On Tuesday, May 19, 2009, the Iowa Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) elected a new chair, Charlotte Hubbell, an attorney from Des Moines. The new chair is a leading activist on the EPC to expand the independent authority of the panel beyond the limits of its codified authority. Since the new chair has been on the Commission, it has increasingly butted heads with the Administrative Rules Review Committee, the legislative oversight panel.

Comments from Hubbell during the EPC meeting in regards to proposed new water quality rules dealing with chloride, sulfate and total dissolved solids suggest discord will grow.

For example, Hubbell suggested during a discussion on new water quality standards that the state, instead of using road deicers, shut down roadways until the snow and ice can be removed. Additionally during this discussion, she commented that homeowners might have to be prohibited from using water softeners in their home as this process concentrates and elevates the level of chloride and total dissolved solids in the wastewater. The notice rule was approved for public comment by the EPC and DNR prepared EPC agenda materials indicate that between 252 and 520 facilities in the state will not comply with the new standards, most of them in the northwestern one-third of the state that relies on deep groundwater wells of hard water.

The DNR acknowledged to the EPC that for the affected communities, solutions to this problem will not be easy as there are no affordable mechanical or chemical processes to deal with the issue. In most instances, communities will have to explore eliminating water softening processes, switching water sourcing to surface water if available, shipping waste water to a larger more dilute receiving water or diluting the wastewater with consolidated outfalls. In the process of determining what options might best suit the affected system, additional water testing requirements will be triggered to determine site-specific monitoring. The cost to each system is estimated to be nearly $7,500 per year in new testing expenses for at least two years. The noticed rule will be published in June in the Iowa Administrative Bulletin and seven public hearing on the matter are scheduled across Iowa for the July at the following venues:

During the final aspect of the EPC meeting in which DNR provides the panel with reports, Wayne Gieselman, head of the DNR Environmental Services, briefed the EPC on the likely service cuts his division would make to deal with the ~10% general fund budget cut for DNR. He told the Commission that there would be 4 to 5 fewer field office employees dealing with livestock regulatory matters. He also said the agency would scale back its geological services and reduce ground and surface water quality monitoring. As a consequence of these reductions, commissioners should be prepared to hear from the regulated communities about permitting delays.

At the close of Mr. Gieselman’s report and comments, the EPC chair instructed the agency to meet and work with the Attorney Generals office to explore aspects of existing livestock regulatory law. Specifically in regards to the constitutionality of the confinement animal feeding operation construction permit approval/denial appeal process.

While details are very scarce on the bill, several items appear to be certain to be included. A national energy efficiency standard will probably be included, meaning utility customers will be paying more to fund these efforts. Implementing a renewable portfolio standard for utilities to have a certain amount of energy produced from renewable sources will also be in the bill.

The big impact would come from a cap and trade system for greenhouse gases. Under this, a carbon dioxide producer would pay a set rate for each ton produced. Needless to say, this fee would have to come from someone and that someone would be the customer.

According to the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, if the fee for carbon emissions is $20 per metric ton produced Iowans will see their electric bill go up 15 percent. This amount seems slight compared to the 37% percent increase if the bill has the fee at $50 per ton.

The impact of the cap and trade system on consumers is creating a great deal of heartburn for many House Democrats. While Energy and Commerce chair Henry Waxman and subcommittee chair Edward Markey have no trouble driving up utility rates for their constituents, many of their colleagues do. Even House Ways and Means chair Charles Rangel is concerned. “Whether you call it a tax, everyone agrees that it’s going to increase the cost to the consumer,” said Rangel. “At the end of the day … if there’s nothing there to repay [consumers] for their financial expenditures, it might be difficult to fight Republicans who call this a tax.”

2009 End of Session Wrap-up

On Thursday, March 12, 2009, the House Environmental Protection Committee passed House Study bill 267, which became House File 798, by a party-line 12-aye to 9-nay vote. The bill creates a new state Waste Tire Stewardship and Management fund. The fund is financed with a new tire tax of $1 per tire sold at retail.

The tax commences on July 1, 2009, and generates an estimated $3-million in revenue each year. The bill eliminates the existing waste tire management fund, for which the funding mechanism expired in 2006, which funded that program with revenues from a portion of the surcharge on motor-vehicle title transfers that generated about $1-million a year. The new tire tax proposed by HF 798 is not assessed on resold used tires, recapped tires, or bicycle tires.

The bill provides that $400,000 of the funds raised each year are to register and permit waste tire processing, storage and hauling operations. Of the remaining moneys, 10% ($260,000) is used by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for public awareness and education on proper tire and solid waste disposal and recycling; 30% ($780,000) is used by DNR to support a grant program for end users of recycled waste tire products; 15% ($390,000) is used by DNR for grant programs to local governments and 28E entities for prevention, education, and enforcement programs targeting illegal dumping of waste tires, 5% ($130,000) is used to support DNR grants to local public health agencies concerning health and disease vectors posed by illegal waste tire disposal, and 40% ($1,040,000) is for waste tire abatement and illegal solid waste dump site cleanup.

