"Moscow likely to see stormwater regulations; EPA plans to list city under Stormwater Phase II program"

What goes around, comes around. I actually hate to see any city subjected to these silly and expensive regulations, but Queen Nancy called down the thunder....

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

The Environmental Protection Agency has again stated its intention to make Moscow face intensive stormwater regulations, but this time the City Council is unlikely to fight it.

The council's Public Works/Finance Committee agreed Monday night that Moscow should accept being listed under the EPA's Stormwater Phase II program instead of trying to appeal the decision. Public Works Director Les MacDonald has estimated it will cost the city about $300,000 a year for the first five years of the program to meet its requirements.

Moscow will be required to develop a comprehensive stormwater management program and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit if it is listed as a regulated small municipal separate storm system under Phase II.

The regulations are designed to manage the quality and quantity of runoff from development and to control stormwater discharge, as well as reduce downstream pollution and contamination.

Moscow was first alerted to the EPA's plans in June 2007. The City Council decided at the time to send the EPA a letter asking for control of its own stormwater system.

The EPA spent the last year reviewing Moscow's situation. MacDonald said EPA officials spoke to him in June and said the new data they'd found confirmed their decision that Moscow should be listed. For example, tests showed that fecal coliform contamination in parts of Paradise Creek is too high.

"City staff has been working on trying to track down where some of that's coming on so we can try to stop it where we can," MacDonald said.

MacDonald said Moscow already has some programs in place that will be required by the Phase II listing, although some of those will need to be beefed up. The city does not actively process stormwater right now, but will have to. The program also requires public education programs, detection and elimination of illicit discharge, and construction run-off control.

He said Moscow will have some flexibility within the program if it chooses not to fight it. The city likely will be able to set milestones for itself and gradually meet the requirements of the program over five years.

MacDonald conducted an analysis of the program's potential effects on the city last year. Based on the analysis, MacDonald estimated the city will need to add four-and-a-half staff members to cover the needs of the program, as well as buy an additional street sweeper and inspection equipment. He estimated the cost would be $300,000 a year on average.

City Supervisor Gary Riedner said Moscow likely will consider a stormwater utility fee to help cover the cost of the program, and MacDonald agreed.

The city of Pullman also is dealing with stormwater regulations from a Washington State Department of Ecology permit issued in early 2007. The estimated cost for the city to meet requirements in the permit's first five years is $4.4 million and the Pullman City Council is contemplating a stormwater utility fee to help recover the costs. Landowners' fees would be based on the amount of impervious surface on their property, and the city is hoping to generate about $800,000 per year.

MacDonald said he's not sure why there is such a big difference between Pullman and Moscow's cost estimates, and said his estimate was "very rough."

"It will likely change," MacDonald said. "It could go up. I doubt it would go down much."

Moscow Public Works/Finance Committee member Wayne Krauss initially expressed interest in fighting the listing.

"I think it's really unfortunate that the federal government, in this case the EPA, stands there with this big hammer over our heads threatening us with a bunch of fines if we don't bow under," he said.

He asked about the city's potential to fight the listing. City Attorney Randy Fife said Moscow has not historically been successful in fighting federal regulations and that the government takes the view that cities eventually comply, one way or another.

"Kind of what you're saying is we're screwed," Krauss said.

Krauss and committee members Dan Carscallen and John Weber eventually decided to recommend to the City Council as a whole not to fight the regulation. Weber said it would be better for Moscow to accept the program than put itself "in the middle of the radar screen" of the EPA.

"City puts brakes on stormwater ordinance; Manager says drafted ordinance will be re-evaluated to make sure it serves 'community as a whole'"

Hallelujah. Pullman merchants and property owners have a brief respite from the business-killing effects of the Department of Ecology's new stormwater mandates.

Of course, if businesses don't bear the majority of the financial burden, then homeowners will. I just wish the ordinance would be finalized before November. That way, Pullman residents could adequately express their feelings toward the Democrats in Olympia that have forced this upon us.

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Kevin Kirkman doesn't believe enough thought was put into the stormwater utility ordinance that was presented to the Pullman City Council in June.

Kirkman, who owns KIP Development in Pullman, said the ordinance doesn't provide incentives to developers that use the environmentally sound management practices already mandated by the city.

Kirkman was among a handful of residents who commented on the drafted ordinance, presented to the council June 3. The comments have led Pullman leaders and staff to shelve the ordinance until it can be tweaked to "best serve the community as a whole," city Stormwater Manager Rob Buchert said.

Kirkman said he has properties throughout Pullman designed in a "forward thinking way" to eliminate stormwater runoff with biofiltration devices and irrigation systems.

"We can't pay for a system to be installed, maintain it and then be charged a tax on it," he said. "We're discharging clean water and there was nothing in the ordinance that addressed that ... If you don't have any discharges, how can you be taxed on something that doesn't exist?"

The ordinance will be re-evaluated and returned to the council for final review in November, rather than August as originally planned. The utility is expected to be in place by spring.

"Once this thing is an ordinance, it becomes more difficult to change," Buchert said. "We want to make every effort to ensure that when we take this to council we have as much support as possible. If it takes a few more months to tailor this to meet Pullman's needs ... that's OK."

The utility ordinance was drafted in response to a municipal stormwater permit issued last year by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Its purpose is to manage the quality and quantity of runoff from development and to control stormwater discharge into sewer systems. The estimated cost for the city to meet requirements in the permit's first five years is $4.4 million.

A consulting firm for the city reported that single-family homes in Pullman have an average of 3,500 square-feet of impervious surface, and that amount has been determined as one equivalent billing unit at a cost of $7 per month. The draft ordinance was followed by a public comment period and only five members of the community formally voiced their opinion on the impending law.

Buchert said the limited feedback isn't enough to know if the draft ordinance is best for Pullman.

Most of the comments pertained to current city laws requiring developers to use environmentally sound stormwater management practices, such as retention ponds to help with water flow and biofiltration systems in parking lots with more than 10 spots. Buchert said the developers and business owners who commented would like their efforts to yield a credit on the stormwater fees.

In the draft ordinance, credits are offered to entities with National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination Systems - a permitting system through the federal 1972 Clean Water Act. Up to 20 percent credits also are available for commercial or industrial businesses that harvest rainwater and public and private schools that pledge to participate in stormwater or surface-water education.

"We definitely wanted to honor the comments submitted and go back to the drawing board on this thing," Buchert said. "Pullman has been discussing this for over three years, so I don't think we've rushed into everything, but we want to approach it as carefully and prudently as possible."

Kirkman hopes that's the case.

"I'm encouraged that there's going to be more thought put into this," he said. "It's going to have a real financial impact on property owners."

Buchert said many portions of the ordinance could be altered following further discussion, including the $7 billing unit.

"If there's any way we can think outside the box to get that rate lower, we'll do everything in our power to do that," he said.

Buchert said the city needs the income from the utility to help recover the costs associated with the permit, but added that big-ticket items such as equipment and additional employees will not be necessary until 2009. Until the utility is created, money will continue to come from the city's street budget.

"From a program management perspective I would have loved to have a budget yesterday, but we'll make it happen," he said. "It is coming. This thing is not going away."

Ed Schweitzer: SEL Will Double in Growth, But Not in Pullman

According to Ed, Washington is not competitive because of Mrs. Gregoire's overregulation and taxes, such as the death tax, the Department of Early Learning, which has made getting child care difficult for some SEL employees, and Ecology's new stormwater regulations, which will cost SEL $20,000 a year. He had some very harsh words for the Queen.

