» Member Updates Archive

Many of the Association’s standing committees met in February as part of the NACWA’s Winter Conference in  Austin, Texas.  This Member Update provides a summary of the priority issues discussed during these committee meetings and provides insight into NACWA’s strategic next steps for those members who were unable to attend these meetings.  Many of the issues discussed in this Update will also be the building blocks for continued strategic committee discussions, including those taking place at NACWA’s upcoming National Environmental Policy Forum, April 18-21, in Washington, D.C.  Online registration is still available on NACWA’s website.  NACWA’s committee structure forms the backbone of its advocacy efforts and the Association strongly encourages member participation.  Please note, that the committee leaders are listed based on their roles at the time committee met in February.  There may have been changes in the committee structure and leadership but an updated list of all committee leaders is available on the NACWA website.  To join NACWA committees, please contact Laura Cobb at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Biosolids Management Committee

Co-Chair, David Taylor, Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District, Wis.
Co-Chair, Robert Dominak, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District

The Austin Water Utility’s biosolids management program was featured during the Biosolids Management Committee meeting.  Austin’s program is focused on overall sustainable resource management, including a diversified solids handling program.  The Utility’s central solids handling site has acreage for land application and features a network of river trails through its forested riverfront.   Growth of the greater Austin area continues to encroach on the facility and a new housing development may present odor concerns for the Utility in the future.

The top regulatory issue for the Biosolids Management Committee continues to be EPA’s ongoing efforts on two related rules – one that will likely define biosolids as a solid waste when combusted and another that will establish Clean Air Act maximum achievable control technology (MACT) performance standards for sewage sludge incinerators.  NACWA is continuing its advocacy with both the air and waste offices at EPA and the Committee approved Targeted Action Funds to support NACWA’s work, including the preparation of comments on the forthcoming proposed definition of solid waste, expected in April.

Other regulatory issues the Committee is actively tracking include perfluorinated compounds and their presence in biosolids, revised dioxin cancer slope factors, and greenhouse gas reporting requirements.  NACWA has prepared a white paper on the energy opportunities related to biosolids and will be circulating it to the membership soon.

The Committee had a detailed discussion on the continuing opposition that biosolids land application and compost programs are facing across the nation.  NACWA’s long-standing approach has been to provide support to members facing local challenges, but to avoid weighing in directly on the merits of any particular claim or petition.  Most — if not all — of these challenges have been ably handled at the local level and NACWA believes that national involvement from the Association will only lend legitimacy and heighten media attention to, the claims of opposition groups.  In the past several months, groups that have been unsuccessful in limiting biosolids land application on the national level have been turning their attention to at least one NACWA member community.  The Biosolids Management Committee believes NACWA should continue to follow these cases carefully to see if any trends develop that would necessitate more direct NACWA involvement.

Climate Change Committee

Chair, Ed Torres, Orange County Sanitation District, Calif.
Vice Chair, Antonio Quintanilla, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, Ill.

The Climate Change Committee focused its discussions on recent regulatory actions by EPA.  The Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule was finalized late last year, and all utilities should estimate their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for 2010 to determine if they are above the threshold for required reporting.  Several utilities attending the meeting expressed concerns about correctly interpreting the rule, and NACWA will provide additional guidance to members on this via upcoming NACWA publications.

The Committee also discussed EPA’s proposed Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule.  If EPA’s proposed rule for regulating GHG emissions from cars and light duty trucks is finalized, then all GHG emissions will be regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA).  The proposed Tailoring Rule would raise the thresholds under the Title V and Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions of the CAA for GHG emissions, to prevent permitting authorities from being overwhelmed.  NACWA has opposed regulation of GHG emissions under the CAA, but supports raising these thresholds if EPA does take this route.  NACWA believes the threshold should be even higher than in the proposed Tailoring Rule, though, and utilities attending the meeting agreed that Rule would need significant revisions to avoid overloading the permitting system and to prevent too many facilities from being pulled into these CAA programs.

