Cracking the UAA Code UAA Timing

1
Cracking the UAA CodeUAA Timing

• James E. Scholl
• Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.

2
Overview

• Prepare a game plan
• Identify your options
• Consider some examples
• Summarize lessons learned
• How do you make a decision?

3
Timing Matters
4
Strategic Need for Timing

• Know what it takes to win
• Hit the ball
• Perform as a team

5
UAA Timing Options

• During LTCP development
• Prior to completion of a phased program
• After implementation of LTCP

6
Status of Related Issues

• Non-attainment parameters
• Preparation of TMDLs
• Impact of SSOs
• Stormwater contributions
• Past planning and construction projects
• Public sentiment and expectations
• Regulatory review and compliance actions

7

• Consider the
• Status of Six CSO Programs

8
Home Stretch Curve Ball

• Major community with a 3 billion investment and
  a 1 billion enhancement, which is referred to as
  a stalling tactic and not a compliance strategy
• Potential loss of control over future
  enhancements to LTCP to special interests and
  federal courts

9
Another Curve Ball

• Major community, 10-years into 20-year program
  with state-approved LTCP implemented via state
  order
• EPA Regional Office raises fundamental concerns
  about approach taken to date

10
Middle Inning Relief

• Major NE community 10 years into 20 years
  separation program implemented via EPA consent
  order
• Stop in mid-stream
• Achieve net reduction of bacteria by ceasing
  separation and doing retention and treatment
• At 30 less cost

11
Looking for a Closer

• CSO Community is poised to achieve presumptive
  level of control and, having antied up. is
  seeking EPA UAA assistance.

12
Pitcher Waives off the Catcher

• Largest City in State develops LTCP, which is
  approved by the State. City decides to seek EPA
  concurrence
• EPA does not concur raises fundamental issues

13
Catcher Insists

• Community develops LTCP to very high level of
  control (96-98 capture)
• Community refuses to proceed until EPA and State
  agree to provide water quality standards
  determination

14
Box Score

• One stops half-way because they realize it can do
  better for less
• One is challenged half way by EPA
• One is stopped near home plate by a citizen group
  and may lose control of the program

15
Box Score

• One raises ultimate compliance issues after LTCP
  approval
• One raises ultimate compliance issues with LTCP
  approval
• One raises ultimate compliance issues after
  achieving the presumptive level of control

16
Lessons Learned

• Whos on first and whats on third?
• Major planning and construction was initiated
  without using a watershed approach to integrate
  CSO level of control decisions with receiving
  water quality standards

17

• Where do you want to be?

18
UAA During LTCP Development

• Why?
• Dont make the largest public works investment in
  your communitys history without knowing the
  ultimate legal/regulatory requirements

19
UAA During LTCP Development

• Offers considerable leverage because
• This is what the Policy calls for (with LTCP
  development)
• State law may mirror this
• Biggest costs are ahead at this point
• Biggest rate increases are ahead at this point
• Committing to targeted pollution reduction
• Provides a basis for regional cooperation, a team
  approach

20
UAA During LTCP Development

• Cost-effectiveness should be compelling at this
  stage of decision-making
• Public may not support your program if you cant
  forcefully tell them the result will comply with
  federal and state law
• Minimize/eliminate legal risk to final program
  (political challenge always an option)
• This approach usually makes the bond agencies the
  happiest because it limits the possibility for
  adverse financial surprise

21
UAA During LTCP Development

• Disadvantages
• Some view that immediate action is needed
• Costs and benefits may be speculative at this
  point
• Changes to current programs is almost certain
• You may find the level of control is unrealistic
  can be problematic with public/special interest
  groups
• Knee of the curve may change
• Effectiveness of other controls may be uncertain

22
Midway or so in your Program

• Can be a leap of faith unless your program
• Has distinct features
• Is readily expandable/agile to change direction

23
Midway or so in your Program

• Ok if
• Part of presumption approach and
• You are confident in UAA outcome
• Oh, and your program is expandable just in case
• Advantage
• You have already begun implementation
• You may have better information on what is
  attainable in your system and from other source
  reductions in the watershed

24
At or Near the End

• Advantages
• You have the best information about cost and
  performance results
• A great deal of progress and credibility under
  your belt
• Others may blaze the trail
• Disadvantages
• Less leverage or flexibility because investments
  are already made
• New generation of regulators, special interest
  folks, etc.
• Many of those working on the residual overflows
  may not have perspective of when the program was
  developed and approved.
• This approach can make the bond agencies nervous
• Others might drive the process and you lose
  control

25
Making a Decision

• Collect data to know the score
• Understand the concerns and driving issues at the
  local, state, and EPA Region
• Always best to be making progress on the ground
  while evaluating UAA options
• Adapt as things change