AREAW1DE
WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
SURVEY
MARCH 1977
SUGARY
PREPARED FOR
WATER PLANNING DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
9*
I
S>i
SH
m
»*•

-------
PREFACE
This is a summary of the second round in a series of surveys of areawide
water quality management (WQM) agencies. These surveys are being conducted
for the Water Planning Division of the Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. by Centaur Management Consultants under Contract No.
68-01-3577. The first survey in these series was documented in two reports:
"Areawide Water Quality Management Program Survey Summary" dated August, 1976;
and "Areawide Water Quality Management Program Survey" dated October, 1976.
This survey was conducted solely by telephone in February of 1977. The
survey format was transmitted to each of the WQM agencies and to the EPA
Regional Offices prior to the telephone contacts. The survey structure
as described below was modified by the unique characteristics of each
agency. The actual questions asked of the various local interviewees
over the telephone reflect our previous understanding of each agency1s
achievements, problems, and progress to date. A list of interviewees
is in the Appendix.
The theme of this survey is to assess progress toward plan implementation.
In order to assess the sample agencies' performance, the following three
issues were discussed.
1.	Nonpoint Source Problems - For each areawide agency, a
specific nonpoint source problem was selected for
discussion. The nonpoint source problem selected
was not necessarily among the reasons cited for
initial designation, however in each case it does
represent a priority concern identified in the
agency's profile prepared for the EPA Water Plan-
ning Division. Interviewees were asked such questions
as: How was the issue defined? To what extent
will it be corrected as a result of the WQM pro-
gram? When will plan recommendations be implemented?
2.	Facilities-Related Plan Elements - Interviewees were
asked whether WQM interim and final plan outputs influence
current and future wastewater treatment facilities
decisions. And, if so, in what way will this happen?
3.	Role of WQM Planning in the NPDES Permit Process - Interviewees
were asked whether WQM interim outputs as well as the final
WQM plan will influence the next round of NPDES permits.
If the WQM plan will not be ready for the next round, how
do interviewees think it will influence future NPDES
permitting activities?
In order to obtain a broad perspective on the WQM program, a variety of persons
were interviewed in each project area. Included among the interviewees
were the WQM Project Director, the EPA Regional Project Officer, the State
water quality agency liaison, local elected officials and citizens, whenever
possible, the survey team interviewed the same persons who participated in
Centaur's previous WQM survey.
i

-------
This summary reviews the progress that bias been made since the last survey
of five common issues affecting a sample of 19 Water Quality Management
agencies. This is a summary report of over 138 interviews. A more de-
tailed description of these interviews in the form of case studies is the
subject of a separate report.
This round of the WQM survey was directed by Ms. Jane Nowak. Assisting
her were Cheryl Dinneen, Ann Hoffman, arid Constance Castle. Centaur
appreciates the useful guidance provided by Ms. Pat Cohn, the EPA Project
Officer.
Michael L. Frankel
Centaur Management Consultants, Inc.
ii

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE		i
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION		¦]_
ACHIEVEMENTS TO DATE		4
OUTLOOK FOR IMPLEMENTATION		8
RELATIONS WITH OTHER WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS		13
STATE PARTNERSHIP		17
APPENDIX

-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
In the August 1976 survey, Centaur found that the character of public in-
volvement programs varied among WQM agencies depending on the public's
perception of its water quality problems, the extent of public involve-
ment in other planning programs in the area, the WQM agency's own experi-
ence with public involvement activities, as well as economic, geographic
and political factors which characterize the WQM area.
About half of the WQM agencies surveyed were satisfied with the general
public's involvement while the remaining were either partially dissatis-
fied or totally frustrated with the program. Dissatisfaction with involve-
ment of local elected officials ran even higher. In many instances, plan-
ners felt they had done all they could to facilitate and encourage parti-
cipation. They expected attendance at meetings to rise as recommendations
became more clearly defined and issues became politically meaningful.
Members of the general public and local elected officials who were in-
volved in the WQM program were generally pleased with the opportunity to
participate, but most did not feel sufficiently informed about the intent
or potential implications of the WQM program. They shared the staff's
frustration in cultivating sustained public interest.
Six months later in the March 1977 telephone survey public involvement
was again viewed as a mixed bag of successes and frustrations. The follow-
ing points illustrate the key features of the public participation programs.
• Very few new active interest groups, local officials
or interested individuals have risen in support of the
WQM program. The most consistent participants are
watershed associations and other environmental groups
who were interested in water quality planning before
the WQM program began.
e The general trend is toward a decline in attendance at
advisory committee meetings as the WQM projects pro-
ceed through their data gathering stages. Until alternative
solutions are recommended, it is hard to arouse interest
among citizens and elected officials.
«	Insufficient data to substantiate site-specific problems
and recommendations have frustrated attempts to engender
public interest arid official support on the local level.
The Sussex County spray irrigation recommendation is a
marked contrast to this dilemma.
-1-