The Committee was also updated on a NACWA report, to be issued soon, that will detail the reasons why biosolids should be considered a renewable fuel in climate change and energy legislation and regulations.  Other activities of the Committee, including comments on EPA’s annual GHG Inventory and NACWA’s representation on the National Drinking Water Advisory Council’s Climate-Ready Utilities Workgroup, were also discussed.

Facility and Collection System Committee

Co-Chair, Martin Umberg, Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati, Ohio
Co-Chair, Ben Horenstein, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Calif.

The Facility and Collection System Committee began its meeting with a discussion of inflow and infiltration (I&I) and private lateral issues.  Several utilities described their efforts to reduce I&I and to implement local ordinances that require inspection and repair of private laterals for residential and commercial buildings at the point of sale.  The Committee discussed the benefits and drawbacks to these efforts, including the potential opposition (typically from realtors), the costs, and the benefits in reducing overflows.

The Committee turned next to national wet weather policy issues.  EPA’s peak wet weather flows (blending) policy has still not been resolved, with EPA Regions implementing the 2005 proposed blending policy, although it has never been finalized.  EPA Headquarters is now saying that while it is not implementing the 2005 proposed policy it remains the best thinking on the issue and is using it in the context of its interpretation that peak flow blending constitutes a bypass under the decades-old bypass regulation.  However, NACWA believes that EPA’s new stance on blending – that it is a bypass – constitutes a new interpretation of its regulations that requires stakeholder input and a full opportunity to comment.  NACWA is continuing to discuss this issue with EPA and is leaving all options open to resolving the issue, including legal action.  NACWA is also working toward petitioning EPA to develop a national sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) rule.  The Facility and Collection System Committee will work closely with the Legal Affairs Committee to provide input to the workgroup leading the petition effort and toward the development of an SSO policy or rule.

The Committee was updated on NACWA’s successful efforts, along with other environmental organizations, to get green infrastructure legislation proposed in the House.  The legislation would help to increase the viability of green infrastructure and include establishment of a new federal grants program for green infrastructure and integration of green infrastructure into EPA’s regulatory program.  NACWA is now working on getting a companion bill introduced in the Senate.  An update was also provided on the National Core Practices for Efficient Management of Wastewater Collection Systems, which has been finalized and approved by the NACWA Board.  Other organizations, including the Water Environment Federation (WEF) and the American Public Works Association (APWA), are also prepared to approve the Core Practices.

Legal Affairs Committee

Chair, Lisa Hollander, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, Ohio
Vice Chair, Roberta Larson, Somach, Simmons & Dunn, Calif.

The NACWA Legal Affairs Committee began its meeting with an update of ongoing NACWA litigation matters including the Kern County biosolids land application case and the Anacostia River total maximum daily loads (TMDL) case.

The Committee’s main focus, however, was on whether NACWA should file a legal petition with EPA requesting the Agency to develop a national sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) rule.  The Committee heard a presentation on the history of SSO rule issues and an analysis of the possible benefits and consequences of filing a petition.  Committee members then engaged in a discussion of the merits of filing an SSO rule petition with members expressing a variety of opinions on the issue.  Following these discussions the NACWA Board eventually approved the Association moving forward to explore options for filing a petition (see related discussion in the Facility and Collection System Committee summary).

The meeting closed with an announcement of the dates and location for the 2010 NACWA Developments in Clean Law Seminar, which will be held November 17-19 in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Legislative Policy Committee

Chair, Suzanne E. Goss, Government Relations Specialist, JEA (Electric, Water & Sewer), Florida
Vice Chair, Tatyana Arsh, Director of Public Utilities, City of Columbus Division of Sewerage & Drainage, Ohio

The Legislative Policy Committee met to discuss a number of issues on NACWA’s legislative agenda, including Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization, climate and energy legislation, wastewater treatment security legislation, and infrastructure funding.  The bulk of the discussion focused on determining whether NACWA should support S. 1816, the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystems Restoration Act, sponsored by Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.).  The legislation reauthorizes the Chesapeake Bay program within the Clean Water Act and authorizes greater controls over nonpoint sources.  The Committee recommended that the Board discuss the legislation and give an opportunity for all perspectives on this bill to be voiced.  This Board call subsequently took place and NACWA continues to work with Senator Cardin’s staff on the bill, a final version of which will ultimately be reviewed and discussed by the Board for a determination regarding NACWA’s position.

