DOING MORE WITH LESS Shellie Chard-McClary Assistant Director, Policy and Planning Oklahoma DEQ

FEDERAL PROGRAMS OPERATED BY THE STATES CWA SDWA RCRA CAA SUPERFUND ICIS-NPDES Steering Committee February 13-14, 2006

FEDERAL FUNDING TO STATES Compared to FY04: CWSRF – decrease of ~$662 million DWSRF - decrease of ~$4 million 106 – increase of ~$21 million ($18 million for monitoring –FY07) 319(h) – decrease of ~$44.5 million 104(b)(3) – eliminated PWS – decrease of ~$3.5 million Underground tanks – increase of ~$25.8 million Air – decrease of ~$43 million Operator training - eliminated ICIS-NPDES Steering Committee February 13-14, 2006

OTHER FUNDING REQUIRED TO ADMINISTER FEDERAL PROGRAMS State appropriated dollars Generally decreasing with focus on education, healthcare, prisons, transportation needs, etc. Fees paid by regulated community Generally increasing to make up for shortfall in federal and state funding ICIS-NPDES Steering Committee February 13-14, 2006

FUNDING BREAKDOWNS Federal Grants – 18% State General Revenue –30% Fees Paid by Regulated Community – 52% ICIS-NPDES Steering Committee February 13-14, 2006

STATE QUESTIONS How high can fees be raised to supplement federally administered programs? Which programs will get cut or eliminated? Which programs get returned to EPA? What are the states priorities? ICIS-NPDES Steering Committee February 13-14, 2006

WHICH TASKS WILL STATES FORGO? Data entry will suffer in order to perform inspections Compliance assistance will be reduced to focus more on enforcement actions Performance Track participation or other voluntary programs will be reduced or eliminated ICIS-NPDES Steering Committee February 13-14, 2006

WHICH PROGRAMS WILL STATES GIVE BACK TO EPA? TMDLs Stormwater CAFOs SSO/CSO PWS Air Toxics / MACT Standards RCRA ICIS-NPDES Steering Committee February 13-14, 2006

PRIORITIES Which is more important, Core programs or voluntary programs? Performing inspections or doing data entry on inspections? Enforcement or outreach? Protecting the environment and citizens from arsenic: in the air or in water bodies or in drinking water or in contaminated land? ICIS-NPDES Steering Committee February 13-14, 2006

Current Determination of Priorities Outside factors tend to dictate priorities States feel that EPA HQ Offices and Regional counterparts do not communicate and develop new priorities without an understanding of what it will mean for the states Duplicative efforts stem from disjointed efforts (grant reviews, program reviews, and enforcement reviews occurring within weeks of each other reviewing similar information but EPA staff has no idea that the other has occurred) Impacts of multiple initiatives Focus on SSOs Changes in data entry Changes number of inspections Changes to inspection report form Changes SNC determination Etc. Local Governments Politics States ICIS-NPDES Steering Committee February 13-14, 2006

Ideal Determination of Priorities The environment is the real driving force not all the ancillary issues States and EPA act in real partnership EPA HQ speaks with one voice EPA Region speaks with one voice State speaks with one voice State coordination with local entities ICIS-NPDES Steering Committee February 13-14, 2006

EPA BIG EXPENDITURES IMPACTING STATES Significant number of EPA contractors Funding for voluntary programs ICIS-NPDES Steering Committee February 13-14, 2006

BOTTOM LINE States can’t do everything There must be some trade offs EPA must publicly support states fee efforts EPA must bare some of the cuts not just pass through to states HQ said states have to step up Send letters of support explaining cut in federal funds and need for state fee increase EPA will leave vacant 70 positions 0.4% of total 70 positions for states more meaningful - ~12.3% ICIS-NPDES Steering Committee February 13-14, 2006

ICIS-NPDES Steering Committee February 13-14, 2006