EPA's $20 million grant proposal hinges on Congress; local groups eyeing funds

by Darren Samuelsohn

Within the Environmental Protection Agency's FY '03 budget proposal sits a new $20 million initiative that would -- if approved by Congress -- significantly boost watershed monitoring efforts nationwide. While the finer details behind the EPA plan are advancing in tune with the open-ended nature of the appropriations process, the prospect of such a large infusion of cash at the local level has grass-roots watershed groups excited about the possibilities.

  EPA Administrator Christie Whitman, testifying last week before the House Appropriations Subcommittee with jurisdiction over her agency's budget, gave a glimpse into what she has in mind for the new program.  With $20 million, Whitman said 21 local associations would be awarded grants next year for modeling and monitoring of their watersheds.

  Singling out one watershed group among the approximately 3,000 which EPA keeps in its database, Whitman paid homage to the work of the Charles River Watershed Association. She called it the model by which all of the initiative's potential recipients should follow. Schooled a year ago during a visit to Boston on the river's progress, Whitman spoke of a consortium of stakeholders -- local residents, environmental groups, industry, academics and federal, state and local government officials -- who have been monitoring the river's health for some seven years and have brought about measured change.

For now, Whitman's proposal is only that: a proposal. It remains unclear how Congress, specifically the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittees in the House and Senate, will address the measure. If last year's  budget process is any indication, EPA's new ideas may not fare so well. Lawmakers were very skeptical about a new, $25 million state grants program for environmental enforcement, something green groups called an industry-driven veil to undermine EPA's federal enforcement office. In the end, Congress heeded environmentalists' concerns and killed the initiative.

Many environmental groups in Washington were not altogether pleased with EPA's budget upon its release in early February. Joan Mulhern, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, said she was concerned the new initiatives would funded through cuts to existing programs. Paul Schwartz, water policy coordinator for Clean Water Action, said he's not convinced with the watersheds initiative because there of the number of other resource issues where the Bush administration has not sided with environmentalists.  "The cynical side of me says it is a political cover while the administration pushes mountain top removal, a weakening of water quality standards, the delisting of the [Total Maximum Daily Load] program," he said. "You look down the list, keep going, it's not a pretty picture. It ends being a fundamental attack on clean water."

Schwartz said he figures Whitman and the Bush administration have learned a lesson from former Rep. Bud Shuster's (R-Penn.) legislative attempt in 1994 to weaken the Clean Water Act and the political fall out that occurred in the succeeding elections of 1996. The White House, he said, is "not attacking through the front door," but rather "going piece by piece, interest by interest" to satisfy industry constituents.

Still, many sources are saying the watersheds initiative may be different. Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), the top Democrat on the House appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over EPA's budget, said during last week's hearing that he was intrigued with Whitman's watershed approach. Panel Chairman James Walsh (R-N.Y.) said that besides the Bush administration's removing of Congressional earmarks for water infrastructure projects -- an annual event between the White House and lawmakers during the spending process -- he saw little in this year's EPA budget request that was not worthy of his approval.

Don Parrish, senior director of regulatory relations at the American Farm Bureau, said that though he has heard few details about the initiative, his overall sense was that it was "probably not a bad idea." He added: "Clearly, anything on the local watershed level without too many federal strings is a good thing."

EPA officials say they are still working out the finer points of their plan. Lawmakers and their staffs on Capitol Hill will be briefed in the coming weeks. At last week's hearing, Whitman said she would be sending letters shortly to all 50 U.S. governors asking for their specific watershed recommendations as well as other advice on how run the grant program. According to EPA's website, the agency will unveil more details of the initiative this summer, focusing specifically on technical assistance. And if Congress approves the proposal in the fall, EPA will follow through with the watershed selection process this winter.  While it is unclear if funds would be disbursed equally among all of the winners, EPA has said allocations would begin by next summer.

Complimenting other water programs

In her pitch to Congress, Whitman said the new program would leverage funds that the federal government already spends for clean water.  A look at the options that a local organization has for its efforts reveal a host of programs aimed either directly, or in a more downstream manner, at watershed improvements. For example, $200,000 a year has been made available through EPA's Watershed Assistance Grants (WAGs) for organizational capacity building. Section 319 grants go toward non-point source pollution. The Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund, which dishes out upwards of $1.35 billion a year, helps to modernize aging wastewater infrastructure. And both the Transportation and Agriculture department budgets provide funds which can have a downstream effect on watersheds.

Still, according to EPA, the amount of money it delivers in a year for watersheds is far less than the amount requested. WAG requests since the Clinton administration launched the program as part of its Clean Water Action plan in 1998 have numbered about 1,400, totaling about $25.7 million. But EPA has only granted $1.2 million in grants to just 81 applicants.

The Charles River model

Robert Zimmerman signed on as the executive director of the Charles River Watershed Association seven years ago. At the time, only 10 miles of the river met swimming standards for bacteria.

Upset with the notion that no one entity would take the initiative to recognize that their efforts had an effect on the rest of the watershed, Zimmerman went to work.  He hired a science staff and some engineers. They investigated the watershed, seeking out point sources of pollution.  They began modeling the river on a monthly basis, built a laboratory and diagrammed intricate computer maps.  The data compiled by his organization has provided both a scientific and psychological benefit for the river's cleanup efforts, at a fraction of the cost to what EPA could have done, said Bill Walsh-Rogalski, EPA Region I counsel for special projects. Further, CRWA has more credibility with local institutions compared with EPA, which is often known strictly for its enforcement arm. Ultimately, the goal of the group is to change people's minds about the river, which was once so polluted that in the early 20^th century buildings along Boston's Back Bay were built with their windows facing the opposite direction of the river so tenants didn't have to look at it.

EPA enforcement has also played a major role in the river's cleanup. A 1988 case against the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority set that "hammer" in motion, as the federal government pursued an end to raw sewage discharges into the river. Prior to the suit, combined sewer overflows in the Charles amounted to 1.5 billion gallons of raw sewage being discharged into the river every year.  Currently, about 75 million gallons are sent into the river, and once facility plans are complete for the last remaining CSO, EPA estimates a drop to 27 million gallons a year. The ultimate goal, come Earth Day 2005, is to have year-round fishable and swimmable waters, Walsh-Rogalski said.

In Chicago, the association watching the city's namesake river is a bit behind Boston in terms of collecting information on their watershed, according to Laurene von Kahn, executive director of Friends of the Chicago River. But Kahn said her group is trying to catch up, nearing the completion of what she called a first-of-its kind study to figure out what types of monitoring goes on along the Chicago River's 156 miles. While not ready to disclose the findings of that report, Kahn said numerous local and state organizations are doing commendable work but not with the big picture goal in mind of "how the watershed really works."

Asked if watershed groups could use the money which EPA is considering sending their way, both Zimmerman and Kahn jumped at the opportunity. "It would be huge," said Zimmerman, who added that despite Whitman's personal accolades of his organization's previous efforts, he hoped CRWA would receive a potion of the new EPA grants. Klan added: "A million bucks could tell us a lot and point us in the right direction to solve some of the problems that have been…eluding us."