270927 WHI7E - C�TV CLERK COUIICII '^�����
PINK - FINANGE GITY OF SAINT PAUL
CAP'qRV - PARTMENT
BL�F- MAVOR File NO.
_Council Resolution
Presented B 'iC_� cT--�
Y
Referred To Committee: Date
Out of Committee By Date
WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, incorporated in 1854, is a
developed city and provides a full xange of services to its
residents, including sewer services; and
WHEREAS, the City has a combined sewer system which in many areas was built
several decades ago and now is in need of repair, rehabilitation,
and replacement; and
WHEREAS, the repair, rehabilitation and replacement of the sewer system is
necessary to protect the health of the citizens of Saint Paul and
to generally improve water quality of city lakes and the Mississippi
River; and
WHEREAS, the City has paid for the construction and maintenance of existing
sewer facilities through its own resQUrces; and �
WHEREAS, it is recognized that the sewer system in the City of Saint Paul
is an important part of the sewer system in the metropolitan area �
of the Twin Cities; and
&VHEREAS, the control and elimination of water pollution is a goal of
government at the local, metropolitan, state, and federal levels;
and
WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States adopted, in 1977, the Clean Water
Act of provide federal funding to assist in the rehabilitation of
existing sewer systems, as well as the building of water treatment
plants; and
WHEREAS, President Carter has recognized the need and appropriateness of the
use of federal funds to assist in the rebuilding of sewer systems in
older American cities, as stated in the President' s new urban
policy; and
COUNCILMEN
Yeas Nay�s Requested by Department of:
Butler
Hozza In Favor
Hunt
Levine _ __ A gai n s t BY
Roedler
S ylvester
Tedesco
Form Appr by City A . rn y
Adopted by Council: Date
Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY
By �.
Approved by :Vlayor. Date _ Approv d Mayor for Submissi n o ouncil
By BY
WHITE - CITV GLERK 1
PINK - FINANCE COl1flC11 �'.y/ `(�■ �'.a)�
BLU'ERV•��MAVORTMENT GITY OF SAINT PAiIL File NO. � • �w,� `
Council Resolution
Presented By
Referred To Committee: Date
Out of Committee By � Date
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has proposed
amendments to Minnesota Regulations WPC 34 to implement the
� 1977 Clean Water Act; and
�
WH REAS, hearings are being conducted on the MPCA proposed amendments to j
' ,�cr,, �>: ''_, WPC-34 by the State Office of Hearing Examiners, including a hearing;
I ,�-v on April 21, 1978; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor has determined that the proposed MPCA amendments to
WPC-34 do not reflect Cong�essional intent as stated in the 1977
Clean Water Act, and thus will provide no assistance to cities,
such as Saint Paul, in need of federal assistance for the repair,
rehabilitation, and replacement of sewer systems;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the City Council supports the Mayor' s determination that the
MPCA proposed amendments to WPC-34 do not reflect Congressional
intent contained in the 1977 Clean Water Act; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council BuppOrts the Mayor's testimony
to be given to the Hearing Examiner on April 21, 1978.
COUNCILMEN
Yeas Nays Requested by Department of:
Butler � In Favor
Hozza
�i
Levine _ � _ Against BY
Roedler
Sylvester
Tedesco ��� �
0 197� Form Approved by City Attorney
Adopted b�� cil: Date —
Cer ed Pass Co .il Secretary BY -
Q �978
y
Approv . Date Appro e by Mayor for Subm' sio o�ncil
gy � BY
�UBLISHED APR 3 0 19(8
_ e.R� 2�bq2"�
.
April 21 , 1978
STATEMENT OF MAYOR GEORGE LATIMER
� REPRESENTING THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO MINNESOTA REGULATION WPC 34 REGARDING
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
AND LOANS PROGRAP+I, N0. PCR-78-010-HK
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 were changed in �
1977-by Congress' passage of the Clean Water Act. The 1977 Act is viewed as a
Congressional mandate to provide a significant level of federal fwnding for �
implementing sewer projects other than treatment plants. Minnesota communities
need these federal funds for their sewer rehabilitation programs.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) proposed amendments to WPC 34
are intended to implement the federal construction grants and loans program
pursuant to the 1977 Clean Water Act. It is our contention that the proposed
� amendments to WPC 34 do not comply with this federal act for the following reasons:
1 . They are not responsive to the full intent of Congress in adopting the
1977 Clean Water Act, especially as expressed in Section 40;�
2. They are not responsive to the Carter Administration's new Urban Policy
and Strategies;2
3. They are not timely in that the federal Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has yet to issue rules and regulations reflectinq the 1977 Act; and
4. They are not reasonab]e in that the net effect of the proposed criteria
for ranking projects on the Municipal Needs List is the exclusion of prvjeets in
categories D, E, F and G (Section 40, 1977 Act) from the Municipal Projects List.
