EPA ANNOUNCES PLAN FOR CLEAN WATER ENFORCEMENT REDEUX-GAO UPDATE JUST POSTED

Hello World Family,
Here's some interesting news from the EPA. Check out today's press release.
Peace,
Falcon and Dove

CONTACT:
Deb Berlin
berlin.deb@epa.gov
202-564-4914
202-564-4355

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 15, 2009

EPA Administrator Announces Plan to Retool and Reinvigorate Clean Water Enforcement Program

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson announced today at a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing that the agency is stepping up its efforts on Clean Water Act enforcement. The Clean Water Action Enforcement Plan is a first step in revamping the compliance and enforcement program. It seeks to improve the protection of our nation’s water quality, raise the bar in federal and state performance and enhance public transparency.

“The safety of the water that we use in our homes -- the water we drink and give to our children -- is of paramount importance to our health and our environment. Having clean and safe water in our communities is a right that should be guaranteed for all Americans,” said Administrator Jackson. “Updating our efforts under the Clean Water Act will promote innovative solutions for 21st century water challenges, build stronger ties between EPA, state, and local actions, and provide the transparency the public rightfully expects.”

The plan announced today outlines how the agency will strengthen the way it addresses the water pollution challenges of this century. These challenges include pollution caused by numerous, dispersed sources, such as concentrated animal feeding operations, sewer overflows, contaminated water that flows from industrial facilities, construction sites, and runoff from urban streets.

The goals of the plan are to target enforcement to the most significant pollution problems, improve transparency and accountability by providing the public with access to better data on the water quality in their communities, and strengthen enforcement performance at the state and federal levels. Elements of the plan include the following:

· Develop more comprehensive approaches to ensure enforcement is targeted to the most serious violations and the most significant sources of pollution.

· Work with states to ensure greater consistency throughout the country with respect to compliance and water quality. Ensure that states are issuing protective permits and taking enforcement to achieve compliance and remove economic incentives to violate the law.

· Use 21st century information technology to collect, analyze and use information in new, more efficient ways and to make that information readily accessible to the public. Better tools will help federal and state regulators identify serious compliance problems quickly and take prompt actions to correct them.

Last July, Administrator Jackson directed EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to develop the plan in response to data showing that the nation’s water quality is unacceptably low in many parts of the country.

More information on the plan: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/cwa/cwaenfplan.html

UPDATE: THIS JUST IN FROM THE GAO

CLEAN WATER ACT
Longstanding Issues Impact EPA’s and States’ Enforcement Efforts

What the GAO Found

In 2000, GAO found variations among EPA’s regional offices in the actions they take to enforce environmental requirements. For example, the regions varied in the inspection coverage of facilities discharging pollutants, the number and type of enforcement actions taken, and the size of the penalties assessed and the criteria used in determining penalties. GAO also found that variations in the regions’ strategies for overseeing state programs may have resulted in more in-depth reviews in some regional programs than in others. Several factors contributed to these variations including differences in the philosophical approaches among enforcement staff about how best to achieve compliance with environmental requirements, differences in state laws and enforcement authorities and how the regions respond to these differences, variations in resources available to state and regional offices, the flexibility afforded by EPA policies and guidance that allow latitude in state enforcement programs, and incomplete and inadequate enforcement data that hampered EPA’s ability to accurately characterize the extent of variations. In 2007, GAO reported improvements in EPA’s oversight of state enforcement activities with the implementation of a state review framework. However, while this framework helped identify several weaknesses in state programs, the agency had not developed a plan for how it would uniformly address these weaknesses or identify the root causes of these weaknesses.

In 2005, GAO reported that the scope of EPA’s responsibilities under the Clean Water Act along with workload associated with implementing and enforcing the act’s requirements had increased significantly. At the same time, EPA had authorized states to take on more responsibilities, shifting the agency’s workload from direct implementation to oversight. In 2007, GAO reported that while overall funding for enforcement activities had increased from $288 million in fiscal year 1997 to $322 million in fiscal year 2006, resources had not kept pace with inflation or the increased responsibilities. Both EPA and state officials told GAO that they found it difficult to respond to new requirements while carrying out previous responsibilities and regional offices had reduced enforcement staff by about 5 percent. In 2005, GAO also reported that EPA’s process for budgeting and allocating resources did not fully consider the agency’s workload, either for specific statutory requirements such as those included in the Clean Water Act or the broader goals and objectives in the agency’s strategic plan. Any efforts made by the agency to develop a more systematic process would be hampered by the lack of comprehensive and accurate workload data.

In 2007, GAO reported that EPA had made substantial progress in improving priority setting and enforcement planning with states through its system for setting national enforcement priorities and this had fostered a more cooperative relationship with the states. Finally, in 2008, GAO reported that EPA could improve the accuracy and transparency of some of the measures that it uses to assess and report on the effectiveness of its civil and criminal enforcement programs. GAO identified shortcomings in how EPA calculates and reports these data that may prevent the agency from providing Congress and the public with a fair assessment of the programs.

WHY THE GAO DID THIS STUDY
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act to help reduce water pollution and improve the health of the nation’s waterways. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers its enforcement responsibilities under the act through its Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), as well as its 10 regional offices and the states.

Over the last 9 years, GAO has undertaken a number of reviews of EPA’s environmental enforcement activities, including for the Clean Water Act. For this testimony statement, GAO was asked to summarize the results of five prior reports on the effectiveness of EPA’s enforcement program. Specifically, this statement includes information on the (1) factors that cause variations in enforcement activities and lead to inconsistencies across regions, (2) impact that inadequate resources and work force planning has had on enforcement, (3) efforts EPA has taken to improve priority planning, and (4) accuracy and transparency of measures of program effectiveness.

GAO’s prior recommendations have included the need for EPA to collect more complete and reliable data, develop improved guidance, and better performance measures. Although EPA has generally agreed with these recommendations, its implementation has been uneven. GAO is not making new recommendations in this statement.