HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 571

BYRepresentatives Grant, Hankins, Jesernig, Prince, Rayburn, Nealey, Brooks, Brough, L. Smith, D. Sommers, May and Miller

Permitting municipalities to discharge from municipal water treatment plants if the intake is from the same body of water as the discharge and water quality standards remain high.

House Committe on Environmental Affairs

Majority Report:     The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (14)

     Signed by Representatives Rust, Chair; Valle, Vice Chair; Allen, Brekke, Ferguson, Jesernig, Lux, May, Pruitt, Schoon, D. Sommers, Sprenkle, Unsoeld and Walker.

House Staff:Bonnie Austin (786-7107)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS FEBRUARY 23, 1987

BACKGROUND:

Under the Pollution Control Disclosure Act of 1971 and the Water Resources Act of 1971, wastes discharged into the waters of the state must be provided with all known, available, and reasonable methods of treatment.  Untreated wastes cannot enter the water if it will reduce the existing quality of the water (except where overriding considerations of public interest will be served) even where the standards of water quality will not be violated.

Some municipal water treatment plants filter and treat water taken from rivers and discharge the waste removed from these waters back into the river.  The Department of Ecology maintains that this "backwash water" should be treated and that the sediments removed should be disposed of in a settling pond rather than discharged back into the river.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  Effluent discharge standards for municipal water treatment plants located on rivers where the average annual flow is at least 123,000 cubic feet per second shall be adjusted to reflect credit for substances removed from plant intake water if:  (1) Intake water is drawn from the same body of water into which the discharge is made; and (2) No violation of receiving water quality standards or appreciable environmental degradation will result.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The only plants that may receive credit for substances removed from intake water are those located on rivers where the average annual flow is at least 123,000 cubic feet per second.

Fiscal Note:    Attached.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:     Northwest Pulp and Paper; City of Pasco.

House Committee - Testified Against: Department of Ecology.

House Committee - Testimony For:     Present law requires treatment of discharges even where the untreated discharge poses no degradation of environmental water quality.  Construction of settling ponds to treat discharges is an expense that some cities cannot afford.  To compound the problem, the discharge from settling ponds must be disposed of in solid waste landfills.  This bill only allows for credit in cases where no environmental degradation or violation of water quality standards will result.

House Committee - Testimony Against: This bill begins a precedent of making inequitable exceptions to water protection laws.  It would discredit the efforts and expenses of the cities who have already complied with treatment standards.  The bill may also conflict with federal regulations.  Additionally, the Pollution Control Hearing Board has upheld the "reasonableness" of every action by the Department of Ecology on municipal water treatment plants.