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

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

3. 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

4. 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

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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

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

13. 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

14. ICIS-NPDES Steering Committee
February 13-14, 2006