-------
Local economic development and water quality
planning often appear incompatable in the eyes
of local officials and the general public.
Public and local elected officials support also
may wane as consumers are made aware of the costs
associated with plan recommendations.
Public participation programs have been most
effective where WQM planning activities are tied
into other ongoing planning concerns. In these
cases public involvement has developed over many
years.
Public participation programs also work well when
they are geared specifically to those who stand to be
affected directly by the WQM program. For example,
increased farm productivity as a result of implementing a
spray irrigation recommendation has brought favorable
support of the Sussex County WQM plan. The same is true
for the manure retention pit recommendations made in
the Southeast Wisconsin plan.
In some places where the WQM program has been unable
to activate public participation throughout the plan-
ing process, WQM agencies' are relying on public
participation elements in related planning projects.
More specifically, many are relying on the public
meeting element in the WQM environmental assessment
process or EIS process for ongoing facilities plans.
Most WQM agencies recognize the need for public support
in order to implement voluntary programs. Voluntary
program solutions are often politically more attractive
than regulatory programs but they also require consider-
able public support if they are to be effective.
WQM agencies are still optimistic about an increase
in public input as the planning process nears develop-
ment and selection of specific WQM recommendations.
Some WQM agencies that deliberately chose not to in-
volve local elected officials (in some cases because of
the large number of officials involved) until firm
alternatives were developed are becoming concerned about
the advisability of such a decision. These agencies now
recognize the potential problems of securing local plan
approval and support.
Some WQM agencies have built up local support by prof-
fering politically favorable recommendations and highly
visible demonstration projects„ Some of the acceptable

-------
recommendations have been those that are incremental
and non-revolutionary.
•	Where local officials recognize that the WOM plan can serve
to promote other local objectives (e.g., growth control),
officials tend to be very receptive to the WQM program.
However, the opposite is true in those areas that are
traditionally against land use controls and any
loss of local control to some regional authority.
•	In Martha's Vineyard, the WQM Project Director has
chosen to reach local officials through direct personal
contact. Such a system may impair the future of the WOM
program in that the support may be lost with a change in
personnel.
•	In a number of cases where WQM staffs were satisfied
with the general public's involvement in the WQM
program, citizens were dissatisfied with their role.
Some feel that the programs are not really responsive
to public concerns but aT"e rather either seeking public
confirmation of the staff's direction or merely respond-
ing symbolically to EPA requirements.
•	Where WQM agencies have failed in their concerted efforts
to establish public participation programs, citizens and
local officals rarely blame the WQM staff. Rather, they
tend to blame the general apathy of the public and the
overwhelming competition of other, more apparently
critical concerns.
-3-

-------
ACHIEVEMENTS TO DATE
In the August 1976 survey, interviewee: cited achievements in four major
categories: technical, institutional, management and public involvement.
Because many agencies were still in early stages of planning, most
achievements were noted in technical areas, particularly in establishing
better planning data bases. Institutional achievements were usually de-
fined in terms of providing a forum for better communication between and
cooperation among local communities with common problems. Further sub-
stantive changes in institutional arrangements were anticipated later
in the WQM planning process. A few WQM planning agencies had already
succeeded in getting management solutions implemented before final plan
completion and approval. Some had undertaken demonstration projects to
prove the validity and efficiency of their suggestions. Achievements
in the area of public participation tended to be subtle in nature, taking
the form of constituency building and support-gathering.
Since the March 1977 WQM survey concentrated on three program elements
(i.e., nonpoint sources, facilities planning and NPDES permitting), the
record of achievements that follows is grouped into these categories.
Achievements in the Area of Nonpoint Sources of Pollution
•	Even while analyzing longer-term corrective measures,
OKI is recommending interim solutions to mitigate the
combined sewer overflow problem. In many instances
such incremental approaches are politically more ac-
ceptable in view of the cost of final solutions and
in view of major changes zhat may be required in switch-
ing from local to regional, controls.
•	Seattle-METRO is focusing much of its nonpoint source
efforts in two demonstration areas. By dealing with
weed control and urban storm runoff on a site-specific
basis, the WQM program has been able to develop and
analyze remedial alternatives in detail. This approach
has rendered validity to j the planning program and has
heightened the public and local officials interest in
the WQM program.
•	The Sussex County, Delaware WQM program has convinced the
County Council to adopt a spray irrigation program for
municipal effluent disposal. This procedure has resulted
in a cost savings of $10 million and has eliminated the
need for a controversial ocean outfall. Spray irri-
gation has directly benefited farmers by increasing the
productivity of receiving lands.
-4-

