The 1st meeting of the Subcommittee on Natural Resources of the Interim Joint Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources was held on Wednesday, July 9, 2008, at 10:00 AM, in Room 131 of the Capitol Annex. Senator Ernie Harris, Chair, called the meeting to order, and the secretary called the roll.
Present were:
Members: Senator Ernie Harris, Co-Chair; Senator David E. Boswell; Representatives Hubert Collins, Reginald Meeks, and Tanya Pullin.
Guests: Sandra Gruzesky, Jeff Cummins, Jory Becker, and Gary Levy, Division of Water; Teena Halbig, Floyds Fork Environment Association; Roger Recktenwald, Kentucky Association of Counties; Dan Zaluski; and Ned Sheehy, Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government.
LRC Staff: Hank Marks and Kelly Blevins.
Senator Harris called the meeting to order. A quorum was not present. Senator Harris invited Sandra Gruzesky, Director of the Kentucky Division of Water and Jeff Cummins, Acting Director of the Department for Environmental Protection, Division of Enforcement to the table.
Ms. Gruzesky explained the history of the Storm Water Program and the need for storm water regulation. She explained watershed issues and the effects on drinking water supply, flooding, fishing and swimming, biodiversity, and esthetics and quality of life.
Senator Harris asked if there is any concern of storm water affecting sewage.
Ms. Gruzesky said that yes it is a concern and due to leaking collection systems, places such as manholes, when groundwaters rise. She explained such instances are an opportunities for storm water to enter in and overload it.
Senator Boswell asked if there is coordination between the Division of Water and communities that are in development. Ms. Gruzesky said it varies, some communities seek out the guidance of the Division of Water while others do not. She explained that as a whole there is not a uniform mandatory storm water program. The program specifically addresses pollutants of storm water, it does not address the localized flooding issues that happen when there is new development. There is not any regulatory program at this time to address that impact.
Ms. Gruzesky went on to explain that this applies to industrial facilities, construction activities, Municipal Separate Sewer Systems (MS4s). She explained that any facility can be required to obtain a storm water permit if water quality problems are present at site.
Ms. Gruzesky then updated the committee on the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), defined as a conveyance including roads, curbs, gutters, ditches. Anything that captures storm water and moves it allowing storm water to enter a sewage system. MS4s are not part of a publically owned treatment system. She explained the four MS4 storm water categories and the six minimum controls for phase II. The inspection process of the MS4s includes yearly inspections by the Division of Water, which prove useful in understanding the communities and evaluating the progress of each program. They include an evaluation of the six minimum controls, recordkeeping, and on-site field inspections of ongoing projects. Ms. Gruzesky stated that the inspections last between one to two days depending upon the size of the program. She went on to explain that the inspections will continue, 25% of the programs the first two years then their goal is to inspect each program at least every other year. Ms. Gruzesky explained the timeline for Phase II of MS4 permit reissuance, by June 30, 2007 MS4s were required to have submitted a notice of intent for reissuance. In November 2007, the Division of Water met with permitted communities to discuss the development of their Storm Water Quality Management Plans. By January 31, 2008 MS4s evaluated and submitted their Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP). Finally, after receipt of their Stormwater Quality Management Plan a guidance document was developed to assist the MS4 programs. From April 18-May 23, 2008 the Division of Water met with the MS4 programs to discuss their SWQMP and the required revisions to the SWQMPs. The revised SWQMPs are due back to the Division of Water within sixty days of the date of the MS4 community’s meeting with the Division of Water. A copy of Ms. Gruzesky’s presentation is on file with the LRC Library.
Representative Webb asked if there are potential hot spots for litigation of United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) activity.
Ms. Gruzesky said that they do not have any particular areas where the EPA has expressed concern. EPA has identified certain types of construction activity associated with commercial but also some residential developments that they will go and do regional or nationwide inspection.
Representative Webb inquired about the Division of Enforcement regarding budget and retirement needs.
Mr. Cummins responded that they are very well staffed and are not expecting any retirements in 2008. As far as budget constraints, he reported that all of their cases are being addressed but if they lose any staff it will be difficult to replace that staff.
Representative Pullin asked how much of a fee Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government added to their bills.
Ms. Gruzesky state she did not believe a number had been agreed upon yet.
Representative Pullin expressed her concern with smaller cities not being able to do something similar.
Next Mr. Cummins updated the committee on the US EPA’s 772 Combined Sewer Overflow communities (CSOs) nationwide, of which 17 are located in Kentucky. He updated on the status of each community and the Sanitary Sewer Operation Plan for each of the 17 communities which include: Louisville Metro (Metropolitan Sewer District), Northern Kentucky Sanitation District No. 1, Ashland, Frankfort, Henderson, Maysville, Owensboro (Regional Water Resource Agency), Paducah (Joint Sewer Authority), Catlettsburg, Harlan, Loyall, Morganfield, Pikeville, Pineville, Prestonsburg, Vanceburg, and Worthington.
Representative Collins inquired about fines and how that amount is determined.
Mr. Cummins stated that they look at several factors such as environmental impact, economic benefit to violator, steps to mitigate, cost of returning to compliance, and length of violation. They do have maximum penalty but there is no formula as they are not permitted to do that. Each case is addressed under its own individual merit.
Mr. Cummins’ presentation is on file with the LRC Library.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned.