A Timeline of Recent Stormwater Regulatory Policies
The earliest law to address water quality in the United States was the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, which in 1972 was amended and became known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA is the primary law governing stormwater, but it is complimented, or some may argue, complicated, by various state and local laws that have also been enacted in more recent years, often with more stringent regulatory requirements. The following timeline provides an overview of some of the more recent developments in stormwater policy that may affect your business. For additional information, we invite you to contact us, and to follow our blog for updates to this timeline, and our other useful resources.
Stormwater Regulatory Policies
Clean Water Rule or Waters of the US (WOTUS) rule passed by EPA and the United States Army Corps of Engineers
Expands the Clean Water Act (CWA) to include wetlands, smaller ephemeral streams, including compliance for discharges into dry streams, thereby increasing stormwater compliance exposure.
Industrial Permit requires Qualified Industrial Stormwater Practitioner (QISP) for permit implementation
Only QISP certified stormwater professionals can perform Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) functions, requiring additional expertise to implement permits.
President Trump issues Executive Order to roll back WOTUS rule issued in 2015
Reversion to narrower definition of which water bodies are regulated under the CWA, primarily impacting the industry and farming communities.
Addition of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) into the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits by the California State Water Resources Control Board
NPDES Permits include numerical limits and exceedances carry financial penalties. Clients must install best management practices (BMPs) to ensure discharges are not exceeding limits.
Maui Case: Point source discharge to a jurisdictional water through groundwater
The case asked whether the CWA requires a permit when pollutants that originate from a non-point source can be traced to reach navigable waters through mechanisms such as groundwater transport. The ruling by the US Supreme Court that non-point source discharges do require a permit when they are equivalent to direct discharges increases compliance exposure for infiltration BMPs, establishing connectivity between stormwater and groundwater. Those who discharge must ensure no direct or indirect connection to a surface water via groundwater.
Corona Clay case ruling expands of citizens ability to sue for violations of CWA
Similar to the Maui Case, the ruling by California’s 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that previously occurring CWA violations could be brought to suit by private citizens increasing risk of litigation for ongoing or historical discharges.
Biden Administration Executive Order: Reinstates 2015 USACOE broad definition of WOTUS
Biden’s reinstatement of the 2015 WOTUS rule expands the definition of a waterbody under the CWA to include smaller ephemeral streams, and requires compliance for discharges into dry streams and dry ditches.
Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) revised and updated to include universal benchmark monitoring, public signage, and technology‑based effluent limits
The MSGP is beginning to look more like the California Industrial General Permit (IGP). Those outside of California who are covered under the MSGP or other state permits will be required to implement more BMPs, monitoring, and actions. State permits cannot be less stringent than the federal MSGP.
Voters approve “Measure W,” which created a special parcel tax in the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) to fund stormwater capture and reuse projects
This measure is the first large-scale stormwater fee system to capture and reuse stormwater in the west. Businesses can seek parcel tax reductions, engineer infiltration features, or reuse stormwater to reduce parcel taxes.
The Supreme Court delivers a decision limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) jurisdiction to enforce the Clean Water Act (CWA) as it relates to wetlands in the United States.
The specific case, Sackett v. EPA, involved a couple who were fined for filling in a wetland without a permit on a residential property they purchased in 2003.
Apex Associated Press (Apex AP) represents contributions from various authors within the Apex professional community.
Disclaimer
Please note that all content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily represent the views, opinions, strategy, or methods of Apex Companies, LLC (Apex). Apex makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. Apex will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. Apex will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. Apex reserves the right to edit or delete any comments submitted to this blog without notice to whoever wrote, submitted or posted the comment. Anyone who submits or posts any material to this blog waives any right or claim to privacy with respect to the content submitted or posted. By submitting or posting any content, the person or entity that does so is representing that they believe it to be accurate, have a legal right to the content, and have legal authority to submit or post it. Please do not submit or post anything if this is not the case. Please consider these requirements carefully when submitting or posting comments, photographs or other material relating to third parties who may have privacy, ownership or other rights implicated by the content. Readers are encouraged to seek professional legal, scientific, and/or engineering consultation concerning specific environmental, engineering, or other concerns. If you would like to contact Apex for more information regarding professional consultation to address your specific concerns, click here.