-------
Local Boards of Health on Martha's Vineyard have
adopted WQM staff suggestions on revised septic system
codes. More restrictive codes should help alleviate
the need for structural solutions to domestic waste-
water elimination.
In the Chattanooga WOM study area, initial steps
•toward creating an interstate association of five Soil
Conservation Service districts have been taken. The
association will examine urban and rural runoff problems
in further detail and may seek some regulatory authority
to implement necessary activities such as erosion con-
trol ordinances.
In Southeastern Wisconsin, WQM planning is already in-
fluencing the nature of programs supported by the
Soil and Water Conservation Boards and the type of public
information the Boards dissiminate. Close coordination
between WQM agencies and SCS offices has proved generally
very helpful to WQM planning and implementation wherever
such coordination takes place.
The Augusta WQM program identified the primary cause of
lake pollution to be one of manure runoff and developed
a straightforward pit retention solution to the problem.
The regional planning commission has also developed a
procedure to finance the solution through lump sum Agri-
cultural Stabilization and Conservation Service grants.
Southeast Montana is anticipating a great deal of energy
development with associated water pollution. The WQM
program has suggested concentrating this pollution in
a river already subjected to natural pollution. In the
local communities opinion, "sacrificing" one river is far
less costly than diluting pollution across a number of
cleaner rivers.
Coordination between the WQM program and a concurrent
regional land use program has been working very successfully
in Ventura County. This close working arrangement has not
only proved efficient (e.g., the four participating planning
projects have been able to economize by jointly funding
common data gathering efforts) , but also has lent greater
visibility to the WQM planning effort and will ensure
that water quality concerns will be considered in other
planning programs, particularly in determining growth
patterns.

-------
® Data generated by the Houston WQM study is being used
in a regional flood plains study.
« Close coordination between the Southeastern Wisconsin
WQM study and the ongoingjState water planning program
has lent credence and support to the WQM study, especially
in the eyes of farmers, indeed, specific achievements cf
the WQM program are difficult to separate from the very
effective ongoing State program.
0 In southeastern Montana, rhe Yellowstone-Tongue WQM
agency has supplied data for environmental impact state-
ments on two proposed nuclear power projects in the
study area.
e In Chattanooga, the WQM agency has completed an inventory
and evaluation of the area's nonpoint source problems.
It is also nearing completion of waste loadings by dominant
land uses and is about toj prepare BMPs for a variety of
potential nonpoint source: pollutants.
e	The Lower Rio Grande planning program has established a
successful public education program demonstrating the
relationship between water quality, water quantity and
local economic well-being!. The area recognizes its depen-
dence on a limited water supply and therefore supports its
WQM fact finding efforts.
Achievements Related to Facilities Planning
o All WQM agencies with A-95 review responsibility indicated
that they will rely chiefly on WQM data and planning in re-
viewing facilities grant applications.
© A number of WQM agencies are already using WQM data to
assist local communities Jconduct facilities planning. In
the Philadelphia area, the State is requiring all communi-
ties to update their local sewer plans to comply with the
WQM plan.
• In Teton County and Martha's Vineyard, the WQM agencies are
supplying data for environmental impact statements on pro-
posed facilites construction projects.
-6-

-------
•	In many areas, the WQM program has helped bring about
a regional and local consensus on population and land
use projections.
Achievements Related to NPDES Permitting
•	Although NPDES permitting is not a major planning con-
cern in most WQM projects, several WQM agencies reported
that their data is being used to issue permits. However,
in several instances the development of WQM data will not
be available in time for the re-issuance of permits.
-7-