Schweitzer Engineering would like to grow in Washington, but the company, Pullman's larget private employer, is looking at states like Virginia and countries like Mexico instead.

Ed would like to change his mind if Dino gets elected. Think about that when you cast your ballot in November.

Dino on Stormwater

Russ Coggins mentioned the stormwater issue to Dino this morning. As I hoped, Dino said that as governor that he will control thousands of appointments in state government, including the Department of Ecology. He said he would use those appointments to change the tenor in Olympia and make state agencies more focused on customer service and how they can help business rather than hinder it.

"Loopholes do little to ensure clean water"

Since you employees at the Department of Ecology are reading this blog, why don't you pass this editorial on to your managers?

From last Saturday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

No one would consider cutting off their leg to save their foot, but that's the kind of approach the Washington State Department of Ecology has taken in regard to water pollution.

Ecology has thrust costly stormwater permits upon small towns like Pullman in an effort to ensure the quality of downstream waterways yet, it allows billions of gallons of low-concentration pollutants to be poured into Puget Sound every day, according to a report by Seattle-based environmental group People for Puget Sound.

Many of the pollutants are considered harmless in small doses, but collectively amount to significant levels of lead, arsenic, zinc and copper - all of which have the potential to do more damage than anything Pullman lets slip downstream.

The People for Puget Sound-commissioned study indicated that sewage-treatment plants and industrial facilities are routinely allowed by federal and state environmental authorities to violate water-quality standards around pipe outflow areas called "mixing zones."

The study's author, Heather Trim, told The Associated Press that the practice represents a huge loophole in the Clean Water Act.

"The bottom line is, we don't know what harm is being caused, (but) we do know a lot of toxic chemicals are coming out in large amounts," she said.

Most of the mixing zones reviewed in the study are considered too far from shore to harm humans, but there are some notable exceptions, including some discharge points that are upstream from communities' drinking-water intakes.

One of the arguments behind the permitted use of mixing zones is that further diluting pollutants would come at a high expense with little return.

Try telling that to Pullman residents and business owners, who will be expected to pony up more than $1 million per year to comply with a standard of s stormwater permit that fails to consider important factors such as the city's topography and rural nature.

We suggest Ecology and federal environmental authorities take swift action to ensure the quality of the bodies of water it ultimately is trying to protect before it tries to clean up problems that may not exist in other parts of the state.

Perhaps then cities like Pullman will be able to understand why it's so important to make sure their stormwater doesn't stink.

"WSU hotel, conference center in limbo; Corporate Pointe president says weak economy slowing progress"

Remember what Duane Brelsford, Jr. stated about the new stormwater regulations that will cost his Corporate Pointe Developers about $100,000 a year?

What can I say? We actually don't have a say. The state imposes it on the city and the city imposes it on people with impervious surfaces. No one has the money to handle this.

Now, Brelsford is slowing down development of the new WSU hotel and conference center because of the "challenging economic environment."

Listen folks, every time Dino Rossi shows up in Whitman County, we've got to tell him about this stormwater problem and how its killing our economy. Dino needs to pledge to us that he will clean house at the Department of Ecology once he's elected.

From last Tuesday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Construction on a proposed hotel and conference center on the Washington State University campus is on hold due to the state of the economy.

WSU chose Corporate Pointe Developers in December to lead the construction of the estimated $25 million facility, but progress has stalled while the Pullman company hammers out the details necessary to proceed, said Ryan Ruffcorn, a project manager for WSU Capital Planning and Development.

"Obviously, we'd like to have it happen quickly and as soon as possible," he said. "We're not seeing a project built that we feel would be a great asset to the community."

Corporate Pointe still is compiling an outline for the project, which involves securing financing and completing a market analysis and preliminary design, among other things. A nonbinding letter of intent will then be signed by both parties as an agreement to the project's scope.

Corporate Pointe President Duane Brelsford Jr. said the project is stalled because of the "challenging economic environment." In December, he estimated the project could begin late this year, or in early 2009.

He said there is no "average" timeline for projects when the economy is less than ideal.

"What we're struggling with right now is the current economy. That affects construction costs ... finding a long-term lender and development capital," he said. "We're plugging through it slowly. We want to do it once and we want to do it right. We hope the economy starts leveling out after the elections."

The hotel and conference center would be built on North Fairview Drive, just east of the WSU Student Recreation Center. The project is expected to include a 120-room hotel and 20,000-square-foot conference center.

Brelsford has indicated that he wants his company to own and manage the facilities upon completion and lease the land from the university. He also plans to build condominiums on an adjacent property and is gathering a team of investors for the project.

Brelsford said although progress is slow, the university should not question his team's commitment to in the project.

"We are the intended developers for the project," he said. "We are committed to make this project work. We want it to be successful; that's why we're taking it slow."

Ruffcorn said the university is prepared to be patient.

"We understand there are a lot of different issues that impact a process. A lot of things have to come together. It's possible that it could take a while to reach that deal point," he said. "But we're hopeful that we'll be able to reach an agreement."

Ruffcorn said although WSU does not have a binding contract with Corporate Pointe, the university hasn't yet started looking for another developer to work with. For now, university officials will chalk up the delay to documents being fine-tuned, he said.

"We don't want to go through the process and have it fail," he said. "We haven't set a date to say, 'You have to have this in place and that we have to have it complete' ... We just want to partner with (Brelsford) to make a successful project.

"We would consider stopping negotiations if the developer is not actively trying to work the problem and not putting their best effort forward ... and that's not the case," he added. "We've selected them, and we're not negotiating with anyone else."

"Washington stormwater rules hit state highway department; Department of Transportation permit will run about $16M to implement"

The out-of-control state bureaucracy is eating itself now. The headline should read, "Department of Transportation permit will cost taxpayers about $16M a year to implement," however, because WSDOT doesn't actually generate a profit. We pay the bills through our nationally-high gas taxes and vehicle registration fees. So who do you think will be picking up this new tab?

This stormwater monster needs to have a stake driven through its heart and fast, before it destroys the whole state.

From yesterday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

The Washington State Department of Transportation soon will expand its regulation of stormwater runoff from state highways, park-and-ride lots, ferry terminals, maintenance facilities and rest stops.

The state Department of Ecology has drafted a stormwater permit specific to WSDOT that likely will go into effect in July.

The permit is equivalent to one issued to the city of Pullman in February 2007, designed to manage the quality and quantity of runoff from development and to control stormwater discharge into waterways. Ecology also is pressing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to issue Moscow a similar permit because of its effect on area rivers and streams across the Washington border.

State Transportation Communications Director Lloyd Brown said how the pending permit will affect the Pullman area - and specifically the Pullman-Moscow Highway and the adjacent Paradise Creek - is unknown. The highway's recent widening project was constructed using best management practices and likely won't need to be retrofitted to meet the new permit's requirements.

"We're not new to stormwater management. We've had stormwater practices in place for two decades or more," he said. "We know the effect of stormwater on the local environment."

Brown said the new permit is expected to cost the transportation department nearly $16 million more per year to implement. Most of the costs will come from increased inspection and maintenance, along with the additional inventory and mapping duties to ensure stormwater runoff is managed and properly disposed of. The department has up to 24,000 discharge points into state waterways which will need increased monitoring.