The Committee also discussed legislative efforts to secure climate mitigation and adaptation assistance and language to qualify biogas and solids produced during the wastewater treatment process as renewable biomass in climate and energy legislation; wastewater security legislation which the Senate is considering; and infrastructure funding efforts.  NACWA has been quite active in adding cosponsors to The Water Protection and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 3202) — legislation creating a clean water trust fund — and members were urged to reach out to their Congressional delegations to support the effort.

Security and Emergency Preparedness Committee

Chair, Robert Steidel, City of Richmond Department of Public Utilities, Va.
Vice Chair, Talyon Sortor, Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District, Calif.

The Security and Emergency Committee discussed the status of Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) legislation.  The current CFATS program housed in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),  exempts water and wastewater utilities from the standards, but the House has passed new legislation that would place new requirements on utilities, including periodic vulnerability assessments and evaluation of “inherently safer technologies” (IST) to replace current chemicals of concern, such as chlorine gas.  The Senate seems unlikely to introduce this type of legislation in the near future while the Administration has requested that Congress extend the current CFATS program another year.

The Committee was updated on several Water Sector Coordinating Council (WSCC) and Government Coordinating Council (GCC) activities by WSCC and NACWA Board member Patty Cleveland.  The WSCC and GCC have recently published a guide for utilities, All Hazards Consequence Management Planning for the Water Sector (“All Hazards CMP”).  The All Hazards CMP is a practical resource for utilities to use in developing their own emergency preparedness, response, and recovery plans, and utilities that already have plans in place can use the document as verification of their plans and for further reference on various topics.  The WSCC and GCC have also recently released the results of the 2009 Water Sector Metrics Reporting.  The response rate for the Metrics Reporting was up significantly from 2008, and the results will be used by the WSCC and GCC to help improve the security stance of water utilities.  NACWA has provided links to both the All Hazards CMP and the Metrics Reporting results on its Security and Emergency Preparedness website.

Committee member Jim Davidson provided an update on the Targeted Action Fund (TAF) project that is supporting his participation in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) workgroup for crisis/security management.  The standards for water and wastewater utilities are under development and are expected to be completed next year.

Stormwater Management Committee

Chair, Kyle Dreyfuss-Wells, Manager of Environmental Programs, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District

The inaugural meeting of the NACWA Stormwater Management Committee kicked off with a welcome and introduction from the Committee’s Chair and an opportunity for all members to introduce themselves.  This was followed by a brief discussion of the Committee’s role and function within the overall NACWA committee structure and the support for it and related wet weather efforts via the voluntary contributions made by members under the wet weather advocacy program (WWAP).

The Committed then heard a presentation from Connie Bosma, Branch Chief in EPA’s Water Permits Division, who discussed EPA’s current rulemaking effort to develop a new national stormwater rule.  She outlined the key factors driving the EPA process as well as some of the Agency’s preliminary ideas as to what form the rule may take.  She also engaged in a question and answer session with Committee members.  Following this presentation, the Committee discussed how NACWA should comment on the proposed rulemaking process including both the content of the Association’s comments and how to ensure all interested members are able to provide input. NACWA has since filed these comments which are available on NACWA’s website .

Utility Management Committee

Chair – Jon Schellpfeffer, Madison Metrpolitan Sewerage District, Wis.
Vice Chair – Kurt Egelhofer, Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility, Alaska

The Utility Management Committee kicked off its work on the 2011 Financial Survey during its meeting, soliciting volunteers to begin work on reviewing the draft survey questionnaire and provide guidance to the Association’s consultant.  The survey will be conducted in 2011 and the final report will be released in February 2012.  The Committee reviewed a preliminary version of the 2009 NACWA Index.  Though more responses are being collected to improve trending information, the early results indicate a continued trend upward of annual service charges.  The 8.6 percent preliminary change in the Index is the second highest recorded in the survey.