Environmental Panel Okays City Residential Trash Burn Ban Measure

On Monday, March 2, 2009, the House Environmental Protection Committee passed House Study Bill 90 on a party-line 12-aye to 9-nay vote. HSB 90 is a complete ban of residential waste open burning in any municipality across the state. The bill directs DNR to devise and adopt administrative rules to implement a phased-in-ban of the burning of residential waste (which includes landscape materials incorporated areas of cities. The phase-in would start in 2010 (January 1) and apply to any city with a population larger than 2,500. The phase-in would ratchet down in subsequent years with the threshold dropping to city over 1,000 on January 1, 2011; 500 or more on January 1, 2012; and starting on January 1, 2013 any city in the state. The bill was amended in Committee with unanimous support to delete application of the ban to the adjoining unincorporated area within one-quarter of a mile of a city limit. The ban includes burning leaves despite the fact that cities already have the ability to ban leaf burning.

It also allows certain burning activities within cities associated with: (1) agricultural farming activities, (2) natural resources rejuvenative purposes such as proscribed prairies and woodland fires, (3) natural disaster rubbish/debris resulting from a disaster which the Governor has issued proclamation pursuant to Iowa Code section 29.C, and (4) tree and tree trimming open burning by a city at a designated and supervised site. The adopted amendment also removed language in the original bill that would have made it a criminal offense and instead allows for civil penalties.

Opponents to this legislation expressed concerns that this legislation will:

1. impose significant new garbage collection fees on homeowners who live in some of our most income limited communities;
2. increase hauling costs and inconvenience for homeowners who take their own residential waste to landfills that may serve their area which in many cases may be more than 20 to 30-miles one way trip because of recent closure of many landfill in the past two years;
3. further usurp local control over local matters by the state;
4. likely create perverse consequence of pushing some communities to considering disincorporation in order to avoid being subject to this law; and
5. incur even more costly unintended consequence of creating more incentive for person to midnight (illegally) dump in or near small communities in order avoid solid waste pick up charges, or result in residential debris accumulations in communities with limited means of effective enforcement.

DNR Legislation Introduced to Sharply Increase Fees & Prohibit Residential Trash Burning

On Thursday, January 22, 2009, several controversial measures of legislation drafted at the behest of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) were published and assigned to both House and Senate committees dealing with environmental protection issues. One of the measures (House Study Bill 59 and its Senate companion Senate Study Bill 1059) lifts the cap on the amount of fees that DNR charges public water supply permit holders from $350,000 to $1 million effective the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2009. In addition, the measure at least doubles the current permit fee for a non-community public water supply system from $25 to a minimum of $50 a year with the amount being calculated on basis persons served. The measure also stipulates that the calculation of persons served will be based on the maximum monthly numbers, and explicitly expands the scope of the permit requirement to include non-community public water supply systems currently not used for human consumption (toilets or industrial use). This expansion of the scope of regulation will adversely effect the survival of small rural churches and rural businesses which not only have a difficult time in both paying for the additional fees, but even more concerning may be challenged to perform the required water testing aspect of the permit.

HSB 90 phases in a complete ban of residential waste open burning in or near any municipality across the state. The smell of burning leaves in the fall will be just a memory. HSB 90 direct DNR to devise and adopt administrative rules to implement a phased-in-ban of the burning of residential waster (which includes landscape materials) in and around municipalities. The phase-in would start 1-1-10 and apply to any city with a population larger than 2,500 and to the adjacent unincorporated area within one-quarter of a mile of the city limits. The phase-in would ratchet down in subsequent years with the threshold dropping to city over 1,000 on January 1, 2011; 500 or more on January 1, 2012; and starting on January 1, 2013 any city in the state. DNR argues in its support letter attached to the study bill that the reason for the existing exception was that in the past other waste management option weren’t widely available and nor were they affordable. The department now says those condition don’t exist anymore and the human health threat it believes is created by this means of disposal needs to be addressed.

DNR estimates that there are still 309 municipalities that allow some limited burning of household residential waste and 740 continue to allow the burning of leaves and other landscape waste such as dead fall tree limbs and branches. Opponents of this legislation are concerned that not only is this another bite out of taxpayer income but also costs, especially in more rural and distant-from-landfill communities, could reach monthly charges to householders of $40-60 and could subsequently trigger more trash dumping in and near their communities. Another concern is how seasonal landscape waste will be handled, considering that most small communities don’t have the economies of scale to acquire the equipment needed to handle such waste at a low cost that larger cities do. This consideration could change in the future with development of cellulosic biofuels which could utilize landscape waste as a component of feedstock used by such operations.