|
Last Updated: 02/24/2005
The Rockbridge Report is produced
under the supervision of the Dept. of Journalism and Mass Communications
at Washington and Lee University.
Reporting supervisors: Prof. Doug Cumming
Technical supervisor: |
Need for upgrade in treatment plant may
cost local residents millions in tax dollars By Michael Patterson Lexington’s $16-million wastewater treatment plant was built in 1999 with what was then considered state-of-the-art technology. But under new pollution regulations, the plant must clean up the nutrients -- nitrogen and phosphorous -- it discharges into the Maury River. The strict standards, to take effect at the end of this year, are part of a massive effort to protect the Chesapeake Bay, the vast and rich waterway fed by 100,000 rivers and streams like the Maury and Wood’s Creek in the bay’s watershed. Nutrient pollution in the bay has reached critical levels, according to the latest report by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving the bay. The pollution is caused by agricultural runoff and wastewater treatment plants. According to water quality standards defined by the federal Clean Water Act, the bay is currently on Virginia’s list of “impaired waters.” To meet the tough new regulations, Lexington’s treatment plant will need between $1 million to $8 million in improvements. “We are very concerned about how this is going to effect us,” said Joe Milo, director of the wastewater treatment plant in Lexington. Milo is particularly troubled by the fact that the state seems to be placing an unfair burden on wastewater treatment plants, and not agricultural runoff. “I never thought they would push nutrient regulations this far,” Milo said. But the state is also considering tapping into its huge budget surplus to help pay for the treatment plant improvements. Republican leaders in the Virginia House of Delegates recently proposed a bill that would allocate $500 million over the next 10 years to update wastewater treatment plants that discharge into watershed streams. The money would come from the state’s general fund. The Republicans’ proposal is among several new “Chesapeake” bills being considered by the state legislature. “This is absolutely a step in the right direction,” said Chuck Epps of the Virginia Chapter of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. “It’s an unprecedented level of support and funding on natural resource protection for Virginia.” Milo, however, is afraid that pollution regulations might cause residents to boycott municipal water services. “If you make these plants too expensive to own and operate, then people are going to switch to septic tanks, which are more damaging to the environment,” he said. But according to Epps, the “point source” pollution that comes from wastewater treatment plants is easier to monitor and regulate than pollution from “non-point” sources such as agricultural runoff. “In terms of getting the biggest bang for your buck, you get a much faster and easily identifiable reductions in pollution from wastewater plants,” he said. Virginia currently does not place any restrictions on nutrient levels released by treatment plants. As a result, many facilities are using outdated treatment methods. “A lot of plants are using technology that is over 20 years old, and it’s going to cost a lot of money to update that technology,” said Bill Haden, public affairs manager for the Department of Environmental Quality. The new pollution restrictions will force 120 wastewater plants in Virginia to upgrade their equipment. Some groups in Richmond say that the state is not doing enough to reduce pollution in the bay, which contributes an estimated $678 billion to the economies in Virginia and Maryland. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation sued the state of Virginia and the EPA in December 2003 for not taking appropriate measures to reduce nutrient pollution in the watershed. The foundation said that Virginia and the EPA violated the Clean Water Act. Passed in 1972, the act requires states to issue pollution discharge permits in a way that ensures minimal water quality degradation. The foundation filed the suit after Virginia issued discharge permits to two new treatment plants on “impaired” rivers. The U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia is currently deciding whether the foundation has the legal right to sue. The House of Delegates is considering several Chesapeake Bay bills in addition to the Republicans’ $500 million proposal. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation is backing a bill in the House of Delegates that would allocate $160 million per year for the next seven years for pollution control in the watershed. Another bill, proposed by Gov. Mark Warner, would require wastewater treatment plants to incorporate the most modern waste removal technologies available-regardless of the cost. No matter which plan the House of Delegates approves, it will need to be enacted soon. In 2000, Virginia signed an agreement with Maryland, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia and the EPA to take steps to remove the bay from the impaired waters list. Part of this agreement involves significantly reducing nutrient pollution by 2010. The EPA has threatened to take over Virginia’s pollution control programs if the nutrient reductions are not made by the 2010 deadline. So far, Virginia has made few strides toward improvement. The state currently monitors only a quarter of its water bodies-of which 7,000 miles are listed as impaired. Once it enters the water, nutrient pollution can cause rapid growth of algae, which kills sea grass and depletes oxygen levels that are essential to fish populations. Nutrient runoff could severely reduce the productivity of the important commercial and recreational fishing industries in the Chesapeake Bay. “The benefits of a clean, healthy bay are increasing,” said James Casey, professor of economics at Washington and Lee University. “It makes perfect sense to spend taxpayer dollars to clean up the bay.” |