-------
OUTLOOK FOR IMPLEMENTATION
In .August 1976, expectations regarding jVOM plan approval and implementa-
tion were highly speculative. Most interviewees assumed a position of
"watchful waiting" for the final plan. \ They expected implementation
to hinge upon the nature of final plan recommendations, availability
of continuing funding and extent of local political support. Generally
acknowledging the low visibility of water quality issues, WQM planning
agencies were attempting to make incremental steps toward plan imple-
mentation.
Nearly all WQM agencies were focusing on the use of existing legisla-
tion and management agencies with some clarification, expansion or re-
gionalization of institutional arrangements where necessary. In the area
of nonpoint source problems, in particular, most WQM agencies anticipated
solutions on the local or county level rather than the State level. A trend
toward promoting voluntary rather than regulatory solutions to nonpoint
sources appeared widespread because of jthe greater politically accept-
ability of such an approach. Because Federal funding is available for
treatment facilities, point source plan elements were expected to be
among the first implemented.
Most commonly anticipated barriers to implementation were related to
the interlinked questions of funding and political support. In order
to overcome implementation difficulties!, WQM agencies were attempting
to involve persons essential to plan implementation early in the pro-
cess. Most of this involvement was taking place through formal advisory
committee structures. Linking WQM planning functions and activities
with related planning functions and activities was seen as important
to plan implementation.
The findings of the March 1977 survey support the earlier indication
that funding and political support are jthe keys to plan implementation .
Also of major importance are the lack of time to develop data to suffi-
ciently substantiate the recommendations, and to overcome anti-regiona-
lization sentiments and conflicts betwejen environmental planning and
other community priorities.
The following points illustrate some of; the specific outlooks for imple-
mentation:
0
The most commonly cited barrier to plan imple-
mentation is availability of funds to finance
solutions to combined sewer overflow problems.
At OKI for instance, solutions to combined sewer
overflow problems will necessarily entail large
-8-

-------
expenditures which can only be financed at this
time by substantial increases in local sewer
rates. At Augusta and in Southeastern Wisconsin,
nonpoint sources of pollution will have to be
solved by farmers on an individual basis. Im-
plementation of these voluntary programs will
depend on the availability of States or Federal
funding.
o Regionalization of wastewater treatment manage-
ment agencies and other pollution control pro-
grams will rarely if ever occur as a result of
WQM planning. Most WQM agencies that had con-
sidered promoting such an option are doing so
cautiously to avoid alienating local communities
which are very protective of local turf. Even
where they are politically acceptable, regionali-
zation programs will take a long time to materi-
alize because of the administrative, financial
and legal technicalities involved.
9 Very protective attitudes about local automony
will prove strongibarriers to WOM plan imple-
mentation in some areas. In other areas, WQM
agencies have used local automony arguments to
their favor. In Maine and California, for ex-
ample, communities are being encouraged to
seize the opportunity to do areawide WOM plan-
ning or face the consequence of State or Federally
prepared plans and programs.
• In a number of areas, data collected in the two
year WQM planning period will not be sufficient
to convince local decision-makers to implement
plan recommendations. The Houston WOM agency
feels it can only make general suggestions for
remedial action. Specific recommendations are
contigent upon further study. In Philadelphia,
it appears that the WQM agency will not have the
time or data to use a new water quality model
being developed by the State. Local communities
are unlikely to implement WQM recommendations if
they feel these suggestions are based on faulty
or incomplete data.
-9-

-------
The timeliness of the WQMjplan vis-a-vis other
community concerns will greatly influence the
likelihood of plan implementation. In South-
eastern Montana, for example, lack of immediate
development pressure has removed the critical
edge from WQM planning. Although the timing of
the WQM study is appropriate to planning in advance
of energy development impacts, the lack of immediately
felt development pressures may allow local support
and interest in continuing technical analyses and
coordinating with energy development-related
projects to wane.
Similarly, the Ventura County WQM program is
considered clearly supportive of local desires
to maintain the region's agricultural economic
base and to curb future growth. In Martha's
Vineyard, on the other hand, WQM planning appears
to be somewhat out of step with local economic
priorities. Some Islanders have not been con-
vinced yet that the Vineyard's future economic
well-being is directly tied to environmental
quality. Implementation of WQM recommendations
will probably cone more slowly in the latter area.
Implementation of WQM planning recommendations
for solving nonpoint source pollution problems
was already beginning in the Chattanooga area
as a result of forming an|association of five
Soil Conservation Districts in the area. The
I
association will generally work through education
and voluntary programs but will also provide
regulatory controls such as erosion control ordi-
nances which were being considered at the time
of interviews.
The Mid-America Regional Planning Commission has
established communications among communities with '
common problems. Such cooperative discussions
are unique in the Kansas City area which has been
wrought with strong interstate rivalry, home rule
supremacy and an~i-regionalism sentiments.
In a number of WOM areas where States have rendered
strong support in the form of data exchange, tech-
nical assistance, promisejof complementary legis-
lative or regulatory assistance, etc., the outlook
for WOM plan implementation is very hopeful. This
is particularly -rue in those areas such as South-
eastern Wisconsin where WQM planning is so closely
-10-