Brown said the two state agencies are expected to work together with state legislators to find money to pay for the expanded permit program.

Bill Hashim, an environmental planner with the Department of Ecology, said most state highway infrastructure was built before the federal Clean Water Act was set in motion, which means that some older, existing highways may need to be upgraded to meet the requirements of new stormwater standards.

"A rule of thumb is if you own a place where water flows, whether or not you generate it, it's your problem," Hashim said. That means the stormwater that runs across the Pullman-Moscow Highway before it enters Paradise Creek "is their problem."

Brown said the new permit will replace the transportation department's existing National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. Many cities on the state's west side are expected to meet similar regulations as part of Ecology's municipal stormwater permit Phase 1. Cities in the eastern portion of the state were issued similar permits during Phase 2 in 2007.

Hashim said it makes sense to issue the transportation department its own permit.

"Since their highway system is so unlike any municipalities and their facilities are so unlike a municipalities, we wanted to tailor a permit for them," he said.

Hashim said the department will be required to increase its testing of stormwater into area waterways for both the type and amount of pollution found in runoff and the effectiveness of best management practices. Whether or not this testing will occur along Paradise Creek has yet to be determined. He said the transportation department will choose five testing sites statewide and have been asked to choose an eastern Washington location where traffic counts are between 30,000-100,000 vehicles per day.

"The potential could be that the urbanizing corridor between Moscow and Pullman could be chosen," he said. "My guess is that it will be the Spokane area or the Pullman area that they pick."

A comment period opened Wednesday to allow for public input of the drafted permit. It is available online at www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/wsdot.html.

Written and oral comments on the drafted permit will be accepted through 5 p.m. on Tuesday, June 24 to Hashim at bhas461@ecy.wa.gov, or by mail to P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA. 98504. Two workshops also have been scheduled to further explain the permit and answer questions from the public. The workshop for this region will be at 1 p.m., June 4 in Spokane at the Spokane Shadle Library.

After the workshops, Ecology will weigh public comment and concern and draft a formal permit, which likely will go into effect by July, Hashim said.

"Washington State Department of Ecology sets its sights on Moscow; Agency urges EPA to issue stormwater permit across state line"

It's always a bit weird to read a news story that I know I had a hand in making.

At a December 2006 Pullman Town Hall meeting, I spoke against the Department of Ecology's proposed stormwater permitting for Pullman. I said it would stop needed growth in Pullman and lead to development heading over to Moscow.

Afterwards, I spoke at length about my concerns with David Duncan and three other representatives of the Department of Ecology. One asked me if Moscow were subjected to the same requirements, would that be more fair and ease the pain a bit. Of course, at that time, Moscow had been egregiously interfering in the corridor, opposing James Toyota and the Hawkins development partially based on stormwater concerns. I figured what was good for the goose was good for the gander and said, sure, let Moscow be hoisted on its own petard. Since that time, Ecology employees have been regular readers of Palousitics I have logged somer 25 distinct IP addresses from DOE (it's the 39th highest source of blog traffic.) Has this had anything to do with their thoughts about Moscow? I don't know, but at least partially perhaps.

My stance was validated several months later when Moscow said it would actively oppose stormwater permitting by the EPA, in essence rejecting for itself the standards it was demanding for Whitman County. Pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.

But, after last November's Moscow City Council election, things have changed dramatically. Moscow is now no longer opposing growth in the corridor, but is actively helping it. The Cold War is over.

On the one hand, I think that requiring stormwater permitting for Moscow will maintain a level playing field, reducing the temptation for businesses to locate or relocate there.

On the other hand, stormwater permitting for both cities will just drive all business away from the Palouse when its not necessary, either for us or for Moscow.

Ecology's offer to nail Moscow is nothing more than a bit of disingenuous sugar to make the castor oil go down better. I agree with Keith Bloom that the ultimate win/win is that NEITHER CITY should be forced to comply with the regulations.

From Saturday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Washington State Department of Ecology leaders believe Moscow should be held just as accountable for the quality of its stormwater runoff as in Pullman.

David Duncan, an ecologist with the Water Quality Program in Spokane, said the state supports the possibility of the Environmental Protection Agency's listing Moscow as a small municipal stormwater entity. The designation would force Moscow to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, and develop a comprehensive stormwater management program.

Duncan said Moscow should be issued a permit out of fairness because of its proximity to Pullman and because the two cities share waterways. Pullman was issued a stormwater permit by the Department of Ecology in February 2007 as part of a mandatory, statewide program.

The requirements, which Duncan said could be viewed as more stringent than federal guidelines, are intended to help municipalities detect and eliminate illegal discharges, reduce contamination of downstream waters, create good housekeeping practices for existing systems and educate the public.

"We believe ... there should be fairness across the state line," said Duncan, adding that Lewiston was issued an EPA stormwater permit because of its proximity to the Washington cities of Clarkston and Asotin. "At the department, people all the way up to the top think Moscow is a significant stormwater pollutant contributor ... We're regulating Pullman, and we think there's a justification that Moscow be included too."

The Moscow City Council sent a letter to the EPA in August, requesting the city not be required to obtain a permit and citing a list of current and proposed steps it is taking to regulate its stormwater.

Misha Vakoc, EPA stormwater permit coordinator in Seattle, said a decision has not yet been made regarding Moscow's participation in the program. She is aware of the Department of Ecology's opinion on the issue.

The city of Pullman and other Washington municipalities are appealing the permits to the state's Pollution Control Hearings Board. Pullman city officials claim the area's unique topography, soil types and clay levels make permit compliance difficult. The hearings board has yet to render a decision on the appeal.

Duncan said Pullman was considered a "bubble city," meaning it was up to ecologists to determine whether the city emits enough pollutants into waterways to be issued a permit.

Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney said she isn't surprised that Washington state has expressed its concerns to the EPA.

"I think it's perfectly appropriate that the Department of Ecology weighs in with an opinion," she said. "If someone's fishing for animosity, it's not going to happen."

Pullman City Councilman Keith Bloom said he doesn't wish the regulations of a stormwater permit on his Moscow neighbors. Pullman may have to create a new utility to help recover the costs for the first cycle of the 5-year stormwater permit, which has been estimated to be more than $4 million to implement.

"I think that Ecology erred in applying it to Pullman and other smaller cities in eastern Washington," Bloom said. "It will hurt our economy ... Some people may say, 'If we have to clean up the water, sure, it should apply to Moscow, too.' But it's not, 'What's fair for us should be fair for them.' It's not fair for us and it's not fair for them.

"I really don't think one state's agency should be trying to influence the politics of another state ... If I was the city of Moscow, I would be a bit offended that the state of Washington is trying to (impose) their will on me."

Chaney admits an EPA stormwater permit likely would cause a financial hardship for the city, but added that the quality and quantity of water should be a consideration for all municipalities in the area.

"Something should be done," she said. "I think it's absolutely time that this become a regional conversation. We do need to be talking to each other and saying what we think."

Jim Carroll, a Department of Ecology ecologist, said he is deciphering water quality data taken from the South Fork of the Palouse River, Paradise and Missouri Flat creeks and other small tributaries in and around Pullman. The tests - conducted in 2006 and 2007 - will reveal the amount of a particular pollutant that a body of water can contain while still meeting state quality standards.

Test results are expected sometime this summer and will include the levels of bacteria, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, pH, ammonia and temperature in the water.