1 . Congressional Intent
The intent of Congress in adopting Section 40 of the 1977 Clean Water Act was
to make funds available under Title II of the Water Pollution Control Act for
-2-
projects other than treatment plants. This is demonstrated by the reversal of the
Senate's position during 1977 when the Clean Water Act was being developed.
Initially, the Senate wanted the funds to be used exclusively for treatment plants
and related facilities; however, this attitude was changed by the House arguments,
as presented by Representative Robert A. Roe, during House debate and Conference
Committee hearings.3 7he 1977 Clean Water Act, Section 40, adds Section 276 to
Title II of ttie Federa] Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. This new
section specifically details the categories of activities eligible for inclusion
on a state's priority list: "(A) secondary treatment, (B) more stringent treatment,
(C) infiltration-in-flow correction, (D) major sewer system rehabilitation, (E) new
collector sewers and appurtenances, (F) new interceptors and appurtenances, and
(G) correction of combined sewer overflows."4
Section 216 goes on to stipulate that as a minimum, "not less than 25 per
centum of funds allocated to a State in any fiscal year under this title for
construction of publicly-owned treatment works in such State shall be obligated for
those types of projects referr�ed to in clauses (D), (E), (F) and (G) of this section. . ."
However, projects in the D through G categories must be on the state's priority
list to be considered for this 25 per centum funding. The stipulation in Section 216
that requires ". . .not less than 25 per centum of those funds. .."5 to be used for
categories D through G clearly shows new Congressional intent to require federal
funding for projects other than treatment plants.
Further evidence of Congressional intent to provide aid to cities is found in
the House Subcommittee Orr The City report entitled, Toward a National Urban Policy.
In the summary of this report, the Subcommittee's Chairman, Nenry S. Reuss, declares
that ". . .federal programs, such as FHA and water and sewer grants, have in effect
encouraged movements out of urban neighborhoods to the suburbs. Washington must
-3-
change its emphasis to neighborhood conservation and rehabilitation." Reuss makes
the point that governments must undertake reinvestment in the cities.6 The 1977
Clean Water Act's Section 40 is a demonstration of the federal funding commitment
to the reinvestment mandate.
2. Carter Administration Urban Initiative
The Senate reversal on the sewer and water funding is paralleled by the change
in the Carter Administration`s policy, which formerly favored the use of the Title
II construction funds exclusively for treatment plants and related facilities.�
The President's recently proposed urban policy reverses this position by including
a proposal for EPA to ". . .shift its funding emphasis to the rehabilitation of
existing sewers."8
Strategies proposed by the new urban poiicy emphasize state-local action,
with federal financial support, to aid cities. These strategies seek to:
1 . Administer existing and new programs to assure consistency with the
urban policy;
2. Develop incentives for States to implement comprehensive urban policies
and strategies;
3. Encourage and support city environmental auality policies and strategies;
4. He1P cities address short-term fiscal problems and develop a Federal-
State-Local effort to strengthen cities' long-term fiscal condition;
5. Help make central cities attractive places to live and work by directing
federal aid programs at major problem areas; and
6. Discourage sprawl and encourage settlement patterns in urban areas
through redirection of federal aid.9
President Carter's urban policy is indicative of a new trend in federal
resource allocation. tJater and sewer construction funding patterns must 6e
-4-
consistent with this trend.
3. WPC 34 Timeliness
It is reasonable to expect that federal EPA rules and regulations will be
modified in response to changes in Congressional intent and Executive policies
relative to expenditures for wastewater works. Such changes appear to be necessary
and inevitable if the broadened purpose of the 1977 Clean Water Act is to be
achieved. MPCA's proposed WPC 34 amendments implementing the 1977 Clean Water
Act prior to receipt of new federal guidelines are, therefore, premature.
4. WPC 34 Amendments Are Not Reasonable
The net effect of the proposed MPCA criteria for setting priorities for the
Municipal Needs List is to exclude projects in categories D, E, F and G (Section
40 of the 1977 Act) from the Municipal Project List. These categories, according
to federal law, should be allocated at least twenty-five percent of Mjnnesota's
federal allotment.