-------
integrated with ongoing Si-ate planning for water
quality management. Affiliation with politically
favorable State programs lends credence to the
WQM plan.
In Ventiara, the association of WQM planning with
concurrent environmental and land use planning,
has increased the chances of considering water
quality constraints in future planning and decision
making.
In Seattle, METRO is lobbying to make structural
solutions to urban storm runoff problems eligible
for facilities construction funds. In Maine, the
State Department of Environmental Protection is
promoting the partial use of facilities construc-
tion funds for septic system projects which are
often less costly and more environmentally sound
for the Augusta region. Such fiscal arrangements
should help WQM areas overcome financial difficul-
ties of plan implementation.
A few WQM agencies that made a conscious decision
to delay concentrated public participation programs
until the last stages of the planning program are
now worried that absence of citizen and local
elected officials1 participation throughout the pro-
cess may hinder or at least delay implementation.
At Martha's Vineyard, contact with local elected
officials has depended almost solely on personal
contacts by the WQM Project Director. Implemen-
tation of the WQM plan may take several years. If
the Project Director leaves his position, the future
of the plan may be impaired.
In order to increase the likelihood of implementation,
some WQM agencies have chosen to directly involve
potential plan implementors from the very early
stages of WQM planning.
OKI is trying to skirt implementation barriers that
are anticipated when the final plan emerges by
promoting partial implementation throughout the plan-
ning period.
-11-

-------
Plan approval and implementation in several areas
may be delayed because of problems in securing State
certification. At OKI, pro-development state senti-
ments may conflict with WQM recommendations. At
Martha's Vineyard, the State has issued a late re-
quest for a regional growth policy paper before it
will consider plan certification.
Dayton's outlook for plan approval and implementation
is somewhat clouded by the WQM program's lack of funds
to recover frcm initial program problems. With only
a skeleton crew remaining; Dayton's ability to promote
the plan is limired.
Sussex County's WQM program is already benefitting
from the advice and precedence of the neighboring
WQM program ir. New Castle County.
In Middlesex, New Jersey cn the other hand, lack of
coordination among areawide WQM programs within the
State may prove detrimental to plan implementation.
The best outlook for implementation exists in those
areas with one or more of, the following characteristics
Well-defined problems
An existing effective land use plan
A single or compactj political jurisdiction
Widespread no-growth support
An immediate water quality or quantity crisis
Interes- in preserving agricutural land
Active State support.
-12-

-------
RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER WATER QUALITY PROGRAM ELEMENTS
Even in the early stages, WQM planning was both being affected and also
influencing facilities construction planning and NPDES permitting. Some
WQM agencies were rendering extensive planning and grantsmanship assistance
to local communities where new facilities were needed. In areas where
facilities planning was far advanced or where additional facilities were
not needed, WQM agencies incorporated these givens into their other planning
outlooks. Some citizens were dismayed that construction activities had
not been delayed until completion of WQM plans. Several WQM agencies ex-
pressed concern that the States would not back up WQM suggestions on faci-
lities issues and would thereby also jeopardize the effectiveness of other
WQM plan elements. Many others felt certain that WQM planning would affect
the size, location and timing of future construction, but were unable to
explain how this influence would take place. WQM planning was not expected
to cause much regionalization of management agencies.
Some agencies expected to influence future State and NPDES permitting by
supplying better data on wasteload allocations. Most often, however, re-
spondents did not expect WQM planning and permitting would influence each
other.
During the March 1977 survey, WOM agencies reported that WOM planning
data was being used as an input to the facilities planning process especi-
ally through the environmental assessment and EIS process. The need to
think about regional facilities also creates a favorable environment to
overcome traditional self-interests among neighboring communities. Further-
more, in those instances where the EPA and States actually sought WOM plan
inputs in the facilities planning process, the WQM agency gained measurable
support for its work. In the area of NPDES coordination, the timing of the
WQM planning effort is such that it will have limited input to the next
round of permit reviews. In those instances where the State has deligatea
the NPDES authority down to a regional level, the potential for WQM planning
influence is much better.
The following are highlights of the March 1977 survey:
Facilities Construction Planning
« Most WQM agencies expect to have an influence on
future facilities construction planning and decision-
making through the use of projections as well as
service area delineations prepared under WQM
planning and also through the WQM agencies' A-95 review
roles. Where facilities planning is already far
advanced, the WQM agencies are generally incorpo-
rating local plans into the final WQM plan.
-13-