Carroll said a testing site on Paradise Creek was set up along the Idaho border "to determine what's crossing the line into Washington." He added that the tests are not connected to the state municipal stormwater permits, but are conducted in areas that have historically not met water standards to ensure water quality throughout the Washington.

"New fees may stymie growth"

Gordon Forgey, publisher of the Whitman County Gazette, had another great editorial in yesterday's edition of the Gazette.

Forgey provides a précis of growth in Pullman over the last thirty, what went wrong (driving business ovre to Moscow) and what went right (SEL.)

As Forgey points out, there has been opposition to recent growth and Pullman by the birkendorks as they are losing their power now that the university is no the be-all end-all in Pullman any longer. But their power to stop growth is minimal, and getting even more minimal all the time.

No, it really takes a good government bureaucracy to bring everything to a screaming halt. I love Gordon's term "The Boeing Syndrome." Welcome to Washington, the Evergreen State. That green represents treehuggers, not money.

Pullman is gradually gaining ground as a regional center. Aside from Washington State University, Pullman has long been overshadowed by Moscow, Idaho. Moscow is where people went to shop, dine and be entertained.

Pullman and Whitman County, more or less, let it happen. In local terms Pullman was Clarkston to Moscow’s Lewiston. For years, the business community of Pullman was smaller than its population would indicate, so much was leaving the city.

The change from being the step-sister of the Palouse has been steady, but slow. Schweitzer Engineering and other new companies have brought a new strength to the local economy. Pullman is no longer just a university town. New residential areas have been opened up. Slowly, new retail opportunities have given city and county consumers a reason to shop there. A new retail center outside the city will give more opportunities as well as generate new taxes that will benefit everyone in the county.

The changes and some proposed upcoming changes have been slow and steady. The city is gradually changing. The growth in Pullman has not been without controversy and protest.

A new complication has been added. Stormwater fees, the result of state and federal mandates, may slow growth in and around the city. All existing and new impervious surfaces that generate runoff into storm drains could face new fees.

Mitigation of the problem is expected to cost over four million dollars. That mitigation effort will have to be paid for by new fees.

Counties, cities and individual residents and businesses must be environmentally responsible. Pullman, in some respects, needs to clean up long standing pollution problems. Still, there has to be a better way to solve just a part of those probems than to mandate assessements on all pre-existing estabishments.

It is the Boeing Syndrome—take what you can and worry about how it affects business in the future. As we all know, Boeing is headquartered now in Chicago and has expanded its operations in Kansas.

Quotes of the Day

That’s a classic example of taxation without representation

- Port of Whitman Commissioner Bob Gronholz

Even a guy like Ed, you can only put on so many fees before he decides to move the company [SEL] to Mexico

- Whitman County Commissioner Jerry Finch

Well, Moscow’s not too far away

- Port of Whitman County executive director Joe Poire

All these great quotes on the Department of Ecology's business-killing stormwater requirements for "bubble city" Pullman are from the article below from yesterday's Whitman County Gazette:

Pullman stormwater fees

State and federal regulations on stormwater runoff in Pullman could mean the city will have to institute a series of fees for businesses and residences that have surfaces which collect precipitation and send water into the city’s stormwater system.

The aim is to minimize the amount of water that is discharged into waterways via storm runoff.

The state Department of Ecology was directed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency to permit stormwater discharge in all cities after the Clean Water Act was amended to include stormwater in 1987.

Rob Buchert, Pullman’s new Stormwater Services Manager, said the city was one of 10 “bubble cities” the state identified as being in need of a stormwater permit.

Instituting the necessary infrastructure and monitoring systems to treat the water released into waterways is estimated to cost more than $4.4 million.

“As efficient as we want it to be, there are a tremendous amount of requirements and deadlines we are forced to meet,” said Buchert.

Most of the money to cover those expenses will be generated by fees imposed on properties with impervious surfaces that send runoff water into streams and rivers. The fees will cost $7 per month for every 3,500 square feet of impervious surface on a person’s property.

“That’s a classic example of taxation without representation,” commented Port of Whitman Commissioner Bob Gronholz.

Those fees will hit companies at the Port of Whitman’s Pullman facilities particularly hard, said Debbie Snell, port facilities manager.

The port has sold off most of its property in the Pullman Industrial Park, but the new fees could be a significant hit to companies who have bought that land.

“This is fairly minor to us,” said Snell. “But it will definitely affect our tenants, and Schweitzer especially.”

Susan Fagan, spokesperson for Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories (SEL), said 800,000 square feet of impervious surface on the SEL campus could bring about fees in excess of $20,000. Those extra fees could force the company to rethink expansion plans, she added.

“Even a guy like Ed, you can only put on so many fees before he decides to move the company to Mexico,” commented County Commissioner Jerry Finch.

Finch added his own properties throughout Pullman could add an additional $10,000 to his annual utility bill.

Not only are companies at the Pullman Industrial Park facing steep fees, future tenants at the port’s Locust Grove Industrial Park north of Pullman may have to consider the costs. The port last November purchased 53 acres of land near the junction of State Route 27 and the Albion-Pullman Highway for the development of the new industrial park.

“The port will certainly take the new rules under consideration, but it won’t stop us,” said Snell. “We want to have the development, but we also want to be good environmental stewards.”

Port officials hope the new industrial park, which they intend to annex into Pullman, will be home to several spin-off businesses from its Innovation Partnership Zone and the Green Information Technology Alliance, which is researching technologies that will re-use energy from supercomputers.

“As we develop Locust Grove, these new fees will have to be taken into consideration,” said Snell. “It is unfortunate, but the money has to come from somewhere.”

Tenants at the new industrial park will have to minimize the amount of impervious surfaces on their lots in the future.

“Well, Moscow’s not too far away,” Joe Poire, port executive director, said, implying the fees may push new businesses across the border to Idaho to avoid the stormwater costs.

The fees will pay for a new department in the city’s public works to administer the nearly 1,000 stormdrains and 80 pipes that discharge water into streams.

Recent water quality tests by the DOE have turned up high water temperatures and high levels of pH and fecal coliform bacteria in the South Fork of the Palouse River. [much of which came from the sewage treatment plant in Moscow that was recently fined by the EPA. ironic, isn't it?- tf]

Red Stormwater Rising

Well, I hope the envirocrats at the Department of Ecology are happy. Their inane stormwater permitting is going to hurt Pullman's two most successful private businesses: Duane Brelsford, Jr.'s Corporate Pointe Developers and SEL. In fact, SEL now says it is reconsidering any further expansion in Pullman. Pullman immune from the national economic slowdown? Not for much longer....

The next time Dino Rossi is in Whitman County, we will have to plead our case to him and hope that he will provide some relief when he is (re)elected governor. It's for sure the Queen will never help us.

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

PULLMAN: Stormwater costs discourage businesses

Corporate Pointe Developers, SEL among those who will have to pay the most

Duane Brelsford doesn't have much to say about Pullman's proposed stormwater utility ordinance.

The Corporate Pointe Developers president may be one of those hardest hit by the ordinance, which will charge stormwater fees to businesses and home owners within city limits.

"What can I say? We actually don't have a say," he said. "The state imposes it on the city and the city imposes it on people with impervious surfaces. No one has the money to handle this."

The fees are expected to be based on outdoor impervious surfaces, which means that Brelsford's more than 5 million square feet of property - which includes about 1,600 living units and retail spaces such as the Pullman Athletic Club and Fireside Grille - could cost him as much as $100,000 a year in fees.