Proposed Section E.4.b. of WPC 34 states that "projects with highest priority
on the Municipal Needs List will be placed on the Municipal Project List. . ,��10
(7he ��lunicipal Project List is the state's ranking of proposals to be submitted
for federal funding. ) However, Section E.3. sets criteria for establishing the
Municipal Needs List. These criteria assure that projects in categories D, E, F
and G (Section 40 of the 1977 Act) will be of such low priority on the basis of
accumulated points that they will be excluded from the Municipal Project List. For
example, the points given to projects which are for tertiary and secondary treatment
are increased four and five times respectively by the proposed WPC 34 rules. By
comparison, categories D through G---already at a disadvantage under current
MPCA rules---receive no increase in points.>> This aspect of the priority system
-5-
assures that no projects from categories D through G will be ranked high enough
on the Municipal Project List to be eligible for federal funding. Thus, proposed
WPC 34 makes preemptive and inappropriate determinations as to which project
categories will be funded. This is unreasonable.
Proposed WPC 34 is also unreasonable in that paragraph 5.c. grants the
Director full discretion to determine project eligibility.12 Criteria for use of
this discretionary power are not established by WPC 34. This provision allows
� arbitrary and capricious action by the Director. '
5. Saint Paul Recommendations
A. Proposed WPC 34 should be modified in the following manner (underscoring
indicates proposed additions) :
E. Construction Grant Program
4. Municipa� Project List
a. The Agency shall prepare a Municipal Project List each fiscal
year which shall list, in order of priority, those projects
for which federal grant funds will be requested from current
allotments. The Municiaal Proiect List shall � derived from
a Municipal Needs List. The Municipal Needs List shall be
divided into three classifications. C7assification I will be
a listinq in priority order of those eligible projects for :
major sewer system rehabilitation; new collector sewers and
appurtenances; new interceptors and appurtenances; and
correction of combined sewer overflows. Classification II will
be a listing in priority, order of non-project uses of the
state's allotment of federal construction grant funds, including,
but not limited to, training grants and cost of administration.
-6-
Classification III will be a listing in priority order
of eligible projects for: secondary treatment; more
stringent treatment; and infiltration/in-flow correction.
b. Projects v�ith the highest priority in each of the three
classifications of the Municipal Needs List will 6e placed
on the Municipal Project List in the following manner:
1 . Funds shall be allocated between the Metropolitan Area
and the Outstate Area in approximately the same ratio which
the population of sewered municipalities of the Metropolitan
Area bears to the sewered population of the Outstate Area.
2. Funds will be set aside for such classifications of
projects and in such amounts as is required by the Act. �
Not less than twentv-five per centum of the state's allotment
, , , „ , � �
shall be set aside for projects in MunicipalsfVeeds List
Classification I. Funding will be considered from the
remainder of the state's allotment for pro�j,ects in,
Municipal Needs List Classifications II and III, as well
as for other eli�i6le proposals, inclu__ding:
a. Treatment works utilizing innovatfve or alternative
wastewater treatment processes and techniques for
which an 85% federal grant has been tendered;
b. Alternatives to conventional sewage treatment works
for municipalities having a population of three
thousand five hundred or less or for highly dispersed
sections of larger municipalities, as defined by the
Administrator.
B. Paragraph 5.c. in proposed WPC 34, describing the discretionary powers of
the Director of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, should be deleted.
-7-
C. Failing remedy of proposed WPC 34 in the manner suggested above. in
reco�nendations A and B, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
should withdraw proposed WPC 34 until the Environmental Protection
Agency issues rules and regulations to guide implementation of the
Clean Water Act of 1977.
_ � �
FOOTNOTES �
1 . 95th Congress, Public Law 95-217 (Washington D.C. , December, 1977)
2. Carter, Jimmy, New Partnership to Conserve America' s Communities
(Washington, D.C. , March, 1978)
3. , "The Story Behind the New Clean Water Act of 1977,"
Civil Engineering - ASCE, p. 80
4. 95th Congress, op. cit.
5. Ibid
6. House Subcommittee on the City, Toward a National Urban Policy
(Washington, D.C. , ), pp. 139-140.
7. Civil Engineering, op. cit. , p. 80
8. , Clean Water Report, Vol . 16 No. 7, Business
Publishers, Inc. (Silver Spring, Maryland, April 5, 1978) p. 53.
9. Carter,. op. cit. , p. III 3 - III 4.
10. , "Minnesota Regulation WPC-34 Amendments°
State Register (St. Paul , March .20, 1978) p. 1744
11 . Ibid, pp. 1741-1742
12. Ibid, pp. 1744-1745.