-------
Those WQM agencies which were involved in local plan-
ning assistance programs Before the WQM program began
probably will be most successful in influencing future
local facilities planning efforts. In Southeastern
Wisconsin, for example, the WQM agency feels it can
render better assistance ro local facilities planning
projects since it now has more complete data.
In Salem, the WQM agency had a history of active par-
ticipation in local facilities planning. Trusting
that requests for local assistance would continue, the
WQM agency chosen to concentrate much of its time on
other planning concerns not covered in other programs.
In Ventura, coordination between WQM planning and faci-
lities planning is guaranteed since the WQM agency is
also the facilities planning and management agency for
the region. Similarly in Augusta, the permanent sewer
and Water Committee of the regional planning commission
is also engaged in WQM planning advisory roles.
Involvement of the OKI WQM agency in local facilities
planning has lent the overall WQM project greater
visibility and support.
WQM interim outputs are being used by consultants doing
facilities planning in the Dayton area. The WQM agency
also meets with all consultants to ensure that local fa-
cilities plans are consistent with the areawide WQM
plan.
Residents in the Kansas City WQM area believe EPA is
delaying decisions on facilities construction grants
until the areawide WQM plan is completed and taken into
consideration. The Philadelphia WQM agency similarly
noted that the State is withholding grant approvals un-
til the WQM plan is finalized..
In Pennsylvania, the State is requiring all communities
to update their mandatory; sewer plans to ensure com-
pliance with the WQM plan'.
WQM planning will have minimal involvement in local
facilities planning in the Houston-Galveston area be-
cause of strong local planning and management agencies
which already exist in the area.
The Teton County WQM agency is assisting in
facility planning by providing data for an EIS
on the Jackson Treatment Plant. The Martha's Vine-
yard WQM agency is also contributing data for an
-14-

-------
environmental impact assessment at this time.
•	Seattle-METRO has prepared a regional facilities plan
under a separate planning program grant. The agency
is using the WQM program to promote alternatives to
secondary treatment (required by P.L. 92-500) which
the area finds costly and of little comensurate bene-
fit.
® In Sussex County the WQM Project Director has been
named County Engineer. This situation should ensure
careful coordination between the WQM plan and facili-
ties planning in the region.
o At Martha's Vineyard, the State and the areawide WQM
agency appear to be somewhat at odds on facilities
recommendations in that the WQM agency is strongly in
favor of non-structural solutions to wastewater treat-
ment needs. How effective the WQM plan will be de-
pends on the WQM agency's success in convincing local
communities of non-structural solutions overall bene-
fits - both economically and environmentally.
•	Although a few WQM agencies are giving serious thought
and planning time to the merit and feasiblity of region-
alizing wastewater treatment management agencies, none
expect to make any great institutional changes in the
near future. The reason most often cited is protective
self-interests of local management agencies and indi-
vidual communities.
s In the Kansas City area, the wastewater treatment manage-
ment system will not change dramatically, but the WQM
program has helped bring previously alienated communi-
ties together to discuss the possibility of regionaliza-
tion.
NPDES Permitting
e	About half of the WQM agencies interviewed expect
their WQM plans will have some influence on future NPDES
permitting. Some agencies were not sure yet, however,
how this influence will take place. Most States have
not signed official agreements or made specific coordi-
nation arrangements with the WQM agencies. Some WQM
agencies such as Houston also indicated that their
plans will be completed too late to influence the current
round of permitting.
-15-