Pullman leaders are drafting the ordinance that likely will be implemented by Oct. 1. Stormwater Services Manager Rob Buchert said the new utility is the city's most realistic option to recover the costs associated with the Washington State Department of Ecology-issued municipal stormwater permit. The permits were issued to municipalities throughout the state in 2007 and are designed to manage the quality and quantity of runoff from development and to control stormwater discharge into area waterways.

Buchert said the city needs to bring in about $800,000 per year to pay for costs associated with the five-year permit, estimated at about $4.4 million. The utility fees will help create a new arm of the city maintenance department to oversee the nearly 1,000 stormdrains and roughly 80 pipes that discharge stormwater into area waterways and will help create a savings account to pay for costs associated with the second permit cycle, which is to begin in 2012.

Consultants aiding the city in drafting the ordinance have taken aerial photographs to calculate an estimated fee structure. They have estimated that single-family homes in Pullman have about 3,500 square feet of impervious surfaces on average, and that figure has been determined to be one equivalent billing unit at a cost of a proposed $7 per month.

For developed nonresidential property, the square footage of impervious surface would be divided by 3,500 to determine the number of billing units. Impervious surfaces include the asphalt in parking lots and roofs on structures, which do not allow water to penetrate, causing untreated runoff to stream into area waterways.

Susan Fagan, director of public affairs for Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, finds the proposed ordinance discouraging, considering the company takes measures to prevent stormwater pollution and employs the best management practices for every construction project on its Pullman campus.

"We have done a lot of stormwater pollution prevention. We care about the environment in which we operate and we care about the environment in which we live ... but this seems like overkill," she said.

Fagan said SEL owns 800,000 square feet of impervious surface, and the company could have to pay an annual stormwater utility fee of about $20,000. That additional cost could mean the company may rethink ideas to build further facilities on the campus. SEL's most recent plans included construction of a hotel to complement the SEL Event Center built in 2006.

The proposed ordinance "certainly causes us to pause and question whether we would expand in Pullman," she said. "Expansion means growth and jobs and investment in our community. And when it becomes unreasonable ... responsible businesses are going to give a lot of thought to whether or not they should expand. Every square foot you pave or put a building on, or create some impervious surface, you'll be punished."

Fagan said the costs likely will be passed on to consumers of the company's high-tech products.

"How does any company recover its costs? Either you suck it up and absorb it, or you pass it on to your customers. And anytime there's added expense, it's obviously going to impact our customers," she said.

Brelsford agreed. He said rental rates on his dwelling units likely will go up, and he'll also have to charge more to his retail renters, which will likely result in increased costs to their customers.

"All the costs will be passed on. It'll increase the cost of living in Pullman, which is already high," he said. "Will the market support that added debt? That's the challenge."

Living Faith Fellowship Administrator Tom Weaver said the church doesn't have the convenience of passing the cost onto customers. He estimates the church may be required to pay roughly $6,500 per year in stormwater utility fees for its worship facility and private Pullman Christian School.

"We're a nonprofit," he said. "It would be a tremendous burden. We're all for clean water and all for being responsible citizens ... but the fees and taxes will be a huge burden that we didn't plan for."

Weaver said the congregation has been financially supportive of the church, but asking more of them would be tough. Raising tuition at Pullman Christian School is a last resort.

"We have to face it when it comes," he said.

Buchert said credits on stormwater fees likely will be available, though they're limited for now. The draft ordinance allows a 20-percent credit to entities that have a National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System, which is a permitting system under the federal 1972 Clean Water Act. Only four entities qualify for the credit - the Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport, UPS and the city transit and sewer treatment plant. Washington State University, which was issued a municipal stormwater permit as a secondary permittee, also will receive a 20-percent credit.

Credits of as much as 20 percent will be granted to commercial or industrial businesses that harvest rainwater, most commonly used for landscape irrigation. The credit will only apply to impervious surfaces the water is harvested from, such as rooftops, and does not apply to home owners at this time.

Buchert said schools throughout Pullman - both private and public - will be eligible for credits of as much as 20 percent for participating in stormwater or surface water education.

"To get there, we have to justify to the other ratepayers and pretty much the state auditor that the schools are providing services that are equal or greater than the fees," he said.

Buchert added that not only home and business owners in Pullman will be responsible for utility fees. The city itself will also fork over money for its impervious surfaces, though streets are exempt since they'll be considered part of the stormwater facility.

"It's very important that everyone pays, even the city," he said. "We're asking every community member large and small to help us participate in this and participate in being in compliance."

Business Killer

Let's examine some facts about stormwater runoff in Pullman:

No matter how much money we spend or what efforts we make, due to topography, soil, and agricultural land use, the South Fork of the Palouse River will run chocolate brown before it gets to Pullman and chocolate brown after it leaves Pullman. Our stormwater efforts are equivalent to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Pullman is a hundred miles or more upstream from the Snake River, roughly 300 miles upstream from the mouth of the Columbia River, and not connected to the Puget Sound drainage at all.

Name one endangered species that lives in the drainage of the Palouse River. Salmon and trout have not lived in the river since at least 12,000 years ago when the Glacial Lake Missoula flood formed Palouse Falls.

Much of the impairment of the South Fork of the Palouse River that we are being required to correct originated at the Moscow Sewage Treatment Plant upstream on Paradise Creek. Moscow was recently fined by the EPA for these numerous and egregious violations.

Despite all this, the Washington Department of Ecology proceeded with imposing the onerous Phase II stormwater permitting on Pullman anyway. Now, Pullman taxpayers have gotten a proposed bill.

Homeowners may have to pay up to $80 extra a year. That's bad enough, but the impact on local business is going to be even worse. Gee, thanks, pencil-pushing bureaucrats in Olympia.

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Pullman stormwater fees could be significant for businesses

Pullman business owners with more than one acre of property may be expected to pay more than $1,000 a year in utility fees to help the city recover costs incurred by a mandatory permit intended to clean up the state's waterways.

Businesses with 10 acres could face annual fees of nearly $11,000.

John Knutson, a consultant for Otak Inc., outlined estimated stormwater utility fees for business and home owners during a forum at Pullman City Hall on Monday night.

The forum - which included a panel of speakers - was the first of many meetings to educate the public about the Washington State Department of Ecology permits, issued to municipalities across the state in January 2007.

Knutson said the implementation of a stormwater utility was the most realistic way to raise roughly $800,000 a year to help pay for the first five-year cycle of the permit, which has been estimated to cost $4 million.

Washington State University is a co-permittee and will be expected to address the same issues as the city. The university cannot employ a stormwater utility, and must seek other funding mechanisms to meet compliance standards.

Knutson said most stormwater utilities are based on a property's impervious surface, which include impenetrable materials such as rooftops, asphalt and brick. These materials repel water and prevent precipitation from reaching the soil, leading to runoff. Otak was hired in 2006 to help pinpoint the city's strengths and weaknesses in regard to stormwater. Otak staff assessed 340 Pullman residences via air photos to calculate an estimated fee structure. On average, a single-family home in Pullman has 3,500 square feet of impervious surface, and that amount has been determined to be one equivalent billing unit at a cost of about $7 per month.

For developed nonresidential property, the amount of impervious surface would be divided by 3,500 to determine the number of billing units.

For example, Knutson said a drive-through restaurant on one-acre would likely pay in the neighborhood of $87.50 per month. A 10-acre commercial property would be billed close to $900 per month. He added that vacant or undeveloped property will not be charged a utility fee, and duplexes and triplexes will be considered half a billing unit because they tend to have less impervious surfaces.

