compared to about 2,500 minor facilities.
Those minor facilities would have fallen through the cracks without our state permitting program. And as we all know, small facilities can have potentially major impacts, and the cumulative effects of this universe of dischargers cannot be ignored.
Basically we were running a system that was parallel to the NPDES but much more comprehensive. Furthermore, the discharge parameters for all permits whether written by EPA or by Texas have always been based on water quality standards set by the state, as provided by the Clean Water Act. The states are the ones with detailed knowledge about the water bodies within our boundaries.
Over the years, we continued to refine our system to reflect our ongoing work in the field. For example, Texas has successfully moved permit renewals to a basin rotation, so that all permits within a given river basin come up for renewal at the same time. This allows us to consider the cumulative impacts of wastewater discharges on water quality, rather than looking at each facility in isolation.
In Texas, like in many other states, the program was working and working well. Overlaying this comprehensive and effective state program with a federal program provided little benefit to the environment and was burdensome to the regulated community.
Fortunately, Texas was delegated the program in September 1998, along with its 4,000 files.
Now, with the new Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, facilities no longer need both a federal and a state permit. They can now apply for a single wastewater discharge permit through a streamlined and more cost-effective permitting process. For entities with complex permits, this means thousands of dollars in cost savings and processing time. For Texas, it means more efficient and effective water quality protection, with permits tailored to the needs and conditions of each local water body and the communities it serves. The end result is efficient protection of our water resources.
Building this new system was not easy. We needed to quickly merge the two permitting systems, absorb the federal backlog, and do so without unduly affecting the many permittees who expect and deserve their new and renewal applications be processed in a timely fashion. It was akin to changing a tire on a moving car.
The TNRCC workload increased dramatically. Nonetheless, after first organizing and categorizing the massive set of inherited files, we set for ourselves an ambitious goal of clearing out in one year (calendar 1999) the permit backlog accumulated by EPA over 20-plus years. I am proud to say we excelled at the job: by January 2000 we had erased the backlog and had the new TPDES program running on an even keel.
How did we do it? There are three parts to that answer. Hard work and know-how are one part. Certainly, we could not have accomplished this feat without the dedication of TNRCC staff and their years of experience in developing wastewater discharge permits, their thorough knowledge of the state's water bodies, and their comprehensive understanding of Texas water quality standards.
Another part of the answer is flexibility. We reallocated resources from other parts of the agency primarily permit writers from our air and waste programs so that we could focus intensive efforts on this project. This type of flexibility is the hallmark of state environmental programs; we can respond to priorities in ways not available to the EPA. In Texas, we see the future of environmental successes not always in prescriptive regulations and procedural mandates but rather in regulatory flexibilities that set clearly defined goals and standards for accountability. This is the way we run our agency and the way we craft our programs.
Finally, the third part of the answer is EPA itself. Region 6, under Regional Administrator Gregg Cooke, provided us with $2.5 million in grants to bring additional resources to the effort. Just as importantly, Region 6 furnished technical resources and provided oversight assistance. Region 6 made delegation work.
TPDES is a success story for everyone: · for the TNRCC, which took an already massive state permitting program and merged it seamlessly with a federal program; · for Texas facilities, which now have a single efficient system for permitting wastewater discharges; · for Texas communities, which enjoy a sound and responsible program for protecting the quality of water in their lakes and rivers; and · for the EPA, which can now focus on its proper role of overseeing and providing resources to ensure successful implementation of Clean Water Act objectives. Through delegation, it has achieved its goals.
In Texas, we firmly believe this success can be replicated in other areas, most notably with the Total Maximum Daily Load program. To EPA we say yes, set the goals, but give us the flexibility to achieve those goals in the most efficient and effective manner, taking into account our unique circumstances. Delegation, not micromanagement, is the key to successful protection of the environment.
Thank you for the opportunity to share this success story with you.