-------
Missouri is requiring that; all future NPDES permits
comply with areawide WQM plans. The same is true
in Wisconsin by virtue of 'state law.
The influence of WQM planriing on NPDES permits is
somewhat undertain for OKI and Dayton depending on
State certification. In the case of Dayton the State
EPA has no strategy for supporting WQM planning out-
puts in the permit process. Furthermore, it is doubt-
ful that the WQM data can ^substantiate wasteload or
water quality standards issues for the permit process.
The State of Washington has delegated NPDES permitting
authority on all discharges to the Seattle - METRO
system to Seattle - METRO itself. The WQM agency is
therefore guaranteed input into permitting decisions.
The Salem WQM planning agency views NPDES permitting
as the total responsibility of the State. Salem,
therefore is not planning to become involved in future
permitting. In Chattanooga, permitting is viewed as
a Federal responsibility,, again outside the purview of
areawide WQM planning.
In Middlesex, New Jersey, the NPDES permitting issues
is viewed as too massive for consideration in the WQM
program. On the other hand, some WQM planning areas
such as Augusta and Ft. Meyers have so few industrial
dischargers that NPDES permitting is considered a
moot issue.
-16-

-------
STATE PARTNERSHIP
At the time of the August 1976 WQM program survey, States were still
defining and developing their relationship to areawide WQM planning
agencies. Many States were emerging as more active participants
in response to the 1975 court decision mandating statewide responsi-
bility for WQM planning. WQM agencies were generally most satisfied
with State relationships when States had taken on a partnership role
involving active assistance, mutual information exchange, and respect
for local priorities. Many States were still unclear about the way
WQM plans would be integrated with plans for non-designated areas.
Most felt, however, that State coordination and review throughout the
WQM process would eliminate potential conflicts between areawide and
State WQM plans.
By the time of the March 1977 WQM program survey, States had generally
settled into a defined role in areawide WQM planning. Most States are
still engaged primarily in technical assistance, review and coordination
activites. For some, this role remains a passive "watchdog" responsi-
bility in which the State only becomes directly involved upon the re-
quest of the areawide planning agency. Other States have taken a far
more active role in initiating activities and paving the way toward WQM
plan implementation. The procedure for incorporating areawide plans
into State WQM plan for the most part remains uncertain.
The following are specific highlights of the March 1977 survey on State
partnership:
•	The Philadelphia and Southeast Wisconsin WOM
programs are closely coordinating with ongoing
State water quality planning programs. In
both areas, areawide WQM plans will be incor-
porated directly into the State plans. It is
very probable that much of the planning being
conducted under the WOM program would have been
undertaken by the State programs although per-
haps at a later date or a lower level of detail.
® Maine and Wisconsin are presently considering state-
wide regulatory programs in support of areawide
WQM planning. These legislative packages are
being developed in close cooperation with area-
wide WQM programs throughout each State.
•	Maine and Pennsylvania have already outlined pro-
cedures for utilizing WQM interim outputs in
facilities construction decisions.
-17-

-------
Several States are directly responsible for
areawide WQM plan elements. Texas, for example,
is developing urban runoff models for the Houston-
Galveston program. The Philadelphia WQM program
conctacted with the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources to oversee all technical
subcontract work since the WOM agency itself did
not have resident expertise in technical areas to
be studied.
'The Montana Water Quality1 Bureau has made a full-
time staff engineer available to the Yellowstone-
Tongue Areawide Planning Organization for use in
WQM planning. As a newly, created single purpose
agency, YTAPO greatly benefitted from qualified
technical expertise familiar with the area's water
quality problems.
Ventura County's relationship with the California
Water Resources Board is characterized by strong
State support and diligent monitoring and review
of the areawide WQM program. The State, however,
falls short of taking initiative in offering assi-
tance or guidance to Ventura. California, Florida
and a number of other States that feel confident
in an areawide program are taking a "low profile"
apparently to avoid threatening local communities
with outside interference!.
In Chattanooga, the State1 of Georgia is not actively
involved in the WQM program's nonpoint source work be-
cause its main interest lies in facilities construction.
Nevertheless, Georgia is 'supportive of Chattanooga's
efforts in the nonpoint source area. Tennessee has
had limited involvement in the Chattanooga program
because of State staffing problems. The State how-
ever has hired a consultant to coordinate all area-
wide WOM plans in the region.
Dayton's relationship with the State has been some-
what hampered by frequent' changes in State assigned
liaisons. These changes have disrupted continuity and
necessarily slowed down the areawide planning program.
In addition, -he State's proposed procedure for State
certification of the WOM plan is very complicated and
-18-