City Finance Director Troy Woo put the $7 billing unit in perspective, and said sewer and water utility fees for single-family homes are around $18 per month. [Gee, let's put that in another perspective: That's adding 39% to your monthly water bill. Not an inconsequential increase. But this is the government we're talking about here. - tf]

Pullman home owner Paul Spencer said he can handle the $7 per month. The information in the meeting helped him become aware that nearly everything - even owning a car - can affect stormwater quality. [Oh, brother. - tf]

"Anything we can do to help the situation is good," he said. "Being aware of the problem plays a big part in its solution."

Pullman Stormwater Services Manager Rob Buchert said the utility is only one component of complying with the permits, which were designed to manage the quality and quantity of runoff from development and to control stormwater discharge into sewer systems. The requirements are intended to help municipalities detect and eliminate illegal discharges, reduce contamination of downstream waters, create good housekeeping practices for existing systems and educate the public.

The utility fees will help create a new arm of the city maintenance department to oversee the nearly 1,000 stormdrains and roughly 80 pipes that discharge stormwater into area waterways. A new pumper truck also will be purchased to clean out storm drains, and miles of old storm-drain lines also will need to be replaced.

The draft ordinance necessary to implement the stormwater utility is expected to be completed sometime in May. A public hearing will be scheduled, and the ordinance would be passed on to the Pullman City Council for adoption.

Elaine Snouwaert, watershed coordinator for the Department of Ecology and a member of the panel at the meeting, said the permits are necessary to ensure area waterways are clean for animals and future generations. She explained that stormwater is not treated before it is discharged into streams and rivers.

"Everything on the ground can become pollutants when it rains," she said.

Snouwaert said recent water quality tests conducted on the South Fork of the Palouse River have shown the water temperature is high and there are high levels of dissolved oxygen, pH and fecal coliform bacteria. Paradise Creek and Missouri Flat Creek also have been deemed impaired.

"City planning for stormwater utility changes; Forum will address ordinance, how it will affect residents, business owners"

Get ready to open up your wallets, Pullman residents and business owners. The Department of Ecology's $4 million unfunded mandate to save non-existent salmon in the Palouse River is going to be funded by someone: Y-O-U. Too bad more people didn't stand up to try and stop this insanity. Now it's too late.

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Pullman city leaders are working on a plan to cover the costs incurred by a mandatory statewide stormwater permit program.

Stormwater Services Manager Rob Buchert said an ordinance soon will be presented to create a municipal stormwater utility, aimed to bring in about $800,000 from residents per year.

Buchert said the ordinance is a necessary evil to help the city pay for the first cycle of a five-year Washington Department of Ecology permit that has been estimated to cost roughly $4 million to implement. The ordinance will have to be approved by the City Council.

"This is not an additional tax," Buchert said. "This is a fee for services, just like water and sewer."

The state issued permits to municipalities in January 2007 that set strict guidelines on stormwater management. The permits were designed to manage the quality and quantity of runoff from development and to control stormwater discharge into sewer systems. The requirements are intended to help municipalities detect and eliminate illegal discharges, reduce contamination of downstream waters, create good housekeeping practices for existing systems and educate the public.

Buchert said the fees will help pay for inventory and maintenance of the city's estimated 1,000 storm drain catch basins and roughly 80 pipes that empty into area waterways, such as the North Fork of the Palouse River and Missouri Flat Creek.

"You never know when someone will dump motor oil (down a storm drain), or which pipe will be affected by pollution next," he said, noting that obvious toxins include antifreeze and motor oil, though soap from car washes also can be dangerous because it can change water's pH balance.

"The cumulation of all of those - without a doubt - will have an effect on our waterways," he said.

Public Works Director Mark Workman said the utility payments will be collected from residents and businesses that pay Pullman for water and sewer. People who own land in city limits that isn't served by utilities, such as compacted gravel parking lots, also will be subject to fees because of the impervious surfaces of their property.

Impervious surfaces include rooftops, sidewalks, roads, and parking lots covered by impenetrable materials such as asphalt, concrete, brick and stone, Workman said. These materials seal surfaces, repel water and prevent precipitation from infiltrating the soil, leading to runoff.

Workman said the original goal was to present the draft ordinance to the public during a stormwater information forum slated for Monday at Pullman City Hall. But the language requires more tweaking and the draft more likely will be presented to residents sometime in May. However, residents will get a sense of how the permits work and a ballpark figure of what they may have to pay in fees at Monday's meeting.

Buchert said the forum, which will be led by a panel of speakers and include a question-and-answer session, is designed to fulfill the public information requirement of the permit. The forum is sponsored by the city, Pullman League of Women Voters and the Pullman Chamber of Commerce.

"Step one is really getting people to realize that none of the storm drains go into the wastewater treatment plant. It's going into the waterways," he said. "The Department of Ecology really wants to see an active campaign to make people aware of how their actions affect water in the storm-drain system."

Buchert said the first few years of the permit focus on education. The state won't begin strictly monitoring progress until the third year.

Workman said some residents may find it difficult to understand what they're paying for.

"It's not like you can say, 'Well, for this monthly payment, I'm getting this service.' It's a much harder concept to sort of get your arms around, because it's more general and programmatic," he said. "There's much more to the stormwater program that we're being required to implement ... It's related to overall cleaning up the environment through program methods."

IF YOU GO

WHAT: Pullman stormwater information forum

WHEN: 7 p.m. Monday

WHERE: Pullman City Hall

WHY: The forum is designed to kick-start the public education portion of a Washington State Department of Ecology municipal stormwater permit issued to the city in January 2007. The forum will be led by a panel of speakers from the city, Department of Ecology, Washington State University and Otak, Inc., a consulting firm that has helped the city with the initial phases of the permit cycle. The forum will be televised on local channel 13. Residents unable to attend the forum but who have questions can contact Rob Buchert at (509) 338-3314 or by e-mail at rob.buchert@pullman-wa.gov.

"Moscow City still waiting for EPA decision"

If Moscow, which is upstream from Pullman, is not required to implement the Phase II stormwater regulations when Pullman has already been forced to do so, it will prove the whole process is just a sham and a farce.

From yesterday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

The city of Moscow should hear from the Environmental Protection Agency regarding its Stormwater Phase II status in the next four to six weeks, EPA officials say.

The City Council sent the EPA a letter in August asking not to be subject to Phase II stormwater regulations. It anticipated receiving a reply in the fall.

"They (the EPA) just haven't made their decision yet," Moscow Public Works Director Les MacDonald said.

If Moscow is listed as a regulated small municipal separate storm system under Phase II, it will be required to develop a comprehensive stormwater management program and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, according to a letter sent by an EPA Region 10 official in June.

The regulations are designed to manage the quality and quantity of runoff from development and to control stormwater discharge. The requirements are intended to reduce downstream pollution and contamination.

The council members who voted to send the August letter said Moscow should be self-guided as it improves stormwater management.

EPA spokesman Jeff Philip said the EPA has delayed its decision because it still is looking at the data.

"It's taking a while to go through the data and really make a solid determination on whether (Moscow) should be included or not," Philip said.

Philip said there is no firm deadline for the decision, "but we want to get it done as soon as possible so they're not waiting and we're not waiting."