The Committee discussed pending legislation that would provide federal backing to bond insurers that might further open credit markets to utilities with less than stellar bond ratings.  The Committee is interested in reviewing the draft bill in more detail, but raised initial concerns about additional government intervention in financial markets and whether such action was really needed.

The Committee had an extended discussion on ‘sustainable rates,’ which will be an ongoing topic for future meetings, and what exactly constitutes ‘sustainable.’  Two unknowns, new regulations and asset management implementation (additional information from assessing utility assets could identify even more needs), will be major drivers impacting clean water agencies’ ability to develop a sustainable rate model.  Measures that can be used in assessing sustainability include the state of reserves (percent reserves to debt service) and debt to equity ratios (and whether they are rising or falling).  Some Committee members suggested that a centralized wastewater utility, which is capital intensive with increasing rates and decreasing use, may not be a sustainable business model, but others disagreed and pointed to other industries that have similar models and could provide important lessons, such as electric power and cable television.  Everyone agreed that there are better ways to plan and model regular rate increases to avoid the ‘big jump’ in rates that can be received poorly by rate payers and most agreed that sewer services are undervalued currently and that there is a long way to go for some communities before they begin pushing up against the sustainable boundary.

There was also discussion on the structure of current rates, specifically fixed rates that could be tied to and increase with debt service, with small variable components tied to usage that rate payers still demand.  Flat rates raise concerns about taxing authorities and fairness issues, including impacts on low income communities.  The Committee plans to continue this discussion at its next meeting in San Francisco this July.

Water Quality Committee

Chair, Keith Linn, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewerage District, Ohio
Vice Chair, Barbara Biggs, Metro Wastewater Reclamation District, Colo.

The Water Quality Committee meeting began with discussion of recreational water quality criteria and EPA’s work to develop the next generation of criteria and test methods.  NACWA continues to follow EPA’s efforts to collect new data, evaluate faster analytical methods, and determine what level of risk is acceptable.  EPA has indicated that they hope to have a consistent level of protection for all water types – the current marine criteria are less stringent than the freshwater criteria – and will likely target children, rather than the general population, when establishing its level of protection.  To date, however, EPA has not indicated what that level of protection would be.  Issues with how EPA is implementing its whole effluent toxicity (WET) program continue to cause problems for utilities, with much of the recent activity in Texas where EPA headquarters and the region continue to press the state to include permit limits for sub-lethal endpoints.

The Committee also discussed the draft revised aquatic life criteria for ammonia and how in waters where freshwater mussels are present, utilities may have difficulty meeting the new, more stringent criteria.  The Committee noted the importance of implementation and indicated that NACWA should focus its comments on the need for clear implementation guidance.  The Committee learned of a new effort in Oregon where clean water agencies will be testing their effluent to look for a list of more than 100 pollutants.  The results of that testing program will, in some cases, require the agencies to develop minimization programs to address the pollutants.

Most of the Committee’s time was spent discussing the issue of nutrients.  Front and center for the Committee are the proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida, released by EPA Headquarters in January.  While NACWA remains concerned about the criteria and the impacts they will have on utilities, EPA’s proposal also included some elements that could be beneficial for utilities.  The restoration standard concept, that would allow up to 20 years for a waterbody to fully meet its water quality standards, has promise in helping to ease implementation of nutrient controls nationwide.  In addition, discussion in the proposal of annual averaging and potentially allowing biological response criteria to supersede numeric criteria were all positive elements.  Many issues remain, however, including the complexity of using a restoration standard that may require multiple use attainability analyses (UAAs) and other hurdles that may make a restoration standard impossible to implement.