-------
may overload Dayton's remaining WOM planning resources.
e The Martha's Vineyard WOM program had proceeded with-
out much State involvement until the latter stages of
the WOM planning period. Late State announcements con-
cerning pre-conditions for certification will greatly
burden the WOM planning agency as it nears plan com-
pletion. The State and the Martha's Vineyard WOM pro-
gram also disagree on structural vs. non-structural
approaches to wastewater treatment and disposal on the
Island. The WOM planning agency favors the use of
septic systems but the State still prefers conventional
structural solutions.
•	The Middlesex County, Mew Jersey WOM program is apparent-
ly suffering from the lack of State coordination among
neighboring areawide WOM programs studing similar water
quality problems in the region.
-19-

-------
APPENDIX

-------
INTERVIEWEES
WQM Study Area
1.	Chattanooga
2.	Philadelphia
3.	St. Louis
4.	Houston-
Galveston
5.	Lower Rio
Grande
6.	Martha's
Vineyard
7.	Dayton
8.	Kansas city
9- Middlesex County,
New Jersey
10. Salem
WQM Project
Directors
Gordon Mellancamp
Tom Walton
Larry Zensinger
Nick Aschlimann
Charles Savino
John Janak
Bill Wilcox
Bert Middlebrook
Tom Neal
William Krause
Curt Smelzer
EPA Regional
Project Officers
Steve Sandler
Glen Witmer
Lee Duvall
Sam Nott
Martha Seymour
Charles Conway
Elaine Greening
Larry Sheridan
John Wodkowski
Cecil Qullette
State Liaisons
Kirk Mayes
Steve Anderson
Sedwick Harper
Earl Holtgraeve
Dr. Peggy Glass
Dr. Peggy Glass
Susan Wilkes
Al Buoni
Ben Williamson
(Kansas)
Ed Knight
John Schondelmeyer
Joseph Fitzpatrick
(Missouri)
William Minervini
R,usg petrow
Local Officials
Roy Parrish
Ellis Spencer
Robert Struble
Tom Fulweiler
Kaiser
Judge Steinberg
Judge Oscar Nelson
Bill Meyers
Juanita Brpdecky
Ronnie Schultz
Ron Schmidt
Gene Cronk*
Robert Hart
James Farley
Richard Naberezny
John Runyon
Herb Arnold
Ted Lopuscynski
Ellen Lowe
Alan Miller
Citizens
James Barnett
Richard Carmack
Barbara Paul
William Martin
Steven Banton
Suzanne Pogell
Ken Kramer
W.W. Wright
William Parish
Ersel Lantz
Robert Woodruff
Marguerite Bergstr
Madline Lohman
Chris Carolson
Richard Baldouf
Roberta Chittendon
E.I. Rumrill
Joan Ryan
Caroline Neuwirth
*
County engineer interviewed as substitute for local Mayor who was unavailable for interview.

-------
WQM Study Area
WQM Project
Directors
EPA Regional
Project Officers
11.	Seattle
12.	Cincinnati
13.	Southeastern
Wisconsin
14.	Augusta
15.	Ft. Meyers
16.	Sussex County,
Delaware
17.	Teton County
10. Ventura
19. Yellowstone-
Tongue
Rod Stroope
Dory Montezumi
Bill McElwee
Larry Wyble
John Forster
Larry Pearson
William Pleasants
Eugene Zeizel
Joe Borgerding
Mike Williams
(Assistant)
Clark Judy
Al' Ewing
Elaine Greening
Bruce Baker
Ed Woo
Steve Sandler
Larry Maxwell
Bruce Zanders
Mary Ann Grasser
Roger Dean
State Liaisons
Local Officials
Citizens
Chuck Clark
Debbie
Gross-Sidlow
Randy Wade
Bill Stoddard
Bill Busig
Rudolph Jass
Larry Robinson
Jim Haupt
Steve Pilcher
Daye flooney
Brad Gillespie
Donovan Treacey
Jim Saunders
Bob Turner
R.J. Borchart
Norbert Dettmann
Paul Vrakas
Robert Stubbs
Scott Wiggings
Beverly Clay
Richard Hallam
Robert H. Shedd
Al Stango
Byard Coulter
Paul Bruin
Muffy Moore
Ted Grandsen
L.II. Maland
Floyd Iron
Art Kamhoot
Scott Smith
Bob Copernoll
Jack Kleymeyer
Joan Hammond
Helen Jacobs
William Murphy
Janet Rizi
Joe Roach
John Farrow
Joseph Skelly
Skip Wright-Clark
Janet Beymer
Walter Archer

-------