Mixed Econuts: Unfunded Mandates

Get ready to reach into your wallets to protect the non-existent Palouse River salmon. Dino Rossi needs to clean house at the Department of Ecology after he is elected. From last Wednesday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Pullman accepts state money for stormwater work

Pullman City Councilman Keith Bloom doesn't mind being a rebel.

Bloom cast the lone opposing vote Tuesday as the council voted to accept $50,000 in state funding to help the city institute elements of statewide municipal stormwater permits issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology in February 2007.

The permits have been viewed locally as a heavy-handed way to manage runoff from development and control stormwater discharges into sewer systems, with a goal of reducing pollution and contamination of downstream waters. Permits also require municipalities to manage construction stormwater, detect and eliminate illegal discharges, create good housekeeping practices for existing systems and educate the public.

The council and city staff have protested the permits because of the city's unique topography and because Pullman already has many protective measures in place.

The cost to implement the five-year permit is expected to exceed $4 million. The city was given a $75,000 grant from the state in 2007, and the council has discussed creating a stormwater utility district to help pay for the permit costs.

The city is appealing the permits along with several other members of the Washington Association of Cities.

Bloom said his opposing vote was meant to be symbolic.

"A vote 'yes' means we begin the process to raise taxes. It's blood money," he said. "It's giving us $50,000 so we can turn around and pay them $500,000 (in fees). ... I'm not going to march lock step with the DOE on this."

Public Works Director Mark Workman said the money likely will be spent to organize a fee schedule for the proposed utility district. Representatives from the city's stormwater consultant, Otak, Inc., soon will begin to evaluate the impervious surfaces on about 200 residential properties throughout Pullman. The numbers will be averaged and used to generate an Equivalent Residential Unit - a fee structure for the stormwater utility customers. Fees for industrial and commercial businesses will be tabulated individually.

The council also voted in favor of upping the city's contribution to appeal the permit to $33,333.33.

Pullman joined forces with 32 other Washington cities last year to appeal the permit, arguing it is too restrictive and goes beyond what is required by the Clean Water Act and the Ecology Construction Stormwater Permit. The city originally pledged to chip in $8,333.33 for the appeal.

Workman said the increased amount is needed for the cities to battle a cross-appeal filed by the Puget Sound Alliance, which claims the stormwater permits are not restrictive enough.

The 2007 "Hyppy" Award For Crass Hypocrisy Goes To....

The City of Moscow!!!! The first line in a story that appeared in today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News was:

The Moscow City Council will ask the Environmental Protection Agency to let the city control its own stormwater regulations.

That's right, the City of Moscow doesn't want any outsiders coming in and telling it how to run its stormwater program.

In other news, last Thursday's Whitman County Gazette reported that the City of Moscow is pursuing an appeal of the SEPA approval received by the Hawkins Companies retail development planned for the Pullman-Moscow Highway in WHITMAN COUNTY, WASHINGON, based in part in stormwater runoff.

Queen Nancy said that "the city should set its own time frame" to address stormwater regulations. Oh, it's going to be fun to watch the Whitman County Commmissioners hear Queen Nancy's/King Solomon's SEPA appeal.

CORRECTION: April informs me that she called Gordon Forgey of the Gazette about the Aug. 16th correction concerning the Hawkins SEPA appeal. The correction was referring to Moscow's appeal of the first SEPA application. There is no appeal on the current project, as the deadline to appeal passed a few months ago. However, Moscow and Mark Solomon have made it clear that they will appeal any approval of the Hawkins water rights transfer by the Washington Department of Ecology, just as Solomon's group has appealed the DOE's approval for WSU to irrigate the Palouse Ridge Golf Course.

Hypocrisy, Irony, Let's Call The Whole Thing Off

I call it rank hypocrisy and Steve McClure more politely called it "irony" in an editorial in today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News, but it's obvious everyone can see that Moscow's "environmental" stance on development in the Pullman-Moscow corridor is paper thin.

OUR VIEW: EPA's stormwater stance is all wet
Runoff regulations fit the bill for challenge by Moscow, Pullman

The city of Moscow is in the same predicament Pullman found itself in a few months back - with a few variations just so it doesn't look like just another bureaucratic folderol.

The Environmental Protection Agency wants to classify Moscow's stormwater requirements based on information that was out of date and Moscow is considering a challenge to the designation.

It makes as much sense to apply stormwater standards based on old data as it does to apply blanket standards with no regard to the local soils and topography.

In other words, it doesn't, and Moscow should challenge the listing as aggressively as Pullman.

The higher listing on the federal scale would cost Moscow between $250,000-$350,000, according to city officials.

Now, it would be too much to ask that we not point out the irony that these standards are meant to manage the quality and quantity of runoff from development and to control stormwater discharge - all with the goal of reducing pollution and contamination downstream.

In Moscow's case, downstream would be just west of the state line, where the city has raised concerns about stormwater runoff to protest proposed developments.

Irony aside, Moscow now looks further west to calculate the costs of implementing the Phase II stormwater standards. City staff based their cost estimates on figures from Pullman, which earlier this year was hit with the same requirements. When Pullman asked why they were listed, no one could provide an answer.

Now the city is implementing the standards while challenging the rule in court.

In Moscow, members of the City Council committee reviewing the requirements point to improvements already implemented or in the planning stage as signs the city can manage its stormwater without the push from the feds. They expressed an interest in challenging the listing.

About the only thing that makes sense in this rigmarole is the push by Pullman, and now Moscow, to challenge rules that can't be explained.

Think Globally, Act Hypocritically

That bad smell coming from the east is not burnt grain. It's the smell of the rankest of hypocrisy coming out of Moscow.

You remember, the Moscow that filed a SEPA appeal against the Hawkins Companies development in the corridor last year based in part upon "stormwater drainage design"...the Moscow that also last year filed SEPA comments against the relocation of James Toyota to the corridor because it would create a "heat island" for stormwater runoff that would "harm" Paradise Creek...the Moscow that constantly lectures Whitman County about "sprawl" in the corridor because of the "environmental impacts."

Well, according to today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News, that same Moscow is actively going to fight attempts by the EPA to impose the same onerous stormwater regulations on it as have been imposed by the Washington Department of Ecology on Pullman and WSU.

And what does Mayor Green/Sustainable/Cool City have to say? She thinks Moscow should meet the EPA stormwater guidelines. Uh, okay, Queen Nancy, you're Les McDonald's boss. Order him not to fight the EPA listing. And where is King Solomon and his Merry Band of Aquinuts? Will Mr. Civil Discourse pen a column attacking Chaney and Moscow's decision to appeal the stormwater regulations?

A clearer example of the famous leftist double standard you could never hope to find. If, after this, anyone thinks all of Moscow's environmental talk isn't just so much BS to hide their elitist hatred of big box stores, they must be smoking some of that burnt wheat.

I'm going to enjoy watching Moscow be slowly hoisted on this petard.

City of Moscow plans to fight potential EPA listing

City could be forced to implement stormwater standards

The city of Moscow is hoping to convince the Environmental Protection Agency that it can take care of its stormwater problems without federal oversight.

Moscow has until Sept. 15 to provide information to sway the EPA from listing the city as a Phase II stormwater entity.

The City Council's Public Works/Finance Committee discussed how to best deal with the potential listing at its Monday meeting and decided to fight it.

If Moscow is listed as a regulated small municipal separate storm system (MS4) under Phase II, it will be required to develop a comprehensive stormwater management program and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, according to a letter sent by an EPA Region 10 official in June.

