Storm Water Permit Issuance Has Been Slow and Many Communities Have Not Fully Implemented Activities

Storm water program implementation has been slow for both Phase I and  II MS4s. Although the Phase I and II federal application deadlines for  storm water permits passed years ago—around 14 years ago for Phase I  and 4 years ago for Phase II—nearly 11 percent of MS4s have not yet  received permits, and thus are not required to implement storm water  management activities. Moreover, for many MS4s, litigation over the  process of issuing storm water permits or their conditions, among other  reasons, delayed program implementation for years after the initial permit  application deadlines. As a result, almost all Phase II and some Phase I  MS4s are still in the early stages of implementing their first 5-year permits. Several Factors Influence the Extent to Which Storm Water Program Implementation Is or Could Be a Burden

Because many MS4s are still in their first permit cycle, it is too early to  determine the overall program burden. First, some states may require that  MS4s implement more stringent or specific storm water permit  requirements than envisioned by federal regulations to address local water  quality concerns. First, burdens could increase as EPA and state permitting  authorities reissue permits with more stringent or specific requirements  than they have done to date. Methodological Concerns Raise Questions about the Usefulness of EPA’s Cost Estimates

Because we could not identify the overall burden MS4s face from the  storm water program, in part due to its early implementation, we could not  determine whether EPA’s Phase I and II analyses over- or underestimated  actual costs for implementing the storm water program. Specifically, (1)  the methodology used for the Phase I analysis was not designed to  estimate national program costs or present ranges that reflect actual  program costs, (2) concerns about the validity and reliability of Phase II  data call into question the usefulness of the Phase II cost estimates, and  (3) EPA’s Phase I and II analyses did not exclude the costs of storm water  activities that MS4s may have been conducting prior to the program. Assessment of Program Burden Is Hampered by Limited and Inconsistent Data

Any assessment of program burden will be hampered by limited and  inconsistent data on MS4s’ storm water activities and their costs. Furthermore,  the number of factors that can influence a community’s storm water  management activities—such as whether it can take advantage of the  flexibility provided by EPA’s storm water regulations to implement the  program in a less expensive manner, its current level of water pollution, or  whether it shares program responsibility with other entities—make it  difficult to develop a uniform assessment of the burden the storm water  program may impose nationwide. For some communities, challenges to  establishing reliable sources of local funding for their efforts can also  influence the extent to which the program is a burden. Furthermore, it will be difficult to assess the burden of implementing the  storm water program, and for EPA to meet its goal of evaluating Phase II  starting in 2012, without more complete and consistent reporting on the  scope, costs, and results of communities’ storm water best management  practices. However, the Environmental Protection Agency’s  (EPA) estimates of the costs of implementing these regulations did not  consider the burdens communities faced from regulations already in place. In this context, GAO was asked to (1) identify the progress made  in implementing the storm water program, (2) determine the extent to  which the storm water program burdens communities, (3) evaluate the  accuracy of EPA’s cost estimates, and (4) examine the data available for  future assessment of program burdens. uired to obtain. uired to obtain permit coverage.
Why GAO Did This Study

Urban storm water runoff is a major contributor to the nation's degraded waters. Under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a program requiring communities to obtain permits and implement activities to control storm water pollution. EPA's Phase I regulations (1990) applied to communities with populations of 100,000 or more, and its Phase II regulations (1999) covered smaller urban communities. Communities must report progress in meeting permit requirements. Some have raised concerns that storm water requirements impose an undue burden. To evaluate storm water program costs, EPA developed estimates for both phases. GAO was asked to (1) determine the progress in implementing the storm water program, (2) evaluate the extent to which the program burdens communities, (3) examine the accuracy of EPA's cost estimates, and (4) examine the data available for assessing program burden. GAO collected data for all states and a sample of 130 communities, among other steps.

What GAO Found

Storm water program implementation has been slow for both Phase I and II communities. The federal deadlines for permit applications were years ago--14 years for Phase I and 4 years for Phase II--but almost 11 percent of all communities were not yet permitted as of fall 2006. In addition, litigation, among other reasons, delayed the issuance of some permits for years after the application deadlines. As a result, almost all Phase II and some Phase I communities are still in the early stages of program implementation. It is too early to determine the storm water program's overall burden, but several factors influence the extent to which the program burdens a community. In particular, burden varies depending on whether communities (1) can use the flexibility built into EPA's regulations to implement less expensive measures, or (2) are able to benefit from prior storm water management experience. Some communities may face a greater burden because of more stringent requirements set by EPA or the states, additional efforts required to address litigation over water quality, or because of barriers to obtaining funding for storm water activities. Storm water program burdens could increase in the future because, among other reasons, EPA or the states may reissue permits with more stringent requirements. Without an estimate of actual storm water program costs--or burden--GAO could not determine the accuracy of EPA's cost estimates. However, GAO did identify methodological concerns that raise questions about the usefulness of these estimates for measuring the burden communities face. That is, the Phase I analysis was not designed to estimate national program costs, the Phase II analysis was based on survey data of questionable validity and reliability, and neither analysis excluded costs for activities that communities were implementing before the program. Any assessment of program burden will be hampered because EPA is not collecting complete and consistent data on communities' activities and their costs. For example, only Phase I communities are required to include data on program costs and these data are often limited. Also, communities' inconsistent reporting of activities makes it difficult to evaluate program implementation nationwide. Consequently, EPA will find it challenging to meet its goal to examine Phase II implementation starting in 2012.