Loading...
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.