[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 49 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E613]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


             STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                      HON. BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN

                              of arkansas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, March 15, 1995
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Stormwater 
Management Improvement Act of 1995, legislation to assist small cities 
and small businesses in their compliance requirements under the Clean 
Water Act.
  Under the Clean Water Act, cities and industries must obtain permits 
for stormwater discharges. This act has required cities serving a 
population of 100,000 individuals or more to comply with the permit 
requirement. However, as of October 1994, smaller cities are also 
technically required to comply with this section of the law even though 
the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] has not issued regulations 
for the cities with populations less than 100,000.
  While the smaller cities have received assurances from the EPA that 
it will not enforce the stormwater requirements, many cities fear that 
citizens will file suits against them for not complying with the act.
  The objective of the Stormwater Management Program is to ensure that 
runoff from city streets and parking lots into stormwater drainage 
pipes and ditches meets the water quality standards set out in the act. 
Under a stormwater discharge permit, cities must adopt programs to 
reduce the amount of pollution entering our waterways. These programs 
include street cleaning, household hazardous waste pickup, leaf pickup, 
cracking down on illicit discharges of raw sewage and other pollutants 
and public education. These management plans are worthwhile, but very 
expensive to implement.
  According to the National League of Cities, the average cost of 
obtaining a permit is $625,000. In Little Rock, AR, it cost $525,000 
over three years to get the permit and it is estimated to cost an 
additional $125,000 per year to run the program. These costs for a 
small community would be disastrous. In a rural area, where financial 
resources are scarce because of the limited tax base, these 
requirements would detract from other essential programs, such as 
sewage treatment and safe drinking water requirements. With scarce 
resources, these small communities need to focus on the bare 
necessities to preserve the health and safety of their residents.
  The Stormwater Management Improvement Act of 1995 would provide the 
needed relief from this permit requirement for cities with population 
less than 50,000 individuals by exempting them from the permit 
requirements. The bill would also delay permit requirements for cities 
with population between 50,000 and 100,000 until October 1, 2001, and 
instruct the EPA to promulgate regulations for these cities. 
Nonurbanzied areas are completely exempt from the permit requirements.
  In addition, industries must also comply with the stormwater permit 
requirements. However, we run into the same situation where the 
requirements apply equally to both the large industrial polluters and 
the small businessmen. Again, one size does not fit all. In my own 
congressional district, a small businessman who runs a portable sawmill 
was required to obtain a stormwater permit. He travels from tree stand 
to tree stand to harvest the timber. In the process, he leaves some 
sawdust behind. This man is not a point source nor do his activities 
contribute to the degradation of the quality of the surrounding 
waterways. However, he is forced to obtain an expensive permit that 
results in very little water quality control and is treated in the same 
way as the large lumber mills.
  My bill would exempt the small business or industry that employs no 
more than 25 people from the permit requirements unless the EPA or 
delegated state agency determines that the facility contributes to a 
violation of a water quality standard or is a significant contributor 
of pollutants to waters of the United States.
  I am not an advocate of promoting dirty industry over the health of 
our environment, nor do I want to see polluted waterways. However, I do 
want to ensure that we get the biggest bang for our buck by focusing on 
the big problems. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to ease the 
Federal mandates imposed on our smaller cities and businesses.


                          ____________________