The regulations are designed to manage the quality and quantity of runoff from development and to control stormwater discharge. The requirements are intended to reduce downstream pollution and contamination.

Public Works Director Les MacDonald said he estimated the average yearly cost of meeting the Phase II standards to be anywhere from $250,000-$350,000. The city of Pullman and Washington State University recently were listed as Phase II entities, and MacDonald said he based his estimates on their figures and those of other Phase II cities.

The preliminary listing does not guarantee Moscow will be listed. MacDonald said the officials he has talked to "have indicated some reluctance of the EPA to list the city."

He said the EPA is looking for more information from the city because the information it has is outdated. Moscow could stay off the Phase II list by showing the EPA what it has done and plans to do regarding stormwater.

"I suspect that if the city were to say we'd feel there's good reason to pursue some of these things they might be willing to back away from us," MacDonald said.

McDonald prepared a document that addresses the EPA's assessment of Moscow and argues against some of the criteria. He wrote that the EPA is not aware of steps Moscow has taken to reduce "pollutant loading" in Paradise Creek and included a chart showing future and completed projects recommended by Moscow's Watershed Advisory Group.

Mayor Nancy Chaney could not attend the meeting, but sent a memo with her opinions on the matter. She wrote that Moscow should "comply with the expected requirements" regardless of whether it is listed as a Phase II entity.

"We are already doing many - if not most - of the things expected of MS4 operators as Moscow strives to become a model of sustainable practices," Chaney wrote.

Committee members concluded the city should fight the listing.

City Councilwoman Linda Pall said the city should show the EPA that it's already working to be in line with Phase II standards and should not be listed.

"I do think that we ought to have the 'but you know we don't qualify' part of this pretty strongly outlined," she said. "Not litigiously ... just pointing out the facts of the situation so they know if they want to take us on, they might not be able to win on this one."

Council members Bill Lambert and John Weber agreed.

"If we can solve the problem ourselves, I think we're way ahead," Weber said.

McDonald said it may cost the city less money if it is not listed as a Phase II entity but pursues some of the requirements anyway.

The city already is considering adding a stormwater utility, and implementing that utility would give the city money to spend on stormwater regulation, McDonald said.

The University of Idaho also is preliminarily listed as a Phase II entity, and officials have decided to try to persuade the EPA not to include the university.

"We are going to supply information that we think that we should not be regulated," said Fred Hutchison, UI environmental health and safety director.

Hutchison said the UI is not a significant polluter and does not affect "sensitive waters" as defined by the EPA.

It is "quite possible" the university would implement some stormwater regulations even if it's not listed, he said.

"It's preliminary right now, so we're not real sure where this is going to go," he said.

Department of Ecological Fallacies

I have been astonished (sarcasm intended) that none of the important developments concerning water in the corridor have been covered by the Daily News. Yes, I know the Moscow shooting coverage has dominated the news, but there have been stories this week about the Deary fire hall and the Garfield-Palouse prom.

I have stated before that we don't need Moscow trying to stop development in the corridor, our own state's idiot bureaucracy is doing a great job on that front already. Last Friday, KMAX reported that the Whitman County Water Conservancy Board meeting scheduled for two weeks ago Monday was canceled because it had been determined that the Hawkins Companies stormwater plan might reduce the flow of Paradise Creek below Department of Ecology limits. Hawkins' plan was to have no runoff by catching all the stormwater in a large basin. I guess DOE's concern is that whatever rain that falls in that field currently won't make it into the creek. Talk about damned if you and damned if you don't. On the one hand, DOE says Paradise Creek has too much turbidity from runoff. So when Hawkins mitigates that, now DOE says there won't be enough runoff. There will not be another Water Conservancy Board meeting until Hawkins revises its plan.

In another major development, KQQQ reported that DOE is recommending that the South Fork of the Palouse River in Whitman County be removed from "impaired river" status and DOE is taking comments on the decision until June 22. Unfortunately the city of Pullman will still be required to comply with the much stricter stormwater licensing requirements.

This decision ceomes out of the ongoing TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) study. DOE has found certain persistent chemicals are showing lower levels over the past decades. However, water temperature and fecal coliform continues to be an issue that DOE will require Whitman County to manage.

State Environmental Policy Act requirements are not expected to change significantly due to this particular report. And water availability issues will continue to be a more restrictive element to development in the corridor than water quality issues.

A quick analysis of the 117 page report brings up some screwy things:

The fish fauna in the Palouse River is limited with respect to species generally considered desirable as food. The predominant species of catchable size are large-scale suckers, northern pike minnow, smallmouth bass, and chiselmouth.

However, the Washington Department of Fish and Game PAYS people to fish for and kill the Northern Pikeminnow because they eat salmon eggs and young salmon!

We are cleaning up our river at great cost as directed by DOE to improve habitat for a fish that destroys salmon runs, which is supposedly DOE's biggest priority. Insanity.

Fish tissue concentrations of dieldrin and PCBs have decreased by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude over the past 10 to 20 years and will continue to decrease without further action being taken. However the actions outlined in the previous section will assure that the levels of these pollutants continue to decline and may even accelerate the timeframe when the Palouse River will reach water quality standards for dieldrin and PCBs.

So, we can do NOTHING and we will still achieve approximately the same results as with the restrictions and costly measures.

Flushing Away Another Editorial

This editorial from Doug Bauer appeared in yesterday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

OUR VIEW: Quality of water just as important as quantity

Most everyone by now knows not to dump oil, antifreeze and other toxic substances down city storm drains.

Flushing expired pills down the toilet is no better.

Scientists performing tests on streambeds around Portland have discovered traces of a variety of commonly used drugs, prescription and otherwise. The list of chemical compounds includes those found in Prozac, Tagamet, Benadryl, Micatin and caffeine.

Unless the fish that live in those streambeds are depressed or stricken by acid reflux, the findings constitute a serious problem.

The most troubling revelation to date centers around endocrine-disrupting compounds found in drugs and other chemicals. Scientists have discovered that young male and female salmon from the Willamette River around Portland hold traces of an egg yolk protein usually found only in adult female fish beginning to develop eggs.

The artificial endocrine disrupters are among the suspected culprits.

"They're being exposed to something, we just don't know what it is," said Lyndal Johnson, head of reproductive toxicology at the federal Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle. "It's quite interesting, and a little disturbing."

To say the least.

Pacific Northwest salmon face an arduous journey as it is, what with all the dams to navigate and the seals, seagulls and killer whales to avoid once they reach the ocean.

Such threats could pale in comparison to those posed by improperly disposed pharmaceuticals, which have the potential to cause long-term and potentially irreversible damage to salmon and aquatic life in general.

Conserving water has become a hot topic over the last several years, one Palouse residents are well aware of.

If the recent streambed studies prove anything, it's that conservation practices shouldn't be limited to use alone. Preserving the integrity of our waterways is equally important.

Wow, Bauer just blew the lid off the whole "Portland Prescription Pills in the Potty Pecadillo" 400 miles away (sadly, with no mention of all the illegal drugs flushed away to avoid police searches), but how is that relevant to the Palouse? A much more timely and RELEVANT editorial on water pollution would have been one that took the City of Moscow to task for its 950 violations of the federal Clean Water Act. We're still waiting for that one. And we'll keep on waiting. The Daily News can leave the toilet seat up, but they're not about to rock the boat.